Fernandes is our penalty taker.
Point stands, why have less experienced kids taking penalties when you have much more experienced senior players who should be taking them.
Saka 19, Sancho 21, Rashford 23. . . Why were these England’s 3rd, 4th & 5th Penalty Taker?
- Thread starter AFC NimbleThumb
- Start date
Point stands, why have less experienced kids taking penalties when you have much more experienced senior players who should be taking them.
It was a bad decision not to bring on our best attacking players before 90minutes was up in Grealish, Sancho and even Rashford.
I'd like to see any young player subbed on 120th minute having barely warmed up to take a decisive penalty in a Wembley final.
Setup to fail by Southgate.
Nice moment at the end and a big contrast to how Mbappe was treated by his team mates after missing.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Age of players who have scored and missed penalties for England in shootouts:
- 1990 - Scored - 29, 29, 24. Missed - 29, 28
- 1996 - Scored - 34, 30, 30, 29, 25. Missed - 25
- 1998 - Scored - 30, 27, 18 Missed - 30, 29
- 2004 - Scored - 26, 23, 23, 23. Missed - 29, 24
- 2006: Scored - 25. Missed - 28, 28, 26
- 2012 - Scored - 32, 26. Missed - 31, 26
I don't think it's age. But I have no idea why Southgate thought it was a good idea to pick these 3.
Saka (who has had a really good tournament up till yesterday) had looked absolutely petrified since he came on, we were convinced he was going to be one of those subbed off, so when he stayed on and was picked as the 5th penalty taker we were really shocked.
Rashford and Sancho had hardly played all tournament, so asking them to come on and take a penalty in those circumstances was a massive gamble. Plus watching Rashford over the past couple of seasons he really has lost a lot of the decisiveness he had in front of goal when he first came up.
Saka (who has had a really good tournament up till yesterday) had looked absolutely petrified since he came on, we were convinced he was going to be one of those subbed off, so when he stayed on and was picked as the 5th penalty taker we were really shocked.
Rashford and Sancho had hardly played all tournament, so asking them to come on and take a penalty in those circumstances was a massive gamble. Plus watching Rashford over the past couple of seasons he really has lost a lot of the decisiveness he had in front of goal when he first came up.
Exactly. Just listening to Danny Murphy on Talksport and he said you cannot recreate a pressure situation in training. Also said if he wanted Rashford and Sancho to take penalties he should have brought them on earlier.
Well Mbappes a bit of a cocky twat by all reports and he was the reason France went to penalities.
Missed sitter after sitter.
Obviously would be nice if someone went and put an arm around him instantly but people are emotional. It's not hard to see why they didn't in the moment
Would agree with this. I don't think they actually have touched the ball bar Rashford taking a throw in
Rashford was 100% the correct choice for taking a pen. He took a great one against Colombia, and against PSG of course (using the same run up on both) just should have been on the pitch earlier to lessen the pressure (obviously its still incredible pressure, but when you're talking penalties, that 1% less pressure can make all the difference).
Saka taking the 5th still boggles my mind though... crazy decision.
Saka taking the 5th still boggles my mind though... crazy decision.
Some idiot just said they should look at what Johnny Wilkinson did to take penalties. Murphy said the difference is you don't have a 6ft 5 guy in goal who can move from side to side when you are taking a penalty in football. Yes these players are getting some support, but you just know every ground they go to they will get abuse. They are the scapegoats.
Think most people agree that Rashford and Sancho should have been on much earlier, might have actually won the game then anyway. It was obvious in the end we played for penalties. The Saka decision was awful, that poor kid. This isn't taking a penalty against Brighton in an empty stadium.
Southgate absolutely fecked it with the subs. They made zero sense. We should’ve made them way earlier, but he clearly made them with pens in mind and none of them are renowned pen takers.
It doesn’t make sense bringing on players to take a penalty in general. Their head isn’t fully in the game, they’re obviously going to be shitting it more. Made sense that Maguire and Kane scored but the 3 that barely featured didn’t.
It doesn’t make sense bringing on players to take a penalty in general. Their head isn’t fully in the game, they’re obviously going to be shitting it more. Made sense that Maguire and Kane scored but the 3 that barely featured didn’t.
This. Sorry but you don't put that on a 19 year old. It's unfair.
Rashford I can get on board with dealing with the pressure. But he'd barely played this tournament and got on the pitch a minute before penalties. Sancho the same. Saka, I was like 'no no no no' as he was walking up for it. Occasion was way too big for him.
As I keep saying the subs should have been made at the start of ET. Grealish made a big impact, the other two lads could have changed the game in our favour.
Southgate's words post match: “ “It is always the risk you run but they have been by far the best (at penalties in training) and to get all those attacking players on you have to do it late. It was a gamble but if we gambled earlier we may have lost the game in extra-time any way.”
Shows you the man's mentality last night. Criminal.
Bloody hell. That is a problem.
In fairness did you see the formation we were playing in those final few minutes? We had Rashford and Sterling at wing back, Saka CM alongside Phillips with Sancho and Grealish either side of Kane.
