England v. Germany Matchday Thread

[AshtonGreat]

1 hour ago, Super said:

Greece won the Euros and they were the dullest team ever. 

City are just as dull, and we win naff all

[Davefevs]

21 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

I have never played station my life.  

Utopian? Err no. Some risk. Ability to break lines. A degree of complexity on the ball. Without an added dimension (Grealish) in the final third England were impotent away from dead balls.

Its not complicated. Football is simple. Mr Southgates football is very simple. It follows very simple patterns and principles. Mr Southgate yesterday played with a seven and three. Seven defenders and three attackers. It only changed when the complexity of Grealish was added and moving into the ten space into the in between. That is a simple improvement.

Trippier as expected was an improvement from dead balls. Simple improvement.  

Its unrealistic to expect England to continue to not concede playing as they are and win with such consistent low chance creation. That is utopian. 

Personally I thought it changed because Sterling cut inside, went past two men creating extra players….Grealish to Shaw….back to Sterling.  And Shaw intercepting on the halfway line (was Rice off the pitch injured at that point) and striding forward.  I’m grateful for Grealish’s contribution for both goals, but I don’t think much changed tactically at all.  Just two moments of “change”.

Did Grealish play much different positionally to Sterling (apart from when he went Right Side for Saka)?  Nope, not imho.

As above, I’m grateful for Grealish’s end product, but I don’t believe we changed our tactic when Grealish came on.  We just just better exploited tiring defences, one through Sterling’s dribbling, and two through Shaw’s burst forward.

 

[Numero Uno]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Personally I thought it changed because Sterling cut inside, went past two men creating extra players….Grealish to Shaw….back to Sterling.  And Shaw intercepting on the halfway line (was Rice off the pitch injured at that point) and striding forward.  I’m grateful for Grealish’s contribution for both goals, but I don’t think much changed tactically at all.  Just two moments of “change”.

Did Grealish play much different positionally to Sterling (apart from when he went Right Side for Saka)?  Nope, not imho.

As above, I’m grateful for Grealish’s end product, but I don’t believe we changed our tactic when Grealish came on.  We just just better exploited tiring defences, one through Sterling’s dribbling, and two through Shaw’s burst forward.

 

England's first goal was a very good goal if you rewind it back and look at the whole thing again.

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

England's first goal was a very good goal if you rewind it back and look at the whole thing again.

It was, we managed to go across the pitch left to right fairly quickly, before a good ball into Sterling…..meaning Shaw was high up the pitch from the earlier passage.

[Son of Fred]

3 hours ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Apart from the Sterling dodgy pass, from which Germany nearly and should have scored, I really can’t see how this was a poor and inept performance by England

Muller takes that chance nine times out of ten.......

Goals change games & had he scored we'd now be out.

Onwards & upwards!

[JamesBCFC]

2 minutes ago, Son of Fred said:

Muller takes that chance nine times out of ten.......

Goals change games & had he scored we'd now be out.

Onwards & upwards!

Based on what?

We were winning when he had the chance and it was their first really good chance.

Earlier in the game Kane and Maguire had both missed equally good chances

[Cowshed]

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Personally I thought it changed because Sterling cut inside, went past two men creating extra players….Grealish to Shaw….back to Sterling.  And Shaw intercepting on the halfway line (was Rice off the pitch injured at that point) and striding forward.  I’m grateful for Grealish’s contribution for both goals, but I don’t think much changed tactically at all.  Just two moments of “change”.

Did Grealish play much different positionally to Sterling (apart from when he went Right Side for Saka)?  Nope, not imho.

As above, I’m grateful for Grealish’s end product, but I don’t believe we changed our tactic when Grealish came on.  We just just better exploited tiring defences, one through Sterling’s dribbling, and two through Shaw’s burst forward.

 

Personally I would wholly disagree. In a short period of time Grealish added movement. Moving out to in. The movement created a challenge that had not existed before and an opportunity to play off a player that did not exist. A player with a technical ability to add tactical flexibility.  Both were used.   

England play prior to this was constantly predictable. U passing up the sides, back, across, back .. Germany filled in between the width and depth but had no in between to stretch them as obviously England played with deep two CDM's, two CDM's with respect with passing abilities that don't break lines and threaten often. 

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, steviestevieneville said:

Totally agree . Plus , having the likes of grealish, Foden, sancho to come on against tiring defenders must be a nightmare . Keep it tight , finish games last 20 . Some people want some kind of footballing utopia , it’ll never happen. Just win games , don’t care how. 

I could not agree more. 
 

Some of the utter garbage on this thread is nauseating. 

[Numero Uno]

2 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Personally I would wholly disagree. In a short period of time Grealish added movement. Moving out to in. The movement created a challenge that had not existed before and an opportunity to play off a player that did not exist. A player with a technical ability to add tactical flexibility.  Both were used.   

England play prior to this was constantly predictable. U passing up the sides, back, across, back .. Germany filled in between the width and depth but had no in between to stretch them as obviously England played with deep two CDM's, two CDM's with respect with passing abilities that don't break lines and threaten often. 

