We have better players now than we have in previous years. If Southgate chooses to not pick our flair players and be ultra cautious, let him as long as he proves us wrong, which we will be delighted about, or he walks. Which he won't!
I have had a think about it and decided to look at this differently. It isn't really for me to tell the England manager how to set up and play even if he doesn't listen to me. It is his job to have a successful tournament. I measure success, not by winning it, but of course that would be a great success, but it is also how you fail. I mean with a bit of good play and bad luck.
Southgate, whether we like it of not is the manager and we have to get behind him and the team. What I think should go with all of that is that if we have a bad tournament, he walks. Hodgson had three tournaments of failure. Managing a national team is different to a club side and if Southgate succeeds or does well he should stay and if he doesn't he should go. A Semi Final in the World cup, even though things opened up for us a bit, was good enough for another go at it.
What annoys me, i'd if say we scape through our group, and lose in the last 16, Southgate won't automatically walk. The job may pay well and carry a lot of prestige, but it is also a national service and managers should respect that. So my message to Southgate is no excuses, with the players we have, make our mark on this competition.
This is how I feel about things. People calling for him to be sacked before even seeing the outcome of the euros is bizarre, if we got to the final or even won it should he be sacked? International football more than any other is a results business, his win% is only second to Capello but with a world cup semi final to show for it. All the reports are the players are happy with how he runs the team, they seem a lot happier with him as he protects them.
Yet for some reason there are some who cannot stand him. Yes I understand everyone has their preferred formation and players to select, when were arguing over whether Sancho starts over Sterling or Grealish over Foden, why get upset over it? It's hardly an completely inexcusable selection. Maybe it's a positive we have so many talented players in those positions, people are getting upset a player is selected that scored 10 goals and got 7 assists in the PL.
We also aren't privy to what's going on behind the scenes, are some of them carrying knocks? What does the data science say? Is something personal going on? There's also the matter of dealing with the press, are you going to tell them the exact reasons for your selections and tactics?
Everyone needs to just chill, 3 years ago we had very low expectations, even earlier this year there were serious concerns about missing players yet now every game we don't win is a national disaster. Judge him and the team once everything is done and FFS just try and enjoy a tournament.
But my point is also that if he fails, I doubt he would walk. He will probably find some excuse or the other. I would like him to say, trust me, it is on me and if I fail I will walk.
Again that's something that we won't know until we get to that point, agree it's unlikely but as he's been given a contract to be there until after the world cup should he? How many managers in the modern game just walk away if they're not out of contract?
This does all feel like a very typical English tournament though, everything is the manager's fault with the players avoiding the blame, whilst I don't think he has been perfect those players are easily good enough to have beaten Scotland but too many didn't perform, personally I'm not at panic stations yet, we're unbeaten, we won arguably our toughest game on paper and we haven't conceded a goal (which was one of the main worries coming into this tournament was how the defence would cope).
Do you seriously think we could win the competition playing "reserved" ? mate if we sat back against Italy, France, Germany, Portugal they would literally rip us a new one
I don't know, nor does anyone. My point is we've won the WC once (when at home) and never won the Euros, so our usual approach hasn't worked. If you always do the same thing expect the same outcome.
Perhaps, a more cautious tactical approach may be more successful. I'm willing for him to try something different. I'm not saying he will succeed, he probably won't we never do.
I do know Greece, Portugal (and Chelsea in the Champions League) won the competitions when they weren't the best teams.
If it goes to form we'll struggle to beat France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, if we play as the majority want, because we generally don't.
I think in a roundabout way we are in agreement mate. Keep doing the same things you get the same outcome. Roy tried it and failed. The teams you mention that won competitions whilst not being the best team are a bit of a different case I think anyway. They can actually defend, England at the moment have what is generally accepted as a weakness in defense so why on earth would you put that defense under constant pressure by sitting back and allowing teams to come at you constantly ? on the other hand England on paper have a strong attacking set of players so why not try and make the opposition concerned about us scoring against them ? at the moment I wouldnt think anyone is greatly concerned about facing England and us scoring goals against them would you ?
I also don’t think Southgate has done much wrong if you’re content with mediocrity and under utilisation of potential. I genuinely think this group of players could be doing much better than what we’re seeing. No I don’t think we are good enough to run the real quality teams but player for player we should be scaring a few teams into looking over their shoulder. We’re nowhere near that. Southgate has no real coaching credentials and as far as I can see it shows every time England take the field.
I doubt Greece and Chelsea scared teams. The objective is to win games, not scare the other teams. Like I say, I'm not expecting us to succeed, but I'm open minded enough to see if a different approach will work.
