The Lemon Fool

Nine changes made and England looked a disjointed mess, against a team that previously lost, at home. to Albania.

Is this progress? Or is GS still on a learning curve?

I think it's high time he chose his best squad and stuck with it.

Was part of the problem that, perhaps to dispel the "Boring Gareth" label, he picked ALL of his playmakers: Kane, Sterling, Grealish, Foden and Mount?

Crowd pleasing certainly but you can only have so many primadonnas in one team. I learned this around age 11 when made the captain for one school game. I picked the four best individual players, all attacking players, for my team and we got beat by a very average team.

Leothebear wrote:Nine changes made and England looked a disjointed mess, against a team that previously lost, at home. to Albania.

Is this progress? Or is GS still on a learning curve?

I think it's high time he chose his best squad and stuck with it.

Kalvin Phillips was a big miss. I know he was England player of the year but think he’s still underrated in that role with Declan Rice. The team had no shape in his absence and the midfield was a mess. If you’re picking players on form, as GS states he does, then Harry Kane should not have started either. Having said that I thought Hungary played well.

All the best, Si

First half was so boring ( and during my life I have witnessed more than a few of those) I actually skipped the second half in favour of Netflix
don't think I missed much
Question:
When overseas players come over here you are alway hearing how it will take them a few weeks to adapt to pace and energy of the Premier league
So do we play at that pace in Internationals, NO and WHY not
The opposition will only get 90 mins to adapt, so why do we change our game and slow it right down, trying beat them at what THEY are used to?

simoan wrote:

Leothebear wrote:Nine changes made and England looked a disjointed mess, against a team that previously lost, at home. to Albania.

Is this progress? Or is GS still on a learning curve?

I think it's high time he chose his best squad and stuck with it.

Kalvin Phillips was a big miss. I know he was England player of the year but think he’s still underrated in that role with Declan Rice. The team had no shape in his absence and the midfield was a mess. If you’re picking players on form, as GS states he does, then Harry Kane should not have started either. Having said that I thought Hungary played well.

All the best, Si

==========================

agreed .

kane is probably well over the hill now.

phillips does a great job with rice - why change that.

grealish was our best attacking threat - yet gets taken off - incomprehensible .

sterling is also below par , but we are short of goalscorers without him .


.

pje16 wrote:First half was so boring ( and during my life I have witnessed more than a few of those) I actually skipped the second half in favour of Netflix
don't think I missed much
Question:
When overseas players come over here you are alway hearing how it will take them a few weeks to adapt to pace and energy of the Premier league
So do we play at that pace in Internationals, NO and WHY not
The opposition will only get 90 mins to adapt, so why do we change our game and slow it right down, trying beat them at what THEY are used to?

I think that's a good point.

Thanks
Should I apply to replace Gareth Southgate?

PS. I'm not into wearing waistcoats which might count against me

Leothebear wrote:

pje16 wrote:First half was so boring ( and during my life I have witnessed more than a few of those) I actually skipped the second half in favour of Netflix
don't think I missed much
Question:
When overseas players come over here you are alway hearing how it will take them a few weeks to adapt to pace and energy of the Premier league
So do we play at that pace in Internationals, NO and WHY not
The opposition will only get 90 mins to adapt, so why do we change our game and slow it right down, trying beat them at what THEY are used to?

I think that's a good point.

Perhaps, with 21 consecutive wins in home qualifiers before this calamitous draw, they mistakenly believed the approach was working? Still, after dropping two points again only nine years after last time, hopefully they will look at radically changing things. What a shambles...

Seriously, though, the squad isn't together that often and I would imagine they need to practise a core system that is appropriate for all conditions, with small tweaks introduced as necessary. If they were to try running around pressing Premier League style in Qatar they wouldn't last five minutes.They might not always be pretty to watch (though they do score plenty of goals), but I'd rather see more of the relative success they've had lately than the procession of spectacular failures we've had to endure over my lifetime.

Well God knows what will happen in Qatar. I've yet to find anyone who thinks playing a tournament there is good idea, apart from the odd Qatari and Sep Blatter.

I've repeated said England have a good squad. But the slow build up allows defences to pack and organise themselves. Shooting from range then becomes a nono so then we rely on Sterling or Grealish to work some magic or get a penalty. I think it's why we score few goals.

