Really think England fans need to understand that they had a very easy group and came 2nd which was the absolute bare minimum possible.
They beat a Columbian team missing their best player on penalties.
They beat a Swedish side with Seb Larsson centre midfield and who's team wouldnt get one player into the English one.
They then lost to Croatia who had just played two 120min games.
So basically they played three decent sides and were not capable of winning any of those.
Exactly. The problem is that fans and journalists are very eager to create narratives to explain stuff, rather than simply accept the role that luck plays in football. So you get a bunch of ridiculous over analysis of England's tactics, as if it was some sort of genius work, instead of a basically conservative setup overly reliant on set pieces. You get Southgate's redemption, you get "streetwise". ZzzZzzZzzZ
I don't think Southgate has overperformed - perhaps only to the extent that winning when you're favourites makes him better than his predecessor who somehow managed to be knocked out of a major tournament by a country with a population of 300k people. But the fact remains England have not beat any of the decent sides they've played against. The ones they did beat were already expected wins. So he pretty much performed to expectations, the difference this time being that England had its easiest draw in living memory and this got them into a semifinal.
There are positives to take for England though. This squad is still really young (funnily their oldest starter was the fella named Young) and this experience will have done them no harm for future competitions. England are much more likely to go into the next Euros thinking they can go one better this time, and are also bound to have a more confident support at home, as opposed to just having players seemingly going out for a holiday with fans at home just waiting to jump on their backs as was the case in the last few tournaments.
« Last Edit: Jul 12, 2018 12:50:33 pm by Diego LFC »