They hit the ground running, were just the best team in the tournament. A joy to see the Italians talents comes into full fruition. Beautiful football and great narrative to boot!
ITALY DESERVE IT, they played against world class teams and won, they played with a courageous and entertaining performance, definitely italy deserved to win this euro and am sure if they were lucky they would finished it off in second half Pickford had great performance, again it deserve this trophy and didn't steal it.
@@schioppi7260 out of the total 19 shots Italy took, only 6 were on target. That’s not efficient offense from Italy who were much better in the games before. They didn’t score from open play either. Pickford was great but Italy were wasteful.
@@schioppi7260 Italy had a lot of shots but often from distance. Only a few were on target and not many troubled Pickford. JJs point on not counter attacking is valid, but if not for a goalmouth scramble, England would have won.
I mean, it was a half-field choke to the ground with him standing off the pitch. I like Chiellini, it wouldn't have changed the outcome but 'shirt pull' seems VERY generous.
@@azapro911 bro, you’re joking right? Even at the pitch with my friends we pull each other shirts. It’s not dangerous, tell me one reason for it being dangerous
@@ignls8809 Handball in the box isn't dangerous, it's still a penalty. Bit of shirt tug handbags, fine. That?! Full credit to Chiellini, he took a calculated risk on the ref bottling it and that's exactly what happened. 🤷♂️
I must give JJ credit because yesterday I watched the Italy analysis from before the tournament and it was just spot on, it looked like it was done after the final and not before the first game
True, the rest of the UK is as downtrodden and defeatist as you'd like us to be. Not happening. Ever. Other countries are more than welcome to come up with their own globally popular sports and then base their own globally popular media around what they are doing. No? Oh well, they'll just have to keep obsessing over 🏴 then.
@@JamesCM86 That's why the English will never win anything - not prepared to learn from other country's achievements. Too insular and arrogant to change. Will be far longer than another 55 years before their next success. In the meantime every other country will continue to laugh at them and their biased and uneducated media and football 'pundits' like the clowns Neville and Ferdinand.
Because Mancini's tactic was the best in Euro, he had the perfect players for his system, the players trusted his plan and they played with his tactic confidently. Mancini has shown what he can do, if he can build his own clique
perfect players maybe in the first games, but without spinazzola and with florenzi under used, italian team had to rely more on the tactics, that’s where Mancini gave his best in my opinion.
@@containedhurricane Agree, those were the players who did most. Immobile was almost useless, maybe because he was always covered, jorginho and verratti did their job but those who really gave 110% are the players that you mentioned
More than the single players, it was the team that was perfect. For instance: a better centerforward than Immobile would have been good (Immobile performs far better for Lazio than for the Nazionale).
Been so much complaining about Southgate's tactics, end of the day Mancini is a very experienced and decorated manager who got a lot of little things right as the match wore on.
Sort of the same thing no? Gareth was tactically outclassed by mancini, shows that while southgate has been great for England's locker room culture and has great man management, tactically he's still the man who got relegated with borough
Not really everybody seems convinced that they've got the same genius ideas and honestly believe that a bloke who's managed three international semi-finals won't have pondered them much earlier. "Play more attacking football!" Great, so still fail to break down that tightly packed Italian defence and get beaten much more comfortably. "Start Grealish every game!" Just back from injury and constant bullseye on him, superb. "Don't make the 19 year-old take any penalties, it's too much pressure!" But do start him in some of our biggest ever matches, knowing he'll have to take one in sudden death if it's tied after five, awe-inspiring.
@@azapro911 Surely the fact that it doesn't require a genius to see where England went wrong just proves my point that Southgate tactically isn't strong and far too defensive for his own good. England played as if it was the last 5 minutes from the 20th, his substitutions made 0 impact and its obvious you don't give a 19 year old who has NEVER taken a professional penalty the most important kick of the most important match in his life. As you said it doesnt take a genius to figure it out yet Gareth still got it wrong, what does that tell you?
@@odysseus1660 It tells me exactly what I said before, he'll have had these thoughts long before any of us and known why it wouldn't have worked better than us. Once Italy got re-organised, we had two choices: try to see out the lead we had or just hand them a much quicker trophy ceremony. If Saka scores, everyone's praising faith placed in youth. Jorginho missed his penalty, so he's overrated and Mancini doesn't know what he's doing. See? Makes no sense to look at it that way.
@@azapro911 The reason Italy were able to get back into the game was because of England willingly conceding possession. Italy were rocked by Englands early goal and physically England were winning 1vs1 duels. We then switched to 5 at the back and didn't even press Italy in possession. Italy then grew in confidence and outplayed England. You can't win against a good side with only 4 attacking players on the pitch
Because Italy has a phenomenal manager, that is brave, courageous, knows what he has and uses them adequately. As well their team is the most versatile team this tournament, they can win in any way.
Loose against Italy is always like a old man loose a game with a kid or a woman. The old man will always try to find a reason and a excuse for his lost, and never admit the strength of his opponent.
1. I don’t think Southgate was wrong to start 3-4-3, but he was wrong to NOT change early in the 2nd half when it wasn’t working. 2. Also Southgate just never wanted to use his bench. Sterling has scored a lot of goals, but would a FRESH Jadon Sancho have been better for the final 15 minutes of extra time? Or when Shaw was tiring why not bring on Chilwell? 3. Had Southgate reverted to 4-3-3, yes the Italians would have seen more of the ball, but they could CONTEST the midfield, so maybe possession would have been 55%-45%. 4. And yeah penalties. Don't bring on people to take them in the 120th minute. It doesn't work. Give them some game time to soak up the 'feel' of the game.
@@haworths623 The fact that chilwell wasn't on the bench says it all though - who was teh replacement if Luke shaw got injured? Chillwell is one of the best left backs in the world!
@@FKF95 I think it's really important - there is so much psychology that the player needs some time to adjust to the situation their in. imo. could be wrong.
Never underestimate Italy when it comes to football… never… we have been writing football’s history since day 1… not being able to qualify for 2018 World Cup was heartbreaking, a National tragedy… but we’re ITALY, we never die, we never stop dreaming, we worship football every day, we live for it… and just three years later WE’RE BACK IN TOWN 🇮🇹🇮🇹💙💙🏆🏆
If you watched the tifo irl podcasts daily you'd see the slight jump in attitude when the final finished. JJ was holding it back to be respectful because Joe was being a toddler but inside he was happy
tbh as an Italian who was buzzing going into the podcast, i can understand why Joe was like that, his country had lost a final and he knows that was the last chance for at least 20 years
@@Disturbance70 yeah, the easiest run to the final in euros history, all but 1 at home. See you next year when you get dumped out by Chile or Senegal in the round of 32
@@ayyguevara8448 apparently every home team should win every time then. Always an excuse with england haters. Easily the second best in the tournament, and we’re a young squad. So see you soon.
@@Disturbance70 it's not an excuse but it is a contributing factor as to why this is the best chance England will ever have. Also "England hater"?, grow up. PS cry more muahahahaah
When England scored early, they had just awaken the “ monster “ in Italy, that gave them more determination to come back harder, the Italians are relentless, they showed it by keeping possession and even when they lost it, they would do anything to get possession back, that’s their true strength, they always find a way.... that puts fear in their opponents
Tbh that shouldn't already have been the case when you face two players that have set the standard for italian football and defending in general even at champions league level for like a decade... And then... Come on man, it's easy: just look for Chiellini's nose!!
There's a lot to dwell on, but honestly I think England losing comes down to one thing: that first twenty minutes, Italy panicked, they couldn't bring a ball down to save their life, every touch was heavy and every movement mistimed. England could have gone for the jugular and been 2 or three up - they sat back, Italy had time to calm down (the Jorginho injury especially gave them a breather and a moment to reflect), then England's dominance was gone. I understand having conviction in the plan but you need to know when to smell blood, because Italy were properly on the ropes after the goal. Once they calmed down, there was only one team in the game.
I agree totally. I watched it in Italy in a pub and I said to an Italian friend "England are trying to play catenaccio against Italy after 10 minutes, are we mad!?"
@@h3irloom_473 that's a 0.75 factor in FIFA World Ranking, instead of a full 1.00. That costed us the 4th place. We are still behind England (+France, Brasil, Belgium) in that special Ranking, for less than 2 points
Italians (players and coaches alike) have some abilities that are greatly underestimated yet useful. One of these is their ability to adapt to the changing dynamics of a game as events unfold. Against Spain they quickly realised that they would not win the battle for possession, so they changed their gameplan. In the final they played a totally different game. The analysis rightly mentions how Italy did not try to rush things. That patience is another key aspect of the best Italian teams: if one looks at the finals won in 1982, 2006 and 2021 in all of them Italy suffered some early setbacks such as conceding first or missing a penalty (Cabrini in 1982). However the players did not let that become a distraction and kept their focus on the broader mission. They were very meticulous in the way they decided to pick apart England's defence, waiting for the right moment to strike.
As a neutral, all of this England fans are so annoying. Italy was the better side, they just play better and Mancini even made a great subs. He subs many unknows players that people don't know if they're not watching serie A. I mean Italy won the game with Berardi (great but midtable club player), Belotti (almost relegate) and Berna (bad seasons in juve). But everythings just works. Chiellini play almost like a midfielder in 2nd half and Bonucci as CB alone shows their confidence and trust. It pays off well. The players trust Mancin's plan and vice versa. Italy DESERVES to WIN.
