BlueMoonAcrossThePond
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 7,513
- Team supported
- Manchester City
On the ESPN broadcast the speculation was that Southgate did not trust Grealish on defense.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jack Grealish
- Thread starter leighton
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Sterling was a constant threat all night and Southgate wanted his pace to drive us up the pitch and to remain a threat on the counter it was always gonna be one of foden or grealish.I assumed when GS subbed him off it was because he was injured, was that not the case?
Otherwise, he should have taken off the obviously knackered Sterling who played over 100 minutes, instead of Jack who played 30.
I hope that's not true, and just speculation.On the ESPN broadcast the speculation was that Southgate did not trust Grealish on defense.
Would expect Grealish to do defensive duties when subbed on the 70th minute.
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 18,057
Sterling was a constant threat all night and Southgate wanted his pace to drive us up the pitch and to remain a threat on the counter it was always gonna be one of foden or grealish.
I can only imagine the furore on here if he'd subbed Phil :-)
Sterling was a constant threat all night and Southgate wanted his pace to drive us up the pitch and to remain a threat on the counter it was always gonna be one of foden or grealish.
Well fair enough I guess, Sterling was so knackered at the end though, so it wasn't about defensive duties but more about Sterling's threat.
Yeah once he decided to with a back 5 made sense to leave sterling on just for his pace and his dribbling . Sterling himself I’m sure wanted to stay on as well he was brilliantWell fair enough I guess, Sterling was so knackered at the end though, so it wasn't about defensive duties but more about Sterling's threat.
BlueMoonAcrossThePond
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 7,513
- Team supported
- Manchester City
The speculation took me off-guard. Still, a substitute player, being substituted... is very unusual... absent injury (not apparent and hence the speculation)... or absent suitability for the upcoming strategy (hence the speculation that Grealish isn't trusted on defense).I hope that's not true, and just speculation.
Would expect Grealish to do defensive duties when subbed on the 70th minute.
If your changing to a back 5 one of the 4 forward players has to be sacrificed.The speculation took me off-guard. Still, a substitute player, being substituted... is very unusual... absent injury (not apparent and hence the speculation)... or absent suitability for the upcoming strategy (hence the speculation that Grealish isn't trusted on defense).
kane was never going off as the captain, Sterling due his performance was never going off which left foden or grealish. There really was nothing in the sub other than he wanted to go with a new system.
Tugay One Cup
Well-Known Member
Well fair enough I guess, Sterling was so knackered at the end though, so it wasn't about defensive duties but more about Sterling's threat.
Also, Sterling's probably the fittest guy in the entire squad.
Oh I"m not doubting his fitness.Also, Sterling's probably the fittest guy in the entire squad.
But at the end he looked dead on his feet from all his sprints. I can't be the only one to notice that.
Tugay One Cup
Well-Known Member
Oh I"m not doubting his fitness.
But at the end he looked dead on his feet from all his sprints. I can't be the only one to notice that.
Yeah but over ninety minutes will do that to most players. You only have to look at all the niggling injuries players have suffered during the tournament, especially in injury time.
It would have been bad for England if he picked one up and missed the final and it would have been just as bad for us if it was long term but he's alright in the end.
Plus he probably wouldn't have made as many sprints in injury time if he wasn't so determined to get a goal.
Yeah, I don't think Southgate needed to risk him 2-1 up defending the lead because of his threat.Yeah but over ninety minutes will do that to most players. You only have to look at all the niggling injuries players have suffered during the tournament, especially in injury time.
It would have been bad for England if he picked one up and missed the final and it would have been just as bad for us if it was long term but he's alright in the end.
Plus he probably wouldn't have made as many sprints in injury time if he wasn't so determined to get a goal.
Would have rather he rested Sterling at that point personally.
Direct pace keeps the other team from coming forwards to put the pressure on, out of fear of said pace.Keeping posseion would of been the best at that stage of the game rather than direct pace. With that substitution you not only that you are protecting a key player for the final you are also giving the team a breather as well.
There's reasoning for either pace or possession. But if you keep Sterling on you can have pace alongside possession through your other players. That variety is key.
Plus Sterling is very good at keepball when he needs to be/
The team looked fine with Grealish and Foden on the pitch.Direct pace keeps the other team from coming forwards to put the pressure on, out of fear of said pace.
There's reasoning for either pace or possession. But if you keep Sterling on you can have pace alongside possession through your other players. That variety is key.
Plus Sterling is very good at keepball when he needs to be/
Yeah but if you're 15 minutes away from a 1st competition final in over 50 years, why not play it safe?The team looked fine with Grealish and Foden on the pitch.
I mean it worked fine.
Both Foden and Grealish are capable of that. The added bonus was protecting a key player (Sterling) for the final.Yeah but if you're 15 minutes away from a 1st competition final in over 50 years, why not play it safe?
I mean it worked fine.
Yeah but it worked out fine. Sterling likely didn't need the 10 minutes rest. England saw out the game extremely comfortably.Both Foden and Grealish are capable of that. The added bonus was protecting a key player (Sterling) for the final.
Not after the sub where it gave Denmark a bit of encouragement. Mancini made a mistake in Italy's Semi Final when they were looking like seeing the game out and gave Spain a way back in the game. He won't make the same one twice.Yeah but it worked out fine. Sterling likely didn't need the 10 minutes rest. England saw out the game extremely comfortably.
But Denmark didn't cause England problems after the sub, it worked.Not after the sub where it gave Denmark a bit of encouragement. Mancini made a mistake in Italy's Semi Final when they were looking like seeing the game out and gave Spain a way back in the game. He won't make the same one twice.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.