England Euro 2024 Squad and Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
That midfield was nuts! Trying to shoehorn an average RB into midfield - who has been poor for a long while now - was just crazy. The overrating of Rice continues, and he was poor once again on the international stage. The best part though, is trying to turn Bellingham into a peak Deli Alli sort.
 
Last edited:
njred said:
Mainoo is not ready and can’t pass the ball as well. For all TAA issues defending Mainoo is worse although he can score from almost anywhere. He’s just not ready yet.
Click to expand...
Mainoo pisses all over Trent in all aspects of midfield and knowing what to do and when, as well as when to be expansive and when not. Trent is clueless in the position and has no idea when and why he should release high turnover risk passes. Outside of that, he is an absolute liability in terms of positioning. In short, there's no competition or comparison between the two as midfielders.

Even if not Mainoo, Trent should be nowhere near midfield as he is learning (badly) on the job and is an obvious exploit to target and reap benefit from for the opposition. Guy tried a marseille roulette in the deep midfield, which he lost the ball from, and Serbia almost scored from to compound matters and reiterate the point that he's not a midfielder.
 
Pexbo said:
To be fair all of his 4 touches were immaculate.
Click to expand...
:lol: Heard some commentary stating that he dropped deep to get involve in the play to which his co commentator stated that he had 2 touches in the first half, the first then backpedaled and said exactly but what we have seen this game is he hasn't been his usual self and has stayed up top, which was clearly a tactical instruction from GS - The co commentator then pointed out that actually his average heat map position had him lower than Saka and right next to Bellingham, it went quiet for a moment and they both moved on
 
People saying Rice was poor? I thought he had a good game, especially considering his midfielder partner was AWOL.
 
I would be tempted to drop Kane, especially if he's going to keep coming back.
Continue to give Bellingham licence to go forward and drop another midfielder in the middle to gain more control, preferably Mainoo because he can dictate the game better than practically any central player in the squad.
 
FootballHQ said:
If you're going to experiment in that 8 position I've always said Foden would be a decent option as he can receive the ball in tight areas and wriggle away from opponents or set the tempo

All the teams that win tournaments have that player down the years. Xavi/Iniesta, Pirlo, Kroos, Modric, Alexis MacAlister and Greizmann dropping back deeper for France in last World cup was a big success.

It continues to be a major failing of English football that the midfielders produced are usually box to box workaholics and the technical ones get pushed into the front 3.
Click to expand...
It was Guardiola who made a forward out of Foden...

Lots of overreaction here. England went into this tournament with major question marks and this was the game to experiment - first game, weaker opponent, a draw in the other game and the 3rd place safety net. Could question Southgate on why England have those question marks at this point but honestly? You're talking about an 18 year old with all of 35 senior appearances to his name and a 20 year old with 16 top flight games worth of resume. Take a step back and you'll see it's really not this horrific mismanagement that neither is the established starter. Now, if he insists with TAA in midfield next game then that's mismanagement, yeah

LB, yeah, Southgate probably should have used the last year to try some alternatives to Shaw, Trippier and Chilwell, though again I don't think there are any standout players there that you could say should have definitely gotten a chance?

The one criticism I do agree with is dropping Rashford.

As for Foden, this game is pretty indicative of why he doesn't work for England. He needs to play more like Bellingham, and he just can't do it. England aren't City and aren't ever going to be, even if they get Guardiola to replace Southgate
 
Every international tournament, I feel like I end up being thoroughly underwhelmed by Harry Kane's performances.
 
Last edited:
TheGame said:
Cesc is a great pundit, nails it.

Click to expand...


I don't think it's about being a great pundit there, rather stating the obvious. He's counterbalancing the English pundits that are desperate to give Foden any kind of excuse for what was a very poor performance.

I agree a little with Micah about the LB being a problem and not making more space, but Foden didn't really look present and even when he got the ball his passing and decision making was poor.

There was a lot wrong with the set up yesterday, but there were also some individual performances that were just plain bad.
 
Why he didn't sub Kane and Foden is beyond me. Both had no impact on the game whatsoever.

