Just when you thought things couldn’t get worse

[canarydan23 4,159]

8 hours ago, kirku said:

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.

 

France on paper were just about favourites, but on their overall World Cup performance, and how they played against us, they were there for the taking.

But from your post it appears you are one of the supporters I described, just happy for England to be there, so we'll cross our fingers for a good draw and hope to have a good run. In that case, I absolutely see why you like Southgate as a manager.

Don't get me wrong, at beating teams we should beat he is the best we've had for a while, but as has been repeated ad nauseum, you don't win trophies by only beating Panama, Colombia, Sweden and Denmark. Sooner or later we are going to have to beat a Belgium (though that should now be a bit easier), Croatia (we should beat them anyway), Italy or France. He's had five stabs at it at major tournaments and is on 0-5. 

And whilst I except there are a few teams with better starting XIs than us on paper, our squad depth is a joke. Even France would have loved the chance to bring on a Maddison, Grealish, etc. Hell, at 2-0 down on the hour mark they would have loved to chuck a Sancho on. And there aren't many nations who would have left a Serie A winning centre-back out of the squad entirely. And a midfield of Rice and Bellingham, with Philips chucked in if you wanted a 3, isn't weak. Adding Henderson in makes it so, but that's on Southgate. 

We have the playing resources to win a World Cup. We've just seen a squad with a Villa and Brighton player starting regularly and an MLS player on the bench win the World Cup. You know, though you may not admit it, that Southgate wouldn't have picked any of them if they were English.

Getting rid of him won't guarantee we'll win a major trophy. Keeping him will guarantee we won't. 

[canarydan23 4,159]

8 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

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.

Not sure when you stopped reffing grassroots, but it's been years since young ages played full-size matches. U12s and lower I don't think have played 11v11 for over a decade. And they've long done away the step up from 7v7 to 11v11, with a two season period of 9v9 at U11 and U12.

You had the Football DNA thing by the FA, which I think Southgate headed up, in 2014 encouraging a move towards to a more technical focus.

How long are we meant to wait for it to change?

[TheGunnShow 6,147]

11 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Not sure when you stopped reffing grassroots, but it's been years since young ages played full-size matches. U12s and lower I don't think have played 11v11 for over a decade. And they've long done away the step up from 7v7 to 11v11, with a two season period of 9v9 at U11 and U12.

You had the Football DNA thing by the FA, which I think Southgate headed up, in 2014 encouraging a move towards to a more technical focus.

How long are we meant to wait for it to change?

And you're seeing the benefits now with that bumper crop of attacking midfielders and better performances in the Euros / WC - managed by Southgate. You're seeing an England side that's technically more adept than many a past team and is better at keeping the ball.

England's squad depth isn't all that. Not enough international class goalies (in fact, whilst Pickford hasn't let anyone down in an England shirt, he's not as good as a Lloris, Schmeichel, Courtois, Oblak or a Martinez), not enough international class centre-halves (would agree that Tomori should be blooded alongside Stones now especially with the new Nations League but even then - France had Varane, Upamecano, Konate, Kounde), could be struggling at left-back, plenty of decent attacking midfielders that offer different skillsets and no depth up top unless you put Rashford as reserve striker.

If England are consistently good at beating teams they should beat but consistently fall against the best, what does that really mean?

Me, I say they're not good enough but they are getting closer. Better than getting humiliated by Iceland in 2016 and pasted 4-1 by Germany - under an elite manager in Capello - in 2010. In other words, I'd urge patience. They're clearly getting more right than wrong.

Edited December 19, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[canarydan23 4,159]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If England are consistently good at beating teams they should beat but consistently fall against the best, what does that really mean?

Croatia were not the best. We were favourites to beat them. We were favourites to beat Italy also. France were very poor against us yet still beat us whilst preventing us from scoring a goal from open play. Don't kid yourself into thinking that Southgate's tournaments all end because we run into the world's best; it's absolutely not true.

