Southgate Mania Continues

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:33 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:Just looking at the abusive comment in post 20 towards Vardy.
BBC 5 live said this morning that Vardy would have taken our 5th penalty.
Macca... do you categorically 100% know who would have taken our 5th penalty, if not Vardy?
- if not, why have you abused him in that manner?

Abused him?

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:10 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:Southgate is using a system with which his relatively inexperienced side are very familiar, a system which makes his side efficient rather than scintillating and a system that brings results.

Sound familiar ?

I've been thinking the same thing. He conducts himself with dignity and talks sense.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:01 pm

22 years apart.

Claretstoke · Post by **Claretstoke** » Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:39 pm

Southgate; it’s not hard, left full back with no left foot.....Walker who does not know whether to stick or twist.....
Not for me, usual yes man for the FA.....

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:54 pm

Claretstoke wrote:Southgate; it’s not hard, left full back with no left foot.....Walker who does not know whether to stick or twist.....
Not for me, usual yes man for the FA.....

Decent cast.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:56 am

51.. Well he called him ‘a shithouse’ in the mistaken belief that Vardy had shied away from his responsibility of being a penalty taker.. is that not an abusive term in your world?
Without knowing the facts properly, the impression given was that Vardy was a coward ( substitute a more fitting word if you have one) who ‘ran away’ from the task.

This was all rubbish of course.
We now know that Vardy was injured, is injured, and may not be fit enough to be involved on Saturday. He has had injections in his groin.
Vardy was due to take the 5th penalty, but Eric Dier, in consultation with the management, stepped up in these circumstances.

Macca.. 50.. you might throw ‘comedy’ at it but you were in fact completely wrong.

Maybe I make too much of it, but the bloke is out there in Russia on England duty, doing his bit to try to help us win this trophy - you pile in with your ‘shithouse’ comment, simply because you were misinformed, or didn’t check the facts.
If I was Vardy, I’d be pretty annoyed at your description... a ridiculous thing to say.

I actually do know what ‘literally’ means.. thanks for that though.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:54 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:22 years apart.

Says it all. What a top guy. England are lucky to have an intelligent and proper gentleman in charge.

JohnMac · Post by **JohnMac** » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:06 am

This work cup has been excellent so far because of the lack of hype but following the Colombia game there is a frenzied media driven campaign with faux fans appearing left, right and centre screaming manufactured slogans.

The mantra should be taken from how Southgate is approaching it.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:19 am

Southgate is very measured in his after match responses win,lose or draw,like Sean he takes a balanced view of performances,also Gareth is well aware improvements are required for the Sweden match.However he will know that this is England's best chance of silverware in many years,playing it down is sensible as it takes the pressure off the players.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:17 am

Southgate has brought on a lot of positives.
Cleared out a lot of the old guard, brought in some exciting youngsters. He's been happy to look away from the top 6, including Heats, Pope, Tarks and Cork. He clearly has generated a good team spirit, where the team is more important than the individual.
The down side is, they still play together like a bunch of strangers. I watch them and see no shape, no patterns, no structure. Going forward it's almost every man for himself. They don't create space for each other, don't run the channels well, and Kane apart, are hopeless at holding onto the ball on their own. Lingard always ends on his backside, appealing for a foul that never was. Sterling is just a headless chicken. Alli is a shadow of the player for Spurs.
Anyone we come up against who can play as a team, has a chance against us. We haven't had one since Hoddle got elbowed.
They are young enough to learn, but until Southgate has them organised and playing for each other, the verdict is out.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:55 pm

Is this thread worth bumping yet?

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:37 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:Anyone we come up against who can play as a team, has a chance against us. We haven't had one since Hoddle got elbowed.

Sven's 2004 Portugal team were by far the best we've had since 66 and we easily looked the best team in that tournament. We were also good in 2002 but struggled with every afternoon game because of how hot it was in Korea/Japan

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:39 am

Can he go one better than Chris Coleman who did brilliantly to get Wales to the semi's two years ago?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:06 am

So the results are in.

