Euros 2024

[pharvey]

Pharvey wrote:

Good God does Lineker pi$$ me off - can't stand the pr!ck. So much for the pre-match, will tune in again "After 8" (seems to ring a bell).

I, for one, feel quite the opposite. I could start cheering for England if this monstrosity was not around. I know, some of you will do it even more now. I've talked with many of my friends and they feel exactly the same, it's just pure arrogance to claim that one particular country would be the "home" of football. Sorry if you are offended.

Gary Lineker, the iconic former England striker, has taken a bold step ahead of the Euro 2024 final by banning the phrase “football's coming home,” reported by GOAL. With England on the cusp of a historic achievement, Lineker believes that avoiding any potential jinxes is crucial. The chant, popularized during the 1996 Euros, has been associated with heartbreak and disappointment, most notably in the Euro 2020 final when Italy defeated England in a dramatic penalty shootout at Wembley Stadium.

Lost me there BG. My comment had ZERO to do with supporting or not supporting England (I'm Welsh after all), or whether or not "Football was coming or going anywhere - I simply dislike Lineker.

And no - not offended.

[Bamboo Grove]

Pharvey, my comment was about you disliking Lineker. Sorry, if I misunderstood you. It happens to me all the time. I just wanted to say that, I dislike that "It's coming home" with all my heart. I feel that is so arrogant for any country to say, they are the home of football. Football is for all.

[caller]

Well, I would argue we didn't play all of our best players, whereas we stuck with Kane who is probably currently our worst player. And that affected our tactics and performance in each game.

I think Southgate has been great for the national team by restoring credibility and I can imagine him as a future head of the FA and I hope they find a future role for him, but just not as manager.

He has a certain way of managing and setting the team up that is too rigid and inflexible and is basically asking certain players to be square pegs in round holes. Foden being the obvious example, who seemed to end up playing full back today. And to go through the whole tournament with no obvious threat from the left, beggars belief.

[Bamboo Grove]

Harry Kane won the Golden Boot for the Euro 24 with a total of three goals. Has it ever been won by only three goals? I know, he only shared the trophy but this shows something about the present day strikers. There are not any.

[Lost]

I, for one, feel quite the opposite. I could start cheering for England if this monstrosity was not around. I know, some of you will do it even more now. I've talked with many of my friends and they feel exactly the same, it's just pure arrogance to claim that one particular country would be the "home" of football. Sorry if you are offended.

But it is the 'home' of football. It's where it was invented, which is the song. If Italians started singing a song about pizza, or Finland about ice, noone would bat an eyelid.

Just anti-English rubbish.

[Lost]

But yes, Lineker is the very worst of people. Rich guy who shits on poor guys while pretending to care about even poorer guys to make his shitting on poor guys look ok to 'doing ok' guys while staying rich.

[caller]

But I do like what Linekar has said, that Spains win was a victory for football. I agree with that. With Southgate, it's all about data, stats and margins to govern how the team is selected and play, including when substitutes are utilised. It's like painting by numbers, efficient yes, but with no heart or soul, and that's how England play under Southgate.

[Lost]

Yep, that's fair.

And England can't have any complaints on the day. The better team won. No dramas. No bad decisions. Just not our day.

[Lost]

While I slated Kane, I should add...

Watkins had a half hour run out and achieved nothing except some fruitless chasing of overhit balls and a mis-controlled turn in the box.

[sateeb]

Hardly Watkins fault if the balls in are overhit, at least he was in the position that lame Kane should have been instead of fannying about in midfield. Did anyone remind him he wears the no.9 shirt!!

[caller]

At the end of the day, England just didn't perform well in the final, and our passing was off throughout, sometimes just behind a player, sometimes just a shade too far in front, but it was disruptive to our efforts and handed possession too often to Spain.

But we could go on forever analysing the reasons for our defeat.

Yesterday, the English media were embarrassing, well at least The Times and beeb were (for sports coverage, that's all I read). The Times saw 2 otherwise renowned sports journalists praising Southgate to an almost visionary messiah status. and decrying anyone who thought otherwise. That'll be me and millions of others then. They seemed to forget that we actually had to play and win a game last night. And the beebs coverage reflected The Times.

Whereas, this morning, the beebs Phil McNulty, who has been critical of England throughout, wrote this:

It may seem harsh to describe Southgate and England as a nearly manager and a nearly team, but the consistent inability to get over the line when opportunities such as this present themselves, as they have in each of those tournaments, leave them open to those charges.

I would have said 'Southgate and his England'.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/arti ... 2081jz90eo

Good luck to the new England manager, wheover they may be.

[Dannie Boy]

The problem has been that virtually no England player has played at the same level as their club form, so blaming Kane or any of the other forwards lets other players off the hook - maybe our team isn’t quite as good as was made out? Without any doubt, the most dangerous player on the pitch last night was Spain’s Nico Williams who was head and shoulders above Bellingham or Foden - Englands Golden Boys!!

Southgate’s achievements are second only to Sir Alf Ramsey and far better than any other manager in between these two - his team selection has often been questioned, especially in this tournament where virtually everyone could see Kane struggling but he persevered with him - never easy to drop your Captain, but that might have helped?

