England finish 4th.

An over achievement? Or have we missed a glorious opportunity And actually underperformed?

Taking everything into account I'm going with the latter.We had a piss easy group and a relatively straightforward quarter final.We lost to an average Croatia team that, had the manager had his head screwed on,we should have beaten.

Belgium have just simply outclassed us,nothing to be ashamed of there.

Thoughts?
A bit of both - I think that England are a better side the Croatia - and so they might well have reached the final. In a one-off, anything can happen.

On the other hand - England had a tremendous run, far better than I expected, finishing 4th in the WC.
====
So congratulations to England for a great tournament run. But Southgate's comment that England are not the 4th best side in the world is spot on.
 
Last edited:
To put it in context England did well to get to the Semi by hook, crook or sheer luck.
In reality they do not possess the one or two key players that can elevate the team, nor the manager that can get the best out of what he has to work with.

I keep hearing England are in transition and feel like it is a broken record. England have been in transition since 1966.

Since then Spain, Italy, Brazil, West Germany/Germany, Portugal, Holland, Soviet Union/Russia, Yugoslavia/Serbia,Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic, Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, Greece and now Croatia have all reached the final of a major tournament.

Also 1966 is the last time that England beat what I consider a top tier team (Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, France, Holland, Spain, Uruguay & Portugal) in a knockout stage of a World Cup/Euros in 120 minutes. They beat Argentina, Portugal and West Germany in 1966.

Since then the only top tier team England have knocked out is Spain in Euro 1996 where they drew 0-0 and won on penalties.

I think this is the main problem since winning the 1966 World Cup and moreso since the Premier League is this notion that England have a divine right to be classed as one of the major contenders where in reality they are in the Championship with the likes of Sweden,Czech Republic, Denmark etc. The tier below where on occasion they can overachieve or have a good group of players, or a bit of luck that can take them all the way.

Unfortunately I don’t see that changing anytime soon, but England should be looking to how Denmark did it, how Greece did it, as if you don’t have the players you can’t play expansive football like Belgium. For me a lot of that is down to sheer luck at any given time having a good group to work with or who come through. There is no magic wand. Once De Bruyne and Hazard are not playing for Belgium they will slip away, as they did after the generation they had in the mid 80s.

England did have a fantastic chance to get to the final, but the management let them down. Keeping the same team when for me they should have been 4 at the back and more up top and midfield. Having Lingard and Alli two attacking midfielders in central midfield with Henderson meant we often defended too deep and there was too much space from the back to the attack. If Southgate had realised this England could have got past Croatia and been a lot more solid and harder to beat. I appreciate he wants to England to play like City but the players are just not there to straight up try and copy what we do.
 
Fuck off to the negativity I say
Young side majorly over achieved

I wouldn't say they over achieved (and certainly not hugely). They beat inferior teams and lost to superior teams. so ultimately it was pretty much as expected. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Don't misquote me, I said: "now we can look forward to watching good football and better players again."

I never said all the best players play for City, I said I was looking forward to watching good football and better players. Which is entirely accurate from the point of view of an England and City fan. City have better players than England and play far better football. If you get your kicks watching Portugal then good for you.

I guess it depends on what you mean by watch . I support City and England but in this and every other world cup I have certainly watched more non England games than England ones and over the course of the season although I watch pretty much all City home games and all the televised away games I probably still watch more non City games. Even the City ones I am actually watching two teams even if I am concentrating more on one.
 
I wouldn't say they over achieved (and certainly not hugely). They beat inferior teams and lost to superior teams. so ultimately it was pretty much as expected. Nothing more, nothing less.

People seem to forget that England were only ranked joint 12th at the start of the tournament, along with Denmark.

Three of the 'inferior' teams they beat were ranked higher than the teams that eliminated Germany and Spain.
 
People seem to forget that England were only ranked joint 12th at the start of the tournament, along with Denmark.

Three of the 'inferior' teams they beat were ranked higher than the teams that eliminated Germany and Spain.

Yet all the teams England beat were ranked below them.

That other teams had poor tournaments doesn't make Englands a good one. When you look at who they played, the results went pretty much as expected.

No great achievement but no failure either.
 
Saying no one thought they’d make the semis so it’s a success isn’t great logic for me. If you consider the group we had, then the route to the final then I imagine if we knew that at the start expectations would be higher. It only seems amazing because expectations were so low after constant under achieving. On the face of it many would have took getting to the semis, the way it happened and the biggest chance of a final ever, lost and wasted it’s turned into a disappointment for me.

We played one team ranked above us and we lost to them.... twice.
 
The good: Stones, Trippier, Maguire, Pickford, Henderson
The bad: Kane, Alli, Young, Dier, Jones
The ugly: Southgate's attacking system, one of the worst I've ever had the misfortune of watching
The attacking play was terrible from open play. However the system was made to control games and hide the lack of ability on the ball that our squad had.
 
Yet all the teams England beat were ranked below them.

That other teams had poor tournaments doesn't make Englands a good one. When you look at who they played, the results went pretty much as expected.

No great achievement but no failure either.

Nor does it mean it was as straightforward to progress as you're making it out to be.

I'm not sure how reaching a semi-final doesn't mean we had a good tournament.
 
The attacking play was terrible from open play. However the system was made to control games and hide the lack of ability on the ball that our squad had.

Why were we trying to pass it out from the back if there's a lack of ability on the ball?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.