The England Team - all the news, views…

[Forever Blue]

1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

Since their 1970s World Cup heyday, the Dutch have reached one final; a third place; a fourth place, and 2 quarter-finals.

Since winning the Euros in 1988, they've appeared in 3 semi-finals including last night and 2 quarter-finals.

Compare and contrast to our dismal record. 

Football didn't start with the advent of the Premier League and the past is relevant. The Dutch are a great and successful footballing nation.

"Youth" is wasted on the young - especially callow youth.  

 

Which just goes to prove what an exceptional job Gareth has done in comparison to his predecessors.

[jim mk2]

Just now, Forever Blue said:

Which just goes to prove what an exceptional job Gareth has done in comparison to his predecessors.

 

Can't argue with that. Now he has to win one

[Exiled_Rover]

2 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

The ref would have got pilloried in our press if the pen had been at the other end. All the old stories about the ref being bent would plastered on every front page.

It's a stonewall pen.

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

This arose because you were dissing the Dutch and their achievements (because they weren't in your lifetime) when they are clearly a significant football nation with a long history of success in tournament football. At 37 you ought to have known better. 

I wasn't 'dissing' anything. I was responding to your original comment that their international record was 'far superior' to England's. A statement that certainly isn't true over the last 40 years, but is even questionable over the last 100. 

The only reason you might think it, which is sort of my point, is because you were probably around the perfect age to really enjoy a great Dutch side of the 1970s. So, it's possible that my 'youth' might actually be providing me with more perspective.

I won't even get started on your thoughts on the penalty from last night; however, it is true that it wouldn't have been given as a penalty in 1974.

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

It's a stonewall pen.

Yep, anyone who thinks otherwise has not been watching enough football over the past 5 years.

I could find a similar example being given across major leagues in Europe every weekend.

[Exiled_Rover]

7 hours ago, DE. said:

Think I saw on the BBC that Kane is joint top scorer with 3 goals and could get the golden boot if he gets a goal on Sunday. 

Probably says more about the tournament than Kane, but still, would be pretty funny if Kane walked away with the golden boot despite everything. 

I hope he scores a hat trick and shuts us all up in the final - but he has been disgracefully bad this tournament. An absolute passenger that has stifled out attack.

Edited July 11 by Exiled_Rover

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

I hope he scores a hat trick and shuts us all up in the final - but he has been disgraceful bad this tournament. An absolute passenger that has stifled out attack.

I think 'disgraceful' is an incredibly strong way to describe it.

He's been a long way off his best, but he still contributes to the side in terms of the work he puts in defensively.

I found it interesting that there were glowing remarks surrounding Morata's effort for Spain against France. It was a performance that almost perfectly resembled what Kane does for England. Often isolated up front, but does wonderful work tracking back, contributing defensively, and dropping into midfield. That effort comes at a cost and often means he's not in the areas of the pitch that you want him to be, but it's still useful effort.

He's also not been helped by quality service in most matches. Even in the Switzerland match, where some examples were highlighted of him not gambling on a couple of balls Saka put across the face of goal, you can actually argue that he had dropped into excellent space around the penalty area but Saka failed to get his head up and instead blindly hit a ball into a 'good' area. 

[speeeeeeedie]

4 hours ago, frosty said:

Germany in the quarters, France in the semis. 

I completely forgot about that one.  

[jim mk2]

10 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I wasn't 'dissing' anything. I was responding to your original comment that their international record was 'far superior' to England's. A statement that certainly isn't true over the last 40 years, but is even questionable over the last 100. 

The only reason you might think it, which is sort of my point, is because you were probably around the perfect age to really enjoy a great Dutch side of the 1970s. So, it's possible that my 'youth' might actually be providing me with more perspective.

I won't even get started on your thoughts on the penalty from last night; however, it is true that it wouldn't have been given as a penalty in 1974.

 

Overall,  the Dutch record is superior to ours. The reason you appear to be confused is because your football knowledge unfortunately is limited to your lifetime - as you acknowledged.  

If you can be bothered to look there's a whole swathe of experts and analysts who say the penalty should not have been given, even in this era of virtually contactless football.

[roverandout]

1 minute ago, jim mk2 said:

 

Overall,  the Dutch record is superior to ours. The reason you appear to be confused is because your football knowledge unfortunately is limited to your lifetime - as you acknowledged.  

