[Bobby Darling]

Misnomer, on 13 July 2018 - 08:34 AM, said:

Who wasn't pleased? Who wasn't happy?
Who's wining?

Easy to trot out such suggestive remarks, whilst being completely untrue. Stating facts isn't wining, it's called stating facts.

Do you think we had an easy route to the semi final or not?

Do you think we played anyone of any significance other than Croatia?

Fifa rankings aside:

Panama
Tunisia
Colombia
Sweden

Do you think these teams are good?

Did Southgate ever have a plan b? Does he have the tactical nouse to change the game when needed? I don't think so...in fact, he made us weaker with the changes he made against Croatia, IMO of course, don't want to intentionally upset anyone.

Young side excuse: they all play in the premier league and have years of experience in kicking a ball. Man United youngsters won numerous trophies. Or, is it somehow acceptable to say it's different at international level?

Good saves in a negative way lol ffs how utterly ridiculous. You have a great knack of twisting things to support your own views.

Mate, it's about opinions. I'm more than happy and pleased we got to the semi finals...I've been waiting for this since 1990, when I was in my late teens.

Getting to a semi final is great, but I choose to put it into perspective (because, I'm an old, unhappy, wining, depressed, middle aged man) in terms of who we played and how we played to get there, not the mere fact we got there.

Is Chris Waddle also wining? Probably one of our best ex international players who offers excellent analysis on BBC five live. He is also displeased and unhappy?

As I've said too many times already: the DNA blueprint looks promising; the proof of it's successful implementation will be witnessed at the next two tournaments. Do I hope we go far, of course I do.

Some folks have very short memories, especially those who lauded the dog shít signings made by Saunders and Caldwell...that worked out well. It's also funny how the same people criticised the last few Town managers, including Cookie, for not having a plan b....

Why focus on Chris Waddle? Most of the pundits thought we had a very good World Cup and provided promise for the future. We had to beat Colombia and Sweden to progress. Both those teams had played well in the group stages. The 1990 team struggled in their group. Belgium and Cameroon were not recognised as strong teams. We were beaten by the first proper team we played yet it was rightly seen as an achievement. That team had bags of experience.

[Misnomer]

Bobby Darling, on 13 July 2018 - 06:46 PM, said:

Why focus on Chris Waddle? Most of the pundits thought we had a very good World Cup and provided promise for the future. We had to beat Colombia and Sweden to progress. Both those teams had played well in the group stages. The 1990 team struggled in their group. Belgium and Cameroon were not recognised as strong teams. We were beaten by the first proper team we played yet it was rightly seen as an achievement. That team had bags of experience.

Because, I think he's 99.9:% accurate with his evaluations. Just my opinion.

Well, Cameroon beat the finalists (Argentina). We were better than West Germany, and it was galling we lost to them in such a way.

How many more times do I have to repeat this; for the fifth time: the England DNA blueprint looks very promising. We potentially have a very bright future. As I articulated some time ago and recently by Stockholm, the majority of the current squad have not been brought up to play to the blueprint but our younger players have ; the younger teams are winning tournaments by playing to the blueprint. I'm certainly excited for the future of the national team.

IS THAT CLEAR?

However, it doesn't mean I won't appraise what I've seen, just because the future looks bright. I've commented on what I watched, not what I'm going to watch over the next four years or so.

[Valley Blues]

Misnomer, on 13 July 2018 - 07:12 PM, said:

Because, I think he's 99.9:% accurate with his evaluations. Just my opinion.

Well, Cameroon beat the finalists (Argentina). We were better than West Germany, and it was galling we lost to them in such a way.

How many more times do I have to repeat this; for the fifth time: the England DNA blueprint looks very promising. We potentially have a very bright future. As I articulated some time ago and recently by Stockholm, the majority of the current squad have not been brought up to play to the blueprint but our younger players have ; the younger teams are winning tournaments by playing to the blueprint. I'm certainly excited for the future of the national team.

IS THAT CLEAR?

However, it doesn't mean I won't appraise what I've seen, just because the future looks bright. I've commented on what I watched, not what I'm going to watch over the next four years or so.

Out of curiosity, this blueprint the younger players are apparently being brought upon, are we suggesting the older, experienced Premier League players are incapable of adapting to this?

And are we also suggesting that Southgate is adopting the blueprint after his work with the younger players but the blueprint has no plan b if things aren't going well?
The manager must surely be able to react to game situations but surely the blueprint would accommodate changes.

This post has been edited by Valley Blues: 13 July 2018 - 07:27 PM

[Deansaunders]

calvin plummers socks, on 13 July 2018 - 01:38 PM, said:

I'd personally file Waddle in the same drawer as Dean saunders

I resent that remark