The Official England Thread-The Team We All Support [Vol 3]

[Driver101]

RichB said:

g4ry13 said:

We're often told that some of our players are world class...

I'm not sure I could name any of our players that would be in a current World XI.

When you pick your best XI how many play for one country?

Do you look at other squads and think they are much deeper in quality than England?

[RichB]

Driver101 said:

RichB said:

g4ry13 said:

We're often told that some of our players are world class...

I'm not sure I could name any of our players that would be in a current World XI.

When you pick your best XI how many play for one country? Do you look at other squads and think they are much deeper in quality than England?

Not really my point. I was simply saying that in any position I cannot think of an England player that would be an absolute shoe-in.

[Driver101]

RichB said:

Driver101 said:

RichB said:

g4ry13 said:

We're often told that some of our players are world class...

I'm not sure I could name any of our players that would be in a current World XI.

When you pick your best XI how many play for one country? Do you look at other squads and think they are much deeper in quality than England?

Not really my point. I was simply saying that in any position I cannot think of an England player that would be an absolute shoe-in.

I wouldn't say any country has an abundance of world XI players. There is average players in most first teams.

England have a squad of £40m+ valued players, but collectively they are nowhere near that level.

While England don't have players you'd automatically pick in a world XI they have a lot of players that should be better than they are.

[Frimley111R]

Slowboathome said:

1. He's outperformed every England manager for the past 50 years.

2. His record in beating 'top teams' in tournament football is relatively poor.

3. There seem to be no obvious candidates to replace him.

I'm happy to stick with him as, on balance, the arguments for keeping him on are stronger than the arguments for sacking him - particularly in the light of point 3.

He's a likeable character and we are doing better than before but how long do we keep this? I agree with the above too and that is really going to seal our fate for the future...

[Frimley111R]

Driver101 said:

RichB said:

Driver101 said:

RichB said:

g4ry13 said:

We're often told that some of our players are world class...

I'm not sure I could name any of our players that would be in a current World XI.

When you pick your best XI how many play for one country? Do you look at other squads and think they are much deeper in quality than England?

Not really my point. I was simply saying that in any position I cannot think of an England player that would be an absolute shoe-in.

I wouldn't say any country has an abundance of world XI players. There is average players in most first teams.

England have a squad of £40m+ valued players, but collectively they are nowhere near that level.

While England don't have players you'd automatically pick in a world XI they have a lot of players that should be better than they are.

Brazil had a pretty amazing squad. Their bench alone had some great players on it, probably the best of any team by a long way. Just goes to show that it still takes more than that to win though...

[Slowboathome]

Frimley111R said:

Slowboathome said:

1. He's outperformed every England manager for the past 50 years.

2. His record in beating 'top teams' in tournament football is relatively poor.

3. There seem to be no obvious candidates to replace him.

I'm happy to stick with him as, on balance, the arguments for keeping him on are stronger than the arguments for sacking him - particularly in the light of point 3.

He's a likeable character and we are doing better than before but how long do we keep this? I agree with the above too and that is really going to seal our fate for the future...

Well, he'll be gone after the Euros (18 months time) and the FA reckon they have a succession plan in place.

I have no idea who they are thinking of as his replacement though. Maybe they're going down the Scaloni route of appointing a talented assistant who hasn't previously had a big job. In their view Southgate has been a big success so I don't imagine they'll want to adopt a completely different approach by installing another big name from overseas.

[Radec]

Although France ultimately lost in the end yesterday, the difference between Southgate and Deschamps was telling in that after 40 mins he took off Giroud and Dembele and went to change it up.
The team were better for it and then they scored one and threw the kitchen sink at Argentina until the end.

Would Southgate ever have the guts to take off Kane and Foden/Saka after 40 mins if they were having a bad game?

Against France we had 2 pens and that was it, apart from a Maguire header did we create anything else or can you say we threw everything at France until the end?
Rashford came on very late and then Grealish in the last minute and couldn't affect the game, it's all too safe.

This is the limitation of GS in that he is afraid or not reactive enough to make the big calls when needed, it's just seems like yeah let's get a set piece or pen and hope something happens instead of making it happen.

He's the best we have at the moment but this difference in mentality to win at all costs is why I don't see us winning a major tournament with him.

[toon10]

Radec said:

Although France ultimately lost in the end yesterday, the difference between Southgate and Deschamps was telling in that after 40 mins he took off Giroud and Dembele and went to change it up.
The team were better for it and then they scored one and threw the kitchen sink at Argentina until the end.

This. We can debate his selections at times, we all have opinions on who should start, who shouldn't play together, etc. but ultimately, if it's not working, change it up. I like Southgate and I can't see many other English managers doing any better but his substitutions tend to be reactive rather than proactive. During the France game, there was a point where were on top for some time but weren't scoring. That's when a "great" manager might look to change it up in attack to try something different.

Bringing on Gealish in the 88th minute when we really needed a goal was just odd. Surely you bring him on when he has time to affect the game. The French defenders looked out of sorts and someone with pace who can cut inside, go one on one and wins free kicks and penalties is exactly what we needed. There were other odd substitutions but I suppose these are subjective. Deschamps could see what they were doing wasn't working yesterday and didn't hesitate. OK they lost to a great team in the end but you have to throw your chips in and take a risk. I often feel when England come up against a top side, we play well but sometimes sit on making changes until it's too late.