We can talk tactics all day but the moment that Low would have been thinking "bollocks" was the moment when Sterling left 2-3 players for dead and got the ball into Kane. At that very point he would have been thinking "goal". I get the clamour for Grealish as the overriding thing he brings to the party, notwithstanding the tactical flexibility, is the ability to go past a player which is crucial in international football. 

[Phileas Fogg]

16 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Based on what?

We were winning when he had the chance and it was their first really good chance.

Earlier in the game Kane and Maguire had both missed equally good chances

Just a lazy and basic take. Overall we were the better team and deserved to win. I genuinely think some enjoy being negative about England more than if we win.

[Numero Uno]

Just now, Phileas Fogg said:

Just a lazy and basic take. Overall we were the better team and deserved to win. I genuinely think some enjoy being negative about England more than if we win.

.....and City. It's a very strange way to support football. Of course we all get emotional and run our favourite teams down from time to time, justifiably so too after some performances, but nowadays it's micro analysis of every last thing every player did in the 96 minutes (and off the pitch too), praising up every other team and absolutely lambasting your own team at every opportunity. How does that equate to enjoyment of supporting your football team?

I fully understand that there are football people on here who also like to know the "how and why" and not just the "what" happened, love the tactical side of the game and use it to explain their opinions on players and the style of play etc like @Davefevs but that is not the same as just constant negativity and abuse of "your" team. It's like people no longer support a football team, they just have a favourite team that they "critically analyse and abuse" to death instead.

[MarcusX]

2 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

As I’ve posted before . Tournaments are never won by expansive gung ho football. Germany have won four world cups & a few European titles. Never once have they ever played exciting football , neither have the Italians. They get the job done. I couldn’t give a flying **** how we win games. If we win that pot I don’t care. It’s winning that matters 

Generally agree, but they smashed Brazil 7-1 in their own back yard. I'd call that exciting?

[Davefevs]

31 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

.....and City. It's a very strange way to support football. Of course we all get emotional and run our favourite teams down from time to time, justifiably so too after some performances, but nowadays it's micro analysis of every last thing every player did in the 96 minutes (and off the pitch too), praising up every other team and absolutely lambasting your own team at every opportunity. How does that equate to enjoyment of supporting your football team?

I fully understand that there are football people on here who also like to know the "how and why" and not just the "what" happened, love the tactical side of the game and use it to explain their opinions on players and the style of play etc like @Davefevs but that is not the same as just constant negativity and abuse of "your" team. It's like people no longer support a football team, they just have a favourite team that they "critically analyse and abuse" to death instead.

Critically analyse and praise…..as well. Rarely if ever abuse.

[Cowshed]

3 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Yep, I realise that it is down to the structure imposed, but it does make us sacrifice attacking chances for long periods of sterile possession in our own half.

Missed your reply. It is sterile. Almost Mourinho like minus its Lampards.  Adding Grealish creates passing angles that didn't exist before and ability to go beyond players centrally. Minus that it will be a rare sterile beast to succeed.  

[MarcusX]

44 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Just a lazy and basic take. Overall we were the better team and deserved to win. I genuinely think some enjoy being negative about England more than if we win.

It's the same on here with City. The thread is much longer and busier when we lose. A lot of people disappear for a few days when we win, it's like they enjoy losing just to be "right" about their pre-game criticism

[TV Tom]

2 hours ago, The Bard said:

Jesus get a life man.   

How many 90 minutes has Grealish played since February??  He won't last a game so the question is is he more effective early or later ?  Is it better to have pace early on and guile later or the other way round. 

We won 2 0 vs Germany.  Enjoy it.

Get yourself a life mate, it’s just an opinion, isn’t that what forums are all about or would you rather we all sung from the same hymn sheet

[SPAZZA]

17 hours ago, Redpool said:

take a good hard look?

Why? We were poor tonight and it was no "masterclass" by Southgate. Quite simply, Germany didn't show up. If they did, that games over by half time. Again, Southgate got his tactics wrong with an entire defensive setup. Quite interesting that when he brings on Grealish, the game opens up and his involvement leads to our two goals. 

Yes, Kane scored. But apart from that. What else did he contribute? Diddly squat

Two good goals scored. But that does not mask another poor and tactically inept performance.

Southgate needs to grow a pair and drop either Rice or Phillips (presumably Phillips) and put in a creative player such as Foden or Grealish. He cannot continue with such a negative and boring setup which will eventually catch us out. 

Why Phillips.

In the 4 matches so far he has gained possession (ie tackled and won it from the opponent) 28 times, only Stones is in the 20s with 22.

His passing range is exquisite when he’s given the ball in a deeper area facing forward, in every match he’s put at least 2 40-50 yard passes forward that have been pinpoint.

He has covered the most ground of any England player.

He’s the only outfield player to play every minute.

I also hate the fact he isn’t alone at DM imo only Kante in the PL is better, but dropping him instead of Rice in a one DM system is laughable.

If we don’t concede we don’t lose, Phillips AND Rice have been a huge part of that.

One of Foden and Grealish in Midfield would only work with Rice AND Phillips.

