To be fair, England weren't dull. They did play a bit like a poor Liverpool: pace and danger going forward, but dodgy at the back. The inability to put two passes together at the end, and the consequent continual attempts to go one on five by various players, took the shine off the exciting play in the first half, though. At the end Italy looked very comfortable.
It's time to drop Rooney but whatever happens I'm confident we'll go through. I thought before the match that as Balotelli had played in England he'd score against his former host country.
Rooney is clearly playing with fear as he has every other major tournament. He simply can't find the net because he can't handle the pressure. Drop him and let the hungrier, younger kids have a go. He's had plenty of chances and failed to deliver where it counts every time. Shame but the team is more important than one player and his so-called reputation.
Despite the result I thought that was an encouraging performance from England. Up until Italy scored their second I thought we looked the more dangerous side. Rooney was better than in previous WC but the weak link IMO is Glen Johnson who consistently tries to do too much instead of looking for a pass, causing many moves to break down.
Rooney does seem to have that "undroppable" feeling about him doesn't he? Don't get me wrong, absolutely excellent cross for our goal but that is all. As has been mentioned, if his best positions are as a No.9 or No.10, and we have people doing those jobs that shouldn't be changed, then why are we trying to fit him into the team in a position he isn't good at?
England huffed and puffed ... a bit like us a few years back when we would lose 2-1 or 1-0 at united or chelsea....but never looked liked winning. Italy hit the post, had one cleared off the line and hit the cross bar....England made their keeper make 2 or 3 saves but they were pretty comfortable saves...if he hadnt got them theyd have been bad mistakes. Englands defence was average, gerrard was anonymous, as was Wiltshire when he came on, Rooney did one good thing in the match and nothing else...the rest did their jobs well...stirling, henderson, sturrage welbeck, berkley,
Poor defending for both goals (how much time and space did the Italians have) and a failure to do the basics well. But at least we did go out and try and win the game. Sterling tried to inject some skill but forgot that he is allowed to pass to his team-mates (though he did lack some support at times), Johnson and others were too keen to go for glory and score a worldy when passing was a better option and the less said about Rooney the better (except for the good cross for our goal). We were a bit more patient in the 2nd half than usual so signs that we are learning. But looking thin on options once you look pass this starting line-up.
England reminded me of some of the African teams that have plenty of athleticism, pace and adventure but fail to take their chances and end up being picked off by a clinical team, they play some decent football but have little end product and end up going out at group stage.
As we all suspected, our defence was our weak spot. Thursday should be interesting! I have a feeling that red cards might come into this one somewhere!...
Game more or less played out like 2 yrs ago, but this time with the "future" talent. Which suggests that as far as opponents such as Italy go, the outcome is not being decided by the age or experience of an England team.
Comment about Johnson. It is said that he has to play because he is the only right back in the squad and anyone else would be 'playing out of position'. Irony is of course that has there been a right back that has ever been 'out of position' so much? I'd go with someone like Jones. I like the new more positive England, but there has to be some balance. Otherwise you get the situation where Baines is always having a 2 on 1... and the short sighted are claiming he's having a bad game - it must be hard to have a good game when you're marking two people!
Didn't help that Baines was asked to take corners on the right and was then expected to leg it all the way back down the pitch back to his position. Couldn't have made him run further if we tried! The game is all about percentages, small gains here and there to add up to a big gain. That was a little foolish and short-sighted in what is an energy sapping environment.
Its because Rooney is still our best attacking player, he could end up Englands leading all time goal scorer and if he manages to find his form then no one can can compete. Someone like Sturridge is clearly a talent but he isn't going to inspire England on his own, nor is Sterling and while its Hodgson desperately hoping, Rooney has to be in the team and has to be at his best if we're to do anything of note. The trouble is Rooney is unlikely to be that player of euro2004 when he scared the hell out of a world class French team and the nation where all behind him. Now people are fed up of Rooney, they are bored of waiting for him to produce, he looks stressed on the pitch, he looks lost and looks like someone who knows everyone is doubting him. Back in Euro 2004 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18502348 This is the Rooney we need, but this is his last chance to show he still has it and it looks highly unlikely!
I agree with Spurf - Johnson is a weak link; he wastes the ball going forward and is poor defensively. He was at fault for Balotelli's goal - he should have picked up the run. Cahill can't defend the centre and drop off to pick up the run. The full back should be alert and cover that. Baines was swamped on the left too. Welbeck may have weaknesses, but one of his strengths is being able to do the chasing back- and he does win the ball back high up the field quite often. He should have been playing in that inside left channel as he has done in previous games. Rooney is supposedly our best player and one of the most experienced. Other teams would build their game plan around such a player. That means him playing in his best position - no.10, just behind Sturridge. Instead, England have him performing a number of different roles, but with no definite plan or purpose. Not only should England have a set formation, players should have set positions. Having Rooney, Welbeck and Sterling shifting position didn't work.
I've always seen Hodgson as a bit of a plodder and we are going to rely on others failing rather than his tactics to get through. This I think will be a very close group and I don't think Italy will beat both Uruguay and Costa Rica so we have every chance of going through. England played some good football and with better finishing in the next matches we should be alright. I'd like to say we'll win our next two but it's a bit bold.
It was much better football from England. It also illustrated why England did not play better football in the past, aside from lacking talent. The English way has become parking the bus against good teams and somehow eking out nervy one nil wins against poor ones to eke through the group stages--which they've always done. A bold display has made going home before the knockout round a near likelihood. Still: on balance I liked this approach better. Another caution-first approach wouldn't have guaranteed progression in a strong group with the other teams playing positively. I just want Rooney dropped, and Gerrard along with him, based on his play last night. I'm not sure I ever noticed Captain Fantastic, though I'll never forget his equation of a very nice vacation in Miami with heat training. Funny how the England team wilted as the night went on. Psychologically, a final purge of the failure generation might be just the tonic England needs.
Uruguay have won three, drawn three and lost two against Italy so there's a good chance Italy can drop points against them. Spot on redwhite.
Rooney should've slotted into Suarez's role for Liverpool, as most of the rest of the side was made up of their players, using their system. The left wing problem should've been solved pre-match by picking Lallana instead of Welbeck or by a quick substitution, when it was clearly not working. Welbeck actually put in a very good shift and caused Italy some issues, but it was at a cost of the team's balance and it resulted in a loss. The constant attempts to put Rooney in round the back on corners was stupid and I'm not sure what Wilshere's introduction was supposed to do. Hodgson got a variety of things a little wrong on this one, but the other result might actually help. Italy should beat Costa Rica, so a win against Uruguay would put the team's fate back in their own hands. A loss would end their tournament, though. Big game for both sides.
