Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, roverandout said:

That's not completely true.  We smashed Panama.  A team tge Belgians only scored 3 or 4 against.  Outplayed Tunisia.  We should have won by more. Played a second string 11 against Belgium.  And we nearly drew if rashford could shoot. Should have beaten Colombia who's only intention was to foul all game and intimidate the ref. Beat sweden a top 20 ranked side, a team that finished above the Netherlands in qualifying.  Knocked the Italians out in the playoffs and finished above Germany in the group stage.  (Colombia were also a top 20 ranked side) should have been more than 1-0 up against Croatia in the first half. It was only fatigue and doing the English thing of going back into ur own box for the last 20 minutes of normal time that cost us

To sum up, we were poor

As usual

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, simongarnerisgod said:

2002 was the best chance we`ve ever had to win the w/c,id`e love to know what sven said at half time because we came out like timid kittens against a brazil side that were down to ten men,iv`e no doubt we`de have won world cup that year if we`de got past the brazilians,we had an exceptional squad that tournament

Ifs, woulds, maybes. It's always the same

England never deliver because we're never quite good enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, roverandout said:

Hes been one of our most creative players the last two games.  Some of his through balls to sterling shaw

I dont think that any of Englands players in the opening 2 games can be described as creative.

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Let's play the next game and win it. Then see who we play then in the next round 

So you agree that Eriksson and Capello underperformed in tournament football and we wasted close to 60 million pounds on them? 

That was the point I was making. Southgates future should be determined by results and not guaranteed regardless. If we go home early, lets look elsewhere, why would we reward failure with more tournaments? If we get to the latter stages and at least equal the semi final finish, then his future can be justified going into the next World Cup. Judge on results, surely that is fair and logical?

I think its pretty obvious that Eriksson and Capello underachieved. Hence why their failures shouldnt be used as a benchmark. We dont justify Mowbray's future by saying that "at least he isnt Kean," well we shouldnt but some do anyway.

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Exactly. But Roversfan99 doesnt rate him anyway. 

 

Childish nonsense. I said that Mount was a good player and indeed he would have been in my side for the first 2 games. What I also said was that I believe that Southgate considers him a guaranteed starter and the remaining players (Foden, Sterling, Sancho, Rashford and Grealish) are competing for the other 2 places. I like Mount but I dont think that he is above all of the aforementioned alternatives and I also think that he (like most) has not performed so far and with our alternatives he should be on the bench on Tuesday. I rate Foden higher than Mount and I would also strongly consider dropping him too. Grealish and Sancho should definitely start.

7 minutes ago, roverandout said:

That's not completely true.  We smashed Panama.  A team tge Belgians only scored 3 or 4 against.  Outplayed Tunisia.  We should have won by more. Played a second string 11 against Belgium.  And we nearly drew if rashford could shoot. Should have beaten Colombia who's only intention was to foul all game and intimidate the ref. Beat sweden a top 20 ranked side, a team that finished above the Netherlands in qualifying.  Knocked the Italians out in the playoffs and finished above Germany in the group stage.  (Colombia were also a top 20 ranked side) should have been more than 1-0 up against Croatia in the first half. It was only fatigue and doing the English thing of going back into ur own box for the last 20 minutes of normal time that cost us

So many excuses as is always the case with England. Should have done this, nearly did that, came close to this, were unlucky in that.

At the end of the day, we objectively had a favourable draw in the last tournament. Panama were pitiful, the tournament outsiders and whether you put 3, 4, 5 or 6 past them is fairly immaterial. Southgate deserved credit for getting us as far as he did and you can only beat what is is in front of you but as soon as he was faced with a good team, we faltered. He was lucky to get the job with his only senior management experience prior being a failure at Middlesbrough. He deserved to lead us into Euro 2020 but if we regress and exit early, although I dont think he will be dismissed, I think that he should. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Yet again another poster who wants to used my past views on Mowbray to throw mud and comments at me cos I think Southgate is right man for the job and he has produced England best results at a tournament since Venables at Euro 96 and Robson at World Cup 90. despite us spending and wasting millions on 2 foreign managers who when it got to Tournament football could match those 2 results and better it. 

Why keep responsing to me if thats the view you hold? But given your track record you aren't the best judge either

Use grammarly.com or at least spellcheck on word.

Re-read your sentences. If you are gagging for breath reading a sentence - its too long.

You nearly killed me reading that!

Edited by JacknOry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its looking like we will play Germany in the second round if we win the group. As Germany should beat Hungary. France i think will beat Portugal. If we finish second it looks like we will play Spain in Copenhagen as I can see Sweden beating Poland and Spain should beat Slovakia though I wouldn’t rule out the Slovakians. Either way it will be hard. Spain look worse than us for sideways pointless passing.  Will be an exciting 0-0. I think Portugal will go out of the group stage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last round of Group F looks like an interesting one although again the stupid rules allowing most 3rd placed teams to go through takes a lot of the peril out of it and I wouldnt be surprised to see Germany top the group and for France and Portugal to draw and both progress themselves. If Portugal lose but by one goal only, there is still probably a chance that their late goal rush v Hungary could see them sneak through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

The last round of Group F looks like an interesting one although again the stupid rules allowing most 3rd placed teams to go through takes a lot of the peril out of it and I wouldnt be surprised to see Germany top the group and for France and Portugal to draw and both progress themselves. If Portugal lose but by one goal only, there is still probably a chance that their late goal rush v Hungary could see them sneak through.

