EURO 2020 (2021 Edition)

No need to comment.

I said I wanted to take one!!!!
The gaffer has made so many right decisions through this tournament and he did tonight! But I won’t have people say that I didn’t want to take a peno when I said I will… https://t.co/3mBpKyMoUV

— Jack Grealish (@JackGrealish) July 12, 2021

So true. And yet, here we are.

I seem, in life, to have arrived at a feeling, that I didn't have years ago, that penalty shootouts are in a certain sense irrelevant.

They're a way of technically separating two teams who have drawn a match.

ITA take the trophy, ENG don't, and I regret that, especially because this is the only final of my life and I'm not sure there will be another.

But somehow fixating on the penalties seems like a red herring. In the football match, we drew with ITA - who were also, probably, better than us. Why were they better than us? That's what we need to think seriously about.

* Why can't we hold a lead?
* Why did we only have one or two shots in 120 minutes?
* Why did Kane increasingly see so little of the ball, and never in the box?
* Why did we have about 35% possession?
* Why did we, as so often, get gradually pushed back, unable to get out of our half, rattled by ITA's pressing?
* Why couldn't we, just as much, do the same to them?
* Would different players, eg earlier subs, have changed any of this for the better?

Those are the questions I think worth asking.

Mount had an absolute dud of a game, is the answer to a surprisingly high number of those questions

Eng were a lot better even with 30% possession in this than The lol Golden Generation. This is only their 2nd final in a major tournament. Holland have had four in a shorter period of time. Italy have had ten.

If Eng get into more SF and finals they will pick up another win.

Would've been weird for the 'host' nation to actually win the thing although perhaps that is due (won't be happening at the next two World Cups). Hmm where's Euro 24? Oh LOL

The Italians basically passed England to death in the second half and England couldn't hold on to the ball on the few occasions when they managed to get it. Having said that England still looked dangerous when they did get anywhere near the Italian area whereas I was having flashbacks to the more ineffective Spanish teams of old watching the Italians trying to pass the ball into the English net. Once Chiesa went off, Italy didn't present too much of a threat and it was about organizing the teams for penalties, Mancini did that adroitly but Southgate seemed like he hadn't really thought about it.

Italy were poor in the first half, the game was there for England but they needed that second goal.

Mancini did that adroitly but Southgate seemed like he hadn't really thought about it.

― Wouldn't disgrace a Michael Jackson (Tom D.), Monday, 12 July 2021 bookmarkflaglink

It was odd because I think Rashford was going to come on five mins earlier than he did? I would like to know more as to what happened there because there was thinking behind putting Rashford and Sancho for pens.

It seems like it's better to give them a chance of getting a few touches of the ball and at least a brief run out rather than just having your only involvement for like two matches be to take a pressure penalty

The problem for Southgate with bringing on Rashford and Sancho was who they were going to replace. He had two forwards to bring on and he replaced a defender and a defensive midfielder, if he'd done that 15 minutes earlier and Italy had scored he's have been crucified.

Italy were poor in the first half, the game was there for England but they needed that second goal.

Felt very similar to the WC semi final

Yes very similar - Bonucci's goal came only five minutes later than Perisic's and also from a cross.

Seen a lot of chat about Kane going missing in the final. What we saw with England throughout the tournament really was a systematic attacking failure because of the tactics.

3rd highest shots/90 was Maguire. More than Grealish, Saka, Foden, Sancho, Rashford combined

— SHARKY (@Belgian_Hotspur) July 12, 2021

short thread there

one thing england got wrong is that throughout this torunament, shaw and sterling have developed a really strong understanding of each other's movement but they didn't really capitalize on that at all last night. sterling was mostly on the right where you already had trippier and walker. mount was pretty inneffectual and when saka came on to replace him, nothing clicked between him and shaw. shouldve bought rashford on the left in the second half or put raheem there instead imo

well yesterday was fun

Vancouver has come alive . #ita  #ItalyEngland #ENG   #EURO2020   #wembleystadium #Euro2020Final #ENGITA #ENGvITA #Euro2021 pic.twitter.com/zGqO4aWCst

— Nyathikano (@nyathikano) July 11, 2021

Just to finish this thread I loved the Euros in the main. VAR was fairly uncontroversial, and we had wonderful matches through both the group and knockout phases, although Eng's half of the knockout was a bit meh.

Favourite match was Bel-Ita, with Ita-Spa, Fra-Swz and Bel-Por running it close.

No idea what Qatar is going to be like. I know some ppl mentioned boycotts but fuck knows.

The matches in Baku could be a taster for Qatar lol

The reffing was very good too I thought apart from a could of well known howlers

The level of toxicity in English football fandom is overwhelming.

Had that discussion over the weekend with a neighbor from Scotland.

Correction: he is Spanish but his wife is Scottish.

Relative newbie here - has anyone done analysis to show the effectiveness of the hyper-cautious style of play that was on display in the final? You see this in the NFL as well, and while it's (IMO) a poor experience for the viewer/fan, maybe it's the right call in terms of winning percentages. I'm not sure how you measure timidity. Maybe shots on goal after going up a point vs win percentage?

Had that discussion over the weekend with a neighbor from Scotland.

I was about to say pot/kettle.

Though that's more about sectarianism and hating each other.

xxp I guess it's called "parking the bus" in football (non-US).

Southgate trying to blame foreigners for online racist abuse of England's players. Stay classy, Gareth.

Relative newbie here - has anyone done analysis to show the effectiveness of the hyper-cautious style of play that was on display in the final?

― DJI, Monday, July 12, 2021 10:48 AM (forty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

most pundits i heard and pieces i read commented on that because it was what england counted on the most throughout the entire tournament (all england games except one were low scoring games -- 1-0, 0-0, etc.). other teams used it to varying degree.

