Rankings are for wankers. England, with its tradition, league, resources, pedigree and support, should be in lockstep with the European elite. That’s their level. Panama is not, nor is Tunisia, Colombia or Sweden, no matter how thrilled you are about the latter’s accomplishments.
England Discussion | Finish 4th
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Rankings are for wankers. England, with its tradition, league, resources, pedigree and support, should be in lockstep with the European elite. That’s their level. Panama is not, nor is Tunisia, Colombia or Sweden, no matter how thrilled you are about the latter’s accomplishments.
Tradition, resources and support don’t play football. Your idea of level is flawed. But you’re welcome to it.
By should be you mean they fail to transform all of these onto the pitch or just that they are there (Top tier) by default?
EDIT: it's the former, isn't it? I see your point, even though it does sound simplistic.
Because we lost to Iceland in the first round in the last Euros, and in the World Cup before that managed to finish bottom of our group with a solitary pointed earned in a dead rubber final game. I don't see how it's really hard for people to understand that reaching a semi final, regardless of how easy the draw was, might be considered exciting or progress to England fans. In the Euros we had Harry Kane on corners, so even being competent on set pieces would have been a vast improvement.
You'd have a point if England had been a decent side prior to this tournament, but we weren't. Southgate took over a complete mess of a side, with Big Sam gone and the last two tournaments having been an utter disaster. The nation was completely disenchanted with the national side to the point where plenty wouldn't have been remotely surprised if we managed to lose to Tunisia. I don't think people quite grasp how bad we were, it's like this has been completely forgotten, we were genuinely terrible. That Iceland game was one of the worst performances I have ever seen, just utter incompetence from top to bottom. Bunch of players looking terrified and shocked on the pitch for 90 minutes. Not many expected much different in this World Cup, the most opimistic fan in the world would predict that we could make a quarter final. That was genuinely an out there prediction.
We were Harry Kane putting away an easy chance (by his standards) from making a world cup final. We were awful in the second half but eventually only went out late in extra time against a decent Croatia side, who have plenty of talented players. I've criticised Southgate's tactics at great length, but to suggest there hasn't been a massive improvement from past England squads is beyond ridiculous. We were 'utterly clueless and outplayed hard' by Croatia yet only lost 2-1 in extra time, and could easily have led by a couple of goals by the end of the first half? As well as having one cleared off the line in ET? We were deservedly beaten but there isn't any need to whitewash history and make out that we were brushed aside with no worries.
Players actually looked like they were enjoying playing football (gasp) and actually had some form of understanding with their teammates. It's a small step, and nobody is suggesting this England team are now giants ready to take on the footballing world, but it actually feels like we have a semi competent football side now. Obviously we have to badly improve in certain areas but it's a far cry from the utter despair that we came away with after the last two tournaments. Also, can we stop revising history and acting like Sweden and Colombia weren't decent sides purely because England beat them, please? They both topped difficult groups, and the former qualified by knocking out the Netherlands and Italy, and beat Mexico 3-0 in their final group game. They weren't top level, but they were clearly decent sides who had achieved some impressive results and were deserving of respect. Everyone seemed to understand this until England knocked them out. England blatantly did improve from the past when we failed to get past the likes of Iceland, Costa Rica, Russia, Slovakia .. heck go far back as 2010 and you can add the USA and Algeria to the list. That's why we look forward to future tournaments now, because we're not a complete and utter joke, not because we suddenly have delusions of grandeur and think we're the world's bestest side.
Correct, the former
On one hand England have done a good job finishing 4th, which is way better than anyone expected. On the other hand, England blew a huge, maybe once in a lifetime opportunity to play in a World Cup final. Let's face it, they didn't go out to France or Brazil, they went out to Croatia, after leading for 67 minutes. They spurs'd it.
To start off, I believe England, by our admittedly falling expectations had a really good tournament. A lot of players played much better than we expected them too, take for example Jordan Pickford and Harry Maguire.
