Different strokes for different folks. The atmosphere and upsets have been fun, but this has been a brutal tournament to watch. Euro 2000 will always be tough to top for entertainment.
Euro 16 gamethread
- Thread starter Schnerres
- Start date
I enjoyed my time at footlocker I just went round doing touchdown signs at couples making out publicly.
The problem wasn't Andy Carrol. The problem was that this team did not have any creative midfielders to organize play and move the ball around. Dele Alli was lost, but the real hole, the Footballing Florida where English Attacks went to die was Wayne Rooney. Roy's inspiration to use him as a no 10 was questionable and worth a try, but yesterday he was atrocious. He literally broke more England attacks than Icelandic DMs And if the experiment was worth a try, insisting on the experiment was a coaching felony. I am not one to second guess coaches, but Hodgson's coaching yesterday was T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E. First sub came on the 45th taking his one holding midfielder who was literally the last of his problems for another slightly more attack oriented midfielder who was rusty. Then another wasted sub taking the feckless Sterling for... another striker without addressing the problem which wasn't that strikers weren't putting the ball in the net, but that the ball wasn't getting to them in threatening positions to begin with.
IMHO, were this English side allowed to add a guy like De Bruyne or Iniesta, she would have been able to address her more glaring deficiency and be competitive for the last 4 and whichever came after that. And let's not forget how more dangerous she could have been if she had Bale on the wing. BUT. Yesterday, you could at least streamilne your play and increase your chances by taking Rooney/Sterling out and adding guys like Lalana and Barkley. The fact that this wasn't done and the team meekly toiled without urgency for 70 minutes until Rashford was inserted was, like I said, a coaching crime. The FA shouldn't have accepted his resignation, so that they would be able to fire his ass again and again. FFS!
Last edited:
I've been treated to a full year of the Raheem Sterling experience and it isn't a fun ride but he's been scapegoated like crazy. He was probably the 7th or 8th who should have come off yesterday and it is no surprise that England really cratered after that sub. Sterling is painfully one footed and unfortunately is not great at taking chances but he works hard and knows how to play as a winger. That sub was asinine as long as the team were going to continue to play up the flanks. Sturridge couldn't hold his touch line and certainly couldn't keep Iceland honest on the other side which compacts the pitch.
Back to the question a few posts ago, I'd say Rashford enhanced his profile with his brief cameos. Rose and Walker generally looked good. Dier probably played better than one might have expected. For all that was said about Sterling he actually played better in this tournament than he did most of last season
Back to the question a few posts ago, I'd say Rashford enhanced his profile with his brief cameos. Rose and Walker generally looked good. Dier probably played better than one might have expected. For all that was said about Sterling he actually played better in this tournament than he did most of last season
Are all of you guys from England or Premier League fans or why do you talk about that now forever as it´s the biggest surprise ever seen? I mean...it is England.
Other than that superb qualification results, they never got anything going. They have the most money, the most expensive teams, the highest wages and I don´t know if they even won a handful of knockout matches at major tournaments in the last 20 years. It is England. I mean losing is one thing and losing to a very organized Iceland is totally possible (could happen to host France later, too, although they probably think it´s a free ticket to the semis), but England just doesn´t have any player in CM with style, flair and passing ability. Could you imagine them with an Iniesta, Kroos or even a Thiago Alcantara, deep playmakers with superb passing skills (with both feet!) who make the link from defense to the AM/CF with low passes to the feet (don´t mean their great crosses about 50y, just the low passes to cover the depth of the field) of the attackers. A Rooney in midfield? He plays crosses that bounce around so the defense has time to set up, ok. But it´s not as he´s playing the deep pass from the middle line to the box and Kane has a 1vs1 and can create his shot from such a situation. Those are situations where Spain and Germany are the best and even Italy and Belgium are better. It´s just weird that a football nation like England can´t bring up such CMs. Maybe it´s because of the Premier League and the English football style. Maybe Pep can create such a guy at ManCity
I´m really looking forward to Italy vs. Germany and expect the Italians to play another great (somehow surprising attacking) game with another tactical masterstroke. After seeing France struggle with Ireland, they could run into more trouble with Iceland. No Kanté, no Rami could also mean problems for France, but in Rami´s case, it could be a blessing. Will Portugal play more of an attacking game vs. the defending Poles? This could be the boring game of the round. I hope Wales´defense holds up, as the two best offenses of the tournament face off against each other (Belgium: 8-2goals, Wales: 7-3). The longer this takes with no score, the better for Wales, but I don´t know if they have the power to hold up.
