Euro 2024 knockout phase

[anty1975]

Southgate is as good coach as my P.E. (Physical Education) teacher at primary school. Every lesson there was same story: "Here is a ball. Go to the playground and play football". I don't see a Southgate's hand in how England play. I mean some tactics or some style of playing. England are in the semi-finals thanks to individual talent of their players in my opinion. I can only imagine how they would play having a good coach. To be fair to Southgate, I remember worse coaches, coaches who had negative impact on their teams.

They are quite good in defence under him, allow very little like France. But in attacking phase agree, don't see any interesting ideas, just exploiting individual brilliance of English players. Yesterday it was Saka

[Lyonnais]

Just realised Copa America does not have extra time and goes straight to penalties until the final. To be honest, most of the extra time in Euros is quite boring. How about no extra time until semi-final? Two extra time in one match day may not be nice to audience

Playing the extra time reduces by about 50% the chances that a match ends up with penalty shoot outs: I would keep the current rule.

and most of the legendary games became legendary because of what happened in extra-time.

[Lorric]

Southgate is as good coach as my P.E. (Physical Education) teacher at primary school. Every lesson there was same story: "Here is a ball. Go to the playground and play football". I don't see a Southgate's hand in how England play. I mean some tactics or some style of playing. England are in the semi-finals thanks to individual talent of their players in my opinion. I can only imagine how they would play having a good coach. To be fair to Southgate, I remember worse coaches, coaches who had negative impact on their teams.

They are quite good in defence under him, allow very little like France. But in attacking phase agree, don't see any interesting ideas, just exploiting individual brilliance of English players. Yesterday it was Saka

I fear that the opposition understand about our tendancy to not shoot unless we're somewhere in the central area of the box. All our goals but Saka's have come from such a position. If you know the opposition normally won't pull the trigger unless they get there, you can much more effectively keep them out.

[Witkop1983]

Not that it matters for the match result, but it does matter for the golden boot: Gakpo seems to touch the ball slightly, so I think the goal should be credited to him instead of an own goal.

That xG of Turkey seems pretty low on only 1.3. I have seen Verbruggen having to make a lot of good saves (the best wasn't recognised by the referee though as he gave a goal kick instead of a corner)

Seeing Depay in the best XI also baffles me. He is one of the worst players in the dutch team this tournament.

[Dniprovec]

I am not saying Switzerland is a better overall team, only it played better than England yesterday and was closer to victory during the game. xG thing just confirms how it looked visually. Exactly the same as Portugal against France. Overall not a better team, but on that night except for the penalty shootout it was better. Both aesthetically and in terms of how close it was to winning it.

All the semifinalists had a lower xG than their opponents.

Scoring from fewer opportunities isn't a sign of weakness, and wasting several opportunities isn't a sign of strength.



Let me talk specifically of Portugal's case.

Portugal may have the best goalkeeper, the best defensive quartet and the best midfield trio. But then if they have the worst attacking trio and an incompetent/malicious manager, then you can't really say that they're the best.

The first three do their jobs flawlessly, but then the rest ruins everything!

Again, speaking of the xG Switzerland scored more than double. If we compare to Spain-Germany match, it is also Germany scored most of their xG when they were losing and almost stopped after they equalized, which wasn't the case with England. Especially in the extra time when one team played to win and another was ok with penalties.

Anyways, the margins are really slim there. I think all of 4 matches realistically/deservingly should've ended with a draw (and if not, with Switzerland's victory being more "deserving" among others). By no mean there is any tragedy and we've seen bigger "undeserving" victories in football

In the grand scheme of things if we go outside of one match performance, each of the four semifinals is a viable champion contender. Spain has been more spectacular and impressive so far, but no to the extend they should consistently beat any of the remaining opponents. Luck at this stage with the teams so equal plays a crucial part.

Even in this setup with a little luck Portugal could've been an overall winner.

[anty1975]

xG don't tell the full story, there were some English attacks that hadn't resulted in shots and so were not counted in xG but actually they were more dangerous than most shots in this match. On eye check it was an equal match, draw was fair.

