Jump to content

The Euro2020 Thread

Saint Garrett

By Saint Garrett
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

SKD

SKD

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Sunglasses Ron said:

Agreed, if Ings and Rashford played for the opposite clubs then Danny would probably be there right now.  Unless of course Rashford's place is now untouchable due to him being an MBE?

Has it crossed your mind that players who play for bigger clubs are generally speaking better players. It’s sort of why they’re playing for a club who are battling for top 4 rather than relegation. 

Ings was bang average this season, had the euros been last year, he’d have been nailed on to go. He didn’t deserve a place this year. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
JustinSFC

JustinSFC

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, egg said:

I think it's bollox. Southgate is judged on what his team does at the tournament, not whether he keeps Man Utd management happier than ours, or gives Rashford a seat on the bench rather than Ings. 

You show me Ben White, I'll raise you Kalvin Phillips. 

 

I don't think it's Southgate, it's more of a core FA thing and those old duffers upstairs.

Remember, when Hodgson came out and said his preference was players from top 6 sides?

That was a lot to do with half the players in arguably the best saints team in my lifetime fucking off.

And it's always been the same with that bunch of dinosaurs.

Not saying Ings should be in it but that's my opinion. 😅
 

SKD

SKD

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, egg said:

I think it's bollox. Southgate is judged on what his team does at the tournament, not whether he keeps Man Utd management happier than ours, or gives Rashford a seat on the bench rather than Ings. 

You show me Ben White, I'll raise you Kalvin Phillips. 

 

Rashford and Sterling have always been pretty dependable for Southgate, that’s why they were picked. It has nothing to do with who they play for. 
 

And quite clearly both are in the top 26 players in the country at the moment. 

Edited by SKD
Sunglasses Ron

Sunglasses Ron

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, SKD said:

Has it crossed your mind that players who play for bigger clubs are generally speaking better players. It’s sort of why they’re playing for a club who are battling for top 4 rather than relegation. 

Ings was bang average this season, had the euros been last year, he’d have been nailed on to go. He didn’t deserve a place this year. 

Yes, of course, generally speaking if you play for a big club it means you're a better player. BUT, I think there's a fair amount of evidence over the years to suggest that it also cuts you more slack when your form dips than if you played for a club like us.  There is also the argument that you have to work harder at clubs lower down the league as you're playing alongside worse quality players.

I'm not actually saying that Ings deserved to go, but do feel that he was far more likely to get the chop for a loss of form / injuries than someone like Rashford.  I may be going a step too far here, but I'm not convinced Rashford is a better player than Ings (ohh the controversy!).

eelpie

eelpie

Posted
Posted

Despite Kane's poor form I'm puzzled by the difference between this England team and the one that played such exciting, adventurous football in Southgate's World Cup squad. I think we have better players here now, so why play cagy defensive football?  I understand that having qualified for the next round Southgate wanted to protect players from injury, but scoring only one a match is not going to have much impact in the knockout stage.

For goodness sake, let's go down playing exciting football!

  • Like 1
Sarnia Cherie

Sarnia Cherie

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Sunglasses Ron said:

Yes, of course, generally speaking if you play for a big club it means you're a better player. BUT, I think there's a fair amount of evidence over the years to suggest that it also cuts you more slack when your form dips than if you played for a club like us.  There is also the argument that you have to work harder at clubs lower down the league as you're playing alongside worse quality players.

I'm not actually saying that Ings deserved to go, but do feel that he was far more likely to get the chop for a loss of form / injuries than someone like Rashford.  I may be going a step too far here, but I'm not convinced Rashford is a better player than Ings (ohh the controversy!).

As you say, if Rashford was a West Brom player, would he have been in the squad given the poor season he has had? 

  • Like 1
Ex Lion Tamer

Ex Lion Tamer

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, eelpie said:

Despite Kane's poor form I'm puzzled by the difference between this England team and the one that played such exciting, adventurous football in Southgate's World Cup squad. I think we have better players here now, so why play cagy defensive football?  I understand that having qualified for the next round Southgate wanted to protect players from injury, but scoring only one a match is not going to have much impact in the knockout stage.

For goodness sake, let's go down playing exciting football!

Have I missed the sarcasm here? England were totally defensive with their 3 at the back system in the World Cup, and most of our goals came from set pieces

Sunglasses Ron

Sunglasses Ron

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

As you say, if Rashford was a West Brom player, would he have been in the squad given the poor season he has had? 

Probably not I'd say.  Also, not trying to put him down but he's a youth product of Manchester United, rather than someone they signed.  I think all clubs should develop players, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be at the same level as the players that clubs like that go out and sign for huge sums.

I really admire him as a gent, he seems a fine role model and deserved his MBE, but that's not a reason to make the squad (if so, then Francis Benali would probably have got 50-100 caps).

