England vs Germany

[kirku 1,332]

23 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

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

Are you suggesting Sam Allardyce is well known for his "entertaining" football? 😂

Yes, it is beyond my imagination to make what you've advocated for work in any logical system. Largely because it doesn't really make sense.

Sweden are one of the few teams I've seen in this tournament playing two forwards - are they more "positive and entertaining" as a result?

 

 

[hogesar 9,674]

18 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

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

Ah, all well covered by you guys. I was instantly triggered by his post so didn't read past it 😅😅

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

23 minutes ago, kirku said:

Are you suggesting Sam Allardyce is well known for his "entertaining" football? 😂

Yes, it is beyond my imagination to make what you've advocated for work in any logical system. Largely because it doesn't really make sense.

Sweden are one of the few teams I've seen in this tournament playing two forwards - are they more "positive and entertaining" as a result?

 

 

What have they got to pick from? 

And Allardyce was indeed entertaining when he could be. He brought in some innovations into football that no-one had used before but no-one wants to credit him because he was seen as a dinosaur.

And Southgate said, when questioned about four right backs, that he wanted to pick the best players.

So are you telling me Saka is better than Foden or the sought after Sancho? That Rice or Phillips is better than Mount? That Luke Shaw is a better attacking wing back than Ben Chilwell? Because if you are then you are not really making sense.

And Southgate said on the radio today that he told the players after the match, that beating Germany will be for nothing if we don't win our QF. Really? What a strange thing to say. Unless he means winning is everything.

If thats true then fine. But to me that isn't the point of International Football. And I have said it right from the start of the Euros. And I will continue to say it if I think we are boring to watch.

[kirku 1,332]

40 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

What have they got to pick from? 

And Allardyce was indeed entertaining when he could be. He brought in some innovations into football that no-one had used before but no-one wants to credit him because he was seen as a dinosaur.

And Southgate said, when questioned about four right backs, that he wanted to pick the best players.

So are you telling me Saka is better than Foden or the sought after Sancho? That Rice or Phillips is better than Mount? That Luke Shaw is a better attacking wing back than Ben Chilwell? Because if you are then you are not really making sense.

And Southgate said on the radio today that he told the players after the match, that beating Germany will be for nothing if we don't win our QF. Really? What a strange thing to say. Unless he means winning is everything.

If thats true then fine. But to me that isn't the point of International Football. And I have said it right from the start of the Euros. And I will continue to say it if I think we are boring to watch.

1) Allardyce indeed brought some innovations into football - about 20 years ago. I'm not sure there's a single top drawer international, or club side, that plays with two up top. That probably tells you something.

2) This insanely simplistic Player X is better than Player Y is utterly banal. Yes, Rice is significantly better as a CDM than Mount. Are you telling me that Tettey is a better player than Vrancic? Because if you are then you are not really making sense.

3) Successful teams are not based on simply trying to shoe-horn in your "best" players. As England fans, we surely should've realised that when Keegan had Scholes playing at LM. That's why Saka and Shaw have played significantly more minutes than Sancho and Chilwell, as their qualities better suit the system that Southgate wants to play.

4) As we all saw last night, to great effect, Walker played extremely well as an RCB. So did he pick four right backs? No. Would having Alexander-Arnold be a more effective option than Ben White? Almost certainly.

5) Yes, winning is everything in a tournament. Especially as a major footballing nation who have won absolutely nothing in the last 55 years. Teams generally win tournaments by being hard to beat, grinding out results, and having really tight defences.

6) Your view of international football seems to be at odds with #5 - so don't be surprised if people point out the absurdity of some of your comments.

7) Hailing Allardyce while stating Southgate is "cack and has no place as an England manager" is beyond analysis.

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by kirku

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Ah, all well covered by you guys. I was instantly triggered by his post so didn't read past it 😅😅

Don't blame you, it was a little bizarre to say the least.

[hogesar 9,674]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

What have they got to pick from? 

And Allardyce was indeed entertaining when he could be. He brought in some innovations into football that no-one had used before but no-one wants to credit him because he was seen as a dinosaur.

And Southgate said, when questioned about four right backs, that he wanted to pick the best players.

So are you telling me Saka is better than Foden or the sought after Sancho? That Rice or Phillips is better than Mount? That Luke Shaw is a better attacking wing back than Ben Chilwell? Because if you are then you are not really making sense.

And Southgate said on the radio today that he told the players after the match, that beating Germany will be for nothing if we don't win our QF. Really? What a strange thing to say. Unless he means winning is everything.

