Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We’ve been rubbish so far but we still have four points.

For me the basic thing lacking is some kind of pressing game when we lose possession probably because the team is too unbalanced with attacking potential.

Anyway, what you do in the group stage is pretty irrelevant compared to the knockout element that we look on course to make in a preferential spot (first/second)

Edited by Gerrumonside ref
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

We’ve been rubbish so far but we still have four points.

For me the basic thing lacking is some kind of pressing game when we lose possession probably because the team is too unbalanced with attacking potential.

Anyway, what you do in the group stage is pretty irrelevant compared to the knockout element that we look on course to make in a preferential spot (first/second)

I was explaining to my lad last night that there have been countless prior tournaments where poor group performances had been explained away with the hope that things will come good when we meet a top team.

I think it comes from the 1990 experience, where our best performance was easily the semi vs West-Germany as well as the 1998 game against Argentina, both of which came after very 

Realistically, it is far more often an indication of significant problems or at the very least a lack of real quality. 2016, 2012 and 2010 are the worst examples of this but you can also throw in 2002 and 2006 to an extent.

I still have hope of course. Slovenia is crucial to morale. We need to see something that shows improvement and ideally a few goals. If it's like Slovenia in 2010 (a dire and fortunate 1-0) or Slovakia in 2016 (a horrendous 0-0) then we'll be clutching at straws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I was explaining to my lad last night that there have been countless prior tournaments where poor group performances had been explained away with the hope that things will come good when we meet a top team.

I think it comes from the 1990 experience, where our best performance was easily the semi vs West-Germany as well as the 1998 game against Argentina, both of which came after very 

Realistically, it is far more often an indication of significant problems or at the very least a lack of real quality. 2016, 2012 and 2010 are the worst examples of this but you can also throw in 2002 and 2006 to an extent.

I still have hope of course. Slovenia is crucial to morale. We need to see something that shows improvement and ideally a few goals. If it's like Slovenia in 2010 (a dire and fortunate 1-0) or Slovakia in 2016 (a horrendous 0-0) then we'll be clutching at straws.

Slovenia is the hinge game. There just needs to be some obvious learning from the previous two games and an improved sense that the players know what they are doing and can commit to it.

Anything other than that and it will feel like we're just killing time until we get knocked out.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I was explaining to my lad last night that there have been countless prior tournaments where poor group performances had been explained away with the hope that things will come good when we meet a top team.

I think it comes from the 1990 experience, where our best performance was easily the semi vs West-Germany as well as the 1998 game against Argentina, both of which came after very 

Realistically, it is far more often an indication of significant problems or at the very least a lack of real quality. 2016, 2012 and 2010 are the worst examples of this but you can also throw in 2002 and 2006 to an extent.

I still have hope of course. Slovenia is crucial to morale. We need to see something that shows improvement and ideally a few goals. If it's like Slovenia in 2010 (a dire and fortunate 1-0) or Slovakia in 2016 (a horrendous 0-0) then we'll be clutching at straws.

To me the problems are tactical and systemic rather than personnel which I’ve outlined earlier in the thread and won’t go into here.

I also believe that it’s not just England who have made a slow start and gone on to reach the latter stages of a tournament - the Germans were masters of this in their storied past.

Peaking at the right time is what matters and keeping players free from injury.  We’ve been rubbish so far, but we’ve four points, no significant injury concerns or discipline issues.

As ever with England the influencers/pundits in the various media always overreact to the evidence that we’re not the best team in the world nor the worst either as it doesn’t make for great headlines.

Edited by Gerrumonside ref
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you know a bit of German then Browser Ballett is usually good for a laugh and here they are being good for a laugh again.

 

  • Thanks 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched every game so far, all enjoyable,  except two games. Yep, the England ones, that says something. Genuinely loved it all except England games,  slow and boring. There's only a limited number of reasons for England's poor performances. Either, 1) Southgate's tactics are all wrong and he's incompetent, 2) the other teams tactics are masterful and have negated England's tactics,  or 3) the players are not as good as we think. Kane has performed brilliantly at Spurs and now Munich,  he is class, Bellingham has been great at Dortmund and now Madrid,  class, the others I don't know, they've only performed in the EPL, surrounded by class overseas players. Foden for example is great at Man City,  with top players around him, creating space for him with clever runs so he can weave his magic. IMO the players are not as good as we supposed, except the above mentioned Kane , Bellingham and Pickford I think is good, he seriously helped Everton stay up. Eze and Palmer definitely ones for the future, Saka and Foden , good with right players around them. 

