Do you honestly think that the players we had throughout the tournament (bar Ox, Gerrard and Parker were capable of that?) - Even when we strung about 5 or 6 passes together the commentators over praised them we're that bad - and he was only taken as cover as players of that age usually are.
Well, I think we could have played with a little more attacking license; after all it is what most of them are used to in the Premier League and I'd have rather gone out 4-3 than whimper out as we did. Still don't get you rpoint about the OX. I know players like him have been taken and not used before, but does that make it right or unfair (if he's played? If we go back to the point I orginally raised with you, and that was you saying it would have been unfait to put Chambo on last night - I still don't understand that it would have been unfair. If he'd gone on and done nothing, we'd have still been dire; if he'd gone on and done something, then he'd have been great. To me that is a no lose situation, and certainly wouldn't have been unfair!
draw a blue line under these 2 weeks. Roy may be old school with his tactics, but we have alot of good young players coming through that were unavailable because of injury. Terry did block well at times, but it was normally his lack of pace that put him in trouble to begin with. hopefully rodwell,wilshire and oxo will form a 3 man midfield with lennon on the right and maybe rooney on the left- i thought weebeck did well considering the crap service, but as a lone striker he should not be defending. we need a midfield 5 that can keep the ball, play it on the floor and break with speed and have a goal threat to back up a lone striker
I agree with a few on this. Hodgson is one of the good guys but he was tactically naive and the only strength he played to was defence. Most Individuals in our squad had good seasons in top teams playing in continental style formations. 4-1-3-2, 4-2-3-1 or just 4-3-3. Any of those formations would have made it twice as hard for Italy to find any space and caused them to have to worry about our threat. 442 no longer works but Roy didn't have the balls to change it. Instead he concentrated on team spirit and was over reliant on Parker, Gerrard and the defence in hope that the chances would come! You can't pass if you don't have anyone to pass too. The 442 is far too rigid. Especially as we were asking Rooney to sit on Pirlo. That in turn totally messed up Rooneys attacking game. You literally can't have the top striker in the country sat on a 35yo playmaker. Pirlo should have been worrying about Rooney! Parker and Gerrard ran their socks off but they were outnumbered time after time and it was a miracle we stayed in the game. In fact, I would suggest that our poor tactics made Italy look better than they are. One thing that I also notice about England is that as good as our defenders are at defending, they are also a main part of the problem in that they literally do not have the capabilities to play it about at the back with any confidence. Instead constantly looking for the long ball. All top teams have defenders comfortable on the ball. They don't just panic under pressure and that's why we missed Rio Ferdinand (albeit 5 years younger). I don't buy that we don't have players good enough. These guys play regularly in the top teams in the country. Roy didn't have long, granted and he does not deserve to be singled out but I actually thought we went backwards 10 years during the tournament. I hope with players like Wilshere, Sturridge and Adam Johnson to come in he will learn to adapt quickly and restore faith.
I have been hoping to see Jagielka play as he has a bit more speed and to be fair this tournament would have been a good place for him to gain valuable pressure experience.