Firstly I’ll talk about the positives. A lot of the younger contingent in our squad will have used this tournament to gain valuable experience on what to expect in future major tournament while having a pretty good, if not unspectacular first tournament themselves. Players like Rashford, Lingard, Pickford, Maguire and Loftus Cheek will have been done a lot of good by going to this tournament. Sterling was just awful to be honest.
Also, Kane started the tournament brilliantly like a house on fire and surely won the golden boot, despite clearly fading in our last three games. He has shown though that he can score in major international tournaments, a good sign for England that they can build a team in the future around a brilliant striker.
Now on to the negatives. Firstly, let me just acknowledge that Southgate has had a brilliant tournament. However though, his total lack of willingness to change system and make substitutions before the 75th minute to acknowledge poor performances, probably his only weakness as a manager, has cost us to lose three games throughout this tournament, an honestly terrible stat when you remember that we’ve lost more games than Saudi Arabia in this tournament and the same amount as Panama and Egypt.
Next, Sterling and Alli’s performances. Absolutely awful. Alli may have scored against sweden but after a good 30 minutes of our first game against tunisia, he was truely awful in this tournament. Who would have thought Alli would be one of the two scapegoated deservedly for our exit in this tournament?
Now on to Sterling. Even worse than Alli. Just what was that? Passing was dreadful, absolutely no footballing intelligence as shown by him passing to Kane when he was clearly offside against croatia and awful finishing, finishing with not more than no goals and no assists in the tournament. The worst thing Southgate did was not bring him off earlier than he did in games.
My England rating for this tournament: 7/10
2 points lost for defeats to belgium and croatia and 1 point lost for Southgate not bringing off Sterling and Alli early enough. But still, it was a good tournament.
Firstly I’ll talk about the positives. A lot of the younger contingent in our squad will have used this tournament to gain valuable experience on what to expect in future major tournament while having a pretty good, if not unspectacular first tournament themselves. Players like Rashford, Lingard, Pickford, Maguire and Loftus Cheek will have been done a lot of good by going to this tournament. Sterling was just awful to be honest.
Also, Kane started the tournament brilliantly like a house on fire and surely won the golden boot, despite clearly fading in our last three games. He has shown though that he can score in major international tournaments, a good sign for England that they can build a team in the future around a brilliant striker.
Now on to the negatives. Firstly, let me just acknowledge that Southgate has had a brilliant tournament. However though, his total lack of willingness to change system and make substitutions before the 75th minute to acknowledge poor performances, probably his only weakness as a manager, has cost us to lose three games throughout this tournament, an honestly terrible stat when you remember that we’ve lost more games than Saudi Arabia in this tournament and the same amount as Panama and Egypt.
Next, Sterling and Alli’s performances. Absolutely awful. Alli may have scored against sweden but after a good 30 minutes of our first game against tunisia, he was truely awful in this tournament. Who would have thought Alli would be one of the two scapegoated deservedly for our exit in this tournament?
Now on to Sterling. Even worse than Alli. Just what was that? Passing was dreadful, absolutely no footballing intelligence as shown by him passing to Kane when he was clearly offside against croatia and awful finishing, finishing with not more than no goals and no assists in the tournament. The worst thing Southgate did was not bring him off earlier than he did in games.
My England rating for this tournament: 7/10
2 points lost for defeats to belgium and croatia and 1 point lost for Southgate not bringing off Sterling and Alli early enough. But still, it was a good tournament.
Arrogant
7 is generous
to be fair the lads did exceed expectations
I think England addressed the major issues from previous tournaments: Namely not being able to win knock outs games, winning a penalty shoot out, actually scoring some goals (albeit not many chances), and the team actually coming together for once with multiple players improving their reputation - these are the babysteps that were much needed. It's a missed opportunity in some ways, but there's progress to see there.