I doubt Greece and Chelsea scared teams. The objective is to win games, not scare the other teams. Like I say, I'm not expecting us to succeed, but I'm open minded enough to see if a different approach will work.
Chelsea are a big club that didn’t just sit back and counter attack. They might’ve done vs City but that’s the equivalent of us playing France. I don’t think anyone would have an issue with that.
Using Greece as an outlying comparison isn’t really the best either. There’s a reason Greece or other defensive sides don’t win it every year. It’s not a sustainable way of playing.
Yes, we should ensure we aren’t easily opened up when defending, but at the current time our approach neglects attacking far too much.
Whilst it may see us scrap a draw with Scotland, it won’t hold up against sides that are more clinical.
I doubt Greece and Chelsea scared teams. The objective is to win games, not scare the other teams. Like I say, I'm not expecting us to succeed, but I'm open minded enough to see if a different approach will work.
Obtuse comment really. With the players at Southgate’s disposal his team should be one that other sides would prefer to avoid. At present I suggest they are not.
Not posted for a while, but had to say… rashford on for kane?! Lost all hope now. 😂
Q: Did kane look tired for spurs this season cant remember?! Or does he only look tired for gareth?
He looks tired every time he comes back from injury having missing a large chunk of games.
Compared to how brilliant Harry Kane is when in tandem with Son and when he's on a run of being fit and scoring for fun, when ever we reach tournaments in the summer he never seems to look sharp. John boy would know but how long did Kane go without scoring in August ? Let alone being at his best after various ankle issues in the summer tournaments.
I won't have it that Kane isn't our best striker but you are only as good as your last few games in competition and his last two games in WC and the two games in Euro's have been sub standard compared to his amazing goal scorings and assists for club and Country.
GS needs to get him in the right place mentally and physically but at any level of management you are judged by results. Lineker came good in a 3rd group game back in the day against Poland and then carried on scoring for the rest of the tournament.
So you play him and hope he's back on it with a good service or he is rested and comes back refreshed after scoring hundreds on the practice pitch against Ramsdale. If Kane is starting(sounds like it) we give him 100% backing and hope his body and mind are on it and he emulates Gary Lineker. That can only happen with some killer passes which we are capable of.
Funny old game football, England 4 pts and already qualified for the next stage after two games - press and fans all over them with criticism, negativity and defeatism.
Scotland 1pt, no goals and have to now beat the last World Cup finalists, and they are all national heroes!
Strange times indeed.
I said exactly the same.
That is because nobody is talking about the results, it is the performances that are annoying. I dont believe anyone expected England to go and win the competition however people are pissed off with the way they are being sent out to play. If they had a go ( like the Welsh, Scottish plus most of the other teams ) and got knocked out then fair enough. But playing negative like they are is just plain predictable and boring and 100% leads to getting knocked out anyway. It has been the England way for years and I for one dont understand how people cant see that. It should be no suprise that if you keep doing the same things you end up with the same outcome
Are we really repeating the same mistake? I think that we have very often lost because we 'had a go.' Look back at the big defeats:
Argentina 86: Our defence was too high up for the first goal, and just too disorganised for the second. Germany 90 & 96: We were having a go all the way including extra time. Croatia 18: We lost that because we didn't close Modric down enough not because we were unambitious.
I'm happy for us to be defensive and boring and win. I think this constant demand of excitement, pace, 'beat the man, take him on', 'you never give up' because that means that you're already losing, and God knows I'm just sick of losing. Give me Greece 2004 or Italy 2006 please please.
Funny old game football, England 4 pts and already qualified for the next stage after two games - press and fans all over them with criticism, negativity and defeatism.
Scotland 1pt, no goals and have to now beat the last World Cup finalists, and they are all national heroes!
Strange times indeed.
I said exactly the same.
That is because nobody is talking about the results, it is the performances that are annoying. I dont believe anyone expected England to go and win the competition however people are pissed off with the way they are being sent out to play. If they had a go ( like the Welsh, Scottish plus most of the other teams ) and got knocked out then fair enough. But playing negative like they are is just plain predictable and boring and 100% leads to getting knocked out anyway. It has been the England way for years and I for one dont understand how people cant see that. It should be no suprise that if you keep doing the same things you end up with the same outcome
Are we really repeating the same mistake? I think that we have very often lost because we 'had a go.' Look back at the big defeats:
Argentina 86: Our defence was too high up for the first goal, and just too disorganised for the second. Germany 90 & 96: We were having a go all the way including extra time. Croatia 18: We lost that because we didn't close Modric down enough not because we were unambitious.
