England - the future....

3606 posts
URZZZZ
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7327
Joined: 20 Apr 2013 18:30

Re: England - the future....

by URZZZZ » 02 Apr 2024 10:12

bcubed Overall he has been brilliant in improving performance (so his overall stats are good) but for me the question is how he does under real pressure and when it really matters.

I get that he thinks our weakest area is defence so he plays more defensively and has two defensive midfielders. Amd this has been successful in qualifying and getting through tournament group stages. But when it's a case of win or go home he appears to be lacking.

If he'd made some more aggressive changes and he's spoilt for choice of attackng options, maybe we could have beaten Croatia and even more likely Italy.


I guess it’s all moot as we didn’t but had we beaten Italy, would the performance been hailed as a “tactical masterclass” by Southgate? Over the course of that tournament, Italy were comfortably the best side and we did well to nullify them

If so, are we really judging Southgate on three attackers’ inability to score a penalty? Saka and Rashford, especially, who seem to score almost every single one at club level?

User avatar
bcubed
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11500
Joined: 30 Oct 2004 18:16
Location: Would do better with a stick of rhubarb

Re: England - the future....

by bcubed » 02 Apr 2024 10:20

URZZZZ
bcubed Overall he has been brilliant in improving performance (so his overall stats are good) but for me the question is how he does under real pressure and when it really matters.

I get that he thinks our weakest area is defence so he plays more defensively and has two defensive midfielders. Amd this has been successful in qualifying and getting through tournament group stages. But when it's a case of win or go home he appears to be lacking.

If he'd made some more aggressive changes and he's spoilt for choice of attackng options, maybe we could have beaten Croatia and even more likely Italy.


I guess it’s all moot as we didn’t but had we beaten Italy, would the performance been hailed as a “tactical masterclass” by Southgate? Over the course of that tournament, Italy were comfortably the best side and we did well to nullify them

If so, are we really judging Southgate on three attackers’ inability to score a penalty? Saka and Rashford, especially, who seem to score almost every single one at club level?


Not at all. Penalties are a lottery and if you play for them and win you've been very lucky.

No my point is with a little more attacking intent Italy were there for the taking. Watching it live at the ground, it was incredibly frustrating.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25069
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: England - the future....

by Sanguine » 02 Apr 2024 10:32

URZZZZ
It’s quite a similar situation with West Ham under Moyes who have been superb in his four years in charge, yet the majority of West Ham fans want him gone because they’re bored of their style. It may be a fair argument in isolation but when people start finding excuses for their success, it sort of devalues the whole argument



Indeed. I read yesterday the 'view' that Moyes' awful management would ensure that the Europa League spot West Ham must secure for a rebuild would be out of reach.

And I'm thinking, hang on chap, Moyes secured West Ham one of their best league finishes since Frank McAvennie was a thing, and you have the gall to be entitled to a European spot?

Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25069
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: England - the future....

by Sanguine » 02 Apr 2024 10:33

bcubed No my point is with a little more attacking intent Italy were there for the taking. Watching it live at the ground, it was incredibly frustrating.


Football isn't played in isolation like that. A bit more attacking intent might have seen us lose to the odd goal in another three, with the skilful Italian side picking holes in a more spaced out middle.

User avatar
bcubed
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11500
Joined: 30 Oct 2004 18:16
Location: Would do better with a stick of rhubarb

Re: England - the future....

by bcubed » 02 Apr 2024 11:04

Sanguine
bcubed No my point is with a little more attacking intent Italy were there for the taking. Watching it live at the ground, it was incredibly frustrating.


Football isn't played in isolation like that. A bit more attacking intent might have seen us lose to the odd goal in another three, with the skilful Italian side picking holes in a more spaced out middle.


Thanks for explaining football. :D

It might have seen us lose but we'll never know and probably never will as Southgate seems incapable of recating and changing tactics. My actual observations at the time were that the game could have been won with a little (not asking for all out attack), more positive play.


User avatar
BRO_BOT
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2714
Joined: 19 Jul 2023 23:48
Location: Get Your #BritsOut!

Re: England - the future....

by BRO_BOT » 02 Apr 2024 11:31

Sanguine
URZZZZ
It’s quite a similar situation with West Ham under Moyes who have been superb in his four years in charge, yet the majority of West Ham fans want him gone because they’re bored of their style. It may be a fair argument in isolation but when people start finding excuses for their success, it sort of devalues the whole argument



Indeed. I read yesterday the 'view' that Moyes' awful management would ensure that the Europa League spot West Ham must secure for a rebuild would be out of reach.

