Unfortunately English fans lost the final to Spanish fans, after we promised we were going to sing loudly and bravely all game but started key fans with laryngitis, only replacing them after an hour and still spending most of the rest of the final whispering quiet encouragement bar a five minute roar.
I thought shaw did excellently against the young player of the tournament - certainly in the first half and especially when you considered that was his first full game since Feb.
Cucurella is an obvious thorn in Shaws side for the left back role, however.
Marc Guehi wouldn’t look out of place in The Spainish team and has been one of our highlights.
Job Stones was decent throughout the tournament.
Kane wasn’t on form because we didn’t play to his strengths and his needs. He has always needed a Son or now and muisila or sane to do the running and turn defences. Southgate may as well put him as left back for the tactical help he gave him.
The point I am making is that I don’t think any of the Spainish players - bar perhaps Rodri and Williams - but Williams only because we didn’t have a left sided forward on the pitch - are head and shoulders above what England had on the night. And one of those was only on the pitch for 45 mins.
Oh if I could be bothered to scroll back to a time I said Rashford would be useful on that left forward position…. Not that I say he would be better than Williams but it would have helped that left side a lot. And don’t come at me about club form, because Cucurella has been average this season for Chelsea!
The main difference, however, for me is how there manager employed them.
One manager took the shackles off and had faith in his team to win every match, take risks in the final third and be confident that if they lost the ball, they would win in back.
The other manager didn’t.
The stats on chances created through the Tournament bear that out clearly.
Don’t get me wrong, Spain deserved the win. We have the talent and skill in the squad to have won it. But we just tried to not lose it.
With your kind permission, I’d like to raise what I’ve coined the Kanegate Controversy
It seems to me that, for some time, Southgate’s immutable faith in Kane’s ability to inspire his team mates through industry and example has been misplaced. When Kane was substituted yesterday there seemed to be, albeit temporarily, a renewed spirit and energy in the ranks. At least that’s how I saw it.
The two are fellow travellers in terms of having, statistically, extremely impressive recent history coupled with a disappointing tendency to flatter to deceive. Nearly men and a very nearly team.
There’s no disputing that, results wise, Southgate has been the most successful England manager since goodness knows when. But it’s clearly time for change.
Southgate will have a complicated legacy, as two things can be right at the same time:
He consistently took us far in tournaments.
Three out of four of those tournaments had the draw open up remarkably kindly.
You have to put #1 in his credit column, but #2 should always be acknowledged too. I sincerely believe we would never have made WC18 semis or the final of this tournament had any true contenders entered the fray earlier. Not only that, but it is inarguable that Southgate's caution cost us in the tournaments we went to SF and Finals in. However, we were an absolute shambles after Iceland, and Gareth brought some dignity and unity to the England set up that should also go firmly in his credit column - those attributes are intangible, and therefore harder to assess for on-the-pitch impact, but it would be churlish not to accept that they would have played a part in the positive results.
You can also argue we did beat one true contender - Germany in 2021, though they were down on their luck - and that tournament was pretty decent, especially following the Germany game with the demolition of Ukraine. However, in Southgate style, it was the one where his caution cost us the most, retreating into our shell with a lead at Wembley against a fairly average (for them) Italy side.
The idea of legacy has it's share of irony too - a last second overhead kick in a game we deserved to lose to minnows may be the difference between a knighthood or being remembered much more negatively. It is a bit ridiculous when you think that perception of a body of work can hang on a single moment.
Ultimately, the honest thing to do is acknowledge ALL of Southgate's legacy, both good and bad, and not pretend the "on the other hand" aspect does not exist.
Which one of those did we win by being swashbuckling and positive? Or even which one did we lose being swashbuckling and positive?
To me it was as simple as P3 W0 L3, style: cautious.
Croatia-Italy-Spain games combined:
Shots: 58-26 in favour of opponents
On target: 19-6 in favour of opponents
That does not even tell the whole story of how meek we were!