Stones had some shaky moments. I think TAA did well until the first goal but was a liability as soon as the team sat back and invited pressure.

Unbelievable, the cowardly tactics after going 1-0 up. It worked, sure, but the second half was a drag to watch.
 
njred said:
This is game one and it’s already starting with the club affiliations with supporters. It’s why we don’t deserve any major tournament wins.
Click to expand...

Is it bias though really?

Would we not be saying the same if he was starting Luke Shaw in midfield over capable specialists? It's just frustration at England managers constantly forcing square pegs in round holes.

Personally I really rate TAA. But at RB. Just like Klopp did. I think we should be accommodating him despite his defensive weaknesses because his attacking threat from wide areas is so good.... but I'd do this by playing another actual DM alongside rice (probs Wharton) to provide cover for TAA playing as a high and wide FB overlapping Saka. I cant understand why we have never tried a back 4 with Walker at right CB alongside Stones and TAA at RB. Walker often plays as the deepest defender anyway in central positions to cover with his pace. Seems like a really obvious way to get them both in the team in areas where they are most effective.
 
deef said:
Why he didn't sub Kane and Foden is beyond me. Both had no impact on the game whatsoever.

Stones had some shaky moments. I think TAA did well until the first goal but was a liability as soon as the team sat back and invited pressure.

Unbelievable, the cowardly tactics after going 1-0 up. It worked, sure, but the second half was a drag to watch.
Click to expand...
This. I also think that there are some balance issues with this First XI. I'd experiment starting Gordon and Mainoo/Gallagher ahead of Foden and TAA respectively.

England have always looked more threatening with pace on the LW, especially now that Bellingham has Foden's role covered. Also, Mainoo and Gallager just look more at home in centre-midfield. I'm not convinced that starting 3 right side players who prefer to hug the touchline is balanced or a good idea.
 
Last edited:
We all know Rashford has been poor and nobody is really surprised that he wasn't called up but not taking him when Southgate is still planning to play conservative football was a mistake IMHO... Rashford for all is lack of polish on the ball is great at staying on the shoulders of defenders and effectively pinning them back. He would have been very useful in that second half. Grealish's ball hogging ability could have also come in handy.
 
Skills said:
I think the England's biggest problem is the lack of runners in behind. It's a huge problem as entire front 4 want the ball to feet. You can't keep a backline honest, if they're not worried about you getting in behind.

Sterling was that player for us at the last euros, and Rashford was really important at the WC.
Click to expand...
Gordon from this lot.
 
STYLOISRED said:
We all know Rashford has been poor and nobody is really surprised that he wasn't called up but not taking him when Southgate is still planning to play conservative football was a mistake IMHO... Rashford for all is lack of polish on the ball is great at staying on the shoulders of defenders and effectively pinning them back. He would have been very useful in that second half. Grealish's ball hogging ability could have also come in handy.
Click to expand...
He could have just brought on Gordon who offers something similar to rashford and had a much better season last year. Seemed like the obvious sub which obviously Gareth didn't make

Southgate is showing no signs of improvement in adapting the team in game which will cost us
 
njred said:
Mainoo is not ready and can’t pass the ball as well. For all TAA issues defending Mainoo is worse although he can score from almost anywhere. He’s just not ready yet.
Click to expand...
He's not ready yet we just watched him boss Man City's midfield in an FA Cup final a weeks ago. :lol:
 
Should've moved on GS after that last tournament. He cocked up heavily in the final.
 
Skills said:
I think the England's biggest problem is the lack of runners in behind. It's a huge problem as entire front 4 want the ball to feet. You can't keep a backline honest, if they're not worried about you getting in behind.

Sterling was that player for us at the last euros, and Rashford was really important at the WC.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's so obvious and I think it all stems from Kane and how he plays these days, he's slower, looks more cumbersome and doesn't really lead a line in terms of running behind or staying on the last man at all times. If you play Kane, you have to put pacey direct players on both sides, Gordon and Saka, and then you also have to account for him dropping into the 10 spot which he does even when he's not supposed to. So you have the big question of do you start Foden and Bellingham and also why on earth you need to then also start TAA.

