You don't know much about Croatia, do you? You're just rambling cliches, admit it! Their defense is not solid. Their midfield is (still) pretty good even if it isn't as good as three years ago.
England - Euro 2021 Discussion | FA chairman: Southgate to be offered new contract until Euro 2024
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
In fairness, they were missing one of the best defenders in the world. Normally they are sock solid back there.
England were good enough shaded the game, just about deserved a single goal victory. Good start to a tournament that win a tricky game against a good opponent without ever looking outstanding. There's more to come hopefully.
On the selection and individual performances front front three were largely disappointing, middle three were all good with Phillips being excellent 2 cbs had good games and the full backs were solid enough and even pickford gave a very calming reassurance in between the sticks, commanding his area well.
A solid performance if a little underwhelming going forward, also got a bit carried away with bombing direct balls forward either over the top towards sterling or into to kane to try and hold up with the ball coming back with alarming regularity croatia took control in the 20-45 minutes because of it and really grew as an attacking threat because of it we need to be willing to go through midfield keep the ball on floor more, ironically doing just that is what gave us the goal.
Tripper was solid but I would start Shaw against Scotland and the Czechs to give us that more natural balance and width down the left, everything was coming back inside from that side.
Other than that unless maguire is fit i would leave as is, leaving the likes of rashford, grealish and sancho to be the game changers if or should I say when we need them, that could be the difference for us having that sort of quality to come off the bench fresh to turn a game around especially in the latter stages.
On the selection and individual performances front front three were largely disappointing, middle three were all good with Phillips being excellent 2 cbs had good games and the full backs were solid enough and even pickford gave a very calming reassurance in between the sticks, commanding his area well.
A solid performance if a little underwhelming going forward, also got a bit carried away with bombing direct balls forward either over the top towards sterling or into to kane to try and hold up with the ball coming back with alarming regularity croatia took control in the 20-45 minutes because of it and really grew as an attacking threat because of it we need to be willing to go through midfield keep the ball on floor more, ironically doing just that is what gave us the goal.
Tripper was solid but I would start Shaw against Scotland and the Czechs to give us that more natural balance and width down the left, everything was coming back inside from that side.
Other than that unless maguire is fit i would leave as is, leaving the likes of rashford, grealish and sancho to be the game changers if or should I say when we need them, that could be the difference for us having that sort of quality to come off the bench fresh to turn a game around especially in the latter stages.
I really like Grealish but the obsession to start him and to a lesser extent Sancho is really weird.
It will almost always most likely be one of Rashford/Sterling and two of Foden/Mount/Grealish/Sancho starting along with Kane for obvious reasons. Anything else would be too one dimensional and unbalanced.
Grealish will get his chance and if he takes it (yes in high pressure tournament games, not just in friendlies or low pressure games) then he will play more.
For now Sterling and Mount are fine to start and Foden would be 50-50.
It will almost always most likely be one of Rashford/Sterling and two of Foden/Mount/Grealish/Sancho starting along with Kane for obvious reasons. Anything else would be too one dimensional and unbalanced.
Grealish will get his chance and if he takes it (yes in high pressure tournament games, not just in friendlies or low pressure games) then he will play more.
For now Sterling and Mount are fine to start and Foden would be 50-50.
It doesnt help that other than Kane and Sterling, that side doesn't have much experience at playing together for England.
True, which is also why I'm apprehensive when fans have us up there with France as the favourites.
We have the players for it finally. But it's going to take more than just that. We need a reasonably settled team (not a complete closed shop though) with experience playing with eachother, players playing in their best positions and a manager who isn't terrified of playing anything other than ultra-defensive against other big nations otherwise it will be the same old story in the knockouts.
Southgate will hold back this team from fully progressing, in my opinion.
He has great talent at his disposal. Sure there obviously needs to be a balance and I can understand a pragmatic set-up regarding yesterdays game, though the last 20 minutes did concern me. Croatia are clearly on the decline and they still felt comfortable and at ease knocking the ball around England. If they weren't so toothless uptop it would've been a similar story regarding England and their lack of ball control/composure.
