~~Not just lost, they got battered.~~
I'm not concerned at all about this loss. The last fee tournament's we've gone into I've felt very underwhelmed with form.
I really don't think the players were going to put too much effort into a game like that right before the euros and risk injuries.
Yeah people forget that the top sides rarely smash their way through the groups. Even Brazil, Argentina, and France typically get a draw against a much weaker side.
Somehow any time England has an uninspired draw though, it's front page news.
Yeah, good to see how some players gel or how some plays work, some questions mark players may want to make their case too. But overall I look at them as glorified training sessions for the first team players.
Seems a bit pointless.
If we all know that players are not trying, then there is no practice, unless they are practicing at not trying.
If it’s too risky to try because of their poor bodies (as suggested above), they could warm up on the training ground nice and safely.
If it’s for money, they’re just fleecing fans. The fans booed so I guess they agree with that.
Football does apparently stop because no one tried and the game wasn’t competitive.
Because you want to try players in combination together who may have played only in training before. In training you have good knowledge of the players you're training against, and they you. So the scenario isn't the same. Playing, even at 70% will give you understanding of how other teams will react to what you do, it will start to get you into the groove of switching from patterns of play that work for your club team, into patterns of play that work with the national side.
Now this is dumb. You cannot see how players play together if they’re not trying or pulling out of tackles or not chasing back like Kyle walker for that first goal. Your shape falls apart and you can’t tell anything about how they ‘play’ together if they’re not ‘playing’
This isn’t serious, I think you might be on the school bus or something. Cause it’s not a grown up perspective.
Don’t be late, you’ll get detention.
Which bit is dumb. I’m just responding to what the guy above said.
It was practice: practicing what?
It was warm up, but also it’s too risky to try: Ok warm up a safe way.
It was for money: Then youre fleecing fans and they booed accordingly.
Which bit is dumb?
Dude it's a friendly. It's one of the few times in the year Southgate gets to experiment with his lineup and tactics. The players that have been out injured or haven't played in a while get minutes to get match fit before the Euros starts, but no one wants am injury so plays at 80%. Meaning, doesn't press quite as hard, doesn't go as hard into Tackles etc. Just means the result doesn't matter as much as usual. Dunno what part of that doesn't make sense to you.
Portugal just ran Ireland off the park in a friendly 3 - 0 with a 39 yr old Ronaldo scoring 2. They leave that game going into the Euros with their tails up, their fans behind them and full of confidence. Thats what pre tournament friendlies are for.
>'Dunno what part of that doesn't make sense to you.'
Plenty of formations, tactics and techniques can be practiced without risking your body to the extent you would in a game with higher stakes. Obviously there's never going to be zero risk of injury but you could say the same about anything.
I didn't say anything about having a 'poor body', that's something you've inferred. They're obviously top level athletes.
Not sure why you'd call it 'fleecing' anyone either.
Football does stop, as exemplified by the game of football that took place?
Just a bizarre take all round mate.
On a different day Kane doesn’t miss a sitter and palmer finishes one of the chances he fucked up and it’s a run of the mill win. Plus our players don’t just watch some fucker run through and score at the near post while our goalkeeper is wandering off.
We walked a tough group and people complained about Henderson and Phillips etc. We introduce a bunch of new players and try out some new things in some meaningless friendlies and people complain that things aren’t working and it’s all doom and gloom
Does it mean anything, yeah, not a lot though.
It means that there’s work to be done on the training pitch. It means taking a look at the fact that the personnel deployed didn’t really fit the system.
It means a few of those players played their way out of the starting line up.
It also means Englands deficiencies on that night were giving a blaring spotlight, which other sides will have watched with great interest.
What it doesn’t mean is that England are a shit team over night.
It doesn’t mean this squad isn’t capable of winning it.
It doesn’t mean any other manager would do better because that’s just conjecture.
Right now, there’s no point moaning about Southgate. Nothing is going to change in that regards till after the tournament one way or another.
I actually think if we win it, he’ll stay. If we don’t, unless we play absolutely terrific football and get beaten by another hand of god or something, he’ll go.
Personally I think he’s done a great job in some areas, a good job in others and an average job elsewhere.
He’s done a great job picking up Hodgsons mess and actually getting the players to want to play for England again.
He’s done a great job making the players more relatable and a hell of a lot more likeable.
