England vs Germany

[FatCanary 249]

4 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I do think most posters on here who are being cast as the moaners (myself included) have been fairly reasonable. Its not the extreme you paint it as. Its obviously a balance between attacking and defending, and I don't think anyone on here is advocating for us to be playing gung-ho kamazee you-score-3-we-score-4 type tactics. 

I'm very happy with the result last night and ultimately pleased with the performance too, but maintain I am a bit disappointed with how we approached the group games overall when we had plenty of opportunity to freely take some risks going forwards without fear.

So yes of course we can be pragmatic, I don't think anyone is upset about that, I just don't think it needs to be taken to the extreme of refusing to attack the Czech Republic for 45 minutes because we are already 1-0 up. Similarly it doesn't need to mean giving Scotland far more credit than they deserve and effectively handing them the initiative and making them look much better than they are.

But against Germany last night to get a 2-0 win and knock them out of a major tournament for the first time since '66? Then bloody great! 

This would all be fair if it was aimed at you personally, but it wasn't, so I'm confused.. your POV is clearly fairly balanced.

I also think England were shocking in the group, and didn't believe at all that this would work until I saw Trippier and Walker lining up on our right to stop Gosens.

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by FatCanary

[king canary 7,580]

14 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I do think most posters on here who are being cast as the moaners (myself included) have been fairly reasonable. Its not the extreme you paint it as. Its obviously a balance between attacking and defending, and I don't think anyone on here is advocating for us to be playing gung-ho kamazee you-score-3-we-score-4 type tactics. 

I'm very happy with the result last night and ultimately pleased with the performance too, but maintain I am a bit disappointed with how we approached the group games overall when we had plenty of opportunity to freely take some risks going forwards without fear.

So yes of course we can be pragmatic, I don't think anyone is upset about that, I just don't think it needs to be taken to the extreme of refusing to attack the Czech Republic for 45 minutes because we are already 1-0 up. Similarly it doesn't need to mean giving Scotland far more credit than they deserve and effectively handing them the initiative and making them look much better than they are.

But against Germany last night to get a 2-0 win and knock them out of a major tournament for the first time since '66? Then bloody great! 

I'm all for a bit of tactical discussion and breaking a game down. I think what got my goat yesterday was the fact people were moaning literally while we were seeing out the final minutes of the game. Surely wait a couple of hours at least?

[sgncfc 1,221]

19 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Not sure I agree re 2018. We were marginal favourites with the bookies and I reckon if you were picking a starting 11 out of the two who lined up in England v Croatia in 2018, you'd probably get more England players than Croatia. Don't get me wrong, Croatia of 2018 was much, much better than what we beat the other day.

It's difficult to match players like for like because the formations were so different, but as best I can I'd say;

Pickford > Subasic

Trippier > Vrsaljko

Stones > Lovren

Maguire > Vida

Walker > Strinic

Henderson < Brozovic

Lingard < Modric

Young < Rakitic

Alli (2018 version) = Rebic

Sterling > Perisic

Kane > Mandzukic

 

Even if I put Rebic above Dele Alli then it's still 7 England players to 4 Croatian. I guess the issue was their centre midfield was so, so, so superior to ours (I mean come on, Henderson/Lingard/Young v Brozovic/Modric/Rakitic is a major mismatch) that we couldn't take advantage of our strengths elsewhere on the pitch. But we had the players to beat Croatia in 2018.

I hope you're right about tonight, as Southgate only really seems to get wins against teams we are much better than. As soon as we're up against teams that we are only a little bit better than (or slightly worse than), we lose. I fear we are only a little bit better than Germany on paper, so will lose.

These things are always kind of subjective, but you can't seriously rate Sterling higher than Perisic, Maguire higher than Vida or even Kane higher than Mandzukic in 2018! Take the tinted glasses off. You're right about their midfield being massively superior, but their attack was also better and their defence similar. We were bookies favourites only because more money was placed on England, and you could make the point that England were athletically superior - but in terms of who were the better football players I think most commentators agreed that in Modric, Rakitic and Perisic they had by far the three best players at the time.

