I don’t like that line up at all. Back 5 with Henderson and Rice in midfield is so defensive. Not a big fan of the 5 at the back, we barely have 2 CBs good enough to start let alone 3.
I think the point being we don’t have centre backs good enough to play in a two and the formation gives our full backs who are excellent in going forward - license to do just that
Whilst I understand that, when you are then playing 2 defensive midfielders on top it's just way too defensive. Saw it against Wales the other night, we sat back and allowed them to dictate the tempo. The optimists will say they didn't create an awful lot and didn't score, but for me it was still poor and with respect to Wales, they're not good enough for us to let them do that.
If you play something like 4231, you can still have the defensive midfielders to cover the full backs. Chilwell is decent going forward but more than capable in a 4, TAA probably better suited to wing-back but rarely starts anyway.
The problem is that we also lack an experienced deeper midfield playmaker who can dictate the tempo of the game. Southgate is a naturally cautious manager, maybe too cautious at times, but the reason he sets up the way he does is to cover for our two deficiencies and play to our main strengths. We have excellent wing-backs, a ridiculous number on the right, superb attacking midfielders/wingers and a top striker. We also have a lot going for us in the holding role in the form of players who can break up play and keep the ball moving. Any international team would love to have Walker, TAA, Trippier and James to choose between, or to have access to Sterling, Snacho, Kane, Mount, Grealish and Rashford. You'd find fewer clamouring to take Dier, Maguire and Mings though. We don't have top good centre backs or a real playmaker so Southgate likes to make sure that the centre halves are properly protected and we can still make the most of our good attackers. The fear with a 4-2-3-1 is while your deeper midfielders can cover the full backs when they get forward, you're still then left with opposition teams getting a run at our centre backs, and even against Wales we looked very vulnerable to players coming at them. You then also have the problem of a gap opening up between defence and attack because there's no deeper midfielder who can link them up effectively and your front four can become isolated. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but I think this is why Southgate sets up the way he does and there's a logic to it. What we really want is for Foden to develop very quickly into a Kevin de Bruyne type player, but that's a lot to ask of a very young player so it's not wise to build our hopes around him
Agree on the excellent wing backs down the right but (despite Southgate's attempts yesterday) you can only play one of them. We don't have a playmaker because Southgate isn't giving them minutes.
I don't agree we need a midfielder like De Bruyne. Games against teams like Wales having say Henderson and Phillips as the two CM's with a front 4 of Grealish, Sancho, Sterling and Kane would work. We should be dominating those games so you can let the front 4 do their thing with support from the CM's and FB's. It then also works against the better teams because you have the pace to counter, but also the defensive is protected by the midfield. Every formation has it's risks, otherwise everybody would be playing exactly the same one and I do accept the fact that when the full backs are forward it can leave us slightly vulnerable. My concern if we proceed with a 523 ish formation that we're just going to let the better teams dictate the play. We won't be in the game and it's a tough ask to then just change it up if you're 1-0 down. It's very reliant on getting lucky or being absolutely sound defensively and nicking a goal. That's a lot easier to do against someone like Wales than it will be against Brazil or Germany.
So if we are on the front foot, why do you play 2 Centre Defensive Midfielders? We have 3 Centre backs behind them should be able to play 1 DM, the centre of the 3CB's can push into a DM role ideally.
If we play an overloaded midfield maybe but if we are the attacking team and not playing a better team eg. France/Germany/Belgium, then we shouldn't really be playing 2 imo, i do like the look of Phillips he offers more than Rice and looks tidy.
Edit - it doesn't make sense above, basically any better teams we play i could justify 2 DM, as long as they complement each other and offer creativity
England lose a game unluckily: " We need to finish teams off when we are on top", "We got what we deserved for not taking our chances", "At the end of the day all that matters is the result"
England win a game luckily: "It's just papering over the cracks", "Technically we are miles behind [insert name here]", "Speaking as a roofer from Balsildon, I have far more knowledge than a manager who has reached the semi-finals of two tournaments in four years."
England draw with Denmark or Iceland... "You wouldnt see the Netherlands or Italy doing that"
Both draw 0-0 with Bosnia and Poland respectively
Oh but they know how to play in the actual Tournaments
Yes but to be fair the latest set of International results are not to be taken seriuosly. The Nations League is the Carabao Cup of International football. Let's start comparing results when the Euro's or World Cup are being played.
I don’t like that line up at all. Back 5 with Henderson and Rice in midfield is so defensive. Not a big fan of the 5 at the back, we barely have 2 CBs good enough to start let alone 3.
I think the point being we don’t have centre backs good enough to play in a two and the formation gives our full backs who are excellent in going forward - license to do just that
Whilst I understand that, when you are then playing 2 defensive midfielders on top it's just way too defensive. Saw it against Wales the other night, we sat back and allowed them to dictate the tempo. The optimists will say they didn't create an awful lot and didn't score, but for me it was still poor and with respect to Wales, they're not good enough for us to let them do that.
If you play something like 4231, you can still have the defensive midfielders to cover the full backs. Chilwell is decent going forward but more than capable in a 4, TAA probably better suited to wing-back but rarely starts anyway.
