Group C: Slovenia, Denmark, Serbia, England

[TheStig]

2 hours ago, Foxy DK said:

I agree with much of it, but I do think you’re a bit harsh and miss some things. Most importantly we have played entertaining football under Hjulmand. Not so often the past two years, but in ‘21 and NL. We’ve also beaten both France and England without digging trenches as under Hareide (whom I like btw). Also, Hjulmand has shown excellent game management in these games, tactical flexibility and inspirational ambitions.

It’s also way harder to train the players to play like Hjulmand wants us to than Hareides style - especially in the NT where as you point out they don’t have a lot of time to do it, and the players aren’t hand picked. It requires so much more planning and detailed coaching and he’s extremely good at those core features of his profession.

 

Qatar was a failure because the top of the FA didn’t know what to do and let the team handle the public criticism - an impossible task. We should have boycotted it imo, but as we didn’t it shouldn’t be on Hjulmand or the players to explain. 

Sorry - are you seriously stating that DK have played entertaining football under Hjulmand? The football has been dire, slow and uninspiring. Now and again the team wakes up and creates a result. But he is being heavily critizised for his inflexibility, game management - or lack of -  and picking of out of form "favorites", and a draw against an equally boring England doesn´t change that.

[Spudulike]

 

[ramboacdc]

Slovakia today managed more shots on target in 20 minutes than we managed in the whole of yesterday or against Serbia. 

 

 

[BKLFox]

10 minutes ago, ramboacdc said:

Slovakia today managed more shots on target in 20 minutes than we managed in the whole of yesterday or against Serbia. 

 

 

Half true cancel that True

Edited 21 June by BKLFox

[Col city fan]

England have the players to churn out a superb performance. It’s in them. We could have a situation in the last 16 where we muller the opposition.

But you have to go on recent performances and the manager, who’s defensive by nature. Given that, I stand by my previous post that I don’t think we’ll go any further than the final 16. As Simon Jordan said this am: “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig” 🐷 

Southgate’s England, against really good opposition, could well be a pig

[Foxy DK]

40 minutes ago, TheStig said:

But he is being heavily critizised for his inflexibility, game management - or lack of -  and picking of out of form "favorites",

All of which is ridiculous - one game where he doesn’t sub early and people claim he’s inflexible. Come on.

 

And either you didn’t read my post properly or you don’t remember very well. After Hjulmand took over we played many very entertaining games. We’ve scored 100 goals in 52 games under him and averages 2.02 points per game. Hareide is next with 1.93 and we’ve played vs better opponents under Hjulmand while trying to create games where Hareide wanted to concede possession and play on the counter.

[ClaphamFox]

In his post-match interview last night, Southgate bemoaned the lack of balance on the left owing to the absence of Luke Shaw. Yet it was Southgate's decision to not bother with another left-footed full back, making it inevitable that we would end up playing with right-footed players at left back, rendering us hopelessly lopsided. Why did he drop Tyrick Mitchell from the initial squad. That decision is looking weirder and weirder by the day... 

Edited 21 June by ClaphamFox

[Ian S]

1 hour ago, Col city fan said:

England have the players to churn out a superb performance. It’s in them. We could have a situation in the last 16 where we muller the opposition.

But you have to go on recent performances and the manager, who’s defensive by nature. Given that, I stand by my previous post that I don’t think we’ll go any further than the final 16. As Simon Jordan said this am: “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig” 🐷 

Southgate’s England, against really good opposition, could well be a pig

Is that the same Simon Jordan who has predicted we will win the tournament.

[Corky]

Yes, it is a results business but playing this way will only get you so far. Tournaments also are about memorable moments if you don't win it, we have had several over the decades but I think we will probably exit having had the least enjoyable and memorable matches.

[RowlattsFox]

Tbf with Trent, a lot of people have suggested he plays in midfield in the past so there is a lot of captain hindsight going on. However it needed to be tried in qualifying, and not against San Marino. 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

40 minutes ago, Corky said:

Yes, it is a results business but playing this way will only get you so far. Tournaments also are about memorable moments if you don't win it, we have had several over the decades but I think we will probably exit having had the least enjoyable and memorable matches.