Other than that superb qualification results, they never got anything going. They have the most money, the most expensive teams, the highest wages and I don´t know if they even won a handful of knockout matches at major tournaments in the last 20 years. It is England. I mean losing is one thing and losing to a very organized Iceland is totally possible (could happen to host France later, too, although they probably think it´s a free ticket to the semis), but England just doesn´t have any player in CM with style, flair and passing ability. Could you imagine them with an Iniesta, Kroos or even a Thiago Alcantara, deep playmakers with superb passing skills (with both feet!) who make the link from defense to the AM/CF with low passes to the feet (don´t mean their great crosses about 50y, just the low passes to cover the depth of the field) of the attackers. A Rooney in midfield? He plays crosses that bounce around so the defense has time to set up, ok. But it´s not as he´s playing the deep pass from the middle line to the box and Kane has a 1vs1 and can create his shot from such a situation. Those are situations where Spain and Germany are the best and even Italy and Belgium are better. It´s just weird that a football nation like England can´t bring up such CMs. Maybe it´s because of the Premier League and the English football style. Maybe Pep can create such a guy at ManCity
I´m really looking forward to Italy vs. Germany and expect the Italians to play another great (somehow surprising attacking) game with another tactical masterstroke. After seeing France struggle with Ireland, they could run into more trouble with Iceland. No Kanté, no Rami could also mean problems for France, but in Rami´s case, it could be a blessing. Will Portugal play more of an attacking game vs. the defending Poles? This could be the boring game of the round. I hope Wales´defense holds up, as the two best offenses of the tournament face off against each other (Belgium: 8-2goals, Wales: 7-3). The longer this takes with no score, the better for Wales, but I don´t know if they have the power to hold up.
I don't think that England puts enough emphasis on the technical aspects of the game, to be honest. The best players in the league are all foreign because of their technical prowess.
And we've been hearing that for years. Christ, that was a complaint Nick Hornby had in the original edition of Fever Pitch, copyright 1992.
England's problem is partly technical, but I think it's mostly movement.
It is a lock that for an entire England game, if you could see only vague outlines of players, you could figure out who has the ball simply by where they are on the field. They NEVER venture outside of their basic shape when they have the ball, and once you start paying attention to it, it's maddening to watch. Their runs and movement off the ball are unimaginative anyway, but if you confine those runs to only small areas of the field it becomes the most predictable and boring and toothless attack ever devised (or, not devised).
As I said, they generally suck at moving off the ball anyway. Rooney was awful, but he had, at most, one option going forward every time, and 3 others standing around, covered by 2 defenders. As a result England play slowly, get stuck and then try a hopeless cross. Then they get tight, start to feel pressure and from there they're done.
The contrast with Germany, Spain, France, the top South American teams, etc., is pretty stark. England has enough talent, even technically, to at least challenge top teams and should be getting to semi-finals and finals periodically. But they're just stuck in their positions, 70's style and an organized defense can easily plug things up.
So, either 1)they don't have players who can spot the runs off the ball or understand that their right wing might occasionally pop up to their left, so they are instructed to not move like that or make those runs (except they do it for their clubs) or 2) their coach is old and stupid
tl;dr - it's tactics and coaching
Herbert Chapman was probably complaining about that.
I think everyone is pretty much correct in that England was missing (or didn't play or even roster) dynamic offensive players who can generate an attack out of nothing. Rashford obviously showed his skill, and decisiveness, but who else? Vardy tried but he's limited; who else has 1:1 skill on that squad? Sterling can run past people, but then what? Alli was a bit wasted having to share space with Rooney, who else? It's pretty dire. That speaks to the need for tactics and coaching, and they obviously have none.
fake edit: Mr. Poon has got that covered.
I think everyone is pretty much correct in that England was missing (or didn't play or even roster) dynamic offensive players who can generate an attack out of nothing. Rashford obviously showed his skill, and decisiveness, but who else? Vardy tried but he's limited; who else has 1:1 skill on that squad? Sterling can run past people, but then what? Alli was a bit wasted having to share space with Rooney, who else? It's pretty dire. That speaks to the need for tactics and coaching, and they obviously have none.
fake edit: Mr. Poon has got that covered.
At the risk of gross oversimplification, the English FA's attitude toward football strikes me as extremely conservative. They sure do love their guys that can run run run run run all day long, boot it 50 yards downfield, and tackle hard. Hard and tough, grrrrr!! They probably have a poster of Vinnie Jones on the wall.
Problem is it's not 1960 any more. They simply don't value skill and creativity enough.
Problem is it's not 1960 any more. They simply don't value skill and creativity enough.
This isn't as big an upset as England's loss to USA in 1950, losing to a team of amateurs, the winning goal scored by a dishwasher. Iceland is good, they qualified second in a very competitive group, unbeaten at home and beating Holland twice, including obviously once in Holland.
