Too many England 'fans' not supporting England

[Redshift]

Look, if we manage to beat the Netherlands I’m sure all will be forgiven and Rob can gloat all he wants  At the end of the day we just want to get to the final and then who knows what will happen. People say the Netherlands aren’t a great team but they are going to be our biggest test so far and they should not be underestimated.  

[oche balboa]

Southgate is a lucky coach and we have ridden our luck and beat some poor sides only just. We should have won Euro 2020 for example but we lost on penaltes to an aging Italian team who were lucky themselves. 

I will always support England regardless. 

[Barry Cartman]

Not sure how much gloating Rob could do if an England side lacking experience and a centre back partnership that had never played together, reached the final  

[ceefax the cat]

24 minutes ago, oche balboa said:

We should have won Euro 2020 for example

No team can say that.

England are not and never have been a team that has a right to expect to win trophies. That we got as close as we did was down to Gareth Southgate.

Where do you get this mad idea that England should have been expected to win Euro 2020? It can only be their performance in the 2018 World Cup, engineered by [checks notes] Gareth Southgate, a sudden improvement after years of miserable football and total failure in tournaments.

It's amazing that turning the team from a load of abject w@nk into a side capable of squirming into a World Cup semi final buys him nothing from you but a huff if he doesn't convincingly win the very next tournament. I say convincingly because you clearly weren't content with just getting to the final and, once there, were appalled that we let it go to penalties. Only a resounding win in normal time in our first final since 1966 would have satisfied your minimum requirements. Do you understand how mad that is?

Football fans are just cr@p aren't they? Whether it's this, or dishing out loads of abuse but being totally unable to deal with criticism of their fandom.... The dynamic between fans and teams isn't really about support and loyalty at all is it? As we see whenever things are even slightly less than rosey, it's more like a mutually abusive relationship.

Edited July 8 by ceefax the cat

[git2thachoppa]

4 hours ago, The Amazing Dale Watkins said:

The argument amounts to results trumping everything else, but if you look at how the results were achieved, they cannot reasonably be replicated using the tactics employed. England would have been rightfully eliminated by Slovakia in the round of 16 had it not been for a dramatic stoppage-time bicycle kick, a moment of individual brilliance. That moment doesn't vindicate Southgate in any way. If you were to replay the last ten minutes of that game, 98 out of a hundred times, England would now be home, and Gareth would be sacked. The criticism isn't that England isn't playing beautifully enough; it's that they don't play in a way that's likely to succeed. Just because they miraculously made it through to the semi-finals isn't a vindication but a further reminder of how much luck it took.  

So his performance being better and more consistent than England's ever had is luck for nearly a decade?

Then why hasn't it happened before, with better players?

If we're playing multiverse, then it's not just that England are reaching the stages they have, but doing so better than before. Roy and McClaren's England would've lost to Colombia or Sweden. Sven's England would've finished 2nd or 3rd and scraped 1-0s against Senegal and Ukraine. All with better players.

 

[Rob1981]

1 hour ago, Barry Cartman said:

Not sure how much gloating Rob could do if an England side lacking experience and a centre back partnership that had never played together, reached the final  

Honestly. The longer the month goes on, the less I think I am defending Southgate and the more I think I am just having to explain again and again how international tournaments work.

[git2thachoppa]

11 minutes ago, InigoPatinkin said:

But that's not the case anymore.

Kane - 44 goals

Bellingham - 23 goals

Foden - 27 goals

Palmer - 25 goals

Saka - 20 goals 

Watkins - 27 goals

Bowen - 20 goals

Has an England team ever gone into a tournament with 7 players who scored 20+ goals in a top league the season before the tournament? Has any national team ever gone into a tournament with that many 20+ goal a season players? And that doesn't even include Gordon (12) and Eze (11). 

This England team should be pissing goals, instead it can barely get the ball into the opposition half when the opponent doesn't sit back. I've been a proponent of Gareth's previous "limited group of players playing to their strengths" style of tournament football. But Southgate hasn't picked that type of style this time round, he's picked a bunch of players he clearly doesn't know how to coach. That's on him. 

