Southgate: Episode IV - A New Hope

[EdBed]

I've not read all of the above, but... lost in the nostalgia of Italia'90 and Euro'96 are things like; not really being that good in the group stage and requiring a late winner against Egypt to avoid the drawing of lots, a very late winner against a weak Belgium, relying on indicipline by Cameroon; a dissappointing draw with Switzerland, being a Uri Geller away from having Scotland equalise, and a perfectly good Spanish goal being ruled out by offside that would have put them 1 up.

 

[mrmeee17]

6 hours ago, Rob1981 said:

All the same, if you want to be objective about any international manager...  Southgate or anyone... England or someone else... the measure has to be:

• How has this manager done, relative to other managers who have gone to tournaments with similarly good groups of players?

Quoting you Rob but also applies to a few others who made a similar point.

Sure, but why limit yourself only to the abject failures of (most) previous England managers?

Why not also include managers who have actually won things with good groups of players (Deschamps with France, etc.) or even worse teams (Rehhagel with Greece, Fernando Santos with Portugal)?

Tbh I think on paper the starting XI and bench we currently have is arguably the best or second best in world football.

Edit: I see that you have written 'England or someone else' but your defence of Southgate seems to be mostly centred on comparing him to the failures of previous England managers

Edited Friday at 15:43 by mrmeee17

[enigmatic]

2 hours ago, EdBed said:

I've not read all of the above, but... lost in the nostalgia of Italia'90 and Euro'96 are things like; not really being that good in the group stage and requiring a late winner against Egypt to avoid the drawing of lots, a very late winner against a weak Belgium, relying on indicipline by Cameroon; a dissappointing draw with Switzerland, being a Uri Geller away from having Scotland equalise, and a perfectly good Spanish goal being ruled out by offside that would have put them 1 up.

Even the legendary Gazza goal was a minute after Scotland could and should have scored a penalty to equalise.

They replayed Euro 96 not that long ago and apart from that goal Gazza lumbered round the pitch like Fat Midfield Rooney. We must have actually been good against Holland, but then Holland had... issues that tournament.

The short term memories are even worse: no sane person that actually remembers the decade of repeated humiliation that preceded Gareth can argue that drawing a dead rubber is worse.

 

44 minutes ago, mrmeee17 said:

Quoting you Rob but also applies to a few others who made a similar point.

Sure, but why limit yourself only to the abject failures of (most) previous England managers?

Why not also include managers who have actually won things with good groups of players (Deschamps with France, etc.) or even worse teams (Rehhagel with Greece, Fernando Santos with Portugal)?

Tbh I think on paper the starting XI and bench we currently have is arguably the best or second best in world football.

Edit: I see that you have written 'England or someone else' but your defence of Southgate seems to be mostly centred on comparing him to the failures of previous England managers

I'm not sure that highlighting that tournament-winning managers have also been widely panned for negative football and weird team selections really helps the case that Gareth is holding England back...

[mrmeee17]

17 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

I'm not sure that highlighting that tournament-winning managers have also been widely panned for negative football and weird team selections really helps the case that Gareth is holding England back...

There is a difference between being defensive and being badly set up tactically.

Greece was set up well by Rehhagel considering the players he had relative to the competition.

We are set up poorly and look to struggle bringing the ball from defence into threatening areas, much less actually creating good chances.

[The_jagster]

As selectively chosen in the film king Otto Greece were so defensive that people joked that they were the one underdog we wanted to lose and were stinking up the place.

Now we just remember the story.

[Rob1981]

1 hour ago, mrmeee17 said:

I see that you have written 'England or someone else' but your defence of Southgate seems to be mostly centred on comparing him to the failures of previous England managers

Compare him to managers from whichever country you want

But if you do that, you can't just compare him to the handful of managers that you cherry picked because they have "actually won things".  You also have to compare him to the dozens and dozens that haven't.  We don't have a monopoly on bringing good teams but still going home disappointed.

