England wasting one of the most talented squads ever assembled on Southgate

[jimharri]

England wins by 3+ goals at major championships.

1950-2017: 5
( 3-0, 3-0, 4-1, 3-0, 3-0)

2018-2023: 5

( 6-1, 4-0, 6-2, 3-0, 3-0).

such boring football under southgate. So negative and everything goes backwards

Regular as clockwork.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

England wins by 3+ goals at major championships.

1950-2017: 5
( 3-0, 3-0, 4-1, 3-0, 3-0)

2018-2023: 5

( 6-1, 4-0, 6-2, 3-0, 3-0).

such boring football under southgate. So negative and everything goes backwards

When did international competitions expand to have crap teams like Panama and their likes qualify?

 

[BlueHammer85]

When did international competitions expand to have crap teams like Panama and their likes qualify?

There’s always been ‘crap’ teams in international competitions. Can only beat what’s in front of you.

 

[domalino]

When did international competitions expand to have crap teams like Panama and their likes qualify?

1950s.

South Korea were in 1954 and lost 9-0 and 7-0 in their 2 games.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

1950s.

South Korea were in 1954 and lost 9-0 and 7-0 in their 2 games.

What were our resluts against them?

 

[domalino]

What were our resluts against them?

Are you just going to keep changing the question until you get an answer you like?

Because I'm afraid as long as there's been international football there's been shite teams, and the entire point of @BlueHammer85's comment was that Southgate is responsible for our biggest wins against shite teams, so If I went back and looked up England beating some 100th in the world ranked teams 2-0 int he 50s and 60s it would only further his point, not yours.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Are you just going to keep changing the question until you get an answer you like?

Because I'm afraid as long as there's been international football there's been shite teams, and the entire point of @BlueHammer85's comment was that Southgate is responsible for our biggest wins against shite teams, so If I went back and looked up England beating some 100th in the world ranked teams 2-0 int he 50s and 60s it would only further his point, not yours.

Just more proportionally because more teams qualify.

So you can enjoy your South Korea moment all you like.

 

[domalino]

Just more proportionally because more teams qualify.

So you can enjoy your South Korea moment all you like.

There's a few in every tournament pretty much from the start. India were invited to 1950 FFS. North Korea were in '66. There has always been shit teams and there always will be.

THe same is true for international goalscorers by the way. The people who argue Kane's record isn't worth the paper it's written on because we only play San Marino or Andorra etc. should see who Bobby Charlton et al were scoring against. Often it was literally rank amateurs.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

There's a few in every tournament pretty much from the start. India were invited to 1950 FFS. North Korea were in '66.

Yes. I understand this. I also understand that more teams qualifying means more shit teams qualify as a result and sides play more easy games than they used to.

 

[super_city_si]

England wins by 3+ goals at major championships.

1950-2017: 5
( 3-0, 3-0, 4-1, 3-0, 3-0)

2018-2023: 5

( 6-1, 4-0, 6-2, 3-0, 3-0).

such boring football under southgate. So negative and everything goes backwards

Euros had 8 then 16 teams for most of that and world cup expanded to 32 in 1998. Competition was harder back then, especially the Euros. You cant honestly say England dont play boring football under Southgate. You can rightly point to Southgates record but come on, the football is turgid