I find this piece of humour distasteful. It disrespects a hero to associate him with an act of reckless stupidity which could have potentially ruined our day of glory.
Strangely find myself agreeing with Muttley on this one. Unfunny, bit childish, lacks class.
I find this piece of humour distasteful. It disrespects a hero to associate him with an act of reckless stupidity which could have potentially ruined our day of glory.
Behave.
Associating a hero with actions of a complete idiot! You either have standards or don't I suppose.
We won thats all that matters,but,I thought the Grealish Trippier swap was a disaster waiting to happen,once grealish went off,we invited them on,and virtually gave up up any thought of a 3rd goal.They had plenty of corners with some big lads,all managers do it,but why give the other team the initiative.
This is untrue. The Trippier sub was excellent. Grealish was sacrificed because we needed pace on the counter to go with our solidity and Foden and Sterling provide that with speed and invention in a way Grealish doesn’t. Denmark were always going to attack in that second half and we set ourselves up to control, absorb and counter to push the ball up the pitch. Trippier was now there to both defend and use his fresh legs to drive up the pitch when in possession. Walker was now a spare man to do the same more centrally as the tired Danes couldn’t get near his pace. It was an exemplary piece of game management. It wasn’t a disaster waiting to happen because...nothing happened, as expected. We had multiple opportunities to score a third but preferred to hold the ball and drag the Danes around rather than risk giving them the ball. It amazes me that even now we’ve got to a final only conceding one free kick goal there are still armchair commentators pointing out ‘mistakes’ the manager has made at times when his choices got us to where we are. Mystifying.
At the end of the day,we are all armchair commentators with differing opinions.Grealish was an outlet,whenever he had the ball,he caused problems and earned plenty of set pieces.I just do not like settling for a score and taking attacking players off and replacing them with more defensive ones to defend the lead.Yes we were still the better team,and Trippier let no one down.But they had several corners,and with big lads to aim at,might have scored.it worked,decision vindicated,no problems,but how many times have we seen managers make similar decisions and regret it when the opposition makes use of the conceded attacking threat.
But that isn't what we did. Just because we took off an attacker and brought a defensive player on doesn't mean we settled for a score, that's a total misunderstanding of the tactics employed. Denmark were completely leggy and down to ten men. We didn't invite them onto us and drop super deep allowing them to dominate the play like Charlton love to, we changed our shape, ensuring that our wide areas were properly protected to prevent crosses coming in to those 'big lads' in play. We placed fast players in more central areas to provide outlets for clearances and out-balls as well as the wing backs charging forward and a spare man at the back to bring the ball out. We also introduced a fresh central midfielder to carry and protect the ball. We created numerous openings but chose not to force any of the chances to avoid giving Denmark the ball. In that second half of extra time, after we'd made that change, at one point we held the ball for 2 minutes and 41 seconds, completing 54 passes, which is the most in this entire Championships, with literally every player touching the ball. In the last five minutes we averaged a ridiculous 75% possession and completed 90% of passes. All but two of Trippier's touches were in the opposition half. What about that is us just settling for a score and defending the lead? Just because on paper a change looks defensive doesn't mean it was if you actually look at what the team are doing.
We have more than our fair share on here. They can't even imagine the consequences if that light had impeded Kasper Schmeichel. I'll tell you something, we wouldn't be basking in the glow of achieving something momentus now if it had damaged his eye. These so called jokes are glorifying the actions of a reckless coward. A coward because if he was so proud of what he did, why doesn't he come out about it. The sad thing is, this site could be seen as happy to show this crap but if I said what I would like to do to that moron, I would be censored. And bringing a hero like Captain Tom Moore into such a joke is bad taste and you may not like it being pointed out but you should have a good think about it.
I would urge AFKA to get rid of these posts that I'm sure most decent fans will see cross a line.
I find this piece of humour distasteful. It disrespects a hero to associate him with an act of reckless stupidity which could have potentially ruined our day of glory.
Behave.
Associating a hero with actions of a complete idiot! You either have standards or don't I suppose.
Were you not called out for making racist remarks/jokes about Nimer not so long ago?
Why on earth did Matterface describe Denmark going down to ten men as them losing a member of staff on the pitch!? So oddly cryptic!
I think I need to probably let it go
I didn't even know they had 10 men until the next day!
Sam Matterface is just a dreadful commentator. And a bit of a weird bloke by the looks of it. Chelsea fan. Probably since Roman rolled into town. You get the picture. Loves his ‘footie’.