What about the Dutch team in '98?  The one with Guus Hiddink in charge, a European Cup winning manager.  When he had players like Davids, Seedorf, Kluivert, Bergkamp, van der Sar, Stam, de Boer and the rest?  Semi finals, mate.  Change the manager for Euro 2000?  Same result again.  And then they followed that up by missing the next World Cup altogether.

The Italians always do well though, right?  Well, no.  They didn't win anything between 1982 and 2006.  An entire generation without a trophy for one of football history's most decorated sides.  Even though they had the richest league in the world for most of that time.  And even though there was a decade or so where Milan or Juventus were reaching the Champions League final virtually every year.

Portugal?  They lost five semi finals and a final before they eventually won a trophy in 2016.  The French?  They failed to qualify for two World Cups in a row in 1990 and 1994.  Right when Papin was winning the Ballon d'Or, and when they had players like Desailly, Ginola, Cantona, Blanc, Petit and Deschamps coming through.

Spain?  Christ.  They used to be worse than England for underachieving.  For eleven tournaments in a row they limped out in the quarters, or even sometimes before.  That was until they finally got the tiki-taka stuff to click in 2008-2012 of course.  But since then another decade has gone by and they haven't been back to another final.

Argentina couldn't even win a Copa America between 1993 and 2021, never mind a World Cup.  For 29 years, they couldn't even call themselves the best team in South America ffs.  Even though there are only two decent teams there.

Which brings us to Brazil of course.  The magical "Selecao".  We still talk about them in hushed tones because of Pele and because of 1970 and all that.  Well their record at the last five World Cups now reads: four quarter final exits, plus a semi final where they got pumped 7-1 in front of their own fans.

The point is, these tournaments are bloody hard to win.  Some of the world's best managers have coached some of the best international sides and almost all of them have still fallen short.

So it doesn't matter if you're England or if you're some other country.  It doesn't matter if you're talking about Southgate or if you're talking about some other manager.  You can't expect anyone just to stroll in and win these things just because they have a few decent players available to them.  Dismissing an international manager as a "failure" when they have reached semi finals and finals is entitlement bordering on insanity.

[mrmeee17]

I think Southgate will have underachieved if he does poorly in this tournament, also considering the fact that he will have failed to win any of multiple tournaments with one of the best teams of players in world football.

Just like the managers of those underachieving teams as you have astutely highlighted.

I can see that you are clearly very much more invested in this topic than I am willing to be so I will just leave it at that for today 

[JJ72]

1 hour ago, Rob1981 said:

Compare him to managers from whichever country you want

But if you do that, you can't just compare him to the handful of managers that you cherry picked because they have "actually won things".  You also have to compare him to the dozens and dozens that haven't.  We don't have a monopoly on bringing good teams but still going home disappointed.

What about the Dutch team in '98?  The one with Guus Hiddink in charge, a European Cup winning manager.  When he had players like Davids, Seedorf, Kluivert, Bergkamp, van der Sar, Stam, de Boer and the rest?  Semi finals, mate.  Change the manager for Euro 2000?  Same result again.  And then they followed that up by missing the next World Cup altogether.

The Italians always do well though, right?  Well, no.  They didn't win anything between 1982 and 2006.  An entire generation without a trophy for one of football history's most decorated sides.  Even though they had the richest league in the world for most of that time.  And even though there was a decade or so where Milan or Juventus were reaching the Champions League final virtually every year.

Portugal?  They lost five semi finals and a final before they eventually won a trophy in 2016.  The French?  They failed to qualify for two World Cups in a row in 1990 and 1994.  Right when Papin was winning the Ballon d'Or, and when they had players like Desailly, Ginola, Cantona, Blanc, Petit and Deschamps coming through.

