England Vs Italy

[Tetteys Jig 830]

2 minutes ago, Upo said:

The more I read about happenings in and outside Wembley, the more the result seems like justice having been served. Booing during national anthem, stealing seats from Italian fans, racist abuse, laser pointers, fighting... You would not see that in Germany or any continental non-ex-eastern block country. Compare that to the behaviour of Finnish and Danish fans during and after Erikssen's collapse. For shame.

give over... have you ever seen a game in Italy? People act like England are the only place with these idiots and its a completely deluded take

[......and Smith must score. 1,336]

9 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

Why are they taking their medals off as soon as they are on? No pride? No acheivement made? Fckuk football then eh,

I thought that looked poor although some did keep them on at least until off camera

[king canary 7,580]

1 minute ago, Tetteys Jig said:

give over... have you ever seen a game in Italy? People act like England are the only place with these idiots and its a completely deluded take

Yes Italy has a far bigger hooliganism and racism problem than England. I'd argue of all the major footballing nations in Europe, we've probably got our issues more in order than any apart from maybe Germany.

I once went to a random Russia v Brazil friendly at Stamford Bridge. I was in the Russian end and there was no doubt there was more fans than tickets and I had zero chance of getting the actual seat on my ticket. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

32 minutes ago, king canary said:

There is no tactical set up that will let you play Grealish, Sancho, Sterling, Foden, Mount and Saka all at once so you have to make choices.

Not a single person is advocating playing any more than three of those and its the choices to which you refer that he got wrong.

If you are only going to play three attacking players in a lineup, they need to be creative. The advantage of having two DMs and 5 defenders is that you don't need to worry too much about their reliability in possession and tracking back. You do need to worry about how much they create. And despite being in a team that finished 7 places above and scored more goals, Mount was only involved directly (goals/assists) in 12 goals to Grealish's 19. And if you don't like Grealish, Phil Foden creates more and is much more reliable at getting back, he should get the nod over Mount. I won't dwell too much on Sancho as he's in a different league, but his goals and assists are also in a different league to Mount.

Don't get me wrong, Mount isn't an awful player. But it's like with Onel and us, he's a good player but he didn't get a sniff in our side this season because Cantwell and Buendia were objectively better. And so should be the case with Mount in the England squad, but Southgate bizarrely kept persisting with Onel whilst his Buendias sat on the bench. It cost us massively.

I take your point about the psychology of the squad and Southgate has undoubtedly improved that and that has made us a team that doesn't look like losing to the banana skins we regularly slipped on under Hodgson and McLaren. You'd be confident a Southgate England won't be knocked out of a tournament by a team like Iceland, or drop points in qualifiers against teams like Macedonia. But that only gets you so far and I think he's taken this unbelievably talented squad as far as it can go. They need to take that next step to become major tournament winners and I don't think, on the basis of both his really dreadful pre-post CV and on what he's done in the post, he has the ability to take that next step.

[Petriix 2,834]

There's a lot of utter tripe on this thread. England were excellent throughout the tournament (with the slight exception of the Scotland game) and only lost by the narrowest of margins to an exceptional Italy team.

Italy were better in the second half, but England controlled the extra time period. It was a very even game between two well organised teams who both (understandably) set up in a highly defensive way.

Of course you're going to sit back with a 1-0 lead in the final. Slightly disappointing that it was difficult to turn the momentum once the (fortuitous) equaliser went in but Italy never looked like scoring a second.

Then of course we were actually ahead in the shoot out before missing our last three. Had Rashford's one crept in then the psychology would have been very different. Tiny, wafer thin margins put us as the runners up in a tournament of many of the best teams in the world.

Yet people moan about failings, tactical errors, poor management etc. It's nonsense. We were immense and only just failed to win the whole thing. An awesome achievement, the best we've ever done in the Euros.

[canarydan23 4,060]

7 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

give over... have you ever seen a game in Italy? People act like England are the only place with these idiots and its a completely deluded take

A Finnish bloke I follow on Twitter for Snooker purposes was giving it the whole, "this is why we support Italy" and putting up videos of fans knocking fences down. I couldn't not say something. **** salutes? Spitting on Jews? Italian fans have recent form for that, but knocking down a fence?! BOOOO ENGLAND, YAY ITALY!