There's quite a few teams already on 4 points 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, roverandout said:

There's quite a few teams already on 4 points 

There is a chance I think that some 3rd placed teams end up on 3 or less. If Croatia draw with Scotland, 3rd place will be on 2 points. If there is a winner between Ukraine and Austria, 3rd place will have 3 points. If Belgium and Denmark win tomorrow, 3rd place will have 3 points. If Poland fail to win, 3rd place will have 3 points or less. 2 from 4 of those very realistic scenarios and a one goal loss may still see Portugal sneak through. Stupid rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, roverandout said:

Its wrong that a team could lose 2 games and still go through at the expense of a smaller nation who works hard to say for example 3 draws against tougher opponents 

Don't think that can happen (although I'm sure someone will have the example somewhere now I've said that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been listening to the bbc daily euros podcast which is really great. But I've been left a bit bemused as they keep on describing England as one of the favourites.

If you take patriotic betting out if it we haven't been favourites at any stage for any sane person have we? We're way off France and now Italy have shown they are miles ahead of us, and Germany look ominous.

Our qualifying/nations league performance wasn't even that strong. Been beaten by Czechs, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Spain in competitive games since the world cup.

It's just relentless the way the media build us up and get ready to knock us down....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, roverandout said:

We've had alot of bad luck

When was the last time we were eliminated from a major tournament when we were actually the better side in the game we lost? 

1996 maybe, and I'm not sure we were definitely the better side in that game.  

 

Edited by Hasta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, roverandout said:

Its wrong that a team could lose 2 games and still go through at the expense of a smaller nation who works hard to say for example 3 draws against tougher opponents 

But why? Football is a results game, it shouldnt and cant favour plucky underdogs. If anything, the smaller nations would be further encouraged to sit deep and potentially stifle the quality further.

The whole 3rd place thing is a nonsense in that two thirds of the teams qualify making qualification too easy, the only type of team that it does unfairly favour is teams in the later groups who know exactly what it will take to qualify even as a third place team.

The additional 8 teams have removed the one advantage that the Euro's had over the obviously more prestigious world cup, ie that it was more streamlined increasing the quality. If they insist on adding more teams, which they shouldnt, it takes a really poor European team not to qualify in its current format, then even 32 teams would make more sense in which case at least the tournament becomes symmetrical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

 

That was the point I was making. Southgates future should be determined by results and not guaranteed regardless. If we go home early, lets look elsewhere, why would we reward failure with more tournaments? If we get to the latter stages and at least equal the semi final finish, then his future can be justified going into the next World Cup. Judge on results, surely that is fair and logical?

I think its pretty obvious that Eriksson and Capello underachieved. Hence why their failures shouldnt be used as a benchmark. We dont justify Mowbray's future by saying that "at least he isnt Kean," well we shouldnt but some do anyway.

Childish nonsense. I said that Mount was a good player and indeed he would have been in my side for the first 2 games. What I also said was that I believe that Southgate considers him a guaranteed starter and the remaining players (Foden, Sterling, Sancho, Rashford and Grealish) are competing for the other 2 places. I like Mount but I dont think that he is above all of the aforementioned alternatives and I also think that he (like most) has not performed so far and with our alternatives he should be on the bench on Tuesday. I rate Foden higher than Mount and I would also strongly consider dropping him too. Grealish and Sancho should definitely start.

 

why keep mentioning Mowbray and Kean on the England's thread? neither have owt to do with the national team. 

We are judging on Tournament results with Southgate tho. So your point is null imo

I think Appointing Eriksson and Capello was a massive waste of money and neither wanted the job IMO or show passion for the job. We should always appoint an English to the national team job. 

Not childish nonsense at all but You aren't a fan of Mount or rate him. He has one of most important player to the Chelsea team this season and Tuchel quickly realised how good Mount is and must play. I have already told you my team for the next game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

why keep mentioning Mowbray and Kean on the England's thread? neither have owt to do with the national team. 

We are judging on Tournament results with Southgate tho. So your point is null imo

I think Appointing Eriksson and Capello was a massive waste of money and neither wanted the job IMO or show passion for the job. We should always appoint an English to the national team job. 

Not childish nonsense at all but You aren't a fan of Mount or rate him. He has one of most important player to the Chelsea team this season and Tuchel quickly realised how good Mount is and must play. I have already told you my team for the next game

My main point was that Southgate should be judged on results, hence why he should not get the next tournament should we regress and go out much sooner than we did in the World Cup. Semi final/final finish, let him manage us into the next tournament by all means. Go out in the last 16, time for a change. Its hardly as if he got the job on merit based on his CV, or that he could look back and say trust me here, ive done this that and the other. Relegation at Middlesbrough and thats it in senior football before England. Is that not fair, that our managers future should depend on the results he gets at tournaments? If we get to the semi final or further again, im guessing that youd agree to keep him, all good. IF we was to go out in the last 16, yes or no, do you keep Southgate regardless of results?

