DCFC Kicks

1 hour ago, MuespachRam said:

so what you are saying id they shouldnt have offered him a new contract pre tounrnament, but after 1 win that they should have but now you realised it is mid tournament so they shouldnt have again.........??

Croatia and the Czech republic are both very very good teams.....and Gareth stuffed them both....

No, I've been consistent in saying he should only be offered a new contract if he does well after this tournament is finished. 

Everyone's happy England are winning obviously but if we lose to Ukraine or Denmark/Czechia then I still don't think we should extend his contract beyond 2022 immediately, but he's done enough to stay for 2022, then assess him after that.

Why are you also ignoring the fact we couldn't even score against the worst team in the tournament in Scotland?

13 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

Obviously we aren’t counting the fact that he has also beaten the World Cup finalists and a team already in the last 8 of the Euros…..because they can’t be any good…

Croatia aren't the team they were in 2018, they're even older and 4 key players retired. Czech Republic are decent but did you see how bad the Netherlands were? They also had a red card. 

Southgate even said himself it's inappropriate to talk about new contracts mid tournament.

37 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:

your thoughts now?

Since putting that he has now beat a good nation for the first time in a tournament, now would be the time to consider offering him a new contract, not before.

7 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

Everything you need to know about someone.......has a picture of possibly the worst footballer and most disruptive piece of dog excrement that has ever played at our club as his avatar thingy....

Why are you getting personal? Just because I have a funny picture of Keogh as an avatar doesn't mean I like him.? 

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Croatia had a midfield starting 2 players from Real Madrid and 1 from Barcelona and another from Inter. Defenders from Atl Madrid and Liverpool. Forwards from Juventus and Inter.

Our squad included Rose, Cahill, Jones, Delph, Young, Dier, Loftus-Cheek and Welbeck.

All you've done there is list all there best players and all our worst players who didn't even play, what does that prove?

Croatia were an aging team, your forgetting that Liverpool player from Croatia was Lovren, so not exactly amazing. There other CB played for Dynamo Kyiv. There LB couldn't get in Sampdoria's team. Why also leave out the fact Croatia also had players from the likes of Gent, Lokomotiv Moscow and Rijeka?

It was our first test of the tournament and lost, but the FA still think Southgate is doing a great job

14 minutes ago, enachops said:

Southgate has done a decent job. Bought the young players into the squad, got them all playing for the shirt again. He had a tough gig taking over after the car crash of the Hodgson and Big Sam era. Got to the World Cup semi final and nations league final. IF we beat Germany his record will be up there for England. I think Southgate is an ideal international manager, not all club managers make decent international managers. Southgate is well suited to the role. He just needs to let the shackles off a bit more. 

If he beats Germany wouldn't it be the first time Southgate has beaten a top side at a major tournament? Why ignore the luck of 2018? If Sven had had that draw in one of his World Cups he probably would have got to a final, yet he's seen as a failure and Southgate is now "great".

19 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:

France almost sacked Deschamps about 8 years ago, look at them now!

Give Southgate a chance.

We kept giving Sven a chance, definitely worth sticking with him wasn't it?

We've already given him a chance, we had once in a blue moon luck with our draw in 2018 and he couldn't win at the first real test in the tournament.

15 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:

it is classed as a tournament though.

They're just glorified friendlies.

20 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

thats the problem it shouldnt be agreed we should have won more..... we are Denmark, get used to it...

Our squad is in the top 5 in Europe yes it is...and?

Isn't a World Cup worth more than a EUROs? 

or by your logic wouldn't that make Uruguay better than France and Spain?

Isn't it more to do with eras and cycles? different countries dominate at different times and it's up to them to win while there on top. England's last one was the early 2000s and they didn't win. Countries aren't just at the same level constantly.

Also England withdrew from FIFA and weren't in the first three World Cups where they would of had a good chance at winning.

I still don't know what this has to do with offering Southgate a new contract though.

1 minute ago, MuespachRam said:

Croatia in 2004, where we smashed them all over the place.

2004-only got knocked out on penalties, same in 2006 and 2012 we topped the group with France, ukarine and Sweden... I think you have to remember that the last time we won anything was 1966, that is 55 years ago...!! in that time, we have put a man on the moon, changed our whole currency, invented the internet and even had a reality TV star as the president of the most powerful nation in the world....

We arent the great powerhouse of football, we are Denmark, Peru, Paraguay, Greece, Columbia, Chile...they have all won as least as much as we have

Croatia weren't very good in 2004. 

