IdleRich

IdleRich
I’d take a winning side. I’m (probably) over half way through my life now and I want to see England win a tournament. I’ve seen 3 semis and that’s it.
More boring sides- Greece 04, Spain 10- have won major tournaments so being interesting isn’t a pre requisite. But yeah there were times yesterday when I thought- come on, pass it a bit quicker ffs.
Same I think now. Yesterday I heard someone moaning about the Greek victory, apparently some Dutch newspaper at the time wrote "Was it worth going to the trouble of having a whole tournament just for this?" which I'm sure not a single Greek person gave two fat fucks about. I mean fucking hell, Greece won a major international tournament and some prick is moaning how they didn't do it playing total football like Ajax in 72.
 

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
One player has not only played for Middlesbrough and Crystal Palace but captained both clubs and won silverware also, writes Simon Pophale.

I refer, of course, to Gareth Southgate. Now part of the ever-growing Palace presence in the ITV media team.

It was back in 1991 that Gareth made his debut for us on a disappointing night at Anfield when our hopes for finishing in second place died in a 3-0 defeat.

He was one of the first players to come through the revitalised Palace youth system and was, along with the Bisto Kids of Simons Rodger and Osborn, filling the gaps when the squad lost players from the Cup Final side of 1990.

Gareth might have played his debut at right back, but he carved a niche out in central midfield and over the course of the next two seasons became a more solid fixture in the side.

It was the departure of Andy Gray that gave Gareth his chance to shine and he netted his first goal in the opening game of the 1992/93 season in a 3-3 draw with Blackburn. In what was going to become a trademark over the coming seasons, Gareth hit a volley that Bobby Mimms did not even see flash past him following a corner.

Gareth was to add a couple more goals over that season, but despite reaching the League Cup semi-finals, the season was to end in relegation and the sale of Geoff Thomas saw him handed the captaincy for our return to the second tier in 1993.

Yet, in his first season as captain (and the youngest Palace captain to date at 24), Gareth had his best season in our colours. An ever-present, he scored nine goals from midfield including my personal favourite, a 50 yard run and shot against Portsmouth in a 5-1 win back in August 1993. We steamrollered all before us in our return to the Premiership.

Sir Nigel of Southgate

1D255FF3-53DB-4E90-AE91-033079B4F6B0.jpeg
 

version

Well-known member
1 - 0 down and losing Embolo to injury within the first twenty or so isn't great for the Swiss. Spain were favourites as it was.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Might be they peaked I fear..
I'm hoping Ukraine are knackered too... looked dead on their feet after extra time.
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
So weird watching an England match at the Knockout stage at 70 minutes thinking well this is over we've won.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh but this is going to be sweet. The venetians tearing you a new arsehole.
Nah, England are definitely going to win the tournament, and then it'll be compulsory foreskin-flavoured baked beans for three meals a day until the end of time.
 

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
Jfc

A2F5D464-A85A-4401-8950-A04EDEBE7DE6.jpeg

There’s an orgasmic, psychic level to England playing sort of ok during the rare moments the team gets anywhere. The collective national kettles on football’s hob, scaling up their whistle notes in anticipation. Like when you’re discovering, life, footloose and about to fuck. “It’s on”. The momentum, micro turn ons, plateau and always escalating to liquid mercury transcendence. Except it was a quarter-final to a lower tiered skillset (let’s be honest) with Ukraine

Denmark have the momentum but England (dry heave) look more technically cohesive. Lampard and Stevie G couldn’t play like this crop

Italy should win overall and unless Spain get in their faces only England look technically good enough to match them

Quality tournament
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Have they done a pun on Pound Sterling?
Yeah seen a lot of "Sterling up against the euro" type stuff over the last few days.

Oh but this is going to be sweet. The venetians tearing you a new arsehole.

