DCFC Kicks

1. Jagielka

2. Davies or Wisdom (depending on Davies injury details)

3. Mengi

4. Baldock

The amount of people on here willing to take a gamble on Morrison based of one pre-season game is alarming, especially when we have no CB's and 4 is usually a minimum requirement for a squad, we will be lucky to get 3. We also currently only have 1 immobile striker which will massively limit our attacking play.

It looks like we'll be giving Morrison a contract though, typical Derby. Rooney seems to have fallen for his ability in training like so many other managers have. Hope I'm wrong and he's amazing but It's not worth the risk. 

3 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

C. Davies

P. Jagielka

R. Stearman

S. Aluko

R. Morrison

Get the experience in, and hope for 'young loan talent' later.

Why not Baldock? I thought he looked quite good and closed down there defence well. Isn't CKR our only striker?

1 minute ago, Chris_Martin said:

no.

Leave me alone. ?

Does anyone know what colour the number/names will be on the back?

2 hours ago, Chris_Martin said:

Agreed we didn't trouble them much after the goal, but you cant say we weren't in control 1st half though. It's tournament football, very cagey, teams don't usually take risks when they're in front.

Yes it didn't really work after we changed system, but admittedly it was too late then, they had already scored. 

So you're agreeing with me that he got the tactics wrong then?

also we haven't even mentioned the penalty takers yet...

3 hours ago, Chris_Martin said:

I would argue the opposite. I think he got the tactics spot on, our wing backs were causing Italy a lot of problems and we had good control of the game. 

He just didn't seem to react quite quick enough in the 2nd half when Italy changed. 

England didn't really trouble there defence at all after the goal, even when we eventually changed it didn't work. 

On 11/07/2021 at 09:22, Bob The Badger said:

I'm presuming some may have seeing as he was called everything from a yes-man to tactically naive prior to the Euros.

When I lived in t he US I didn't watch much Premiership and very few England games so I really didn't have much of an opinion and was on the fence.

But I was worried that he'd taken Boro down and not managed/coached at this level, but I thought the last WC looked promising.

Then I thought the open letter he wrote prior to the start of the tournament was utterly brilliant.

Of course that didn't mean he'd do well here, but it did show a real awareness of stuff other than the football, most importantly his players.

Then when I have seen interviews with other people who have known him from way back and who have talked about his approach to every level of the England organisation in terms of making it inclusive whilst giving autonomy for people to do what they do best, my admiration shot up.

That is how you lead rather than just manage.

He's also incredibly gutsy and not at all swayed by the media and fans clamouring.

Sir Alf was like that with Hurst over Greaves. He stuck to what he thought was the best thing to do even when millions disagreed.

To bring Grealish on and then take him off again required gonads of biblical proportions.

I also love that this team is almost egoless in an era where that is so unusual. That's not an accident.

So I've gone from ambivalence to thinking I don't care what happens today, I'll still be glad we have him going into the World Cup and I think this team will be a real force for years to come.

Anybody else changed their mind?

More importantly, anybody else still not impressed?

All those qualities are good but isn't the primary role of a manger to win games? As much as everyone likes him, I still think there are questions around his tactical ability. I think he got the tactics wrong against Italy and against Croatia in the WC semi-final. I think his lack of ability to react when the game swings the oppositions way is the most worrying. Look how Mancini reacted to going a goal down and how Southgate had no answers,

People can say "you can only beat what's in front of you" all they want, but the quality of the opposition we've been lucky to play against in the past two tournaments have played a massive part in how far we've gone in them, and people denying this are choosing to ignore it. 

Having said all that, overall he's done a good job and deserves to stay for the 2022 WC.

30 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:

despite all the football's he's kicked at many other clubs, who've all said he's a bad egg?

Why are you not willing to give Morrison a chance but were happy when we gave one to Ibe?... Who you kept banging on about all last season about how he was about to come in and destroy the league at any moment. 

Phil Jones confirmed sighting.

and again for proof.

9 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Thats not how football works. So because a team draws with another, neither are top? Or the better team can't be a top team? I guess France are in the shadow of the Swiss then.

Czechs vs Croatia was a very even game and both deserved a draw. France vs Swiss was a one off game that France threw. Come on your being flippant. 

But by your logic it doesn't matter what teams you play, just how far you go. So the Czechs are better than Croatia because they got further? Ukraine as well.

1 hour ago, Duracell said:

Italy are better because they can control the ball. We can't. In 2018 Modric was the difference, and last night it was Jorginho. These are the players we just can't seem to produce in this country, for whatever reason.

Is there anyone coming through who could do this? Bellingham? I wanted Ward-Prowse in the squad but he's not quite that kind of player. Harry Winks played well for England a while ago, not sure what's happened to him. Or maybe move Foden more central?

18 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So it's ok to dismiss Germany but not Belgium?

England couldnt have taken Spain to penalties but they managed it with Italy...who beat Spain. 