You are telling me what my opinion is on Mount and that I "am not a fan of him and dont rate him" even though I have stated more than once that I do rate him, that I do think he is a good player and that I would have had him in my team going into the tournament. I also think that like a few more in our team, he has been ineffective/poor in the opening 2 games and in our area of strength, I would bring in the incredibly talented Grealish for him for the next game. If you know my own opinion more than me, then that is impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

why keep mentioning Mowbray and Kean on the England's thread? neither have owt to do with the national team. 

Disrespectful there Chaddy.

ToMo got 3 England B caps. 

 

 

Edited by Hasta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The group F games on Saturday were tremendous. Hungary were unlucky - a bit of schoolboy defending undid them. The Germans were very good. 

The who plays who permutations are too complicated for me. I'll wait for the results.

Unlike the Italy-Wales where both teams were happy with the result, today's games are all to play for. The Dutch are already through and in all likelihood as group winners but could be toppled. The same with Belgium. 

I can't see either losing though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

We are judging on Tournament results with Southgate tho. So your point is null imo

At the World Cup Southgate lost 3 games,  that's the most that England have ever lost in a major tournament.

Edited by Ewood Ace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

Ifs, woulds, maybes. It's always the same

England never deliver because we're never quite good enough

I’ve just watched it again today. It still finished 0-0. Way too much walking football with the ball being playing into feet all the time instead of into a space for people to run on to. We need to up the tempo 100%.

I can’t see why the jocks are jumping up and down. Two games, 1 point, 0 goals. We could have played while now and they wouldn’t have scored.

Edited by Tyrone Shoelaces
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

My main point was that Southgate should be judged on results, hence why he should not get the next tournament should we regress and go out much sooner than we did in the World Cup. Semi final/final finish, let him manage us into the next tournament by all means. Go out in the last 16, time for a change. Its hardly as if he got the job on merit based on his CV, or that he could look back and say trust me here, ive done this that and the other. Relegation at Middlesbrough and thats it in senior football before England. Is that not fair, that our managers future should depend on the results he gets at tournaments? If we get to the semi final or further again, im guessing that youd agree to keep him, all good. IF we was to go out in the last 16, yes or no, do you keep Southgate regardless of results?

But Southgate is being judge on tournament results. 

He got the job based on his results he did as a caretaker manager after Allardyce left and we didn't appointed him permanent straight away. Plus he did a very good job of our 21's manager. Dont forget how and why Allardyce left for. 

I would keep Southgate for the next world cup which is only more than 12 months away now and with our squad. 

22 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I also think that like a few more in our team, he has been ineffective/poor in the opening 2 games and in our area of strength, I would bring in the incredibly talented Grealish for him for the next game. If you know my own opinion more than me, then that is impressive.

Grealish for me should play wide left not the 10 role. Mount has been good against Croatia and @roverandouttold you about the performance against Scotland. But we are just going in circles again so I will leave it there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

But Southgate is being judge on tournament results. 

He got the job based on his results he did as a caretaker manager after Allardyce left and we didn't appointed him permanent straight away. Plus he did a very good job of our 21's manager. Dont forget how and why Allardyce left for. 

I would keep Southgate for the next world cup which is only more than 12 months away now and with our squad. 

Grealish for me should play wide left not the 10 role. Mount has been good against Croatia and @roverandouttold you about the performance against Scotland. But we are just going in circles again so I will leave it there. 

The fact that you have already pre-decided that Southgate definitely should manage us in the next World Cup regardless of how we do in the Euro's suggests that you aren't judging the manager on tournament results.

Roverandout also give his opinion on Mount and his performance, as like me and you, he is entitled to. I disagree and thought that, like basically everyone in an England shirt, he was poor. I think if we play tomorrow a midfield of Henderson, Bellingham, Sancho, Grealish and Rashford, none of those dropped could have too much argument and the midfield would not necessarily be weaker such is the variety of options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

But Southgate is being judge on tournament results. 

He got the job based on his results he did as a caretaker manager after Allardyce left and we didn't appointed him permanent straight away. Plus he did a very good job of our 21's manager. Dont forget how and why Allardyce left for. 

I would keep Southgate for the next world cup which is only more than 12 months away now and with our squad. 

Grealish for me should play wide left not the 10 role. Mount has been good against Croatia and @roverandouttold you about the performance against Scotland. But we are just going in circles again so I will leave it there. 

Grealish is wasted out wide. He’s much easier to mark out there as O’Donnell showed on Friday night. You’re not playing to his strengths. It’s like us playing Dack out wide. Same with Foden playing out wide on the right, even the dogs in the street know he’ll be coming inside onto his left foot 95% of the time.  Your playmakers should be playing where they can get on the ball more. Can you see Italy or Spain playing those sorts of players on the wing ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • J*B unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.