England - the future....

[BRO_BOT]

Agreed with most of that

As someone who isn’t always fond of Southgate, and some of his decisions, I do still however find the general overall reaction to him as utter bizarre. You only have to point to the difference in results prior to his appointment and through his appointment to realise how well he’s done. I’m not sure he can take us to the next level (I.e winning a tournament) however he’s done a grand job of setting the foundations. Can see this being his last major tournament and I think it may be the right time

He got extremely lucky with the draws in both tournaments

Teams are always shit once England beat them, right?

Higher-ranked teams tend to beat lower-ranked teams

2018 World Cup

England
16th - Columbia
24th - Sweden
20th - Croatia

France
05th - Argentina
14th - Uruaguay
03rd - Belguim

2020 Euros

England
15th Germany
24th Ukraine
16th Denmark
13th Italy

Italy
26th - Austria
01st - Belgium
08th - Spain
04th - England

[Sanguine]

We probably don't need to play any matches then in June. Just award the title to France.

England only played Croatia in the 2018 World Cup semi finals because Croatia topped a group that included Argentina, and because Russia beat Spain in R16. The Ukraine game at the Euros only happened because Spain couldn't top their group over Sweden. There's a real cognitive dissonance on this - it isn't 'a lucky draw' to avoid Spain at the Euros, for example, if Spain couldn't beat Sweden or Poland in the group stages, and only won one game in the tournament in 90 minutes.

[BRO_BOT]

We probably don't need to play any matches then in June. Just award the title to France.

England only played Croatia in the 2018 World Cup semi finals because Croatia topped a group that included Argentina, and because Russia beat Spain in R16. The Ukraine game at the Euros only happened because Spain couldn't top their group over Sweden. There's a real cognitive dissonance on this - it isn't 'a lucky draw' to avoid Spain at the Euros, for example, if Spain couldn't beat Sweden or Poland in the group stages, and only won one game in the tournament in 90 minutes.

Of course, there will be some variance but as stated 'higher-ranked teams TEND to beat lower-ranked teams'

England had a relatively easier route to the final than Italy. The teams' rankings haven't changed much in the 6 years since the game. Indicating that the relative strengths of the sides were reasonably well estimated

England
16th: 15th Germany
24th: 24th Ukraine
21st: 16th Denmark
09th:13th Italy

Italy
25th: 26th - Austria
04th: 01st - Belgium
08th: 08th - Spain
03rd: 04th - England

[Sanguine]

Again, you are defining 'easier' by ranking, when one of the higher ranked sides, Spain, only avoided England because they couldn't beat Sweden or Poland in the group stage. If they couldn't beat Sweden or Poland, why would they have been tougher opposition for England?

[BRO_BOT]

Again, you are defining 'easier' by ranking, when one of the higher ranked sides, Spain, only avoided England because they couldn't beat Sweden or Poland in the group stage. If they couldn't beat Sweden or Poland, why would they have been tougher opposition for England?

VARIANCE

[BRO_BOT]

Man Utd beat Liverpool last week

Who would City rather play? Your logic would be LFC

[Snowflake Royal]

Agreed with most of that

As someone who isn’t always fond of Southgate, and some of his decisions, I do still however find the general overall reaction to him as utter bizarre. You only have to point to the difference in results prior to his appointment and through his appointment to realise how well he’s done. I’m not sure he can take us to the next level (I.e winning a tournament) however he’s done a grand job of setting the foundations. Can see this being his last major tournament and I think it may be the right time

He got extremely lucky with the draws in both tournaments

Teams are always shit once England beat them, right?

Come on, you surely can't dispute that first run to the semi's was about as easy a route as you could get.

[Sutekh]

He got extremely lucky with the draws in both tournaments

Teams are always shit once England beat them, right?

Come on, you surely can't dispute that first run to the semi's was about as easy a route as you could get.

it's not GS' fault England got an easier route (we all want an easier route in finals) but it is his fault that they still managed to **** it up.

[Snowflake Royal]

Teams are always shit once England beat them, right?

Come on, you surely can't dispute that first run to the semi's was about as easy a route as you could get.

it's not GS' fault England got an easier route (we all want an easier route in finals) but it is his fault that they still managed to **** it up.

