By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 19:20 - Jul 15 by gazza1
Well, I would find space in the Spain team for the players that I mentioned. I like the Spanish RB but I'd have Walker over him, I would play Rice with Rodri. Venables didn't have the squad the GS had to select, to leave Grealish, the Palace LB out was poor decisions and bring Bowen (he wont be around for the next tournament!!), the L'pool player and a couple of others were further errors.
And I am not debating that Spain were not a good side but I think we had enough to win the game if we got it right (Lost their best p[layer too at HT)....they were the best we played by a million miles which shows how many poor teams that we did not beat, i'm including the mighty Holland who were very average too.
Its your opinion and that is fine, I just think that we should have won at least one of the last 3 big tournements but we failed ever time.
[Post edited 15 Jul 19:26]
English strikers available to Terry Venables and their goal totals in the Premier League for the two seasons leading into the tournament.
Alan Shearer 65 Robbie Fowler 53 (two sub appearances) Les Ferdinand 49 (played zero minutes) Stan Collymore 36 (didn't even make the squad) Teddy Sheringham 34 Ian Wright 33 (didn't even make the squad) Andy Cole 32 (didn't make the squad) Chris Sutton 30 (didn't make the squad) Dion Dublin 27 (didn't make the squad) Matt Le Tissier 26 (didn't make the squad)
And there's a whole other clutch of Chris Armstrong, Peter Beardsley, Tony Cottee, Paul Rideout, Dean Holdsworth, Mark Bright types who got in the teens.
English attackers with more than 10 goals in the Premier League last year... Palmer 22 Foden 19 Solanke 19 Watkins 19 Bowen 16 Eze 11 ENDS.
2
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 00:50 - Jul 16 with 1394 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 00:44 - Jul 16 by rbee
Spain were the best team in the tournament, they won every game etc
I am certainly not beating up Gareth for losing the game, no way.
However I am beating him up for his team selection, tactics and for attempting to stretch the game to penalties without replacing tired players. After we scored we should have made a couple of positive subtitutions in an attempt to capitalise on our brief moment of ascendancy in the game.
Spain were the better team but it is still a game that we could have won. United beat City in the FA Cup Final.
And a couple of fractional moments away from doing so. Guéhi scores and/or Spain winner gets VARd off and you've won the game, and the tournament, with the same team selection, tactics and substitutions and Southgate's off to the palace on Monday to get his knighthood as a national hero.
It's so marginal football, particularly international football, all of this is a bit nuts really. It's nuanced.
6
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 00:58 - Jul 16 with 1364 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 00:24 - Jul 16 by SydneyRs
We've not had the technical ability to match certain nations in the past. That's the difference now. Also none of those names were good enough to be playing for the world's best club sides, which several of the current England squad are. The type of football being played in the prem in terms of tactics etc is also very different from back then.
None of those names were good enough to play for the world’s best sides?
Shearer was the most expensive footballer on the planet. Gazza played for Lazio when just about every club in the world wanted him even though he only had one leg at the time. Sheringham won a Champions League and treble with Man Utd. McManaman played for Real Madrid. Platt played for Juventus.
What absolute nonsense. A lot of the others could have playerd for almost anyone they wanted to as well. Ferdinand, Wright, Le Tissier and Fowler could have had their pick at the peak of their careers; which was around Euro 96.
The suggestion that this England squad is so much better than ones before it is so misinformed in my opinion. It’s a very decent one for sure. But to say it’s better than the mid 90s or early 00s is a stretch. I think people overrate it because of how bad our squads were in the 2010s. But they were generally the outliers for being poor rather than this one for being excellent.
[Post edited 16 Jul 6:40]
1
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 07:00 - Jul 16 with 1217 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 00:50 - Jul 16 by Northernr
And a couple of fractional moments away from doing so. Guéhi scores and/or Spain winner gets VARd off and you've won the game, and the tournament, with the same team selection, tactics and substitutions and Southgate's off to the palace on Monday to get his knighthood as a national hero.
It's so marginal football, particularly international football, all of this is a bit nuts really. It's nuanced.
Disagree,
Spain had a clear attacking plan in their play which we could all see and somehow their Manager instilled this into his team despite only having them for 30 days in a year,
England had no coherent or discernible attacking style of play and were reliant on individual brilliance or a set piece,
Why did Southgate bring Gordon and Bowen to bring width, ability to beat a man on the outside and supply Kane and not use them?
The stats back up what we could all see in that final, England like Rangers last year, set up with a rigid defensive 6, struggled to create going forward and didn't commit enough numbers in attack.