And we should be blooding Tomori now? Absolute hogwash. He should have been blooded at the start of the year. He is comfortably the second best English centre-half on the planet behind Stones. He's 24 so not young, he played more minutes for AC Milan en route to the Serie A title than any other player, they conceded 0.7 goals per game with him in the team and 1.6 per game in the matches he missed due to injury or illness. Southgate picked Maguire and Coady over him. Of all the idiotic things that man has done, this is the one that is most baffling. To be honest, if you're going on form, there is a shout for Chris Smalling who has been doing a great job in Serie A as well. This is why I can't hold much truck with people saying "We've no strength OR depth at CB" when we're leaving a £50m rated one at home. Do me a favour.

[TheGunnShow 6,147]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

Croatia were not the best. We were favourites to beat them. We were favourites to beat Italy also. France were very poor against us yet still beat us whilst preventing us from scoring a goal from open play. Don't kid yourself into thinking that Southgate's tournaments all end because we run into the world's best; it's absolutely not true.

And we should be blooding Tomori now? Absolute hogwash. He should have been blooded at the start of the year. He is comfortably the second best English centre-half on the planet behind Stones. He's 24 so not young, he played more minutes for AC Milan en route to the Serie A title than any other player, they conceded 0.7 goals per game with him in the team and 1.6 per game in the matches he missed due to injury or illness. Southgate picked Maguire and Coady over him. Of all the idiotic things that man has done, this is the one that is most baffling. To be honest, if you're going on form, there is a shout for Chris Smalling who has been doing a great job in Serie A as well. This is why I can't hold much truck with people saying "We've no strength OR depth at CB" when we're leaving a £50m rated one at home. Do me a favour.

On what basis were Croatia and Italy not the favourites? Betting odds? If so, all that reveals is what your average punter thinks and is not an objective assessment of the merits of players and team units - especially if you're using odds in England as all it reflects is where the money's going, and bookies make loads of money on idiots just putting a patriotic bet on. Besides, that 2018 Croatian midfield of Modric, Brozevic, Perisic and Rakitic is a pretty golden generation more or less at its peak, not to mention another world-class player in Mandzukic up top to finish off the chances. At Euro 2020 Croatia fell to Spain in extra time in the second round. They came third here. So, a losing WC final, an extra-time loss to an excellent Spain side in the Euros, and a third place at this WC. They're amongst the best. Saying they're not is kidding yourself to attack the manager.

As for Italy (who beat that excellent Spain side on penalties in the semis), they might have had an old spine, but still a grand one at centre-half in Chiellini and Bonucci along with another genuinely world-class stopper in Donnarumma, and whilst England started like a house on fire, so did Argentina in this WC final, and they still needed penalties to win it.

France were apparently 'very poor' whilst actually scoring from open play and England couldn't and Griezmann dominated the pitch? Nope. England played well in the second half and pushed France back, and England did play well between the boxes, but did not deserve to win as they didn't really create many clear chances and France were clinical with the ones they did. If you can't score a free, unpressured shot from 12 yards, and you end up smashing it so far over that it practically landed at Heathrow at the same time the team plane came home, you do not deserve to win.

It's clear to me that whilst Southgate's not got every decision right, he runs an excellent camp and is doing quite well with a flawed and unbalanced crop of players. He's done better than proven elite managers in Eriksson (who probably had the best and most balanced generation of players England has had since '66) and Capello (and another good one in Hodgson), and there's more promising young talent on the way, Bellingham's emergence just might make him a major piece in the jigsaw.

England are genuinely competing at that top level now which is something that couldn't be said since Italia '90 and Euro '96 (at home). They weren't before. And that squad is largely fairly young and most should be around for WC 2026. Only Walker, Henderson and Trippier will probably not be around for then. Unless some of the youngsters do a Dele Alli....

[hogesar 9,856]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Croatia were not the best. We were favourites to beat them. We were favourites to beat Italy also. France were very poor against us yet still beat us whilst preventing us from scoring a goal from open play. Don't kid yourself into thinking that Southgate's tournaments all end because we run into the world's best; it's absolutely not true.

You need to look beyond betting odds every now and again. Especially in international football where bookies make absolute fortunes from misplaced patriotism.