I know people don't want to denigrate Southgate, but all three of those games we could have expected to go toe to toe with some positivity, not least with the Italy game being at Wembley!
it seems to be an unfortunate facet of our national psyche to want to knock successful people down. Personally I hate that but I guess everyone is entitled to their view.
@Shev but we might well have lost all of those games even if we had been more positive. You can’t say it’s inarguable that being cautious made us lose. Especially as one of them was a loss on penalties.
It's very British. And also very New Zealand. And probably loads of other countries I haven't lived in. The USA seems very pro success but the downside is that they don't like losers. They don't have any love for the plucky failure that we have. Dunkirk, Scott of the Antarctic, etc.
No team should win a tournament by winning 2 matches out of 7 in normal time.
Spain won their first two and could afford to rest their whole starting 11 (and still win). Their players got a game off, and an extra day rest before the final. That showed, and it underlines the importance of GETTING THE JOB DONE, and not limping through the group.
We should have beaten Italy in 2021 - that was tough to take but so familiar in terms of our attitude, even 3 years later.
This defeat hurts, but is easier to take because we lost to a better TEAM.
I would love Southgate to stay, as he has given me the best times and memories as an England supporter, but he needs to change his philosophy to be more fearless. Perhaps he should change his name to Floodgate.
On paper, we are apparently stronger than Spain - but their attitude, philosophy, team spirit, belief in their ability - and ultimately lack of fear - won that tournament for them.
I think both relentless optimism and relentless negativity share a similar characteristic - refusal to countenance the idea of there being any middle ground. In that regard they both have blinders on.
I like Southgate as a bloke, but people acting as though he has been an amazing manager playing wonderful football with no help from lucky draws and no damage done from meek tactics are burying their heads in the sand just as much as people who think he has no redeeming qualities and has not done anything to benefit England.
The best perspective is called realism. I have no problem with Gareth getting a knighthood, and I also have no problem with people criticizing him constructively with no abuse. It's a nuanced world.
The thing is, I think most of the debate over Southgate on here is reasonable, not trying to knock him down. A lot of posts here acknowledge both the good and the bad of his tenure quite constructively. Those on the extremes of the issue are still making their points well. There have not been any "cyber beer cups" thrown, that I can see, or name calling.
Southgate is always going to be a lightning rod because of his perceived weakness (caution). It is an agonizing feeling that a talented squad are not really having a go because of tactics, and that creates more frustration than losing 5-4 under a Bielsa character would, because pragmatism is only widely celebrated if it comes with silverware. A good example would be how Mourinho is perceived since he stopped being a serial winner.
But he has been by far the most successful England men’s manager of my lifetime, even if he hasn’t won trophies. Coming second is overachieving, and he’s done it twice.
I think that's a perfectly good point, and a fair argument. The counter is that we always lose to the first true contender (not just under GS, but every England manager since Ramsey), and that we had three draws open up to an absurd level. We will never know if Southgate could have got by Argentina in 86, Germany in 90, Germany in 96, Argentina in 98, Brazil in 02, Portugal in 04 and 06, Italy in 12, etc. Those were some great opposition teams, and I would personally argue that they were all better than any team GS has ever gotten past, and many of them were on a par if not better than this Spain team (Maradona, both Ronaldos, the list goes on). We also don't know if Bobby Robson or Terry Venables could have beaten Slovakia, Ukraine, Switzerland, etc. So it is valid to question the strength of the draw and at least speculate that given how we always seem to lose to the first contender (there is an arguable exception with Germany in 21, though they were at a low ebb), whether Southgate would have ever gotten past the quarters if we met contenders earlier. After all, we met a contender at the 22 WC in the QFs...and we lost. So it is not an argument to be dismissed.
Besides that, it's not like we tore through the bracket playing well - we needed a moment of amazing personal skill to beat lowly Slovakia. They all count, but that was desperation, not strategy - so can a last ditch overhead kick really be Southgate "proving everyone wrong"?