Bar for the brief impetus when Palmer came on and that late corner, Spain dominated that game and should have cantered home bar for poor finishing.
Southgate and England struggled in every game in that tournament as he's just so obviously out of his depth, not sure many elite Managers with that squad would be thinking how do I replace Kalvin Philips, now that is beyond laughable, can you just imagine what the players or Pep thought when they heard that incisive analysis.
3
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 08:55 - Jul 16 with 1142 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 00:50 - Jul 16 by Northernr
And a couple of fractional moments away from doing so. Guéhi scores and/or Spain winner gets VARd off and you've won the game, and the tournament, with the same team selection, tactics and substitutions and Southgate's off to the palace on Monday to get his knighthood as a national hero.
It's so marginal football, particularly international football, all of this is a bit nuts really. It's nuanced.
Come on: Spain outplayed England. De La Fuente set up to win, Southgate not to lose. Their team selections, tactics and substitutions reflected this: Gareth was about to bring on Gallagher and Trippier to see us through to extra time FFS.
0
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 09:05 - Jul 16 with 1104 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 08:55 - Jul 16 by Ned_Kennedys
Come on: Spain outplayed England. De La Fuente set up to win, Southgate not to lose. Their team selections, tactics and substitutions reflected this: Gareth was about to bring on Gallagher and Trippier to see us through to extra time FFS.
Yeh Spain were far, far better I agree. So I can see why you would set up that way, because if you open up there's a possibility you get destroyed. Trippier might not have been a bad idea - Walker, already all at sea for the first goal, was baggage and cost you the second, so I can see why they wanted him to come off. Likewise an extra midfielder given the ease at which they played straight through the middle of the pitch for that goal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no great Southgate acolyte. I can see what you all see as well. I was on here criticising him in the build up, the obsession with that bloody midfield spot and Kalvin Phillips and Wor Hendo and all of that.
But he got us to a final, again. We were relatively close to winning that final, against an opponent that showed through the tournament they were exceptional. I think people both over simplify the solutions (i.e. the coach is rubbish and if we'd had a different coach and attacked more we'd have won it) and completely over estimate and over hype how good we are. I also think there's a lot of blame and focused always heaped on the coach versus the players - whether you believe him or not Southgate said, not for the first time, he is not instructing them to sink back and sit deep like that, and yet they do it anyway. There's a lot of mental baggage that comes with playing for England it seems, and having Graham Potter standing in front of them instead of Gareth Southgate... I don't know, maybe it will all evaporate, but I'm not sure.
I think another thing here is... I'm just not that arsed about England or international football. It's something to do in the summer, like Wimbledon, or the golf. So I don't get as het up, invested in it, and therefore I don't really care when they get beat and charge around looking for scapegoats. Same thing as this thread happened on the LFW whatsapp group this week, me saying "is he really that bad?" and getting torn apart.
My point isn't that Southgate is a particularly good manager, or did a particularly good job in this tournament, it's just that it's a more complicated situation than good manager/bad manager. People regularly come on here and spout off about what Cifuentes or Southgate should have done and how simple it all is really, it's amazing they're not working high up in the game somewhere.
This post has been edited by an administrator
5
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 09:26 - Jul 16 with 1045 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 09:20 - Jul 16 by Northernr
Yeh Spain were far, far better I agree. So I can see why you would set up that way, because if you open up there's a possibility you get destroyed. Trippier might not have been a bad idea - Walker, already all at sea for the first goal, was baggage and cost you the second, so I can see why they wanted him to come off. Likewise an extra midfielder given the ease at which they played straight through the middle of the pitch for that goal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no great Southgate acolyte. I can see what you all see as well. I was on here criticising him in the build up, the obsession with that bloody midfield spot and Kalvin Phillips and Wor Hendo and all of that.
But he got us to a final, again. We were relatively close to winning that final, against an opponent that showed through the tournament they were exceptional. I think people both over simplify the solutions (i.e. the coach is rubbish and if we'd had a different coach and attacked more we'd have won it) and completely over estimate and over hype how good we are. I also think there's a lot of blame and focused always heaped on the coach versus the players - whether you believe him or not Southgate said, not for the first time, he is not instructing them to sink back and sit deep like that, and yet they do it anyway. There's a lot of mental baggage that comes with playing for England it seems, and having Graham Potter standing in front of them instead of Gareth Southgate... I don't know, maybe it will all evaporate, but I'm not sure.