The problem is that we also lack an experienced deeper midfield playmaker who can dictate the tempo of the game. Southgate is a naturally cautious manager, maybe too cautious at times, but the reason he sets up the way he does is to cover for our two deficiencies and play to our main strengths. We have excellent wing-backs, a ridiculous number on the right, superb attacking midfielders/wingers and a top striker. We also have a lot going for us in the holding role in the form of players who can break up play and keep the ball moving. Any international team would love to have Walker, TAA, Trippier and James to choose between, or to have access to Sterling, Snacho, Kane, Mount, Grealish and Rashford. You'd find fewer clamouring to take Dier, Maguire and Mings though. We don't have top good centre backs or a real playmaker so Southgate likes to make sure that the centre halves are properly protected and we can still make the most of our good attackers. The fear with a 4-2-3-1 is while your deeper midfielders can cover the full backs when they get forward, you're still then left with opposition teams getting a run at our centre backs, and even against Wales we looked very vulnerable to players coming at them. You then also have the problem of a gap opening up between defence and attack because there's no deeper midfielder who can link them up effectively and your front four can become isolated. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but I think this is why Southgate sets up the way he does and there's a logic to it. What we really want is for Foden to develop very quickly into a Kevin de Bruyne type player, but that's a lot to ask of a very young player so it's not wise to build our hopes around him
Agree on the excellent wing backs down the right but (despite Southgate's attempts yesterday) you can only play one of them. We don't have a playmaker because Southgate isn't giving them minutes.
I don't agree we need a midfielder like De Bruyne. Games against teams like Wales having say Henderson and Phillips as the two CM's with a front 4 of Grealish, Sancho, Sterling and Kane would work. We should be dominating those games so you can let the front 4 do their thing with support from the CM's and FB's. It then also works against the better teams because you have the pace to counter, but also the defensive is protected by the midfield. Every formation has it's risks, otherwise everybody would be playing exactly the same one and I do accept the fact that when the full backs are forward it can leave us slightly vulnerable. My concern if we proceed with a 523 ish formation that we're just going to let the better teams dictate the play. We won't be in the game and it's a tough ask to then just change it up if you're 1-0 down. It's very reliant on getting lucky or being absolutely sound defensively and nicking a goal. That's a lot easier to do against someone like Wales than it will be against Brazil or Germany.
I agree with you completely that we could have beaten Wales with a more open formation, but then I think we likely could have beaten them with a team of uncapped players in any formation, given that this was a team whose keeper last played a league match for his club back in September 2019 and whose number 8 can't even get into our struggling League One starting line-up. I think Southgate was trying to breed a bit of familiarity in the formation and prepare for Belgium given how few games international teams get to play together.
When I say we need a de Bruyne type player to be a really open team I mean against the best, if and when we get deeper into tournaments and come up against great teams. The good thing about yesterday was we were faced with a very similar situation to the one we were in against Croatia in the World Cup and this time we recognised to the issues and overcame them. Against Croatia we started well, were a hair away from going 2-0 up and then didn't adapt at all once they started to play their game and ultimately got pinned back by the full backs and handed them the win. This time we actually adapted to the way the opposition were playing, pushed our wing backs higher and took the initiative away from their midfield three. After that we won all our battles, were ruthless in taking the chances we needed to take control, restricted their chances, countered superbly and could have had two more goals and managed out the game brilliantly (I know it was only the Nations League but when have you ever felt that calm towards the end of a tough match with England ahead by a goal?) The thing with international football is you'll rarely get a team that plays beautiful flowing football due to the lack of preparation time, but the one who can shut other teams down, adapt to the situation, take chances and make the most of a little bit of luck are the ones who win tournaments. We do lack a key component to take games by the scruff of the neck against better sides, so I'm happy for us to develop a style that manages games and combines using talented players with a bit of nous. I would like to see us be a bit more open against weaker sides, but we've actually not got the easiest looking group going for the Euros so it wouldn't shock me if we weren't.
I don’t like that line up at all. Back 5 with Henderson and Rice in midfield is so defensive. Not a big fan of the 5 at the back, we barely have 2 CBs good enough to start let alone 3.
I think the point being we don’t have centre backs good enough to play in a two and the formation gives our full backs who are excellent in going forward - license to do just that
Whilst I understand that, when you are then playing 2 defensive midfielders on top it's just way too defensive. Saw it against Wales the other night, we sat back and allowed them to dictate the tempo. The optimists will say they didn't create an awful lot and didn't score, but for me it was still poor and with respect to Wales, they're not good enough for us to let them do that.
If you play something like 4231, you can still have the defensive midfielders to cover the full backs. Chilwell is decent going forward but more than capable in a 4, TAA probably better suited to wing-back but rarely starts anyway.