Personally

Walker Stones Maguire Shaw

Rice Phillips

Grealish

Foden DCL Sterling

would be what I’d like to see (whilst accepting Southgate is ultra defensive)

You have to accept other than Phillips who else is genuinely capable of playing Central Midfield?

Rice I think will be converted to a CB in time, Henderson doesn’t have the engine to do the CM role, any other players in the squad don’t have the discipline to do it.

I’d love nothing more than Phillips in his “Bielsa” role, but Southgate won’t do it so get over it.

[Maltshoveller]

1 hour ago, Son of Fred said:

Muller takes that chance nine times out of ten.......

Goals change games & had he scored we'd now be out.

Onwards & upwards!

IF WHAT and MAYBE

Fact is he missed

Fact is we are in the quarters

Only thing that matters in football are facts Not ifs and buts

[Red-Robbo]

This made me laugh:

[JamesBCFC]

39 minutes ago, harrys said:

Get yourself a life mate, it’s just an opinion, isn’t that what forums are all about or would you rather we all sung from the same hymn sheet

No one said you cant have an opinion.

What people are saying is wording that opinion in an over the top, extreme negatively way, that often includes abuse to the players or managers, isn't warranted.

None of that is aimed specifically at you, but if it applies, then take it on board.

[BrizzleRed]

1 hour ago, JamesBCFC said:

Based on what?

We were winning when he had the chance and it was their first really good chance.

Earlier in the game Kane and Maguire had both missed equally good chances

.... it’s just what we do.  

If that Muller shot had gone in, all the self doubts would have come flooding back, the crowd would have been on edge and we’d have ended up beating ourselves.  We’ve seen it many a time in big games over the last 55 years and not just against Germany either.  

Historically, we’re far more likey to concede late to shoot ourselves in the foot, rather than get a late winner, so that Muller miss really was a crucial turning point in the game imho.  

I really think any composure and self-belief we had would have evaporated if he’d netted that one.

[BCFC Rich]

Amazingly I'm just reading that is the first time we have ever won a knockout stage game at the euros - without penalties! That is quite staggering. 

[Super]

Former England goalkeeper David James felt both Jordan Pickford and Kyle Walker played their part in Thomas Muller's crucial miss in England's victory over Germany.

[BS2 Red]

 

[Sturny]

Just now, Super said:

Former England goalkeeper David James felt both Jordan Pickford and Kyle Walker played their part in Thomas Muller's crucial miss in England's victory over Germany.

Yup, watching it again the pace on Kyle Walker in insane. He passed Maguire and Stones and pressured Muller, brilliant

[Super]

2 minutes ago, Sturny said:

Yup, watching it again the pace on Kyle Walker in insane. He passed Maguire and Stones and pressured Muller, brilliant

Walker is the quickest player i have seen live. Not sure he puts Muller off though.

[Super]

5 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

 

Crikey is that not him?!

[Sturny]

1 minute ago, Super said:

Walker is the quickest player i have seen live. Not sure he puts Muller off though.

He could've heard him, or known he was close and just about to cut into him. Which imo caused him to take the shot early. 

[JamesBCFC]

27 minutes ago, BrizzleRed said:

.... it’s just what we do.  

If that Muller shot had gone in, all the self doubts would have come flooding back, the crowd would have been on edge and we’d have ended up beating ourselves.  We’ve seen it many a time in big games over the last 55 years and not just against Germany either.  

Historically, we’re far more likey to concede late to shoot ourselves in the foot, rather than get a late winner, so that Muller miss really was a crucial turning point in the game imho.  

I really think any composure and self-belief we had would have evaporated if he’d netted that one.

Historically its happened with our current team once? Maybe twice.

A very insignificant amount of times.

[ExiledAjax]

18 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

Amazingly I'm just reading that is the first time we have ever won a knockout stage game at the euros - without penalties! That is quite staggering. 

Kind of correct, see above. Note that this is partly because the Euros hasn't had many knockout games. In comparison to something like the World Cup it has, until recently, been quite a short tournament, often with only a semi-final and final beyond the group stage.

1996 - most of us know the story - a penalty shootout win over Spain followed by a penalty shootout loss to the Germans, so again no knockout win in 90 minutes.

2004 - again recent history but this was a penalty shootout loss to Portugal, so again no knockout win.

2012 - a penalty shootout loss to Italy this time, so again no knockout win.

2016 - the first time the Euros had a last 16. But for us it was that Iceland game. 2-1. Normal time. At least we were spared penalties.

We've either not qualified, or gone out in the group stage, at every other Euros.

EXCEPT FOR 1968. In 1968 there was no real group stage, and the "quarter-finals" were technically part of qualifying - essentially they were what we now call the "play-offs". Now, England won the "quarter-final", which was a two-legged tie against Spain, but as I say it was technically part of qualifying. Only four teams entered the official "Finals", which took the form of a straight Semi-final to Final knockout stage. England lost their Semi-Final to Yugoslavia. So no knockout win. HOWEVER, we did win the 3rd placed play off game - is that a "knockout game"...I think ultimately no it isn't as the winner doesn't progress to a further stage...still, we did win a game that was not a group stage game. The Euros dispensed with the 3rd placed play-off in 1984.

So yeh, I think yesterday was the first.