I'm happy for us to be defensive and boring and win. I think this constant demand of excitement, pace, 'beat the man, take him on', 'you never give up' because that means that you're already losing, and God knows I'm just sick of losing. Give me Greece 2004 or Italy 2006 please please.
Atleast the Argentina game and German games were exciting and as you say we went to extra time. The current set up wouldnt manage that I dont believe. Croatia wasnt working and the changes made were never going to rectify the situation. The Scotland game we take off probably our best player on the pitch and leave Sterling on who was doing nothing. The worse thing that could have happened in the Croatia game was for Sterling to score imo as that kind of justifys the decision to start him. We take Kane off and bring Rashford on playing down the middle when he is hardly on top form. Loyalty is a great thing but sometimes a manager can stretch it too far and it is detrimental to the players concerned. Southgate has "his" players and sticks to them regardless of form imo. Southgate announced yesterday that Kane would be starting on Tuesday, why would he do that ? I think to try and stop the questions being asked in the media. I love Harry Kane and he without doubt is a world class striker but in all honesty after his last couple of games do you really think he would keep his place in the starting line up for any top premiership team ? All I can add is that the players being overlooked must be wondering how bad some players have to play for them to get a chance
Just heard Barney Ronay pointing out that we generally overrate our players simply because we are familiar with them. In fact,he points out, not so many of them have been regularly starring in the UCL this year, whiich is not the case with other teams. And on those rare occasions when we have done well in tournaments, there have nearly always been some sticky early moments. World Cup 1990. Even Euro 96 got off to a pretty underwhelming start.
Just heard Barney Ronay pointing out that we generally overrate our players simply because we are familiar with them. In fact,he points out, not so many of them have been regularly starring in the UCL this year, whiich is not the case with other teams. And on those rare occasions when we have done well in tournaments, there have nearly always been some sticky early moments. World Cup 1990. Even Euro 96 got off to a pretty underwhelming start.
Totally agree with this without date we do build our players up in our own heads. I find it really interesting that when you look at teams in this competition that have players starting who normally play at very different levels for their clubs it is quite difficult to pick out which ones are playing "top level" and which ones are "lower Level" One of my friends is a ex pro footballer and I asked him once how big is the gulf between a Premiership player and ones from Lower leagues. His answer was that premiership teams need top players in key positions but that most Championship or even league one players could do a job mixed with better players in a premiership team. So maybe apart from the very top players it is luck of the draw whether a players gets a premiership team spot or not
Just heard Barney Ronay pointing out that we generally overrate our players simply because we are familiar with them. In fact,he points out, not so many of them have been regularly starring in the UCL this year, whiich is not the case with other teams. And on those rare occasions when we have done well in tournaments, there have nearly always been some sticky early moments. World Cup 1990. Even Euro 96 got off to a pretty underwhelming start.
yeah, Euro 96 keeps coming to mind, we were awful against Switzerland, and not that much better against Scotland, but that's forgotten as we won against the Scots by the skin of our teeth, and thrashed the Dutch, and if it wasn't at Wembley, we would have lost to Spain
Just heard Barney Ronay pointing out that we generally overrate our players simply because we are familiar with them. In fact,he points out, not so many of them have been regularly starring in the UCL this year, whiich is not the case with other teams. And on those rare occasions when we have done well in tournaments, there have nearly always been some sticky early moments. World Cup 1990. Even Euro 96 got off to a pretty underwhelming start.
The only time I can remember us breezing through the group stages was 1982.
Just heard Barney Ronay pointing out that we generally overrate our players simply because we are familiar with them. In fact,he points out, not so many of them have been regularly starring in the UCL this year, whiich is not the case with other teams. And on those rare occasions when we have done well in tournaments, there have nearly always been some sticky early moments. World Cup 1990. Even Euro 96 got off to a pretty underwhelming start.
The only time I can remember us breezing through the group stages was 1982.
We qualified out our group 3 years ago after two games, scoring 8 goals.
Just heard Barney Ronay pointing out that we generally overrate our players simply because we are familiar with them. In fact,he points out, not so many of them have been regularly starring in the UCL this year, whiich is not the case with other teams. And on those rare occasions when we have done well in tournaments, there have nearly always been some sticky early moments. World Cup 1990. Even Euro 96 got off to a pretty underwhelming start.
The only time I can remember us breezing through the group stages was 1982.
We qualified out our group 3 years ago after two games, scoring 8 goals.
Numbers hide the performances a bit, 6 v Costa Rica and 2 against Algeria, who we did huff and puff against.