I guess you could make the argument that Sterling and Saka should have been the two to make way though rather than Walker and Henderson.
In fairness, I don’t think he could sensibly have brought both of them on much earlier - at least without subbing off Saka. One of them should have been on for Sterling with at least 10 minutes left though.
That’s true. It’s a gamble though that sometimes pays off.
I think Southgate was trying to protect the players. Maybe those were the best penalty takers in training but for someone like Southgate who tries to be methodical and provide justification for every decision this seemed pretty stupid.
Rashford and Sancho weren't just cold coming into the game, but neither had played 90 minutes cumulatively across the tournament. Deciding to hang England's fate on those two players on penalties in the final just seems insane to me.
Sterling played near enough every minute of every game and scored 3 goals, he should have the confidence to step up and take one. And if not, why disrupt the entire balance of the team at the end of extra time to keep Sterling on the pitch?
Was the penalty the first touch Sancho had of the ball?
Anyway you splice it, the in game management from Southgate, from the second half onwards, is what cost England in this game. Italy were the better team on the night, but I still think (as someone who was not supporting England) that with the players on the England bench, Italy were there to be got at and beaten.
I mean, it got to the point that both Rashford and Sancho were fortunate to get on the pitch before the whistle went. Worked out well for Italy, but they could probably have kept possession for another 50 seconds and prevented Southgate from making the tactical penalty switch completely. There was a break in play at 118 minutes where both players could have come on, but Southgate appeared to want to make the change even later. He clearly doesn't trust those players to come on a few minutes before and see the job out, but expects them to then come on cold and despatch a penalty under that pressure? You couldn't make it up.
Anyway you splice it, the in game management from Southgate, from the second half onwards, is what cost England in this game. Italy were the better team on the night, but I still think (as someone who was not supporting England) that with the players on the England bench, Italy were there to be got at and beaten.
I mean, it got to the point that both Rashford and Sancho were fortunate to get on the pitch before the whistle went. Worked out well for Italy, but they could probably have kept possession for another 50 seconds and prevented Southgate from making the tactical penalty switch completely. There was a break in play at 118 minutes where both players could have come on, but Southgate appeared to want to make the change even later. He clearly doesn't trust those players to come on a few minutes before and see the job out, but expects them to then come on cold and despatch a penalty under that pressure? You couldn't make it up.
Last edited:
Apologies. My bad. I always get heated about this shit.
As Sterling didn't go near a penalty anyway, then yes. He didn't have qualms about taking Grealish off the other night, so why worry about taking Saka off.
No. Leaders should go first and score to ease the pressure a little bit.
You miss the first and you are done.
You just destroyed your own point. If they had played for longer they would of felt the pressure less as they would have had time to get into the game. Coming in cold increases the pressure.
Both coming in cold, and knowing that the penalty is your ONLY responsibility. If instead you're coming on to try and change the game, and then take a penalty... that also lessens the pressure.
I guess Sterling and Graelish pooped their pants, that’s why.
Would Pickford have been the obvious choice rather than Saka? I wouldn’t have wanted Sterling on it and Grealish presumably doesn’t take them for Villa for a reason. The two Pickford has taken for England were very confidently struck.
Why would Saka continue to represent England after all this? What's his motivation?
Yeah that's the issue I feel.
If Sterling wasn't going to take a pen then why leave him on for 120 minutes. He offers nothing defensively so you don't lose the game without him.
The sensible thing to do would have been to bring on Sancho/Rashford earlier in ET for Sterling. It would have helped them in the shootout too.
To play for his country perhaps? I dunno
Exactly. I don't know why people can't see how psychological sport is. These players were setup to fail. It's completely illogical. Players who you have clearly not trusted all tournament, played about 1 and a half games between them, don't get any match rhythm or game time to get their heads into the right mindset etc.
You don't believe that's going to add pressure to their penalty that will cause it to be much harder for them to score?
Nothing wrong with selecting Rashford (15 of 17 career penalties scored) or Sancho (10 of 11).
Saka was an odd choice, though. I really felt for him.
Saka was an odd choice, though. I really felt for him.
Rashford with 15-30 minutes to run in behind a tired defence? Nah too bold, lets give him a minute instead.
The wrong choice was not giving them, 2 excellent players, actual game time to make an impact and warm up to the occasion. It's criminal to not use them and then bring them on with a minute to go.
What kind of mentality is that?
Are you sure Danny Murphy said that?
Because if so I am marking today in the calendar as the first time I have heard him say something sensible.
fecking hell. All those attacking players? You mean a normal amount? Southgate starts with 5 defenders and 2 defensive midfielders in every game, and on top of that picks his wingers based on the defensive work rate they provide. He's the most negative manager of all time. I've never seen a bigger coward with his selections. It's not brave to go park the bus. He goes out not to lose, but to win you have to go out to win the game.
Southgate is a perennial loser and it's his mentality which is the reason why.
Thousands of brits are texting him saying he should play for Nigeria team, and that was probably the nicest part of those messages he received. How does one player gets motivated to comeback playing for England again?