England at World Cup 2014

gooDevil said:
That looks like a 4132 to me, I don't see a midfield diamond.
Click to expand...
Imagine Gerrard has made a run forward, now it is a diamond
When you play any formation it doesn't stay the same for 90 minutes of a game like table football
Midfield diamond is opposite to a flat midfield 4, they form a "diamond" or a "box" rather than a "line"
It is staggered and fluid instead of flat and rigid
The "wide" midfielders come inside to attack, rather than try and go down the flanks causing us to be stronger centrally when attacking instead of having 4 guys trying to attack the bylines
 
JefferiesTube said:
1010606_England.jpg
Click to expand...

First off thats not a 4-1-2-1-2 (diamond), secondly thats too narrow. With this formation England would have to move the ball quickly playing the one-twos which they just cant do unfortunately. Also no wingers?! Englands best way going forward is on the wings with the pace england has like Sterling, The Ox(if fit), Welbeck, Lallana etc. So england cannot function without having wingers to burst down the corner, weave and swerve and put them crosses in. England can no way beat oppositions like Spain, Germany, Brazil etc in the middle. So i wouldnt expect to see Hodgeson playing this formation.
 
Given the woeful backup......might as well just take him. Hell I'd even take Young over him if he was on standby. Though I wouldn't go as low as SWP/Lennon again.
 
Reading the reports today about how Ox-Cham will definitely miss the first group game, and quite possibly the other 2, you'd have to question how fit he will be for the knockout stages if we get that far, bearing in mind he won't have played a match for 24/25 days by then.

It's depressing reading to see that Jon Flanagan could be his replacement, I mean granted Townsend is injured but really? Nothing out there above Flanagan, a player who as the BBC quite rightly points out, was offered on loan at the start of the season but nobody wanted him. England will never get to the business end of major tournaments while we are so reliant on our first 11.
 
Was excited to see that two United players were starting CB for England (and possibly the LB). Except they looked shit in the end.
 
If he won't be fit for any group games, there's no point in him being there. I like Ox, but yeah... he'll have future World Cups where he can play a big part.

Send him home, call up Carrick - the midfield is in need of some added defensive security.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
If he won't be fit for any group games, there's no point in him being there. I like Ox, but yeah... he'll have future World Cups where he can play a big part.

Send him home, call up Carrick - the midfield is in need of some added defensive security.
Click to expand...
I might have this wrong but didnt Carrick opt out of being on standby?

Also Roy is saying there is no reason why England cant win the world cup. Does he really believe it or is he doing a PR thing?
 
ChrisNelson said:
It's depressing reading to see that Jon Flanagan could be his replacement, I mean granted Townsend is injured but really? Nothing out there above Flanagan, a player who as the BBC quite rightly points out, was offered on loan at the start of the season but nobody wanted him. England will never get to the business end of major tournaments while we are so reliant on our first 11.
Click to expand...

Going overboard here....is Jo not in the Brazil squad? Argentina always have numerous players of low standard compared to their main players....only Spain/Germany have the true luxury of of huge depth of that high quality.
 
FacerTheRed said:
First off thats not a 4-1-2-1-2 (diamond), secondly thats too narrow. With this formation England would have to move the ball quickly playing the one-twos which they just cant do unfortunately. Also no wingers?! Englands best way going forward is on the wings with the pace england has like Sterling, The Ox(if fit), Welbeck, Lallana etc. So england cannot function without having wingers to burst down the corner, weave and swerve and put them crosses in. England can no way beat oppositions like Spain, Germany, Brazil etc in the middle. So i wouldnt expect to see Hodgeson playing this formation.
Click to expand...
When defending we have 2 CBs, 2 FBs, DM and 3 CMs and they defend the same way 2 banks of British would do. Rooney and Sturridge are our 2 strikers.

When we attack, Rooney and Sturridge can attack between opposition FB and CB and the 3 CMs attack centrally, with the 2 attacking FBs getting down the flank. Rooney and Sturridge make diagonal runs and from left/right to central area.

When we are putting opposition under pressure we have Rooney and Sturridge in the box, attacking FBs on either flank and 3 CMs in central area in and around the box
 
The World Cup hasn't even begun however you can hear people preparing to turn on the manager already, whether they be fans calling into radio stations or journalists/pundits.


Annihilate Now! said:
If he won't be fit for any group games, there's no point in him being there. I like Ox, but yeah... he'll have future World Cups where he can play a big part.
Click to expand...

It's tough on Chamberlain of course, and England too for i thought he was the most dangerous of England's wide players in these friendlies, but it's not even likely that he'd be match-fit for the first knock-out round should his absence be in the region of three weeks.


Annihilate Now! said:
Send him home, call up Carrick - the midfield is in need of some added defensive security.
Click to expand...

The defensive qualities of our midfield were seemingly non-existent against Ecuador, neither in our ability to win the ball back nor retain that possession once it ahs been secured.

