Yes. 2 of the black players they had doing the penalty kicks were not even in the game. The manager wanted them to look like the heroes who won England the game. Some people think their only role was to do penalty kicks like that, and it's all they practiced and still fucked it up.
I just want to point out that the practice of introducing players late in the game specifically to take penalties is fairly common in soccer. That aspect of this situation isn't the smoking gun some of you seem to think it is.
I honestly don't know, but is it common [and even if it is, is it smart] to do this in such a big stakes game in the game winning situation? I legit don't know just trying to figure it out.
As someone who doesn't follow the sport, it does seem incredibly stupid to lose the big championship by putting less than your best in for what WILL decide the game. I could see in like earlier matches in a tourny or something it not being a big deal doing it but I dunno?
Don't get me wrong, there was undoubtedly a huge contingent of "journalists" and Marxists ready to push an England win as a triumph for diversity. I just don't believe that a manager would deliberately decrease the chances of winning for good boy points, even an insufferable wokester like Southgate.
I'd struggle to think of many managers that have done this in a final, especially so late. Normally, the penalty takers would be introduced with 5 or so minutes to go so they can at least get a few touches in. A couple of prominent examples in major tournaments is the Dutch manager subbing his goalkeeper for penalties and Italy bringing on a guy called Zaza, who took one of the worst penalties I've ever seen. It's not like there were lots of other players who were better suited to taking the penalties though. Maybe Sterling, who is also black, or Grealish.
Indeed, it's not the fault of the black players. They were the youngest players on the team, sent to perform the final make-or-break kicks of the game. It was guaranteed that one of them was about to either become a hero of the nation, or the boy that failed the nation. None of them had ever taken a penalty kick of this kind level of significance ever before. They were almost certainly quaking in their boots.
It's not about the black players and never was. The England team has had black players for longer than I've been alive. It's never been an issue with anyone but a minority.
This is an issue with almost everyone because the wokesters have made it into one. This is fight they picked by trying to use the prescence of non-ethnic-english players on the team as an advert for marxism. They made it into an issue by having players kneel and letting them wear rainbow armbands - because socialists wearing armbands is somehow ok so long as you say you like the gays.
The question, the burning question, is why were they put in that position?
Because it looks an AWFUL lot like the Euro cup victory was deliberately gambled away for the CHANCE to make a black man the face of England's victory. For the CHANCE to get something they could point to say 'Marxism made victory possible', whilst quietly ignoring the decades of black players we've had before.
Do you know why the far left like Ash Sarkar were openly portraying this (before the loss) as a triumph for Marxism? Are they now openly admitting that intersectionality is Marxist or is there something else going on?
Yeah that 19-year-old looked like he did a perfect fakeout on his kick, got the goalie leaping for the right goal post, before he finished aiming his kick to the left. I'd guess he makes that shot 19 times out of 20, when it's not the deciding goal for the Euro Cup finals.
He's 19 years old. This is Southgate fucking him up for diversity.
2 black players were brought onto the field at the end of the game, for the penalty shootout. The penalty shootout is a best-of-five sudden death tiebreaker. Unless no team fails a single penalty, it is guaranteed that either 3rd, 4th, or 5th player to shoot will score the final, winning goal.
England's lineup for the penalty shootout was 2 white guys, and then 3, 4, and 5 were all black, with 2 of them have been subbed in from the bench at the last minute, so the England manager had made a choice that virtually guaranteed that if England won, the winning man, the hero of the game, would be black.
The substitutes were questionable decisions, as they were both young players. Throwing them onto the pitch at the very end, just to take a make-or-break penalty for the cup final, is a huge mental pressure to put on a young athlete who's just spend the last hour and 20 minutes sitting on a bench and watching, with no chance to get into the swing of things.
Were it not for the months of 'muh diversity make England team stronk!' puff pieces, making the team take the knee for BLM/Saint Floyd, and other marxist virtue signalling shenanigans, this would just look like the manager making a bad decision. But against that political backdrop - something that should be kept out of the game entirely, but wasn't - it instead looks like the woke manager was trying to score a PR victory for the left rather than win the cup for England.
There's also the point of: Southgate deciding not to use his subs until the very last minute, helping guarantee penalties.
That's a truly shitty tactical decision, imo. Penalties are always a lottery, the only thing that would make this a wise decision is if you're subbing in some kind of penalty specialist with a long and storied career of making the penalty count, each time, every time (and even then - great, you've now secured one out of five penalties). Even disregarding how badly England historically does at penalties, he'd have done much better with those same players by giving them a chance to make a difference on the pitch and take the load off the players who'd played a whole 90 minutes already.