What you're replying to was about the team's overachievement in 2018.

But in reply to your subject, the team could start pissing goals both ends if they did that. If that old England style isn't Gareth's forté, fine, I'm happy for him to do what he wants, he's got results so far and knows better than me and everyone at the pub, evidently.

I've had decades of pissing goals both ends and severely dehydrated as a result. Now I'd like to see (and have seen) something different - maturity and wins, rather than the Argentines and Portuguese doing it to us (and then us complaining why we don't play like that).

Edited July 8 by git2thachoppa

[Rob1981]

If Spain go out in the QF, nobody is talking about their xG in 10 years’ time. The record books just say that they went out in the QFs.

That’s not to say England have played well. But these big tournament games are going to hinge on odd moments either way.

[The_jagster]

The Spanish manager was also getting criticised for shutting up shop too much towards the end, it's not like people are saying Spain are perfect.

But there is a speed to their passing as they progress the ball that is a world away from England. I'm sure Murat Yakin is a moderately competent manager, but basically turning a game against this Switzerland into a toss up shouldn't be the limit of our ability.

[PaulHartman71]

23 minutes ago, InigoPatinkin said:

Like I said, I've previously been pro-Gareth. I think the anti-Southgate people who are saying this is business as usual are just as disingenuous as the people who are pretending this is totally normal and this tournament hasn't been different to the ones before it. I don't mind playing low-ambition tournament football to get results. But that's not what Southgate is going. He's packed the team full of players who don't play that way and given them no plan to be able to succeed. 

If he'd picked Gordon, Kane and Saka up front and was sitting deep and compact and attacking directly in wide areas I'd buy into it. But that's not what he's doing this time around and he's gotten away with it with an outrageous amount of luck.   

I think this is it for me 

If we were genuinely playing very defensively on the counter to try and get through then that would still be crap to watch, but at least that’s what the tactic is. Off the ball against the Swiss I’m not really sure what the tactic was, it reminded me of latter day Wenger sides where we’re not really pressing, but we’re not really keeping a rigid defensive shape either, it’s sort of like we’re half heartedly pressing a bit and just hoping to win the ball back. 

In both knockout games we’ve gone behind and only when we’re losing do the players actually press properly and look to get the ball forward with any intensity. When we do that we actually look a half decent side and capable of scoring goals. 

[Barry Cartman]

5 minutes ago, The_jagster said:

The Spanish manager was also getting criticised for shutting up shop too much towards the end, it's not like people are saying Spain are perfect.

But there is a speed to their passing as they progress the ball that is a world away from England. I'm sure Murat Yakin is a moderately competent manager, but basically turning a game against this Switzerland into a toss up shouldn't be the limit of our ability.

Rodri was dead on his feet in extra time, but was still pinging 1st time balls with his back to play between the German lines to progress forward, whilst we're passing it 20 times between defence and midfield going nowhere 

[GunmaN1905]

3 minutes ago, InigoPatinkin said:

Nobody is going to talk about anyone other than the winners in 10 years time.

Then the question becomes what's actually the best way to win games.

England's defense is shaky and out of sync, that's obvious to everyone. Add Pickford into the equation and suddenly a team that's trying to outscore the competition has more chances to win the tournament than a team focused on (badly) defending their goal.

Slovakia and Switzerland got to the English box way too easily with limited players at their disposal.

[PaulHartman71]

6 minutes ago, Barry Cartman said:

Rodri was dead on his feet in extra time, but was still pinging 1st time balls with his back to play between the German lines to progress forward, whilst we're passing it 20 times between defence and midfield going nowhere 

At one point we went from an attacking corner back to Pickford  

In the pub I watched it people were sarcastically cheering when the ball went back to Pickford in the second half and extra time. 

[Barry Cartman]

10 minutes ago, PaulHartman71 said:

At one point we went from an attacking corner back to Pickford  

In the pub I watched it people were sarcastically cheering when the ball went back to Pickford in the second half and extra time. 