And I'm thinking, hang on chap, Moyes secured West Ham one of their best league finishes since Frank McAvennie was a thing, and you have the gall to be entitled to a European spot?


Yeah, I had to check where they were in the league after hearing the Moyes out stuff!

I assumed they must have slipped down the table...nope!

User avatar
BRO_BOT
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2714
Joined: 19 Jul 2023 23:48
Location: Get Your #BritsOut!

Re: England - the future....

by BRO_BOT » 02 Apr 2024 11:46

Sanguine
Snowflake Royal
Sanguine
Teams are always shit once England beat them, right?

Come on, you surely can't dispute that first run to the semi's was about as easy a route as you could get.


England played Sweden in the QFs essentially because Germany lost to South Korea in the group stage. I don't buy the 'easy route' stuff. If you don't play someone because they've already gone out to a crap side, then on what basis would they be stiffer opposition?

I also find the 'went out to the first decent team they faced' stuff really dull. That's actually what happens to most teams in every tournament. Or teams loser to lesser sides. Take that same 2018 World Cup. Brazil beat Costa Rica, Serbia and Mexico, and then lost to Belgium. Spain won their group but only beat Iran, and then lost to Russia. Argentina beat Nigeria, drew with Iceland, and then lost to France in R16.

And separately actually, I'd say this, notionally 'weaker' draws? Bring it on. In 2010 we got a very, very good Germany in R16. 2014 we got Italy and Uruguay in our group and didn't get out of it. And then we get an apparently 'easier' draw in 2018, and some fans feel entitled enough to say that we 'should' have reached only our second World Cup final ever. Does my head in, tbh.


For the third time, 'VARIANCE'

Say Man Utd make it to the FA Cup final would I rather they play the stronger Man City or the weaker Chelsea

Or switching it around would Man City rather play Man Utd or Coventry in the final?

If we are rating teams we may use some exponential weighting on the latest results but you don't just base it all on the last one

Your logic about the number of World Cup finals doesn't make sense either. The team doesn't have a consistent rating. It can fare badly at one tournament and win deservedly the next one, four years later. Man City don't have a CL pedigree

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 40281
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: England - the future....

by Snowflake Royal » 02 Apr 2024 12:41

I suspect England would fare comparatively poorly to many other similar and 'lesser' teams in an analysis of how often they have beaten a higher ranked / top 10 ranked team in a Finals knockout game in the last, say 25 - 30 years.

But I'm not sad enough to do the comparison. Bro?

Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25069
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: England - the future....

by Sanguine » 02 Apr 2024 12:49

BRO_BOT
Sanguine
Snowflake Royal Come on, you surely can't dispute that first run to the semi's was about as easy a route as you could get.


England played Sweden in the QFs essentially because Germany lost to South Korea in the group stage. I don't buy the 'easy route' stuff. If you don't play someone because they've already gone out to a crap side, then on what basis would they be stiffer opposition?

I also find the 'went out to the first decent team they faced' stuff really dull. That's actually what happens to most teams in every tournament. Or teams loser to lesser sides. Take that same 2018 World Cup. Brazil beat Costa Rica, Serbia and Mexico, and then lost to Belgium. Spain won their group but only beat Iran, and then lost to Russia. Argentina beat Nigeria, drew with Iceland, and then lost to France in R16.

And separately actually, I'd say this, notionally 'weaker' draws? Bring it on. In 2010 we got a very, very good Germany in R16. 2014 we got Italy and Uruguay in our group and didn't get out of it. And then we get an apparently 'easier' draw in 2018, and some fans feel entitled enough to say that we 'should' have reached only our second World Cup final ever. Does my head in, tbh.


For the third time, 'VARIANCE'

Say Man Utd make it to the FA Cup final would I rather they play the stronger Man City or the weaker Chelsea

Or switching it around would Man City rather play Man Utd or Coventry in the final?

If we are rating teams we may use some exponential weighting on the latest results but you don't just base it all on the last one

Your logic about the number of World Cup finals doesn't make sense either. The team doesn't have a consistent rating. It can fare badly at one tournament and win deservedly the next one, four years later. Man City don't have a CL pedigree


Nah, not interested. It's bullshit directed at a manager who has taken us further than all but one in our history. And, lo and behold, that's just because he had it easy. Got it. Highest win rate in our history. Had it easy. It's not for me.


