Forza, yeah I think it probably does. There’s no doubt we’ve underperformed a lot, as our record shows, but I think the expectations are always ridiculously high given our status - even though it’s not reflected on the international stage - and the arrogance of English fans and media play into it.

thats whut i am attemting too argue.

with respect, England r totally in the same category with Sweden, Denmark, Czechs, Croatia etc.

many England fans dont have respect 4 Italy eether, one the other day saying England were better n more succesful. Even tho England have not beaten Italy in a proper competition since a dead rubber wcq in 1977.

England are more successful than four times world champions Italy?

We’ve obviously won the world cup, but yeah we’ve historically got a similar record to those nations on the international stage.

Though I think that does bring up bigger questions. England have historically had the talent to compete on a level with the more historically successful nations. But for whatever reason that hasn’t happened, but people act like we are Germany when we’ve never proven ourselves to be.

The England national team is one of the most peculiar stories in football. Used to be Spain but even they got their act together.

I think my expectations have certainly grown in recent years with the talent we've had come through, because of the attack we now have and due to some of our performances after the World Cup.

The last year or so has put a bit of a dampener on those expectations for various reasons but even so I think this England side under the right guidance should go far in this tournament if they do manage to get past Germany.

I do get that, and I’ve been similar, but I think circumstances have changed a little bit and there are other good teams. We are a good team among a few others, if you want to describe us as that.

I think overcoming Germany will be a big thing for England, though. They may not be at their zenith, but Germany are always a dangerous side in international competitions. We have a habit of shrinking against the bigger nations. Overcoming one and playing against nations with less history may give England the confidence to kick on and get to a final. But it’s knock out football, we could just as easily fack up and go out to Sweden or something if we did.

as an 'outsider' 2 me it does seem that many England fans n media seem too see the team in a vacuum with no regard 2 the fact other teams exist n also have some good players n wud quite like too win games as well.

Yeah I think that’s fair. The general reaction then becomes we are shiiiiit because we aren’t grate. But we are neither.

I’ve always viewed international football as a collective success or failure, but there’s a big issue with our focus on particular individuals and it’s to our detriment.

Though I think there’s a bigger concern when it comes to English management and coaching - more now than historically. It’s an area we’ve struggled to produce adequately, especially when compared to the talent of the players, and it’s something we need to address.

i just feel so much pressure is put on the coach n players with little historical reason 4 it.

yes, u may have talented players but so do others.

n they guy saying wc 2018 was a failure is kinda sucky

The historical reason is because England is the home of football. Club football also feeds into it, England historically have done well in European club competitions overall. That doesn’t mean it’s warranted, but it is what it is.

Yeah Germany will always be Germany to me, especially being an England fan and considering our record against them and the rest of the bigger nations as you've mentioned, no matter how much better or worse they are compared to previous sides.

Speaking of Sweden, for a long time they were a huge pain in England's ar$e. I always feel a little nervous when we play them.

In-glands shud b cleer faverits to win the hole thing from hear. No eckskusis, just utter faleyer if they don’t.

Italy n Spain on the other hand were total hunger dogs and have overacheeved to make it this far. Any firther progress must be scene azzer roring seksess.

u spelt 'to' rong, bro

https://twitter.com/skysportsnews/status/1409410702180237314?s=21

Ok England have lost

He's going to wait until the last minute to pick Mount because he's going to want his work off the ball.

It seems like we may play with a back 3/5, which I can sort of understand but I'm worried about how uncomfortable and disjointed we're going to be using it.

comment by 4zA - No al Calcio Moderno (U22472)
posted 8 hours, 59 minutes ago
u spelt 'to' rong, bro
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t know what Foden and Mount have done to warrant coming straight back in against Germany.

And it seems daft to me that Mount comes in having not trained with the team, even if he is better as a spoiler than a creator.

It's completely daft but it's Southgate innit.

He'd rather play more of a workhorse who hasn't trained and been involved in the planning against Germany than risk starting a more attacking player who has.

I didn't see that about Foden. That's a shame if true and it'd be a bit harsh on Saka.

I wonder if he'd actually make a bold decision and play Saka at LWB if we do play with three CBs. If we can get the ball to him and Sterling and get them running at Hummels it might provide our best route to goal.

I think it’s puzzling as it’s been so evident for the last 3-4 years at how much better we play with flying wingers

I don’t even have that big an issue with a workhorse midfield against Germany, it could work. But it just seems like poor planning. Bring in Henderson if you are gonna do it. And go with pace on the wings. Hopefully that’s what will happen, it’d represent our best chance of getting a result.

Perisic out against Spain is a blow. I’m looking forward to that game.

Yeah I don’t get why people are so desperate for the back 5. I thought Germany were really poor vs France and that was with a back 4

I’ve never really understood the need to match up the formation of the opposition, even if you are trying to shut them down.

A team with wing backs will always be more vulnerable to a team that plays with full backs and wingers, there’s an obvious numerical advantage in the wide areas, and those are the areas pretty much every football team looks to exploit.

When you have a manager whose first thought is how to stifle the opposition rather than how his own team can be assertive, it's no surprise he's looking to match up. He's probably looking at how Germany outnumbered Portugal's back four which is why I said I sort of understand it but it's still not what I'd do.

I don't like it because it just gives teams, especially the better teams who can control possession even more of an upper hand in pinning you back and when that happens a back three inevitably comes a back five, your wide players then get drawn into deeper positions and you end up not being able to get out which is what usually happens and what I can see happening tomorrow if we play 3-4-3.

I agree having pace, runners and numerical superiority in the wide areas is the way to go against Germany.

I think whatever we do we're probably going to end up getting pinned back for sustained periods, outnumbered and outmanoeuvred in midfield and there's probably going to be a disconnect between it and the attack.

Other than that though I'm confident.

It’s weird, they want us to have us play wingbacks to deal with their wingbacks - despite their wingbacks not being the most devastating threat in the world.

Yeah but I think using a back four is better for stifling the opposition as well. And the counter threat down the wide areas can actually help in stifling full backs as they may worry about leaving too much space in behind.

*wing backs