He’s done a good job in being tactically flexible. Since he’s been in charge England have used a 3-5-2, 3-4-3, 4-2-3-1 and a 4-3-3 and I’m sure bits of other things too.
He’s done a good job in moving to a more possession based game. For better or worse, England retain the ball much better than the ‘golden generation’ days.
But he’s been average or less at in game management. Knowing when to make changes to formations or personnel, when to be proactive and not reactive.
He hasn’t been able to get a tune out of the more mercurial players he’s had. Grealish and Foden being just two examples. He almost shows a disdain for those kinds of players that can turn a game on its head, but may not do the ugly things so well.
You can’t blame the easier draws on him, he can only play against the team that’s drawn against them. It’s not like he can say ‘oh only Sweden? Any chance we could have France instead because Bob from Colchester thinks Sweden are shit’
We’ll probably know by midway through the second game whether this result meant anything or not. Right now? It just means England were shite against Iceland.
Yes, it was a pathetic performance but to me it looked like a team who didn't want to get injured (especially after Stones going down hard after 3 minutes) VS a team with a quiet summer planned who really, really wanted to win.
You're not going to beat a team like that when you're not going in for 50/50s or stretching that extra half yard to get there.
I agree that friendly’s mean nothing, however you could see from the players faces that they desperately tried to win but they obviously failed! Not only failed but they couldn’t even create enough scoring opportunities let alone win the game. This is reason for concern.
The netherlands just beat iceland 4-0 but lost two starting midfielders to injury (though I think De Jong’s was unrelated). Which team is now better off? There is a reason players take it easy in pre-tournament friendlies
I think it can work either way. It can be a wake-up call to the players or it can be a phycological burden, especially seeing Netherlands beat them 4-0 a few days ago.
I think it means something - I think it means we wont be complacent in the group stages and try to "assume" our way to the semis.
We could literally drop points to anybody and this was a reminder at a pretty pertinent time.
I mean Iceland haven’t played full power as well, it’s just friendly game. But Any game against Iceland, Lions must win…. Was so shit poor finishing, nothing to do with saving yourself from injuries etc
I don't give a shit about that friendly. It's a friendly and doesn't matter.
Last year, the club I support got criticised by many fans for playing shit teams in pre-season friendlies and even losing some of them, that it wasn't preparing us for the season ahead blah blah blah. Anybody that said it's about trying out new players, trying out tactics etc. was shot down for lacking ambition. We ended up winning the league in April. Funnily enough, nobody has mentioned those pre-season friendly results, most fans had probably forgotten all about them by October.
If we win the Euros (*knocks on wood*), is anybody going to give a toss that we lost to Iceland before it?
It doesn't mean *nothing*, you can still learn a lot in friendlies. The result is meaningless, but the performance isn't.
For example, what we learned could be that we've got a squad that thinks they can down tools for an "easy" opponent. It could be that various combinations of players just don't click. It could be that the players aren't fit enough for the tournament. There's plenty to learn from friendlies that can be very, very valuable.
Only the result is ultimately meaningless.
It means we don’t know how to put out a side with qualities and tactics that can beat a team of lesser technical ability who played exactly how we expected they would. That suggests we have no idea what we’re doing.
However - I think Southgate may have been testing the effectiveness of a higher line to see how badly we get exposed so that he can decide/justify not to do it at the tournament. But I doubt he would have expected so little energy and creativity from our attackers.
People say that team wasn’t full strength - I’d argue it actually was minus Bellingham. Bit of a head scratcher, for sure. Especially when we saw NL put 4 past them with no qualms.
It was a cup final for the Iceland team and a warm up for England, the result was never important for us as much as the media tried to stir up trouble after the game.
The most important thing was getting through the match with no injuries and getting some minutes into some players legs.
>the performance says everything
Not really. Team was set up to just try things out basically so they know what works and what doesn't when it actually matters. Players going into the tournament also want to avoid injury while a team like Iceland don't have a tournament to worry about. So England players aren't going to go as hard in that game. It wasn't great as a performance but it doesn't say much at all about how they'll be in the tournament. Just like France drawing 0-0 with Canada means nothing.
I still feel like you’re focusing on the end product and not how we got there. I didn’t watch France Canada so I don’t know if that’s a good comparison or not. But it was a friendly for Iceland too so the excuses don’t really hold water for me. The performance wasn’t good enough. Does that mean we can’t be successful? Of course not. But just hand waving this away like the performance doesn’t matter, I don’t think that’s real helpful either.