Leothebear wrote:Well God knows what will happen in Qatar. I've yet to find anyone who thinks playing a tournament there is good idea, apart from the odd Qatari and Sep Blatter.

Yep, completely bonkers!

Leothebear wrote:I've repeated said England have a good squad. But the slow build up allows defences to pack and organise themselves. Shooting from range then becomes a nono so then we rely on Sterling or Grealish to work some magic or get a penalty. I think it's why we score few goals

You are a hard taskmaster, Leo! They've averaged 3 a game in qualifying, which is more than Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal and world champs France (who have managed 8 goals in 6 games). They have the third best goal difference of all 55 teams in European qualifying. I reckon that nothing short of out-Braziling Brazil about 6-2 in the World Cup final will satisfy you!

pje16 wrote:When overseas players come over here you are alway hearing how it will take them a few weeks to adapt to pace and energy of the Premier league
So do we play at that pace in Internationals, NO and WHY not
The opposition will only get 90 mins to adapt, so why do we change our game and slow it right down, trying beat them at what THEY are used to?

You’re right. But it isn’t possible to play at that intensity in a summer World Cup. Especially in Qatari heat. That’s why Mediterranean and South American teams don’t play that game. Also why England teams that have tried to play the “English game” in the past have always done so poorly at summer tournaments.

Gryff

CryptoPlankton wrote:

Leothebear wrote:Well God knows what will happen in Qatar. I've yet to find anyone who thinks playing a tournament there is good idea, apart from the odd Qatari and Sep Blatter.

Yep, completely bonkers!

Leothebear wrote:I've repeated said England have a good squad. But the slow build up allows defences to pack and organise themselves. Shooting from range then becomes a nono so then we rely on Sterling or Grealish to work some magic or get a penalty. I think it's why we score few goals

You are a hard taskmaster, Leo! They've averaged 3 a game in qualifying, which is more than Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal and world champs France (who have managed 8 goals in 6 games). They have the third best goal difference of all 55 teams in European qualifying. I reckon that nothing short of out-Braziling Brazil about 6-2 in the World Cup final will satisfy you!

Stats. Anyway CP, do you think then that the team is about as good as it can be?

Leothebear wrote:Stats. Anyway CP, do you think then that the team is about as good as it can be?

If you say they score "few goals" when they clearly don't, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to refute that without stats. ("Oh no they don't!", perhaps? )

Anyway...
Is any individual/team always as good as they can be? The odd sub-par game is inevitable in any sporting pursuit, even by the very best. But the proof of the pudding is in the results (unfortunately, stats are all we have to measure performance) and this team/squad has been doing better in that respect than any in my living memory. In answer to your question, assuming they are trying their hardest, then they are, almost by definition, as good as they can be. Do they play the best XI/system they can? Well, not having the knowledge, experience or inside information of the manager, I wouldn't have the arrogance to believe I know better than him...

CryptoPlankton wrote:

Leothebear wrote:Stats. Anyway CP, do you think then that the team is about as good as it can be?

If you say they score "few goals" when they clearly don't, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to refute that without stats. ("Oh no they don't!", perhaps? )

Anyway...
Is any individual/team always as good as they can be? The odd sub-par game is inevitable in any sporting pursuit, even by the very best. But the proof of the pudding is in the results (unfortunately, stats are all we have to measure performance) and this team/squad has been doing better in that respect than any in my living memory. In answer to your question, assuming they are trying their hardest, then they are, almost by definition, as good as they can be. Do they play the best XI/system they can? Well, not having the knowledge, experience or inside information of the manager, I wouldn't have the arrogance to believe I know better than him...

Stats become a bit meaningless unless they are generated identical sources. We may have scored more goals than Germany. Have they played the same opposition? Yes, we did well in the Euros, but we were virtually at home and managed to avoid the best teams until the final.
What I find frustrating is that I believe we have the players to be the best in Europe but I do doubt GS's ability to find the right blend and more importantly the right tactics. GS has done a lot right but I'd like to see him get an assistant/adviser to help him with game management.

Leothebear wrote:

CryptoPlankton wrote:

Leothebear wrote:Stats. Anyway CP, do you think then that the team is about as good as it can be?

