2021/22 Soccer Thread: It's Euro 2020 until it becomes 2021

Needless to say, the one time I get it right, I don't place a bet.

Prederick wrote:

Needless to say, the one time I get it right, I don't place a bet.

I did seriously think about it after Italy’s first game. Ah well. It’s not important!

Right before kickoff Football Manager did this to me. I should have read the signals.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/35omBuQ.png)

Srsly though, I really hope Saka and the lot get some kind of redemption from this. Because it's defined Southgate for a decade and a half since, and now that hoodoo is on Saka.

Prederick wrote:

Srsly though, I really hope Saka and the lot get some kind of redemption from this. Because it's defined Southgate for a decade and a half since, and now that hoodoo is on Saka.

Is it? This doesn't feel anything like the defeat to Germany in the 1996 semi-final to me. that felt like manifest destiny denied to me. I'm not sure why - maybe I'm just older and more numb to this feeling - but for me it doesn't quite feel the same. Pickford made some really good saves, in the end Italy were a little better at it than we were. Maybe it's just me but as much as that is going to sting for Saka, it's more like he's go time - more than enough time - in this England team to find redemption. You can't really say that for so many of that team in '96.

Just teaching mini-sorb (9 years old) this is what support a sports team can be like. I'll be taking them to their first Newcastle United match in the next season though - they're a Geordie, it's time Wish they were more into Cricket though!

Prederick wrote:

Srsly though, I really hope Saka and the lot get some kind of redemption from this. Because it's defined Southgate for a decade and a half since, and now that hoodoo is on Saka.

It's almost like he was trying to pass that on.

Not sure if it works when it's Southgate that sets the stage to try and pass the jinx.

I'm actually still dumbfounded that the strategy was throw Rashford + Sancho on. I just figured they were EXTRA takers not 3 + 4.

Sorbicol wrote:

I'll be taking them to their first Newcastle United match in the next season though - they're a Geordie, it's time

"See, it'll hurt less when you have no hope!"

Ah Twitter

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6DOYRtXIAU8hUe?format=jpg&name=medium)

Prederick wrote:

Srsly though, I really hope Saka and the lot get some kind of redemption from this. Because it's defined Southgate for a decade and a half since, and now that hoodoo is on Saka.

I have low expectations for how elements of the British press will cover specifically the three players who missed.

Lord knows how the press in general will handle it, but I did see a tweet already from one of The Usual Suspects about Rashford that was.... well, "punchable" is the word.

Racial abuse incoming...

Bit ironic that ManU's defense outshot its current and future offense today.

It's not even incoming. It started immediately to the degree that the FA already released a statement on it.

I really dislike penalty takers who jog up, hop, skip, pause and shoot. Seems 80% get saved/missed unless your Bruno Fernandes...

I was shocked when Maguire stepped up for a PK and then buried it upper Right. Would have thought he would have been in the second group of PK takers.

Maguire and Kane showed how to take a proper penalty kick. Perhaps adjust your gaze and stance for a bit of misdirection, but pick a corner and smash it in. Rashford's little dance was embarrassing and proves your point. I'm 1000% for England, but I'm secretly happy Donnarumma stayed put on that one.

Kane's successful try -- even though the keeper correctly guessed its direction -- was a thing of beauty. [raises pint glass]

And cheers to Maguire for taking out that goal camera. Wahey!

(Yes, I'm clinging to any positive aspects of the game as I cry in my beer.)

Sorbicol wrote:

Is it? This doesn't feel anything like the defeat to Germany in the 1996 semi-final to me. that felt like manifest destiny denied to me. I'm not sure why - maybe I'm just older and more numb to this feeling - but for me it doesn't quite feel the same. Pickford made some really good saves, in the end Italy were a little better at it than we were. Maybe it's just me but as much as that is going to sting for Saka, it's more like he's go time - more than enough time - in this England team to find redemption. You can't really say that for so many of that team in '96.

I love a redemption narrative as much as the next person, but I fear that yesterday will be the high water mark for THIS England team. From where I sat, they spent most of the Final trying not to lose rather than trying to win. Having scored so early, I expected them to go for the jugular, but instead they retreated into a safety first style of play.

It has become something of a cliche to bemoan England's lack of midfield creativity. But what saddened me most was the lack of boldness, the timidity. I don't think they can win a major tournament without a willingness to risk everything to win.

I've been watching England for decades, and I still don't think they've found a replacement for Gary Lineker (i.e. a striker who can consistently score important goals in major tournaments). I always find it mindboggling that Wayne Rooney is England's most prolific goal-scorer, but primarily in qualifying matches. It sort of says it all really.

The nature of tournaments is that you get very few chances to win them, and this was probably England's best chance. It may be decades before we see them in a final again.

Roke wrote:

Southgate bottled that. You have to use your subs to at least get fresh legs on and even then Italy were the better side (notwithstanding they could have had Chiellini and Jorginho sent off).

From the 40th minute or so on Italy were the much better side and England only started to get a handle on things again only after Henderson was brought on.