As for last night, the result bore out that we have better players at the moment - once Southgate brought on Grealish anyway - as borne out by Pickford's saves and Mullers miss, in particular. Tactically we were going nowhere until we doubled up on the left. Even so, it's all about the moment - 3 years ago, Muller doesn't miss that chance and Neuer probably does better on both goals rather than being rooted to the spot.

[FatCanary 249]

5 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

These things are always kind of subjective, but you can't seriously rate Sterling higher than Perisic, Maguire higher than Vida or even Kane higher than Mandzukic in 2018! Take the tinted glasses off. You're right about their midfield being massively superior, but their attack was also better and their defence similar. We were bookies favourites only because more money was placed on England, and you could make the point that England were athletically superior - but in terms of who were the better football players I think most commentators agreed that in Modric, Rakitic and Perisic they had by far the three best players at the time.

As for last night, the result bore out that we have better players at the moment - once Southgate brought on Grealish anyway - as borne out by Pickford's saves and Mullers miss, in particular. Tactically we were going nowhere until we doubled up on the left. Even so, it's all about the moment - 3 years ago, Muller doesn't miss that chance and Neuer probably does better on both goals rather than being rooted to the spot.

This is a key point. In my view, Southgate made the right change to win the game. Deserves even more plaudits for that, and I was no Southgate fan prior to this tournament (or in the group stages, in fact), but he got everything right against Germany, we neutralised their threats but for individual error he couldn't mitigate, and went on to make the change that won the game.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

32 minutes ago, FatCanary said:

This would all be fair if it was aimed at you personally, but it wasn't, so I'm confused.. your POV is clearly fairly balanced.

I also think England were shocking in the group, and didn't believe at all that this would work until I saw Trippier and Walker lining up on our right to stop Gosens.

 

Fair enough, I’ve been a bit on the miserable side on this thread so hard to tell what’s aimed at me or not - my apologies to you fatty. 😆

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

30 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm all for a bit of tactical discussion and breaking a game down. I think what got my goat yesterday was the fact people were moaning literally while we were seeing out the final minutes of the game. Surely wait a couple of hours at least?

Yeah, that’s totally fair, not much point even trying to discuss with those people though! 

[FatCanary 249]

1 minute ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Fair enough, I’ve been a bit on the miserable side on this thread so hard to tell what’s aimed at me or not - my apologies to you fatty. 😆

I think I got my petty snipes out of the way on here early. Possibly I even constructed a post having a go at people who don't exist 😛

Either way, it was a triumphant night for England on a night where they had the better players and should have won anyway.

Well done to all, but the acid test against the likes of Italy or Belgium will await IF we do not let complacency in in the next two matches- whoever we play in those, we have the talent to win and win well.

[king canary 7,580]

30 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

but you can't seriously rate Sterling higher than Perisic, Maguire higher than Vida or even Kane higher than Mandzukic in 2018!

I know this isn't the be all and end all but in 17/18 Perisic scored 11 goals and got 9 assists. Sterling got 22 goals and 11 assists. So I don't think its particularly wild to rate Sterling higher at that point. Equally Kane scored 37 goals in that season, Mandzukic scored 9! 

 

[Indy 3,283]

3 hours ago, kirku said:

Sterling has been excellent all tournament while Kane has been anonymous at best for a vast majority of it.

Having Grealish start over Sterling on the basis that an ineffective Kane might score more doesn't seem particularly persuasive

Should have added, that Grealish for Sterling was a like for like swap in position, as others pointed out might be an option to drop Kane and push Sterling more central.

I’m no Grealish fan for his theatrical manner but he’s definitely a talent which when he came on charged our threat considerably.