User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 40281
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: England - the future....

by Snowflake Royal » 02 Apr 2024 12:53

Sanguine
BRO_BOT
Sanguine
England played Sweden in the QFs essentially because Germany lost to South Korea in the group stage. I don't buy the 'easy route' stuff. If you don't play someone because they've already gone out to a crap side, then on what basis would they be stiffer opposition?

I also find the 'went out to the first decent team they faced' stuff really dull. That's actually what happens to most teams in every tournament. Or teams loser to lesser sides. Take that same 2018 World Cup. Brazil beat Costa Rica, Serbia and Mexico, and then lost to Belgium. Spain won their group but only beat Iran, and then lost to Russia. Argentina beat Nigeria, drew with Iceland, and then lost to France in R16.

And separately actually, I'd say this, notionally 'weaker' draws? Bring it on. In 2010 we got a very, very good Germany in R16. 2014 we got Italy and Uruguay in our group and didn't get out of it. And then we get an apparently 'easier' draw in 2018, and some fans feel entitled enough to say that we 'should' have reached only our second World Cup final ever. Does my head in, tbh.


For the third time, 'VARIANCE'

Say Man Utd make it to the FA Cup final would I rather they play the stronger Man City or the weaker Chelsea

Or switching it around would Man City rather play Man Utd or Coventry in the final?

If we are rating teams we may use some exponential weighting on the latest results but you don't just base it all on the last one

Your logic about the number of World Cup finals doesn't make sense either. The team doesn't have a consistent rating. It can fare badly at one tournament and win deservedly the next one, four years later. Man City don't have a CL pedigree


Nah, not interested. It's bullshit directed at a manager who has taken us further than all but one in our history. And, lo and behold, that's just because he had it easy. Got it. Highest win rate in our history. Had it easy. It's not for me.

Aladyce had 100% win rate.

Tbh Sangers, you're coming across as blinkered as the 'he's' shit brigade.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25069
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: England - the future....

by Sanguine » 02 Apr 2024 12:59

Snowflake Royal
Sanguine
BRO_BOT
For the third time, 'VARIANCE'

Say Man Utd make it to the FA Cup final would I rather they play the stronger Man City or the weaker Chelsea

Or switching it around would Man City rather play Man Utd or Coventry in the final?

If we are rating teams we may use some exponential weighting on the latest results but you don't just base it all on the last one

Your logic about the number of World Cup finals doesn't make sense either. The team doesn't have a consistent rating. It can fare badly at one tournament and win deservedly the next one, four years later. Man City don't have a CL pedigree


Nah, not interested. It's bullshit directed at a manager who has taken us further than all but one in our history. And, lo and behold, that's just because he had it easy. Got it. Highest win rate in our history. Had it easy. It's not for me.

Aladyce had 100% win rate.

Tbh Sangers, you're coming across as blinkered as the 'he's' shit brigade.


Not at all, you can find plenty of criticism of Southgate from me here, not least most recently. I just totally reject the notions of 'if we'd just done that we would have easily....' or that there is any particularly 'easy' route through an international tournament. Both of which criticisms are broadly directed at Southgate just to denigrate him because he doesn't set us up like Keegan. It's dull as hell.

A different setup, and even a below par Germany might have dispatched us in the quarters at Euro 2020.

The stats back up Southgate. The wins, as above. But also the goals - we score more per game than under any manager since Walter Winterbottom. And the defence - only Steve McLaren, bizarrely, has managed a better average goals conceded per game since Hoddle was sacked.

User avatar
BRO_BOT
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2714
Joined: 19 Jul 2023 23:48
Location: Get Your #BritsOut!

Re: England - the future....

by BRO_BOT » 02 Apr 2024 13:08

Snowflake Royal
Sanguine
BRO_BOT
For the third time, 'VARIANCE'

Say Man Utd make it to the FA Cup final would I rather they play the stronger Man City or the weaker Chelsea

Or switching it around would Man City rather play Man Utd or Coventry in the final?

If we are rating teams we may use some exponential weighting on the latest results but you don't just base it all on the last one

Your logic about the number of World Cup finals doesn't make sense either. The team doesn't have a consistent rating. It can fare badly at one tournament and win deservedly the next one, four years later. Man City don't have a CL pedigree


Nah, not interested. It's bullshit directed at a manager who has taken us further than all but one in our history. And, lo and behold, that's just because he had it easy. Got it. Highest win rate in our history. Had it easy. It's not for me.

