(Group D) - Czech Republic 0-1 England - Tuesday 22nd June, 2021

[Panna King]

Wow that was a tough watch 

 

[Lucas]

I think we just have to accept despite having quality in numbers attack wise, we're set up to be quite a pragmatic team and our best chance of going deep in the tournament is to stay defensive and nick wins.

It will probably only take us so far, but you never know, I guess we may fluke our way kinda like Portugal did when they couldn't win a game till the semi.

[carefreeluke]

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

Big decision for Southgate. Continue with this set up or revert to 5 at the back in the knockout stages. 

Oh, and whether or not Kane should start. 

I said we should go for a back three before the tournament started and that shape doesn't necessarily mean we have to sacrifice something in attack, it's not as if we're that good in attack at the moment in a 4-3-3 anyway. I just think the back three makes us more organized and gives everyone a clear tactical role whilst providing the players more protection. I think more holes will appear in a 4-3-3 which will be more critical against better opposition. Regardless of what shape we play, we'll go out in the next round anyway but I think we stand more of a chance with a back three. I think with the back three the tactical plan and idea are easier to follow, a 4-3-3 involves a lot more fluidity which history suggests is probably not a good thing for England at international tournaments. Going to a back three doesn't necessarily mean England being more defensive either, I just think they would probably be more effective at this tournament, and more effectiveness is better to watch as well.

[Michael]

Well we earned the win and the 3 points that takes us top of the group. Although we will next be playing a tough side from Group F, at least we stay at Wembley and we will be able to again play on home ground in the upcoming Round of 16 game. England usually reserve their best performances against the best sides, so whoever England meet next, it should be an exciting encounter in the knockout rounds.

[LFCMike]

England are absolutely awful to watch. With the players they have available they should be so much more entertaining

[Danny]

3 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

England are absolutely awful to watch. With the players they have available they should be so much more entertaining

You'd think we'd at least play to our strengths with all the talent we have out wide and up top. Even if it's just relentless counter attacking....I know France and Portugal have won competitions before with defensive football but we don't have their players defensively. (also don't have a Ronaldo which was what Portugal's win had more to do with)

[MUFC]

19 hours ago, MUFC said:

I think England will win easily and it'll be like the Croatia game. Cechs won't play like Scotland did, which was to fight for every first and second ball all around the pitch. Cechs will stand off more and let England play, this should suit England more.

 

[MUFC]

15 hours ago, Danny said:

Big from Grealish too, exactly what we missed against Scotland from Mount

To be fair to Mount vs Scotland. In the first half he played 2 lobbed defense splitting passes into the box. One landed to Sterling and I can't remember who the other player was. Unfortunately Sterling when he had this chance and the other played Mount played in, both controlled it like Patrick Kluivert. Otherwise they'd both have had piss easy chances.

[Danny]

Just now, MUFC said:

To be fair to Mount vs Scotland. In the first half he played 2 lobbed defense splitting passes into the box. One landed to Sterling and I can't remember who the other player was. Unfortunately Sterling when he had this chance and the other played Mount played in, both controlled it like Patrick Kluivert. Otherwise they'd both have had piss easy chances.

One of the passes that Sterling miscontrolled was not really defence splitting, more a simple pass over into a semi-dangerous area

[MUFC]

1 minute ago, Danny said:

One of the passes that Sterling miscontrolled was not really defence splitting, more a simple pass over into a semi-dangerous area

But he still picked him out and created something. Easy or not he did his bit, if Sterling didn't have a touch of Jimmy SAville we'd possibly be speaking about Mounts assist to Sterling. 

[MUFC]

17 hours ago, Viva la FCB said:

This is what gets me. They both had negative tests as well and that was their justification for the entire Scotland team not having to isolate, so wtf.

What I don't get is, how have 2 England players caught it after being around Gilmour for around 100 minutes. Yet none of the Scottish players have caught it?

[Devil]

Tell you what's not fair, I've just had a good looking at the last 16 table and it's the most confusing thing I've ever read for a tournament. 

Netherlands, Belgium, Winner of group E & Winner of group F 

These teams win their groups and play best third place teams. 

Italy and England win our groups and we play second place teams. 

Now it's a tournament and you've got to beat what's in front of you anyway but come on that's simply not fair is it. Whoever come up with this stupid system needs shooting it's pathetic. They should go back down to four groups, it stops this nonsense confusion and it improves the quality of the teams involved. 

[Stan]

3 minutes ago, Devil said:

Tell you what's not fair, I've just had a good looking at the last 16 table and it's the most confusing thing I've ever read for a tournament. 

