Jump to content

England - Euro 2016 Thread


Djstu23

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
And they sacked their coach, which is what this discussion is about.

But Hodgson hasn't failed to qualify for a tournament... So doesn't really mean anything to the discussion. You said qualifying for tournaments for 'big nations' is a foregone conclusion, it's anything but. You still need to win your games, if you don't, you don't qualify, and the manager will get sacked. Plenty of examples of 'big nations' not qualifying over the years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Hodgson hasn't failed to qualify for a tournament... So doesn't really mean anything to the discussion. You said qualifying for tournaments for 'big nations' is a foregone conclusion, it's anything but. You still need to win your games, if you don't, you don't qualify, and the manager will get sacked. Plenty of examples of 'big nations' not qualifying over the years.

If a big nation doesn't qualify the coach gets sacked. It's literally the minimum requirement. We expect to qualify with ease. Struggle through qualifying it's ok, qualify with ease it's "job done", nothing to praise a manager for. His failure at the World Cup is the defining moment of his reign so far, not his qualification for 2 tournaments or par performance at the Euros in 2012. You said yourself we aren't Welsh, qualification shouldn't be a measurement for success!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Hodgson hasn't failed to qualify for a tournament... So doesn't really mean anything to the discussion. You said qualifying for tournaments for 'big nations' is a foregone conclusion, it's anything but. You still need to win your games, if you don't, you don't qualify, and the manager will get sacked. Plenty of examples of 'big nations' not qualifying over the years.

I didn't, I said you shouldn't appraise a coach based on the fact he got to the tournament. That's the bare minimum.

But as it happens, for most nations it is. Holland ****ing it up so spectacularly isn't the norm for nations like that. It happens maybe once every 10 years. Where are these examples? I can think of England 2008, Holland 2002.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a big nation doesn't qualify the coach gets sacked. It's literally the minimum requirement. We expect to qualify with ease. Struggle through qualifying it's ok, qualify with ease it's "job done", nothing to praise a manager for. His failure at the World Cup is the defining moment of his reign so far, not his qualification for 2 tournaments or par performance at the Euros in 2012. You said yourself we aren't Welsh, qualification shouldn't be a measurement for success!

Honestly don't know where you're getting the idea that England have always qualified with ease for tournaments from :D Have a read back of the qualifying campaigns, the vast majority have been anything but easy.

Anyway, lets see how he does over the next few weeks.

What's your bare minimum expectation btw? Semis? Quarters?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly don't know where you're getting the idea that England have always qualified with ease for tournaments from :D Have a read back of the qualifying campaigns, the vast majority have been anything but easy.

Anyway, lets see how he does over the next few weeks.

What's your bare minimum expectation btw? Semis? Quarters?

Quarters, if we don't make it out the group he should be sacked before the team leave France. If we lose in the second round it'd be really poor. Quarters is when tournaments get tough depending on the draw, I'd aim for the semis but quarters wouldn't be a disaster, it'd be average.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly don't know where you're getting the idea that England have always qualified with ease for tournaments from :D Have a read back of the qualifying campaigns, the vast majority have been anything but easy.

Anyway, lets see how he does over the next few weeks.

What's your bare minimum expectation btw? Semis? Quarters?

To be fair, for the past few campaigns, that's exactly what England have done. The pot 1 self-fulfilling prophecy combined with some kind draws means that they are never really in any real danger of not qualifying. And they'll probably do the same again for the World Cup unless Scotland can raise their game massively (or Slovakia, or Slovenia) but they'll probably bully the group, finish top unbeaten, and then the cycle begins again.

I think that actually hinders England though in a way. They breeze through groups, rarely being tested, then once they hit a tournament where they're amongst the "top" 32 or 16 (or 24 now) sides involved, then they flatter to deceive. Or do they? Because if England fans are being honest, they're really a pretty average side in international terms.