Spain?  Christ.  They used to be worse than England for underachieving.  For eleven tournaments in a row they limped out in the quarters, or even sometimes before.  That was until they finally got the tiki-taka stuff to click in 2008-2012 of course.  But since then another decade has gone by and they haven't been back to another final.

Argentina couldn't even win a Copa America between 1993 and 2021, never mind a World Cup.  For 29 years, they couldn't even call themselves the best team in South America ffs.  Even though there are only two decent teams there.

Which brings us to Brazil of course.  The magical "Selecao".  We still talk about them in hushed tones because of Pele and because of 1970 and all that.  Well their record at the last five World Cups now reads: four quarter final exits, plus a semi final where they got pumped 7-1 in front of their own fans.

The point is, these tournaments are bloody hard to win.  Some of the world's best managers have coached some of the best international sides and almost all of them have still fallen short.

So it doesn't matter if you're England or if you're some other country.  It doesn't matter if you're talking about Southgate or if you're talking about some other manager.  You can't expect anyone just to stroll in and win these things just because they have a few decent players available to them.  Dismissing an international manager as a "failure" when they have reached semi finals and finals is entitlement bordering on insanity.

How long is it since we won something? Much longer than any of those countries you mentioned.

[VamPook]

All the teams mentioned, with star players and high expectations, yet failing to win, were considered abject failures in their time. Why should England be an exception if they fail once again this time round

[Rob1981]

50 minutes ago, JJ72 said:

How long is it since we won something? Much longer than any of those countries you mentioned.

Not sure why that’s relevant. I’m just saying that international tournaments are really hard to win. Because here are loads of examples of brilliant teams that didn’t win them.

[Rob1981]

48 minutes ago, VamPook said:

All the teams mentioned, with star players and high expectations, yet failing to win, were considered abject failures in their time.

They really weren’t. Not the teams from Italy and Portugal and Argentina and Netherlands that reached semi finals and finals during that period.

[aggressive minor]

Problem is Gareth is clearly out of his depth. You can have poor performances, results etc, but seeing a clear vision, plan and aptitude as a manager goes a long way. Southgate is being found out.

 

despite all that I’d love him to turn it around, but let’s see 

Edited Friday at 22:01 by aggressive minor

[enigmatic]

2 hours ago, JJ72 said:

How long is it since we won something? Much longer than any of those countries you mentioned.

That would tend to make the case that we're not some great team being held back by a lack of timely introductions of Jack Grealish and refusal to try to blow the opposition away instead of sitting on a lead...

Edited Friday at 22:03 by enigmatic

[ceefax the cat]

3 hours ago, JJ72 said:

How long is it since we won something? Much longer than any of those countries you mentioned.

That has zero bearing on any assessment of Gareth Southgate. If anything, it shows us that it's unrealistic to expect him to win a trophy. Bit of an own goal frankly

Tbh I'd retire unhurt at this point because Rob has conclusively rinsed any argument that Southgate, with his semi / final / quarters record, could possibly be considered anything like a failure. Only if he'd had an absolutely insane, obviously world-beating side at his disposal, such that we were turning up to tournaments as automatic clear favourites, could it be any other way. Give up. You need a major failure of perspective and a total lack of any grip on history to be beating Southgate up for anything other than our selections and style of play at this point - and even then, history is against you, particularly when it comes to England. To make his track record your hill to die on is to die pathetically on quite a small hill.

If your definition of a failed international manager is such that practically all of the managers - ever - of every single major footballing nation would be considered failures, maybe it's time to recalibrate? Maybe it's just really hard to put together a team that consistently gets to the business end of major tournaments and even then takes a lot of luck to win them, and that's ok?

Edited Friday at 22:43 by ceefax the cat

[arenaross]

I think it comes down to are you following the national team because you absolutely want to see them win above all else and you'll put up with the mind numbingly boring football, lack of structure and obscure in match decisions because somehow it gets the team through to semi finals and finals and you might fluke your way to a trophy. 

