GROUP G - Belgium, Panama, Tunisia, England

[Lickle eric]

Yes davek, Southgate has really gone up in my estimation for taking what is still a gamble, even if it's very much a strategically justified one and one he really had to take imo.

Lots of England managers have failed before we know that, a few have reached the quarters or better but only a very select few the semis or better, in fact only Ramsey and Robson.

Southgate despite having a young side, one which is likely to be far better in future tournaments, in two and four years time, has the chance to take this side beyond any realistic pre-tournament expectations.

The side has obvious defensive frailties and lacks an effective central playmaker normally so needed in tournament football, an English one doesn't exist atm and Gareth can't simply magic one up, he's not a club manager and he can't just buy one.

Suddenly, and perhaps quite unexpectedly, a freak of the draw has offered this side, lacking in so many ways, a unique opportunity to reach a stage way beyond its capabilities would normally merit. This is possibly a once in a lifetime and life changing opportunity that could put Southgate's name in the same bracket as Bobby Robson.

He could have tried to take the nice easy safe option and aimed to put a ceiling, an upper limit on England's best possible outcome, one of beating Japan even if probably exposed by Brazil. He could have played more or less his strongest team and tried to beat a second string Belgium (not third they weren't allowed a squad of 50), and gone on to maybe beat Japan, not a certainty either.

He has instead thought strategically, recognised the opportunity such a massively lopsided draw has given him, it's so stark, it's absolutely unique, it's never broken this way before, it's just never ever happened before.

He's risking the gleeful 'told you so's' of all the hindsight merchants, all the press who win both ways and the usual friendly souls who always predict or wish the worst possible catastrophe on any England manager, the chippy and those Scots who support anyone England play. To be such a one isn't a good look.

He had to go for it.[/QUOTE
Good points,well presented.i feel a lot happier and more optimistic for now and the future than i have for a long time.

 

[davek]

That's not what you said hours before the game though, and I seem to recall Martinez saying himself he wanted second place

You recall wrong...you and rat faced McNulty.

 

[davek]

Yes davek, Southgate has really gone up in my estimation for taking what is still a gamble, even if it's very much a strategically justified one and one he really had to take imo.

Lots of England managers have failed before we know that, a few have reached the quarters or better but only a very select few the semis or better, in fact only Ramsey and Robson.

Southgate despite having a young side, one which is likely to be far better in future tournaments, in two and four years time, has the chance to take this side beyond any realistic pre-tournament expectations.

The side has obvious defensive frailties and lacks an effective central playmaker normally so needed in tournament football, an English one doesn't exist atm and Gareth can't simply magic one up, he's not a club manager and he can't just buy one.

Suddenly, and perhaps quite unexpectedly, a freak of the draw has offered this side, lacking in so many ways, a unique opportunity to reach a stage way beyond its capabilities would normally merit. This is possibly a once in a lifetime and life changing opportunity that could put Southgate's name in the same bracket as Bobby Robson.

He could have tried to take the nice easy safe option and aimed to put a ceiling, an upper limit on England's best possible outcome, one of beating Japan even if probably exposed by Brazil. He could have played more or less his strongest team and tried to beat a second string Belgium (not third they weren't allowed a squad of 50), and gone on to maybe beat Japan, not a certainty either.

He has instead thought strategically, recognised the opportunity such a massively lopsided draw has given him, it's so stark, it's absolutely unique, it's never broken this way before, it's just never ever happened before.

He's risking the gleeful 'told you so's' of all the hindsight merchants, all the press who win both ways and the usual friendly souls who always predict or wish the worst possible catastrophe on any England manager, the chippy and those Scots who support anyone England play. To be such a one isn't a good look.

He had to go for it.

He's going to be hero or zero. No half-way house on Southgate in this WC.

On the playmaker: he could and should have taken Shelvey. Dier and Delph offer nothing.

 

[BlueStevie35]

He's going to be hero or zero. No half-way house on Southgate in this WC.

On the playmaker: he could and should have taken Shelvey. Dier and Delph offer nothing.

I think playing both was his big mistake last night, could and should have played Alli and moved Young forward

 

[Blues Harp]

He's going to be hero or zero. No half-way house on Southgate in this WC.

On the playmaker: he could and should have taken Shelvey. Dier and Delph offer nothing.

Shelvey, Dier, Delph, Horrenderson, Alli, just shows the paucity of creative midfielders in the side

 

[Chris O'Connor]

He's going to be hero or zero. No half-way house on Southgate in this WC.

On the playmaker: he could and should have taken Shelvey. Dier and Delph offer nothing.

I always think we should judge now without hindsight rather than after the Colombia game.