He has great talent at his disposal. Sure there obviously needs to be a balance and I can understand a pragmatic set-up regarding yesterdays game, though the last 20 minutes did concern me. Croatia are clearly on the decline and they still felt comfortable and at ease knocking the ball around England. If they weren't so toothless uptop it would've been a similar story regarding England and their lack of ball control/composure.
And what happens in your fantasy scenario if Croatia have world class attackers and England play an attacking game with less defensive cover?
I really liked Bellingham's cameo. He was strong and tenacious. It's a real testament to him that I keep forgetting he's only 17.
They might be a little better, but they have problems with both fullbacks too.
Good post, points well made and argued.
I agree with you to some extent but my bone of contention is that I think we do have the players now to dominate in midfield. For a period after the goal, Foden started drifting around the pitch and was involved in a lot of one - two touch passing and for a while Croatia could not get the ball from us. This is surely one of the best forms of defence during a hot summer tournament and I think we do have the players to do it. I'm not advocating Grealish, Foden and Mount because I want to see cavalier attacking football where we routinely put 5 past all the opposition, but because I think this is the best shot of keeping the ball for long periods during hot games that will eventually be running into extra time. I recognise that we are not going to keep the ball forever, especially against a team with a good midfiield like Croatia, but I don't think it was just the ebb and flow of the game that when we took Kane and Foden off and put Rashford in, we basically didn't get the ball again. Against a better team, on a hot day, playing beyond 90 minutes if we are running after the ball, the cracks will start to get bigger and eventually one of our CBs will make a mistake.
For the thread in general, I don't feel negative about England at all, I think this is the best team we've had in years. However this is the England - Euro 2021 Discussion thread, everyone has a right to put their opinion across about the team and tactics without being labelled 'negative and entitled' etc etc.
Please for the love of God please play an actual left back
It's not purely stats but stats help. It's hard to go purely on year 1 performances in a new league/new system for young players in an ultra defensive team vs a Pep side. Takes some adapting. Of course the BL is easier and yeah there's generally a drop in most stats, but it's not that dramatic. 10-15% is probably expected. It's fair to say the same for Pep Guardiola attackers though. Look at Leroy Sane for Pep, vs Sane since he went to the Bundesliga with Bayern. Still the dominant side in the same league as Sancho, but half the player Sancho is. The problem is just putting it straight across everywhere and ignoring the league altogether. Lewandowski is the best #9 in the world and has been so for a while. Haaland is a brilliant striker. Sancho likewise has been one of the best players in the league the last few seasons, which at his age is crazy, and enough to put him as one of the best wingers in the world over the past few seasons. It hasn't been a 1 season wonder, he's been brilliant since he stepped foot there. And he's performed well in the CL too.
Also can't compare Werners stats as a striker (under Nagelsmann who makes Poulson look like a good player, to Sancho as a winger/creator, but anyway).
Also Foden played pretty much as the central attacking position pretty often or on the left of a front 3 for a Pep team. I'm not gonna start and saying it's all about productivity with Foden because it isn't and frankly he looks distinctly average if all we look at is goals and assists, but as overall players, genuinely, what does he do better than Sancho does? Because it isn't anything with dribbling or passing. He's a better striker of the ball but Sancho has scored far more goals anyway in his career. Foden plays more a direct/scorer role while as a creator Sancho is on a different planet to Foden IMO.
Last edited:
Croatia were World Cup finalists at the last tournament. They're no mugs.
Whether or not Southgate is a good manager is up for debate. I tend to think he's actually quite decent at international management. But I'll concede he still has more to prove.
If you think about Pep revolutionising City or Klopp turning around Liverpool, they both took a couple of seasons of intensive regular training to get to where they were. That's not possible at international level. The only route to that kind of cohesive team structure for the national team is to either have a single training centre for youths (like Clairefontaine in France) or by pulling the majority of the squad from one club side which lends its own playing style (like Barca for Spain, or Ajax for The Netherlands, or Bayern for Germany).
