So that is it. England are out. I'v learnt a few things that I think the FA need to note. Lets start off with players: In this country we make a big deal about making a team of stars, building super stars and a dream team. But from looking at others teams you do not need a load of stars to have a good tournement. Many teams at this world cup are filled mostly with average players, with 1 or 2 stars who lead the way. Chile, Costa Rica and I'm even going to say Brazil fit this. A lot of Brazil's players have been poor, but stars like Neymar have done the business for them. Uruguay started with a center back against us who has only 17 career appearances at club level. 16 of those in Uruguay and 1 at Athletico Madrid. He today made his 6th Uruguay cap. This is a very common pattern across the world cup and teams are winning with this. Why does it work? The mental approach and the team setup. In England we would have instantly written off that young Uruguayen, but he held his own in the game. For England less popular players like Welbeck did well whilst star players struggled. Other countries stars have struggled repeatedly at these tournements to. Conclusion: A club level star and a world cup star are a different type of player. World Cups are about character. This should take a big part in England's plans going forward. What ese have we learnt? Share your thoughts.
I think you are right considering teams but there is another way of looking at it. I've not heard of some of them but that doesn't mean they are not the top 23 in that country and stars over there so.... I do think its more about TEAM in some countries and players work as team. I think the old south america v europe thing is really stark. they don't win in europe we don't win there... I can see teams preparing tactics and plans for months where as i can only conclude from the state of englands first two matches that any preparations were certainly not designed to negate the opposition rather to deny space. therefore we confirmed what we thought of hodgosn I still have the opinion welbeck did not do well, merely worked a bit and defended. rooney contributed mroe attacking and is being lambasted. I do agree world cups are about character, fitness, patriotism and teams like usa, iran and chiel, costa rica and others show it.
Best 23 or 23 that work best together? England pick the best 23. The winners pick the 23 that work best together. In terms of player profiles our squad is among the best. In terms of actually being a squad, ours is among the worst.
i dunno.. for example coates swanned to world cup with uraguay.. i cannot but feel that's an "in" thing and he was not really deserving. I don't know. England do certianly just pick the managers favorites plus those in form plus the presses favorites and team only ocmes into it after... shaw is an example.. did he really need to come? nothing worng with him but how did he build up to being part of a team as you said.. there is always one or two that bascially go for england... again foster... not part of the "squad" I think perosnally it'd be interesting for england to pick say 30 lads to training camp this august and anyone not bothered to come etc can chuff off for 2 years, then seleect a core 16 for the next two years and stick with them and build that close squad. some countries have small pools to pick out of and they get closer. so you are prob saying the same thing in saying big profiles not a squad.
I did an extra hour at work today. I wasn't interested in a glorified friendly. But I suppose it was the game that'll set us up to be world beaters in the next Euro right. Right.
Dont pair Liverpool with Roy Hodgson. --------------------- Ok my next point. f**k style! Just graft! Why do so many teams sit back and play defensive grafting football at the world cup? Because they have a better chance of success. I'm not saying England should park the bus but throwing every thing forward exposed our weakness to counter attacks. Italy and Uruguay just sat back, grafted and saw out results. They did not care about flair or style. Even the exciting Dutch team have had moments of grafting. Winners often also sit back in the group phase and build the flair later on.
My overriding 'take home' message from these world cup finals is: Eat a big breakfast before playing football against Italians.
on topic only. its an honest thread. keep it to the one thread to help us out. funny though... good one liner.
But Uruguay won... And what MITO said. - Another thing learnt: Young managers have become the focal point of international management. It is no longer a job for the experienced gentleman. It has become a starter job, and for some countries it is working very well.
perhaps so... there is also a case for klinsmann as a "specialist" international manager... someone who knows how to prepare for months and month and deliver on that one occasion. it does actually raise a point. I was against the whole rafa thing people were asking but thinking on it in this context, he might be ideal for the one off tournament style and preparing. And yes dire football potentially
Rafa is the preparation master. He also loves grafters like Kuyt, Crouch and Arbeloa. Scolari is another international specialist. He was poor at club level though. Hopefully Van Gaal is the same.
yeah.... sound slike ideal for usa... you need the same mentality as players... a smaller nation is more likely to buy into the tactics too.
Lol we are better than you lot now! Is it the manager? Is it the system? Is it grassroots? Or is it since 1966, has it not been the same song and dance in 1970,74,78,82,86,90 ( were good that WC), 94 ( oooopppss), 98 ( not bad then either), 2002, 2006,2010, and the worst since 2014. So in all of those years was it grassroots? was it coaching? Couldn't ahve been the foreigners. Seems deep rooted for sure.