[Greyn]

Switzerland was more in line with what typical England play under Southgate looks like. With the ball we get plenty of men forward, without it we press aggressively and have the fitness to get back in position. We do sometimes attack at speed when the opportunity presents, but standard practice is to advance the ball patiently. This means if we do lose it, we're not usually immediately in a vulnerable position. With the ball, England are quite happy to sit on the ball and pass it around the back for a while waiting for the right moment to attack, people just see side to side football, but there's purpose behind it. We can also go long periods without taking a shot, but this is because Southgate's England typically don't pull the trigger unless it's a good scoring chance. We have an excellent shots to goals scoring ratio because of it, and I approve of this style of play very much because it's effective. I find it one of the more annoying things when your team has the ball and then someone just takes a shot that's like a 1% chance of going in, it's a complete waste.

However, here's what's been different at this tournament. First, I've really come to realise and appreciate what we miss for not having Rashford in the team and why Southgate persisted with him so long despite his struggles at United. When we win the ball with the press he gave us a great outlet for a fast counterattack and to get in behind, and his replacement Foden just can't do that and hasn't shown the things that won him Premier League Player of the Year.

The slow build, for whatever reason, our players have not been as busy off the ball as normal. That was true without it too, but we finally adressed that aspect against Switzerland. Normally, they would be working at finding space and making runs a lot more. This is why it's been effective in the past, and when the moment comes, the speed of everything goes up, and we haven't really seen much of that either. And Kane is back from an injury after a long season and just hasn't looked the same, even though he has contributed two crucial goals. If you'd told me before the tournament about the amount of low block defending we'd face, I'd have been overjoyed, fully expecting England to patiently work the ball around and find the way through and score. Of course, we've still overcome this adversity one way or another so far, but you know the manner in which it has happened.

England have gradually improved as the tournament has gone on but still not up to normal expected levels. Hopefully we see another improvement and hopefully it's enough.

I have a different impression watching England. You call it a patient and slow build up just to find a moment to speed up ("England are quite happy to sit on the ball and pass it around the back for a while waiting for the right moment to attack"), my impression is that they simply have no idea what to do with the ball, that is why they pass it and pass it and pass it on their own half. This English team has so much talent that they should be able to create chances from positional attacks vs every team in this tournament, including Spain or Germany. Instead, England had no idea how to create chances vs Slovakia for entire match after conceding early. Let me remind that Slovakia conceded 2 goals vs Ukraine (despite being 1-0 early in that match, so they were more focused on defense), 1 goal vs Romania and Belgium had 2 (unluckily) disallowed goals vs them. England scored an equaliser after a throw in and a bicycle kick by Bellingham.

Let's agree that vs Switzerland it looked a bit better, there was a small improvement, but still, I would expect more If I were an English fan. If England continue improving their offensive play in such tempo, they will look well in this matter in the next WC, surely not in potential final of this Euro.

They are quite good in defence under him, allow very little like France. But in attacking phase agree, don't see any interesting ideas, just exploiting individual brilliance of English players. Yesterday it was Saka

Southgate played usually as CB in his football career, if I remember correctly. Maybe that is why England look better defensively than offensively. You can call this example hilarious, but it reminds me Dan Petrescu and CFR Cluj. Under Petrescu who played as RB, Cluj play/played Romanian version of catenaccio vs literally all opponents, no matter if it was Shakhtyor Soligorsk, Ballkani or Lazio.

[Witkop1983]

Southgate played usually as CB in his football career, if I remember correctly. Maybe that is why England look better defensively than offensively. You can call this example hilarious, but it reminds me Dan Petrescu and CFR Cluj. Under Petrescu who played as RB, Cluj play/played Romanian version of catenaccio vs literally all opponents, no matter if it was Shakhtyor Soligorsk, Ballkani or Lazio.

Koeman played as CB in his career too. Yet the dutch defense is shaky as hell...

