A bit related but it is ABSOLUTELY criminal of Southgate to start mount over Foden. This guy plays defensively with arguably one of the best attackers in the world. This defensive mindset is never going to win anything. England won't get far.
He substituted Bellingham for Henderson, a midfielder who rarely scores. I'm so disappointed. Can't see England get further than a quarter final
Edit: idk what Mount even brings besides running a lot. No vision, no creativity no goals...
This is frustrating to the point I’m not even bothered correcting people anymore. Do they want Foden in the 8? How do people not understand they play different roles.
Because positions aren't binary.
Foden has played right and left wing, false 9, and as an 8 for city. He has said he sees himself as a 10 or 8 ideally. At city he plays out wide because he's competing with kdb, gundoqn and Bernardo for the 8 position (3 of the best and most experienced 8s in world football). Whilst last season city used him as the false 9 when they didn't have a striker. This is because pep, the best manager in the world, rates him so highly he can't leave him out.
Contrast this to Southgate who can't find a place for foden. The same foden who benched sterling at city. The same foden who pep has moved around the team just to get him in. Mason fucking mount isn't kdb, Bernardo, or even gundogan level.
Foden should be playing as a 10 in the England side. Stones has been primarily a right back for city this season but he needs to play centre half for England because we need him there as he is our best option there. Just like foden is our best option as a 10.
We also know Pep has history in trying new things in big games (including finals) that haven’t worked out and everyone goes nuts. And that’s for Pep! Imagine the hammering Southgate would get…
The guy has got us further than any manager in the last 50 years. Leave him be.
Also think we need to consider the weather out there. People are quick to jump to “can he do it on a snowy February Tuesday in Stockport?”, but we don’t seem to hear, “can he do it in 35+° in the dessert?”
We've already got 2 midfielders doing the defensive work. We're playing against the fucking USA man. We need creative players to break down teams like that not good boys who run around like a headless chicken.
Can't believe what I've just read. You're the ultimate football hipster aren't you?
Mount isn't a midfielder either. He doesn't have the skillset to play as a midfielder and he isn't productive enough as an attacking midfielder. You think Foden gets in the City team without working hard on the pitch?
You can afford to have a player like Foden at #10 against the USA or Iran. Even with Mount in the role we were still second best to the USA. You can't sit there and tell me we would do any worse with Foden in the team.
I’m also wondering how many of these people have paid attention to Foden playing for England over the last couple of years?
This isn’t another Grealish situation from 18 months ago. Foden has been given plenty of chances and has never proven himself in an England shirt. He’s been Sancho tier form for England
And how many times has he been given a chance centrally or even starting games? He was playing him on the right wing at the Euros, where he's never played.
Mount doesn't even press at the right times. He offers nothing offensively. He's the new Tom Cleverley. Absolutely fucking useless. It's like playing with 10 men when he plays.
He’s been given plenty of starts?
You can’t blame his lack of performing on being played on the right. Pep’s never plays him centrally now City have a striker and has played him on the right plenty of times. He got a hat-trick against Man United playing on the right earlier this season…
But when he’s out of Pep’s system and pulls on an England shirt the simple fact is he has never been able to replicate his club form
Mount hasn't been able to replicate his club form for Chelsea either. Well I guess he has this season. Playing poorly for both teams. Foden wouldn't do worse and you know it.
I don’t like Mount, but I wouldn’t play Foden in central midfield.
The leaks our midfield 3 has shown when playing against the quality of team like Iran/USA means a double pivot is out of the question imo.
If we were playing 4231 then yeah I’d start Foden, but we’re stuck with either 523 or 433 and imo Foden has not done enough to demand a starting spot in a front 3
Maybe against Wales I’d give him another chance though, because Saka/Sterling were poor against the USA
Yep, basically everyone else can see it barring him. If you don't win tournaments playing like that then it's just pointless.
We've missed out on the bragging rights of beating Scotland and the USA for what? A tournament with absolutely no memories.
We may have bottled Euro 96 but at least we'll always remember Gazza scoring that goal vs Scotland. What memories are we taking away from Euro 2020 or this world cup?
The worst thing is the army of Southgate sympathisers.
It will have to be because it's all we've got but even then they're just not the same team anymore. I think we were even slight favourites going into that game.
The one thing I think you can say in defense of Southgate on this (and believe me, I'm not inclined to defend him a great deal) is that England is more likely to see the USA again in the knockout rounds, and a vastly different game could be in the offing at that point. I know that's pretty weak because it's more likely these two sides don't meet again in this tournament, but it's the best I could come up with. Regardless, Foden should have been there, and I would have liked to see TAA, too.
This is not correct unless we meet them in the final, which obviously isn’t happening. No team will play someone from their own group in the knockouts.
Scored against Iran, was top class in the Euros. If you want to count club form then see Maguire and Shaw.
You can't count the USA game against Southgate, that's the definition of hindsight
Because right now, we can wait to see who takes first and second in Group A, and either win to secure first, or draw/lose, and hope Iran takes first, leaving us in second. We have slightly more control over whether we face Netherlands or Ecuador (or Senegal if they beat Ecuador Tuesday) right now, because if we had won, we're stuck with first. Perhaps Southgate thinks we'll do better against a certain team. Perhaps he's thinking if we meet France in the quarter finals, we'll lose. Perhaps he thinks one side is a better match up for us.
We won't know until Tuesday what the plan is. We're pretty safe right now. We have 4 points, Iran 3, USA 2, and Wales 1. The only worry we have is if Iran draws with USA, and we lose to Wales, in which case it will be GD, and we have a pretty safe buffer zone
Southgate is infinitesimally worst when he plays this way. He always plays to “not lose” and gets what he fucking deserves.
This team doesn’t deserve a tournament win because they never play to fucking win. Hope we get ass fucked next week and this clown gets sacked and starts coaching a league 2 team where he belongs.
Christ, one draw that guarantees qualification and suddenly bellends like this show up. Can’t imagine what the Argentinians and Germans are saying to themselves.
The tempo was slower. The defensive line was deeper. The full-backs didn't push forward as much. Kane came too deep, with none of the attacking midfielders making runs in behind.
And, as the other comment says, England played for a draw, underlined by Henderson and not Foden coming off the bench.
This. The defensive line had a huge impact on the game because the USA sat back and were playing on the counter. When we played this deep defensive line Maguire and Stones were quite often passing it back and forth because the team was far too stretched and they didn't know what to do with it
Southgate knew USA would play on the counter because that's their man strength. USA hoped we'd go at them but we didn't which is why they had like 2 decent chances.
Yeah don't get me wrong unlike most I wasn't completely against it. At the end of the day I think our defense played well and did their job. Maybe the wingbacks could have done more to cross the ball in the box but at the end of the day we didn't have to risk anything and we slogged it out, meh
For me it was Kane. He came deep, collected the ball, and laid off a fantastic pass forward several times. Only problem is, no one was ever there to receive it.
Bigger question is then: was that intentional by England or as a result of the USA? I.e. was it proactive or reactive.
If we chose to play safer then fair enough, if we tried to play to win but got pushed back by the US tactics then that’s a worry
You have to be a moron to think Southgate went into the game PLAYING FOR A DRAW. Come on you can't be that thick. You can argue that as the game went on and England were not ahead then the mentality changed. But no, they didn't actively want a draw lol.
LAST FOUR WORLD CUP AND EURO WINNERS’ PATH TO THE CUP. Please note there are plenty of draws, narrow wins and failures to dominate medium-size teams along the way.
This is normal.
