Was Southgate wrong to take Bukayo Saka off as England searched for an equaliser?

Last night was like a World Cup Final, with England, who were narrowly beaten in the Euroas Final, facing the current World Champions France, and everything was going very well until the 77th minute when the ex-Gunner Oli Giroud put France 2-1.

Immediately Gareth Southgate made two changes, including swapping Raheem Sterling on for Bukayo Saka. The Arsenal sstar was arguably the star England player at the tournament, wiith 3 goals and star ratings in every game he played.

Last night was no different as he was terrorizing Theo Hernandez and the French defence, and was once again the highest rated player in the England side, but off he went……

The ex-Liverpool pundit Jamie Carragher was incensed that Southgate should take off his best player.. He told Sky Sports: “He (Theo Hernandez) couldn’t handle Bukayo Saka, he was too much for Hernandez all game. I must admit I couldn’t believe that Gareth took him off. Even if we’d have got a goal and gone to extra-time, he was the player that every time we got the ball to him, it gets you on the edge of your seat.

“I thought it was a really strange decision. Obviously you’ve got to make subs to try and affect the game, but that was certainly the wrong one. I would have kept him on for every single second of that game and I’m sure Hernandez, when he saw him go off, breathed a huge sigh of relief.”

To make it worse, Sterling (who was on the pitch for nearly 20 minutes with the added time) had little impact on the Lions search for an equaliser, and only made 5 passes, of which 4 were successful) in his stint on the field.

Who else agrees that Southgate made a grave error by taking Saka off? It’s no wonder that he was crying at the end of the game….

———————————-

CALLING ALL ARSENAL FANS! Anyone who would like to contribute an Article or Video opinion piece on JustArsenal, please contact us through this link

Arteta talks about Dubai, Jesus’ injury and some thoughts on incoming transfers

Please enjoy, watch and subscribe to JustArsenalVids

Tags Jamie Carragher Saka

99 Comments

  1. Def wrong decision Saka was a goal threat had a excellent game should have got free kick that led to France goal the Ref and Var had a absolute shocker the ref didn’t look capable of refereeing a Sunday league match never mind a world cup quarter final and what’s the point of having technology if its not going to be used correctly its there to eradicate errors and never even reviewed the foul on Saka complete shambles!

  2. I actually watched the game for a change and Saka was definitely englands main threat uptop ,the amount of fouls the referee didn’t give on him was a joke especially the one leading upto their first goal ,which was clear as day .
    He did look leggy when he came off ,but we lost that extra threat with it .

  3. I guess Southgate wanted a different approach by having conventional wingers to reach the byline more often and produce more long crosses, since England were behind

    It was a good decision, because England couldn’t score from open play and they had aerially-dominant players like Maguire. But England shouldn’t have relied on their luck like that

    Since Southgate became the manager, England have been tougher to break because his tactics are highly cautious. However, they’d likely require a better tactician like Guardiola, Klopp or Arteta, if they want to win Euro or World Cup

    1. It’s a shame that Wenger stayed at Arsenal for so long that we didn’t get to see what he could do with other teams. His ability to get the best out of players and even average ones is unmatched. That is why many players under him who left Arsenal never reached they form they did under him. If he was younger and coached some of these star studded teams he’d be really successful.

      1. If he managed another team in 2005, he could be successful there because many teams hadn’t cracked his tactics yet at that time

        1. All tactics can be cracked. The difference is what will come from the coach’s individual intelligence or talent. What he was good at was getting the best out of players. That he failed at Arsenal doesn’t he couldn’t have used the same tactics and done well at another team. Today he is old but his speciality would have made him relevant in any era.

          1. He couldn’t win another major trophy because his tactics became monotonous

            I believe he couldn’t come up with new ideas because he was too comfortable in his comfort zone at Arsenal. I’m sure he’s learned new stuff during his long hiatus, but I don’t think he can keep up with the younger managers’ energy anymore

            1. It had nothing to with tactics. He didn’t make the right signings for many years and his best players were injury prone affecting consistency. Ability wise he is better than a lot of managers but result wise he lags behind because he underachieved. He is old today but I know for sure that given some of these star studded national teams he can do better than the so called young ones because he gets the best out of players and knows how to build a ‘team’.

