The Three Lions

Players who can work the ball in tight spaces >>>

Grealish and Foden are going to be so crucial for England to progress play.

I'd like to see this at some point


----------------Kane--------------------
-----Grealish--------------Foden-------
Saka------Rice-----Bellingham-----James
-------Stones---Maguire---Walker-------
----------------GK-------------------------

RealGunner wrote:Grealish is amazing man. Our best player arguably.

Love him. What a player.

RealGunner wrote:I'd like to see this at some point


----------------Kane--------------------
-----Grealish--------------Foden-------
Saka------Rice-----Bellingham-----James
-------Stones---Maguire---Walker-------
----------------GK-------------------------

fuck me this is nice, this could actually work... this is your best team
Maybe Mount next to Rice if Bellingham is still a bit too raw here and there

The Franchise wrote:

RealGunner wrote:Grealish is amazing man. Our best player arguably.

Love him. What a player.

I'm curious: do you prefer him out on the left or in the centre?

These last two games he's played as the 10 but has been marked very tightly and fouled every time he's gotten the ball, so he's not been able to turn. I feel out wide he can get the ball facing forward more.

I think Grealish's best position is LW but England might be better going with a combination that has better relationship/understanding between them like Mount/Chilwell down that side

With Grealish in #10 role the question would be if he would offer enough intensity off the ball in pressing otherwise he is the best Playmaker but i can understand if he didnt play as big a role in this team

Grealish/Saka are homies and will only be a prelude to their beautiful future combination at Arsenal (:

Jay29 wrote:

The Franchise wrote:

RealGunner wrote:Grealish is amazing man. Our best player arguably.

Love him. What a player.

I'm curious: do you prefer him out on the left or in the centre?

These last two games he's played as the 10 but has been marked very tightly and fouled every time he's gotten the ball, so he's not been able to turn. I feel out wide he can get the ball facing forward more.

For me, mostly the left. Especially in games where England have more of the ball.

He can isolate more with fullbacks and I like the dynamics of him coming inside and his fullback looking to run off. That's when you starting getting combinations going too. Like you say, he will get the ball facing towards goal far more often.

Every team, even the poor ones, prioritise that space between the midfield and defence and try to eliminate it. No matter how good you are, if that space doesnt exist, your not going to receive many balls facing forward.

Maybe if England go against teams who will control possession, playing as a 10 could be better. Out wide against those teams he would be forced into more defensive actions and wont receive the ball in dangerous areas. Whereas if he played as the 10 in those situations, he can relieve pressure by picking up the ball in more space and drawing fouls/driving through the middle.

Lewis Dunk should have been included
Better back up than Mings until maguire regains fitness

My personal 11


Walker----Stones-----Mings------Shaw
-------Bellingham-------Philips--------
---Sancho-------Mount--------Grealish
------------------Kane------------------


Rice in for Phillips/Bellingham if need to go more defensive.

Shaw/Chilwell, James/Walker and Sancho/Foden is a toss up for me. Depends on many things.

This is amazing lol

Southgate has now won more knockout games than any other England manager, with a whopping four. The only other England manager to make two semi-finals at major tournaments? Sir Alf Ramsey, World Cup winner in 1966.

Which all reads good for Southgate, and he deserves credit for two semi-finals. But it really drives home how bad England have been in tournaments. Since I've been watching football:

2002 - Unlucky to go out to Brazil who won the tournament
2004 - Out to Portugal on pens in the first knockout round
2006 - Out to Portugal on pens in the quarter-finals
2008 - Didn't even qualify
2010 - Smashed by Germany in the last 16, after drawing to the USA and Algeria
2012 - Out to Italy on pens
2014 - Out in the group stages without a single win
2016 - Lost to Iceland
2018 - Semi-final vs Croatia
2020(1) - Semi-finals again

I guess you can say England were unlucky to face strong opponents early in the competition, but their inability to get over those teams despite having good talent was a problem.

That squad from 2002 to 2006 really should have had deeper runs.

2008-2016 was trash, though.