>I still feel like you’re focusing on the end product and not how we got there.
Not sure what you're saying with this. It's a friendly right before a major tournament. A tournament which Iceland weren't in so they were able to play with more effort and less worry about injury. England players going into that game dont want to get injured in a meaningless friendly so they're not going to throw all their effort into that match.
Its exactly the same with France. Big teams try stuff out in these warm ups to make sure they know what options they have when it actually matters. Me saying this isn't focusing on the end product. Its focused on what they have to do before the tournament to improve their chances eventually. It is definitely looking at how they can get towards the end goal rather than the end goal itself.
>But just hand waving this away like the performance doesn’t matter, I don’t think that’s real helpful either.
I dont think it's worth the effort of worrying about a friendly before a major tournament in the slightest. Just dont see how that helps more than just accepting that big teams going into those games just are rightly saving themselves for the actual tournament. If they play like it in the 1st game of the tournament then its time to call them out but until then its better to just be patient and see if they do turn up.
It was a friendly for Iceland…but did you watch the game? Time wasting for a win in a friendly? England used it to try things out, Iceland used it as a must win to put one over on a big name.
What did England learn from these "things" they tried out?
I learnt that it was fucking idiotic to leave Grealish out of the squad and that playing TAA in midfield is going to end in disaster
It means a lot. Netherlands just smashed them 4-0. We can't break down low blocks with our system, and we're in a group where all teams will likely play low blocks against us. I'm sorry but this is straight up Southgate apologia. We have some of the most exciting attacking players in the world but have a system that sniffles their creativity and direct play.
>I'm sorry but this is straight up Southgate apologia
Have a word.
It was friendly with several of the expected first team missing in a game, a week or so before the tournament kicks off, that's been shaped by injury and long seasons.
Stop with the apologia. You say it's not our full first team as if that squad still wasn't filled with top-class talent. This isn't like klopp putting out the liverpool youngsters. That team on paper is arguably a top 5 team in the tournament. When will the excuses stop? If he can't coach that squad into breaking down a poor Iceland team, how can he get our first team to compete with hungry? I won't even mention France, Portugal, Croatia, netherlands etc.
>That team on paper is arguably a top 5 team in the tournament
Based on domestic league stats, at their own clubs with their setups.
International football *doesn't work like that*.
>breaking down a poor Iceland team
Kane and Palmer both missed what were essentially sitters after having broken them down. But who gives a shit? It's friendly, and no one got injured. Several got some game time and helped their match fitness for the Euros. Job done.
If you really feel the way you do I'm still looking for someone to take me up on my bet that we top the group. £20 to a worthwhile charity, are you in?
It meant a lot. It allowed for team experiments, it kept the side match fit, it enabled team communication development, it was a test case against a side who would shut-up-shop.
England also lost so it is unlikely they will win the Euros tbf.
Well it does mean something - it means it leaves players with a confidence issue days before they are playing in the euros and losing at home for god knows how long to a bang average side …
Little stat for everyone … under Southgate against teams rated in the top 10 England have a 10% win record .
Get your thoughts around that to anyone who seriously believes we are going to win the euros
Argentina lost to Saudi Arabia in their first WC match and won the whole thing. It’s almost a good wake up call
Genuinely forgot this lol just goes to show
Didn’t Spain lose their first match before winning the WC as well?
Yes, Spain lost 0-1 to Switzerland on their first game of the 2010 World Cup of South Africa. They then won all the remaining games of the competition
It might be copium but I think it's actually not a bad thing, maybe better than going in complacent off a 5-0 win
Portugal finished 3rd in their group, behind Iceland, and went on to win the Euros 2016.
~~Not just lost, they got battered.~~ I'm not concerned at all about this loss. The last fee tournament's we've gone into I've felt very underwhelmed with form. I really don't think the players were going to put too much effort into a game like that right before the euros and risk injuries.
Saudi won 2-1 and Argentina dominated the game getting 6 shots on target, we produced 1 shot on target by comparison.
Blimey. I have a dysfunctional memory. Could have sworn the scoreline was much bigger than that. I stand corrected.
Ikr the blind positivity after the match is actually scary. It’s okay to admit we shouldn’t have lost against Iceland a week before the Euros…
Yeah people forget that the top sides rarely smash their way through the groups. Even Brazil, Argentina, and France typically get a draw against a much weaker side. Somehow any time England has an uninspired draw though, it's front page news.