  4. Yes, he was wrong to take off Saka, Saka was scaring players by making them foul him in dangerous positions, Saka is a trier and England needed more like him. Maybe Stirling should have come in on the opposite side of the wing. England played too old-fashioned for the most part but their set of players is as good as you’ll see, mostly, they should be a better team than they are

  5. Undoubtedly a wrong substitution. The match was closed, and Saka is better than any one playing in tight spaces, helped by his control of the ball and his clever dribbling. It is known that Rashford plays on space and is not good at playing in closed matches. The French did not believe when they saw Saka outside.

  6. Saka was doing the grunt work. When he came off, no other player stepped up to take on that role. The fact that England couldn’t score from open play, speaks volumes…IJS

  7. I think Southgate is a average manager at best. Kind of negative tactics with a start studded team. We could and should be playing much better football. I sat with some of the lads yesterday and we decided that on paper england are superior to France . Maybe they beat us in a few positions with the like of mbappe but so many poor or average decisions.

    1. Luke shaw over tripper? Tripper has been in sensational form and turned the tide for Newcastle several time

    2. Maguire? Okay he played well but Ben White was the obvious choice. Faster and better distribution.

    3. Pick Ford.- that forst goal from France imho could have been saved. Ramsdale is simply a better keeper.

    4. 3 in the middle. You have an attacking force. Be bold ! Especially when you are loosing!

    5. Taking off saka was a crime. Best player on the pitch yesterday.

    I think we need to try someone new. Southgate has had a crack and got us to two respectable stages. I would try my hand with wenger. Possibly Gerrard?

    1. It’s unlikely that he would have played White in Maguire’s position as White plays on the right of a central pair, and he wasn’t there in Qatar anyway.
      Wenger’s finished as a coach.

  8. Not just Saka issue, but Maddison had 0 minutes in the world cup?

    Grealish comes in with 1 minute left in injury time?

    Did Southgate tell Sterling to go invisible to fool French defense

    IMHO need to take a long look and consider if Southgate is the manager to take the team to the next level.

  9. I am not watching the WC as it is a corruptly awarded prize to a corrupt country by a corrupt FIFA. Each to their own though and I have already , this morning, been told by two separate non Gooner friends that SAKA was, in their opinion, our most dangerous looking player and should not have been substituted.

    Both those friends, separately, know my stance on this WC and yet both were keen to tell me, knowing I am a Gooner, that Saka was our best player, even though I would have preferred not to be told.
    So after reading all the posts above , since being told about SAKA, it does seem that he has had a good world cup generally. I am only pleased he will soon be BACK WITH US and seemingly unhurt.
    I say this despite realising that our fans, like fans everywhere, are naturally biased towards their own players. And this is WHY I mentioned my two NON GOONER friends both having that opinion.
    I am sad, just a little( as I am anyway not much of a fan of international football in general) that England has gone out.
    BUT I am a great deal sadder that ANY non Qatari team, England included, ever deigned to play there at all in this tainted WC. PERSPECTIVE !

    1. I don’t like or support qatar in anyway, but Britain’s colonial record is worse than any other country in the world.

          1. Very true. Slave masters of just yesterday have suddenly become the most anointed saints and tell everyone to live by their principles or be branded as archaic or inhuman. Hypocrites

                  1. Because whenever insanity is allowed to fester, many more will be affected. Every set of people are governed by rules which others may not like. If everyone under a government was allowed to do anything they saw fit, then we would all be in chaos. If your son/daughter tells you that he/she wants to marry a dog because that’s who he/she is, will you accept that in the name of tolerance? And by the way, I saw a magazine post where someone married a dog, so I’m not just saying something abstract but a real life event.

                    1. You don’t need to object but allow others that same free will you preach about to object for their beliefs.

                      I believe when Eng won the SC being gay was not allowed either, seems double standards to me and just flavor of the week.