Having a reasonable run in 2018 and I guess in this Euros as well (bar Germany) helps massively, and the football hasn't been great, but this is honestly the most fun I've had following the England team.

Imagine if Sam Allardyce was in charge of the team instead.

Jay29 wrote:Southgate has now won more knockout games than any other England manager, with a whopping four. The only other England manager to make a semi-final at a major tournament? Sir Alf Ramsey, World Cup winner in 1966.

Bobby Robson in 1990?

Sorry, I misread the stat: it's managers who have taken England to two major semi-finals.

2008 was absolutely hilarious.

It has been so many years, you have to imagine that just by happen-stance, England should win something sometime soon.

It seems like this is the best chance, but Spain/Italy will be a serious test which under normal circumstances, I wouldnt favour England in at all.

This squad honestly is even better than the golden generation squad purely because of how balanced it is. There is no Scholes playing on the left just to fit in or gerrard playing RM. One thing Southgate gets spot on is the balance in the team. There is a more than capable back up in every position.

Even if England don't win it in the end, this squad will definitely win something in WC22 or Euros24.

But this really is our best chance

This is England's year. It was just felt from me and most right after the win against Germany. Löw's current Germany is trash yes but for England it was the win over what are historically their most feared rivals. It represented them overcoming previous mental blocks.

England I criticised heavily but they just manage to find a way to get the result and with their clean-sheet intact and that is more important than the flair of Italy and recently built pedigree of Spain.

I just can't see anyone but them winning and it will be fully deserved.

Like this team, hate 90% of the fans. The behaviour on display throughout the tournament and after last night's final makes me embarrassed to follow the team.

Saka, Sancho and Rashford already receiving racist abuse.
Increases in domestic violence and racist abuse in general after the match.
London is a mess after pissheads left bottles and actual piss all over the place.
The laser pointer during the Denmark game.
Fans without tickets rushing the barricades and trying to break into Wembley.
Fans of other countries attacked.

I'm sad that football is an outlet for the shittiest human beings. This isn't just simple tribalism, but deep-rooted culture we thought we'd put a lid on but haven't. And it's even more disappointing to see people all over the net dismiss it, saying "but other countries do this too, it's not just us!".

All of this happened in our own bloody country. Never mind what people do abroad. Qatar 2022 is just a disaster waiting to happen.

Was about to come and say the same thing. I feel real sorry for the players. I like them, nearly to a man.

But the fans, cannot for the life of them stand them and I cannot root for the country because I cannot identify with the vast majority.

Already seen videos of attacks on Italians in London, its just pathetic.

The conduct of the English fans is the absolute worse.

It's the reports of domestic violence that had me wondering how terrible one's life is that you gotta beat your spouse to feel better.

As for the game.

England obviously had that super fast start and goal. But looking at it critically, I dont think Italy started bad at all either, in fact the goal aside I felt Italy were fine and were doing what they wanted and actually settled better. They were reaching the England third easily and already started to find passing patterns.

England were doing well still, Kane started quite sharply to his credit and I thought both wingbacks were doing well. Plus Sterling was causing havoc, him and Mount were playing in Jorginho's zone and with Veratti/Barella tied up with Rice/Phillips and the fullbacks tied up by the Tripps and Shaw, Sterling was finding time to turn and run. Or Sterling could start wide with Emerson marking him, but then run inside and drag him to create space which Trips found if Insigne was slow to defend.

But about 25 minutes in, it really turned and was very one sided and Italy adapted. Chiesa and Insigne defended earlier on the wingbacks and got in position early, thus allowing the Italy fullbacks to help more and defend more collectively. Also Cheillini was aggressive enough to step out and take Sterling down if needed.

England already got into the mode you see from teams when there is 20 minutes on the clock. No ball pressure, sitting off and deep and only looking to counter attack of a mistake.

England I notice are too man orientated. Veratti was dropping into the leftback zone and Emerson was acting basically as a winger. But as England were so man focused, Henderson followed Veratti all the way out, and Saka was dropping with Emerson, so it seemed as if Saka was an extra rightback and Henderson a right sided midfielder. But Henderson cannot actually do anything to Veratti and is reluctant to follow to the extreme left so he found time on the ball over and over again.

