enigmatic

I believe SI have confirmed that height can give players a marginal advantage where headers can be won without maximum jump height I'm curious as to whether natural body height plays any role for goalkeepers (logically it should do for one-on-ones with the ball blasted from close range at head height, and theoretically it could for saves where reflexes/agility/anticipation both allow the player to dive to the same point, but the 6'8 keeper ought to get there earlier than the 5'10 one)

The definition of being taught a lesson in attacking football is getting spanked, not Italy shooting from all angles until they earn an equaliser and then playing it safe (but ironically the two chances they did have in the last 53 minutes were the best open play chances all game, because more gaps at the back). They scored the same number of goals as us. And no, our shots weren't all in extra time, and Italy didn't look vulnerable once we added Grealish and a winger Mourinho might get trashed all the time, but he's also won a **** ton of trophies, despite penalty shootout record that's

What? I've said you were great in the opening rounds, I've said your tactics against Spain were perfectly justified before and after you won when even some of your own fans were less happy, I've said you did enough to deserve an equaliser our defence made your forwards work hard for, I filled my team of the tournament with Italian players, I just think it's total bollocks to act like Italy (and frankly any other nation) would never stoop to defending without the ball or pretend that only England had any luck. Frankly, I think it's far more insulting to the Italian team to insinuate the o

You're... not making any more sense. I said "England didn't lose because..." to rebut this forum's weird fondness for reframing the match (and tournament) as England losing by being taught a lesson in attacking football rather than the actual shootout finale to a team that hasn't conceded a second goal to anyone else in the last five years either, not because I'm obsessed by not losing or have any connection at all with what the England team think. Enjoy the 19th hole, sounds like you've been there a while

No, what's embarrassing is your insistence that two managers who took their teams from total failure to tournament finals are both too cowardly to succeed... (Interesting choice of manager for the graphic by the way. Not the man I'd be picking to make the "sitting on a lead never works" argument ) lol, you mean you went to all that effort to link bad grammar, pop psychology and a bunch of England players that have never met me and it was just a troll? And I thought I had too much time on my hands

I mean, I'm not framing it as WIN it because we didn't win, and saying "we didn't not win it" is just terrible grammar. There's not much insight you can get into my psyche from that, never mind England players'. Same applies in reverse. Italy didn't win it by scoring more goals or having more shots across the tournament or by the semantics of winning/losing, they won it by missing one fewer penalty. Two games in a row actually, including the occasion they had considerably less possession and shots than their opponent. They deservedly got the applause for their stylish wins in the gro

Quaresma and Navas? Bring back JLingz...

Greenwood should be a lot more ready by then and I can't see Trent being left out unless his form's horrible, especially not given Gareth still likes wingbacks for big games. Joe Gomez and Ezri Konsa might have moved a long way ahead of Mings too. 18 months is a long time in football though. Walker could lose a yard of his pace, Alli could look like a proper footballer again, Mount could be stuck on the bench at Chelsea and Stones could have slipped behind Laporte in the City pecking order, Barnes/Maddison could be lighting up the Premier League, and someone like Toney could come from now

Let's wait until it comes home in Qatar

And yet when it came to games and moments that were tight as opposed to bombarding weak teams it took a long time to score against in the group stages he did exactly the same as Gareth. I mean, he sat on 1-1 with a possession advantage against an a nervy England, anybody that thinks he (or most managers) wouldn't have relied on their strong defence more than attack if they'd scored in the second minute of a final against a good side is crackers And who gives a **** about the group stages? I mean, yes Italy were vibrant there unlike their other tournament wins, but surely we're not going b

Think Mount was a lot more effective than he was given credit for, but had a poor game in the final. But I don't think even Baptista would bring on Grealish to defend a lead

Italy vs Spain and England vs Italy. Spot the difference.... Italy weren't actually defending a lead for very long either. Either sitting back and giving up a lot of mostly non-threatening shots is perfectly sensible against a packed midfield (my view) in which case surely it's fine for Gareth to do the same, or Mancini isn't a good manager, he's a very lucky boy

If your youth setup is anything like it was in FM17, a couple of sales to big European clubs should sort the finances out

Mancini who produced 7 shots in 120 minutes in a semi final won on pens is "in a league of his own" and Gareth who produces 6 is too passive? Fine margins...