The problem is that we also lack an experienced deeper midfield playmaker who can dictate the tempo of the game. Southgate is a naturally cautious manager, maybe too cautious at times, but the reason he sets up the way he does is to cover for our two deficiencies and play to our main strengths. We have excellent wing-backs, a ridiculous number on the right, superb attacking midfielders/wingers and a top striker. We also have a lot going for us in the holding role in the form of players who can break up play and keep the ball moving. Any international team would love to have Walker, TAA, Trippier and James to choose between, or to have access to Sterling, Snacho, Kane, Mount, Grealish and Rashford. You'd find fewer clamouring to take Dier, Maguire and Mings though. We don't have top good centre backs or a real playmaker so Southgate likes to make sure that the centre halves are properly protected and we can still make the most of our good attackers. The fear with a 4-2-3-1 is while your deeper midfielders can cover the full backs when they get forward, you're still then left with opposition teams getting a run at our centre backs, and even against Wales we looked very vulnerable to players coming at them. You then also have the problem of a gap opening up between defence and attack because there's no deeper midfielder who can link them up effectively and your front four can become isolated. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but I think this is why Southgate sets up the way he does and there's a logic to it. What we really want is for Foden to develop very quickly into a Kevin de Bruyne type player, but that's a lot to ask of a very young player so it's not wise to build our hopes around him
Agree on the excellent wing backs down the right but (despite Southgate's attempts yesterday) you can only play one of them. We don't have a playmaker because Southgate isn't giving them minutes.
I don't agree we need a midfielder like De Bruyne. Games against teams like Wales having say Henderson and Phillips as the two CM's with a front 4 of Grealish, Sancho, Sterling and Kane would work. We should be dominating those games so you can let the front 4 do their thing with support from the CM's and FB's. It then also works against the better teams because you have the pace to counter, but also the defensive is protected by the midfield. Every formation has it's risks, otherwise everybody would be playing exactly the same one and I do accept the fact that when the full backs are forward it can leave us slightly vulnerable. My concern if we proceed with a 523 ish formation that we're just going to let the better teams dictate the play. We won't be in the game and it's a tough ask to then just change it up if you're 1-0 down. It's very reliant on getting lucky or being absolutely sound defensively and nicking a goal. That's a lot easier to do against someone like Wales than it will be against Brazil or Germany.
I agree with you completely that we could have beaten Wales with a more open formation, but then I think we likely could have beaten them with a team of uncapped players in any formation, given that this was a team whose keeper last played a league match for his club back in September 2019 and whose number 8 can't even get into our struggling League One starting line-up. I think Southgate was trying to breed a bit of familiarity in the formation and prepare for Belgium given how few games international teams get to play together.
When I say we need a de Bruyne type player to be a really open team I mean against the best, if and when we get deeper into tournaments and come up against great teams. The good thing about yesterday was we were faced with a very similar situation to the one we were in against Croatia in the World Cup and this time we recognised to the issues and overcame them. Against Croatia we started well, were a hair away from going 2-0 up and then didn't adapt at all once they started to play their game and ultimately got pinned back by the full backs and handed them the win. This time we actually adapted to the way the opposition were playing, pushed our wing backs higher and took the initiative away from their midfield three. After that we won all our battles, were ruthless in taking the chances we needed to take control, restricted their chances, countered superbly and could have had two more goals and managed out the game brilliantly (I know it was only the Nations League but when have you ever felt that calm towards the end of a tough match with England ahead by a goal?) The thing with international football is you'll rarely get a team that plays beautiful flowing football due to the lack of preparation time, but the one who can shut other teams down, adapt to the situation, take chances and make the most of a little bit of luck are the ones who win tournaments. We do lack a key component to take games by the scruff of the neck against better sides, so I'm happy for us to develop a style that manages games and combines using talented players with a bit of nous. I would like to see us be a bit more open against weaker sides, but we've actually not got the easiest looking group going for the Euros so it wouldn't shock me if we weren't.
I agree, and it's probably one of the main reasons why we're not quite there yet. However, in my opinion, as we don't have that at the moment we are better suited to utilise the attacking midfielders we do have. Getting Grealish on the ball to support the front 3 is best for us at the moment I feel. If/when we do have a genuine playmaker then you revisit. Southgate doesn't seem to want to play more than 2 attacking midfielders though so we're still not getting the playmaker option, and then if you do have someone like Grealish on the ball he'll only have another two in front of him.
England lose a game unluckily: " We need to finish teams off when we are on top", "We got what we deserved for not taking our chances", "At the end of the day all that matters is the result"
England win a game luckily: "It's just papering over the cracks", "Technically we are miles behind [insert name here]", "Speaking as a roofer from Balsildon, I have far more knowledge than a manager who has reached the semi-finals of two tournaments in four years."
I get your point, but on paper that team was dog. We started ok first 10 then looked like Belgium were going to steam roller.
We beat the best team (ranking wise) in the world, so thats fair enough and great, but you cant really deny we had the luck.
Yes i am an office bod, i can't really say that i will do better than Southgate, just the two pennies and having an opinion. Not sure they could afford me anyway
That's why I wrote "England win a game luckily", JB.
I don’t like that line up at all. Back 5 with Henderson and Rice in midfield is so defensive. Not a big fan of the 5 at the back, we barely have 2 CBs good enough to start let alone 3.
