England-Uruguay

[Guest]

[quote user="Phillip J Fry"][quote user="Jimmy Smith"]I bet Ruddy is glad he didn''t bother get selected now! What an absolute pathetic world cup from England. I don''t know how Woy is keeping his job.[/quote]

Because by and large he''s done a decent job. Yeah, he''s put too much faith in both Gerrard and Rooney and I think that in some ways he''s moved away from aspects of his coaching that have been detrimental to the team (notably when it comes to defensive coaching) but he''s done what''s been asked: He got England into the World Cup and has started to bring through the younger crop of players that have shown a degree of talent and potential that indicates it''s not all hopeless.

I find it utterly ridiculous that many people were saying before the World Cup that Hodgson should do exactly as he has done (take the younger players as we have no hope of winning and it would be a good experience for them) are now the same people who are demanding he be sacked because our results have not been good enough!  

Hodgson has every right to try and take this team to the Euro''s and as long as he continues his policy of implementing the young players, and sorts out our defensive issues, then it will be a much more successful tournament than this one.

[/quote]

Which youngsters did he actually put his faith in then? You take 23 players so that you can replace poor performers with fresh faces.

Sterling was the only one to start both games. And he ended up as a make weight to accommodate Rooney.

Shaw never got on the pitch yet it was obvious from the Italy game that Baines isn''t international class.

Barkley and Lallana given cameo roles and a brief appearance for Wilshere.

Yet Gerrard plays the whole time!

[mrs miggins 0]

Phillip J Fry wrote the following post at 20/06/2014 7:02 PM:

Because by and large he''s done a decent job.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In what way? No better than steve mcclaren, it makes you realise what we had in sven and capello...which is saying something

[Guest]

And now Dyke has said that Hodgson will lead us in the 2016 campaign.

Perhaps he should have waited until after the Costa Rica game.

Or has Hodgson assured him, the tired old guard will be out and the youngsters allowed to show what they can do in the last game.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Which youngsters did he actually put his faith in then? You take 23 players so that you can replace poor performers with fresh faces.

Sterling was the only one to start both games. And he ended up as a make weight to accommodate Rooney.

Shaw never got on the pitch yet it was obvious from the Italy game that Baines isn''t international class.

Barkley and Lallana given cameo roles and a brief appearance for Wilshere.

Yet Gerrard plays the whole time![/quote]

I''m not saying Hodgson is perfect. Nor am I saying that he made the most effective use of all the players available to him. What I am saying is that Hodgson took the youngest EVER England team to a tournament and that in itself shows an outstanding amount of faith in the younger players. Look at the amount of players that weren''t really in the England squad picture at the start of the season but were selected to go to the world cup. Sterling, Barkley, Lallana, Shaw, Henderson. Look at Flannagan and Stones, who just missed out. Hodgson has already shown that he is not afraid to play the younger players if they''re good enough (starting Sterling against Italy, and Oxlade-Chamberlain against France in Euro 2012) and I think we will only see this continue through too Euro 2016 as the last of the ''old guard'' (Lampard, Gerrard etc.) are removed in favour of younger options.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]Phillip J Fry wrote the following post at 20/06/2014 7:02 PM:

Because by and large he''s done a decent job.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In what way? No better than steve mcclaren, it makes you realise what we had in sven and capello...which is saying something[/quote]

Are you serious? McClaren FAILED to even qualify.

[mrs miggins 0]

People go on about how he showed so much faith in the young players, but what choice did he have. The only decision he had to really think about was taking either Shaw (who played basically every game in the PL) or A. Cole (or had only played in the Champions League) and to also decide the third choice GK (which isn''t a big decision). Unfortunately, with such a vibrant group of young players who''ve all had fantastic seasons in the best league in the world, we really didn''t need a manager who is known for his conservative style of play. But watcha gonna do, its the FA we''re talking about

[mrs miggins 0]

Phillip J Fry wrote the following post at 20/06/2014 7:52 PM:

Are you serious? McClaren FAILED to even qualify.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

stick a brolly on Woys hand, its like looking in the mirror, both hopeless england managers, both have the same win ratio. I very much doubt hodgson would have had different results with that team in the qualifiers

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]People go on about how he showed so much faith in the young players, but what choice did he have. The only decision he had to really think about was taking either Shaw (who played basically every game in the PL) or A. Cole (or had only played in the Champions League) and to also decide the third choice GK (which isn''t a big decision). Unfortunately, with such a vibrant group of young players who''ve all had fantastic seasons in the best league in the world, we really didn''t need a manager who is known for his conservative style of play. But watcha gonna do, its the FA we''re talking about[/quote]

He could''ve been far more conservative in his selection. A. Cole over Shaw, another striker (Defoe or Carroll) over Barkley. He could''ve made the decision to start Milner out wide instead of players like Sterling or Welbeck, he could''ve started Lampard and Gerrard in the deep midfield roles over Henderson. Going back further, to Euro 2012, why start Oxlade-Chamberlain instead of a player like Walcott or Henderson. Hodgson has consistently shown an interest in bringing younger players into the England squad.  

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]Phillip J Fry wrote the following post at 20/06/2014 7:52 PM:

Are you serious? McClaren FAILED to even qualify.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

stick a brolly on Woys hand, its like looking in the mirror, both hopeless england managers, both have the same win ratio. I very much doubt hodgson would have had different results with that team in the qualifiers[/quote]

You clearly have no knowledge of footballing history or the development of the gmae if you think McClaren is anywhere near Hodgson''s level.

[mrs miggins 0]

Barkley is a midfielder, so that why he didn''t go for a striker as not only do England only play with one striker but the other strikers we do have have had poor seasons.Carroll, who''s been injured all season, Defoe, who old and plays in an uncompetitive league.

Henderson or Lampard, thats not even a discussion. Perhaps welsher or Henderson is a better discussion.

Shaw or Cole, Shaw''s had a great season and is valued at nearly £30m, taking him to the WC is great experience for him, being second to Baines, just like Cole would be.

Why the Ox over Walcott/Henderson, all young players. The Ox more versatile and didn''t bottle it when played, unlike the other two a couple of years ago.

All these decisions would be made by any rational person, there were no shocks. It up to hodgson to use the best players we have effectively, although obviously as its Woy none of us are surprised by the way we played, I at least thought we''d get a point from the first two games.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

I give up. 

[mrs miggins 0]

Phillip J Fry wrote the following post at 20/06/2014 8:10 PM:

You clearly have no knowledge of footballing history or the development of the gmae if you think McClaren is anywhere near Hodgson''s level.

------------------------------------------------------------

You clearly think Hodgson has done a decent job

*Slow Clap

Unfortunately we can''t know how Woy would have done with the squad and fixtures Steve had, so its a bit of a mute point. He''s obviously near Hodgson''s level by what we''re discussing here.

[FCC 76]

This will cost the FA. Merchandise revenue will be massively reduced, and the unattractive Euro fixtures could see many games at reduced prices or Wembley half full.

Frankly, I''m gutted for our fans and players - but the greedy, big club favouring, London loving, FA deserve no sympathy.

[Guest]

[quote user="Phillip J Fry"][quote user="mrs miggins"]People go on about how he showed so much faith in the young players, but what choice did he have. The only decision he had to really think about was taking either Shaw (who played basically every game in the PL) or A. Cole (or had only played in the Champions League) and to also decide the third choice GK (which isn''t a big decision). Unfortunately, with such a vibrant group of young players who''ve all had fantastic seasons in the best league in the world, we really didn''t need a manager who is known for his conservative style of play. But watcha gonna do, its the FA we''re talking about[/quote]

He could''ve been far more conservative in his selection. A. Cole over Shaw, another striker (Defoe or Carroll) over Barkley. He could''ve made the decision to start Milner out wide instead of players like Sterling or Welbeck, he could''ve started Lampard and Gerrard in the deep midfield roles over Henderson. Going back further, to Euro 2012, why start Oxlade-Chamberlain instead of a player like Walcott or Henderson. Hodgson has consistently shown an interest in bringing younger players into the England squad.  

