England

[M_B]

5 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

If you are going to caveat the quarter final exit under Southgate with numerous reasons and excuses, could have gone either way, tight game, eventual finalist etc. Sven lost to Brazil who won the tournament and Portugal twice in very tight games decided on penalty with questionable refereeing decisions. 

Southgate's overall tournament record is good. Benefitted by considerable luck in terms of draws, but took advantage of that luck with an impressively consistent ability to overcome the lesser nations in knockout games, then came up short against stronger teams or even ones like Italy and Croatia who you wouldnt have down as the elite.

Its difficult to compare tournament on tournament though. Tuchel has his work cut out because although he is a better manager, the squad is considerably weaker now.

Did Southgate have bad luck having to play the teams he lost to, or did the luck only stretch to having good luck playing the teams he beat? 

[roversfan99]

13 minutes ago, M_B said:

Did Southgate have bad luck having to play the teams he lost to, or did the luck only stretch to having good luck playing the teams he beat? 

Its not about whether we won or lost, but the standard of opposition relevant to the stage of the tournament.

Playing France in a quarter final was bad luck. Playing Germany in the last 16 considering we presumably won the group was bad luck. All of the other knockout games I would consider to be favourable draws.

[roverandout]

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

I sort off agree there but Tuchel was short term appointment. I don't expect to see hm here after the World Cup, he will want back into Club Football

 

He's already said he'd consider stopping on

[M_B]

45 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Its not about whether we won or lost, but the standard of opposition relevant to the stage of the tournament.

Playing France in a quarter final was bad luck. Playing Germany in the last 16 considering we presumably won the group was bad luck. All of the other knockout games I would consider to be favourable draws.

They weren't draws, the draw was made before the tournament started, later fixtures were determined by football results,any supposed luck ended with the original draw.

 

[M_B]

23 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So by that token then, I take it you'll be praising Tuchel to high heaven if we get knocked out at the last 8 stage of the next World Cup?

I think high heaven is a bit high for a last 8 finish don't you ?

I'll judge Tuchel the same as I did Southgate, hope he surpasses Southgate's really good record and judge him on results, I won't be using luck to argue away how he does, either way. 

[Upside Down]

7 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

If you are going to caveat the quarter final exit under Southgate with numerous reasons and excuses, could have gone either way, tight game, eventual finalist etc. Sven lost to Brazil who won the tournament and Portugal twice in very tight games decided on penalty with questionable refereeing decisions. 

Southgate's overall tournament record is good. Benefitted by considerable luck in terms of draws, but took advantage of that luck with an impressively consistent ability to overcome the lesser nations in knockout games, then came up short against stronger teams or even ones like Italy and Croatia who you wouldnt have down as the elite.

Its difficult to compare tournament on tournament though. Tuchel has his work cut out because although he is a better manager, the squad is considerably weaker now.

A perfect summary of the whole situation.

[Upside Down]

29 minutes ago, M_B said:

I think high heaven is a bit high for a last 8 finish don't you ?

I'll judge Tuchel the same as I did Southgate, hope he surpasses Southgate's really good record and judge him on results, I won't be using luck to argue away how he does, either way. 

We know that, you've demonstrated time and time again that you don't understand what it is.

[roversfan99]

49 minutes ago, M_B said:

They weren't draws, the draw was made before the tournament started, later fixtures were determined by football results,any supposed luck ended with the original draw.

 

Either way though, it was totally out of England's control. So if England get weaker opposition as a result of games in which they had no bearing on, then it is fortunate.

36 minutes ago, M_B said:

I think high heaven is a bit high for a last 8 finish don't you ?

I'll judge Tuchel the same as I did Southgate, hope he surpasses Southgate's really good record and judge him on results, I won't be using luck to argue away how he does, either way. 

Your problem is your seeing them as mutually exclusive. 

His tournament record can be good AND he could have had lots of luck in terms of fixtures, simultaneously. 

I have said his record was good and he still deserves credit for getting as far as he did and beating who he did beat even if most of the time he was favourite (at times considerably) to do so.