I ended up meeting friends in a pub with the kids watching on a tiny TV I can barely see, think that and the beer helped a lot  

[TM]

52 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

If Spain go out in the QF, nobody is talking about their xG in 10 years’ time. The record books just say that they went out in the QFs.

That’s not to say England have played well. But these big tournament games are going to hinge on odd moments either way.

look at the 1990 World Cup for something that wasn't great but is rememebered as a "great tournament" because of moments - Pavarotti with Nessun Dorma and it being the theme tune for BBC's coverage, Roger Milla scoring goals and then running to the corners to celebrate, Cameroon shocking Argentina in the first game with Argentina stumbling their way to the final due to penalty kicks.  England getting to the SF but in reality only playing one good game as they struggled through the groups, Belgium and Cameroon and were unlucky against Germany.

people go on about that tournament as if it was great and it was actually the reason why the backpass rule was introduced coming back to 2024, England and the other teams in the final can only beat the teams infront of them.  The idea of "they haven't beaten anyone good" has came up a number of times in other team's past runs to European or World Cup finals, it's not just confined to England

[Yuko]

On 07/07/2024 at 14:17, Divinity said:

Compare Man City Foden to England Foden - the problem isn't the player.

Is it his teammates?

[git2thachoppa]

Clearly Euro 2000 was England's peak - loads of goals and excitement.

Beat the Germans too (no one then was moaning they weren't as good as they used to be).

Edited July 8 by git2thachoppa

[TM]

2004 for me, Rooney looked unstoppable until his injury and England were dismantling teams in the groups other than France where it was a game England dominated and then lost in a few minutes of madness

[Baptista_8]

On 07/07/2024 at 12:21, decapitated said:

This won't make me popular but I agree with you. England fans are hyper-critical and extremely entitled. They moan when they aren't winning, and then when they are, moan they aren't winning "with style". I would rather have an ugly defensive tournament win than 'playing good football' and going out in the quarter-finals like in the Sven years. 

Did we play 'good football' in the Sven years? The side was unbalanced for most of it IIRC. 2004 was exciting because of Rooney - I do believe we'd have won that had he not got injured.

Anyway, with the players we have now, it would be good for Southgate to be getting somewhere near the best out of them so we could have some confidence that when we do face a top side, we won't go out pitifully. But he gets absolutely nowhere near the best out of them because he picks an unbalanced side and doesn't drop players who don't work in the system.

[git2thachoppa]

34 minutes ago, Baptista_8 said:

Did we play 'good football' in the Sven years? The side was unbalanced for most of it IIRC. 2004 was exciting because of Rooney - I do believe we'd have won that had he not got injured.

Anyway, with the players we have now, it would be good for Southgate to be getting somewhere near the best out of them so we could have some confidence that when we do face a top side, we won't go out pitifully. But he gets absolutely nowhere near the best out of them because he picks an unbalanced side and doesn't drop players who don't work in the system.

He dropped Maguire, Henderson, Phillips, Sterling. But he's not gonna knee-jerk throw out a plan during a tournament, one that's so far achieved. Why would anyone? And we know he's gonna pick a right-back on the left he has more faith in them than a left-back, that's just his way. And such an approach got them to 2 semis and a final.

Whether I think he's too slow replacing players or not, fact is he's got results better than me, you, and the past dozen managers, so I'll shut up trying to give my advice to him.

No one should abandon their way to appease randoms who are less qualified but are shouting on internet. We can all agree on that, so let's apply it.

Edited July 8 by git2thachoppa

[GunmaN1905]

21 minutes ago, git2thachoppa said:

He dropped Maguire, Henderson, Phillips, Sterling.

Sterling was the only one who got dropped because of form.
Maguire is injured and other two fell off to the level where it would be embarrassing to call them up.
 

Quote

But he's not gonna knee-jerk throw out a plan during a tournament, one that's so far achieved.