Results before penalties:

Played 6
Won 3
Drawn 1
Lost 2

Teams beaten
Sweden (2-0)
Panama (6-1)
Tunisia (2-1)

Matches Drawn
Columbia (1-1)

Games Lost
Belgium (1-0)
Croatia (2-1)

Goals from open play: 3 (out of 12)

Shots on Target
Vs Croatia - 2 (including Trippier's free kick)
Vs Columbia - 2 (don't know if this includes the penalty)
Vs Sweden - 2
Vs Belgium - 2
Vs Panama - 7
Vs Tunisia - 8

So apart from the African minnows that's averaging LESS THAN ONE SHOT ON GOAL from open play over a period of 4 games. That's an appalling return.

You have to say well done to Southgate because we progressed further than people expected. But the idea that he has somehow reinvigorated English football is laughable.

Japebe43 · Post by **Japebe43** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:19 am

Rowls wrote:So the results are in.

Results before penalties:

Played 6
Won 3
Drawn 1
Lost 2

Teams beaten
Sweden (2-0)
Panama (6-1)
Tunisia (2-1)

Matches Drawn
Columbia (1-1)

Games Lost
Belgium (1-0)
Croatia (2-1)

Goals from open play: 3 (out of 12)

Shots on Target
Vs Croatia - 2 (including Trippier's free kick)
Vs Columbia - 2 (don't know if this includes the penalty)
Vs Sweden - 2
Vs Belgium - 2
Vs Panama - 7
Vs Tunisia - 8

So apart from the African minnows that's averaging LESS THAN ONE SHOT ON GOAL from open play over a period of 4 games. That's an appalling return.

You have to say well done to Southgate because we progressed further than people expected. But the idea that he has somehow reinvigorated English football is laughable.

The promise is there to score more goals from open play with a bit more experience and composure.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:25 am

Japebe43 wrote:The promise is there to score more goals from open play with a bit more experience and composure.

I don't think it is actually. Not if you are averaging less than one shot a game against any half decent team.

Watch the highlights - it's not as if Southgate's England create a multitude of chances which don't quite count as shots on target. In Southgate's team the shots on target correlates very strongly to chances created.

Southgate's England are creating virtually NOTHING from open play against any team of note.

Japebe43 · Post by **Japebe43** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:30 am

Rowls wrote:I don't think it is actually. Not if you are averaging less than one shot a game against any half decent team.

Watch the highlights - it's not as if Southgate's England create a multitude of chances which don't quite count as shots on target. In Southgate's team the shots on target correlates very strongly to chances created.

Southgate's England are creating virtually NOTHING from open play against any team of note.

We'll just beg to differ, although note this.. I was right pre tournament that this team would do us proud, and I'm right now too.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:33 am

The team has indeed done well and we should be proud they reached the semis.

But averaging less than ONE shot on goal against anyone half decent is a glaring fault in any team.

With the exception of our excellent set pieces, the football has been as turgid and awful as I have seen England play in a tournament.

Japebe43 · Post by **Japebe43** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:37 am

Rowls wrote:The team has indeed done well and we should be proud they reached the semis.

But averaging less than ONE shot on goal against anyone half decent is a glaring fault in any team.

With the exception of our excellent set pieces, the football has been as turgid and awful as I have seen England play in a tournament.

Turgid? Some of our play has been an absolute joy! Don't know what you've been watching at all..

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:03 am

Japebe43 wrote:Turgid? Some of our play has been an absolute joy! Don't know what you've been watching at all..

With the exception of the first half versus Tunisia and the majority of the game versus Panama you'll have to show me the football which has been an "absolute joy".

It's fun thrashing a minnow and it was great to progress but the football was turgid in the extreme even in the comfortable win against Sweden. The lack of chances created from open play speaks for itself. As does the times we were caught fannying about with it at the back.

Southgate deserves a lot of praise - he picked a great squad and he created a excellent atmosphere in the camp which was apparent in the players. But performance-wise his England team were reminiscent of his awful goal-shy Middlesbrough team.

Japebe43 · Post by **Japebe43** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:50 am

Rowls wrote:With the exception of the first half versus Tunisia and the majority of the game versus Panama you'll have to show me the football which has been an "absolute joy".

It's fun thrashing a minnow and it was great to progress but the football was turgid in the extreme even in the comfortable win against Sweden. The lack of chances created from open play speaks for itself. As does the times we were caught fannying about with it at the back.