But I guess virtue signalling is such a strong call that merely winning an international cup simply isn't a good enough substitute.
the only thing that would make this a wise decision is if you're subbing in some kind of penalty specialist with a long and storied career of making the penalty count, each time, every time
Arguably, he was doing just that - they both have excellent PK records. Rashford in particular. ...But bringing them on so late in the game, they really had no chance to get 'in the zone', and they'd never taken PK's at anything like this level of a tournament before, with this much pressure on them. Rashford's fakeout was golden, but he fumbled the kick. The pressure got to him. 'Cause he's a young kid.
Analysts and pundits were skeptical about the decision the moment it was made, in cluding former England strike and captain Alan Shearer, who played alongside Southgate in Euro '96.
I can't say for certain that this was a deliberate virtue signal plan, but because of the kneeling, the rainbow armband, the 'this is the England team without immigrants' leftist propaganda, I can't trust that it wasn't.
penalty kick phase is when match sets in draw, and clean winner is needed; its essentially which team scores most goals with penalty kicks
And penalty phase continues until there is at least difference of 1 in score per turns taken; black token players failed to score in penalty phase and team lost
Honestly, I have no idea, but the answer simply can't be dismissed as "No".
This is the problem with the Racialist mind-set. Every single thing you engage with, everything you perceive, all aspects of culture, behavior, and perception must be filtered through the lens of your racialism.
Racism, as Racialism, as an ideology rather than just simple bigotry, is an incredibly insidious and subversive form of thought that is totalizing to your perspective on the world.
Compare a normal person, an anti-white bigot, and an anti-white racialist
If a person orders an ice cream:
A normal person seeks a flavor that interests them today
The bigot seeks a flavor that interests them today
The racialist avoids vanilla because it's too white, avoids tapioca because it's culturally miscegenist, and wants dark chocolate because it promotes blackness
If the server is white:
A normal person doesn't care
The bigot doesn't care
The racialist wonders if they will screw up the order on purpose because they don't like a strong, empowered, anti-racists.
If the server is white and messes up the order:
A normal person is bemused and wants it corrected
The bigot calls the server a dumb, white, bitch
The racialist claims that the white server is intentionally refusing to do their job because the racialist is non-white and immediately begins making a scene
In the end:
A normal person gets the correct ice-cream
The bigot leaves with the correct ice-cream and in a bad attitude
The racialist spends 30 minutes yelling at everyone until the police arrive, proving that the police are a white supremacist institution out to suppress non-whites.
This line of thinking happens in all people who are collectivist, ideological, zealots. Honestly, bigotry isn't even that big of an issue. It's a stupid opinion, and normally, for most genuine bigots, it stops past the scope of several bad experiences. But the Racialist is someone who makes their whole world view based around this ideological zealotry, and because it is ideologically totalizing, it effects literally every decision they make. There are no decisions that can't be made without racial considerations; even where a simple bigot would not leap to such conclusions. Each decision, each thought, each perspective, must all fit within their world-view. Even a racist bigot does not think like that.
The same thing goes for a soccer game.
If a football coach needs someone to score a game winning kick
A normal person puts in the person they think has the best chance of scoring.
A bigot puts in the person they think has the best chance of scoring
A racialist puts in the person that will have the most value in a propaganda victory because this opportunity for propaganda and narrative building is too important to waste on merit.
It's like you didn't even bother to read or understand the text and simply wanted to demonstrate your moral superiority, but instead come off like the typical pious asshole who doesn't even know why they're a pious asshole.
You would think so but, the team took the knee for Fentanyl Floyd, the team was being praised for it's diversity and saying that without immigration there would be no team.
There is no proof but all the signs are there.
Imagine being Southgate, being a strong SJW pro-Immigration, pro-BLM. You are in a final. The other team is not diverse. You have one chance to get the black guys to save the day. The pressure was definitely there, he justified it in his mind that they are good players, they can do it etc. If only they can make those kicks they would be heroes for England, diversity and inclusion and BLM and all that winning the game.
If two are about as good, making it a toss up, it wouldn't surprise me if woke managers would pick the non white over the white player. Virtue signalling carries a lot of weight these days.
so I don't believe a second "diversity" is why any coach would chose a player over another.
He literally chose in-experienced players to kick penalties because they were black.... the team members who were selected were no where near their best they had available
Is USA so good at basketball because of diversity?
is USA so good at running because of diversity?
Are you trying to lose your own argument with these examples?
These are really, really bad picks to try and push your point given the actual race skews in question regarding those sports.
NBA is notorious for being majority black players to the point it's both a meme [because many owners are white] and a regular example used as a sport SJWs don't talk about when harping on about equality because it's in their favour.
Running is also a sport dominated by black athletes. Usain Bolt is absurdly fast even compared to the next top sprinters in the world. Likewise long distance running is heavily skewed.