                  2. Pat, you’re doing the exact same thing you accuse others of doing.accepting that people are different,with different beliefs, tolerance has to work both ways.lastly, despite what you believe,people do get killed,stoned..for being gay but they occur fines and possibly jails,the few killings which sadly happened weren’t done by governments but vigilantes and the likes.even human rights organisations like Amnesty international haven’t registered any death penalties for being gay.

                  3. As anyone who feels he has the right to be, I also have the right to either accept them or not. It’s no brainer. It’s their choice, they should face whatsoever comes with it. One more thing, they should keep it to themselves.

                1. What is your definition of a slave master? Because it ain’t colonial. Unless you deliberately cherry-pick specific history and conveniently even then ignore the fact Britain was the 1st power in history to ever enforce anti-slavery laws across large swathes of the world at great, great monetary expense and loss of life too. Revisionists pretend some of the money the British spent to stop slavers being slavers by paying off was negative somehow. All the poor sailors that lost their lives didn’t lose their lives that way apparently and it was worthless and in service of evil colonialists. Not like some cheap comment or tweet on the internet that is bold and brave just actual flesh and blood in the water forever forgotten for likes and shares.

                  1. btw one of the places that were not under British rule was America and all this nonsense we now have currently however you define it is born out of their academia and their shame at their very small history. Not the world, not Europe just them.

            1. Utter nonsense.

              Britain as such was not involved in slavery despite the wild utterances of the woke, who have an agenda. What was done was basically due to the lack of a law prohibiting slavery, but the woke and uninformed ignore the efforts of good British people like William Wilberforce whose work led to the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 – this at a time when it was considered normal.

              They also manage to overlook the benign nature of the British Empire, civilising many countries and in the end creating a Commonwealth showing that those countries remained our friends post-empire.

              Will we be asking Italy for reparations for the slavery in the Roman Empire? How about the Greeks? The Aztecs? And… none of those had people like Wilberforce who abolished the practise, they just kept right on doing it until the end of their civilisation.

              The main point, however, is that you cannot hold people responsible for anything their ancestors may have done. Would you like to be responsible for any crimes your great grandfather may have committed? It’s ridiculous and you should stop talking such utter drivel, you;’re doing teh wok of the Putin trolls of this world, sowing seeds of doubt and dissent in a society to undermine it.

              We should be proud to be British and proud of our history.

              1. @IdkwIc
                WOW!!! I think you need to read up on the British Empire and their hand in the slave trade.
                Yeah, GB was the first to abolish slavery, yet they compensated the slave owners and not the slaves whose labour they got for free. And as far as the colonies go, the only two you have a “friendly” relationship with, are America and Australia. And it’s obvious why that is…SMFH 🤨
                Guess it would have paid of had you really been, instead of throwing around the word without understanding it’s true meaning…IJS

                1. As ever, it’s you that needs to read up on these things.

                  In the real world, compensation is paid to get the legislation through and avoid endless backbiting politics to repeal the Act. If you don’t understand the real politik background but can only live in a silly woke world where we’re all nice cuddly people, then save us the bother of reading such twaddle.

                  There’s a thing called Commonwealth – as I said. And you skated over it as if we’re only friendly with a couple of countries. Those countrioes are desperate for us to expand our trade arrangements to involve the Commonwealth now that we’re out of the EU.

                  And you ignored the civilising influence… etc etc.

                  1. @IdkyIc
                    And yet, according to you”Britain was not involved in the slave trade”. But they seemingly had to pay off slave traders as well as owners to get “legislation ”through to abolish it. 🤔
                    That’s some really twisted logic you’re working with there boyo.
                    And I said “colonies”, not “commonwealths” big difference…
                    Revisionist history, is a mother. Just sayin…

                    1. Gosh you really don’t have much equipment at your disposal to think with there NYG.

                      Did you not understand the difference between these two things:

                      1. Britain *as a country* not being involved in the slave trade because there was simply nothing in law at the time to prevent (some) British merchants (and many from other countries too) from operating in the slave trade of their own accord…

                      2. In order to end this activity, the British government of the time needed to make some concessions to existing power bases to get abolition legislation over the line.

