Has nothing to do with the conversation, if you remember it so well, why was it ok to finish 2nd to Sweden in the Group?
If you remember it so well, why do you not rue the missed opportunity of a relatively easy route to the final?
The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
Currently Shaw is looking like a panic / optimistic pick and it's asking a lot for him to be up to speed instantly even if fit.I kind of follow your thinking, but if we had Saka at LB then from an attacking perspective you’d want Foden same side as Gordon may end up occupying the same areas of the pitch. Maybe you lean more on Rice to cover the LB spot when Saka drifts forward, but that then potentially exposes the middle of the pitch.
There is a fighting chance that Shaw is fit enough by the weekend as he was reportedly fit enough to have played a part yesterday.
Why not Kane at left back, because he spends much of his time, really deep and out on the wing.so Toney and Kane up front with Gordon on the wing in a 3-5-2?
We signed Leigh Jenkinson on the same premiseCurrently Shaw is looking like a panic / optimistic pick and it's asking a lot for him to be up to speed instantly even if fit.
As much a reflection on the lack of options there as the manager, but it's worrying he gets picked for the squad even if he only has one leg.
How old were you in 2002
There were 6 places between England and Sweden in the world rankings before the tournament and you're using it as a weird gotcha ..
How can you even comment on what football was like back then ??
Again , how old was you in 2002
Compare the two teams, how many would start for England in a combined 11?
I’d give you Larsson, Melburg > Mills and Ljungberg.
Take the nostalgia tinted glasses off - this isn’t even worth debating. You’re wrong and bringing age into it shows it.
Childish insults very much befitting your status as the more ‘mature’ person.Course I'm wrong , says the child who's watched Southgate ball and thinks that's the be all and end all of English football
Childish insults very much befitting your status as the more ‘mature’ person.
We were the higher ranked team by your own admission so the line of argument doesn’t make sense from the get go.
so Toney and Kane up front with Gordon on the wing in a 3-5-2?
Some of us can read and want to learn about different eras of football. It’s just plain ignorance to dismiss someone else’s experience of the tournament.Read the extension you just can't comment on an era of football you didn't experience with any authority .. I think that pretty much goes without saying
Like me telling my dad what England got wrong in 1970
Some of us can read and want to learn about different eras of football. It’s just plain ignorance to dismiss someone else’s experience of the tournament.
Especially when you hold a minority view. The consensus view is that the ‘golden generation’ should’ve achieved more.
Sure because reading is the same as living through it .. fact is there were many good international teams , now fuck want the books say because teams like Romania and Turkey were not shit .
The golden generation
France did back to back tournament wins
1998 -2000
Brazil won the world cup in 2002
Which tournament of these 3 should England have won , know it all ? Do tell
Whilst I agree with the premise that international football was far more competitive, it’s a hell of a stretch to put Sweden in that fold. Just going to put the respective lineups for our knockout games next to each other:
View attachment 36536
View attachment 36537
Now it seems Ljungberg didn’t play in their game but I wouldn’t be sure I’d swap any of the other players. I’d be treeating Larsson/Owen as the viable swap as Allback was the ‘big man’ in the partnership.
You’re missing the point still. Firstly, was that England underachieved in probably all of the tournaments. We did not make it past the quarters in any tournament. Euros can be forgiven, perhaps, but not the World Cup where the format has not changed.Sure because reading is the same as living through it .. fact is there were many good international teams , now fuck want the books say because teams like Romania and Turkey were not shit .
The golden generation
France did back to back tournament wins
1998 -2000
Brazil won the world cup in 2002
Which tournament of these 3 should England have won , know it all ? Do tell
Actually add on 2004 , where we lost to Portugal on penalties who had a team half filled with the Porto team that won the Champions league 1 month earlier and the other half with top talent
Yea sure Portugal got fluked in the final missed a million chances but still
Which tournament should we have won
You’re missing the point still. Firstly, was that England underachieved in probably all of the tournaments. We did not make it past the quarters in any tournament. Euros can be forgiven, perhaps, but not the World Cup where the format has not changed.
1) Had we won the group in 2002, we would’ve been the highest ranked team in that side of the draw.
2) Had we won the group in 2004, we wouldn’t have face Portugal who, at the very least, had an even team with - hence we lost on penalties. Likewise with 2006.
3) 2010, had we won the group, ourselves and the Netherlands were the top ranked teams.
If we go on world rankings alone, the top seed failed to win the major tournaments in all but the 2008 Euros and 2010 World Cup. Therefore, it’s just about getting deep into the tournaments which we’ve failed to do because we’ve continually failed to win our group.
I don’t think Southgate is the best coach we’ve had but has so far been the best manager and the results speak for itself.
Is there any hope Shaw is fit for next Saturday?
So what changes would people make to the starting 11 on saturday?
I can't see how, he hasn't played a game in months.
@SBAndy if we look at 2004 , people say we failed etc .. but did we really ?
Porto had just won the Champions league and I believe 5 or 6 of that starting 11 were in this portugal team and a load of other top talent sandwiched in , and england were stuck playing 442 with paul Scholes out wide
View attachment 36539
I don't see where we failed , we lost to arguably a more coherent team on pens
I can't see how, he hasn't played a game in months.
They have looked suspect at the back but then so have we!They are but they have had some pretty big holes open up in their backline at times. Could see Germany taking chances against them.
England have been crap, no papering over how bad we have played. I do wonder if we would at least look better as a counter attacking team which we just haven't had opportunity to do against the teams we have faced. We look clueless against teams sitting deep.
Oh they would destroy us unless a miracle happens.They have looked suspect at the back but then so have we!
At least they look like scoring a goal once in a while...
I would love to see 3-5-2 with Toney and Watkins.I also think switching to a 3-4-3 looks inevitable atm. We actually look better playing that formation too.
I think he could tbh.Would never happen and I also don’t think he’d make a great international manager.
Lol.Is there any hope Shaw is fit for next Saturday?
Georgia's play was so incicive. They played forward with real pace and conviction, it's probably taken many by suprise!Oh they would destroy us unless a miracle happens.
I was more commenting on their chances overall. The look so good going forward but Georgia did test them at the back. The quarters on that side of the draw should be a great watch
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?