Just heard Barney Ronay pointing out that we generally overrate our players simply because we are familiar with them. In fact,he points out, not so many of them have been regularly starring in the UCL this year, whiich is not the case with other teams. And on those rare occasions when we have done well in tournaments, there have nearly always been some sticky early moments. World Cup 1990. Even Euro 96 got off to a pretty underwhelming start.
The only time I can remember us breezing through the group stages was 1982.
We qualified out our group 3 years ago after two games, scoring 8 goals.
Numbers hide the performances a bit, 6 v Costa Rica and 2 against Algeria, who we did huff and puff against.
Panama and Tunisia. I’d still call that breezing through personally.
Just heard Barney Ronay pointing out that we generally overrate our players simply because we are familiar with them. In fact,he points out, not so many of them have been regularly starring in the UCL this year, whiich is not the case with other teams. And on those rare occasions when we have done well in tournaments, there have nearly always been some sticky early moments. World Cup 1990. Even Euro 96 got off to a pretty underwhelming start.
The only time I can remember us breezing through the group stages was 1982.
We qualified out our group 3 years ago after two games, scoring 8 goals.
Numbers hide the performances a bit, 6 v Costa Rica and 2 against Algeria, who we did huff and puff against.
Panama and Tunisia. I’d still call that breezing through personally.
Panama especially makes me chuckle, even more so after Friday night... There were a lot of people, myself included who were overjoyed when we beat them 6-0, often to be told "It was ONLY Panama".
Yet the reason I was so pleased was because we finally came up against a poor team and bloody well put them to the sword, we struggled against so many teams before then, it was great seeing us putting a team to the sword for once.
Its why the Scotland game was a bit frustrating as we seemed to regress in that sense from three years ago, then again the Scots knew a point would see them treated as heroes so sat tighter and hit us on the break thanks to the space we left.
Unfortunately the reactions to both games from many "Its only Panama", "Why did we struggle against Scotland" is proof that England fans demand a perfection that doesnt exist.
Just heard Barney Ronay pointing out that we generally overrate our players simply because we are familiar with them. In fact,he points out, not so many of them have been regularly starring in the UCL this year, whiich is not the case with other teams. And on those rare occasions when we have done well in tournaments, there have nearly always been some sticky early moments. World Cup 1990. Even Euro 96 got off to a pretty underwhelming start.
The only time I can remember us breezing through the group stages was 1982.
We qualified out our group 3 years ago after two games, scoring 8 goals.
Numbers hide the performances a bit, 6 v Costa Rica and 2 against Algeria, who we did huff and puff against.
Panama and Tunisia. I’d still call that breezing through personally.
The same people telling us to 'wait and see' would tell us after losing in the Round of 16 or Quarter finals that we had no chance anyway.
Southgate seems to be so overrated with some people on here just because he had the easiest draw in World Cup history in 2018. And still didn't manage to get to the final.
The same people telling us to 'wait and see' would tell us after losing in the Round of 16 or Quarter finals that we had no chance anyway.
Southgate seems to be so overrated with some people on here just because he had the easiest draw in World Cup history in 2018. And still didn't manage to get to the final.
Easiest draw in the World Cup but did alright against a Sweden team that held Spain a few days ago, that Swedish squad was three years younger as well...
2010 was a pretty easy Group that we should have finished top off but lets just ignore how badly a foreign manager did with that lot.
Or do you think that Belgium, Tunisia, Panama was easier than the United States, Slovakia, Algeria... We made that year difficult for ourselves, just as we made 2018 as easy as we did.
So, Scotland players are with Gilmour 24/7 and can crack on as normal, but Mount and Chilwell embraced him after the game and they’ve gotta isolate. But they’ve also been around the England squad 24/7 since then, but the rest of the England team can crack on.
So, Scotland players are with Gilmour 24/7 and can crack on as normal, but Mount and Chilwell embraced him after the game and they’ve gotta isolate. But they’ve also been around the England squad 24/7 since then, but the rest of the England team can crack on.
Okay.
The other thing most of the team would have come in to contact with Gilmour on the pitch during the game as well.
So Mount and Chilwell have to isolate because they were seen interacting on TV? Just assume the entirety of the Scotland squad haven't interacted with him. Can't see any issues at all with that.
Just heard Barney Ronay pointing out that we generally overrate our players simply because we are familiar with them. In fact,he points out, not so many of them have been regularly starring in the UCL this year, whiich is not the case with other teams. And on those rare occasions when we have done well in tournaments, there have nearly always been some sticky early moments. World Cup 1990. Even Euro 96 got off to a pretty underwhelming start.
The only time I can remember us breezing through the group stages was 1982.