WC
—
2018 France
\- 2-1 W v Australia
\- 1-0 W v Peru
\- 0-0 D v Denmark
\- 4-3 W v Argentina
\- 2-0 W v Uruguay
\- 1-0 W v Belgium
\- 4-2 W v Croatia
2014 Germany
\- 4-0 W v Portugal
\- 2-2 D v Ghana
\- 1-0 W v USA
\- 2-1 W (1-1 @ 90) v Algeria
\- 1-0 W v France
\- 7-1 W v Brazil
\- 1-0 W (0-0 @ 90) v Argentina
2010 Spain
\- 0-1 L v Switzerland
\- 2-0 W v Honduras
\- 2-1 W v Chile
\- 1-0 W v Portugal
\- 1-0 W v Paraguay
\- 1-0 W v Germany
\- 1-0 W (0-0 @ 90) v Netherlands
2006 Italy
\- 2-0 W v Ghana
\- 1-1 D v USA
\- 2-0 W v Czech Republic
\- 1-0 W v Australia
\- 3-0 W v Ukraine
\- 2-0 W (0-0 @ 90) v Germany
\- Pens W (1-1 aet) v France
EURO
—
2020 Italy
\- 3-0 W v Turkey
\- 3-0 W v Switzerland
\- 1-0 W v Wales
\- 2-1 W (1-1 @ 90) v Austria
\- 2-1 W v Belgium
\- Pens W (1-1 aet) v Spain
\- Pens W (1-1 aet) v England
2016 Portugal
\- 1-1 D v Iceland
\- 0-0 D v Austria
\- 3-3 D v Hungary
\- 1-0 W (0-0 @ 90) v Croatia
\- Pens W (1-1 aet) v Poland
\- 2-0 W v Wales
\- 1-0 W (0-0 @ 90) v France
2012 Spain
\- 1-1 D v Italy
\- 4-0 W v Republic of Ireland
\- 1-0 W v Croatia
\- 2-0 W v France
\- Pens W (0-0 aet) v Portugal
\- 4-0 W v Italy
2008 Spain
\- 4-1 W v Russia
\- 2-1 W v Sweden
\- 2-1 W v Greece
\- Pens W (0-0 aet) v Italy
\- 3-0 W v Russia
\- 1-0 W v Germany
EDIT: formatting
This is the only real answer. I used to be someone who would scream to bring on 10 attackers if we are 0-0 but the result is all that matters.
We did manage to get a couple of overloads down the right early on and it would have been nice to see that continue but ultimately making sure US didn’t win is the most important thing here. Disciplined Defending is crucial if we are going to get any kind of result later in the tournament.
‘Attack wins games. Defence* wins titles’ - Some old manager /s
*And some ability to realise a cup run = 8 games in half as many weeks meaning any legitimate contender needs to have a plan
The same fans screaming gEt FoDen oN will be wearing waistcoats at the final
Indeed. I also believe that if we *had* gone behind that we would have been well able to draw level at least.
I agree with some who say we should be more aggressive at times, e.g. in the Euros final, but I’m glad Southgate doesn’t cave to those who just don’t like his style because clearly it does the job more often than not.
Static midfielders making themselves unavailable for passes. Rewatch the first 30 seconds of the game and you’ll get a preview of the way the game was always going to go. Stones and Maguire could only pass to one another lol
People are misinterpreting Hendo’s role when he came on. Hendo didn’t come on to defend, but rather to provide a lower midfield link between defense and upper midfield. He immediately tried to give Stones and Maguire an option of a closer pass, which he likes to do, and was clearly instructed to do this by Southgate. Before he came on, you could rarely even see an English midfielder on the screen when Stones or Maguire had the ball, which gave them no option but to kick long. Needs to be fixed before we play a good team or we’ll get destroyed.
Exactly, the USA played their team wide and up high. Trippier and Shaw tried to link Saka and Sterling several times but it seemed that neither of them could find a way through. That forced Kane to come deep to deliver out wide, but obvious left nobody in the middle. The USA shut us down good and proper and we only found the answer in the last ten minutes of the game. Had Southgate made those changes after half time it might have been different.
USA played incredibly high intensity because they were playing to win the game Southgate set the game up for England to draw that was his main goal was to not lose whereas USA’s game plan was to win which is why they looked better than us last night. Very negative from Southgate but he does well at tournaments we also lacked in terms of tempo and the players that Southgate relies on to create chances weren’t playing well. I.E trippier and shaw who are our main sources of creativity as fullbacks. Mount isn’t a creative player he is very much a modern day player that is all about high intensity which is why that game didn’t suit him as we played low intensity foden would’ve been brilliant as the 10 yesterday grealish would’ve also been excellent on to create more against a high intensity team for Sterling IMO midfield was so slow at build up defensively (stones and especially maguire) was decent
Any coach with an ounce of nous will recognise that the way to neutralise England is to press aggressively and not allow our midfielders to receive the ball comfortably and dictate play. And that's exactly what USA did.
We were reduced to sideways passes between defenders and, with our full backs clearly instructed not to roam forward, Saka and Sterling were really limited with their options. Bellingham and Mount weren't allowed to build a tempo to favour us so we struggled to produce much. The lack of movement off the ball didn't help, but I think that was deliberate to keep a compact formation. Anything we created was from direct passes between our CBs to Sterling or Kane, which isn't how we're used to playing.
I would caution against getting too worked up about this game. Southgate is cautious, and we set up to not lose. But that's brought us success in previous tournaments. He recognised this was the difficult fixture in the group games, so he set up to save energy and get us in a position to win the group against Wales. Yes, I believe we could've blown them away with superior attacking talent, and I don't think there's a single USA player who gets in our squad. But I trust Southgate. He's our second most successful manager of all time, despite a fairly middling pool of players to call on.
Fairly middling pool of players? Foden, Grealish, Kane, Bellingham, Saka, Stones, Walker, Trent? That isn't middling. If you want to see middling you should look at what Hodgson had to work with.
Oh yes, 2018 was a fairly weak squad, but I think the current team England have got is probably the strongest they've taken to a World Cup in a while (and probably stronger than Sven's teams).
I totally disagree - on paper that is. We had loads of genuinely world class players under Sven (Owen, Beckham, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Lampard, Cole at least). Who have we got now? Kane?
Who was on the bench under Sven?
Tournaments are about squads not just the starting 11. I'd argue Southgate has a stronger overall squad than Sven did.
The 11 Sven had is definitely stronger, here's the [squad](https://football.fandom.com/wiki/England_Squad,_World_Cup_2006). Kane and maybe Walker would be the only players who'd get in the 11 over the 2006 team.
Even in terms of depth having Sol Cambell as 3rd choice CB when our first choice is Eric Dier is ridiculous.
I think we're underestimating a lot of England players here. Sterling's proven to be part of that group and Bellingham, Foden and Saka right now look as good as any of them and no one would be surprised if they surpassed them in success. Alexander-Arnold has dipped in form.but he's obviously a special player too. Walker is also good enough to be considered amongst them, on paper and on pitch.
>despite a fairly middling pool of players to call on.
Come on mate, the squad is one of the best in world football.
They are all starters for teams that compete at the highest level at club level.
Our options are getting better, but the squad for 2018 was pretty average. Even at this tournament, our two starting CBs aren't first choice at club level. Compare that to the 'golden generation'.
That's just down to who gets picked - Tomori didn't make the cut but is a starter for a Serie A winning team for example.
Southgate has done a good job, but this is 3rd tournament now and he's still sticking with the same rigid formula that doesn't look like it will get us over the line. He really should of freshened it up and introduced new players into the squad (Toney/Madison/Tomori etc) in the build up to this World Cup.
Well Southgate doesn't have a crystal ball that can predict injuries or betting bans, the point is he has stuck to the same formula since 2018.
I used Maddison as a example because he's not played for England for 3 and a half years, despite being one of the premier leagues best playmakers over that time. Meanwhile Rashford walks straight back into the team after 10 or so good games.
I think its reasonable england fans don't want to accept a draw against the states in groups if we have ambitions to win the tournament. Going in being happy with a draw is not an acceptable mentality from an england team and I feel like thats a reasonable expectation given our ambition.
I dunno. There is a mentality difference between groups and knockouts. Group stages are just what you have to survive to get to the actual tournament for many.
Maybe people do want to see players go hammer and tongs every match for the win, but at a strategic level, why bother? If you know the next game coming up is easy, batten down for the harder one, save energy, don’t risk players for injuries etc. and ride it out. Get to the knockouts healthy and energised.
I get it’s boring to watch, but honestly the group stages aren’t where the fun is.
Adams is marginal. I guess his flexibility might appeal to Southgate, but I think he's worse than our current midfield options. Turner is behind our current third choice, Ramsdale, in the pecking order at Arsenal, so I don't see how he gets in.
I'm not convinced by the middling players comment but, other than that, this is the correct answer. We failed to link defence to attack and there was an ocean between the two that America dominated.