I'm not meaning that in a "you're pure pish btw" way. You've got the top tier teams that are always there or thereabouts. Then you have those that sit below, and on a good day can push that top tier. But if they're going to play to type, then they're probably quarter final sides, semis if they really have a blinder. England are in that bracket. Before the World Cup, I had them going as far as the quarter finals given the way the groups panned out. Instead, they lost a tight game to Italy, switched off against Uruguay, and that was that. Fine margins, and that's what is going to affect teams like England.

In terms of expectations (and I don't really have a horse in the race) I'd say it should be like this

Group Stage Exit: Unthinkable

Second Round Exit: Slightly disappointing - it would depend on the draw though. They could get a nightmare draw and go out, or get an easy draw and go through. Or vice versa. I imagine if they drew, say, Germany then people wouldn't be too disappointed at a second round exit. Draw a relative diddy and it'll be pitchforks.

Quarter Final: Par to Above Average (again, depends who they've drawn)

Semi Final and beyond: Way above expectations

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, for the past few campaigns, that's exactly what England have done. The pot 1 self-fulfilling prophecy combined with some kind draws means that they are never really in any real danger of not qualifying. And they'll probably do the same again for the World Cup unless Scotland can raise their game massively (or Slovakia, or Slovenia) but they'll probably bully the group, finish top unbeaten, and then the cycle begins again.

I think that actually hinders England though in a way. They breeze through groups, rarely being tested, then once they hit a tournament where they're amongst the "top" 32 or 16 (or 24 now) sides involved, then they flatter to deceive. Or do they? Because if England fans are being honest, they're really a pretty average side in international terms.

I'm not meaning that in a "you're pure pish btw" way. You've got the top tier teams that are always there or thereabouts. Then you have those that sit below, and on a good day can push that top tier. But if they're going to play to type, then they're probably quarter final sides, semis if they really have a blinder. England are in that bracket. Before the World Cup, I had them going as far as the quarter finals given the way the groups panned out. Instead, they lost a tight game to Italy, switched off against Uruguay, and that was that. Fine margins, and that's what is going to affect teams like England.

In terms of expectations (and I don't really have a horse in the race) I'd say it should be like this

Group Stage Exit: Unthinkable

Second Round Exit: Slightly disappointing - it would depend on the draw though. They could get a nightmare draw and go out, or get an easy draw and go through. Or vice versa. I imagine if they drew, say, Germany then people wouldn't be too disappointed at a second round exit. Draw a relative diddy and it'll be pitchforks.

Quarter Final: Par to Above Average (again, depends who they've drawn)

Semi Final and beyond: Way above expectations

Think that's pretty accurate. But if we win our group we play against a third placed side. And if we finish second we face the runner up in group F(Portugal, Austria, Hungary, Iceland). Looking at that, anything but quarter finals is poor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think that's pretty accurate. But if we win our group we play against a third placed side. And if we finish second we face the runner up in group F(Portugal, Austria, Hungary, Iceland). Looking at that, anything but quarter finals is poor.

True. But that's still a huge number of teams you could potentially play. And there's still the potential for a 3rd place (Wales being really up for playing you, getting a win, then a disappointing draw against Russia and/or Slovakia). It looks like 3 points would get you third, possibly even 2 if other groups also have a shocker. That's not beyond the realms of possibility. But if you do finish 1st or 2nd, then it's any one from...

Portugal (2nd)

Austria (2nd)

Hungary (2nd)

Iceland (2nd)

France (1st/3rd)

Romania (1st/3rd)

Albania (1st/3rd)

Switzerland (1st/3rd)

Germany (1st/3rd)

Ukraine (1st/3rd)

Poland (1st/3rd)

Northern Ireland (1st/3rd)

Spain (1st/3rd)

Czech Republic (1st/3rd)

Turkey (1st/3rd)

Croatia (1st/3rd)

There's some good ones in there, but also some stinkers. You'd think they'd avoid Germany, Spain and France, as they'd have to finish 3rd. Austria would be a tough game if both sides finished 2nd, and if they can push Portugal down, then Ronaldo would love a bit of that again.