Morons.

[BigManInTheBarclay 75]

I'm over it.....looking forward to getting back to FCR!

[Jim Smith 2,314]

The fundamental problem is and always has been the lack of a deeper lying playmaker to get on the ball. It’s the one thing the last World Cup showed us and it’s the one thing he’s failed to address because it doesn’t fit with his conservative, counter attack style. Until we can control possession better we will keep losing out in these key games. 
 

Maddison, Foden or Grealish should have been playing in a deeper role for England for 2 years now but Southgate has always persisted with two defensive mids who don’t have the passing range. rice and Phillips are both excellent but we only need one of them. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

5 minutes ago, Petriix said:

There's a lot of utter tripe on this thread. England were excellent throughout the tournament (with the slight exception of the Scotland game) and only lost by the narrowest of margins to an exceptional Italy team.

Italy were better in the second half, but England controlled the extra time period. It was a very even game between two well organised teams who both (understandably) set up in a highly defensive way.

Of course you're going to sit back with a 1-0 lead in the final. Slightly disappointing that it was difficult to turn the momentum once the (fortuitous) equaliser went in but Italy never looked like scoring a second.

Then of course we were actually ahead in the shoot out before missing our last three. Had Rashford's one crept in then the psychology would have been very different. Tiny, wafer thin margins put us as the runners up in a tournament of many of the best teams in the world.

Yet people moan about failings, tactical errors, poor management etc. It's nonsense. We were immense and only just failed to win the whole thing. An awesome achievement, the best we've ever done in the Euros.

We weren’t excellent throughout the tournament. We were mainly pragmatic and effective and played well v Ukraine.

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Petriix said:

There's a lot of utter tripe on this thread. England were excellent throughout the tournament (with the slight exception of the Scotland game) and only lost by the narrowest of margins to an exceptional Italy team.

Italy were better in the second half, but England controlled the extra time period. It was a very even game between two well organised teams who both (understandably) set up in a highly defensive way.

Of course you're going to sit back with a 1-0 lead in the final. Slightly disappointing that it was difficult to turn the momentum once the (fortuitous) equaliser went in but Italy never looked like scoring a second.

Then of course we were actually ahead in the shoot out before missing our last three. Had Rashford's one crept in then the psychology would have been very different. Tiny, wafer thin margins put us as the runners up in a tournament of many of the best teams in the world.

Yet people moan about failings, tactical errors, poor management etc. It's nonsense. We were immense and only just failed to win the whole thing. An awesome achievement, the best we've ever done in the Euros.

Immense is massively overstating it. He did a good job for sure but I tend to look at sporting achievement through a golf angle and look at what would be a "par" performance and what would be a birdie/eagle and what would be a bogey/double bogey or worse.

With the luck of the draw and the teams we played, he basically hit par. Maybe a birdie given how easily we dispatched Ukraine and a birdie for the comfortable victory versus the Krauts. However, he definitely carded a bogey versus Scotland and I'm afraid he's bogeyed the final when you factor in home advantage.

A decidedly par performance. And getting par won't get you past a likely resurgent France looking to right the wrongs of this tournament in 16 months time, nor will it get you past Brazil or an Argentina probably looking at a Messi swansong.

In my humble opinion, which matters zilch, Southgate either has to change for us to go from almosts to winners, or has to be changed.

[Petriix 2,834]

4 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Not a single person is advocating playing any more than three of those and its the choices to which you refer that he got wrong.

If you are only going to play three attacking players in a lineup, they need to be creative. The advantage of having two DMs and 5 defenders is that you don't need to worry too much about their reliability in possession and tracking back. You do need to worry about how much they create. And despite being in a team that finished 7 places above and scored more goals, Mount was only involved directly (goals/assists) in 12 goals to Grealish's 19. And if you don't like Grealish, Phil Foden creates more and is much more reliable at getting back, he should get the nod over Mount. I won't dwell too much on Sancho as he's in a different league, but his goals and assists are also in a different league to Mount.

