ceefax the cat

Nobody gives a 5h!t til the quarters/ semis really, in terms of lasting memories

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?

"The best squad of players I've ever known... well, if you include the ones who aren't in the squad" What The left back issue alone makes it inferior to every other squad Southgate has taken to a tournament, as far as I'm concerned.

You said we had probably the best squad of players you've ever known

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/27/austria-are-everything-england-are-not-and-never-have-been-euro-2024

Hmmmmmm sooooo I think the brand new, untested centre back pairing (featuring a Crystal Palace player with 14 caps), mysterious gap in central midfield and total lack of a left back instantly make it an inferior squad to some of our previous ones

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/27/austria-are-everything-england-are-not-and-never-have-been-euro-2024 I think there is a very good point in there re England's 'minimum expectations', I don't feel there's much need to add to the righteous pasting VP has already received but... yeah. This tournament aside, people will remember coming within a couple of penalties of winning the Euros, the win against Germany, being in a World Cup semi and putting on a decent display against France, yep. A better legacy than almost any other England manager, in terms of memories, but memories take a while to become legends. For all the kids who were 12 - 20 years old in the summer of 2021, smashing Germany and Ukraine en route to an agonising final defeat at Wembley will be their Euro '96. When they grow up some of them will become comedians, TV presenters and pop stars who will appear as talking heads on cheap BBC montage shows, waxing lyrical about Pickford saying 'No problem' before Jorginho's penalty, or Harry Maguire and the Love Train, Gareth's waistcoat, etc etc. They'll nostalgically play Olivia Rodrigo and Ed Sheeran over the top of it all and you will feel even older than you do right now.

Yyyyyyyep, you've nailed it! You've forgotten about all that awful football because your memories of past tournaments = the best performance + one or two goals if it went well, and near-total amnesia if it didn't. You don't remember us getting absolutely nowhere against Spain and Switzerland in 1996. You don't remember us almost getting done by Scotland (see: MacAlister's freak penalty miss) because Gazza scored that goal. You don't remember the blocky, sideways dross that Sven's awesomely talented side served up over and over again, including struggling to get the ball off Ecuador in the last 16 of a World Cup and squeaking past Paraguay thanks to an own goal. You don't remember the mind-numbing awfulness of the Italia 90 campaign, basically all the way up to the comeback against Cameroon, or how fortunate we were to dig out a last gasp winner v Belgium. You don't remember us totally failing to trouble Algeria in 2010 in one of the most aimless displays anyone can possibly ever have seen, from an England side featuring Ashley Cole, Terry, Lampard, Gerrard and Rooney. You don't remember going out with a whimper vs Iceland. Literally the refrain throughout this whole period has been, "How can these players, who light up the European stage with their clubs, look so leaden and clueless in England shirts?". Every tournament, absolutely without fail, since I can remember. Really, this is nothing new.

Indeed. I love that England have this surfeit of gifted number 10's and inside forwards, but without depth and width they've got nothing to work with. Kane, Foden, Saka and Bellingham all gathering in the middle for a D party while Trippier and Walker watch is just painful. Literally the highlight of most of our attacking moves at the moment is when they collapse under their own density and Rice steams in to counterpress. I don't for a second think Southgate is clueless but he's certainly eye-wateringly risk-averse. I don't think he particularly likes it when our games open up, because then we're more of a hostage to lucky counterattacks etc. Something like that. He'd rather bore the absolute t:ts off everyone including his own players, but mostly be in control of the game and on course for a clean sheet.

Bringing him on at half time when our left flank has congealed into nonsense sounds like just the ticket. And if he's not up to it, pleeeease just accept that we need Gordon. Width, directness, crosses fizzed across the six yard box from the byline... everything we don't currently have. He's not a better player than Palmer, Foden or Saka but he's exactly the laxative our attack needs. They'll play better if he's in the side.

If he comes into the team and does really well, are the fans going to start wearing red spots on their chins?

Here's a list of other clueless managers, then Fabio Capello Sven Goran Eriksson Bobby Robson Terry Venables Kevin Keegan Roy Hodgson Steve McClaren umm... Giovanni Trapattoni

Shaw likely not available, unless I've missed something No Rice is a bit mad Dropping Kane highly controversial but on current form, why not bring him on later 5/10

I can't quite be arsed to go through it, but it would be interesting to compile a list of tournament wins and final appearances Baptista_8 would be disappointed with or consider the bare minimum, because the team in question put in some mediocre performances, faced middling opposition on the way there, or were favourites to begin with. So Italy were very luck to beat Australia in 2006, Ukraine in the quarters, then won the final on pens after a fairly uninspiring game which probably wouldn't have satisfied his requirements. Actually, that semi with Germany in 2006 is probably a good example of the way one game can really alter perception of these tournaments. Euro 96 is considered glorious basically because we trounced Holland and gave Germany a good game - we made a right meal of Switzerland, Scotland and Spain. Italia 90 we were lucky to get anywhere at all - that boils down to another close game with Germany. Baptista would have been beside himself in the early stages of both. Don't want to pick on you, Baptista, sorry. I just get frustrated with some of the England-bashing and you happened to be here!

