Just how awful were England tonight...

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="GJP"][quote user="Salopian"]

I was also surprised when he brought on Youngs, rather someone like Oxlade-Chamberlain, who has real pace. [/quote]

Ashley Young is quicker than AOC.

[/quote]

What are their times for the 100 metres?

[/quote]

No idea. Do you know?

 

Not saying AOC is slow but Ashley Young shifts the ball very, very quickly - especially from a standing start.

[sgncfc 1,227]

I was clearly watching a different England game to all of you. The one I saw didn''t feature Gareth Barry, who wasn''t even on the subs bench, but did have Rooney tearing the opposition apart for the first 45, ably supported by Wellbeck and both full backs and a midfield playing a high line.

I agree that Hodgson is no tactician, and should have countered Montenegro''s changes much earlier in the second half - Cleverly, Carrick and Gerrard were taken out of the game until Young came on to give us more width. He should have come on for Wellbeck 20 minutes earlier.

Lescott and Smalling are our 5th and 6th choice centre backs so were always going to be exposed if the midfield protection didn''t work - the lack of a sitting midfielder and the fact that Gerrards legs have gone meant that the runners weren''t tracked wide.

Poor management, but not necessarily poor players.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

Anyone who has watched a Hodgson side know''s he prides himself on his defensive shape. One of the reasons both Milner and Welbeck started was because of their tactical discipline, which would be important in trying to deal with a home team that were going to move the ball from defence to attack very quickly. Hodgson is a good manager, and I feel that he knows he should''ve made the changes. despite what many people claim, Hodgson is a top class coach with a good grasp of tactical shifts. His hesitance to change was understandable (you''re winning and the team, whilst under pressure, is remaining organised and compact, why change?) 

Could changes have been made? Yes. Should they have been made? Hard to say, if Hodgson had made the changes, and England had gone on to lose imagine how much trouble he would be in now, five points adrift and almost all hope of automatic qualification gone. It was a real ''damned if you do, damned if you don''t situation'' and Hodgson played it safe. Not particularly exciting, but completely understandable.

 

[Orford65 0]

[quote user="AJ"]Can''t do quotes, but for GJP:

Johnson breaks play up and gets forward - if only he could shoot on target he''d be a decent threat. Have to say Howson alongside him isn''t a thrill, but does the job, and Tettey is better in my eyes.

But the thing is beside that we have exciting players in Snoddy and Pilks down the flanks. England have, err.. well.. Milner.

Why on earth didn''t we start with Young, or Oxy-Chambers, or Lennon, or Walcott or someone with some kind of directness and pace.[/quote]Probably because they were out injured and not even there!

[Orford65 0]

[quote user="Phillip J Fry"]Anyone who has watched a Hodgson side know''s he prides himself on his defensive shape. One of the reasons both Milner and Welbeck started was because of their tactical discipline, which would be important in trying to deal with a home team that were going to move the ball from defence to attack very quickly. Hodgson is a good manager, and I feel that he knows he should''ve made the changes. despite what many people claim, Hodgson is a top class coach with a good grasp of tactical shifts. His hesitance to change was understandable (you''re winning and the team, whilst under pressure, is remaining organised and compact, why change?) 

Could changes have been made? Yes. Should they have been made? Hard to say, if Hodgson had made the changes, and England had gone on to lose imagine how much trouble he would be in now, five points adrift and almost all hope of automatic qualification gone. It was a real ''damned if you do, damned if you don''t situation'' and Hodgson played it safe. Not particularly exciting, but completely understandable.

 

[/quote]Similar to the dilemma faced by Hoots this season.

[star_manic 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="AJ"]We must have the most boring midfield in the world. Milner, Barry, Cleverly - I''d rather watch paint dry[/quote]

 

Bit unfair on Barry. He certainly wasn''t the worst.

[/quote]Barry who? there was nobody called Barry in the England team.

[GJP 79]

One thing though, they definitely need to hope Jack Wilshere is fit for the big games.

[DrDublin 0]

Praise the Lord for proper football returning on Saturday, internationals are arse boring and I don''t feel any connection with them at all.  All about club for me.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="sgncfc"]

I was clearly watching a different England game to all of you. The one I saw didn''t feature Gareth Barry, who wasn''t even on the subs bench, but did have Rooney tearing the opposition apart for the first 45, ably supported by Wellbeck and both full backs and a midfield playing a high line.

I agree that Hodgson is no tactician, and should have countered Montenegro''s changes much earlier in the second half - Cleverly, Carrick and Gerrard were taken out of the game until Young came on to give us more width. He should have come on for Wellbeck 20 minutes earlier.

