Maximus Decimus
-
Posts
8,608 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Maximus Decimus
-
-
26 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:
Just to add, there were plenty of empty seats during Italia 90 too, and I think even during England games.....which seems unimaginable now.
I think the "event culture" is a major part of how it is today. For instance, can you imagine a pop star like Rita Ora being seen at an Albania football game back then? The only pop stars into football back then were Rod Stewart and Elton John. (There maybe more, but they were prominent football fans)RL, for a myriad of reasons, just seems unable to get on this particular gravy train.
RL isn't working class in a trendy working class way, being associated with cool counterculture cities like Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. It's proper working class, associated with largely unpopular northern towns.
-
1
-
-
On 14/06/2024 at 23:35, 17 stone giant said:
6-1 and 6-2 wins against Panama and Iran? Is that more impressive than when we beat Netherlands 4-1 in 1996? Or Croatia 4-2 in Euro 2004. Or Switzerland 3-0 in Euro 2004? Or when we beat Poland 3-0 in 1986 and then Paraguay 3-0 in the last 16? Or you could throw in group stage wins against Germany in 2000, Argentina in 2002.
I'm not arguing that Southgate has done badly. I'm saying that in my opinion he isn't deserving of being held in significantly higher esteem than so many previous England managers.
I think like Gingerjon you've maybe been seduced by the Southgate spin regarding the culture and togetherness. For me that's just waffle. Every England team (in fact you can include every team too) always says at the time how together they are, how much they love playing for England, etc. It's only years later when they write their books that they're able to give more private thoughts about things such as team selections and tactics. The same is true in every sport.
Anyway, I hope England perform at this Euros to a level that enables me to say that I think Southgate has done an amazing job this tournament.
Apologies, I had one of those moments where I'd typed out a whole reply only for it to get wiped by turning my phone off. I'm sure you're gutted...
As I said, I only refer to specific results as a comparison. 6-1 and 6-2 was in contrast to 0-0 vs Algeria or a late 2-0 win against Trinidad and Tobago. Results in football often rarely tell the story. For instance, the 1-0 wins over Germany in 2000 and Argentina in 2002 were actually pretty poor performances where we got a result.
The same is true of a lot of our penalty failures. For every Argentina in 1998 where we played well, there is an instance where we were lucky to get to penalties as we offered nothing all game (2006, 2012).
2018 was fortunate, no doubt about it. We got the draw, we got the luck of the penalties etc it was very much akin to 1990 or 1996. Had it stood alone, Southgate couldn't have got much credit. But it was backed up with a final. This alone is unprecedented and demonstrates the shortness of memory. A very solid QF after that only cements the job he's done historically as an England coach.
But it's not even about that for me. The experience has been totally different these last 3 tournaments. Not just because we've done well. 2022 was a lot better than 2002, 2006 or 2012. We lost in the quarters but we're actually the better side for once. Not just struggling to string 2 passes together and hoping it goes to penalties.
It used to be a decent performance surrounded by guff. Now it is a bad performance surrounded by decent ones. I'm not saying Southgate is the one but with another manager it was far more likely we'd have had continued abject failure rather than a tournament win. People treat it like he's the problem and he's holding back these great players. History just doesn't support that proposition.
As for the culture, ask Gary Neville. He was intimately involved with England throughout this period and was even assistant coach in the disaster of 2016. He raves about the job Southgate has done on this front, as do other ex-England internationals.
I'll eagerly await the game tonight, and I'll be honest about how we do. After the Iceland game, I have reservations about the old England making an appearance but we'll see. Even if they do, we've been able to grow into tournaments over the last couple.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
There were empty seats all through the rounds. Mostly because, it appears, blocks had been sold to tour and package companies who didn't then sell them and didn't release them back. It was a moderate deal at the time that became less of one as England did well enough to distract attention from it.
I've seen the highlight game at Anfield and wondered why didn't my dad take me as there were plenty of seats and it was probably reasonably priced.
I'll cut him some slack...
-
39 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:
1992 was a fairly big deal really, although nothing like today. I remember being in a packed pub when England went out to Sweden and particularly the final when Denmark won...but didn't actually qualify and only made it due to the Yugoslavia situation.
Re 1996. I don't dispute that there was empty seats somewhere but I remember a few mates grumbling that they couldn't get tickets for the Elland Rd game (which wasn't an England game). But that could have just been them...
I don't personally recall the empty seats, I've just seen them on subsequent highlights. It seems mad considering now you'd be fighting to get a ticket to Georgia vs Slovenia.
It's hard to judge how much has changed because football and event culture has got bigger or because the Euros has.