Don't get me wrong, Mount isn't an awful player. But it's like with Onel and us, he's a good player but he didn't get a sniff in our side this season because Cantwell and Buendia were objectively better. And so should be the case with Mount in the England squad, but Southgate bizarrely kept persisting with Onel whilst his Buendias sat on the bench. It cost us massively.

I take your point about the psychology of the squad and Southgate has undoubtedly improved that and that has made us a team that doesn't look like losing to the banana skins we regularly slipped on under Hodgson and McLaren. You'd be confident a Southgate England won't be knocked out of a tournament by a team like Iceland, or drop points in qualifiers against teams like Macedonia. But that only gets you so far and I think he's taken this unbelievably talented squad as far as it can go. They need to take that next step to become major tournament winners and I don't think, on the basis of both his really dreadful pre-post CV and on what he's done in the post, he has the ability to take that next step.

I agree with some of what you've written, but 'only gets you so far'!?

Ffs, we couldn't have been closer to winning it. The width of the post on Rashford's penalty and we almost certainly win. We only conceded twice in the whole tournament: a dubiously awarded free kick and a lucky ricochet from a slightly poorly defended corner.

I'm not a massive fan of the conservative tactics, but they're bloody effective. Aside from giving Foden a bit more time at the expense of Mount, and maybe trying someone with a little more creativity than Phillips in the middle, I'd say the tactics were good.

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

And this is the bit where fans start overrating the players to criticise the manager. Meanwhile, I'll just lob this in for a bit of levity.

[king canary 7,580]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

Not a single person is advocating playing any more than three of those and its the choices to which you refer that he got wrong.

I've seen quite a few who are to be honest.

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

If you are only going to play three attacking players in a lineup, they need to be creative. The advantage of having two DMs and 5 defenders is that you don't need to worry too much about their reliability in possession and tracking back. You do need to worry about how much they create. And despite being in a team that finished 7 places above and scored more goals, Mount was only involved directly (goals/assists) in 12 goals to Grealish's 19. And if you don't like Grealish, Phil Foden creates more and is much more reliable at getting back, he should get the nod over Mount. I won't dwell too much on Sancho as he's in a different league, but his goals and assists are also in a different league to Mount.

You absolutely do need to worry about players keeping possession, even in a 3-4-3 type formation. Giving the ball away is always dangerous. 

Grealish is undoubtedly hugely creative. He has the 2nd most key passes per 90 in the Premier League. Mount has the 4th most though, and loses the ball quite a bit less than Grealish. So I can see why he is preferred. The Grealish hype was hugely out of control this summer and for some reason Mount seems to be thought of as some uncreative donkey in comparison. To me Mount isn't an Onel, he's a Todd- not the dominant creative force in the squad but a comfortable starter. 

The other issue with these attacking players is pace- we need it, so Sterling has to start, usually with one of Saka or Sancho. Grealish, Mount and Foden all don't have it at the level needed. So those three fight for one spot really. 

[......and Smith must score. 1,336]

So as three black players miss penalties as sure as night follows day the social media abuse begins.

All so predictable.

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by ......and Smith must score.

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I agree with some of what you've written, but 'only gets you so far'!?

Ffs, we couldn't have been closer to winning it. The width of the post on Rashford's penalty and we almost certainly win. We only conceded twice in the whole tournament: a dubiously awarded free kick and a lucky ricochet from a slightly poorly defended corner.

I'm not a massive fan of the conservative tactics, but they're bloody effective. Aside from giving Foden a bit more time at the expense of Mount, and maybe trying someone with a little more creativity than Phillips in the middle, I'd say the tactics were good.

Yes but what are the "bloody effective" at? Beating teams we would probably beat with a more cavalier style. And probably beat more convincingly.

Look at Denmark, we got the job done but it required an at best soft penalty at worst dubious in extra time. And that's a team who would struggle to offer a single outfield player that would make our starting lineup. It was "bloody effective" at scraping wins against vastly inferior teams like Czech Republic and a passed it Croatia. He had a couple of very good wins against Ukraine and Germany, interestingly in the former he actually started to release the shackles somewhat and look what happened. But I genuinely believe that you could have put any half decent manager in charge and got the same or perhaps even better results.

