I'm not going to bother too much with the game as such. What stood out for me as a Charlton fan was seeing a rare opportunity for England to try out new players was seized to play some out of position, notably Jones and Wallcott. Having seen both CP and Peeters try a number of innovative and pointless formations based on this idea, is there a modern concept tied up with coaching badges, that you can really get into your opponents thought processes by playing the players in ineffective postions, or is it just a general malaise among managers. Guy Luzón has turned us around a bit, helped by some new signings, but the idea seems to have taken hold that a CB will probably playa better game at CB, and a CM will lose a lot of potential out wide. Roy Hodgeson has got a decent enough result in Italy, but for me, he wasted 45 minutes on an experiment that a simple phone call to the Valley could have straightened out.
Probably not relevant but I reme Martin O'Neil playing Agbonlahor and Ashley Young, both strikers at the time, on the wings as he said it would improve their game by making them better understand what a striker should do. That seemed a good philosophy, but surely these sort of plays should be done at a young age?
As long as he doesn't do it in a competitive match why shouldn't he experiment? It confirms whether a player can do that role in a pinch (clearly Jones can't at this level be effective in DM position) and if as Kish said they learn more about what they need to do in their preferred role, perfect. If he starts experimenting like that in qualifiers then I feel you're right Shabby
Think Walcott was worth trying given the absentees. It didn't work, and he changed it. Think that's fine for a friendly.
That is exactly why I have had no objection, unlike others here, to sometimes playing Gomez at right-back. He is at that "young age" when it can be part of his development as a CB. England had already effectively qualified as soon as the draw was made. If we are not good enough to safely experiment in forthcoming "competitive" matches against San Marino, Estonia and Lithuania, what chance would we have at full strength against the top teams in the finals?
To be honest even experimenting against teams like San Marino is a waste of time, I'm pretty sure most of the big teams could win comfortably with 9 men on the field for the entire game
This does pose the simple question of why don't people just pick their best XI and play their own game? That's what all the great teams did.
The fragmentation of the Soviet Union has not only shafted this country, but also it's football. Far too many minor, irrelevant satellite states now 'competing'...leading to cheap caps and bogus results inflation. Chris Waddle was very good on the radio talking about this.
