England v Scotland

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Good move to bring James back in. Nullifies Scotland’s only threat, Robertson who would have given Walker a torrid time.

3-0 England I think but maybe more.

Followed by a Scotland loss to Croatia, going home with zero points and looking ahead to another 20-odd years where winning Nations League Division C is their best chance of achieving anything.

[ctfc-fan]

Scotland to embarrass England...

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Scotland to embarrass England...

There is the risk we get sucked into a turgid long ball game, especially if Kane plods around stifling the team’s movement and dynamism like in the first match.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Well we avoided turgid long ball and got sucked into turgid short ball.

Kane as predicted getting in Foden’s way and left flailing in the foot races against the defenders even with a yard head-start.

Get Rashford on and get some pace and directness up top.

[Malabus]

Won't win nothing with Southgate as coach. How many times do I need to say it.

[Ralph]

Seriously, you can't get up for a game against the Scots? We will never win another World or Euro - NEVER. They are a bunch of prima donnas.

[Nesty]

no pride
no passion

nor will there ever be when our National Anthem is about a personage rather than our COUNTRY

[ctfc-fan]

Jerusalem all the way Nesty

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

It was striking how much passion comes through in Scotland’s anthem. Also weird that we have an anthem that is for the whole UK and overseas territories yet we don’t change it when we play those teams.

[pas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9nnnM-__JQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Shade]

I can only assume Southgate has planned his route to the latter stages and is looking to avoid winning the group and therefore France, Germany or Portugal in the second round. It’s the only explanation for that performance and the bizarre substitutions. Foden, the only one who looked capable of producing something, off for Grealish while the absolutely useless Sterling plays 90 minutes? Rashford on for Kane when there was no space for him to use his pace and the game was crying out for the physicality of Calvert-Lewin? If we show the same level of ambition on Tuesday and get a draw with the Czechs, forcing them to top the group, then I get it.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

I can only assume Southgate has planned his route to the latter stages and is looking to avoid winning the group and therefore France, Germany or Portugal in the second round. It’s the only explanation for that performance and the bizarre substitutions. Foden, the only one who looked capable of producing something, off for Grealish while the absolutely useless Sterling plays 90 minutes? Rashford on for Kane when there was no space for him to use his pace and the game was crying out for the physicality of Calvert-Lewin? If we show the same level of ambition on Tuesday and get a draw with the Czechs, forcing them to top the group, then I get it.

It is not really that much easier…second in Group D plays second in Group E in the next round, so likely to be Sweden or Spain. Then the winner of that plays the winner of Group F, so the best of France, Portugal or Germany.

One could argue it is better to play second in Group F in the last 16 than to play the winner of Group F in the last eight.

[Hubert Parry]

Who would be an international manager? The first thing to consider is that international football is as much about not losing as it is about winning. Most winners of international tournaments had a cautious mindset - often playing with double pivots and often drawing lots of games (see Portugal, Euro 2016). Southgate has one of the world's greatest analytics teams behind him. Every decision has been thought through to the nth degree. So far in this tournament, it has worked (a 0-0 against Scotland is not the disaster that most seem to think it is). I actually think that answer is tweaking the patterns rather than anything fundamental.

This being said, I do have concerns as to our ability to change the game when it is going against us. The upcoming game is something of a free hit and I'd like us to test something a bit different that, if it works, can be adopted as an in game change if required.

I'd go 3-4-2-1 - Pickford; Walker, Stones, Maguire; James, Henderson, Rice, Chilwell; Mount, Sancho, Rashford.

This to be set up in a similar style to Chelsea and Germany.

This will allow some players a bit of rest, some a bit of match time without completely throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Sprout Picker]

Who would be an international manager? The first thing to consider is that international football is as much about not losing as it is about winning. Most winners of international tournaments had a cautious mindset - often playing with double pivots and often drawing lots of games (see Portugal, Euro 2016). Southgate has one of the world's greatest analytics teams behind him. Every decision has been thought through to the nth degree. So far in this tournament, it has worked (a 0-0 against Scotland is not the disaster that most seem to think it is). I actually think that answer is tweaking the patterns rather than anything fundamental.

This being said, I do have concerns as to our ability to change the game when it is going against us. The upcoming game is something of a free hit and I'd like us to test something a bit different that, if it works, can be adopted as an in game change if required.

I'd go 3-4-2-1 - Pickford; Walker, Stones, Maguire; James, Henderson, Rice, Chilwell; Mount, Sancho, Rashford.

This to be set up in a similar style to Chelsea and Germany.

This will allow some players a bit of rest, some a bit of match time without completely throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Good post HP, and I do quite like the look of the team you name assuming Henderson is fit to start.

I've seen it mentioned elsewhere and I tend to agree - England have the look of a team that's been designed to keep things tight against the better sides and exploit the gaps they leave.

Against the Scots there was very little space in the final third.

That's not to say that I didn't find our performance frustrating with the constant slow sideways/backwards passing but I can see that there might be a plan based on a bigger picture. I suspect we'll see three at the back (including Walker) if we play one of the stronger teams.

[Red Duke]

I've seen it mentioned elsewhere and I tend to agree - England have the look of a team that's been designed to keep things tight against the better sides and exploit the gaps they leave.

Against the Scots there was very little space in the final third.

