The Jack Grealish (and occasionally England) Thread: It's coming home attempt 5782570

[craigcwwe]

31 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I think it comes down to what you want Tripper to do, really. If he's tucking in to allow the midfield to outnumber and play higher up the pitch and constantly on the front foot, I'm all for that. Getting the ball constantly into the likes of Foden much closer to goal would be a huge advantage

 

But if we're playing with two DMs as rumoured?...

Doesn't really make any sense in that case for Trippier to start at LB and tuck inside.

[EnterUsernameHere]

1 minute ago, craigcwwe said:

But if we're playing with two DMs as rumoured?...

Doesn't really make any sense in that case for Trippier to start at LB and tuck inside.

It's negative as ****. Southgate should be criticised for that line up, regardless of the result. 

[craigcwwe]

Just now, EnterUsernameHere said:

It's negative as ****. Southgate should be criticised for that line up, regardless of the result. 

It just doesn't make any sense to start Trippier at LB, have him tuck inside as a DM when we're rumoured to be starting with two DMs already. Bizarre. 

[Pukey]

He's had Phillips be more of a box to box before so that might be the plan. Which is daft as he's about a billion times better as a DM than a B2B but there you go.

[EnterUsernameHere]

1 minute ago, Pukey said:

He's had Phillips be more of a box to box before so that might be the plan. Which is daft as he's about a billion times better as a DM than a B2B but there you go.

If he's looking for a box to box player then picking Phillips over Bellingham is still such a boring Southgate decision.

[Hazzaj]

1 minute ago, craigcwwe said:

It just doesn't make any sense to start Trippier at LB, have him tuck inside as a DM when we're rumoured to be starting with two DMs already. Bizarre. 

What could be the idea is by having fullbacks on both sides that are used to coming inside and contributing to midfield is as a way to counter Croatia's strength in the middle. Obviously will have to see how it plays out but given that Brozović-Kovačić-Modrić is almost as good as any country's midfield, it doesn't sound a horrendous idea to try limit its influence by outnumbering them.

Again would definitely prefer to have Bellingham in over one of Rice or Philipps.

[Pukey]

Just now, EnterUsernameHere said:

If he's looking for a box to box player then picking Phillips over Bellingham is still such a boring Southgate decision.

Don't disagree. If he wants to play 2 DMs to try and control the midfield and nullify their threat, I get it and Rice/Phillips is a good combo, but if he wants Phillips to be more attacking then he should be starting Bellingham. I think he'll be a bit of a hybrid, mostly defensive but expected to contribute to the attack occasionally. It's probably a bit negative but I'm not sure I trust Stones and Mings without that protection.

[themadsheep2001]

3 minutes ago, Pukey said:

Don't disagree. If he wants to play 2 DMs to try and control the midfield and nullify their threat, I get it and Rice/Phillips is a good combo, but if he wants Phillips to be more attacking then he should be starting Bellingham. I think he'll be a bit of a hybrid, mostly defensive but expected to contribute to the attack occasionally. It's probably a bit negative but I'm not sure I trust Stones and Mings without that protection.

Agree on this. If you want a Box to Box, play Bellingham

[Marc Albrighton]

5 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Agree on this. If you want a Box to Box, play Bellingham

He doesn't want a B2B, he wants a safe boring lineup designed to not lose.

[adhikapp]

Yep he's clueless

[themadsheep2001]

4-2-3-1 apparently. Which makes lots of send to have Rice and Phillips as the double pivot, but less sense to play Trippier

[enigmatic]

Call me a traditionalist, but I think if you do want Trippier for set pieces, he's perfectly capable of playing on the right  

[bigdunk]

Chilwell and Sancho missing from the bench, plus Maguire. Must be injured?

[MIR17]

11 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Call me a traditionalist, but I think if you do want Trippier for set pieces, he's perfectly capable of playing on the right  

Never seen him play on the Left so he might be good there.

Shaw and Chilwell are decent enough players but I don't get why people think them being left out is a some kind of scandal. They're both solid if not a bit inconsistent left-backs, neither are hardly world class full backs or game changers for us.

 

Sancho not making the bench is the biggest worry. I can only assume he's injured?

[Marc Albrighton]

6 minutes ago, bigdunk said:

Chilwell and Sancho missing from the bench, plus Maguire. Must be injured?

I dont think can name everyone in the squad that doesn't start on the bench can we? They aren't necessarily injured they could just simply be left out.

[enigmatic]

1 minute ago, MIR17 said:

Never seen him play on the Left so he might be good there.

Shaw and Chilwell are decent enough players but I don't get why people think them being left out is a some kind of scandal. They're both solid if not a bit inconsistent left-backs, neither are hardly world class full backs or game changers for us.

They're both better left backs than Trippier (or Walker), particularly if as has been suggested Croatia are weak at defending that side of the pitch

Nothing special about our central midfield either, but if we were playing James there people would be asking why not play a decent player in position rather than a decent player out of position.

