So England have lost another penalty shootout. Gareth Southgate and his coaching group either didn’t do their homework or, if they did, they left it on the bus.
It was his chance to make history – and he did, just not the type he had envisaged. Rather, it brought back to life the cruel memories of that Euro 96 penalty against Germany, as England’s long wait goes on.
So what about that homework? The 2018 World Cup round of 16 victory against Colombia was a significant day for England. It was over 20 years in the making. They had finally done it – winning a penalty shootout, as they put themselves into the quarterfinals.
Fuelled by a nation gripped with feelings of relief, joy and excitement, England started to believe. Perhaps it was their year, at last, and that football was finally “coming home”. The landmark moment sparked what was ultimately an impressive World Cup in which they reached the semi-final, before bowing out to Croatia in extra time.
Fast-forward to the Euro 2020 final. Another new dawn, a chance for history. Another heartbreak.
On a day that should have ended in English elation, Italy stole the show, courtesy of the dreaded penalty shootout.
Upon closer analysis, however, emerges a glaring, almost comical failing in England’s preparation. One that meant they set themselves up for failure long before young Bukayo Saka fired into the ever-reliable gloves of Gianluigi Donnarumma.
It’s almost as if the England camp were so relieved by lifting their shootout voodoo in 2018 that they completely forgot why it went so well for them and not so well for Colombia!
The Euro 2020 final against Italy saw five of the ten penalties in the shootout not converted.
There has been vigorous debate in the aftermath surrounding Southgate’s choice of penalty takers for the final, with question marks regarding the decision to allocate the fifth penalty to Saka. He is a bright talent who will no doubt grow as a player, but nonetheless a 19-year-old who until then, had not taken a single penalty at professional level. Talk about pressure!
Furthermore, the decision to introduce Marcus Rashford and Jadon Sancho, no earlier than the 119th minute, for the sole purpose of firing home in a shootout has raised more than a few eyebrows. Again, one can only imagine the additional pressure on their young shoulders, in knowing the only contribution they were to make.
England’s Marcus Rashford dribbles the ball. (Photo by TF-Images/Getty Images)
Raheem Sterling was heavily criticised for falling easily against the Danes. Despite a solid tournament, he did not step up to the spot against Italy, or perhaps Southgate backed the youngster Saka ahead of him. Sterling’s 68 caps are just nine shy of the combined 77 caps possessed by Rashford, Sancho and Saka.
Jack Grealish has also faced heavy criticism notably from Roy Keane, but has since clarified that he did want to take one. Luke Shaw, the goalscorer, surely an option?
On one level, it’s not hard to see why Southgate did what he did. Rashford has scored plenty of high-profile penalties for Manchester United, but have they ever asked him to do so having warmed the bench for over two hours? Would they? The same can be said of Jadon Sancho.
For Saka, Southgate stated afterwards that he “chose the penalty takers based on what we’ve done in training.” If that’s his criteria, he has displayed shocking naivety. He has seemingly failed to consider that success in a shootout relies less on a player’s penalty-taking ability (they can all take a penalty) than their ability and experience to convert under pressure, as Harry Kane and Harry Maguire did.
Pressure of the sort that Rashford, Sancho and Saka faced and which cannot be replicated on the training ground.
Unsurprisingly, it was these three players who missed. So what’s the common theme – youth, inexperience? Maybe for Sako, but hardly for Rashford and Sancho, both solid players at United and Dortmund, and teammates at Old Trafford next season.
The common theme is that all three had been substituted on, rather than starting the game. It seems all too real to be a coincidence, and in analysing the last three major tournaments England have participated in, we gain valuable insight into some of the stats surrounding penalty shootouts. The homework that Southgate and England left on the bus.
The 2018 World Cup saw four penalty shootouts, consisting of 39 penalties in total. Of those 39 penalties, 19 were taken by players who had been substituted on at some point in the match, compared to the 20 that were taken by players who had played the entire 120 minutes. Of the 39 penalties taken, 13 were not converted (i.e. saved or missed).
Now, this is where it gets interesting…
Of those 13 unconverted penalties, nine were taken by players who had been substituted on, compared to just four by players who started the game. That means that nearly half (47%) of the penalties taken by substitutes were saved or missed, compared to the much more favourable 20 per cent failure rate for players who had played the entire match. Important margins of difference in the latter stages of a major tournament.