I find this piece of humour distasteful. It disrespects a hero to associate him with an act of reckless stupidity which could have potentially ruined our day of glory.
Behave.
Associating a hero with actions of a complete idiot! You either have standards or don't I suppose.
Were you not called out for making racist remarks/jokes about Nimer not so long ago?
Yes I was. And there was no racist intent on my part but I explained and apologised to Aliwibble and was happy for the posts to be removed because I appreciated it could be construed in a different way to what I intended. And I should have thought about that before posting. We all should sometimes.
We won thats all that matters,but,I thought the Grealish Trippier swap was a disaster waiting to happen,once grealish went off,we invited them on,and virtually gave up up any thought of a 3rd goal.They had plenty of corners with some big lads,all managers do it,but why give the other team the initiative.
This is untrue. The Trippier sub was excellent. Grealish was sacrificed because we needed pace on the counter to go with our solidity and Foden and Sterling provide that with speed and invention in a way Grealish doesn’t. Denmark were always going to attack in that second half and we set ourselves up to control, absorb and counter to push the ball up the pitch. Trippier was now there to both defend and use his fresh legs to drive up the pitch when in possession. Walker was now a spare man to do the same more centrally as the tired Danes couldn’t get near his pace. It was an exemplary piece of game management. It wasn’t a disaster waiting to happen because...nothing happened, as expected. We had multiple opportunities to score a third but preferred to hold the ball and drag the Danes around rather than risk giving them the ball. It amazes me that even now we’ve got to a final only conceding one free kick goal there are still armchair commentators pointing out ‘mistakes’ the manager has made at times when his choices got us to where we are. Mystifying.
At the end of the day,we are all armchair commentators with differing opinions.Grealish was an outlet,whenever he had the ball,he caused problems and earned plenty of set pieces.I just do not like settling for a score and taking attacking players off and replacing them with more defensive ones to defend the lead.Yes we were still the better team,and Trippier let no one down.But they had several corners,and with big lads to aim at,might have scored.it worked,decision vindicated,no problems,but how many times have we seen managers make similar decisions and regret it when the opposition makes use of the conceded attacking threat.
But that isn't what we did. Just because we took off an attacker and brought a defensive player on doesn't mean we settled for a score, that's a total misunderstanding of the tactics employed. Denmark were completely leggy and down to ten men. We didn't invite them onto us and drop super deep allowing them to dominate the play like Charlton love to, we changed our shape, ensuring that our wide areas were properly protected to prevent crosses coming in to those 'big lads' in play. We placed fast players in more central areas to provide outlets for clearances and out-balls as well as the wing backs charging forward and a spare man at the back to bring the ball out. We also introduced a fresh central midfielder to carry and protect the ball. We created numerous openings but chose not to force any of the chances to avoid giving Denmark the ball. In that second half of extra time, after we'd made that change, at one point we held the ball for 2 minutes and 41 seconds, completing 54 passes, which is the most in this entire Championships, with literally every player touching the ball. In the last five minutes we averaged a ridiculous 75% possession and completed 90% of passes. All but two of Trippier's touches were in the opposition half. What about that is us just settling for a score and defending the lead? Just because on paper a change looks defensive doesn't mean it was if you actually look at what the team are doing.
Very well explained,you have obviously done your homework on the statistics,I confess have not,All I see is a team in a winning position with the opportunity to put the game to bed with a 3rd goal,which is suddenly changed.Lets hope we are 3-0 up on sunday and we can all relax a bit.
We won thats all that matters,but,I thought the Grealish Trippier swap was a disaster waiting to happen,once grealish went off,we invited them on,and virtually gave up up any thought of a 3rd goal.They had plenty of corners with some big lads,all managers do it,but why give the other team the initiative.
This is untrue. The Trippier sub was excellent. Grealish was sacrificed because we needed pace on the counter to go with our solidity and Foden and Sterling provide that with speed and invention in a way Grealish doesn’t. Denmark were always going to attack in that second half and we set ourselves up to control, absorb and counter to push the ball up the pitch. Trippier was now there to both defend and use his fresh legs to drive up the pitch when in possession. Walker was now a spare man to do the same more centrally as the tired Danes couldn’t get near his pace. It was an exemplary piece of game management. It wasn’t a disaster waiting to happen because...nothing happened, as expected. We had multiple opportunities to score a third but preferred to hold the ball and drag the Danes around rather than risk giving them the ball. It amazes me that even now we’ve got to a final only conceding one free kick goal there are still armchair commentators pointing out ‘mistakes’ the manager has made at times when his choices got us to where we are. Mystifying.