Don't think you can say in that case that not making the quarter finals would be "poor". It's not like the World Cup, just seeing that there's 16 potential opponents in the second round makes it dreadful to predict. Before a ball is kicked, second round should be par for England (which will be adjusted as they go)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom of our group in the World Cup, Quarter Final in Euro 2012. That's not a good job at all. Judge him on friendlies and qualifying all you want but tournaments are what matter. Sven got us to 3 quarter finals. McClaren failed miserably. Even Capello got us through the group before THAT game against Germany. Hodgson failed to get us out the group for the first time in 6 major tournaments, in the first tournament he had time to prepare for. He's lucky to still be in charge.

That was one of the easiest groups ever and we still only managed to draw 0-0 with Algeria and finish 2nd to the USA. We should've won that group with ease and avoided Germany in the next round. That performance overall was worse than WC14.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're England, we are always crap no matter our manager. Roy's done a good qualifying job. If we do rubbish, then he's no better or worse than any other manager of the modern era. Our players are always too crocked or knackered to play their best.

I remember before 2007, England fans thought England were always one of the contenders, in with a good chance. Then 2007 happened and they went to the other extreme, pretending England were as bad as Andorra, one of the worst teams when at worst they're one of the best 16 in the world.

In reality they're like a France, or Spain before they got going. General group stagers with the odd foray into the nosebleed of the quarters.

Should they do better? Only 2000 and 2008 were under-par in the last 2 decades really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Capello got us through the group before THAT game against Germany
That was one of the easiest groups ever and we still only managed to draw 0-0 with Algeria and finish 2nd to the USA. We should've won that group with ease and avoided Germany in the next round. That performance overall was worse than WC14.

easy.jpg

Oops...

Link to post
Share on other sites

We still only managed to draw 0-0 with Algeria and finish 2nd to the USA. We should've won that group with ease and avoided Germany in the next round. That performance overall was worse than WC14.

God that was awful. Remember us taking the ball to the corner from about 80 minutes to protect a 1-0 lead against Slovenia (Slovenia!), while in the other game USA got a late winner to finish above us on goals scored.

If we'd actually gone for a second goal we could have got Ghana then Uruguay or South Korea as a potential route to the semis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually interested and a bit excited in tonight's England match for once (at least in a while)...tournament football is on the horizon and it's time to start enjoying competitive summer football :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see England preparing for tournament football in their usual manner: playing all their friendlies with home advantage.

Even played France in England a while ago. Says it all about what takes priority regarding England's football.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't they play Germany away a couple of months back? :D

They also once won the World Cup in 1966!

England play the vast majority of their friendlies at home, but even ignoring that, 2 away fixtures in the last 7 (i.e last year of friendlies) before the finals (including playing at home against the host!!) is comic tragedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany away in March.

Spain away last November.

Ireland, Italy and Scotland away in the last three friendlies immediately before that.

Also played Republic of Ireland in the 1990 World Cup and once had a match against Trinidad & Tobago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They also once won the World Cup in 1966!

England play the vast majority of their friendlies at home, but even ignoring that, 1 away fixture in the last 6 friendlies before the finals including against the host is comic tragedy.

Just to ask - are you English?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you gonna reply to everything by saying something completely random and unrelated?

Just like this?

They also once won the World Cup in 1966!

or this?

Also played Republic of Ireland in the 1990 World Cup and once had a match against Trinidad & Tobago.

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you gonna reply to everything by saying something completely random and unrelated?

Pineapple ;)

You said England played all their friendlies at home including a game against France which was in Novemeber, I just pointed out that since the France game (that you mentioned) England had gone to Germany and played a friendly, Rob then also pointed other away friendlies in the last 12 months to which you were the one to reply with random statements about playing Ireland 26 years ago.

I then merely wondered if you were English as judging by your posts in this forum you seem to have a dislike for the national team.

Is that clear now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like this?

or this?

:rolleyes:

Precisely, I was replying in kind. You get it!

Except the World Cup reference. England once won the World Cup in 66, doesn't mean they did it in the last 5 World Cups. Now you get it!