Wouldn't you class losing on pens as drawing? so not a win. 

Yes we have only won as much as those teams but isn't it widely agreed that we should have won more? I'm talking about Southgate right now. Our squad at the moment is in the top 5 in Europe easily, and better than Germany's. 

I don't know why this has turned into a discussion the history of the English national team. I was only disagreeing with the FA decision to offer Southgate a new contract before this tournaments even finished and saying he's doing a "great job". 

22 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:

What about the teams we beat in the nations league? Do they not count as good results? 

The Nations League is irrelevant, can you even remember who last won it? I can't.

1 hour ago, MuespachRam said:

To be fair, Sven had a much better squad than Southgate has ever had, Sven had Seaman, Cole, Scholes, Beckham, Ferdinand, Campbell, Owen, Sheringham all who would walk into the team that Southgate has. 

Yes and Sven was a failure, but Southgate probably has the best squad since Sven. I don't think England have beaten a big nation in a tournament since Argentina in 2002, which is terrible.

4 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

Whatever you say about him and whatever you say about the run to the semi final, he got us to the best finishing position in the World Cup that we have had in your lifetime.

in 1990 we were absolute dog excrement in all 3 of the group games only scrapping through thanks to a set piece 1-0 against a truly terrible Egypt team, we got a last minute extra time set piece goal to win against Belgium and were very very lucky to beat Cameroon thanks to 2 penalties.....but everyone remembers that as the greatest ever tournament for England...

(just to be clear, I like Southgate, he seems like a decent chap, I really want him to succeed BUT i do think that if we had Jose as manager that we would absolutely cream this tournament)

I know luck is a part of football and it's right to enjoy it when it goes your way, but we were lucky in 1990 and 2018. 

The true test of how good a team is isn't how far they go in a tournament, but how well they do when they meet a good opposition. Southgate hasn't beaten good opposition yet. Eriksson at least beat Argentina at World Cup 2002.

12 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:

why would it?

Because it was only the second real test we had all tournament, after losing the first against Belgium. How can you say he did a great job after only winning games where we were the overwhelming favourites? 

36 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:

On the back of being beaten by Iceland at the previous tournament I would say that's a huge improvement. 

Also did very well in the Nations League against some "big" sides.

The shouting "COME ON!" doesn't determine weather he's doing a good job or not, it's just great to see and gets the fans onboard.  

It's not exactly doing a "great job" improving from the Iceland defeat, it would be quite hard to do worse than that. 

England have always done well in irrelevant games like the Nations League, it means nothing.

If you don't think shouting "Come On!" determines whether he's doing a good job or not, then why did you mention it in your reasons for why you think he's doing a good job in your previous post?

23 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

If everything was played on paper, what would be the point in watching? That Croatia side was very good, had many experienced top level players. I think it's extremely unfair to say 'we should have beaten them.'

You can't assess how well a manager is doing based on tournament football in my opinion. It's knockout, one game, anything can happen.

You have to judge it over a long period of time. In the end you get a feel for how well we're doing and whether it should be better. At the moment, Gareth is doing fine. 

Yes but if we're saying Southgate is doing a "great job" then that would mean beating Croatia. It was the first big test of the tournament and we lost. 

Isn't the whole point of international football performing when it matters on the big occasion? I agree with getting a feel for how well we're doing, but we've had the second fewest shots of any team at the EUROs and couldn't even score against Scotland, how is that a good feeling.

My biggest worry is there were a lot of people arounds saying Eriksson was "doing fine" and then we failed tournament after tournament with all those amazing players.  

7 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:

So you agree we did well at the World Cup because of the draw, not Southgate's tactics? We also failed to beat Belgium twice. Croatia and drew against Colombia, despite having a better squad than both Croatia and Colombia. 

We did well at the world cup because of the draw & Southgate's set piece tactics. Is failing to beat Belgium really seen as bad, they are the no.1 ranked team in the world. We narrowly lost to Croatia, can happen.  Not sure what you were thinking would happen at the world cup, but expectations were pretty low before the tournament. 

My main issue is that the FA are saying he's doing a "great job". If we were unlucky in the World Cup and drew France after the group stage and got beat 3-0 would he still be doing a "great job"?

Who knows? Only the FA can answer that.

So if only Rooney had screamed "COME ON!" after a rare win that would make him a good manager in your eyes then?

I think you know my answer to that is a resounding NO.  However, it's always nice to see that your teams manager cares. Lampard and the bounce being a good example.

We already wasted one generation of good English players when we stuck with Eriksson. 