Want to know what the converse to running is? Weight lifting.
Yes. 2 of the black players they had doing the penalty kicks were not even in the game. The manager wanted them to look like the heroes who won England the game. Some people think their only role was to do penalty kicks like that, and it's all they practiced and still fucked it up.
Professionally, it was a win/win for him.
If they succeeded, yay diversity, yay the woke england manager that gave the team its first championship win in 55 years.
If they failed, decry all complaints as racist, and still get the progressive good boy points.
In the same way that the military enjoys wars and conflict-
The woke warriors enjoy creating racial strife.
If you can score a penalty kick, you ain't black!
-Joe Biden
I just want to point out that the practice of introducing players late in the game specifically to take penalties is fairly common in soccer. That aspect of this situation isn't the smoking gun some of you seem to think it is.
I honestly don't know, but is it common [and even if it is, is it smart] to do this in such a big stakes game in the game winning situation? I legit don't know just trying to figure it out.
As someone who doesn't follow the sport, it does seem incredibly stupid to lose the big championship by putting less than your best in for what WILL decide the game. I could see in like earlier matches in a tourny or something it not being a big deal doing it but I dunno?
Don't get me wrong, there was undoubtedly a huge contingent of "journalists" and Marxists ready to push an England win as a triumph for diversity. I just don't believe that a manager would deliberately decrease the chances of winning for good boy points, even an insufferable wokester like Southgate.
I'd struggle to think of many managers that have done this in a final, especially so late. Normally, the penalty takers would be introduced with 5 or so minutes to go so they can at least get a few touches in. A couple of prominent examples in major tournaments is the Dutch manager subbing his goalkeeper for penalties and Italy bringing on a guy called Zaza, who took one of the worst penalties I've ever seen. It's not like there were lots of other players who were better suited to taking the penalties though. Maybe Sterling, who is also black, or Grealish.
Indeed, it's not the fault of the black players. They were the youngest players on the team, sent to perform the final make-or-break kicks of the game. It was guaranteed that one of them was about to either become a hero of the nation, or the boy that failed the nation. None of them had ever taken a penalty kick of this kind level of significance ever before. They were almost certainly quaking in their boots.
It's not about the black players and never was. The England team has had black players for longer than I've been alive. It's never been an issue with anyone but a minority.
This is an issue with almost everyone because the wokesters have made it into one. This is fight they picked by trying to use the prescence of non-ethnic-english players on the team as an advert for marxism. They made it into an issue by having players kneel and letting them wear rainbow armbands - because socialists wearing armbands is somehow ok so long as you say you like the gays.
The question, the burning question, is why were they put in that position? Because it looks an AWFUL lot like the Euro cup victory was deliberately gambled away for the CHANCE to make a black man the face of England's victory. For the CHANCE to get something they could point to say 'Marxism made victory possible', whilst quietly ignoring the decades of black players we've had before.
Do you know why the far left like Ash Sarkar were openly portraying this (before the loss) as a triumph for Marxism? Are they now openly admitting that intersectionality is Marxist or is there something else going on?
Yeah that 19-year-old looked like he did a perfect fakeout on his kick, got the goalie leaping for the right goal post, before he finished aiming his kick to the left. I'd guess he makes that shot 19 times out of 20, when it's not the deciding goal for the Euro Cup finals.
He's 19 years old. This is Southgate fucking him up for diversity.
2 black players were brought onto the field at the end of the game, for the penalty shootout. The penalty shootout is a best-of-five sudden death tiebreaker. Unless no team fails a single penalty, it is guaranteed that either 3rd, 4th, or 5th player to shoot will score the final, winning goal.
England's lineup for the penalty shootout was 2 white guys, and then 3, 4, and 5 were all black, with 2 of them have been subbed in from the bench at the last minute, so the England manager had made a choice that virtually guaranteed that if England won, the winning man, the hero of the game, would be black.
The substitutes were questionable decisions, as they were both young players. Throwing them onto the pitch at the very end, just to take a make-or-break penalty for the cup final, is a huge mental pressure to put on a young athlete who's just spend the last hour and 20 minutes sitting on a bench and watching, with no chance to get into the swing of things.
Were it not for the months of 'muh diversity make England team stronk!' puff pieces, making the team take the knee for BLM/Saint Floyd, and other marxist virtue signalling shenanigans, this would just look like the manager making a bad decision. But against that political backdrop - something that should be kept out of the game entirely, but wasn't - it instead looks like the woke manager was trying to score a PR victory for the left rather than win the cup for England.
Good then, I'm glad this bit them in the ass. Get woke go broke faggots.
It's not going to bite them in the ass. It's a kafkatrap. Heads they win, tales you lose.
Now they're just going to use it as an opportunity to call the English a nation of racists.
