I was fed up well before the final and I said so. If we had won my view would be the same but I probably would have stayed quiet. I am afraid I wouldn't be lauding this manager whatever the result because it is only his caution that required we set up as we did. We have the players to take it to Italy and he refused to use them. The whole point of sport is to win not bore the opposition to death. Now where have I heard something like that before?
The style football isn’t great and he’s way too cautious but the results kept going his way. Going forward he needs to give England a distinct style rather than adjusting to the opponents every game. I think he knows that so hopefully he will do it
Did he adjust to the opponents in the last game? He played that system against Germany because he matched them up and it worked - because they played similar. Italy don't play 5-4-1 (people claim our formation was 3-4-3 but we know what happens when you get under pressure and have no real midfield outlet), so why did we? We simply gave them the midfield, and while it took longer than I expected it is exactly what I expected to happen. So my point is that he was over cautious in the final and if he was adjusting to the opponent in the last game a 4-5-1 would have been what he played.
Because that is apparently one of the things he is supposed to be able to do. And one of the things we should have been doing against ageing centre backs. And something that Italy did better than us and we didn't learn from. Kane and Mount's game does not involve beating people like that. It seems that whenever Sterling does something good we hear that 'he's in the team to do that sort of thing' but when he fails it's not mentioned or it's said 'that's not what he's in the team for'.
He had just seen Tuchel win the CL using exactly the same tactics...mostly 343 and with arguably a worse team. So if he was choosing a single formation it would have been 343 I think. No one knows how we would have done with a more attacking line up.
I was just looking at how things are perceived. I believe England should play in a different style because we can’t go toe to toe with teams like Spain or Italy who have always been far more adept at keeping possession on midfield and making he opposition run around until they are worn down. We could have attacked quickly and directly with the inside forwards looking to make central defenders turn and face their own goal and by finding space between the full backs and centre backs. Sterling and Saka could have done that, then Rashford and Sancho when they tired. I would have liked to have seen Grealish in the no10 role to se if he could give us more of a passing option in midfield. But we were able to beat lesser teams without having to take risks up to the final. When you get there, it’s hard to expect players to go out and play differently even in the second half when Italy had the ball and it was crying out for something to take back the initiative.
This would make sense were it not for the first half display undermining most arguments. Granted, we didn't create many clear cut chances - no one will against a defence that has barely conceded a goal in 34 matches - but we pressed high up the pitch, had Italy on the back foot and disrupted their passing game with ease. We did that by pushing Shaw and Trippier high up the pitch and got the ball to them as quickly as possible. The Italian attackers don't like doing the dirty work, so this meant Veratti and Barella kept having to split from Jorginho to compensate and the gaps in their midfield were subsequently too wide to create any meaningful spells of possession. Cristante coming on helped matters as he put in a proper shift to deal with Shaw's threat. But the single biggest change was that we visibly went to a back 5 with both WBs much deeper than they had been in the first half. This allowed the Italian midfield to gain control of the match and, as you and others have said, England teams generally aren't good at wresting back midfield momentum once it is lost. Bringing on Henderson in a vain attempt to solve the issue was a huge mistake. He isn't anywhere near to being match fit and never got up to speed with the game, turning in an awful performance.
When English teams dominated Europe in the 70's it was by playing fast attacking football and in those times our ball control with individual players tended not to be like the Italians or Spanish who were individually more skillful. We beat them through speed and strength much like Shaw plays and Walker play today. You can always give clever passing teams a problem by running at them. To play like Southgate set us up is to try and play the Italians at their own game, surprisingly the Italians are better at it. Despite that, this is not a great Italian team at all, Spain were clearly the better side in their head to head but the Italians always know how to get a result and Southgate played into their hands. Such a shame when we have so many very fine English players.
And a lot of that was when Europe was clamping down on the physicality of British football, Platini changed that game to protect forwards and goalkeepers it took us a while to adjust and in the end we did it by importing skilled players. As a result we now have more English players with higher ball skills and if we use that and our natural Walker and Shaw type players we would pose a serious threat.
Rashford hardly got a look in or Foden and Sancho had one game, FFS these guys are match winners So instead he plays Sterling who is the main reason that Kane hardly got a shout. Southgate is not just cautious he is seriously bad at tactics, how did he get the job in the first place?
It’s Sterling fault that Kane didn’t have a shot in the final and had quite a quiet tournament? Why the hate towards Sterling and not Mount who did nothing of note all tournament? Southgate is seriously bad at tactics yet has got to the World Cup semi-final and the final of the Euros and only lost on penalties? I get his style is cautious and not great to watch but to say he’s seriously bad at tactics is overly harsh imo.
You settle for Southgate if you like but IMO he is the worst England manager since Keegan and in the end Keegan realised it.
I think Sterling had a good tournament. Pre-Euros he wouldn’t have been in my preferred XI but I don’t think there can be many complaints about Sterling’s inclusion in the end. 3 goals and an assist in the 7 games is a good return. For me the biggest disappointment player-wise was Mount. Thought he was poor throughout most games and looked nothing like the player at Chelsea last season. I don’t particularly rate Rashford as a player too highly either so I’m not bothered that he didn’t feature too much, certainly don’t consider him a match winner.
Once again stats are used to tell me that Sterling was good. Where are the stats that tell you how many times he wasted possession or how many times he failed to pass. How many times did Kane receive the ball in the penalty area? How many shots did Kane have? Mount was disappointing, I agree but Sterling is getting praise for scoring goals when over all England's goal haul was pathetic with the talent we have available. Foden has been tearing up the PL in a side full of superstars and he hardly gets a game.
Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s too cautious and wouldn’t want him as Spurs manager but he’s not as bad as you make out otherwise he wouldn’t have got them this far. No way is he worse than Sven, McClaren, Hodgson or Big Sam though.
Normally centre forwards don't create their own chances, they need someone to pass the ball to them. Clearly Sterling and Mount rarely passed to Kane or he would have had more shots - he's good at that sort of thing. I only mention Sterling in particular because hardly anyone seems to think that passing to Kane should be something he does far more often. He passed to Kane about twice and on one of those occasions Kane scored (Sterling's best match of the tournament by far). The rest of the time he spent doing his own thing.
You’re acting like Sterling is the sole reason Kane had little service. Stats may not always tell the full story but strikers/ forwards generally need good stats to prove their worth. You wouldn’t want a striker or forward with no goals and no assists would you? Kane was held back by the manager’s tactics, not Sterling. Sterling was one of our better performers of the tournament in the end and if it wasn’t for him Southgate would’ve likely crashed out in the groups seeing as he was the only player that scored in them, the criticism he’s getting on here is unjust.
Problem for Sterling is that he runs with his arms flapping around so much that he probably can't see his team-mates most of the time