I think the point being we don’t have centre backs good enough to play in a two and the formation gives our full backs who are excellent in going forward - license to do just that
Whilst I understand that, when you are then playing 2 defensive midfielders on top it's just way too defensive. Saw it against Wales the other night, we sat back and allowed them to dictate the tempo. The optimists will say they didn't create an awful lot and didn't score, but for me it was still poor and with respect to Wales, they're not good enough for us to let them do that.
If you play something like 4231, you can still have the defensive midfielders to cover the full backs. Chilwell is decent going forward but more than capable in a 4, TAA probably better suited to wing-back but rarely starts anyway.
The problem is that we also lack an experienced deeper midfield playmaker who can dictate the tempo of the game. Southgate is a naturally cautious manager, maybe too cautious at times, but the reason he sets up the way he does is to cover for our two deficiencies and play to our main strengths. We have excellent wing-backs, a ridiculous number on the right, superb attacking midfielders/wingers and a top striker. We also have a lot going for us in the holding role in the form of players who can break up play and keep the ball moving. Any international team would love to have Walker, TAA, Trippier and James to choose between, or to have access to Sterling, Snacho, Kane, Mount, Grealish and Rashford. You'd find fewer clamouring to take Dier, Maguire and Mings though. We don't have top good centre backs or a real playmaker so Southgate likes to make sure that the centre halves are properly protected and we can still make the most of our good attackers. The fear with a 4-2-3-1 is while your deeper midfielders can cover the full backs when they get forward, you're still then left with opposition teams getting a run at our centre backs, and even against Wales we looked very vulnerable to players coming at them. You then also have the problem of a gap opening up between defence and attack because there's no deeper midfielder who can link them up effectively and your front four can become isolated. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but I think this is why Southgate sets up the way he does and there's a logic to it. What we really want is for Foden to develop very quickly into a Kevin de Bruyne type player, but that's a lot to ask of a very young player so it's not wise to build our hopes around him
Agree on the excellent wing backs down the right but (despite Southgate's attempts yesterday) you can only play one of them. We don't have a playmaker because Southgate isn't giving them minutes.
I don't agree we need a midfielder like De Bruyne. Games against teams like Wales having say Henderson and Phillips as the two CM's with a front 4 of Grealish, Sancho, Sterling and Kane would work. We should be dominating those games so you can let the front 4 do their thing with support from the CM's and FB's. It then also works against the better teams because you have the pace to counter, but also the defensive is protected by the midfield. Every formation has it's risks, otherwise everybody would be playing exactly the same one and I do accept the fact that when the full backs are forward it can leave us slightly vulnerable. My concern if we proceed with a 523 ish formation that we're just going to let the better teams dictate the play. We won't be in the game and it's a tough ask to then just change it up if you're 1-0 down. It's very reliant on getting lucky or being absolutely sound defensively and nicking a goal. That's a lot easier to do against someone like Wales than it will be against Brazil or Germany.
So if we are on the front foot, why do you play 2 Centre Defensive Midfielders? We have 3 Centre backs behind them should be able to play 1 DM, the centre of the 3CB's can push into a DM role ideally.
If we play an overloaded midfield maybe but if we are the attacking team and not playing a better team eg. France/Germany/Belgium, then we shouldn't really be playing 2 imo, i do like the look of Phillips he offers more than Rice and looks tidy.
Edit - it doesn't make sense above, basically any better teams we play i could justify 2 DM, as long as they complement each other and offer creativity
I didn't mean 2 defensive midfielders and 3 CB's, I'd play two of each. To be honest, I don't even think Henderson is out an out DM at all. Someone like Phillips offers some good energy, agree he offers more than Rice.
The reason I wouldn't play 3 CB's is that most teams play 5 in midfield now and 1 striker. 3 CB's is overload, particularly against the weaker sides.
I don’t like that line up at all. Back 5 with Henderson and Rice in midfield is so defensive. Not a big fan of the 5 at the back, we barely have 2 CBs good enough to start let alone 3.
I think the point being we don’t have centre backs good enough to play in a two and the formation gives our full backs who are excellent in going forward - license to do just that
Whilst I understand that, when you are then playing 2 defensive midfielders on top it's just way too defensive. Saw it against Wales the other night, we sat back and allowed them to dictate the tempo. The optimists will say they didn't create an awful lot and didn't score, but for me it was still poor and with respect to Wales, they're not good enough for us to let them do that.
If you play something like 4231, you can still have the defensive midfielders to cover the full backs. Chilwell is decent going forward but more than capable in a 4, TAA probably better suited to wing-back but rarely starts anyway.
