Group B: England, Iran, United States, Wales (England and USA qualify)

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I'm old enough to know that Germany's quality has almost always counted for very little once they get to international tournaments. The 1996 Germany team was nothing special either.

 

Again though, there's literally nothing Southgate can ever do that's good enough. No team has any god given right to be winning tournaments with the other teams that are knocking about, but you'd think Southgate was holding back 1970 Brazil the way people go on. 

 

There's some serious, serious amnesia with pre-Southgate England as well.

No amnesia on my part.  I had Iceland to beat England in 2016 in the predictor in the office and was looked at like I was mad.

 

I don’t give a shite about the results, I just want to see some attacking football. Hodgson’s England were awful of course - but fuck me that’s a low bar.  
 

Germany had some real quality in 1996 - Sammer, Moller and an ageing Klinsmann were comfortably better than owt in their 2021 side.  
 

Not sure how Europe’s most successful footballing nation can be described as having quality that ‘counts for nothing’ in international tournaments

[McDog]

USA not terrible all time against England in the WC.

[TheBrownBottle]

10 minutes ago, huss9 said:

its not about having that god-given right.

but when you're given the chance, to totally bottle it is unforgiveable.

at least give it a go.

i was never angry at hoddle, venables, SBR when we lost on pels each time as we really gave it a go n each game.

we practically gave up against croatia and italy under southgate.

Yep, that’s my issue too.  Football with the handbrake on.  It has never been well-liked at SJP - and god knows we’ve won fuck all since the ‘60s either, just like England.  Not sure why when watching England - who I give far less of a damn about - that type of football is meant to be ok.

 

He’s got Maddison, Foden and Grealish not starting.  Whatever anyone thinks of them - personally I think they’re good footballers but not world class ones - they’d at least be entertaining to watch. Instead it’s Mason fucking Mount, an out of form Sterling and Kane who’s Hidegkuti impression as a deep lying no 9 doesn’t work without the class of Son alongside him

 

edit: when people make manager comparisons, the manager who Southgate reminds me of is Taylor.  Nice bloke, proper FA man, teams play shite football, will happily drop Chris Waddle for Geoff Thomas.  Southgate wouldn’t have got out of the ‘94 qfy group either, against the Dutch, and solid Norway and Poland teams. 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by TheBrownBottle

[toon25]

Whilst Woy's England were shite, you were at the very least looking at a guy that had earned the right to manage the national team.

 

This guy greased himself up the FA's pole. That's undeniable.

 

 

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, huss9 said:

its not about having that god-given right.

but when you're given the chance, to totally bottle it is unforgiveable.

at least give it a go.

i was never angry at hoddle, venables, SBR when we lost on pels each time as we really gave it a go n each game.

we practically gave up against croatia and italy under southgate.

 

You can just as easily say the 1990 and 1996 teams bottled it by that measure. Rose-tinted glasses cover some obvious flaws like. That 96 team, along with many England teams since, had far better players than this one but had a very brief peak.

 

Where people get this idea that Southgate's holding them back from is baffling. Kane is the only truly World Class player England have. We bemoan how shit our defence is, then bemoan how Southgate sets up to mitigate for that. Going with this method we've got to a semi and a final, often playing very good football that Southgate's never really credited for.

 

Even then, the ends justify the means and like it or not, Southgate's ends beat SBR, Venables and Hoddle. That's the magic of saying they would have done better than Southgate, despite the fact they never did, it's hypothetical so it can never be wrong.

[The Prophet]

I must have missed all of these successful, all-action international sides. Particularly ones with massive limitations at centre back and now less so, centre midfield.

 

I understand some of the criticism of Southgate, but most of it lacks any kind nuisance and seeks to underplay what he's achieved as England manager.

[Wullie]

18 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I don’t give a shite about the results, I just want to see some attacking football.

 

Don't bother with international football at all would be my advice.

[huss9]

6 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

You can just as easily say bottled ithe 1990 and 1996 teamst by that measure. Rose-tinted glasses cover some obvious flaws like. That 96 team, along with many England teams since, had far better players than this one but had a very brief peak.