                      Here you go – educate yourself:
                      https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britain-still-hasnt-paid-off-the-slavery-compensation-debt

                      Particularly note this:

                      “It was a bribe and one well worth it. The slave interests had considerable political power in the Britain of the 1830s. The abolition of slavery wasn’t going to happen anytime soon unless those interests were appeased. £20 million was the price and we regard it as an excellent one, a bargain, to free upwards of 800,000 people from durance vile. ”

                      Any of this sinking in or is the logic still too difficult for you, even when I write it out so painstakingly for you?

                    2. P.S. I said Commonwealth (capitalised, no plural) for a reason – one which clearly escaped you. The former colonies *became* the Commonwealth and even today most of its members are former colonies.

                      You knew that, right?

              2. IDKWIC, THE WISE AND RATIONAL VOICE OF REASON AND COMMON SENSE.

                I am liberal with a small l, by nature and by reason. But I find the anti liberal woke movement so unintelligent, plain vicious and stupid in fact, and I thoroughly endorse all the sense you write above, as you so often write in your posts.

                To accuse modern Britain of colonialism, simply because our distant ancestors were, is too stupid and unthinking to be taken seriously .

                Modern Britain is almost certainly the most non racist country on Earth today and, like you, I am very proud of our countrymen and women! Some of the posts on this thread make me despair of the lack of even basic intellect in SOME of our fans.

                Like the Ronaldo debate and whether he could be useful to Arsenal, when it is beyond plain that he is finished as a top level player, SOME of our fans prefer and insist on living in the past.

                1. “GB the least non racist modern country”😂
                  And then you wonder why people cannot take you seriously Jon!!

                  1. Yeah, that’s called playing the man not the ball. He’s probably right about this country being non-racist now – positive discrimination is the opposite of racism (and just as bad in reality)..

                    But you thought you could just start mud-slinging instead of engaging in discussion. Feeble tbh.

                2. As a non black person you can say this ask black people who are the targets they will tell you the opposite and the fact you have a racist league says it all

                  1. That’s a weak argument. Asking someone if they feel victimised is hardly the same as producing evidence that it is so.

              3. Britain’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade officially began, with royal approval, in 1663. In less than 150 years, Britain was responsible for transporting millions of enslaved Africans to colonies in the Americas, where men, women and children were forced to work on plantations and denied basic rights.

                1. Not “Britain”, perhaps some individuals. If the British Navy were doing this then you could call it “Britain” but not when it is merely British merchants operating for their own gain.

                  Here’s some history:
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain

                  Note the way the British legal system makes sensible decisions, notably in the case of James Somerset in 1772 and then further in the following decades leading to abolition.

                  And your “royal approval”? Britain was not a monarchy since 1649. So… which Act of Parliament would have been “approved” by a monarch in 1663 then – presumably you mean the royal assent process (rubber stamping Bills that have been through the Hoc and the HoL)?

                  If so, which Bill? Because the only reason – I repeat *only* – that British merchants were able to engage in the slave trade was because there was no law prohibiting it. That’s how our legal system works as a truly free society – you can do anything you want… unless there’s a law that specifically prohibits it.

                  1. @idk As my previous comment stated”slave trade was possible because of the royal approval”.
                    are you of one those people who thinks that’s ok as long as it is legal??

                    1. Yet again you ducked the question – and tried to ignore my rebuttal of your unsubstantiated assertion.

                      I repeat: Britain was *not a democracy* at that time.

                      Please provide a link to some credible source of this “royal approval” you claim, because it makes no sense at all, for the reasons previously given. It my as well have had approval from Elvis.

                      Please waste no more of anyone’s time with wild assertions that you cannot or will not substantiate in any way.

              4. @IDWIC:Another thing,you wrote about the abolition of slavery in Britain.
                Key campaigner: Ignatius Sancho
                Ignatius Sancho was born in 1729 on a slave ship bound for the Caribbean.
                -Olaudah Equiano was also a hugely significant figure in the abolition campaign.