Pineapple ;)

You said England played all their friendlies at home including a game against France which was in Novemeber, I just pointed out that since the France game (that you mentioned) England had gone to Germany and played a friendly, Rob then also pointed other away friendlies in the last 12 months to which you were the one to reply with random statements about playing Ireland 26 years ago.

I then merely wondered if you were English as judging by your posts in this forum you seem to have a dislike for the national team.

Is that clear now?

Well my eyes have been opened. All this time I literally thought England played every game at home. Except Germany, I'm not that thick, I just thought I was watching Bayern Munich vs Spurs in this year's Cup Winners' Cup.

Why is the random 'hater' card being drawn, and why are you remembering my posts, mister?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my eyes have been opened. All this time I literally thought England played every game at home. Except Germany, I'm not that thick, I just thought I was watching Bayern Munich vs Spurs in this year's Cup Winners' Cup.

Why is the random 'hater' card being drawn, and why are you remembering my posts, mister?

Let me try this again

You made a statement that England played all their pre tournament friendlies at home - a perfectly reasonable point.

You then mentioned the France game from back in November - it was at this point I thought I'd point out we had played friendly away from home since then.

You then randomly mentioned England winning the world cup.

Rob then pointed out a few more friendlies played away from home.

This prompted you to mention even more random games.

I asked about where you are from as you (along with a couple of other people) seem to take any chance you can get to have a go at England so I wondered where that came from.

And with that I'm out. You carry on fella.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see England preparing for tournament football in their usual manner: playing all their friendlies with home advantage.

Even played France in England a while ago. Says it all about what takes priority regarding England's football.

Preparation is usually done in a similar country to the one the tournament is in so considering the tournament is in France I would say it makes a lot of sense for the friendlies over the last week to be in England.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Preparation is usually done in a similar country to the one the tournament is in so considering the tournament is in France I would say it makes a lot of sense for the friendlies over the last week to be in England.

Sure, but the problem is they're at home, so while the weather may be similar the rest is pretty much the opposite. Home crowd, opposition all playing as an away team, no real travel.

You then mentioned the France game from back in November - it was at this point I thought I'd point out we had played friendly away from home since then.

Rob then pointed out a few more friendlies played away from home.

And I again just thanked you for dropping that bombshell that England don't in fact play literally every single friendly home. Something I insinuated by saying they played 1 away game in their last 5 (and 2 in 7). Can you guess what away game I was referring to? :p

Rob randomly quoted things before November 2015, so I randomly quoted things from before 2015. Thaht's the joake.

You're not actually out. If you were out, you wouldn't have replied. Best to avoid using internet argument clichés and tactics, otherwise it's a self-fullfilling prophecy and our discussion will have as favourable an end result as a Scottish qualifying campaign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but the problem is they're at home, so while the weather may be similar the rest is pretty much the opposite. Home crowd, opposition all playing as an away team, no real travel.

Home crowd I'll give you for what its worth but opposition will be playing away at the tournament (Unless we meet France) while the games have been in Manchester, London & Sunderland so again similar traveling to what happens in a tournament.

Had the tournament been further away you would have had a case but given the tournament is so close it makes your point redundant IMO. I also suspect that had the tournament been further away England wouldn't have played three home friendlies as has been the case for previous tournaments.

TBH I'm not even sure what your point was, England don't play all their friendlies at home, thats a fact. Friendlies also tend to be worked so each International window you have a home & an away game, this is no different to other countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Home crowd I'll give you for what its worth but opposition will be playing away at the tournament (Unless we meet France) while the games have been in Manchester, London & Sunderland so again similar traveling to what happens in a tournament.

Had the tournament been further away you would have had a case but given the tournament is so close it makes your point redundant IMO. I also suspect that had the tournament been further away England wouldn't have played three home friendlies as has been the case for previous tournaments.

TBH I'm not even sure what your point was, England don't play all their friendlies at home, thats a fact. Friendlies also tend to be worked so each International window you have a home & an away game, this is no different to other countries.

If France being close means it doesn't matter, do you recall how England prepared and then performed for 2006? And 2000? 3 home friendlies (and one away... to Malta). Do you also recall what fans thought of those performances? Meanwhile, think back to 2002, a more comfortable looking England. 3 of 6 friendles at home, two of which in the host countries.