I'm not one of his critics. He's done a bang up job. Yes England lost to the first decent team that played that tournament, but he's followed it up with a Finals win over Germnay, lesser or not, made a final and another deep run.

I don’t recall the routes after that first tournament being particularly easy, and plenty of England managers have failed on easy routes, but pretending Southgate didn’t get an easy finals route at least to start with just undermines the person making the argument he's one of England's greatest managers. Which he simply is. His success certainly didn’t start out with any golden generation, and he did better than the last golden generation.

[Sutekh]

Come on, you surely can't dispute that first run to the semi's was about as easy a route as you could get.

it's not GS' fault England got an easier route (we all want an easier route in finals) but it is his fault that they still managed to **** it up.

I'm not one of his critics. He's done a bang up job. Yes England lost to the first decent team that played that tournament, but he's followed it up with a Finals win over Germnay, lesser or not, made a final and another deep run.

I don’t recall the routes after that first tournament being particularly easy, and plenty of England managers have failed on easy routes, but pretending Southgate didn’t get an easy finals route at least to start with just undermines the person making the argument he's one of England's greatest managers. Which he simply is. His success certainly didn’t start out with any golden generation, and he did better than the last golden generation.

Would agree with that, one of those who is fairly hopeless at club management but with different model that international management brings is quite superb. He just lacks that "killer" instinct when it's needed but hopefully he can find something when it matters in Germany this summer.

[Royal Rother]

it's not GS' fault England got an easier route (we all want an easier route in finals) but it is his fault that they still managed to **** it up.

I'm not one of his critics. He's done a bang up job. Yes England lost to the first decent team that played that tournament, but he's followed it up with a Finals win over Germnay, lesser or not, made a final and another deep run.

I don’t recall the routes after that first tournament being particularly easy, and plenty of England managers have failed on easy routes, but pretending Southgate didn’t get an easy finals route at least to start with just undermines the person making the argument he's one of England's greatest managers. Which he simply is. His success certainly didn’t start out with any golden generation, and he did better than the last golden generation.

Would agree with that, one of those who is fairly hopeless at club management but with different model that international management brings is quite superb. He just lacks that "killer" instinct when it's needed but hopefully he can find something when it matters in Germany this summer.

In the last few weeks you’ve called him a pillock, a numpty, over-cautious and said that England will never win anything with him in charge.

And now you call him “quite superb”!!

[BRO_BOT]

Remember that time GS made that gr8 tactical change that really changed the game in our favour?

















nah...me neither!

[Sutekh]

I'm not one of his critics. He's done a bang up job. Yes England lost to the first decent team that played that tournament, but he's followed it up with a Finals win over Germnay, lesser or not, made a final and another deep run.

I don’t recall the routes after that first tournament being particularly easy, and plenty of England managers have failed on easy routes, but pretending Southgate didn’t get an easy finals route at least to start with just undermines the person making the argument he's one of England's greatest managers. Which he simply is. His success certainly didn’t start out with any golden generation, and he did better than the last golden generation.

Would agree with that, one of those who is fairly hopeless at club management but with different model that international management brings is quite superb. He just lacks that "killer" instinct when it's needed but hopefully he can find something when it matters in Germany this summer.

In the last few weeks you’ve called him a pillock, a numpty, over-cautious and said that England will never win anything with him in charge.

And now you call him “quite superb”!!

In the context of what he has done with the players in general he is superb, but he is also a bit of a frustrating pillock as he just doesn't seem to learn and makes the same mistakes when it matters.

[bcubed]

Remember that time GS made that gr8 tactical change that really changed the game in our favour?

















nah...me neither!

Surprised there was that amount of space to think about it...

[Snowflake Royal]

With a 62% win rate, he doesn't often need to make tactical changes, because he's set thevteam up right from the start.

[bcubed]

Overall he has been brilliant in improving performance (so his overall stats are good) but for me the question is how he does under real pressure and when it really matters.

I get that he thinks our weakest area is defence so he plays more defensively and has two defensive midfielders. Amd this has been successful in qualifying and getting through tournament group stages. But when it's a case of win or go home he appears to be lacking.