What plan? I don't want to be condescending or anything, but do you really see a plan in EURO 2024 England?
Does the team give you confidence when defending? Because to me it looks like low quality teams are creating chances fairly easy against such defensive setup.

Quote

 

Why would anyone? And we know he's gonna pick a right-back on the left he has more faith in them than a left-back, that's just his way. And such an approach got them to 2 semis and a final.

 

I guess Shaw didn't play in two previous tournaments and it was his tactical decision to play Trippier on the left and not a last resort.

Quote

Whether I think he's too slow replacing players or not, fact is he's got results better than me, you, and the past dozen managers, so I'll shut up trying to give my advice to him.

Give a team that's exponentially more expensive than the opposition he's been facing on this tournament to a League One manager and most of them luck their way into the semi-final with this draw.

Quote

No one should abandon their way to appease randoms who are less qualified but are shouting on internet. We can all agree on that, so let's apply it.

But he did abandon his ways. England looks significantly worse than in Qatar.

If going from 12 goals in 4 matches to 5 in 5+ (two extra times) is fine to you, then idk what to tell you.

I don't want to sound condescending because I'm not some huge football expert, but if you don't see how horrible England looks both offensively and defensively in this tournament, then I don't know what to tell you.

If you're going to reply with how France and Portugal are also turgid, I'll tell you that's exactly the reason why England should've seized the opportunity and rolled through the tournament. Because Portugal was Cristiano's hostage and France for all their depth doesn't have a class creative player except Griezmann who looks past it.

Instead you're out here, on a random internet forum, telling people not to criticize Gareth's winning combination because scoring a stoppage time scissors kick equalizer against mighty Slovakia and surviving Swiss attacks in extra time, including a crossbar, was all a part of a genius masterplan.

Get a grip.

[EnterUsernameHere]

16 hours ago, ceefax the cat said:

No team can say that

Hmm. Maybe not Spain 2008 given their record, but Spain 2014 can definitely say that. That team was far and away better than the rest.

[Divinity]

15 hours ago, Rob1981 said:

If Spain go out in the QF, nobody is talking about their xG in 10 years’ time. The record books just say that they went out in the QFs.

Sorry, but that's just some ********. People don't remember Brazil 82 for how far they got in the competition (and I'd wager most people straight up don't know without searching). Likewise Germany in 06, who played a brand of football far disconnected with what they'd done for decades previously. There's often examples of those sorts of things at every tournament. It's outrageous to say people's memories are directly tied to their finishing position.

Although maybe if you're so desperate for success as an England fan, maybe that's the problem. You can't enjoy it otherwise.

[ceefax the cat]

3 hours ago, EnterUsernameHere said:

Hmm. Maybe not Spain 2008 given their record, but Spain 2014 can definitely say that. That team was far and away better than the rest.

As I've pointed out in previous posts, there are a handful of teams in history who you could say would have had a right to feel disappointed with anything other than a trophy win: Hungary 1954, Pelé's Brazil, Cruyff's Netherlands and Spain 2010. To put any of Southgate's England squads anywhere near that bracket would obviously be insane.

Edited July 9 by ceefax the cat

[Deisler26]

I don't think I've supported England since about 2006?

Constantly playing the same players over and over again, although I will admit, he did well taking Gordon, Wharton et al this year, but left-sided Trippier is equivalent to taking a 16 year old Walcott 'for the ride'

[Rob1981]

1 hour ago, Deisler26 said:

left-sided Trippier is equivalent to taking a 16 year old Walcott 'for the ride'

 

Mate, I think reality wants another word.

Trippier is a veteran of three previous tournaments. A La Liga winner, a Champions League runner up. Is it ideal playing him at left back instead of a left footer? No. But he’s played there for England before at major tournaments. He’s also played there for Atletico Madrid. He has just about done a job whether people like it or not. Plus he can cover RB if anything happens to Kyle Walker. It’s not hard to understand why he’s in the squad, especially when they expected Luke Shaw to be back two or three games earlier and not to need Trippier covering LB for as many games.