Still, England/Southgate now need to address the following issues before we can see how much of this tournament was a successful building block, and how much it was a one off fluke:
- The inflexible use of 5-3-2 (or 3-3-2-2 if you prefer)
The big one. England refused to change from it and it ultimately cost them a chance in a world cup final when they so clearly needed to match up against Croatia's midfield. I've seen Southgate extoll the virtues of the formations numerous times - but I've yet to see him address the big isssues with it either. Namely that playing an extra centre back is ultimately redundant in a lot of games and a big part of the lack of open play chances, whilst Southgate's attempts to solve this by playing two very much attacking midfielders over actual central midfielders in the midfield 3 didn't work and see's England get overtun or bypassed by the better teams. If England go forward with this system it will be massively to their detriment. Particularly when you see the standard of attacking players coming through the underage teams (namely Sancho, Foden, Mount, Hudson-Odoi, Lookman...).
- The substitutes
Often to England's detriment and illogical to the game situation. RLC disappeared after the group stage but surely offered a greater amount of midfield control than Lingard or Alli with his ability to hold on to the ball yet neither were even subbed off in the semi-final. Instead like for like changes were often the solution, with bizarre subs like Dier for Henderson in spite of England obviously getting overrun.
- Lingard and Alli
With Lingard, He's decent. A squad player. But Southgate treats him as his main man. Alli likewise, a good advanced player, not a good central midfielder. If its a big game, they're going to play the entire thing. Which for the first half might be fine, they run around a lot, find space. But as they gets tired they're complete passengers in this side - and the better sides - Colombia and Croatia - wrestled control of the midfield when they got tired. They don't have the ability on the ball nor any defensive nous to play central midfield . If Southgate continues with this England will keep losing control of the midfield. Keep doing that and you'll keep losing games against anyone decent. It's true England don't have much depth in central midfield, but the likes of Lewis Cook will at least offer resilience and ball playing ability there. These two wants to make the runs but neither is happy - or capable of sitting deep even if the situation requires it. Resultantly Henderson is left playing midfield alone, and the defence have no one to pass too so end up hoofing it.
There's some degree of positivity, but with the nations league coming up - England face Croatia and Spain in competitive games - and my concern is the exact same mistakes will be made again, and again. This formation and set-up may yet prove to be a curse, but we shall see.
Still, England/Southgate now need to address the following issues before we can see how much of this tournament was a successful building block, and how much it was a one off fluke:
- The inflexible use of 5-3-2 (or 3-3-2-2 if you prefer)
The big one. England refused to change from it and it ultimately cost them a chance in a world cup final when they so clearly needed to match up against Croatia's midfield. I've seen Southgate extoll the virtues of the formations numerous times - but I've yet to see him address the big isssues with it either. Namely that playing an extra centre back is ultimately redundant in a lot of games and a big part of the lack of open play chances, whilst Southgate's attempts to solve this by playing two very much attacking midfielders over actual central midfielders in the midfield 3 didn't work and see's England get overtun or bypassed by the better teams. If England go forward with this system it will be massively to their detriment. Particularly when you see the standard of attacking players coming through the underage teams (namely Sancho, Foden, Mount, Hudson-Odoi, Lookman...).
- The substitutes
Often to England's detriment and illogical to the game situation. RLC disappeared after the group stage but surely offered a greater amount of midfield control than Lingard or Alli with his ability to hold on to the ball yet neither were even subbed off in the semi-final. Instead like for like changes were often the solution, with bizarre subs like Dier for Henderson in spite of England obviously getting overrun.
- Lingard and Alli
With Lingard, He's decent. A squad player. But Southgate treats him as his main man. Alli likewise, a good advanced player, not a good central midfielder. If its a big game, they're going to play the entire thing. Which for the first half might be fine, they run around a lot, find space. But as they gets tired they're complete passengers in this side - and the better sides - Colombia and Croatia - wrestled control of the midfield when they got tired. They don't have the ability on the ball nor any defensive nous to play central midfield . If Southgate continues with this England will keep losing control of the midfield. Keep doing that and you'll keep losing games against anyone decent. It's true England don't have much depth in central midfield, but the likes of Lewis Cook will at least offer resilience and ball playing ability there. These two wants to make the runs but neither is happy - or capable of sitting deep even if the situation requires it. Resultantly Henderson is left playing midfield alone, and the defence have no one to pass too so end up hoofing it.
There's some degree of positivity, but with the nations league coming up - England face Croatia and Spain in competitive games - and my concern is the exact same mistakes will be made again, and again. This formation and set-up may yet prove to be a curse, but we shall see.
