Just when you thought things couldn’t get worse

[kirku 1,334]

9 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Ah yes - I forgot you are the one who has to think he’s ‘won’ - it’s very strange and not something you can do.  Sorry about that. 

Oh, no, it's more about the insane hypocrisy of someone saying the same thing multiple times over accusing me of tedium. I thought that'd be obvious.

As for "winning", there's no winning here. Just points that make sense to a reasonable person and those that do not.

On your edited in comment on Smith, given most of your posts in this thread are highly subjective then it helps if you have some credibility. Hard to reconcile that with vociferously going to bat for Dean Smith recently.

Edited December 18, 2022 by kirku

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

1 minute ago, kirku said:

Oh, no, it's more about the insane hypocrisy of someone saying the same thing multiple times over accusing me of tedium. I thought that'd be obvious.

As for "winning", there's no winning here. Just points that make sense to a reasonable person and those that do not.

As for your edited in comment on Smith, given all your points here are subjective then it helps if you have some credibility. Hard to reconcile that with recently vociferously going to bat for Dean Smith.

Well, good for you.

Edit: as for Smith, giving a guy (Southgate) a chance to prove himself is clearly your ‘thing’ now, well done.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[kirku 1,334]

8 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Well, good for you.  

Hopefully the one that's no good will be out of a job soon and the one who deserves more time will continue to coach his team for the next few years...

Edit - have you seriously just edited the post I replied to, to try and make it look like you "predicted" this reply? Now that's hilarious!

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by kirku

[kirku 1,334]

12 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Ah yes - I forgot you are the one who has to think he’s ‘won’ - it’s very strange and not something you can possibly do.  Sorry about that. 

….and me having to repeat things (ie facts that you don’t like) says more about you than me.  Deluded doesn’t come close.

You've done that thing again where you go back and edit in antagonistic points after I've already replied.

What was I saying about credibility?

Gareth wouldn't stand for such poor sportsmanship, I wouldn't have thought..

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

Just now, kirku said:

You've done that thing again where you go back and edit in antagonistic points after I've already replied.

What was I saying about credibility?

Gareth wouldn't stand for such poor sportsmanship, I wouldn't have thought..

Nope.  Wrong yet again.  I’ve not edited any post after you have replied - presumably another fact you don’t like.

[kirku 1,334]

3 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Nope.  Wrong yet again.  I’ve not edited any post after you have replied - presumably another fact you don’t like.

It's all in the posts I quoted. Clear as day. Sad.

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

8 minutes ago, kirku said:

It's all in the posts I quoted. Clear as day. Sad.

Not at all.  I have edited posts but not after you have posted a reply, as I said above.

That is 100% fact. 

Edit: but you have - clear as day - edited my replies in your quotes…is that ‘sad’?

And imagine my surprise on a thread above this, where you have edited numerous posts.  Interesting.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

17 minutes ago, kirku said:

 

Edit - have you seriously just edited the post I replied to, to try and make it look like you "predicted" this reply? Now that's hilarious!

 

I did no such thing.  I presume our comments crossed in the ether. 

[kirku 1,334]

17 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Not at all.  I have edited posts but not after you have posted a reply, as I said above.

That is 100% fact. 

Edit: but you have - clear as day - edited my replies in your quotes…is that ‘sad’?

And imagine my surprise on a thread above this, where you have edited numerous posts.  Interesting.

1) It's all timestamped.

2) The idea that I've edited your responses in order to reply to them is as pathetic as it is nonsensical. The only meaningful edit I made was highlighted with an edit tag and put in italics. The rest were minor typos.

Your original post only had the first paragraph.

You added the dig after the fact. It's clearly seen in the post I quoted but whatever makes you feel better, I guess.

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

6 hours ago, kirku said:

1) It's all timestamped.

2) The idea that I've edited your responses in order to reply to them is as pathetic as it is nonsensical. The only meaningful edit I made was highlighted with an edit tag and put in italics. The rest were minor typos.

Your original post only had the first paragraph.

You added the dig after the fact. It's clearly seen in the post I quoted but whatever makes you feel better, I guess.

Well I’m glad you think you’re right as ever.  You’re not, but as ever let’s not let facts you don’t like get in the way of things.