The problem is that we also lack an experienced deeper midfield playmaker who can dictate the tempo of the game. Southgate is a naturally cautious manager, maybe too cautious at times, but the reason he sets up the way he does is to cover for our two deficiencies and play to our main strengths. We have excellent wing-backs, a ridiculous number on the right, superb attacking midfielders/wingers and a top striker. We also have a lot going for us in the holding role in the form of players who can break up play and keep the ball moving. Any international team would love to have Walker, TAA, Trippier and James to choose between, or to have access to Sterling, Snacho, Kane, Mount, Grealish and Rashford. You'd find fewer clamouring to take Dier, Maguire and Mings though. We don't have top good centre backs or a real playmaker so Southgate likes to make sure that the centre halves are properly protected and we can still make the most of our good attackers. The fear with a 4-2-3-1 is while your deeper midfielders can cover the full backs when they get forward, you're still then left with opposition teams getting a run at our centre backs, and even against Wales we looked very vulnerable to players coming at them. You then also have the problem of a gap opening up between defence and attack because there's no deeper midfielder who can link them up effectively and your front four can become isolated. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but I think this is why Southgate sets up the way he does and there's a logic to it. What we really want is for Foden to develop very quickly into a Kevin de Bruyne type player, but that's a lot to ask of a very young player so it's not wise to build our hopes around him
Agree on the excellent wing backs down the right but (despite Southgate's attempts yesterday) you can only play one of them. We don't have a playmaker because Southgate isn't giving them minutes.
I don't agree we need a midfielder like De Bruyne. Games against teams like Wales having say Henderson and Phillips as the two CM's with a front 4 of Grealish, Sancho, Sterling and Kane would work. We should be dominating those games so you can let the front 4 do their thing with support from the CM's and FB's. It then also works against the better teams because you have the pace to counter, but also the defensive is protected by the midfield. Every formation has it's risks, otherwise everybody would be playing exactly the same one and I do accept the fact that when the full backs are forward it can leave us slightly vulnerable. My concern if we proceed with a 523 ish formation that we're just going to let the better teams dictate the play. We won't be in the game and it's a tough ask to then just change it up if you're 1-0 down. It's very reliant on getting lucky or being absolutely sound defensively and nicking a goal. That's a lot easier to do against someone like Wales than it will be against Brazil or Germany.
So if we are on the front foot, why do you play 2 Centre Defensive Midfielders? We have 3 Centre backs behind them should be able to play 1 DM, the centre of the 3CB's can push into a DM role ideally.
If we play an overloaded midfield maybe but if we are the attacking team and not playing a better team eg. France/Germany/Belgium, then we shouldn't really be playing 2 imo, i do like the look of Phillips he offers more than Rice and looks tidy.
Edit - it doesn't make sense above, basically any better teams we play i could justify 2 DM, as long as they complement each other and offer creativity
I didn't mean 2 defensive midfielders and 3 CB's, I'd play two of each. To be honest, I don't even think Henderson is out an out DM at all. Someone like Phillips offers some good energy, agree he offers more than Rice.
The reason I wouldn't play 3 CB's is that most teams play 5 in midfield now and 1 striker. 3 CB's is overload, particularly against the weaker sides.
Yeah thats bang on tbf, sorry i think i misread your post.
I know I have said this before, but there's no such thing as luck.
People are willing to reject sightings of Ghosts or UFO's but willing to believe in luck?
There's absolutely such a thing as luck. Scientifically it's probably more accurately described as probability or statistical something-or-other but it exists. Mount's shot hitting someone at the exact right point that it moved in exactly that way and went in is exactly what luck is. Of all the potential outcomes, this one fell in England's favour but if you repeated the exact same circumstances in exactly the same way the ball would end up somewhere completely different.
I know I have said this before, but there's no such thing as luck.
People are willing to reject sightings of Ghosts or UFO's but willing to believe in luck?
There's absolutely such a thing as luck. Scientifically it's probably more accurately described as probability or statistical something-or-other but it exists. Mount's shot hitting someone at the exact right point that it moved in exactly that way and went in is exactly what luck is. Of all the potential outcomes, this one fell in England's favour but if you repeated the exact same circumstances in exactly the same way the ball would end up somewhere completely different.
Luck is not a thing.
The defender was forced into a mistake. Do you think the defender thought 'Oh that was unlucky' or 'Should have got more on it/Committed sooner/Stood him up a second longer'.
Freak goals like Darren Bent's beach ball assisted goal are harder to argue...
What you've explained is the physics of the way the ball moved after it left Mount's boot and its direction was changed by a defender trying to clear and making a mistake.
Mount receives the ball, defender tries to read Mount's intent, Mount shoots defender mistakenly mistimes block, ball ends up in the same goal it was headed towards, just with a loop rather than the direct line it left his boot.
Was the penalty Dier gave away unlucky? No he made a mistake. No luck incorrect decision to try and slide past Lukaku.
I know I have said this before, but there's no such thing as luck.
People are willing to reject sightings of Ghosts or UFO's but willing to believe in luck?
There's absolutely such a thing as luck. Scientifically it's probably more accurately described as probability or statistical something-or-other but it exists. Mount's shot hitting someone at the exact right point that it moved in exactly that way and went in is exactly what luck is. Of all the potential outcomes, this one fell in England's favour but if you repeated the exact same circumstances in exactly the same way the ball would end up somewhere completely different.
Luck is not a thing.
The defender was forced into a mistake. Do you think the defender thought 'Oh that was unlucky' or 'Should have got more on it/Committed sooner/Stood him up a second longer'.
Freak goals like Darren Bent's beach ball assisted goal are harder to argue...
What you've explained is the physics of the way the ball moved after it left Mount's boot and its direction was changed by a defender trying to clear and making a mistake.