I'm a little annoyed. I live in the US and have been a fan of the Italian national team since I was a kid. since soccer isn't popular here, if I want to watch analysis in English, it's gonna be from someone in the UK (I know the Scottish aren't fond of England) . I'm greatful for the content but it's always "what England did to lose". If England won there would be a 2 hour documentary on each players life. I just want someone to praise the Italian team instead of explaining "what went wrong."
Being Italian I was interested to watch but I had basically the same impression. Could be entitled ''How England lost the match''. I'm a little disappointed, they could analyze how the ball was managed by the Italians, creating 19 shots. Saying just '' Italy did counter-press'' means bypassing the analysis.
Updated summary: Germany = 7 major trophies Italy = 6 major trophies France = 4 major trophies Spain = 4 major trophies England = 1 major trophy The above says it all. England are not and never have been a "heavyweight" footballing nation.
Yes. You can also mention Portugal and the Netherlands: they too have got just 1 major trophy. However they have often reached semi-finals and finals of competitions where England are mostly a quarter-final side. Portugal over the last 20 years or so have reached the final 4 in 2000, 2004, 2006, 2012 and 2016, which is quite impressive.
I laughed when he said everyone got excited when England scored the first goal, most of the world got depressed, even Southgate didn't seem happy with it lol. The real excitement came about when Italy won. As for the game, lets be blunt, the reason England did the tactics they did early on is because they expected Italy to do a constant barrage of attacks, something Italy didn't actually do until early on in the second half, if Italy did what they did in other games, I think England would have been forced to park the bus and only attack on the counter because of the constant pressure from the Italians. In other words, it wasn't England that got the tactics wrong, it was Italy and Italy got the tactics wrong when playing Spain, also, the early goal that England got was a gift, Italy shouldn't of let that in but it went in anyway. Also as been noticed, England don't score many goals in open play which doesn't bold well for England going forward considering they had it easy here, an easy path to the final whiles playing most games at home, Italy on the other hand played some tough teams, Italy was clearly the better team and if Italy were more aggressive on the attack, I suspect they could have scored a few goals against England because they panic very easy at the back line, it's just a shame Italy didn't play like that here as it could have been a bloodbath lol. As for the English fans out there, if you think this team is good enough for the next world cup, think again, how easy of a set up did England want to get to the final? the same thing happened in the last world cup, an easy route, if a team like England can't win with things being so favourable, it means you're not good enough because any world-class team would have loved to have had the route England got through two major tournaments. In any case, it looks like Italy are in a much better position for the world cup, they've played some tough teams, many games away from home and come out the other side, England on the other side didn't prove much apart from they played most games at home, had the ref onside many times and had an easy line up, that shouldn't fill anyone with confidence about this team doing much in the next world cup.
You're right - Italy is a strong chance in Qatar. With a fit again Zaniolo, Pellegrini, Sensi, Spinazzola and hopefully an in-form Kean (replacing immobile) Italy will be even stronger. Scamacca would have done a better job than Immobile and Bellotti. Verratti, Barella, Sensi, Pellegrini, Locatelli, Pessina, Jorginho, Cristante - what a midfield!!!
You are right. Those chances to win tournaments don't come often, when they arrive you have to seize them. England - much like Belgium - have had that chance in 2018 and 2021 but fell short. Reaching a semi-final then a final is nothing to be sneered at, it's the best run England have had in tournaments for ages. But you can't live with the belief that those opportunities will keep coming your way. International football is rather unforgiving in nature.
@@oldskoolmusicnostalgia England had two golden openings to win 2 major tournaments and yet failed at it, those chances don't happen that offern, that England messed it up whiles it was on a plate twice doesn't bold well for their chances when things are more neutral or against them. For me, Italy have proved themselves, they've beaten some tough teams and also beaten teams where the crowd is hostile, England on the other hand have not prove much here, they've had an easy route to the final and played most of their games at home, they won't have that advantage in the next world cup so they could look much worse there. Southgate if he's smart will get out before then before his rep takes a hit, at least now he can say he got to the Euro finals but if he's the manager at the next world cup and does much worse there, that's what most of the public will remember.
I’ll caveat all this first and say I’m no tactical genius but surely if you’re a manager you’d do something like this substitution wise 30 mins - game goes downhill 45 mins- small tactical changes at half time, no subs made 55 mins- game continues to go downhill 60- makes a change You could see the goal coming a mile off, why would you only decide to change something after the goal goes in I’m not a Gareth out kinda guy, but what made this worse was that when the changes were made later on in the game you could see that they were actually good changes, so it’s just a shame that Southgate didn’t make them earlier
I think this is an unfortunately reality which we have to face, Southgate just isn't that experienced at this level. Also, I was watching the game and personally, even though the game was going downhill, England has always had the potential on the pitch to bounce back. I think questioning the making of changes after the goal seems like a hindsight thing, and it's near impossible for Southgate to make changes then. Also, who would you change? The game is dominated by Italy, which was pretty much the way we set up. 1. Bring off a defender and your options are Mings, Coady and White (inexperienced, not the best). 2. Bring off a wingback an your options are Reece James or Chilwell (seem like good options, but not big changes on the current wingbacks, and are quite inexperienced at int. level). 3. Bring off a midfielder and you risk an important defensive player being subbed off for a strong attacking presence who compromises the defense (Grealish, Foden). 4. Bring Henderson and Bellingham on, and you have two players who haven't seen a lot of match time in recent times, and are significantly worse than Phillips and Rice. 5. Bring off a winger and you have a demoralized Jadon Sancho, and Rashford with a niggling injury against a physical defense. Also, if you sub off Sterling, you are getting rid of England's top scorer and a vital cog of the attack. If you sub off Mount, then you lose a defensive presence in attacking midfield area and let Verrati-Jorginho dominate midfield even more. So what's your change?
@@parthpiyushprasad709 yeah I get all that At the time I’d have done Sancho for Sterling (I know Southgate definitely wouldn’t have done that). And then maybe Grealish for Mount 5/10 mins later if the Sancho sub didn’t work Personally Sterling was a bit of a passenger in that game, and yeah he gets a lot of goals and Southgate clearly has a lot of faith in him, but I think having someone who has that capability to run with the ball as opposed to being pretty slick off the ball would’ve helped us a lot. And as for grealish for mount, yeah it’s a bit more of an attacking move, but with Kane looking more and more isolated in attack I think that change would’ve meant that we’d have looked alot more threatening on the counter (with Sanchos ball carrying skills as well) and around Italy’s box Not saying that both of these would’ve definitely worked, but as the game progressed I just didn’t see any real way England were gonna get back into the game with the team they had on the field. And considering how much attacking depth we have it was a bit of an eyebrow raiser when Southgate didn’t use any of it until about 110 mins or whatever it was
The Italy goal was always coming from the 32nd minute. Jadon Sancho would have been a great sub to bring on for Mount or Rice, someone to carry the ball 10+ yards, relieve some pressure, letting England’s wing backs in particular get out.
Mount was awful all game, kept giving simple 5 yard balls straight to Italy and squandering possession. Grealish should have been brought on for him long before. Rice was the best player in the pitch so I've no idea why he was taken off
@@StoutProper it’s not about the individual performance though is it, sancho would have changed the shape and intent of the team. Grealish is more of a key that unlocks doors.
@@TheSnkrPimp yes and sancho isn't a key that unlocks doors hence why he wasn't involved in any goals despite playing 90 minutes against Ukraine when England scored 4. Plus sancho can't really play in the middle of the park and is a liability when it comes to defensive work and positioning
@@StoutProper but my point (and from what I heard JJ say) was that England’s fundamental problem was simply not being able to get out of that 5-4-1 shape and breathe, so I’m of the opinion, strongly, that Sancho would have been the best first substitution at 1-0 to give Italy something to think about the other way, and to force them to at least consider keeping one more player back, plus the pace Sancho brings (which I assume is what Southgate tried to inject with Saka on for trippier)
Feel like it's a catch 22 for Southgate where Italy are just the better team with the better manager. If he sits back all game like he did it was inevitable we'd score eventually but if he attacked more like people wanted him to Italy could have easily scored more. Italy still had 19 shots with England defending for basically the whole game after the 20th imagine what chances they could create if England actually attacked
I genuinely don't think they did. I think England lost it. They had the lead for ages and if they hadn't sat off in the second half it could've been ours for the taking.
Guy's why you won't admit italy deserve they played against stronger opponents and won with amaxing performmance, Italy was the only team deserved to win this euro.
@@wilfroberts637 England had one shot on target all game no possession and no dominance. Southgate knew the best chance was just to hold on after getting lucky. If England went all out attack Italy would have won easily and Southgate would have been criticised for not holding the lead. Italy won the tournament deservedly. England couldn't despite home advantage super easy draw and being awarded the semi final with a shocking penalty decision. Italy won matches. England retreated to their bunker and hoped for a lucky break. Not just this match, but whole tournament.
@@wilfroberts637 Jokes aside I believe that's a fair point. I think the terrible irony of this current great crop of players for England is that certainly the coaches and other quality staff imported to the Premier has indeed produced great players. However, is clear as day they still lack native world class head coaches. Nothing against Southgate whatsoever, but in terms of sheer tactical prowess he seems lacking. He doesn't even "look" like a great motivator at first glance nor seems to read the matches particularly well. Maybe he will prove us all wrong in the WC though. But I just can't stop thinking that a Guardiola/Bielsa/Klopp or even Tuchel/Conte/Mourinho would be a terrifying sight with this squad.