Goal was coming, even if from a set peice, Italy were pushing for it strongly.

Extra time was a dud really. Italy subs had no impact, Berardi especially was quite and they missed Insigne and then Chiesa. While England, simply didnt give enough time for the likes of Grealish, Sancho or Rash to do anything and Saka who did come in early enough, was as I said, occupied defensively by Emerson and often too far away to actually impact the game.

Penalties, its a lottery and Italy have the better goalie (despite Pickford doing great in the pens) while Mancini had good takers while England f'ed around with teenage children and subs who had no time to warm into the game.

The Franchise wrote:As for the game.

England obviously had that super fast start and goal. But looking at it critically, I dont think Italy started bad at all either, in fact the goal aside I felt Italy were fine and were doing what they wanted and actually settled better. They were reaching the England third easily and already started to find passing patterns.

England were doing well still, Kane started quite sharply to his credit and I thought both wingbacks were doing well. Plus Sterling was causing havoc, him and Mount were playing in Jorginho's zone and with Veratti/Barella tied up with Rice/Phillips and the fullbacks tied up by the Tripps and Shaw, Sterling was finding time to turn and run. Or Sterling could start wide with Emerson marking him, but then run inside and drag him to create space which Trips found if Insigne was slow to defend.

But about 25 minutes in, it really turned and was very one sided and Italy adapted. Chiesa and Insigne defended earlier on the wingbacks and got in position early, thus allowing the Italy fullbacks to help more and defend more collectively. Also Cheillini was aggressive enough to step out and take Sterling down if needed.

England already got into the mode you see from teams when there is 20 minutes on the clock. No ball pressure, sitting off and deep and only looking to counter attack of a mistake.

England I notice are too man orientated. Veratti was dropping into the leftback zone and Emerson was acting basically as a winger. But as England were so man focused, Henderson followed Veratti all the way out, and Saka was dropping with Emerson, so it seemed as if Saka was an extra rightback and Henderson a right sided midfielder. But Henderson cannot actually do anything to Veratti and is reluctant to follow to the extreme left so he found time on the ball over and over again.

Goal was coming, even if from a set peice, Italy were pushing for it strongly.

Extra time was a dud really. Italy subs had no impact, Berardi especially was quite and they missed Insigne and then Chiesa. While England, simply didnt give enough time for the likes of Grealish, Sancho or Rash to do anything and Saka who did come in early enough, was as I said, occupied defensively by Emerson and often too far away to actually impact the game.

Penalties, its a lottery and Italy have the better goalie (despite Pickford doing great in the pens) while Mancini had good takers while England f'ed around with teenage children and subs who had no time to warm into the game.

The first thing was crucial indeed, Verratti dropped way back and controlled the game from there. It made marking Jorginho a bit pointless since Verratti was back there too waiting to distribute the ball if Jorginho was under pressure. Verratti himself I think was out best player of the night after Bonucci (excluding the penalties).

On the second thing, Berardi was very impactful. After taking out Immobile we gained more control with 3 trequartisti. But more impactful than him was Cristante. He won more duels (and aerial duels) and gave the team more energy. He is by far out best player in winning headers and it wasn't a coincidence that he won the header for the goal. Berardi and Cristante coming on were a lot of the reason why the 2nd half was so dominant.

Then the team shape started to fall apart with Chiesa going off, the Insigne, then Verratti, at that point all the usual control was lost.

Doc wrote:It's the reports of domestic violence that had me wondering how terrible one's life is that you gotta beat your spouse to feel better.

lmao dat dere existential misery at its peak

rincon wrote:

The Franchise wrote:As for the game.

England obviously had that super fast start and goal. But looking at it critically, I dont think Italy started bad at all either, in fact the goal aside I felt Italy were fine and were doing what they wanted and actually settled better. They were reaching the England third easily and already started to find passing patterns.