Rewind even further, to the 2014 World Cup and Euro 2016, and we see a similar picture. In 2014, there were four penalty shootouts consisting of a combined 36 penalties. Players who had played the entire game had a failure rate of just 23 per cent, compared to an alarming 50 per cent for players who had arrived as substitute – remarkably similar to the 2018 World Cup.
At Euro 2016, there were three penalty shootouts and 37 penalties taken. Substitutes had a failure rate of 43 per cent compared to just 20 per cent for those who had played the full 120 minutes – echoes of 2014 and 2018?
The real stinger for Southgate, however, lies in that very shootout against Colombia. Two Colombian players failed to convert. The common theme? Yep, you guessed it, they both came on as substitutes.
England lost to Italy for the same reason that Colombia lost to England. This time, against a wily Italian team with a mix of old heads and youth, against a manager who knows a thing or two about winning late, on an occasion when the stakes were at their highest, when football was coming home, when fine margins are decisive – Southgate gambled the lot, and went all-in. Three penalties by substitutes.
Why? Because of what he saw on the training ground.
I wish I could say it’s cruel luck, but it isn’t. England had the blueprint from 2018 – they just didn’t use it.
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
Aiden These comments seem to ignore that the equaliser came from a goal mouth scramble, i.e. it was a lucky goal. So no, I do not accept that it was only a matter of time before Italy would equalise, they did, but such a lucky goal does not indicate that it was inevitable.
Aiden
Guest
I’d add, even when Italian teams have parked the bus they’ve still always looked strong on the counter and created opportunities. England were too deep, and Italy were too good a team to not equalise over the entire 90 minutes. England needed another goal. Being defensive minded is one thing, but they got the balance wrong.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Second draw of the season tonight Roberto: Melbourne vs Hawthorn.
Ian
Roar Rookie
Thank you Caimin.I couldn't have put it any better myself! I respect Roberto's opinion but simply don't agree with it! 1-0 up after 2 minutes and we could still be playing now and England wouldn't have scored.It's been interesting the way the media's changing the narrative here now.At the start of the week it was full of what a glorious failure it was.Now,it seems to be what's Gareth Southgate going to do (or be told what to do) to avoid a repetition at the World Cup next year.The heat will definitely be on him over the next 12 months.Us English supporters want to win but we also want to win it the right way by being bold,positive and playing with flair.We didn't show any of that in the world cup semi final and we definitely didn't show any of that last Sunday.
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
They've got a decent back four too.
Caimin
Roar Rookie
I think the point Ian is making is that England's strength clearly lies in attack. They've got a wealth of world-class attacking options that were both on the field (Kane, sterling mount) and on the bench (Rashford Grealish Sancho etc). They tried to hold on 1-0 through fear of conceding - which to be fair, is somewhat understandable given its a final. However, this is clearly the wrong approach for Southgate, as he had a number of players who could've put the game to bed. It's ridiculous that he had such an array of attacking talent, yet refused to make use of it. The difference with Italy I'd argue, is that quite often their strong point has been in defence (Bonucci, Chiellini, Cannavaro, zambrotta etc) so it would make a bit more sense for them to take that approach.
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
So it's ok for Italy to hold onto 1-0 leads, win multiple trophies, but for some strange reason, England should not do it? (even if it almost worked) I'm not sure which bit you found ridiculous. 1-0 is enough to win. It has always been enough, it will always be enough. On this occasion, it wasn't enough because of a lucky goal scored from a bog standard goal mouth scramble.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Australian Football has a point for either left or right side of the goal, or for the ball being touched on the way through by any player on a part of their body above the knee. The point of offering points on top of the six point goal Roberto was to reduce the number of games that ended up in draws. The new scoring system meant draws are quite a rare occurrence in Australian Football.
Ian
Roar Rookie
With total respect Roberto,your post is ridiculous.England were pathetic in the final.1-0 up after 2 minutes and then we drew up the draw bridge and tried to hang on? With the wealth of talent we had on the bench,we should have tried to win this game 2 or 3 nil! Gareth Southgate has shown himself to be a defensive coach.Good if your in charge of Iceland,Norway or the Falkland Islands but useless when your in charge of England.I repeat again,Harry Kane,through no fault of his own,in 120+ minutes never touched the ball in the Italian penalty area...and he's one of the best centre forwards in the world!