That's damning with faint praise indeed. As mentioned on the broadcast yesterday, there are fewer registered footballers in Iceland than there are in Rhode Island. There are no professional teams in Iceland. Their total population is roughly equal to that of Anaheim.
Iceland played great and are clearly a very good squad, fair play to them all the way. They defend voraciously. They're well-coached. They're fearless. But all things being equal England should have beaten them.
Iceland played great and are clearly a very good squad, fair play to them all the way. They defend voraciously. They're well-coached. They're fearless. But all things being equal England should have beaten them.
Last edited:
On a lighter note, as we move into a few days without football, let me plug my favorite ever sporting comedy troupe, three Irish comedians and impersonators (Barry Murphy, Risteárd Cooper and Gary Cooke) who collectively go by the name Après Match. They perform on RTE (Ireland's answer to the BBC) after matches during the Euros and the World Cup, and while they lampoon everything from footballers to politicians to TV personalities, their specialty involves satirizing football studio shows. For example, here's a well-known squabble between Eamonn Dunphy and Kenny Cunningham during the 2014 World Cup about whether Ashley Cole and John Terry should have been in the England squad...
...and here's the Après Match sketch that this tiff spawned:
All of their Euro 16 sketches can be found at http://www.rte.ie/player/gb/search/?q=Apres Match (or at least that's where I can find them in the UK); I particularly like the Belgium-Ireland postgame show and the "C'mon Northern Ireland!" piece, but most of them are good fun if you're willing to accept that some of the local Irish TV references may be lost on you. And below are a few of my all-time favorite sketches from past tournaments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC7Xv7kHiZ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwGvmc14bp8&index=82&list=PL67A3F7B6D2356166
There are worse ways to spend an hour or two of your time than to fall down this particular rabbit hole.
...and here's the Après Match sketch that this tiff spawned:
All of their Euro 16 sketches can be found at http://www.rte.ie/player/gb/search/?q=Apres Match (or at least that's where I can find them in the UK); I particularly like the Belgium-Ireland postgame show and the "C'mon Northern Ireland!" piece, but most of them are good fun if you're willing to accept that some of the local Irish TV references may be lost on you. And below are a few of my all-time favorite sketches from past tournaments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC7Xv7kHiZ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwGvmc14bp8&index=82&list=PL67A3F7B6D2356166
There are worse ways to spend an hour or two of your time than to fall down this particular rabbit hole.
England have had plenty of good technical players over the years. Hoddle, Scholes, and Carrick (one of the more underrated players of the past 10 years) are good examples from different generations. Of course, they all tended to be criminally underused.
The tactical problems with the current England side began with shoe-horning Rooney into the squad in a position he's not suited for. Rooney should not have been starting. But Capello is the only England coach in the last 15 years with the ego and reputation to refuse to cater to the big names, and it is instructive that his tenure was marked by mutiny and player revolt and the refusal of key players to buy into the system.
The tactical problems with the current England side began with shoe-horning Rooney into the squad in a position he's not suited for. Rooney should not have been starting. But Capello is the only England coach in the last 15 years with the ego and reputation to refuse to cater to the big names, and it is instructive that his tenure was marked by mutiny and player revolt and the refusal of key players to buy into the system.
He did better than McLaren and Hodgson and Keegan, in that he managed to qualify for all 3 major tournaments and get out of the group stage every time. But he never got past a quarterfinal, losing twice on penalties to Portugal. I guess that's better than what came before/after, but it's hardly setting the world on fire.
The best England Manager in the last 20 years, in terms of win percentage at least, has been Fabio Capello and the press bombed him out by attacking his privacy. Slow clap to the press.
Obviously, England has better players and played like garbage, they should have won, and by quantity, Iceland would be considered a minnow.
But qualitatively, all of Iceland's players are pros in Europe, some in big leagues. This isn't a one-off; what we saw yesterday, Iceland has been doing for two years, beaten the Dutch twice, beat Turkey and Czech Republic and Austria. Their World Elo rating is 40, FIFA ranking is 34 and last year it was 25. They are really good. I'm kind of just parroting what I've read and heard from Iceland people on the Guardian podcast and tweets from fans, but some fans see it not only as amazing, but as them finally putting it together. They've had a smattering of good players in top leagues for 20+ years, captains and CL winners, but the Iceland FA had no money for infrastructure until that last ten years or so. They've poured money into training facilities and good artificial fields when before they literally played on gravel or dirt. In the past, they couldn't afford a manager like Lars Lagerbeck, who coached Sweden and Nigeria previously, who should get a lot of credit. They are a real team of real pros, who work for each other and know what they want to do out there.
