To sum this up: What decided the outcome of the final was gaffer Southgate's pick of three substitutes, who had hardly touched the ball, to take the deciding penalties.
A bad choice, anyway you look at it. He also threw away a knighthood by doing so.

Quote
Stoneage
To sum this up: What decided the outcome of the final was gaffer Southgate's pick of three substitutes, who had hardly touched the ball, to take the deciding penalties.
A bad choice, anyway you look at it. He also threw away a knighthood by doing so.

You don’t know that Italy dominated the entire match after 15 minutes.Give credit to the winner.Even if say Sterling kicked one of the penalties, he could have also not scored.Like Bagglio at the World Cup in 1994, who was a lot better player than anyone on the English squad

Yes, it was a baffling choice in hindsight. Yet, so close after Italy's 2 misses, it really could have gone both ways. It's always hard to go ahead so early against a strong team. Must be devastating for him to think about.

I've been an England football supporter my whole life and therefore conditioned to expect disappointment ;-)

However, this is the first time I have watched them and really thought that they have the potential to be the winning team. It certainly looked like that for a fair chunk of the final and they lost on penalties, where the smallest margin or bit of luck, let's be honest, makes all the difference.

So well done, lads, and we look forward with great optimism to the World Cup in 2022.

As well let's hope a new Stones tour :-)

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Stoneage
To sum this up: What decided the outcome of the final was gaffer Southgate's pick of three substitutes, who had hardly touched the ball, to take the deciding penalties.
A bad choice, anyway you look at it. He also threw away a knighthood by doing so.

You don’t know that Italy dominated the entire match after 15 minutes.Give credit to the winner.Even if say Sterling kicked one of the penalties, he could have also not scored.Like Bagglio at the World Cup in 1994, who was a lot better player than anyone on the English squad

Yes, I do know that Italy had more possession of the ball than England. And I have already given credit to the winner - Italy. I'm just talking about the thing that made the difference between gold and silver.
In football it is the goals that counts. Nothing else.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Stoneage
To sum this up: What decided the outcome of the final was gaffer Southgate's pick of three substitutes, who had hardly touched the ball, to take the deciding penalties.
A bad choice, anyway you look at it. He also threw away a knighthood by doing so.

You don’t know that Italy dominated the entire match after 15 minutes.Give credit to the winner.Even if say Sterling kicked one of the penalties, he could have also not scored.Like Bagglio at the World Cup in 1994, who was a lot better player than anyone on the English squad

Yes, I do know that Italy had more possession of the ball than England. And I have already given credit to the winner - Italy. I'm just talking about the thing that made the difference between gold and silver.
In football it is the goals that counts. Nothing else.

Show me the proof that a more veteran player like Sterling would have made his penalty kick. See Bagglio at the World Cup final 1994.He was one of the greatest players of all time yet missed.I agree had others other than the 3 young English players had kicked, the odds are much greater they could have won .But you can’t say England definitely would have won

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Stoneage
To sum this up: What decided the outcome of the final was gaffer Southgate's pick of three substitutes, who had hardly touched the ball, to take the deciding penalties.
A bad choice, anyway you look at it. He also threw away a knighthood by doing so.

You don’t know that Italy dominated the entire match after 15 minutes.Give credit to the winner.Even if say Sterling kicked one of the penalties, he could have also not scored.Like Bagglio at the World Cup in 1994, who was a lot better player than anyone on the English squad

Yes, I do know that Italy had more possession of the ball than England. And I have already given credit to the winner - Italy. I'm just talking about the thing that made the difference between gold and silver.
In football it is the goals that counts. Nothing else.

Show me the proof that a more veteran player like Sterling would have made his penalty kick. See Bagglio at the World Cup final 1994.He was one of the greatest players of all time yet missed.I agree had others other than the 3 young English players had kicked, the odds are much greater they could have won .But you can’t say England definitely would have won

First of all, his name was Baggio, Roberto Baggio. I do remember him well, an excellent player. Secondly, I don't have to prove anything to you. Thirdly, No one can say what would have happened had three other players taken the last penalties. Maybe, Italy would have won anyway? The only thing we can be sure of is that they could not have done worse.

Italy England was a very good game, played very well by both teams. And I am very happy that Italy won, I think they made a fantastic run.

That said, at least half of both teams are made of mediocre players, none of the two had any true champion, and the difference was all in the managers. How could Southgate not understand how to use Sterling and Keene against Bonucci and Chiellini says a lot of why England lost.

As I said some post above, the technical level of this tournament was very poor.

But the beauty of football is that two so so teams can produce a great game, and not necessarily good players means a great spectacle

C

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
Taylor1

Quote
Stoneage
To sum this up: What decided the outcome of the final was gaffer Southgate's pick of three substitutes, who had hardly touched the ball, to take the deciding penalties.
A bad choice, anyway you look at it. He also threw away a knighthood by doing so.