[Greyn]

Southgate played usually as CB in his football career, if I remember correctly. Maybe that is why England look better defensively than offensively. You can call this example hilarious, but it reminds me Dan Petrescu and CFR Cluj. Under Petrescu who played as RB, Cluj play/played Romanian version of catenaccio vs literally all opponents, no matter if it was Shakhtyor Soligorsk, Ballkani or Lazio.

Koeman played as CB in his career too. Yet the dutch defense is shaky as hell...

Well, the Dutch teams were always well known for being better offensively than defensively, so I would not blame Koeman in this regard.

[anty1975]

Koeman played as CB in his career too. Yet the dutch defense is shaky as hell...

He was a great passer of the ball and one of the best free kick specialists in history. But as a defender he was a bit sh*t, very slow and sometimes clunsy)

[Lorric]

Switzerland was more in line with what typical England play under Southgate looks like. With the ball we get plenty of men forward, without it we press aggressively and have the fitness to get back in position. We do sometimes attack at speed when the opportunity presents, but standard practice is to advance the ball patiently. This means if we do lose it, we're not usually immediately in a vulnerable position. With the ball, England are quite happy to sit on the ball and pass it around the back for a while waiting for the right moment to attack, people just see side to side football, but there's purpose behind it. We can also go long periods without taking a shot, but this is because Southgate's England typically don't pull the trigger unless it's a good scoring chance. We have an excellent shots to goals scoring ratio because of it, and I approve of this style of play very much because it's effective. I find it one of the more annoying things when your team has the ball and then someone just takes a shot that's like a 1% chance of going in, it's a complete waste.

However, here's what's been different at this tournament. First, I've really come to realise and appreciate what we miss for not having Rashford in the team and why Southgate persisted with him so long despite his struggles at United. When we win the ball with the press he gave us a great outlet for a fast counterattack and to get in behind, and his replacement Foden just can't do that and hasn't shown the things that won him Premier League Player of the Year.

The slow build, for whatever reason, our players have not been as busy off the ball as normal. That was true without it too, but we finally adressed that aspect against Switzerland. Normally, they would be working at finding space and making runs a lot more. This is why it's been effective in the past, and when the moment comes, the speed of everything goes up, and we haven't really seen much of that either. And Kane is back from an injury after a long season and just hasn't looked the same, even though he has contributed two crucial goals. If you'd told me before the tournament about the amount of low block defending we'd face, I'd have been overjoyed, fully expecting England to patiently work the ball around and find the way through and score. Of course, we've still overcome this adversity one way or another so far, but you know the manner in which it has happened.

England have gradually improved as the tournament has gone on but still not up to normal expected levels. Hopefully we see another improvement and hopefully it's enough.

I have a different impression watching England. You call it a patient and slow build up just to find a moment to speed up ("England are quite happy to sit on the ball and pass it around the back for a while waiting for the right moment to attack"), my impression is that they simply have no idea what to do with the ball, that is why they pass it and pass it and pass it on their own half. This English team has so much talent that they should be able to create chances from positional attacks vs every team in this tournament, including Spain or Germany. Instead, England had no idea how to create chances vs Slovakia for entire match after conceding early. Let me remind that Slovakia conceded 2 goals vs Ukraine (despite being 1-0 early in that match, so they were more focused on defense), 1 goal vs Romania and Belgium had 2 (unluckily) disallowed goals vs them. England scored an equaliser after a throw in and a bicycle kick by Bellingham.

Let's agree that vs Switzerland it looked a bit better, there was a small improvement, but still, I would expect more If I were an English fan. If England continue improving their offensive play in such tempo, they will look well in this matter in the next WC, surely not in potential final of this Euro.

They are quite good in defence under him, allow very little like France. But in attacking phase agree, don't see any interesting ideas, just exploiting individual brilliance of English players. Yesterday it was Saka

Southgate played usually as CB in his football career, if I remember correctly. Maybe that is why England look better defensively than offensively. You can call this example hilarious, but it reminds me Dan Petrescu and CFR Cluj. Under Petrescu who played as RB, Cluj play/played Romanian version of catenaccio vs literally all opponents, no matter if it was Shakhtyor Soligorsk, Ballkani or Lazio.

