It's partly because of how many guest columnists the papers employ now, but the build up to the France game, and subsequent coverage of England, has been fairly schizophrenic. Picking up the Evening Standard on the way home I was amused to see the inside back headline along the lines of "Release the handbrake, Roy." Ian Wright at the Sun was also on about England needing to be more attacking and play with more freedom. This would all be fair enough but in the build up the France game everything was fairly realistic and sedate. I'm not actually born in England although I've lived here most my life and I want to see the team do well. What I've noticed with the whole reaction is that majority of fans are desperately trying to be realistic but just can't help themselves. The inclination after watching Young lose possession is not that to think this is a glaring example of why England will struggle to compete against the more competent sides, but that Roy's defensive strategy is holding them back. Granted all the running about does tire the midfield so they can't join the attack when the ball is won back, but it is the system he has implemented that allows them to come away from the France game with a draw. For Roy to take the handbrake off we would be playing like England under Capello when the team was prone to getting cut to shreds. The most noticable thing about Fulham since Roy left is how our scorelines have changed. Under Roy we didn't often win by more than 2 - but then we hardly ever lost by more than 2. Since he left we have won some games 6-0 and lost others by a big margin (I don't care to recall any of them specifically!) I'm not sure that the English media and general public, so prone to extremes with England, will be able to accept the boring consistency Roy's system will bring.
Agreed completely - its quite frustrating to listen to some times. The way some people go on youd swear England had ronaldo sat up front waiting for the ball and a midfield of xavi, alonso and sneijder being asked to defend in depth in numbers. Whether fans like it or not England's players are not as technically good as france's, spain's portugal's germany's etc. That doesnt mean they cant beat them. What it means is that to beat them will either mean Joe Hart has the game of his life, or England play tactically and defensively. Whether everybody likes it or not, the alternative is a very open game (think germany 2010....)
We've got good players though. Just because we're in a bit of transition with a new manager and players at the tail end of their career mixed with the youngsters at the start of their careers I don't think we need to abandon any sense of attack. By all means lower expectations but don't switch to such negative football. We're not going to win the competition so lets look to play watchable football because there's no great pride in grinding our way through to the quarters like usual. If Swansea can play attractive, attacking football so can this team and of course it takes time but if we never start trying it will never work. That's what gets me, clearly the pressure was off for this tournament as the team and manager are in transition so why are we celebrating being played off the park by a France team that are still also rebuilding after a disasterous World Cup? Hopefully against Sweden, Hodgson will set up England to show more of an exciting high tempo game that many of our players are used to playing at their club sides.
Yid - Id agree with you if you I could see players in Englands squad capable of technically dominating a midfield. All of England's top players over the last few years (Rooney excepted) have been impact players, not technical. I dont think the comparison with Swansea is fair - Swansea have been able to pick players that fit their system and build them into a team over time (which they have done very well). England do not have that luxury. Its an age old argument but I think a large part of england's problem is the fact that from a young age kids are taught not to lose at the expense of developing techincal ability. 10 year olds are taught to be tight and compact and play as a team rather than leartn to cherish and experiment with the ball. But im going off on a big tangent here... I honestly cant see (of the players who are available to Roy) who he would play that could technically go toe to toe with france. When expectations are lowered that means people wont criticise if he fails to guide them to the latter stage of the tournament. I dont think for a second it means people are expecting him to throw caution to the wind and play all out against a very good france team (who havent lost in 21 games in spite of their admittedly poor world cup showing.) If he plays the same way against Sweden I would see more merit in your argument, but I think its unfair to criticise him for playing not to lose against france.
Agree totally. I can understand being a bit more cagey against the very good technical teams (especially as it is a new broom and all that) but when we play teams that we should be as good as if not better than then I hope they will really give it a go.
I didn't meant that we should try to play overly technical football. I just feel that with alot of our players coming from the top Premier League sides we should look to match the attacking pace and intensity that most of them play with. Again I'm not saying that we should play like Swansea but they had 5 English players in their starting 11 so it's not like Rooney is the only player capable adding anything to the team. I think we saw an okay France team play not particularly well and that's why it bugged me as I felt we could've been braver. Obviously you disagree with me on how good France are which is where the Swansea comparison comes in again. They looked to play good football all the time and as a result took more points. Nowrich too, they shaped up to beat teams that on paper they'd have been lucky not to get hammered against. One final point, now I've explained that I didn't want us to be set up to go technical against France(there are other ways of dominating a game). I feel the team that lined up was fairly well suited to playing with pace on the wings and fullback, a passer and a tackler in central midfield and one main striker playing on the shoulder, like most of our better teams in the league set up. If Gerrard was told to be more positive, we stopped hoofing it and Chamberlain was encouraged to break more often we wouldn't have been far off how I'd see us playing. Add in Rio, Lennon, Richards and Sturridge as other options in the squad and all of a sudden it seems a much more positive England. Anyway, this has dragged out far more than I wanted. I too was waiting to see what Hodgson does against Sweden, I was only criticising the media and others on here who think that either playing that negatively against a slightly better team is the way forward for us or indeed that it was our only option.