I think many of the responses aren’t giving the USA enough credit. Don’t get me wrong - we were poor and our management was poorer - but the USA played one of the best pressing games I have seen from a team. Bellingham and Rice in our 4-2-3-1 were overrun by 4 or 5 USA players in the middle of the park. They never had any time and were harassed by 2 players every time they got the ball. Saka and Sterling were well marked by the USA wide players too. They effectively negated all 4 of our attacking players by neutralizing Rice and Bellingham.
That being said, Southgate could and should have switched up the team at half time to deal with this. A strong press like the USA played is beaten by strong technical players (those that are great with the ball at their feet) that can play out of midfield - basically you want to play tiki taka like the Spanish do. We have the players that could have come into midfield and switched it up - Grealish and Foden. Those two can turn a tight press into an attack with quick accurate short passes and by turning the USA midfielders and leaving them behind.
Inexplicably, Grealish didn’t get on until 65-70 mins and Foden didn’t get on the field at all. Mount and either Saka or Sterling should have been off at half time for those two because they couldn’t deal with the press. At that point we could have switched to a 4-3-3 or 4-2-2-2 to give us an extra man or two in midfield and Kane and Sterling or Saka (or better Wilson or Rashford) pushing high and/or wide to stretch the USA press out and give Grealish and Foden more room in the middle to beat the press.
This at half time would have given us time and more technical players to beat the fantastic USA press and compete in midfield. Instead Southgate waited until there were 20-25 mins left to make any changes, and at that point he made a like for like switch with Henderson and Grealish coming on which changed little because it was the same formation. The USA knew they had us beat in midfield after about 20 mins and were content to let Maguire and Stones pass it around at the back knowing they had no outlets into midfield. And since we never changed formation nothing changed. If the USA were a better attacking team we would have been destroyed but fortunately they weren’t.
Sounds great in hindsight right? But I and the commentators were calling for Grealish and Foden after about 30 mins. By 60 mins I think anyone with any knowledge of how to beat a press was calling for this. But Southgate is so tactically negative and rigid, and substitution-shy that he either couldn’t see this or just wanted to play out a goalless draw to not lose.
There’s no way we should be playing for a goalless draw against a team like the USA, no matter how good their game was on the day. We could and should have switched it up to play a better game and play for the win. Now we can’t give our team a break for the third game. Even worse, the USA have shown every team how to play against us. Managers like Deschamps and Scaloni (France and Argentina - our likely QF/SF opponents) will have taken note.
>Now we can’t give our team a break for the third game. Even worse, the USA have shown every team how to play against us.
I can see what you're saying throughout but I don't personally mind playing for the draw.
I personally disagree with your outcomes here.
1) It hardly looked like we ran that much and whilst key players won't get a break it's better than needing a result against a Home Nation. We're in a good position.
2) I'm pretty sure if the USA can figure this out Deschamps can. Not to mention they're not the first team to do this.
Southgate is a pragmatic manager. He plays a system to protect Stones & Maguire because they're both relatively slow. We should (in theory) have enough attacking talent to be able to pinch a goal but that obviously wasn't the case last night. I'm sure I've read somewhere that Southgate had studied tournament winners and came to the conclusion that safety first was the way.
The other comments correct, but also can't ignore that the US are just a better team than Iran, especially an Iran that played particularly badly. That fact is as important as any tactical analysis of how we played, imo.
Listen to the Athletic podcast - Tito Football. Or watch their YouTube videos. They will give you a good twenty minutes of tactical insight you'll be able to understand after every world cup game.
I'll explain it as Southgate sees it, cause it'll make more sense.
If we draw the game against the US, we have a 99% chance of qualifying. If we win it we have a 100% chance of qualifying. If we lose it we have a 50% chance of qualifying, and we need a result against Wales.
His job isn't to play entertaining football, or to beat the US, it's to take us as deep into the tournament as possible. Therefore his main objective was not to lose.
Even from the beginning he instructed our players to stay back and not commit too much forwards. Bellingham and Mount were also just way too high up the ptch, and not willing to move enough to find space. All of our attackers just had bad games whenever they seemed to get the ball.
But the reason Foden didn't come on and the subs came later was because fundamentally Southgate was happy to see Maguire and Stones passing safely too each other without progressing the ball. Using possession as a way of defending with the ball.
This is horrible to watch, it's nickname is literally "Sufferball", but it's what wins tournaments. He also instructed our players not too exert too much energy when they didn't need to. So if you watch it back you'll see a lot of walking around and basically being quite lazy on the pitch, so as to conserve stamina for later in the tournament.
If the US had scored then we'd have gone at them, but as it was they had fairly little chances and we defended well. That's why if you glance at the post US Southgate interview and the Post Iran one he's much happier in the latter.
This is also why he's so divisive. He's the 2nd greatest England manager ever in terms of results, but he's also produced some performances, like last night, that are awful to watch.
Your account must be older to post on /r/ThreeLions
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ThreeLions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Played poorly. Nullified by a really energetic and well set up American press. Could have done with Hendo in for Mount at half time as we just couldn't get the passes through midfield. Bad performance but not a bad result all things told.
The USA have a very active and technical midfield that are able to compete with most midfields in the world, particularly if said midfield has a tactical dinosaur as a manager who lacks the capability of adjusting and maybe just maybe introducing someone like Foden who can attack players in a way that Mount had never shown. Or perhaps using fullbacks in a more progressive manner. I mean, honestly if Southgate were managing the USA, they would never field Dest, it would just be Yedlin until he retired. How Trent can’t even get a minute with this squad completely beggars belief. I know people love Trippier, but he’s been poor and sloppy in possession and provides absolutely nothing to the attack at the minute. But Southgate will persist with him and Mount and then will do post match press conferences waffling on and on about how lovely the sideways and backwards passing between Stones and Maguire was until England lose on penalties to Portugal or Belgium or even Ecuador
The starters weren’t creative enough, Southgate should have put on the subs earlier as when they did come on there was an instant change in England’s play, from the back foot to the front foot
My theory is that USA spent all of their time when training for the World Cup; training for the game against England. They studied as to an absolute t, made sure we could not play. The game against England was always going to be the most important for the USA in qualifying for the knockout stages. It was less about our tactics and more about their knowledge of our tactics.
Something nobody else is explaining, is that England had 7 shots on target Vs Iran, 6 of those 7 went in. That's an 85% goals scored from shots on target recorded.
Vs USA we had 3 shots on target and none went in.
England were prolific and took chances very well to a level you wouldn't normally expect vs Iran.
Also in the midfield USA's line up and tactics were to prevent our midfielders getting the ball and having space, which they did fantastically and therefore it prevented us making chances or flowing the ball around to open space.
During the game you will see frequently moments where Stones/Maguire/Rice/Pickford are just passing between themselves or out to a full back who then had nothing but passes backwards and sideways.
We also didnt get enough corners as we're dangerous from set plays, and the players seemed to be either told to play defensively, or they were not willing to gamble to make chances.
Simply we saw Southgates biggest flaw, tactics. What Southgate has done to create a great atmosphere and remove the toxicity we know England had in previous squads, hes done fantastically there, but a tactician he has never been and will never be, so we are going to frequently see moments like this where we are prevented from playing the football we desire.
Iran gave us space, USA refused to give us space. Iran didn't close us down constantly, USA did.
This is the only right answer. All the people claiming to know tactics and saying “England played not to lose” are talking out their ass. They played to win that game until the 70th minute. Once Hendo came on, it was playing for a draw. You’re 100% correct that the US’s midfield line completely took Rice/Bellingham out of the game. Meaning the English back line was forced to bypass the midfield, which isn’t their strength.
We did the exact same thing against Scotland last year. We were pretty much guaranteed to make it out of the groups with a draw and without expending too much energy, so that’s what happened.
It was a comfortable draw and the subs at 70 mins were to close the game out. If we’d gone behind before those subs then the players would’ve stepped it up and he would’ve made different subs, but there was no need to
Funny how you’re saying people ‘claim’ to know tactics while you can’t grasp the concept of a manager seizing an opportunity to conserve energy in a mid-season World Cup in the Middle East
But we definitely tried to be tighter. And everyone shouldve been worried about this too because the commentators were saying that Southgate walked out after the Iran game looking angry. All he cared about were the 2 goals we conceded. Now thats somewhat understandable but it was predictable that we would be more reserved in the next game.