Netherlands, Belgium, Winner of group E & Winner of group F 

These teams win their groups and play best third place teams. 

Italy and England win our groups and we play second place teams. 

Now it's a tournament and you've got to beat what's in front of you anyway but come on that's simply not fair is it. Whoever come up with this stupid system needs shooting it's pathetic. They should go back down to four groups, it stops this nonsense confusion and it improves the quality of the teams involved. 

Alternatively some other sides could have face other best 3rd-placed teams. It only becomes unfair once you know who might play who, because some results didn't go a certain way.

[MUFC]

Did you see Rashford when he came off the bench? For a professional athlete I'm really disappointed by the shape and depth to his pecs. 

[Devil]

8 minutes ago, Stan said:

Alternatively some other sides could have face other best 3rd-placed teams. It only becomes unfair once you know who might play who, because some results didn't go a certain way.

It was always unfair on group A and D in my opinion, both groups knew that by winning the group they'd face runners up over third place sides. 

Shit system that needs addressing for me, hardly any of the teams go home and it's confusing as hell. Ukraine have had to wait three days to see if they are still in the competition. 

[Stan]

Just now, Devil said:

It was always unfair on group A and D in my opinion, both groups knew that by winning the group they'd face runners up over third place sides. 

Shit system that needs addressing for me, hardly any of the teams go home and it's confusing as hell. Ukraine have had to wait three days to see if they are still in the competition. 

But then (to play devil's advocate) is it not unfair that some cities get to play at 'home' more often than others? 

England could have 6 out of a potential 7 games all at Wembley. Is that not unfair either?

[Devil]

3 minutes ago, Stan said:

But then (to play devil's advocate) is it not unfair that some cities get to play at 'home' more often than others? 

England could have 6 out of a potential 7 games all at Wembley. Is that not unfair either?

That's just crazy mate, whoever come up with this format is insane and it's actually something that's taken away from the tournament if you ask me. I think the organisers are getting away with it currently because nobody can really travel anyway so it's working out not so bad but if things were normal people would defo be saying this is crap. 

The whole idea of a summer tournament is the fans gathering together in a nation and that nation embracing the whole event and the tourism it brings. I heard Dean Saunders say you'd not even know there was a tournament going on over in Baku!

 

[Stan]

35 minutes ago, Devil said:

That's just crazy mate, whoever come up with this format is insane and it's actually something that's taken away from the tournament if you ask me. I think the organisers are getting away with it currently because nobody can really travel anyway so it's working out not so bad but if things were normal people would defo be saying this is crap. 

The whole idea of a summer tournament is the fans gathering together in a nation and that nation embracing the whole event and the tourism it brings. I heard Dean Saunders say you'd not even know there was a tournament going on over in Baku!

 

I agree, I much prefer the hosting to be in one country, or at most a joint-hosting. Works much better. 

[Cicero]

14 hours ago, carefreeluke said:

I said we should go for a back three before the tournament started and that shape doesn't necessarily mean we have to sacrifice something in attack, it's not as if we're that good in attack at the moment in a 4-3-3 anyway. I just think the back three makes us more organized and gives everyone a clear tactical role whilst providing the players more protection. I think more holes will appear in a 4-3-3 which will be more critical against better opposition. Regardless of what shape we play, we'll go out in the next round anyway but I think we stand more of a chance with a back three. I think with the back three the tactical plan and idea are easier to follow, a 4-3-3 involves a lot more fluidity which history suggests is probably not a good thing for England at international tournaments. Going to a back three doesn't necessarily mean England being more defensive either, I just think they would probably be more effective at this tournament, and more effectiveness is better to watch as well.

What I was thinking too, particularly against Germany as England could match their system. 

Pickford

Walker---Stones---Maguire

Trippier------Henderson---Rice---------Saka

Sterling-----Mount

Kane

[Stan]

14 hours ago, carefreeluke said:

I said we should go for a back three before the tournament started and that shape doesn't necessarily mean we have to sacrifice something in attack, it's not as if we're that good in attack at the moment in a 4-3-3 anyway. I just think the back three makes us more organized and gives everyone a clear tactical role whilst providing the players more protection. I think more holes will appear in a 4-3-3 which will be more critical against better opposition. Regardless of what shape we play, we'll go out in the next round anyway but I think we stand more of a chance with a back three. I think with the back three the tactical plan and idea are easier to follow, a 4-3-3 involves a lot more fluidity which history suggests is probably not a good thing for England at international tournaments. Going to a back three doesn't necessarily mean England being more defensive either, I just think they would probably be more effective at this tournament, and more effectiveness is better to watch as well.