[sonyc 5,492]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

People will argue 'easier draws' in Southgates favour etc - but the reality is since he's come in he's revitalised the national team, integrated a huge amount of younger players - more so than any other England manager in my lifetime - managed to get the whole country (besides a few unusual individuals, see this forum for examples) behind the team during the last World Cup which was a big task - even managing to get majority of media on side which is massive.

No team play's gung-ho football in a european or international tournament and wins it anymore - managers are too clever, tactics are too advanced and it's shown by the amount of top nations already out.

I don't think Southgate is a fantastic manager in 'general' terms, but I do think he's a perfect fit for England.

👍 ...he has demonstrated a good tactical understanding of opponents so far.

Nice trending picture today. He could not have believed that 25 years ago he would go on to be England manager and that many  current players hadn't even been born then!

 

[AJ 1,218]

5 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Is it worth it though?  I've enjoyed several really great games this tournament with both teams really going at it, then you come to what is supposed to be your team and you know they are going to look laboured and  not looking as if they can move - and it's not just a one off, it's every match. Lots of teams have had that great up and at them approach, high energy and maybe just lacked that final bit of quality in the box to finish teams off, but at least looking as if they were up for it.

A win is a win, so yes it is. Agree we could play better football than we did but you can't argue with the end result

[Blurboy1980 36]

17 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Why do I get a feeling this image will be the front page of tommorows Sun/Mail/Express?

 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Unless it's Norwich, it has to entertain me or I'm not interested.   

Lakey ...For someone that isn’t interested you don’t half spend some time banging on about it 😂

[kirku 1,332]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

Should have added, that Grealish for Sterling was a like for like swap in position, as others pointed out might be an option to drop Kane and push Sterling more central.

I’m no Grealish fan for his theatrical manner but he’s definitely a talent which when he came on charged our threat considerably.

Yes, agree on both.

I wondered whether Sterling central and Foden/Sancho to go along with Saka would've had a similar impact, and then get Grealish on when the game opens up a bit more.

Hard to drop your captain, though - even with the very average level of performances thus far.

[kirku 1,332]

2 hours ago, sgncfc said:

These things are always kind of subjective, but you can't seriously rate Sterling higher than Perisic, Maguire higher than Vida or even Kane higher than Mandzukic in 2018! Take the tinted glasses off.

Huh? Maguire and Kane were significantly better than Vida and Mandzukic.

I think CD called it right - the midfield was such a huge mismatch and was the primary reason for the defeat

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

What brasses me off is that you are labelled a moaner for wanting a different lineup or tactic.

It is not moaning. It is how people want their national side to play and identify. For others its as important as club football, but for many its just a bonus.

I went to golf this morning and before we teed off, eight of us were having a coffee and only one said England played well. Most thought we were OK but wanted to see more risks taken to entertain as well as win. And to a man all thought five at the back would mean we would play two up top but we didn't. In fact, we mirrored Germany.

Those of you who want us to win at all costs are welcome to your views. But don't call people moaners because they would rather see Mount than Rice or Grealish instead of Saka. 

[kirku 1,332]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

And to a man all thought five at the back would mean we would play two up top but we didn't. In fact, we mirrored Germany.

Those of you who want us to win at all costs are welcome to your views. But don't call people moaners because they would rather see Mount than Rice or Grealish instead of Saka. 

And what impact do you think playing two up top would've had on the game (which, to my knowledge, England have never played under Southgate)? Or, compounding matters, having an attacking midfielder in place of a defensive screen?

 

[king canary 7,580]

8 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

What brasses me off is that you are labelled a moaner for wanting a different lineup or tactic.

I've not seen anyone branded a moaner for suggesting line up changes or tactical tweaks. However if you post absolute guff like this....

 

On 22/06/2021 at 19:42, keelansgrandad said:

One goal in two matches. Croatia old and past it and Championship quality Scotland.

Boring, nice speaking, non controversial Southgate cannot see past two holding midfield players. He is cack and has no place as our National manager.