Gareth Southgate had to make his decision without hindsight or fully knowing it's resultant consequences, its a decision that had to be made then.

Unfortunately it's true even if hardly very fair that he will be judged after the Colombia game, to reserve judgement until hindsight is available is always best especially for the media who can then always be ready to congratulate or condemn with impunity.

I think even if he fails it was correct, it was an opportunity unlikely to present itself ever again.

He made eight changes, nine if you count the half time substitution, such an overhaul would never work and perhaps wasn't really intended to.

Dier and Delph weren't in his first xi anyway that is before the reserves started last night.

Shelvey's disciplinary record will always make him a huge risk for tournament football.

Defensive frailties and lacking a midfield general normally essential to any notable success. The chance to have such without doesn't usually occur in ten tournaments never mind your first one.

By a huge freak of the draw and circumstance such an opportunity has presented itself.

There was no choice really imo, he had to go for it and for me the right decision even if he falls at the first hurdle

 

[davek]

I always think we should judge now without hindsight rather than after the Colombia game.

Gareth Southgate had to make his decision without hindsight or fully knowing it's resultant consequences, its a decision that had to be made then.

Unfortunately it's true even if hardly very fair that he will be judged after the Colombia game, to reserve judgement until hindsight is available is always best especially for the media who can then always be ready to congratulate or condemn with impunity.

I think even if he fails it was correct, it was an opportunity unlikely to present itself ever again.

He made eight changes, nine if you count the half time substitution, such an overhaul would never work and perhaps wasn't really intended to.

Dier and Delph weren't in his first xi anyway that is before the reserves started last night.

Shelvey's disciplinary record will always make him a huge risk for tournament football.

Defensive frailties and lacking a midfield general normally essential to any notable success. The chance to have such without doesn't usually occur in ten tournaments never mind your first one.

By a huge freak of the draw and circumstance such an opportunity has presented itself.

There was no choice really imo, he had to go for it and for me the right decision even if he falls at the first hurdle

For me it comes down to being sensible: if England were facing Japan they'd win. That would have given Southgate and a young team credibility - to reach a WC QF. If they were beaten by Brazil after that then so be it. Job done and prepare for Euro2020 with renewed hope and confidence. That's what he should have done (and would have taken pre-tournament).

Now all that is threatened by facing up Colombia. If they fail to beat them then the deflatioin will be dramatic and Southgate will be struggling to keep the wolves at bay for his last group match surrender. Even if they beat Colombia and then get beat by Sweden/Switzerland he'll get no credit for reaching the quarters because - the media will say - "that was the easy route and he failed to exploit it".

He better get past the next two games or he's thrown away a chance to get out of this WC to fight another day with real credibility.

 

[Deleted member 28206]

I've come to admire this current England side, I like Kane in a lineker sort of way, he just smashes everything in front of him. A new generation, devoid of weapons like Lampard and Gerrard and Peter crouch, all these youngns look fearless & brave, pretty much like a Lion

 

[GrandOldTeam]

I've come to admire this current England side, I like Kane in a lineker sort of way, he just smashes everything in front of him. A new generation, devoid of weapons like Lampard and Gerrard and Peter crouch, all these youngns look fearless & brave, pretty much like a Lion

Well, not completely.

That Lingard, mate...

 

[Chris O'Connor]

For me it comes down to being sensible: if England were facing Japan they'd win. That would have given Southgate and a young team credibility - to reach a WC QF. If they were beaten by Brazil after that then so be it. Job done and prepare for Euro2020 with renewed hope and confidence. That's what he should have done (and would have taken pre-tournament).

Now all that is threatened by facing up Colombia. If they fail to beat them then the deflatioin will be dramatic and Southgate will be struggling to keep the wolves at bay for his last group match surrender. Even if they beat Colombia and then get beat by Sweden/Switzerland he'll get no credit for reaching the quarters because - the media will say - "that was the easy route and he failed to exploit it".

He better get past the next two games or he's thrown away a chance to get out of this WC to fight another day with real credibility.

A decision had to be taken though, even if an easier route involves a riskier first game, the strategic thinking is to weigh that up and then make the choice which balances potentially much larger gain against initial risk - so safety first and avoid the initial risk or take it on with the potential rewards all the greater.

I'm sure he fully knows how fickle the press are and how ready they are to make heroes and villains despite the initial decision having to be made now not after the events of the next week.

He took the decision precisely because it was the easier route, the decision was taken now without hindsight and realising the flak he might get but prepared to think strategically if it gives a side an opportunity to reach the semis, which really on ability they would not normally get so lacking are they in normally important areas.

