Euro 16 gamethread

fletcherpost

sosh's feckin' poet laureate
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,175
Glasgow, Scotland
I swear i was gonna post my version of what the script would be for the next two England games. it involved a comfortable England win tonight, some fawning press and then the back down to earth with thump in the quarters, and some head scratching about why can't we (England) with so much talent go deep in major finals.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,037
Just saw a tweet: "In Iceland, if 5 people are sitting in a bar, one of them knows someone on the national football team."
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,441
Here's my thought. If Hodgson wanted to play 4-3-3 with 2 wide players supporting a central striker, why did he only take one winger-ish type player (Sterling)?
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,068
Chelmsford, MA
Here's my thought. If Hodgson wanted to play 4-3-3 with 2 wide players supporting a central striker, why did he only take one winger-ish type player (Sterling)?
This is certainly a great question but I try not to get into the mind of Hodgson because I'm sure it's a scary and dark place.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,068
Chelmsford, MA
Sterling's inability to do anything but successfully walk with his left foot absolutely murders him when played on the left. He always waits for that overlap because he can't shoot with his off foot when played into space like that
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,441
Sterling's inability to do anything but successfully walk with his left foot absolutely murders him when played on the left. He always waits for that overlap because he can't shoot with his off foot when played into space like that
Yeah, he should swap sides with Sturridge for a while, see what happens.
 

cjdmadcow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,478
St Albans, UK
Sterling's inability to do anything but successfully walk with his left foot absolutely murders him when played on the left. He always waits for that overlap because he can't shoot with his off foot when played into space like that
This is probably the thing that irritates me the most in professional football and particularly at international level - outside of a genius like Maradona or Messi, how the hell can someone be considered a decent player when 50% of their armoury is incapable of being used. It makes it so easy to plan and defend against...I so wish I had better coaching as a kid *sigh*
 

Bozo Texino

still hates Dave Kerpen
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
11,868
Austin, Texas
It's a song asking an anthropmorphic God (which cannot exist) to save a person who is rich and powerful and is likely to see 100. It's crass to ask such a God to save such a person, who clearly does not need saving and is neither gracious or noble. And if the royals had any class, which they don't, they'd get a new anthem. at least the Star Spangled Banner has a narrative and goes somewhere and is about the country not some out of reach whoor in a palace.
Understood. I just hate the music for our anthem. It's a strange, strange tune.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,068
Chelmsford, MA
Hodgson is sticking with the whole thing where his best target striker is going to take free kicks instead of trying to score goals, eh?

Other winger options probably included Walcott, Townsend...nothing special for sure but probably more familiar with the role than Sturridge
 

cjdmadcow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,478
St Albans, UK
The questions regarding The Hodge's choice of wide players have the same answer as the question regarding central defenders.

We haven't got any to choose from.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,645
Here's my thought. If Hodgson wanted to play 4-3-3 with 2 wide players supporting a central striker, why did he only take one winger-ish type player (Sterling)?
Because he's a hack. Also he has a strong commitment to the status quo in English football, which means taking big names from the "top" teams. It's why he took Henderson, Wilshere, Milner and Rashford over players in better form from clubs like Leicester, West Ham, Sunderland etc. even though those players were better fits for how he wants to play.
 

sachmoney

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2008
9,513
Tim Thomas' Bunker
I guess if you're going to force a strategy instead of deploying players in such a way that maximizes their skills, yeah, you probably want another winger. However, given the quality of choices available, I can understand why none of them made the team.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,068
Chelmsford, MA
Oh I think Stones' struggles are greatly exaggerated. It's criminal that he's not playing in this team. The wide players are a much bigger problem, but then he could not play a formation that requires him to have them or try to fit 4 strikers on the roster. I don't think fundamentally either of these are England's problem but choosing to continually play strikers out wide hasn't seemed to work
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,441
I guess I see 2 possible strategies, and Hodgson is playing neither. Either pick a system, and pick the players that fit into the system the best, or pick the 'best players' and choose a system that benefits them. Don't try to shoehorn your 'best players' into a system that doesn't work for them just because they are your 'best players'.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,645
Michail Antonio should have gotten the call, now maybe I'm biased as a West Ham fan, but he's fast, strong, defends better than Sterling, can fill in at the back in an emergency and he actually contributes to goals.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,068
Chelmsford, MA
Actually, my post above needs to be amended. I forgot they also brought Rashford. Are any other teams bringing 5 strikers to a tournament? Typical dumb English star fucking really. Rashford had an incredibly bright end to his season. Was it really a crime to leave him home in the name of roster balance?
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,441
Actually, my post above needs to be amended. I forgot they also brought Rashford. Are any other teams bringing 5 strikers to a tournament? Typical dumb English star fucking really. Rashford had an incredibly bright end to his season. Was it really a crime to leave him home in the name of roster balance?
It's especially dumb to bring 5 strikers when your system calls for only a single striker. At least if there were playing 2 center forwards, having 5 might make sense.
 

fletcherpost

sosh's feckin' poet laureate
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,175
Glasgow, Scotland
Because he's a hack. Also he has a strong commitment to the status quo in English football, which means taking big names from the "top" teams. It's why he took Henderson, Wilshere, Milner and Rashford over players in better form from clubs like Leicester, West Ham, Sunderland etc. even though those players were better fits for how he wants to play.
This is true. But isn't that the way of the England manager, pick from the traditional top teams cos they are the top teams. Henerson and Whilshere should have been left at home, if only cos their match fitness is debateable. Mark Noble is a player I didn't pay much heed to, until some started calling for him to get a nod for England...and then you watch him and realise he's a really classy player and a hard worker too.

