England at World Cup 2014
- Thread starter gooDevil
- Start date
I refuse to believe Rio Ferdinand wrote that. I thought this was interesting anyway:
We've all heard the figures about Spain and Germany having thousands more qualified coaches but I never really understood why. If that's accurate then it's very strange. With so much money in the English game it's hard to understand why they're not reinvesting it in the national youth system.
I think the shocking form of Carrick and Wilshere is what's really screwed England over.
When England looked half decent before the world cup, it was with three midfielders, Rooney up top, and Sturridge and Welbeck supporting him without having to stay too wide or worry about defending. It worked really well.
I was wondering why we changed it, but when you think about it, you need three competent midfielders to play a three man midfield, and when you take the form of players into account, it's arguable that England currently don't even have one.
I mean when you look at what Hodgson had to choose from:
Gerrard
Henderson
Carrick
Cleverley
Lampard
Wilshere.
...Henderson is probably the best of that lot when you take form into account, and even he's more at a level where you can get away with playing him if the other players with him are better, rather than being good enough in his own right. He's an English Darren Fletcher.
As a result we basically had no midfield, and then for some reason Hodgson decided that instead of playing Welbeck or Rooney in the middle and asking them to drop back to at least pressure the opposition, he'd put Sterling there and make the situation even worse. When Sterling's played centrally for Liverpool, it's been with two strikers ahead of him and a midfield three behind. Not the same role at all so feck knows what the thinking was. The amusing thing about Sterling's performance against Italy was, if Rooney had put in the exact same display (which he basically did), he'd have been heavily criticised for it. We should have played Rooney centrally and dropped him back as a third midfielder, or put Welbeck on Pirlo. Or just played Wilshere and hoped he'd suddenly stop being completely shite.
People point at the defence and yeah, it's not great (there's no way Jagielka is a better option than Smalling), but there are other teams at the tournament doing fine with comparably bad defences. Brazil play David Luiz, France have Sacko and two fullbacks who don't even try to defend...plus Lloris in goal who's basically just Joe Hart if someone exagerated him. Cahill has also had a very good two games...three of the four goals England have conceded have mainly been the fault of lack of protection from the midfield.
After the Italy game the consensus seemed to be England played well, but I didn't really understand why. Italy looked ok at best and England were brainless. The set up was wrong and the substitutions were hilarious. Welbeck and Henderson were taken off while Sterling was left to play on for 90 minutes despite dying of exhaustion with over 30 minutes left to play. Lallana came on to play in a non existent position doing absolutely nothing. Again all down to Hodgson not knowing what to do about his lacklustre midfield.
The debate about dropping Rooney was also moronic. Supposing Sterling had been left in the middle...if you drop Rooney, the two options tor eplace him would have been Lallana or Barkley...players who are completely useless unless they're played in the middle. I mean people really are astonishingly thick sometimes.
When England looked half decent before the world cup, it was with three midfielders, Rooney up top, and Sturridge and Welbeck supporting him without having to stay too wide or worry about defending. It worked really well.
I was wondering why we changed it, but when you think about it, you need three competent midfielders to play a three man midfield, and when you take the form of players into account, it's arguable that England currently don't even have one.
I mean when you look at what Hodgson had to choose from:
Gerrard
Henderson
Carrick
Cleverley
Lampard
Wilshere.
...Henderson is probably the best of that lot when you take form into account, and even he's more at a level where you can get away with playing him if the other players with him are better, rather than being good enough in his own right. He's an English Darren Fletcher.
As a result we basically had no midfield, and then for some reason Hodgson decided that instead of playing Welbeck or Rooney in the middle and asking them to drop back to at least pressure the opposition, he'd put Sterling there and make the situation even worse. When Sterling's played centrally for Liverpool, it's been with two strikers ahead of him and a midfield three behind. Not the same role at all so feck knows what the thinking was. The amusing thing about Sterling's performance against Italy was, if Rooney had put in the exact same display (which he basically did), he'd have been heavily criticised for it. We should have played Rooney centrally and dropped him back as a third midfielder, or put Welbeck on Pirlo. Or just played Wilshere and hoped he'd suddenly stop being completely shite.