 

Where people get this idea that Southgate's holding them back from is baffling. Kane is the only truly World Class player England have. We bemoan how shit our defence is, then bemoan how Southgate sets up to mitigate for that. Going with this method we've got to a semi and a final, often playing very good football that Southgate's never really credited for.

 

Even then, the ends justify the means and like it or not, Southgate's ends beat SBR, Venables and Hoddle. That's the magic of saying they would have done better than Southgate, despite the fact they never did, it's hypothetical so it can never be wrong.

they may have bottled the pels, but not during the games themselves.

they really went for it and played well.

even when we whimpered out against spain in 82 we actually gambled and tried to win the game.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Wullie said:

 

Don't bother with international football at all would be my advice.

Haha aye, it’s pretty solid advice in fairness

 

8 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

You can just as easily say the 1990 and 1996 teams bottled it by that measure. Rose-tinted glasses cover some obvious flaws like. That 96 team, along with many England teams since, had far better players than this one but had a very brief peak.

 

Where people get this idea that Southgate's holding them back from is baffling. Kane is the only truly World Class player England have. We bemoan how shit our defence is, then bemoan how Southgate sets up to mitigate for that. Going with this method we've got to a semi and a final, often playing very good football that Southgate's never really credited for.

 

Even then, the ends justify the means and like it or not, Southgate's ends beat SBR, Venables and Hoddle. That's the magic of saying they would have done better than Southgate, despite the fact they never did, it's hypothetical so it can never be wrong.

Yes, that’s opinions for you.  Was NUFC’s side of 2002-03 better than the 1995-96 side?  I think it was, but I can’t prove it - and plenty would think otherwise, and could point to them finishing 2nd instead of 3rd

[huss9]

3 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

I must have missed all of these successful, all-action international sides. Particularly ones with massive limitations at centre back and now less so, centre midfield.

 

I understand some of the criticism of Southgate, but most of it lacks any kind nuisance and seeks to underplay what he's achieved as England manager.

at least those teams tried to go for it.

and the coaches tried making active positive decisions in game.

[Kid Icarus]

12 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

No amnesia on my part.  I had Iceland to beat England in 2016 in the predictor in the office and was looked at like I was mad.

 

I don’t give a shite about the results, I just want to see some attacking football. Hodgson’s England were awful of course - but fuck me that’s a low bar.  
 

Germany had some real quality in 1996 - Sammer, Moller and an ageing Klinsmann were comfortably better than owt in their 2021 side.  
 

Not sure how Europe’s most successful footballing nation can be described as having quality that ‘counts for nothing’ in international tournaments

You've misread what I'm saying. Germany's quality counts for little once they get to international tournaments, as in it doesn't matter how bad they might be on paper or in the run up to a tournament, they're still always Germany and usually find a way to succeed.

 

Germany 96 didn't have anything near the quality England did either, so why is the same criticism not thrown at that England team or Venables? That side had the likes of prime Shearer, Sheringham, Gascoigne, Adams, and Seaman. You can't have it both ways like.

 

I do give a shite about the results tbh, but it's not like we've spent our lifetimes being valiant losers playing great stuff. Brief parts of 1990, 1996, and 2004 aside, the football and the results have been largely absolutely shite. 

[huss9]

was dalglish a more successful manager than SBR because he got us 2nd in the league?

we still won nowt.

[54]

 

[The Prophet]

Just now, huss9 said:

at least those teams tried to go for it.

and the coaches tried making active positive decisions in game.

 

Under Southgate, we've reached a semi final and a final in consecutive tournaments. I don't understand how he isn't going for it.

 

We've recently seen an extremely talented Spanish side dominate international football for around half a decade. Yet they were a very dull, risk adverse side, that were built on negating the pitfalls of tournament football. Did they go for it?

[huss9]

i dont expect us to win every game.

but i do expect the coach to try to change things when its obvious its not working and be pro-active and brave.

