The Quarter Finals: Croatia, Argentina, Morocco, and France through

[The Prophet]

11 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Nope.  Which means the England have performed roughly at par - which is usual.  Here’s the list from tournaments I have any memory of:

 

WC 86 - lost to eventual winners Argentina, having won a straightforward last 16 game

EURO 88 - out in group, which did contain both finalists

WC 90 - out in SF, having got past two relatively equivalent teams in the L16 and QF

EURO 92 - generally seen as poor performance, though were in a tough group containing the hosts, the winners, and France

WC 94 - DNQ out of a tricky group containing four nations who could all well have qualified if drawn in a different group

EURO 96 - lost in SF to eventual winners, having outplayed a good Dutch team (who had to win a playoff to qualify) and got pretty lucky vs Spain in QF (dodgy ref cost Spain)

WC 98 - lost to Argentina in L16

EURO 00 - out in group -poor performance given the fact that they led vs Portugal and Romania

WC 02 - lost to eventual winners Brazil in QF after easy win vs Denmark L16

Euro 04 - lost to host Portugal in QF

WC 06 lost to Portugal in QF following easy L16 fixture

EURO 08 - DNQ, generally poor though QF included an excellent Croatian team

WC 10 - lost to Germany L16

Euro 12 - lost in QF to Italy

WC 14 - genuinely poor, out in group

EURO 16 - out in L16 to Iceland

 

So to me, generally speaking par for England is losing to the first good side they play - the true exceptions being WC14 and EURO 16 (and DNQ in Euro 08)

 

The only difference in the last four years has been the point at which England has faced a decent side.  In the period listed, WCs have been: QF, SF, DNQ, L16, QF, QF, L16, GS, SF, QF.  QF is par; we’ve reached in six of the nine WCs in which I’ve got any kind of memory.  WC98 and WC 10 we faced a superpower in the L16, which made passage difficult.  Only 94 and 14 broke the pattern with genuine failure.
 

WC 18 we were fortunate enough to get Sweden in the QF - we didn’t face a good side until the SF.

 

This isn’t to say Southgate has done a terrible job - he hasn’t - but the narrative that he’s worked wonders just doesn’t compute for me. 

 

What's the criteria for "decent" though?

 

In Euro 2020, we best Croatia, Germany and Denmark.

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by The Prophet

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

What's the criteria for "decent"?

 

In Euro 2020, we best Croatia, Germany and Denmark.

 

A footballing heavyweight or a side ranked higher would be a good start.

 

Euro 2020 is the tournament with the strongest case for a job well done - though like Euro 1996, where England put out Spain and beat Holland, home advantage counts.  And I’m only talking knockout football - I didn’t mention Argentina in 2002 because of that.  England don’t beat sides that they aren’t favourite to beat in the KO stages - and that includes Euro 2020, where losses to Germany or Denmark would have been an upset

[cubaricho]

14 minutes ago, Vinny Green Balls said:

He also doesn't seem like a total bellend. One of the great stories of this World Cup.

Absolutely. Getting pulled into the team and then being up for the golden boot. Fairy tale stuff. 

[toon25]

1 hour ago, dembabah said:

Southgate has done his best but he just isn't a top manager, he wouldn't get a job in the premier league, we have had favourable draws in qualifying and the final tournaments, the only decent side i can remember us beating was Germany in the Euro's.

 

He just isn't a very good manager.

Whenever he comes up against remotely decent opposition he's been found out. He's a decent bloke who has no fucking idea how to set teams up and change games through subs/tactics.

 

He's been a caretaker manager that's outstayed his welcome for years.

 

[Wullie]

3 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

What's the criteria for "decent" though?

 

In Euro 2020, we best Croatia, Germany and Denmark.

 

You're getting your Croatians muddled up. 2018 and 2022, they were World Cup semi finalists and by definition brilliant. In between that was 2020 Croatia who were beaten by England and therefore garbage.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Wullie said:

 

You're getting your Croatians muddled up. 2018 and 2022, they were World Cup semi finalists and by definition brilliant. In between that was 2020 Croatia who were beaten by England and therefore garbage.

And at EURO 2020 we played them in the group stage.  Again, England don’t win KO games against good sides as that’s when the pressure is on.  Nothing has changed.  

[TheBrownBottle]

Everyone I know beforehand thought England would get to the QF and lose to France.  I’ve seen few who thought that wouldn’t be the outcome.

 

But yes; that was a remarkable performance again. 

[Wullie]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

A footballing heavyweight or a side ranked higher would be a good start.

 

Euro 2020 is the tournament with the strongest case for a job well done - though like Euro 1996, where England put out Spain and beat Holland, home advantage counts.  And I’m only talking knockout football - I didn’t mention Argentina in 2002 because of that.  England don’t beat sides that they aren’t favourite to beat in the KO stages - and that includes Euro 2020, where losses to Germany or Denmark would have been an upset

 

How are consecutive WC semi finalists Croatia not a "footballing heavyweight"? How are Germany not a "footballing heavyweight"?

