The Importance of Sport (NEW CONCEPTS)

[Mick Harper]

He's been sticking them in though. There's an argument that it is better to have a superannuated (but true) striker rather than a non-superannuated one marooned in midfield (Kane).

50/50? You think it's as bad as that?

[Wile E. Coyote]

It's going to be a battle. Folks think of France as a possession side like Spain but they are not. They will keep on playing it quickly up front, through the middle and inside channels to exploit the slowness on the turn of Stones and Macguire. Presumably the Waistcoat will play a back three (Walker), as well as two wing backs to counter this. This won't succeed. Looks like a high scoring game, something like 3-2 to me.

[Mick Harper]

Only the flakiest, crumbliest footballers play in the French league. We are battle-hardened by being put under the microscope on Match of the Day, week in, week out, they only get it in the neck from Marie le Pen. Can you see Didier Deschamps in a three piece suit? We are used to battling it out in the desert (El Alamein). Three lions versus one cockerel. The French don't even have a word for penalty shoot-out. They call it le penalty shoot-out. Has anyone explored the potentialities of a post-match drugs test disqualification? Is there time for a fake sheikh sting on Antoine Griezmann? Come on, England expects. Don't force me to reveal my Guernsey-French roots.

[Mick Harper]

With Belgium, Germany, Spain, Holland and Brazil eased out, preparations are underway for the possibility of an England vs Argentina final, with all its baggage, footballing and political. Intensive negotiations are said to be ongoing using a basic position of 'You get the Malvinas, we get a Port Stanley in extra time'. The sticking point in both countries has been the objections of traditionalists as to whether 1966, 1978, 1982 or 1986 have the most resonances.

It may have to come down to plaster casts, an abandonment and joint-winners. Though 'no winners' has been mooted in some quarters. Replaying the entire tournament somewhere else remains a non-starter for the moment.

[Wile E. Coyote]

We are so nice, it is already is in the bag. We are going to win.... the "fair play" award. We have zero bookings so far in four games, whereas Argentina had 8 players and what looked like 2 bouncers booked, just in their last match.

As fot the lesser Jules Rimet trophy, well it's a proven fact that nice guys finish last. So basically no hope.

[Mick Harper]

It's late afternoon here in Coconut Grove and the klaxons are blaring. I know what you're thinking: the Moroccans must have won... again. Not so fast, we have a Portuguese community here who are less numerous but have bigger cars.

I shall have to watch England vs France more or less live because five minutes after the result the bastard French will be all over us in their DS's and Deux-Chevaux. Why can't people just stay at home and digest the result, for good or ill, with English sang-froid. Have these people learned nothing from their stay with us?

[Grant]

The game went as Mick was predicting (I think): England’s lions let down by their donkey of a manager. With a decent international manager we would have had a semi-final against Morocco and a final against an aging Croatia/Argentina.

The most astonishing example of Southgate’s ineptitude was the replacement of Saka with Sterling, a man who had spent the last week sorting out his house in London after a burglary. Presumably all the training and team talks are not as important as a chat with the police and a first-class Emirates trip.

[Mick Harper]

Southgate hasn't got my experience of whipping disparate talents into a sleek band of warriors ready to take on the world. And neither have I. He produced a team that appears, on the playing evidence, to be the best in the world which, I suppose, we would have to grudgingly concede is some kind of backhanded compliment. It's Kane I feel sorry for, he's sure to be the subject of racist abuse from black supremacists.

[Mick Harper]

Funnily enough I agreed with Sterling coming on. Last throws of the dice should not be rational. Not daft but not rational either. The changes needed to be made as soon as England went two-one down but Southgate is synonymous with too-late and over-timorous substitutions. There should have been a mild reconstruction at halftime. However, since what he did do worked well enough, it is hard to put too many boots in. My overall judgement as to managerial blame over the full hundred and twelve minutes goes like this

1. France did not press. This meant that playing both Henderson and Rice was an overinsurance and led to a lack of creativity in the middle.
2. Playing four at the back meant no wing backs and a lack of creativity on the flanks.
3. Kane actually played as a centre forward meaning creativity was devolved onto the individuality of Bellingham, Foden and Saka.
4. None of this would have mattered if England had ever mastered (had ever tried) playing it out rapidly from the back. Can you remember a single occasion when France were playing it around among back two and goalie? England did it every blessed time.

They don't understand what I have been telling Arsenal all these seasons: every time you make a sideways (let alone a backwards) pass in your own half it makes the job harder because it gives the other side another few seconds to push another man forward and/or set another man back. It is not a safe play, it is a dumb play. Yet English players are always commended when they do it. 'They are being patient.' 'They are not giving possession away in a dangerous part of the pitch.' 'They are not hoofing it.' Mostly nobody says anything at all. There should be a groan every time somebody does it other than in extremis.

[Wile E. Coyote]

England did better than I expected. We remain a top eight side. Bellingham is getting better, Sterling and Mount worse. The main problem is that we are very predictable, the opposition basically now know what to expect for the first 70 minutes and then it's one change of midfielder, winger and Rashford. That's Southgate for you, he sets up the team, it is down to them to provide the inspiration.

[Mick Harper]

How is this different from any international team? The players are as much strangers to one another as they are to the manager. Nobody could do much in the way of fancy dan stuff with a week's preparation time. And England are clearly better than the 'top eight' they were when they arrived -- if only because so many other top teams disappointed. And yet you are right. Southgate has been overtaken by his players (and has to go).

They must be in a system that allows them inspiration, not to mention different systems via selection and substitutions. I doubt that many of Southgate's rival international managers could be heard discussing the merits of 4-3-3 when 'we expect to have most of the possession' and a back five when not. (And then playing a back four regardless!) But that's why top club managers prefer players whose position is not altogether clear. They are expected to adjust on the field depending on circumstances. It's part of why they're paid the big bucks.

* How often, for example, did English wingers switch flanks?
* How often was Harry swapping over with a midfielder?
* Who would that midfielder have been anyway -- none of England's midfield trio seemed to be playing as a number ten to start with!
* If you pick Luke Shaw and Kyle Walker as your full backs you're going to get... full backs.

But that in turn raises the question of 'footballing intelligence' and why British players (and managers) tend not to be, the reasons for which I have written about elsewhere.

[Grant]

An AE question.
A team have reached a quarter, a semi and a full final in the last three major championships. Does this mean that
a) The manager is a good manager who has improved his team
b) The manager has inherited a very good team but lacks the ability to get them to play at their full potential.

In the absence of further information there is no way to answer the question, but suppose we learn that the squad is valued at 1.5 billion, more than any other team in the world?
I think answer (b) is more likely

[Mick Harper]

AE would dismiss one result (2022) but might cautiously accept the last four since each result is itself the product of multiple events. It might caution an AE-ist about bogus lists by wondering
1) why have the last four been specifically selected?
2) do they coincide with managerial reigns?
3) how many countries reached the last eight in all four of their previous tournaments?
But concede that the squad value figure is reasonably definitive for making judgements.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

Is this new country syndrome e.g. Ukraine, Montenegro, Slovenia, or small country syndrome e.g. Uruguay, Holland, Belgium and Portugal? I have forwarded your proposal to break England up into its ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to the relevant authorities. Including the little-known one of West Norwood-with-Penge and the wappentake of Catford.