And that is 100% on Southgate. He engineered that whole situation. Crazy town.
Poll: UEFA Euro 2020 Final Italy v England ** spoilers ** [Sunday 11th July 2021]
- Thread starter explicit4u
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,099
Makes no difference who takes them. How'd do you know if Grealish, Stones or Pickford would have done a better job? You don't.
If we went to sudden death, one of them would have to take one regardless.
If Kane had passed to Sterling, instead of shooting, if only this and that.......
If it makes no difference who takes them (your assertion) then why did Southgate sub Rashford and Sancho on to take penalties?Makes no difference who takes them. How'd do you know if Grealish, Stones or Pickford would have done a better job? You don't.
If we went to sudden death, one of them would have to take one regardless.
If Kane had passed to Sterling, instead of shooting, if only this and that.......
Were the other players too tired to take them?
You also must understand that being subbed on to take a penalty heaps even more pressure on the taker...
Caporegime
You can apply this logic to any decision. Southgate doesn't make any subs and the players are dead on their feet at the end of 120 minutes. "well maybe if we had made subs it would have destabilised the team and we would have lost".
There are accepted good and bad decisions, there are more risky and less risky decisions. Bringing on two players to barely kick a ball and then asking them to take a ridiculously high pressure penalty is very risky and I would argue, stupid. Asking a 19 year old to take a penalty in the biggest game of his life and potentially the biggest game he will have in his career is silly.
All you can do in football is make what appears to be the most sensible decisions. Maybe he subs out Rashford, Saka and Sancho for different players and they all score. Maybe he subs them out for different players and they all miss. That doesn't take away from whether that was the right choice based on the situation.
If a coin is biased towards heads 60:40 you should always pick heads. It doesn't mean that tails won't come up 4/10 times roughly. Perhaps tails comes up 7/10 times. That doesn't change the fact that the correct decision is heads every time.
Makes no difference who takes them. How'd do you know if Grealish, Stones or Pickford would have done a better job? You don't.
If we went to sudden death, one of them would have to take one regardless.
If Kane had passed to Sterling, instead of shooting, if only this and that.......
Subbing players on just to take penalties puts them under a huge amount of pressure though, more so than normal. I mean they'd both be getting a lot of flak right now for missing them and Southgate for putting them on in the first place if the media wasn't so obsessed with portraying the entire country as racist.
Caporegime
Especially if they didn't get a kick or feel of the ball before the pk.
At least give them 5-10 mins to get used to the feel of the ball and pitch...
I saw an article saying no one complained when Southgate did it with rashfird a couple if years ago... but then shot the author in the foot when he mentioned he came on at min 113... completely different to coming on in the 121st min
Which is presumably why he said it was down to him afterwards. Having got most other decisions right - its a bit weird that he suddenly threw caution to the wind for the penalties.
Caporegime
What decisions has he got right in the tournament. As I said earlier. Getting a win doesn't mean you made the right decisions. Getting decisions right only matters when the margins are thin. I fully believe that with the squad we have we could have won the tournament and beaten most of the teams comfortably if we didn't set up to bore the opposition to death. He barely used a lot of our talented attacking players. 1-0 wins are not safe. All it takes is a bit of bad luck or poor defending or an amazing shot from distance and you can lose those games.
He repeatedly made poor decisions and left any sort of decision making until his hand was forced. Thats bad management. He didn't "throw caution to the wind" on penalties, he panicked and tried to stick on what he thought would be good penalty takers at the death. If he had made the correct substitutions during the 90 minutes and then extra time I don't think we would have got to penalties.
Still astounded at how little flak he is getting from anywhere. Its all focussed on a few racists giving black players abuse. Players get abuse no matter the colour of their skin when they make a mistake at a national level. Think back to when Rooney or Beckham made massive mistakes for their country. Everyone piled on. I would wager that they get far far less abuse these days than they did back then.
Did you ever stop and consider that the reason most people, including professionals who understand the game, don’t share your opinion because you might be wrong?