If and granted it's a big IF, a gamble, they get past Colombia and Switzerland or Sweden of course he'll get credit. The braver strategy will have been fully vindicated, they will have reached the semis, the previous ceiling or upper limit of their realistic hopes will have been more than exceeded, they will have reached a stage they had no realistic right to reach.

The media will say what sells papers or gets people looking up their sites, they always do, they can't lose, condemn or congratulate it makes no difference, they're easy.

He's done well imo to make the right decision regardless, if he believes in it, there must be doubts naturally as football is never predictable, but to see a unique opportunity to get a team like this so far is an opportunity never likely to recur.

To miss such a chance and never even try is a poor alternative imo.

 

[davek]

A decision had to be taken though, even if an easier route involves a riskier first game, the strategic thinking is to weigh that up and then make the choice which balances potentially much larger gain against initial risk - so safety first and avoid the initial risk or take it on with the potential rewards all the greater.

I'm sure he fully knows how fickle the press are and how ready they are to make heroes and villains despite the initial decision having to be made now not after the events of the next week.

He took the decision precisely because it was the easier route, the decision was taken now without hindsight and realising the flak he might get but prepared to think strategically if it gives a side an opportunity to reach the semis, which really on ability they would not normally get so lacking are they in normally important areas.

If and granted it's a big IF, a gamble, they get past Colombia and Switzerland or Sweden of course he'll get credit. The braver strategy will have been fully vindicated, they will have reached the semis, the previous ceiling or upper limit of their realistic hopes will have been more than exceeded, they will have reached a stage they had no realistic right to reach.

The media will say what sells papers or gets people looking up their sites, they always do, they can't lose, condemn or congratulate it makes no difference, they're easy.

He's done well imo to make the right decision regardless, if he believes in it, there must be doubts naturally as football is never predictable, but to see a unique opportunity to get a team like this so far is an opportunity never likely to recur.

To miss such a chance and never even try is a poor alternative imo.

I cant see the overall benefit of what Southgate did by throwing the Belgian game (not that if it were a vital game for both teams he'd have won such an encounter, but under the reduced circumastances of last Thursday's game it was there to be won). This England team can go no further than the SFs in any case. What's the great difference in reality of making the last 8 rather than the last 4? None as I see it. So "the pay off" scenario is unnecessary and unwise.

Better to have taken Japan and a nailed on QF berth and fight Brazil with honour and arrive home to build for the Euros. Southgate made the cal not to do so and he pays the price if this SF berth isn't secured.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

I cant see the overall benefit of what Southgate did by throwing the Belgian game (not that if it were a vital game for both teams he'd have won such an encounter, but under the reduced circumastances of last Thursday's game it was there to be won). This England team can go no further than the SFs in any case. What's the great difference in reality of making the last 8 rather than the last 4? None as I see it. So "the pay off" scenario is unnecessary and unwise.

Better to have taken Japan and a nailed on QF berth and fight Brazil with honour and arrive home to build for the Euros. Southgate made the cal not to do so and he pays the price if this SF berth isn't secured.

Going round in circles comes to mind.

I hardly agree with you so there's not much point going round the circle again.

lol

 

[BlueStevie35]

I cant see the overall benefit of what Southgate did by throwing the Belgian game (not that if it were a vital game for both teams he'd have won such an encounter, but under the reduced circumastances of last Thursday's game it was there to be won). This England team can go no further than the SFs in any case. What's the great difference in reality of making the last 8 rather than the last 4? None as I see it. So "the pay off" scenario is unnecessary and unwise.

Better to have taken Japan and a nailed on QF berth and fight Brazil with honour and arrive home to build for the Euros. Southgate made the cal not to do so and he pays the price if this SF berth isn't secured.

Nations League comes before the Euro Qualifiers Dave

 

[BlueStevie35]

Well, not completely.

That Lingard, mate...

Needs to bin the video game celebrations

 

[Groucho]

I cant see the overall benefit of what Southgate did by throwing the Belgian game (not that if it were a vital game for both teams he'd have won such an encounter, but under the reduced circumastances of last Thursday's game it was there to be won). This England team can go no further than the SFs in any case. What's the great difference in reality of making the last 8 rather than the last 4? None as I see it. So "the pay off" scenario is unnecessary and unwise.

Better to have taken Japan and a nailed on QF berth and fight Brazil with honour and arrive home to build for the Euros. Southgate made the cal not to do so and he pays the price if this SF berth isn't secured.

England point notwithstanding, I think any team should go all out to win any game they play. Otherwise it's not football or a contest.

Everton, England, Inverness CT, absolutely anyone.