Lescott and Smalling are our 5th and 6th choice centre backs so were always going to be exposed if the midfield protection didn''t work - the lack of a sitting midfielder and the fact that Gerrards legs have gone meant that the runners weren''t tracked wide.

Poor management, but not necessarily poor players.

[/quote]

Exactly! How can he be slagged off when he wasn''t even playing? Amazing!

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="star_manic"][quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="AJ"]We must have the most boring midfield in the world. Milner, Barry, Cleverly - I''d rather watch paint dry[/quote]

 

Bit unfair on Barry. He certainly wasn''t the worst.

[/quote]Barry who? there was nobody called Barry in the England team.
[/quote]

 

Exactly. See above. Says it all really, doesn''t it?

[ricky knight 0]

Lets get it right England are no longer a world force in football, everyone goes over board because we beat a pub team standard country 8-0. Last night started ok but once they kicked in we could not handle them, we cant pass water and think Man U and liverpool are the be all and end all. Dont care if we qualify or not, we will do our usual, get through group if lucky, then lose if we play even a half decent team. Hodgson is a boring speaker, boring person and his team reflects that imo. I agree with others on here international football is well down my list of priorities its boring and just gets in the way of proper football, club that is.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="DrDublin"]Praise the Lord for proper football returning on Saturday, internationals are arse boring and I don''t feel any connection with them at all.  All about club for me.[/quote]Amen to this.Bring on the Latics!

[GJP 79]

[quote user="ricky knight"]Lets get it right England are no longer a world force in football, everyone goes over board because we beat a pub team standard country 8-0.  [/quote]

Who? Who has gone over board?

 

I don''t know anyone who hasn''t said that England "got the job done" against San Marino. No more, no less.

 

The vast majority of people know where England are as a football team. It''s a very outdated view to think people aren''t aware that England have fallen behind the top nations and have lots of work to do.

[BGG&YPOS 0]

Lets get it right England are no longer a world force in football, everyone goes over board because we beat a pub team standard country 8-0. Last night started ok but once they kicked in we could not handle them, we cant pass water and think Man U and liverpool are the be all and end all. Dont care if we qualify or not, we will do our usual, get through group if lucky, then lose if we play even a half decent team. Hodgson is a boring speaker, boring person and his team reflects that imo. I agree with others on here international football is well down my list of priorities its boring and just gets in the way of proper football, club that is.

Same thought as the players then [:D]

[Webbo118 0]

Particularly those who need some proper care and attention to a back condition. Never thought before that spending 15 hours on a plane might be the answer but may just try it next time I feel a twinge.

[Syteanric 1]

i watched most of the game... he commentators basically Came over Englands first half performance.. which wasnt that good...The last 10 years are a big indicator of where English football is going...between 1982 and 2002 (USA 94 apart) England could turn up at a tournament with a realistic chance of winning....with a squad of players who WANTED rather than EXPECTED to play for England. Some of these players came from Less Fancied sides... Was Des Walker a better player than Steve Bruce?an in the late 80''s and early 90''s the England squad featured the likes of Walker, Steve Bull, David Platt, Luther BLissett, Viv Anderson, Chris Woods... you''d have had to look long and hard for anyone from Manchester united, Liverpool or Arsenal.Half of England''s problem is the squad selection... be it a friendly against Brazil  or a qualifier against a tin pot bunch of bus driver and post men.. the same team plays regardless... not for the love but for the money... Can you imagine if Woy dared to play a Michael Turner, Ryan Shawcross, or someone of their ilk... The press would crucify him as "darlings" rio, Fat Frank, Shrek, or STevie GEE were overlooked... players who have time and time again flattered to deceive and let England down....Then there is the media with it''s head up its backside... England has "the best league and players in the world".. no it doesnt... The media tell us it does to ensure people buy their overpriced and rubbish sport channel, News paper, whatever.. this perceived "hype" spills over into an England fan thinking the country are better than they are.... English players play in England, For English Clubs... Pride and Passion!? Spanish players, Italians, French, Germans, Serbians, Africans, Poles, All these play in England too... They dont just learn the Lingo and the English way of life, they Learn the way England plays... they "suss" them out.... would English players playing in Germany, Spain, Holland etc lead to a better international team? I would wager my next point might point at yes....English football died in 1966..... The country won the world cup.. the fans rejoiced... 47 years later they still sing about it... find a Uruguay fan who sings about 1930....When england won the world cup then Everyone - Players, Fans, Officials, the powers that be stopped.. "we''ve don it chaps... best in the world and all that... lets just wallow in this for the next 30 years...."whilst England Stopped the world didn''t....Training, coaching, nutrition, fitness... If England was a person it would be the fat man in the arm chair,,, fondly looking at his dusty medals from his youth... whilst some young urchin sneaks up behind and steals the crown...The old  English training of "run around the pitch, play small sided games, Huff and puff" is for a bygone age...I coach, the kids teams i work with cant take a throw in, dont care for the drills, as soon as its time to play a game they want to be "Mini Messi"...Go to Spain and the children train on a pitch with no goals, movement is limited to small spaces, technique, ball control... if they want to play games they wait till Saturday morning... not at training... the attitude of the kids spills over into adulthood....England as a footballing side is in decline... Draws with Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro, a muddled Euro''s, A draw with Algeria at the world cup.Years ago England were in the "top seed" the top 20 nations in the world, The 2nd seed would have nations like USA, South Korea, Ivory Coast and Mexico... Nations who, with proper funding and development could win the world cup or break into the top seed and become a football super power..England are 3rd seed, Countries who are still some way off, or are in decline.. once great nations but no more... the likes of Ukraine, Poland, Belgium, Honduras are now Englands level... The british nations wont get any lower.. but they wont improve...Should England make the world cup, Leave Rooney, Rio, Cole and the others at home... call up players from the likes of Stoke, Villa, Norwich, Newcastle... if they come home victorious then thanks Rooney.. but enjoy the games on TV with the rest of us from now on... if they dont then at least a manager dared to say "F**k you" and tried to be different...1966... forget it.. time for the English game to look to the rest of the world for the example, Not dwell on what happened nearly half a century ago...