Meanwhile Hodgson sent his assistants to scout Iceland/Austria and went sightseeing instead.
Last edited:
Team construction always seems to be an issue. It's always about who has to go and regardless of fit.
The squad plays one up front and took 5 strikers and erm one? Winger. Also no midfield playmaker. Argue if there is one.
Every year
The squad plays one up front and took 5 strikers and erm one? Winger. Also no midfield playmaker. Argue if there is one.
Every year
Manuel Pellegrini and Roberto Martinez would both be good choices looking ahead to WC2018 if either wanted the job and if the FA was willing to hire another foreign manager. Both know the player pool well and are very familiar with English football culture and the press. And while neither one is exactly a defensive mastermind, both would get the team playing more fluid attacking football and would be tactically superior to managers like Low, Wilmots, Deschamps, etc. In these tournaments, in which most top teams are pretty disjointed and less than the sum of their parts, having a manager who can create some level of cohesion and fluidity in possession can be a big advantage.
Yeah, it's the story nobody wants to talk about, because it doesn't fit in with the narrative and self-fulfilling prophecies fueled by the English tabloid press. I think prevailing sentiment is simply, "it's silly little Iceland," and I bet if you polled people most would simply assume they squeaked in due to the expanded Euro field or as a third-place group stage qualifier. In fact, this is just one in a long string of their impressive results lately. You could make the case that Austria were the most disappointing team in the tournament this year -- after looking like one of the best teams in Europe last year in qualification, but the reality is that on the last matchday of the group stages, they still had a chance to advance, and Iceland needed a result, which they got. They also played Portugal very tough. And maybe now it's time to go back and revisit the dominant narrative about their qualification group -- "holy crap what's happened to the Dutch?" -- and instead maybe rewrite the story to say, "holy shit, look how good Iceland are." They also had a pretty good 2014 world cup qualification campaign, but lost to Croatia in a playoff (though they have a chance at revenge because they drew Croatia in their qualification group for 2018).
Hell, it wasn't working back then either. They got their ass handed to them twice by the Hungarians of Puskas, Hidegkuti, Kocsis, Boszik, etc. - one of the greatest teams ever - in 1953. 6-3 in the Match of the Century at Wembley (which is floating around on YouTube) and 7-1 in Budapest.
As an aside, who knew they had electronic scoreboards back then:
That set off a period marked by a mixture of indifference and a desperation to reclaim the mantle of the world's best team. Teams changed the way they dressed (out with the baggy shirts and heavy collared shirts and high-tops for v necks, short shorts and slipper boots - essentially the modern look of the modern player), experiented with new formations and appointed real coaches who could pick the team. They trained with the ball.
At the same time, interest in international football besides the Home Nations Championship was weak, and even up until 1962 nobody really bothered to care about the World Cup. It wasn't even shown live (admittedly the satellites to do it were either brand-new or not even operational) and nobody was demanding it to be shown live either.
Then Sir Alf came in, harnessed the traditional qualities to tactical discipline, a new formation, and a willingness to drop superstars for guys who fit the team mold - and he had a mold (notice how you never hear about a real team ethos with England the way Italy ALWAYS uses "nobody believed in us!"?) and won the World Cup.
So the good side is that we know it can be done. The bad side is that I don't see anybody in England who is as good as Alf Ramsey.
That's really the problem, isn't it? There's not been a good English England manager since Bobby Robson, and there doesn't seem to be anybody worthwhile out there now, but the press hates the idea of hiring bloody foreigners for the job (they were savage with Eriksson and Capello), so the FA is stuck hiring mediocrities like McLaren and Hodgson.
It probably bears mentioning that Ramsey's WC magic wore off quickly when he wasn't playing on his home turf. They didn't do great in Mexico 4 years later.
I wouldn't say that, they just blew it.
They looked scarcely worse than Brazil in their game, and then spent the first hour versus West Germany playing them off the park.
But Helmut Schön threw on Jürgen Grabowski, England were fat and happy at two-up, and Gordon Banks had Montezuma's revenge (the only Englishman all tournament to get it).
Beckenbauer hit a nothing shot that Peter Bonetti helpfully dived over and England fell to pieces, especially after Alf used the newfangled substitute role to take Bobby Charlton off at precisely the worst possible time. Uwe Seeler headed the ball while running towards the corner flag in the wrong direction and Bonetti was in no man's land. By then, the heat was getting to a not particularly young team. England win that game with Gordon Banks, no doubt.
Speaking of politics, that game is widely believed to have played a major role in Harold Wilson's Labour government losing the election four days later. The football fans in the Cabinet went out campaigning and all the men wanted to talk about was the game, and they knew they were in major trouble.