[darren1983]

12 minutes ago, Marc Albrighton said:

I dont think can name everyone in the squad that doesn't start on the bench can we? They aren't necessarily injured they could just simply be left out.

Yeah but you probably wouldn't have 2 sub keepers unless you have to 

[EnterUsernameHere]

2 minutes ago, darren1983 said:

Yeah but you probably wouldn't have 2 sub keepers unless you have to 

Agreed, but... it’s Southgate.

[MIR17]

15 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

They're both better left backs than Trippier (or Walker), particularly if as has been suggested Croatia are weak at defending that side of the pitch

Nothing special about our central midfield either, but if we were playing James there people would be asking why not play a decent player in position rather than a decent player out of position.

Can't say I've ever seen Trippier play left back to judge him there. Whoscored said he played left back or left wing back a few times for Atletico Madrid's La Liga winning side this season though?

[Harryseaess]

24 minutes ago, bigdunk said:

Chilwell and Sancho missing from the bench, plus Maguire. Must be injured?

No injuries to either Chilwell or Sancho apparently.

[enigmatic]

6 minutes ago, MIR17 said:

Can't say I've ever seen Trippier play left back to judge him there. Whoscored said he played left back or left wing back a few times for Atletico Madrid's La Liga winning side this season though?

Are we looking at the same Whoscored? That has him invariably playing on the right for Simeone, and suggests last time he played left back was for Gareth,,,

Edited June 13, 2021 by enigmatic

[The_jagster]

10 minutes ago, darren1983 said:

Yeah but you probably wouldn't have 2 sub keepers unless you have to 

Every team in the Champions League squads seems to have 3 keepers in the 23, I'm assuming it is a rule for the Euros too.

[Razzler]

Really not a fan of Walker, seen him be too clumsy, too many times

I'd have Trippier there over him all day long and Chillwell/Shaw as left back

[JJ72]

hes played 4 times at LB in his career - 3 times for England.

[EnterUsernameHere]

1 minute ago, Razzler said:

Really not a fan of Walker, seen him be too clumsy, too many times

I'd have Trippier there over him all day long and Chillwell/Shaw as left back

Walker seemed to escape for what was a poor season for him. Not sure why he seems to be a lock for England, but haven’t really watched you since the World Cup.

[MIR17]

14 minutes ago, Razzler said:

Really not a fan of Walker, seen him be too clumsy, too many times

I'd have Trippier there over him all day long and Chillwell/Shaw as left back

Walker is still a much better player than Chilwell.

Chilwell is one of the streakiest players in history. Great for 10-15 games then a calamity for 10-15 games with rarely anything in between. It's only because he ended the season in one of his good streaks on the back of an awful mid-season streak that people are calling for him to be in the team.

[Harryseaess]

The more I think about it the more mental it is to play Trippier at LB.

The best LB in the league or the LB who has just won the CL, I know, I'll play a RB there. An absolute farce.

[ryan045]

Haaa yessssss.

[Harryseaess]

 

[Gizmo7]

 

[Pukey]

Pleasing start  Phillips  

[Rob1981]

Definitely coming home now.

[skybluedave]

Can't believe Southgate started Rice and Phillips.

[EnterUsernameHere]

1 minute ago, skybluedave said:

Can't believe Southgate started Rice and Phillips.

Did they need both? 

People judging on results and not performances baffle me.

[Smallen]

2 minutes ago, EnterUsernameHere said:

Did they need both? 

Phillips does not make the run for the goal if Rice is not playing.

edit: In fact, Phillips doesn't do much of the stuff that he did so well if Rice is not playing. 

[RTHerringbone]

People constantly trying to throw mud baffles me.

Phillips and Rice worked great as a pair. It was not negative in my opinion.

[enigmatic]

3 minutes ago, EnterUsernameHere said:

Did they need both? 

People judging on results and not performances baffle me.

It'd be quite hard to find against Phillips on performances...

[EnterUsernameHere]

Just now, Smallen said:

Phillips does not make the run for the goal if Rice is not playing. 

Maybe not. That's 1 moment over 90 minutes though.

Maybe England would have lost if they didn't play both, but I just can't agree with the implication that Southgate's team won it for England. If anything he held it back.

[Hazzaj]

5 minutes ago, EnterUsernameHere said:

Did they need both? 

People judging on results and not performances baffle me.

I mean I wasn't convinced by the selection either but they made me eat my words this afternoon, might not have been as noticeable as the work they did with the ball but they did a really good job of breaking up Croatian moves in the middle of the park and forcing them wide from where they offered little threat.

They weren't flash by any means, just did what they were supposed to do in the system they were played in.

[ajw10]

6 minutes ago, EnterUsernameHere said:

Did they need both? 

People judging on results and not performances baffle me.

it was a great performance, I can only assume you are reluctant to admit this because it's England and because they didn't play all the attackers

[skybluedave]

16 minutes ago, EnterUsernameHere said:

Did they need both? 

People judging on results and not performances baffle me.

I'd say so yeah. Phillips wouldn't have made the goal if Rice wasn't playing. 

