Not a lot in most group stage games. The group stages only exist really to give minnows a few matches. In one way I agree with @A WUM called Hawtrey that there are too many poor teams at tournament Finals, and they are indulged with too many games. 32 teams could qualify for the Euro Finals, but they would be better played as knock-out games from the very beginning. Personally I wouldn't even bother seeding teams. Just draw them out of a bag, FA Cup style. Then every game really matters - lose and you're going home. Modern tournaments are designed to indulge minnows, but are set up to try to ensure the best teams don't play each other too early. And this four best 3rd place teams going through is just silly. Granted a good performance and a thumping win for Gareth's boys will lift morale. But for me the tournament only really starts once the dour group stage is out of the way and we get to the round of 16. Then we'll see if England can play with their tournament future at stake. Any of the other 15 teams will be capable of knocking them out, so I don't really see that it matters who they play.
I've no idea why Alan Shearer was moaning about the game, saying it was flat, Italy had one moment of quality. There was some great probing play which eventually paid off, great saves by both goalies, and fine defending. Shearer usually states the obvious, but last night he was wrong.
Sounds as if Fraudgate is going to bring in Conor Gallagher tonight. why you need to play two holding midfielders against a team ranked 57th in world ratings just about sums this England manager up. The bloke is nicking a living. Score first tonight , and shut up shop
Too timid. Won't win the tournament with that mentality. The only good side we have played so far is Denmark. Not a great side - just a good side. Probably last 8 candidates (assuming they don't slip up against Serbia). And we could not beat them. If we make it to the QFs I will be surprised. England have been sliding backwards since we lost to Italy at Wembley, and the reasons for that were never dealt with.
That side should still be good enough to win comfortably. Gallagher is more a box to box player. Southgate should give some of his talented bench players like Wharton and Gordon a proper run-out, not just 5 minutes.
Watching the Alan Shearer podcast (which I rarely do) and the pundits make the point that Southgate has a defender’s mentality as a manager. He will always look to protect a narrow lead, and not get on the front foot in a game out of caution. When you have the most talented crop of attacking players in several generations, this just doesn’t cut the mustard. The likes of Cole Palmer & Phil Foden must be biting their tongues, and with hindsight it was another Southgate mistake not to take Jack Grealish to Germany. I just don’t think Southgate is a good enough coach to set up an attacking and attractive team, even with these players at his disposal. He got the job because he was the polar opposite of the sacked Sam Allardyce.
I would suggest that any manager in the Premiership and Football Leagues would set up England in a better way. You play to your strengths and our strengths are in attack. Ask the opposition what they don’t want and they will say the likes of Foden, Bellingham, Palmer, Saka, Bowen running at them. What they do want is Kane isolated and not getting support.
I can’t believe the team Southgate has picked only one change. Gallagher for Trent-Arnold. Unbelievable.
Gareth Southgate - you are a total and utter cvnt. Should be nowhere near an international side. He’s turned a highly talented & creative group of players into Charlton under Russell Slade.
So we won the group and dodged France, Germany, Spain and Portugal So I assume we won't face any of them until the Final. Walk in the park
