Jump to content

Jack Grealish


kevangrealish
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I actually think as a national team coach the job IS to pick the 11 most in form players. That's the concept in it's very essence. Otherwise you are picking just on reputation, club bias and habit. 

Konsa should definitely be in this squad, and I think the exclusion of Konsa and Watkins is arguably more strange than not playing Jack - after all Jack has been injured for a while. 

But not playing Jack as well is very very strange, cause when you looked at the match yesterday, all though I've just watched some of it, England struggled massively with creativity and carrying the ball forward. It was hoofball, hit and run, and after taking the lead they were desperate to get some time on the ball and free kicks. Literally every single aspect of Jack's game would have suited the game yesterday. 

And before Sterling fluked a deflected goal into the net, he looked absolute turd. I just don't get the point of both Sterling and Foden. They offer much the same stuff. You would be far better off having Jack wide on the left.

I also think England would look a lot better with a player like Watkins than Kane. Not that Kane isn't a good player, but England desperately needs mobility up top. You'd look so much better with a more mobile striker. 

The England managers remit is to win games. That’s it. Yesterday the England team won, and never looked like losing. Job done. Professional and efficient, though not spectacular. I think Southgate missed a trick by not taking Watkins, as Ollie is fantastic at hassling the backline with his endless energy, not to mention he does also score goals. I also don’t particularly rate Calvert-Lewin as highly as others do, I think he’s quite one dimensional in that he’s good in the air. But with just the one game played, Southgate got it right. Tougher tests to come.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Junxs said:

Im still baffled how a man with a career highlight of getting Middlesbrough relegated and failing to bring them up again landed the England job. When we had weaker squads we had top managers and when we have strong squad we have a weak manager.

You see Italy being managed by Mancini, then you look to England's manager and his achievements of managing Middlesbrough to relegation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, OxfordVillan said:

The England managers remit is to win games. That’s it. Yesterday the England team won, and never looked like losing. Job done. Professional and efficient, though not spectacular. I think Southgate missed a trick by not taking Watkins, as Ollie is fantastic at hassling the backline with his endless energy, not to mention he does also score goals. I also don’t particularly rate Calvert-Lewin as highly as others do, I think he’s quite one dimensional in that he’s good in the air. But with just the one game played, Southgate got it right. Tougher tests to come.

I disagree I'm afraid. Yes, we need to win, but we also need to build momentum by playing our best players and those players need to gain an understanding on the pitch so that when we face the better teams in the latter stages, we've given ourselves the best chance to win.

We should be able to beat Croatia with the players that didn't even make the final 26 man squad, that's how much depth we have. Beating them and only having 2 shots on target is not an achievement. It's literally the least i'd expect. 

We have Kyle Walker playing ahead of Reece James. We have a right back playing left back. We are playing two defensive midfielders when there is only a need to play one and our best player is on the bench.

Like we do with every tournament, we're going to roll out the same old cliche's...
'Best to get the bad game out of the way first',
'You can only beat what is put in front of you',
'3 points is all that matters',
'We'll grow into the tournament'. 

It's all nonsense. We'll come up against a decent side at some point and we'll be knocked out. At the last World Cup, we played three tough matches. Belgium twice and Croatia and we lost all three and people are sat there scratching their head asking the question, 'well how on earth did that happen, we beat Panama 6-0?'. 

We're going nowhere with Southgate. When is the last time we outplayed a good team? F*** me, we finished third in our Nations League group for christ sake behind Belgium and Denmark. 

Apologies if I'm not more optimistic but we're wasting an opportunity to win a big tournament with this failed man in charge. 

Edited by Delphinho123
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, OxfordVillan said:

The England managers remit is to win games. That’s it. Yesterday the England team won, and never looked like losing. Job done. Professional and efficient, though not spectacular. I think Southgate missed a trick by not taking Watkins, as Ollie is fantastic at hassling the backline with his endless energy, not to mention he does also score goals. I also don’t particularly rate Calvert-Lewin as highly as others do, I think he’s quite one dimensional in that he’s good in the air. But with just the one game played, Southgate got it right. Tougher tests to come.

So, so, so wrong.

The remit is to win tournaments.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


23 minutes ago, OxfordVillan said:

The England managers remit is to win games. That’s it. Yesterday the England team won, and never looked like losing. Job done. Professional and efficient, though not spectacular. I think Southgate missed a trick by not taking Watkins, as Ollie is fantastic at hassling the backline with his endless energy, not to mention he does also score goals. I also don’t particularly rate Calvert-Lewin as highly as others do, I think he’s quite one dimensional in that he’s good in the air. But with just the one game played, Southgate got it right. Tougher tests to come.

Yep definitely. But you do that by picking your best performing players. Or in form players. Tactics is obviously a thing, but you have enough players to pick from whatever tactic you choose. Looking at your tactic against Croatia for instance, Watkins would have made way more sense than Kane ever did. But Southgate does what Southgate does.

I also don't think Southgate got it right. I think you looked pretty fortunate to win that match. It had draw all over it. You hardly created and it took a deflected shot to get a 1 goal win. I think with the attacking talent in that England squad and what some even call the Golden Generation, I think is pretty weak. Croatia isn't what they once were either. They are an aging squad with some of the biggest names IIRC.

I'd say anyone thinking Southgate got it right because you scraped a 1-0 win is papering some pretty big managerial cracks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Thug said:

So, so, so wrong.

The remit is to win tournaments.

 

Well, yes. But I don’t think it takes too much of a stretch of the imagination to conclude that if you win your games you win tournaments! 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OxfordVillan said:

Well, yes. But I don’t think it takes too much of a stretch of the imagination to conclude that if you win your games you win tournaments! 