As a 12 year old, Euro 96 seemed like a massive deal even at the beginning, and tbh following that there was very little difference between winning a WC and a Euros in my mind. I just dreamed of seeing England win something. However, I can still recall being shocked in 2000 when Belgium didn't sell out their opening game involving the host nation, which suggests it still wasn't up to where it is now.
I suspect had we won in 2020 or even win this time, the focus might shift a little and all of a sudden the World Cup will become the new holy grail with the Euros taking a back seat in comparison.
-
13 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:
On the subject of first memories of Euros, I have vague recollections from pre-1980 when the finals were 4-nations affairs.
First, some highlights shown on Football Focus (or maybe On the Ball) of Yugoslavia 1976.
And West Germany beating England 3-1 at Wembley in a 1972 quarter-final first leg. Wouldn't have known the status of the fixture at the time. The Germans were in green. Watched it at the house of a relative who had just got a colour TV.
Was it a big deal then? I have an impression that it wasn't, but maybe the qualifiers were more high profile?
I have vague recollections that the 1992 edition wasn't massive, and the 96 one had plenty of empty seats until the latter stages.
-
There's a lot of debate this morning about a comment Souness made last night. After talking about the 5-1, he then tried to qualify it by saying that Scotland is only a country of 5m people. This is a line I often hear from my brother-in-law when he's feeling humble.
He's been slated for it, and rightly so IMO as it is being used as an excuse. England have faced many low-populated nations over the years that have frustrated us while offering a threatening counter attack.
I think we were expecting Scotland to be hard to break down, but it was clear within the first 5 minutes that Germany were finding space. They then offered absolutely zero attacking threat and gave the ball away extremely easily.
Scotland's population explains why they'll never consistently compete at the highest levels, but not why any one performance was that bad and why they're never any good. Many of the smaller nations have good and bad periods (look at ROI), Scotland just seem to have bad.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, The Masked Poster said:
I saw that and I must be honest I didn't think it was even a penalty, let alone a red card. He clearly went for the ball and maybe stumbled slightly but there was nothing malicious in that.
I'm happy to concede that I'm not in the majority and will go with what actual football experts say but to me, nah.
Had to laugh at Souness talking about it as if he was some sort of saint, he wouldn't last 5 minutes in the modern game. Better looking by far indeed.
I can't see how this was even in dispute, it was a studs up tackle where he connected above the ankle. It could've ended Gundogan's tournament.
-
This was the sort of game where it showed how there isn't the quality for 24 teams IMO.
Had it been a 16 team tournament Scotland would've faced a playoff against one of Croatia, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Serbia, Slovenia, Austria, Czech or Slovakia just to qualify. You'd have to think that makes it less than 50/50 they'd be there.
-
10 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:
Bloody hell!! And that was Scotland's first shot of the entire game.
6 German scorers tonight.
-
10 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:
We haven't always won them well. In 2018 we beat Tunisia 2-1. We beat them 2-0 in France 98.
But you're kind of making the point others of us have made. We beat the teams we're supposed to beat - which is what England have mostly always done. The Iceland game is really a standout because it's the one time that England have lost to a team that nobody expected us to lose to. That just hasn't happened in other tournaments. We've had mediocre results in group stages over the years many times - 1986 0-0 with Morocco, 1996 1-1 with Switzerland, etc. but we still got out of the group, so ultimately it didn't matter.
I'll just focus on 2018 under Southgate:
England beat Tunisia 2-1, Panama 6-1, lost 1-0 to Belgium. So in the group stages, we lost to the one recognised decent team.
Then it was 1-1 with Columbia (win on pens), a decent 2-0 against Sweden (I say decent because our results against them have often been poor, not because Sweden are a giant of international football).
Then it was a 2-1 to defeat to Croatia in the SF, followed by a 2-0 3rd place playoff defeat to Belgium. Now, we can say who cares about the 3rd place playoff, but maybe Belgium didn't care that much either - and they still beat us 2-0.
On what planet is that an amazing performance by England on Southgate? And as I said above, had we lost the penalty shootout in the last 16, nobody would have considered that to be a good World Cup.
My honest opinion is that Southgate gets an easy ride because he's such a great bloke - it's impossible to dislike him. If he was an abrasive character like Mourinho, his record would be treated much more harshly than it is. In fact, an less likeable character probably wouldn't even still be in the job.
I suspect we'll never agree on this. I don't deny that results have helped and he's been fortunate in this regard at times, especially in 2018.
For me, it's about the performances and the fact that the players seem to want to play for England. For years we'd struggle against poor teams and look like we couldn't pass a ball against decent teams. The players looked miserable playing for England half the time. That second half against Iceland was a group of elite footballers, looking terrified and clueless. It had been coming for years.