It's nearly impossible to coach top players into a brand new philosophy when you only get them for a few weeks per year. That's especially true when they're usually knackered by the time they get to you. Where Southgate excels is in having the confidence to let the players be themselves. He doesn't ask them to do anything differently from what they're already doing with their club sides (unlike Capello or Eriksen). It's a tricky move to pull off with so many players coming from so many different clubs under so many different managers. But I think he's done a reasonable job so far.
With regards to the Croatia match, his tactics were spot on. He nullified Croatia's biggest strength (their midfield) by playing Phillips and Rice. And then he cancelled out their biggest danger man (Kramaric, who got 20 goals and 5 assists in 28 matches in the Bundesliga) by playing Trippier to shut down the left flank. England won with an xG of 1.54 to 0.37. If it was a more fashionable manager, we'd be calling it a masterclass.
I think Southgate wants to play a high-pressing style in these Euros. It wouldn't surprise me if we see almost an entire new starting XI in the next match to keep everybody fresh. The lineups will probably keep looking weird until the knockouts.
Whether or not Southgate is a good manager is up for debate. I tend to think he's actually quite decent at international management. But I'll concede he still has more to prove.
If you think about Pep revolutionising City or Klopp turning around Liverpool, they both took a couple of seasons of intensive regular training to get to where they were. That's not possible at international level. The only route to that kind of cohesive team structure for the national team is to either have a single training centre for youths (like Clairefontaine in France) or by pulling the majority of the squad from one club side which lends its own playing style (like Barca for Spain, or Ajax for The Netherlands, or Bayern for Germany).
It's nearly impossible to coach top players into a brand new philosophy when you only get them for a few weeks per year. That's especially true when they're usually knackered by the time they get to you. Where Southgate excels is in having the confidence to let the players be themselves. He doesn't ask them to do anything differently from what they're already doing with their club sides (unlike Capello or Eriksen). It's a tricky move to pull off with so many players coming from so many different clubs under so many different managers. But I think he's done a reasonable job so far.
With regards to the Croatia match, his tactics were spot on. He nullified Croatia's biggest strength (their midfield) by playing Phillips and Rice. And then he cancelled out their biggest danger man (Kramaric, who got 20 goals and 5 assists in 28 matches in the Bundesliga) by playing Trippier to shut down the left flank. England won with an xG of 1.54 to 0.37. If it was a more fashionable manager, we'd be calling it a masterclass.
I think Southgate wants to play a high-pressing style in these Euros. It wouldn't surprise me if we see almost an entire new starting XI in the next match to keep everybody fresh. The lineups will probably keep looking weird until the knockouts.
I can't agree that having Grealish and Foden on either wing is the way forward. I think Southgate is right that we need Sterling or Rashford on the pitch to stretch the opposition defence. It kind of played a big part in us winning the game yesterday (although Sterling wasted a lot of good opportunities).
I agree in part that maybe Grealish was the better sub. I think whilst it was 0-0 he was going to bring Grealish on but when we took the lead he opted for Rashford. I think this was because we knew that Croatia had to commit more to attacking us and that with Rashford on we'd have the pace to counter them. I think there is an argument that Grealish and Foden would've kept the ball better and alleviated the pressure and still added something on the counter.
This is a decent article on Phillips and how tactically he helped us win the game.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I've seen people credit Bielsa for it! Southgate actually used Phillips in his pre-Bielsa role.
I'm not sure why you are saying they have no pace. All three can blow by a defender on the dribble. They do not have Rashford pace tbf, but their pace scares many a defender.
I didn't mention fans. I was actually talking about the setup itself.
For me, we retreated into our shell, which is what I don't like. I don't think Croatia forced us back at all; we allowed them to do it, which is why I find it so negative. I think Croatia were actually there for the taking to actually show what we are actually capable of, but we didn't take the opportunity.