And I don't care what anyone says, he bottled the final. An early goal, at home and Italy were there for the taking. We didn't take them.

[Petriix 2,834]

6 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

We weren’t excellent throughout the tournament. We were mainly pragmatic and effective and played well v Ukraine.

 

5 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Immense is massively overstating it. He did a good job for sure but I tend to look at sporting achievement through a golf angle and look at what would be a "par" performance and what would be a birdie/eagle and what would be a bogey/double bogey or worse.

With the luck of the draw and the teams we played, he basically hit par. Maybe a birdie given how easily we dispatched Ukraine and a birdie for the comfortable victory versus the Krauts. However, he definitely carded a bogey versus Scotland and I'm afraid he's bogeyed the final when you factor in home advantage.

A decidedly par performance. And getting par won't get you past a likely resurgent France looking to right the wrongs of this tournament in 16 months time, nor will it get you past Brazil or an Argentina probably looking at a Messi swansong.

In my humble opinion, which matters zilch, Southgate either has to change for us to go from almosts to winners, or has to be changed.

Like I said: utter tripe. 

A world cup semifinal then a euros final. If that doesn't feel like success to you then I'm afraid you're destined for a life of disappointment.

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

The other issue with these attacking players is pace- we need it, so Sterling has to start, usually with one of Saka or Sancho. Grealish, Mount and Foden all don't have it at the level needed. So those three fight for one spot really. 

Again, I completely agree. Apart from the fact that it really shouldn't be a fight when choosing between Grealish, Mount and Foden. It should be a forgone conclusion. But for some reason it isn't. I suspect there is some sort of mirror image psychology going on there; an individual with his limits surrounded by peers who are more talented, but is a nice guy so gets opportunities he probably doesn't merit.

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Like I said: utter tripe. 

A world cup semifinal then a euros final. If that doesn't feel like success to you then I'm afraid you're destined for a life of disappointment.

Such a naive way of looking at things. I guess you thought Millwall were the second best team in the 2004 FA Cup.

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

Makes sense playing Mount if Rice is there - they've practically played together for years as kids and know each other's games inside out. We're talking about international football here, where players have far less time to play together and become aware of each other's games, or they only meet up every couple of months so have often being playing a little differently with their club teams. Such partnerships are often far more effective than individual talents.

Totally agree with those who say Grealish is an impact sub.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 minute ago, Petriix said:

 

Like I said: utter tripe. 

A world cup semifinal then a euros final. If that doesn't feel like success to you then I'm afraid you're destined for a life of disappointment.

As someone above has said, when you look at the teams and performances they were around par. In both tournaments the draw opened up for us. In both we lost when we encountered teams with the midfield quality to expose our limitations and the tactical limitations of our coach.

course we’ve done quite well in both competitions but in my opinion we won’t get a better opportunity to win a major competition than last night and Southgate got most things wrong. It’s hugely disappointing. 
 
I agree with the post above. With the crop of players available (and I do credit Southgate’s role in helping create that and forge a strong team bond) very many managed would get results at least as good as Southgate. Many would do better. 

[Fuzzar 1,702]

14 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

The fundamental problem is and always has been the lack of a deeper lying playmaker to get on the ball. It’s the one thing the last World Cup showed us and it’s the one thing he’s failed to address because it doesn’t fit with his conservative, counter attack style. Until we can control possession better we will keep losing out in these key games. 
 

Maddison, Foden or Grealish should have been playing in a deeper role for England for 2 years now but Southgate has always persisted with two defensive mids who don’t have the passing range. rice and Phillips are both excellent but we only need one of them. 

I have to agree with. As terrific as Rice and Phillips were at winning the ball our midfield didn't have quite enough quality to retain it against the better sides. Possession is king at the top level. Italy controlled the midfield from the 30th minute and we couldn't match them.

[Petriix 2,834]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

Such a naive way of looking at things. I guess you thought Millwall were the second best team in the 2004 FA Cup.