I think another thing here is... I'm just not that arsed about England or international football. It's something to do in the summer, like Wimbledon, or the golf. So I don't get as het up, invested in it, and therefore I don't really care when they get beat and charge around looking for scapegoats. Same thing as this thread happened on the LFW whatsapp group this week, me saying "is he really that bad?" and getting torn apart.
My point isn't that Southgate is a particularly good manager, or did a particularly good job in this tournament, it's just that it's a more complicated situation than good manager/bad manager. People regularly come on here and spout off about what Cifuentes or Southgate should have done and how simple it all is really, it's amazing they're not working high up in the game somewhere.
This post has been edited by an administrator
Like you say it's all fine margins.
Other than their two goals Spain created at least four other very good chances, two of which Pickford saved and the other two went wide when they should have hit the target.
Had England lost 2-0 or 3-0 I think people would accept the better team won. Which is still the case - expect we got that equaliser which got everyone's hopes up because they thought we've done this before and now we'll just go and get the winner. But it was Spain who found a way instead.
I mean at that point I did think Walker was going to go with the long throw and Bellingham do his thing again
But when the Walker did throw it long and Bellingham was gifted that space it was somehow down to Southgate's tactical nous,
I can't recall England putting together one coherent attacking move like the one for Spain's 2nd goal and that's down to an overly cautious Manager playing with a rigid defensive 6, just like Chair last season, how many times did Saka have an outside runner,
In a squad with Stones, Rice, Bellingham and Mainoo, to say you missed Kalvin Phillips to transition the ball out of defence should be Southgate's epitaph.
1
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 09:31 - Jul 16 with 1036 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 09:20 - Jul 16 by Northernr
Yeh Spain were far, far better I agree. So I can see why you would set up that way, because if you open up there's a possibility you get destroyed. Trippier might not have been a bad idea - Walker, already all at sea for the first goal, was baggage and cost you the second, so I can see why they wanted him to come off. Likewise an extra midfielder given the ease at which they played straight through the middle of the pitch for that goal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no great Southgate acolyte. I can see what you all see as well. I was on here criticising him in the build up, the obsession with that bloody midfield spot and Kalvin Phillips and Wor Hendo and all of that.
But he got us to a final, again. We were relatively close to winning that final, against an opponent that showed through the tournament they were exceptional. I think people both over simplify the solutions (i.e. the coach is rubbish and if we'd had a different coach and attacked more we'd have won it) and completely over estimate and over hype how good we are. I also think there's a lot of blame and focused always heaped on the coach versus the players - whether you believe him or not Southgate said, not for the first time, he is not instructing them to sink back and sit deep like that, and yet they do it anyway. There's a lot of mental baggage that comes with playing for England it seems, and having Graham Potter standing in front of them instead of Gareth Southgate... I don't know, maybe it will all evaporate, but I'm not sure.
I think another thing here is... I'm just not that arsed about England or international football. It's something to do in the summer, like Wimbledon, or the golf. So I don't get as het up, invested in it, and therefore I don't really care when they get beat and charge around looking for scapegoats. Same thing as this thread happened on the LFW whatsapp group this week, me saying "is he really that bad?" and getting torn apart.
My point isn't that Southgate is a particularly good manager, or did a particularly good job in this tournament, it's just that it's a more complicated situation than good manager/bad manager. People regularly come on here and spout off about what Cifuentes or Southgate should have done and how simple it all is really, it's amazing they're not working high up in the game somewhere.
This post has been edited by an administrator
A lot of our players are good enough to be in some of the strongest club sides in the world, so I do believe they are more than good enough to win tournaments. So good in fact that despite playing pretty poorly for most of the tournament they still made the final anyway. That says something.
I'm also not sure Potter is the answer though. We should try something different, but probably won't.
What there's no excuse for is hanging on against Serbia, failing to score against Slovenia and almost losing to Slovakia without being able to dominate any of those games. Also going into a tournament still in experimental mode is unforgiveable.
I like Southgate, he's a brilliant guy and has achieved a lot. But the modern game is dominated by complex tactics, ability to change shape and adapt during games etc. He'll never be good at that.
1
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 09:56 - Jul 16 with 976 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 00:48 - Jul 16 by Northernr
English strikers available to Terry Venables and their goal totals in the Premier League for the two seasons leading into the tournament.
Alan Shearer 65 Robbie Fowler 53 (two sub appearances) Les Ferdinand 49 (played zero minutes) Stan Collymore 36 (didn't even make the squad) Teddy Sheringham 34 Ian Wright 33 (didn't even make the squad) Andy Cole 32 (didn't make the squad) Chris Sutton 30 (didn't make the squad) Dion Dublin 27 (didn't make the squad) Matt Le Tissier 26 (didn't make the squad)
And there's a whole other clutch of Chris Armstrong, Peter Beardsley, Tony Cottee, Paul Rideout, Dean Holdsworth, Mark Bright types who got in the teens.
