I agree with this statement. Baffled me how this wasn’t thought of sooner (I know, player egos and north/south divide and all that). But again, I see it as a step in the right direction, doesn’t mean England should now be considered a favourite in 2 years time, imho.
Will they make sure they play all the other games at Wembley like they did in 66 and 96?
No of course not (and nor will we be by anyone who isn’t an idiot)
This combined with the tangible success at the lower age groups recently does mean that there can at least be a lot more basis to any optimism though.
I think it’s ended up being that the semis and final will be at Wembley as well as three group games and maybe one more knockout match?
Rakitic is totally a DiSser
They only got to play at Wembley in 96 because they beat Holland and Scotland and won the group. Would’ve been elsewhere if they had finished second
This is a very lopsided view of the game. Colombia were shithouses. Everyone else its been similar levels of gamesmanship on both sides
Southgate EXPOSED as DESPICABLE ANIMAL SMUGGLER
I suspect that in time we may appreciate going out at this stage and to a very good tactical side more than we might have losing a final to a perfunctionary France. It kind of feels like it was about the right time for us to exit, and the better team on the night went through.
It will hopefully mean that Southgate’s ideas and methods have been justified to the point of him getting a new deal, and any players around the squad who hadn’t already bought into how he wants to do things might.
Ultimately, rather than point to individual instances like a missed chance, substitution, or likelihood of a key player hiding an injury, you’ve just got to admit that quality-wise we didn’t really have enough. We still lack that midfielder who the ball can stick to, and a second clinical attacker. Maybe Foden and Sancho or Sessegnon can be those players in time.
I think Southgate’s canny enough to know that tactics depend on personnel. We played to our strengths - playing out from the back against teams who didn’t press well, delivery from wide areas, and set-pieces. Perhaps in two years time our strengths will be different.
Reckon we would’ve done Croatia with one Harry Winks in the team.
These are just those auto-generated names you get in Champ Man after playing 50 seasons.
It’s Air Force One. Trump mauled to death by ruddy brave three lions.
Low-key England player of the tournament for me might be Kyle Walker btw.
As I said upthread, this loss doesn’t seem quite as painful as 90 or 96 (and 98 actually) because the circumstances were different. Felt like we were robbed on those occasions
i’m agreeing with you aggy. i was endeavouring to suggest that Croatia weren’t bad at all, but because our England side were abnormally less aggro, even a not-at-all-dicks team felt oddly mean to our brave boys etc
Think he was probably our most important player for our tactical set up and his pace bailed us out a few times, but was also at fault for a couple of goals and, no fault of his own, doesn’t really know how to defend a cross as a centre back.
Fackin coming home innit
Indie going after Southgate
I’m saying that the English team were dicks, and that’s fine and to be expected from any professional football team. And it would be naive for a team not to be
They had much more quality than Croatia though. Game was over before it started…
(not a bam up by the way, some people just get far too caught up in the hype)