There are so many things that can affect the outcome of games in such a small sample. Strength of opposition, random player under/overperformance, tactical mismatches and all that stuff that you can't really predict from game to game. There's a reason there's very rarely a clear favourite going into a tournament.
Sure the side that wins it probably gets everything right over a few games but it's just odd how they're automatically good and everyone that else is bad.
Why is predictability relevant to assessing a winning football team after the event? In that case you can only assess a tournament side based on what they do outside of the actual tournament, which means you can't assess them at all, so nobody is good or bad.
These known-unknowns were waiting for every team, and Greece did the best job of controlling [for] them. They beat the strongest (if there is such a thing) opposition, over-performed as individuals, and won their tactical matches five times out of six. Everybody else had a chance to do likewise, and they didn't. That does not make them bad. They just weren't as good as Greece at Euro 2004.
How many runs into the box did they make though?
The perfect amount.
We were superlucky against the Czechs, what with Nedved getting injured and us taking advantage of the silver goal right before it was abolished, but other than that I felt we were good. We weren't spectacular and we did play anti-football at times, I'll grant you that, but we were genuinely better than Portugal on our first game, as well as France and on par with Portugal in the final and Spain in the groups. But for some reason we are still the first example mentioned when somebody mentions bad teams, even though Portugal won a Euro with a singular win in 90 minutes, playing quite defensively and the only proper teams they faced were Croatia and France.
We also topped our qualifying group forcing Spain to the playoffs so it wasn't necessarily that we just happened to find form over a few games.
And to think we almost fucked it all up against Russia.
Last edited by Adramelch; 04-07-2021 at 12:57 AM.
It was good/has historical standing for me and we did it against Germany. Then followed it up with a stonking win against a team we should have beaten. Gareth got it right, I was wrong. And it's almost the case that whatever happens from here on in won't change that.Originally Posted by phonics
Yeah, if beating Germany isn't beating someone good then that epithet isn't going to apply to anyone (as by definition anyone England beat mustn't be all that good).
I'm still not really sold on our midfield stodgefest (maybe I just don't appreciate workrate, policing space and keeping shape as much as I ought to) and we had a good go at sitting back and being wank for the remainder of the first half yesterday but you can't really argue with much of the selection, performance or result. Hopefully going behind in a game isn't a bridge we need to cross, but I guess there are options off the bench if that does happen. I sort of hope he keeps the same team against Denmark [seeing as Grealish just isn't going to get a start], but can see him at least going back to Saka as their leftback/wingback is a big threat.
I can't wrap my head around the 'until they play someone good' argument. Croatia knocked us out of World Cup semi-final. A game we led. The Czechs got the quarter final of this tournament, we beat Germany and then comfortably dealt with Ukraine. And at no point have we been chasing the games (well, maybe against Scotland). And we haven't conceded in 7 matches.
Wrap your head around that.
If you want team x to fail you just keep on finding shit arguments to explain away their successes. That's how it has always worked.
The whole point of tournament football is that teams who progress have done better than those who haven't. There isn't a league over 100 games, so long term form and who is 'better' does not matter either in the construction or evaluation of teams.
My position has always been we're not in with a chance of winning this tournament until we are (because of all the false dawns before). For all of the reasons you've stated, we're absolutely in with a chance of winning it now. But I was only ever going to say that when I believed it and to believe it I had to see evidence, not base it on what we could do, or what other (completely unrelated) teams before us have done.
The evidence is now there and we can win the damn thing.
That reads like something the SCIENCE would put out.
Known knowns and known unknowns.
Basically, if we beat them they aren't good. If they beat us, they are good and we've "lost to the first good team we bump into again".
Last edited by Spikey M; 04-07-2021 at 09:46 AM.
Are you saying I'm saying that? If so, fuck me and I demand a quote showing where I said anything like that. If not, who is saying that? For the avoidance of doubt - We beat a good team/one of historical standing in Germany. I didn't think we would, but we did. We've done it, that monkey on our back has gone.
I wish they would. We'd be much further along with COVID if they were basing their opinions and suggestions on actual evidence.
Phonics.
Thank you. I'll stand down. Apologies for jumping at you.
England are a good team. We have a real chance of getting to a major final. All hail lord Southgate.
He has, perhaps inexplicably nailed it thus far. The Croatia experience, as we'd have never beaten that France side, might actually prove to be a positive for Wednesday as well.
It’s July @Ian
I'm a twit
I was so in Euros mode that totally escaped me.
Aye, we need a thread. For the Covlympics.
Shame that’s the end of the 5pm games.
I'm a twit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote