The Final - Italy v England

[ad hoc]

Romanian commentators pointed out that in their last 3 competitions England finished 4th, then 3rd, then 2nd, so are looking good for Qatar.

(Though for this to work you have to accept the Nations League as an actual thing. And I presume hope that there isn't another nations league final - I have zero idea of when the next one is - before next December)

[ursus arctos]

Final Four this October among Italy, Spain, France and Belgium

[Kevin S]

Yes, England were confirmed as 9th place finishers in the Nations League before this started.

[ad hoc]

Oh well so that doesn't work

[BallochSonsFan]

If only England had a midfielder who could put their foot on the ball, look around him and try to dictate play.

I think the formation was wrong last night. Starting the game 3-4-3 and getting the early goal meant that England could go really defensive, with the 2 wide midfielders dropping back to become defensive wingbacks. Neither Shaw nor Trippier were going to keep supporting Rice and Phillips in midfield because it would leave space in behind them. So England start to get overwhelmed in midfield without either the wingbacks supporting or a forward dropping deep to help out. Ideally you're looking for the 2 wide forwards to track back a bit and that's just not Sterling.

Mount could have been that link between the 2 more defensive midfielders and England's strikers. Harry Kane has spent a lot of the tournament dropping deep to try and make things happen and that really just highlights the gap between the midfield and forwards. When they switched to a 4-2-3-1 it didnt improve things. The 2 central midfielders were still left exposed by wide players not helping them and by the gap between midfield and attack.

I think Sterling is a problem for England. He either needs to play off Kane in a front 2 and England can start a midfielder to act as the link between Rice/Phillips and Kane/Sterling or they go with a proper midfield 3. You could see him doing well in the kind of 4-3-3 formation Italy played. With their 3 in midfield, Insigne didnt need to worry so much about helping the midfield. That unfortunately means dropping Mount back into midfield proper (can he play there?) or dropping him completely for a genuine 3rd midfielder.

England have an abundance of attacking options but their options in midfield are limited. Until they can find a way of addressing that? They'll lose the midfield battle in massive games and it'll prevent them from winning a tournament.

[Ray de Galles]

If only England had a midfielder who could put their foot on the ball, look around him and try to dictate play.

That comment could have been made at any time for at least thirty years.

It was hard to analyse the game in the frenzy in the ground but the key for me was Italy finally got to grips with the width England's shift to wing-backs brought them.

Obviously the early goal was almost entirely down to Shaw and Trippier, the former starting it in his own half and then finishing from the latter's cross, and for twenty minutes or so the Italian back four was on the ropes until they pushed wider and further up the pitch to negate the tactical advantage Southgate had engineered. This was starkly illustrated from our vantage point standing behind the goal Italy defended in the first half.

After that I don't recall Trippier having a meaningful attacking contribution and Shaw continued to push forward but rarely stretched the Italian defence as he had done in the opening stages. Once Italy locked up defence they took control in midfield and made spectators of players like Mount, it was only really the paucity of their finishing that stopped them winning the game in normal time.

[anton pulisov]

Well, numerous England managers had Paul Scholes, but never understood his purpose.

[Patrick Thistle]

Yes, the counterpoint to "if only England had a midfielder who..." is very much "if Italy had a striker who could score then they would have won handsomely".

[Snake Plissken]

Grealish takes them for Villa doesn’t he?

Apparently he's never taken one. I'm also, very, very wary of the hype around him. He's talented, but lightweight. Most fouled player because he looks for them all the time, not because he's so good it's the only way he can be stopped.

Ultimately England seem to be blessed with lots of fast, young, attacking players and a bit short of midfielders. I thought Rice and Phillips were a solid partnership who worked well, but they need a third player better than Mount (who I like BTW). Also not sure why England retreated a bit into their shell after half time, as they had the opposition rattled for the entire first half. I know that Mancini made effective changes, but it seemed as much attitude as tactics from Southgate et al.

Rashford places his shot six inches to the right and England win. It's fine margins. I'm obviously disappointed at the result but, hell, they got to the Final and who predicted that with confidence before the tournament started? Clearly everyone learned from WC2018 and those lessons got them to the final this time around. So if they do the same and learn from the experience then things look bright, especially as they are a young side compared to many of the bigger guns in Europe.

[anton pulisov]

I think part of the problem is that a young Pirlo type player isn't going to be encouraged to develop by the environment of the English football pyramid nor the impatient fans. There's still a degree of underappreciation for that type of player in England.

Somebody like Teddy Sheringham made a career as a striker, when, in a parallel universe where he was born in Spain or Italy, he'd might have been a Xavi or a Pirlo. Matt Le Tissier the same. And Paul Scholes was often stuck out on the wing when in an England shirt.

[Lobachevsky]

England managers always distrust talented midfielders its part of the job requirements.

Southgate did well but is a fundamentally conservative manager. The team is pretty promising though and Rice, Phillips, Mount, Foden, Bellingham, Shaka, Sancho, Grealish will all be better players at the next 2 tournaments.