I don't think it's at all wrong to stick up for GS, but there is definitely more to the question than "we went further than anyone else" as we have had perhaps the three kindest draws in our existence under him. Is losing to "best team in the tournament" Brazil 2-1 in the 2002 QFs a bigger failure than losing to "best team in the tournament" Spain 2-1 in the 2024 final, just because we had the misfortune of drawing Brazil before the final? In that 2002 game against an absolutely tremendous Brazil we took the lead, were only just edged on possession, shots and shots on target (53-47, 8-7, 4-3) and lost to pretty much a fluke goal (though Ronaldinho did get himself sent off too). That could easily have been the final, and we matched up much better - even 11 v 11 - against a superior team than the Spain team who ran all over us yesterday. Similar things could be said about some of our other exits against contenders.
The criticism isn't necessary all horrendous or unfair (although inevitably some is). You have to remember that England were often poor over the last year or two and our preparation games were heavily rotated, we didn't come into the tournament with a settled eleven, early experiments such as Trent in midfield and Foden out wide failed, and many people on here and wider thought that the reigns looked like they were somehow being applied to our creative players intentionally or otherwise, and that we lacked answers up front. Often subs were very late and it seemed like the younger players rather than those out of form were eventually sacrificed. We seemed to sit back after any goal and it was inevitable that another would be incoming.
Southgate has had a wonderful 6 years but perhaps his best work was in first creating the environment and then early backing for the right players, there's no shame at all in reaching the final this time but it's jarring when it looks like we could finally have got over the line....and yes, their is no guarantee the results would have been as good or any better with someone else, after all England have tried every type of manager going from Sven and Don Fabio to El Tel and Big Sam and the Roy's and Gareth's.
This all Depends on what you class as a success doesn't it?
If you had asked after that Iceland game if two finals a World Cup semi etc etc would be successful you would 100% say yes.
But when you’ve lost two euro finals on the bounce, one in your own back yard and on pens and the performances in the finals (especially the group statges) has been predictably woeful and you have players that are used to, expect to,wanting to, and most importantly have the ability to win big football matches it makes you wonder if this should be regarded as a success it’s not as easy a question to answer.
It’s also imho, not a bad thing to say we have failed IF we are using it to get to push onto the next stage.
If we are happy finishing second, we will always finish second.
We (ans an nation) and Gareth have done brilliantly to get the national team to where it is. I don’t think Gareth is the man to take it to the next step and a decision should be made.
I think, with hindsight as I backed him after Italy, that that decision should have been made 3 years ago. We have plateaued.
I’m happy finishing second, I’d be happier finishing first.
If the demands on the manager are that we either win the competition or you’ve failed, then that is massively unreasonable given that in football even a strong team wins individual games at something like 58% of the time, and England are generally not significantly better than the other major teams.
It's less what you consider a success and more the ability to see what has worked and hasn't and what is best to do going forward. It's wether you let him carry on and play Kane up front on his own until he's 45 or try something different.
It's a risk making a change as is playing more forwards, making earlier subs and blooding new players, people will have their own opinions and Gareth will be allowed to decide. He may well want to stay.
Henry Winter just tweeted something about Gareth clearly having done a good job but it being a natural ending and the need for a "finisher" to try and complete the work, but then he goes on to talk about a whole load of people who have never won anything.
Comments
Unfortunately English fans lost the final to Spanish fans, after we promised we were going to sing loudly and bravely all game but started key fans with laryngitis, only replacing them after an hour and still spending most of the rest of the final whispering quiet encouragement bar a five minute roar.
I had to look twice to see if those comments were am or pm.
The computer isn’t putting many England players in the starting 11
Who was the team of Euro 2024? The computer says... https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cx723z8n7qzo
Tuchel among the favourites to be the next manager.
YES PLEASE!!