Had England not come back from behind against Sweden I feel that the press would have slaughtered Hodgson. I think he only has four things in his favour. The first of these is that everyone has been understanding that he had a difficult job in a short space of time after Capello left everyone in the lurch. Secondly, I think he does not have a particularly good set of players to pick from . Only Lescott and Terry have come out of this tournament with any credit and the likes of Gerrard (24 passes completed last night?) need to be binned. Thirdly, I think he has the technical know-how to made an ordinary set of players prevent better teams like France and italy taking them to the cleaners even if the results are likely to send you to sleep. Finally, he has created a brilliant team spirit which is a marked contrast to the problems that have befallen Holland and France this summer. However, I can't really say that watching England being quite so dull and failing to create many chances is th way forward. If the performances don't improve, I think Hodgson won't last until the World Cup. I feel sorry for hom in that he doesn't have a massive choice of talent to select from with only Terry looking anything like world class. It is disppointing that the deadening hand of Arsene Wenger has effectively destroyed Theo Walcott's potential and with our better players ever seemingly marginal in the squads of teams like Arsenal, the future does look as bleak as it did in the days of Taylor when the likes of Carlton Palmer could be guaranteed a game. For me Hodgson seemed a good choice because of his knowledge of the European game but his spell at Liverpool suggested that he is not the man for a larger club, even one in terminal decline. I don't think he has a long term future as England boss and predict that it won't be long before the press will, yet again, be clamouring for Harry Redknapp. (Someone who is probably not an acceptible choice given the fact that there are bound to be some skeletons in his cupboard. ) I don't think Redknapp could have taken the current squad any further than the quarter finals but I doubt if the team would be quite a turgid as a spectacle. Don't agreed with the comment about France - I think they are probably technically better thanb England but flaws in the French national character mean a repeat of either 1998 or 2000 is unlikely.
Ian Thumwood - I stopped reading at "Terry being World Class". If being a true grit, battling Brit is World Class than he is, but defensively he get pulled all overthe place by a decent striker. He and Lescott did not want the ball and are a very long way from being top international CBs, let alone World Class. Go and watch England v Germany from 2010 and look at Terry specifically for the German goals. He was all over the show for each of them. I find your view here typical of the majority of English football fans. We lovesomeone that will die for the cause and that blinds you to his real footballing deficiencies.
A goalkeeper who seems to prefer to kick it away A back four who defended heroically but neither centre back wanted to play football A midfield that played without width and without movement Rooney who was not match fit Carroll who was asked to play a traditional CF role which he did, given the paucity of service Welbeck, see Carroll Poor old Theo, kept making the mistake of passing it to one of his own side. We have players who can control and pass the ball, but they seem to lack the ability to move after they have passed, so we become entirely predictable. Swansea showed last season that if you pass and move you can control games. Arsenal are still the only top club in the premiership that want to play this way, but had a crap defensive unit last season
Saints also play this way and we are in the Premier League . We do need to upgrade our defence though.
It's true that it is meat and potatoes stuff, but it is what the England players know - and Roy did not have the time with the squad to make changes like that and expect the players to pick up and master that formation. Let's judge him when exactly the same thing happens in two years' time! But with the heat in Brasil, I don't expect much of England at that tournament, let alone in Qatar, so don't expect much World Cup glory during Roy's reign. Seems like there are an endless run of excuses every tournament - heat is one, altitude is often another, training base quality and travel time is another, fitness is another. Last World Cup teams were blaming the ball. (As an aside, I switched a Jamulani ball into my 6-a-side games, and remember we all adapted pretty well within one game, with the usual high-scoring, end-to-end stuff, knocking the ball round like pros [unlike the England team]! Infact, its way harder to go back to a normal, heavy ball.) Hard to believe that these guys are professional athletes - can they only perform in the rarified conditions of pissing rain and blustery winds? To switch on its head the oft-mentioned cliche of whether Messi can do it on a wet Tuesday night in Stoke, can England's players really only do it on a wet Tuesday night at Stoke? All teams have to face the same conditions, and it's not like Germans are used to playing in sunshine non-stop, yet seem to do OK in hot conditions. Anyway, I am digressing from my point, which is that it is very hard to judge Roy for rigidity in formation - perhaps he felt the players would not have been able to adjust in such an important game to a formation they had not worked with each other enough on; and Roy may have thought it safer to stick to what they know. A few penalties in the back of the net from us, and we'd be having a different conversation anyway. I think Roy is the right man for the job, and let's Mersonify him or not based on what he does next.
Hart and Lescott play out from the back at City, Terry and Cole do it at Chelsea, Johnson does it at Liverpool. I'd guess that they have very little faith in the midfield retaining the ball. The midfield pair sit deep and isolate themselves from the attack. someone needs to be devoted to patrolling the space behind the opposition midfield to provide an out-ball when we have it in midfield.