Ah, but no.

winning 9 games and losing 1 actually gives you a 90% success rate under your definition.

winning 9 games and losing the final gives a 0% success rate under my definition.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s the Bruce Paradox - huffing and puffing your way to wins to do well enough to survive is not the same as building a foundation for a tournament win. The chances of coming unstuck are higher when you play to nick a win than going out and being the dominant side, especially when you’re the better team.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

I disagree I'm afraid. Yes, we need to win, but we also need to build momentum by playing our best players and those players need to gain an understanding on the pitch so that when we face the better teams in the latter stages, we've given ourselves the best chance to win.

We should be able to beat Croatia with the players that didn't even make the final 26 man squad, that's how much depth we have. Beating them and only having 2 shots on target is not an achievement. It's literally the least i'd expect. 

We have Kyle Walker playing ahead of Reece James. We have a right back playing left back. We are playing two defensive midfielders when there is only a need to play one and our best player is on the bench.

Like we do with every tournament, we're going to roll out the same old cliche's...
'Best to get the bad game out of the way first',
'You can only beat what is put in front of you',
'3 points is all that matters',
'We'll grow into the tournament'. 

It's all nonsense. We'll come up against a decent side at some point and we'll be knocked out. At the last World Cup, we played three tough matches. Belgium twice and Croatia and we lost all three and people are sat there scratching their head asking the question, 'well how on earth did that happen, we beat Panama 6-0?'. 

We're going nowhere with Southgate. When is the last time we outplayed a good team? F*** me, we finished third in our Nations League group for christ sake behind Belgium and Denmark. 

Apologies if I'm not more optimistic but we're wasting an opportunity to win a big tournament with this failed man in charge. 

You disagree that the England manager has to win games? That’d be odd. I’ve no special feeling for Southgate but his selection yesterday was vindicated by the result. That really is all that matters in tournament football. As I said, Southgate will be judged on the tournament in its entirety, with bigger challenges laying ahead. But let’s wait to see if Southgate gets it right over the next few games, it’s not a good look when a set of fans seemingly turn on England because they think a Villa player should be getting selected every game. If England go out early and drearily then Southgate will get buckets poured on him, but give the England team a chance ffs! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


35 minutes ago, Junxs said:

Im still baffled how a man with a career highlight of getting Middlesbrough relegated and failing to bring them up again landed the England job. When we had weaker squads we had top managers and when we have strong squad we have a weak manager.

As far as I can gather, the reason he's England manager is because he was the England U21 manager for ages. So in their minds, he "knows this generation of players better" than anyone else.

By this logic, expect to see him replaced by Aidy Boothroyd in about 10 years time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Is there a grammatical nuance I'm not getting here? Don't you win tournaments by winning games?

Yes.

He said that the remit was to win games. That is all.

You can win a tournament by drawing two games, winning the rest.

You haven’t met your remit because you didn’t win your games…

…BUT you won a tournament.

 

Had he said ‘winning ALL the games’ then THAT would win you a tournament - but that’s still not the remit.  The remit is to win the tournament.

Edited by Thug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OxfordVillan said:

You disagree that the England manager has to win games? That’d be odd. I’ve no special feeling for Southgate but his selection yesterday was vindicated by the result. That really is all that matters in tournament football. As I said, Southgate will be judged on the tournament in its entirety, with bigger challenges laying ahead. But let’s wait to see if Southgate gets it right over the next few games, it’s not a good look when a set of fans seemingly turn on England because they think a Villa player should be getting selected every game. If England go out early and drearily then Southgate will get buckets poured on him, but give the England team a chance ffs! 

It really wasn't and we'll suffer later in the tournament because of this selection. 
We should be able to beat Croatia by playing a third XI. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Delphinho123 said:

It really wasn't and we'll suffer later in the tournament because of this selection. 
We should be able to beat Croatia by playing a third XI. 

The way I look at it is that Croatia barely had an attempt at goal, literally nothing. No sustained pressure, no part of the game that they remotely looked like being able to beat that England team yesterday. That’s a decent opening game, I’ll be looking to see a building momentum in the next two games. But in tournament football you give yourself a better platform by making sure you win your opening game. Anything less and you’re under pressure going into your next game. Let’s wait and see what England do in the next two games before writing them off 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OxfordVillan said:

The way I look at it is that Croatia barely had an attempt at goal, literally nothing. No sustained pressure, no part of the game that they remotely looked like being able to beat that England team yesterday. That’s a decent opening game, I’ll be looking to see a building momentum in the next two games. But in tournament football you give yourself a better platform by making sure you win your opening game. Anything less and you’re under pressure going into your next game. Let’s wait and see what England do in the next two games before writing them off 

Fair point. 
One thing I would say is, if Croatia didn't have any sustained pressure or remotely looked able to beat us, we probably should have had more than 2 shots on target...

Hopefully we smash Scotland and play well. That's what I really want to see. I want us to beat a decent team and make it look easy. I have no confidence at present that we'll get past a Belgium or a Spain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


it was a solid opening game. we have never won the opening game before. We didn't open up against the group wooden spoon, croatia are a decent side. We now have three points. It was also **** hot - if you think this was a slow game, Qatar is going to be a bruising tournament for your eyes.  It was efficient, I hope we improve and expand on this now, and do give the likes of jack game time, but this assault on southgate for only winning 1-0 and not well enough is absurdly disproportionate. Stop living in a mythical world of british exceptionalism where we deserve to win every game 5-0. If we don't improve, then fine go nuts and go run around with your pitckforks, but, not even being able to enjoy a win because it wasn't good enough or feature your favourite player is just cult-like insanity. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we beat Scotland and secure qualification I think Grealish will start against the Czech Republic (along with other unfancied players), completely dominate them, and then get dropped for the knockout games. If it wasn't for media and fan pressure I doubt Grealish would even be in the England squad. Southgate clearly has it in for him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â