Not sure where you got that from?
I didn't say we were better - far from it. But we COULD have been, and should have been. Ability wise we could have caused Italy lots of problems, but failed.
Poll: UEFA Euro 2020 Final Italy v England ** spoilers ** [Sunday 11th July 2021]
- Thread starter explicit4u
- Start date
- Status
Not sure where you got that from?
I didn't say we were better - far from it. But we COULD have been, and should have been. Ability wise we could have caused Italy lots of problems, but failed.
The the same reason you don't even qualify for WC2018 yet win euro 2020 with largely the same group of players.
The manager.
A good manager makes all the difference, just look at Man U since Fergie retired.
He did yes, there wasn't a (P) next to the goal but the award of a penalty was soft thus giving Kane the opportunity to knock in the rebound
Exactly. It's not for no reason that Italy looked rattled in the early stages.
But after that early goal we sat back. Almost as if attacking is not the preferred mode of this England team, to be indulged in only when absolutely necessary. So after that early goal they readily sat back, and it very quickly started to go wrong.
And Southgate *did* just sit there and watch, as the Italians grew in confidence and we floundered.
But it was hardly just the Italy game, was it?
People suggesting we had no chance against Italy no matter what, just need to look at the other games we played. The dire 0-0 against Scotland. The cautious, defensive style we employed against the Croats and the Czechs.
We never got to see England's apparently embarrassment of riches in attack. Southgate kept them either off the pitch or on a short leash. And in all the games he set us up to defend, defend, defend.
I'd imagine had we scored early against the Germans then the same tactics would have been employed and we would have lost.
I agree though it's like attacking players are only to be used sparingly rather and after 3/4 of the games been played. We should be starting these players then bring on the defensive players when the games won not the other way around.
Soldato
Not sure where you got that from?
I didn't say we were better - far from it. But we COULD have been, and should have been. Ability wise we could have caused Italy lots of problems, but failed.
From here, I'm reading far more that ~'the champs weren't that much coz England just defended, we'll never know', than the comments saying Italy was the better team.
You cannot attack when you can't get out your half, reducing the defence line would have been suicide as the Italian's can and will punish you one on one, as they showed more often than not through the tournament, they are far too fast and clinical in that third of the field.
If you don't think England have attackers that can trouble Italy, then I'm not sure what to say... in my view we could absolutely have beat the Italians, had the team, tactics and mentality been right.
You're talking as though Italy's midfield is so good you can never get the ball - laughable.
How wasn't we ? We dominated the game just couldn't score a winner. With that logic its like saying Italy's needed penalty shootouts to win just stupid.
Kane should have had a pen so the soft pen doesn't matter it is what it is.
Also the own goal yes it was an own goal, I meant Sterling was stood waiting for a tap in and forced the own goal. So it's absolutely irrelevant. The negativity you have just make me wander why you even watch it. I bet your a bundle of joy.
As bad as England played Italy only just edged it on penalties so I wouldn't get carried away.
Essentially, if you say that England (as the opposition) were irrelevant to Italy's performance, then you are saying Italy would perform like that against again team, and it wouldn't matter if it was Spain, Germany, or the best club side in the world. That Italy would have dominated possession against any team.
Which I don't think is true. We all saw the Spain game, where Italy did *not* dominate possession.
Therefore, we must conclude that Italy's performance is dependent on the opposition partly/as much as their own quality.
Ergo, what England did and how they were set up does matter. You can't just say, "England had no chance because Italy had all the ball."
It just doesn't make sense. Spain didn't let them have all the ball, and we shouldn't have either.
Soldato
Carried away, laughable, aye, my teams champs again and you won nothing, again that truly is laughable!
Carried away, laughable, aye, my teams champs again and you won nothing, again that truly is laughable!
Is that all you've got? I mean this is meant to be a discussion. Have you heard of tactics? If you're struggling in midfield you can make changes and address that. It happens regularly.