People point at the defence and yeah, it's not great (there's no way Jagielka is a better option than Smalling), but there are other teams at the tournament doing fine with comparably bad defences. Brazil play David Luiz, France have Sacko and two fullbacks who don't even try to defend...plus Lloris in goal who's basically just Joe Hart if someone exagerated him. Cahill has also had a very good two games...three of the four goals England have conceded have mainly been the fault of lack of protection from the midfield.
After the Italy game the consensus seemed to be England played well, but I didn't really understand why. Italy looked ok at best and England were brainless. The set up was wrong and the substitutions were hilarious. Welbeck and Henderson were taken off while Sterling was left to play on for 90 minutes despite dying of exhaustion with over 30 minutes left to play. Lallana came on to play in a non existent position doing absolutely nothing. Again all down to Hodgson not knowing what to do about his lacklustre midfield.
The debate about dropping Rooney was also moronic. Supposing Sterling had been left in the middle...if you drop Rooney, the two options tor eplace him would have been Lallana or Barkley...players who are completely useless unless they're played in the middle. I mean people really are astonishingly thick sometimes.
John Terry England's best player
Chalobah looked very mediocre as a centre mid for the u21s and I'd be surprised if he's capable of playing there in the PL never mind for England. Looks like a CB to me.
He's disappointed me with them too only because I know he's capable of so much more. Concentration and consistency are issues with him.
As to whether he can play there in the prem next year, I believe so. The question is how well he can do it and whether his Watford form from a couple of seasons ago was a fluke or not.
Very, very harsh. Lloris is too quick to come off his line at times and makes silly mistakes, but he's nowhere near as flappy as Hart and I would put money on him saving that Suarez chance at the end.
wasn't Wilshere supposed to be the new super talented young english player ready to do great things?
If he does play as a CM, he's the type of player England could do with. Agree with you though, big doubts whether he has the quality to succeed there unfortunately.
I doubt he would have saved Suarez's shot, and if the past year is anything to go by, Lloris is the more culpable of the two when it comes to costing the team a goal.
Any goalkeeper who's idea of good goalkeeping is to run away from the goal as often as possible, has clearly gone a bit wrong somewhere down the line
Wilshere wasn't out of form - he's been injured and he hasn't progressed as much as he might have done otherwise.
And even if he was out of form, you still play him and hope he recaptures the magic, because the alternatives weren't great. Barkley and Wilshere getting 40 minutes between them speaks volumes about the mindset of the coach more than anything else.
And even if he was out of form, you still play him and hope he recaptures the magic, because the alternatives weren't great. Barkley and Wilshere getting 40 minutes between them speaks volumes about the mindset of the coach more than anything else.
Christ, is there anything Joe Hart won't advertise?!? *cries* He's bloody everywhere...
Strange people are saying, shoulda took Carrick, Shoulda took Ashley Cole.
It's all shoulda/woulda/coulda in hindsight. Most people in the country agreed dropping Cole was the right decision, most people agreed Carrick never deserved a call up.
Defense is a massive issue for England, but we knew that anyway before the competition, Cahill and Jagielka are mid level Premier League defenders or defenders who work well on their own as understudy with a more experience defender next to them.
Another thing what cost England is injurys to key players at wrong times, Walcott could have been the answer, the guy can destroy anyone on his day and us playing Rooney out on the wing says we lacked wing options, Andros Townsend was also one of England's best players in qualifying.
Then Ox got injured and he looked England's best player in the warm-ups. Then Kyle Walker, which left us with only 1 right-back (Johnson) who is great at going forward but cant defend to save his life.
I honestly don't think there's too much wrong with England - England have always produced central defenders, if we can find another prime Rio/Sol or Rio/Terry pairing i think we'll be sorted.
People are talking about a central midfielder, but as a guy who follows England's youth, we are shitting out potentially top central midfielders, so that area doesn't worry me what so ever. What else needs improving after that? Not a lot really.