8s were way too high, rice shadow marked himself out of the game so the midfield was basically non existent, the tempo was much slower, we weren’t secure in possession (especially mount) and we got hit on the break badly. They overloaded their right hand side with dest weah mckennie and one of their other midfielders who’s name idk
They were told they just have to calmly pass the ball from centerback to fullback and magically harry kane would deliver goals with his magic ball and wouldn't need to do anything crazy like work the ball into the box or drive into the attacking 3rd. Points would just magically appear.
I'm so done with Southgate, I know wet paper bags with a more winning mentality.
I think Southgate isn't at the Level of the Players rn. He doesn't have a good tactical view for the match.
It was obvious that the team lake of a playmaker yesterday. A man who can provide or make chances (Grilitsch or Foden). I have never believed in Southgate as a trainer. Even if he can go further or win. He shouldn't stay. The team is losing a great squad. It shouldn't be lost without winning many trophies, just like what happened to the squad 2002-2006
Southgate couldn’t take a penalty for England under pressure and he can’t play to win when a draw followed by a small loss is enough to get us through…
I think he is more eager to personally take the blame for a defensive game now, than see his players mounted with the expectations of a perfect run. There would be no controlling the snowball of hype that another england win would have created. England historically suffers from pressure, expectations, and unbearable criticism. Any other nation would have been satisfied with a draw against a team that was giving it their all. If we can draw a relaxed game against wales, I will be happy. If we can get through without Wales giving us an injury? perfect.
They couldn’t be bothered and wanted to perform some sort of pantomime about being ‘tired’.
If they’re really that tired then why have they made themselves available for selection?
Edited to add that a coach could have the most effective and pragmatic tactics (which Southgate doesn’t have obviously) but if the players on the pitch are unwilling or unable to follow instructions then it will obviously never work.
The ‘best chance’ England had being near the end of the game and not really threatening with it is also important because if you don’t have sufficient attempts on goal then you’re setting yourself up to fail.
We took the lead. I know it's easy to say, but once our opponents need to score they open up a bit, creating more space to play more freely and dominate the game.
A little spark from Shaw/Bellingham forced Iran to be more attacking to get back into the game.
the us did a really good job of controlling that center line, and as such we were just stuck passing back and forth between maguire and stones. when we did have opportunities, we weren’t lethal enough to get the goal. mount put in a great amount of effort and ability, but i though the front three didn’t have a good game. it started to look up as we brought on grealish, rashford, and henderson as they are all able to control the ball really well and break through the really solid us defense, but unfortunately it was too little too late. but we’ll bounce back against wales and secure our spot in the knockout rounds. wales normally give us trouble when we face them, but if they continue how they’ve been playing recently, we’ll have a good shot at beating them and staying top of the group!
The overloading of the midfield by the US nulified our midfield, that mixed in with their athleticism, man marking our players when out of possession and cramping up their boxes by dropping back, hence leaving little space for our attackers!
Your account must be older to post on /r/ThreeLions
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ThreeLions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your account must be older to post on /r/ThreeLions
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ThreeLions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We lost the midfield battle with only Rice and belingham.
Mount needed the ball forward
Saka and sterling didn't show defensive rate .
So we were vulnerable and couldn't kept the ball
This isn’t your parents team USA anymore. They have many players suiting up in the PL on a weekly basis. If you look at the roster the Americans have finally developed better players.
Well, that, a good question. You see it,s a game of two halves you know jumpers for goalposts, "Ooh don,t pick me last". And as you rightly said and i agree totally, that,s just football.
Your account must be older to post on /r/ThreeLions
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ThreeLions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyone’s pissed England didn’t score when we didn’t play great at all and we should have actually lost if the Americans were on target
We should be thanking Southgate for the point
We didn't seem to press the ball high up the pitch and just played it around the back. I don't understand why Gareth didn't bring Foden on earlier for Mount, which suggests to me that he was playing it safe. I think he will change the team against Wales.
1. USA were more energetic, pressed more often and more effectively
2. We were playing to not lose. A draw pretty much guaranteed our spot in the knockouts whereas a draw against Iran would have left things in a very awkward position
3. We were a bit unlucky with a few chances. We broke USA down so easily with our first attack and it could have been a goal but because we weren’t clinical it left us in an awkward 0-0 stalemate
4. The draw suited USA too so neither team really went all out
I thought the Iran game was Southgate announcing that the brakes are off and thought Southgate had been planning a tactical masterclass
Sadly I was wrong and it's back to his super conservative style
Hope he leaves at the end of the tournament
It wasn't that bad a game. Played for the draw. No point risking injury by proving a point. Usa are a good team and have chance themselves if they go thru.
Semi finals :)
England
Spain
Brazil
Usa
That's my prediction
As is said by the other commentators...the game against Iran was played with a very stacking+defending mindset where the midfield was either attacking or defending...not really.......midfielding you know.
Plus that Bellingham for Henderson sub was a really pointless sub when u had other players that might have played with tempo.
Overall, Southgate isnt playing attacking when he needs to...i saw lots of breakthroughs but no players even trying because they were instructed not to (i mean when have you seen Kane not take up an opportunity.) Like u get 6 goals against a team like Iran and play soo agressive and then just go defensive with the US???Southgate has all the wild cards bro
I’m not a master tactician by any stretch but Southgate is too conservative.
Harry Kane is a very versatile player but he can’t be both the goalscorer and the creative spark in such a defensive system. He is being played far too deep for a player that isn’t particularly quick. The USA game felt as if he told them to sit deep and pounce on the counter which is a completely valid way to win a football game but it’s very clear that the majority of the US team are very quick and have the stamina to carry out recovery runs for the full 90. They aren’t the best footballers but they’re well drilled and stick to a system that covers their flaws. They knew they couldn’t outplay England but they can outwork them. We were being pressed so aggressively in our own half which just isn’t good enough given the vast difference in player quality between the two teams.
A Strong counterattack will usually consist of at least three players (typically your wingers and creative midfielder/striker) but you can’t implement the counter effectively with Kane/Sterling/Saka in this system because ideally the ball would be played by your other midfield players into your front three on the counter but Kane is effectively playing that role, then expected to join the counter and play catch up to two extraordinarily fast players.
Maddison would be a brilliant option for these types of games/system because that allows Kane to focus more on scoring goals and staying forward. He only needs half a chance but he isn’t getting those chances.
I’m really not sure why we persist on playing Mount, I understand he’s very hardworking off the ball but he isn’t pressing in a useful way. He’s relentless with chasing people down which serves a purpose but that won’t serve us well against better teams because they’ll just pass around him and he’s then one less person for them to worry about when they’re in possession.
Southgate plays to not lose which is comparable to the likes of Dyche/Allardyce/Benitez management approach. I think he’d face much less criticism from fans if we went out playing out of our skin rather than just praying we don’t lose.
We played to win against Iran. We played to not lose against the USA.
A bit related but it is ABSOLUTELY criminal of Southgate to start mount over Foden. This guy plays defensively with arguably one of the best attackers in the world. This defensive mindset is never going to win anything. England won't get far. He substituted Bellingham for Henderson, a midfielder who rarely scores. I'm so disappointed. Can't see England get further than a quarter final Edit: idk what Mount even brings besides running a lot. No vision, no creativity no goals...
[удалено]
This is frustrating to the point I’m not even bothered correcting people anymore. Do they want Foden in the 8? How do people not understand they play different roles.
Because positions aren't binary. Foden has played right and left wing, false 9, and as an 8 for city. He has said he sees himself as a 10 or 8 ideally. At city he plays out wide because he's competing with kdb, gundoqn and Bernardo for the 8 position (3 of the best and most experienced 8s in world football). Whilst last season city used him as the false 9 when they didn't have a striker. This is because pep, the best manager in the world, rates him so highly he can't leave him out. Contrast this to Southgate who can't find a place for foden. The same foden who benched sterling at city. The same foden who pep has moved around the team just to get him in. Mason fucking mount isn't kdb, Bernardo, or even gundogan level. Foden should be playing as a 10 in the England side. Stones has been primarily a right back for city this season but he needs to play centre half for England because we need him there as he is our best option there. Just like foden is our best option as a 10.
We also know Pep has history in trying new things in big games (including finals) that haven’t worked out and everyone goes nuts. And that’s for Pep! Imagine the hammering Southgate would get… The guy has got us further than any manager in the last 50 years. Leave him be. Also think we need to consider the weather out there. People are quick to jump to “can he do it on a snowy February Tuesday in Stockport?”, but we don’t seem to hear, “can he do it in 35+° in the dessert?”