We qualified out our group 3 years ago after two games, scoring 8 goals.
Comments
This does all feel like a very typical English tournament though, everything is the manager's fault with the players avoiding the blame, whilst I don't think he has been perfect those players are easily good enough to have beaten Scotland but too many didn't perform, personally I'm not at panic stations yet, we're unbeaten, we won arguably our toughest game on paper and we haven't conceded a goal (which was one of the main worries coming into this tournament was how the defence would cope).
The objective is to win games, not scare the other teams.
Like I say, I'm not expecting us to succeed, but I'm open minded enough to see if a different approach will work.
Using Greece as an outlying comparison isn’t really the best either. There’s a reason Greece or other defensive sides don’t win it every year. It’s not a sustainable way of playing.
Yes, we should ensure we aren’t easily opened up when defending, but at the current time our approach neglects attacking far too much.
Whilst it may see us scrap a draw with Scotland, it won’t hold up against sides that are more clinical.
Compared to how brilliant Harry Kane is when in tandem with Son and when he's on a run of being fit and scoring for fun, when ever we reach tournaments in the summer he never seems to look sharp. John boy would know but how long did Kane go without scoring in August ? Let alone being at his best after various ankle issues in the summer tournaments.
I won't have it that Kane isn't our best striker but you are only as good as your last few games in competition and his last two games in WC and the two games in Euro's have been sub standard compared to his amazing goal scorings and assists for club and Country.
GS needs to get him in the right place mentally and physically but at any level of management you are judged by results.
Lineker came good in a 3rd group game back in the day against Poland and then carried on scoring for the rest of the tournament.
So you play him and hope he's back on it with a good service or he is rested and comes back refreshed after scoring hundreds on the practice pitch against Ramsdale.
If Kane is starting(sounds like it) we give him 100% backing and hope his body and mind are on it and he emulates Gary Lineker. That can only happen with some killer passes which we are capable of.
Argentina 86: Our defence was too high up for the first goal, and just too disorganised for the second.
Germany 90 & 96: We were having a go all the way including extra time.
Croatia 18: We lost that because we didn't close Modric down enough not because we were unambitious.
I'm happy for us to be defensive and boring and win. I think this constant demand of excitement, pace, 'beat the man, take him on', 'you never give up' because that means that you're already losing, and God knows I'm just sick of losing. Give me Greece 2004 or Italy 2006 please please.
The Scotland game we take off probably our best player on the pitch and leave Sterling on who was doing nothing. The worse thing that could have happened in the Croatia game was for Sterling to score imo as that kind of justifys the decision to start him. We take Kane off and bring Rashford on playing down the middle when he is hardly on top form. Loyalty is a great thing but sometimes a manager can stretch it too far and it is detrimental to the players concerned. Southgate has "his" players and sticks to them regardless of form imo. Southgate announced yesterday that Kane would be starting on Tuesday, why would he do that ? I think to try and stop the questions being asked in the media. I love Harry Kane and he without doubt is a world class striker but in all honesty after his last couple of games do you really think he would keep his place in the starting line up for any top premiership team ?
All I can add is that the players being overlooked must be wondering how bad some players have to play for them to get a chance
I find it really interesting that when you look at teams in this competition that have players starting who normally play at very different levels for their clubs it is quite difficult to pick out which ones are playing "top level" and which ones are "lower Level"
One of my friends is a ex pro footballer and I asked him once how big is the gulf between a Premiership player and ones from Lower leagues. His answer was that premiership teams need top players in key positions but that most Championship or even league one players could do a job mixed with better players in a premiership team. So maybe apart from the very top players it is luck of the draw whether a players gets a premiership team spot or not
Yet the reason I was so pleased was because we finally came up against a poor team and bloody well put them to the sword, we struggled against so many teams before then, it was great seeing us putting a team to the sword for once.
Its why the Scotland game was a bit frustrating as we seemed to regress in that sense from three years ago, then again the Scots knew a point would see them treated as heroes so sat tighter and hit us on the break thanks to the space we left.
Unfortunately the reactions to both games from many "Its only Panama", "Why did we struggle against Scotland" is proof that England fans demand a perfection that doesnt exist.
Southgate seems to be so overrated with some people on here just because he had the easiest draw in World Cup history in 2018. And still didn't manage to get to the final.
2010 was a pretty easy Group that we should have finished top off but lets just ignore how badly a foreign manager did with that lot.
Or do you think that Belgium, Tunisia, Panama was easier than the United States, Slovakia, Algeria... We made that year difficult for ourselves, just as we made 2018 as easy as we did.