Their football wasn't impressive during the whole WC, but they still managed to finish 4th. With more quality in the middle they would do better.
The major problem that this England had in the world cup, and will likely continue to have, is that their attack (with two exceptions, one of whom barely plays) simply doesn't score goals. Whenever they come up against a side who can actually defend set pieces they're utterly toothless. All of this sounds obviously true, but the sheer extent of it is kinda staggering:
Kane: 25 (5) - 19 120mpg
Welbeck: 25 (15) - 16 142mpg
Vardy: 13 (13) - 7 189mpg
Rashford: 9 (16) - 3 351mpg
Lingard: 11 (7) - 2 563mpg
Dele Alli: 21 (9) - 3 659mpg
Sterling: 35 (8) - 2 1454mpg
Sure, the system is a big part of the problem, but most of those players' England careers significantly predate the switch. Presuming Southgate is pretty much done with Welbeck, then either England pin all their hopes on Kane scoring near enough every game, or they start giving chances to other attacking players.
Kane: 25 (5) - 19 120mpg
Welbeck: 25 (15) - 16 142mpg
Vardy: 13 (13) - 7 189mpg
Rashford: 9 (16) - 3 351mpg
Lingard: 11 (7) - 2 563mpg
Dele Alli: 21 (9) - 3 659mpg
Sterling: 35 (8) - 2 1454mpg
Sure, the system is a big part of the problem, but most of those players' England careers significantly predate the switch. Presuming Southgate is pretty much done with Welbeck, then either England pin all their hopes on Kane scoring near enough every game, or they start giving chances to other attacking players.
Last edited by a moderator:
Every international tournament when I watch the winners pick up the trophy I get that sombre feeling of when are England going to win something?
UEFA Nations League final, June 2019
Ian Wright just said the home 'nations did well'.
Sure.
When England do well, it's the 'home nations'. When they do badly, it's just 'England'.
The anti-English bias in the media is disgusting.
Sure.
When England do well, it's the 'home nations'. When they do badly, it's just 'England'.
The anti-English bias in the media is disgusting.
Need to add 'golden boot' to the thread title too.
Come again?
Finishing 4th against Belgium probably means that this England side would have been knocked out by Brazil, France or even Uruguay...
Tradition - one final (at home)
League - one of the very best but the majority of the players are not eligible for England
Resources - maybe but historically the game has been run by insular dinosaurs. I think that has now changed but it will take some more time to bear fruit
Pedigree - see Tradition
Support - Relevance to on pitch matters?
England have only rarely been able to compete with the best (66, 70 and 90) and so, two years on from hitting rock bottom, reaching a semi-final is not to be sneered at whatever the caveats.
Hahahaha. What a load of old bollocks
I can't really see how you can argue Southgate had a "brilliant" tournament when you acknowledge that both Sterling and Alli were terrible. Alli, at the very least, should have been consigned to the bench early on in the tournament, and that's all on Southgate.
Southgate should also be criticized for starting Kane against Croatia when we all saw how fatigued he was against Sweden. Apparently, it's written in stone somewhere that Kane must start for England in the WC. Did Southgate really think that a bone-tired Kane would be more effective against Croatia than a fresh-legged Danny Welbeck? (who didn't even get to see time in the consolation game).
There is a lot of new bollocks in that post, too.
Rankings are for wankers. I must make a mental note of this.
Please don't.
You did amazingly good! Fourth in the WC is your third best WC ever, and you have players that won under 20 and under 17 WCs! England will only get better, and probably will win it in 8 years. I reckon this France over powered NT will win again in Qatar... Bur North America will be yours.
I just hope you find another song, because “It’s coming home” is extremely annoying.
I just hope you find another song, because “It’s coming home” is extremely annoying.
"We cant be arsed, We cant be arsed, We cant be. We cannot be arsed."
..... and England has won it!!!!!
Danny Welbeck? I'd rather play Kane with a broken leg. Of course Kane wasn't getting benched, he's by far England's best player. There's many other things which Southgate can be criticized for with more validity imo