Southgate deserves a lot of praise - he picked a great squad and he created a excellent atmosphere in the camp which was apparent in the players. But performance-wise his England team were reminiscent of his awful goal-shy Middlesbrough team.

You support Burnley ffs! Is ANY of your football ever a joy?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:14 am

And where is the fantastic football we've played during the tournament?

We are simply dead ball specialists, incapable of doing much else!

We can't defend, have a plodding midfield and only have one world class player in the team.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:23 am

This tweet sums us up!

https://twitter.com/brfootball/status/1 ... %2Fpage-75" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Japebe43 · Post by **Japebe43** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:33 am

I'm just waiting for the first 'a better manager would have won the cup'.. That happens.. And you can FCK off.

Japebe43 · Post by **Japebe43** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:39 am

Spijed wrote:This tweet sums us up!

https://twitter.com/brfootball/status/1 ... %2Fpage-75" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We didn't punt long balls up field.. We hit space for sterling to pressure them.. We did this all tournament.. Only seems to be a problem after losing!

Japebe43 · Post by **Japebe43** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:42 am

By the way.. For a Croatia player to make disparaging comments like that lacks class.. I'm 100% behind the les bleus.. I hope they smash them

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:55 am

Rowls wrote:I don't think it is actually. Not if you are averaging less than one shot a game against any half decent team.

Watch the highlights - it's not as if Southgate's England create a multitude of chances which don't quite count as shots on target. In Southgate's team the shots on target correlates very strongly to chances created.

Southgate's England are creating virtually NOTHING from open play against any team of note.

Set pieces are a legitimate part of a football match. Not sure why you’re pretending they don’t count.

Top Claret · Post by **Top Claret** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:22 am

Got to agree with Rowls that we created few chances from open play. Our set piece play against the lesser sides was fantastic and got us to the semi final, but as soon has we came up against a good strong organised outfit we were going to find it tough.
I would have like to have seen Rose get more game time as I thought we relied on Trippier to much as Young didn't show enough for me.
Kane should have been taken off on 70 minutes for Vardy, has he looked weary and missed far to many chances.
Our best players in this world Cup for me have been Trippier, Maguire and Pickford.
Stones would have been in with the bunch but cost us the goal.
Pickford has been brilliant and his foot work is top notch

Top Claret · Post by **Top Claret** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:26 am

Japebe43 wrote:By the way.. For a Croatia player to make disparaging comments like that lacks class.. I'm 100% behind the les bleus.. I hope they smash them

If I had have been a Croat I also would have been having a dig at the English. The English fans and media acted like the game was going to be a formality a little like Reading and Plymouth did against us, all those years ago

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:27 am

Greenmile wrote:Set pieces are a legitimate part of a football match. Not sure why you’re pretending they don’t count.

Because it suits the narrative that he's trying to build of course.

And we still don't know what he calls a "half decent side".

Japebe43 · Post by **Japebe43** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:33 am

Top Claret wrote:If I had have been a Croat I also would have been having a dig at the English. The English fans and media acted like the game was going to be a formality a little like Reading and Plymouth did against us, all those years ago

Knowledgeable england fans knew Croatia were formidable opponents. Idiots felt otherwise.

Cubanclaret · Post by **Cubanclaret** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:01 am

Rowls wrote:The team has indeed done well and we should be proud they reached the semis.

But averaging less than ONE shot on goal against anyone half decent is a glaring fault in any team.

With the exception of our excellent set pieces, the football has been as turgid and awful as I have seen England play in a tournament.

You must have missed the one under Capello then Rowls.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:14 am

Rowls wrote:With the exception of the first half versus Tunisia and the majority of the game versus Panama you'll have to show me the football which has been an "absolute joy".

It's fun thrashing a minnow and it was great to progress but the football was turgid in the extreme even in the comfortable win against Sweden. The lack of chances created from open play speaks for itself. As does the times we were caught fannying about with it at the back.

Southgate deserves a lot of praise - he picked a great squad and he created a excellent atmosphere in the camp which was apparent in the players. But performance-wise his England team were reminiscent of his awful goal-shy Middlesbrough team.