Say what you like about Southgate, but he's changed the culture amongst the players and the country. The last QF defeat was a much more positive overall experience than the QF defeats in 2002, 2006 and 2016. Those 6-1 and 6-2 wins used to be godawful 0-0s like Algeria, or 2-0 late wins against Trinidad and Tobago.
My opinion is that it didn't have to change. We could've easily got another manager and carried on like we did in 2016.
-
57 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:
Just realised Maximus said a couple of decades of seriously bad performance and I went back further than that, but I think my point still stands. For example, Euro 2012 we lost on penalties to Italy. They were the better team, but with a bit of luck in the shootout we'd have been in a semi final.
There are plenty of examples where penalties have stopped us from doing much better, and others where we've met the eventual winners early. I said a couple of decades, but would discount 2004 and partly 2002.
That 2012 game was probably as poor as I've seen an England team play. We also played Ukraine before it in one of the worst winning performances I've ever seen. We used to be unable to string a couple of passes together.
Another good example was 2010. We apparently had a decent squad but were lucky to draw 1-1 with the USA, had a 0-0 with Algeria and scraped through against Slovenia. We were actually favourites before getting pummelled by Germany.
Southgate hasn't eliminated these type of games (USA in 2022, Scotland 2020) but byenlarge we've won the games we're supposed to and won them well. The result has been a far more positive tournament experience for the last 3. Even in losing to France, we gave a very good account of ourselves and were arguably the better team.
You could argue a better manager would've got us over the line, but there is no reason to even suspect they would have done.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, HawkMan said:
Or better for an Englishman.
I used to want Scotland to do well, like I would Wales or Ireland.
Then I got the sort of Scottish brother-in-law who buys Croatia tops when they knock us out, with his extended family being openly anti-English and not in a banter way. I know it's not all Scotland but it makes it hard.
-
3
-
-
33 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:
Question for those who follow Association Football more closely -
Do you know who any of these Scottish players are?
Worth noting that by 2021, Scotland hadnae qualified for major finals since devolution.
People don't like to mention they've only qualified since because they added another 8 teams to the Euros.
If I'm being kind, they might have done it anyway this time.
-
2 minutes ago, Sidi Fidi Gold said:
First Euro's memories anyone ?
Mine was England v Belgium 1980, a 1-1 draw, I remember Ray Wilkins scoring a great goal, I remember England having a goal disallowed, I remember England fans rioting on the terraces and Italian police using tear gas which drifted onto the pitch forcing the players off, then we lost to hosts Italy, before beating Spain in the final game. I don't remember anything about any other game in the tournament.
Mine is 1992. I had scouts during the last game of the groups, and I remember my dad passing the news we were 1-0 up. When he picked me up and said we'd lost, I didn't believe him - (he was a windup merchant).
I still lament the end of 16 team version. The 24 might give us more teams, but there is far less jeopardy involved in the groups for the big teams. IMO it was better than the World Cup for quality of games.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:
That's why I don't get the adulation from some people for Gareth Southgate. I think he's a great guy and a good manager, but I don't think he yet deserves much more praise than that.
As you mentioned, Germany 2020 aside (when we also had home advantage), we have failed to beat the top teams when it really matters.
2018 Croatia
2020 Italy (despite home advantage again)
2022 France
You can even throw in a Nations League SF against Netherlands which we lost 3-1.
If you pick any of the established top teams (the likes of France, Spain, Germany, Italy, even Argentina and Brazil at a world level), you can reel off numerous times that they've beaten each other when it really mattered - knockout stages and finals. England just aren't in that class yet.
It even annoys the heck out of me when people go on about the 5-1 against Germany in 2001. Who cares? Germany still qualified, and in fact 9 months or so later, they were in another World Cup Final while we were on the plane home after blowing a QF against 10 men Brazil!
I hope this time will be different. If it is, I will happily give Southgate all the praise he deserves.
In my experience, people have very short memories on this front.
Losing to Iceland in 2016 was the culmination of a couple of decades of seriously bad performances in big tournaments. It wasn't even the losses on penalties, it was struggling against the likes of Algeria, Trinidad and Tobago, scraping through the groups against Slovenia etc.
We might not have beaten a top top nation when it mattered yet, but beating the likes of Germany, Sweden and Denmark in knockout games whilst battering some smaller nations is actually a genuine improvement.
-
Thought this could do with its own thread. As ever, a glorious month awaits.
The opener tonight is intriguing enough, but I expect Germany to win easy enough.
As for the winner, I don't buy the idea that England are favourites. France look to be a head above and without upsets, England would end up facing them in the semis.