If you can be bothered to look there's a whole swathe of experts and analysts who say the penalty should not have been given, even in this era of virtually contactless football.

How can it be superior? U said since euro 88. We've played 2 finals and 3 semi finals.  That's better than the dutch

[roverandout]

I think this is a fair assessment 

[M_B]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

No one is in either side of the draw until  after the group games.

The group games are on either side of the draw, that is the draw. 

Subsequent matches depend on the results of those group games, the path is pre determined. The group games are on either side of the draw,all wall charts are the same, ie in 2 halves. 

Edited July 11 by M_B

[speeeeeeedie]

3 hours ago, joey_big_nose said:

Crikey, theyve won every game (never been done before) and solidly beat Crotia, Italy, Germany and France on the way. In comparison we've struggled through all games until last night ,and while we deserved to win against the Dutch they were in all honesty not very good compared to Germany, France etc.

Spain are a great side. We've always got a chance, but lets not delude ourselves that we have nothing to fear!

They aren't great. Rodri, Ruiz, and the 2 wide men are very good, but the team is average compared to Spain teams I've watched over the last 15+ years. I'd also rather have England's squad than theirs. Cucurella? Morata? Carvajal was banned against France so they had to stick 38 year old Jesus Navas there. Their subs aren't much to write home about either. Merino's mis timed header against Germany included.

Last night was England's best performance. England are also familiar with their players and how they play so no surprises. They should be confident, something that Southgate has given them plenty of. I think that the drink throwing after Slovenia gave Southgate some pause, and also ammo to build upon.

I'll go with the same team for the final as last night. Trippier to start again - he was good last night - but his constant turning onto his right foot negates any chance of overlaps on the left, so Shaw will come on at half time again. 

[jim mk2]

1 minute ago, islander200 said:

Nixon saying we in for Sean McLaughlin from Hull city trying to raise the £500k to sign him 

England don't pay for players IIRC

[bluebruce]

6 hours ago, M_B said:

You're getting muddled, the original "draw" had us and France on the same side, we were scheduled to meet in the semis if both had proceeded as expected. 

 

I'm not getting muddled at all. The 'original' draw is irrelevant. We didn't both proceed as expected, got lucky and once knockouts began had no chance of facing them until the finals.

[joey_big_nose]

59 minutes ago, roverandout said:

I think this is a fair assessment 

I'd defo have Morata over Kane... part of what makes Spain so good is that he keeps running all game stretching defences, he's been absolutely relentless. Bellingham has been mediocre for England, no way he gets in, Olmo or Pedri defo ahead of him. Saka vs Williams is a very close call, nothing in it. Agree on Walker. Don't think there is much between the rest of the back four and keeper on either side.

[Mike E]

3 hours ago, riverholmes said:

I don’t know who’s the best but you can’t judge Southgate without acknowledging the dramatic transformation in English club football inspired, particularly, by Spanish influence.

The biggest difficulty for Gerrard, Lampard and Co. was not, I feel, cliques or substandard management (though, real) but that English football was long ball based. 

For whatever reason, international football is possession based and England couldn’t compete. Maybe, an analogy would be a grass court tennis player specialist trying to compete on clay or vice versa? 
 

Club styles have changed and English players have basically caught up (near enough) with rivals. It was very rare that England youth teams would ever win anything. They were so behind the technical level of teams. Now England, as far as I know, are more successful at youth level. Southgate has benefited greatly from this skill and mentality evolution from club level.

Worth noting that Southgate was instrumental in this around a decade ago.

[wilsdenrover]

53 minutes ago, M_B said:

The group games are on either side of the draw, that is the draw. 

Subsequent matches depend on the results of those group games, the path is pre determined. The group games are on either side of the draw,all wall charts are the same, ie in 2 halves. 

Nope…

[roverandout]

11 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

I'd defo have Morata over Kane... part of what makes Spain so good is that he keeps running all game stretching defences, he's been absolutely relentless. Bellingham has been mediocre for England, no way he gets in, Olmo or Pedri defo ahead of him. Saka vs Williams is a very close call, nothing in it. Agree on Walker. Don't think there is much between the rest of the back four and keeper on either side.