Aladyce had 100% win rate.

Tbh Sangers, you're coming across as blinkered as the 'he's' shit brigade.


I've also not said he's 'shit' either.

Apart from France, when the top ten teams play each other they only have about a 30/40% win rate

So not playing those teams in a competition increases your chances. To avoid playing any massively increases your chances

User avatar
BRO_BOT
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2714
Joined: 19 Jul 2023 23:48
Location: Get Your #BritsOut!

Re: England - the future....

by BRO_BOT » 02 Apr 2024 13:09

Sangers, would you want Southgate to take over LFC when Klopp leaves?


User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 40281
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: England - the future....

by Snowflake Royal » 02 Apr 2024 13:13

I assumr Southgate will be stepping down after this tournament?

4 finals is a hell of a run for an England manager.

User avatar
Dirk Gently
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11002
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 13:54

Re: England - the future....

by Dirk Gently » 03 Apr 2024 10:11

Bit of a tangent, but I saw the play "Dear England" last week - it's available as part of the National Theatre Live scheme, a filmed live stage performance.

Definitely would massively recommend it - very funny and also poignant at times, it covers the appointment of Southgate and covers his time in charge so far - and how the shadow of Euro96 hangs over him and the team etc...

this is a fictionalised account of the struggles and successes of England’s football teams, based on extensive research and interviews. It features characters inspired by some real-life individuals, and some composite characters entirely imagined by the author.


https://dearenglandonstage.com/

South Coast Royal
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5897
Joined: 16 Jan 2020 17:29

Re: England - the future....

by South Coast Royal » 03 Apr 2024 10:56

Most football managers IMHO have a fear of losing, especially those without the strongest of squads and playing defensively first and foremost can take you a long way.

Southgate has had some of the poorest defenders at his disposal but arguably a large number of choices in attacking positions, especially in midfield and out wide.
Most fans would suggest that with the make-up at his disposal why not just go out and try to outscore the opposition , an approach made by Brazilian teams in days gone by and latterly by Klopp at Dortmund and Liverpool?

Southgate realises that our defence is weak so, rather than go hell-for-leather in attack he takes the more cautious approach of protecting the defence by having the 2 holding midfielders.
Where he may have fallen on his feet is with Bellingham who has the energy and ability to do defensive and attacking roles-to a lesser extent Rice could probably do the same.

So, for the Euros he may play Rice and Bellingham plus a Maddison to open up opposition defences.
I don't feel that the likes of Grealish, Saka, Foden and Rashford are quite the world-beaters that our media makes them out to be but they are good players who play out wide in a front 3 and could be used for say 60 minutes of intense play and then be replaced.

Fortunately Toney has progressed so that any injury to Kane would not now be a national disaster.

We have a chance at these Euros, as have Portugal , France, Spain and Germany (mainly by virtue of playing at home which is a great advantage as we showed in our previous games at Wembley) and Southgate will be in charge for better or for worse and we should do our customary reaching of quarter and semi finals.
To expect any more than that is wrong as our players are not superstars but we might, by playing to our maximum in the big games for a change, finally end the years of" hurt", if indeed it actually does hurt.

Get the flags ready folks, whatever colours are chosen. :wink:

South Coast Royal
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5897
Joined: 16 Jan 2020 17:29

Re: England - the future....

by South Coast Royal » 03 Apr 2024 10:58

BRO_BOT Sangers, would you want Southgate to take over LFC when Klopp leaves?


Isn't he already lined up for that mid-table club 35 miles or so east of Liverpool?

User avatar
bcubed
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11500
Joined: 30 Oct 2004 18:16
Location: Would do better with a stick of rhubarb

Re: England - the future....

by bcubed » 03 Apr 2024 11:38

South Coast Royal Most football managers IMHO have a fear of losing, especially those without the strongest of squads and playing defensively first and foremost can take you a long way.

Southgate has had some of the poorest defenders at his disposal but arguably a large number of choices in attacking positions, especially in midfield and out wide.
Most fans would suggest that with the make-up at his disposal why not just go out and try to outscore the opposition , an approach made by Brazilian teams in days gone by and latterly by Klopp at Dortmund and Liverpool?

Southgate realises that our defence is weak so, rather than go hell-for-leather in attack he takes the more cautious approach of protecting the defence by having the 2 holding midfielders.
Where he may have fallen on his feet is with Bellingham who has the energy and ability to do defensive and attacking roles-to a lesser extent Rice could probably do the same.

