Match 51 THE FINAL: Italy vs England - 8pm Sunday BBC1 AND ITV1 LIVE FROM WEMBLEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TM]

4 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:

You were missing a midfielder who can keep the ball and push the transition.

Rice did well, but he's not that player.

Same thing happened in 2018 semi-final.

it's something I think England have always had problems with, I remember Pirlo controlling the 2012 QF against England

Philips probably should have came off, not Rice

[Citizen Sandman]

1 minute ago, TM said:

I'm the same but I don't agree with Southgate being a "bottle job" because he isn't, he's just got England to their first major final in 55 years

England have the players, they have a manager they all love but I don't think he's the right guy to get them over the line.  Problem is, if you change it, you can mess things up with a manager that players don't like.  I feel England are untapped potential that might never get realised.  Wasn't going to happen but when England went 1-0 up, they should have went for Italy's throat and tried to kill it.  Italy were on the ropes for at least 20 minutes of that game and Kane was one of the reasons for that, spraying balls about

Yep, this whole debate about grealish sancho Foden saka...etc just feels there's a missing 'flairs about England from what they could be. 

He's got some players playing well but he's almost the wise man of the hill, been through alot and is a nice guy but where is the cut throat penetrative play. 

 

Re kane yes it's frustrating his style,  it's ok if you have an inside forward that can come inside when kane is deep and play as a legit striker but England don't really have that. 

Lots of players in the same position but not used as I'd hope

[themadsheep2001]

5 minutes ago, Citizen Kane said:

Yep, this whole debate about grealish sancho Foden saka...etc just feels there's a missing 'flairs about England from what they could be. 

He's got some players playing well but he's almost the wise man of the hill, been through alot and is a nice guy but where is the cut throat penetrative play. 

 

Re kane yes it's frustrating his style,  it's ok if you have an inside forward that can come inside when kane is deep and play as a legit striker but England don't really have that. 

Lots of players in the same position but not used as I'd hope

England have that in Rashford, which is why it was a surprise he didn't come on much earlier

[Christmas]

1 hour ago, Wiggins Top Boys said:

My wife is English with a Scottish parent and brought up in Scotland. She's always told me she hated growing up here and was made to never feel welcome. We have friends and family that quite frankly have taken friendly rivalry and shown themselves up as people full of bile and hatred towards the English. Yesterday my 3 year old daughter was even receiving comments for wearing her England shirt out in town.

This is not the thread to discuss my entire personal circumstances just to justify what I said. But I don't want my children to experience the same as what my wife did and yesterday was a nasty insight into that. So you can laugh all you like. I love Scotland and a lot of the people here but many, including people that are supposed to be my friend have showed themselves up massively and I am embarrassed for them.

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by Christmas
del

[eenie]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

England have that in Rashford, which is why it was a surprise he didn't come on much earlier

I do think that Southgate is very conservative with his attacking options, and this is most noticeable with his subs. I totally get building success on a solid platform but sometimes you have to press the advantage and one of England's main strengths is their attacking players. But maybe it's that link between defence and attack that's the problem area - when Kane is having to drop back into midfield to spray it around then something isn't quite right. He's a top quality player but surely he's there as the focal point of the attack?

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, eenie said:

I do think that Southgate is very conservative with his attacking options, and this is most noticeable with his subs. I totally get building success on a solid platform but sometimes you have to press the advantage and one of England's main strengths is their attacking players. But maybe it's that link between defence and attack that's the problem area - when Kane is having to drop back into midfield to spray it around then something isn't quite right. He's a top quality player but surely he's there as the focal point of the attack?

It goes two ways I think. If Kane drops deep then you should be playing Rashford more often. It's also why Sterling is just so vital. Or you switch the other way with more aggressive centre mids. When that link disappear second half either we need Rashford on for Mount, or we need to change the midfield a bit and get Kane further up the pitch

[Cilldara_2000]

20 minutes ago, Divinity said:

So many positives to take from this tournament and the English still turn to their favourite pastime: Who can be blamed for this?

This.

 

I mean like ffs, England's best performance at a finals since they last won one and the usual "hang the manager/players" attitude is out in full force.