For me the solution is quite obvious - drop Kane, he looks like he's fecked anyway and needs to be fit, put Bellingham in his Real role like a false 9/10 with complete license to roam, Gordon/Saka on the wings and then have a more traditional Foden/Mainoo/Rice triangle behind with Foden a) getting his wish to play central but b) being a bit deeper than Bellingham and getting on the ball a lot more. Loads more pace/energy and it also gives the opposition CBs a lot more issues with us outnumbering the middle and then they either push one up or let us control the midfield.

Swap out Mainoo for Gallagher if people want more experience/bite in there. Then you have great options from the bench like Kane, Palmer, Toney etc. I'd also probably put TAA at RB for his crossing/deliveries and move Walker to CB with Stones against Denmark and Slovenia where we should have loads of the ball.
 
In isolation, starting with a win is more important than the performance and you might expect things to click later as England grow into the tournament. Unfortunately, this is the fourth tournament under Southgate and, in the previous three, the early workmanlike performances never did develop into anything more coherent, resulting in narrow defeats when England met quality opposition in the latter rounds. That’s the reason why many of us are seemingly “over-reacting” to a 1-0 win over respectable opposition.

Some specific alarm bells:

1. Why are England experimenting in midfield in the tournament itself? Southgate has known for over a year that Henderson needs replacing.
2. Why (again) are England unable to maintain control and pressure after taking an early lead?
3.Why (again) not make substitutions earlier when it’s clear the team has lost control and is under increasing pressure?
4. Why (again) is it seemingly unthinkable for Kane to be subbed off? When you are soaking up pressure and defending a lead, maybe pace and mobility upfront can pose more questions than a static forward?

It seems nothing has been learnt from previous tournaments and therefore I expect a similar outcome.
 
Fortitude said:
Mainoo pisses all over Trent in all aspects of midfield and knowing what to do and when, as well as when to be expansive and when not. Trent is clueless in the position and has no idea when and why he should release high turnover risk passes. Outside of that, he is an absolute liability in terms of positioning. In short, there's no competition or comparison between the two as midfielders.

Even if not Mainoo, Trent should be nowhere near midfield as he is learning (badly) on the job and is an obvious exploit to target and reap benefit from for the opposition. Guy tried a marseille roulette in the deep midfield, which he lost the ball from, and Serbia almost scored from to compound matters and reiterate the point that he's not a midfielder.
Click to expand...
Agreed but we don't have a midfield solution, we just don't have the players and we need a plan to reflect that.
 
MoskvaRed said:
In isolation, starting with a win is more important than the performance and you might expect things to click later as England grow into the tournament. Unfortunately, this is the fourth tournament under Southgate and, in the previous three, the early workmanlike performances never did develop into anything more coherent, resulting in narrow defeats when England met quality opposition in the latter rounds. That’s the reason why many of us are seemingly “over-reacting” to a 1-0 win over respectable opposition.

Some specific alarm bells:

1. Why are England experimenting in midfield in the tournament itself? Southgate has known for over a year that Henderson needs replacing.
2. Why (again) are England unable to maintain control and pressure after taking an early lead?
3.Why (again) not make substitutions earlier when it’s clear the team has lost control and is under increasing pressure?
4. Why (again) is it seemingly unthinkable for Kane to be subbed off? When you are soaking up pressure and defending a lead, maybe pace and mobility upfront can pose more questions than a static forward?

It seems nothing has been learnt from previous tournaments and therefore I expect a similar outcome.
Click to expand...
Because we don't have the midfielders, been our problem since forever.
 
deef said:
Why he didn't sub Kane and Foden is beyond me. Both had no impact on the game whatsoever.

Stones had some shaky moments. I think TAA did well until the first goal but was a liability as soon as the team sat back and invited pressure.

Unbelievable, the cowardly tactics after going 1-0 up. It worked, sure, but the second half was a drag to watch.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, this is the reason you take a squad. He's taken so many attackers and yet left 2 underperforming players on the pitch. What is the point of the squad then.
 