Mount receives the ball, defender tries to read Mount's intent, Mount shoots defender mistakenly mistimes block, ball ends up in the same goal it was headed towards, just with a loop rather than the direct line it left his boot.
Was the penalty Dier gave away unlucky? No he made a mistake. No luck incorrect decision to try and slide past Lukaku.
Luck is a thing, in football/ pool and most sports. To an extent you do make your own luck (maybe united penalties are an example?) , but there are such small margins that this part of luck (whether you agree or not) can be huge and outcome a game/ not always a season as people say it should even out.
That goal by Mount was alot of luck, nearly fluke terroritary in my opinion, that took such a huge deflection and resulted in a goal. Yes he has taken a shot and it worked out, but still you cant really say with that much of a deflection thats not luck?
Also following the same logic, you could attribute pretty much any goal to an error if you look hard enough.
Dier wasn't unlucky he was wreckless and it was the right decision.
England lose a game unluckily: " We need to finish teams off when we are on top", "We got what we deserved for not taking our chances", "At the end of the day all that matters is the result"
England win a game luckily: "It's just papering over the cracks", "Technically we are miles behind [insert name here]", "Speaking as a roofer from Balsildon, I have far more knowledge than a manager who has reached the semi-finals of two tournaments in four years."
England draw with Denmark or Iceland... "You wouldnt see the Netherlands or Italy doing that"
Both draw 0-0 with Bosnia and Poland respectively
Oh but they know how to play in the actual Tournaments
Yes but to be fair the latest set of International results are not to be taken seriuosly. The Nations League is the Carabao Cup of International football. Let's start comparing results when the Euro's or World Cup are being played.
Have you not just proven my point in a way?
England struggle against Denmark and Iceland and everyone seems to have a meltdown
Netherlands / Italy do it... Oh well its because the Nations League is shit
I know I have said this before, but there's no such thing as luck.
People are willing to reject sightings of Ghosts or UFO's but willing to believe in luck?
There's absolutely such a thing as luck. Scientifically it's probably more accurately described as probability or statistical something-or-other but it exists. Mount's shot hitting someone at the exact right point that it moved in exactly that way and went in is exactly what luck is. Of all the potential outcomes, this one fell in England's favour but if you repeated the exact same circumstances in exactly the same way the ball would end up somewhere completely different.
Luck is not a thing.
The defender was forced into a mistake. Do you think the defender thought 'Oh that was unlucky' or 'Should have got more on it/Committed sooner/Stood him up a second longer'.
Freak goals like Darren Bent's beach ball assisted goal are harder to argue...
What you've explained is the physics of the way the ball moved after it left Mount's boot and its direction was changed by a defender trying to clear and making a mistake.
Mount receives the ball, defender tries to read Mount's intent, Mount shoots defender mistakenly mistimes block, ball ends up in the same goal it was headed towards, just with a loop rather than the direct line it left his boot.
Was the penalty Dier gave away unlucky? No he made a mistake. No luck incorrect decision to try and slide past Lukaku.
Yes but the ball just so happened to hit the players leg in just such a way that it took just the right trajectory to land where it did. Lots of different variables that could have resulted in a different outcome. The exact turn of events is just one of many possible. It being this one is lucky.
Luck is a mathematical concept. You could theoretically sit down and calculate all the potential outcomes and the probability of each but you wouldn't know with 100% which it would be in advance. That's luck.
Occasional football viewer of my acquaintance on hearing that Harry Kane wasn't starting because of "fatigue" "Fatigue? Fatigue! And Southgate's putting up with that is he? FFS! Kane should be too embarrassed to show his face! Fatigue! He's sposed to be a professional athlete! When did he last play a game? A week ago right? What's he been up to? Playing for England not good enough for him? Stupid lazy prick!!" She's got a point.
Occasional football viewer of my acquaintance on hearing that Harry Kane wasn't starting because of "fatigue" "Fatigue? Fatigue! And Southgate's putting up with that is he? FFS! Kane should be too embarrassed to show his face! Fatigue! He's sposed to be a professional athlete! When did he last play a game? A week ago right? What's he been up to? Playing for England not good enough for him? Stupid lazy prick!!" She's got a point.
Spurs have played something stupid like 7 games in 13 days.
He hasn’t trained as much due to muscle fatigue and so Southgate decided to play DCL as England have 3 games in a week.
Perhaps your acquaintance should educate themselves better before calling someone a lazy prick....
I know I have said this before, but there's no such thing as luck.
People are willing to reject sightings of Ghosts or UFO's but willing to believe in luck?
There's absolutely such a thing as luck. Scientifically it's probably more accurately described as probability or statistical something-or-other but it exists. Mount's shot hitting someone at the exact right point that it moved in exactly that way and went in is exactly what luck is. Of all the potential outcomes, this one fell in England's favour but if you repeated the exact same circumstances in exactly the same way the ball would end up somewhere completely different.
Luck is not a thing.
The defender was forced into a mistake. Do you think the defender thought 'Oh that was unlucky' or 'Should have got more on it/Committed sooner/Stood him up a second longer'.