Sterling has been awful. Kane is thinking of his £10M signing on fee at Citeh. Grealish needs to stay on his feet more and he could be destructive.

This is the first time I can say it won't upset me if we don't get past the last 16.

Its a shoite tournament without being in one country and now the corrupt government is allowing 2500 hangers on and flunkies to come to the UK without quarantine.

If it wasn't for NCFC I would hate football right now.

...then people will quite rightly call you a moaner.

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 hours ago, sgncfc said:

These things are always kind of subjective, but you can't seriously rate Sterling higher than Perisic, Maguire higher than Vida or even Kane higher than Mandzukic in 2018! Take the tinted glasses off. You're right about their midfield being massively superior, but their attack was also better and their defence similar. We were bookies favourites only because more money was placed on England, and you could make the point that England were athletically superior - but in terms of who were the better football players I think most commentators agreed that in Modric, Rakitic and Perisic they had by far the three best players at the time.

Are you winding me up? I appreciate it's subjective but there are some more objective measures you can look at. I am honestly struggling to believe you are being sincere or I think you and I remember different seasons going into the last World Cup. 

Raheem Sterling was polishing a Premier League winners medal having finished the 5th top scorer in what is often called the best league in the world with 18 goals and almost as many assists. Perisic saw his team scrape by the skin of their teeth into a Champions League spot in an inferior league with considerably fewer goals and assists than Sterling. Sterling comfortably the better of the two and no commentators agreed that Perisic was better. He had a better tournament, you can't argue against that, but Sterling was easily the better of the two going into that World Cup (and, quite frankly, after it).

Maguire had just ended as Leicester's player of the season and was subject to bids in excess of £50 million from Man Utd. Leicester rejected them holding out for £70 million (£10 million less than he would go for 12 months later). Vida? He was letting his contract run out at Kiev and considered Besiktas the best offer for a new club. It's not even close between these two, Maguire was comfortably the better of the two.

And Kane v Mandzukic?! Kane scored more league goals in the 2017/18 than Mandzukic had managed in the previous three and a half years. He scored 30 goals that season and was the Premier League Golden Boot winner the two seasons prior.

There's still a part of me that thinks you were trolling a bit with your first sentence.

[canarydan23 4,060]

27 minutes ago, kirku said:

Huh? Maguire and Kane were significantly better than Vida and Mandzukic.

I think CD called it right - the midfield was such a huge mismatch and was the primary reason for the defeat

Genuinely scratching my head at sgncfc's comment. As I said above, I think he might have been on the wind up.

[king canary 7,580]

4 minutes ago, kirku said:

And what impact do you think playing two up top would've had on the game (which, to my knowledge, England have never played under Southgate)? Or, compounding matters, having an attacking midfielder in place of a defensive screen?

 

I wonder if its a generational thing but there are still plenty of English fans who think 'two up top = more attacking = better' despite it being very clearly not the case.

[kirku 1,332]

59 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Genuinely scratching my head at sgncfc's comment. As I said above, I think he might have been on the wind up.

It certainly doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny 

[kirku 1,332]

59 minutes ago, king canary said:

I wonder if its a generational thing but there are still plenty of English fans who think 'two up top = more attacking = better' despite it being very clearly not the case.

Agree, that viewpoint is very infuriating. We have it with City fans as well.

Germany had more of the ball even with the system we deployed. Imagine what it'd have been like with an "attacking" formation with 2 forwards and no defensive screen..

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

I wonder if its a generational thing but there are still plenty of English fans who think 'two up top = more attacking = better' despite it being very clearly not the case.

It's a generational thing to describe two forward players as "up top" by the way....