It is absolutely crazy to me that anyone can consider getting to within a couple of penalties of winning a tournament with England (in between World Cup semi and quarter finals) as being a failure, home advantage or not. There are few teams in history who were so obviously superior that they can reasonably have considered not winning a tournament to be beneath them - 50's Hungary, Pelé's Brazil, Cruyff's Netherlands, Spain 2010... not a lot else, and to put any of Southgate's England squads in that category would obviously be absolutely mental. Each time, we've been in the mix of teams who, with a bit of luck, and if it happens to click, could realistically reach the final, but by no means clear favourites. Other teams have Fodens, Bellinghams and Kanes and will win nothing. I have issues with the way England approach games and the boxy, sideways style of play they seem to lapse into when the pressure is on, but that problem is much older than Southgate, and semis / final / quarters is better than anyone else has done. The only team in this tournament that hasn't really struggled at all so far is Spain and almost never does a team play well all the way through and win it. I'm keen to move onto the next chapter after this, and I hope whoever comes in finds a way of unleashing the potential of Foden, Bellingham, Palmer etc, but to look back at Southgate's time and say we should have gone further (i.e; in order to have satisfied your minimum requirements he should've reached a World Cup final and won the Euros?) is just deranged. If we'd won that shootout with Italy, presumably you'd still be annoyed about Southgate's approach to the game and the fact we weren't able to win it in normal time?

Reasons to be positive: Plenty of teams have gotten to the finals of tournaments, or won them, after a rubbish start. Historically, there's a lot to be said for peaking late. Clean sheets / defensive solidity are a good indicator of tournament-winning potential, and so far the only goal we've conceded was an absolute pinger from 30 yards. The route to the final looks potentially quite juicy

It's true that the left side is a massive cul-de-sac. Foden's underlapping runs were the only hint of incisiveness. This is where we come back to Gordon who will simply bulldoze his way to the byline over and over again

If you prioritise balance at all costs rather than try to shoehorn your best players in, but consider Kane undroppable, what do you get? Probably either Gordon and Saka either side of Kane with Foden behind them and Bellingham / Rice as the pivot, same back 4 as now or Saka at LWB, Trippier/Trent RWB, Rice and Bellingham in the middle and Gordon + someone either side of Kane Either way, it's tempting to conclude that Gordon's energy and willingness to get in behind are something we need if Kane is to be Kaneing around up front like that.

Guehi, Stones, Walker :: Saka, Bellingham, Rice, Trippier :: Foden, Kane, Palmer it'd be something like that I suppose

Mainoo suuurely starts next game, no? Palmer and Gordon acquitted themselves really well too. I'd be concerned if I was Saka or Foden, especially Saka, who should maybe be competing for left back

Was that Baby Reindeer in the crowd????

yeah, last replay I saw it looked more like that. Orban steaming in and bouncing off Gundogan. Could do with seeing it one more time though

Would not have been surprised at all if that clear shoulder-barge into the defender's back had caused that goal to be ruled out. Does it count as shoulder to shoulder if you just knock them over from behind? Pretty dubious. If that happens in the course of a defender shepherding it out of play or an attacker wasting time keeping it in the corner, I feel like that is almost always a free kick, even if they obviously go down deliberately easily, which the defender in this case didn't. I'd feel pretty hard done by if I were them. "There was contact..." said the co-commentator. No sh*t Also looked like a handball at the other end, but no replay yet... Certainly a pen by the standards of today's plague of crappy, soft VAR handball penalties. Hands were most certainly not down by sides

You'll win because you're counterpressing and closing down all the time. It will have nothing to do with your target man, who will mostly be ignored. There is pretty much zero chance that any of your defenders will ever try to launch a long pass to his head / chest as part of your buildup, no matter what instructions you use. He exists only as a target for crosses, which will only ever be delivered from the final third, and goal kicks. He will tend to attract passes through midfield, much in the same way a playmaker does, for what that's worth.

doesn't look like it