So other than the 8 or 9 chances they created against Tunisia, the 6 goals they scored against Panama and their easy victory against Sweden (who nobody else seemed to find easy) you think they failed to create many chances ?
So that leaves a reserve team fixture v Belgium, and the Columbia game....oh and last night.

Last night they created the easiest chance of the game for Harry Kane. Tripps created a couple (at least) of great chances with crosses from open play which were defended brilliantly.

To call the football turgid is just way over the top. When you say the number of times they got caught fannying about at the back “speaks for itself”....what does that mean ? They got caught 3 or 4 times in the whole tournament- what exactly does that say ? You would have preferred them to hand possession back by lumping it would you ? Most fans and pundits were surprised and impressed at how comfortable the defence was at retaining the ball and bringing it out of defence.

Don’t really understand the negativity at all

mikeS · Post by **mikeS** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:25 am

Southgate has shown he is a great ambassador for English football. He came in without any of the baggage of previous England managers, no dodgy deals, fake sheiks or sex scandals. Hope he sticks with the job.
The whole England set up has been transformed under him from the attitude he inherited by some of them of, "i'll play but can't be arsed", to performances we have seen from, Trippier, Kane, McGuire, Pickford (sorry Nick, but your chance will come) put in. All of them grafters, triers and all-round good lads who have all helped to raise the England bar.

JohnMac · Post by **JohnMac** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:47 am

Possibly the best thing to come out of Englands campaign was BFS getting rumbled. There is a dignity about the England set up now, something missing since 1990 and 1970 before that.

Also refreshing and 100% the right thing was the lack of coverage regarding players goody bags, wags and bonuses.

It is a group alright, no ego's, no cliques and no baggage.

Well done England for putting yourself back into the land of reality, back with the fans.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:56 am

Rowls has an agenda against Southgate and is desperate to prove his early prediction was correct, despite Southgate being only the third England manager to take a team to the World Cup semi-final. It's desperate.

Shots on target is a fairly meaningless stat, particularly as England's best chance which would have seen us go 2-0 up and almost surely go on to win the game hit the post and registered as a shot on target. And as for goals from open play, I'm sure about 30-40% of the goals in this tournament have been scored from set pieces.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:22 am

France scored their goal from a set piece against Belgium - made very few chances and pretty much shut up shop after they scored. Against Uruguay another set piece goal and a shocking goal keeper error.
France have been the very description of turgid in every game they played with the exception of Argentina who were shambolic....and still scored 3 goals against France.

Yet many people are saying how strong and brilliant France are (I actually agree they are a very strong side).

How many teams actually play expansive football these days ? Why does it matter if the team is successful and winning ?

When fans start talking in this way it reminds me of the often relegated Newcastle talking about the Kevin Keegan side from 15 years ago or the painful West Ham fans talking about the “West Ham way” and Bobby Moore etc

The upshot is that some fans will never be happy and find little joy in watching their team - must be a pretty sad existence

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:19 am

Rowls wrote:So the results are in.

So apart from the African minnows that's averaging LESS THAN ONE SHOT ON GOAL from open play over a period of 4 games. That's an appalling return.

Top quality making up stats to suit an agenda there. Discard the number from the team ranked 21st in the world because that doesn't fit the pattern but leave in the team ranked 24th ...

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:39 am

It's funny how people view football with such biased views. Had the players worn Claret for the past month they’d be getting nowt but praise. How can anybody question them after getting to a WC semi? It’s pathetic. Its not their fault the Germans went home early or that the Spanish did too. Should we tell the players not to score from corners?? Why cry all year about Burnley not getting penalties when they obviously don’t count as goals now?

We got as far as the Belgiums “golden generation”, further than Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain where were the Italians?? Or the Dutch?? Where were all these great footballing nations whilst we were getting ******??

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:09 am

Japebe43 wrote:Knowledgeable england fans knew Croatia were formidable opponents. Idiots felt otherwise.

Most predictions on this board thought it would be tight,a goal either way separating the teams,which proved correct it was noticeable how Gareth's post-match comments including the phrase "fine margins" Kane hit the woodwork when he should have scored or passed in the first half,and Croatia did the same in the second half with Perisic,who was outstanding and ultimately involved in the decisive moments,including both goals.

