Townsend just has to reboot with the memory map of how he was playing BEFORE his first call-up to the England seniors. Returning to that is what Spurs require, not the (even close) Bale wannabee shooting.
You're right but the manager still picks the players and he picked the captain and side that flopped at the World Cup, and he picked the side that was so woeful in the first half yesterday. A good international manager doesn't just pick 11 players and watch them go, he balances the team and builds a system that works. We've had years of the 11 "best" players getting picked, shoe-horned into roles that don't suit them and in a side thats set up for dull, cautious football. No one had the bottle to drop Gerrard or Lampard for long periods, they just pushed them into sides together until a year before their retirements. That's what 10 years? And a hundred caps each with no one solving the problem. We're getting the sameway with Rooney, he's upfront one week, then he's on the left, then he's in midfield. If he's out of form then he's out of form so drop him and bring him back when he's in form and a better option than those starting ahead of him. You didn't see Del Bosque sticking with Torres, or Fabregas were poor and he didn't risk upsetting a successful side by pushing an inform Silva in to it because he had the balance right without him. I'm not picking on Rooney, it's the same with Smalling and Jones, right back or midfield wherever he could fit them in, the same with Wilshere and Cleverley as holding midfielders or on the right or left wing so long as they got played. We need players in the side that deserve opportunities and that add something to the team. If we're sat here in 8 years time slow clapping the retirements of more players that have got a hundred caps and achieved nothing, we'll only have managers like Hodgson to blame, it's not the players' fault they get picked continuously without deserving it. I'd take a manager with nous and bottle to manage us over cautious steady management that we keep seeing. Harry would've been a great choice but he didn't fit the FA's criteria of being diplomatic and cheap so missed out.
I agree Managers should be proactive when picking the team and from there your argument is about opinions. I've no doubt Hodgson picks what he thinks is the best team. Form comes and goes and it's difficult, if not impossible, to know when that form will return. Rooney is easily our most influential player IMO if not who is bigger? In Spurs we are crying out for such a player, do you really think that putting Rooney in the Spurs team would not make a big difference. It is difficult then to drop him and really makes little sense to do so. The Grerrard Lampard issue has been there with a number of England managers ALL of whom have played them together EXCEPT Hodgson. Hodgson is not the 'sexy' choice that some would like but he offers solidity and stability. Hpw many times do we have to change managers before we realise that it solves very little apart from the initial buzz. Once again I say : Managers get in the way and can often do more harm than good if their ego's get n the way. That was Redknapp's downfall.
Last night, Hodgson apparently "experimented". As far as I'm aware the purpose of an experiment is to put to the test something that you believe has a reasonable chance of success. If chemists and physicists simply bunged together any old ingredients thinking "I wonder what will happen if I mix all these together?" I dread to think of some of the mishaps that would have occurred Hodgsons first half midfield struck me as being exactly that. "I wonder what will happen if I bung this lot together and play them here?"
All teams play according to the players in the team. The decisions made by players are how the team performs NOT decisions made by the manager. The Manager picks the team and discusses formation and tactics HOWEVER once the game starts it will be the decisions made by the players that will dictate the game. Example: Kyle Walker, good player, can present a threat going forward and sometimes pulls off remarkable defensive tackles. He also makes really poor back pass decisions, these decisions cost goals. I cannot believe that management have not noticed, can you? The decisions Walker makes on the field have a far bigger impact on the game. Kane has been a success because of the decisions HE has made on the field of play, to shoot or not, to pass or not, to be here or to be there. All these decisions are made in the heat of battle BY THE PLAYER not the manager. The General lays down the rules of engagement the men make it work, often by changing those rules in the moment. The skill of the manager is to notice the skills and advantages of each player and blend them into a team to either adapt the tactics to the players or adapt the players to the tactics. This is why teams develop as they play together more, the collective and individual player decisions come together to the advantage of the whole.
England can beat most sides in the world on a good day, but the truth is that we don't have enough good players to compete with the teams who reach semi-finals and finals of major tournaments. We kid ourselves that they are good because many play for top English teams and do reasonably well in those teams. But they play in teams which are improved by having a number of foreign stars.More often than not those foreign players will be pivotal to their team's strategy and tactics and play in key positions - centre half, defensive midfielder, playmaker and striker. Few of the players in the England side are champion players themselves. Their worth is often because they show the old English virtues - they are industrious or tenacious - not because they have great skill and technical ability. England wouldn't be dropping Fabregas or Silva if they were English because there is nobody else who could come into the side and control and pass the ball in midfield anywhere near as well as they can. Hodgson picks pace in the team at present because it gives England a possible advantage in games. It gives us a means of beating teams we don't match up to in a possession/passing game. Fair enough with the players available. But for the future, what is needed (as it has been for year - and is supposed to be happening now with St George's, isn't it?) is greater emphasis on coaching the skills of the game from an early age instead of placing undue emphasis on physicality - whether it's height or strength or athleticism or industry or whatever else has traditionally helped on muddy pitches in English conditions, but just makes us look primitive compared to the skills of the Brazilians or Spanish or even the Germans.
NSIS you will know that many advances (like penicillin) have been the result of accidents. It is arguable that in football the method, let's bung this lot on and see what happens, is as good as any other.