If you say they score "few goals" when they clearly don't, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to refute that without stats. ("Oh no they don't!", perhaps? )

Anyway...
Is any individual/team always as good as they can be? The odd sub-par game is inevitable in any sporting pursuit, even by the very best. But the proof of the pudding is in the results (unfortunately, stats are all we have to measure performance) and this team/squad has been doing better in that respect than any in my living memory. In answer to your question, assuming they are trying their hardest, then they are, almost by definition, as good as they can be. Do they play the best XI/system they can? Well, not having the knowledge, experience or inside information of the manager, I wouldn't have the arrogance to believe I know better than him...

Stats become a bit meaningless unless they are generated identical sources. We may have scored more goals than Germany. Have they played the same opposition? Yes, we did well in the Euros, but we were virtually at home and managed to avoid the best teams until the final.
What I find frustrating is that I believe we have the players to be the best in Europe but I do doubt GS's ability to find the right blend and more importantly the right tactics. GS has done a lot right but I'd like to see him get an assistant/adviser to help him with game management.

I think I have to accept that it would be futile to continue this discussion as I don't understand what you base your arguments on, other than pure subjectivity. I certainly don't presume to know more than GS about how he should pick and run his team - perhaps you should apply for the job!

Leothebear wrote:
Stats become a bit meaningless unless they are generated identical sources.

I'd have to differ with your view there I'm afraid (in sport and generally). There are plenty of statistical applications you can use from sampling, that don't require identical dataset inputs. Plenty of obvious sporting rankings (and betting) that validify such approaches without a comprehensive identical set of input sources.

CryptoPlankton wrote:

Leothebear wrote:

CryptoPlankton wrote:
If you say they score "few goals" when they clearly don't, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to refute that without stats. ("Oh no they don't!", perhaps? )

Anyway...
Is any individual/team always as good as they can be? The odd sub-par game is inevitable in any sporting pursuit, even by the very best. But the proof of the pudding is in the results (unfortunately, stats are all we have to measure performance) and this team/squad has been doing better in that respect than any in my living memory. In answer to your question, assuming they are trying their hardest, then they are, almost by definition, as good as they can be. Do they play the best XI/system they can? Well, not having the knowledge, experience or inside information of the manager, I wouldn't have the arrogance to believe I know better than him...

Stats become a bit meaningless unless they are generated identical sources. We may have scored more goals than Germany. Have they played the same opposition? Yes, we did well in the Euros, but we were virtually at home and managed to avoid the best teams until the final.
What I find frustrating is that I believe we have the players to be the best in Europe but I do doubt GS's ability to find the right blend and more importantly the right tactics. GS has done a lot right but I'd like to see him get an assistant/adviser to help him with game management.

I think I have to accept that it would be futile to continue this discussion as I don't understand what you base your arguments on, other than pure subjectivity. I certainly don't presume to know more than GS about how he should pick and run his team - perhaps you should apply for the job!

Oh come on! This is a football forum. Of course I don't know more about football than GS! But that doesn't mean there are not pros who do. I simply think his weakness is game management.

dealtn wrote:

Leothebear wrote:
Stats become a bit meaningless unless they are generated identical sources.

I'd have to differ with your view there I'm afraid (in sport and generally). There are plenty of statistical applications you can use from sampling, that don't require identical dataset inputs. Plenty of obvious sporting rankings (and betting) that validify such approaches without a comprehensive identical set of input sources.

Rankings can only be set by stats of course. For something like tennis and cricket they work well. Football not so well. Especially if we're talking of a span of say 20 matches. For example - 4 of the 20 against San Marino and Andorra. While there are teams that haven't played a weak nation in those 20 matches. Often the FIFA world ranking are laughable.

Leothebear wrote:

dealtn wrote:

Leothebear wrote:
Stats become a bit meaningless unless they are generated identical sources.

I'd have to differ with your view there I'm afraid (in sport and generally). There are plenty of statistical applications you can use from sampling, that don't require identical dataset inputs. Plenty of obvious sporting rankings (and betting) that validify such approaches without a comprehensive identical set of input sources.

Rankings can only be set by stats of course. For something like tennis and cricket they work well. Football not so well. Especially if we're talking of a span of say 20 matches. For example - 4 of the 20 against San Marino and Andorra. While there are teams that haven't played a weak nation in those 20 matches. Often the FIFA world ranking are laughable.

And the hugely successful sports betting industry sees the statistics as "a bit meaningless" too?