[Ward 3 371]

I've not read this thread properly but England haven't played superb or badly, just bang average until last 20 mins last night , no goals conceded, ok the draw with Scotland was very poor but we've been good defensively, sterling has been brilliant, grealish has been a good spark unfortunately. Saka is trying hard but I think foden is a better player all round. Southgate is doing a decent enough job of tactics and how to contain teams. Kane has been so poor and out of form but hopefully last night's goal will give him confidence to push on and pull us through some tricky moments. And last of all.. we've beat the Germans in a knockout game finally 😍. Whats not to love... bring on Ukraine, they don't look great all over the pitch, just got zinchenko and yarmalenko to worry about. Kyle walker is very good is a main back 3 with his sheer pace and kieran trippier has been brilliant too. Just my thoughts on us so far ⚽️⚽️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Edited June 30, 2021 by Ward 3

[hogesar 9,618]

4 hours ago, sgncfc said:

These things are always kind of subjective, but you can't seriously rate Sterling higher than Perisic, Maguire higher than Vida or even Kane higher than Mandzukic in 2018! Take the tinted glasses off. You're right about their midfield being massively superior, but their attack was also better and their defence similar. We were bookies favourites only because more money was placed on England, and you could make the point that England were athletically superior - but in terms of who were the better football players I think most commentators agreed that in Modric, Rakitic and Perisic they had by far the three best players at the time.

As for last night, the result bore out that we have better players at the moment - once Southgate brought on Grealish anyway - as borne out by Pickford's saves and Mullers miss, in particular. Tactically we were going nowhere until we doubled up on the left. Even so, it's all about the moment - 3 years ago, Muller doesn't miss that chance and Neuer probably does better on both goals rather than being rooted to the spot.

In 2018 you could almost certainly make a case for rating Sterling higher than Perisic and Kane higher than Mandzukic. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I've not seen anyone branded a moaner for suggesting line up changes or tactical tweaks. However if you post absolute guff like this....

 

...then people will quite rightly call you a moaner.

Its only guff to you not to me. Don't you think you are moaning at the so called moaners.

Its a pattern with many on here during the season. We win, the moaners are called out, we lose the happy clappers are called out.

I have given everyone credit for their own reactions and beliefs. Not called them moaners. I call it as I, me, myself, see it and because I have the temerity to diagree, I am a moaner, generational thing, definitely intimating that I don't know what I'm talking about. That may be so, compared to you knowledgeable pundits. But it is my opinion and not yours.

The last England manager before Southgate, a man with far more football knowledge than you said that England should play three at the back which would allow us to play two up top. And I thought that sounded right.

But if you know better than Allardyce the fair enough.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, kirku said:

And what impact do you think playing two up top would've had on the game (which, to my knowledge, England have never played under Southgate)? Or, compounding matters, having an attacking midfielder in place of a defensive screen?

 

A positive, entertaining impact which is obviously beyond your imagination as someone who knows it better than Allardyce for instance.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

In 2018 you could almost certainly make a case for rating Sterling higher than Perisic and Kane higher than Mandzukic. 

You couldn't not make a case. See above.

[king canary 7,580]

25 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Its only guff to you not to me. Don't you think you are moaning at the so called moaners.

Its a pattern with many on here during the season. We win, the moaners are called out, we lose the happy clappers are called out.

I have given everyone credit for their own reactions and beliefs. Not called them moaners. I call it as I, me, myself, see it and because I have the temerity to diagree, I am a moaner, generational thing, definitely intimating that I don't know what I'm talking about. That may be so, compared to you knowledgeable pundits. But it is my opinion and not yours.

The last England manager before Southgate, a man with far more football knowledge than you said that England should play three at the back which would allow us to play two up top. And I thought that sounded right.

But if you know better than Allardyce the fair enough.

 

Your entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to tell you I think its guff. It may be your opinion but that doesn't mean it isn't moaning.

As for your Allerdyce point its a bit rich to be saying stuff like that when you called the current England manager 'cack' who has 'no place as pur national manager.'

I'm sure Allerdyce knows more than me. I'm also sure Southgate knows more than you.