 

This is the crux of it, I think. I don't think our national fanbase is that hard to please, we were broadly pleased with a 1-1 draw with Russia we should've won in 2016 under Roy because we looked quite good in spells?

 

People bleat on about the weight of expectation on England, but I genuinely think as a nation we'd have been fine with a draw against Denmark if we approached yesterday with an ounce of attacking intent. It's the nature of the way these games play out that's crap rather than the results.

[Col city fan]

1 hour ago, Ian S said:

Is that the same Simon Jordan who has predicted we will win the tournament.

Completely different Simon Jordan, mate. Lives round the corner from me and delivers fags for a living.

😉

[Dan LCFC]

9 hours ago, Finnegan said:

Not really bothered looking at the bracket much til now. 

 

Am I right in saying you won't meet any other group winner until at least the semi finals? 

 

Where as Spain Germany will almost certainly be a quarter final as will potentially (assuming they get their shit together) Belgium France? 

 

Southgate gets some ****ing luck in the draws doesn't he

He's the luckiest manager in football. Even in this group he's lucked it through both of the other games ending in draws.

[Dan LCFC]

1 hour ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

This is the crux of it, I think. I don't think our national fanbase is that hard to please, we were broadly pleased with a 1-1 draw with Russia we should've won in 2016 under Roy because we looked quite good in spells?

 

People bleat on about the weight of expectation on England, but I genuinely think as a nation we'd have been fine with a draw against Denmark if we approached yesterday with an ounce of attacking intent. It's the nature of the way these games play out that's crap rather than the results.

It's a myth, and the point about the media more so. Our media are far kinder than pretty much any of our counterparts. They definitely snapped yesterday though.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Obviously there’s a lot of debate about who should play where for England - and indeed that is a problem.

 

But for me, one of the more obvious problems is that none of the camp look like they’re enjoying being there.

 

I haven’t spotted anything like dropping song names into interviews, random TikTok’s, the squad going on a massive bender together… the sort of things that makes the idea of playing yet more football at the end of a long hard season that little bit more bearable and indeed fun.
 

This probably shouldn’t be a surprise given I imagine Southgate is a right mood hoover to play for… but I’d suggest this is as big a problem as who plays where and in what formation.

 

I also ponder if this is another area where Southgate has errrd in squad selection, as I would suggest including Grealish would have at least made the camp a little more lively - even if he was just there to carry water bottles all tournament long.

 

My other issue with Southgate (and fans in general) is the obsession over who should be in the starting 11.

 

Gone are the days that all 11 have to play the full 90. There’s now 5 subs available to managers - so they really should be thinking of 11 + 3 changes as part of a game plan to get the best out of their squads (leaving a manager 2 subs for other issues).

 

That means in my mind Southgate should probably be looking at the front combinations that gets the best out of Kane for 60/70 minutes, to then be replaced with 3 players that can then get the best out of your second striker (Watkins) for the remainder.

 

This could mean that both Bellingham and Foden play at 10, just at different stages of a game - and would help manage the game time of your most important assets through a tournament. 
 

Clearly, Southgate won’t do this, so this is largely a moot point for the this competition… but hopefully this evolved mindset might creep into the thoughts of the many, many pundits and online commentators that continue to focus purely on a starting 11. 

 

[Tielemans63]

Thought this was a really interesting observation. The players are used to playing for world class coaches....and then they're coached by Southgate.

 

 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Obviously there’s a lot of debate about who should play where for England - and indeed that is a problem.

 

But for me, one of the more obvious problems is that none of the camp look like they’re enjoying being there.

 

I haven’t spotted anything like dropping song names into interviews, random TikTok’s, the squad going on a massive bender together… the sort of things that makes the idea of playing yet more football at the end of a long hard season that little bit more bearable and indeed fun.
 

This probably shouldn’t be a surprise given I imagine Southgate is a right mood hoover to play for… but I’d suggest this is as big a problem as who plays where and in what formation.

 

I also ponder if this is another area where Southgate has errrd in squad selection, as I would suggest including Grealish would have at least made the camp a little more lively - even if he was just there to carry water bottles all tournament long.

 

My other issue with Southgate (and fans in general) is the obsession over who should be in the starting 11.