If you only mean this tournament, then I 'm not going to say you're wrong. I've pointed out the deficiencies in the attack, which is not normal England play. That normal collective work that makes it effective. Instead there's a lot of static players and players not on for an easy pass. The ethos is still there, but yes, they've been quite frequently stuck passing it around at the back, and it's not with the off the ball work going on in front of them, so they're stuck with no outball. I've seen it in the past and we'll be passing it around the back and then boom, two quick passes and we're on the attack well inside the opposition half, men surging forward, and it hasn't been like that. And it's often been continually slow, it worked before because we could turn the tempo up when the time was right. It's all too often been too slow and easy to deal with. We've had flashes of it working how it normally would, but it's much less frequent.

Bellingham's goal against Serbia is a good example of how it should be, he matched the timing of his run to the cross and scored a great goal, but I could be wrong, but I don't think I've seen a single occasion since where someone timed a run into the box to match the timing of the delivery, and I don't even mean tried and failed, it's just everyone is static. Either they stay out or they're in and just standing around marked by men and thus usually the ball is cleared out. It's not good enough and it's not like there needs to be some grand plan for a player to take initiative and make a move to shake a marker or make a run. We're not devoid of this kind of play but it's happening a lot less with this team and I don't know why.

There was an interview with Walker after one of the group stage games where he was asked bluntly if it was Southgate telling them to play conservative, and he said no, the manager wants us to press high and play free flowing attacking football.

So yes, you're right that more should be expected from this team. I know they can do more. It feels like how sometimes a club team can go through a rough patch where you know they're better than that and are trying to play themselves back into form. But we're still here and I'm not going to get upset about the manner of which it happened. We did enough when it counted and we're showing continual improvement so there's reason to hope.

It is a sign of a good team to still get results when not playing well.

[Tazmania]

Just realised Copa America does not have extra time and goes straight to penalties until the final. To be honest, most of the extra time in Euros is quite boring. How about no extra time until semi-final? Two extra time in one match day may not be nice to audience

I suggested elsewhere that ET should be abolished in 2-leg ties, with ties drawn on aggregate after two 90-minute games going straight to penalties.

It would also help lighten the burden on players which is such a topical issue.

[seso]

Just realised Copa America does not have extra time and goes straight to penalties until the final. To be honest, most of the extra time in Euros is quite boring. How about no extra time until semi-final? Two extra time in one match day may not be nice to audience

Playing the extra time reduces by about 50% the chances that a match ends up with penalty shoot outs: I would keep the current rule.

I would suggest some type of 'sudden death' format! I think that if UEFA gives it a try in a tournament, people will like it!

[mspm89]

Just realised Copa America does not have extra time and goes straight to penalties until the final. To be honest, most of the extra time in Euros is quite boring. How about no extra time until semi-final? Two extra time in one match day may not be nice to audience

Playing the extra time reduces by about 50% the chances that a match ends up with penalty shoot outs: I would keep the current rule.

I would suggest some type of 'sudden death' format! I think that if UEFA gives it a try in a tournament, people will like it!

I think you're being sarcastic, but if not, do you realize that there was a Golden Goal rule in International football from about 1996 to 2002, then it happened that nobody liked it, then the Silver Goal was tried until 2004, and then any such rule was scrapped altogether?

I don't think scrappped football rules have ever made a comeback, have they?

[rpo.castro]

Just realised Copa America does not have extra time and goes straight to penalties until the final. To be honest, most of the extra time in Euros is quite boring. How about no extra time until semi-final? Two extra time in one match day may not be nice to audience

Playing the extra time reduces by about 50% the chances that a match ends up with penalty shoot outs: I would keep the current rule.

I would suggest some type of 'sudden death' format! I think that if UEFA gives it a try in a tournament, people will like it!

He had it and thanks God it's gone!