                According to his autobiography, Equiano was captured in West Africa, forcibly transported to the Americas and sold into slavery. He eventually managed to buy his freedom… I’m sure that you’ve guessed,they were not Caucasian/white??

                1. And?

                  I’m sure you had a point there, but I don’t see it.

                  There were a number of campaigners – but being a campaigner is a long way from being an MP and directly causing an Act of abolition to be passed into law (as Wilberforce did).

            2. Check out where the slave masters of today come from before getting on your high horse
              Try reading about the working conditions of Filipino maids in Qatar or the gangs that traffic girls into countries for use in the sex trade

              1. Funny how my post has been bypassed in favour of bashing Britain and the ‘west’. All I did was highlight that there is plenty of evil alive and kicking outside of the shores that I call my country. How many times does one have to apologise for the wrongs of my fore fathers?
                I brought up the present but doing that isn’t popular nowadays. Have a good look at your country and it’s human rights records before trashing mine which at least has done much to right the wrongs of the past

                1. This country still benefits from slavery so to dismiss it is to not understand or care how this country and many companies in the uk made its wealth the attitudes towards saka goes to show that racism is very much alive and they are of the same ilk as their forefathers.

                  1. Which country are you in?

                    What evidence do you have that your country “still benefits from slavery”?

                    Anyone can assert anything – providing some evidence to show that it’s true is another matter… which, I note, you didn’t even bother to attempt

                2. “which at least has done much to right the wrongs of the past”.are you having a laugh SueP??could please write down the ‘*extensive’ (*I’m being sarcastic)list of the many wrongs Britain has righted?

          2. I don’t know why people are writing essays trying to justify abominations. It’s like people aren’t thinking straight. Some of the comments are inhumane and born out of ignorance. If we had eyes to see into the past just like that people would be more sensible with posts.

            1. Perhaps people should just write short and ill-informed posts like yours?

              No-one is forcing you to read any of this, move on if you’re not interested.

              And no-one is “justifying” anything, they are explaining patiently to anyone with the wit to follow the thread that *Britain as a country was not involved in the slave trade*.

              Some of its merchants were involved, as private citizens, and Britain (the country) did the right thing and put an end to it via legislation.

      1. Classy Gunner, Some of us , though others do not, realise that what happened long ago cannot be changed or written out of history.

        What is important to THINKERS among us, is that we learn from past mistakes , resolve not to repeat them and do not hold grudges about things that happened before many of us were born. That seems to me a sensible and intelligently rational way to look at things. However, when awful and inhumane events happen constantly in countries that have not evolved, then it is our duty to point that out to all and to ostrasise bad countries and not condone what is still happening, even as we speak.

        I RECOMMEND IT TO YOU.

        I do so much hope that you will learn to differentiate the awful past but which has now much changed, from the awful CURRENT DAILY HAPPENINGS in bad ruled countries.
        THAT would be to become an intelligent person.

        1. “However, when awful and inhumane events happen constantly in countries that have not evolved, then it is our duty to point that out to all and to ostrasise bad countries and not condone what is still happening, even as we speak”

          So tell me Jon, what is evolving? So any country that does not live the way Europeans do has not evolved right?

          What right have you to tell others what to enshrine in their constitution? Why can’t their culture be accepted in the name of tolerance? Why must they bend to your wishes yet you preach that they are tyrants who do not respect people’s wishes? I hate hypocrisy

          Our own female footballers are preaching against Qatar, yet wear a jersey promoting Emirates and Rwanda. Talk of the highest level of hypocrisy

          1. dgr8xt, My dear, though shallow thinking fellow, had you followed even a quarter of my hundreds of posts on JA across many years past and present , you would know l often post that ALL human kind are hypocrites.

            Indeed, it is a normal and natural part of our shared human condition. So to accuse others of hypocrisy is correct, provided you recognise that hypocrisy is in ALL humans, yourself and myself included, who despite that , are almost all GOOD PEOPLE.

            Humans are made with faults but most of us learn to live with them and try our best not to make our faults our whole way of living but to have a good heart, a kind and compassionate character and to wish good on all ,save the tiny percent of intrinsically evil people, who do so much harm to all good folk.