Hammondo said:
Agreed but we don't have a midfield solution, we just don't have the players and we need a plan to reflect that.
Click to expand...
Rice-Mainoo-Bellingham

Rice-Bellingham-Foden

Wharton-Rice-Bellingham

Rice-Bellingham-Palmer

(I don’t see a point to any midfield involving Gallagher as he’s not good enough for this level)

England have options that all look to be amongst the best in the competition at one thing or another, just that Southgate hasn’t a clue and hasn’t style by which he has any conviction; you have midfields for various kinds of styles and managers there, but they would know exactly what they want to do with their selection and have 100% conviction in it, with no dithering and no doubt.

Southgate will collapse in on himself at the first hint of trouble or pressure in-game, rendering various midfields a redundancy as they resort to panicked hoofball because they’ve not been given solid instructions or plans for continuity.
 
The funniest thing about England and the fans is how each PL team’s set of fans think their guy is the one being let down by Southgate and other players and their guy should be the star of the show. On the pitch it almost plays out the same way with each of the front four feeling the need for them to be the star or the club version of themselves.

Saka has been the only player in my opinion to replicate club and international form consistently. Bellingham I’d say is right after and in my opinion they should be the primary players.

Southgate has done a terrible job of limiting and defining player roles within a system. Kane needs to just be a CF who holds position up front, this isn’t a team with Sterling and Rashford on the wings to run in behind so he messes things up dropping deeper. Get Foden the feck out of the starting 11 and play anyone that would be happy to give their all in a tactical role on the left for the shirt.

You don’t need four attacking stars to win international tournaments. Two stars and two workers with reasonable quality has always gotten the job done.
 
Nothing has changed has it with southgate for the 4th tournament now, he does not know how to grab control back in game when the momentum start shifting to the opposition, watching the Serbia game basically played out almost like the Italy game in the final except Serbia didn't have the quality to draw level
 
Kane will somehow get his goals, but I think England might look a lot better with Watkins up front. He takes up positions he does't need to, is not in the positions where he needs to be and is still very slow on the ball and not a great dribbler. England's top-scorer of all time and will be so for a very very long time, but hardly been impressed by him for the Three Lions.
 
Performance was as expected, decent for 30 mins, then sat back way too deep and too cowardly to make any positive changes.

I agree with poster a couple up - why are we experimenting with a midfield in an actual tournament?

Also, we never seem as fit as the opposition. Trippier seems to have cramped up in every game for the last 3 tournaments.

I thought Rice was good defensively but is also limited on the ball.

TAA was terrible with his back to play which exposes his limitations as a mid.

I thought Guehi made some good interceptions and had an ok game overall, however, I saw enough to know United shouldn’t go near him if we want progressive passing from the back. His use of the ball is poor.
 
Apparently, England vs. Serbia was the game with the least shots in EC history (tracked since 1980).

Has there ever been a bigger gap between the quality of the players and the coach in charge at an international side? I don't think so to be honest.
 
Fortitude said:
Mainoo pisses all over Trent in all aspects of midfield and knowing what to do and when, as well as when to be expansive and when not. Trent is clueless in the position and has no idea when and why he should release high turnover risk passes. Outside of that, he is an absolute liability in terms of positioning. In short, there's no competition or comparison between the two as midfielders.

Even if not Mainoo, Trent should be nowhere near midfield as he is learning (badly) on the job and is an obvious exploit to target and reap benefit from for the opposition. Guy tried a marseille roulette in the deep midfield, which he lost the ball from, and Serbia almost scored from to compound matters and reiterate the point that he's not a midfielder.
Click to expand...
England have been crying out for a player who can keep the ball for years. We finally have one, now they are saying he's not this and that. That's the problem with England fans and media. They want a Premier league team to play international football. That's why players like Trent and Foden are getting in the team. It simply won't work.

Mainoo should be the first player on the team sheet. Rice and Bellingham can't be dropped. Kane won't be dropped. Saka picks himself. So that leaves one place in the team. That player should be Gordon. He will give balance to this team and get the best out of everyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.