Unfortunately I don't think Gerrard has the fitness to operate in the system and be positive going forward. Central mid in the 2 banks has to do a lot of running and their positioning is key to the structures success. If Hodgson had allowed Chamberlain to break more he would have leaving Cole exposed on the left- the reason he picked Chamberlain was because he is also defensively minded (unlike Walcott) and will put a shift in at both ends. It is interesting how you portray it as a negative system, in much the same way some papers have been doings. It seems to be part of a general trend that lauds ability over work-rate. Barcelona's success seems to to have taken opinion to an extreme, furthermore England's history of promoting athletic youngsters has now led to an obsession with fluid, passing football. I imagine the papers would consider the dutch way of playing to be attractive and positive, with technically gifted players operating further up the pitch. But watch those players when they don't have the ball and it is not positive. The players are not closing down the opposition and are leaving gaps. Roy's England have proven to be committed to the structure he has implemented and therefore are doing the running, but this means that they can't be camped in advanced positions. Roy is trying to develop a coherent team, rather than the players acting as individuals. Look at what Mourinho and Mancini both did in their first seasons in the league- they built a system and strengthened the defence. They then set about improving the attack. Key to England's future success is organisation and teamwork. Roy's strategies might not bear fruits initially, but I am certain future England managers will be indebted to him.
When you build a house, you don't put the roof on first. You start with solid foundations - the defence - and you build up from there. Roy's had six weeks with a fairly ordinary bunch of players, and he's already getting those foundations dug.
Gerrard might not be as all action as he was but he can still make himself available for passes and keep the ball on the floor when he gets it taking advantage of his good passing and not needing him to make lung busting runs. It might be a lazy analogy but I'd liken the role he could play as similar to Modric's at Spurs, he comes deep to get the ball, doesn't get that far forward but brings others into the game further forward. Of course wingers getting forward will leave full backs exposed but avoiding taking risks left us sitting on our thumbs praying for the full time whistle. Plus you end up with their fullbacks getting forward leaving Cole and Johnson with plenty of one on ones anyway. I'm not saying we abandon any sense of defensive reponsibility so anyone in the opponent's half just floats around doing what they want but it's very blinkered to not see a middle ground between shutdown football that we played for large portions and Spain's technical masterclasses and Holland's Total Football(which we didn't really see). Mancini made lots of mistakes along the way and spent a fortune on the very best attacking players to change their style of play and build on their defensive way whilst Mourinho never really changed his style at Chelsea, it was always about big, strong players barging their way to 1-0 wins to the end of his tenure. Dalglish would probably have been another example you'd have used but given how he's done since he would've undermined your point, no? On the otherhand you've got managers like Jol, Pardew, 'Arry, etc who have sought to set up their side to play good football from the off. Jol this season is a great example, he was never going to get you relegated so he went straight to task playing the way he wanted regardless off points. You lot all got a bit upset at a few hammerings along the way but by the end you're playing some great stuff and outplaying sides like Chelsea must've been hugely satisfying. This depiction of defensive play being the only viable option just doesn't ring true and that's why it would be disappointing to see us so readily settle for these tactics.
I'm not sure you fully appreciate the forces behind the Spanish domination. It's not a case of the manager implementing a system, it's primarily as result of Barcelona ushering through a group of similarly aged players who are completely familiar with each other and the style of play. The Madrid players just slot in then. It's a case of the coaching sessions and drills the players have been taking since they were young. It is an entirely unique circumstance which no country can realistically aspire to meet within a generation. The point about Gerrard is that the running he has to do off the ball means he can't do as much going forward, otherwise he has to then do all the running back. I woudn't say that it is defensive play per se, it is a system built on a strong defence and rigid set of 9 players who hold position. They have still scored in every game. It's frustrating to hear fans asking the team to start flying before they have even picked themselves up from their knees. You always start with the defence, if you don't then you end up like Keegan. I've got no idea what Dalglish has to do with this- he spent most his money strengthening attack and promoted youth players to the defence. Why on earth you bring Jol, in the context of a league, into this I don't know. Relegation is still a real worry for Fulham so I wouldn't say there was never any chance, he actually started quite badly and never picked up much consistency. By the end we looked better, but there are still questions around certain things, although the mood is generally happy. He didn't have to worry so much about defence because Roy built that up when he joined. The main issue with Jol now is that the players don't perform in the smaller games, like Swansea at home when we were completely dominated.
This is the EXACT reason why England are ****, youth team football coaching is absolutely appalling, in fact to call it coaching is almost criminal. I spent many years in Spain, on wednesdays we used to go play football on the local pitch after the kids had finished their practice. control, passing and movement, compared to the English version of hoofing it to the big kid/fast kid/good kid. I've also wondered how they expect a kid to learn how to control a ball when it's up to their knees.