Dougall · Post by **Dougall** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:45 pm

Whether Rowls has an agenda or not, the stats he uses do seem to support (or don't necessarily contradict) the generally positive conclusions being drawn about this squad.
Even the manager concedes that their youth/inexperience was a factor and that 'there's more to come'.
Without having a dig at ANY individual player, I would suggest that with experience comes composure, and with that, a marginally better pass/shot/movement into EXACTLY the right spot (remember how BFC players seem to appreciate Sean's precision in coaching positioning, pacing out the pitch etc. because it helps their performance) and that would - presumably - translate into more chances if not actual shots on target from open play.
I'd suggest that Gareth might also have learnt a bit as well - for example, I thought that Harry Kane could have been subbed last night rather than Sterling, who had, for me, terrorised the Croatian defence. (And I should state that, despite the many expert opinions that emphasise what Sterling brings to the team, I really struggle to see it - whenever I watch him, whether for City or England, CT's phrase '...like watching a dog with a balloon...' comes into my head. But last night he pulled them all over the place!) But for some months now, Gareth has lionised Harry Kane, made him captain etc. and subbing him would have been VERY difficult. (One of the things I like so much about our own manager is that he doesn't paint himself (and the club) into a corner with any player.)
Last night, though, I thought that with the exception of ONE interception,Ashley Young had an absolute 'mare', yet in the Times player ratings today, he's joint top rated along with Pickford and Tripps, so maybe I really don't know anything about football !!
Anyway, for me, this is quite a good England team but to be REALLY good they will have to offer much more of a threat, and I believe that the players do have the ability and the time to learn how to do that.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:24 pm

Greenmile wrote:Set pieces are a legitimate part of a football match. Not sure why you’re pretending they don’t count.

Who's pretending they don't count? It's simply very one-dimensional to be almost wholly reliant on them. Restrict England's set pieces = virtually nulify England. You have to be a bit lucky to win a game if you average one shot on target.

Tall Paul wrote:And we still don't know what he calls a "half decent side".

Only because you haven't tried hard enough to understand or haven't looked - the half decent sides being Sweden, Belgium (reserves vs reserves), Columbia & Croatia.

Cubanclaret wrote:You must have missed the one under Capello then Rowls.

What a daft presumption. The football was just as bad but the results were markedly better this time.

TVC15 wrote:So other than the 8 or 9 chances they created against Tunisia, the 6 goals they scored against Panama and their easy victory against Sweden (who nobody else seemed to find easy) you think they failed to create many chances ?

I don't "think" England failed to create many chances. England DID fail to create many chances. Neither was it a one off anomoly. The pattern repeated against Belgium, Sweden, Croatia AND Columbia. Even in the thrashing of Panama, only ONE of the six goals came from open play - the goal which we only scored because of a wicked deflection.

TVC15 wrote:Last night they created the easiest chance of the game for Harry Kane.

That being the ONE chance we created from open play.

Rileybobs wrote:Rowls has an agenda against Southgate and is desperate to prove his early prediction was correct, despite Southgate being only the third England manager to take a team to the World Cup semi-final. It's desperate.
Shots on target is a fairly meaningless stat...

I don't like Southgate because his record as a manager is awful. His Middlesbrough side were shocking and I see the same faults in his England side.

You might think that shots on goal are "fairly meaningless" but I find highly meaningful in the act of scoring goals. Teams that don't get many attempts on target don't tend to score many goals and consequently aren't as good as teams who can score lots of goals.

aggi wrote:Top quality making up stats to suit an agenda there. Discard the number from the team ranked 21st in the world because that doesn't fit the pattern but leave in the team ranked 24th ...

Please enlighten me if you think I've got my stats wrong - I did post around 3am in the morning after a very long day. However, I took the stats from the BBC. Sorry but I don't understand your second sentence.

Dougall wrote:Whether Rowls has an agenda or not, the stats he uses do seem to support (or don't necessarily contradict) the generally positive conclusions being drawn about this squad.

I happily admit I don#t like Southgate as a manager. Why people have to interpet that as an "agenda" I don't know. Apparently the guy is very likeable, affable, kind and intelligent but I wouldn't give two hoots if the England manager was toerag as long as he was a good manager.