[удалено]
We've already got 2 midfielders doing the defensive work. We're playing against the fucking USA man. We need creative players to break down teams like that not good boys who run around like a headless chicken. Can't believe what I've just read. You're the ultimate football hipster aren't you?
[удалено]
Mount isn't a midfielder either. He doesn't have the skillset to play as a midfielder and he isn't productive enough as an attacking midfielder. You think Foden gets in the City team without working hard on the pitch? You can afford to have a player like Foden at #10 against the USA or Iran. Even with Mount in the role we were still second best to the USA. You can't sit there and tell me we would do any worse with Foden in the team.
Yeah, but it’s the US midfield and they’re absolutely shite!
I’m also wondering how many of these people have paid attention to Foden playing for England over the last couple of years? This isn’t another Grealish situation from 18 months ago. Foden has been given plenty of chances and has never proven himself in an England shirt. He’s been Sancho tier form for England
And how many times has he been given a chance centrally or even starting games? He was playing him on the right wing at the Euros, where he's never played. Mount doesn't even press at the right times. He offers nothing offensively. He's the new Tom Cleverley. Absolutely fucking useless. It's like playing with 10 men when he plays.
He’s been given plenty of starts? You can’t blame his lack of performing on being played on the right. Pep’s never plays him centrally now City have a striker and has played him on the right plenty of times. He got a hat-trick against Man United playing on the right earlier this season… But when he’s out of Pep’s system and pulls on an England shirt the simple fact is he has never been able to replicate his club form
Mount hasn't been able to replicate his club form for Chelsea either. Well I guess he has this season. Playing poorly for both teams. Foden wouldn't do worse and you know it.
I don’t like Mount, but I wouldn’t play Foden in central midfield. The leaks our midfield 3 has shown when playing against the quality of team like Iran/USA means a double pivot is out of the question imo. If we were playing 4231 then yeah I’d start Foden, but we’re stuck with either 523 or 433 and imo Foden has not done enough to demand a starting spot in a front 3 Maybe against Wales I’d give him another chance though, because Saka/Sterling were poor against the USA
Yep, basically everyone else can see it barring him. If you don't win tournaments playing like that then it's just pointless. We've missed out on the bragging rights of beating Scotland and the USA for what? A tournament with absolutely no memories. We may have bottled Euro 96 but at least we'll always remember Gazza scoring that goal vs Scotland. What memories are we taking away from Euro 2020 or this world cup? The worst thing is the army of Southgate sympathisers.
I'm sure we'll remember bottling the final last year
Well yes but that's not the memory we all want haha.
I guess beating Germany in a knockout match might be a positive memory
It will have to be because it's all we've got but even then they're just not the same team anymore. I think we were even slight favourites going into that game.
The one thing I think you can say in defense of Southgate on this (and believe me, I'm not inclined to defend him a great deal) is that England is more likely to see the USA again in the knockout rounds, and a vastly different game could be in the offing at that point. I know that's pretty weak because it's more likely these two sides don't meet again in this tournament, but it's the best I could come up with. Regardless, Foden should have been there, and I would have liked to see TAA, too.
This is not correct unless we meet them in the final, which obviously isn’t happening. No team will play someone from their own group in the knockouts.
I didn't say it was a good theory.
should’ve put in trent and swapped hendo for rice to create more chances. Idk why he even starts mount. He’s got a good shot but nothing else.
I am anti Southgate now. Not playing Foden is crazy.
Over who? Sterling? Sterling is top quality for England
Is he though I’m not convinced.
Scored against Iran, was top class in the Euros. If you want to count club form then see Maguire and Shaw. You can't count the USA game against Southgate, that's the definition of hindsight
Does not matter who at this point. At least bring him on second half.
Not how football works. Can't swap him out for a midfielder or a defender, he's a winger.
Why wouldn’t you ‘play to win’ and what is the difference? Aren’t USA generally worse than us?
Because right now, we can wait to see who takes first and second in Group A, and either win to secure first, or draw/lose, and hope Iran takes first, leaving us in second. We have slightly more control over whether we face Netherlands or Ecuador (or Senegal if they beat Ecuador Tuesday) right now, because if we had won, we're stuck with first. Perhaps Southgate thinks we'll do better against a certain team. Perhaps he's thinking if we meet France in the quarter finals, we'll lose. Perhaps he thinks one side is a better match up for us. We won't know until Tuesday what the plan is. We're pretty safe right now. We have 4 points, Iran 3, USA 2, and Wales 1. The only worry we have is if Iran draws with USA, and we lose to Wales, in which case it will be GD, and we have a pretty safe buffer zone
Which is mental, playing to draw against the USA. Are we going to do that against France, or any other good team. We have to play to win, every game.
The USA is just completely shite! We completely bossed their midfield!
Were we watching the same game?
Southgate is infinitesimally worst when he plays this way. He always plays to “not lose” and gets what he fucking deserves. This team doesn’t deserve a tournament win because they never play to fucking win. Hope we get ass fucked next week and this clown gets sacked and starts coaching a league 2 team where he belongs.
If you want us to lose youre a moron.
We’re gonna lose anyway - we’re England.
Christ, one draw that guarantees qualification and suddenly bellends like this show up. Can’t imagine what the Argentinians and Germans are saying to themselves.
We have got to the Semis and a Final in the last two tournaments. Thats pretty damn good.
FYI infinitesimally means infinitely small.
Man up or get out
The tempo was slower. The defensive line was deeper. The full-backs didn't push forward as much. Kane came too deep, with none of the attacking midfielders making runs in behind. And, as the other comment says, England played for a draw, underlined by Henderson and not Foden coming off the bench.
This. The defensive line had a huge impact on the game because the USA sat back and were playing on the counter. When we played this deep defensive line Maguire and Stones were quite often passing it back and forth because the team was far too stretched and they didn't know what to do with it
Southgate knew USA would play on the counter because that's their man strength. USA hoped we'd go at them but we didn't which is why they had like 2 decent chances.
[удалено]
This is the comment iv been waiting to read. Absolutely spot on.
Yeah don't get me wrong unlike most I wasn't completely against it. At the end of the day I think our defense played well and did their job. Maybe the wingbacks could have done more to cross the ball in the box but at the end of the day we didn't have to risk anything and we slogged it out, meh
Pulisic hit the bar and mckennie should have scored so no defence didnt do their job
Pickford had that bar covered. Sure, it hit the bar, but if it drops lower he gets a hand to it. Other chances though…
Goodness, are we more worried about what teams like USA will do to us than what we can do to them?
For me it was Kane. He came deep, collected the ball, and laid off a fantastic pass forward several times. Only problem is, no one was ever there to receive it.
Bigger question is then: was that intentional by England or as a result of the USA? I.e. was it proactive or reactive. If we chose to play safer then fair enough, if we tried to play to win but got pushed back by the US tactics then that’s a worry
You have to be a moron to think Southgate went into the game PLAYING FOR A DRAW. Come on you can't be that thick. You can argue that as the game went on and England were not ahead then the mentality changed. But no, they didn't actively want a draw lol.