I think France's GK, CB's and Central Midfield (Bellingham aside) were all better players than what England had to offer. Essentially, the spine of the team. 

[Capt. Pants 4,344]

Southgate will hold down the job until a viable alternative is available and rightly so.

Unfortunately England will continue to nurture some of the best players and coaches in the world at the expense of homegrown talent. It is what it is.

[canarydan23 4,159]

42 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

On what basis were Croatia and Italy not the favourites? Betting odds?

 

7 minutes ago, hogesar said:

You need to look beyond betting odds every now and again.

Betting odds is one measure. The FIFA Rankings is another. We were three places above Italy when we lost to them (and I haven't even mentioned home advantage) and a whole eight places above Croatia when we lost to them.

We were justifiably favourites to win both of those games. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble accepting that. Saying that we weren't is kidding yourself to defend the manager.

[TheGunnShow 6,147]

The FIFA rankings are very hit-and-miss to put it mildly (heck, all of England's group this WC were in the top 20, USA in 16th, Wales in 19th, and Iran in 20th) and no-one would really say any of those are that great. Not to mention three places means very, very little at the top end. All that means is they are games you can win, but don't necessarily win. England played well against France, but just couldn't quite tip it. It happens at that level.

Belgium were second in the rankings. Old and past it. Morocco were 22nd in the rankings. Enough said. Japan were 24th. Beat Spain and Germany (and that was funking hilarious when Costa Rica went 2-1 up against Germany and at that point Japan and Costa Rica were going through over Spain and Germany, then Germany regained the lead and put Spain back through!). Australia were 38th. Beat Denmark, who were 10th. Saudi Arabia were 51st, and beat the now world champions. Could mention Cameroon in 43rd upping Brazil who were top and Tunisia beating France, but in both cases both bigger countries pretty much put the reserves on, so less of a shock.

Heck, I remember the days when Norway were second in them. As much as I loved that Norway side and Egil Olsen's management, you have to admit they got there on the strength of very strong defenders in Henning Berg and Ronny Johnsen, and an absolute worldie in Rune Bratseth. Jostein Flo was one of their main attackers, for heaven's sake! 😄

In other words, the rankings are very rough at best.

Edited December 19, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[kirku 1,339]

11 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

But from your post it appears you are one of the supporters I described, just happy for England to be there, so we'll cross our fingers for a good draw and hope to have a good run. In that case, I absolutely see why you like Southgate as a manager.

No, I can just see and appreciate the context. It starts with accepting the unbalanced squad and not vastly over-estimating the talents available.

If we apply some of the injuries France had, what would an England team without Rice (Kante), Bellingham (Pogba), Kane (Benzema), and Rashford (Nkunku) look like?

It's very hard to make a reasonable argument that England have, as you put it, "squad depth that's a joke". I'm interested in what this "brilliant XI out of players Southgate either left at home or didn't put on the pitch" consists of?

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

Henderson, Tomori, Smalling, Chillwell (injured tbf), James (injured), Ward-Prowse, Maddison, Sancho, Bowen, Toney, maybe have Olise to come through. Plus whoever GS left on the bench, including Grealish most of the time, Coady, Gallagher, etc

Yes, not worldies through and through but there’s class in there that would p*ss all over most top nations second string consisting of lower league players in less high profile domestic leagues. 

[canarydan23 4,159]

12 minutes ago, kirku said:

No, I can just see and appreciate the context. It starts with accepting the unbalanced squad and not vastly over-estimating the talents available.

If we apply some of the injuries France had, what would an England team without Rice (Kante), Bellingham (Pogba), Kane (Benzema), and Rashford (Nkunku) look like?

It's very hard to make a reasonable argument that England have, as you put it, "squad depth that's a joke". I'm interested in what this "brilliant XI out of players Southgate either left at home or didn't put on the pitch" consists of?

If we include injured players then;

Henderson, James, Chilwell, Smalling, Tomori, Jones, Ward-Prowse, Sancho, Smith-Rowe, Eze, Toney

And that's ignoring the likes of Maddison, Grealish, Phillips, Gallagher, Coady and others who were brought along but either not used at all or got limited minutes.