Or do you just want to enjoy watching the national team play some good football and if that sees you getting knocked out well so be it, at least the ride was fun. 

No right or wrong, people just want different things. 

[ceefax the cat]

41 minutes ago, arenaross said:

I think it comes down to are you following the national team because you absolutely want to see them win above all else and you'll put up with the mind numbingly boring football, lack of structure and obscure in match decisions because somehow it gets the team through to semi finals and finals and you might fluke your way to a trophy. 

Or do you just want to enjoy watching the national team play some good football and if that sees you getting knocked out well so be it, at least the ride was fun. 

No right or wrong, people just want different things. 

Declaring the manager a failure based on his achievements in tournaments does not have much to do with just wanting to see some pretty football

[EnterUsernameHere]

England fans are so baffling to me.

I think only France have a better squad right now (I don't rate Deschamps either), but he's had so long to build a proper team. 

You have people saying he's great because he can build togetherness. You have the same people giving out any excuse under the sun to defend him. 

I'm not English so I can't really say my opinion holds that much weight. But if you don't win the Euros here are you really going to say, we remember those exciting Southgate tournaments? 

Surely not. If he doesn't deliver a tournament it's bust for him. No trophy and no entertainment. The double whammy.

[JJ72]

7 hours ago, ceefax the cat said:

That has zero bearing on any assessment of Gareth Southgate. If anything, it shows us that it's unrealistic to expect him to win a trophy. Bit of an own goal frankly

Tbh I'd retire unhurt at this point because Rob has conclusively rinsed any argument that Southgate, with his semi / final / quarters record, could possibly be considered anything like a failure. Only if he'd had an absolutely insane, obviously world-beating side at his disposal, such that we were turning up to tournaments as automatic clear favourites, could it be any other way. Give up. You need a major failure of perspective and a total lack of any grip on history to be beating Southgate up for anything other than our selections and style of play at this point - and even then, history is against you, particularly when it comes to England. To make his track record your hill to die on is to die pathetically on quite a small hill.

If your definition of a failed international manager is such that practically all of the managers - ever - of every single major footballing nation would be considered failures, maybe it's time to recalibrate? Maybe it's just really hard to put together a team that consistently gets to the business end of major tournaments and even then takes a lot of luck to win them, and that's ok?

Or it's a matter of opinion and people are entitled to theirs. The majority believe he's a failure. 

I believe he's a failure. He should be competing at the highest level, that is making the final and playing good football with the skills at his disposal.  Anything else isn't good enough. 

Edited Saturday at 06:12 by JJ72

[m_fenton]

He made the final last Euros and, so far as is possible so far, is on course to again...

[WillHoward42]

8 hours ago, ceefax the cat said:

beating Southgate up for anything other than our selections and style of play at this point

I think for many, due to the vast amount of great players England currently have and the in game style/tactics Southgate has used, they deem ‘failure’

It’s all well and good naming other ‘great generations’ of teams over the past 30 years who have failed to win tournaments. I don’t know myself, but was that down to poor team cohesion? Poor set up? Difficult runs against difficult opposition?

For me, it’s not about comparing Southgate to any manager previous whether that be for England or other nations who have gone into tournaments as favourites.

It’s looking into what he has/hasn’t achieved based on the run of fixtures he has favourably found himself with during these tournament runs. I know people say England went into 2018 not expecting anything, which is probably expected. But getting to the semis and then losing to Croatia (were they really a better team/squad) a lot of England fans look at that as a wasted opportunity to make the final. In game management lost that game, which falls on Gareth.

2020, we made the final, I think this was a great achievement, however it again feels like wasted opportunity, on paper England had the better team and again, in game management led to that game going to penalties which is just a game of luck in the end.

