comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 hours, 10 minutes ago
Looking back over the Euros and WCs of my lifetime, probably more than half were won by a team that was playing cautious, defensive football, and usually by a team that didn't look like it was the best at the tournament. Didn't I read that Southgate and his staff when he was appointed commission a study of how winners of these tournaments had got it done, and set about building a strategy based on that template?

I thought England were marginally the better team against Switzerland yesterday and that was our best performance of the competition. Not a very convincing performance but long spells of dominance, moving the ball forward quicker with more courage to hit early passes through narrow gaps. And let's not forget that Switzerland were one of the teams that had impressed most over the group stage and round of 16.
----------------------------------------------------------------
not shore agree with this. imo mosed wc n euros I seen were wun bye wurthy winners

i think only Greece in 2004 fit that theory as a nonfancied team winnin bye deefendin

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
Shinjury, I think generally critiques of Southgate are fair, particularly around lack of reactivity (let alone proactivity!) with substitutions, and while I understand the safety-first mantra, England have made life harder for themselves by being over cautious and ponderous in build-up. My intention was to qualify those criticisms rather than contradict them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's hard to be too harsh when we have hit the heady heights of the semis; ideally we could've made it easier on the eye/life expectancy.

Although I found it very easy during and after every game so far, barring the last.