A team with a better attack will likely punish us for the same approach, and the likelihood is we will face one in the next stage (Portugal, Germany, or France).
Even with the xG being better than Croatia, we still created very few chances and chose to stay in our own half. Obviously, our opinions differ based on how good we think Croatia. I don't actually think they are very good.
If in doubt at sounding like a bore, bringing xG into it is a sure fire way to achieve said status.
He's a decent manager generally not dissimilar to Ole in his approach and probably his overall level
When you think about chances created we had a fair few: 2 free kicks, Foden's shot, Sterling's vollley, Kalvin's volley, Kane's miss and of course the goal. By contrast Croatia had that half volley when Mings missed the cross.
I might've missed another half chance for them, but as far as I'm concerned we should've won by a greater margin. There's definitely things we can improve, our passing was very pedestrian and Kane was basically a passenger, but that's actually good news considering how comfortable we were. It was a damn hot day, one for conserving energy and Kane's good enough to know that his performance is unlikely to be the norm. I think we'll definitely step it up later in the tournament.
Overall I thought it was pretty positive.
I might've missed another half chance for them, but as far as I'm concerned we should've won by a greater margin. There's definitely things we can improve, our passing was very pedestrian and Kane was basically a passenger, but that's actually good news considering how comfortable we were. It was a damn hot day, one for conserving energy and Kane's good enough to know that his performance is unlikely to be the norm. I think we'll definitely step it up later in the tournament.
Overall I thought it was pretty positive.
I'd love to see England win by playing daring, dazzling offensive football as much as anyone. But when I think back on tournaments over the past 40 years, I can't think of many tournaments where that has been the case. If any. Maybe to an extent WC 98 and Euros 2004, or at least parts of those tournaments. In the tournaments where they've had the most success (WC90, Euro 96), they were generally a rather balanced team, as I recall. And I frankly doubt they have the collective confidence to beat top teams by trying to dominate and outplay them. They've not won anything since 1966, and there's too much to prove and too much to lose.
But I don't think what England is now is a bad thing. They are a team that is very hard to beat, and very hard to score on. Won't be dominated easily. This gives them a chance against pretty much anyone. The big question IMO is going to be, when they come up against a really good team in a game that matters, are they going to be able to elevate themselves to the point where they're not predominantly on the receiving end, and be the team that has the calm and poise to succeed in that crucial handful of crux situations that normally decides tight, tense games? We'll only find that out when that kind of game comes up. They didn't really have one in the World Cup. There was Croatia of course, but even that probably wasn't quite in the same category as going up against Belgium or France. They obviously weren't quite there 3 years ago, but they might be now. Can't actually recall being this optimistic since the budding golden generation in the early 2000s.
But I don't think what England is now is a bad thing. They are a team that is very hard to beat, and very hard to score on. Won't be dominated easily. This gives them a chance against pretty much anyone. The big question IMO is going to be, when they come up against a really good team in a game that matters, are they going to be able to elevate themselves to the point where they're not predominantly on the receiving end, and be the team that has the calm and poise to succeed in that crucial handful of crux situations that normally decides tight, tense games? We'll only find that out when that kind of game comes up. They didn't really have one in the World Cup. There was Croatia of course, but even that probably wasn't quite in the same category as going up against Belgium or France. They obviously weren't quite there 3 years ago, but they might be now. Can't actually recall being this optimistic since the budding golden generation in the early 2000s.
Last edited:
I'm not saying they're slow, but their game isn't based around making runs in behind and off the ball for others to find them, Foden/Mount/Grealish want to be the players on the ball making the passes to the runners - all 3 of them in the same team seems a bit overkill. Sterling/Rashford pose a different proposition for the opposition defenders.
Saw a lad walking down the street the other day, he must've only been a teenager. Was wearing an England shirt with Gascoigne on the back it was from 96. He had the round sunglasses on and the mop hair from the time, I thought cool, and that he was way too young to remember the time.
So it made me get onto YouTube and watch this again.
