England v Denmark - Wembley Stadium - Wednesday 7th July 8pm KO - Match Thread

MuttleyCAFC said:

ValleyGary said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

carly burn said:

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.

MuttleyCAFC said:

ValleyGary said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

carly burn said:

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.

cafcfan1990 said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

ValleyGary said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

carly burn said:

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?

thickandthin63 said:

Garrymanilow said:

thickandthin63 said:

Garrymanilow said:

thickandthin63 said:

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.

Jints said:

Rothko said:

the last 3 minutes of extra time were some of the most satisfying watching England

Completely agree. I loved it, though it would have been nice to get a third goad to shut up everyone complaining about the penalty. 

MuttleyCAFC said:

thickandthin63 said:

Garrymanilow said:

thickandthin63 said:

Garrymanilow said:

thickandthin63 said:

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.

Garrymanilow said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

thickandthin63 said:

Garrymanilow said:

thickandthin63 said:

Garrymanilow said:

thickandthin63 said:

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.

soapboxsam said:

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.