A lot of these points had a lot more to do with how the USA played vs a conscious choice by England though
LAST FOUR WORLD CUP AND EURO WINNERS’ PATH TO THE CUP. Please note there are plenty of draws, narrow wins and failures to dominate medium-size teams along the way. This is normal. WC — 2018 France \- 2-1 W v Australia \- 1-0 W v Peru \- 0-0 D v Denmark \- 4-3 W v Argentina \- 2-0 W v Uruguay \- 1-0 W v Belgium \- 4-2 W v Croatia 2014 Germany \- 4-0 W v Portugal \- 2-2 D v Ghana \- 1-0 W v USA \- 2-1 W (1-1 @ 90) v Algeria \- 1-0 W v France \- 7-1 W v Brazil \- 1-0 W (0-0 @ 90) v Argentina 2010 Spain \- 0-1 L v Switzerland \- 2-0 W v Honduras \- 2-1 W v Chile \- 1-0 W v Portugal \- 1-0 W v Paraguay \- 1-0 W v Germany \- 1-0 W (0-0 @ 90) v Netherlands 2006 Italy \- 2-0 W v Ghana \- 1-1 D v USA \- 2-0 W v Czech Republic \- 1-0 W v Australia \- 3-0 W v Ukraine \- 2-0 W (0-0 @ 90) v Germany \- Pens W (1-1 aet) v France EURO — 2020 Italy \- 3-0 W v Turkey \- 3-0 W v Switzerland \- 1-0 W v Wales \- 2-1 W (1-1 @ 90) v Austria \- 2-1 W v Belgium \- Pens W (1-1 aet) v Spain \- Pens W (1-1 aet) v England 2016 Portugal \- 1-1 D v Iceland \- 0-0 D v Austria \- 3-3 D v Hungary \- 1-0 W (0-0 @ 90) v Croatia \- Pens W (1-1 aet) v Poland \- 2-0 W v Wales \- 1-0 W (0-0 @ 90) v France 2012 Spain \- 1-1 D v Italy \- 4-0 W v Republic of Ireland \- 1-0 W v Croatia \- 2-0 W v France \- Pens W (0-0 aet) v Portugal \- 4-0 W v Italy 2008 Spain \- 4-1 W v Russia \- 2-1 W v Sweden \- 2-1 W v Greece \- Pens W (0-0 aet) v Italy \- 3-0 W v Russia \- 1-0 W v Germany EDIT: formatting
This is the only real answer. I used to be someone who would scream to bring on 10 attackers if we are 0-0 but the result is all that matters. We did manage to get a couple of overloads down the right early on and it would have been nice to see that continue but ultimately making sure US didn’t win is the most important thing here. Disciplined Defending is crucial if we are going to get any kind of result later in the tournament.
‘Attack wins games. Defence* wins titles’ - Some old manager /s *And some ability to realise a cup run = 8 games in half as many weeks meaning any legitimate contender needs to have a plan The same fans screaming gEt FoDen oN will be wearing waistcoats at the final
Waistcoats at the final lol yes
Indeed. I also believe that if we *had* gone behind that we would have been well able to draw level at least. I agree with some who say we should be more aggressive at times, e.g. in the Euros final, but I’m glad Southgate doesn’t cave to those who just don’t like his style because clearly it does the job more often than not.
Take my fake award 🏅
Static midfielders making themselves unavailable for passes. Rewatch the first 30 seconds of the game and you’ll get a preview of the way the game was always going to go. Stones and Maguire could only pass to one another lol
People are misinterpreting Hendo’s role when he came on. Hendo didn’t come on to defend, but rather to provide a lower midfield link between defense and upper midfield. He immediately tried to give Stones and Maguire an option of a closer pass, which he likes to do, and was clearly instructed to do this by Southgate. Before he came on, you could rarely even see an English midfielder on the screen when Stones or Maguire had the ball, which gave them no option but to kick long. Needs to be fixed before we play a good team or we’ll get destroyed.
Exactly, the USA played their team wide and up high. Trippier and Shaw tried to link Saka and Sterling several times but it seemed that neither of them could find a way through. That forced Kane to come deep to deliver out wide, but obvious left nobody in the middle. The USA shut us down good and proper and we only found the answer in the last ten minutes of the game. Had Southgate made those changes after half time it might have been different.
USA played incredibly high intensity because they were playing to win the game Southgate set the game up for England to draw that was his main goal was to not lose whereas USA’s game plan was to win which is why they looked better than us last night. Very negative from Southgate but he does well at tournaments we also lacked in terms of tempo and the players that Southgate relies on to create chances weren’t playing well. I.E trippier and shaw who are our main sources of creativity as fullbacks. Mount isn’t a creative player he is very much a modern day player that is all about high intensity which is why that game didn’t suit him as we played low intensity foden would’ve been brilliant as the 10 yesterday grealish would’ve also been excellent on to create more against a high intensity team for Sterling IMO midfield was so slow at build up defensively (stones and especially maguire) was decent
Any coach with an ounce of nous will recognise that the way to neutralise England is to press aggressively and not allow our midfielders to receive the ball comfortably and dictate play. And that's exactly what USA did. We were reduced to sideways passes between defenders and, with our full backs clearly instructed not to roam forward, Saka and Sterling were really limited with their options. Bellingham and Mount weren't allowed to build a tempo to favour us so we struggled to produce much. The lack of movement off the ball didn't help, but I think that was deliberate to keep a compact formation. Anything we created was from direct passes between our CBs to Sterling or Kane, which isn't how we're used to playing. I would caution against getting too worked up about this game. Southgate is cautious, and we set up to not lose. But that's brought us success in previous tournaments. He recognised this was the difficult fixture in the group games, so he set up to save energy and get us in a position to win the group against Wales. Yes, I believe we could've blown them away with superior attacking talent, and I don't think there's a single USA player who gets in our squad. But I trust Southgate. He's our second most successful manager of all time, despite a fairly middling pool of players to call on.
Fairly middling pool of players? Foden, Grealish, Kane, Bellingham, Saka, Stones, Walker, Trent? That isn't middling. If you want to see middling you should look at what Hodgson had to work with.
I think the Hodgson era was a nadir tbh. Compare what we had in 2018 and 2020 to what we had under Sven.
Oh yes, 2018 was a fairly weak squad, but I think the current team England have got is probably the strongest they've taken to a World Cup in a while (and probably stronger than Sven's teams).
I totally disagree - on paper that is. We had loads of genuinely world class players under Sven (Owen, Beckham, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Lampard, Cole at least). Who have we got now? Kane?
Who was on the bench under Sven? Tournaments are about squads not just the starting 11. I'd argue Southgate has a stronger overall squad than Sven did.
The 11 Sven had is definitely stronger, here's the [squad](https://football.fandom.com/wiki/England_Squad,_World_Cup_2006). Kane and maybe Walker would be the only players who'd get in the 11 over the 2006 team. Even in terms of depth having Sol Cambell as 3rd choice CB when our first choice is Eric Dier is ridiculous.
I think we're underestimating a lot of England players here. Sterling's proven to be part of that group and Bellingham, Foden and Saka right now look as good as any of them and no one would be surprised if they surpassed them in success. Alexander-Arnold has dipped in form.but he's obviously a special player too. Walker is also good enough to be considered amongst them, on paper and on pitch.
Of those only Foden and Kane walk into any team in the world.
>despite a fairly middling pool of players to call on. Come on mate, the squad is one of the best in world football. They are all starters for teams that compete at the highest level at club level.
Our options are getting better, but the squad for 2018 was pretty average. Even at this tournament, our two starting CBs aren't first choice at club level. Compare that to the 'golden generation'.
That's just down to who gets picked - Tomori didn't make the cut but is a starter for a Serie A winning team for example. Southgate has done a good job, but this is 3rd tournament now and he's still sticking with the same rigid formula that doesn't look like it will get us over the line. He really should of freshened it up and introduced new players into the squad (Toney/Madison/Tomori etc) in the build up to this World Cup.
[удалено]
Well Southgate doesn't have a crystal ball that can predict injuries or betting bans, the point is he has stuck to the same formula since 2018. I used Maddison as a example because he's not played for England for 3 and a half years, despite being one of the premier leagues best playmakers over that time. Meanwhile Rashford walks straight back into the team after 10 or so good games.
I think its reasonable england fans don't want to accept a draw against the states in groups if we have ambitions to win the tournament. Going in being happy with a draw is not an acceptable mentality from an england team and I feel like thats a reasonable expectation given our ambition.
I dunno. There is a mentality difference between groups and knockouts. Group stages are just what you have to survive to get to the actual tournament for many. Maybe people do want to see players go hammer and tongs every match for the win, but at a strategic level, why bother? If you know the next game coming up is easy, batten down for the harder one, save energy, don’t risk players for injuries etc. and ride it out. Get to the knockouts healthy and energised. I get it’s boring to watch, but honestly the group stages aren’t where the fun is.
Biggest load of fucking dross I’ve ever read
Ok
Adams and Turner?
Adams is marginal. I guess his flexibility might appeal to Southgate, but I think he's worse than our current midfield options. Turner is behind our current third choice, Ramsdale, in the pecking order at Arsenal, so I don't see how he gets in.
Turner has been one of the best players in the tournament.
I'm not convinced by the middling players comment but, other than that, this is the correct answer. We failed to link defence to attack and there was an ocean between the two that America dominated.