@@wilfroberts637 It is all hypothetical at the end of the day. One could also say that if England didn't sit back after they took the lead, Italy would have scored more than one and the game wouldn't even go into penalty. It goes both ways you know.
@@josephtuck4 as it was for Chiesa, Spinazzola, Barella, Emerson, Di Lorenzo, Berardi, Locatelli and Donnarumma. And it was even Jorginho's first international tournament (for the national team) and basically the first time Insigne and Immobile were first choice for Italy. So.... No? Like half of England's team had already got to the World Cup semis... That is quite a bit of experience.
I don't agree: Southgate gameplan was clearly better, he surprised Mancini with that 3421 formation and the two wingbacks made the first goal. So he deserves credit. But then, italian players adjusted to the situation and (I have to agree with you on this) Southgate didn't read the game well and it was turned aroud.
@@josephtuck4 Don't forget that some English players like Mount, Walker, Stones, Sterling, Shaw, and Maguire -off the top of my head - had all recently played European club finals. The English team is also full of quality in the starting 11 and the bench so I don't see how Italian players are better and more experienced. They're exceptionally good and have had plenty of experience but I don't think that gave them a massive advantage over the English squad.
@@manuel7102 Agree with you on that. Southgate surprised the Italians during the first half, but Mancini read the game well and made the adjustments needed during HT. After that, Southgate didn't know how to come back and made some mistakes - like late substitutions or the penalty takers - that ended up giving the Italians the title.
England made the mistake of playing defensively against a faster and more skilled Italy in team play. Switzerland, Turkey, Belgium, England, all share the same prejudice: "Italy plays defensive on counterattacks". But no, he has the ball, he's fast and attacks all the time. He only suffered against Spain because they played like us but had more quality. England after the first 20 minutes closed in defense to keep the result, a reckless choice with 70 minutes of play remaining. Italy won because they have an excellent coach and have superior teamwork. England got it all wrong, and proved they didn't have the quality of play that everyone believed. Against a defensive team like Denmark to pass you had to score on a dubious penalty, a great team would not have needed it. I wonder how the English were able to be so sure of winning, it was clear that if they had played like against Denmark, Italy would have torn you apart, we have played a better European up to that point you have underestimated us too much, same mistake of France against Switzerland: "If Italy, which is poor, has won 3-0 against Switzerland, we France can easily win" France eliminated by Switzerland.
Jorginho and Verrati controls very well the ball and they hardly lose ball or miss-pass, that makes opponents difficult to steal balls and counter attacks, it remind me kind of Xavi and Iniesta which means the game will end with them passing each other 😂
That’s because English football didn’t evolve after 1966. Other countries kept finding new ideas and way of playing but English football just kinda stayed the same, and now they’re trying to catch-up.
I think this is an unfortunately reality which we have to face, Southgate just isn't that experienced at this level. Also, I was watching the game and personally, even though the game was going downhill, England has always had the potential on the pitch to bounce back. I think questioning the making of changes after the goal seems like a hindsight thing, and it's near impossible for Southgate to make changes then. Also, who would you change? The game is dominated by Italy, which was pretty much the way we set up. 1. Bring off a defender and your options are Mings, Coady and White (inexperienced, not the best). 2. Bring off a wingback an your options are Reece James or Chilwell (seem like good options, but not big changes on the current wingbacks, and are quite inexperienced at int. level). 3. Bring off a midfielder and you risk an important defensive player being subbed off for a strong attacking presence who compromises the defense (Grealish, Foden). 4. Bring Henderson and Bellingham on, and you have two players who haven't seen a lot of match time in recent times, and are significantly worse than Phillips and Rice. 5. Bring off a winger and you have a demoralized Jadon Sancho, and Rashford with a niggling injury against a physical defense. Also, if you sub off Sterling, you are getting rid of England's top scorer and a vital cog of the attack. If you sub off Mount, then you lose a defensive presence in attacking midfield area and let Verrati-Jorginho dominate midfield even more. So what's your change? @Tifo IRL
First goal is 100 % error by di Lorenzo, running with his back towards the side of the pitch he should cover, not getting his body on the line etc. It was more an Italian error than a proof of the English system. Mount, Kane and Sterling scored a combined 0.00xG for the final, with two holding midfielders, England lacked creativity and when the ref doesn't call Sterling and Kane's diving, they don't have a chance
That's it basically. The team was likeable and Southgate was a gent throughout, but that element, small though it may be, are so negative, they deserve f**k all!
I think the biggest factor in this game was the psotiioning of the English wing backs. Early in the first half they started very high and showed exactly why 3-4-3 can cause trouble to 4-3-3; the wing backs end up in loads of space between the opponents fullback and winger which gives them loads of time and space to cause damage. This is what happened early. The aggresive positioning of the wing backs caused Italy endless positional problems and they couldn't work out how to get close to Shaw and Trippier. The role of Walker also encouraged this. After about half an hour England committed the cardinal sin of a back 3; Don't let yourself be forced into a back 5. This made them much easier to defend against, neutered any attacking threat and allowed Italy time and space to work themselves into the game and deny them the ball for long, long periods.
Love the video, thanks. One small ask….it's easier to follow when you keep the camera on the image of the pitch instead of back and forth between JJ and the pitch. Small thing.
Very accurate analysis but one which most England fans won't agree with. It looked City playing against Burnley/Crystal Palace as JJ Bull mentioned in the post match podcast.
@@darkstarr2321 what has this to do with his integrity? Nothing he said it's false. It's just that for an English audience, they want to hear how they lost instead of how their opponent won, and the video reflects it.
I guess it burns. It really should be how Italy won, rather than how England lost. Italy didn’t win because England lacked, but because they kept it together.
As an Italian who has watched Italy since the 1978 world cup, one of Italy's major strengths besides the obvious of generally more often than not having had very good teams is that they have never been a one trick pony. Many teams have a certain way of playing and that’s pretty much it, Italy have always been a lot more versatile in that respect, they have generally always been very good at approaching games differently depending on the opposition and even making that change in the game if required. Tactics in Italy have always been a big thing, probably bigger than anywhere else in the world, many of us Italians would argue that there is too much tactics and not enough football in Italy, the point I’m trying to make here is that because of the amount of tactics the players have faced, they are probably a little ahead of the curve and more tactically astute on the pitch. That’s not to say they always get it right, but, having watched Italy for 43 years, if there’s one thing I’ve learned, is that when it truly matters to them (because it doesn’t always) they tend to get it right tactically and are incredibly difficult to beat.
@@monte5293 Exactly! And not just Germany. Plenty of the better teams have a decent track record against Italy and have held their own, but the moment you strip out friendlies even qualifiers and only look at tournament football (were it really counts), that decent track record these better teams have suddenly becomes very one sided in favour of Italy...
@@dia6olo64 Yep, spot on, yet Italy keeps getting underestimated before every tournament - I mean how the hell can Belgium be the number one ranked team when they have won absolutely nothing and Italy have won 34 competitive games in a row and a Euro?
@@monte5293 It is clear that the FIFA rankings are badly flawed, I don’t know exactly how they score them because I haven’t looked, but like you said, when you have teams like Belgium at number 1, something is very wrong. And not just with Belgium’s ranking because there are many others whose ranking is not justifiable. Without knowing the scoring system, it is clear that you can almost pick up as many points via friendlies, qualifiers and even group stage games as one can by winning a tournament and that’s just ridiculous!
If switched to a back 4, I think you should also talk about the possibility of Italy then being able to overload down the wings (esp the left). Like you said, Gareth was being conservative and there was a thought process behind that.
At least we got to one this time. We’re not a perfect team but neither are Italy. The main difference is that Italy have the experience to know how to change the game in their favour.
@@wildsurfer12 yep, once they'd worked us out it was increasingly one way traffic. I can't really knock Southgate's tactics because they got us to the final and two penalties away from winning it, but I have to wonder whether a more tactically astute manager would have changed it sooner and in a way that countered the changes they made to their play. If buts and maybes, at the end of the day we came as close as you can come without winning it and only failed at the final and inevitable hurdle which has been England's Achilles heel for so long. What's interesting is that in 66 if it had been a draw after extra time it woks have gone to a replay. I do wonder whether that England team would have won a penalty shoot out and if they had would it have led to different outcomes for future England teams?
Basically this was a rerun of the WC 18' semi-final and Southgate hasn't learnt a thing. Southgate set up like Chelsea did against City in the CL final. That system worked because the front 3 pressed exceptionally to force the play wide. Whenever City did manage any play from them positions then one of the central defenders would step into midfield to close the play. Also, the distance between the DEF and ATT for Chelsea was minimal and disciplined. England did none of these things. Southgate is to blame, horrible management performance. Should have adapted the play to become 4 at the back out of possession. Hoddle highlights this well in a pre-tournament discussion with J. Cole and Rio. Well worth searching out and watching. He also details the WC 18' semi which perfectly explains what happened against Italy. Southgate is horrible and must be replaced.
We've seen this pattern so many times. When will England learn the lesson? You don't defend effectively by removing your attacking potential and handing over possession to a team like Italy.