 

[Bigwig]

We needed Jonjo Shelvey and Jo Willock to pick out those passes and score the vital goals. 

[enigmatic]

7 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

England have that in Rashford, which is why it was a surprise he didn't come on much earlier

Thing is, the only obvious player for Rashford to replace was Sterling, and after this tournament you can understand why the manager was reluctant to do that

[eenie]

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

It goes two ways I think. If Kane drops deep then you should be playing Rashford more often. It's also why Sterling is just so vital. Or you switch the other way with more aggressive centre mids. When that link disappear second half either we need Rashford on for Mount, or we need to change the midfield a bit and get Kane further up the pitch

Just needs a bit of tweak to the balance of the side - which is really one of the main purposes of making subs, isn't it?

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, enigmatic said:

Thing is, the only obvious player for Rashford to replace was Sterling, and after this tournament you can understand why the manager was reluctant to do that

Mount was definitely the obvious one early second half for me. Wasn't in the game really at all

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, eenie said:

Just needs a bit of tweak to the balance of the side - which is really one of the main purposes of making subs, isn't it?

Yeah, making the most of fine margins. Still, as I said, if you'd told me we lose on pens in the final before the tournament, I'd have taken that as a great tournament. And this squad is on an upwards curve. Roll on 2022

[TM]

2 minutes ago, Cilldara_2000 said:

This.

 

I mean like ffs, England's best performance at a finals since they last won one and the usual "hang the manager/players" attitude is out in full force.

 

I think it's just football fans really? we all love to analyse things to figure out where it went wrong and where it went right?

even if England had won last night, I'm sure there would still be some saying "there was things we did wrong though" could probably say it's "sports fans" rather than football ones, it's the same with NBA, NFL and other sports, you want to delve into the subject to get more information out of it and football nowadays has so many stats you can take out of it

[enigmatic]

2 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Mount was definitely the obvious one early second half for me. Wasn't in the game really at all

Mount does loads of defensive work and keeps the ball better under pressure though. Rashford definitely more of a threat on the counter, but you can understand why at 1-0 when Italy have loads of possession but England are really closing down shooting and crossing opportunities well and just need to hold onto the ball better the attacking substitution isn't the obvious one

[themadsheep2001]

Just now, enigmatic said:

Mount does loads of defensive work and keeps the ball better under pressure though. Rashford definitely more of a threat on the counter, but you can understand why at 1-0 when Italy have loads of possession but England are really closing down shooting and crossing opportunities well and just need to hold onto the ball better the attacking substitution isn't the obvious one

Aye, but we were under pressure because we didn't have an outlet and the ball just kept coming back, needed that outball I felt

[kopsy101]

1 hour ago, foolsgold said:

**** me Gunman your posts are always absolutely bizarre, writing with the benefit of hindsight as if choices in the first place were completely obvious and as if you would have done it perfectly every time. Everyone is a 'bottle job' and every player who isn't absolutely world class is 'awful'. Armchair football fans at their worst. You expect every game to finish 5-0 to the best team and anything less is crap. If coaching was this easy then why aren't you in charge somewhere?

Southgate is not without criticism, far from it, but calling him a coward and this and that... Opinions would have been totally different if the 50:50 lottery had gone the other way and we had won the thing. When it is on a knife edge as fine as that, coming out and saying he is a coward, a loser and and an awful manager when the absolute opposite would have been said about him if luck had gone the other way only shows that the overly harsh criticism of him is totally invalid.

Spot on, absolute weirdo.

[decapitated]

If anyone wants to discuss the disorder in the stadium and leave this thread for discussing the game I made a new thread here.

 

[Russell10]

Watching England with attacking talent they have to sit with full team behind the ball and 5 defenders for the majority of the game was chronic to watch.

 

Deserved to get beat, England should be going toe to toe with the talent they have.

[aggressive minor]

1 hour ago, Divinity said:

So many positives to take from this tournament and the English still turn to their favourite pastime: Who can be blamed for this?

Spot on

[InigoPatinkin]

3 minutes ago, aggressive minor said:

Spot on

The only issue I have with it is that the biggest culprits aren't actually English. I've barely seen any England supporters blaming anyone, even the manager. The majority of it has been "well, it was a great tournament, could have handled the final better but overall positive". Gunman has been the only one to really try to blame people and he's obviously not being genuine about it, he's just having a WUM. 