I don't mind the back 3 as long as it's utilised properly with the correct players in the right positions.

I don't think the way we've played the back 3 before has resulted in performances being better to watch.

Yesterday the 4-3-3 was better - could see it so much in the first half how galvanised and energetic the whole team were. Mind you it could have been down to specific players being chosen but either way, there was a more direct nature about the team.

Pickford

Walker - Maguire - Stones - Shaw

Henderson/Rice - Phillips

Sterling - Mount/Foden - Grealish

Kane

With that there's options to play various players - Saka could come in for Sterling; Sterling could even be played in the middle like he was last night. Grealish towards the left is better as shown yesterday. Phillips has had a good tournament so far and I'm not too fussed if Henderson or Rice play instead. 

 

Pickford

Mings - Maguire - Stones

Walker                                         Shaw

Phillips - Mount

Sterling - Foden - Grealish

Kane

My issue with this 3-at-the-back formation is that it restricts what our wider players further up the pitch can do because of the wing-backs naturally getting forward, too. 

The good thing about either is that there should be enough on the pitch to provide chances to Kane. At times we're quite reliant on needing Kane to perform and score, almost an over-reliance. Sterling has scored 2 but the chances we create often go through Kane so if he doesn't take them, we seem to struggle to score. And he must not come deep. Literally no point for him to do it; he was doing it very early on last night and I just couldn't understand why. It occupied the space in midfield where there are already a lot of bodies and meant we had to slow down when we did get the ball further up the pitch because there was no target in the box to aim for, other than two smaller players in Sterling and Saka. 

[Cicero]

Can't play Mount in the pivot. Tried that under Tuchel and didn't work. 

[Bluebird Hewitt]

2 hours ago, Stan said:

But then (to play devil's advocate) is it not unfair that some cities get to play at 'home' more often than others? 

England could have 6 out of a potential 7 games all at Wembley. Is that not unfair either?

To back that up a bit more, Wales have had two games in Baku, one in Rome (against the 'home team' Italy) and will play Denmark in Amsterdam with no Welsh fans in attendance (Danish fans however can attend, so long as it's for 12 hours only). 

Bloody ridiculous really. 

[Redcanuck]

Is anybody optimistic that England can win the the Euros?  I have been disappointed with how they have played in the group stages and have serious doubts they will win their next game.

[Michael]

1 hour ago, Devil said:

That's just crazy mate, whoever come up with this format is insane and it's actually something that's taken away from the tournament if you ask me. I think the organisers are getting away with it currently because nobody can really travel anyway so it's working out not so bad but if things were normal people would defo be saying this is crap. 

The whole idea of a summer tournament is the fans gathering together in a nation and that nation embracing the whole event and the tourism it brings. I heard Dean Saunders say you'd not even know there was a tournament going on over in Baku!

 

I second Stan on the fact that it's much better for one or even 2 neighbouring countries to host this competition, rather than have it played all over Europe. I mean Glasgow is the other side of Europe to Baku, likewise St Petersburg is the other side of Europe to Seville. The amount of travelling that some of the teams have to do, is really unnecessary in a major tournament. 

As to your argument of some of the teams who finish 1st are allowed to play 3rd placed teams, while other teams who finish 1st have to play 2nd place teams, I don't think there is a big issue there. I mean we can argue all day which teams are strong and which teams are not so strong, for example. A team that finishes 3rd could be a team that traditionally is considered a very strong side(Spain could finish 3rd in their group for example). Just because a team finishes 2nd in a group, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are stronger than another team that finishes 3rd in another respective group.

I think that the issue in this tournament, is that they have allowed four teams that finish 3rd in their groups to qualify. This has meant that because of the various possible permutations, some teams have approached games in a certain way, different then how they might usually approach certain games. Another issue that I think is a little unfair, is that some sides have had home advantage. Denmark, Germany, England, Italy, Spain etc .. have no doubt benefitted from playing at home.

[Devil]

11 minutes ago, Michael said:

 

I think that the issue in this tournament, is that they have allowed four teams that finish 3rd in their groups to qualify. This has meant that because of the various possible permutations, some teams have approached games in a certain way, different then how they might usually approach certain games. Another issue that I think is a little unfair, is that some sides have had home advantage. Denmark, Germany, England, Italy, Spain etc .. have no doubt benefitted from playing at home.

100% agree on the countries playing at home, that's an absolute joke and totally unfair.