Statistically England were nnot great in the entire tournament let alone against Italy. If we look deeper and analyse England’s entire tournament, FIFA rankings say England's group was the 3rd easiest behind the Netherlands and Belgium while Italy had the second toughest group. Also of the 7 opponents played by the finalists, England's opponents have a total ranking of 151, Italy were England’s only top 10 ranking opponent at 7. Italy's opponents have a total ranking of 93 of which 3 of them were ranked 1, 4 and 6 in the world and even after that another two were ranked 13 and 17, they faced far tougher opponents. On top of that you can add that not only did England pretty much play fully at home but that over the entire tournament they actually conceded just as many goal attempts on their own goal as they created, it’s actually worse than that because they actually conceded more attempts than they created. Of the last 4 teams England’s ratio of attempts for and against was by a country mile the worst. Over the entire tournament, Italy on the other hand have created 3 times as many attempts at goal than England have managed despite having faced better opposition and have also concede less attempts on their own goal than England have managed again despite having faced better opposition. The point I’m making here is that it’s 2 tournaments on the bounce now were England have had a relatively comfortable route/passage which has contributed a lot to their progress in these two tournaments, the problem is that reaching the latter stages of a tournament often doesn’t tell the real story. A good team should be measured by how they fair when up against another quality team and in England’s case I’m afraid that they fair terribly, they fail to see off the bigger teams probably as many as 8/9 times in 10, they’ve done it for a very long time and they still do so today. By comparison Italy are like the opposite 8/9 times out of 10 they beat real opponents, their problem usually lies in turning up for those lesser games or at least it has been historically. That’s the difference here between a team that thinks it’s good and one that has actually proven it. I’m not saying England are rubbish, far from it, they have a decent team who with the right manager could really make a mark. But, as things are they are not as good as the circus surrounding them think they are. Regarding beating Germany, even here we are talking about a German team that won 1 game in 4 and played 3 of those 4 on home soil. Still a good win for England but lets be honest with ourselves, not the real Germany.
I do think having sancho on would be better, but saying he would "track runs" is not really true. He had some of the lowest numbers in terms of defensive actions and tracking back, its actually discussed in an earlier tifo video.
JJ Bull (even though you Scottish lol) have got this spot on! England were outplayed and showed Italy too much respect. If it was a boxing match it would of ended in the 80th minute being too behind on points! Why didn’t we play 4 at the back! 😢
England scored too early, thus they decided to stay deep almost throughout the game. Italy meanwhile keep changing the pace of the game, especially after the 2nd half to keep up the pressure. Of cos with a little bit of luck.
Isn't that why they brought Saka on as he was the out ball but also more defensively minded than Sancho? They actually had more joy in extra time and John Stones almost scored the winner but for a whisker.
The title of this video should've been "How England Lost the Euro 2020 Final" ... maybe make one now that explains what Mancini did to overcome the overly defensive strategy that Southgate displayed.
I actually thought that they were getting overloads out wide which lead to the goal and to England being dangerous early till Italy adjusted to counter it
Tbh i think the decision of Southgate was right, he just didn't execute it. If the English played with two wing backs who also attacked I believe it would have been way harder for Italy
Someone show this to Southgate, it became desperately obvious we were in wrong formation from about the half hour mark, and we didn't change until mid-way 2nd half. Subs were awfully late, and that's excluding the scapegoated penalty takers. 2nd half was desparate for a Grealish / Sancho to get the ball and keep in a tight space, drag defenders to them and attract space elsewhere to open the game back up.
What should we call the video? "How Italy Won the Euro 2020 Final". Perfect. Okay, now what should we talk about on the video? "How England lost the Euro 2020 Final". ... "Why are you looking at me like that?"
This is more "How England lost the final" rather then "How Italy won". Can we get a video focusing on Italy's tactics? You know the team that actually won...
When I saw the line up for the final I felt Mount was our key man, would he be able to collect the ball on the half turn and provide quick ball to Sterling and Kane...during that first half he was reasonably successful but as the game went on he because increasingly absent. The deviation from the Germany game where we had far more success with this formation was the use of Saka (instead of Mount). With both Saka and Sterling on the pitch we were able to use their directness and pace to cause the Germans problems and effectively relieve pressure on our own defense. Against Ukraine and Denmark we continued with Saka or Sancho and this provided a potency in our attack. I understand the quality of Mount but Southgate got the balance all wrong for the final and should have started one of Saka or Sancho....with them on the pitch the Italian full backs would have been guarded to not push up and leave aches of space behind and the aging CBs concerned with Kane dropping deep and pace hitting them.
You say hindsight is a wonderful thing, but you showed in a similar tactical video prior to the match why England shouldn't play three at the back. I'd give yourself a little more credit, and I hope Steve Holland and co. watch this one day :)
Yeah but not many were saying this before the first game. I jumped on Italy to win it at 9-1 before the tournament - I could not believe how people kept underestimating this Italian side that was unbeaten and playing terrific football for the last two years. Football games are won in midfield and the best 3 midfields in Europe are currently France, Spain and Italy. Italy with a fit again Pellegrini and Sensi has the best midfield in Europe and probably the world as it's also superior to Brazil's and Argentina's at present. In this tournament, Italy's midfield scored 5 goals (Locatelli, Pessina, Barella). England's midfield scored zero goals. There's your difference in standard of play in midfield.
Some of those fans were bonkers - celebrating/cheering like crazy when Pickford saved from Jorginho as if that had won them the cup?? You act like that when you win, not when you're still behind.
Misleading title, it’s a bit more how England lost. I think England would’ve won with their approach had Mancini not made the great substitution choice of berardi for immobile that allowed for the more fluidity in their attack so they could retain the ball longer in England’s final third.
“It’s a real shame for England” JJ says whilst his Scottish blood cheers deep inside 😂😂
It's the happiest I've heard him sound all tournament
How do you know it’s cheering? Did you visit it’s house today?
@@wildsurfer12 almost all Scottish were cheering for Italy
@@wildsurfer12 everyone outside of England was cheering for Italy
Ha ha.
They hit the ground running, were just the best team in the tournament. A joy to see the Italians talents comes into full fruition. Beautiful football and great narrative to boot!
An incredible story same as in 06 and 82. They have a way of creating a great story. Like a fine opera 😎
@@megadave1197 thank you guys 🇮🇹🇮🇹❤️
"And a real shame..... for England"- JJ Bull, The Scottish Bullard
ITALY DESERVE IT, they played against world class teams and won, they played with a courageous and entertaining performance, definitely italy deserved to win this euro and am sure if they were lucky they would finished it off in second half Pickford had great performance, again it deserve this trophy and didn't steal it.
Italy deserved it because they scored their pens, otherwise England did well to shut them down.
@@MildChunkySalsa If Pickford wasn't having amazin night it would finished 4-1 in second half.
@@MildChunkySalsa shut them down? When?
@@schioppi7260 out of the total 19 shots Italy took, only 6 were on target. That’s not efficient offense from Italy who were much better in the games before. They didn’t score from open play either. Pickford was great but Italy were wasteful.
@@schioppi7260 Italy had a lot of shots but often from distance. Only a few were on target and not many troubled Pickford. JJs point on not counter attacking is valid, but if not for a goalmouth scramble, England would have won.
It amazes me that there are people who wanted Chiellini ejected for a half-field shirt pull
I mean, it was a half-field choke to the ground with him standing off the pitch. I like Chiellini, it wouldn't have changed the outcome but 'shirt pull' seems VERY generous.
@@azapro911 bro, you’re joking right? Even at the pitch with my friends we pull each other shirts. It’s not dangerous, tell me one reason for it being dangerous
@@ignls8809 Handball in the box isn't dangerous, it's still a penalty. Bit of shirt tug handbags, fine. That?! Full credit to Chiellini, he took a calculated risk on the ref bottling it and that's exactly what happened. 🤷♂️
@@azapro911 exactly, when you’re 37 you know when to take a strategic yellow
@@azapro911 Tell me under which letter of the law that's a red
Stage 5: Acceptance
🤣
He Scottish sooooooo
I must give JJ credit because yesterday I watched the Italy analysis from before the tournament and it was just spot on, it looked like it was done after the final and not before the first game
Southgate should have watched it
This video is about how England lost. Not how Italy won. Italy were great entertainment through the tournament. They deserve more coverage.
the two things are linked.
Way to remedy that is for an Italian football channel to analyse their tournament. 🤷♂️
They can make their own coverage?? People in the UK don’t care about Italy and how they won
True, the rest of the UK is as downtrodden and defeatist as you'd like us to be. Not happening. Ever.
Other countries are more than welcome to come up with their own globally popular sports and then base their own globally popular media around what they are doing.
No? Oh well, they'll just have to keep obsessing over 🏴 then.
@@JamesCM86 That's why the English will never win anything - not prepared to learn from other country's achievements. Too insular and arrogant to change. Will be far longer than another 55 years before their next success. In the meantime every other country will continue to laugh at them and their biased and uneducated media and football 'pundits' like the clowns Neville and Ferdinand.
"Counter-attacking without the countering and the attacking" So basically defending 😂
And that too quite shaky
Basically losing
Because Mancini's tactic was the best in Euro, he had the perfect players for his system, the players trusted his plan and they played with his tactic confidently. Mancini has shown what he can do, if he can build his own clique
perfect players maybe in the first games, but without spinazzola and with florenzi under used, italian team had to rely more on the tactics, that’s where Mancini gave his best in my opinion.
@@ludovicopizzillo6688 Yeah I was impressed by Mancini, Donnarumma, Chiellini, Bonucci, Spinazzola, Barella, Insigne and Chiesa
@@containedhurricane Agree, those were the players who did most.
