Official UEFA European Championship EURO Cup 2020 that is happening in 2021 Thread

[devo22]

I'd really like to know how the 5 were picked. Wrote it at the time already, bringing on Rashford and Sancho solely for pens was a questionable call at best. Yeah, they are good pen takers, but they also come in cold after pretty much being cheerleaders for a couple of weeks. Plus it pretty much said "I don't trust you guys enough to bring you on even for 10 minutes or so, but if you could just don't eff up that pen, that be great. No pressure, yeah?" It's mental. And you top that off by sending a 19-year-old to take the last one. I mean, who in their right mind comes up with something like that?

Not sure I've ever seen a manager who set up his players for failure like that. For a guy that has been applauded for his man management, that was some effing terrible man management. Especially when you have players like Grealish come out saying they wanted to take one.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The answer is probably something very simple like they were the five best takers by % successful in training. Southgate doesn't strike me as someone who makes impulse decisions, he's a "trust the process" kind of guy to me. He wanted to ride his best takers rather than second guess himself playing a hunch. And that's pretty much his biggest flaw as a manager, his conservative nature makes him determined to stick to the plan, even if the plan is flawed.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by devo22

I'd really like to know how the 5 were picked. Wrote it at the time already, bringing on Rashford and Sancho solely for pens was a questionable call at best. Yeah, they are good pen takers, but they also come in cold after pretty much being cheerleaders for a couple of weeks. Plus it pretty much said "I don't trust you guys enough to bring you on even for 10 minutes or so, but if you could just don't eff up that pen, that be great. No pressure, yeah?" It's mental. And you top that off by sending a 19-year-old to take the last one. I mean, who in their right mind comes up with something like that?

Not sure I've ever seen a manager who set up his players for failure like that. For a guy that has been applauded for his man management, that was some effing terrible man management. Especially when you have players like Grealish come out saying they wanted to take one.

It probably involves a Yahtzee cup.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The answer is probably something very simple like they were the five best takers by % successful in training. Southgate doesn't strike me as someone who makes impulse decisions, he's a "trust the process" kind of guy to me. He wanted to ride his best takers rather than second guess himself playing a hunch. And that's pretty much his biggest flaw as a manager, his conservative nature makes him determined to stick to the plan, even if the plan is flawed.

Criticisms of his selections or subs strike me as complaining about the results. If those guys had hit their penalties everyone would be saying how smart it was.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by devo22

I'd really like to know how the 5 were picked. Wrote it at the time already, bringing on Rashford and Sancho solely for pens was a questionable call at best. Yeah, they are good pen takers, but they also come in cold after pretty much being cheerleaders for a couple of weeks. Plus it pretty much said "I don't trust you guys enough to bring you on even for 10 minutes or so, but if you could just don't eff up that pen, that be great. No pressure, yeah?" It's mental. And you top that off by sending a 19-year-old to take the last one. I mean, who in their right mind comes up with something like that?

Not sure I've ever seen a manager who set up his players for failure like that. For a guy that has been applauded for his man management, that was some effing terrible man management. Especially when you have players like Grealish come out saying they wanted to take one.

I dont know how to embed this video, but a pretty good take railing against Southgate.

https://global.espn.com/video/clip?id=31806143

[The Big Chill]

Going in cold would be brutal. I know for me I never felt nerves more then when I was sitting on the bench watching (even at my extremely low level of play). At least when you are playing you get to work through those nerves, but going in at the last second your muscles would be tight and your heart pounding in your ears.

I know these are highly talented, confident young players, but it’s hard to see how throwing them in cold could be a recipe for success.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Criticisms of his selections or subs strike me as complaining about the results. If those guys had hit their penalties everyone would be saying how smart it was.

This is the first I've read or heard of someone agreeing with Southgates tactics and choices.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Big Chill

Going in cold would be brutal. I know for me I never felt nerves more then when I was sitting on the bench watching (even at my extremely low level of play). At least when you are playing you get to work through those nerves, but going in at the last second your muscles would be tight and your heart pounding in your ears.

I know these are highly talented, confident young players, but it’s hard to see how throwing them in cold could be a recipe for success.

I'm going to rant a little, dont take it personally as I know you were likely supporting England.

But Southgate really screwed this pooch.

His tactics were negative, his strategies were ineffective, frankly, I think the team on the field succeeded more on their talent and in spite of Southgate rather than because of him. His team selections and formations?

Its like it was his first day.

And touted as a great Motivator of Men, the Great 'Man Manager?'

He made some of the stupidest, most unbelievable and baffling personnel decisions from Game #1 and the last 30-45 minutes of that final??

Unless he was trying to lose I have absolutely no idea what was going through his head.