There's also the point of: Southgate deciding not to use his subs until the very last minute, helping guarantee penalties.
That's a truly shitty tactical decision, imo. Penalties are always a lottery, the only thing that would make this a wise decision is if you're subbing in some kind of penalty specialist with a long and storied career of making the penalty count, each time, every time (and even then - great, you've now secured one out of five penalties). Even disregarding how badly England historically does at penalties, he'd have done much better with those same players by giving them a chance to make a difference on the pitch and take the load off the players who'd played a whole 90 minutes already.
But I guess virtue signalling is such a strong call that merely winning an international cup simply isn't a good enough substitute.
Arguably, he was doing just that - they both have excellent PK records. Rashford in particular. ...But bringing them on so late in the game, they really had no chance to get 'in the zone', and they'd never taken PK's at anything like this level of a tournament before, with this much pressure on them. Rashford's fakeout was golden, but he fumbled the kick. The pressure got to him. 'Cause he's a young kid.
Analysts and pundits were skeptical about the decision the moment it was made, in cluding former England strike and captain Alan Shearer, who played alongside Southgate in Euro '96.
I can't say for certain that this was a deliberate virtue signal plan, but because of the kneeling, the rainbow armband, the 'this is the England team without immigrants' leftist propaganda, I can't trust that it wasn't.
penalty kick phase is when match sets in draw, and clean winner is needed; its essentially which team scores most goals with penalty kicks And penalty phase continues until there is at least difference of 1 in score per turns taken; black token players failed to score in penalty phase and team lost
Regardless of all the drama I'm just sitting over here chuckling at the irony that Southgate was scuppered by penalties again.
Honestly, I have no idea, but the answer simply can't be dismissed as "No".
This is the problem with the Racialist mind-set. Every single thing you engage with, everything you perceive, all aspects of culture, behavior, and perception must be filtered through the lens of your racialism.
Racism, as Racialism, as an ideology rather than just simple bigotry, is an incredibly insidious and subversive form of thought that is totalizing to your perspective on the world.
Compare a normal person, an anti-white bigot, and an anti-white racialist
If a person orders an ice cream:
If the server is white:
If the server is white and messes up the order:
In the end:
This line of thinking happens in all people who are collectivist, ideological, zealots. Honestly, bigotry isn't even that big of an issue. It's a stupid opinion, and normally, for most genuine bigots, it stops past the scope of several bad experiences. But the Racialist is someone who makes their whole world view based around this ideological zealotry, and because it is ideologically totalizing, it effects literally every decision they make. There are no decisions that can't be made without racial considerations; even where a simple bigot would not leap to such conclusions. Each decision, each thought, each perspective, must all fit within their world-view. Even a racist bigot does not think like that.
The same thing goes for a soccer game.
If a football coach needs someone to score a game winning kick
This is also why the racialists tend to fail
Do you have the context for this reply?
I got this one:
https://ibb.co/vZFSK8Q
That's a pretty stupid take, tbh.
England loses a soccer match and he thinks Oswald Mosley is returning.
I don't know if he's noticed how pozzed Brit Bongistan is.
It's like you didn't even bother to read or understand the text and simply wanted to demonstrate your moral superiority, but instead come off like the typical pious asshole who doesn't even know why they're a pious asshole.
Clearly you are only supposed to believe the approved bullshit, not try to find the truth.
I think that's a very naive view of international sporting tournaments.
A very naive view of international ANYTHING, to be honest.
You would think so but, the team took the knee for Fentanyl Floyd, the team was being praised for it's diversity and saying that without immigration there would be no team.
There is no proof but all the signs are there.
Imagine being Southgate, being a strong SJW pro-Immigration, pro-BLM. You are in a final. The other team is not diverse. You have one chance to get the black guys to save the day. The pressure was definitely there, he justified it in his mind that they are good players, they can do it etc. If only they can make those kicks they would be heroes for England, diversity and inclusion and BLM and all that winning the game.
If two are about as good, making it a toss up, it wouldn't surprise me if woke managers would pick the non white over the white player. Virtue signalling carries a lot of weight these days.
He literally chose in-experienced players to kick penalties because they were black.... the team members who were selected were no where near their best they had available
International football has hardly any money in it.
Are you trying to lose your own argument with these examples? These are really, really bad picks to try and push your point given the actual race skews in question regarding those sports.
NBA is notorious for being majority black players to the point it's both a meme [because many owners are white] and a regular example used as a sport SJWs don't talk about when harping on about equality because it's in their favour.
Running is also a sport dominated by black athletes. Usain Bolt is absurdly fast even compared to the next top sprinters in the world. Likewise long distance running is heavily skewed.
Want to know what the converse to running is? Weight lifting.