Immobile was almost useless, maybe because he was always covered, jorginho and verratti did their job but those who really gave 110% are the players that you mentioned
More than the single players, it was the team that was perfect. For instance: a better centerforward than Immobile would have been good (Immobile performs far better for Lazio than for the Nazionale).
@@ludovicopizzillo6688 this is not spoken about enough. Mancini's loss of Spina and how he adapted accordingly
Been so much complaining about Southgate's tactics, end of the day Mancini is a very experienced and decorated manager who got a lot of little things right as the match wore on.
Sort of the same thing no? Gareth was tactically outclassed by mancini, shows that while southgate has been great for England's locker room culture and has great man management, tactically he's still the man who got relegated with borough
Not really everybody seems convinced that they've got the same genius ideas and honestly believe that a bloke who's managed three international semi-finals won't have pondered them much earlier. "Play more attacking football!" Great, so still fail to break down that tightly packed Italian defence and get beaten much more comfortably. "Start Grealish every game!" Just back from injury and constant bullseye on him, superb. "Don't make the 19 year-old take any penalties, it's too much pressure!" But do start him in some of our biggest ever matches, knowing he'll have to take one in sudden death if it's tied after five, awe-inspiring.
@@azapro911 Surely the fact that it doesn't require a genius to see where England went wrong just proves my point that Southgate tactically isn't strong and far too defensive for his own good. England played as if it was the last 5 minutes from the 20th, his substitutions made 0 impact and its obvious you don't give a 19 year old who has NEVER taken a professional penalty the most important kick of the most important match in his life. As you said it doesnt take a genius to figure it out yet Gareth still got it wrong, what does that tell you?
@@odysseus1660 It tells me exactly what I said before, he'll have had these thoughts long before any of us and known why it wouldn't have worked better than us. Once Italy got re-organised, we had two choices: try to see out the lead we had or just hand them a much quicker trophy ceremony. If Saka scores, everyone's praising faith placed in youth. Jorginho missed his penalty, so he's overrated and Mancini doesn't know what he's doing. See? Makes no sense to look at it that way.
@@azapro911 The reason Italy were able to get back into the game was because of England willingly conceding possession. Italy were rocked by Englands early goal and physically England were winning 1vs1 duels. We then switched to 5 at the back and didn't even press Italy in possession. Italy then grew in confidence and outplayed England. You can't win against a good side with only 4 attacking players on the pitch
Because Italy has a phenomenal manager, that is brave, courageous, knows what he has and uses them adequately. As well their team is the most versatile team this tournament, they can win in any way.
Loose against Italy is always like a old man loose a game with a kid or a woman. The old man will always try to find a reason and a excuse for his lost, and never admit the strength of his opponent.
1. I don’t think Southgate was wrong to start 3-4-3, but he was wrong to NOT change early in the 2nd half when it wasn’t working.
2. Also Southgate just never wanted to use his bench. Sterling has scored a lot of goals, but would a FRESH Jadon Sancho have been better for the final 15 minutes of extra time? Or when Shaw was tiring why not bring on Chilwell?
3. Had Southgate reverted to 4-3-3, yes the Italians would have seen more of the ball, but they could CONTEST the midfield, so maybe possession would have been 55%-45%.
4. And yeah penalties. Don't bring on people to take them in the 120th minute. It doesn't work. Give them some game time to soak up the 'feel' of the game.
Southgate’s game management was poor against Italy. The only real problem with his tactics was how defensive it made England.
I really don't like the "feel" argument regarding the 120 min subs. It's you vs the keeper that's it.
Don't think Chilwell was on the bench. Suppose you could have stuck Saka at left back though and brought on Sancho
@@haworths623 The fact that chilwell wasn't on the bench says it all though - who was teh replacement if Luke shaw got injured? Chillwell is one of the best left backs in the world!
@@FKF95 I think it's really important - there is so much psychology that the player needs some time to adjust to the situation their in. imo. could be wrong.
Never underestimate Italy when it comes to football… never… we have been writing football’s history since day 1… not being able to qualify for 2018 World Cup was heartbreaking, a National tragedy… but we’re ITALY, we never die, we never stop dreaming, we worship football every day, we live for it… and just three years later WE’RE BACK IN TOWN 🇮🇹🇮🇹💙💙🏆🏆
Deserved win for Italy 🇮🇹
If you watched the tifo irl podcasts daily you'd see the slight jump in attitude when the final finished.
JJ was holding it back to be respectful because Joe was being a toddler but inside he was happy
tbh as an Italian who was buzzing going into the podcast, i can understand why Joe was like that, his country had lost a final and he knows that was the last chance for at least 20 years
@@ayyguevara8448 for 20 years? Don’t be silly. FIRST chance in 55 years, many more on the way. See you next year😏
@@Disturbance70 yeah, the easiest run to the final in euros history, all but 1 at home. See you next year when you get dumped out by Chile or Senegal in the round of 32
@@ayyguevara8448 apparently every home team should win every time then.
Always an excuse with england haters. Easily the second best in the tournament, and we’re a young squad.
So see you soon.
@@Disturbance70 it's not an excuse but it is a contributing factor as to why this is the best chance England will ever have. Also "England hater"?, grow up.
PS cry more muahahahaah
When England scored early, they had just awaken the “ monster “ in Italy, that gave them more determination to come back harder, the Italians are relentless, they showed it by keeping possession and even when they lost it, they would do anything to get possession back, that’s their true strength, they always find a way.... that puts fear in their opponents
England: *scores goal in the first 2 minutes*
Also England: Alright lads, our job here is done, we won
The English would never confuse Chiellini with Bonucci EVER AGAIN.
Tbh that shouldn't already have been the case when you face two players that have set the standard for italian football and defending in general even at champions league level for like a decade... And then... Come on man, it's easy: just look for Chiellini's nose!!
They look like shaved twins.
Chiellini is the funny Guy
Bonnucci is the serious one.
Bonucci's the CM Punk one, right?
@@azapro911 lol best reference ever.
@@larrygarciamondragon980 Honestly, the resemblance is remarkable, he's even got the same grin. 😄
Love how a Scotsman is presenting this. All very good explanations and great tactical awareness and all delivered with a hint of smugness 😂👏
Sir JJ Bullguson
Very interesting. Simply Italy has been superior in each statistic: ball possession, shots on target, penalties..🇮🇹❤
There's a lot to dwell on, but honestly I think England losing comes down to one thing: that first twenty minutes, Italy panicked, they couldn't bring a ball down to save their life, every touch was heavy and every movement mistimed. England could have gone for the jugular and been 2 or three up - they sat back, Italy had time to calm down (the Jorginho injury especially gave them a breather and a moment to reflect), then England's dominance was gone. I understand having conviction in the plan but you need to know when to smell blood, because Italy were properly on the ropes after the goal. Once they calmed down, there was only one team in the game.
JJ's being modest about hindsight... Pretty much predicted this on the pre-game livestream.
Probably a safe bet not letting joe do this one
Joe is not an analyst. He wouldn't do it anyway.
I agree totally. I watched it in Italy in a pub and I said to an Italian friend "England are trying to play catenaccio against Italy after 10 minutes, are we mad!?"
Chiellini knew it could have been at least a yellow card. As Mourinho said.. he should teach defender's tricks at university of football 😁
How did Italy win the euros?
By winning all of their games.
technically drawed against Spain and England.
Still England fans can't admit it 😂
I do love sore losers, makes the victory more enjoyable 😘
@@rhodigian the referee whistled 3 times after the penalty. So they technically won lol😅
@@h3irloom_473 that's a 0.75 factor in FIFA World Ranking, instead of a full 1.00.
That costed us the 4th place. We are still behind England (+France, Brasil, Belgium) in that special Ranking, for less than 2 points
@@rhodigian And still ended up winning both games as the record books will show.
Italians (players and coaches alike) have some abilities that are greatly underestimated yet useful. One of these is their ability to adapt to the changing dynamics of a game as events unfold. Against Spain they quickly realised that they would not win the battle for possession, so they changed their gameplan. In the final they played a totally different game.
The analysis rightly mentions how Italy did not try to rush things. That patience is another key aspect of the best Italian teams: if one looks at the finals won in 1982, 2006 and 2021 in all of them Italy suffered some early setbacks such as conceding first or missing a penalty (Cabrini in 1982). However the players did not let that become a distraction and kept their focus on the broader mission. They were very meticulous in the way they decided to pick apart England's defence, waiting for the right moment to strike.
As a neutral, all of this England fans are so annoying. Italy was the better side, they just play better and Mancini even made a great subs. He subs many unknows players that people don't know if they're not watching serie A. I mean Italy won the game with Berardi (great but midtable club player), Belotti (almost relegate) and Berna (bad seasons in juve). But everythings just works.
Chiellini play almost like a midfielder in 2nd half and Bonucci as CB alone shows their confidence and trust. It pays off well. The players trust Mancin's plan and vice versa.
Italy DESERVES to WIN.
"Counter-Attacking without the countering or the attacking" Ooof!
How italy won: a video about england
I'm a little annoyed. I live in the US and have been a fan of the Italian national team since I was a kid. since soccer isn't popular here, if I want to watch analysis in English, it's gonna be from someone in the UK (I know the Scottish aren't fond of England) . I'm greatful for the content but it's always "what England did to lose". If England won there would be a 2 hour documentary on each players life. I just want someone to praise the Italian team instead of explaining "what went wrong."