At the end of the day,we are all armchair commentators with differing opinions.Grealish was an outlet,whenever he had the ball,he caused problems and earned plenty of set pieces.I just do not like settling for a score and taking attacking players off and replacing them with more defensive ones to defend the lead.Yes we were still the better team,and Trippier let no one down.But they had several corners,and with big lads to aim at,might have scored.it worked,decision vindicated,no problems,but how many times have we seen managers make similar decisions and regret it when the opposition makes use of the conceded attacking threat.
But that isn't what we did. Just because we took off an attacker and brought a defensive player on doesn't mean we settled for a score, that's a total misunderstanding of the tactics employed. Denmark were completely leggy and down to ten men. We didn't invite them onto us and drop super deep allowing them to dominate the play like Charlton love to, we changed our shape, ensuring that our wide areas were properly protected to prevent crosses coming in to those 'big lads' in play. We placed fast players in more central areas to provide outlets for clearances and out-balls as well as the wing backs charging forward and a spare man at the back to bring the ball out. We also introduced a fresh central midfielder to carry and protect the ball. We created numerous openings but chose not to force any of the chances to avoid giving Denmark the ball. In that second half of extra time, after we'd made that change, at one point we held the ball for 2 minutes and 41 seconds, completing 54 passes, which is the most in this entire Championships, with literally every player touching the ball. In the last five minutes we averaged a ridiculous 75% possession and completed 90% of passes. All but two of Trippier's touches were in the opposition half. What about that is us just settling for a score and defending the lead? Just because on paper a change looks defensive doesn't mean it was if you actually look at what the team are doing.
Very well explained,you have obviously done your homework on the statistics,I confess have not,All I see is a team in a winning position with the opportunity to put the game to bed with a 3rd goal,which is suddenly changed.Lets hope we are 3-0 up on sunday and we can all relax a bit.
I see it like you but Southgate has clearly looked at past failures and has decided on this negative approach. Negative is probably an unfortunate word as in this instance it has got us into a final. Nobody can say that we wouldn't be in the same position if we played more positively with the talent we have, but we do know for certain that we have succeeded Southgate's way.
I was fuming about our approach in the second half of extra time which I felt gave Denmark more of a chance and took a bit of the shine off. Just a bit until I had a good think about it. But it has been a mere 55 years since any manager has emulated what Southgate has achieved and there is history of how a negative approach can gain you success in these sort of tournaments.
It isn't how you win, but winning itself that is important. Look at the joy us getting to the final has brought to the nation. Southgate has earned our trust even if his style goes against some of our instincts.
Keeping the ball in the second half of extra time when you're 1 goal up isn't negative. It's how good sides close out games and it was nice to see England dish it out for once. Plenty of top Nations have done it to us as the clock runs down.
Keeping the ball in the second half of extra time when you're 1 goal up isn't negative. It's how good sides close out games and it was nice to see England dish it out for once. Plenty of top Nations have done it to us as the clock runs down.
This. It’s good game management - if we had been able to do that before then we wouldn’t have had to wait 55 years to reach a final. We must have strung 40 ofd passes together at the end, also worth remembering in that particular passage of play it resulted in Sterling getting a shot off and winning a corner. It wasn’t as if Maguire and Stones were just passing to each other over and over again. We knew Denmark were tired and when you are tired there is nothing worse than having to run around trying to win the ball back - particularly when you need a goal to stay in the competition.
Negative is standing off and inviting pressure in the hope of defending on the back foot. For once we didn’t do that. It’s no difference to what Spain used to do (and still try and do). They used to pass the ball to death.
How anybody can be pissed off with the fact that we now have a game plan to actually win a football match is beyond me.
If Italy, Spain or even Croatia had played out the last 10 minutes like we did everyone that's moaning about it now would be getting in a right tiswas about why can't we do it.
It was simply outstanding.
It's not comparable to Charlton dropping deeper and deeper and defending the six yard box and hoping for the best. Neither is it comparable with Pearce and Pratley passing it to each other.
This has been 3 of probably the best, most controlled, performances I have ever seen from England and people still find things to moan about.
the last 3 minutes of extra time were some of the most satisfying watching England
i don't think I've ever seen an england side so truly in control, and the opposition so utterly defeated. If it was a boxing match, they'd have thrown in the towel, or the ref wouldve stopped the match.