[M_B]

18 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Either way though, it was totally out of England's control. So if England get weaker opposition as a result of games in which they had no bearing on, then it is fortunate.

Your problem is your seeing them as mutually exclusive. 

His tournament record can be good AND he could have had lots of luck in terms of fixtures, simultaneously. 

I have said his record was good and he still deserves credit for getting as far as he did and beating who he did beat even if most of the time he was favourite (at times considerably) to do so.

Your problem is

a, even entertaining the concept of luck, when every subsequent fixture is determined by results.

B, having used the concept of luck (which in this case is ridiculous), you're only applying it to having good luck, never once have you entertained he might have had bad luck. The whole thing is ridiculous. I just hope Tuchel employs a Witch Doctor to help with the training. 

[roversfan99]

23 minutes ago, M_B said:

Your problem is

a, even entertaining the concept of luck, when every subsequent fixture is determined by results.

B, having used the concept of luck (which in this case is ridiculous), you're only applying it to having good luck, never once have you entertained he might have had bad luck. The whole thing is ridiculous. I just hope Tuchel employs a Witch Doctor to help with the training. 

a) determined by results that we didnt control! You take the Millwall comparison that was pointed out. It was results that led to them playing lower league opposition all the way to the FA cup final. Whether the draw was pre determined is irrelevant.

b) you asked me earlier if it applies both ways and I literally said that Germany in the last 16 after winning our group and also France as early as the quarters were both examples of bad luck.

[Dreams of 1995]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

a) determined by results that we didnt control!

It is the same with every international manager because they all play by the same rules (we will ignore seeding and group rankings as it doesn’t suit the narrative). So by this token unless that nation has beat sides that roversfan99 consider elite their manager has been lucky

Took a while to get there I suppose 

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

It is the same with every international manager because they all play by the same rules (we will ignore seeding and group rankings as it doesn’t suit the narrative). So by this token unless that nation has beat sides that roversfan99 consider elite their manager has been lucky

Took a while to get there I suppose 

Im talking about from the quarters onwards. Before that, winning your group is a big factor that is in your control.

A quarter final against Sweden and a semi final against Croatia.

A quarter final of Ukraine, a semi final against Denmark and a final against Italy.

A quarter final against Switzerland and a semi final against Holland.

The exception was a quarter final against France. Overall, they are runs to the final through no control of our own that we would have absolutely taken before the draw was made.

One thing I keep saying is you can be fortunate with the uncontrollables ie the fixtures but also still consider it an achievement. I said that Southgate did well and has a good tournament record, consistently beating decent/good but not great teams in knockout football is still impressive. But as soon as you mention the word luck, it seems to touch a nerve and people see it as an attempt to totally discredit anything that Southgate has done.

The whole point stems from comparing different managers. Sven underachieved, Southgate didnt, but you arent comparing like for like when we had quarter finals against Brazil and Portugal x 2 under him.

[M_B]

As ridiculous as it is, this "theory" has to be applied to every match of every tournament that has ever been played, ie not just England .

According to this "theory ", one side has been lucky in every match which has ever been played throughout history .

That's how mental it is. 

Edited 23 hours ago by M_B

[Upside Down]

It's mental that grown adults would proudly and publicly proclaim that they do not understand the most basic concept of luck and chance.

[RevidgeBlue]

7 hours ago, M_B said:

As ridiculous as it is, this "theory" has to be applied to every match of every tournament that has ever been played, ie not just England .

According to this "theory ", one side has been lucky in every match which has ever been played throughout history .

That's how mental it is. 

When you're in a hole stop digging.

The only thing we can control is whether or not we reach a particular stage of any competition by beating whoever is in front of us.

We have no control whatsoever over who we play. if we end up with an easier game at any particular stage than we would normally have expected because another fancied team hasn't performed and the draw hasnt panned out as expected, then most people would describe that as an element of (good) luck. If we meet a particularly strong team earlier than expected through no fault of our own then most people would describe that as being slightly unlucky with the draw.

