Ollie Watkins

[cdbearsfan]

Germany being a team that consistently does better in tournaments and comsistenly beats England is undoubtedly relevant.

Desperately trying to find ways not to enjoy beating them, after losing to them so many times, is weird behaviour. So, again, what do England fans get out of it even if winning against teams that are historically much better than them brings them no joy?

[PeterWithesShin]

Where have I said I got no joy. I'm talking about the weird view that expecting to beat someone you are currently better than is somehow arrogant when it's England.

[Ads]

England have beaten Germany more times overall and haven't beaten England in 8 years. For context.

[brontebilly]

So we aren't allowed to compare England's record under Southgate to under previous managers because history is irrelevant.

That's convenient.

To a point but it ignores a) the resources at each managers disposal and b) the competition draw. The metric mikes on here like to try and quantify every minute detail but it doesn't tell the full story.

Even to compare Southgate to Eriksson, general English media narrative is his loyalty to his favourites cost a golden generation. But look at the facts - 2002 - a very average England team (Danny Mills!, Scholes in the centre) gave eventual winners Brazil a fair old scare. 2004 - maybe the best I've seen England play in a tournament, drop off from an injured Rooney to Vassell was huge really, beaten on pens by Portugal who were the best team in tournament. 2006 - bit of a struggle from memory but huge heart shown when Rooney let them down. Out on penalties again to Portugal.

England under Southgate got very favourable draws in his tournaments, that's undeniable. The one time they played an elite team (France) in a knock out game they lost, a tad unfortunate fair enough. The last Euros, they limped through various rounds until getting crucified in the final. The Wembley final v Italy was a bottle job, matched only by Portugal in 2004 in a similar situation.