[Baptista_8]

12 minutes ago, InigoPatinkin said:

The only issue I have with it is that the biggest culprits aren't actually English. I've barely seen any England supporters blaming anyone, even the manager. The majority of it has been "well, it was a great tournament, could have handled the final better but overall positive". Gunman has been the only one to really try to blame people and he's obviously not being genuine about it, he's just having a WUM. 

You honestly believe that because someone criticised England that it must be a windup?

[The_jagster]

7 minutes ago, Baptista_8 said:

You honestly believe that because someone criticised England that it must be a windup?

Have you read Gunman's post before this tournament? Surprised he hasn't blamed Agnelli or Juve yet.

Edited July 12, 2021 by The_jagster

[VamPook]

 

[InigoPatinkin]

14 minutes ago, Baptista_8 said:

You honestly believe that because someone criticised England that it must be a windup?

No, that's not why I think Gunman is on a windup  

[GunmaN1905]

23 minutes ago, InigoPatinkin said:

 Gunman has been the only one to really try to blame people

I'm doing it only because most of you are going against everything that's been said for a month.

And I'm not talking about coming home banter etc.

I just can't see how a nation that wants to be considered big in NT football can so easily accept a cowardly loss at home after taking the lead in the first minute.

If you missed some opportunities or if Italy sh*thoused their way to penalties with one decent chance, you could say it's football.

But for me, as a neutral, this game is the literal definition of a manager being scared of the opportunity and then he rubs it off his players.

It's not like we're talking 2006 Italy here, they're not some super-stacked team.

And it's not like you had their road of Belgium and Spain to reach the finals.

 

Put a proper coach in Southgate's place and England wins this in regulation 9 out of 10 times.

This tournament has proven that coaches do make a difference.

[InigoPatinkin]

5 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:

I'm doing it only because most of you are going against everything that's been said for a month.

And I'm not talking about coming home banter etc.

I just can't see how a nation that wants to be considered big in NT football can so easily accept a cowardly loss at home after taking the lead in the first minute.

If you missed some opportunities or if Italy sh*thoused their way to penalties with one decent chance, you could say it's football.

But for me, as a neutral, this game is the literal definition of a manager being scared of the opportunity and then he rubs it off his players.

It's not like we're talking 2006 Italy here, they're not some super-stacked team.

And it's not like you had their road of Belgium and Spain to reach the finals.

 

Put a proper coach in Southgate's place and England wins this in regulation 9 out of 10 times.

This tournament has proven that coaches do make a difference.

We both know why you're doing it Gunman, you don't need to try and kid me  nothing wrong with a bit of schadenfreude and if people aren't as upset as you think they should be? Well you'll just tell them they should be more upset! 

I don't mind it, it's usually in good spirits even if you do have a tendency to be more dramatic than is healthy  people should just accept it for what it is. 

Edited July 12, 2021 by InigoPatinkin

[GunmaN1905]

1 minute ago, InigoPatinkin said:

We both know why you're doing it Gunman, you don't need to try and kid me

Believe what you want, but I'm not trying to kid anyone.

Playing such a ridiculously defensive setup at home when you have so many quality players of the bench is inexcusable.
You almost sh*thoused your way to the trophy, but football doesn't reward sh*thousery. Not when you have so much quality to play better and be the best scoring team in the tournament.

[themadsheep2001]

3 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:

Believe what you want, but I'm not trying to kid anyone.

Playing such a ridiculously defensive setup at home when you have so many quality players of the bench is inexcusable.
You almost sh*thoused your way to the trophy, but football doesn't reward sh*thousery. Not when you have so much quality to play better and be the best scoring team in the tournament.

Good god enough with the drivel. Greece and Portugal both shithoused their way to trophies.

Last time I checked Chelsea are Champions League Champions and they were remarkably dull.

Stop passing off your terrible opinions as facts. Stop telling people how they should feel after a final. It's nonsense

[craigcwwe]

9 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Few questions need answering by Southgate

1 - Bringing on pen takers isnt a bad idea, but why bring them on so late that their only real touch of the ball was the penalty? Give them some feel for the game first

2 - Why did none of the senior players step forward (apart from 2) to take one?