RF 99 has described it very well above. I think most people would describe draws over the years against Sweden, Croatia, Denmark, Switzerland, and Ukraine as extremely favourable. Italy were far from the strongest side at the time in 2020 and in the last Euros we were in a side of the draw which meant we avoided Spain or France until the Final. We also avoided Germany because they unexpectedly lost to Switzerland.

You still have to win the games whoever you play, but to claim there isn't an element of luck involved at times is ridiculous.

 

[Mattyblue]

Just a throwaway (and plain obvious comment a year ago, maybe by me, can’t remember now) about how England have had the rub of the green a bit (true), but so what, it’s tournament football, you can only beat what’s put in front of you (also true) and folk are still disputing it, as, well, you can’t ever un-paint yourself out of a corner on an anonymous message board, that would never do, so double down!

Classic brfcs 😅

[K-Hod]

Not sure why this is causing so much confusion, but how I see it: 

England did well to get as far as we did in tournaments under Southgate.

Some of those draws were lucky, but you can only beat what’s in front of you.

It isn’t disrespectful to Southgate to highlight the fact he didn’t win a trophy, it’s just purely factual.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Where Southgate got lucky was getting the job in the first place.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Where Southgate got lucky was getting the job in the first place.

He's a politician first and foremost who was brought in by the FA to pour oil on troubled waters after the Big Sam debacle.

Did better than expected initially, healed factions within the squad and imo did pretty well in 2018 and 2020 apart from the crucial games where his lack of proactivity and in game management cost us. Should have been replaced after the Italy final for me.

Heard a rerun of an interview between Simon Jordan and Allardyce recently where big Sam attributed Southgate's failings to lack of managerial experience. He said the longer you've been doing it the better you are at in game decision making.

[joey_big_nose]

22 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

If you are going to caveat the quarter final exit under Southgate with numerous reasons and excuses, could have gone either way, tight game, eventual finalist etc. Sven lost to Brazil who won the tournament and Portugal twice in very tight games decided on penalty with questionable refereeing decisions. 

Southgate's overall tournament record is good. Benefitted by considerable luck in terms of draws, but took advantage of that luck with an impressively consistent ability to overcome the lesser nations in knockout games, then came up short against stronger teams or even ones like Italy and Croatia who you wouldnt have down as the elite.

Its difficult to compare tournament on tournament though. Tuchel has his work cut out because although he is a better manager, the squad is considerably weaker now.

Hmmm... While the current squad has declined a bit since 2021 (when Kane, Walker and Stones were in their pomp) - I would say the current squad is substantially better than the one Southgate first ran with in 2018.

The raw bones for 2026 are there - Kane still going, Bellingham and Rice are proven talents at CL level, quite a lot of talented attacking players (Palmer, Saka, Gordon, Eze).

The three things we need to do are :

1) sort out the central defence (our number one problem). Since the Euros we have been very unsettled. I would just commit to Guehi and Stones as a pair as it worked well, but injuries have disrupted this.

2) Get the "pivot" in central midfield sorted to smooth out our play through the middle (has to be Wharton surely?) and get the best out of the attacking players

3) Find the right setup for Kane up front. I think we need to drop playing a number 10 as Kane wants to do that himself. Need players around him who focus on getting forward, and work their nuts off on and off the ball.

I guess my team would be

                    Gordon      Kane     Saka

               Bellingham   Wharton    Rice

   Lewis-Skelly     Guehi       Stones     Alexander Arnold

                                     Pickford

I am not happy about the defensive quality of our full backs, but maybe seems our best options above. But I think it is a hard ask for Tuchel to say he i significantly worse off in his squad than Southgate.

 

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, joey_big_nose said:

Hmmm... While the current squad has declined a bit since 2021 (when Kane, Walker and Stones were in their pomp) - I would say the current squad is substantially better than the one Southgate first ran with in 2018.

The raw bones for 2026 are there - Kane still going, Bellingham and Rice are proven talents at CL level, quite a lot of talented attacking players (Palmer, Saka, Gordon, Eze).