England were doing well still, Kane started quite sharply to his credit and I thought both wingbacks were doing well. Plus Sterling was causing havoc, him and Mount were playing in Jorginho's zone and with Veratti/Barella tied up with Rice/Phillips and the fullbacks tied up by the Tripps and Shaw, Sterling was finding time to turn and run. Or Sterling could start wide with Emerson marking him, but then run inside and drag him to create space which Trips found if Insigne was slow to defend.

But about 25 minutes in, it really turned and was very one sided and Italy adapted. Chiesa and Insigne defended earlier on the wingbacks and got in position early, thus allowing the Italy fullbacks to help more and defend more collectively. Also Cheillini was aggressive enough to step out and take Sterling down if needed.

England already got into the mode you see from teams when there is 20 minutes on the clock. No ball pressure, sitting off and deep and only looking to counter attack of a mistake.

England I notice are too man orientated. Veratti was dropping into the leftback zone and Emerson was acting basically as a winger. But as England were so man focused, Henderson followed Veratti all the way out, and Saka was dropping with Emerson, so it seemed as if Saka was an extra rightback and Henderson a right sided midfielder. But Henderson cannot actually do anything to Veratti and is reluctant to follow to the extreme left so he found time on the ball over and over again.

Goal was coming, even if from a set peice, Italy were pushing for it strongly.

Extra time was a dud really. Italy subs had no impact, Berardi especially was quite and they missed Insigne and then Chiesa. While England, simply didnt give enough time for the likes of Grealish, Sancho or Rash to do anything and Saka who did come in early enough, was as I said, occupied defensively by Emerson and often too far away to actually impact the game.

Penalties, its a lottery and Italy have the better goalie (despite Pickford doing great in the pens) while Mancini had good takers while England f'ed around with teenage children and subs who had no time to warm into the game.

The first thing was crucial indeed, Verratti dropped way back and controlled the game from there. It made marking Jorginho a bit pointless since Verratti was back there too waiting to distribute the ball if Jorginho was under pressure. Verratti himself I think was out best player of the night after Bonucci (excluding the penalties).

On the second thing, Berardi was very impactful. After taking out Immobile we gained more control with 3 trequartisti. But more impactful than him was Cristante. He won more duels (and aerial duels) and gave the team more energy. He is by far out best player in winning headers and it wasn't a coincidence that he won the header for the goal. Berardi and Cristante coming on were a lot of the reason why the 2nd half was so dominant.

Then the team shape started to fall apart with Chiesa going off, the Insigne, then Verratti, at that point all the usual control was lost.

TBH I should have been more specific. I meant offensive, attacking impact. Cristante did a very good job.

Berardi was a good sub tactically, because it brought Chiesa inside while still maintaining width on the right. Something I think Italy lacked before these changes, as Chiesa was coming inside regardless and Di Lorenzo having a different role to Emerson wasnt going to advance without the ball on the right and therefore leaving Italy playing more on one side, which defensively is the stronger one for England. Brining Berardi on adressed this imbalance, but what I should have been more specific on is Berardi's performance with the ball. It is true, Italy gradually lost control with the subs of Chiesa and Verrati, but Berardi for me had a very quite game considering the time he had out there.

So yeah, tactically, good choices but individual offensive impact wasnt there and without Chiesa, Insigne and Barella (who wasnt good, but obviously usually is) out and the forwards featuring Bernedesci, Berardi and Belloti posed far less an individual threat.

The Franchise wrote:

rincon wrote:

The Franchise wrote:As for the game.

England obviously had that super fast start and goal. But looking at it critically, I dont think Italy started bad at all either, in fact the goal aside I felt Italy were fine and were doing what they wanted and actually settled better. They were reaching the England third easily and already started to find passing patterns.

England were doing well still, Kane started quite sharply to his credit and I thought both wingbacks were doing well. Plus Sterling was causing havoc, him and Mount were playing in Jorginho's zone and with Veratti/Barella tied up with Rice/Phillips and the fullbacks tied up by the Tripps and Shaw, Sterling was finding time to turn and run. Or Sterling could start wide with Emerson marking him, but then run inside and drag him to create space which Trips found if Insigne was slow to defend.