Edit: Yes I edit sometimes, as do you. I usually say so, and didn’t edit anything after you’d replied.  Perhaps while you were replying but not after. That would be pointless. Oddly enough I’m in no position to know you’re mid-response when posting. 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[kirku 1,334]

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

13 hours ago, kirku said:

Let's take LWB as an example. Ashley Young and Danny Rose were in the squad, who would you have chosen instead?

It's utterly bizarre to insinuate there's a wealth of talent that Southgate overlooked in an England squad containing several players who were woefully short of international quality (ignoring the two above):

Delph, Jones, Welbeck, Cahill, Lingard, Dier, Loftus-Cheek, Butland

Luke Shaw played more games for Man Utd that season than Ashley Young.

And its not up to me to decide who should be selected. I could name others and you might well dismiss them. Its an opinion.

But if you are just narrowing it to the players as you have alluded, then why didn't the current England squad do better? Or is it the draw that ruined it? Fact is we are good at beating smaller nations but find it difficult to beat the top ones. Just look at our record since 2006. And Southgate, whose only achievement was to relegate Boro, got the job because he is what the FA wanted.

[TheGunnShow 5,968]

Why did the current unbalanced England team not do better in pushing the current world champions hard all the way in a second half where many thought they were actually the better side, and were probably one skied penalty away from extra time?

This notion of underachievement at this World Cup is bizarre.

[kirku 1,334]

35 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Why did the current unbalanced England team not do better in pushing the current world champions hard all the way in a second half where many thought they were actually the better side, and were probably one skied penalty away from extra time?

This notion of underachievement at this World Cup is bizarre.

Absolutely agree. 

It's not based on anything tangible, that's for sure

[Virtual reality 712]

I can’t imagine James Maddison is happy with this announcement 

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

3 minutes ago, Virtual reality said:

I can’t imagine James Maddison is happy with this announcement 

Not will our accountants be, either.

[Virtual reality 712]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

Not will our accountants be, either.

Laughable treatment of Maddison by Southgate. Possibly the most creative English player in the PL and takes a superb free kick but he won’t give him a look in. He only took him in the squad to appease the pundits that were calling for his inclusion. 

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

20 minutes ago, Virtual reality said:

Laughable treatment of Maddison by Southgate. Possibly the most creative English player in the PL and takes a superb free kick but he won’t give him a look in. He only took him in the squad to appease the pundits that were calling for his inclusion. 

Indeed. Southgate has his favourites, that’s for sure. Creativity isn’t among the things he’s after, it seems.

[Spillay 180]

15 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

Christ, you’re easily pleased. England beat the 18th, 19th and 20th ranked sides and got lucky against the 16th. And lost to the only good side we played.   That’s stunning. 

Well most of the so called top sides lost to outsiders didnt they? France to Tunisia, Germany to Japan, Spain and Portugal to Morocco.. Argies to Saudi.. winning internationals is never a given no matter who you are.. unless against San Marino ofcourse lol

[TheGunnShow 5,968]

Just now, Spillay said:

Well most of the so called top sides lost to outsiders didnt they? France to Tunisia, Germany to Japan, Spain and Portugal to Morocco.. Argies to Saudi.. winning internationals is never a given no matter who you are.. unless against San Marino ofcourse lol

France pretty much put the reserves out against Tunisia, I'd argue you missed a big one in Australia beating Denmark.

[Spillay 180]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

France pretty much put the reserves out against Tunisia, I'd argue you missed a big one in Australia beating Denmark.

Still a surprise result nonetheless no? And yes thats a great shout for sure 🙂

[TheGunnShow 5,968]

1 minute ago, Spillay said:

Still a surprise result nonetheless no? And yes thats a great shout for sure 🙂

A fair surprise, but I don't think most people expected the French to also chuck in pretty much the rest of the squad in one go either (and would say Brazil/Cameroon was similar to that for the same reason). AUS/DEN was far bigger as it was practically a KO game in the group stages (basically, who won went through) so both sides were going at it.

[Surfer 1,547]

I know one thing. James Maddison had better sign for Arsenal or he’ll never get time on the pitch under Southgate. 

[Virtual reality 712]

Southgates England haven't come home empty handed as we’ve won the fair play award for one yellow card…

[canarydan23 4,060]

Anyone who thinks this is good news doesn't have a genuine desire to see England win a major tournament. Like when Millwall got to the FA Cup Final in the 00s, it wasn't because they were one of the best performing teams in the competition, but because they got a decent draw. And unlike Millwall, they needed that luck to get there. England, with the players at their disposal, should be getting to the final 4 of major tournaments. You could field a brilliant XI out of players Southgate either left at home or didn't put on the pitch for more than a handful of minutes.

