I must say I'm disappointed with England's performance against San Marino Last night. My fears http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/173541-England-s-VERY-IMPORTANT-game-with-San-Marino were played out almost to the letter! On a night that saw Israel, not exactly a World beater, put 6 past Luxembourg, England "strolled round the running track in flop-flops", doing the bare minimum, when they should be giving 100% and sprinting to a much greater score-line. As I said in the above thread; what if the group goes to goal difference? It will be a case of whoever puts more past San Marino that wins the group. Would Germany, for example, go in at half time 3 up and spend the second half sitting on the car mat in the centre circle with a picnic, before slotting a couple more into the net so the final score is just enough to keep people off their backs? NO! - they'd have been ruthless and ripped the minnows apart. The flood gates would have opened and they'd have won by a rugby score. 5-0 against the joint worst team in the world. Devo's Mark: C- Stop winging it and put in more effort!
I remember Steve McLaren's first game in charge for England in Euro 2008 qualifying against Andorra, we won 5-0. The same day, Germany defeated San Marino something like 12-nil, so your prediction regarding Germany is apt. I do agree though, it did seem like they set out to achieve bare minimum really.
To be fair- England wanted to play a passing and possession game. Something that is impossible to do when your opponent's whole team is in their own box. On many occasions, I counted the amount of San Marino players in the own box. On just abut every occasion, there were all 11 players defending. If we'd just decided to be ruthless, like Netherlands were when they beat them 12-0 earlier this year, you have to be ruthless in attack. Did you know England had 88% possesion, to San Marino's 12%. England had 33 shots, 20 on target. San Marino had one shot, which was off target. The gameplan England had was designed to be effective, but not ruthless. I am sure if Hodgson was desperate for goals, Defoe would have been a certain starter. We also missed experience- which is a must for games like the one we had last night. I thought we missed Gerrard a lot- and we could have done with Lampard as well. A good result- a wins a win, and you can only beat what's in front of you! If we can get a win v Poland on Tuesday, then I have no doubt already that we'll win the group. (Bearing in mind Ukraine, who I think are our main rivals, could only draw 0-0 away to Moldova- a team ENgland comfortably beat 5-0) Come on England!
I was also bitterly disappointed at our showing. This was a game where the likes of Carroll should have been used more. We needed a bit more blood and sweat spilt and it was very boring watching the way we played.
Good point- Carroll was very effective when he came on. He was aright hand full for the unprofessional san Marino players. A true England number 9
Think Crouchy and Defoe playing together, with two wingers like Oxlade-Chamberlain and Lennon, would have led to a scoreline well into double figures. Captain Rooney; despite his two goal offering; was very poor, and looked disinterested, possibly incase he messed his hair transplant up. A better choice of skipper would probably have been Carrick ? We missed a chance of a much better result there - Poland will be a different matter completely.
Good thinking- although I don't think Crouch will play for England again unfortunately- as he plays for "unfashionable" Stoke. If he was still at Liverpool/Tottenham, he would be third/fourth choice, such is the way current England managers pick their teams. Hodgson rested Defoe as he was one yellow card away from a suspension- he rested Lescott, Ashley Cole, James Milner and Glen Johnson for the same reason. All are expected to play in Tuesday's game v Poland though. But, like you Wooperts, I'm sure against lowly opposition like San Marino- Defoe and Crouch would have had a field day. But, as I aid, you can opnly beat what's infront of you- and 5-0 is not a bad result! Come on England!
Ahhh, Pompey_London, but Crouchie/Defoe/Johnson/James all made England squads whilst playing for "unfashionable" Portsmouth.........
Fair point- but I think the scrutiny Stoke get from pundits is harsh. If they were "fashionable" then Ryan Shawcross, the captain of Stoke, would have been a certain starter in defense. Instead, Hodgson picked the third choice at Chelsea, who hardly plays. (Gary Cahill- Terry and David Luiz are first choice) And a good point Wooperts, but in all honesty, they had little choice but to pick James in goal, and Defoe and Crouchy up-front, as there were hardly any other credible alternatives available. Why do people think you need to play like Barcelona, Chelsea or Munich- a passing game ? What's wrong with Stoke's way ? The physical side shown by Stoke and West Ham, as well as Newcastle, is just as good a method to win a football match, and bring in results. Which is more important than what Liverpool are trying to do at the moment. Brendan Rodgers is trying to make them pass it around, and it just isn't working for them. You should play to your strengths, not how the media pressure you to! Do you think the media put too much pressure on England managers to pick players from "Top 4" clubs, Wooperts ??
Yes, P_L Stewie, I think they do. Hence the unfit/uninterested Wayne Looney named as Captain. He is not the player he was, bless him.
God help us then if that was allowed to happen. He struggles to motivate the "rug" on his head even..........
If they did they would be making a drastic error of judgement. Playing in a team that is full of quality can make it appear that some players are better than they are. Strikers have more chances made for them and defenders have more cover. A player like our legend MLT would probably have had many more caps if he had played for one of the bigger clubs but he chose to stay with us. I still wonder whether he now regrets that decision. For as long as I can remember there has always been a player or two that many thought deserved a chance but failed to get one. Others like Emile Heskey kept receiving them. Opinions are a remarkable thing because they can very so much from person to person and each one believes they are correct in theirs. Trouble is when they are wrong it can be very bloody expensive and the cost for England is usually a defeat or loss of points.
He was slow but he could pass the ball and boy could he shoot. To play a player like him now you would need a couple to do his running but he could certainly turn a game on it's head.