If Italy, Spain or even Croatia had played out the last 10 minutes like we did everyone that's moaning about it now would be getting in a right tiswas about why can't we do it.
It was simply outstanding.
It's not comparable to Charlton dropping deeper and deeper and defending the six yard box and hoping for the best. Neither is it comparable with Pearce and Pratley passing it to each other.
This has been 3 of probably the best, most controlled, performances I have ever seen from England and people still find things to moan about.
Words fail me.
Spot on. A controlled, accurate, uninterrupted 54 pass sequence from an England team? No panic, no error? Who'd a thought. Amazing stuff, and textbook game management
We won thats all that matters,but,I thought the Grealish Trippier swap was a disaster waiting to happen,once grealish went off,we invited them on,and virtually gave up up any thought of a 3rd goal.They had plenty of corners with some big lads,all managers do it,but why give the other team the initiative.
This is untrue. The Trippier sub was excellent. Grealish was sacrificed because we needed pace on the counter to go with our solidity and Foden and Sterling provide that with speed and invention in a way Grealish doesn’t. Denmark were always going to attack in that second half and we set ourselves up to control, absorb and counter to push the ball up the pitch. Trippier was now there to both defend and use his fresh legs to drive up the pitch when in possession. Walker was now a spare man to do the same more centrally as the tired Danes couldn’t get near his pace. It was an exemplary piece of game management. It wasn’t a disaster waiting to happen because...nothing happened, as expected. We had multiple opportunities to score a third but preferred to hold the ball and drag the Danes around rather than risk giving them the ball. It amazes me that even now we’ve got to a final only conceding one free kick goal there are still armchair commentators pointing out ‘mistakes’ the manager has made at times when his choices got us to where we are. Mystifying.
At the end of the day,we are all armchair commentators with differing opinions.Grealish was an outlet,whenever he had the ball,he caused problems and earned plenty of set pieces.I just do not like settling for a score and taking attacking players off and replacing them with more defensive ones to defend the lead.Yes we were still the better team,and Trippier let no one down.But they had several corners,and with big lads to aim at,might have scored.it worked,decision vindicated,no problems,but how many times have we seen managers make similar decisions and regret it when the opposition makes use of the conceded attacking threat.
But that isn't what we did. Just because we took off an attacker and brought a defensive player on doesn't mean we settled for a score, that's a total misunderstanding of the tactics employed. Denmark were completely leggy and down to ten men. We didn't invite them onto us and drop super deep allowing them to dominate the play like Charlton love to, we changed our shape, ensuring that our wide areas were properly protected to prevent crosses coming in to those 'big lads' in play. We placed fast players in more central areas to provide outlets for clearances and out-balls as well as the wing backs charging forward and a spare man at the back to bring the ball out. We also introduced a fresh central midfielder to carry and protect the ball. We created numerous openings but chose not to force any of the chances to avoid giving Denmark the ball. In that second half of extra time, after we'd made that change, at one point we held the ball for 2 minutes and 41 seconds, completing 54 passes, which is the most in this entire Championships, with literally every player touching the ball. In the last five minutes we averaged a ridiculous 75% possession and completed 90% of passes. All but two of Trippier's touches were in the opposition half. What about that is us just settling for a score and defending the lead? Just because on paper a change looks defensive doesn't mean it was if you actually look at what the team are doing.
Very well explained,you have obviously done your homework on the statistics,I confess have not,All I see is a team in a winning position with the opportunity to put the game to bed with a 3rd goal,which is suddenly changed.Lets hope we are 3-0 up on sunday and we can all relax a bit.
I see it like you but Southgate has clearly looked at past failures and has decided on this negative approach. Negative is probably an unfortunate word as in this instance it has got us into a final. Nobody can say that we wouldn't be in the same position if we played more positively with the talent we have, but we do know for certain that we have succeeded Southgate's way.
I was fuming about our approach in the second half of extra time which I felt gave Denmark more of a chance and took a bit of the shine off. Just a bit until I had a good think about it. But it has been a mere 55 years since any manager has emulated what Southgate has achieved and there is history of how a negative approach can gain you success in these sort of tournaments.
It isn't how you win, but winning itself that is important. Look at the joy us getting to the final has brought to the nation. Southgate has earned our trust even if his style goes against some of our instincts.