If thats true then fine. But to me that isn't the point of International Football. And I have said it right from the start of the Euros. And I will continue to say it if I think we are boring to watch.

Such a bizarre take.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

What isn't bizarre is that you experts care to differ with your superior attitude.

If I bump into Allardyce I will tell him there are a few Pink Un posters who know more than him.

By the way, Liverpool are credited with playing a flexible 4-3-3/4-4-2.

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Such a bizarre take.

Rather like your some of your posts. The amount of times you blub if someone says anything critical of the club is well known.

I shall know not to respond to either of you superior pundits in future.

OTBC.

 

[kirku 1,332]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I shall know not to respond to either of you superior pundits in future.

Man who calls England manager "cack" and questions all of his decisions rails against "experts with a superior attitude".

Unbelievable, Jeff.

[hogesar 9,674]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

What isn't bizarre is that you experts care to differ with your superior attitude.

If I bump into Allardyce I will tell him there are a few Pink Un posters who know more than him.

By the way, Liverpool are credited with playing a flexible 4-3-3/4-4-2.

Rather like your some of your posts. The amount of times you blub if someone says anything critical of the club is well known.

I shall know not to respond to either of you superior pundits in future.

OTBC.

 

I literally said it was a bizarre take and clearly you're feeling a bit vulnerable because you've blabbed on about my posts, blubbing,  and sarcasm about superiority.

Its ok to be wrong, just like you were previously about illegal streams...

[hogesar 9,674]

50 minutes ago, kirku said:

Man who calls England manager "cack" and questions all of his decisions rails against "experts with a superior attitude".

Unbelievable, Jeff.

It was a very irrational reply to my comment anyway. I think he realises he's looked a little silly and rather than put hands up and admit it he's doubled down.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

I haven't followed the debate about Southgate's tactics, but there has always been a tendency for the England manager to veer towards the pragmatic.

Jimmy Greaves was the best pure goalscorer I've seen but Ramsey dumped him for the hard-working but leaden-footed Roger Hunt. And Ramsey's whole team of wingless wonders was an exercise in effort at the expense of creativity.

Just off the top of my head, without checking the stats,  players such as Peter Thompson (a genuine winger), Alan Hudson, Frank Worthington, Stan Bowles, and Peter Osgood all had minimal England careers.

I don't know - perhaps they were overrated. But England have only once reached the final of a major tournament, albeit with the ultra pragmatic Ramsey. Qualification and getting through the group stages don't present a problem, but the KO stages do. They seem to falter when they come up against either the equally pragmatic but better at it (ie Germany usually!) or the more creative.

For what it's worth, given the way the draw has gone, England will never have a better chance of getting to the final this time, so I doubt Southgate will abandon what seems to be his pragmatic approach before then.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't followed the debate about Southgate's tactics, but there has always been a tendency for the England manager to veer towards the pragmatic.

Jimmy Greaves was the best pure goalscorer I've seen but Ramsey dumped him for the hard-working but leaden-footed Roger Hunt. And Ramsey's whole team of wingless wonders was an exercise in effort at the expense of creativity.

Just off the top of my head, without checking the stats,  players such as Peter Thompson (a genuine winger), Alan Hudson, Frank Worthington, Stan Bowles, and Peter Osgood all had minimal England careers.

I don't know - perhaps they were overrated. But England have only once reached the final of a major tournament, albeit with the ultra pragmatic Ramsey. Qualification and getting through the group stages don't present a problem, but the KO stages do. They seem to falter when they come up against either the equally pragmatic but better at it (ie Germany usually!) or the more creative.

For what it's worth, given the way the draw has gone, England will never have a better chance of getting to the final this time, so I doubt Southgate will abandon what seems to be his pragmatic approach before then.

Breaking this down a bit Purple. The flair players you mention, did indeed have limited international careers, so were the managers at fault, and not know how to understand these guys or provide tactics to utilise them to  their best? Pragmatism hasn't worked since 1966 on that basis then?

The draw may well be very kind to us now, but we could have ended up playing either Spain, France or Portugal, which, before the tournament would not have have been an easy pick in the vast majority of fans eyes. We still have difficult teams to negotiate of course, and the hardest one may well be waiting for us in the final.