 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

You've misread what I'm saying. Germany's quality counts for little once they get to international tournaments, as in it doesn't matter how bad they might be on paper or in the run up to a tournament, they're still always Germany and usually find a way to succeed.

 

Germany 96 didn't have anything near the quality England did either, so why is the same criticism not thrown at that England team or Venables? That side had the likes of prime Shearer, Sheringham, Gascoigne, Adams, and Seaman. You can't have it both ways like.

 

I do give a shite about the results tbh, but it's not like we've spent our lifetimes being valiant losers playing great stuff. Brief parts of 1990, 1996, and 2004 aside, the football and the results have been largely absolutely shite. 

Got you, apologies my misreading

 

I think Venables is vastly overrated too - both in club and country terms.  Euro 96 was on home soil.  But it was decent to watch.  For the record, I also think Adams and Seaman are two of the most overblown footballers of all time, and Gascoigne was miles past his best by that point.  I actually think this is - man for man - the most technically gifted group in my lifetime.  Not brilliant, but all solid, capable players.  Sure, none of them are world-class - but the only English player that I think was the best in his position in the world at any point was Ashley Cole, who I think was the best left back of the mid-00s.  Gerrard, Lampard et al were players who’s weaknesses were glossed over, helped by that gap being plugged at club level.  

 

Agreed re results and performances largely being shite.  It would be nice to see if the performances can be improved, irrespective of the results.  Neither KK nor BR reached a cup final with NUFC - Dalglish and Gullit did.  But fuck me I know which brand of football I preferred.  

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, 54 said:

 

Not arsed about winning it, would like to see some good football

 

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by TheBrownBottle

[huss9]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

Under Southgate, we've reached a semi final and a final in consecutive tournaments. I don't understand how he isn't going for it.

 

We've recently seen an extremely talented Spanish side dominate international football for around half a decade. Yet they were a very dull, risk adverse side, that were built on negating the pitfalls of tournament football. Did they go for it?

the second halfs in each game.

any positive changes to try and go for the win?

we were crying out for positive subs and had pace and talent on the bench but he was too scared of losing rather trying to win against italy.

 

[huss9]

cant wait for the bournemouth cup game

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Under Southgate, we've reached a semi final and a final in consecutive tournaments. I don't understand how he isn't going for it.

 

We've recently seen an extremely talented Spanish side dominate international football for around half a decade. Yet they were a very dull, risk adverse side, that were built on negating the pitfalls of tournament football. Did they go for it?

They were dull to watch, too.  I didn’t like watching them, I can’t understand how anyone would.

 

Someone is going to win a tournament, but this is meant to be an entertainment.  It’s not a coincidence that Hungary ‘54, Holland ‘74 and Brazil ‘82 are much better known and more fondly remembered than plenty of sides who actually won it.  

[midds]

Still firmly believe that Southgate is that shit scared of failing that he's pushing the path of least resistance. He saw the Iran win and figured 2 draws would be enough so he went out and told them to keep a clean sheet and that was a job well done, the post match interviews confirmed it tbh. I'm also convinced that he'll set up exactly the same way on Tuesday and aim to finish on 5 points minimum to 'hopefully' win the group. Win the first game and grind out 2 draws rather than just go for the win 100% in all 3 games. 

 

Part of me hopes that Iran go eyeballs out and beats the US in a 3-2 thriller while we slog out a 0-0 with Wales whilst finishing second. It's just negative as fuck, he's got a fantastic squad - just try and win every game, play with a bit of purpose and look to win rather than simply not lose. 

[The Prophet]

Just now, huss9 said:

the second halfs in each game.

any positive changes to try and go for the win?

we were crying out for positive subs and had pace and talent on the bench but he was too scared of losing rather trying to win against italy.

 

 

After catching Italy off guard with his initial game plan, I think he was tactically outclassed by Mancini. 