2022, I actually think this was the most enjoyable in the way England played, and I consider it unlucky to have lost to eventual finalists France, we pushed them and on another day it could have gone Englands way

2024, maybe… maybe too soon to judge right now, but somethings not right. We certainly seemed to have regressed, even though I would argue we have better players, more winners/experience in the team than before. But that’s not at all being shown on the pitch. Which again is such an infuriating thing to see.

for those who back Southgate as someone who has turned around the nations fortunes, got us deeper into tournaments. I don’t see the argument for being positive for the dross England have our forward so far in this tournament. Maybe things change and we turn it around and go on to win. Maybe we limp out in the last 8 against Switzerland. But as of right now, it’s poor viewing, it’s poor results on the pitch and it’s entirely fair to suggest we are throwing away a great opportunity at a tournament win with the players we have.

Regardless of how this tournament ends, Gareth needs to go. We can thank him for at least making it enjoyable to support the England players which has genuinely been a vast improvement over what was before. But for me, it will be bitter sweet if we don’t win a tournament, when we have had a lot of big opportunities to do so.

[jonnybegood]

You can have someone analyse every detail of every international team, manager and tournament to me and no matter how many logical points are raised, I’ll never be able to praise Southgate. Ever. I hope when we’re finally put out of our misery this time around, he will finally slink away never to be mentioned again. There’s no pride in winning like this. We’ve topped the group again but I’ve not enjoyed one second of it. He’s made a final and semi-final but Its becoming more and more of an apathetic experience watching that now ive reached a peak in how much I can tolerate and for the first time I don’t just want to see us lose and eliminated, I’d love to see it because it’s what he and we deserve. I don’t care if it creates results and better tournament finishes then ever before, there’s no enjoyment watching and following this. I just want to smile once watching us and not moan and flap my arms in the air huffing for 90 minutes.

[TalkSport]

Looking at this side of the draw, reaching the final now is the minimum expectation.

Then come the final, it’s a toss up. Where unless you are unlucky, you expect Southgate to learn from his last final and that be the difference this time round.

3-0 v Slovakia

1-1Pens v Swiss

2-1ET v Holland 

[The_jagster]

Portugal winning in 2016 was the worst thing for international football because it convinced many people that was how you win tournaments, rather than a team that were fortunate at pretty much every stage except for beating Wales.

[enigmatic]

24 minutes ago, The_jagster said:

Portugal winning in 2016 was the worst thing for international football because it convinced many people that was how you win tournaments, rather than a team that were fortunate at pretty much every stage except for beating Wales.

Tbf I don't think anyone intentionally tries to be as dire as Portugal were for most of that tournament, and the fact that international tournaments are usually won by taking leads and holding onto them (and usually getting some good fortune in a couple of close games) rather than blowing everybody away was established a long time before that.

[Gizmo7]

1 hour ago, TalkSport said:

Looking at this side of the draw, reaching the final now is the minimum expectation.

Then come the final, it’s a toss up. Where unless you are unlucky, you expect Southgate to learn from his last final and that be the difference this time round.

3-0 v Slovakia

1-1Pens v Swiss

2-1ET v Holland 

You say reaching the final is the minimum expectation and then you go on to predict the QF & SF will be won by the tightest of margins, effectively a coin flip  

Imagine the uproar if we "only" beat the Swiss via a penalty shootout. 

[Divinity]

2 hours ago, m_fenton said:

He made the final last Euros and, so far as is possible so far, is on course to again...

Making the final of a home tournament is the minimum bar for any of the big 6 (France, Germany, Italy, England, Argentina, Brazil) I'd say. Don't think the manager of any of those should survive if they don't. Nagelsmann probably does simply by virtue of what happened beforehand.

e: Probably Spain as well.

Edited Saturday at 10:00 by Divinity

[Bootador]

Maybe we are being too harsh given his tournament record, but at this present time who's he getting the best of out of at the moment?

Not Kane
Not Bellingham
Not Foden
Not Saka
Not Rice
Not Trent

The system doesn't seem to be built for any of our best players, they're all playing sub par.