I thought shaw did excellently against the young player of the tournament - certainly in the first half and especially when you considered that was his first full game since Feb.
Cucurella is an obvious thorn in Shaws side for the left back role, however.
Marc Guehi wouldn’t look out of place in The Spainish team and has been one of our highlights.
Job Stones was decent throughout the tournament.
Kane wasn’t on form because we didn’t play to his strengths and his needs. He has always needed a Son or now and muisila or sane to do the running and turn defences. Southgate may as well put him as left back for the tactical help he gave him.
The point I am making is that I don’t think any of the Spainish players - bar perhaps Rodri and Williams - but Williams only because we didn’t have a left sided forward on the pitch - are head and shoulders above what England had on the night. And one of those was only on the pitch for 45 mins.
Oh if I could be bothered to scroll back to a time I said Rashford would be useful on that left forward position…. Not that I say he would be better than Williams but it would have helped that left side a lot. And don’t come at me about club form, because Cucurella has been average this season for Chelsea!
The main difference, however, for me is how there manager employed them.
One manager took the shackles off and had faith in his team to win every match, take risks in the final third and be confident that if they lost the ball, they would win in back.
The other manager didn’t.
The stats on chances created through the Tournament bear that out clearly.
Don’t get me wrong, Spain deserved the win. We have the talent and skill in the squad to have won it. But we just tried to not lose it.
Surely must have been a tactic under instructions from the manager. Pity is that there seemed to be no target man -or have I missed something?
You may as well put him as left back.
I thought he was. That's where he assisted Denmark's goal from.
An assist is an assist. I’d be expecting the payout on my assist bonus.
With your kind permission, I’d like to raise what I’ve coined the Kanegate Controversy
It seems to me that, for some time, Southgate’s immutable faith in Kane’s ability to inspire his team mates through industry and example has been misplaced. When Kane was substituted yesterday there seemed to be, albeit temporarily, a renewed spirit and energy in the ranks. At least that’s how I saw it.
The two are fellow travellers in terms of having, statistically, extremely impressive recent history coupled with a disappointing tendency to flatter to deceive. Nearly men and a very nearly team.
There’s no disputing that, results wise, Southgate has been the most successful England manager since goodness knows when. But it’s clearly time for change.
Southgate has also had the most talented group of players since goodness knows when.
From where he we where when he came in, to where we are now, he has done excellently. Especially off the pitch in getting them to bond and be a team.
On the pitch, his tactics are very lacking.
Southgate will have a complicated legacy, as two things can be right at the same time:
You have to put #1 in his credit column, but #2 should always be acknowledged too. I sincerely believe we would never have made WC18 semis or the final of this tournament had any true contenders entered the fray earlier. Not only that, but it is inarguable that Southgate's caution cost us in the tournaments we went to SF and Finals in. However, we were an absolute shambles after Iceland, and Gareth brought some dignity and unity to the England set up that should also go firmly in his credit column - those attributes are intangible, and therefore harder to assess for on-the-pitch impact, but it would be churlish not to accept that they would have played a part in the positive results.
You can also argue we did beat one true contender - Germany in 2021, though they were down on their luck - and that tournament was pretty decent, especially following the Germany game with the demolition of Ukraine. However, in Southgate style, it was the one where his caution cost us the most, retreating into our shell with a lead at Wembley against a fairly average (for them) Italy side.
The idea of legacy has it's share of irony too - a last second overhead kick in a game we deserved to lose to minnows may be the difference between a knighthood or being remembered much more negatively. It is a bit ridiculous when you think that perception of a body of work can hang on a single moment.
Ultimately, the honest thing to do is acknowledge ALL of Southgate's legacy, both good and bad, and not pretend the "on the other hand" aspect does not exist.
Spot on.
Not only that, but it is inarguable that Southgate's caution cost us in the tournaments we went to SF and Finals in
I think that’s arguable
Which one of those did we win by being swashbuckling and positive? Or even which one did we lose being swashbuckling and positive?
