Wales v England - Tue 29th Nov, 19:00 | Group B | World Cup 2022

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The manager isn’t very good, the players he has at his disposal are very good. His team selections are often made with safety first being his priority and some of us think that’s wasted because we could be so much more if the shackles were let off.
England was always getting out of the group, there would have had to have been a major implosion for that not to happen.
It adds up perfectly really. England have a fantastic group of players and you could drag a random bloke off the street to manage them and they would likely do as well as Southgate has managed.
The final, which seems to be the main defence used by a few on here was a game that should have resulted in a win but after an early lead we sat back and allowed Italy to come into the game before the inevitable equaliser.
Wanting and expecting more from your team shouldn’t be frowned upon.

I don’t even think it’s that. We lack tactical discipline and nous, especially in central midfield, so we rarely dictate games against sides with better tactics.

 

[hilts]

Indeed. The goals masked his overall game. The amount of times he gave the ball away, with misplaced passes or the ball bouncing off him.

He is a danger running at people and we need players who can be direct and have energy. He is a good option against the right team or coming off the bench imho.

I feel if we play a defensive possession based game we won't win this thing.

 

[waspish]

Any player that scored a brace in a 3-0 win would get the same headlines

What’s the harm ? The manager and players won’t be fussed

Agree the Media can build up and turn on the team/players very quickly - that I can’t stand

No harm at all and I’ve gave Rashford credit but there was no balance or critique of Rashods piss poor play in the first half and if he played like that against a top team England would be in big trouble!

 

[Stephen230]

How on earth could one dismiss being relegated from a 'friendlies' league? Why involve the 'A' list national players in the first place, then? Or, at least, why not us them to experiment with formations in prep for the WC?

I didn't get that impression from what I know.

Most fans want a culture of winning (as well as the players) to believe in the national team and the manager of said team.

Just an observation.

The Nations League was literally brought in to replace friendlies and to try and create a bit of interest around otherwise meaningless matches. I’ve honestly never met anybody who places any significance on it and I’d consider myself quite a big football fan but I couldn’t name the current champions or any previous winners of it.

The England manager is always going to be judged on his record at The Euros and the World Cup.

 

[Bigga]

The Nations League was literally brought in to replace friendlies and to try and create a bit of interest around otherwise meaningless matches. I’ve honestly never met anybody who places any significance on it and I’d consider myself quite a big football fan but I couldn’t name the current champions or any previous winners of it.

The England manager is always going to be judged on his record at The Euros and the World Cup.

You're missing the context of building a winning mentality. Since friendlies aren't weekly events, how else would you build it within the national team game?

It's nonsense to dismiss them as you do or why bother with them using prominent players?

 

[Vienna_70]

Indeed. The goals masked his overall game. The amount of times he gave the ball away, with misplaced passes or the ball bouncing off him.

And yet, unbelievably, the Evening News gave Rashford MotM.

Apart from the goals, he was fucking shocking, especially in the first half.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The Nations League was literally brought in to replace friendlies and to try and create a bit of interest around otherwise meaningless matches. I’ve honestly never met anybody who places any significance on it and I’d consider myself quite a big football fan but I couldn’t name the current champions or any previous winners of it.

The England manager is always going to be judged on his record at The Euros and the World Cup.

Our relegation in the NL meant we were second seeds for Euro 24 qualification.

Whilst it is largely meaningless, it does have consequences.

 

[Stephen230]

Our relegation in the NL meant we were second seeds for Euro 24 qualification.

Whilst it is largely meaningless, it does have consequences.

Well if it’s means a qualifying group that is a bit challenging, I’m all for it, rather than the usual tour of obscure Eastern European outposts. Although with the increased number of finalists at the next World Cup, I suspect it’s going to be even more of a cakewalk than normal.

 

[Stephen230]

You're missing the context of building a winning mentality. Since friendlies aren't weekly events, how else would you build it within the national team game?

It's nonsense to dismiss them as you do or why bother with them using prominent players?

I’ve not missed anything that I’m aware of. I haven’t claimed friendlies and Nation League matches aren’t without merit. I’ve claimed the results of them won’t play any part in how a manager is judged.

 

[Bigga]

I’ve not missed anything that I’m aware of. I haven’t claimed friendlies and Nation League matches aren’t without merit. I’ve claimed the results of them won’t play any part in how a manager is judged.

Of course, a national footballing association should never sack a manager based upon a friendly, but they can build a general consensus on whether that manager is the right one for them when the important matches come along when nothing has moved forward.

In Southgate's case, he'd never have switched things up without pressure from public opinion and MSM. It forced results.

You expect a manager not to be forced to be more adventurous.