The stats about shots on goal highlight what I see as a major failing of the style of football that Southgate has initiated. It's the exactly the same style that got his Middlesbrough team relegated.

I chose to highlight something statistical rather than make subjective judgements on Southgate's England team because they provide a factual basis for the faults that are evident to me.

What I am saying is presented as simply as I can:

Southgate's England struggle to create chances from open play.

That, as I see it, is a major failing in any football team.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:25 pm

BTW: I shan't be replying again. Cheers all and everybody entitled to their opinion.

UTC and here's hoping England do well again.

LAM · Post by **LAM** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:39 pm

People criticising Southgate might do well to remember our own managers view on subjective winning. This has been much more than results and shots on target.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:46 pm

Rowls wrote:Please enlighten me if you think I've got my stats wrong - I did post around 3am in the morning after a very long day. However, I took the stats from the BBC. Sorry but I don't understand your second sentence.

The stats were correct. The methodology of ignoring the matches that didn't match your conclusion was flawed.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:52 pm

Rowls wrote:Only because you haven't tried hard enough to understand or haven't looked - the half decent sides being Sweden, Belgium (reserves vs reserves), Columbia & Croatia.

Why should I have to make an assumption as to what you mean by a half decent side?

Anyway, now you've cleared it up it looks like it's safe to say that you were completely wrong when you said you thought we'd get thrashed by the first decent side we faced.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:03 pm

Rowls wrote:Who's pretending they don't count? It's simply very one-dimensional to be almost wholly reliant on them. Restrict England's set pieces = virtually nulify England. You have to be a bit lucky to win a game if you average one shot on target.

You are. We averaged miles more than one shot on target (presumably per game) if you include set pieces. We scored 12 goals in 6 games. Pretty good going if we only had one shot on target per game.

Rowls wrote:Only because you haven't tried hard enough to understand or haven't looked - the half decent sides being Sweden, Belgium (reserves vs reserves), Columbia & Croatia.

We knocked out two of the four you mention, and Belgium doesn't count as I don't believe we tried to win it.

Rowls wrote:What a daft presumption. The football was just as bad but the results were markedly better this time.

Nonsense. Just re-watch the Algeria game from 2010. Our performances this time were light years ahead of that.

Rowls wrote:I don't "think" England failed to create many chances. England DID fail to create many chances. Neither was it a one off anomoly. The pattern repeated against Belgium, Sweden, Croatia AND Columbia. Even in the thrashing of Panama, only ONE of the six goals came from open play - the goal which we only scored because of a wicked deflection.

"Who's pretending set pieces don't count?" You are. Again.

Rowls wrote:That being the ONE chance we created from open play.

And again.

Rowls wrote:I don't like Southgate because his record as a manager is awful. His Middlesbrough side were shocking and I see the same faults in his England side.

You might think that shots on goal are "fairly meaningless" but I find highly meaningful in the act of scoring goals. Teams that don't get many attempts on target don't tend to score many goals and consequently aren't as good as teams who can score lots of goals.

We averaged two goals a game ffs.

Rowls wrote:What I am saying is presented as simply as I can:

Southgate's England struggle to create chances from open play.

That, as I see it, is a major failing in any football team.

Not if you score loads of set-piece goals (there seems to be a theme developing here)

Rowls wrote:BTW: I shan't be replying again. Cheers all and everybody entitled to their opinion.

Classic Rowls. Spout a load of ******** that you know will be shot down, and pre-emptively avoid having to address the obvious counter-arguments.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:04 pm

aggi wrote:The stats were correct. The methodology of ignoring the matches that didn't match your conclusion was flawed.

Atually I could have included the Panama game and the stat would still stand up - only one shot from open play in that game too.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:05 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Why should I have to make an assumption as to what you mean by a half decent side?

It was implicit in what I said. That's English comprehension for you.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:12 pm

Rowls wrote:It was implicit in what I said. That's English comprehension for you.

It wasnt.

You said, after we had played Colombia, that you were worried we'd get tubbed by the first half decent side we played and now you're saying that Columbia (sic) are a half decent side. How can it be possible to deduce the second statement from the first?

In fact, I even said that Colombia are a half decent side and you appeared to try and refute that.

You seem to be forgetting Lingard's goal against Panama, btw.