[CiderkiddCanary 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]England are 3rd seed, Countries who are still some way off, or are in decline.. once great nations but no more... the likes of Ukraine, Poland, Belgium, Honduras are now Englands level... The british nations wont get any lower.. but they wont improve...[/quote]Can''t say I agree with this. Firstly Belgium are a very effective and talented team, what with the likes of Hazard, Fellaini, Vossen, Kompany and others being in there. Secondly I wouldn''t say any of those countries are examples of "once great nations" in footballing terms - if you had stated the likes of Hungary and Sweden then I might be more inclined to agree with you, however still I don''t think this is an accurate comparison. If there were to be a comparison I''d say the England senior team are at a level more equivalent to a country such as Portugal - a handful of undoubtedly very talented players playing in a team of overall decent/good quality. Thirdly, there is of course every chance that the British nations could get lower, though as it stands at the moment for Scotland they''d do pretty well to do any worse than they currently are, just the same as they could all improve. I certainly think the future for Welsh football looks promising.

[Carrow_Road_Canary 0]

That''s right Jas, who needs Rooney?

Well, us, apparantly..... after scoring in the last few games......

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="GJP"][quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="GJP"][quote user="Salopian"]

I was also surprised when he brought on Youngs, rather someone like Oxlade-Chamberlain, who has real pace. [/quote]

Ashley Young is quicker than AOC.

[/quote]

What are their times for the 100 metres?

[/quote]

No idea. Do you know?

 

Not saying AOC is slow but Ashley Young shifts the ball very, very quickly - especially from a standing start.

[/quote]

How do you know he is quicker then?

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="GJP"][quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="GJP"][quote user="Salopian"]

I was also surprised when he brought on Youngs, rather someone like Oxlade-Chamberlain, who has real pace. [/quote]

Ashley Young is quicker than AOC.

[/quote]

What are their times for the 100 metres?

[/quote]

No idea. Do you know?

 

Not saying AOC is slow but Ashley Young shifts the ball very, very quickly - especially from a standing start.

[/quote]

How do you know he is quicker then?

[/quote]

By using my eyes.

I used that same method to detect that Usain Bolt is quicker than Grant Holt.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Carrow_Road_Canary"]That''s right Jas, who needs Rooney?

Well, us, apparantly..... after scoring in the last few games......[/quote]against San Marino..... ok he scored against montengro, a decent side...Italy and France at the Euro''s, USA at the world cup, Portugal, Croatia...many more times the "golden boy" has failed to stand up and be counted...scoring against san marino, Liechtenstein and a milk man from Andorra or taking England to a tournament win.... What should Rooney be doing?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]i watched most of the game... he commentators basically Came over Englands first half performance.. which wasnt that good...

The last 10 years are a big indicator of where English football is going...

between 1982 and 2002 (USA 94 apart) England could turn up at a tournament with a realistic chance of winning....with a squad of players who WANTED rather than EXPECTED to play for England. Some of these players came from Less Fancied sides... Was Des Walker a better player than Steve Bruce?

an in the late 80''s and early 90''s the England squad featured the likes of Walker, Steve Bull, David Platt, Luther BLissett, Viv Anderson, Chris Woods... you''d have had to look long and hard for anyone from Manchester united, Liverpool or Arsenal.