So, for the Euros he may play Rice and Bellingham plus a Maddison to open up opposition defences.
I don't feel that the likes of Grealish, Saka, Foden and Rashford are quite the world-beaters that our media makes them out to be but they are good players who play out wide in a front 3 and could be used for say 60 minutes of intense play and then be replaced.

Fortunately Toney has progressed so that any injury to Kane would not now be a national disaster.

We have a chance at these Euros, as have Portugal , France, Spain and Germany (mainly by virtue of playing at home which is a great advantage as we showed in our previous games at Wembley) and Southgate will be in charge for better or for worse and we should do our customary reaching of quarter and semi finals.
To expect any more than that is wrong as our players are not superstars but we might, by playing to our maximum in the big games for a change, finally end the years of" hurt", if indeed it actually does hurt.

Get the flags ready folks, whatever colours are chosen. :wink:


As I said earlier I get his thinking. He sets us up defensively and has two defensive midfielders because our defenders are the weakest link. And this has been successful in qualifying and getting through tournament group stages.

But it would be nice if he took more of a risk at some point in the must win games. Noone will ever convince me that we couldn't have beaten Italy with a bit more of an attacking mindset.

We'll see what happens if he does go with just one defensive midfielder.

As for our prospects, I'm not one who believes we should win tournaments, but if we're joint favourites, as we are for this one, it's not unreasonable to have raised expectations is it?

User avatar
Sutekh
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 18855
Joined: 12 Feb 2014 14:05
Location: Undiscovered pyramid somewhere in Egypt

Re: England - the future....

by Sutekh » 03 Apr 2024 12:08

bcubed
South Coast Royal Most football managers IMHO have a fear of losing, especially those without the strongest of squads and playing defensively first and foremost can take you a long way.

Southgate has had some of the poorest defenders at his disposal but arguably a large number of choices in attacking positions, especially in midfield and out wide.
Most fans would suggest that with the make-up at his disposal why not just go out and try to outscore the opposition , an approach made by Brazilian teams in days gone by and latterly by Klopp at Dortmund and Liverpool?

Southgate realises that our defence is weak so, rather than go hell-for-leather in attack he takes the more cautious approach of protecting the defence by having the 2 holding midfielders.
Where he may have fallen on his feet is with Bellingham who has the energy and ability to do defensive and attacking roles-to a lesser extent Rice could probably do the same.

So, for the Euros he may play Rice and Bellingham plus a Maddison to open up opposition defences.
I don't feel that the likes of Grealish, Saka, Foden and Rashford are quite the world-beaters that our media makes them out to be but they are good players who play out wide in a front 3 and could be used for say 60 minutes of intense play and then be replaced.

Fortunately Toney has progressed so that any injury to Kane would not now be a national disaster.

We have a chance at these Euros, as have Portugal , France, Spain and Germany (mainly by virtue of playing at home which is a great advantage as we showed in our previous games at Wembley) and Southgate will be in charge for better or for worse and we should do our customary reaching of quarter and semi finals.
To expect any more than that is wrong as our players are not superstars but we might, by playing to our maximum in the big games for a change, finally end the years of" hurt", if indeed it actually does hurt.

Get the flags ready folks, whatever colours are chosen. :wink:


As I said earlier I get his thinking. He sets us up defensively and has two defensive midfielders because our defenders are the weakest link. And this has been successful in qualifying and getting through tournament group stages.

But it would be nice if he took more of a risk at some point in the must win games. Noone will ever convince me that we couldn't have beaten Italy with a bit more of an attacking mindset.

We'll see what happens if he does go with just one defensive midfielder.

As for our prospects, I'm not one who believes we should win tournaments, but if we're joint favourites, as we are for this one, it's not unreasonable to have raised expectations is it?


All the opportunity is there to try it in friendlies and various qualifiers but he is so frustrating, you need to see what these options and personnel can d, even if it's just a plan B, but generally it's the same old.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 25069
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: England - the future....

by Sanguine » 16 May 2024 09:18

I'm on record as one of Southgate's biggest supporters - but his selections in recent times have become more and more frustrating. Maybe summed up by the fact that James Tarkowski - ranked first in the PL for aeriel duels won and blocked shots, and second in clearances, playing for the best defence outside of the top 3 - is apparently nowhere near the Euros squad. He should be ahead of Dunk, Maguire and Guehi in the pecking order, imho.

3606 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests

It is currently 20 May 2024 22:45