One way to make a prediction on the result of a given game is to first make an analysis of the individual teams themselves - what players they have and how many are injured or suspended, what style they play and how well it has been working so far, whether they are flexible in terms of back up plans, is there a question mark over what might happen if they do go behind cos they have never had to deal with that scenario in the tournament so far?
Do this for both teams then think of how those teams will match up against each other; does one team have a standard set up that naturally focuses on the other side's weaknesses, or is the other side experienced in playing teams that use that system.... will one team - or both - change or will they simply trust to their ability and attempt to impose themselves on the other side?
Does one team have a super fast winger that they will seek to get into as many one v one battles with the experienced and wily but not-as-quick-as-he-used-to-be sweeper? And if so how will the other team minimise the occurrences..
In fact, you can look at every match-up on the pitch, and every potential match-up that could arise from different systems and different selections, and then repeat for every slightly larger battle that will occur; how will team A´s attack match up against team B´s defence, which midfield will dominate and.... well and so on and so on.
But even with all this it's very hard to make any sort of good prediction, at least in my experience. This method is very very far from perfect, it does however have the edge over the method that - according to my statistical analysis - is the one that you are using @thirdform the one that every five year old who has just started watching football uses until they get tired of the disappointment of constantly being wrong (and interestingly, my analysis of the Wuhan thread gives some compelling evidence that @mixed_biscuits may have somehow have generalised the method to go beyond football so that when he needs to be really badly wrong about what is going to happen in the future with the C19 situation he has a tool right at his fingertips) - basically you just pick the result that you want and say confidently that it will happen, if you want to really go for it then you can also add in an improbable and humiliating scoreline too but that's really not necessary.
So.... based on this prediction and your accuracy so far Third, all the evidence clearly points to Denmark vs Spain in the final. The overall winner though is a bit trickier to identify from what you said though, I'm gonna have to extrapolate a it somewhat and so does push us out further into unknown territory. But in short, you are saying the winner will come from the Italy/Spain side of the drawer and so the obvious answer is that Denmark are going to beat Spain in the final, adding a second improbable title to their first - incredibly improbable - title.
 
Last edited:

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Yeah seen a lot of "Sterling up against the euro" type stuff over the last few days.



One way to make a prediction on the result of a given game is to first make an analysis of the individual teams themselves - what players they have and how many are injured or suspended, what style they play and how well it has been working so far, whether they are flexible in terms of back up plans, is there a question mark over what might happen if they do go behind cos they have never had to deal with that scenario in the tournament so far?
Do this for both teams then think of how those teams will match up against each other; does one team have a standard set up that naturally focuses on the other side's weaknesses, or is the other side experienced in playing teams that use that system.... will one team - or both - change or will they simply trust to their ability and attempt to impose themselves on the other side?
Does one team have a super fast winger that they will seek to get into as many one v one battles with the experienced and wily but not-as-quick-as-he-used-to-be sweeper? And if so how will the other team minimise the occurrences..
In fact, you can look at every match-up on the pitch, and every potential match-up that could arise from different systems and different selections, and then repeat for every slightly larger battle that will occur; how will team A´s attack match up against team B´s defence, which midfield will dominate and.... well and so on and so on.
But even with all this it's very hard to make any sort of good prediction, at least in my experience. This method is very very far from perfect, it does however have the edge over the method that - according to my statistical analysis - is the one that you are using @thirdform the one that every five year old who has just started watching football uses until they get tired of the disappointment of constantly being wrong (and interestingly, my analysis of the Wuhan thread gives some compelling evidence that @mixed_biscuits may have somehow have generalised the method to go beyond football so that when he needs to be really badly wrong about what is going to happen in the future with the C19 situation he has a tool right at his fingertips) - basically you just pick the result that you want and say confidently that it will happen, if you want to really go for it then you can also add in an improbable and humiliating scoreline too but that's really not necessary.
So.... based on this prediction and your accuracy so far Third, all the evidence clearly points to Denmark vs Spain in the final. The overall winner though is a bit trickier to identify from what you said though, I'm gonna have to extrapolate a it somewhat and so does push us out further into unknown territory. But in short, you are saying the winner will come from the Italy/Spain side of the drawer and so the obvious answer is that Denmark are going to beat Spain in the final, adding a second improbable title to their first - incredibly improbable - title.

Denmark are unlikely to win the semi at Wembley. England have more team cogency, even if Denmark are pacier. Spain could technically best Italy through a fluke goal set up through Jordi Alba on the left, but it looks unlikely that Italy's defence will break down that easily.

The problem, Richard, is that England have not looked very attacking when one takes the tournament into consideration. Without Saka and Sterling, it's unlikely that they would have been able to exit the group stages. Ukraine on Saturday night were absolutely abysmal, I could almost not understand how they just seemed to be almost abscent from the game, especially when they put in a fairly stellar performance against Sweden. All this nonsense about Yarmarlenco having to prove a point to the English...