  • Like 1
danjosaint

danjosaint

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, eelpie said:

Despite Kane's poor form I'm puzzled by the difference between this England team and the one that played such exciting, adventurous football in Southgate's World Cup squad. I think we have better players here now, so why play cagy defensive football?  I understand that having qualified for the next round Southgate wanted to protect players from injury, but scoring only one a match is not going to have much impact in the knockout stage.

For goodness sake, let's go down playing exciting football!

Is this a wind up

Think I remember reading we had the lowest amount of shots bar Morocco or Tunisia in the whole tournament 

Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, egg said:

I think it's bollox. Southgate is judged on what his team does at the tournament, not whether he keeps Man Utd management happier than ours, 

 

If it was about keeping the clubs happy, he’d do that by not picking their players. 
 

 

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If it was about keeping the clubs happy, he’d do that by not picking their players. 
 

 

It does increase their marketing value though. Whether the club or the player benefits the most I couldn't say.

Mystic Force

Mystic Force

Posted
Posted

What tells me that its where you are from not who you are much of the time is when the bit part players at the big clubs play repeatedly for England, but once they move on to other clubs where they play more regularly never get selected. The likes of Welbeck, Shelvy, Cleverly spring to mind in this regard. None of them really where that great with England either so it makes it hard to argue that it was repeated form for country which kept them there, but that magically evaporated when they went somewhere else.

  • Like 2
LiberalCommunist

LiberalCommunist

Posted
Posted

Just finished work, which was long hard and hot. 

Just catching up with the footy, has Morata just missed another penalty, or do my beedy sweaty eyes deceive me?

Anyone more cognitive or just up to date than me out there watching this?

 

Oh my god, that goal is hilarious!!!! 

 

 

OttawaSaint

OttawaSaint

Posted
Posted
Just now, LiberalCommunist said:

Just finished work, which was long hard and hot. 

Just catching up with the footy, has Morata just missed another penalty, or do my beedy sweaty eyes deceive me?

Anyone more cognitive or just up to date than me out there watching this?

 

Oh my god, that goal is hilarious!!!! 

 

 

Atrocious penalty, Spain getting frustrated so that’s a very very bad goal to concede.

OttawaSaint

OttawaSaint

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, LiberalCommunist said:

Aren't you lot on furlough sat around in your under pants watching footy all day? Come on, post some updates you lazy gits. 

I’m a college professor so I’m on holiday enjoying the sunshine and football!

  • Like 1
nta786

nta786

Posted
Posted

So had we finished 2nd last night, we would have been playing Spain in Copenhagen in the last 16.

I genuinely think looking at our side of the draw, the next game could be our semi-final; win that and I would back us to beat the winner of Sweden/Ukraine

That would then lead to a semi-final against Netherlands most likely (at Wembley!!!)

  • Like 1
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dark Munster said:

As it stands Germany are out. Can we stop the count now? 

Wait until France take the lead, England would then play Hungary.

CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

As it stands Germany are out. Can we stop the count now? 

Still need France to score as well.

CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

That'll give us Hungary. But then Germany go through in 3rd place. Difficult choice.

What's difficult about that?

Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, trousers said:

Just need Hungary or Portugal to score another 3 goals now :)

That's a bit unrealistic. How about 2 more for Portugal and 1 more for Hungary?

CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, trousers said:

Just need Hungary or Portugal to score another 3 goals now :)

We need France to score one more goal.

TWar

TWar

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

BBC commentator annoying me. Pretending that the portugal penalty was deserved but the france one was a travesty. Both were poor imo.

Dangerous play from Lloris for me, you shouldn't be able to follow through with your fist and elbow into a players head. Any other position on the pitch and a bad follow through is an instant yellow or red regardless of if you get the ball, why should it be different for a keeper, especially to the head? The second pen was absolute nonsense though.

  • Like 1
Baird of the land

Baird of the land

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TWar said:

Dangerous play from Lloris for me, you shouldn't be able to follow through with your fist and elbow into a players head. Any other position on the pitch and a bad follow through is an instant yellow or red regardless of if you get the ball, why should it be different for a keeper, especially to the head? The second pen was absolute nonsense though.

Anytime a keeper comes for a cross is dangerous in a crowded area is likely dangerous play then.

CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Anytime a keeper comes for a cross is dangerous in a crowded area is likely dangerous play then.

Not really.

What that keeper did, in that situation, was clearly dangerous.

TWar

TWar

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Anytime a keeper comes for a cross is dangerous in a crowded area is likely dangerous play then.

He came forward at pace with his fist at head height in a punching action and followed with his elbow, it's very different from how a keeper normally claims a cross in a crowd.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...