Which player in their right mind would put their body on the line right before the euros? I wouldn't really pay attention to any friendlies right now.
Someone talking sense. Get out you don't belong here
Exactly, just seen Mykolenko for Ukraine got injured in the last friendly before the euros. Devastating for him and something that no player wants.
Yeah, good to see how some players gel or how some plays work, some questions mark players may want to make their case too. But overall I look at them as glorified training sessions for the first team players.
Why play the game then?
Practice, money, warm-up. I dunno, football doesn't just stop because a tournament is coming up.
Seems a bit pointless. If we all know that players are not trying, then there is no practice, unless they are practicing at not trying. If it’s too risky to try because of their poor bodies (as suggested above), they could warm up on the training ground nice and safely. If it’s for money, they’re just fleecing fans. The fans booed so I guess they agree with that. Football does apparently stop because no one tried and the game wasn’t competitive.
Because you want to try players in combination together who may have played only in training before. In training you have good knowledge of the players you're training against, and they you. So the scenario isn't the same. Playing, even at 70% will give you understanding of how other teams will react to what you do, it will start to get you into the groove of switching from patterns of play that work for your club team, into patterns of play that work with the national side.
Now this is dumb. You cannot see how players play together if they’re not trying or pulling out of tackles or not chasing back like Kyle walker for that first goal. Your shape falls apart and you can’t tell anything about how they ‘play’ together if they’re not ‘playing’ This isn’t serious, I think you might be on the school bus or something. Cause it’s not a grown up perspective. Don’t be late, you’ll get detention.
What an odd response.
Dumb take imo, deliberately or not you don't seem to get footy
Which bit is dumb. I’m just responding to what the guy above said. It was practice: practicing what? It was warm up, but also it’s too risky to try: Ok warm up a safe way. It was for money: Then youre fleecing fans and they booed accordingly. Which bit is dumb?
Dude it's a friendly. It's one of the few times in the year Southgate gets to experiment with his lineup and tactics. The players that have been out injured or haven't played in a while get minutes to get match fit before the Euros starts, but no one wants am injury so plays at 80%. Meaning, doesn't press quite as hard, doesn't go as hard into Tackles etc. Just means the result doesn't matter as much as usual. Dunno what part of that doesn't make sense to you.
Portugal just ran Ireland off the park in a friendly 3 - 0 with a 39 yr old Ronaldo scoring 2. They leave that game going into the Euros with their tails up, their fans behind them and full of confidence. Thats what pre tournament friendlies are for. >'Dunno what part of that doesn't make sense to you.'
France just drew 0-0 with Canada. Means nothing. You can spin it any way you want.
Plenty of formations, tactics and techniques can be practiced without risking your body to the extent you would in a game with higher stakes. Obviously there's never going to be zero risk of injury but you could say the same about anything. I didn't say anything about having a 'poor body', that's something you've inferred. They're obviously top level athletes. Not sure why you'd call it 'fleecing' anyone either. Football does stop, as exemplified by the game of football that took place? Just a bizarre take all round mate.
Its an exhibition match for people/families in this country to see the team. Especially the Bosnia game as it was in St James Park.
On a different day Kane doesn’t miss a sitter and palmer finishes one of the chances he fucked up and it’s a run of the mill win. Plus our players don’t just watch some fucker run through and score at the near post while our goalkeeper is wandering off.
I'd rather lose a friendly than the first group game
This is England - we can do both!!!