You don’t know that Italy dominated the entire match after 15 minutes.Give credit to the winner.Even if say Sterling kicked one of the penalties, he could have also not scored.Like Bagglio at the World Cup in 1994, who was a lot better player than anyone on the English squad

Yes, I do know that Italy had more possession of the ball than England. And I have already given credit to the winner - Italy. I'm just talking about the thing that made the difference between gold and silver.
In football it is the goals that counts. Nothing else.

Show me the proof that a more veteran player like Sterling would have made his penalty kick. See Bagglio at the World Cup final 1994.He was one of the greatest players of all time yet missed.I agree had others other than the 3 young English players had kicked, the odds are much greater they could have won .But you can’t say England definitely would have won

First of all, his name was Baggio, Roberto Baggio. I do remember him well, an excellent player. Secondly, I don't have to prove anything to you. Thirdly, No one can say what would have happened had three other players taken the last penalties. Maybe, Italy would have won anyway? The only thing we can be sure of is that they could not have done worse.

They could have done just as bad also.And you don’t have to prove anything to me because you can’t prove it to Anyone that they definitely make those kicks.

I don't agree with your assumption, Liddas. The best European players makes the national teams. Take some and leave some (injuries and so on). And football progresses constantly. The standard of football wasn't better in 1974 or 1986. Of course you can't put up a thousand mill and buy the best players in the world like the big clubs can. But that is not what the EC or WC is about. What makes the big difference now is that there isn't a dominating football country anymore. Like the Germans in the 70s and 80s. Or the French in the 00s. Many teams can win the EC. In the end it is usually the big nations who wins anyway. Due to experience I guess. Many teams do well in a couple of games and then chokes.

As I see it, in Europe France - despite this EC harakiri - remains by far the strongest team.

In all other teams I see lots of good players, but no real champions. Clearly a transition period. England and Spain have started a new cycle, Germany who knows, and Belgium an Holland are way overrated.

it could also be that it’s me that is growing old.

Remember Milan when Sacchi was the manager. Gullit, Van Basten, Rijkaard and the rest were almost all Italian nationals. One of the strongest teams that I have ever seen. Yet, the oldies at the stadium used to complain like I do now: Rivera’s Milan was something else!

C

Quote
liddas
As I see it, in Europe France - despite this EC harakiri - remains by far the strongest team.

In all other teams I see lots of good players, but no real champions. Clearly a transition period. England and Spain have started a new cycle, Germany who knows, and Belgium an Holland are way overrated.

it could also be that it’s me that is growing old.

Remember Milan when Sacchi was the manager. Gullit, Van Basten, Rijkaard and the rest were almost all Italian nationals. One of the strongest teams that I have ever seen. Yet, the oldies at the stadium used to complain like I do now: Rivera’s Milan was something else!

France was the best team in 2018 in Russia during the World cup.
But now, we're not as strong as we used to be even if Mourinho still believes that France remains the best team in Europe...
We still have some of the best players in the world but some of them are tired. Griezman is 30, Benzema 34 and Giroud 35...how will they be next year ? will they still have the guts to win ? I am not sure...
Wheels are turning and I think it's time for other teams to be in front of the stage, Italy, England...

Quote
liddas
As I see it, in Europe France - despite this EC harakiri - remains by far the strongest team.

In all other teams I see lots of good players, but no real champions. Clearly a transition period. England and Spain have started a new cycle, Germany who knows, and Belgium an Holland are way overrated.

it could also be that it’s me that is growing old.

Remember Milan when Sacchi was the manager. Gullit, Van Basten, Rijkaard and the rest were almost all Italian nationals. One of the strongest teams that I have ever seen. Yet, the oldies at the stadium used to complain like I do now: Rivera’s Milan was something else!

C

Rivera's 60s AC Milan were my all time favourite soccer team when I was a highschool youngster. I still have my school agenda of those days with the names of the players somewhere ...

I'm a GHOST living in a ghost town

Quote
georgie48

Rivera's 60s AC Milan were my all time favourite soccer team when I was a highschool youngster. I still have my school agenda of those days with the names of the players somewhere ...

This confirms what was already clear from your past various posts on the subject: you sure have a deep understanding of what is great football!




C

Wonder why there is no thread CONMEBOL Copa America here. There are Stones-Fans from Argentina in this board. They must be glad that Lionel Messi eventually did it. The greatest player of our time!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-07-14 19:16 by RobertJohnson.

They had very good live coverage of the Copa America games on BBC Red Button, which is another BBC channel.
I watched a few games with Argentina and Brazil taking part, in the early hours of the morning, because of the time difference.

Very entertaining stuff and shirt pulling, arguing with the referee, and rolling about on the ground is on a different level to here in UK.
Argentina deserved to win, and Brazil runners up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-07-15 15:44 by crawdaddy.