English attackers with more than 10 goals in the Premier League last year... Palmer 22 Foden 19 Solanke 19 Watkins 19 Bowen 16 Eze 11 ENDS.
Not sure what your point is but we are 'tight' up front for top strikers but we have a raft of attacking players that can and have scored goals....
What I can say is:
How can GS go to a tournament without a fit and ready to go left footed LB and play a RB at LB is poor when he had other options - why would you do that??, to leave Grealish out of the squad and take Bowen (who isn't even young and will not be in other England squad in tournament finals) - bad, bad decision, you can add Gomez and Konza as not good selections too.
The matches in the group games, lets be honest, were or should have been pretty simple 3 wins but because of GS tactics & team selections (playing not too good and only made one or two changes from game to game which were not good either, Connor Gallagher and leave far better players on the bench - took him off at HT!!!) change and substitutions we only scrapped one win. It wasn't much different in the last 16 match against the Slovakia and just made it, the Swiss (same - made one change to the line up!!), played against Holland (very average indeed) and scrapped home, same old stuff from GS throughout. Then the final, made the right decision to start Shaw but that was it - lets be honest we played very average and GS made 1 maybe 2 changes to the starting line up in all the matches. He 'bangs on' about picking players in form - really!!!!
Onto the final, Spain were probably better than us but by not much if we were positive. I could go on about the final but we played better but generally it was much of the same. But they were beatable if we dug in and got at them - we didn't.
IMHO, GS had enough to win the tournament, he was so, so lucky with his way through the competition - only played one very decent team, all the others were very average indeed but we got 2 wins!!! There are lots more I could rant on about like winning games and resting players giving the other players game time and experience but we could not do that because we were never in a winning position to do it and take the chance.
That's it, no more about GS but I will be glad when he gets booted. I have not got a clue who I want to replace him.
[Post edited 16 Jul 10:25]
0
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 10:26 - Jul 16 with 922 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 18:25 - Jul 15 by gazza1
I do not necessarily agree that we would not have got some of our boys (4/5) in the Spain team but if you are right (and you are not) it was even more important to have a Manager that good and not an average, very average, like GS.
I would suggest that no Premier club would or will take GS as their Manager when he gets replaced, that tells a story.
One of the things that impressed me most about Spain is that the manager selected players from less fashionable teams such as Real Sociedad and Athletic Bilbao, who've had a fantastic La Liga season. With Southgate you felt he has his starting 11 and he's not going to change that even if someone like Palmer or Watkins is banging the door down. If you've got a squad of 26 you need to be more flexible and drop players if that's the right thing to do. That match where Bellingham's number incorrectly came up and he was straight up refusing to come off said a lot. Spain lost Rodri at half-time and brought on Zubimendi, yet got better in the second half.
2
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 10:41 - Jul 16 with 894 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 00:48 - Jul 16 by Northernr
English strikers available to Terry Venables and their goal totals in the Premier League for the two seasons leading into the tournament.
Alan Shearer 65 Robbie Fowler 53 (two sub appearances) Les Ferdinand 49 (played zero minutes) Stan Collymore 36 (didn't even make the squad) Teddy Sheringham 34 Ian Wright 33 (didn't even make the squad) Andy Cole 32 (didn't make the squad) Chris Sutton 30 (didn't make the squad) Dion Dublin 27 (didn't make the squad) Matt Le Tissier 26 (didn't make the squad)
And there's a whole other clutch of Chris Armstrong, Peter Beardsley, Tony Cottee, Paul Rideout, Dean Holdsworth, Mark Bright types who got in the teens.
English attackers with more than 10 goals in the Premier League last year... Palmer 22 Foden 19 Solanke 19 Watkins 19 Bowen 16 Eze 11 ENDS.
What I take from that list is the shortage of strikers now compared to circa '94.
When the PL was formed in '92 one of the things said was how it would benefit the national team yet here we are with 16 English attackers then vs 6 now.
0
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 10:49 - Jul 16 with 859 views
I have listened to many pundits analysing the final and tournament ending with Lineker's Pod last night. The vast majority think we rode our luck to the final and are disappointed with our overall defensive approach.
Many said, as did several of us posters on here, that Spain should have been out of sight before Palmer scored but they weren't. Almost all were incredulous that we sat back again after scoring doing little positive to win the game. It is all fine margins and all that but we did nothing to tip the scales in our favour.