 

Southgate being tactically limited is a perfectly legitimate criticism. That doesn't mean that he hasn't done a good job in terms of tournament performances.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, midds said:

Still firmly believe that Southgate is that shit scared of failing that he's pushing the path of least resistance. He saw the Iran win and figured 2 draws would be enough so he went out and told them to keep a clean sheet and that was a job well done, the post match interviews confirmed it tbh. I'm also convinced that he'll set up exactly the same way on Tuesday and aim to finish on 5 points minimum to 'hopefully' win the group. Win the first game and grind out 2 draws rather than just go for the win 100% in all 3 games. 

 

Part of me hopes that Iran go eyeballs out and beats the US in a 3-2 thriller while we slog out a 0-0 with Wales whilst finishing second. It's just negative as fuck, he's got a fantastic squad - just try and win every game, play with a bit of purpose and look to win rather than simply not lose. 

Agreed, but oddly enough that’s probably what he wants - finishing 2nd probably means a better chance of a SF for England, thanks to the peculiarities of the draw 

[St. Maximin]

1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

 

I can't remember what it was that I watched, but I remember a comment years ago, possibly on one of those 'remember 1996' type programmes, about how it's part of our national psyche to be valiant losers, how in a sense we'd rather go down fighting than actually win if it meant not representing a certain set of English stereotypes.

 

Always thought it was a bit of joke and not really true, but I think about it fairly regularly now and I think it applies with Southgate. Certain people literally hate our 2nd most successful manager of all time and have invented alternate and hypothetical realities in order to justify it. 

 

 

 

To an extent I think that’s true, but ironically actually partly why Southgate has (at least historically) been so popular and why he and the team won SPOTY awards last year etc. We were still in the mindset they were these valiant losers doing the nation proud against all odds, rather than one of the favourites (if not the favourite) being outfoxed in a final of a tournament we virtually hosted as far as we were concerned. 
 

Saying that the views have often been a bit weirdly polarised imo. Some people despise him for reasons I can’t understand, like they have short term memories and forgot how depressing being an England fan was prior to 2018 or would be under Allardyce. He absolutely deserves credit for his achievements and also absolutely deserves a lot of the criticism that comes his way, tonight especially. It just shows his limitations that he can’t trust some of his more exciting and creative players and it’s so frustrating and puzzling to watch, like he’s deliberately trying to be boring with his ideas that clearly didn’t work when they mattered most (Croatia 2018, Italy 2021). It’s just such an English mentality to be overly cautious and suspicious of anyone a bit more maverick. 
 

Also what is Mason Mount doing getting 90 minutes every game?

[Kid Icarus]

13 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Got you, apologies my misreading

 

I think Venables is vastly overrated too - both in club and country terms.  Euro 96 was on home soil.  But it was decent to watch.  For the record, I also think Adams and Seaman are two of the most overblown footballers of all time, and Gascoigne was miles past his best by that point. I actually think this is - man for man - the most technically gifted group in my lifetime.  Not brilliant, but all solid, capable players.  Sure, none of them are world-class - but the only English player that I think was the best in his position in the world at any point was Ashley Cole, who I think was the best left back of the mid-00s.  Gerrard, Lampard et al were players who’s weaknesses were glossed over, helped by that gap being plugged at club level.  

 

Agreed re results and performances largely being shite.  It would be nice to see if the performances can be improved, irrespective of the results.  Neither KK nor BR reached a cup final with NUFC - Dalglish and Gullit did.  But fuck me I know which brand of football I preferred.  

I just find this popular opinion absolutely baffling  

I agree that Cole (and Beckham to an extent) were the only players who consistently performed for England, but Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, Terry, Ferdinand, Cole, Beckham were all undoubtedly world class footballers who consistently proved it at club level.

 

The fact they massively underperformed for England, that several managers couldn't get a tune out of them, and this England team of less talented players have performed very well should be a feather in Southgate's cap, but it's not. People somehow immediately jump to the opinion you have and I'm supposed to agree that - all else being equal - I'd rather pick a defence and midfield of Stones, Maguire, Rice, Bellingham and Phillips over Terry, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by Kid Icarus