You’ve had an agenda against him all the way through the tournament and I really think you’re biased for some reason. Some of the decisions he made were questionable, I’m not denying that.
What makes me laugh is failure to recognise that he also 100% got some decisions right. Some of those went against the grain too.
Caporegime
Southgate didn't really get anything right. The sheer quality of the squad got him to the final. Just look at how Roberto Martinez ruined the golden generation of Belgium and an equally poor manager.
The England back 4 is circa 250 million so no wonder we didn't concede a lot.
I'd much rather have Eddie Howe or Graham Potter in as they at least try and play decent football.
The positive is that this generation of players still have 2 tournaments in 3 years so hopefully something might improve by then.
Most of the Italian team play for mid table Serie A sides. The England team is full of Champions League/Europa finalists and winners. The sole difference was a coach like Mancini elevating a bunch of decent but not world beaters into a fantastic unit. Not many managers have that skill. Brian Clough, Sir Alex Ferguson maybe but not Gareth Southgate.
Last edited:
Genuinely laughing.
Caporegime
Please enlighten me? He did pretty much what any average championship level manager would do. England setup to play in a way that is akin to a premier league relegation style manager but he has players who are at the top end of the league!
I would understand if he was managing a small country but England is the number 1 league in Europe with stars who have played in major European finals with English youth academy's being some of the best in the world.
Caporegime
They haven't said a bad word against him throughout the tournament and they have been fawning over him like he is the second coming of Clough. He hasn't come under any scrutiny at all since the final as well. Either he is the best manager ever or they are going to great lengths not to criticise him. Pundits don't tend to like talking about managers at the best of times but this tournament was something special.
Considering our performances and the managers choices, don't you think its a little strange that they didn't question or criticise any of it...
I have no agenda against him, I just think he is a **** manager. I though he was before the tournament, during the tournament and I still do after the tournament. Nothing he did convinced me otherwise. We should have won the Euros and we should have played better football throughout it. Hes simply not good enough at any serious level of football.
He got away with a lot of stupid decisions due to the quality of the opposition and the utterly ridiculous strength he had on the bench. People point at the double sub of Grealish as some sort of spectacular stroke of genius rather than a manager so scared of conceding goals that he took a player off that changed the game in our favour and then once he was off we were straight back under the kosh. Masterstroke.
I don't doubt that he got some decisions right. His cowardice against Germany worked out quite well in the end even though the xG at the end of the game shows that it could easily have gone either way. Outside of that I don't think he set up correctly for any of our games. He set us up every single game as the underdog. Defence first, second and third and then hope to nick a goal or two over the game with the last few players that aren't defending.
I agree with the first part of this as it's aligned with what I said last week about there needing to be a scapegoat everytime England exit a tournament and in this case the racists are the scapegoat. However the difference here is that Rooney and Beckham weren't abused for skin colour, they were abused for mistakes. Basically you are 'allowed' to abuse people as long as it isn't done on the basis of race (or other similarly protected traits).
Saying Rashford, Sancho and Saka were crap, bad penalties, to blame for us not winning, getting booed next season etc would be equivalent to the abuse Rooney and Beckham got.
However N-words, monkey emojis and who knows maybe bananas getting thrown at them next season would not be.
Caporegime
How much of what people deem abuse is simply racist because its directed at black players however? Thats the current definition of racism to plenty of people these days. At least the analytics of the abuse seems to only consider directly racist messages as such.
How much do you want to bet that A) this actually happens and B) its reported as racial abuse. I would go for close to 100% on both cases. Players get booed for the most stupid of things so it will happen to Rashford and Sancho while they are playing for United and the media will pick that up as racist I can guarantee.
Soldato
Now Lewis Hamilton is getting racially abused.
that's ridiculous, he took his penalty well I thought. Still won the race despite it.
Soldato
Hahahathat's ridiculous, he took his penalty well I thought. Still won the race despite it.
- Status