EURO 2020 (2021 Edition)

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.

There are obviously stinker matches and some defensive play styles are more or less cynical or technically impressive than others, but saying defensive football is fan-hostile is a bit like saying foreign movies with challenging subject matter and subtitles are fan-hostile, like it's in the eye of the beholder to an extent and there is the question of who is this *for*

England had a responsibility to play a type of football they though was going to win them a tournament, and the question is probably more "with the wealth of attacking players you are currently blessed with, was sticking to the same cagey style style really the best way to do that?"

there was the golden goal/sudden death system for a while, intended to make the extra time much higher stakes, with a stronger impetus on chasing that decisive goal - but that turned out to be mostly theory, as teams were even more afraid to lose than under regular 2x15' extra time, so it felt like the right decision when it was abandoned. anyway, the sponsors are probably happy with these 45 minutes of (ultimately) high-drama extra TV exposure, so I don't think they will change the current system anytime soon.

thought England's strategy after going up was to defend well, cut off Italy's passing lanes, and goad them into overcommitting for a breakaway opportunity for the second goal. iirc they came real close to getting it but as it always goes they fucked up the half-second opportunity they were given

last "they" being UEFA/FIFA/et al

xp

imo I'd have unlimited 15 minute extra time periods with the caveat that each team sends off 2 players in each period. if it gets down to just the keepers then the managers have to footrace

that chiesa shot in the first half should've been a massive warning for england. probably wouldve done them a favour if it had gone in

@Sgt Biscuits - true, I'm a casual fan who probably isn't the target audience, and it's not like football is having trouble attracting fans! For me, that style of play (leaving aside if, mind-bogglingly, that final was actually an exciting, fun game to watch for football fans) is insanely boring and I never want to watch it again. But I'm also the one trying to cook up dumb rules to get rid of the fouling at the end of close basketball games. I get that it's part of the game at this point, but I still hate it.

I finished reading Ben Lyttleton's book aboiy penalty kicks, Twelve Yards, the day before the final, and the original proposals to introduce shootouts were met with outrage for, among other reasons, the quaint idea that a team that hasn't committed a foul shouldn't have to defend a penalty

As noted, FIFA introduced golden and then silver goals in response to grumbling about the unfairness of shootouts but nobody really found them satisfactory either. People just like the intrigue of penalties, and the ability to see a succession of dramatic individual duels that only happen rarely in normal time, usually with lower stakes

shootouts are not the worst

we're moving onto far-fetched territory here, but the problem is also that the pitch is too big

i'm not saying it should be reduced to the size of it, but indoor soccer is a lot of fun to watch (and play)

DJI sure yeah, and I'm not trying to gatekeep you or anything either, just saying a) that final was far from the worst and b) don't necessarily judge all defensive, cautious football on England's approach

I generally massively prefer my team to go for it and play expansively where possible, but particularly in club football there are big power imbalances if you don't support one of the elite teams, and the satisfaction at a brave rearguard action against a stronger team (or the schadenfreude at a colossally undeserved cheap win over a hated rival) has its own beauty - just not necessarily for the neutral or the other lot on the receiving end

didn't American soccer have a system where it would be one player versus the keeper but they'd start from centre circle and dribble it in? (and iirc that would happen in every single game, there would be no draws ever)

I've also seen the suggestion where they'd take the penalties before the game to get the team with the fewest to try harder during normal play.

I would bring back the 'silver goal' for sure.

I'd bring back the coin toss

My preference as a first choice to decide a drawn match would be to use the number of times a team hit the woodwork in normal time as a tiebreaker. I think it’s something which would change the dynamic of a game as if it were level the other team couldn’t sit back hoping to go into extra time all square. Rewards attacking play.

Obviously if no-one hit the woodwork or the same number then extra time and pens.

fist fight between team captains in the middle of the pitch. winner takes match

I think FIFA made MLS get rid of the hockey-style pens

Tweet-off in the centre circle, whoever gets the most likes within 30 seconds wins

i don't love penalty shoot outs, but this final was great

I'd bring back endless replays till someone wins.

Anyway, this was not a negative park-the-bus defensive game, it wasn't that England were sitting back trying to hold on to their lead in the second half it was more that they just couldn't get the ball off the Italians.

would wholly disagree with the idea that England were defensive for the entire tournament. think the only 2 games where the opposition did more attacking than them was possibly the Scotland game and the final, and the final was skewed by the game effect of an early lead.

Don't know if I am in the minority (thread is tl;dr at this point, sorry) but I enjoy the WTF aspect of PK shootouts.

also this group of England players are possibly better coached than any England team in the last 40 years as far as tactical flexibility. most of them are coached by the best managers in the world.

Good point and as per the last 20 years for England there is no string of obvious/ideal managerial candidates to replace the incumbent manager like there is with the nations knocking them out.

and Southgate dresses like Commander Waterford because he doesn't agree with him

I didn’t think England were overly defensive across the tournament, I’d say they were patient and effective. They (usually) took one or two of their chances, kept going to the end and limited/dealt with opponents fairly well.