So is it 1, 2,or 3? Perhaps all 3 , Southgate tactically isn't a genius and responds far too slowly to reverses on the pitch, the other coaches know England's predictability and counter it and the players aren't world beaters despite what the media may think.

Edited by HawkMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a case of England's players not being as good as we think they are. All the top players tend to play alongside other top players. I don't think ours are any more reliant on having good players around them than any other side.

I feel like the problem is just one of cohesion. It's fine producing some top quality players but to build a strong team takes more than just putting your best players on the pitch. We have some problem areas in the team that were fairly obvious before a ball had even been kicked, as well as some that seem to have become apparent as games have unfolded.

Our lack of quality at left back is an issue. For all the top attacking players we have there's a lack of any depth in this area. Shaw has been good at international level but picking an injured player who hasn't played for a long time just seems bizarre. We knew Trippier would have to start there and it could present issues, but I'd have though the obvious plan B would be Tyrick Mitchell from Palace. A natural left footer, finished the season in decent form, played alongside Guehi at club level and can also play left wing back which opens up more options in shape. He might not be first choice but you need options and at the moment England seem to only have two right footed makeshift left backs. It's shocking that we don't have more quality in this area but that's the situation we're in. Trippier has done okay defensively in this role but his attacking input is severely limited.

Rice isn't a natural at sitting deep in a holding role, he's a player who plays best in a double pivot alongside a disciplined player who will sit deep so he can get forward. There's a reason Arsenal stopped playing him in that role and played him alongside Partey and Jorginho instead. Rice was best in an England shirt alongside Kalvin Phillips, or as part of a flat 3 with two well balanced midfielders in Henderson and Bellingham. He's not as good at receiving the ball deep with his back to goal and trying to start attacks. He just plays it too simple all the time. England do have 2 players capable of playing the Kalvin Phillips role in Mainoo and Wharton, but as England's least experienced midfielders Southgate is probably reluctant to play them.

Trent can't really play the deeper role either. He panics when receiving the ball with his back to goal under pressure and he's already been caught out a few times. If we have a disciplined holding midfielder you might be able to get away with Trent in midfield, possibly on the right of a midfield three. What he is good at is playing balls in to players who run behind which is why it's a bit baffling that Southgate starts him with an 11 that don't look to run in behind and then takes him off when he brings on someone like Watkins who does do that. For me he's an option as a sub but not a starter in midfield. 

One option to help the midfield would be having Stones step up into midfield from centre back but that would require a team selection and formation that allows him to do that. Possibly if Gomez played left back but moved centrally in possession and Walker stayed back rather than pushing forward it might be possible. Rice and Stones could essentially be the double pivot with Rice able to push on a bit more. The problem is that doesn't solve the issue of the lack of width on the left if Foden is selected on the left of midfield.

Foden may have been named on the team sheet for City as a left winger but the reality is he always moves into the middle of the field and plays essentially a left centre midfield channel. That's fine if you've got players filling the spaces that he leaves but nobody is. If we had a left back like Shaw who pushes forward the defence on the left could be stretched but because we have Trippier who only ever passes the ball backwards there's just no threat on the left. If we had a proper holding midfield player you could just play Foden as a 10 and Bellingham deeper, but that would probably put too much pressure on Rice in the current set up.

Kane is probably the best finisher in world football at the moment but the way he's playing at the moment isn't really fitting in with the players around him, or the players around him aren't fitting the way he plays. It's one or the other. He's constantly coming deep to receive the ball and removing any pressure that's on the opposing defence. He either needs to stay on the shoulder of defenders and allow the midfield to move up towards him, or the wide players need to remain high up the field even when defending so we're not so compact every time we win possession back in our own half.

If you look at France, they have quality players all over the park but they aren't afraid to leave top players out if they don't fit the system. They picked Rabiot and Kante in midfield over Tchouameni for their opening game. Most top international sides will leave superstars out of the team if they don't fit the system. Maybe England need to consider that in order to find a more natural balance to the side, with players taking up roles they are more comfortable with. The only other option is the current 11 need to work really hard on adapting the way they play. 

Edited by EagleEyePie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OriginalMrC said:

VAR has worked well all tournament. English refs get involved and they take forever to make the decision and get it wrong. 