3 - Rashford never looked at the ball once during his run-up or kick. He was only concerned with the way the keeper was going. We supposedly practice pens all the time. That cannot be a planned tactic surely? No one trains someone to not look at the ball

He's done this many times for United, it wasn't something new he decided upon last night. 

Edited July 12, 2021 by craigcwwe

[InigoPatinkin]

3 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:

Believe what you want, but I'm not trying to kid anyone.

Gunman  we all know your two favourite things in the world are telling other fans they aren't upset enough about how **** their club/country played and hating Juventus, in that order. Like I said it's harmless stuff but come on... at least own it!

[Coulthard's Jaw]

 

[GunmaN1905]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

Greece

As I said, teams that have the quality to play better.

That was the only way Greece could play without getting destroyed by other teams.

I'll give you Portugal, but even they had better defenders than attacking players. And they proper sh*thousd it.

But then they lost right away in first round of the two following tournaments.

1 minute ago, InigoPatinkin said:

Gunman  we all know your two favourite things in the world are telling other fans they aren't upset enough about how **** their club/country played and hating Juventus, in that order. Like I said it's harmless stuff but come on... at least own it!

I don't think the players played sh*t. Only Mount and maybe Kane.
I think they were prevented from playing well because of your setup.

You were provided with two golden opportunities, especially this one.
There were plenty of teams who lost big games when most players were young and it was all about "they'll be back at it in no time", but second chance never came.

Especially because I'll believe in draws being rigged if you get the easiest possible road to the final third time in a row.

[Yuko]

7 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Good god enough with the drivel. Greece and Portugal both shithoused their way to trophies.

Last time I checked Chelsea are Champions League Champions and they were remarkably dull.

Stop passing off your terrible opinions as facts. Stop telling people how they should feel after a final. It's nonsense

How exactly did Greece do that? 

Apart from the semi final, Greece did not get any underserved result in 2004. 

 

Portugal got lucky with the 3rd place thing and was extremely lucky in the final on 2016, completely different story. 

 

This narrative of "crap Greece" has to end at some point.

Bosses Portugal in the first game, deservedly gets a point vs Spain, gets the benefit of luck to qualify on goal difference, beats holders France in an even game, beats the Czechs as underdogs over 90 minutes but the victory came after a dominant spell in extra time and not a random flukey strike, then beats Portugal again in a game that was less cagey than last night's final. 

 

Honestly, the only thing that's wrong with the Greek victory is that you (plural) didn't like the result. 

[GunmaN1905]

Just now, Yuko said:

Honestly, the only thing that's wrong with the Greek victory is that you (plural) didn't like the result. 

If you ask me, Herr Otto and his 11 brave warriors winning the EURO was the biggest f-you to modern football we've had since he did the same thing with Kaiserslautern.

Btw, funny how hosts keep losing these finals, especially because Portugal, France and now England were the favorites.

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, Yuko said:

How exactly did Greece do that? 

Apart from the semi final, Greece did not get any underserved result in 2004. 

 

Portugal got lucky with the 3rd place thing and was extremely lucky in the final on 2016, completely different story. 

 

This narrative of "crap Greece" has to end at some point.

Bosses Portugal in the first game, deservedly gets a point vs Spain, gets the benefit of luck to qualify on goal difference, beats holders France in an even game, beats the Czechs as underdogs over 90 minutes but the victory came after a dominant spell in extra time and not a random flukey strike, then beats Portugal again in a game that was less cagey than last night's final. 

 

Honestly, the only thing that's wrong with the Greek victory is that you (plural) didn't like the result. 

Not once did I call Greece crap. Nor did I complain about the result

[Yuko]

Just now, GunmaN1905 said:

If you ask me, Herr Otto and his 11 brave warriors winning the EURO was the biggest f-you to modern football we've had since he did the same thing with Kaiserslautern.

Btw, funny how hosts keep losing these finals, especially because Portugal, France and now England were the favorites.