England just never seem to get the team thing right.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,837
AZ
Understood. I just hate the music for our anthem. It's a strange, strange tune.
at least the Star Spangled Banner has a narrative and goes somewhere and is about the country not some out of reach whoor in a palace.
Problem with our anthem is not just the music, but also that it's only a small piece of a longer poem, and so the version that we sing at events ends in a cliffhanger. What kind of fucking anthem ends with a question? It's horrible. Maybe if it were a rhetorical question, but it's not. It's an honest question -- he's truly worried about whether the flag is still there. You find out in later verses that yes, indeed, it is there. But that's the big fucking reveal. We sing an anthem that doesn't even make it to the story's climax let alone it's denouement.

Fletch is right that God Save the [enter gender appropriate title of Monarch] is a horrible anthem, but the tune kicks ass. To the extent they think about it at all, when subjects of the Commonwealth sing "God Save the Queen," do they think literally of Elizabeth and see it as a pledge of heavenly allegiance to her, or is "Queen" more understood to simply be a stand in for the nation itself?
 

speedracer

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,835
Problem with our anthem is not just the music, but also that it's only a small piece of a longer poem, and so the version that we sing at events ends in a cliffhanger. What kind of fucking anthem ends with a question? It's horrible. Maybe if it were a rhetorical question, but it's not. It's an honest question -- he's truly worried about whether the flag is still there. You find out in later verses that yes, indeed, it is there. But that's the big fucking reveal. We sing an anthem that doesn't even make it to the story's climax let alone it's denouement.

Fletch is right that God Save the [enter gender appropriate title of Monarch] is a horrible anthem, but the tune kicks ass. To the extent they think about it at all, when subjects of the Commonwealth sing "God Save the Queen," do they think literally of Elizabeth and see it as a pledge of heavenly allegiance to her, or is "Queen" more understood to simply be a stand in for the nation itself?
Rule Britannia > all the others, although it's Britain-specific and will be obsolete once Scotland secedes.
 

fletcherpost

sosh's feckin' poet laureate
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,175
Glasgow, Scotland
Problem with our anthem is not just the music, but also that it's only a small piece of a longer poem, and so the version that we sing at events ends in a cliffhanger. What kind of fucking anthem ends with a question? It's horrible. Maybe if it were a rhetorical question, but it's not. It's an honest question -- he's truly worried about whether the flag is still there. You find out in later verses that yes, indeed, it is there. But that's the big fucking reveal. We sing an anthem that doesn't even make it to the story's climax let alone it's denouement.

Fletch is right that God Save the [enter gender appropriate title of Monarch] is a horrible anthem, but the tune kicks ass. To the extent they think about it at all, when subjects of the Commonwealth sing "God Save the Queen," do they think literally of Elizabeth and see it as a pledge of heavenly allegiance to her, or is "Queen" more understood to simply be a stand in for the nation itself?
I really believe that enough of them are thinking about the monarch. Football players, i don't think really care too much about the monarchy when they are about to play a match. But i reckon they are geed up to rep their nation. I used to love watching Stevie G and Rooney mumble away, before they put pressure on the players to sing more emphatically. Isn't God Save The Ruling Monarch an actual dirge?

I actually like God Bless America, if you're going down the God route, at least it's for the country. The last scene in Deer Hunter always has me in bits.
 

Jimy Hendrix

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2002
5,853
Well, I guess if you can take off one of the tournament's best holding midfielders in favor of a non-fit player while keeping a striker in midfield, you've gotta do it.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,441
And technically, God Save the Queen is the UK National Anthem, not the English one, so England could choose a different one (they don't currently have one). Obvious possibilities would be Land of Hope and Glory or Jerusalem.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,068
Chelmsford, MA
Everything from England is wide. There's no creative central passing. They so desperately need someone to successfully make a dangerous pass in central areas. Wilshere for Dier is a decent start (IMO it should be for Rooney but he's never getting the half time yank) and Stones for Cahill would be another. England may be able to find another goal or two through open play but they make it awfully easy on the defenders the way they attack right now

edit: Barkley is incredibly one note but I'd be tempted to give him a chance as well.Kane has been poor but I don't think any striker is going to look particularly good when everything goes wide outside the 18 and your best bet is to try to run onto a low cross
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,379
Philadelphia
Everything from England is wide. There's no creative central passing. They so desperately need someone to successfully make a dangerous pass in central areas. Wilshere for Dier is a decent start (IMO it should be for Rooney but he's never getting the half time yank) and Stones for Cahill would be another. England may be able to find another goal or two through open play but they make it awfully easy on the defenders the way they attack right now

edit: Barkley is incredibly one note but I'd be tempted to give him a chance as well.Kane has been poor but I don't think any striker is going to look particularly good when everything goes wide outside the 18 and your best bet is to try to run onto a low cross
Agree completely with this. People fixate on the wide players and the wingers but the team is really broken down the spine. They have two CBs who can't pass, a DM in Dier who is pretty good in his role but not a deep lying playmaker, two AMs in Rooney and Alli who can't really pass and have one assist and zero goals between them in open play in four games, and a CF in Kane who hasn't produced all tournament.