Being Italian I was interested to watch but I had basically the same impression. Could be entitled ''How England lost the match''. I'm a little disappointed, they could analyze how the ball was managed by the Italians, creating 19 shots. Saying just '' Italy did counter-press'' means bypassing the analysis.
Watch the Tifo football podcast on the final, JJ goes into good detail about how Italy managed England.
Title: “How Italy won EURO 2020”
Actual video: “How England lost EURO 2020”
Would have been nice to see some of the tactics behind how Italy won…
Updated summary:
Germany = 7 major trophies
Italy = 6 major trophies
France = 4 major trophies
Spain = 4 major trophies
England = 1 major trophy
The above says it all.
England are not and never have been a "heavyweight" footballing nation.
Same as Denmark, Greece and the Czechs!
@@niallsullivan1541 at least those nations arent yelling it's coming home
Yes. You can also mention Portugal and the Netherlands: they too have got just 1 major trophy. However they have often reached semi-finals and finals of competitions where England are mostly a quarter-final side. Portugal over the last 20 years or so have reached the final 4 in 2000, 2004, 2006, 2012 and 2016, which is quite impressive.
can't help but think JJ is loving this.
I laughed when he said everyone got excited when England scored the first goal, most of the world got depressed, even Southgate didn't seem happy with it lol.
The real excitement came about when Italy won.
As for the game, lets be blunt, the reason England did the tactics they did early on is because they expected Italy to do a constant barrage of attacks, something Italy didn't actually do until early on in the second half, if Italy did what they did in other games, I think England would have been forced to park the bus and only attack on the counter because of the constant pressure from the Italians.
In other words, it wasn't England that got the tactics wrong, it was Italy and Italy got the tactics wrong when playing Spain, also, the early goal that England got was a gift, Italy shouldn't of let that in but it went in anyway.
Also as been noticed, England don't score many goals in open play which doesn't bold well for England going forward considering they had it easy here, an easy path to the final whiles playing most games at home, Italy on the other hand played some tough teams, Italy was clearly the better team and if Italy were more aggressive on the attack, I suspect they could have scored a few goals against England because they panic very easy at the back line, it's just a shame Italy didn't play like that here as it could have been a bloodbath lol.
As for the English fans out there, if you think this team is good enough for the next world cup, think again, how easy of a set up did England want to get to the final? the same thing happened in the last world cup, an easy route, if a team like England can't win with things being so favourable, it means you're not good enough because any world-class team would have loved to have had the route England got through two major tournaments.
In any case, it looks like Italy are in a much better position for the world cup, they've played some tough teams, many games away from home and come out the other side, England on the other side didn't prove much apart from they played most games at home, had the ref onside many times and had an easy line up, that shouldn't fill anyone with confidence about this team doing much in the next world cup.
You're right - Italy is a strong chance in Qatar. With a fit again Zaniolo, Pellegrini, Sensi, Spinazzola and hopefully an in-form Kean (replacing immobile) Italy will be even stronger. Scamacca would have done a better job than Immobile and Bellotti.
Verratti, Barella, Sensi, Pellegrini, Locatelli, Pessina, Jorginho, Cristante - what a midfield!!!
You are right. Those chances to win tournaments don't come often, when they arrive you have to seize them. England - much like Belgium - have had that chance in 2018 and 2021 but fell short. Reaching a semi-final then a final is nothing to be sneered at, it's the best run England have had in tournaments for ages. But you can't live with the belief that those opportunities will keep coming your way. International football is rather unforgiving in nature.
@@monte5293 If those players that didn't make it, make it for the world cup, the team is likely going to be stronger, especially in the mid-field.
@@oldskoolmusicnostalgia England had two golden openings to win 2 major tournaments and yet failed at it, those chances don't happen that offern, that England messed it up whiles it was on a plate twice doesn't bold well for their chances when things are more neutral or against them.
For me, Italy have proved themselves, they've beaten some tough teams and also beaten teams where the crowd is hostile, England on the other hand have not prove much here, they've had an easy route to the final and played most of their games at home, they won't have that advantage in the next world cup so they could look much worse there.
Southgate if he's smart will get out before then before his rep takes a hit, at least now he can say he got to the Euro finals but if he's the manager at the next world cup and does much worse there, that's what most of the public will remember.
Italy won by not claiming "it was home" already before the game had been played
They know a thing called Silenzio Stampa..👍
@@ansellhalim much more effective than "arrogant punditry" lol
I’ll caveat all this first and say I’m no tactical genius but surely if you’re a manager you’d do something like this substitution wise
30 mins - game goes downhill
45 mins- small tactical changes at half time, no subs made
55 mins- game continues to go downhill
60- makes a change
You could see the goal coming a mile off, why would you only decide to change something after the goal goes in
I’m not a Gareth out kinda guy, but what made this worse was that when the changes were made later on in the game you could see that they were actually good changes, so it’s just a shame that Southgate didn’t make them earlier
I think this is an unfortunately reality which we have to face, Southgate just isn't that experienced at this level. Also, I was watching the game and personally, even though the game was going downhill, England has always had the potential on the pitch to bounce back. I think questioning the making of changes after the goal seems like a hindsight thing, and it's near impossible for Southgate to make changes then.
Also, who would you change? The game is dominated by Italy, which was pretty much the way we set up.
1. Bring off a defender and your options are Mings, Coady and White (inexperienced, not the best).
2. Bring off a wingback an your options are Reece James or Chilwell (seem like good options, but not big changes on the current wingbacks, and are quite inexperienced at int. level).
3. Bring off a midfielder and you risk an important defensive player being subbed off for a strong attacking presence who compromises the defense (Grealish, Foden).
4. Bring Henderson and Bellingham on, and you have two players who haven't seen a lot of match time in recent times, and are significantly worse than Phillips and Rice.
5. Bring off a winger and you have a demoralized Jadon Sancho, and Rashford with a niggling injury against a physical defense. Also, if you sub off Sterling, you are getting rid of England's top scorer and a vital cog of the attack. If you sub off Mount, then you lose a defensive presence in attacking midfield area and let Verrati-Jorginho dominate midfield even more.
So what's your change?
@@parthpiyushprasad709 yeah I get all that
At the time I’d have done Sancho for Sterling (I know Southgate definitely wouldn’t have done that). And then maybe Grealish for Mount 5/10 mins later if the Sancho sub didn’t work
Personally Sterling was a bit of a passenger in that game, and yeah he gets a lot of goals and Southgate clearly has a lot of faith in him, but I think having someone who has that capability to run with the ball as opposed to being pretty slick off the ball would’ve helped us a lot.
And as for grealish for mount, yeah it’s a bit more of an attacking move, but with Kane looking more and more isolated in attack I think that change would’ve meant that we’d have looked alot more threatening on the counter (with Sanchos ball carrying skills as well) and around Italy’s box
Not saying that both of these would’ve definitely worked, but as the game progressed I just didn’t see any real way England were gonna get back into the game with the team they had on the field. And considering how much attacking depth we have it was a bit of an eyebrow raiser when Southgate didn’t use any of it until about 110 mins or whatever it was
The Italy goal was always coming from the 32nd minute.
Jadon Sancho would have been a great sub to bring on for Mount or Rice, someone to carry the ball 10+ yards, relieve some pressure, letting England’s wing backs in particular get out.
* I was saying this just before and at half time, didn’t realise that was going to be JJ’s recommendation too!
Mount was awful all game, kept giving simple 5 yard balls straight to Italy and squandering possession. Grealish should have been brought on for him long before. Rice was the best player in the pitch so I've no idea why he was taken off
@@StoutProper it’s not about the individual performance though is it, sancho would have changed the shape and intent of the team. Grealish is more of a key that unlocks doors.
@@TheSnkrPimp yes and sancho isn't a key that unlocks doors hence why he wasn't involved in any goals despite playing 90 minutes against Ukraine when England scored 4. Plus sancho can't really play in the middle of the park and is a liability when it comes to defensive work and positioning
@@StoutProper but my point (and from what I heard JJ say) was that England’s fundamental problem was simply not being able to get out of that 5-4-1 shape and breathe, so I’m of the opinion, strongly, that Sancho would have been the best first substitution at 1-0 to give Italy something to think about the other way, and to force them to at least consider keeping one more player back, plus the pace Sancho brings (which I assume is what Southgate tried to inject with Saka on for trippier)
Feel like it's a catch 22 for Southgate where Italy are just the better team with the better manager. If he sits back all game like he did it was inevitable we'd score eventually but if he attacked more like people wanted him to Italy could have easily scored more. Italy still had 19 shots with England defending for basically the whole game after the 20th imagine what chances they could create if England actually attacked
england has the better players imo , southgate just tactically inept imo
England have better individuals... operating as a team they are not as good and coordinated as the Italians.
I was expecting for something more like: "Italy didn't really won"
I genuinely don't think they did. I think England lost it. They had the lead for ages and if they hadn't sat off in the second half it could've been ours for the taking.
Guy's why you won't admit italy deserve they played against stronger opponents and won with amaxing performmance, Italy was the only team deserved to win this euro.
@@wilfroberts637 England had one shot on target all game no possession and no dominance.
Southgate knew the best chance was just to hold on after getting lucky.
If England went all out attack Italy would have won easily and Southgate would have been criticised for not holding the lead.
Italy won the tournament deservedly.