They took too long but the decision, as given on the field, was entirely correct. You don't get to stand in an offside position next to where the keeper needs to dive to save the shot and expect to not be called offside - that's been true of football since the offside rule came in and it's still true now.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Watched every game so far, all enjoyable,  except two games. Yep, the England ones, that says something. Genuinely loved it all except England games,  slow and boring. There's only a limited number of reasons for England's poor performances. Either, 1) Southgate's tactics are all wrong and he's incompetent, 2) the other teams tactics are masterful and have negated England's tactics,  or 3) the players are not as good as we think. Kane has performed brilliantly at Spurs and now Munich,  he is class, Bellingham has been great at Dortmund and now Madrid,  class, the others I don't know, they've only performed in the EPL, surrounded by class overseas players. Foden for example is great at Man City,  with top players around him, creating space for him with clever runs so he can weave his magic. IMO the players are not as good as we supposed, except the above mentioned Kane , Bellingham and Pickford I think is good, he seriously helped Everton stay up. Eze and Palmer definitely ones for the future, Saka and Foden , good with right players around them. 

So is it 1, 2,or 3? Perhaps all 3 , Southgate tactically isn't a genius and responds far too slowly to reverses on the pitch, the other coaches know England's predictability and counter it and the players aren't world beaters despite what the media may think.

I do think there's an element of 1 and 3.

I'm somewhat of a defender of Southgate but recognise he's far from perfect. Take the 2020 final, he definitely was part of the problem including the bizarre decision to bring on people for the shootout. My issue with many England fans is that they seem to negate the whole getting to the final bit. Just ignore the fact that we hadn't in any circumstances for 55 years got to a final, Southgate was lucky and held us back.

In this tournament so far, I think he's much more at fault. We seem to have come in without knowing our best system, trying to simply fit players on the pitch and putting square pegs in round holes. This has previously been one of Southgate's strengths even if it wasn't pretty to watch. The whole Trent situation will be something we ridicule in years to come. Some of the continental newspapers already have been doing. 

However, as Gary Neville said in the aftermath, the inability to control the game in possession has been an England problem for decades. The changes made at youth level mean that the newer crop are more technical than ever. The changes to team culture mean that the old problems about the weight of the England shirt aren't nearly as bad. I did consider that maybe our stars are players who are great in systems surrounded by superstars but less effective when they have to lead the play. That still doesn't account for why we struggle against Serbia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

To me the problems are tactical and systemic rather than personnel which I’ve outlined earlier in the thread and won’t go into here.

I also believe that it’s not just England who have made a slow start and gone on to reach the latter stages of a tournament - the Germans were masters of this in their storied past.

Peaking at the right time is what matters and keeping players free from injury.  We’ve been rubbish so far, but we’ve four points, no significant injury concerns or discipline issues.

As ever with England the influencers/pundits in the various media always overreact to the evidence that we’re not the best team in the world nor the worst either as it doesn’t make for great headlines.

I've been pondering reactions to this tournament and the last. 2020 is interesting, as on paper we started pretty similar. My memory of the opening win against Croatia was that we were unimpressive but got the result, and then the Scotland game was similar to Thursday night. Souness famously said we've got no chance. 

However, this time feels a lot more negative overall. Of course, the Croatia match was a semi-final repeat and in theory better opposition but they're still not one of the big teams. 

Maybe it's because of the fact that we got to the final in 2020 and played well in 2022 that means people are less forgiving of a team finding its feet. Maybe it's from the disconnect between being bookies favourites and looking so bad? 

Hopefully, a la 2020 we'll have long forgotten what come to be seen as teething issues. I think the Slovenia game is crucial to this, there has to be at least an indication that things are coming together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding England, the players are good enough generally speaking, and we have some real top talents.

I don't know what it is about England that we drop off completely after scoring.

I think we also seem to really struggle with certain players playing like little kids trying to prove themselves. The difference between say Foden and Saka has been immense. The latter has been solid, creating opportunities for team mates and working well down the right with Kyle Waker. The former has been shut out in the first game, then reacted by trying desperately to do too much against Denmark.

Rice had a terrible game, yet our squad lacks depth in that position nobody could come on to replace him and take him out of the firing line. It's fair enough to have a naff game.

As soon as Watkins came on and started running at and beyond the Danes the game opened up again and the team looked to have some impetus but it was too late. Kane is good but he stifles our attack when Saka and Foden can't play with him.

Guehi and Stones were solid once again. I'd like to see Stones get forward more like he does for Man City to make up for times when Rice has an off day.