Southgate reverted to type against Germany imo. I still don't get the arguments for respecting the German potential counter attack, if we had picked (stuck to) certain players, to  the point that we had to cede to their formation etc. Germany would have been quite happy with that starting formation (and missed a great chance to take the lead and equalise, - which would have made the job a lot harder) and would have had their own worries, trying to defend against us.  It's a typical British thing (again, imo, so others will disagree and call 'necessary' pragmatism) but we have what I think is the most talented set of  players in my thinking. Let them off the leash.  

Btw, I agree with you that Southgate will stick to this pragmatic approach. He has the chance to take these players to heights we haven't seem for 55 years. Winning the Euros is one (still mahoosive yet) step, but it's the bigger picture I want us to go for , but I feel he does not have the courage of his convictions yet, despite the great English talent we have these days.

Despite being called a miserable **** already in this thread , I am far from that. I want us to go and grab World football by the short and curlies, whilst we have these players. It is a chance that doesn't come round very often. I'd be more than happy if Southgate gave confidence in his own, as well as the players, abilities, to reach for the stars. 

Go and get yourselves in the history books boys over these next few years. Don't be another plucky, hard luck story. 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Crabbycanary3

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 hours ago, hogesar said:

I literally said it was a bizarre take and clearly you're feeling a bit vulnerable because you've blabbed on about my posts, blubbing,  and sarcasm about superiority.

Its ok to be wrong, just like you were previously about illegal streams...

Will I be prosecuted for watching football matches online in this way?

It is unlikely that the football authorities would pursue cases against individuals who watch games in this manner, with the more desirable avenue to bring claims directly against the file sharing sites through the ISPs. Indeed, in 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that internet users who watch copyrighted material online aren’t breaking the law by doing so. However, despite the fact that a claim may not be brought against you, participating in such a site leaves your computer open to viruses and may have adverse effects on the very sport which you wish to watch.

Satisfied now ? Head out of the sand gives you a better perspective.

 

[hogesar 9,674]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Will I be prosecuted for watching football matches online in this way?

It is unlikely that the football authorities would pursue cases against individuals who watch games in this manner, with the more desirable avenue to bring claims directly against the file sharing sites through the ISPs. Indeed, in 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that internet users who watch copyrighted material online aren’t breaking the law by doing so. However, despite the fact that a claim may not be brought against you, participating in such a site leaves your computer open to viruses and may have adverse effects on the very sport which you wish to watch.

Satisfied now ? Head out of the sand gives you a better perspective.

 

Oh don't start that again, I can't take your nonsense on that front. At the time I provided you with 3 alternate sources for every dodgy one you found saying it wasn't illegal. Even that one only says it's "unlikely", which contradicts the message that follows.

Can't believe the irony in your head in sand comment, that's a good one 😂😂🙂

 

P.S:

https://crimestoppers-uk.org/keeping-safe/online-safety/streaming-online-know-the-risks#:~:text=In short%2C if you are,then you are streaming illegally.

Quote

In short, if you are streaming and watching - for free - films, TV shows or sport that should be paid for (or that are not legally available in the UK), then you are streaming illegally.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/warning-over-illegal-football-streams-18450423

Quote

Streaming or watching unauthorised content without the right permissions or subscriptions is no longer a ‘grey area’, FACT said.

It is illegal to watch a stream you know you should be paying for, whether that is through the internet or using a set top box.

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by hogesar

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Oh don't start that again, I can't take your nonsense on that front. At the time I provided you with 3 alternate sources for every dodgy one you found saying it wasn't illegal. Even that one only says it's "unlikely", which contradicts the message that follows.

Can't believe the irony in your head in sand comment, that's a good one 😂😂🙂

 

P.S:

https://crimestoppers-uk.org/keeping-safe/online-safety/streaming-online-know-the-risks#:~:text=In short%2C if you are,then you are streaming illegally.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/warning-over-illegal-football-streams-18450423

 

Are you that thick? You brought it up on this topic so don't blame me.

I showed you the European Court of Justice. Is that a dodgy source?

and you showed me 😂😂😂 Crimestoppers😂😂😂 and a Northern Newspaper😂😂😂

As Jack Nicholson said, You can't handle the truth.

 

[kirku 1,332]

Yeah but what's Sam Allardyce's opinion on illegal streaming?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

9 minutes ago, kirku said:

Yeah but what's Sam Allardyce's opinion on illegal streaming?

Probably more relevant and accurate than your pompous one.

[hogesar 9,674]

39 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Are you that thick? You brought it up on this topic so don't blame me.