Yes.

So do you agree with the FA that he's doing a "great job" or not? Which is what this topic is about.

If so, how is he doing a great job?

If you think beating Sweden, Panama and Tunisia and then drawing to a poor Colombian side, then shouting "COME ON!" is doing a great job then I disagree with you.

6 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:

You can only beat what's put in front of you. It wasn't Southgate's fault that we had a good draw at the world cup. 

maybe he's not the best man for the job, who knows? But when he has as much passion as he does its brilliant. Remember his reaction/celebration after the shootout win v Colombia. Priceless.

Having a manager that truly cares is not really something money can buy. 

 

So you agree we did well at the World Cup because of the draw, not Southgate's tactics? We also failed to beat Belgium twice. Croatia and drew against Colombia, despite having a better squad than both Croatia and Colombia. 

My main issue is that the FA are saying he's doing a "great job". If we were unlucky in the World Cup and drew France after the group stage and got beat 3-0 would he still be doing a "great job"?

So if only Rooney had screamed "COME ON!" after a rare win that would make him a good manager in your eyes then?

We already wasted one generation of good English players when we stuck with Eriksson. 

How is he doing a great job? What has he actually done? Beat Panama and Sweden, narrowly beat Tunisia and won a penalty shootout. Now we can't even score against Scotland.

What has he ever done in his managerial career to suggest he's good? 

4 hours ago, Coconut said:

The way we set up it was more a case of Jozwiak being in support of Byrne.

It's understandable because Byrne's crossing is of such a high standard, it doesn't really help Jozwiak much though. Lots of people just see 'winger', check the goals/assists and judge entirely on that.

What's very clear from watching Poland is that Jozwiak is very much told to stick to the touchline wherever possible, for us he was told to move inside to make way for Byrne.

But whatever the the tactics were, whether Jozwiak was supporting Byrne or the other way round, they obviously didn't work. My point was there is enough overall attacking ability in Jozwiak and Byrne to cause more problems for defenses than they did last season, and the right manager would get that out of them.  

12 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Or it could be that you're still not listening.

14 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

...where waits Lewandowski to head his crosses into the net. Is that who we're gonna sign?!

How does this quote not suggest you think Jozwiak is only better for Poland because of Lewandowski?

If I'm wrong, please explain how Rooney's tactics take zero blame for Jozwiak being better for Poland.

.

11 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Could be that you're not listening.

I'll state it nice and simple for you. Joz is a good player. If he had a bad season last season there were plenty of excuses for him. 

Or you could just look back at this thread and see you've contradicted yourself about 3 times. 

so judging by your unwavering defences of Rooney, the excuses for Jozwiak last season, and why he's better for Poland were nothing to do with tactics. 

Have you not suggested the main excuse is Lewandowski is better than CKR? Even though you've also denied this in other comments?

So please tell me what the possible excuses are?

6 hours ago, Indy said:

Fair point. But I think the quality of the whole forward line giving the defence something to deal with would mean the opposition can’t put two or three players on shutting the winger down. 

I agree, but does that not come down to what my primary argument is? that the tactics are why Jozwiak is better for Poland than us.

There's been times where our front line consisted of CKR on his own. At most it was a a front 3 with 2 wingers and a striker. There's been times this season where we've had Jozwiak on RW with Byrne in RB in support. Isn't there enough quality there to cause more problems for defenders than they have? 

8 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

You are the one being deliberately obtuse. Yes if CKR doesn't get into the right position to score a cross is wasted. If CKR is playing against decent CBs a cross can also be wasted. It isn't just down to Joz putting the ball over, geddit.

What!? But you were originally saying the reason Jozwiak's end product is better for Poland is because Lewandowski is in the box, then changed your mind and said that wasn't the reason, and now you're saying it is again?

I know it isn't just down to Jozwiak to put the ball over, but this is a Jozwiak thread and we're talking about his end product being better for Poland than Derby. 

I don't get what the striker on the end of crosses has to do with Jozwiak having space out wide to attack into or the quality of his delivery. Isn't the issue that Jozwiak isn't putting crosses in at all? I can't think of any times last season where Jozwiak put a ball in and I though "Lewandowski would have got on the end of that".

7 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Lol. Nothing, if there's no defenders in the box. Or as was pointed out to CKR 'get into positions to score'.

You're not making sense. So you're saying Jozwiak has been putting in good crosses but our strikers haven't been in the right positions? that can't be true can it? 

and our strikers positioning has nothing to do with the managers tactics what so ever I'm guessing? ?