Southgate has surprised me in all fairness. I'd give him his knighthood for the penalty shoot-out result. He certainly has limited product on the pitch, but has got them to the last 8. Sweden are no better than Columbia, and far less dirty, so the pathway is there to use to the semis.
Raheem Sterling, for example. No idea how we've got through. The decision to start Alli was plain nuts. To replace him with Dier and not RLC, effectively almost costing us the game, was double nuts. I have a bit of sympathy for Gareth, it's not like there's a great pool of talent, but games are crying out for someone to go back, get the ball and make something happen. Every nation has one, ours is at home purely because he plays for the Toon. If Jonjo still wore red he'd be there.
The dilemma now is whether to drop Sterling and risk breaking up a 'winning' team and bring in Rashford. Regarding last night's match, Colombia never really looked like scoring unless we either gifted them one or until they sent the cavalry forward in injury time.
Southgate has to learn from last night. The decision to bring on Dier nearly cost England the game. Terrible decision. I was a big fan of Dier but he has looked shocking since we got out here. He looks heavy, heavy legged and off the pace completely. We needed energy, we brought someone on to sit and invite them on instead. We'd done really really well up to that point to not allow there attacking threats into the last third. Henderson did well, Lingard did well, Alli still doesn't look right to me but the movement was good. It was crying out for Loftus Cheek. He needs to learn from it because we lack quality and depth. If we make that kind of decision against a France, Uruguay or Brazil we will get punished. We played an additional 30 mins we didn't need to last night. He has to learn that the good sides make sure they still carry a threat that enables you to break out and kill a game. On the bright side, we are through and I don't think any of the 3 teams left in our side of the draw are any better than Colombia. Possibly more disciplined but in terms of quality of player I don't think there is much difference. Croatia look a bit better I suppose but I'm not sure they've been fully tested and struggled past a Danish side who again although decent, you wouldn't put in the very top bracket of sides.
I was also baffled by Alli starting. It was clear to every man and his dog that he is not fit. RLC should have started and offers more as opposed to a 50% fit Alli. As for Dier, I just do not see anything good in his game. He is slow, never passes forward, never talks to people and it seemed to totally change the format of the game. His first action was to pass it backwards to fast to Walker who miss controlled it and they nearly scored. The most frustrating one for me is Sterling. There is a good player in there but for England he just does not seem to do it. He had a poor game again last night. I prefer Rashford!
It really was. Every man watching it knew the Dier decision was a bad one. Why invite pressure that hasn't been there for the entire match? Bringing on a poor mans Henderson was so stupid and ultimately, although not fatal, was quite costly because Walker picked up a knock and we've played 30 mins we didn't need to. Sterling for me just gets worse and worse. A pure confidence player, with no confidence. He starts badly and just makes mistake after mistake. He huffs and puffs but is just not Intl class. If he played for Newcastle, Southampton, or similar he wouldn't be in the squad, let alone starting. It's an alarming lack of awareness from Southgate; England have none of the players or ability of Man City, so how exactly is Sterling going to work? At this level you get a few chances at best - at City he's getting a dozen chances every match, so when he (inevitably) fcks up a few times, he still ends up on the scoresheet. Watch his goals - they're almost entirely tap ins, on a plate from Sane, De Bruyne or Silva. Final point - he's 100% not a fcking striker. If we were lining up with Lingard left and Sterling right of Kane, it might be better. But he's up top. Ludicrous. Southgate seems adept at one thing - managing people. He seems to be amiable, handles the press and pressures equally well. But his "tactics" are odd, if not missing entirely, and his decision making is abject at best. Alli shouldn't start the match, let alone come out for the second half. Seems to me that his style is "erm, excuse me, Dele - would you like to come off now?" rather than just managing it effectively. He gets credit for the spirit of the group but he's both a lucky bar steward and a crap football manager.
I can see what the idea is with Sterling. It makes complete sense for Kane basically, whereas Rashford doesn't. Sterling is intelligent enough to get in the right areas whereas Rashford looks more of an impact player with his running. His limitations (probably due to age to be fair) have been fully exposed when he starts for Man U or England. He lacks a bit of intelligence to make runs into the right areas, for your partner as much as anything else. Sterling does that and his buzzing around does create space for others like Lingard, Alli and Kane. The problem is Sterling's end product is currently woeful and he is actually breaking down as many moves as he is helping. I think we just have to accept it though as there is no one there suitable to put in. Rashford isn't that type and doesn't dovetail with Kane in the same way. The overall team tactics have to take precedence over anything for me because that is the reason we have got to this stage. We have a plan for once. I do think it raises certain questions about personnel. This is not a Shelvey rant either because its not even about him. Loftus Cheek fair enough, he seems a good back up option to Alli and Lingard. Delph - what does he bring to the party? We have Kane, Sterling, Welbeck, Rashford and Vardy. Three of the five are back up to Kane? Surely you leave Welbeck or Vardy at home and pick a back up to Sterling? Or is Southgate judging it wrong thinking Rashford is back up to Sterling? I don't mind us having different options like Vardy running in behind but we need options also when the system is working but the personnel isn't. I mentioned this pre tournament that you have to make use of every single squad space. We haven't done that. I suppose in Southgates defence, whereas that buzzy No.10 definitely works for England, locating other options to Sterling is not so easy.
