England Discussion

Redlambs said:
Southgate and the myth he is not a typical England manager picking the same old names is what's holding them back.

It's dumb as feck to claim the squad isn't at least competitive and shouldn't be up there at this tournament. Not world beaters for me, but certainly better than the dross that boring twat has them playing because he doesn't have a spine.
Click to expand...

It’s bizarre people try to say England has a bang average squad. They are really only behind France and Brazil for me in overall talent and options. But it feels like a combination of undroppable names along with a complete inability to adjust within the flow of a match that causes England to be this scrappy side that never feels like it has a real plan of how it wants to play.
 
Very reminiscent of a lot of performances by United over recent years. Frankly, both squads have too many players who are lazy, who want to do things at almost a walking pace and who don't care enough to work consistantly hard off the ball and they'll never change.
 
Pintu said:
Why 6? Supposing there is a winner in the other game (US or Iran getting to 5/6pts). If Wales wins by 3 they are up to + 1 in GD and England goes down to +1. What happens then?

Edit: Got it. Best attack. So Wales needs a 4-0 win in this scenario.
Click to expand...
4-0 and England go through on goals scored. Wales need to win 5-0.

Not impossible but even England can't be that shit, can they?
 
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
It’s bizarre people try to say England has a bang average squad. They are really only behind France and Brazil for me in overall talent and options. But it feels like a combination of undroppable names along with a complete inability to adjust within the flow of a match that causes England to be this scrappy side that never feels like it has a real plan of how it wants to play.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense because while I wouldn't say we are the best in all areas, we aren't necessarily weak in any areas either. Pickford is always good for England, Stones and Maguire also. Right back we have amazing depth, and left back has decent also. Midfield people say we're weak and whilst I would say its the weakest area in the squad we still have a good midfield, we have Rice, Foden, Mount, Henderson, Maddison, Bellingham and others which we can make a good combination out of. And then as far as attacking depth goes we are one of the best in the world. Our biggest problem (as it has been since Hoddle IMO) is the manager. Weak tactics, weak mentality is our crux right now.
 
duffer said:
4-0 and England go through on goals scored. Wales need to win 5-0.

Not impossible but even England can't be that shit, can they?
Click to expand...
I don't get it - with a 4-0 Wales has a better GD than England so goals scored don't matter. Am I being thick?
 
Give Foden a start against Wales,if he performs then he stays in the team for second round game. My gut feeling is he gets kicked to the kerb however he plays.
 
The crazy scenario where if iran who were beaten 6-2 in their first game could easily end up coming top of the group if they beat USA and southgate cowardly and predictably plays not to lose against Wales and we only come away with a point
 
Lee565 said:
The crazy scenario where if iran who were beaten 6-2 in their first game could easily end up coming top of the group if they beat USA and southgate cowardly and predictably plays not to lose against Wales and we only come away with a point
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be shocked to see this happen to be honest.
 
Howl said:
It makes no sense because while I wouldn't say we are the best in all areas, we aren't necessarily weak in any areas either. Pickford is always good for England, Stones and Maguire also. Right back we have amazing depth, and left back has decent also. Midfield people say we're weak and whilst I would say its the weakest area in the squad we still have a good midfield, we have Rice, Foden, Mount, Henderson, Maddison, Bellingham and others which we can make a good combination out of. And then as far as attacking depth goes we are one of the best in the world. Our biggest problem (as it has been since Hoddle IMO) is the manager. Weak tactics, weak mentality is our crux right now.
Click to expand...

Yeah basically my point. The only two clearly elite National team squads I see are France and Brazil, who are both as good as you could hope for when building a side from a single country with the amount of options they have. After that, though, I think England is as well rounded as any remaining nation with what they have available. But it feels like they’ve never even bothered to play towards any of their top players strengths, and instead look to sort of scrap wins together
 
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
Yeah basically my point. The only two clearly elite National team squads I see are France and Brazil, who are both as good as you could hope for when building a side from a single country with the amount of options they have. After that, though, I think England is as well rounded as any remaining nation with what they have available. But it feels like they’ve never even bothered to play towards any of their top players strengths, and instead look to sort of scrap wins together
Click to expand...
Yeah, its funny I was just thinking about this, I would actually say as a team this is far better than the "golden generation" because there's no real holes whereas they lacked striker options and a left wing. I don't even think France or Brazil are that much better than we are to be honest. Brazil's midfield is worse than ours and France I also feel lacks good midfield depth.
 