It's all shoulda/woulda/coulda in hindsight. Most people in the country agreed dropping Cole was the right decision, most people agreed Carrick never deserved a call up.
Defense is a massive issue for England, but we knew that anyway before the competition, Cahill and Jagielka are mid level Premier League defenders or defenders who work well on their own as understudy with a more experience defender next to them.
Another thing what cost England is injurys to key players at wrong times, Walcott could have been the answer, the guy can destroy anyone on his day and us playing Rooney out on the wing says we lacked wing options, Andros Townsend was also one of England's best players in qualifying.
Then Ox got injured and he looked England's best player in the warm-ups. Then Kyle Walker, which left us with only 1 right-back (Johnson) who is great at going forward but cant defend to save his life.
I honestly don't think there's too much wrong with England - England have always produced central defenders, if we can find another prime Rio/Sol or Rio/Terry pairing i think we'll be sorted.
People are talking about a central midfielder, but as a guy who follows England's youth, we are shitting out potentially top central midfielders, so that area doesn't worry me what so ever. What else needs improving after that? Not a lot really.
Lloris is capable of some absolute clangers but his tendency to run off his line is more often that not a good thing. Our back line being a joke last season didn't help him either. He saved us a lot of times with that idea, he made a few errors but he also prevented many, many goals and had some brilliant performances. With a backline that doesn't include a Michael Dawson who can't run he might not have been as quick to come off his line.
I think he would have saved it. Hart seemed to duck under that shot, it was poor goalkeeping. He was poor both games as well. Lloris is an excellent shot stopper. He's certainly not a weak spot in France's team - he's a better keeper than most in the tournament.
For all we talk about not having a midfield capable of controlling a game, would it really make a difference if we had Pirlo, Iniesta, Busquets etc. playing for us if we had the same people coaching them?
I don't think it would. We do have decent players in midfield. They aren't great and they aren't as good as we've had previously but they're every bit as good as Chile's or Colombia's. A lot of teams in this world cup are playing with midfielders that have less quality than even Tom Cleverley but they're playing in a system and they have a lot more guile and urgency to press the opposition and make runs into space when they are attacking.
We've been told that players like Jack Wilshere are the future and how he is one of the few England players that show that European pedigree and finesse that we're always told about, and I believe that, but unless he plays for England in a system that allows him to express himself in that way then we'll get nowhere. Gerrard is past it, we know this, but is he really worse than most other midfielders in this tournament?
I think we've got plently of players that could get us into the latter stages of a tournament next time round, I think we had the players to at least get out of this group this time around but they underachieved.
The future does look good. I think we have a good mix of players and the youngsters coming into the team now are good players. The u18/u21 players look good too. I've seen my fair share of Will Hughes, George Thorne and Patrick Bamford and they look plenty good enough to one day play for England. Will Hughes in particular has something about him.
A change is definitely needed though or these talented players will just underachieve for England like all those before them.
I don't think it would. We do have decent players in midfield. They aren't great and they aren't as good as we've had previously but they're every bit as good as Chile's or Colombia's. A lot of teams in this world cup are playing with midfielders that have less quality than even Tom Cleverley but they're playing in a system and they have a lot more guile and urgency to press the opposition and make runs into space when they are attacking.
We've been told that players like Jack Wilshere are the future and how he is one of the few England players that show that European pedigree and finesse that we're always told about, and I believe that, but unless he plays for England in a system that allows him to express himself in that way then we'll get nowhere. Gerrard is past it, we know this, but is he really worse than most other midfielders in this tournament?
I think we've got plently of players that could get us into the latter stages of a tournament next time round, I think we had the players to at least get out of this group this time around but they underachieved.
The future does look good. I think we have a good mix of players and the youngsters coming into the team now are good players. The u18/u21 players look good too. I've seen my fair share of Will Hughes, George Thorne and Patrick Bamford and they look plenty good enough to one day play for England. Will Hughes in particular has something about him.