England play a significant majority of their friendlies at home, especially in the run up to finals. As a team that doesn't like playing away and is in the top 10 or 15 in the world anyway, they should be trying to get plenty of experience in different countries playing away, finding out how to play against teams how they would play at home or at neutral ground. No safety net of a nice familiar journey to the ground followed by playing in front of tens of thousands of fellow countrymen bathing you in support on a pitch you've played on dozens of times. A different experience, until it becomes a familiar experience and one less thing to adapt to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally not sure why Sturridge is there. Not sure what he offers. There are already 4 other strikers in the squad, and if Roy wants to play a 4-3-3 or whatever, Wilshere can play wide right. Has Sturrdige play wide right for Liverpool? He's been mostly injured, so I haven't followed him at all.

I think this squad would do well to reach the 1/4. That should be their aim. Anything less should be disappointing, and anything more should be a bonus.

Unlike the Sven's team who I thought underachieved by reaching the 1/4, based on the talent he had available. Striker and GK aside, almost anyone from Sven's team would walk into this current one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be delighted with quarter final. Would mean we'd win a knockout game for the first time in 10 years which would be fun.

Such a strange vibe going into this. Weve won all our pre tournament friendlies so you'd think think we'd be a bit confident but we've not looked too convincing in the games. Maybe we are just all natural pessimists, probably some Italian or German fan out there looking at us and thinking 'England aren't pretty but they get results, I can see them grinding out narrow wins and making the semis or something' whereas we are expecting the worse

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally not sure why Sturridge is there. Not sure what he offers. There are already 4 other strikers in the squad, and if Roy wants to play a 4-3-3 or whatever, Wilshere can play wide right. Has Sturrdige play wide right for Liverpool? He's been mostly injured, so I haven't followed him at all.

Sturridge is our best natural finisher. Kane is our best overall striker but in a straight 1v1 or the ball falling to him in a congested box, I'd take Sturridge and is a perfect bench option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally not sure why Sturridge is there. Not sure what he offers. There are already 4 other strikers in the squad, and if Roy wants to play a 4-3-3 or whatever, Wilshere can play wide right. Has Sturrdige play wide right for Liverpool? He's been mostly injured, so I haven't followed him at all.

I think this squad would do well to reach the 1/4. That should be their aim. Anything less should be disappointing, and anything more should be a bonus.

Unlike the Sven's team who I thought underachieved by reaching the 1/4, based on the talent he had available. Striker and GK aside, almost anyone from Sven's team would walk into this current one.

Last night showed why Sturridge is in the sqsuad. Roy picked 3 strikers from the start and if he plans to do that in the tournament then you need at least 2 back-ups. Since Rashford is a rookie, it helps to have someone with experience. He also provides a different option, the ability to pull off something special and is a natural finisher.

After last night's performance of the front 3, personally I'd be dropping Rooney and Vardy and putting Sturridge up top with Kane with Wilshere or Lallana coming into midfield.

Roy's problem now seems to be that he is trying to please everybody by picking Vardy and Kane for their club form, picking Rooney because he is Rooney and also Alli for his form this season. But they don't all fit together - he needs to pick his best "team", not necessarily his best players. His comment the other day about "players winning games, not systems" seems to allude to the fact that he can't find a system to fit his preferred players so he'll just throw them all on and ask them to do things that aren't natural to them and hope it works out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it entirely depends on the team we are playing.

If we are playing against a team that are defensive then we will probably end up needing to stretch them, the diamond isn't really set up for that so the 4-3-3 comes into play. This is where losing Welbeck and subsequently not picking townsend becomes an issue because we lack players that can play there effectively. (welbeck in particular because he has the flexibility for us to change a system during the game without making subs) Putting Rooney or Vardy in one of the wide striker positions is a waste, you could probably at a push put Sturridge out on the left but otherwise you are looking at Lallana and Sterling in those positions with Kane in the middle.