Is there actually any logic to what you are saying or is it correct to assume that you just dont like Southgate because he is not a fashionable name?

When did I dismiss Germany? Belgium are much better than Germany at the moment anyway. 

Why is beating someone on penalties classed as a win when it suits your argument, but only counts as a draw when it doesn't?

Spain outplayed Italy and England would have needed luck, like Italy had, to take it to penalties against them. But Spain's strongest area is there midfield, even better than Italy's, and England's weakest area is the midfield. That's why I think we'd struggle against them.

I don't dislike Southgate at all. I think he's done well overall. But the final showed he's just not at the same level tactically as the likes of Mancini and Enrique, which is understandable, and it cost us in the end. 

1 hour ago, nottingram said:

Yes and we had to beat Croatia and Germany to get to the final and would have also had to beat Italy to win it. What’s your point?

I can't accept Croatia are still a top team, if they are then Czech Republic are as well who they drew to. They're both just good teams.

31 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Could anyone tell me a time where someone has had to beat all of the top teams in order to win a tournament. Given there only tends to be a handful of “top” teams at any one time I would find it surprising if there have been many occasions.

In the end Italy didn’t have to beat many top teams either because lots of top teams got knocked out by lesser teams. Maybe the lesser teams are getting better. Just a thought.

France had to beat Spain, Portugal then Italy in 2000

Greece had to beat France and Portugal in 2004

Spain had to beat Italy and Germany in 2008 

Spain had to beat France, Portugal then Italy in 2012

Portugal were very lucky in 2016, but they made the most of there luck.

So you usually have to beat 2/3 big teams to win. 

30 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

What a load of nonsense. Do you expect to play all the 'best teams' in a tournament. You know it never works like that.

You could just as well flip the narrative and say Italy had an easy run. They beat Turkey who were one of the worst teams in the tournament, Wales whose star players are past their best. They needed extra time against Austria who had a goal disallowed. They just about beat Belgium with an old back line, no Hazard and a half fit Kevin de bruyne. Got dominated by Spain and were lucky to win on penalties.

Why is it always England who are 'lucky.' People like you will never give Southgate credit no matter what happens. You will always find a way to pick it apart. 

I agree that Italy were lucky as well but not as much as England. You can't just dismiss Belgium like that and I'm honestly not sure England would have been able to take Spain to penalties. Most teams who win tournaments have luck, but it doesn't come around very often and you have to make the most of it. I just think the last two tournaments are big missed opportunities.

Are you really saying you were happy with Southgate's tactics last night? 

Why are we not allowed to question Southgate's tactics in the final? It doesn't mean I'm not supporting them or that I'm not happy they got to a final.

1 hour ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Can’t agree with this. Southgate got England playing together, defensively strong (hardly conceded any goals). Didn’t lose a match apart from penalties. Managed his team well. Have had no issue with his subs apart from I thought yesterday he could have brought on players earlier.

The fact he didn't bring players on sooner possibly cost us the game. Italy changed formation and Southgate didn't have an answer. The worst thing is the match played out almost exactly the same as the Croatia semi-final. The game was there for England to win but he decided to try and hold on to a 1-0 for 45mins and it was the wrong decision, I wish it wasn't but it just was.

11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Southgate's credentials currently stands as 2 semi finals and a final from his first 3 tournaments. 

What are Graham Potter's credentials?

Yes he's managed to get to a final and semi-final whilst only having to beat one (possibly two) top team(s) over two tournaments, how lucky can you get? I honestly think Sven could have done just as good, if not better than Southgate had he had the same opponents. 

Potters clearly a very good modern tactical coach who's already being linked to top teams. Why do England always seem to hire managers whose tactics are already 10 years out of date?

15 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

Apart from the World Cup finalists who beat us 3 years ago.

Croatia are no where near the team they were 3 years ago, 4 key players retired. Anyway that would still only be 2 top teams beaten in 2 tournaments

15 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

This sentence instantly contradicts himself. If you thought we’d never have an easier route than last time, and then we got an even easier route this time. Just 3 years later. 

I think you read my post wrong. The last 2 tournaments have been England's luckiest in there history in terms of teams played and they happened to be back to back both with Southgate in charge.

Southgate has been the most lucky manager in England's history. We will never have an easier route in a tournament than we have the last two. He's very media/corporate friendly, which is why he'll get another contract, but he's just not good enough tactically. Mancini isn't the best manager in the world but he's still good and he's won things before. What are Southgate's past credentials? Italy changed formation and Southgate had no answers, terrible subs at the wrong time. Germany are the only top team we've beat in the past two tournaments. I'd like to see someone like Graham Potter as England manager.

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I think that if you took out the period where Denmark were down to 10 men and England did dominate completely, it was about 60 40, maybe 65 35.

It was certainly not one way traffic. 