Half of England''s problem is the squad selection... be it a friendly against Brazil  or a qualifier against a tin pot bunch of bus driver and post men.. the same team plays regardless... not for the love but for the money... Can you imagine if Woy dared to play a Michael Turner, Ryan Shawcross, or someone of their ilk... The press would crucify him as "darlings" rio, Fat Frank, Shrek, or STevie GEE were overlooked... players who have time and time again flattered to deceive and let England down....

Then there is the media with it''s head up its backside... England has "the best league and players in the world".. no it doesnt... The media tell us it does to ensure people buy their overpriced and rubbish sport channel, News paper, whatever.. this perceived "hype" spills over into an England fan thinking the country are better than they are.... English players play in England, For English Clubs... Pride and Passion!? Spanish players, Italians, French, Germans, Serbians, Africans, Poles, All these play in England too... They dont just learn the Lingo and the English way of life, they Learn the way England plays... they "suss" them out.... would English players playing in Germany, Spain, Holland etc lead to a better international team? I would wager my next point might point at yes....

English football died in 1966..... The country won the world cup.. the fans rejoiced... 47 years later they still sing about it... find a Uruguay fan who sings about 1930....When england won the world cup then Everyone - Players, Fans, Officials, the powers that be stopped.. "we''ve don it chaps... best in the world and all that... lets just wallow in this for the next 30 years...."

whilst England Stopped the world didn''t....Training, coaching, nutrition, fitness... If England was a person it would be the fat man in the arm chair,,, fondly looking at his dusty medals from his youth... whilst some young urchin sneaks up behind and steals the crown...

The old  English training of "run around the pitch, play small sided games, Huff and puff" is for a bygone age...

I coach, the kids teams i work with cant take a throw in, dont care for the drills, as soon as its time to play a game they want to be "Mini Messi"...

Go to Spain and the children train on a pitch with no goals, movement is limited to small spaces, technique, ball control... if they want to play games they wait till Saturday morning... not at training... the attitude of the kids spills over into adulthood....

England as a footballing side is in decline... Draws with Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro, a muddled Euro''s, A draw with Algeria at the world cup.

Years ago England were in the "top seed" the top 20 nations in the world, The 2nd seed would have nations like USA, South Korea, Ivory Coast and Mexico... Nations who, with proper funding and development could win the world cup or break into the top seed and become a football super power..

England are 3rd seed, Countries who are still some way off, or are in decline.. once great nations but no more... the likes of Ukraine, Poland, Belgium, Honduras are now Englands level... The british nations wont get any lower.. but they wont improve...

Should England make the world cup, Leave Rooney, Rio, Cole and the others at home... call up players from the likes of Stoke, Villa, Norwich, Newcastle... if they come home victorious then thanks Rooney.. but enjoy the games on TV with the rest of us from now on... if they dont then at least a manager dared to say "F**k you" and tried to be different...

1966... forget it.. time for the English game to look to the rest of the world for the example, Not dwell on what happened nearly half a century ago...


[/quote]

 

Jas, possibly because they won it again more recently, in 1950! I don''t follow England, but I do read a lot about world football and the World Cup in particular, and I think you make some valid points about England''s lack of success. But I am not sure there was if not a golden age in the 1980s and 1990s then at least a silver age.

It depends what you mean by a realistic chance of winning but it is a fact that in the World Cups of that era you mention England reached just one semi-final. If my quick maths is right Germany reached four semis, and Italy and France three. And England have only ever twice reached the semis. I would suggest what you are talking about is a realistic chance of doing OK rather than a realistic chance of winning. A country needs to keeping reaching semis to be considered as havinge a realistic chance of winning.

My suspicion is that since the World Cup started in 1930 there has been one period of time when England were obviously one of the best three or four countries in the world, and that was in the 1930s, with a team that included members of the Arsenal side that won the league three years running, plus Stanley Matthews. And of course England turned their nose up at competing!

[GJP 79]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="Carrow_Road_Canary"]That''s right Jas, who needs Rooney? Well, us, apparantly..... after scoring in the last few games......[/quote]

against San Marino..... ok he scored against montengro, a decent side...

Italy and France at the Euro''s, USA at the world cup, Portugal, Croatia...many more times the "golden boy" has failed to stand up and be counted...

scoring against san marino, Liechtenstein and a milk man from Andorra or taking England to a tournament win.... What should Rooney be doing?
[/quote]

Right but who is better equipped to play upfront and score goals for England? He is England''s best forward and he is rightfully in the team.

 

Just because you don''t like the attitude you perceive him to have doesn''t mean he isn''t the best man for the job.

 

Lionel Messi''s goal scoring record for Argentina isn''t anywhere near as good as it is for Barca but I doubt you''d cast any doubts over his commitment to his country or whether he "stands up" to be counted.