Forum Replies Created
-
I agree that the defence seems a weak link, but that wasn’t an issue last night. The goalie and back four played well. We seem to be making the same mistakes, and Southgate doesn’t seem to know how to stop us from losing control of games after taking a lead. He has done well, and I am not saying this to be negative, but a fresh outlook would surely not be amiss if we lose again in the knockouts with the same things happening. We don’t have a right to win, and if this was Southgate’s first tournament I wouldn’t be saying it, but with some of those players there are many valid questions as to why Southgate can’t seem to maximise it.
1 user thanked author for this post.
England don’t have a right to win every tournament, no team does, but we do have a right to expect us to play to the best of our ability. Many of these players have shown their class for their clubs, which have made them have very good reputations. Bellingham was sensational for Real Madrid, Kane did have a good season for Bayern and Foden for Man City. My non-English friends say the same thing, so I don’t think it’s all English bias. Many knowledgeable fans can see the same players put in star performances for their clubs, but failing for their country. I don’t believe that Foden can go from being a big player for Man City to resorting to sloppy passing and hoofs from defence as he did with England last night. Pep wouldn’t have that.
Southgate does have a decent record with England. I would say he has done the most to make a united England team out of any manager for decades. This is to his credit, but he isn’t without flaws. It doesn’t seem fair to make out that we have achieved more results under Southgate because of him alone and to say failures only come because of players alone, or vice versa. When looking at the record above, we could say that the players we have got have allowed us to achieve such results, so Ferrite’s criticism of them is as wrong headed as any directed at Southgate because of this. Those results and tournament progressions aren’t bad for a team whose players regularly get found out at international level, where this argument is used against a team like Serbia, who are a good team but not better than some of those we have beaten in the recent past.
I have just finished watching Romania beat Ukraine with a more composed performance than England last night. I doubt the Romanian team are actually more talented than England, but are underhyped because of English bias. Their left back is a Spurs bench player, many others play in leagues of lower quality, but they looked like a team that could have beaten us last night. They were well drilled and knew how to control a lead, which is something we have lacked often under Southgate.
The positives are that we had scrappy performances in groups in all previous tournaments with Gareth and that didn’t stop us achieving more than we had done for years. Gareth clearly can man manage, which has allowed some success, but the performance yesterday was not a one off and is what punished us against Italy in 2021 and Croatia in 2018. He clearly hasn’t found a solution to it, and doesn’t seem to make changes to prevent it. I would expect a coach to be able to drill the squad in how to actually control a game, with possession, like other nations do. Even ones like Romania, with players of a lower calibre. That is on Southgate and I feel like he cannot get more out of the squad, so if we fail, I would like to see a fresh start with another manager who can maybe identify how to maximise the potential. After 4 major tournaments Gareth will have had enough opportunities.
3 users thanked author for this post.
Typical Southgate performance. France, Germany, Spain etc control games. We sit back an invite pressure and play hoofball with ages taken to make a change.
3 users thanked author for this post.
My own feeling on this is that Simon probably did have something to offer regarding sponsorship links. However, the shareholders have been split among those who contributed the most financially. If Simon has been disgruntled because he isn’t a big wig, he needs to get his ego checked. I remember when that news article didn’t include him among the saviours, until hours later when he was included. I wonder if that was him with some angry phone calls.
I do feel like he has an ego. Photos with Jimmy at the operation and being at Hilton’s side when Hilton needed some credibility. The problem with Simon and Hilton was that he opposed anyone who dared call out Hilton at the time, which goes against this portrayal of him as tirelessly working to save the club (people were citing Simon’s say so for why they trusted that Hilton had the funds). Compared to Michelle, Roj and Sharp his contributions seem to have been minimal. A streamlined board will serve us better than Simon, if he did kick up a fuss about shares. I don’t think his advantages with bringing in sponsors from Volkswagen or BMW outweigh him being a potential trouble causer because he wants his name in lights.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Expecting our solvency to rely on the wealth of benefactors is precisely the problem which led us to fall to the depths under Swann and Hilton. Though, with the latter, the wealth they were portraying just wasn’t there.
She didn’t say “one of the offers” was a touch above minimum wage. It was not said at all that he received more than one. In fact everyone assumed it was one offer, and the implication was that it was a derisory one as a way of saying they tried to keep him. That he was offered 3 contradicts the “he wasn’t wanted” interpretation, since the club wouldn’t bother with renegotiation if this was the case. Which makes this statement by her lose some reliability, so I don’t know why we should treat it as beyond doubting.
I don’t see why Andy needs to go into the specifics of contract negotiations. Such dealings involve negotiations and the club showing hands on how they handled this would have other players, for transfers or contract negotiations trying to push for their benefit. Not because of anything sinister, but because it’s natural to try and push for financial advantages in contracts. Anything that loses the club leverage pushes it in the player’s favour.
In his latest interview Andy Butler says Butterfield was offered 3 contracts with a coaching role included. Doesn’t sound like he wasn’t in the manager’s plans. Yet the club will still get stick because of an interpretation by Butterfield’s partner.
Michelle’s message to Hilton upon acquiring the club was professional. I can understand her being disappointed about her husband having to look elsewhere, but is it best to air it so publicly? I think that’s unwise, but this fuss over very little has dragged on and I don’t see why it’s worth continuing.
It appears unavoidable, but we don’t know the full story. While fans are allowed to moan, the amount of backlash about this seems way OTT. At worst, it’s a poor error of judgement and pales to the concerns over what was going on under Hilton. Heck, we had Taft (and highly likely others) being shafted over wages and some justifying it because he had a holiday or ‘didn’t try hard enough in games’. Seems a lot more worthy to moan about than a contract negotiation not suiting Butterfield..
3 users thanked author for this post.