But Walcott? Walcott had never kicked a ball in the Premier League when he was randomly drafted in for 2006. Ever. Nobody expected him to be there. Nobody could understand why he was there. Then even after we’d lost Michael Owen to injury and Wayne Rooney to a red card he still never even got on the field because the manager was scared to risk him.

Also, let’s not forget Trippier is in there as an emergency LB because there aren’t that many other options. Whereas Walcott was keeping people like Jermaine Defoe and Darren Bent out of the squad somehow, even those guys were coming in off decent PL seasons.

I mean, don’t get me wrong. We should obviously have taken another left footer along. But comparing Trippier to Walcott is literally insane. Possibly the worst take of the entire Euros sub-forum. And the competition is fierce.

Edited July 9 by Rob1981

[Ackter]

14 hours ago, GunmaN1905 said:

What plan? I don't want to be condescending or anything, but do you really see a plan in EURO 2024 England?
Does the team give you confidence when defending? Because to me it looks like low quality teams are creating chances fairly easy against such defensive setup.

The team does have a plan, its just not a very good one tht they're not very good at.

It's annoying and disingenuous that people are looking at the "success" and saying its working. It's not working. The "success" is in despite of the plan. 

[Gary_Parker]

3 hours ago, Rob1981 said:

He has just about done a job whether people like it or not

The usage of "just about" feels detrimental to the point you're making. 

I do get what you're saying though, Trippier is like the old dependable option, like a fullback version of Kalvin Phillips last tournament. Though in fairness, Trippier at left back isn't the problem with the way England are playing. Its an average team made up of very good individuals mixed in with the old dependable options that have "never let the manager down" historically. Its currently a mixture that is not getting the best out of the players available. Of course, its also got the team to the semi final, it would be mad to change it up now.

Just got to ride the wave of mediocrity and see where it takes you. Could be another glorious failure "if only" campaign or the least attractive winning side since Greece 2004

 

[Ackter]

This is way less attractive than the Greece win. The Greece win was a testament to tactical nous.

[Yuko]

1 hour ago, Ackter said:

This is way less attractive than the Greece win. The Greece win was a testament to tactical nous.

Greece got through from a group with:

- Portugal (finalists, one of the favorites as well)

Spain (which wasn't the typical 90s choke team but the 2002 one could have reached the WC final if it wasn't for that scandal - considered a top 5 favorite iirc at the time)

and Russia (exciting team actually that reached SF in the next edition of 2008) 

Then beat France in the KO, a game that looked more 50-50 when played than any other.

Then beat Czech Republic team with Nedved (got injured early in the game), Rosicky, Cech, Koller, Poborsky, Jankulovski, Baros, Ujfalujsi, Galasek, Smicer, Grygera etc and possibly everyone's favorite team outside the standard top sides.

Then beat Portugal again, who knew what Greece was made of.

 

I don't think anyone can attribute what Greece has done to luck based on who was against them.. 

You can say the same for most finalists from the 1996-2012 era. A random QF in ten, or maybe a random team here or there from the group was the only outliers you could find. 

 

 

Unlike a path where you get to play Serbia, Denmark, Slovenia, Slovakia, Switzerland and now the Netherlands that finished 3rd and no one paid much attention to - aside from their fans. 

So England now plays two 3rd placed teams and one group runner up to reach the final. In the 2020 edition England faced 2 runners up and 1 third placed team (obviously not England's fault that Sweden and Italy respectively failed but it is what it is)

On the contrary, in 2016 Portugal was that 3rd placed team, whereas France beat a group winner in the SF. Same with Portugal, who faced Wales in the SF, till then it was runners up. Italy faced group winners in the QF, and two runners up in 2020(1). 

In the 2024 edition, Spain has played Germany who are group winners, and France managed to be runners up so there goes that. Georgia was 3rd place. 

France gets to play with fellow runners up Belgium, then group winners Portugal, then group winners Spain. And that would make it the toughest path to a final in this new format since 2016.