I really like Bellingham. He has all the passion, talent and confidence to take this team forward. I love his arrogance to an extent, he's one of the world's best players, playing for Real Madrid and he's playing like that. 

I think Southgate has always been a tactically stunted manager. He's safety first to compensate for that which as we've seen can get you so far yet time and time again we see that this results in an hour or so of England sitting back and asking teams to come attack us - even when those teams aren't actually very good! England have the quality to be scoring multiple goals against our group stage opponents, yet it's clear that it must be a direct order to sit back that stops us from doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I've been pondering reactions to this tournament and the last. 2020 is interesting, as on paper we started pretty similar. My memory of the opening win against Croatia was that we were unimpressive but got the result, and then the Scotland game was similar to Thursday night. Souness famously said we've got no chance. 

However, this time feels a lot more negative overall. Of course, the Croatia match was a semi-final repeat and in theory better opposition but they're still not one of the big teams. 

Maybe it's because of the fact that we got to the final in 2020 and played well in 2022 that means people are less forgiving of a team finding its feet. Maybe it's from the disconnect between being bookies favourites and looking so bad? 

Hopefully, a la 2020 we'll have long forgotten what come to be seen as teething issues. I think the Slovenia game is crucial to this, there has to be at least an indication that things are coming together.

Croatia are a good side though, and were better then.

I think there's lots of factors like you describe fitting into this. I also think there's an overwhelming sense that we've been playing 2nd tier teams and making them look great; as soon as we come up against somebody decent like France or Spain we'll get exposed badly.

Are we just waiting to get knocked out? We don't seem to be going for this tournament at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Regarding England, the players are good enough generally speaking, and we have some real top talents.

I don't know what it is about England that we drop off completely after scoring.

I think we also seem to really struggle with certain players playing like little kids trying to prove themselves. The difference between say Foden and Saka has been immense. The latter has been solid, creating opportunities for team mates and working well down the right with Kyle Waker. The former has been shut out in the first game, then reacted by trying desperately to do too much against Denmark.

Rice had a terrible game, yet our squad lacks depth in that position nobody could come on to replace him and take him out of the firing line. It's fair enough to have a naff game.

As soon as Watkins came on and started running at and beyond the Danes the game opened up again and the team looked to have some impetus but it was too late. Kane is good but he stifles our attack when Saka and Foden can't play with him.

Guehi and Stones were solid once again. I'd like to see Stones get forward more like he does for Man City to make up for times when Rice has an off day.

I really like Bellingham. He has all the passion, talent and confidence to take this team forward. I love his arrogance to an extent, he's one of the world's best players, playing for Real Madrid and he's playing like that. 

I think Southgate has always been a tactically stunted manager. He's safety first to compensate for that which as we've seen can get you so far yet time and time again we see that this results in an hour or so of England sitting back and asking teams to come attack us - even when those teams aren't actually very good! England have the quality to be scoring multiple goals against our group stage opponents, yet it's clear that it must be a direct order to sit back that stops us from doing that.

I do worry that this is becoming a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and an easy answer to our problems.

There are seemingly clear examples where we've gone ahead and sat back. Italy in 2020/1 seems like the obvious candidate. However, there have been plenty of cases where this hasn't happened - Panama, Iran, Wales, Senegal and Ukraine in a QF.

The Serbia game seemed like the most obvious example ever. 35 decent minutes followed by sitting back and durge. The Denmark game was a turning point for me. We weren't playing well but got a goal. This has been rewritten as another example but it masks a bigger problem for me. Maybe, teams are figuring out a way to counter us and we can't respond.

The proof of the pudding will be what happens when we go behind. If we still sit back and are unable to respond, what is the narrative then? For instance, do we really think that if Denmark had gone ahead, we would have been able to switch it up and respond?

 

Edited by Maximus Decimus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I do worry that this is becoming a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and an easy answer to our problems.

There are seemingly clear examples where we've gone ahead and sat back. Italy in 2020/1 seems like the obvious candidate. However, there have been plenty of cases where this hasn't happened - Panama, Iran, Wales, Senegal and Ukraine in a QF.

The Serbia game seemed like the most obvious example ever. 35 decent minutes followed by sitting back and durge. The Denmark game was a turning point for me. We weren't playing well but got a goal. This has been rewritten as another example but it masks a bigger problem for me. Maybe, teams are figuring out a way to counter us and we can't respond.