I showed you the European Court of Justice. Is that a dodgy source?

and you showed me 😂😂😂 Crimestoppers😂😂😂 and a Northern Newspaper😂😂😂

As Jack Nicholson said, You can't handle the truth.

 

The quote is from FACT, if you were capable of any form of self research.

Look up who FACT are.

Youre quite clearly a stubborn old man so I'm happy to leave you to think what you think, most people are sensible and smart enough to do their own research so in reality you'll only really negatively impact yourself on this one.

Cheerio.

[kirku 1,332]

40 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Probably more relevant and accurate than your pompous one.

Good grief, you really have taken this badly, haven't you?

I'd have thought a staunch contrarian such as yourself would be a bit more comfortable having a debate on an internet forum but I guess echo chambers at golf clubs are just as powerful as those on Twitter..

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

11 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't followed the debate about Southgate's tactics, but there has always been a tendency for the England manager to veer towards the pragmatic.

Jimmy Greaves was the best pure goalscorer I've seen but Ramsey dumped him for the hard-working but leaden-footed Roger Hunt. And Ramsey's whole team of wingless wonders was an exercise in effort at the expense of creativity.

Just off the top of my head, without checking the stats,  players such as Peter Thompson (a genuine winger), Alan Hudson, Frank Worthington, Stan Bowles, and Peter Osgood all had minimal England careers.

I don't know - perhaps they were overrated. But England have only once reached the final of a major tournament, albeit with the ultra pragmatic Ramsey. Qualification and getting through the group stages don't present a problem, but the KO stages do. They seem to falter when they come up against either the equally pragmatic but better at it (ie Germany usually!) or the more creative.

For what it's worth, given the way the draw has gone, England will never have a better chance of getting to the final this time, so I doubt Southgate will abandon what seems to be his pragmatic approach before then.

Of course there is one massive difference between then and now, and that is the availability of substitutes, so a manager can switch from pragmatic to adventurous, or vice versa, during a match.

[kirku 1,332]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Of course there is one massive difference between then and now, and that is the availability of substitutes, so a manager can switch from pragmatic to adventurous, or vice versa, during a match.

Certainly, Southgate's introduction of Grealish was perfectly timed and had a massive impact on the result.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

20 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Of course there is one massive difference between then and now, and that is the availability of substitutes, so a manager can switch from pragmatic to adventurous, or vice versa, during a match.

When the likes of Worthington, Bowles etc were playing , there were not more than 1 or 2 'influential' players like those in a squad, but we didn't build a team around them as we didn't pick  them often (It's obviously not the sole reason, but we didn't win trophies then). These days we are blessed with many influential players. 

[Mr Angry 1,561]

12 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't followed the debate about Southgate's tactics, but there has always been a tendency for the England manager to veer towards the pragmatic.

Jimmy Greaves was the best pure goalscorer I've seen but Ramsey dumped him for the hard-working but leaden-footed Roger Hunt. And Ramsey's whole team of wingless wonders was an exercise in effort at the expense of creativity.

Just off the top of my head, without checking the stats,  players such as Peter Thompson (a genuine winger), Alan Hudson, Frank Worthington, Stan Bowles, and Peter Osgood all had minimal England careers.

I don't know - perhaps they were overrated. But England have only once reached the final of a major tournament, albeit with the ultra pragmatic Ramsey. Qualification and getting through the group stages don't present a problem, but the KO stages do. They seem to falter when they come up against either the equally pragmatic but better at it (ie Germany usually!) or the more creative.

For what it's worth, given the way the draw has gone, England will never have a better chance of getting to the final this time, so I doubt Southgate will abandon what seems to be his pragmatic approach before then.

The players you mention-apart from Thompson, who have not heard of before-have been discussed on here before. I don’t think they were overrated but they weren’t trusted by England managers. You can add George and Marsh to that list too.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 hours ago, kirku said:

Good grief, you really have taken this badly, haven't you?

I'd have thought a staunch contrarian such as yourself would be a bit more comfortable having a debate on an internet forum but I guess echo chambers at golf clubs are just as powerful as those on Twitter..

I was quite happy. I was just offering MY opinion. You came on not to debate my opinion to but decry it. There was no need for your arrogant replies. I know social media doesn't always portray things correctly and if you did not intend to be rude then I accept that and apologise.

I am quite happy to debate with anyone as long as its friendly without recourse to rudeness or arrogance. Once that becomes apparent, I'm afraid I join in with the same attitude.

I am quite happy to wipe the slate clean and start out fresh as honest, considered debaters. 