 

You can make the argument that Croatia aren't because of history, or you can make the argument that Germany aren't because of their current team but you can't make both at the same time.

 

Basically, your definition of "footballing heavyweight" is: Haven't been beaten by Gareth Southgate's rubbish England.

[Holloway]

Down to the finest of margins and it went their way. Referee was not fit for purpose 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Wullie said:

 

How are consecutive WC semi finalists Croatia not a "footballing heavyweight"? How are Germany not a "footballing heavyweight"?

 

You can make the argument that Croatia aren't because of history, or you can make the argument that Germany aren't because of their current team but you can't make both at the same time.

 

Basically, your definition of "footballing heavyweight" is: Haven't been beaten by Gareth Southgate's rubbish England.

Again, I think Croatia ARE heavyweight these days - I’m referring to England’s performance in knockouts.  Therefore beating the Dutch in 96, Argentina in 02 etc isn’t the same.

 

The Germany side is shocking and has been for a couple of years.

 

The point is that England performed to par, and have done for pretty much my entire life.  Southgate hasn’t changed that.  I know he looks canny in his little wesskit, and makes sad faces at bad things, but he’s done nothing that wouldn’t be expected.  Again, every person with any knowledge of football thought they’d beat who they have in the KOs under him.  Croatia, Italy, and France were sterner tests and all were lost.  No shame in that, but I’m not blowing smoke up his arse for basically being a nicer PFM

[Wolfcastle]

16 minutes ago, Wullie said:

This thing about "losing to the first good side they play" is such nonsense.

 

Make no mistake, if the fine margins had gone our way and England had won tonight the same people would have been saying "oo-er that French side weren't very good after all, didn't even come top in qualifying, lost to the Swiss in the Euros you know, same old Southgate, only beats shit teams"

 

Schrödinger's opposition: if we beat them, they must have been shit. 

Happens too often to be nonsense.

Arguably Argentina (2002) are the only top side England has beat in a World Cup since 1982 (France). If were discounting Belgium in 90 who were good.

Euro's is not much different until the last one and if you take out home advantage from memory has their been one? Germany 00-04 were not a good side.

Qualifiers not much different. The record against Italy, France, Brazil and Germany (and others probably) is really bad. It would suggest England aren't that level. Apart from Italy dominating Germany, the top nations have pretty mixed records against each other I'd guess.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Wolfcastle

[TheBrownBottle]

PS I said it before and meant it - if they beat France then he’s comfortably the most successful manager in my lifetime, and would deserve every plaudit coming.  And I’d happily eat my words.  I’m on the record on here saying precisely that.

[TheBrownBottle]

31 minutes ago, Wolfcastle said:

Happens too often to be nonsense.

Arguably Argentina (2002) are the only top side England has beat in a World Cup since 1982 (France). If were discounting Belgium in 90 who were good.

Euro's is not much different until the last one and if you take out home advantage from memory has their been one? Germany 00-04 were not a good side.

Qualifiers not much different. The record against Italy, France, Brazil and Germany (and others probably) is really bad. It would suggest England aren't that level. Apart from Italy dominating Germany, the top nations have pretty mixed records against each other I'd guess.

 

 

 

Englands KO record vs the big boys since ‘66:

 

Ger - played five, lost four, won one (vs poor German side)

Arg - played two, lost two

Bra - played one, lost one

Ita - played two, lost two

Fra - played one, lost one

Por - played two, lost two

Hol - haven’t played

 

It’s not the best like  

 

edit: forgot Spain!

 

Spa - played one, won one

 

Is it a coincidence that the only two victories were at home to probably the weakest sides those nations have produced in a long time - in Germany’s case, post-war?

 

Something else to note - the only game on that list which couldn’t be described as ‘right’ was vs Germany in 10 (and even then there was that iffy goal ruled out for Lampard for 2-2).  England don’t usually get hammered off those sides - they just usually lose.  Again, plus ca change as they say in the Dordogne, Rodders

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by TheBrownBottle

[rgk_lfc]

I see that several of the Portugal players have complained about cup being handed to Argentina. Definitely they are being salty and not a good sport, but there is an underlying point there. Atleast from the quarter finals onwards, cant we have referees from countries with no stake left in the world cup. Avoid referees from the eight countries playing the quarter final. I did find it weird that Michael Oliver was refereeing the Brazil Croatia game with England playing the next day. Then we have a Brazilian referee in charge of the England game.  I am not saying the Brazil result influenced todays referee but why even take the chance?