On top of all of it....a Hollywood Script writer couldnt have written this up more perfectly.

You're in London. At Wembley. With a hugely talented team. You're in the Final. At Home. You took the lead within the first 2 minutes. You've conceded 1 goal all tournament.

And that. That was the strategy you roll out? Thats the plan?

I'd have fired Southgate at half-time.

[GirlySports]

Strategies is one thing but they have to be adaptable through the match. Yes the lineup was conservative, probably the goal was 0-0 as long as possible and go from there. Dont concede. But a stroke a genius and an early goal means go time. Crowd is going nuts, Italians reeling for at least 10-15 minutes. Go for the knockout punch. Instead 0 shots on goal after Shaw's goal.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Strategies is one thing but they have to be adaptable through the match. Yes the lineup was conservative, probably the goal was 0-0 as long as possible and go from there. Dont concede. But a stroke a genius and an early goal means go time. Crowd is going nuts, Italians reeling for at least 10-15 minutes. Go for the knockout punch. Instead 0 shots on goal after Shaw's goal.

I've been holding off saying this, but we all know that Trippier cross was intended for Kane and just ended up at Shaw, right? I saw enough of that through the years and that was my thought at that point. It worked out great, and ended up being a dream start for England, but in my mind that cross was never intended for Shaw.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I mean Shaw pretty clearly raises his hand, Trippier sees it, and makes the cross. It was quality, not luck.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1414299748887146498

But to Girly's point, how were England supposed to take advantage when Italy were on their heels? England were set up negatively, they weren't ready to go on the front foot against a rattled team. Not really sure what set up they could have used with the players they had out there to take advantage. It was basically get it wide and pump it in, but Sterling isn't an aerial threat and neither is Mount, it would basically be Kane going solo against Chiellini and Bonucci.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I mean Shaw pretty clearly raises his hand, Trippier sees it, and makes the cross. It was quality, not luck.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1414299748887146498

But to Girly's point, how were England supposed to take advantage when Italy were on their heels? England were set up negatively, they weren't ready to go on the front foot against a rattled team. Not really sure what set up they could have used with the players they had out there to take advantage. It was basically get it wide and pump it in, but Sterling isn't an aerial threat and neither is Mount, it would basically be Kane going solo against Chiellini and Bonucci.

Yeah, maybe I'm wrong on that. I didn't see Shaw raise his hand and assumed it was a lucky break in that regard, but that was better than I thought!

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I mean Shaw pretty clearly raises his hand, Trippier sees it, and makes the cross. It was quality, not luck.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1414299748887146498

But to Girly's point, how were England supposed to take advantage when Italy were on their heels? England were set up negatively, they weren't ready to go on the front foot against a rattled team. Not really sure what set up they could have used with the players they had out there to take advantage. It was basically get it wide and pump it in, but Sterling isn't an aerial threat and neither is Mount, it would basically be Kane going solo against Chiellini and Bonucci.

Sure but at least try. Pump 5 balls into the box for Kane. Maybe get a foul, handball, a goal?Bomb Trippier and Shaw forward. Not for long. Maybe 10 minutes while Italy is reeling. Then go back to the plan.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Slava

I've been holding off saying this, but we all know that Trippier cross was intended for Kane and just ended up at Shaw, right? I saw enough of that through the years and that was my thought at that point. It worked out great, and ended up being a dream start for England, but in my mind that cross was never intended for Shaw.

.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bagor

.

Did you see my post after that, or just plain ignore it?

[Bagor]

I saw it after but the to your original post remains.

Just....

I take it you didn't watch the game?

[SuperMatt18]

He did pick out Shaw for sure but IMO Shaw deserves the credit for making an absolutely great strike on the ball.

When Trippier looked up he had Kane running center box and it looked like both Shaw and Mount were making the run to the back post.

Trippier slows up. Shaw appears to call for it again. Mount stopped his run at the top of the 18 yard box and Shaw continued his run to just outside the back post.

The fortunate part is I think generally you're aiming for a players head there, because 80% of the time a ball that is at the elevation to drop to the foot of an attacker at the back post is probably getting headed away. If Di Lorenzo isn't sleeping at the back post he should easily be able to nod that away, but instead he reacted super late to the ball to the back post.

And even then about 15% of the time it probably gets volleyed into the stands, and maybe 5% of the time you have somebody hit it as clean as Shaw hit that volley.

Just a great strike from Shaw.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

#### TSN so bad.

I missed taping the game live so I PVRd a replay yesterday.

First half ends so I skip over the commercial and play comes back but it says 65th min on the clock. I’m like WTF? Yeah, TSN apparently is too busy showing sportscentre 97 times per day across 5 channels to show the whole game so they literally just cut out 20 minutes of play at the start of the 2nd half.