In the more competitive games (ie. if we make it out of the group) against teams that can keep possession far better than we can, compactness and counter attacking is the key. Vardy on the shoulder up front along with Kane with a diamond midfield behind them and the full backs providing pace and width for the counter attack.

but you're right, it's the picking of the players in that system which is Roys problem. the diamond with Rooney at the tip just didn't work last night and the strikers were stretched too far wide because Rooney hasn't got a bloody clue. i'm hoping that these 3 friendlies were just experiments to see how players reacted to being in certain positions because there's no point shoehorning players in. for me (ignoring the defence and keeper for a sec) depending on the system it should be either

Kane--Vardy

----Alli----

CM1---CM2

----Dier

or

Lallana--Kane--Sterling

CM1---Dier---CM2

where CM1 or 2 ISN'T Rooney

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strikers going wide has nothing to do with Rooney. It was the same when the played that system vs. Australia - Rashford and Sterling were wide. Is that because Lallana doesn't have a clue as well? No, it's because that's what Hodgson wants them to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strikers going wide has nothing to do with Rooney. It was the same when the played that system vs. Australia - Rashford and Sterling were wide. Is that because Lallana doesn't have a clue as well? No, it's because that's what Hodgson wants them to do.

He wants them to do it as he has Rooney shoehorned into that role. It was basically a poor imitation of a false 9. Rooney was regularly the furthest forward player with Kane and Vardy as full on wingers, then Rooney would drop deep but they'd still be pretty wide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He wants them to do it as he has Rooney shoehorned into that role. It was basically a poor imitation of a false 9. Rooney was regularly the furthest forward player with Kane and Vardy as full on wingers, then Rooney would drop deep but they'd still be pretty wide.

No, he wants them to do it because he wants them tracking back bizarrely. Rooney was average, but can't believe he's getting the blame for Roy's setup. Also it definitely wasn't a poor imitation, because he wasn't a nominal 9 in the first place. He didn't need to ask the strikers to pull so wide and drop deep. One of the CFs should always be occupying the central defenders, with the other possibly looking for space, regardless of the 10

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strikers going wide has nothing to do with Rooney. It was the same when the played that system vs. Australia - Rashford and Sterling were wide. Is that because Lallana doesn't have a clue as well? No, it's because that's what Hodgson wants them to do.

the australia game was a 4-3-3 and last night was a diamond (to start with)? i don't remember the australia game already I have to admit

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he wants them to do it because he wants them tracking back bizarrely. Rooney was average, but can't believe he's not getting the blame for Roy's setup. Also it definitely wasn't a poor imitation, because he wasn't a nominal 9 in the first place. He didn't need to ask the strikers to pull so wide and drop deep. One of the CFs should always be occupying the central defenders, with the other possibly looking for space, regardless of the 10

Exactly, as with any normal front two. And it's why I keep saying Kane and Vardy doesn't work. One of them has to look for space, and neither does it for their club. I know people keep saying Kane is a natural 10 or whatever, but nobody has seen him play this way, so it's pointless getting him to do it. And we know it isn't Vardy's best role either.

The front two needs to be one of Kane or Vardy. And alongside that one of Rooney or Sterling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia was exactly the same as last night. Only went to 4-3-3 in the second half.

well screw that then, if that's how Roy is playing the diamond then I don't want to see that rubbish. like i said before hopefully he was just experimenting. it should be simple really but there you go

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from it working against the World Cup holders of course

it will work. in a proper front two. like in the diamond we've played before that didn't involve centre forwards going out to the touchline to defend. that's whats confusing me now about these recent friendlies, we didn't see that nonsense before so why now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from it working against the World Cup holders of course

For what, 15 mins? I swear this is how Hodgson thinks as well. The evidence since suggests otherwise. A good period in a game doesn't automatically mean it's a massive success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from it working against the World Cup holders of course

Hard to say how well it worked when Vardy only played the last 20 minutes. But I reckon it's a system that works better against a bigger team. It is less likely to work up against a team that will set out to defend against us and hit on the counter, which is likely to be all 3 group games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...