Negative is completely the wrong word though. England are not negative, they're positive, they're just not expansive. They are compact, organised and sensible in possession, while working incredibly hard out of it. They use the strengths of their squad in a holistic way rather than relying on the individual talents of some players, which is exactly the problem that has caused us so much trouble over the years. Sure, seeing Foden, Grealish and Sancho all running about the place might seem exciting in theory, but so did a team with Lampard, Gerrard and Rooney and all they ever did was fail because they were shoehorned in without a working system. The changes in extra time were not negative, they were positive; they gave Denmark a whole new shape and set of problems to deal with which they could not, as evidenced by our total dominance and the fact we saw out a semi-final with the fans ole-ing every pass. Southgate isn't negative, we don't sit and wait for teams come at us and pray for a counter attack, our style is intelligent and makes use of variety in player capabilities through careful use of subs. Putting on an all the attacking players might be a lot of people's instincts but that's why, fortunately, a lot of people aren't football managers. Tournaments are won by the teams who concede the fewest goals while taking their chances, and Gareth has nailed that requirement this tournament, just remains to be seen now if he's perfected it.
Southgate isn’t an idiot. He knew he would get pelters for that sub, especially so if we had happened to concede.
But knowing that all the press and most fans would be on his back about it, he did it anyway because the England camp’s preparation and research informed him that that would be the most effective way to see out the game.
To me, that’s about as far away from negative thinking as you can get. In fact, I think it shows supreme confidence in your methodology. I think it’s refreshing to have a coach/manager who trusts the numbers and isn’t afraid to make the unpopular decisions.
We won thats all that matters,but,I thought the Grealish Trippier swap was a disaster waiting to happen,once grealish went off,we invited them on,and virtually gave up up any thought of a 3rd goal.They had plenty of corners with some big lads,all managers do it,but why give the other team the initiative.
This is untrue. The Trippier sub was excellent. Grealish was sacrificed because we needed pace on the counter to go with our solidity and Foden and Sterling provide that with speed and invention in a way Grealish doesn’t. Denmark were always going to attack in that second half and we set ourselves up to control, absorb and counter to push the ball up the pitch. Trippier was now there to both defend and use his fresh legs to drive up the pitch when in possession. Walker was now a spare man to do the same more centrally as the tired Danes couldn’t get near his pace. It was an exemplary piece of game management. It wasn’t a disaster waiting to happen because...nothing happened, as expected. We had multiple opportunities to score a third but preferred to hold the ball and drag the Danes around rather than risk giving them the ball. It amazes me that even now we’ve got to a final only conceding one free kick goal there are still armchair commentators pointing out ‘mistakes’ the manager has made at times when his choices got us to where we are. Mystifying.
At the end of the day,we are all armchair commentators with differing opinions.Grealish was an outlet,whenever he had the ball,he caused problems and earned plenty of set pieces.I just do not like settling for a score and taking attacking players off and replacing them with more defensive ones to defend the lead.Yes we were still the better team,and Trippier let no one down.But they had several corners,and with big lads to aim at,might have scored.it worked,decision vindicated,no problems,but how many times have we seen managers make similar decisions and regret it when the opposition makes use of the conceded attacking threat.
But that isn't what we did. Just because we took off an attacker and brought a defensive player on doesn't mean we settled for a score, that's a total misunderstanding of the tactics employed. Denmark were completely leggy and down to ten men. We didn't invite them onto us and drop super deep allowing them to dominate the play like Charlton love to, we changed our shape, ensuring that our wide areas were properly protected to prevent crosses coming in to those 'big lads' in play. We placed fast players in more central areas to provide outlets for clearances and out-balls as well as the wing backs charging forward and a spare man at the back to bring the ball out. We also introduced a fresh central midfielder to carry and protect the ball. We created numerous openings but chose not to force any of the chances to avoid giving Denmark the ball. In that second half of extra time, after we'd made that change, at one point we held the ball for 2 minutes and 41 seconds, completing 54 passes, which is the most in this entire Championships, with literally every player touching the ball. In the last five minutes we averaged a ridiculous 75% possession and completed 90% of passes. All but two of Trippier's touches were in the opposition half. What about that is us just settling for a score and defending the lead? Just because on paper a change looks defensive doesn't mean it was if you actually look at what the team are doing.
Very well explained,you have obviously done your homework on the statistics,I confess have not,All I see is a team in a winning position with the opportunity to put the game to bed with a 3rd goal,which is suddenly changed.Lets hope we are 3-0 up on sunday and we can all relax a bit.