Big Red V
Guest
Ever notice how the losing team and/or their supporters are always the ones who hate penalty shootouts? Anyone want to take a straw pole on how many Italians hate it?? Field hockey has moved away from the straight penalty by introducing something similar to ice hockey and it's a far better and fairer challenge. You have a time limit to dribble the ball into the circle and score and requires a lot more skill than "blasting" it from a certain distance. Another idea was to keep playing extra time and every couple of minutes take a player from each team off the field which introduces a whole new raft of tactics BUT does relieve the one on one contest of a penalty shootout.
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
Ian The answer is simple. One goal is enough to win a game of football. Has always been enough, will always be enough - that will never change. This isn't a game of aussie rules where you can win games by collecting misses on goals!! The Italians have always understood this, always, so there was absolutely nothing wrong with what England did for the first 66 minutes of the game.
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
DD, we often disagree on things, but on this point I agree. It is actually incorrect and disingenuous for anyone to argue that opposition to penalty shoot outs is the domain of the casual supporter. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I back up my statement with these two observations. When Italy last won the Euros, in 1968, it was by way of a replayed final, after the first one was drawn, played two days later. That remains infinitely better than an arbitrary activity undertaken after the end of the game, afterall, you'd hope the champion of a game is determined by actually playing the game! It also shows the very short history of shootouts, in no way are they part of the history of the game. Secondly, I can recall in 1994, FIFA learned that Americans really liked penalty shoot-outs. Now, what was someone saying about casual observers?
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
It's a lazy solution. "All these casual observers who follow sports that have hundreds of points scored" Think about what you just. Football is great precisely because 100s of points aren't scored, so why cheapen the product by providing a mass barrage of cheap goals at its conclusion? It makes not sense. In Major League Baseball, they just keep playing — I've witness matches that have taken over 7 hours to complete until 4 am. Now, I'm not suggesting this as a solution, but a cheap & nasty penalty shoot-out that takes a few minutes couldn't possibly be the best option.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Agree. It's more representative of the overall skill-set employed by the players. Secondly, and most importantly, it's much harder to score a goal. Penalty shoot-outs infuriate me because they go against the very fabric of what makes football so great. Unlike most other sports around the world, goals are difficult to score in football. It should be the same in a shoot-out, but alas, this is not the case with a 75% scoring success rate. It's ridiculous!
Caimin
Roar Rookie
Thanks Ian, really appreciate that - it's interesting to gain an English perspective on the game! On one hand I can can see why they were so defensive (nerves?) but with such a talented group of players - especially attackers - Southgate needs to have more belief in himself and the team. I recall Trippier also scoring very early against Croatia, so you'd think he may have learnt his lesson with how that game finished, but unfortunately for England (and you!), he hasn't. Must be frustrating. However, the good news of course is they're still a very young team, so success at Qatar could very well be on the horizon!
Ian
Roar Rookie
Good post again Caimin but the problem wasn't Southgates choices of penalty takers but rather why,after going 1-0 up after 2 minutes,we didn't have another noteworthy attempt on goal for the next 2 hours.It was the same in the World Cup semi against Croatia.We were far too defensive and deservedly lost to a fine Italian side.Harry Kane,in 120+ minutes didn't touch the ball in the Italian penalty area.We just played deeper and deeper...and that's the managers fault.From an English perspective,this is one that very much got away....and shouldn't have!
Caimin
Roar Rookie
Cheers for the comment Marcel. Fair point, I've never been in that position. However, I do think I'd rather have played a part in the game, touched the ball etc, rather than merely taking a penalty. That's personal opinion of course. I also wouldn't say it should be put completely down to stats, but at the same time they are a useful and interesting aspect to consider. Particularly in a match such as this where England have had severe problems in the past, it would have, at the very least, provided Southgate with a source of reason.
Caimin
Roar Rookie
You're not the only one, i've never been a fan of it either. Always seems like they're being very indecisive and giving the keeper a lot of time to predict where its gonna go.
Bloke7
Roar Rookie
One thing I didn't see in the comments, am I the only one who hates the stutter step or slow walk penalty? From what I've seen they miss way more than they score and the players should know not to attempt them at a major tournament final. As soon as the 2 players did the slow step I knew they'd miss
chris
Guest
I didn't mind those : )