And even then he only used half his available subs for the actual match. For all the plaudits England were getting for their analytics staff in the tournament using your subs is quite basic analytics-informed stuff.

I suspect that, when the emotion dies down, this will be the main criticism of Southgate. Because what he was effectively saying was "I believe that England will be worse if I put Rashford and Sancho on the pitch. before 119 minutes. The only value I believe they can add is as penalty-takers" which pretty damning in my view. Why have them in the squad at all if that's the case?

It's the final of a major tournament! But there are players that you either don't think are good enough or don't trust... or both?

detroit20 wrote:
Roke wrote:

Southgate bottled that. You have to use your subs to at least get fresh legs on and even then Italy were the better side (notwithstanding they could have had Chiellini and Jorginho sent off).

From the 40th minute or so on Italy were the much better side and England only started to get a handle on things again only after Henderson was brought on.

And even then he only used half his available subs for the actual match. For all the plaudits England were getting for their analytics staff in the tournament using your subs is quite basic analytics-informed stuff.

I suspect that, when the emotion dies down, this will be the main criticism of Southgate. Because what he was effectively saying was "I believe that England will be worse if I put Rashford and Sancho on the pitch. before 119 minutes. The only value I believe they can add is as penalty-takers" which pretty damning in my view. Why have them in the squad at all if that's the case?

It's the final of a major tournament! But there are players that you either don't think are good enough or don't trust... or both?

Prematch I figured it was a coin flip.

I kept thinking about all the attacking talent England had. But my brain just kept circling back to one thing.

Mancini vs Southgate. I'm sure like you said there will be analysis fallout that will dissect this to death. Maybe Mancini did some nuanced genius tactical adjustments. I think the obvious one will be that he didn't out smart himself. Which is funny because as a club manager most of us would probably question his appointment and his credentials. As a national team manager? Compared to some of the other ones going? Well let's just say the bar is pretty low.

I didn't think it was a coin-flip match. I actually thought that England would win by a couple of goals. But I reckoned without the innate conservatism of Southgate.

In press conferences, he always comes across as calm, measured and thoughtful, but I wonder whether that's both his gift and his curse. He's not a gambler, which means his teams will qualify for major tournaments and make solid progress in them. But he's not a gambler, which means his teams will never win a trophy. Sometimes you have to be prepared to take risks.

Of course, you could look at it the opposite way, he decided that he'd rather take a gamble on the outcome of a penalty shootout than risk conceding what would probably have been a winning goal in extra time.

As you say, England have vast amounts of attacking talent, but - as the shots-on-target stats show - did very little attacking.

It'll be interesting to watch England in their next few matches to see what Southgate changes and what he doesn't. The midfield continues to be a creative black hole, in my view.

I think the underlying narrative in the UK that 'football is unquestionably coming home' got to few people. I never thought that game would be easy, but I did think England had a really good chance. In the 40 years or so I've been watching the national, team, its the first time I've thought that and that is a genuinely remarkable achievement in itself.

Southgate's somewhat Conservative outlook got us that final - he was right when so many others were wrong (I still don't get the adulation Grealish receives - he's a good player but he's not a game changer and never will be) and made a lot of people look foolish.

That said yes I think it that final we should have had the courage to go at Italy more - Sancho and Saka should have been on the field sooner - Southgate's apparent reluctance to use Sancho the entire tournament is one thing I do find a little baffling to be honest. Over all I don't have that many complaint,s and when you see all the racist turdmonekys coming out of their cess pits like we have today I think support is much more required than criticism

Not all of the UK felt it was coming home Coming *near* home, at most

As a typical American soccer ignoramus, can someone let me know why the US looks to be sending a B-team to the Gold Cup? I watched more soccer this weekend than I think I ever have, and I saw Messi, Neymar, Kane. Based on that I'm going to assume most of the players on those national teams are the A-team players. As an ignoramus, add on Christiano Ronaldo and Mbpape and that is the extent of my international soccer knowledge.

I get it, if US players were to soccer as they are to basketball, I would understand why we would send a B-team to a major(?) tournament. We don't need to send NBA players because it really doesn't matter, and we will be odds on favorites to win (unless we are playing Nigeria I guess). But US soccer is far from USA basketball. It seems like we send our best women's players to friendlies and tournaments, and we tend to dominate those. Shouldn't the pulisic's of the world be on our Gold Cup team?

Does the Gold Cup just not matter? If not, then when does our A-team get together? Just for World Cup qualifying? Given our last results trying to get to the World Cup, maybe we should be playing our best players as a team more often?

Sorbicol wrote:

I think the underlying narrative in the UK that 'football is unquestionably coming home' got to few people. I never thought that game would be easy, but I did think England had a really good chance. In the 40 years or so I've been watching the national, team, its the first time I've thought that and that is a genuinely remarkable achievement in itself.

