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
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