[Divinity]

I'm secretly hoping Trent gets pissed off with how he's horribly misused and retires from the national team.

Equally I find it ridiculous that none of those 6 Boots listed looks great, and indeed look poor. That's not the sign of someone good with tactics and enabling his players.

[m_fenton]

19 minutes ago, Divinity said:

Making the final of a home tournament is the minimum bar for any of the big 6 (France, Germany, Italy, England, Argentina, Brazil) I'd say. Don't think the manager of any of those should survive if they don't. Nagelsmann probably does simply by virtue of what happened beforehand.

e: Probably Spain as well.

So even something like Euro 96, going out to the eventual winners on penalties in the semi-final after an absolute belter of a match, would be a sackable offence?

[Rob1981]

18 minutes ago, m_fenton said:

So even something like Euro 96, going out to the eventual winners on penalties in the semi-final after an absolute belter of a match, would be a sackable offence?

Not good enough. Failures to a man. That’s why we are still wheeling them out for documentaries 25 years later.

May as well add Germany 2006 and Italy 1990 to your list. Home nations that “only” got to the semi finals. Chokers.

That’s why everyone in Italy hates Schillachi iirc.

Edited Saturday at 10:41 by Rob1981

[Bootador]

 

[Divinity]

56 minutes ago, m_fenton said:

So even something like Euro 96, going out to the eventual winners on penalties in the semi-final after an absolute belter of a match, would be a sackable offence?

1 hour ago, Rob1981 said:

May as well add Germany 2006 and Italy 1990 to your list.

Venables lost his job after 96. Vicini in 91 after failing to qualify for Euro 92.

Stop pretending these easy tournament runs should keep him in a job. He has winners in every position available to him and you still look like the most dull side in existance.

[darren1983]

9 minutes ago, Divinity said:

Venables lost his job after 96.

Venables leaving had nothing to do with how England did though. Hoddle was announced as manager before Euro 96 even happened 

[Rob1981]

5 minutes ago, Divinity said:

Venables lost his job after 96. Vicini in 91 after failing to qualify for Euro 92.

Venables had already been replaced before Euro 96 started. And he wasn’t sacked because of results or because of his style of football.

The FA refused to extend his contract at the back end of 1995, because they were embarrassed about his business dealings and a string of court cases he’d been involved in. It backfired on the FA massively because all the fans and players loved him after Euro 96 and wanted him to stay. But by then they’d already given the job to someone else. 

Just to set the record straight. We can keep arguing about Southgate all day if you want. But Venables being sacked because a semi final exit in a home tournament isn’t “good enough”. This is just plain wrong.

 

[Rob1981]

Or what @darren1983 said  

[Divinity]

1 hour ago, Rob1981 said:

This is just plain wrong.

Keep.settling for underachieving then, because if you're not winning a tournament at home, you're never winning one again.

[Pukey]

4 minutes ago, Divinity said:

Keep.settling for underachieving then, because if you're not winning a tournament at home, you're never winning one again.

Germany won one just two world cups after losing on home soil. Even if you're trying to refer to England specifically it's still not a good point, Southgate's gone either way after this tournament.

[eenie]

3 hours ago, Rob1981 said:

Venables had already been replaced before Euro 96 started. And he wasn’t sacked because of results or because of his style of football.

The FA refused to extend his contract at the back end of 1995, because they were embarrassed about his business dealings and a string of court cases he’d been involved in. It backfired on the FA massively because all the fans and players loved him after Euro 96 and wanted him to stay. But by then they’d already given the job to someone else. 

Just to set the record straight. We can keep arguing about Southgate all day if you want. But Venables being sacked because a semi final exit in a home tournament isn’t “good enough”. This is just plain wrong.

 

Yep, Venables leaving had absolutely zero to do with football. I am sure that had Venables not already had his jotters before the tournament started, he would have been kept on rather than replaced by Hoddle, because the players loved him, he played good football in the main, and the public were very much behind him.