A change is definitely needed though or these talented players will just underachieve for England like all those before them.
He's so irritating. Concentrate on not actually avoiding shots instead of what razor blade you're using and you might actually save something.
Not been the same since he was made to look an absolute mug by Pirlo and the rest of the Italian squad in penalties, didn't save a single one did he? Those stupid cocky gestures he made. Despite being an England fan, it was actually satisfying to see Pirlo do that.
Yet he continues to make those incredibly goofy faces before every kick like it's going to do anything but make him look like a bumbling fool. He should focus on his form and not which side of his mouth he'll stick his tongue out of.
The mindset is that he wants to play his best, most reliable players. Barkley gave the ball away at least half the time he touched it and Wilshere was nowhere near where he needs to be to get in the team. He's much more talented than Henderson but there's no justification for picking him ahead of Henderson at this moment.
Surely Greg Dyke, should answer these questions.......I'd like to see his blueprint for rectifying this bizarre anomaly.
Feel sorry for England. Different clowns , same old tricks.
But hasn't it been decided already by the FA that England is going to win the 2022 World Cup anyway?
every cloud....
But hasn't it been decided already by the FA that England is going to win the 2022 World Cup anyway?
every cloud....
I get that, and Barkley and Wilshere aren't perfect at this stage by any means.
I'm advocating playing a 3 in the midfield with Gerrard and Henderson sitting, coupled with one of Wilshere and Barkley in front. Otherwise it just turns into 4-4-2 all over again.
It's not like we have huge numbers of options, but if you go into a World Cup claiming you'll allow youth a chance, not playing either of them is a kick in the teeth.
Yet he played Henderson and Sterling....you know two positions that in previous tournaments were taken up by Barry or Parker and SWP/Lennon(with far easier groups to boot), and could of easily done the same this time given Barrys stellar season and Young/Lennon being around.
You ask for youth and he delivers....you ask for more because quite frankly from here on theres no other option, next it'll be drop Rooney/Cahill/Baines(the next old guard). He was pushed to drop Cole and give Shaw the backup, he did....you turn on him for it. An England manager cannot win unless they get to semis, and that wouldn't have guaranteed no backlash from 02-10.
I'm also generalising with "you", I apologize. But still, he's given what (a lot of) people pushed, and now those same people will change their own past stances and demand more.
You ask for youth and he delivers....you ask for more because quite frankly from here on theres no other option, next it'll be drop Rooney/Cahill/Baines(the next old guard). He was pushed to drop Cole and give Shaw the backup, he did....you turn on him for it. An England manager cannot win unless they get to semis, and that wouldn't have guaranteed no backlash from 02-10.
I'm also generalising with "you", I apologize. But still, he's given what (a lot of) people pushed, and now those same people will change their own past stances and demand more.
He has to pick the right side - just because some were clamouring for an U23 team doesn't mean he has to do it.
I ask for youth when it is right, not for the sake of it. Hence I asked for Cole over Shaw.
The issue in this tournament was far more tactical than personnel anyway.
I ask for youth when it is right, not for the sake of it. Hence I asked for Cole over Shaw.
The issue in this tournament was far more tactical than personnel anyway.
I agree, it's more tactical...and despite the fact I'm happy to not see Milner....he probably should of played, yes in place of Welbeck at some point, starting or off the bench. But it's another move I somewhat applaud him for. He wanted to win both games, could of settled for a draw in either of them when we equalised. I would prefer to go out wanting to win than playing for a draw.....and I felt that was the attitude both times. The midfield/defence isn't good enough to back up that attitude though, maybe a fit Wilshere, Barkley, Jones etc may change that if they find their potential going into the Euros.
An unlucky draw never helps of course, a price paid for a shoddy qualification effort too. Needs to be rectified. Since this team and attitude would of pissed the 2010 group, because that team pissed the quali's for a good seed. Theres no reason NOT to get 9 wins from the Euro qualis.