So it made me get onto YouTube and watch this again.
England looked mediocre, but got the job done which is all it counts at this stage.
Good luck boys, but I think the second of Group F will knock you out.
Good luck boys, but I think the second of Group F will knock you out.
Do not for a second believe that the Scotland game is 'points in the bag' for England. Scotland will do everything in their power to be competitive and this game has banana skin written all over it. We haven't played each other for a while, but if anything the rivalry has probably intensified, Scotland are reeling from their opener, they're embarrassed at the way they conceded the second goal and they would love to make it right by beating us.
It was always going to be the biggest game of the group for both sides, and history has shown that England often make heavy weather of dispatching teams that the media think 'should be no problem for us'. The odds mean absolutely nothing at this stage, this will probably be harder than Iceland in 2016 - and if we can learn anything from that game, it's that underestimating a determined, and organised opponent can be fatal. England must not look at the Czechia result and be complacent going into it or Scotland will duly punish us, because if one thing is certain - they will now be up for it more than ever. They're playing their biggest rival on away soil, they have a black eye from the first game and they are looking to make up for it. I just hope that England are prepared for the uphill slog that it is likely to be.
On the plus side, there were some very encouraging signs against Croatia. They never really got a look in, and that was expected by many to be the toughest game of the group. Some really impressive individual performances too, Mings stood out to me, as did Phillips and Mount. There's a lot to be positive about.
It was always going to be the biggest game of the group for both sides, and history has shown that England often make heavy weather of dispatching teams that the media think 'should be no problem for us'. The odds mean absolutely nothing at this stage, this will probably be harder than Iceland in 2016 - and if we can learn anything from that game, it's that underestimating a determined, and organised opponent can be fatal. England must not look at the Czechia result and be complacent going into it or Scotland will duly punish us, because if one thing is certain - they will now be up for it more than ever. They're playing their biggest rival on away soil, they have a black eye from the first game and they are looking to make up for it. I just hope that England are prepared for the uphill slog that it is likely to be.
On the plus side, there were some very encouraging signs against Croatia. They never really got a look in, and that was expected by many to be the toughest game of the group. Some really impressive individual performances too, Mings stood out to me, as did Phillips and Mount. There's a lot to be positive about.
True enough about the complacency & this being a sure win for England. But, Scotland are a poor enough team. If they can get back Tierney, etc then they might play alright - even still, England should roll over them.
Yeah I'd expect this to be a tougher game than the Croatia one, as the old heads of Croatias midfield couldn't get near the ball, I expect Scotland to be a lot more combative.
I think we'll go with the same midfield as the Croatia game and win that battle, Phillips and Rice I thought were immense the other night and should be able to control the game against Scotland. Also, I wouldn't expect Scotland to sit purely behind the ball so the space should be there to exploit.
Unfortunately, a couple of his highlights when contributing to a couple of the goals had to be removed for copyright reasons, but still. Gazza
I still don't understand why people are thinking that the 2nd place in the group would be better for England for a place in the final
1) First of all England would have another match at Wembley (Possible with 45k) and less travelling for the whole tournament (Just one match for the quarter-final in Rome) is a advantage against the other teams.
2) Last 16 Round
Okay you play against France/Portugal/Germany and that will be tough.
Quarter-final
But the opponents here are: Winner Group E (Maybe Spain or maybe Poland/Sweden) or 3rd Group A/B/C/D (England should beat all this teams).
Of course Spain aren't shite but i think England would have more problems against teams like Italy or Belgium.
Semi-final
Winner Group C (Netherlands or Austria) or 3rd Group (D/E/F) or 2nd Group A (Possible Switzerland) or 2nd Group B (Denmark/Russia/Finland).
The other way would be tougher in my opinion.
Last 16 Round: In the other half you play against 2nd Group E (Maybe it is Spain).
Quarter-final: Very likely the winner of Group F.
Semi-final: Very likely then Italy or Belgium.