Kane and Sterling are serious top class international players who’d get in most teams.

centre backs looked reasonable and stones is really developing and has far fewer mistakes in him.

England have a shed load of full backs.

[Uncle Ethan]

Looking at Kalvin Phillips perhaps England's best hope is good young English players going to Leeds and getting Bielsa fit. If we want some what-ifs, a fit Trent Alexander Arnold might have been a vital addition in this game.

We might also consider that Italy are actually really, really, good. It was mentioned at some point that they had conceded two goals once in about 30 games. I mean come on, they are absolute beasts defensively. They reacted superbly to going behind and controlled the game. Losing to a great team is no disgrace.

[Snake Plissken]

If we want sone what-ifs a fit Trent Alexander Arnold might have been a vital addition in this tournament.

Does he do better than Walker, Shaw or Trippier?

[Lobachevsky]

Yep they looked the best side pretty much throughout the tournament and were worthy winners overall and on the night. I thought they would tier as the game went on but because of their Possession in the second half and the canny subs used by manchini they were fresher throughout.

Phillips really came on in that tournament and looks a nailed on starter going forward.

[Bruno]

I think part of the problem is that a young Pirlo type player isn't going to be encouraged to develop by the environment of the English football pyramid nor the impatient fans. There's still a degree of underappreciation for that type of player in England.

Somebody like Teddy Sheringham made a career as a striker, when, in a parallel universe where he was born in Spain or Italy, he'd might have been a Xavi or a Pirlo. Matt Le Tissier the same. And Paul Scholes was often stuck out on the wing when in an England shirt.

I can still remember someone on here once suggesting that Pirlo was "the Italian Tom Huddlestone." As you suggest, developing that type of player is really about having a system and game plan to exploit them (as opposed to just scouting for Pirlo types).

[Uncle Ethan]

Does he do better than Walker, Shaw or Trippier?

I thought the set-piece delivery was poor, especially against Italy. TAA would have been useful there. But obviously, who knows?

[Lobachevsky]

I really liked big tom when he was an up and coming player freshly poached from Derby County but his only similarity with late era Pirlo was a lack of pace.

[Satchmo Distel]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the current XI and subs; if they were coached by Mancini they'd have won the tournament. The key is to improve their tactical intelligence when up against the most tactically intelligent team they'll face, which is Italy here or Germany if the new coach sorts out their issues.

Luck is a huge issue in major tournaments. England could have got a lucky win yesterday (as Snake notes, a few inches on the Rashford penalty) but they could have gone out in the last 16 to the two chances Germany missed. France might have maintained the form they showed against Germany and steamed through the tournament. Belgium might have sacked their shit coach in 2018 and turned up here ready to fulfill their potential. Spain might have turned up with a striker. Denmark might have been given a QF that wasn't in Baku. Spain might have won their group and been in England's half of the draw: a QF v Spain in Rome rather than v Ukraine.

[jwdd27]

Jack Grealish turns 26 in September, so his potential should be getting realised by now.

His slight frame and floppy haircut means that he's still getting thought of as an exciting young kid who it's worth throwing on as a sub for 20 minute cameos here and there. He reminds me a bit of Theo Walcott in his extended "youth" career, and the amount of slack he is given compared to players who are the same age or younger than him.

[Snake Plissken]

I thought the set-piece delivery was poor, especially against Italy. TAA would have been useful there. But obviously, who knows?

Tripper is the best set piece taker in the squad. And yes, better than TAA.

[anton pulisov]

John Barnes was another one, who, in an alternative universe, could have been a complete midfielder.

[anton pulisov]

Roberto Martinez staying on for another two years with Belgium, apparently.

[Satchmo Distel]

Could they take one of their surfeit of wing-backs and mould him into a central midfielder?

However, I think we noted in 2016 or 2018 that Pirlo and Modric were a dying breed. Modric was the only player of his type in the tournament. For some reason, the CL seems to get by without them so we lose them from international football too.

[imp]

We might also consider that Italy are actually really, really, good. It was mentioned at some point that they had conceded two goals once in about 30 games. I mean come on, they are absolute beasts defensively. They reacted superbly to going behind and controlled the game. Losing to a great team is no disgrace.

This point's worth repeating. I can't remember if it was on here or if I read it elsewhere, but I seem to recall a lot of observations along the lines of, "Yeah, but wait until they play someone good." They hammered the Swiss 3-0, and the Swiss went on to knock out the world champions. They beat the number one team in the world rankings, Belgium. They got past Spain, maybe their one 'poor' game of the tournament, but even then they were good enough to draw, and mentally strong enough to win the shootout. And they pretty much outplayed the apparent champions-in-waiting in their own stadium in front of a bellicose, partisan crowd.

The ease with which they pass and move is still streets ahead of, say, England. Great team, fantastic tournament, worthy winners.

[tee rex]

Of the teams that have eliminated England in tournaments, possibly in top three. And on penalties, definitely top three.