An unlucky draw never helps of course, a price paid for a shoddy qualification effort too. Needs to be rectified. Since this team and attitude would of pissed the 2010 group, because that team pissed the quali's for a good seed. Theres no reason NOT to get 9 wins from the Euro qualis.
I agree that we should have just played 4-3-3. Our midfield is a weak are so I think we would have been better bringing in Wilshere for one of the forwards.
Nah, Wilshere's coming off a mediocre season and wasn't fit. He didn't have enough credit in the bank to get the spot over players who had been in form. If they'd picked Wishere and lost people would have moaning about 'same old England, picking players on reputation alone'.
Hearing what Harry had to say earlier about examples of players not wanting to represent their country (to get out of games), how then do people (ie Radio 5 presenters) get onto the subject that there's not enough English players in the Premier League? Harry's example clearly showed that the mentality of footballers who have reached the level of international footballer is the issue. His examples illustrated how they themselves regard playing for England as not as important. That is, as I've been stressing for days, a problem with mentality, not ability.
Of course I'm not disregarding the problem with the lack of talent pool which has resulted from fewer English players playing top-level football but it's rather unhelpful to force the argument when it doesn't fit.
Of course I'm not disregarding the problem with the lack of talent pool which has resulted from fewer English players playing top-level football but it's rather unhelpful to force the argument when it doesn't fit.
Jones behind Wilshere and Barkley would be nice going forward. Rooney in the middle of Sterling+Sturridge......Henderson can cover in all 3 midfield slots, Welbeck for the forwards.
There are no genuine DM options in a 3, thus Jones. Cahill+Caulker/Smalling in CB I guess.
There are no genuine DM options in a 3, thus Jones. Cahill+Caulker/Smalling in CB I guess.
Wilshere the person isn't the point. Having an extra CM who can push forward but still do defensive work was the key. That so happens to be Wilshere in this context. If Hodgson had asked Lallana to do it, it would still have made some sense, even if he's not a great player.
The basic technical and tactical level of the English players is nowhere near the one of lots of other "2nd tier" teams, let alone near the one of the very best teams.
We saw how Ghana played yesterday against Germany, how they kept and passed the ball under pressure, how they attacked without loosing their defensive shape too often, how they were just equal to Germany despite Germany being better player for player. It was no fluke either, in 2010 Germany also only just could win 1-0 against Ghana.
Whereas in England players like Gerrard and Rooney might be individually better because some part of their game is better than those of the Ghana players (for example goals/assists) but at the same time other parts of Gerrard and Rooney's game (for example not giving the ball away under the slightest bit of pressure, fitness) are worse than those of most of the Ghana players. And that's England's most exp players. After that it only gets worse with the likes of Johnson or Baines and all.
Surely by now ppl need to realise that England's poor performances have nothing to do with media/pressure/passion blah blah, if they have failed under every circumstances now. In 2012 and this time there was hardly any pressure or hype and still the results and performances are the same. Until England's basic skill and tactical level improves through right coaching, nothing at all will change in the coming years/decades.
We saw how Ghana played yesterday against Germany, how they kept and passed the ball under pressure, how they attacked without loosing their defensive shape too often, how they were just equal to Germany despite Germany being better player for player. It was no fluke either, in 2010 Germany also only just could win 1-0 against Ghana.
Whereas in England players like Gerrard and Rooney might be individually better because some part of their game is better than those of the Ghana players (for example goals/assists) but at the same time other parts of Gerrard and Rooney's game (for example not giving the ball away under the slightest bit of pressure, fitness) are worse than those of most of the Ghana players. And that's England's most exp players. After that it only gets worse with the likes of Johnson or Baines and all.
Surely by now ppl need to realise that England's poor performances have nothing to do with media/pressure/passion blah blah, if they have failed under every circumstances now. In 2012 and this time there was hardly any pressure or hype and still the results and performances are the same. Until England's basic skill and tactical level improves through right coaching, nothing at all will change in the coming years/decades.