So if England win the world cup, would they have won it inspite of Southgate? And not because of him?
 
Witchking said:
So if England win the world cup, would they have won it inspite of Southgate? And not because of him?
Click to expand...

In the very unlikely event they do win it, then it will be down to individual ability and nothing to do with that fecking clown Southgate.
 
Garethw said:
In the very unlikely event they do win it, then it will be down to individual ability and nothing to do with that fecking clown Southgate.
Click to expand...

I don't like him. But he's already managed to take you to your first World Cup semifinal in 30 years. And your first major final in 60 years. If his team wins the WC you'll have to give him some credit (for the results, not necessarily for the style).
 
LittleP14 said:
To be fair, looking at the group as they are currently we could end up seeing Argentina and Germany (if they even make it through) as runners up of their groups. This would almost certainly tee up ties of France Vs Argentina and Germany Vs Brazil in the last 16! Crazy world cup if that happens!
Click to expand...

Brazil can't play Germany (if they got through) as not in groups next to each other
 
Southgate will never be successful. He'll only ever go as far as a good draw let's him IMO. But from his perspective, he really needs to get more individual players our there. That means Rashford and Maddison in for Mount and Sterling.
Rashford Kane Saka
Maddison Bellingham
Rice
Shaw Maguire Stones Trippier
Pickford​

This would make the most natural club type partnerships in key positions, and let players like Kane play with the most similar players that he's used to (Rashford is the closest in style that England has to Son). Maddison is also the only midfielder who is comfortable in picking the ball up and passing it around properly. Needs to play.

Still won't bring success, but it's Southgates best hope.
 
Swordsman said:
in the super unlikely event, England will be eliminated if they lose to Wales by 3 goals and USA beat Iran ?
Click to expand...

If they lose 4-0 and at the same time there is a winner in the other game. Losing 3-0 is enough for England to qualify top of the group if there is a draw in the other game, or as second if there is a winner.
 
saivet said:
England, Brazil, France and Spain win their groups it would be France in the QF and I believe the other two would be on the other half of the draw, so potential final opponents if we could get that far.

I'm expecting a QF exit in any case if we meet France.
Click to expand...

Yeah needs the Danes to beat France and then have control of the group in their hands
 
bosnian_red said:
Southgate will never be successful. He'll only ever go as far as a good draw let's him IMO. But from his perspective, he really needs to get more individual players our there. That means Rashford and Maddison in for Mount and Sterling.
Rashford Kane Saka
Maddison Bellingham
Rice
Shaw Maguire Stones Trippier
Pickford​

This would make the most natural club type partnerships in key positions, and let players like Kane play with the most similar players that he's used to (Rashford is the closest in style that England has to Son). Maddison is also the only midfielder who is comfortable in picking the ball up and passing it around properly. Needs to play.

Still won't bring success, but it's Southgates best hope.
Click to expand...

Maddison has to be fit for training first
 
Bizarrely I now think England will go deep again just because this boring/pragmatic style is generally effective in tournament football
It will never be enough to outright win mind
 
bosnian_red said:
Southgate will never be successful. He'll only ever go as far as a good draw let's him IMO. But from his perspective, he really needs to get more individual players our there. That means Rashford and Maddison in for Mount and Sterling.
Rashford Kane Saka
Maddison Bellingham
Rice
Shaw Maguire Stones Trippier
Pickford​

This would make the most natural club type partnerships in key positions, and let players like Kane play with the most similar players that he's used to (Rashford is the closest in style that England has to Son). Maddison is also the only midfielder who is comfortable in picking the ball up and passing it around properly. Needs to play.

Still won't bring success, but it's Southgates best hope.
Click to expand...

It’s like Southgate picks these squads without thinking about how the pieces actually fit together in a cohesive team. They have a bunch of forwards (besides Rashford) that all prefer the ball played to their feet with the biggest piece being the striker that plays as deep as any top CF in the world. But behind them he prefers Mount who isn’t a runner from deep (a la Bruno) that can fill those spaces created by Kane, nor is he a playmaking magician that’s going to play incisively around the box.