            Do at least try to think more deeply before posting, next time. Intelligent people self analyse and closely observe all human kind they meet or know about. That is how we learn and grow!

            1. Dear Jon, it’s true that several of your posts are critical of hypocrites and hypocrisy. However, not ones have you called for boycott/ban of any event in UK or Germany for their disastrous criminal handling of human rights. I suppose you’d dismiss that as awful past. BUT, you continue to do so about present day activities as well. You have never called out europe and America for their role in the Russia-ukraine conflict. Instead you choose to vocally blame Russia, ignorant of the fact that it’s the American expansionist policy actively supported by europe that is responsible for the plight of Ukraine. There is no point in being a THINKER, without a care for facts. Mindless regurgitation of propaganda doesn’t make one a thinker

              1. Classy Gunner, Your first sentence is NOT true. I constantly say that though we ALL are hypocrites , that hypocrisy is a natural and normal state of being and that most people- remembering that ALL people are hypocrites – are still good people.
                So it is demonstably UNTRUE that I am critical of hypocrites and hypocrisy!

                I have just written , ONCE AGAIN,. that hypocrisy is normal , natural and not an especially wicked thing. It can often be helpful and it is a far more nuanced subject than your limited intellect appears to understand.
                Sorry to need to be blunt, but I REFUSE TO BE MISREPRESENTED, by you, or anyone else. As for the rest of your post, I SIMPLY DISAGREE FUNDAMENTALLY WITH YOUR VIEW. BTW, you are wrong in claiming I have never called out the USA “EXPANSIONIST POLICY”( AS YOU QUAINTLY CALL IT).
                I am very well known on JA and many other platforms for being distinctly anti American in almost all that USA STANDS FOR. That does MEAN mean I SUPPORT RUSSIA, AS IT IS AN EVILLY RULED COUNTRY BEING RUN BY A MANIAC IN PUTIN.

                AND I SUPPORT THE ANTI RUSSIAN ACTIONS OF ALL WHO SUPPORT UKRAINE.

                1. Dear Mr. Fox, thanks for your long winding “nothing” of a reply. A reply in which you had nothing for/against the issues being discussed. You only chose to glorify hypocrites and hypocrisy, which indeed was the point me and few others were trying to make. Thanks for the vindication.
                  As for your uninvited and unwarranted, assessment of my intellectual ability, I choose to ignore it completely and I choose to forgive you.

          2. @dgr8xt:All valid points and questions!!
            Also to the westerners hypocrisy,you can add arrogance too.as you rightly asked,who are they to tell others,how to run their country?

            1. The slave trade was a murky business with all parties using the common denominator, money to profit from human flesh. In a ver general approximation, it was the Arabs who herded and traded the victims, the British French and Dutch who transported them and the British, French and American land owners who made huge fortunes off their labour, oh and let’s not forget the Portuguese for doing, “god’s work,” in Brazil.

        2. After looting trillions of dollars, and indulging in human rights violations of millions of people after forcibly occupying their lands, you want the victims to just forget it as awful past?? And to top it all, YOU will be the moral police of the world? Just to be clear, I dislike qatar but UK are no saints, they are far worse offenders.

              1. Hard to accept, I know. But truth still persists. Colonialism, holocaust, genocide of Hindus in Kashmir, islamic barbarism throughout history etc can’t be forgotten as awful past

                1. No, it’s simply utter tosh as I said.

                  Emotively listing some random activities without any logical argument doesn’t make you any less wrong I’m afraid.

                    1. You’re just playing silly last-word tennis now.

                      Having the last word won’t make you right either – but feel free to do that.

      2. Actually Spain’s colonial human treatment record was worse. Belgium in Africa was as disgusting as it gets. The UK showed how greed ran the world……divide and rule. Shameful.