Maybe a new manager can galvanise the team and make them into world beater in two years time, but that will require a manager with exceptional abilities and may be out of the price range of the salary the position commands?

[caller]

The problem has been that virtually no England player has played at the same level as their club form, so blaming Kane or any of the other forwards lets other players off the hook - maybe our team isn’t quite as good as was made out?

Tactically, the team has been unbalanced from the start, with no left sided threat selected and with playing a basically one-sided right footer at left back. That hinders the team and effects every other position. If you want to get the best out of Foden and Bellingham play them, or just one of them, where they are most effective. The body language of both throughout spoke volumes. Bellingham was great in the first game, and that was about it, and Foden was great in the first half against the Dutch, and that was about it. Kane shouldn't have played at all, it's as simple as that. He has been carrying a back injury for months and was a liability throughout. Why Southgate persisted with him, is frankly, unfahtomable.

Most pundits were apopletic about Englands tactics and their flaws from the very start, when they were first witnessed. But we muddled through and got to the final. Does that vindicate Southgate? Not in my book. If you have the premier leagues player of the year and young player of the year, meaning they are in top form, you should be able to benefit from that, but one was largely played out of position and one hardly played. And the reason for that? Southgates loyalty to the players that have done well for him in the past, thus ignoring others that could do better. Ramsey was guilty of that, as well. I think Walkers selection was justified and Saka's, but his attacking role was largely one dimensional and also impacted upon by sort of playing a 'wing-back' position, and ultimately, against the better teams, they knew how the team was set up to play and by and large, were able to negate his threat. And as we had no threat from the other wing, as Spain did, for example, it was very nearly the downfall of us early on.

On saying all of that, Spain were the best team, playing their best players, irrespective of their youth, where they could do most damage. Williams is highly rated on Spains left and given the freedom to exploit that. He's the same age as Palmer, who in Southgates World, was best used as a 'finisher'.

[caller]

The problem has been that virtually no England player has played at the same level as their club form, so blaming Kane or any of the other forwards lets other players off the hook - maybe our team isn’t quite as good as was made out?

Tactically, the team has been unbalanced from the start, with no left sided threat selected and with playing a basically one-sided right footer at left back. That hinders the team and effects every other position. If you want to get the best out of Foden and Bellingham play them, or just one of them, where they are most effective. The body language of both throughout spoke volumes. Bellingham was great in the first game, and that was about it, and Foden was great in the first half against the Dutch, and that was about it. Kane shouldn't have played at all, it's as simple as that. He has been carrying a back injury for months and was a liability throughout. Why Southgate persisted with him, is frankly, unfahtomable.

Most pundits were apopletic about Englands tactics and their flaws from the very start, when they were first witnessed. But we muddled through and got to the final. Does that vindicate Southgate? Not in my book. If you have the premier leagues player of the year and young player of the year, meaning they are in top form, you should be able to benefit from that, but one was largely played out of position and one hardly played. And the reason for that? Southgates loyalty to the players that have done well for him in the past, thus ignoring others that could do better. Ramsey was guilty of that, as well. I think Walkers selection was justified and Saka's, but his attacking role was largely one dimensional and also impacted upon by sort of playing a 'wing-back' position, and ultimately, against the better teams, they knew how the team was set up to play and by and large, were able to negate his threat. And as we had no threat from the other wing, as Spain did, for example, it was very nearly the downfall of us early on.

On saying all of that, Spain were the best team, playing their best players, irrespective of their youth, where they could do most damage. Williams is highly rated on Spains left and given the freedom to exploit that. He's the same age as Palmer, who in Southgates World, was best used as a 'finisher'.

[Big Boy]

I dislike that "It's coming home" with all my heart. I feel that is so arrogant for any country to say, they are the home of football. Football is for all.

I know we've had the discussion before, and it is doing exactly what its meant to. It is football banter at its best, designed to wind supporters from other nations up. It's all a bit of fun at the end of the day. A wind-up anthem that is so effective with such longevity. It would have been awful if we'd won yesterday - we'd have had to find a new wind up anthem.

When I used to travel with Plymouth Argyle, we had a really awful wind up anthem, but it worked wonders with opposing crowds. It went:

I had a wheelbarrow, the front wheel went round,
I had a wheelbarrow, the front wheel went round,
I had a wheelbarrow, the front wheel went round,
I had a wheelbarrow, the front wheel went round,

I had a wheelbarrow, the front wheel went round,
I had a wheelbarrow, the front wheel went round,
etc., etc.

You could sing it to many tunes, and it really wound people up. It wasn't sang because we enjoyed it, it was to gain reaction, and it never failed.

When you are English, you know many nations, especially our closest neighbours hate to see you succeed at many things. I don't understand where the hatred comes from, because it certainly isn't a reciprocal thing. So what do we do, we just wind people up. Laugh in their faces.

The best way to beat it is to ignore us. Its only a song, it is harmless. Do rugby players/supporters get really p'd when New Zealand or other Pacific nations do the Haka? No, it is banter, and should be accepted in the spirit it is given - a bit of fun.

No harm intended - roll on the World Cup.

An interesting bit of trivia about the song. I was reading an interview with Frank Skinner a few days ago, and he says despite its popularity, he has only made about £50K from the many versions of the song, video, etc.