It was a Euro where both Germany and Italy went home from the group stage and France still didn't shake off the 2002 failure completely. It was wide open for teams like Portugal, Spain, Netherlands and the Czechs to win it. Even England had a chance. That's why people are pissed about Greece ending up winning it. If Greece had beaten Germany or Italy they'd not be calling it a fluke or shithousery but a miracle, just like the Denmark result in 1992. 

[GunmaN1905]

2 minutes ago, Yuko said:

It was a Euro where both Germany and Italy went home from the group stage and France still didn't shake off the 2002 failure completely. It was wide open for teams like Portugal, Spain, Netherlands and the Czechs to win it. Even England had a chance. That's why people are pissed about Greece ending up winning it. If Greece had beaten Germany or Italy they'd not be calling it a fluke or shithousery but a miracle, just like the Denmark result in 1992. 

That was probably the best England team I remember.

I'd say the best team of the tournament.

Never felt like that after a big tournament game, lost 2-4 and felt like we got off lucky that it wasn't 1-6 or something.

[Yuko]

3 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:

That was probably the best England team I remember.

I'd say the best team of the tournament.

Never felt like that after a big tournament game, lost 2-4 and felt like we got off lucky that it wasn't 1-6 or something.

It was the best England team of the faux golden generation, but it wasn't really better than France, the Dutch, the Czechs and Portugal in 2004. 

Didn't like the Croatia side much from 2000 until 2008 honestly. 

[themadsheep2001]

2 hours ago, TM said:

I think it's just football fans really? we all love to analyse things to figure out where it went wrong and where it went right?

even if England had won last night, I'm sure there would still be some saying "there was things we did wrong though" could probably say it's "sports fans" rather than football ones, it's the same with NBA, NFL and other sports, you want to delve into the subject to get more information out of it and football nowadays has so many stats you can take out of it

Think it's also a coping mechanism for some as well. But ultimately think it's bad faith for people to be told how they should feel in this position. Their feelings are their own

[Reggiana]

10 minutes ago, Yuko said:

Bosses Portugal in the first game, deservedly gets a point vs Spain, gets the benefit of luck to qualify on goal difference, beats holders France in an even game, beats the Czechs as underdogs over 90 minutes but the victory came after a dominant spell in extra time and not a random flukey strike, then beats Portugal again in a game that was less cagey than last night's final.

Greece had one shot on target and scored with it in the final, fair enough that the narrative they weren't any good needs countering but you don't have to go to the other extreme of dressing them up as more than they were.

[GunmaN1905]

4 minutes ago, Yuko said:

Didn't like the Croatia side much from 2000 until 2008 honestly. 

Transition period.

Generation of '98 were all Yugoslavian school of football.
Due to obvious situation, it took some time for football schools to develop post-war.

Funny how we got to the final with by far the worst performances and roster compared to 2008, 2012 or 2016.

  

2 minutes ago, Reggiana said:

Greece had one shot on target and scored with it in the final, fair enough that the narrative they weren't any good needs countering but you don't have to go to the other extreme of dressing them up as more than they were.

So England almost Greeced Italy last night!

Edited July 12, 2021 by GunmaN1905

[Yuko]

12 minutes ago, Reggiana said:

Greece had one shot on target and scored with it in the final, fair enough that the narrative they weren't any good needs countering but you don't have to go to the other extreme of dressing them up as more than they were.

Portugal had 5 shots on target to Greece's 1. 

17 to 4 total. 

58% possession to 42%. 

Fouls were even despite this (18-19). 

Offsides were 4-3. 

Corner kicks 10 to 1. 

 

Want to compare with last night's final which was supposed to be an even affair? And this is over 135 minutes, not just 90. 

Shots 20-6 for Italy.

Shots on target 6-1 for Italy. 

61% possession for Italy to 39% for England. 

Fouls committed 21-13 (signals higher tactical awareness from the Italians given the possession figures)

Offsides 5-1.

Corner kicks 3-5. 

 

You are posting in a thread where the vast majority feels like they could have won the game or at least could have done more and it doesn't sound like a cat chasing a mouse type of game, yet the numbers scream this. 

So maybe either this number thing isn't the way to go about it, or something else happened in 2004 from what has remained in people's minds.