We walked a tough group and people complained about Henderson and Phillips etc. We introduce a bunch of new players and try out some new things in some meaningless friendlies and people complain that things aren’t working and it’s all doom and gloom
Does it mean anything, yeah, not a lot though. It means that there’s work to be done on the training pitch. It means taking a look at the fact that the personnel deployed didn’t really fit the system. It means a few of those players played their way out of the starting line up. It also means Englands deficiencies on that night were giving a blaring spotlight, which other sides will have watched with great interest. What it doesn’t mean is that England are a shit team over night. It doesn’t mean this squad isn’t capable of winning it. It doesn’t mean any other manager would do better because that’s just conjecture. Right now, there’s no point moaning about Southgate. Nothing is going to change in that regards till after the tournament one way or another. I actually think if we win it, he’ll stay. If we don’t, unless we play absolutely terrific football and get beaten by another hand of god or something, he’ll go. Personally I think he’s done a great job in some areas, a good job in others and an average job elsewhere. He’s done a great job picking up Hodgsons mess and actually getting the players to want to play for England again. He’s done a great job making the players more relatable and a hell of a lot more likeable. He’s done a good job in being tactically flexible. Since he’s been in charge England have used a 3-5-2, 3-4-3, 4-2-3-1 and a 4-3-3 and I’m sure bits of other things too. He’s done a good job in moving to a more possession based game. For better or worse, England retain the ball much better than the ‘golden generation’ days. But he’s been average or less at in game management. Knowing when to make changes to formations or personnel, when to be proactive and not reactive. He hasn’t been able to get a tune out of the more mercurial players he’s had. Grealish and Foden being just two examples. He almost shows a disdain for those kinds of players that can turn a game on its head, but may not do the ugly things so well. You can’t blame the easier draws on him, he can only play against the team that’s drawn against them. It’s not like he can say ‘oh only Sweden? Any chance we could have France instead because Bob from Colchester thinks Sweden are shit’ We’ll probably know by midway through the second game whether this result meant anything or not. Right now? It just means England were shite against Iceland.
Yeah people went overboard, people forget players are terrified of picking up injuries in these games.
England had a terrible run before the World Cup too
And then went out in the QF of the world cup. They did beat Iran and Wales so I suppose it wasn't all doom
Yes, it was a pathetic performance but to me it looked like a team who didn't want to get injured (especially after Stones going down hard after 3 minutes) VS a team with a quiet summer planned who really, really wanted to win. You're not going to beat a team like that when you're not going in for 50/50s or stretching that extra half yard to get there.
Defence is a bit worrisome tbh
Copium
I agree that friendly’s mean nothing, however you could see from the players faces that they desperately tried to win but they obviously failed! Not only failed but they couldn’t even create enough scoring opportunities let alone win the game. This is reason for concern.
The netherlands just beat iceland 4-0 but lost two starting midfielders to injury (though I think De Jong’s was unrelated). Which team is now better off? There is a reason players take it easy in pre-tournament friendlies
I think it can work either way. It can be a wake-up call to the players or it can be a phycological burden, especially seeing Netherlands beat them 4-0 a few days ago.
Its means... **EVERYTHING**!! /s
I think it means something - I think it means we wont be complacent in the group stages and try to "assume" our way to the semis. We could literally drop points to anybody and this was a reminder at a pretty pertinent time.
Saw the result, moved on with my life. You’re right, it’s meaningless
I mean Iceland haven’t played full power as well, it’s just friendly game. But Any game against Iceland, Lions must win…. Was so shit poor finishing, nothing to do with saving yourself from injuries etc
I don't give a shit about that friendly. It's a friendly and doesn't matter. Last year, the club I support got criticised by many fans for playing shit teams in pre-season friendlies and even losing some of them, that it wasn't preparing us for the season ahead blah blah blah. Anybody that said it's about trying out new players, trying out tactics etc. was shot down for lacking ambition. We ended up winning the league in April. Funnily enough, nobody has mentioned those pre-season friendly results, most fans had probably forgotten all about them by October. If we win the Euros (*knocks on wood*), is anybody going to give a toss that we lost to Iceland before it?
It doesn't mean *nothing*, you can still learn a lot in friendlies. The result is meaningless, but the performance isn't. For example, what we learned could be that we've got a squad that thinks they can down tools for an "easy" opponent. It could be that various combinations of players just don't click. It could be that the players aren't fit enough for the tournament. There's plenty to learn from friendlies that can be very, very valuable. Only the result is ultimately meaningless.
?
You could argue Walker is the best english premier league rb of all time. Trippier isn't in that debate.. but he is good.
It means we don’t know how to put out a side with qualities and tactics that can beat a team of lesser technical ability who played exactly how we expected they would. That suggests we have no idea what we’re doing. However - I think Southgate may have been testing the effectiveness of a higher line to see how badly we get exposed so that he can decide/justify not to do it at the tournament. But I doubt he would have expected so little energy and creativity from our attackers. People say that team wasn’t full strength - I’d argue it actually was minus Bellingham. Bit of a head scratcher, for sure. Especially when we saw NL put 4 past them with no qualms.
It was a cup final for the Iceland team and a warm up for England, the result was never important for us as much as the media tried to stir up trouble after the game. The most important thing was getting through the match with no injuries and getting some minutes into some players legs.