[kirku 1,339]

1 minute ago, SwearyCanary said:

Henderson, Tomori, Smalling, Chillwell (injured tbf), James (injured), Ward-Prowse, Maddison, Sancho, Bowen, Toney, maybe have Olise to come through. Plus whoever GS left on the bench, including Grealish most of the time, Coady, Gallagher, etc

Yes, not worldies through and through but there’s class in there that would p*ss all over most top nations second string consisting of lower league players in less high profile domestic leagues. 

Do you honestly think that's a "brilliant XI" for an international side?

Smalling at CB (wasn't international standard in his prime, let alone at 34). A CM of JWP and Maddison? A French youth international (Olise)?

[kirku 1,339]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

If we include injured players then;

Henderson, James, Chilwell, Smalling, Tomori, Jones, Ward-Prowse, Sancho, Smith-Rowe, Eze, Toney

And that's ignoring the likes of Maddison, Grealish, Phillips, Gallagher, Coady and others who were brought along but either not used at all or got limited minutes.

Firstly, I don't think you can reasonably include injured players given the proviso that Southgate "left them at home".

But you surely can't believe that side is anything more than painfully average at international level? It's so far from the "brilliant" side it's being sold as.

[canarydan23 4,159]

Just now, kirku said:

Firstly, I don't think you can reasonably include injured players given the proviso that Southgate "left them at home".

But you surely can't believe that side is anything more than painfully average at international level? It's so far from the "brilliant" side it's being sold as.

If the injured players went, it would free up a member of the squad who did travel, wouldn't it?

And it's a very, very good side. Remember, we're restricted to picking players outside of the 26 man squads that went to the World Cup. I'd be interested to see if any other nation could field such a strong lineup.

And your reference to France's missing players just makes our defeat even more galling. If Southgate can't beat a poor performing France without one of their elite strikers, one of the world's most decorated CDMs and a player who once held the record for the highest transfer fee ever paid, then you can't really expect us to ever beat them.

Like I said, it comes down to the fact that you either think England should be capable of regularly beating other elite nations (of which we are one) and therefore in with a hunt at a major trophy, or you think our place is plucky little second tier nation who might have a good run if the draw favours us. I happen to be in the former camp, but it won't happen with Southgate at the helm. It just won't.

Madness is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. In 18 months time, we'll probably get through the group stages, beat someone like Ukraine or Poland in the first knock out game and then lose our first real test against a Netherlands, Spain, Portugal etc. And like this World Cup, some people will bizarrely give that a good old pat on the back and say, "Bad luck chaps" whilst nations far less well-equipped than us lift trophies.

[kirku 1,339]

FWIW, here's a French 2nd string

Maignan, Mendy, Kimpembe, Kounde, Pavard, Tchouameni, Camavinga, Coman, Diaby, Nkunku, Giroud

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

18 minutes ago, kirku said:

Do you honestly think that's a "brilliant XI" for an international side?

Smalling at CB (wasn't international standard in his prime, let alone at 34). A CM of JWP and Maddison? A French youth international (Olise)?

it’s not a brilliant starting 11. But it’s an amazing level of depth for a squad if that’s your bench. If you don’t feel that defensive players, playing in Italy the home of building defensive football and rated highly by their top clubs, are any good then that’s your call. I happen to disagree and honestly both make Maguire look like the water boy, especially on form. 
Olise had/has the option of being a English National. Surely Southgate can tempt him to come and use his talent to sit nicely on the bench. 

[kirku 1,339]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

If the injured players went, it would free up a member of the squad who did travel, wouldn't it?

And it's a very, very good side. Remember, we're restricted to picking players outside of the 26 man squads that went to the World Cup. I'd be interested to see if any other nation could field such a strong lineup.

And your reference to France's missing players just makes our defeat even more galling. If Southgate can't beat a poor performing France without one of their elite strikers, one of the world's most decorated CDMs and a player who once held the record for the highest transfer fee ever paid, then you can't really expect us to ever beat them.