 

Gone are the days that all 11 have to play the full 90. There’s now 5 subs available to managers - so they really should be thinking of 11 + 3 changes as part of a game plan to get the best out of their squads (leaving a manager 2 subs for other issues).

 

That means in my mind Southgate should probably be looking at the front combinations that gets the best out of Kane for 60/70 minutes, to then be replaced with 3 players that can then get the best out of your second striker (Watkins) for the remainder.

 

This could mean that both Bellingham and Foden play at 10, just at different stages of a game - and would help manage the game time of your most important assets through a tournament. 
 

Clearly, Southgate won’t do this, so this is largely a moot point for the this competition… but hopefully this evolved mindset might creep into the thoughts of the many, many pundits and online commentators that continue to focus purely on a starting 11. 

 

 

Alright Da Vinci Code

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

1 hour ago, Tielemans63 said:

Thought this was a really interesting observation. The players are used to playing for world class coaches....and then they're coached by Southgate.

 

 

 

Spells realised with a z - not reading this 

[shen]

8 hours ago, Foxy DK said:

I agree with much of it, but I do think you’re a bit harsh and miss some things. Most importantly we have played entertaining football under Hjulmand. Not so often the past two years, but in ‘21 and NL. We’ve also beaten both France and England without digging trenches as under Hareide (whom I like btw). Also, Hjulmand has shown excellent game management in these games, tactical flexibility and inspirational ambitions.

It’s also way harder to train the players to play like Hjulmand wants us to than Hareides style - especially in the NT where as you point out they don’t have a lot of time to do it, and the players aren’t hand picked. It requires so much more planning and detailed coaching and he’s extremely good at those core features of his profession.

 

Qatar was a failure because the top of the FA didn’t know what to do and let the team handle the public criticism - an impossible task. We should have boycotted it imo, but as we didn’t it shouldn’t be on Hjulmand or the players to explain. 

As impressive as wins against France and England are, you cannot overstate friendly results. And you conveniently leave out the two defeats against Croatia.

 

'21 is misleading - without going on at length about it, we won the games we were expected to (except Finland) and lost deservedly to the two superior sides we faced. We relied on exceptional performances by Christensen, Mæhle and Damsgaard (and the two latter have seriously struggled ever since, to much worry). Yes, we trounced Russia and Wales and beat Czechia convincingly, which makes the torunament look better in retrospect than it maybe was.

 

The more recent Qatar and '24 campaigns were terrible to uninspiring at best. If it wasn't for Højlund's breakthrough in the first few games, we might have faced the embarrasment of being knocked out for the largest Euros ever - and he too has been toothless virtually ever since.

 

Your Qatar explanation doesn't wash with me. 

 

Firstly, Denmark were not alone in being under scrutiny - every Western side was. 

 

Secondly, you can MAYBE excuse the first game being affected by this, but the team falling apart against a workmanlike Australia in the final game is entirely on Hjulmand and the players.

 

Thirdly, the same squad faced the Eriksen crisis which was visibly far more stressful and harrowing than a few media questions.

 

Finally, the leaders of the squad (Schmeichel, Kjær, Højbjerg, Braithwaite, Poulsen) are all very opinionated and used to dealing with and expressing themselves in the face of tricky media questions. They're not afraid to express themselves when it's in their interest. 

 

In summary, the infamous inquest that was set in motion after the embarrassing exit has only sought to externalise the issues and point the finger away from the squad. We've not been seeing or hearing about any changes in approach from the coaching staff, adjustments to preparations or even significant player renewal.

 

5 hours ago, Foxy DK said:

All of which is ridiculous - one game where he doesn’t sub early and people claim he’s inflexible. Come on.

 

And either you didn’t read my post properly or you don’t remember very well. After Hjulmand took over we played many very entertaining games. We’ve scored 100 goals in 52 games under him and averages 2.02 points per game. Hareide is next with 1.93 and we’ve played vs better opponents under Hjulmand while trying to create games where Hareide wanted to concede possession and play on the counter.

He has persisted with Mæhle, Damsgaard, Braithwaite, Poulsen, Dolberg, Nissen, Delaney and dare I say Schmeichel (who many, though not me, want tonreplace with Mads) when their form has been poor.