Freak goals like Darren Bent's beach ball assisted goal are harder to argue...
What you've explained is the physics of the way the ball moved after it left Mount's boot and its direction was changed by a defender trying to clear and making a mistake.
Mount receives the ball, defender tries to read Mount's intent, Mount shoots defender mistakenly mistimes block, ball ends up in the same goal it was headed towards, just with a loop rather than the direct line it left his boot.
Was the penalty Dier gave away unlucky? No he made a mistake. No luck incorrect decision to try and slide past Lukaku.
Not sure if i’m being whoosed or not, but are you seriously claiming Mount’s goal wasn’t lucky?
Pope TAA Gomez Coady Chilwell Henderson Foden Sancho. Grealish. Sterling Kane
I like that side a lot, that's the team i'd like to see in the next round of games in November if they're all available.
The issue is that side is very attacking, especially with TAA and Chilwell bombing forward too. Foden isn't really a holding midfielder, Guardiola plays him much further forward. So it would be ok against the so called lesser nations, but if you play that team against France or Germany and i fear they'd kill us on the break.
I'm stating I don't believe in 'luck' as the term is used so freely.
Can you tell me it wasn't going to be a goal already?
Mount made his own luck by having a shot. He speculated someone might make a mistake and so was rewarded with a goal.
I hate it when people pass off success as luck. People who work harder or try things more often always seem to be more 'lucky' weird isn't it.
It's almost like their work is being rewarded.
So just so I am clear on this Dazz, are you saying:
Mount took the shot knowing in his own mind the shot would not go directly in, however he calculated that by taking the shot it would either take a deflection or a defender might make a mistake dealing with the shot and either of these scenarios would lead to a goal?
I'm stating I don't believe in 'luck' as the term is used so freely.
Can you tell me it wasn't going to be a goal already?
Mount made his own luck by having a shot. He speculated someone might make a mistake and so was rewarded with a goal.
I hate it when people pass off success as luck. People who work harder or try things more often always seem to be more 'lucky' weird isn't it.
It's almost like their work is being rewarded.
For Mounts shot to go in was lucky, thats clear as day - not was it a mistake by the defender. I like Mount hes a good player, but it was very fortunate to end in a goal.
Pope TAA Gomez Coady Chilwell Henderson Foden Sancho. Grealish. Sterling Kane
I like that side a lot, that's the team i'd like to see in the next round of games in November if they're all available.
The issue is that side is very attacking, especially with TAA and Chilwell bombing forward too. Foden isn't really a holding midfielder, Guardiola plays him much further forward. So it would be ok against the so called lesser nations, but if you play that team against France or Germany and i fear they'd kill us on the break.
Swap Grealish and Foden. Athough he is flash, Grealish can get stuck in, Foden doesn't, and needs a licence to roam in the hole
I think people are forgetting that across football you have players without a decent pre season, 2 international games, a crowded club schedule followed by 3 internationals in 7 days. These are matches where managers are managing minutes as much as trying to get results.
With yet another game on Wednesday followed by another THREE internationals in November, the likes of Grealish will get plenty of opportunities
I think people are forgetting that across football you have players without a decent pre season, 2 international games, a crowded club schedule followed by 3 internationals in 7 days. These are matches where managers are managing minutes as much as trying to get results.
With yet another game on Wednesday followed by another THREE internationals in November, the likes of Grealish will get plenty of opportunities
World Cup Qualifying starts in March with another three games then too
This is almost ideal preparation for Southgate in a way as feels he's got more genuine competitive games to work out his best team for Euro 2021...
Plenty will see that as a negative but I genuinely dont think he needs to know a settled England eleven, what he needs to know is what eleven to put out in a set scenario depending on the opposition and the way they setup themselves
I think people are forgetting that across football you have players without a decent pre season, 2 international games, a crowded club schedule followed by 3 internationals in 7 days. These are matches where managers are managing minutes as much as trying to get results.
With yet another game on Wednesday followed by another THREE internationals in November, the likes of Grealish will get plenty of opportunities
World Cup Qualifying starts in March with another three games then too
This is almost ideal preparation for Southgate in a way as feels he's got more genuine competitive games to work out his best team for Euro 2021...
Plenty will see that as a negative but I genuinely dont think he needs to know a settled England eleven, what he needs to know is what eleven to put out in a set scenario depending on the opposition and the way they setup themselves
Going to be really weird having WC qualification matches at a time when countries will normally be planning friendlies in preparation for the Euros
Indeed Qatar is a scandalous choice, but it might be quite handy that the 2022 WC won't be until November, as it'll allow more time for the qualifiers to be played around the globe! There should be a full schedule of Asian qualifying games tonight for example
I know I have said this before, but there's no such thing as luck.
People are willing to reject sightings of Ghosts or UFO's but willing to believe in luck?
There's absolutely such a thing as luck. Scientifically it's probably more accurately described as probability or statistical something-or-other but it exists. Mount's shot hitting someone at the exact right point that it moved in exactly that way and went in is exactly what luck is. Of all the potential outcomes, this one fell in England's favour but if you repeated the exact same circumstances in exactly the same way the ball would end up somewhere completely different.