If you look at the extra time on it's own which is when the penalty was given, England definitely dominated. It would have been almost impossible for Denmark to have got a lucky penalty as they didn't touch the ball once in England's box for the entire extra time.

22 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Can I just say that yes, Maradona handled the first goal against England back in 86. But we were miles behind them and barely had a sniff. It was hardly a game changing moment, I was watching the game and it was very much a case of when, not if, for the Argentina team. 

But you could also say after Denmark made there triple sub England completely dominated the game. England got a lucky decision in the box, but it was through constantly getting in the box that England were able to have an opportunity to get a lucky decision. Denmark could have had a lucky penalty but they were so far away from England's box that they didn't give themselves an opportunity to get one.

2 hours ago, Coconut said:

Judging by the OTT, inescapable, unbearably smug, excessively saccharine media response to them finally not ducking up a semi final or earlier round at a major tournament I'd say the fear is very justified.

You'd think we were a country on the level of Estonia and it's some sort of miraculous achievement against all odds and expectations for us to even be in the competition. The hype is absolutely ducking unbelievable.

Then there's the whole patriotic overload, the insinuation that "the whole nation" was sat there a nervous wreck throughout the match and a blubbering mess after it, all waving their flags and singing along to "Sweet Caroline" (I mean ducking hell, really?) while they hug their mates; that they'll be marking it down on the calendar as the greatest day of their lives, or soon to be the second greatest day of their lives, all because England have finally done something they should have been able to do years ago and done repeatedly, but kept ducking it up.

I'm surprised there aren't calls for 7th July itself to be made a public holiday, never mind the 11th!

Supporting England feels the same to me as the idea of dancing at a wedding reception, or clapping along and raising lighters at a gig but only when the band says so; an audience swaying their arms on X-Factor because there's a light above stage telling the it's their time to do so... and everyone bloody does it. Probably in time to Sweet Caroline. Kill me.

A total cringefest of enforced togetherness and mandated enjoyment. "If you're not full of joyous emotion right now there's something wrong with you!I" - not said directly, but heavily implied when listening to Sam Matterface's overbearing commentary.  The last thing it did was make me feel involved, if anything it's pushed me further away.

Can't even have a little smirk of schadenfreude at England losing to an inferior team anymore, it's been written that they've already achieved greatness by getting to a final and, because it's against Italy in a sick twist of fate England are the underdog, and I've sworn to support the bloody underdog, haven't I? duck.

I can only imagine how bad it'll get, and for how long, if they actually win it. Maybe all channels broadcasting any content involving an English football fan will go off air as the sight of everyone disappearing up each other's arses is seen as obscene material? Oh poo, just remembered it'll be after the watershed so anything goes, and maybe everyone will just spontaneously combust so there's nobody to turn off the feed.

God it's going to be unwatchable.

I can't tell if you're English or not, but if you are and you're not enjoying it that's your choice, but it's making a lot of other people happy. Is it really that surprising that a broadcaster/newspaper is overselling something they're selling? 

and if you aren't enjoying it, why are you watching it? Patriot Games was on Channel 4 at the same time so you could have been watching Harrison Ford instead.

(I also agree with everything you said about ITV. I hate ITV and everything it stands for).

17 hours ago, Seaside Ram said:

It made me chuckle last night when after Sterling , Kane and Grealish had dived England into the Final they are described as clever or cute.

But if a Bloody Foreigner does it they are dirty cheats who need banning for 10 games.  When will a commentator or fan just say ' we got away with one there ! ' 

Ridiculous Hypocrisy in my eyes !!

That's such a boring typical response that always comes up every time an English player or England do well. It's almost cliché. 

It's similar to the overused " He's so overrated, it's only because he's English". where so many people say it that it weirdly makes the player underrated if anything.

and where has this "But if a Bloody Foreigner does it they are dirty cheats" come from? If anything English players get more stick than any other nationality, usually followed by this exact cliché statement you've put. Grealish constantly gets called a diver but I can't remember the last time I saw him win a freekick and though he dived to win it, even when he plays for Villa and I'm not on his side, he literally just get fouled a lot. 

Why are these statements always suggesting that "everyone's saying England were clever, but if so and so did it....". When in fact there's more of these statements complaining than there are the original statements they're complaining about?!

Why is no one talking about the fact that it also wasn't a foul for Denmark's freekick they scored from?

Does this mean the embargo is over?

2 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:

Scotland was a weird one off game. Yes it was not great viewing but don't forget we did hit the post twice in that game as well so could easily have got another 1-0. 

I don't understand your complaining about Gareth. Do you honestly think there's a better option than Southgate at the moment?

So many England games over the years I have thought 'wish we could just grind out a 1-0 win here' then we end up losing. Just enjoy the tournament for what it is. 

I'm not complaining, how many times do I have to tell you? I was just opposed to giving him a contract extension before we even played Germany. He's already here for the next World Cup which he deserves, why not just see how he does then and then assess giving him a new contract?