To me it was as simple as P3 W0 L3, style: cautious.
Croatia-Italy-Spain games combined:
Shots: 58-26 in favour of opponents
On target: 19-6 in favour of opponents
That does not even tell the whole story of how meek we were!
I know people don't want to denigrate Southgate, but all three of those games we could have expected to go toe to toe with some positivity, not least with the Italy game being at Wembley!
it seems to be an unfortunate facet of our national psyche to want to knock successful people down. Personally I hate that but I guess everyone is entitled to their view.
@Shev but we might well have lost all of those games even if we had been more positive. You can’t say it’s inarguable that being cautious made us lose. Especially as one of them was a loss on penalties.
@DevC i think it’s just human nature
It's very British. And also very New Zealand. And probably loads of other countries I haven't lived in. The USA seems very pro success but the downside is that they don't like losers. They don't have any love for the plucky failure that we have. Dunkirk, Scott of the Antarctic, etc.
Overall review.
No team should win a tournament by winning 2 matches out of 7 in normal time.
Spain won their first two and could afford to rest their whole starting 11 (and still win). Their players got a game off, and an extra day rest before the final. That showed, and it underlines the importance of GETTING THE JOB DONE, and not limping through the group.
We should have beaten Italy in 2021 - that was tough to take but so familiar in terms of our attitude, even 3 years later.
This defeat hurts, but is easier to take because we lost to a better TEAM.
I would love Southgate to stay, as he has given me the best times and memories as an England supporter, but he needs to change his philosophy to be more fearless. Perhaps he should change his name to Floodgate.
On paper, we are apparently stronger than Spain - but their attitude, philosophy, team spirit, belief in their ability - and ultimately lack of fear - won that tournament for them.
I think both relentless optimism and relentless negativity share a similar characteristic - refusal to countenance the idea of there being any middle ground. In that regard they both have blinders on.
I like Southgate as a bloke, but people acting as though he has been an amazing manager playing wonderful football with no help from lucky draws and no damage done from meek tactics are burying their heads in the sand just as much as people who think he has no redeeming qualities and has not done anything to benefit England.
The best perspective is called realism. I have no problem with Gareth getting a knighthood, and I also have no problem with people criticizing him constructively with no abuse. It's a nuanced world.
You are factually correct. Some people might still actually argue that playing meekly did no damage. I take it back.
The thing is, I think most of the debate over Southgate on here is reasonable, not trying to knock him down. A lot of posts here acknowledge both the good and the bad of his tenure quite constructively. Those on the extremes of the issue are still making their points well. There have not been any "cyber beer cups" thrown, that I can see, or name calling.
Southgate is always going to be a lightning rod because of his perceived weakness (caution). It is an agonizing feeling that a talented squad are not really having a go because of tactics, and that creates more frustration than losing 5-4 under a Bielsa character would, because pragmatism is only widely celebrated if it comes with silverware. A good example would be how Mourinho is perceived since he stopped being a serial winner.
But he has been by far the most successful England men’s manager of my lifetime, even if he hasn’t won trophies. Coming second is overachieving, and he’s done it twice.
I think that's a perfectly good point, and a fair argument. The counter is that we always lose to the first true contender (not just under GS, but every England manager since Ramsey), and that we had three draws open up to an absurd level. We will never know if Southgate could have got by Argentina in 86, Germany in 90, Germany in 96, Argentina in 98, Brazil in 02, Portugal in 04 and 06, Italy in 12, etc. Those were some great opposition teams, and I would personally argue that they were all better than any team GS has ever gotten past, and many of them were on a par if not better than this Spain team (Maradona, both Ronaldos, the list goes on). We also don't know if Bobby Robson or Terry Venables could have beaten Slovakia, Ukraine, Switzerland, etc. So it is valid to question the strength of the draw and at least speculate that given how we always seem to lose to the first contender (there is an arguable exception with Germany in 21, though they were at a low ebb), whether Southgate would have ever gotten past the quarters if we met contenders earlier. After all, we met a contender at the 22 WC in the QFs...and we lost. So it is not an argument to be dismissed.