1) First of all England would have another match at Wembley (Possible with 45k) and less travelling for the whole tournament (Just one match for the quarter-final in Rome) is a advantage against the other teams.
2) Last 16 Round
Okay you play against France/Portugal/Germany and that will be tough.
Quarter-final
But the opponents here are: Winner Group E (Maybe Spain or maybe Poland/Sweden) or 3rd Group A/B/C/D (England should beat all this teams).
Of course Spain aren't shite but i think England would have more problems against teams like Italy or Belgium.
Semi-final
Winner Group C (Netherlands or Austria) or 3rd Group (D/E/F) or 2nd Group A (Possible Switzerland) or 2nd Group B (Denmark/Russia/Finland).
The other way would be tougher in my opinion.
Last 16 Round: In the other half you play against 2nd Group E (Maybe it is Spain).
Quarter-final: Very likely the winner of Group F.
Semi-final: Very likely then Italy or Belgium.
The issue is I think we either go out in the round of 16, or the quarter-final so I'd rather get the easier round of 16 game. Can't see us beating Portugal or France.I still don't understand why people are thinking that the 2nd place in the group would be better for England for a place in the final
1) First of all England would have another match at Wembley (Possible with 45k) and less travelling for the whole tournament (Just one match for the quarter-final in Rome) is a advantage against the other teams.
2) Last 16 Round
Okay you play against France/Portugal/Germany and that will be tough.
Quarter-final
But the opponents here are: Winner Group E (Maybe Spain or maybe Poland/Sweden) or 3rd Group A/B/C/D (England should beat all this teams).
Of course Spain aren't shite but i think England would have more problems against teams like Italy or Belgium.
Semi-final
Winner Group C (Netherlands or Austria) or 3rd Group (D/E/F) or 2nd Group A (Possible Switzerland) or 2nd Group B (Denmark/Russia/Finland).
The other way would be tougher in my opinion.
Last 16 Round: In the other half you play against 2nd Group E (Maybe it is Spain).
Quarter-final: Very likely the winner of Group F.
Semi-final: Very likely then Italy or Belgium.
I am Belgian but England they can do something in this Euro with very strong players I will not go all the cities but we will see that it will pass I can see them going to the end! Small question why have more than one star on their mailot
Its always, quite understandably, a trait of the England fan to be expecting disappointment, but its important to give credit where its due. Most of the talk about our opening game was centred around 'Croatia will control the midfield as all top teams do against England, and we'll come up short....again', but that didn't happen and we have to give props to Southgate for picking that team. It was a brave selection, one that was going to present hard-to-answer questions if it hadn't gone well, but it paid off. Strong management from a guy that clearly knows these players well.
As I said post-match, its not the team that I think will win the tournament but we have some serious options and I wouldn't want to be an opposition manager trying to prepare for a game against us. We can play various formations, can go with pace or a more technical approach as the situation requires, and the bench is always going to have players on it that can change the game.
Overall though I thought it was a mature opening performance. We always looked comfortable and more likely to go on and win the game, and we'll be even better defensively with Maguire in the team. We have a chance.
As I said post-match, its not the team that I think will win the tournament but we have some serious options and I wouldn't want to be an opposition manager trying to prepare for a game against us. We can play various formations, can go with pace or a more technical approach as the situation requires, and the bench is always going to have players on it that can change the game.
Overall though I thought it was a mature opening performance. We always looked comfortable and more likely to go on and win the game, and we'll be even better defensively with Maguire in the team. We have a chance.
Feel for Henderson since he should’ve arguably been starting for England. Great to see Ramsdale there though, well deserved.
Mings had done a few scummy things on the pitch during his career and I couldn’t stand him because of that, but he’s strangely likeable in any of the interviews I’ve seen him in lately
Anyone seen this? Drill at the end is fun to see! Sancho top corners
Really?
I thought he'd been quite shit this season from an outsider point of view. Was he actually good?
You could make a decent argument that England have now lost their two best goalies to injury.
They should ask for your advice. "Fontaine of football knowledge."Ask Southgate.