The three things we need to do are :

1) sort out the central defence (our number one problem). Since the Euros we have been very unsettled. I would just commit to Guehi and Stones as a pair as it worked well, but injuries have disrupted this.

2) Get the "pivot" in central midfield sorted to smooth out our play through the middle (has to be Wharton surely?) and get the best out of the attacking players

3) Find the right setup for Kane up front. I think we need to drop playing a number 10 as Kane wants to do that himself. Need players around him who focus on getting forward, and work their nuts off on and off the ball.

I guess my team would be

                    Gordon      Kane     Saka

               Bellingham   Wharton    Rice

   Lewis-Skelly     Guehi       Stones     Alexander Arnold

                                     Pickford

I am not happy about the defensive quality of our full backs, but maybe seems our best options above. But I think it is a hard ask for Tuchel to say he i significantly worse off in his squad than Southgate.

 

The 2018 team was certainly well below the quality in the squad of the following 3 tournaments. It was arguably Southgate's most impressive work as the first tournament after the disaster at Euro 2016 and it felt like a team playing at greater than the sum of its parts, with the main threat coming from set pieces.

But the last 3 tournaments have been built on a base of proven defensive players. Walker and Stones won endless trophies and played huge roles in that, now Walker has lost the pace that was his strength and Stones has had a couple of years of constant injuries and is unlikely to play much next season. Shaw was another important player who is now finished at the highest level. You go from a solid, proven top level defence to a bunch of players who you might say  "hes ok" or "he could be really good in x a couple of years" and its a huge drop off.

We have lots of really good attackers but they pretty much exclusively want to play in the same position. Bellingham, Palmer, Eze, Gibbs-White, Foden etc. If you squeeze more than 1 in youve got square pegs in round holes. Kane also is clearly physically declining, also wants to come deep and often hindered us at the last Euros. He will still score but as time goes on and he becomes less physically capable, he might become an undroppable burden like Ronaldo is for Portugal at times.

[Dreams of 1995]

15 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Im talking about from the quarters onwards. Before that, winning your group is a big factor that is in your control.

A quarter final against Sweden and a semi final against Croatia.

A quarter final of Ukraine, a semi final against Denmark and a final against Italy.

A quarter final against Switzerland and a semi final against Holland.

The exception was a quarter final against France. Overall, they are runs to the final through no control of our own that we would have absolutely taken before the draw was made.

One thing I keep saying is you can be fortunate with the uncontrollables ie the fixtures but also still consider it an achievement. I said that Southgate did well and has a good tournament record, consistently beating decent/good but not great teams in knockout football is still impressive. But as soon as you mention the word luck, it seems to touch a nerve and people see it as an attempt to totally discredit anything that Southgate has done.

The whole point stems from comparing different managers. Sven underachieved, Southgate didnt, but you arent comparing like for like when we had quarter finals against Brazil and Portugal x 2 under him.

In the 5 world cups that Croatia have been a part of they have come third twice and runners up once. That was not an easy draw.

Drawing Italy wasn't easy either. They were a good side and proved it too. And the same for Holland. Switzerland are a team nobody really wants to face as France found out and Spain almost found out too, only scraping by on penalties.

It is not touching a nerve, it is addressing a point you make. Each and every faint praise you give Southgate is caveated with how lucky you think the draw was and that he never beat an "elite" team. Who decides who the 'elite' are? You haven't answered that one yet.

None of those runs were out of the ordinary for a typical route to an international final. I don't understand why you keep repeating them - almost all international tournament winners would have faced similar teams in their route to the semi or final. What's your point? That they were seen as favourable? Maybe, but none of that diminishes in any way the achievement of Southgate, but you mention it every single time you bring up Southgate's tournament record.