He also utilizes two midfielders that are both decent passers but better carriers in Rice and Bellingham, which is fine, but if that’s the case why not play Trent to give you another creative outlet on the flank as well as a top quality passer?

Or maybe the shrewd move would be benching Kane, playing Rashford through the middle with Henderson sitting next to Rice, allowing Jude to push forward, and giving Foden free rein on the LW. You lose Kanes finishing, but the team itself would at least have an identity and probably be a bit more high intensity and difficult to play against.

Funny thing is Southgate will do none of these things, an probably roll out a similar XI and keep at it
 
I can't help but feel they have spent the entire build up to the game Analysing The US worrying about how good they are and how they are going to make sure they don't lose the game. Compleatly forgetting that they themselves are the better side and if they turn up they should beat the The US.

I hope it's a blip but I cant help but feel the if we get into the knockouts we will get strangled by our own pragmatism against anyone half decent and go out with a whimper.
 
For all the creative woes uesterday, what looked like the most obvious need was going back to 2+1 rather than 1+2 in CM. Rice was awful, a non-factor in the buildup, hiding from passes like he was McT.
 
croadyman said:
Give Foden a start against Wales,if he performs then he stays in the team for second round game. My gut feeling is he gets kicked to the kerb however he plays.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Foden one of Southgate's favorites alongside Kane, Sterling and Mount? I know Saka has overtaken him but I thought he would be one of the main options of the bench with Grealish.
 
The post-match interviews suggested to me that they would have taken a point if offered at the start. Ideally sneak the win of course but primarily make sure you don't lose. I don't really agree with that approach as it's rather negative but I guess it is understandable and probably expected with Southgate. Getting through the group is what matters at this stage, not how good you look doing so, and it's put them in a strong position to qualify.
 
IRN-BRUno said:
The post-match interviews suggested to me that they would have taken a point if offered at the start. Ideally sneak the win of course but primarily make sure you don't lose. I don't really agree with that approach as it's rather negative but I guess it is understandable and probably expected with Southgate. Getting through the group is what matters at this stage, not how good you look doing so, and it's put them in a strong position to qualify.
Click to expand...
But what's better though, becoming group winner or #2?
 
Before the tournament began, I'd have gone with:

Pickford
Shaw
Maguire
Stones
Trippier
Rice
Bellingham
Foden
Rashford
Kane
Saka

Having seen the first couple of games, the only change I would consider making to my pre-tournament lineup would be Alexander-Arnold in for Trippier.
 
tumescent is the word I'd use, zero creativity in midfield, Rice just hides from the ball, so there's no link between attack and defence to move the ball forward. Shaw was England's best ball progession option last night and that says a lot.

Grealish just looked to buy freekicks every time he got on it rather than looking to move the ball quicker and create options. No idea why Maddison can't get in that team, Mount offers absolutley nothing.
 
DRJosh said:
Gosh the amount of knee jerk reactions on here
Click to expand...

It's only knee-jerk if you've literally just watched that one game.


Witchking said:
So if England win the world cup, would they have won it inspite of Southgate? And not because of him?
Click to expand...

I don't particularly belong in that camp myself, I think what Southgate did extremely well at the Euros was to get the team together and keep them there. He played as big a role as any getting us to the final.

However he did absolutely cost us that final with his lack of backbone, and almost every game England have played since has shown the decline. I honestly think they'd be better off having him as the face and pairing him with someone who has the guts and knowledge to make the tough decisions. Or even the easy ones, because Southgate clearly either lacks the brains or courage for those too.
 
This is giving me deja vu to the "we are an awfully coached team" thread.
 
Dare I say it but I actually think a back 5 may have worked better. We just didn’t have control through the middle at all last night, most of what limited attacking we did came down the flanks, mainly from Shaw. Back 5 would’ve allowed the fullbacks to push up more.

Please note, I was 5 pints deep by kick off so what I thought I observed above may be total bullshit.
 
Waiting for Kanye to score his inevitable quarterfinal penalty and the press to come out and say he’s leading England to glory.

Guy runs like he’s stuck in mud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.