[/quote]

Instead he was so interested that having taken such a crop of universally accepted talented young players, he only started with one and in a crucial second match, discarded him out to the area where it is easy to be marked out of the game.

Just so that a player who was acknowledged by most to have been a passenger at best in the Italy game can play.

He took a system to the tournament and put players out of position just to fit them into his system.

The world''s top three strikers, Suarez, Messi and Ronaldo attack players up the middle where the old static centre backs are at their mercy.

Admittedly an injury to Chamberlain may have altered his thinking but Sterling, Barkley and Willshire had shown similar qualities in the friendlies.

Wellbeck is not a wide player and Sturridge plays his club football in a two man attack.

Of course the players would volunteer to play out of position, they were at the World Cup! They all want to play.

Despite us playing reasonably well against Italy I think it was obvious area of concern was the Baines left side. Had he no confidence that Shaw, the subject of a massive bid for his services, could perhaps do that job? What if Baines had got injured or sent off early on?

He has been told he has kept his job. We have to accept that. It isn''t our decision. Let''s hope he does give them their chance against Costa Rica.

I understand Chamberlain should be fit to start. So how about change of system.

Three centre backs and two wing backs maybe?

Hart

Jones, Jagielka and Cahill centre backs

Shaw and Johnson wing backs

Wilshere Barkley Henderson midfield

Chamberlain and Sterling up front

I''m not saying that is perfect but they are the players at his disposal.

No fear and nothing lose but plenty to gain

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="InchY"]Blame the players the manager the ref or whoever it''s not going to change the fact that the current England team are as good as we have right now and are just not good enough to compete with the worlds best teams. The English game is overloaded with foreign talent and that is having a knock on effect with the players coming through the youth ranks hence the cat 1 academies idea.[/quote]I think that is a factor. In particular in terms of the extra-skilful creative players needed at the top international level. Historically England have tended not to produce many of those and it is probably harder now for any possibles to train on. A look at the top Premier League sides shows how few of them have an English player as their main creator.But this factor is pretty recent. If one takes reaching World Cup semi-finals as a reasonable benchmark of success then England''s overall record of just two is well below par for a supposedly top nation and compares unfavourably with that of several smaller countries. It is only as many as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland, two fewer than Sweden, and three fewer (so far) than Uruguay, whose population is a third of London''s. Germany have racked up 12 SF appearances.

[hogesar 9,618]

I think Roy is a good manager - and i can''t say i have too many complaints really on how he set us up, or his line up for that matter. Small changed i''d have made personally but overall, I thought he showed he isn''t quite as defensive as some would have you believe.

What was clear, is just how far away we are - we are so clearly lacking a real top quality striker in the Suarez mold. 2 chances, 2 goals. You need that in the international championships.

But - and i say this conservatively - you have to be reasonably optimistic about future competitions if the youngsters from this one continue to develop at a similar rate.

Who knows, maybe a call up for Nathan Redmond!

[SwindonCanary 455]

Both England matches we played too slow, watch either of the matches then watch a match in another group, in that one you will find a lot quicker movement of the ball.  I was pulling my hair out every-time our guys stopped the ball and walked with it  

[mrs miggins 0]

agree with swindon, with the players we have who started (Sturridge, Welbeck, Sterling) with the two wingers who like to bomb on forward, we didn''t play to our strengths (quick movement the key) and we didn''t even play to Hodgson''s strengths.

[ZLF 271]

we do have a problem with coaching, but also with teh attitudes of players who lack any sense of team spirit

I would not rate the USA team greater than our players but they are repeatedly better coached and strongly organised. As a team they know what their roles are and how to keep disciplined, as a result they are btougher to break down defensively and its hard to see our cock up of a second goal from thu happening to them. Sunday league does not half cover it.

[Making Plans 936]

Having watched Iran v Argentina & Ghana v Germany today it''s clear that most of the teams in the tournament, including many of the less fancied sides are better than us in every department of the game and by a considerable margin.We can talk a good game but the others do it where it matters - on the pitch