Carried away, laughable, aye, my teams champs again and you won nothing, again that truly is laughable!
this sums it up nicely though really it is really a section of the fans, I don't really get the impression the players are that deluded.
Soldato
England clearly is not Spain, Italy played to their strengths against all their opponents and won every game, did anyone else or did I miss something?
I engaged coz most of the forum thinks Southgate parked the bus and should have got into the Italians, there for the taking, again that's why you win **** all the arrogance is astounding as shown all over the Euro press.
I don't believe Southgate is the guy - I never have. That being said, this final was the chance to go hell for leather and he bottled it.
We're at home, we're young (comparatively), we're fast, we've a point to prove so let slip the dogs of war - England will have no better opportunity.
The penalty shootout is agonising but it shouldn't have got that far. Either go for the jugular or die trying - I will never understand the park the bus mentality but again, with the attacking talent on display, it shouldn't have been an option.
I can imagine the team talks, Mancini rousing his troops while Southgate quietly and gently says everyone is playing the best games of their lives. In a country of 60+ million plus, surely we can produce an English manager with a penchant for attacking play.
Ultimately it ended as a damp squib. Subs too late, lack of adaptability and a really meek showing but that's been the story for as long as I can remember.
You could argue Italy would've been too strong but we'll never know, like driving a Ferrari in second gear. Nobody wants that.
We're at home, we're young (comparatively), we're fast, we've a point to prove so let slip the dogs of war - England will have no better opportunity.
The penalty shootout is agonising but it shouldn't have got that far. Either go for the jugular or die trying - I will never understand the park the bus mentality but again, with the attacking talent on display, it shouldn't have been an option.
I can imagine the team talks, Mancini rousing his troops while Southgate quietly and gently says everyone is playing the best games of their lives. In a country of 60+ million plus, surely we can produce an English manager with a penchant for attacking play.
Ultimately it ended as a damp squib. Subs too late, lack of adaptability and a really meek showing but that's been the story for as long as I can remember.
You could argue Italy would've been too strong but we'll never know, like driving a Ferrari in second gear. Nobody wants that.
Soldato
Trying to negate by planting 'this is meant to be a discussion' to who me, is that all you got?
All I got is celebrating Italy winning!
Well quite simply you are saying Italy had more possession and there's nothing England could have done - which I think most people would disagree with. It's not arrogant, it's just football tactics, no? Tactics/team selections get discussed to death here on a weekly basis!
Are you saying that there exists no combination of England players, nor any system or formation, that could have trouble Italy last night?Carried away, laughable, aye, my teams champs again and you won nothing, again that truly is laughable!
Or even just from the players that Southgate took to the tournament. Out of those players, there exists no formation nor system nor tactics that would have troubled Italy?
That Italy would have dominated possession against any England formation and style. That the gulf in class is so great that England's tactics and personnel are entirely irrelevant?
Because that's a bold claim.
Best if we ignore him he's in Dreamland it took penalty's to beat what he evidently thinks is a poor team, not sure what that says about Italy's performance. He also chose Italy over Scotland well because the answers simple, don't blame him either.
Very few people said England "should win" over Italy. Yes, there were a couple. There was no agreement on that tho. The arrogance is not coming from me that's for certain.
What a lot have said is that England should have done better. You say Italy played to their strengths. Well what we're saying is that England didn't play to theirs - because Southgate is obsessed with playing a defensive game where you try not to concede above all else.
England used poor tactics and played poorly. That's all many of us are saying. We wanted to see a different style. That *might* have resulted in a better outcome. It almost certainly would have asked Italy some more questions. Just remember that your Italy team looked rattled in the early stages.
In the latter stages - after England had given up trying to attack - Italy looked comfortable. What many here are saying is it didn't have to be that way.
You can call us all arrogant for not accepting Italy wins in every scenario - but actually I'd say that's arrogance from you, to assume Italy wins in every scenario.
- Status