[Yazza54]

Agree with the above, GS would've waited til the 89th minute

[Radec]

I think Grealish came on in the 97th minute if I'm remembering correctly.

[dvshannow]

Thing about the England game is they were perform well 2nd half and the goal France score was against run of play

Do you immediately start subbing people ?

They even got Kane his penalty , the fact he didn’t covert is not GS fault.

It’s just the game and one of the reasons it’s the world top games. Play the England France 10 times think England win 6-7 based on what I saw .

[Dr Murdoch]

Radec said:

Although France ultimately lost in the end yesterday, the difference between Southgate and Deschamps was telling in that after 40 mins he took off Giroud and Dembele and went to change it up.
The team were better for it and then they scored one and threw the kitchen sink at Argentina until the end.

Would Southgate ever have the guts to take off Kane and Foden/Saka after 40 mins if they were having a bad game?

Against France we had 2 pens and that was it, apart from a Maguire header did we create anything else or can you say we threw everything at France until the end?
Rashford came on very late and then Grealish in the last minute and couldn't affect the game, it's all too safe.

This is the limitation of GS in that he is afraid or not reactive enough to make the big calls when needed, it's just seems like yeah let's get a set piece or pen and hope something happens instead of making it happen.

He's the best we have at the moment but this difference in mentality to win at all costs is why I don't see us winning a major tournament with him.

Deschamps was 2-0 down, being outplayed, he really HAD to make a change as his starting line up was not working at all. Whilst not defending GS, FFS Deshamps was dead and buried at that point due to his tactics, he HAD to change. He's not some tactical genius (if he was he wouldn't have got it s wrong to begin with?).

[Ntv]

Yazza54 said:

Agree with the above, GS would've waited til the 89th minute

Exactly. I'm ok with Southgate as you have to go back to Venables to find a better England manager. But he has obvious tactical limitations and will not win the Euros in 24 or the 26 WC if he lasts that long.

France look to have a super strong young squad and if DD stays, ask me now and I'd back them for the Euros.

[type-r]

Wide ranging interview with Southgate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64397469

The worry for me is that even after a period of reflection post-World Cup, Gareth says he wouldn't change the tactics against France. Sounds to me to expect more of the same defensive play going forward, sadly.

[48k]

type-r said:

Wide ranging interview with Southgate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64397469

The worry for me is that even after a period of reflection post-World Cup, Gareth says he wouldn't change the tactics against France. Sounds to me to expect more of the same defensive play going forward, sadly.

Sadly? He's the most successful England manager since Sir Alf Ramsey. Strikers win you games defenders win you leagues and all that.

[dvshannow]

Perhaps he has perfected winning the games against middle rank teams but falls short in the big games

Englands recent record against top teams in competitions is not great

Maybe he was unlucky however you can’t say his record justifies him staying as he’s not performed well when it counts

[g4ry13]

48k said:

type-r said:

Wide ranging interview with Southgate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64397469

The worry for me is that even after a period of reflection post-World Cup, Gareth says he wouldn't change the tactics against France. Sounds to me to expect more of the same defensive play going forward, sadly.

Sadly? He's the most successful England manager since Sir Alf Ramsey. Strikers win you games defenders win you leagues and all that.

Really? What's he won?

Last time I checked, England's last World Cup win was '66 and have never won the Euros.

[RowntreesCabana]

In the last 2 world cups, over 90 minutes he's beaten Panama, Iran, Wales, Sweden, Tunisia. It took penalties to beat a Columbia without their main man Rodriguez. We lost to Croatia once, Belgium twice and France once.

What exactly has Southgate achieved that was out of the ordinary? He's achieved no more than he should've with very favourable fixtures, never once giving an unexpected result. He's beige. Yes, he's taken us further than many previous managers, but it's not exactly something that can be compared to previous campaigns as the opposition and the squad is not comparable, but this squad is fairly strong and he's yet to get the upper hand on a superior team.

Should've stepped aside after this World Cup imo.

[type-r]

Precisely. I really thought he would reflect on our two exits and look at what changes he could have made. He'll still pick Maguire even though he's barely played, he'll stick pick Sterling and it will be much of the same old when it comes to Germany next year.

With the attacking players at his disposal, he should be building a team around that - a team that should have taken the game to France. Instead it was a turgid display and another what-might-have-been feeling. The same against Italy and two 35 year olds in defence.

Would Pep or Klopp set up to be defensive or woukd they play from the front? Look at the radical attacking play Stokes and Bazball has done for English Test cricket. It takes a bit of risk and radical thought to adopt a more forward thinking approach, when the last couple failed to get you over the line.

Edited by type-r on Thursday 26th January 23:08

[Yazza54]

He's simply not dynamic or daring enough to switch it up when things aren't going our way. He will continue to get us so far then fail miserably.

Yes he's done better than many in recent years but the depth and breadth of the talent in the squad is better than it's been in a long time too. Take that into account and we are underachieving.