Something was wrong with Harry Kane and Jude Bellingham and bearing that in mind England's Sports Science team had a very poor tournament. Little was done to manage our players throughout the tournament. Southgate missed a chance to rest players and experiment during the last group game against Slovenia but both Harry and Jude played the full ninety minutes as we stumbled to a 0-0 draw. Crazy.
1
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 10:58 - Jul 16 with 828 views
One thing I do find curious is the whole Southgate reign was born out of the blueprint set by Dan Ashworth when he was at the FA - since Brighton, Newcastle and now going to Man Utd it seems.
They basically wrote down everything they wanted England to be, and within that blueprint was this line... "England teams aim to intelligently dominate possession selecting the right moments to progress the play and penetrate the opposition. England teams aim to regain possession intelligently and as early and as efficiently as possible."
You could see that early in Southgate's reign but we do seem to have gone away from it towards being one of those team that's happy to only have 30-40% of the ball, sit deep, absorb pressure, be very defensive - like a budget Mourinho tribute act.
I'd love to know why they've done that, was it deliberate, what drove them to change? Players? Opposition? Over caution? Or, as Southgate seems to intimate, it's the players that do it subconsciously, and he doesn't want them to do that.
0
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 11:03 - Jul 16 with 794 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 10:58 - Jul 16 by Northernr
One thing I do find curious is the whole Southgate reign was born out of the blueprint set by Dan Ashworth when he was at the FA - since Brighton, Newcastle and now going to Man Utd it seems.
They basically wrote down everything they wanted England to be, and within that blueprint was this line... "England teams aim to intelligently dominate possession selecting the right moments to progress the play and penetrate the opposition. England teams aim to regain possession intelligently and as early and as efficiently as possible."
You could see that early in Southgate's reign but we do seem to have gone away from it towards being one of those team that's happy to only have 30-40% of the ball, sit deep, absorb pressure, be very defensive - like a budget Mourinho tribute act.
I'd love to know why they've done that, was it deliberate, what drove them to change? Players? Opposition? Over caution? Or, as Southgate seems to intimate, it's the players that do it subconsciously, and he doesn't want them to do that.
I think we dominated possession heavily against all sides except Denmark and Spain didn’t we?
The two best teams we faced so probably makes your point.
0
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 11:07 - Jul 16 with 749 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 10:58 - Jul 16 by Northernr
One thing I do find curious is the whole Southgate reign was born out of the blueprint set by Dan Ashworth when he was at the FA - since Brighton, Newcastle and now going to Man Utd it seems.
They basically wrote down everything they wanted England to be, and within that blueprint was this line... "England teams aim to intelligently dominate possession selecting the right moments to progress the play and penetrate the opposition. England teams aim to regain possession intelligently and as early and as efficiently as possible."
You could see that early in Southgate's reign but we do seem to have gone away from it towards being one of those team that's happy to only have 30-40% of the ball, sit deep, absorb pressure, be very defensive - like a budget Mourinho tribute act.
I'd love to know why they've done that, was it deliberate, what drove them to change? Players? Opposition? Over caution? Or, as Southgate seems to intimate, it's the players that do it subconsciously, and he doesn't want them to do that.
apart from the final we had more possession in this tournament than Spain
0
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 11:10 - Jul 16 with 725 views
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 07:00 - Jul 16 by ParkRoyalR
Disagree,
Spain had a clear attacking plan in their play which we could all see and somehow their Manager instilled this into his team despite only having them for 30 days in a year,
England had no coherent or discernible attacking style of play and were reliant on individual brilliance or a set piece,
Why did Southgate bring Gordon and Bowen to bring width, ability to beat a man on the outside and supply Kane and not use them?
The stats back up what we could all see in that final, England like Rangers last year, set up with a rigid defensive 6, struggled to create going forward and didn't commit enough numbers in attack.
Bar for the brief impetus when Palmer came on and that late corner, Spain dominated that game and should have cantered home bar for poor finishing.
Southgate and England struggled in every game in that tournament as he's just so obviously out of his depth, not sure many elite Managers with that squad would be thinking how do I replace Kalvin Philips, now that is beyond laughable, can you just imagine what the players or Pep thought when they heard that incisive analysis.
And yet despite him being so dreadful, out of his depth, and having no plan he was a penalty kick away from winning it 3 years ago and lost this one to a late goal before his team came very close to equalising.
Good luck to the next fella meeting your expectations.
1
Did Southgate's tactics cost England? on 11:14 - Jul 16 with 1711 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