Like I said, it comes down to the fact that you either think England should be capable of regularly beating other elite nations (of which we are one) and therefore in with a hunt at a major trophy, or you think our place is plucky little second tier nation who might have a good run if the draw favours us. I happen to be in the former camp, but it won't happen with Southgate at the helm. It just won't.

Madness is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. In 18 months time, we'll probably get through the group stages, beat someone like Ukraine or Poland in the first knock out game and then lose our first real test against a Netherlands, Spain, Portugal etc. And like this World Cup, some people will bizarrely give that a good old pat on the back and say, "Bad luck chaps" whilst nations far less well-equipped than us lift trophies.

What we've seen with France is how deep their squad is. International football is cyclical and hugely dependent on form, injuries, and truly elite players. England's record at major tournaments is clear - we're performing exponentially better under Southgate than any other manager.

Talking of truly elite, who is England's Messi, Mbappe, or Modric? Funnily enough, they all finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd..

 

 

[TheGunnShow 6,147]

24 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Henderson, Tomori, Smalling, Chillwell (injured tbf), James (injured), Ward-Prowse, Maddison, Sancho, Bowen, Toney, maybe have Olise to come through. Plus whoever GS left on the bench, including Grealish most of the time, Coady, Gallagher, etc

Yes, not worldies through and through but there’s class in there that would p*ss all over most top nations second string consisting of lower league players in less high profile domestic leagues. 

A lot of untested ones there. Smalling was one of the failures at Euro 2016 so you're hoping for an improvement. Not sure Ward-Prowse is that close apart from his set-pieces. Toney's untested, Bowen practically so, Sancho's out of form as is Grealish, really, Coady's not good enough, Gallagher's another intriguing prospect that I'd like to see blooded in the Nations League.

England has a strange issue with goalies. Often have some really promising young ones that end up decent in the end but not dominant. Forster and Hart looked like excellent prospects and whilst they both had good careers (and very good in Hart's case), neither were close to elite. Pickford looked excellent in his early days, but at international level he's really a solid 6.5 out of 10. Pope dropped his chance, so now it's Henderson or Ramsdale, you'd think.

Opta revealed their team of the World Cup. Hernandez got in at left-back, Tchouameni got in the middle. And those were two of the replacements France had. No disgrace to England in falling just short against that sort of team.

World Cup 2022: Choose your best tournament XI - BBC Sport

[kirku 1,339]

2 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

it’s not a brilliant starting 11. But it’s an amazing level of depth for a squad if that’s your bench. If you don’t feel that defensive players, playing in Italy the home of building defensive football and rated highly by their top clubs, are any good then that’s your call. I happen to disagree and honestly both make Maguire look like the water boy, especially on form. 
Olise had/has the option of being a English National. Surely Southgate can tempt him to come and use his talent to sit nicely on the bench. 

How do you think it compares to the French 2nd XI I just posted?

And thanks for admitting it's far from the "brilliant" side it was claimed to be

[canarydan23 4,159]

12 minutes ago, kirku said:

FWIW, here's a French 2nd string

Maignan, Mendy, Kimpembe, Kounde, Pavard, Tchouameni, Camavinga, Coman, Diaby, Nkunku, Giroud

Eh?! Tchouameni played every minute of five out of seven of France's fixtures. Giround feature in every one. Kounde and Coman featured in six out of seven. Pavard, Mendy and Camavinga all were in the squad.

I picked XI who didn't even travel. And they'd still have a decent chance against that team.

[kirku 1,339]

I'll take a stab at a Brazil 2nd string:

Ederson, Lodi, Gabriel, Bremer, Emerson, Fabinho, Guimaraes, Martinelli, Antony, Firmino, Jesus

[TheGunnShow 6,147]

Sure, but you'd think a fully fit Pogba or Kante would be in ahead of Tchouameni, but both are injured. Giroud featured in every one because Benzema was out injured. Kounde (and indeed any centre-half not called Varane) featured largely because Kimpembe was out.