Understand what you're saying, but Sterling for England is much more liability than use. He's playing as he does for Man City, where his constant failures are masked by the fact the rest of his team will ensure 96% possession and 241 chances every match. He costs momentum and possession consistently. I sound typically British moaning when we're in the quarter finals, mind! For me the system is flawed and we aren't making the most of our limited resources. Kyle Walker is a fab right back, Trippier an outstanding understudy. Rose, Shaw, Bertrand all really good options at left back. Yet we're playing a back 3 with Jordan Henderson and - latterly - Dier yesterday. It's a back 7!! Stones/Maguire would be fine as a partnership, Cahill should be nowhere in sight so Lascelles, Tark, Mee, Mawson all better for the bench. Then you've got the ability to go 3 up top, putting anyone from Sterling, Rashford, Lingard into a more effective position beside Kane. RLC, Shelvey, Henderson, Dier, Alli gives you a tonne of options. 3 at the back should be some kind of backup plan, not our formation. We concede stupid goals anyway, so what's a 5 man defence + Henderson solving? Nothing to be done now, I suppose, and even worse Gareth's lucky draw means he'll believe he's doing things right.
The team setup (position-ally and tactically)seems ok to me in games where we need to keep it tight and try to control the game. I dont like Walker at CB. In that current squad I would have him at rb and play Cahill (I know hes not brilliant but he is a threat at set pieces). Having said that Trippier has been quality at RB. Stones and Maguire have been good for us so far apart from one or two moments. LB should be Rose for me. But again I don't recall slating Young so far this tournament so this one is indifferent. Henderson is not the best, granted, but he is a leader who does lead by example. He works hard and he motivates the team. So he gets the nod over Dier (who I think is mugging a living). Lingard has done quite well for us so I would have him starting. Now for the controversial part. Delli Alli is clearly carrying an injury and should NOT be starting against Sweden. We get one chance at this and we cannot carry an injured player. RLC who has not put a foot wrong so far should take his place. Its not the most creative midfield but you have 3 hard workers who are ok at passing a ball. You have two pacey wing backs who can bomb up and down the field. Kane obviously starts up top. But who to play off/behind him is a major problem. Sterling for me is a player who should technically speaking be that player but just does not seem to work with Kane. Someone mentioned he is an intelligent footballer but I totally disagree. He has bags of pace which gets him out of trouble (sometimes) when his touch his shank. He cannot finish, his international stats prove this. If someone says the man city goals he has scored that is because they create a lot of chances and he probably takes 1 out of 4 shots. Which for me means he is not a striker. He also does not create that much in terms of clear cut chances for other people like a number 10 should. Basically I just do not think we have a number 10 in our squad, therefore I would be going two up top and (I cannot believe I am saying this) play Welbeck. Now I know I know hes not class.... But he is a handfull and strong and willing to run the channels which should actually leave more space for Kane. The way to play it is midfield shifts the wall wide and we get crosses in from half way in their half EARLY for both Kane and Welbeck to attack with Lingard and RLC following in for the headers clear and always.... ALWAYS shoot on sight. And this my friends is why I am sitting in an office and Southgate is suited and in Soviet Russia!
Agree with this pretty much entirely. As for a plan B, we don't really have one. The only other option we could have tried to engender would be a Shelvey-Drinkwater in the middle with Vardy running in behind on the long balls. If that's all you have as a nation then fine but I do accept it's weaker than our plan A and if it doesn't work you're than left with a real hotch-potch of a team on the pitch for extra time or penalties. We have problems but in fairness to Southgate he's probably wringing the most out of the players he has. Getting to the QF is the most I could have hoped for before the WC, if we go beyond that I'll be defending Southgate to the hilt, we've had much better squads do far worse.
This is it. He is not vastly experienced as a coach either. Then of course mistakes are exposed more and more the less quality you have in a squad. We are not top notch by any stretch but I think what is heartening for everyone is we are playing as a team/squad which is the minimum you need really. I suppose the one player Southgate lost which could have see Delph left at home was Oxlade Chamberlain. He really is the same type to Lingard and Alli. The other thing is we should have Wilshere and Barkley as options. They both lost their way which is not Southgate's fault. I think the one I would have taken instead of Welbeck would have been Sancho. Massively risky of course but the only I could see fitting the understudy to Sterling role. Very pacy, very skilful and very strong. Obviously a bit raw but our options were limited so I'd have maybe taken that chance.
Maradonna not happy about the result: https://talksport.com/football/395091/world-cup-2018-diego-maradona-england-rant-colombia/