If he'd made some more aggressive changes and he's spoilt for choice of attackng options, maybe we could have beaten Croatia and even more likely Italy.

[BRO_BOT]

With a 62% win rate, he doesn't often need to make tactical changes, because he's set thevteam up right from the start.

Just checked his results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_n ... am_results

Very much, beat teams you'd expect and lose the majority against anyone who can contest (with the odd good result)

It can be a little difficult to assess as there are a fair few friendlies (or dead rubbers)

[Sanguine]

He got extremely lucky with the draws in both tournaments

Teams are always shit once England beat them, right?

Come on, you surely can't dispute that first run to the semi's was about as easy a route as you could get.

England played Sweden in the QFs essentially because Germany lost to South Korea in the group stage. I don't buy the 'easy route' stuff. If you don't play someone because they've already gone out to a crap side, then on what basis would they be stiffer opposition?

I also find the 'went out to the first decent team they faced' stuff really dull. That's actually what happens to most teams in every tournament. Or teams loser to lesser sides. Take that same 2018 World Cup. Brazil beat Costa Rica, Serbia and Mexico, and then lost to Belgium. Spain won their group but only beat Iran, and then lost to Russia. Argentina beat Nigeria, drew with Iceland, and then lost to France in R16.

And separately actually, I'd say this, notionally 'weaker' draws? Bring it on. In 2010 we got a very, very good Germany in R16. 2014 we got Italy and Uruguay in our group and didn't get out of it. And then we get an apparently 'easier' draw in 2018, and some fans feel entitled enough to say that we 'should' have reached only our second World Cup final ever. Does my head in, tbh.

[URZZZZ]

Teams are always shit once England beat them, right?

Come on, you surely can't dispute that first run to the semi's was about as easy a route as you could get.

England played Sweden in the QFs essentially because Germany lost to South Korea in the group stage. I don't buy the 'easy route' stuff. If you don't play someone because they've already gone out to a crap side, then on what basis would they be stiffer opposition?

I also find the 'went out to the first decent team they faced' stuff really dull. That's actually what happens to most teams in every tournament. Or teams loser to lesser sides. Take that same 2018 World Cup. Brazil beat Costa Rica, Serbia and Mexico, and then lost to Belgium. Spain won their group but only beat Iran, and then lost to Russia. Argentina beat Nigeria, drew with Iceland, and then lost to France in R16.

And separately actually, I'd say this, notionally 'weaker' draws? Bring it on. In 2010 we got a very, very good Germany in R16. 2014 we got Italy and Uruguay in our group and didn't get out of it. And then we get an apparently 'easier' draw in 2018, and some fans feel entitled enough to say that we 'should' have reached only our second World Cup final ever. Does my head in, tbh.

Some football fans don’t like their managers taking the more pragmatic approach. They don’t live in the real world and they expect to just win regardless of the opposition, whilst playing “exciting” football. The problem with that is that unless your squad is vastly superior, it’s difficult to achieve both at all times

It’s quite a similar situation with West Ham under Moyes who have been superb in his four years in charge, yet the majority of West Ham fans want him gone because they’re bored of their style. It may be a fair argument in isolation but when people start finding excuses for their success, it sort of devalues the whole argument

Sams with Southgate really. I can understand why some may want him gone but not at the expense of appreciating what he’s done for us so far

[URZZZZ]

Overall he has been brilliant in improving performance (so his overall stats are good) but for me the question is how he does under real pressure and when it really matters.

I get that he thinks our weakest area is defence so he plays more defensively and has two defensive midfielders. Amd this has been successful in qualifying and getting through tournament group stages. But when it's a case of win or go home he appears to be lacking.

If he'd made some more aggressive changes and he's spoilt for choice of attackng options, maybe we could have beaten Croatia and even more likely Italy.

I guess it’s all moot as we didn’t but had we beaten Italy, would the performance been hailed as a “tactical masterclass” by Southgate? Over the course of that tournament, Italy were comfortably the best side and we did well to nullify them

If so, are we really judging Southgate on three attackers’ inability to score a penalty? Saka and Rashford, especially, who seem to score almost every single one at club level?