[Virtual reality 712]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

Anyone who thinks this is good news doesn't have a genuine desire to see England win a major tournament. Like when Millwall got to the FA Cup Final in the 00s, it wasn't because they were one of the best performing teams in the competition, but because they got a decent draw. And unlike Millwall, they needed that luck to get there. England, with the players at their disposal, should be getting to the final 4 of major tournaments. You could field a brilliant XI out of players Southgate either left at home or didn't put on the pitch for more than a handful of minutes.

I’ve no doubt that now we have Southgate taking us into the next tournament, We have every chance of retaining that fair play award..

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

21 hours ago, kirku said:

I find it interesting how the defeat to Croatia in the previous WC is remembered. Many people view it as a wasted opportunity or that England underperformed due to Southgate's "poor" coaching.

Ashley Young was playing LWB (with Danny Rose as the alternative). The midfield had Alli and Lingard in it, and sometimes Eric Dier. Phil Jones was in the squad.

Frankly disgraceful that Southgate couldn't get a better tune out of that lot to dominate a woeful Croatian midfield of Rakitic, Modric and Brozovic..

 

A bigger question then is why with all our investment and facilities, as well as arguably the best league domestically, can’t we produce a squad with first team positions at least at world class level? I understand if we were losing to other very well invested in countries, like Spain, France, Germany, Italy, etc. but you can’t tell me Croatia, Argentina, Portugal are spending the money we are? I mean Brazil have a population advantage, but so few of their stars play domestically.

Is the issue fundamentally that we pimp out our league to the suits and the marketing departments too much? I guess the investment it has brought is welcomed, but it’s not paid off with much success. 

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Anyone who thinks this is good news doesn't have a genuine desire to see England win a major tournament. Like when Millwall got to the FA Cup Final in the 00s, it wasn't because they were one of the best performing teams in the competition, but because they got a decent draw. And unlike Millwall, they needed that luck to get there. England, with the players at their disposal, should be getting to the final 4 of major tournaments. You could field a brilliant XI out of players Southgate either left at home or didn't put on the pitch for more than a handful of minutes.

This. Completely. 

Just seeing how Argentina took it to them today blew France away. I say that our attacking line up pound for pound is above Argentina (Messi aside). It’s our strength and GS refuses to play to it too often 

[kirku 1,334]

3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

You could field a brilliant XI out of players Southgate either left at home or didn't put on the pitch for more than a handful of minutes.

England aren't France (who got as far as they did without Benzema, Kante, and Pogba). 

CF, CM, CB and GK stick out as particular weaknesses.

 

[TheGunnShow 5,968]

2 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

A bigger question then is why with all our investment and facilities, as well as arguably the best league domestically, can’t we produce a squad with first team positions at least at world class level? I understand if we were losing to other very well invested in countries, like Spain, France, Germany, Italy, etc. but you can’t tell me Croatia, Argentina, Portugal are spending the money we are? I mean Brazil have a population advantage, but so few of their stars play domestically.

Is the issue fundamentally that we pimp out our league to the suits and the marketing departments too much? I guess the investment it has brought is welcomed, but it’s not paid off with much success. 

I'd say another major problem is that for far too long, youth football in England was miles behind the times and academies were looking for athletes rather than natural ball-players. Prime example from my days refereeing in the local junior league - one lad was scoring goals for fun at a decent team called Oxford Grove in the U11s. He wasn't a bad finisher by any means, but to say he was fast was an understatement. Grove pretty much told him to stand two yards back from the last defender and the ball got pinged into the channels for him to chase. Flew into the Bolton Wanderers academy, and did nothing. Didn't have anything beyond pace so when you took away his physical advantages, he wasn't effective.

Playing full-size matches at young ages rewards athletes over ballers. There is more focus on technique on smaller pitches in junior football nowadays, but such a change in culture takes time. As for the likes of Croatia, Argentina, Portugal and I'd add the Netherlands to that list, they've never had a problem turning out technically adept players who are tidy under pressure and keep the ball moving whilst keeping possession. 

Having the 'best' domestic league means little if the grassroots aren't strong, and I think that's where there is still more room for improvement.

Edited December 18, 2022 by TheGunnShow