There were parts of the first half where I thought England had it in hand, but as Tom D points out Italy gradually began to turn things round and eventually they made it hard for England to get the ball.

I tend not to be a fan of watching pens, at least when it involves a team I support, but I’m not sure I can imagine a better way of sorting out a stalemate.

I’ve been to quite a few (league) games that have ended in draws, where you have the benefit of that being an acceptable final result. Some have been more exciting than games with a clear winner, others have been dour but clearly “a good point in terms of the league”. Different in knock-out competitions where someone has to win.

Id agree with biscuits, in analysing whether or not england were too defensive

Firstly- they came within a kick of winning and gave away little enough through the whole tournament, so youd have to acknowledge that it worked on that scale of things

Secondly, indisputable imo that it did otoh hamper any flow from the midfield to kane, who had a bad tournament because he got no quality possession or support

Thirdly, did england have to play like this or was there better options? as far as retaining possession and closing down with discipline, sure rice and phillips are gonna do a job, but grealish, sancho, foden, rashford are you'd have thought an incredible set of options an hour into a tight final against any team and southgate couldnt see beyond the safe option which saw them safely throw away any chance at seizing initiative

I know sterling does some things well and brings qualities to that attack but i also think he kills as many attacks as he aids, mainly as a spurs fan i just had sinking deja vu watching kane labour to create chance for a conservative team who seemed to dread having taken the lead early

it certainly wasnt a boring game, but a pity that attacking quality wasnt to the fore, admittedly.

If im honest id agree with ken early today that southgate- for all the progress in results- is holding a remarkable squad back rather than bringing anything to the mix himself, and im aware that a semi and a final in succession make that a nonsense statement on the face of it

It's an odd one isn't it, feels churlish to criticise him but...

The extent of the cautiousness in game management in bringing Grealish back off against Denmark so he could switch to a back five against a team that was manifestly utterly dead felt a bit absurd, as if the players on the pitch couldn't have been trusted to close it out or put it further beyond doubt if required

There was obviously an attempt to become more threatening after Italy equalised in bringing on Saka and then later Grealish, but they barely got the ball to them, and on the one odd moment where Saka looked dangerously in behind, Chiellini was just tight enough to do what he had to

Also re: golden/silver goal, as much as teams in extra time often play out an exhausted stalemate as the spectre of penalties looms, IMO the purest spectacle in international football is not penalties but the insanely good match that spills over into an even more insanely good extra time a la Italy 2-0 Germany 2006, you can't be truncating that sort of thing

ahh yes that was a good one, one of the first World Cup matches I had watched since I was a kid, that kinda got me back into the sport

was that the one where there were a crazy number of bookings?

if that's the one, i remember it being intense. italy was full of old players and somehow got this wind of energy out of nowhere to win it. gilardino's shot that hit the post was such a shocker.

i'm trying to remember if del piero scored a goal in that match? at any rate, it's pretty crappy there's always these really horrible commentators now, but i was really surprised to see del piero commentating and thought his observations aligned with mine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZV9l0ypA7o

at any rate, chiesa deserved some kind of award for his performance

crazy number of bookings was the Battle of Nuremburg, which hilariously was the first match I watched of the 2006 Cup. I said to myself "is this normal?"

really wish I'd been into football when the World Cup was hosted in the US when I was 14.

england scored 11 goals in the tournament (seven against non-exhausted-and-overmatched ukraine sides, tbf) and yielded two, neither of which was in the run of play and one of which was, dare i say, a fucking screamer

i mean yeah maybe they should have pressed harder in the final -- in the second half italy were basically granted everything up to midfield -- but they actually did extremely well and lost in a crapshoot to a team that needed a crapshoot to win its semifinal as well

i'm sure it's disappointing to england fans but it was actually a great success and certainly no reason to go questioning one's entire life experience

and at least no one put it over the top or had a ponytail like baggio in '94

yep! that was the one, neanderthal. that was a great world cup.

I know sterling does some things well and brings qualities to that attack but i also think he kills as many attacks as he aids

it's crazy how predictable it is. sterling will run straight at the opposition like a maniac, the ball glued to his feet, he looks unstoppable. he IS unstoppable! but he's like a dog chasing a car. once he gets there he has absolutely no idea what to do next.

I was hoping England might lose, but in my mind's eye I kinda pictured Maguire and Kane missing penalties because I can't stand them. How it actually turned out was brutal.

(xp) Dive

"If im honest id agree with ken early today that southgate- for all the progress in results- is holding a remarkable squad back rather than bringing anything to the mix himself, and im aware that a semi and a final in succession make that a nonsense statement on the face of it"

It was v weird. Watching progress and yet be reminded of old failings.

Lol Tom, you would not give a shit if a Scot dived to get a pen that would take you into the final of the Euros.

At least I'd admit it was a dive though.

I'm perfectly prepared to admit that Tierney's a serial diver, who writhes around in agony if anyone so much as breathes on him. For instance.