England couldn't despite home advantage super easy draw and being awarded the semi final with a shocking penalty decision.
Italy won matches.
England retreated to their bunker and hoped for a lucky break.
Not just this match, but whole tournament.
@@wilfroberts637 Jokes aside I believe that's a fair point. I think the terrible irony of this current great crop of players for England is that certainly the coaches and other quality staff imported to the Premier has indeed produced great players. However, is clear as day they still lack native world class head coaches. Nothing against Southgate whatsoever, but in terms of sheer tactical prowess he seems lacking. He doesn't even "look" like a great motivator at first glance nor seems to read the matches particularly well. Maybe he will prove us all wrong in the WC though. But I just can't stop thinking that a Guardiola/Bielsa/Klopp or even Tuchel/Conte/Mourinho would be a terrifying sight with this squad.
@@wilfroberts637 It is all hypothetical at the end of the day. One could also say that if England didn't sit back after they took the lead, Italy would have scored more than one and the game wouldn't even go into penalty. It goes both ways you know.
I waiting for this video. Forza Azzurri 🇮🇹
That match was to be decided by who was the best manager and Mancini clearly had the upper hand in there.
Technically italy players have more experience and better, England player's are young and most of them i guess it's their first major tournament
@@josephtuck4 as it was for Chiesa, Spinazzola, Barella, Emerson, Di Lorenzo, Berardi, Locatelli and Donnarumma. And it was even Jorginho's first international tournament (for the national team) and basically the first time Insigne and Immobile were first choice for Italy. So.... No? Like half of England's team had already got to the World Cup semis... That is quite a bit of experience.
I don't agree: Southgate gameplan was clearly better, he surprised Mancini with that 3421 formation and the two wingbacks made the first goal. So he deserves credit.
But then, italian players adjusted to the situation and (I have to agree with you on this) Southgate didn't read the game well and it was turned aroud.
@@josephtuck4 Don't forget that some English players like Mount, Walker, Stones, Sterling, Shaw, and Maguire -off the top of my head - had all recently played European club finals. The English team is also full of quality in the starting 11 and the bench so I don't see how Italian players are better and more experienced. They're exceptionally good and have had plenty of experience but I don't think that gave them a massive advantage over the English squad.
@@manuel7102 Agree with you on that. Southgate surprised the Italians during the first half, but Mancini read the game well and made the adjustments needed during HT. After that, Southgate didn't know how to come back and made some mistakes - like late substitutions or the penalty takers - that ended up giving the Italians the title.
Is it just me or is JJ Bull using nature energy and mastered the sage mode?
England made the mistake of playing defensively against a faster and more skilled Italy in team play. Switzerland, Turkey, Belgium, England, all share the same prejudice: "Italy plays defensive on counterattacks". But no, he has the ball, he's fast and attacks all the time. He only suffered against Spain because they played like us but had more quality. England after the first 20 minutes closed in defense to keep the result, a reckless choice with 70 minutes of play remaining. Italy won because they have an excellent coach and have superior teamwork. England got it all wrong, and proved they didn't have the quality of play that everyone believed. Against a defensive team like Denmark to pass you had to score on a dubious penalty, a great team would not have needed it. I wonder how the English were able to be so sure of winning, it was clear that if they had played like against Denmark, Italy would have torn you apart, we have played a better European up to that point you have underestimated us too much, same mistake of France against Switzerland: "If Italy, which is poor, has won 3-0 against Switzerland, we France can easily win" France eliminated by Switzerland.
Jorginho and Verrati controls very well the ball and they hardly lose ball or miss-pass, that makes opponents difficult to steal balls and counter attacks, it remind me kind of Xavi and Iniesta which means the game will end with them passing each other 😂
Jorginho reminds me more Busquets than Xavi. Sensi, which was injured before the tournament, plays like Xavi, but he is still more offensive.
Locatelli is more to Busquets type, Jorginho can raise the rythm and faster than both
The Italians are just better. 6 trophies in major tournaments while England has one in 1966!!!!
That’s because English football didn’t evolve after 1966. Other countries kept finding new ideas and way of playing but English football just kinda stayed the same, and now they’re trying to catch-up.
Also, England has never beaten Italy in a world cup or Euro cup game. 1980, 1990, 2012, 2014, 2020...
I think this is an unfortunately reality which we have to face, Southgate just isn't that experienced at this level. Also, I was watching the game and personally, even though the game was going downhill, England has always had the potential on the pitch to bounce back. I think questioning the making of changes after the goal seems like a hindsight thing, and it's near impossible for Southgate to make changes then.
Also, who would you change? The game is dominated by Italy, which was pretty much the way we set up.
1. Bring off a defender and your options are Mings, Coady and White (inexperienced, not the best).
2. Bring off a wingback an your options are Reece James or Chilwell (seem like good options, but not big changes on the current wingbacks, and are quite inexperienced at int. level).
3. Bring off a midfielder and you risk an important defensive player being subbed off for a strong attacking presence who compromises the defense (Grealish, Foden).
4. Bring Henderson and Bellingham on, and you have two players who haven't seen a lot of match time in recent times, and are significantly worse than Phillips and Rice.
5. Bring off a winger and you have a demoralized Jadon Sancho, and Rashford with a niggling injury against a physical defense. Also, if you sub off Sterling, you are getting rid of England's top scorer and a vital cog of the attack. If you sub off Mount, then you lose a defensive presence in attacking midfield area and let Verrati-Jorginho dominate midfield even more.
So what's your change? @Tifo IRL
It's only been a few days but I already miss the Joe, JJ, Seb, Alex post match podcast from this channel 💔
They won when Chiellini cursed Saka with kiricocho.
😁
Or maybe when Chiellini went to check the wash instructions of Saka's jersey. 😂
First goal is 100 % error by di Lorenzo, running with his back towards the side of the pitch he should cover, not getting his body on the line etc. It was more an Italian error than a proof of the English system. Mount, Kane and Sterling scored a combined 0.00xG for the final, with two holding midfielders, England lacked creativity and when the ref doesn't call Sterling and Kane's diving, they don't have a chance
Simple answer....Italy were better.
And with those toxic fans England doesn't deserve it.
That's it basically. The team was likeable and Southgate was a gent throughout, but that element, small though it may be, are so negative, they deserve f**k all!
I think the biggest factor in this game was the psotiioning of the English wing backs.
Early in the first half they started very high and showed exactly why 3-4-3 can cause trouble to 4-3-3; the wing backs end up in loads of space between the opponents fullback and winger which gives them loads of time and space to cause damage.
This is what happened early. The aggresive positioning of the wing backs caused Italy endless positional problems and they couldn't work out how to get close to Shaw and Trippier. The role of Walker also encouraged this.
After about half an hour England committed the cardinal sin of a back 3; Don't let yourself be forced into a back 5. This made them much easier to defend against, neutered any attacking threat and allowed Italy time and space to work themselves into the game and deny them the ball for long, long periods.
Great visuals. Great analysis. I am from the footballing hinterlands of India. And I totally loved it.
4:05 counter attacking without the countering or attacking. I died!
I like how JJ promotes The Athletic. It’s kinda like someone off camera is holding up cue cards
Tifo is just a marketing tool for the athletic at this point
Great vid spot on analysis
Love the video, thanks. One small ask….it's easier to follow when you keep the camera on the image of the pitch instead of back and forth between JJ and the pitch. Small thing.
Very accurate analysis but one which most England fans won't agree with. It looked City playing against Burnley/Crystal Palace as JJ Bull mentioned in the post match podcast.
Thanks for the video
If England had scored early against Germany in round of 16, they lose the game.
Probably true yeah... but then Germany didn't players who could just put the ball into the net
This video isn't about how Italy won. It's about how England lost. 😂
for the english, everything is about them
@@majukun yet the analysis is given by a Scotsman, you clown
@@darkstarr2321 for a predominantly english audience
@@majukun so you're questioning his integrity now rather than your original argument that for the English, everything is about them?
@@darkstarr2321 what has this to do with his integrity? Nothing he said it's false.
It's just that for an English audience, they want to hear how they lost instead of how their opponent won, and the video reflects it.
I guess it burns. It really should be how Italy won, rather than how England lost. Italy didn’t win because England lacked, but because they kept it together.
As an Italian who has watched Italy since the 1978 world cup, one of Italy's major strengths besides the obvious of generally more often than not having had very good teams is that they have never been a one trick pony.
Many teams have a certain way of playing and that’s pretty much it, Italy have always been a lot more versatile in that respect, they have generally always been very good at approaching games differently depending on the opposition and even making that change in the game if required.
Tactics in Italy have always been a big thing, probably bigger than anywhere else in the world, many of us Italians would argue that there is too much tactics and not enough football in Italy, the point I’m trying to make here is that because of the amount of tactics the players have faced, they are probably a little ahead of the curve and more tactically astute on the pitch.
That’s not to say they always get it right, but, having watched Italy for 43 years, if there’s one thing I’ve learned, is that when it truly matters to them (because it doesn’t always) they tend to get it right tactically and are incredibly difficult to beat.
Spot on - just ask Germany how hard Italy is to beat.
@@monte5293 Exactly! And not just Germany.
Plenty of the better teams have a decent track record against Italy and have held their own, but the moment you strip out friendlies even qualifiers and only look at tournament football (were it really counts), that decent track record these better teams have suddenly becomes very one sided in favour of Italy...