I see it like you but Southgate has clearly looked at past failures and has decided on this negative approach. Negative is probably an unfortunate word as in this instance it has got us into a final. Nobody can say that we wouldn't be in the same position if we played more positively with the talent we have, but we do know for certain that we have succeeded Southgate's way.
I was fuming about our approach in the second half of extra time which I felt gave Denmark more of a chance and took a bit of the shine off. Just a bit until I had a good think about it. But it has been a mere 55 years since any manager has emulated what Southgate has achieved and there is history of how a negative approach can gain you success in these sort of tournaments.
It isn't how you win, but winning itself that is important. Look at the joy us getting to the final has brought to the nation. Southgate has earned our trust even if his style goes against some of our instincts.
Negative is completely the wrong word though. England are not negative, they're positive, they're just not expansive. They are compact, organised and sensible in possession, while working incredibly hard out of it. They use the strengths of their squad in a holistic way rather than relying on the individual talents of some players, which is exactly the problem that has caused us so much trouble over the years. Sure, seeing Foden, Grealish and Sancho all running about the place might seem exciting in theory, but so did a team with Lampard, Gerrard and Rooney and all they ever did was fail because they were shoehorned in without a working system. The changes in extra time were not negative, they were positive; they gave Denmark a whole new shape and set of problems to deal with which they could not, as evidenced by our total dominance and the fact we saw out a semi-final with the fans ole-ing every pass. Southgate isn't negative, we don't sit and wait for teams come at us and pray for a counter attack, our style is intelligent and makes use of variety in player capabilities through careful use of subs. Putting on an all the attacking players might be a lot of people's instincts but that's why, fortunately, a lot of people aren't football managers. Tournaments are won by the teams who concede the fewest goals while taking their chances, and Gareth has nailed that requirement this tournament, just remains to be seen now if he's perfected it.
I agree. I used the word negative for dramatic licence to make the general point.
the last 3 minutes of extra time were some of the most satisfying watching England
i don't think I've ever seen an england side so truly in control, and the opposition so utterly defeated. If it was a boxing match, they'd have thrown in the towel, or the ref wouldve stopped the match.
From about 60 minutes I was never concerned that Denmark would score again, more concerned whether we would get a 2nd. After Kane's goal was not concerned at all.
I think 80 minutes was the point where it was clear the Danes had hit a brick wall. I remember saying I wasn't too worried about it going into extra time. Had we not scored the penalty, I think there was a good chance we would have got a goal anyway. They had a couple of late corners which were their only real opportunities, but the Gods of football can punish you with things like that as we will all know from experience and indeed from unlikely come backs in this competition.
There were so many different phases of play in ET that alcohol must've affected some folks memory of the 30 minutes.
The Game Management at the end was what you should do against 10 men when the opposition have lost 2 of their best players to injury and for some reason the talented Damsgaard was taken off far too early unless he had a knock as well.
I said this is a massive gamble when Jack Grealish's short cameo came to an end. No problem with Trippier and his vast experience coming on but we did concede the ball for a while and this resulted in 2 corners from memory where Denmark could've scored a set piece goal.
We had Denmark on the ropes at the end of normal play and then decided not to go for the knock out.
I analyse football matches sober, and with what is the best way to stop the opposition scoring and how can we score. Only done it in youth football but same scenarios and issues arise just without 30 million folk watching and fewer subs ! If they don't have the ball is a good place to start as we proved at the end of the match. Jack Grealish with the ball at his feet and being fouled was taken out of the equation. It only paid off because the giant Vestergaard couldn't get on to ball into the box. Why give them that opportunity ?
If we try that against Italy when 1 goal up we will suffer especially if Pickford is in his hyper mood like the wild kick in the Ukraine match or his erratic kicking, punching and throwing the ball to the opposition in the semi final.
Fantastic achievement by Southgate and his approach to a happy squad including the guys just watching, in reaching a final.
A 50/50 match now because of home advantage and would love to listen to Gareth and his coaches and what plan to negate Insigne, Immobile etc and how he feels we can hurt Italy in transition.
I was pleased that Pickford got this game out of his system and we won it. He has these odd games where maybe, I don't know if it is getting too hyped up or something else, he can be a bit erratic. I think he has been excellent overall and expect him to be back to himself on Sunday.
I also think the defenders have a part to play and he was getting too many balls to kick when his kicking was clearly off. When it is on, it is a valid tactic as he is one of the best passers in the team. But he seemed slightly panicked on Wednesday and it might be he beats himself up a bit mentally when one or two go astray. I'm sure it is something the England coaches will be looking at.