Relative newbie here - has anyone done analysis to show the effectiveness of the hyper-cautious style of play that was on display in the final? You see this in the NFL as well, and while it's (IMO) a poor experience for the viewer/fan, maybe it's the right call in terms of winning percentages. I'm not sure how you measure timidity. Maybe shots on goal after going up a point vs win percentage?

― DJI, Monday, 12 July 2021 18:48 (thirty-one minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

The Italians developed the cateneccio in the 60s and defending/winning as an option over entertainment value has been important to many great teams/managers ever since. Jose Mourinho is a recent and obvious example, who seemed to want to be the antithesis of entertaining rival teams like Arsenal and Barcelona in every way at Chelsea, Real Madrid and Inter Milan, which meant that even though he had entertaining players, he would encourage dour, defensive tactics, winning the league with both, and the champions league with Inter. There are a lot of stats out there but also some great books, such as Inverting The Pyramid.

Maybe the England actually watched the Italian Job before the game yesterday, cos their bus parking was about as unstable as in that

It was actually the Swiss who invented, or pioneered, catenaccio, iirc.

Often though, hyper cautious and defensive teams know their limitations against more skilled teams, and the result is a team trying not lose being found out. England stopped looking like a team that made the final and instead like a team that had lucked out and became a desperate and cautious. This is different to great defensive teams, which includes the Italians, who believe they will win through defence, not just ‘not lose’. So often this edge can be the difference, which is why managers love players like Chiellini

Southgate trying to blame foreigners for online racist abuse of England's players. Stay classy, Gareth.

“I know a lot has come from abroad. People who track those things have been able to explain that. But not all of it.

That's clumsy but I expect he has in mind trollfarms

it’s true that england started laying back more and more in the second half but this was not an ultra-defensive final imo. lots of probing (particularly from italy!), lots of midfield battles.

Thanks for the replies, guys! For me, it seemed like if you get ahead at minute 2, it might be more freeing to play some more offense with that buffer, but maybe football is such a low-scoring game that one point is good enough to park the bus.

The low scoring aspect is key. You only need one goal to win a game.

in a way it's also an issue of tournament football, where the better teams have more parity, and also don't play as long together so the attacking isn't quite as fluid as on club teams.

but also you can make it to a knockout round by drawing every match, and you can get to PKs in knockout rounds by doing that as well. Whereas in league play, if you don't try to win often, you run the risk of finishing bottom end of table or being relegated.

you can also park the bus and be really, really lousy at it and still give up multiple goals, so defensive skill is required to do what England did (even if it's painful to watch). look at any Panama match by comparison - they largely bus park, but eventually someone fucks up and they still lose 2-0 or 3-0.

Phew.

pic.twitter.com/bs9lksGM4q

— Marcus Rashford MBE (@MarcusRashford) July 12, 2021

damn

You don’t get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message as ‘Gesture Politics’ & then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing we’re campaigning against, happens. https://t.co/fdTKHsxTB2

— Tyrone Mings (@OfficialTM_3) July 12, 2021

Good stuff, also Gary Neville...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjQFoFqmhNg

I was just listening to a bunch of newspapermen talking about the violence and generally toxic atmosphere before, during and after the final, both in the stadium and outside, and their descriptions of it were pretty horrific. They said the usual platititudes about there being a tiny disruptive minority didn't stack up because there were thousands of fans singing offensive songs and being aggressive and obnoxious.

Thanks for the replies, guys! For me, it seemed like if you get ahead at minute 2, it might be more freeing to play some more offense with that buffer, but maybe football is such a low-scoring game that one point is good enough to park the bus.

― DJI, Monday, July 12, 2021 1:02 PM (twenty-four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

it depends on a bunch of moving pieces, right? from the very beginning of the tournament, it was obvious southgate was just interested in winning, even at the cost of the actual sport. playing a defensive style requires some qualities that forward-thinking strategies do: organization and patience. your style of play dictates what you use those qualities for. if you're playing defensively, you want to stay organized in order to mark all your men close to you in the offensive zone and move as a unit; you need patience to wait for your opponent to come to you. england stayed organized and moved as a unit quite well. but watching them play, you got the feeling that this is all they practiced during training. southgate kind of left the attackers on their own, so there were times when the team looked like they lacked guidance or a unifying strategy in the offence, as was clear by how they scored most of their goals (rushing in, centering, and really close to the net).

i'm not gonna lie, i love cruyff, so for me, this was a classic case of results without quality.

but i don't think this is that interesting, actually. i find it sad that southgate decided to approach this tournament the way he did, instead of helping his players grow individually in the ways they can. there is a difference between letting you do whatever you want with little to no guidance and offering support in the ways you see yourself growing. it seems to me that southgate chose the former, and a young player would misinterpret this as support, but it is actually a hindrance. a good coach should give you the tools that you want and need, not completely be hands off and just push for his strategy of the month that he thinks will win the tournament.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6Hj_f-WQBUTL6h?format=jpg&name=medium

So it sounds like the defensive style works (although I'd love to see some statistical proof of that), even if it is a miserable, fan-hostile way to play. Neanderthal's point about the members of national teams not being as used to playing together (and therefore don't have a fluid style to play) as club teams was a good one.

My one other novice-fan wish would be that, at least for the final game of a tourney, there would be NO PK ENDING! Play until everyone drops. PK endings feel like a coin toss to me. Like every tournament that ends in PKs should have an asterisk after it.

That wasn't an ultra-cautious/park the bus match, to be honest. I mean it wasn't crazy gung-ho all-out attacking either, but you'll see much more boring incident-free games than that every week. I know what you mean about the asterisk, but somebody's got to win. It's basically a draw with penalties to decide the winner and they aren't a coin toss: there's skill and bottle required to win the shoot out.