Which could be also be the case for the Netherlands. Group winners Romania, then runners up Turkey, then group winners England. 

 

Neutrals are probably rooting for a France vs Netherlands final, although lots of neutrals like Spain as well since they play the best football. France has a following due to the brand value of some of their key players. England on the other hand doesn't have that many neutrals, but it has a bunch of people all over the world that support them every time. Can't tell if there's more or fewer nowadays, but it's still a cult-ish following. Not referring to the English people of course, but the "neutrals", who get more of a say on whether they'll support a national team or not.

[m_fenton]

Team that manages to top group gets easier path than teams that came second shocker...

Denmark last time around were a very good side, until England beat them and they're "just Denmark" again. Same for the Swiss this time - a good enough team to wipe the floor with Italy, absolutely play them off the park, but "just Switzerland" after losing to England.

Roll on "just 3rd placed Netherlands" and "just runners up France" too please in that case!

[Rob1981]

38 minutes ago, m_fenton said:

Same for the Swiss this time - a good enough team to wipe the floor with Italy, absolutely play them off the park, but "just Switzerland" after losing to England.

If you take the Switzerland game in isolation. I mean, it was basically… fine?

Pretty much what you would expect if you woke from a coma to be told Switzerland were in a quarter final against one of the favourites. Favourites dominate possession in the first half, but chances are at a premium. Switzerland settle into the game and have a spell in the second half where they are on top but can’t make it count. Favourites grind it out and find a way.

If we’d looked sharper in the group stage I think we could have still played out almost EXACTLY the same match against Switzerland. And people would be praising us for getting the job done against a decent side instead of moaning that we still hadn’t improved enough.

[Yuko]

12 hours ago, m_fenton said:

Team that manages to top group gets easier path than teams that came second shocker...

Denmark last time around were a very good side, until England beat them and they're "just Denmark" again. Same for the Swiss this time - a good enough team to wipe the floor with Italy, absolutely play them off the park, but "just Switzerland" after losing to England.

Roll on "just 3rd placed Netherlands" and "just runners up France" too please in that case!

Yet others who topped their groups never had such an easy (on paper) path in this format.

 

No one belittles the teams quality, but these aren't the teams you'd expect to play at that stage. You cannot disagree with that.

[m_fenton]

26 minutes ago, Yuko said:

Yet others who topped their groups never had such an easy (on paper) path in this format.

 

No one belittles the teams quality, but these aren't the teams you'd expect to play at that stage. You cannot disagree with that.

Would you say it's harder to play against "on paper better" Italy, or "actually better" Switzerland?

[oche balboa]

Southgate has had some almost handpicked runs 

Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Denmark, Switzerland are exactly that. Netherlands is almost the same 

 

[Rob1981]

1 hour ago, Yuko said:

these aren't the teams you'd expect to play at that stage. You cannot disagree with that.

Maybe you missed the massive list of the runs other teams have had down the years:

• Brazil '94: USA, Netherlands, Sweden
• Italy '94: Nigeria, Spain, Bulgaria
• France '98: Paraguay, Italy, Croatia
• Brazil '98: Chile, Denmark, Netherlands
• Germany '02: Paraguay, USA, South Korea ()
• Brazil '02: Belgium, England, Turkey
• Italy '06: Australia, Ukraine, Germany
• Netherlands '10: Slovakia, Brazil, Uruguay
• Argentina '14: Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands
• Portugal '16: Croatia, Poland, Wales
• France '16: Ireland, Iceland, Germany
• Croatia '18: Denmark, Russia, England
• England '20: Germany, Ukraine, Denmark
• Italy '20: Austria, Belgium, Spain
• France '22: Poland, England, Morocco
• Argentina '22: Australia, Netherlands, Croatia

And tonight you can add either:

• England '24: Slovakia, Switzerland, Netherlands
• Netherlands '24: Romania, Turkey, England

These paths are really nothing out of the ordinary.  Especially when it is one of the strongest Swiss teams we've seen in there.