There were so many different phases of play in ET that alcohol must've affected some folks memory of the 30 minutes.
The Game Management at the end was what you should do against 10 men when the opposition have lost 2 of their best players to injury and for some reason the talented Damsgaard was taken off far too early unless he had a knock as well.
I said this is a massive gamble when Jack Grealish's short cameo came to an end. No problem with Trippier and his vast experience coming on but we did concede the ball for a while and this resulted in 2 corners from memory where Denmark could've scored a set piece goal.
We had Denmark on the ropes at the end of normal play and then decided not to go for the knock out.
I analyse football matches sober, and with what is the best way to stop the opposition scoring and how can we score. Only done it in youth football but same scenarios and issues arise just without 30 million folk watching and fewer subs ! If they don't have the ball is a good place to start as we proved at the end of the match. Jack Grealish with the ball at his feet and being fouled was taken out of the equation. It only paid off because the giant Vestergaard couldn't get on to ball into the box. Why give them that opportunity ?
If we try that against Italy when 1 goal up we will suffer especially if Pickford is in his hyper mood like the wild kick in the Ukraine match or his erratic kicking, punching and throwing the ball to the opposition in the semi final.
Fantastic achievement by Southgate and his approach to a happy squad including the guys just watching, in reaching a final.
A 50/50 match now because of home advantage and would love to listen to Gareth and his coaches and what plan to negate Insigne, Immobile etc and how he feels we can hurt Italy in transition.
Sorry, I can't tell from that whether you are agreeing with Southgate's choices or whether you would have chosen to "go for the kill". Or are you just saying your views count for more because you are sober?
There were so many different phases of play in ET that alcohol must've affected some folks memory of the 30 minutes.
The Game Management at the end was what you should do against 10 men when the opposition have lost 2 of their best players to injury and for some reason the talented Damsgaard was taken off far too early unless he had a knock as well.
I said this is a massive gamble when Jack Grealish's short cameo came to an end. No problem with Trippier and his vast experience coming on but we did concede the ball for a while and this resulted in 2 corners from memory where Denmark could've scored a set piece goal.
We had Denmark on the ropes at the end of normal play and then decided not to go for the knock out.
I analyse football matches sober, and with what is the best way to stop the opposition scoring and how can we score. Only done it in youth football but same scenarios and issues arise just without 30 million folk watching and fewer subs ! If they don't have the ball is a good place to start as we proved at the end of the match. Jack Grealish with the ball at his feet and being fouled was taken out of the equation. It only paid off because the giant Vestergaard couldn't get on to ball into the box. Why give them that opportunity ?
If we try that against Italy when 1 goal up we will suffer especially if Pickford is in his hyper mood like the wild kick in the Ukraine match or his erratic kicking, punching and throwing the ball to the opposition in the semi final.
Fantastic achievement by Southgate and his approach to a happy squad including the guys just watching, in reaching a final.
A 50/50 match now because of home advantage and would love to listen to Gareth and his coaches and what plan to negate Insigne, Immobile etc and how he feels we can hurt Italy in transition.
Sorry, I can't tell from that whether you are agreeing with Southgate's choices or whether you would have chosen to "go for the kill". Or are you just saying your views count for more because you are sober?
I will spell it out for You. Tripper comes on but not for Grealish. We play the Spanish way from the start of ET which is ball retention as we had 4 subs to use and we were always going to be fitter than the amazing Danish team and their emotional roller coaster from the first game. If you have ball retention you can work the opposition to a stand still and play a killer pass and try to get the 3rd goal. Obviously in the last few minutes the most important thing is not to allow the opposition the ball which we did well.
My arguments is we should have bossed the whole period of ET, not concede the ball and take the chance of a knackered Danish team getting an equaliser from a corner or set piece.
Being sober is always best when analysing football matches or else you missed the action when you are having a piss or double vision sets in.
I think we have to acknowledge that if we pushed for a third, Denmark could have made a chance with a long punt up to Poulsen as an example. Whether a tactic is right or wrong is best judged by its outcome. There is often more than one way to skin a cat. We know 100% that Southgate's tactics have got us to the final. We can't know with that same level of certainty that other tactics, including ones we favour, would have achieved the same.