I'm taking the **** obviously coz I'm giddy and had too many beers. I didn't expect Phillips to play advanced and so well. I assumed it was a 2 -1 but it was a 1-2 and Phillips was great. Feels like Southgate learnt from the Semi final which is encouraging. Hopefully this isn't peak Phillips and he can continue this level

But for sake of balance I didn't agree with Southgate's other subs. I thought Bellingham for Kane was way negative. Even though Kane was anoymous. It invited presure. I assumed he was coming on for Sterling. 

[EnterUsernameHere]

Just now, Hazzaj said:

I mean I wasn't convinced by the selection either but they made me eat my words this afternoon, might not have been as noticeable as the work they did with the ball but they did a really good job of breaking up Croatian moves in the middle of the park and forcing them wide from where they offered little threat.

They weren't flash by any means, just did what they were supposed to do in the system they were played in.

Wouldn't really criticise them. They did their job. I was just saying that the original post was nonsense. Did the Trippier performance work? No, but England won so I guess we can't criticise that.

Just now, ajw10 said:

it was a great performance, I can only assume you are reluctant to admit this because it's England and because they didn't play all the attackers

It just wasn't great. Deserved win yes, great performance? Not a chance.

[EnterUsernameHere]

2 minutes ago, skybluedave said:

I'd say so yeah. Phillips wouldn't have made the goal if Rice wasn't playing. 

I'm taking the **** obviously coz I'm giddy and had too many beers. I didn't expect Phillips to play advanced and so well. I assumed it was a 2 -1 but it was a 1-2 and Phillips was great. Feels like Southgate learnt from the Semi final which is encouraging. Hopefully this isn't peak Phillips and he can continue this level

But for sake of balance I didn't agree with Southgate's other subs. I thought Bellingham for Kane was way negative. Even though Kane was anoymous. It invited presure. I assumed he was coming on for Sterling. 

I wouldn't really criticise the tactics. Not as negative as I expected. But if you replay that game 100 times I'd still only pick 1 of Phillips/Rice.

 

[ajw10]

3 minutes ago, skybluedave said:

I'd say so yeah. Phillips wouldn't have made the goal if Rice wasn't playing. 

I'm taking the **** obviously coz I'm giddy and had too many beers. I didn't expect Phillips to play advanced and so well. I assumed it was a 2 -1 but it was a 1-2 and Phillips was great. Feels like Southgate learnt from the Semi final which is encouraging. Hopefully this isn't peak Phillips and he can continue this level

But for sake of balance I didn't agree with Southgate's other subs. I thought Bellingham for Kane was way negative. Even though Kane was anoymous. It invited presure. I assumed he was coming on for Sterling. 

I thought the Bellingham sub was good because it freed up Rashford to stretch Croatia. My issue was Rashford for Foden, if you need to sub Foden off you have to use someone who is comfortable on the right

[enigmatic]

3 minutes ago, EnterUsernameHere said:

Maybe not. That's 1 moment over 90 minutes though.

Maybe England would have lost if they didn't play both, but I just can't agree with the implication that Southgate's team won it for England. If anything he held it back.

It's one moment over 90 minutes England controlled midfield against opponents with good, hardworking midfielders. You can question elements of Southgate's selection and subs, but the idea we were held back because he picked the best player on the pitch instead of a specialist 10 or 17 year old is laughable.

 

4 minutes ago, skybluedave said:

But for sake of balance I didn't agree with Southgate's other subs. I thought Bellingham for Kane was way negative. Even though Kane was anoymous. It invited presure. I assumed he was coming on for Sterling. 

We shoved Rashford forward to threaten them in behind and brought in someone that could link up with him as well as win the ball back. It was hardly negative. Only real question mark with that sub is whether Kane ought to have come off earlier 

[ajw10]

3 minutes ago, EnterUsernameHere said:

Did the Trippier performance work? No

Yes? He defended well and tucked in a lot, causing Croatia to have to play out wide. Southgate crowded the central areas as much as possible to force Croatia wide

[EnterUsernameHere]

Just now, ajw10 said:

Yes? He defended well and tucked in a lot, causing Croatia to have to play out wide. Southgate crowded the central areas as much as possible to force Croatia wide

Could Shaw have done that and added more going forward?

[ajw10]

Just now, EnterUsernameHere said:

Could Shaw have done that and added more going forward?

Maybe? But the difference is very negligible. Shaw isn't an exceptional full back that we must play.

Plus Trippier is better in possession and tucking in can use his right more. Trippier's left is also much better than Shaw's right

[AM99]

I think great performance is a bit too far - we were pretty solid at the back (albeit that may be in part to Croatia offering very little going forwards) and in general controlled the game, but we looked pretty incoherent going forwards - don't think any of our attacking options played particularly well. Still, an excellent result and definitely something to build on going forwards.

[MIR17]

Haha. I've never seen players stocks go up so far in a few hours like Luke Shaw and Ben Chilwell's have done today.

Imagine telling someone 6 months ago that people would be going so crazy on Shaw and Chilwell being left out ffs.