    2. If the dead could wake up just like that some of them would come back and murder people for some comments they make because those people will not understand how they suffered due to colonisation, invasion, slavery and what not. However, one thing that people should understand is that definitely at that time there’ll be people even from those colonialists countries that would be against slavery and all those things. Therefore the abominations of the past generation can’t be held to the current generation who may be different from that old generation. Political criticism is what will give people the chance to equate wrongdoings. Many of the European countries on Qatar’s case and no different but individually everyone has a voice to speak out against their own and other countries when something isn’t right.

    3. I respect your opinion and passive protest Jon, but you’ve missed some terrific football and sensational unexpected results.

      1. JAX I MAY WELL HAVE DONE AND I AM GLAD TO HAVE TAKEN A STAND .

        SHAME THAT FEW OTHERS, AT LEAST ON JA, appear to have done so too. Human lives and hate treatment of innocent humans, has always been, is now, and always will be, FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO ME, than watching mere football can ever be. PERSPECTIVE ON LIFE!

      2. Jesus!! Slavery is an abomination and no human being should be subjected to it……..it causes generational trauma and is simply wrong. The ship merchants and slave traders were paid lots of money to buy them off to stop slavery. Funny the slavers point to the work of Wilberforce to end slavery. Why should another person endure slavery and have another white hero to end it? Slavery had to end because it was inhumane. The descendants of slaves will get their reparations one day. May be Britain should start setting money aside to pay those reparations for its cruelty to black and brown folks. Belgium did worse things to black people than Hitler.

        1. If ranting about rights solved anything then you’d be getting a Nobel Peace Prize.

          I see you didn’t really understand what was written above – in the real world, you can’t simply shout “This is wrong! This is wrong” and magically everything is right.

          You have to make pragmatic decisions and that’s what the UK government did, pushed to it by Wilberforce, paying money was the only way to get it done given the power of those people at that time.

          Does that make him a “hero”? It’s not a word I use, but in my book it certainly makes him a good man, a visionary who was ahead of his time.

          And it shows the British govt in a good light too, for paying to end it so that 800,000 people could be free immeditaely instead of having to wait the outcome of a long battle with no guaranteed result.

        2. Oh and… there won’t be reparation from the British government because the other thing you failed to glean from what was said is that the British government didn’t do any of what you claim – individual merchants did (of many countries).

          They did it in their own name and for their own gain. There was no law prohibiting it, nor was there a law legalising it (which is why the courts freed runaway slaves in the UK – because there was no law permitting slavery either).

          All that changed with the new Act of Abolition that Wilberforce fought for.

          All of these are well-documented *facts*, no matter how much you may dislike them, no matter how much they may be at odds with your aggrieved anti-British narrative.

  10. There is no doubt Saka brought his A game, but he needed a little more support and if they weren’t going to play more to him, they may have well taken him off.

    He was unplayable at times, but going nowhere and it was wearing him down, notice the difference with Brazil, when they have a player on fire they provide that player with lots of options the minute said player is on the ball.

    It is going to be difficult for Arsenal to renew Saka contract handing him anything under £200, 000 a week on his return.

  11. It is true GUNSMOKE
    Saka misses Odigaard and White, as they are used to making intelligent exchanges and complex sentences and applying the over lap at the highest level and in automatic harmony, but in this match Saka took full responsibility because Walker was basically unable to play in narrow spaces and smart exchanges, but he was busy with Mbappe and he excelled no doubt.

    1. Artsenal exactly my point.
      Am mighty surprised you alone saw this.

      It appears both Southgate and Walker were terribly afraid of Mbappe, it was how they went about handling Mbappe to a large extent limited Saka effectiveness.
      When Saka try those short passes and move either we pass the ball backwards or lost the ball.

      I do agree Mbappe can be deadly and he warrants much attention but it should have been plan better how to deal with him, but Southgate would have learned from this experience.