Again, this isn't a defence of the way England have played.  But if we make the final it will be because we have improved at the right time and finally turned in a couple of better performances towards the end.  Not because we have had some freakish luck of the draw that other teams don't get.  A lot of previous finalists have only had to beat one team that's really been on their level.

If you find yourself on a collision course with three big teams one after the other... Guess what?  You don't very often get through. 

[Ackter]

But you havent improved - that's the argument. You've skin-of-your-teethed it all the way despite shocking performances from nearly every player on the pitch.

[Rob1981]

2 minutes ago, Ackter said:

But you havent improved - that's the argument. You've skin-of-your-teethed it all the way despite shocking performances from nearly every player on the pitch.

Right.  But we will HAVE to improve to win tonight.  So if we make the final we will have improved and played our best two games against Switzerland/Netherlands.

But again, the argument wasn't about whether England have played well or played badly.

The argument was that other teams have "never had such an easy path" as Slovakia-Switzerland-Netherlands.  But this is clearly not the case.

[Ackter]

I mean you don't have to iprove to win tonight, you could just ********* your way through again with an extra time win

[Rob1981]

3 minutes ago, Ackter said:

I mean you don't have to iprove to win tonight, you could just ********* your way through again with an extra time win

I'd take that.

An ugly extra time win against a good Netherlands... rather than an ugly extra time win over a mediocre Slovakia.  That's still has to be an improvement, right?

[eenie]

12 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

Right.  But we will HAVE to improve to win tonight.  So if we make the final we will have improved and played our best two games against Switzerland/Netherlands.

No, that's a total fallacy. You could get past Netherlands playing exactly the same way as previous games without any improvement in performance. You could play turgid, ultra-cautious safety-first football for 120 mins then win on pens (and that's pretty much what I expect to happen, tbh).

Might be your best game in terms of progressing through the competition but the criticism isn't about getting through the ties, it's in the way you've done it.

[git2thachoppa]

Croatia and Netherlands have the audacity to finish 3rd, but the worst anti-fans would see them as favourites against England.

Switzerland tripped up Italy and France in the last 2 Euros, drew with Spain and hosts Germany, but the apparently worse England get past them and it's a crisis that they didn't cruise to victory in 90 minutes.

Edited July 10 by git2thachoppa

[Redshift]

I don’t think it matters at this stage now. Getting to the final will be massive if we can pull it off. I’m hopeful that Southgate’s style of football will be more effective against teams that go for us more so fingers crossed. 

[Rob1981]

8 minutes ago, eenie said:

No, that's a total fallacy. You could get past Netherlands playing exactly the same way as previous games without any improvement in performance.

Dunno.

If you win by one-goal against a good team... you have probably had to play better than you had to play to win by one-goal against an average team.

This might be another fun argument tonight.

"Are England still awful even though they have won again, and even though their opponents keep getting better?"

[mrmeee17]

At this stage I don't really care anymore how we win as long as we win.

But based on everything I've seen so far this tournament, we have been winning in spite of, rather than because of, Southgate.

[Citizen Sandman]

i'm not particularly nationalistic at all, I don't really feel an allegiance to England just because I was born here tbh. I respect good football teams

[Haguey]

Don't you support Blackburn

[Citizen Sandman]

16 minutes ago, Haguey said:

Don't you support Blackburn

I also pretend it's still 1993 > 2008 in my general lifestyle

[git2thachoppa]

Another win, another final.

With luck this plentiful, I expect 20 teams to win next season's premier league if you can just fluke your way to overperformance over 6 or so years.

Hope the few English Anyone But England fans can get past the misery today created.

Edited July 10 by git2thachoppa

[Anti Spiral]

42 minutes ago, git2thachoppa said:

 

Hope the few English Anyone But England fans can get past the misery today created.

I am not a big fan of the england national team, i support them but don't watch most the matches and am not really bothered if they win or lose.  But I am VERY much enjoying the meltdowns from the anti England fans   .