 

He's been late to include O'Riley, Casper Nielsen, Hermansen and even M Hjulmand. Not to mention he's virtually disregarding anyone from the Danish League. 

 

But this is all subjective, so you can easily argue the other way as well.

Hareide performed magnificently with us and broke records - so expressing that Hjulmand's tactics or methods are 'harder to train' becomes a drawback. Hareide's record stands up well and he had us playing effective, if sometimes one-dimensional football - which lest we forget was the most fruitful for our one star player!

Edited 21 June by shen
Spelling

[Foxy DK]

1 hour ago, shen said:

As impressive as wins against France and England are, you cannot overstate friendly results. And you conveniently leave out the two defeats against Croatia.

Nations League games aren’t friendlies, and I’m not overstating them. I just point out that we have beat some very good teams. I also never said that we never lose so I don’t see how that’s relevant.

 

As for team selection it’s not a question of individual names (though, you really want him to pick players from the Danish League?!?), but whether you really believe that Hjulmand picks players for any other reason than optimizing our chances of winning - you might not agree with him which is fine, but I’m sick and tired of people questioning his motives. I don’t think claims that he picks his friends or former players just to do them favors are worthy of a debate.

 

You might have some good points about Qatar, I didn’t watch it nor did I care. But I do think they should’ve been able to shake it off and move on quicker than they’ve done, including Hjulmand.

1 hour ago, shen said:

Hareide performed magnificently with us and broke records - so expressing that Hjulmand's tactics or methods are 'harder to train' becomes a drawback. Hareide's record stands up well and he had us playing effective, if sometimes one-dimensional football - which lest we forget was the most fruitful for our one star player!

as I said I like Hareide. But as impressive as it was that we went unbeaten for 30+ games (including friendlies which you just said shouldn’t be overstated though) it’s not really worth anything, is it? And Hjulmand has more points and goals per match anyway. Hjulmand’s tactics are better for a team of our quality if you want the best chances to achieve big things. When it works, it gives us as much control as possible for a side with the players we have leaving less up to chance. It hasn’t worked for a long time, though, but I think we’re getting back on track now.

 

That’s just my opinion of course. I will point out again though that you’ll be hard pressed to find a single Danish top coach who doesn’t think Hjulmand is a very, very good tactician - like David Nielsen pointed out again yesterday.

Edited 21 June by Foxy DK

[Ely fox]

I took my daughter who is 7 to football training at Cambridge City last night and who did I bump into but Jamie Cureton. His wife was all dolled up standing next to me and Jamie Cureton was playing in goal (not with the under 8’s) just messing about. 1,000 professional games to his CV and only retired from playing professional football last year. And the new Cambridge City manager randomly. 

[Ely fox]

Jamie Cureton must have some tenuous link to England at some point 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Oh good they're staying "calm". I was starting to worry then!

[Corky]

1 minute ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Oh good they're staying "calm". I was starting to worry then!

Pointing at your forehead makes all the difference.

[shen]

18 hours ago, Foxy DK said:

...

I don't question Hjulmand's motives. At worst, his player selections are marginally off, but most of the time the Danish 26-man squad will be self-evident - our talent depth just isn't that big. 

 

It's always been an issue - or rather a limitation - for Denmark that we do not truly have competition for places beyond the first row of subs.

This also means that when key players are unavailable/off form, the manager needs to be bold and pragmatic and play accordingly. And that's something I feel Hjulmand hasn't done enough or been successful doing.

 

I wonder what it is that you see us doing now which is giving you optimism. We're just poor at creating good chances, which has been a problem for a loooong time.

 

The media made it sound like we were the superior side against England, but the more balanced view is that we were pretty much equal. England were closest to winning hitting the post - our (half-)chances were almost exclusively from range and our goal was a wonderstrike. The xG gave a good picture.

 

As for his tactical nous, I do think it's a team effort. Our analysts are decent and Wieghorst seems a great foil to Hjulmand. For sure, Hjulmand is up there, but not the only one.

 

Frank, Tomasson, Laudrup, Henriksen, Priske, Riemer all have something about them. I definitely expect Tomasson to be manager at some point in the future (so awkward seeing him manage Sweden!)

 

I appreciate having the discussion @Foxy DK, you've highlighted some valid points I wasn't aware of