But about 25 minutes in, it really turned and was very one sided and Italy adapted. Chiesa and Insigne defended earlier on the wingbacks and got in position early, thus allowing the Italy fullbacks to help more and defend more collectively. Also Cheillini was aggressive enough to step out and take Sterling down if needed.

England already got into the mode you see from teams when there is 20 minutes on the clock. No ball pressure, sitting off and deep and only looking to counter attack of a mistake.

England I notice are too man orientated. Veratti was dropping into the leftback zone and Emerson was acting basically as a winger. But as England were so man focused, Henderson followed Veratti all the way out, and Saka was dropping with Emerson, so it seemed as if Saka was an extra rightback and Henderson a right sided midfielder. But Henderson cannot actually do anything to Veratti and is reluctant to follow to the extreme left so he found time on the ball over and over again.

Goal was coming, even if from a set peice, Italy were pushing for it strongly.

Extra time was a dud really. Italy subs had no impact, Berardi especially was quite and they missed Insigne and then Chiesa. While England, simply didnt give enough time for the likes of Grealish, Sancho or Rash to do anything and Saka who did come in early enough, was as I said, occupied defensively by Emerson and often too far away to actually impact the game.

Penalties, its a lottery and Italy have the better goalie (despite Pickford doing great in the pens) while Mancini had good takers while England f'ed around with teenage children and subs who had no time to warm into the game.

The first thing was crucial indeed, Verratti dropped way back and controlled the game from there. It made marking Jorginho a bit pointless since Verratti was back there too waiting to distribute the ball if Jorginho was under pressure. Verratti himself I think was out best player of the night after Bonucci (excluding the penalties).

On the second thing, Berardi was very impactful. After taking out Immobile we gained more control with 3 trequartisti. But more impactful than him was Cristante. He won more duels (and aerial duels) and gave the team more energy. He is by far out best player in winning headers and it wasn't a coincidence that he won the header for the goal. Berardi and Cristante coming on were a lot of the reason why the 2nd half was so dominant.

Then the team shape started to fall apart with Chiesa going off, the Insigne, then Verratti, at that point all the usual control was lost.

TBH I should have been more specific. I meant offensive, attacking impact. Cristante did a very good job.

Berardi was a good sub tactically, because it brought Chiesa inside while still maintaining width on the right. Something I think Italy lacked before these changes, as Chiesa was coming inside regardless and Di Lorenzo having a different role to Emerson wasnt going to advance without the ball on the right and therefore leaving Italy playing more on one side, which defensively is the stronger one for England. Brining Berardi on adressed this imbalance, but what I should have been more specific on is Berardi's performance with the ball. It is true, Italy gradually lost control with the subs of Chiesa and Verrati, but Berardi for me had a very quite game considering the time he had out there.

So yeah, tactically, good choices but individual offensive impact wasnt there and without Chiesa, Insigne and Barella (who wasnt good, but obviously usually is) out and the forwards featuring Bernedesci, Berardi and Belloti posed far less an individual threat.

I agreed with both of you. I think though it was Chiesa's absence which mainly lead to the lost of control. He was simply very threatening in this game. With Chiesa still wreaking havoc, Berardi could've impacted the game better in the extra time. Having Bernardeschi replacing Chiesa was a huge drop in quality. He took his penalty calmly and well though, props to him.

And yeah, Southgate putting too much trust to the main 14 players and was very hesitant in making subs are not good for the team, especially for Rashford & Sancho who came very late. He's always making the Rice-Henderson and Mount-Grealish subs, and changing Trippier and Saka depending on the shape he wanted to deploy. However, he's just very reluctant to change the other players when the situation hasn't been completely under control like vs Ukraine. Yeah Kane & Sterling was the main goal threat so far and Kane is a great penalty taker, however it's better if he replaced Sterling with Rashford much earlier. For all his deficiencies, Rashford can actually be clutch as shown in the Champions League games.