Maximus Decimus
-
Posts
8,699 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Maximus Decimus
-
-
21 minutes ago, JohnM said:
We get a goal up and then....
....we seem to lose our edge.
Reaction times increase a little bit, we retreat just that little bit, we ease off just a little bit. All these little bits add up to allowing the opposition back into the game.
is there room for Foden, Kane and Bellingham on the pitch at the same time?
This does feel like the big issue. Do we have a Lampard and Gerrard situation all over again?
Although it still wasn't as bad as decades prior, there seems to be a peculiarly English way of underperforming at a major tournament. Over the weekend, I watched Italy and Netherlands both of whom didn't start quite as well as they'd like. However, even in doing so they created plenty of chances and moved with speed.
We rarely seem to do badly by being involved in high-scoring shootouts. English underachievement is always a slow way of play and creating few chances, but while rarely conceding either. It used to be an inability to pass a ball more than 3 times, along a general slow level of play. For instance, in the famously bad 0-0 draw with Algeria we only had 4 shots on target.
-
After the dust has settled, my gut is quite negative about the performance.
Even though we opened in a similar vein in 2020/1 with an uninspiring 1-0 (albeit against better opposition) something just didn't click last night. We've heard so much about having the best attack, but they didn't seem to gel and something was off.
I was actually quite pleased defensively but can't see anybody seriously thinking we're favourites after round one.
Hopefully we grow into the tournament, but we'll definitely need to.
-
So it turns out our number 1 kept us in the game by making 1 save.
There was some hyperbole from the commentators I think. Serbia had pressure without making any real clear chances.
The problem for me was that we offered nothing and invited them towards us.
-
1 minute ago, Futtocks said:
They can be a bit too steady and safe for the badge-kissing element of the tabloid press. But their "PRIDE AN' PASSION!" alternatives have always failed, so meh.
Exactly, at the end of the day we won. Only the second game we've ever won to start a Euros.
If the next two games are the same then I'll be concerned, but hopefully we've learned a lot from tonight.
-
5 minutes ago, RayCee said:
Does England have the confidence to win the Euros?
If there's one thing under Southgate, we tend to play our way into tournaments. Reality is we only need another point to qualify and a win on Thurs prob wins the group.
-
First 30/35 minutes absolutely fine. After that, it was definitely England of old.
We've won and that's that. I think the commentators overegged how much danger we were in, but we didn't play well. Apparently we were 'indebted to our number 1'. I can't think of a proper dangerous save he actually had to make?
-
4 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:
Kane has been completely locked out of this game, we've barely seen him.
Yep, not been good this first 15. Like we're treating them like France, and trying to protect what we have.
-
42 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:
JUUUUUUUUDE!!! EASA!!!! EASA!!!! EASA!!!!!
Decent enough first half until the last 10.
Look comfortable without being too flashy, but let them in a bit towards the end. Hoping the half-time break does us good and we get an early second goal or it might start getting a bit squeaky.
-
1 minute ago, HawkMan said:
Bearing in mind the VAR controversies if we had a separate timekeeper, with the clock in full view of everyone I suspect they'd be more arguing about the difference in how time is added on from one match to the next. Football is such a fluid game with subjective decisions as part of the laws , they'll never be uniformity in how referees manage the game. This generates talking points that are part of its popularity.
I'm more talking about a system very similar to sports like RL. The clock runs unless the referee specifically thinks time is being wasted and calls for the clock to be stopped. In instances where a player is getting treatment, it is genuinely silly that the clock is still running.
I genuinely can't think of any actual instances in RL where fans have been annoyed because a referee didn't stop the clock quickly enough. We had to bring in a shot clock for conversions but this is slightly different.
I lost all sympathy with the 'talking points' argument when Lampard's goal wasn't given.
-
22 minutes ago, HawkMan said:
That's the difference between competition rules and laws of the game. There's an amount of leeway for difference comps to play with how time is added on. PL and EFL add on a lot more than UEFA do for their comps. As for a stop the clock function, there is one, the clock is on the referee's wrist, it just isn't connected to the off the field stuff.
If the referee was stopping his clock properly, then there shouldn't be much leeway between divisions at all. It suggests to me, that there is very little standardisation about when referees are stopping the clock. I would argue it makes more sense to take the process of keeping time out of the hands of the referees entirely.
Then I don't see why they don't just share this with the public and be transparent about where they are stopping and adding time. I would argue that there was around 5 minutes wasted after the late goal, never mind across the whole half. It would certainly help with fan frustration when it is taking forever for the game to restart and you're chasing a goal.
I don't know if it is just because it is so big and they don't feel the need to make obvious changes or so culturally diverse that it is hard to persuade people, but football in many respects is so slow to move with the times.
-
Decent game between Netherlands and Poland.
Not for the first time this tournament, I'm going to have a rant about why football doesn't have a stop the clock function.... It doesn't seem to be like the PL at the moment, where they have started adding on a lot. For instance, it took nearly two minutes before the game restarted after the final goal. In the end, they added on a mere 5 minutes.
-
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.
-
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
-
Euro 2024
in Any Other Business / Any Other Sports
Posted
Safe to say that was a great result for English morale!