I do have some things I'd like to see for England. I'd like to see us knock out a genuinely top nation. Since 1966, I don't think you can argue that we have done. The closest we've have is Spain in '96 and Germany in '20 but especially with the latter they weren't the Germany of old. Apart from these, anytime we've faced a top nation we've lost (usually on penalties...).
I'm also hoping we don't see the usual silly beggar stuff that we do on the continent. I'm pretty sure 2006 was an OK one from that respect.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, JonM said:
Yes, same in Italy - and the letter from your doctor has to include an ECG and spirometry results. Not just running - same is required for 5-aside football, basketball and any other recreational sport. However, they seem to have accepted that parkrun is ok as a non-competitive event. There is also a different culture to France- the Rome Marathon, for example tells everyone they must bring their certificates, but they don't check them, and the attitude is well, if you have a heart attack and die and you got a fake certificate, then on your own head be it.
Imagine that over here. Can't get a blimmin doctors appointment in the first place so there goes competitive running!
-
I saw the seemingly bizarre news recently that Parkrun has been banned in France for a couple of years and it is still going to be.
Apparently, due to concerns over insurance, for normal competitive runs, runners have to get a medical certificate off their doctor to say they're OK to run. This obviously causes issues with Parkrun which is much more casual.
-
26 minutes ago, Damien said:
It doesn't normally sell out though, last year they got 61k. That is also the equivalent of our Grand Final too.
I don't think you can underestimate that Twickenham is the home of English RU. They own it and have a latent audience all year round to tap into. It's quite different than turning up to Wembley once a year and trying to get a crowd.
You can't compare RL and RU, it's apple and oranges. They have a far larger casual audience to tap into.
Wembley was traditionally a big day out for people from the North and it was the most prestigious competition. It no longer is in either respect.
A big club like Wigan has to do relatively little to win it. Maybe beat one decent team along the way to get to the final. There's little achievement in winning it like there used to be.
We need to accept the decline and leave Wembley. Do we wait until there are 30,000 rattling around it? There are many stadiums that would better serve the purpose, like Tottenham or a bigger one up north. Some stadiums look good whether they're full or half full, Wembley is literally the worst for this. OT is a good example of a stadium that can look good on TV with 50k in, although of course we can't use it.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Today's Betfred #ChallengeCup Final attendance is 64,845 - a largest attendance since 2017!
The Women's #ChallengeCup Final also celebrates a record attendance of 9,608.
Not sure how they got that, the lower bowl wasn't even full. That's not far off the WC semi-final from 2013 which looked like it has way more in attendance.
-
1
-
-
They're fighting a losing battle. Time to move it away from Wembley I'm afraid. Not only can we nowhere near fill it with two of our biggest teams, it looks terrible on TV. Those big red plastic seats are just so obvious.
IMO it has been on the decline for years and decline breeds decline. People don't want to be associated with things that are on the downturn. The empty seats are depressing and clearly putting more people off each year going again.
-
6
-
-
Or like Iceland beating England at Wembley.
-
22 hours ago, Futtocks said:
Ouch!
The big question at the moment seems to be whether this is Wilder having lost his mojo, or whether he's finally fighting better opposition and being found out.
It has to be a bit of both but for me definitely more likely to be the second. Earlier Wilder was incredibly aggressive (watch Wilder-Harrison), and he truly would've been a handful for anyone simply because of his punching power. However, had he fought the best somebody would have eventually caught him because he was also very exposed.
However, take the 3 Fury fights away, none of which he won, and who is the best on his record, when he was he at his peak? Ortiz? In both of those fights he struggled and had to use a get out of jail free card. He'd landed a whopping 33 punches in 7 rounds of the second fight.
Ortiz has ended up being no real name at all. He simply hasn't fought people with the records of Parker or Zhang so it is impossible to say how he'd have done. Fury proved that his chin was never all that.
-
11 hours ago, daz39 said:
It is awfully sad but in a really weird way i'm almost glad that it has finally come, he no longer has to suffer this absolutely horrendous illness, trapped inside his failing body and his family and children no longer have to watch him suffer.
This is truly the paradox of MND. I used to feel guilt over thinking this way, especially when my experience was somebody who could still talk and move their arms when they died.
The sad reality of the disease is that the people who get it are often those who have been most active in their lives. It is truly a form of torture for them towards the end.
-
3
-
Euro 2024
in Any Other Business / Any Other Sports
Posted
There are lies damn lies and statistics.
I've just seen something on Sky, showing how we've only lost 1 Euros game in our last 18 (if you don't include pens) and how England can take encouragement from it.
When you consider those games cover 2012 and 2016 you can see the absurdity of it.
Interestingly, we've only ever once won our opening game of a Euros, that being a pretty uninspiring 1-0 win in 2020.