As Southgate said earlier in the competition, he made a call and if it didn't pay off he was 'dead'. I liked that because it is what International management should be. You stand by your approach and get the results to prove it is the right one. And if you don't it is generally the wrong one. Southgate can't really be criticised, although I was one criticising him before the tournament, because ultimately actions speak louder than words.
Comments
Unfunny, bit childish, lacks class.
I would urge AFKA to get rid of these posts that I'm sure most decent fans will see cross a line.
I was fuming about our approach in the second half of extra time which I felt gave Denmark more of a chance and took a bit of the shine off. Just a bit until I had a good think about it. But it has been a mere 55 years since any manager has emulated what Southgate has achieved and there is history of how a negative approach can gain you success in these sort of tournaments.
It isn't how you win, but winning itself that is important. Look at the joy us getting to the final has brought to the nation. Southgate has earned our trust even if his style goes against some of our instincts.
It was simply outstanding.
It's not comparable to Charlton dropping deeper and deeper and defending the six yard box and hoping for the best. Neither is it comparable with Pearce and Pratley passing it to each other.
This has been 3 of probably the best, most controlled, performances I have ever seen from England and people still find things to moan about.
Words fail me.
Jeez I can’t believe how salty some are being.
Ridiculous.
A controlled, accurate, uninterrupted 54 pass sequence from an England team?
No panic, no error?
Who'd a thought.
Amazing stuff, and textbook game management
But knowing that all the press and most fans would be on his back about it, he did it anyway because the England camp’s preparation and research informed him that that would be the most effective way to see out the game.
To me, that’s about as far away from negative thinking as you can get. In fact, I think it shows supreme confidence in your methodology. I think it’s refreshing to have a coach/manager who trusts the numbers and isn’t afraid to make the unpopular decisions.
From about 60 minutes I was never concerned that Denmark would score again, more concerned whether we would get a 2nd. After Kane's goal was not concerned at all.
The Game Management at the end was what you should do against 10 men when the opposition have lost 2 of their best players to injury and for some reason the talented Damsgaard was taken off far too early unless he had a knock as well.
I said this is a massive gamble when Jack Grealish's short cameo came to an end. No problem with Trippier and his vast experience coming on but we did concede the ball for a while and this resulted in 2 corners from memory where Denmark could've scored a set piece goal.
We had Denmark on the ropes at the end of normal play and then decided not to go for the knock out.
I analyse football matches sober, and with what is the best way to stop the opposition scoring and how can we score. Only done it in youth football but same scenarios and issues arise just without 30 million folk watching and fewer subs ! If they don't have the ball is a good place to start as we proved at the end of the match. Jack Grealish with the ball at his feet and being fouled was taken out of the equation. It only paid off because the giant Vestergaard couldn't get on to ball into the box. Why give them that opportunity ?
If we try that against Italy when 1 goal up we will suffer especially if Pickford is in his hyper mood like the wild kick in the Ukraine match or his erratic kicking, punching and throwing the ball to the opposition in the semi final.
Fantastic achievement by Southgate and his approach to a happy squad including the guys just watching, in reaching a final.
A 50/50 match now because of home advantage and would love to listen to Gareth and his coaches and what plan to negate Insigne, Immobile etc and how he feels we can hurt Italy in transition.
I also think the defenders have a part to play and he was getting too many balls to kick when his kicking was clearly off. When it is on, it is a valid tactic as he is one of the best passers in the team. But he seemed slightly panicked on Wednesday and it might be he beats himself up a bit mentally when one or two go astray. I'm sure it is something the England coaches will be looking at.
Or are you just saying your views count for more because you are sober?
I will spell it out for You.
Tripper comes on but not for Grealish.
We play the Spanish way from the start of ET which is ball retention as we had 4 subs to use and we were always going to be fitter than the amazing Danish team and their emotional roller coaster from the first game.
If you have ball retention you can work the opposition to a stand still and play a killer pass and try to get the 3rd goal. Obviously in the last few minutes the most important thing is not to allow the opposition the ball which we did well.
My arguments is we should have bossed the whole period of ET, not concede the ball and take the chance of a knackered Danish team getting an equaliser from a corner or set piece.
Being sober is always best when analysing football matches or else you missed the action when you are having a piss or double vision sets in.
As Southgate said earlier in the competition, he made a call and if it didn't pay off he was 'dead'. I liked that because it is what International management should be. You stand by your approach and get the results to prove it is the right one. And if you don't it is generally the wrong one. Southgate can't really be criticised, although I was one criticising him before the tournament, because ultimately actions speak louder than words.