As for Harold Kane, he's not actually good at playing the ball into tight spaces. He's a good goal scorer but not a good footballer per se. This is why when Southgate tries to park the bus (something he's likely to do in the final) we'll have many people moaning that he's not in the game. Of course he's not, that's not his strength.

If anything, England have coasted through this tournament in a similar way to Portugal in 2016. Which should be an indictment of Euefa more than anything.

If, however, Spain manage to somehow miraculously break down Italy's defence and put let's say two or three past them (which would be a blow to Italy's crazy unbeaten int. record) then I fear that it will be the Europa league final for you all over again. From a sympathetic pov, I'd really rather save you from that fate.
 
Last edited:

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Nah, England are definitely going to win the tournament, and then it'll be compulsory foreskin-flavoured baked beans for three meals a day until the end of time.

I don't think so. There's too much Mourinho worship in Southgates style of play.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Denmark are unlikely to win the semi at Wembley. England have more team cogency, even if Denmark are pacier
I dunno about that mate, I just always have faith that England can find a way to lose.
When I watch England football matches then, if the underdog is England I find it impossible to even conceive of a path through the tie, whereas if England are the favourites then it feels as though what ought* to be a simple stroll into the next round is in fact strewn with what appears to be the skins of the bananas from an entire forest which has somehow been chopped down, purely, as far as I can see, to produce as many possibilities for humiliation as is, er, possible.
I guess that a lot of people watch football feeling like that, but then I suspect that they also grow out of it by the age of about nine or ten, whereas I simply can't, at least as regards international football - I don't have the same affliction with club football somehow. If I had to guess the reason for that then I would have suggest that it boils down somehow to the first tournament I was able to sit down and just watch for virtually every game, the 86 world cup, which was, simultaneously my introduction to the greatest sporting event that could ever possibly exist (I can just imagine almost exploding with joy "You mean, that there is an international football game on every day for the next two weeks? Two in some cases?????) and at the same it sadly ended with an all too real reminder that life is crushingly cruel, that dreams can be smashed as well as dreamed... for, as you all know, England's participation in the tournament was ended by what is now universally recognised as by far the greatest sporting injustice in the history of the world. A blow so agonising that it would have been surprising if it didn't scar me for life.






*I originally intended to write more in this post, but when I awoke at 6am on the toilet with a beer can in one can and the laptop display as follows I thought maybe I should take the hint my body was giving

ToiletScreen.jpg
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
The problem, Richard, is that England have not looked very attacking when one takes the tournament into consideration. Without Saka and Sterling, it's unlikely that they would have been able to exit the group stages. Ukraine on Saturday night were absolutely abysmal, I could almost not understand how they just seemed to be almost abscent from the game, especially when they put in a fairly stellar performance against Sweden. All this nonsense about Yarmarlenco having to prove a point to the English...hat
The problem is there are many problems.... or potential ones at least. Certainly in my head.... certainly.... but let's leave that particular spiral of madness.
First up I am glad that they are playing Denmark rather than the Czechs, not for footballing reasons, but simply cos it would be kinda stupid to meet a team from your own group in the semi. I love this tournament obviously but there has to be a better way of doing the start, so many games to hardly eliminate anyone and a system where, if you come third, then you don't know whether or not your total is gonna be enough. They need to sort this out, if they are determined to have 16 in the second round then maybe they should start off with 32 or if there has to be 24 in the first round then have eight groups of three with the bottom one going out in each case.
I do feel that one can't blame Ukraine for playing so badly though, they looked dead on their feet at the end of the - deserved in my opinion - victory over Sweden.,
But is it good preparation for the semi to win 4 - 0 in the quarter? I dunno really. You could claim that they should be relatively rested and so fresher, but equally they are relatively untested and that might make them underprepared compared to Denmark who have really gone right through the wringer to get to where they are now. One thing that did please me is that they avoided complacency this time around.... but does that mean that now they are gonna think that they have got the danger of complacency licked? Is there a danger that they will be complacent about the lurking threat of complacency?
Of course, England haven´t conceded a goal yet, in fact their defence has been good; after the Croatia game and also to some extent after they played the Czechs I was thinking these teams have absolutely no cutting edge whatsoever, they could have played all day against us without threatening the goal - and yet against other teams it turned out they could knock a few in. So yeah that big unbeaten defence has gotta be something for any opposition to worry about... but what if England do concede? What if they go behind? How will they react having never had to deal with it before?
 
Top