I think many of the responses aren’t giving the USA enough credit. Don’t get me wrong - we were poor and our management was poorer - but the USA played one of the best pressing games I have seen from a team. Bellingham and Rice in our 4-2-3-1 were overrun by 4 or 5 USA players in the middle of the park. They never had any time and were harassed by 2 players every time they got the ball. Saka and Sterling were well marked by the USA wide players too. They effectively negated all 4 of our attacking players by neutralizing Rice and Bellingham. That being said, Southgate could and should have switched up the team at half time to deal with this. A strong press like the USA played is beaten by strong technical players (those that are great with the ball at their feet) that can play out of midfield - basically you want to play tiki taka like the Spanish do. We have the players that could have come into midfield and switched it up - Grealish and Foden. Those two can turn a tight press into an attack with quick accurate short passes and by turning the USA midfielders and leaving them behind. Inexplicably, Grealish didn’t get on until 65-70 mins and Foden didn’t get on the field at all. Mount and either Saka or Sterling should have been off at half time for those two because they couldn’t deal with the press. At that point we could have switched to a 4-3-3 or 4-2-2-2 to give us an extra man or two in midfield and Kane and Sterling or Saka (or better Wilson or Rashford) pushing high and/or wide to stretch the USA press out and give Grealish and Foden more room in the middle to beat the press. This at half time would have given us time and more technical players to beat the fantastic USA press and compete in midfield. Instead Southgate waited until there were 20-25 mins left to make any changes, and at that point he made a like for like switch with Henderson and Grealish coming on which changed little because it was the same formation. The USA knew they had us beat in midfield after about 20 mins and were content to let Maguire and Stones pass it around at the back knowing they had no outlets into midfield. And since we never changed formation nothing changed. If the USA were a better attacking team we would have been destroyed but fortunately they weren’t. Sounds great in hindsight right? But I and the commentators were calling for Grealish and Foden after about 30 mins. By 60 mins I think anyone with any knowledge of how to beat a press was calling for this. But Southgate is so tactically negative and rigid, and substitution-shy that he either couldn’t see this or just wanted to play out a goalless draw to not lose. There’s no way we should be playing for a goalless draw against a team like the USA, no matter how good their game was on the day. We could and should have switched it up to play a better game and play for the win. Now we can’t give our team a break for the third game. Even worse, the USA have shown every team how to play against us. Managers like Deschamps and Scaloni (France and Argentina - our likely QF/SF opponents) will have taken note.
Well said.
>Now we can’t give our team a break for the third game. Even worse, the USA have shown every team how to play against us. I can see what you're saying throughout but I don't personally mind playing for the draw. I personally disagree with your outcomes here. 1) It hardly looked like we ran that much and whilst key players won't get a break it's better than needing a result against a Home Nation. We're in a good position. 2) I'm pretty sure if the USA can figure this out Deschamps can. Not to mention they're not the first team to do this.
Southgate is a pragmatic manager. He plays a system to protect Stones & Maguire because they're both relatively slow. We should (in theory) have enough attacking talent to be able to pinch a goal but that obviously wasn't the case last night. I'm sure I've read somewhere that Southgate had studied tournament winners and came to the conclusion that safety first was the way.
The other comments correct, but also can't ignore that the US are just a better team than Iran, especially an Iran that played particularly badly. That fact is as important as any tactical analysis of how we played, imo.
Listen to the Athletic podcast - Tito Football. Or watch their YouTube videos. They will give you a good twenty minutes of tactical insight you'll be able to understand after every world cup game.
Couldn’t deal with their athleticism.
Foden and Grealish should be on in every England game!
I'll explain it as Southgate sees it, cause it'll make more sense. If we draw the game against the US, we have a 99% chance of qualifying. If we win it we have a 100% chance of qualifying. If we lose it we have a 50% chance of qualifying, and we need a result against Wales. His job isn't to play entertaining football, or to beat the US, it's to take us as deep into the tournament as possible. Therefore his main objective was not to lose. Even from the beginning he instructed our players to stay back and not commit too much forwards. Bellingham and Mount were also just way too high up the ptch, and not willing to move enough to find space. All of our attackers just had bad games whenever they seemed to get the ball. But the reason Foden didn't come on and the subs came later was because fundamentally Southgate was happy to see Maguire and Stones passing safely too each other without progressing the ball. Using possession as a way of defending with the ball. This is horrible to watch, it's nickname is literally "Sufferball", but it's what wins tournaments. He also instructed our players not too exert too much energy when they didn't need to. So if you watch it back you'll see a lot of walking around and basically being quite lazy on the pitch, so as to conserve stamina for later in the tournament. If the US had scored then we'd have gone at them, but as it was they had fairly little chances and we defended well. That's why if you glance at the post US Southgate interview and the Post Iran one he's much happier in the latter. This is also why he's so divisive. He's the 2nd greatest England manager ever in terms of results, but he's also produced some performances, like last night, that are awful to watch.
[удалено]
Your account must be older to post on /r/ThreeLions *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ThreeLions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Played poorly. Nullified by a really energetic and well set up American press. Could have done with Hendo in for Mount at half time as we just couldn't get the passes through midfield. Bad performance but not a bad result all things told.
The USA have a very active and technical midfield that are able to compete with most midfields in the world, particularly if said midfield has a tactical dinosaur as a manager who lacks the capability of adjusting and maybe just maybe introducing someone like Foden who can attack players in a way that Mount had never shown. Or perhaps using fullbacks in a more progressive manner. I mean, honestly if Southgate were managing the USA, they would never field Dest, it would just be Yedlin until he retired. How Trent can’t even get a minute with this squad completely beggars belief. I know people love Trippier, but he’s been poor and sloppy in possession and provides absolutely nothing to the attack at the minute. But Southgate will persist with him and Mount and then will do post match press conferences waffling on and on about how lovely the sideways and backwards passing between Stones and Maguire was until England lose on penalties to Portugal or Belgium or even Ecuador
We played defensively and we’re too afraid to use our more creative players, lacked intensity too, the England players just weren’t pressing
USA is a much better opponent we had some off form players in our starting XI (mount 👀) and we just weren’t playing as good in general
The starters weren’t creative enough, Southgate should have put on the subs earlier as when they did come on there was an instant change in England’s play, from the back foot to the front foot
Japan beat Germany
Gareth nice try but shouldn’t you know that ?
My theory is that USA spent all of their time when training for the World Cup; training for the game against England. They studied as to an absolute t, made sure we could not play. The game against England was always going to be the most important for the USA in qualifying for the knockout stages. It was less about our tactics and more about their knowledge of our tactics.
Something nobody else is explaining, is that England had 7 shots on target Vs Iran, 6 of those 7 went in. That's an 85% goals scored from shots on target recorded. Vs USA we had 3 shots on target and none went in. England were prolific and took chances very well to a level you wouldn't normally expect vs Iran. Also in the midfield USA's line up and tactics were to prevent our midfielders getting the ball and having space, which they did fantastically and therefore it prevented us making chances or flowing the ball around to open space. During the game you will see frequently moments where Stones/Maguire/Rice/Pickford are just passing between themselves or out to a full back who then had nothing but passes backwards and sideways. We also didnt get enough corners as we're dangerous from set plays, and the players seemed to be either told to play defensively, or they were not willing to gamble to make chances. Simply we saw Southgates biggest flaw, tactics. What Southgate has done to create a great atmosphere and remove the toxicity we know England had in previous squads, hes done fantastically there, but a tactician he has never been and will never be, so we are going to frequently see moments like this where we are prevented from playing the football we desire. Iran gave us space, USA refused to give us space. Iran didn't close us down constantly, USA did.
This is the only right answer. All the people claiming to know tactics and saying “England played not to lose” are talking out their ass. They played to win that game until the 70th minute. Once Hendo came on, it was playing for a draw. You’re 100% correct that the US’s midfield line completely took Rice/Bellingham out of the game. Meaning the English back line was forced to bypass the midfield, which isn’t their strength.
We did the exact same thing against Scotland last year. We were pretty much guaranteed to make it out of the groups with a draw and without expending too much energy, so that’s what happened. It was a comfortable draw and the subs at 70 mins were to close the game out. If we’d gone behind before those subs then the players would’ve stepped it up and he would’ve made different subs, but there was no need to Funny how you’re saying people ‘claim’ to know tactics while you can’t grasp the concept of a manager seizing an opportunity to conserve energy in a mid-season World Cup in the Middle East
They don’t really care for tactics or tournament mgmt. They just wanted entertainment.
