Impossible to tell. Just like with Rugby, you never know which French team is going to show up on he day. The ones who can be world beaters, or the no hopers who couldn't beat a Sunday morning pub team.
With the way England are going to set up, I can't see them getting a drubbing from anyone. That 1-0 win over Spain was the blueprint.
Friendlies mean nothing, even more so international ones. Who was the last decent team England beat in a major international tournament?
Spain on penalties in Euro '96...because the linesman missed Spain getting the ball in the back of the net in normal time. Too much is being made of the 1-0 over Spain, though. At that time they were being booked for friendlies all over the globe to boost the Spanish FA's coffers, which the team were less than enthused about - as a 2-2 draw with Costa Rica (after being 2-0 down) a couple of days after the England friendly indicates, as well as drubbings in Lisbon and Buenos Aires.
as you can see by people reactions, this has got to be the least hyped England team in recent history, maybe they will actually play when the hope and dreams of the nation are not on their shoulders. Look at what happened to Chelsea in the Champions League!! Anything could happen and IMO England's chances will rest on the opening game with France as winning that gives us a real chance of getting to the semi's, from that point on, if lady luck shines on England they could pull it off. I shall not be getting my hopes up though as watching England fustrates me and bores me to tears most of the time.
I don't like Jones or Smalling. Jones is versatile, meaning that he can be inadequate at a number of positions (he's like Milner in that way), wheras Smalling will probably only fail at one. I actually think they have a real chance of doing well if they stick with Lescott-Jagielka, if Parker starts, if they play 4-3-2-1 with Walcott and Young on the outside, and if they somehow figure out decent options at CM and striker. The only one which has a prayer of working, I think, would be Rooney as CM and Defoe as striker--except that Rooney always does nothing but disgrace himself and his team in big tournaments, and in any case can't play the first two games. So they won't make it out of the group, in other words.
Jones does have an upside - he can play with the ball at his feet, and he puts in a good shift - but he's let down with the increasingly frequent defensive lapses throughout the Man Utd team these days. If you paired him with Cahill for England, that would be a pretty good pairing - as long as the midfield wasn't resembling the Silverstone due to the amount of traffic passing through it at high speed at frequent intervals. Drafting in Jagielka was a smart decision by Roy - he can play centre back, right back and has popped up in defensive midfield at times, and is a reliable player that is forever underrated. Yet, even with this on his side, Micah Richards should have been considered - he should've been considered ahead of Glen Johnson, FFS.
Just in case anyone's missed the squad: GK: Hart, Green, Butland. DF: Baines, Cahill, A. Cole, G. Johnson, Jones, Lescott, Terry, Jagielka. MF: Downing, Gerrard, Lampard, Milner, Oxo-Cube, Parker, Walcott, A. Young. ST: Carroll, Defoe, Rooney, Welbeck. My assessment? Fine at left-back and centre-half, weak at right-back. Nobody who can play well consistently as a creative midfielder, no real cover for Parker. Not much balance up top. Overall? Meh.
If Hodgson really had his full focus on the World Cup, then he'd have picked a very different squad. A number of those selected won't be around for it.
It's almost as if Hodgson thought that, as Carrick's 30, he's decided to concentrate on his club career - like every other Man Utd player once they reach their 30th birthday decides of their own free will...
Richards and Carrick both sort of snubbed Hodgson. The former turned down a standby place, while the latter turned down a place in the squad, apparently. I'd have picked both as starters.
I keep thinking the one thing England has are fast players. So now, no Richards, no Walker (injured), Milner starting on the wing, and two dinosaurs (Gerrard and Lampard) in the middle. I'd think the thing to do would be to put together Lescott, Jagielka and Parker, since that worked against Spain, then use pretty much the fastest players possible to hit on the counter.
On the subject of being snubbed... please log in to view this image ...somebody should inform Obama that the US "soccer" team is at the White House, and wouldn't mind being allowed in.
Every time I look at Belgium's squad I get more and more confused as to how they failed to qualify, and the Republic of Ireland for example, did (no disrespect meant!).
Belgium's group contained Germany and Turkey. Ireland's contained Russian and Armenia. Belgium's manager is Marc Wilmots, who has also managed Sint-Truidense, who sacked him after less than a year in the job. Ireland's manager is Giovanni Trapatonni, who has also managed Milan, Juventus, Inter, Bayern, Fiorentina, Italy, Benfica and Stuttgart, plus others. He's won the Scudetto 7 times, the Italian Cup, the European Cup, the Cup Winners Cup, the UEFA Cup, the Super Cup, the Bundesliga, the German Cup, the German League Cup, the Portuguese League and the Austrian League. He's one of only 5 managers who have won the league title in at least four different countries and of only two managers to have won all three major European trophies. Might give them an edge...
Good choice of phrase! but how is it smart? Totally agree with Jagielka's appraisal.....then swap him for that twat Terry!. The MF was already patchy as highlighted by PNP, so how is playing someone 'who can do a job' there instead of Carrick who position it is , smart? MC should and would have gone in place of Barry, I wasn't aware of the Hodg snub though. What Richards has to do to get ahead of Johnson is anyone's guess.