@@dia6olo64 Yep, spot on, yet Italy keeps getting underestimated before every tournament - I mean how the hell can Belgium be the number one ranked team when they have won absolutely nothing and Italy have won 34 competitive games in a row and a Euro?
@@monte5293 It is clear that the FIFA rankings are badly flawed, I don’t know exactly how they score them because I haven’t looked, but like you said, when you have teams like Belgium at number 1, something is very wrong. And not just with Belgium’s ranking because there are many others whose ranking is not justifiable.
Without knowing the scoring system, it is clear that you can almost pick up as many points via friendlies, qualifiers and even group stage games as one can by winning a tournament and that’s just ridiculous!
If switched to a back 4, I think you should also talk about the possibility of Italy then being able to overload down the wings (esp the left). Like you said, Gareth was being conservative and there was a thought process behind that.
How italy actually lost the tournament?
I was saying all tournament that Southgate's fanatical conservatism would come back to bite England at some stage, just happened to be the final.
On penalties because we missed 3. Not the most convincing argument I've ever heard. Look at the team that finished the game
At least we got to one this time. We’re not a perfect team but neither are Italy. The main difference is that Italy have the experience to know how to change the game in their favour.
@@wildsurfer12 yep, once they'd worked us out it was increasingly one way traffic. I can't really knock Southgate's tactics because they got us to the final and two penalties away from winning it, but I have to wonder whether a more tactically astute manager would have changed it sooner and in a way that countered the changes they made to their play.
If buts and maybes, at the end of the day we came as close as you can come without winning it and only failed at the final and inevitable hurdle which has been England's Achilles heel for so long. What's interesting is that in 66 if it had been a draw after extra time it woks have gone to a replay. I do wonder whether that England team would have won a penalty shoot out and if they had would it have led to different outcomes for future England teams?
Basically this was a rerun of the WC 18' semi-final and Southgate hasn't learnt a thing.
Southgate set up like Chelsea did against City in the CL final. That system worked because the front 3 pressed exceptionally to force the play wide. Whenever City did manage any play from them positions then one of the central defenders would step into midfield to close the play. Also, the distance between the DEF and ATT for Chelsea was minimal and disciplined. England did none of these things.
Southgate is to blame, horrible management performance. Should have adapted the play to become 4 at the back out of possession. Hoddle highlights this well in a pre-tournament discussion with J. Cole and Rio. Well worth searching out and watching. He also details the WC 18' semi which perfectly explains what happened against Italy. Southgate is horrible and must be replaced.
Stop upsetting me with TRUTH!
We've seen this pattern so many times. When will England learn the lesson? You don't defend effectively by removing your attacking potential and handing over possession to a team like Italy.
Statistically England were nnot great in the entire tournament let alone against Italy.
If we look deeper and analyse England’s entire tournament, FIFA rankings say England's group was the 3rd easiest behind the Netherlands and Belgium while Italy had the second toughest group.
Also of the 7 opponents played by the finalists, England's opponents have a total ranking of 151, Italy were England’s only top 10 ranking opponent at 7. Italy's opponents have a total ranking of 93 of which 3 of them were ranked 1, 4 and 6 in the world and even after that another two were ranked 13 and 17, they faced far tougher opponents.
On top of that you can add that not only did England pretty much play fully at home but that over the entire tournament they actually conceded just as many goal attempts on their own goal as they created, it’s actually worse than that because they actually conceded more attempts than they created. Of the last 4 teams England’s ratio of attempts for and against was by a country mile the worst.
Over the entire tournament, Italy on the other hand have created 3 times as many attempts at goal than England have managed despite having faced better opposition and have also concede less attempts on their own goal than England have managed again despite having faced better opposition.
The point I’m making here is that it’s 2 tournaments on the bounce now were England have had a relatively comfortable route/passage which has contributed a lot to their progress in these two tournaments, the problem is that reaching the latter stages of a tournament often doesn’t tell the real story.
A good team should be measured by how they fair when up against another quality team and in England’s case I’m afraid that they fair terribly, they fail to see off the bigger teams probably as many as 8/9 times in 10, they’ve done it for a very long time and they still do so today.
By comparison Italy are like the opposite 8/9 times out of 10 they beat real opponents, their problem usually lies in turning up for those lesser games or at least it has been historically.
That’s the difference here between a team that thinks it’s good and one that has actually proven it.
I’m not saying England are rubbish, far from it, they have a decent team who with the right manager could really make a mark. But, as things are they are not as good as the circus surrounding them think they are.
Regarding beating Germany, even here we are talking about a German team that won 1 game in 4 and played 3 of those 4 on home soil. Still a good win for England but lets be honest with ourselves, not the real Germany.
That's it. For a defensive team England concede way too many opportunities.
Long analysis short:
England's catenaccio after twenty mins didn't pay off 💙
I do think having sancho on would be better, but saying he would "track runs" is not really true. He had some of the lowest numbers in terms of defensive actions and tracking back, its actually discussed in an earlier tifo video.
On penalties, after scoring one of the ugliest goals of the tournament.
Kalvin Phillips did take a shot from open play, as did Jack Grealish. First went wide, second was blocked.
I thought Chellini was key, His width squashed us further into our own half. Southgate got the tactics wrong but I'm proud of where we got to.
JJ Bull (even though you Scottish lol) have got this spot on! England were outplayed and showed Italy too much respect. If it was a boxing match it would of ended in the 80th minute being too behind on points! Why didn’t we play 4 at the back! 😢
Amazing analysis
England scored too early, thus they decided to stay deep almost throughout the game. Italy meanwhile keep changing the pace of the game, especially after the 2nd half to keep up the pressure. Of cos with a little bit of luck.
Isn't that why they brought Saka on as he was the out ball but also more defensively minded than Sancho? They actually had more joy in extra time and John Stones almost scored the winner but for a whisker.
Hey Tifo can you please one video on how Argentina won the Copa America?
The title of this video should've been "How England Lost the Euro 2020 Final" ... maybe make one now that explains what Mancini did to overcome the overly defensive strategy that Southgate displayed.
Love JJ the bull the Bullard. Love TIFO IRL
I actually thought that they were getting overloads out wide which lead to the goal and to England being dangerous early till Italy adjusted to counter it
It's about England, not Italy. This video should be called "How England Lost the Euro 2020 Final"
England were great! Cheers to Southgate and his boys for a wonderful tournament in which they did not lose a game. From an Italy fan.
Tbh i think the decision of Southgate was right, he just didn't execute it. If the English played with two wing backs who also attacked I believe it would have been way harder for Italy
Someone show this to Southgate, it became desperately obvious we were in wrong formation from about the half hour mark, and we didn't change until mid-way 2nd half. Subs were awfully late, and that's excluding the scapegoated penalty takers. 2nd half was desparate for a Grealish / Sancho to get the ball and keep in a tight space, drag defenders to them and attract space elsewhere to open the game back up.
The fact that I said the same exact thing as you is good. Pity I cannot work for Tifo rn
What should we call the video?
"How Italy Won the Euro 2020 Final".
Perfect. Okay, now what should we talk about on the video?
"How England lost the Euro 2020 Final".
...
"Why are you looking at me like that?"
This is more "How England lost the final" rather then "How Italy won". Can we get a video focusing on Italy's tactics? You know the team that actually won...
every time Chiesa had the ball it looked like something will happen - thats why they kept 5 in the back I think.
When I saw the line up for the final I felt Mount was our key man, would he be able to collect the ball on the half turn and provide quick ball to Sterling and Kane...during that first half he was reasonably successful but as the game went on he because increasingly absent. The deviation from the Germany game where we had far more success with this formation was the use of Saka (instead of Mount). With both Saka and Sterling on the pitch we were able to use their directness and pace to cause the Germans problems and effectively relieve pressure on our own defense. Against Ukraine and Denmark we continued with Saka or Sancho and this provided a potency in our attack. I understand the quality of Mount but Southgate got the balance all wrong for the final and should have started one of Saka or Sancho....with them on the pitch the Italian full backs would have been guarded to not push up and leave aches of space behind and the aging CBs concerned with Kane dropping deep and pace hitting them.
Estoy feliz de que Italia ganó, Argentina e Italia por la Copa Maradona en Napoli en diciembre.❤❤❤❤❤❤❤🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹
You say hindsight is a wonderful thing, but you showed in a similar tactical video prior to the match why England shouldn't play three at the back. I'd give yourself a little more credit, and I hope Steve Holland and co. watch this one day :)
spot on
After the first EURO game everyone was saying, rightfully that Italy are the main contender
Yeah but not many were saying this before the first game. I jumped on Italy to win it at 9-1 before the tournament - I could not believe how people kept underestimating this Italian side that was unbeaten and playing terrific football for the last two years. Football games are won in midfield and the best 3 midfields in Europe are currently France, Spain and Italy. Italy with a fit again Pellegrini and Sensi has the best midfield in Europe and probably the world as it's also superior to Brazil's and Argentina's at present. In this tournament, Italy's midfield scored 5 goals (Locatelli, Pessina, Barella). England's midfield scored zero goals. There's your difference in standard of play in midfield.
Some of those fans were bonkers - celebrating/cheering like crazy when Pickford saved from Jorginho as if that had won them the cup?? You act like that when you win, not when you're still behind.
Misleading title, it’s a bit more how England lost. I think England would’ve won with their approach had Mancini not made the great substitution choice of berardi for immobile that allowed for the more fluidity in their attack so they could retain the ball longer in England’s final third.