I agree. But I also think its a bit of an indictment of English football, which - arguably - has been underachieving for decades. England has a large player base, and - crucially - a really robust professional game. There are 92 professional clubs in England; there are 60 in Italy, I believe. And yet - until this week - this hadn't translated in to appearances in finals.

In the meantime, we've seen much smaller nations achieve much more (I'm thinking of Greece in the 2004 Euros, and - perhaps less fairly - Portugal in 2016).

It'll be interesting to see where Italy go from here too. Will they turn out to be 'merely' a good side? Or will they go on to become a great one at next year's World Cup.

Carl - our A-team just beat Mexico to win the CONCACAF Nations League like a month ago. Right now, the stars you're referring to are back with their European club teams getting ready for the next season. I'd say this is for the good of their careers, and to not overtax them, especially with World Cup Qualifying around the corner.

This also helps relations with the club teams in a number of ways. The teams have to release players for regional tournaments, so we're sort of doing them a favor. Also, with the Euro and Copa America being over now, all those players are available to their clubs. American players could look less desireable by comparison if they aren't available until right before the season.

For reference, Tottenham has their first pre-season friendly against another club this Saturday.

Edit: Couple other thoughts: We have used our A-team for past Gold Cups. Is it important? It used to seem that way. It's competitive, not friendly, so it does affect our FIFA ranking and seeding in tournaments. We want to do well, but we're not prioritizing it right now, not as much as we did the CONCACAF Nations League.

I'd say the Gold Cup, played every two years, also looks less important when World Cup Qualifying is looming. Four years ago we sent our A-team and won the tournament. A few months later, the same squad failed to qualify for the World Cup. At that moment I would have traded every Gold Cup ever to be playing in the 2018 World Cup.

detroit20 wrote:
Sorbicol wrote:

I think the underlying narrative in the UK that 'football is unquestionably coming home' got to few people. I never thought that game would be easy, but I did think England had a really good chance. In the 40 years or so I've been watching the national, team, its the first time I've thought that and that is a genuinely remarkable achievement in itself.

It'll be interesting to see where Italy go from here too. Will they turn out to be 'merely' a good side? Or will they go on to become a great one at next year's World Cup.

If they are smart they ride it out with Mancini for the foreseeable future.

They are in that great situation where the manager they have is probably over qualified to be a national team manager but they are 1 tournament away from hyping themselves up over reasonable expectations and sacking him for anything short of winning every tournament.

I have a hard time figuring out how talented the Italian team is because I'm not going to start watching Serie A. They are probably square in the mix with the other usual suspects while being clearly less than France.

Disaster of a an outcome for me still goes to France. Every non France fan should be very happy they are running it back with Deschamps.

Sorbicol wrote:

Southgate's somewhat Conservative outlook got us that final - he was right when so many others were wrong (I still don't get the adulation Grealish receives - he's a good player but he's not a game changer and never will be) and made a lot of people look foolish.

Yeah, the whole "Southgate is too conservative" opinion... it's really impossible to say.

I can't help thinking of France, who have a coach even more risk-averse than Southgate. It's frustrating, as a neutral, when you see the quality France have and wonder how thrilling they would be if they were allowed to go balls-out attack. And yet... Deschamps won the World Cup in 2018 and was the thickness of a post away from winning the Euros two years prior. So, it's hard to be too critical.

Would France/England be more exciting with attack-minded coaches? Sure. Would they be more successful? Debatable. History is replete with swashbuckling teams that never won anything.

Tasty Pudding wrote:

Yeah, the whole "Southgate is too conservative" opinion... it's really impossible to say.

I can't help thinking of France, who have a coach even more risk-averse than Southgate. It's frustrating, as a neutral, when you see the quality France have and wonder how thrilling they would be if they were allowed to go balls-out attack. And yet... Deschamps won the World Cup in 2018 and was the thickness of a post away from winning the Euros two years prior. So, it's hard to be too critical.

Would France/England be more exciting with attack-minded coaches? Sure. Would they be more successful? Debatable. History is replete with swashbuckling teams that never won anything.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by successful. Indeed, it is precisely this question that has devilled the England team for decades. The consensus - at least in the media - seems to be reaching the Quarter Finals of major tournaments is the minimum acceptable result.

If that's the standard, then England have been very successful under Southgate. But, for all their pragmatism and caution, they still haven't won a tournament in 55 years.

After all, in the early 90s, the Buffalo Bills were incredibly successful. AFC Champions four years running. But the Bills are remembered now as the best team in a bad conference, who always choked in the big game.

The day after I'm bummed that England goal won't be one of those iconic "tournament winning" moments. It was so great.

I don't think Southgate's too conservative tactically for international tournament football (though I'd prefer more ambitious sides from an entertainment point of view). If you look at most of the successful sides over the past 15-20 years they tend to be quite pragmatic.

I would think that pragmatism makes individual quality by and large less important (except for your top 1 or 2 attackers driving you forward on breaks) and fresh legs more important. With the extra subs because of COVID I would have thought things were set up nicely for pragmatism.

This England team man, they represent everything our government does not.