For me it doesn't matter one iota. I couldn't care less if we played Papa New Guinea, Fiji and Wales on the way to the Final. In all of the years before Southgate came, getting to the quarters became a success... Now we are looking at anything other than winning a tournament being a failure. That is all on Gareth Southgate. So lucky, blessed by the Gods, a tactical genius - whatever the Council of BRFC decides - he was a resounding success for the national team and the country as a whole

[roversfan99]

28 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

In the 5 world cups that Croatia have been a part of they have come third twice and runners up once. That was not an easy draw.

Drawing Italy wasn't easy either. They were a good side and proved it too. And the same for Holland. Switzerland are a team nobody really wants to face as France found out and Spain almost found out too, only scraping by on penalties.

It is not touching a nerve, it is addressing a point you make. Each and every faint praise you give Southgate is caveated with how lucky you think the draw was and that he never beat an "elite" team. Who decides who the 'elite' are? You haven't answered that one yet.

None of those runs were out of the ordinary for a typical route to an international final. I don't understand why you keep repeating them - almost all international tournament winners would have faced similar teams in their route to the semi or final. What's your point? That they were seen as favourable? Maybe, but none of that diminishes in any way the achievement of Southgate, but you mention it every single time you bring up Southgate's tournament record.

For me it doesn't matter one iota. I couldn't care less if we played Papa New Guinea, Fiji and Wales on the way to the Final. In all of the years before Southgate came, getting to the quarters became a success... Now we are looking at anything other than winning a tournament being a failure. That is all on Gareth Southgate. So lucky, blessed by the Gods, a tactical genius - whatever the Council of BRFC decides - he was a resounding success for the national team and the country as a whole

I would actively prefer to have a run as easy as is possible, as you said.

Obviously how good any team is, thats totally subjective. In my opinion, the majority of the games we have faced have been favourable, certainly to relative to the stage of the tournament. Compare to the quarter finals we faced under Sven.

Southgate regularly showed he could beat teams I personally would consider not to be top level teams. Those teams were the underdogs against us but not without some good players between them, to regularly be able to beat them earns him great credit nonetheless. When we did face a better team, we tended to fall short.

[DeeCee]

4 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

In the 5 world cups that Croatia have been a part of they have come third twice and runners up once. That was not an easy draw.

Drawing Italy wasn't easy either. They were a good side and proved it too. And the same for Holland. Switzerland are a team nobody really wants to face as France found out and Spain almost found out too, only scraping by on penalties.

It is not touching a nerve, it is addressing a point you make. Each and every faint praise you give Southgate is caveated with how lucky you think the draw was and that he never beat an "elite" team. Who decides who the 'elite' are? You haven't answered that one yet.

None of those runs were out of the ordinary for a typical route to an international final. I don't understand why you keep repeating them - almost all international tournament winners would have faced similar teams in their route to the semi or final. What's your point? That they were seen as favourable? Maybe, but none of that diminishes in any way the achievement of Southgate, but you mention it every single time you bring up Southgate's tournament record.

For me it doesn't matter one iota. I couldn't care less if we played Papa New Guinea, Fiji and Wales on the way to the Final. In all of the years before Southgate came, getting to the quarters became a success... Now we are looking at anything other than winning a tournament being a failure. That is all on Gareth Southgate. So lucky, blessed by the Gods, a tactical genius - whatever the Council of BRFC decides - he was a resounding success for the national team and the country as a whole

A resounding success means he would have won something?

[Hasta]

6 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

None of those runs were out of the ordinary for a typical route to an international final.

The last Euros was a bit out of the ordinary based on who we played by seedings. No pot 1 or 2 teams until the final. First time it’s happened since the euros were expanded. Remember those seedings are based on results / merit.

The other argument is based on what you define as lucky. Just because the ties in later rounds are based on results in that tournament, it doesn’t mean you can’t get ‘softer’ ties. Take a random cup upset. In 2011 Stevenage (4th tier) beat Premier League Newcastle. You could have played that tie 10 times and 9 times Newcastle would probably have gone through. In the next round Reading drew Stevenage and Reading won comfortably. Reading definitely got a softer tie against Stevenage than they would have had against Newcastle. Were they “lucky” they benefited from the earlier upset?

Edited 1 hour ago by Hasta