Redknapp was capped 17 times for England but played just 39 minutes at a major tournament, which was during the Euro 96 campaign when he appeared as a substitute against Scotland in the group stage. Rob Smyth later wrote in The Guardian that Redknapp's "slick passing greased some slow-moving wheels
Reflecting on the Argentina vs. England semifinal in Atlanta, the cultural contrast is striking. The grandparents of the Argentinian players were all born in Argentina, whereas the same cannot be said for most of the English players.
In football, we often call the crowd the 12th player. But there is a 13th player that cannot be bought or replicated: lineage and homeland. This deep sense of belonging to your family roots and your country is the ultimate source of unity on the pitch. It is the beating heart and the true soul of the team.
The only two mistakes was defending 1 goal and not trying to make it 3-0 and keep reacting to what the player on the ball is doing and not pressing them.
What a fool. Without Foden and Palmer Bellingham played more freely with the space he needed. That’s why they reached a semifinal in the World Cup. Both of them would have been standing on Bellinghams feet each game, wanting to score, missing everything. They’re egos. Horrible experts you have on that island. They know nothing about football. Real clowns.
Not just Foden & Palmer but TAA too.. They couldn't put a single cross in dying minutes of Argentina game and guess who is the best crosser in the world ? It's TAA whom they left at home for other average players..
Jamie was wrong in one respect. He said hindsight is a great thing which is true, but at the time, most of the country was shouting that he was doing the totally wrong thing!!
We made it to the semi final without them, Tuchel wouldn't have subbed them out in the last 40 mins vs Argentina... What difference would they have made?
Lazy take 🙄 No one was talking about Foden and Palmer (I would’ve taken Palmer in fairness) as England were progressing in the tournament 😒 And, anyway, Foden in particular doesn’t normally turn up for England.
Anyone who watches a lot of football knows about how good low blocks work. 1) you have to have an out-ball to relieve pressure ( which involves pace or muscle up front ) 2) You can’t go TOO deep and go back TOO far. You have to compete for the ball further out from your penalty box and try and block crosses. 3) You have to try and keep the ball for short periods of time at least. We didn’t even try to do any of that. Tuchel didn’t address it.
Nothing changed? He’s reached a World Cup semi-final in his first tournament. That’s already matching England’s best World Cup finish since 1990.
The reaction is always the same: once England lose, every player who didn’t start suddenly becomes the answer.
“Not taking Foden was a mistake.” “Palmer should have started.” Next week it will be someone else.
It is easy to judge every decision after the result is already known. Managers have to make choices during the match, under pressure, with the information available at that moment. If the players on the pitch do not execute, that does not automatically mean every selection was wrong.
England have had different managers, squads and tactical approaches for decades. Yet after every defeat, the debate always returns to one substitution or one player who did not feature.
Tuchel was at fault for sure but players weren't good either!
Once they scored the goal they quickly went into the shell and couldn't stitch even 4 passes together, tbh there was no one who could hold it in the middle and recycle the possesion, it was all one way traffic and England deservedly beaten in the end.
Foden has done NOTHING of merit for England. Does he pay Sky for PR cus this is ridiculous. Even in this tournament an injured Saka got out most assists (3) that’s more assists then Foden in ALL his major tournaments for England combined
I don’t think the criticism is hindsight. Everyone watching the game live could see that playing the game in your own penalty area for the last 40 minutes was guaranteed to produce the result that came.
We use cookies, device fingerprinting and cross-device tracking to personalise content, serve targeted advertising, and analyse how you use our site across your devices. By clicking Accept all you consent to the use of these tracking technologies. Your data may be used to build a profile of your interests and show you personalised ads on other sites.
Privacy policy
Comments (20)
Daily Junction discussion mixed with clearly attributed comments from the original video provider.
Join in — free. Comments on Daily Junction are for members, so real names stay rare and bots stay out.
One field. We email you a 6-digit code — no password needed. Your comment is kept while you do it.
Under 13? You’ll need a parent’s OK first — it takes them one click.
In football, we often call the crowd the 12th player. But there is a 13th player that cannot be bought or replicated: lineage and homeland. This deep sense of belonging to your family roots and your country is the ultimate source of unity on the pitch. It is the beating heart and the true soul of the team.
The reaction is always the same: once England lose, every player who didn’t start suddenly becomes the answer.
“Not taking Foden was a mistake.” “Palmer should have started.” Next week it will be someone else.
It is easy to judge every decision after the result is already known. Managers have to make choices during the match, under pressure, with the information available at that moment. If the players on the pitch do not execute, that does not automatically mean every selection was wrong.
England have had different managers, squads and tactical approaches for decades. Yet after every defeat, the debate always returns to one substitution or one player who did not feature.
Once they scored the goal they quickly went into the shell and couldn't stitch even 4 passes together, tbh there was no one who could hold it in the middle and recycle the possesion, it was all one way traffic and England deservedly beaten in the end.