Besides that, it's not like we tore through the bracket playing well - we needed a moment of amazing personal skill to beat lowly Slovakia. They all count, but that was desperation, not strategy - so can a last ditch overhead kick really be Southgate "proving everyone wrong"?
I don't think it's at all wrong to stick up for GS, but there is definitely more to the question than "we went further than anyone else" as we have had perhaps the three kindest draws in our existence under him. Is losing to "best team in the tournament" Brazil 2-1 in the 2002 QFs a bigger failure than losing to "best team in the tournament" Spain 2-1 in the 2024 final, just because we had the misfortune of drawing Brazil before the final? In that 2002 game against an absolutely tremendous Brazil we took the lead, were only just edged on possession, shots and shots on target (53-47, 8-7, 4-3) and lost to pretty much a fluke goal (though Ronaldinho did get himself sent off too). That could easily have been the final, and we matched up much better - even 11 v 11 - against a superior team than the Spain team who ran all over us yesterday. Similar things could be said about some of our other exits against contenders.
.
The criticism isn't necessary all horrendous or unfair (although inevitably some is). You have to remember that England were often poor over the last year or two and our preparation games were heavily rotated, we didn't come into the tournament with a settled eleven, early experiments such as Trent in midfield and Foden out wide failed, and many people on here and wider thought that the reigns looked like they were somehow being applied to our creative players intentionally or otherwise, and that we lacked answers up front. Often subs were very late and it seemed like the younger players rather than those out of form were eventually sacrificed. We seemed to sit back after any goal and it was inevitable that another would be incoming.
Southgate has had a wonderful 6 years but perhaps his best work was in first creating the environment and then early backing for the right players, there's no shame at all in reaching the final this time but it's jarring when it looks like we could finally have got over the line....and yes, their is no guarantee the results would have been as good or any better with someone else, after all England have tried every type of manager going from Sven and Don Fabio to El Tel and Big Sam and the Roy's and Gareth's.
This all Depends on what you class as a success doesn't it?
If you had asked after that Iceland game if two finals a World Cup semi etc etc would be successful you would 100% say yes.
But when you’ve lost two euro finals on the bounce, one in your own back yard and on pens and the performances in the finals (especially the group statges) has been predictably woeful and you have players that are used to, expect to,wanting to, and most importantly have the ability to win big football matches it makes you wonder if this should be regarded as a success it’s not as easy a question to answer.
It’s also imho, not a bad thing to say we have failed IF we are using it to get to push onto the next stage.
If we are happy finishing second, we will always finish second.
We (ans an nation) and Gareth have done brilliantly to get the national team to where it is. I don’t think Gareth is the man to take it to the next step and a decision should be made.
I think, with hindsight as I backed him after Italy, that that decision should have been made 3 years ago. We have plateaued.
I’m happy finishing second, I’d be happier finishing first.
If the demands on the manager are that we either win the competition or you’ve failed, then that is massively unreasonable given that in football even a strong team wins individual games at something like 58% of the time, and England are generally not significantly better than the other major teams.
If we are happy finishing second, we will always finish second.
We’ve failed to qualify for the tournament a lot more times than we’ve finished second.
It's less what you consider a success and more the ability to see what has worked and hasn't and what is best to do going forward. It's wether you let him carry on and play Kane up front on his own until he's 45 or try something different.
It's a risk making a change as is playing more forwards, making earlier subs and blooding new players, people will have their own opinions and Gareth will be allowed to decide. He may well want to stay.
Henry Winter just tweeted something about Gareth clearly having done a good job but it being a natural ending and the need for a "finisher" to try and complete the work, but then he goes on to talk about a whole load of people who have never won anything.