[Darren Moores Mum]

Wrong thread

Edited Saturday at 16:38 by Darren Moores Mum

[Baptista_8]

4 hours ago, Divinity said:

He has winners in every position available to him and you still look like the most dull side in existance.

A-men.

He's happy with how we progressed the ball into the final third the other night apparently and 'we just need a bit more quality'. Load of rubbish.

[JJ72]

Switzerland if we bore past Slovakia...guy has the lack of the devil

[Rob1981]

What, so Italy would have been a harder opponent?  Even though Switzerland have just played them off the park?

I'm starting to think maybe international football isnt for you.

[RTHerringbone]

Yeah, not a pre-pre defeat apologist here, but the Swiss were very effective in that match because they were extremely organised (and Italy were disastrous).

But in a jibe at GS - the Swiss built a functional system and didn't focus on individuals.

[JJ72]

8 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

What, so Italy would have been a harder opponent?  Even though Switzerland have just played them off the park?

I'm starting to think maybe international football isnt for you.

One is 10th in the rankings, one 19th. I'll leave you to work out which is which. Maybe international football isn't for you? Retire with Southgate and all is forgiven

[Rob1981]

Careful. If you start shouting about the FIFA rankings, you might have to credit Gareth for keeping us in our highest ever position 

[JJ72]

24 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

Careful. If you start shouting about the FIFA rankings, you might have to credit Gareth for keeping us in our highest ever position 

We've dropped a place though

[ceefax the cat]

Some of the insane logic and cognitive dissonance in here from people desperate to condemn Southgate... wow. Looking at the history of these tournaments, seeing that it is undeniably very rare for even the most blessed, talent-packed sides to consistently challenge, let alone win, and then just shrugging: "Nah I still think he should've won the Euros bare minimum and done better than semis / quarters in World Cups". It's literally just fv<king wrong. You can't just put your fingers in your ears, block out the world and keep repeating that opinion like it means anything in the face of facts and the entire history of football.

If you think England's team in these tournaments was so much stronger than the competition that it was almost inevitable they'd win, then fine, but then you're just wrong aren't you? Because it obviously wasn't. And if you don't think the team was that much stronger than everybody else, then you're not making any sense with your expectations and should go for a nap because you're just inventing a parallel football world in your head just for Gareth Southgate and using that instead of the real one.

You can talk about style of play and team selection all you like, and these are woolly, subjective matters, but when it comes to the simple matter of getting to finals and winning trophies, the data is in front of you, there's plenty of it, and what is likely or what can be expected on the balance of probabilities (regardless of how strong your squad might be, or how fancied to win) is, really, not that subjective at all. The answer is, undeniably, categorically, resoundingly: it's not that likely, even if you're one of the best sides or playing at home, there's a ton of luck involved, and you should be surprised and delighted if you find yourself in with a shot at a final. I get that people are frustrated with the way England play because they want us to score loads of goals and win and be fun, but why transmute that into just wallowing in wrongness and being totally, obviously wrong?

It is a fact that almost no international side ever can consider it likely that they'll get to or win a final.

Edited Saturday at 22:49 by ceefax the cat

[WillHoward42]

Wouldnt want to lose the momentum from the Slovenia game, would we Gareth?

I genuinely think the man is on the troll now

[VP.]

27 minutes ago, WillHoward42 said:

Wouldnt want to lose the momentum from the Slovenia game, would we Gareth?

I genuinely think the man is on the troll now

Nothing matters anyway as we just need a 'ton of luck' apparently 👍

[Rob1981]

Jesus wept. You need “luck” when you get into semi finals and finals and start playing other really strong teams.

With the players we’ve got, we should obviously be beating Slovakia in a R16 game. If we don’t this tournament can rightly be filed away as a disaster.

But that still won’t mean you can retro-fit your story that says we have always underachieved under Southgate and never played any attacking football. It simply isn’t true.