One of us is looking at things in a balanced and reasonable way. The other is clearly a little overly emotional about losing and looking for someone to blame. I'll leave you to figure out which of those is 'naive'.

I don't think a penalty shoot out is a reasonable measure of which team is 'best' so there's nothing to suggest that England weren't actually the best team in the tournament. It's a pointless debate because of the nature of a knockout competition. But to reiterate: a semifinal followed by a final is unprecedented success in my lifetime.

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Petriix said:

One of us is looking at things in a balanced and reasonable way. The other is clearly a little overly emotional about losing and looking for someone to blame. I'll leave you to figure out which of those is 'naive'.

I don't think a penalty shoot out is a reasonable measure of which team is 'best' so there's nothing to suggest that England weren't actually the best team in the tournament. It's a pointless debate because of the nature of a knockout competition. But to reiterate: a semifinal followed by a final is unprecedented success in my lifetime.

But only one of us is actually addressing the other's points raised. I think there is a reason for that.

Edited July 12, 2021 by canarydan23

[Jim Smith 2,314]

7 minutes ago, Fuzzar said:

I have to agree with. As terrific as Rice and Phillips were at winning the ball our midfield didn't have quite enough quality to retain it against the better sides. Possession is king at the top level. Italy controlled the midfield from the 30th minute and we couldn't match them.

This is what I very much hope Gilmour can do for us next season in the premier. 

[king canary 7,580]

7 minutes ago, Fuzzar said:

I have to agree with. As terrific as Rice and Phillips were at winning the ball our midfield didn't have quite enough quality to retain it against the better sides. Possession is king at the top level. Italy controlled the midfield from the 30th minute and we couldn't match them.

With him fully fit I imagine it would be Henderson starting next to Phillips or Rice. 

[TheGunnShow 5,933]

15 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

So as three black players miss penalties as sure as night follows day the social media abuse begins.

All so predictable.

 

Not surprised. Not surprised at all. Sadly.

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Petriix said:

One of us is looking at things in a balanced and reasonable way. The other is clearly a little overly emotional about losing and looking for someone to blame. I'll leave you to figure out which of those is 'naive'.

I don't think a penalty shoot out is a reasonable measure of which team is 'best' so there's nothing to suggest that England weren't actually the best team in the tournament. It's a pointless debate because of the nature of a knockout competition. But to reiterate: a semifinal followed by a final is unprecedented success in my lifetime.

And actually, you can judge which team was the better in a drawn fixture. And I think a team playing on their opponent's home turf and has almost double the possession and treble the amount of shots (either on target or off target) can reasonably claim that they were much better on the day and unlucky to have to resort to penalties to get the win.

[king canary 7,580]

11 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Again, I completely agree. Apart from the fact that it really shouldn't be a fight when choosing between Grealish, Mount and Foden. It should be a forgone conclusion. But for some reason it isn't. I suspect there is some sort of mirror image psychology going on there; an individual with his limits surrounded by peers who are more talented, but is a nice guy so gets opportunities he probably doesn't merit.

But his play absolutely does merit it. If you base it on just simplistic 'goals/assists' then maybe not. But by every conceivable metric and from watching his play, Mount more than deserves to be in the conversation. He's far from limited.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

But his play absolutely does merit it. If you base it on just simplistic 'goals/assists' then maybe not. But by every conceivable metric and from watching his play, Mount more than deserves to be in the conversation. He's far from limited.

Again, as I said, he's not a bad player. He's just not as good as Foden or Grealish. Or Sancho. Or Saka. Or Sterling. There are probably even better players left at home, like Maddison for instance. He's a smashing lad who works hard and I suspect that more than his ability has got him his place.

[king canary 7,580]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

Again, as I said, he's not a bad player. He's just not as good as Foden or Grealish. Or Sancho. Or Saka. Or Sterling. There are probably even better players left at home, like Maddison for instance. He's a smashing lad who works hard and I suspect that more than his ability has got him his place.

Yeah we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. He's a key component of the Champions League winners. To suggest he's just a hard worker is nonsense.