"NSIS you will know that many advances (like penicillin) have been the result of accidents. It is arguable that in football the method, let's bung this lot on and see what happens, is as good as any other." Only because you won't be scraping people off the walls as an aftermath.
You're looking at this from the angle that attempts to make an excuse for Hodgson as first that comment I highlighted is wrong and if you want an example then we all know the biggest example is Chelsea, or in fact any Mourinho team as all his teams play according to his set-up, regardless of the players at his disposal. Under a different manager, Chelsea would play a more attacking expansive game, with the same group of players. Once the game starts, the players have the instructions of the manager in mind and its the managers instructions which dictate the game but no one is suggesting players don't take their part in the performance, thats why when you assess a team (success or failure) you look at manager and players and often we have fans attempting to over praise players because they dislike a manager, often not wanting to credit such manager for his qualities which allowed the team to play in a certain style. As for your last paragraph, that isn't being disagreed with but in the case of Hodgson he hasn't adapted the tactics to the players, in terms of playing the tactic which best suits the players, instead he has in general played a style of play which restricts the team and fails to maximise the potential of the players at his disposal and as mentioned, these experiments simply tell me he is confused and come the European championships I expect him to lead England to more failure in his own boring style.
Mourinho has not had financial or player restrictions at most of the clubs he has managed, so he adjusts his squad to his preferred methods. He adjusts the players to his tactics. Of course a good manager will make all the difference and enable the team 'to play' his skill is are as I have described not as you first described which prompted my reply.
Mourinho was just one example. There are many examples of managers (at lower clubs) but we can both use examples to back up points as when we say "all" we're both not being literal. All this comes back to is if Hodgson is doing the best job possible with the national team, I (and others) don't believe he is and the manager of most teams play in the style of the manager and with England I see a team that is restricted by management but its not just Hodgson, managers before who couldn't adapt to international football and that's why its a big transition to international management and it will take time to find the right manager for England. If we had a manager like Hoddle, I do believe we would be playing a more varied style, better passing game and have qualified from our group at the previous world cup but thats just an opinion and until we see what a different manager can do with England, its all up for debate.
You could argue that we have not had the 'right' manager for England since Venables. Perhaps we would all like to see a more adventurous manager than Hodgson but I don't think we have the players to carry out this adventure. Not for England the silky skills, not yet anyway but all is not lost players like Ross Barclay give us some hope of more exciting football to come. There was a time when going to Italy and getting a draw would have been considered no mean feat.
I still can't understand why Huddlestone hasn't featured for England when he has been in form, him and Carrick are the two players who should be first picks for the squad as if you can't keep the ball at international level then you have no chance of any success but yes the country has some exciting talent coming through and makes you wonder about the recent "moaning" about the lack of home grown players as this is the most excited fans have been about young talent for a long time. These young players have all forced their way through regardless of how many foreigners are ahead of them and that will always be the case with the best young talent.
Huddlestone on his day can be a magnificent player, perhaps there are just not enough of those days. He can look very ordinary and non committal on his off days.
Very true. He did play his best and most consistent football when Redknapp was here so maybe he needs the right manager
With managers on the touchlines busy signaling all the time like a sailor on deck with his signal lamp,I tend to wonder if the players pay attention to them.I mean,players have to watch the ball and their opponents,not be looking at the manager all the time!
Townsend will never be a great player, but when he doesn't play like an eight year old he's useful--more useful on the right than anyone else we have. He scares defenders with his pace and trickery. When he gets wide often enough, he does what we need him to do (besides track back), which is to stretch the field and create openings for our talented players in the center. But there are a number of downsides. He's better on the left (along with all the other forwards and midfielders on our team who aren't better in the center), his willingness and ability to help his fullback are dubious, and he cuts in and shoots far too often. To sum it up, besides playing on the wrong side, which isn't his fault, he seems to often have the footballing brain of an eight year old. When he can keep that in check he can be a good player, and has done so, and played well for us this year, more frequently than in the past. So I've gone from a big detractor to on the fence about him. There is a gulf in quality between England and a few other countries, especially Germany. But England has improved (in my own mind, anyway!) considerably in the last year or two The technical ability of the players remains so so, but there's been an infusion of young players who are fast and dangerous. While it remains harder at the international level to use players like this effectively, teams have to play to their strengths. To be fair Hodgson tried to do so at the last world cup. Failure was more due to poor finishing (not to mention Gerrard the campaign crusher) than a bad system. My criticism was that the old failures, meaning Rooney and Gerrard, especially, were trotted out one more time when new players should have been given a chance. While the best managing may be letting players do what they do best, managers still pick the team and set up. Hodgson's choice of old guard players at the World Cup was poor, and all too likely given his place in the establishment. His team yesterday was shocking. Jones at the base of the diamond, with Walcott at number nine and ten? The team and setup were so bad I think either Hodgson was trying to fail, in which case he should be sacked, or he really thought his plan was going to work, in which case he also deserves to be sacked. Finally, a manager can have have a huge intangible effect on a team. While I don't think Hodgson is so bad on this level (not that I really have any way of knowing), a case can be made that a young team should have a young manager with a good record of using young, pacy players effectively.
A selection of any team is as much about balance as anything, IMO. Hodgson's choice ( no comparison intended) of a starting line up was so unbalanced, lopsided, and ineffectual that I'm still at a loss as to understand what was going through his head when he, presumably, thought that that was going to work.
