Euro 2024 thread
Comments
-
Totally agree with this. I am baffled by any England fan (and there are a fair few on comment sections, talk show phone-ins etc.) saying they haven't enjoyed the Southgate era. Two Euro finals, WC semi, so many previous mental blocks overcome; Penalties, Germany, getting out of the group stages! I'm sorry but anyone who says they have not enjoyed it quite clearly doesn't enjoy anything in life, and it says far more about them than Gareth Southgate.
1 -
Maybe you are baffled because you struggle with alternative views?
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I see all the home nations women’s teams played last night in Euro qualifiers. Three of them won and the other drew yet the team that drew led the news article and had more time spent on them than the other three put together. Can you guess which one it was?
0 -
I believe the argument goes that the others have their own regional coverage. BBC is EBC.
0 -
I'm with @Pross on this one. I'm OK with "alternative views", but such alternative views I've read on Twitter and on BBC comments etc. fall into two broad categories, neither of which really "survive contact with reality":
Firstly, that it would be better from a fan's viewpoint for England to lose entertainingly in the QFs than to make it to the final, playing somewhat conservatively. As this is an entirely subjective view, it's can't be wrong as such, but it seems to be very much a minority, or deliberately antagonistic position to take. The viewing figures for the known-to-be-dull England playing in the SF and the Final were very high (>20m) suggesting that success (i.e. a run to the latter stages of a tournament) is a big draw in itself for the masses.
Secondly, that England have only played dross in the Southgate era and that a half-decent manager would have seen England canter to victory. This is simply b*llocks, as generation after generation of English teams, regularly touted as world beaters (at least by the English media and or FA publicity bods) have achieved far less than has been achieved in the Southgate era. I've even seen people earnestly assuring their readers that the Golden Generation would have routed Italy and Spain in the last two Euros, which completely ignores that the self-same Golden Generation routinely lost to Portugal in the QFs of major tournaments. Though even this sounds sensible compared to the claim that this generation of English players is uniquely talented in European teams, whilst the rest of Europe is in a slump, churning out cr*p teams.
Most such claims come from folk who advise what Southgate "should of" done, which puts me on the back foot from the off, so maybe I'm being unreasonable and Southgate really is a clown, holding England back from a period of dominance not enjoyed in terms of global competition since the days of Alexander the Great (retired undefeated over ten years across several continents).
0 -
Shot clock for football.
0 -
The elephant in the room for me is that international football is dull, so it is just shades of dullness being argued over.
0 -
Many club football matches are too. There's so many more of them though, so eventually some excitement will crop up.
0 -
Depends on your POV. It's certainly less high quality football.
The sheer quantity of club football though rather dilutes the jeopardy of the whole thing.
I like my sports with high amounts of jeopardy. I find that very exciting.
And the joy of international football is everyone is watching it. The joy of everyone wherever you are cheering on and having seen it is great. One of the last remaining collective experiences.
Club football is just too petty and small for that.
0 -
Not really, I struggle with people who can't find any enjoyment in life. Seems like a waste to me.
0 -
I struggle with baffling alternative views
Wilier Izoard XP0 -
There's only really jeopardy at the knock-out stages. Qualifying and the group stages don't even have that going for them.
0 -
I would agree this 24 team format reduced a lot of said jeopardy, but the usual group games don't really. Your seeding makes a big difference and even one loss can be catastrophic under a normal 16 or 32 format.
In club football the only knock out that anyone seems to care about is the champions league and that, in fairness, I do find very exciting.
I slightly feel like David Mitchell when it comes to club football.
0 -
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well worth them paying £650,000 a year for comedy gold like that.
0 -
Ok here is something pulled from a lecturer in football coaching and uefa A coach who disagrees with Southgate's tactics. For me sums up why Southgate's obsession with avoiding risking losing possession is directly linked to our abysmal level of chance creation .
--------
"Is the England DNA hindering the Men's National Team?
I'll share some things and you can make your own mind up...
Scoring goals requires two things: minimal touches and time (Dom Haynes)
The average time for a Spain goal was 14.8 seconds.
England's, not including the penalty, was 33 seconds.
The average passes per goal for Spain was 4.2 - killers on transition!
England's was 11.5 passes per goal.
Both Spain goals last night came from throw-ins Thomas Grønnemark and in 37 & 14 seconds the ball was in the net!
England's goal last night came from a 5 pass move and scored in 15 seconds... "
_----------
You don't have to agree of course but to pretend there is no informed viewpoint that thinks Southgate got it wrong is just ignorance of the facts.
Or maybe the guy is just a gammon brexiteer with no handle reality or whatever else people want to use to dismiss views rather than engage with them ...
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Does a goal count for more points if it takes a shorter build up and more passes?
0 -
Conceding a goal is actually more costly than the value in scoring a goal for obvious reasons.
England were pretty stingey, and that’s how they ended up in the final
0 -
This just shows that in one particular game Spain took less passes to score their goals. I remember Cambiasso scoring a goal for Argentina in the 2006 WC that had 30 odd passes. By your definition that means Argentina were too defensive and their build up play was sideways and too slow. Also makes a mockery of Dom Haynes assertion that scoring goals requires "minimal touches and time".
0 -
You've introduced a subtle shift in the argument here. I don't think anyone here is defending Southgate come-what-may to the extent that anyone criticises Southgate is some kind of loon. What the pro-Southgate people here appear to be saying, on the whole, is that piling into Southgate because England's style of play is conservative is unjustified, given his results relative to what's gone before.
FWIW, the thing that I find hardest to understand about Southgate's master plan was to play Kane when he just didn't appear to be fully fit (<=> able to run hard for the full 90 if needed). All the other potentially odd stuff is probably just that a system / line up / tactics has to be chosen by the coach, and so get tested in the heat of battle, whereas the armchair pundits have the luxury of not having to have their master plans tested.
0 -
"the thing that I find hardest to understand about Southgate's master plan was to play Kane..."
Harry the Diver's role is? Maybe (some of) the opposition are learning how to deal with that.
0 -
You are missing the point - I'm just showing you that professional coaches do debate whether Southgate has done well or not.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
There's always debate to be had. The key question though is whether Southgate "should of" won three tournaments (per the Twitter amnesiacs who forget Iceland 2016 etc.) and thus warrant 0/10 or whether he completely changed expectations of the English team but maybe fluffed a few key decisions (which to be fair, all Coaches do most of the time) and thus warrant 8/10.
0 -
-
I think the quotes might have been a clue.
0 -
Indeed. I thought about prefixing "Twitter amnesiacs" with "barely literate" but thought that might be going too far. In hindsight, that's what I should of done. 100%. Bang average post without this.
0 -
You of made my day with that!
1 -
There's a debate to be had as to the merits of Southgate's coaching. There's also a debate to be had as to whether those who come down on the side of it being time for Southgate to go must necessarily be motivated by a dislike of the man for his politics or must just be expecting England to win and will react negatively every time that doesn't happen. I was addressing the second of those debates.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
That's a perfectly reasonable subject for debate too!
FWIW, from what I've read, the majority of the "Southgate must go" comments come from those who appear to simply be unaware of England's international football history or who think that the major European football nations bar England are currently simultaneously poor relative to the 50 years prior to the Southgate era, so that a half decently coached England side should win tournaments at a canter. Whether such views are motivated by attention-seeking tendencies, a dislike of Southgate or simply insufficient critical thinking skills is another debate that could be had.
0 -
I think a lot of misplaced expectation levels are based on having “the best league” in the World. A league highly dependent on foreign imports.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