      That’s where England loss the game

  12. Football managers/coaches do make mistakes to live by them to later regret making them.
    If saka was leggy as said, Gareth southgate can’t be faulted for his bringing on Sterling for Saka to keep England intensity going in the match.
    I am a 3Lions fan. But I failed to warn the 3Lions during my comment pointing here on the match to be aware of Oliver Giroud’s danger in the match ronaldo England. To take good care of him stopping him from ghosting in to the box to meet a crossing to bury a header home which he did to us in the match.
    But should Harry Kano have missed the spot kick he missed to equalise 2-2 for England? My answer to the question is capital NO! Because that his miss has now cost us the next 4 years before us can make another attempt again to win the World Cup. Whereas us could have win it his year had us had beaten France ti reach the semifials. For, us would have beaten Morocco to play in the final.
    But Saka should thank God! As he wasn’t the one who missed the equaling goal spot kick for England. Which if he was. will have seen him now being heavily trolled again by the trolls.

  13. Football managers/coaches do make mistakes to live by them to later regret making them.
    If saka was leggy as said, Gareth southgate can’t be faulted for his bringing on Sterling for Saka to keep England intensity going in the match.
    I am a 3Lions fan. But I failed to warn the 3Lions during my comment pointing here on the match to be aware of Oliver Giroud’s danger in the match to England. To take good care of him stopping him from ghosting in to the box to meet a crossing to bury a header home which he did to us in the match.
    But should Harry Kano have missed the spot kick he missed to equalise 2-2 for England? My answer to the question is capital NO! Because that his miss has now cost us the next 4 years before us can make another attempt again to win the World Cup. Whereas us could have won it this year had us had beaten France to reach the semifials. For, us would have beaten Morocco to play in the final.
    But Saka should thank God! As he wasn’t the one who missed the equaling goal spot kick for England. Which if he was. will have seen him now being heavily trolled again by the trolls.

    1. Actually Spain’s colonial human treatment record was worse. Belgium in Africa was as disgusting as it gets. The UK showed how greed ran the world……divide and rule. Shameful.

  14. Disagree , thing is with fans they are reactionary and sense of entitlement
    There must be a reason all the time ….

    If he left saka on people would have said why did Rashford not come on

    Literally had a fab say today me today…..
    Saka should never have come on , he and Foden were great ….why Rashford and Grealish not getting longer lol

  15. i dont think it was neccessarily the wrong decision, saka did look tired.
    however, it was wrong to replace him with sterling, someone that has been poor all season and had not been with the team all week till the thurs/fri. rashford, grealish and maddison would all have been better options, or better still, go very attacking and bring on wilson

  16. Big mistake taking off Saks.we(French fans) couldn’t believe our luck.Saks is the only player I felt for.i was delighted that Kane choked.anyway back to reality for the hype merchants sorry,I mean England.#AllezLesBleus!!😂🥳🇫🇷

  17. If Southgate does quit only 1 can see suitable for the job is Eddie Howe but no chance he will take the job now with what he’s trying to achieve at Newcastle no one else springs to mind so hopefully Southgate will stay on and Howe will replace him a few years down the line!

    1. A Sky reporter wrote that he talked with Southgate who said that he was mentally exhausted.one of the reasons why Southgate could stand down,is that he feels like the spokesperson of the FA/England…spending more time answering questions concerning politics,human rights issues….than about football and he is getting fed up.

  18. Was never in support of Qatar their neighbors with their terrible employments , human right
    record neither am I in support of the colonial masters hypocrisy or attempt to fester insanity on others.

    When one choses to marry a dog, cow, goat their family members or engage in other disgusting act should not be allowed to imposed on others

  19. Bukayo Saka is not a robot. To do the things he does, in this case, terrorising Hernandez took a lot of energy and focus. The England camp took much info from Arsenal game as Saka tends to tire after 70mins mark. I believe Southgate’s tactic was not to target Hernandez as he is a very good defender but to subdue him as he is one of the best attacking left back in the game. Changing Saka for the similar Sterling was reasonable as England was chasing the game. To have Hernandez and Mbappé attacking down that left side might break Walker as he also needs to cover the hapless Maguire. Both the 6’4”Maguire and Stones couldn’t handle the 36 years old Giroud the whole game. In truth, England had little chance against the much tactically and technically superior French side. Griezmann was running the show.

Comments are closed

Top Blog Sponsors
JustArsenal Top Ten UK Blogs