Euro 2024 thread

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.

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?

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).

The elephant in the room for me is that international football is dull, so it is just shades of dullness being argued over.

I struggle with baffling alternative views

Well worth them paying £650,000 a year for comedy gold like that.

Does a goal count for more points if it takes a shorter build up and more passes?

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".

"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.

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.

I think the quotes might have been a clue.

You of made my day with that!

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.