[HOORAY HENRIK]

ARREST THAT MAN

 

[Reggiana]

2 minutes ago, Yuko said:

Portugal had 5 shots on target to Greece's 1. 

17 to 4 total. 

58% possession to 42%. 

Fouls were even despite this (18-19). 

Offsides were 4-3. 

Corner kicks 10 to 1. 

 

Want to compare with last night's final which was supposed to be an even affair? And this is over 135 minutes, not just 90. 

Shots 20-6 for Italy.

Shots on target 6-1 for Italy. 

61% possession for Italy to 39% for England. 

Fouls committed 21-13 (signals higher tactical awareness from the Italians given the possession figures)

Offsides 5-1.

Corner kicks 3-5. 

 

You are posting in a thread where the vast majority feels like they could have won the game or at least could have done more and it doesn't sound like a cat chasing a mouse type of game, yet the numbers scream this. 

So maybe either this number thing isn't the way to go about it, or something else happened in 2004 from what has remained in people's minds.

I thought Italy were comfortably the better side last night, England could have won because it got to a shootout but it wouldn't have been merited.

I thought Portugal were the better side in 2004 but I always thought Pauleta was useless.

[Yuko]

1 minute ago, Reggiana said:

I thought Italy were comfortably the better side last night, England could have won because it got to a shootout but it wouldn't have been merited.

I thought Portugal were the better side in 2004 but I always thought Pauleta was useless.

Surely Portugal was the better side, but it wasn't a one sided affair. 

Last night was far more one sided but the early England goal would have you fooled. (Or be the reason for this). 

Edited July 12, 2021 by Yuko

[enigmatic]

Just now, InigoPatinkin said:

Gunman  we all know your two favourite things in the world are telling other fans they aren't upset enough about how **** their club/country played and hating Juventus, in that order. Like I said it's harmless stuff but come on... at least own it!

Those and BOTTLED!

 

33 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:

You almost sh*thoused your way to the trophy, but football doesn't reward sh*thousery. 

It's only a few days since you were moaning about Mancini conceding the midfield and focusing on defence and being happy with penalties, and having negotiated that game, now he's a champion...

 

2 minutes ago, Yuko said:

How exactly did Greece do that? 

Apart from the semi final, Greece did not get any underserved result in 2004. 

Portugal got lucky with the 3rd place thing and was extremely lucky in the final on 2016, completely different story. 

This narrative of "crap Greece" has to end at some point.

Bosses Portugal in the first game, deservedly gets a point vs Spain, gets the benefit of luck to qualify on goal difference, beats holders France in an even game, beats the Czechs as underdogs over 90 minutes but the victory came after a dominant spell in extra time and not a random flukey strike, then beats Portugal again in a game that was less cagey than last night's final. 

Honestly, the only thing that's wrong with the Greek victory is that you (plural) didn't like the result. 

If England defending deep for 30 minutes of a game whilst leading against a freescoring Italian team desperately searching for an opening counts as "shithousery" which I don't think it does, we can say the same about a Greece side that had very few chances all tournament but took them and conceded very little.

More generally I think Greece did superbly and were perfectly entitled to play the way they did, but nobody's going to remember them with the same affection for their style of play as the Total Football team that won bugger all or the names of any of their players, and no Greek should care

[GunmaN1905]

3 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

It's only a few days since you were moaning about Mancini conceding the midfield and focusing on defence and being happy with penalties, and having negotiated that game, now he's a champion...

And?

Compare English and Italian benches.

Other than Locatelli, Bastoni and the keepers I don't think a single Italian makes the English squad.

Southgate had options, didn't use them.

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by GunmaN1905

[TM]

I guess Roberto is a fan of Braveheart then?

look at the paper underneath the title, that's from a video their aircraft company did of the players getting picked up and arriving back in Italy

[Baptista_8]

The problem with England is central midfield. We had no one to run with the ball and pass consistently through the lines. We all cried out for him to try Mount deeper with either Grealish or Foden in the 8, or even play Bellingham as a box-to-boxer, but he didn't experiment in that area at all.

[Baptista_8]

Having said that about passing through the lines. In some games it appeared as we were actively trying not to play 'risky' passes, so have to wonder if Southgate requested our CMs to keep it simple.