That's not to say that I didn't find our performance frustrating with the constant slow sideways/backwards passing but I can see that there might be a plan based on a bigger picture. I suspect we'll see three at the back (including Walker) if we play one of the stronger teams.

It seems to be Gareth Southgate achilles heel when it choosing his tactics. Against strong opposition he wants to keep it tight and against weaker opposition, he will use more attacking tactics knowing that they are unlikely to get caught on the break.

The problem comes when facing teams that are in between these two. These teams are well organised and because they contain very good footballers, are able to negate GS's tactics and send English players down blind alleys. The fear of failure haunts him.

GS won't change his tactics because of the fear of being caught on the break and so leads to perfomances such as against Scotland. He is not alone in English coaches in doing this, Roy Hodgson against Iceland was the same.

[Shade]

I can only assume Southgate has planned his route to the latter stages and is looking to avoid winning the group and therefore France, Germany or Portugal in the second round. It’s the only explanation for that performance and the bizarre substitutions. Foden, the only one who looked capable of producing something, off for Grealish while the absolutely useless Sterling plays 90 minutes? Rashford on for Kane when there was no space for him to use his pace and the game was crying out for the physicality of Calvert-Lewin? If we show the same level of ambition on Tuesday and get a draw with the Czechs, forcing them to top the group, then I get it.

It is not really that much easier…second in Group D plays second in Group E in the next round, so likely to be Sweden or Spain. Then the winner of that plays the winner of Group F, so the best of France, Portugal or Germany.

One could argue it is better to play second in Group F in the last 16 than to play the winner of Group F in the last eight.

I'd argue that getting knocked out by, say, France in the QF's having had a shot at another semi would represent a better tournament for Southgate than getting knocked out by Germany or Portugal in the last 16. Southgate is only concerned about getting as far in the tournament and being seen in as favourable light as possible at the end of the tournament, knowing that we are exceptionally unlikely to win the tournament. He knows if we go out in the second round at Wembley then he's had it. If he goes out in the QF away from home to one of group F he has a much better excuse.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

I can only assume Southgate has planned his route to the latter stages and is looking to avoid winning the group and therefore France, Germany or Portugal in the second round. It’s the only explanation for that performance and the bizarre substitutions. Foden, the only one who looked capable of producing something, off for Grealish while the absolutely useless Sterling plays 90 minutes? Rashford on for Kane when there was no space for him to use his pace and the game was crying out for the physicality of Calvert-Lewin? If we show the same level of ambition on Tuesday and get a draw with the Czechs, forcing them to top the group, then I get it.

It is not really that much easier…second in Group D plays second in Group E in the next round, so likely to be Sweden or Spain. Then the winner of that plays the winner of Group F, so the best of France, Portugal or Germany.

One could argue it is better to play second in Group F in the last 16 than to play the winner of Group F in the last eight.

I'd argue that getting knocked out by, say, France in the QF's having had a shot at another semi would represent a better tournament for Southgate than getting knocked out by Germany or Portugal in the last 16. Southgate is only concerned about getting as far in the tournament and being seen in as favourable light as possible at the end of the tournament, knowing that we are exceptionally unlikely to win the tournament. He knows if we go out in the second round at Wembley then he's had it. If he goes out in the QF away from home to one of group F he has a much better excuse.

Yes good point. I was thinking on a personal note that if we don’t get to the final it doesn’t make any difference to me when we get knocked out, but I fully see your point from Southgate’s point of view.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

So, after everything comes out in the wash…

Germany (at Wembley), then Sweden/Ukraine, then Netherlands/Czech/Wales/Denmark stand between us and the final.

Had we done as some had hoped and deliberately thrown the Czech Rep game to try and finish second then it would have been Spain (in Copenhagen), then France/Switzerland, then Belgium/Portugal/Italy/Austria.

[Sprout Picker]

So, after everything comes out in the wash…

Germany (at Wembley), then Sweden/Ukraine, then Netherlands/Czech/Wales/Denmark stand between us and the final.

Had we done as some had hoped and deliberately thrown the Czech Rep game to try and finish second then it would have been Spain (in Copenhagen), then France/Switzerland, then Belgium/Portugal/Italy/Austria.

Yes, I think we're all quite clear on how the fixtures work thanks.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

So, after everything comes out in the wash…

Germany (at Wembley), then Sweden/Ukraine, then Netherlands/Czech/Wales/Denmark stand between us and the final.

Had we done as some had hoped and deliberately thrown the Czech Rep game to try and finish second then it would have been Spain (in Copenhagen), then France/Switzerland, then Belgium/Portugal/Italy/Austria.

Yes, I think we're all quite clear on how the fixtures work thanks.

I would hope so. But with all the talk of ‘plotting an easy route’ and ‘it is better to come second’ etc it was evident that many in the country didn’t.

[Shade]

Who was saying there was an easy route being plotted or that it's better to come second? Personally, I could see it as the only explanation as to why we were so p!##-poor against the Scots. Turns out that we were just p!##-poor against the Scots with no hidden agenda, which is worrying. Still, I'm hopeful that now we are through the group stages we will face some more attacking teams and find more space to attack into. Hard to predict what will happen as our defence still looks weak to me, but we haven't conceded a goal yet this summer. We also haven't faced anyone with a decent attack. The Germans can obviously concede. I'm quietly confident we will beat them, but that Scotland performance still sows seeds of doubt. Hopefully, we will peak at the right time, because we sure as s#!t haven't yet!