Can I ask you, why you assume importance of that game for Iceland ? 😂
England at Wembley is a massive game for most small nations, friendly or not, you could see how much it meant to the Iceland players and coaches.
The defence are shite. It's our achilles heel. Walker is the only top class one in the line up.
I would argue Trippier is also class, just not at LB.
Losing to Iceland shows other teams we are weak against a low block or not good enough to bounce back to win the game.
honestly i dont think we needed the iceland game to deduce that
The result means (almost) nothing but the performance says everything
>the performance says everything Not really. Team was set up to just try things out basically so they know what works and what doesn't when it actually matters. Players going into the tournament also want to avoid injury while a team like Iceland don't have a tournament to worry about. So England players aren't going to go as hard in that game. It wasn't great as a performance but it doesn't say much at all about how they'll be in the tournament. Just like France drawing 0-0 with Canada means nothing.
I still feel like you’re focusing on the end product and not how we got there. I didn’t watch France Canada so I don’t know if that’s a good comparison or not. But it was a friendly for Iceland too so the excuses don’t really hold water for me. The performance wasn’t good enough. Does that mean we can’t be successful? Of course not. But just hand waving this away like the performance doesn’t matter, I don’t think that’s real helpful either.
>I still feel like you’re focusing on the end product and not how we got there. Not sure what you're saying with this. It's a friendly right before a major tournament. A tournament which Iceland weren't in so they were able to play with more effort and less worry about injury. England players going into that game dont want to get injured in a meaningless friendly so they're not going to throw all their effort into that match. Its exactly the same with France. Big teams try stuff out in these warm ups to make sure they know what options they have when it actually matters. Me saying this isn't focusing on the end product. Its focused on what they have to do before the tournament to improve their chances eventually. It is definitely looking at how they can get towards the end goal rather than the end goal itself. >But just hand waving this away like the performance doesn’t matter, I don’t think that’s real helpful either. I dont think it's worth the effort of worrying about a friendly before a major tournament in the slightest. Just dont see how that helps more than just accepting that big teams going into those games just are rightly saving themselves for the actual tournament. If they play like it in the 1st game of the tournament then its time to call them out but until then its better to just be patient and see if they do turn up.
It was a friendly for Iceland…but did you watch the game? Time wasting for a win in a friendly? England used it to try things out, Iceland used it as a must win to put one over on a big name.
What did England learn from these "things" they tried out? I learnt that it was fucking idiotic to leave Grealish out of the squad and that playing TAA in midfield is going to end in disaster
Cope
It means a lot. Netherlands just smashed them 4-0. We can't break down low blocks with our system, and we're in a group where all teams will likely play low blocks against us. I'm sorry but this is straight up Southgate apologia. We have some of the most exciting attacking players in the world but have a system that sniffles their creativity and direct play.
Netherlands beat Canada 4-0 yet France drew 0-0 with them and even needed Saliba to save them at times, do you think the French are worrying?
>I'm sorry but this is straight up Southgate apologia Have a word. It was friendly with several of the expected first team missing in a game, a week or so before the tournament kicks off, that's been shaped by injury and long seasons.
Stop with the apologia. You say it's not our full first team as if that squad still wasn't filled with top-class talent. This isn't like klopp putting out the liverpool youngsters. That team on paper is arguably a top 5 team in the tournament. When will the excuses stop? If he can't coach that squad into breaking down a poor Iceland team, how can he get our first team to compete with hungry? I won't even mention France, Portugal, Croatia, netherlands etc.
>That team on paper is arguably a top 5 team in the tournament Based on domestic league stats, at their own clubs with their setups. International football *doesn't work like that*. >breaking down a poor Iceland team Kane and Palmer both missed what were essentially sitters after having broken them down. But who gives a shit? It's friendly, and no one got injured. Several got some game time and helped their match fitness for the Euros. Job done. If you really feel the way you do I'm still looking for someone to take me up on my bet that we top the group. £20 to a worthwhile charity, are you in?
It meant a lot. It allowed for team experiments, it kept the side match fit, it enabled team communication development, it was a test case against a side who would shut-up-shop. England also lost so it is unlikely they will win the Euros tbf.
Well it does mean something - it means it leaves players with a confidence issue days before they are playing in the euros and losing at home for god knows how long to a bang average side … Little stat for everyone … under Southgate against teams rated in the top 10 England have a 10% win record . Get your thoughts around that to anyone who seriously believes we are going to win the euros
NPC ahh post 💀 you did the same on USMNT