The proof of the pudding will be what happens when we go behind. If we still sit back and are unable to respond, what is the narrative then? For instance, do we really think that if Denmark had gone ahead, we would have been able to switch it up and respond?

 

This is the question of where this is coming from? Is it the manager? Is it the players? Is it just some of the players?

It's worrying how such good players can completely drop off intensity so rapidly.

I think we have spells of dominance, against Serbia we had a lot of clear chances, we had even fewer against Denmark but generally played worse so perhaps it's covered in that. Outside of the brief period of aggression from England we don't look like scoring at all. 

Thankfully the Denmark goal, and the nature of it, will have totally dissuaded the management and squad that we're defensively fine and don't need to score many to compensate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This is the question of where this is coming from? Is it the manager? Is it the players? Is it just some of the players?

It's worrying how such good players can completely drop off intensity so rapidly.

I think we have spells of dominance, against Serbia we had a lot of clear chances, we had even fewer against Denmark but generally played worse so perhaps it's covered in that. Outside of the brief period of aggression from England we don't look like scoring at all. 

Thankfully the Denmark goal, and the nature of it, will have totally dissuaded the management and squad that we're defensively fine and don't need to score many to compensate.

For me, that's the one relatively OK part. We haven't really conceded many clear-cut chances, the majority that we did on Thursday were to do with mistakes caused by the pitch. 

The big problem is on the ball and inability to move it up the pitch. This must be the system, or some players not being good enough. One thing that struck me when the Spain game came on, was the speed of play. We tend to walk around with the ball whereas their movements were all quick and purposeful. There's a video doing the rounds of Declan Rice passing it sideways and backwards all game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maximus Decimus said:

For me, that's the one relatively OK part. We haven't really conceded many clear-cut chances, the majority that we did on Thursday were to do with mistakes caused by the pitch. 

The big problem is on the ball and inability to move it up the pitch. This must be the system, or some players not being good enough. One thing that struck me when the Spain game came on, was the speed of play. We tend to walk around with the ball whereas their movements were all quick and purposeful. There's a video doing the rounds of Declan Rice passing it sideways and backwards all game.

The chances are all potential though, and conceding them to the Danes is one thing, to Spain, France, Germany or the like is another.

Rice had a really bad game, and nobody else was there to do his job.

Our only consistently successful outlet, at least whilst Kane is on the pitch, seems to be down the right to Walker and Saka. That can get spotted pretty quickly by oppositions I expect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The chances are all potential though, and conceding them to the Danes is one thing, to Spain, France, Germany or the like is another.

Rice had a really bad game, and nobody else was there to do his job.

Our only consistently successful outlet, at least whilst Kane is on the pitch, seems to be down the right to Walker and Saka. That can get spotted pretty quickly by oppositions I expect.

Walker's probably been our best player over the two games.

I suppose the big remaining hope, after a transformation against Slovenia, is that this is a team that will rise to the occasion like in 90 and 98 (although we still lost...).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone posted earlier,"Watched every game so far, all enjoyable, except two games. Yep, the England ones, that says something. Genuinely loved it all except England games, slow and boring.,"

Can anyone list any games when England were NOT rated "Slow and boring"?

I wonder if there is something in the psyche of England fans that makes them them feel this way 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Someone posted earlier,"Watched every game so far, all enjoyable, except two games. Yep, the England ones, that says something. Genuinely loved it all except England games, slow and boring.,"

Can anyone list any games when England were NOT rated "Slow and boring"?

I wonder if there is something in the psyche of England fans that makes them them feel this way 

I had this exact thought. After all, it has been such a common experience as an England fan that it makes you think. Objectively, the Denmark game was boring, but maybe the Serbia game wasn't so bad.

I was watching the Spain-Italy game and thinking how I'd feel if I was an Italy fan. As a neutral, they seemed limited and were getting outplayed, but I didn't think they were playing terribly, more that it was their style. 

I wonder if I'd have thought that as an England fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two England games have confirmed why I lost interest in Association Football. Would have switched off had I been a neutral.

The way Bellingham stood there inviting worship from the fans made me puke. If the players had more humility, they might also have the inner confidence to keep playing positively when they go a goal up. Thin-skinned narcs will typically feel entitled to plaudits before they've got the job done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

VAR has worked well all tournament. English refs get involved and they take forever to make the decision and get it wrong. 

Ah! So it's not just the England manager who is no good.

It's not just that the England team is no good.

English refs are no good either.

Kind of reinforces my earlier point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.