[TenkoDaLuz]

35 minutes ago, rgk_lfc said:

I see that several of the Portugal players have complained about cup being handed to Argentina. Definitely they are being salty and not a good sport, but there is an underlying point there. Atleast from the quarter finals onwards, cant we have referees from countries with no stake left in the world cup. Avoid referees from the eight countries playing the quarter final. I did find it weird that Michael Oliver was refereeing the Brazil Croatia game with England playing the next day. Then we have a Brazilian referee in charge of the England game.  I am not saying the Brazil result influenced todays referee but why even take the chance?

 

 

Definitely salty. Morocco won fair and square. We were absolutely worthless tonight.

 

What a punch in the gut this was. And I was not even motivated for this WC in the first place.

 

Having problems falling asleep.

 

Wondering how you lads are coping.

[toon25]

40 minutes ago, rgk_lfc said:

I see that several of the Portugal players have complained about cup being handed to Argentina. Definitely they are being salty and not a good sport, but there is an underlying point there. Atleast from the quarter finals onwards, cant we have referees from countries with no stake left in the world cup. Avoid referees from the eight countries playing the quarter final. I did find it weird that Michael Oliver was refereeing the Brazil Croatia game with England playing the next day. Then we have a Brazilian referee in charge of the England game.  I am not saying the Brazil result influenced todays referee but why even take the chance?

FIFA couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. That they could engineer some sort of situation that involved any sort of outcome that resulted in a particular team winning the WC by virtue of shite refereeing decisions is beyond me.

 

[Zero]

No manager is perfect. Southgate has his flaws but he has done a great job in building a nation team that bonds like a club team. He almost knocked out the best team in WC and he deserves credit for this.

 

It’s a relatively young team anyway. England still have a good shot in 2026. 

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

2 hours ago, Wullie said:

This is really remarkable for a 19 year old like. 

 

 

Thats some amazing emotional maturity. Seeing Kane's face slowed down like that you can see the adrenaline and absolute shock on his face. Mustve been brutal. 

[Miercoles]

2 hours ago, Kanji said:

I’d honestly never think Kane would miss the second penalty, his preparation and bottle are just top draw. Was wild. 

 

I have a pet theory that you should never have the same player take two penalties in the same game. I've only seen it a few times so it's a small sample mind, but it seems like they always miss the second one.

 

Probably complete bollocks if you actually look at the numbers, but as soon as I saw Kane was the taker I felt like he would miss.

[dembabah]

2 hours ago, Wullie said:

This thing about "losing to the first good side they play" is such nonsense.

 

Make no mistake, if the fine margins had gone our way and England had won tonight the same people would have been saying "oo-er that French side weren't very good after all, didn't even come top in qualifying, lost to the Swiss in the Euros you know, same old Southgate, only beats shit teams"

 

Schrödinger's opposition: if we beat them, they must have been shit. 

 

It isn't nonsense because it keeps happening, he (Southgate) isn't a good enough manager to beat the big nations, Germany aside in the Euro's.

 

[relámpago blanco]

2 hours ago, Holloway said:

Down to the finest of margins and it went their way. Referee was not fit for purpose 

He was shocking like their first goal was great play by them but may not have happened.

[astraguy]

4 hours ago, toon25 said:

Whenever he comes up against remotely decent opposition he's been found out. He's a decent bloke who has no fucking idea how to set teams up and change games through subs/tactics.

 

He's been a caretaker manager that's outstayed his welcome for years.

 

Just seen the subs ? we've had 3 decent draws like the above doubt we'll get that again in the next decade or 2

[ohmelads]

5 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Englands KO record vs the big boys since ‘66:

 

Ger - played five, lost four, won one (vs poor German side)

Arg - played two, lost two

Bra - played one, lost one

Ita - played two, lost two

Fra - played one, lost one

Por - played two, lost two

Hol - haven’t played

 

It’s not the best like  

 

 

 

 

A bit of context: 6 of those 12 defeats were draws and ended in penalty shootouts (England lost all 6 shootouts).

 

If England had won half of those shootouts, which statistically would be expected, then you're looking at 5 wins and 9 defeats against football's elite. That's probably more like 'par'. Removing context gives Southgate a free pass because it suggests we can't match these teams, when in fact we took them to pens many times. We aren't traditionally one of the top 4 or 5 in the world - I doubt anyone argues with that - but England have matched big sides prior to Southgate only to be undone by penaly shootouts.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by ohmelads

[Stifler]

Fans and pundits alike always predict England to go out at the Quarter finals. That’s because we are good enough to qualify from a group and usually in 1st place. Because we expect to finish in 1st place we usually get a last 16 round where we are considered favourites and a team we should beat. The Quarter Finals is where we often usually first come up against a team where we are not considered favourites or it is expected to be a very close game. That’s where people expect us to fall away and they are usually right.

[St1pe]

I’m struggling to see how Southgate was “found out” last night when we were largely the better side, had the better chances and controlled most of the game. We lost to some very fine margins and not being clinical enough. I don’t think you can point to any of his selections and say someone could have done a better job than the players he put out there.