It might not have been France's very best team, but the point is that the back-ups were of a very similar standard so we can really say they have tremendous strength in depth. Tchouameni just might have nailed himself a position ahead of Kante now. England have that sort of depth in attacking midfield, but not throughout the team.

[kirku 1,339]

2 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Eh?! Tchouameni played every minute of five out of seven of France's fixtures. Giround feature in every one. Kounde and Coman featured in six out of seven. Pavard, Mendy and Camavinga all were in the squad.

I picked XI who didn't even travel. And they'd still have a decent chance against that team.

It was a 2nd XI - I didn't claim it was a "left behind" team.

It does highlight what true depth looks like though:

Varane and Upamecano (I think) are 1st choice ahead of Kounde and Kimpembe. They also have Saliba, Konate, both Hernandezs, and Pavard. All can play CB.

 

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

2 minutes ago, kirku said:

How do you think it compares to the French 2nd XI I just posted?

And thanks for admitting it's far from the "brilliant" side it was claimed to be

I never claimed it was a world beating second 11, but it beats pretty much every team we did actually beat at this tournament for me. 

The French second string is good. I think ours is better. They also played players untested at international level, like Thuram. Not something Southgate would go for. 

A bit disingenuous to claim Giroud (6 games) and tchouameni (7 games) are second string when they started most of the games this tournament. 

[canarydan23 4,159]

2 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

I never claimed it was a world beating second 11, but it beats pretty much every team we did actually beat at this tournament for me. 

The French second string is good. I think ours is better. They also played players untested at international level, like Thuram. Not something Southgate would go for. 

A bit disingenuous to claim Giroud (6 games) and tchouameni (7 games) are second string when they started most of the games this tournament. 

This is a key point. The XI I posted beats Iran, Wales (USA too) and Senegal.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Sure, but you'd think a fully fit Pogba or Kante would be in ahead of Tchouameni, but both are injured. Giroud featured in every one because Benzema was out injured. Kounde (and indeed any centre-half not called Varane) featured largely because Kimpembe was out.

It might not have been France's very best team, but the point is that the back-ups were of a very similar standard so we can really say they have tremendous strength in depth. Tchouameni just might have nailed himself a position ahead of Kante now. England have that sort of depth in attacking midfield, but not throughout the team.

So why not use that depth to put our foot on the throat of a France team that clearly struggled with being attacked? I know why, because of Gareth Southgate’s lack of faith in our depth at an attacking level 

[kirku 1,339]

1 minute ago, SwearyCanary said:

I never claimed it was a world beating second 11, but it beats pretty much every team we did actually beat at this tournament for me. 

The French second string is good. I think ours is better. They also played players untested at international level, like Thuram. Not something Southgate would go for. 

A bit disingenuous to claim Giroud (6 games) and tchouameni (7 games) are second string when they started most of the games this tournament. 

It's not disingenuous in the slightest - Giroud only played because Benzema was injured. T-meni because Pogba and Kante were injured. Nkunku was also injured which (I think) is why they called up Thuram. They also left Martial behind.

The fact is that we saw French squad depth at play - they reached the final shorn of 3 truly world-class players (2 of whom are amongst the best in their position of all time). 

Jarrod Bowen and Chris Smalling don't get anywhere near that squad. Ever.

[kirku 1,339]

2 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

This is a key point. The XI I posted beats Iran, Wales (USA too) and Senegal.

Your overriding point of this discussion has been how England (read, Southgate) has failed to beat other major nations.

How does the "key point" that you think a "left behind" XI beats those teams quoted have any impact on that goal?

(BTW, Senegal were missing Mane..)

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

1 minute ago, kirku said:

It's not disingenuous in the slightest - Giroud only played because Benzema was injured. T-meni because Pogba and Kante were injured. Nkunku was also injured which (I think) is why they called up Thuram. They also left Martial behind.

The fact is that we saw French squad depth at play - they reached the final shorn of 3 truly world-class players (2 of whom are amongst the best in their position of all time). 

Jarrod Bowen and Chris Smalling don't get anywhere near that squad. Ever.

Gareth Southgate doesn’t get our squad near them either, if only our squad was as good as Tunisia he might have a chance