Just because I don't like Southgate's tactics or selections doesn't mean I am no less an England supporter. You can tell me I'm wrong and I accept that opinion as we no doubt come from different sides of the coin but in the end we are both cut from the same tree in that we love football, NCFC and England.

[kirku 1,332]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I was quite happy. I was just offering MY opinion. You came on not to debate my opinion to but decry it. There was no need for your arrogant replies. I know social media doesn't always portray things correctly and if you did not intend to be rude then I accept that and apologise.

I am quite happy to debate with anyone as long as its friendly without recourse to rudeness or arrogance. Once that becomes apparent, I'm afraid I join in with the same attitude.

I am quite happy to wipe the slate clean and start out fresh as honest, considered debaters. 

Just because I don't like Southgate's tactics or selections doesn't mean I am no less an England supporter. You can tell me I'm wrong and I accept that opinion as we no doubt come from different sides of the coin but in the end we are both cut from the same tree in that we love football, NCFC and England.

Happy to do so, but don't accept the view that I came to "decry" your opinion or that my replies were "arrogant" - indeed, this was the first sign of anything remotely antagonistic:

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

13 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

The players you mention-apart from Thompson, who have not heard of before-have been discussed on here before. I don’t think they were overrated but they weren’t trusted by England managers. You can add George and Marsh to that list too.

You only have to look at the number of games Hoolahan played for Ireland over the many years to realiei that it is a general thing among many international managers.

Safety first.

Trappatoni ignored (mistrusted) Wes for his whole time.

Edited July 2, 2021 by BroadstairsR

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Just because I don't like Southgate's tactics or selections doesn't mean I am no less an England supporter.

If your posts were purely to wish to see England play in a different way, then fair enough, I wouldn't argue with that and have expressed similar feelings - albeit to a lesser extreme. Overall I am happy with pragmatism but would perhaps prefer a 6/10 on the pragmatism scale not an 8/10. 

Clearly there is no single right or wrong way to manage a team, and coaches who favour all styles of play exhibit good results and bad results in equal measure.

So I don't think disapproving of a certain style means you are trying to suggest you know better, in fairness to you. 

I.e. when Hughton came in for Lambert, we probably all could've advocated as posters for a similar style of play to Lambert - high press, high tempo and aggressive football with lots of support to the striker or even strikers. Does that mean we all think we know better than Hughton? No of course not, it just means we want a manager whose coaching preferences are more aligned with our own. 

I have also previously got shouted down on here for suggesting I would like to see Farke make earlier substitutions in narrow games and generally better rotate our squad - particularly in the championship with 5 subs available and a huge squad to potentially utilise. I didn't say this because I thought I knew better, I just looked at what other teams did and generally do and maybe thought we could be a bit more expansive with our substitution policy. 

However - and this is a big however - you did lose this argument long before when you described Southgate as 'cack' and someone who should 'be nowhere near the England job', that's never going to the foundation for a reasonable discussion now is it? 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Also to add, although I have had my niggles about the way we've set up in our games versus Scotland and Czech Republic, one thing Southgate deserves a hell of a lot of credit for - on top of our defensive resolve - is the overall morale of the squad he has created. 

Just watching videos and bits on social media over the past few days and there is a really good vibe from all of the players in the squad. Everything from Foden absolutely buzzing with Sterling's goal as an unused substitute, Trippier bouncing over to pick Sterling up after that terrible pass nearly leading to an equaliser, the scenes of the players celebrating together afterwards etc etc. 

For the first time watching this England squad in my lifetime there is a real genuine unity in the squad, and the past tells us how difficult it is to achieve this - particular for an English team where the teammates are generally fighting it out against each other week in week out in the Premier League.

Southgate has used the torments of the past - particularly his own personal torments too - and channelled it all in to a positive for all of our current players. The win on Tuesday to knock out Germany can only have added to this feeling too. 

Really think it could be our tournament! 

[king canary 7,607]

16 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

The players you mention-apart from Thompson, who have not heard of before-have been discussed on here before. I don’t think they were overrated but they weren’t trusted by England managers. You can add George and Marsh to that list too.

Trust is such a huge thing for international managers. You get minimal time with the players so you need to have people in there you trust to actually carry out your instructions and not go too far off script. I think in part this is why Southgate (and others) like Mount so much- he may not have the same ability to change a game like Grealish or Sancho but he's also not going to **** around too much and render your tactical plan obsolete.