Can't say Bellingham has been mediocre unless u mean just this tournament 

[bluebruce]

1 minute ago, roverandout said:

Can't say Bellingham has been mediocre unless u mean just this tournament 

That late overhead kick didn't feel mediocre. 

[riverholmes]

50 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Worth noting that Southgate was instrumental in this around a decade ago.

Maybe, to an extent, at U21 level but really the transformation, as far as I can tell, it is much more fundamental. There's long been a desire to make the English game more possession based and technical, so I'm sure credit goes to others too. But, at the surface level, it looks like Guardiola's City has had the most influence simply by dominating with a completely new style and approach. Maybe, there's an element of several factors coming together.

It seems many have forgotten, but the England teams of Ferdinand, Beckham, Gerrard and Owen could not play even the dullard and negative possession football this England team have played most of the Euros. They had the technical ability to pass sideways and backwards endlessly but it simply was not in their cultural DNA.

The game has transformed so much that the "genius" Jude Bellingham can be considered to have had a fair game, the other day, when literally all he did was stand and pass the ball back or sideways, and mis-control every difficult ball. He was a non-entity on the ball except in basic, ball retention but that is a net positive in this type of football. (To be fair, he also did the running and has a charisma which seems to help the team).

Edited July 11 by riverholmes

[M_B]

56 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I'm not getting muddled at all. The 'original' draw is irrelevant. We didn't both proceed as expected, got lucky and once knockouts began had no chance of facing them until the finals.

How is not proceeding as expected lucky on England? 

The draw had us in the same half, France messed up, England didn't. The path is pre determined, it's the results which place teams in each relevant fixture. 

Nothing to do with luck,they weren't pulled out of a hat, you're getting luck confused with the consequence of losing games. 

[M_B]

50 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Nope…

Thanks, the path is pre determined. 

[speeeeeeedie]

13 minutes ago, riverholmes said:

Maybe, to an extent, at U21 level but really the transformation, as far as I can tell, it is much more fundamental. There's long been a desire to make the English game more possession based and technical, so I'm sure credit goes to others too. But, at the surface level, it looks like Guardiola's City has had the most influence simply by dominating with a completely new style and approach. Maybe, there's an element of several factors coming together.

It seems many have forgotten, but the England teams of Ferdinand, Beckham, Gerrard and Owen could not play even the dullard and negative possession football this England team have played most of the Euros. They had the technical ability to pass sideways and backwards endlessly but it simply was not in their cultural DNA.

The game has transformed so much that the "genius" Jude Bellingham can be considered to have had a fair game, the other day, when literally all he did was stand and pass the ball back or sideways, and mis-control every difficult ball. He was a non-entity on the ball except in basic, ball retention but that is a net positive in this type of football. (To be fair, he also did the running and has a charisma which seems to help the team).

This post and your earlier one bring up some good points, that have been discussed earlier on. 

I don't know whether Guardiola taking over Barcelona was the catalyst or the game was moving toward it anyway but football is now somewhat homogensied. Back in the day every country had a distinct way of playing, and England's fast paced get the ball forward quickly style got found out regularly. After one failed competition (early 2000's I think) the FA did a review and came out with a summary that international football is closest to how Portugal play, so they started down that road. Shortly thereafter Southgate got the FA technical job and started implementing it. 

This also coincided with club academies treating young players as professionals rather than discount labour, and local authorities building 3G pitches giving kids more opportunities to play.

As a young kid I grew up playing on all sorts of sloped, windswept, boggy pitches. It wasn't conducive to silky football at all. 

As to Bellingham, mentality aside, one thing that makes him special is that he's 6'2" and weighs about 14 stone yet can glide past players with ease. 

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, M_B said:

How is not proceeding as expected lucky on England? 

The draw had us in the same half, France messed up, England didn't. The path is pre determined, it's the results which place teams in each relevant fixture. 

Nothing to do with luck,they weren't pulled out of a hat, you're getting luck confused with the consequence of losing games. 

What are you talking about? France didn't proceed as expected, so we didn't have to play them. As we weren't in control of that beyond winning our mediocre group, how is that not lucky?

I'm not the one getting things confused here. Reality matters, not potential permutations that didn't happen, of which there are a great many. Feels like you're just stubbornly sticking to what you've said rather than accept what is really very basic and obvious logic.