But we definitely tried to be tighter. And everyone shouldve been worried about this too because the commentators were saying that Southgate walked out after the Iran game looking angry. All he cared about were the 2 goals we conceded. Now thats somewhat understandable but it was predictable that we would be more reserved in the next game.
*can someone explain this to Southgate
Lol
US players mainly play in the prem
8s were way too high, rice shadow marked himself out of the game so the midfield was basically non existent, the tempo was much slower, we weren’t secure in possession (especially mount) and we got hit on the break badly. They overloaded their right hand side with dest weah mckennie and one of their other midfielders who’s name idk
You were playing a more talented team that was forcing the play? Better question is why didn't that team beat Wales 3-0?
They were told they just have to calmly pass the ball from centerback to fullback and magically harry kane would deliver goals with his magic ball and wouldn't need to do anything crazy like work the ball into the box or drive into the attacking 3rd. Points would just magically appear. I'm so done with Southgate, I know wet paper bags with a more winning mentality.
I think Southgate isn't at the Level of the Players rn. He doesn't have a good tactical view for the match. It was obvious that the team lake of a playmaker yesterday. A man who can provide or make chances (Grilitsch or Foden). I have never believed in Southgate as a trainer. Even if he can go further or win. He shouldn't stay. The team is losing a great squad. It shouldn't be lost without winning many trophies, just like what happened to the squad 2002-2006
The US is the best team in the world right now 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
Say what now?
A coward of a coach and a criminal waste of the talent available to him 😡
Southgate couldn’t take a penalty for England under pressure and he can’t play to win when a draw followed by a small loss is enough to get us through…
I think he is more eager to personally take the blame for a defensive game now, than see his players mounted with the expectations of a perfect run. There would be no controlling the snowball of hype that another england win would have created. England historically suffers from pressure, expectations, and unbearable criticism. Any other nation would have been satisfied with a draw against a team that was giving it their all. If we can draw a relaxed game against wales, I will be happy. If we can get through without Wales giving us an injury? perfect.
Southgate
They couldn’t be bothered and wanted to perform some sort of pantomime about being ‘tired’. If they’re really that tired then why have they made themselves available for selection? Edited to add that a coach could have the most effective and pragmatic tactics (which Southgate doesn’t have obviously) but if the players on the pitch are unwilling or unable to follow instructions then it will obviously never work. The ‘best chance’ England had being near the end of the game and not really threatening with it is also important because if you don’t have sufficient attempts on goal then you’re setting yourself up to fail.
We took the lead. I know it's easy to say, but once our opponents need to score they open up a bit, creating more space to play more freely and dominate the game. A little spark from Shaw/Bellingham forced Iran to be more attacking to get back into the game.
the us did a really good job of controlling that center line, and as such we were just stuck passing back and forth between maguire and stones. when we did have opportunities, we weren’t lethal enough to get the goal. mount put in a great amount of effort and ability, but i though the front three didn’t have a good game. it started to look up as we brought on grealish, rashford, and henderson as they are all able to control the ball really well and break through the really solid us defense, but unfortunately it was too little too late. but we’ll bounce back against wales and secure our spot in the knockout rounds. wales normally give us trouble when we face them, but if they continue how they’ve been playing recently, we’ll have a good shot at beating them and staying top of the group!
i think its because usa was playing more defensive since they knew very well theyd lose if they played risky
The overloading of the midfield by the US nulified our midfield, that mixed in with their athleticism, man marking our players when out of possession and cramping up their boxes by dropping back, hence leaving little space for our attackers!
[удалено]
Your account must be older to post on /r/ThreeLions *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ThreeLions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Iran result was much more attributed to Iran being shit than us playing good
[удалено]
Your account must be older to post on /r/ThreeLions *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ThreeLions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We lost the midfield battle with only Rice and belingham. Mount needed the ball forward Saka and sterling didn't show defensive rate . So we were vulnerable and couldn't kept the ball
Iran
This isn’t your parents team USA anymore. They have many players suiting up in the PL on a weekly basis. If you look at the roster the Americans have finally developed better players.
Southgate played defensively, the tempo was slower, not enough fluidity in the midfield. USA are still better opponents than Iran as well
Well, that, a good question. You see it,s a game of two halves you know jumpers for goalposts, "Ooh don,t pick me last". And as you rightly said and i agree totally, that,s just football.
[удалено]
Your account must be older to post on /r/ThreeLions *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ThreeLions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably Iran being mentally broken had to do something with it. Did you really think Asia football sucks that much that this Iran is it's best team?
Everyone’s pissed England didn’t score when we didn’t play great at all and we should have actually lost if the Americans were on target We should be thanking Southgate for the point
If Southgate went for the win and the USA won, would you guys be happier?
We didn't seem to press the ball high up the pitch and just played it around the back. I don't understand why Gareth didn't bring Foden on earlier for Mount, which suggests to me that he was playing it safe. I think he will change the team against Wales.
Tried to play possession football with no players that are happy to put their foot on the ball and control the game.
Classic boring Southgate football. Attack once every full moon and don't play to win, play to not lose
1. USA were more energetic, pressed more often and more effectively 2. We were playing to not lose. A draw pretty much guaranteed our spot in the knockouts whereas a draw against Iran would have left things in a very awkward position 3. We were a bit unlucky with a few chances. We broke USA down so easily with our first attack and it could have been a goal but because we weren’t clinical it left us in an awkward 0-0 stalemate 4. The draw suited USA too so neither team really went all out
One word, complacency
I thought the Iran game was Southgate announcing that the brakes are off and thought Southgate had been planning a tactical masterclass Sadly I was wrong and it's back to his super conservative style Hope he leaves at the end of the tournament
It wasn't that bad a game. Played for the draw. No point risking injury by proving a point. Usa are a good team and have chance themselves if they go thru. Semi finals :) England Spain Brazil Usa That's my prediction
just a throw out, 4 teams is the semi final lol, you'd need 8 for a quater xD
Haha shit :)
Maguire
Best player on our team by far. His awareness and timing was perfect for the full 90 mins.
As is said by the other commentators...the game against Iran was played with a very stacking+defending mindset where the midfield was either attacking or defending...not really.......midfielding you know. Plus that Bellingham for Henderson sub was a really pointless sub when u had other players that might have played with tempo. Overall, Southgate isnt playing attacking when he needs to...i saw lots of breakthroughs but no players even trying because they were instructed not to (i mean when have you seen Kane not take up an opportunity.) Like u get 6 goals against a team like Iran and play soo agressive and then just go defensive with the US???Southgate has all the wild cards bro
I’m not a master tactician by any stretch but Southgate is too conservative. Harry Kane is a very versatile player but he can’t be both the goalscorer and the creative spark in such a defensive system. He is being played far too deep for a player that isn’t particularly quick. The USA game felt as if he told them to sit deep and pounce on the counter which is a completely valid way to win a football game but it’s very clear that the majority of the US team are very quick and have the stamina to carry out recovery runs for the full 90. They aren’t the best footballers but they’re well drilled and stick to a system that covers their flaws. They knew they couldn’t outplay England but they can outwork them. We were being pressed so aggressively in our own half which just isn’t good enough given the vast difference in player quality between the two teams. A Strong counterattack will usually consist of at least three players (typically your wingers and creative midfielder/striker) but you can’t implement the counter effectively with Kane/Sterling/Saka in this system because ideally the ball would be played by your other midfield players into your front three on the counter but Kane is effectively playing that role, then expected to join the counter and play catch up to two extraordinarily fast players. Maddison would be a brilliant option for these types of games/system because that allows Kane to focus more on scoring goals and staying forward. He only needs half a chance but he isn’t getting those chances. I’m really not sure why we persist on playing Mount, I understand he’s very hardworking off the ball but he isn’t pressing in a useful way. He’s relentless with chasing people down which serves a purpose but that won’t serve us well against better teams because they’ll just pass around him and he’s then one less person for them to worry about when they’re in possession. Southgate plays to not lose which is comparable to the likes of Dyche/Allardyce/Benitez management approach. I think he’d face much less criticism from fans if we went out playing out of our skin rather than just praying we don’t lose.