I don't disagree with that, but if common sense tells you that Wilshere isn't ready to do the job then you're left with Barkley, who showed plenty of nice moments but also lost the ball quite a bit and didn't look especially inclined to do the more defensive side of things, and Lallana, who is ostensibly a player who plays slightly wider, from what I've seen. I don't think he's played there enough in that sort of system to suddenly throw him in for a WC game. The options were far from perfect.
To be quite honest -and this is a wider point - with the amount of football they were able to play in the run up, I don't think either of Wilshere or Jones should have gone. Likewise once Oxlaide-Chamberlain got the injury that basically put him out for the group stages, he should have been left at home. England always seem to end up carrying one or two players that can contribute very little for physical reasons.
Regarding Harry Redknapp's comment about players wanting to get out of England games, am I right in assuming that by "full internationals" he is not talking about meaningless friendlies? If he means actually European or World Cup qualifiers then we have a serious problem and he should have named those players and they should not be considered for England again. However, if he is talking about friendlies, I can understand players reluctance to fly half way around the world to play in some money making game, especially when their club have have a big game a few days later.
Yes. Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard and the likes of Sterling and Sturridge are all technically inferior to the likes of Andre Ayew and Muntari.
The sooner the group stage is over the better. I much prefer to hear about the current match rather than England's unlucky performance against Italy, the positives the young players will have gotten, Roy Hodgson's apparent "attacking" philosophy. We just aren't good enough and some people think we have a divine right to win for whatever reason, mainly over-hyped player abilities. Even watching Iran yesterday gave me more excitement than what I get from watching England. We are by far the most boring team to compete at this World Cup.
Was supposed to be until everyone found out he was made of paper mache.
Thinking about it all, England could have had 4 Arsenal players starting if not for injuries; Gibbs, Walcott, Wilshere and Ox. And obviously the Terry thing is unfortunate and you also had Walker and Townsend's injuries. 7 players missing from that squad. Townsend doesn't start but he's a better impact sub than Lallana.
Hart
Walker Cahill Terry Gibbs
Gerrard Wilshere
Sterling Ox Walcott
Rooney
Maybe I'm just a big fan of Gibbs/Walker but they deserved their chance had they been fit. Cahill and Terry were part of the best defense in the Premier League and you have to be somewhat good to be part of that. Wilshere and Ox doing Gerrard's running hopefully helps him influence the game, and for that reason he's better down the middle than Sterling. Walcott and Sterling flanking a finally fit Rooney playing in his best position and you have at least 4 points instead of 0 IMO.Walker Cahill Terry Gibbs
Gerrard Wilshere
Sterling Ox Walcott
Rooney
Well this is just totally wrong and not even remotely arguable.
I'd prefer to cut the grass, paint the shed, any summer chore rather than watch us knock it about at the back for 7 passes before cutting out the midfield to give the opposition the ball. Bore the pants off me.
We weren't boring at all. We played some very bright football vs Italy, creating chances and scored a nice goal to boot. It was promising and interesting to watch.
We weren't as bright vs. Uruguay but were still the better team and created a few chances. We play nowhere near the most boring football in this tournament, not even close. Euro 2012 we were far, far worse football wise.
If you thought we played well and enjoyed the game then good for you. It is the same old, same old for me - little bit of a fight but ultimately outclassed by the better team and better players. Fighting isn't good enough at a major tournament though, you need some ability on the ball and to control the play. If not get about the opposing team, which our midfield can't do either. Costa Rica showed how you go about your job vs Italy, clearly haven't got the players to match them in midfield but pressed for the ball and gave Pirlo no space at all. Pirlo had more touches in the first 30 minutes against us compared to the whole game against Costa Rica. We are always naive tactically and most importantly lacking in the individual ability of various positions.
Missed one. Barry.
Who has, by the way, been excellent in the holding role this year. Instead we play Gerrard, who could no more play a 2 man midfield than he could go an evening without Phil Collins.
Gerrard - "There is no truth I'll be making any announcement on my England future in the next week. I need more time than that."
As if it were up for debate. Your time is over, quit before you embarrass yourself further.
As if it were up for debate.
Your time is over, quit before you embarrass yourself further.