Luck is not a thing.
The defender was forced into a mistake. Do you think the defender thought 'Oh that was unlucky' or 'Should have got more on it/Committed sooner/Stood him up a second longer'.
Freak goals like Darren Bent's beach ball assisted goal are harder to argue...
What you've explained is the physics of the way the ball moved after it left Mount's boot and its direction was changed by a defender trying to clear and making a mistake.
Mount receives the ball, defender tries to read Mount's intent, Mount shoots defender mistakenly mistimes block, ball ends up in the same goal it was headed towards, just with a loop rather than the direct line it left his boot.
Was the penalty Dier gave away unlucky? No he made a mistake. No luck incorrect decision to try and slide past Lukaku.
Dier wasn't unlucky - but Lukaku fooled the ref. The ball was going off to the right and instead of following it, Lukaku moved left so he would fall over Dier.
Our penalty wasn't exactly crime of the century either.
Comments
If we play an overloaded midfield maybe but if we are the attacking team and not playing a better team eg. France/Germany/Belgium, then we shouldn't really be playing 2 imo, i do like the look of Phillips he offers more than Rice and looks tidy.
Edit - it doesn't make sense above, basically any better teams we play i could justify 2 DM, as long as they complement each other and offer creativity
The reason I wouldn't play 3 CB's is that most teams play 5 in midfield now and 1 striker. 3 CB's is overload, particularly against the weaker sides.
I'd say that 11 should be a quarters with luck going our way semi's.
People are willing to reject sightings of Ghosts or UFO's but willing to believe in luck?
Mount's shot hitting someone at the exact right point that it moved in exactly that way and went in is exactly what luck is. Of all the potential outcomes, this one fell in England's favour but if you repeated the exact same circumstances in exactly the same way the ball would end up somewhere completely different.
The defender was forced into a mistake. Do you think the defender thought 'Oh that was unlucky' or 'Should have got more on it/Committed sooner/Stood him up a second longer'.
Freak goals like Darren Bent's beach ball assisted goal are harder to argue...
What you've explained is the physics of the way the ball moved after it left Mount's boot and its direction was changed by a defender trying to clear and making a mistake.
Mount receives the ball, defender tries to read Mount's intent, Mount shoots defender mistakenly mistimes block, ball ends up in the same goal it was headed towards, just with a loop rather than the direct line it left his boot.
Was the penalty Dier gave away unlucky? No he made a mistake. No luck incorrect decision to try and slide past Lukaku.
That goal by Mount was alot of luck, nearly fluke terroritary in my opinion, that took such a huge deflection and resulted in a goal. Yes he has taken a shot and it worked out, but still you cant really say with that much of a deflection thats not luck?
Also following the same logic, you could attribute pretty much any goal to an error if you look hard enough.
Dier wasn't unlucky he was wreckless and it was the right decision.
We got lucky with our penalty decision
England struggle against Denmark and Iceland and everyone seems to have a meltdown
Netherlands / Italy do it... Oh well its because the Nations League is shit
Luck is a mathematical concept. You could theoretically sit down and calculate all the potential outcomes and the probability of each but you wouldn't know with 100% which it would be in advance. That's luck.
"Fatigue? Fatigue! And Southgate's putting up with that is he? FFS! Kane should be too embarrassed to show his face! Fatigue! He's sposed to be a professional athlete! When did he last play a game? A week ago right? What's he been up to? Playing for England not good enough for him? Stupid lazy prick!!"
She's got a point.
He hasn’t trained as much due to muscle fatigue and so Southgate decided to play DCL as England have 3 games in a week.
Perhaps your acquaintance should educate themselves better before calling someone a lazy prick....
Can you tell me it wasn't going to be a goal already?
Mount made his own luck by having a shot. He speculated someone might make a mistake and so was rewarded with a goal.
I hate it when people pass off success as luck. People who work harder or try things more often always seem to be more 'lucky' weird isn't it.
It's almost like their work is being rewarded.
The issue is that side is very attacking, especially with TAA and Chilwell bombing forward too. Foden isn't really a holding midfielder, Guardiola plays him much further forward. So it would be ok against the so called lesser nations, but if you play that team against France or Germany and i fear they'd kill us on the break.
Mount took the shot knowing in his own mind the shot would not go directly in, however he calculated that by taking the shot it would either take a deflection or a defender might make a mistake dealing with the shot and either of these scenarios would lead to a goal?
With yet another game on Wednesday followed by another THREE internationals in November, the likes of Grealish will get plenty of opportunities
This is almost ideal preparation for Southgate in a way as feels he's got more genuine competitive games to work out his best team for Euro 2021...
Plenty will see that as a negative but I genuinely dont think he needs to know a settled England eleven, what he needs to know is what eleven to put out in a set scenario depending on the opposition and the way they setup themselves
Indeed Qatar is a scandalous choice, but it might be quite handy that the 2022 WC won't be until November, as it'll allow more time for the qualifiers to be played around the globe! There should be a full schedule of Asian qualifying games tonight for example
Our penalty wasn't exactly crime of the century either.