What happens when Gerrard shows signs of fatigue? A problem that will have to be managed if England progress through the tournament to any significant degree.
 
Carrick is good as defensive midfielder because he makes lots of interceptions and tackles and reads the game well. As well as this, he is good in possession. He also can slot into the defense and be a temporary CB if needed.

No other midfielder in the squad can do as effective a job as DM as Carrick. There may be others playing for other teams around the world, but none in England squad.

It is like Argentina not including Mascherano in their squad or Spain not including Busquets in their squad
 
I don't understand why we are replacing an attacking midfielder with a teenage defender? :confused:
 
JefferiesTube said:
When defending we have 2 CBs, 2 FBs, DM and 3 CMs and they defend the same way 2 banks of British would do. Rooney and Sturridge are our 2 strikers.

When we attack, Rooney and Sturridge can attack between opposition FB and CB and the 3 CMs attack centrally, with the 2 attacking FBs getting down the flank. Rooney and Sturridge make diagonal runs and from left/right to central area.

When we are putting opposition under pressure we have Rooney and Sturridge in the box, attacking FBs on either flank and 3 CMs in central area in and around the box
Click to expand...

This is where your formation is flawed. Having attacking full backs with just two CBs and no wingers to track back is asking for trouble because once England lose the ball they'll get annihilated on the counter. It's good attacking but England is known for sloppy passing so committing players up front will just harm england more. I'd agree with this formation if England had a more control mentality in games but they just dont and they give away sloppy passes. This formation is just to narrow for England, too many bodies in the middle whereas with wingers England have they can be used to stretch the opponents and open up gaps to players to run in. Also having Baines/Johnson pushing up aswell and overlaping the wingers to present more pressure and option. In sense have wide players presents balance within team. Its all good attacking but it means nothing if the defense is not protected well.
 
FacerTheRed said:
This is where your formation is flawed. Having attacking full backs with just two CBs and no wingers to track back is asking for trouble because once England lose the ball they'll get annihilated on the counter. It's good attacking but England is known for sloppy passing so committing players up front will just harm england more. I'd agree with this formation if England had a more control mentality in games but they just dont and they give away sloppy passes. This formation is just to narrow for England, too many bodies in the middle whereas with wingers England have they can be used to stretch the opponents and open up gaps to players to run in. Also having Baines/Johnson pushing up aswell and overlaping the wingers to present more pressure and option. In sense have wide players presents balance within team. Its all good attacking but it means nothing if the defense is not protected well.
Click to expand...
2 CBs AND a DM, not just 2 CBs. The threat of counter is no different to what it would be if you had 4 flank players attacking, they still have to track back if lose possession.

If Carrick is the DM and Barkley, Gerrard and Oxlade are the CMs, when they are defending Barkley and Oxlade do the job a LM/RM would do. The difference is when we attack, they move INSIDE and attack CENTRALLY. That is the key difference. 2 flank players and 5 central players when attacking instead of 4 flank player and 3 central players when attacking.
 
JefferiesTube said:
2 CBs AND a DM, not just 2 CBs. The threat of counter is no different to what it would be if you had 4 flank players attacking, they still have to track back if lose possession.

If Carrick is the DM and Barkley, Gerrard and Oxlade are the CMs, when they are defending Barkley and Oxlade do the job a LM/RM would do. The difference is when we attack, they move INSIDE and attack CENTRALLY. That is the key difference. 2 flank players and 5 central players when attacking instead of 4 flank player and 3 central players when attacking.
Click to expand...

Yes i get the how this formation works, this will be perfect for Spain or Germany with the talented midfielders they have but england i just cant see it happening. Its way too narrow, for narrow formations you gotta have bit of tika-taka passing mentality. Got to play them quick short passes and move, cant be stationary etc. Down the years England has never moved the ball quickly. Also play this formation you got to have a solid defensive midfielder to protect the CBs which england hasnt brought. All i can see the champions league final scenario, bayern pushes to many players up field, opposition gets the ball and hit the counter where bayern has committed there full backs up field and get annihilated, sept Bayern is a far better team than England. So im not faulting the formation, its a good attacking formation but for England team it'll be a disaster.
 
FacerTheRed said:
Yes i get the how this formation works, this will be perfect for Spain or Germany with the talented midfielders they have but england i just cant see it happening. Its way too narrow, for narrow formations you gotta have bit of tika-taka passing mentality. Got to play them quick short passes and move, cant be stationary etc. Down the years England has never moved the ball quickly. Also play this formation you got to have a solid defensive midfielder to protect the CBs which england hasnt brought. All i can see the champions league final scenario, bayern pushes to many players up field, opposition gets the ball and hit the counter where bayern has committed there full backs up field and get annihilated, sept Bayern is a far better team than England. So im not faulting the formation, its a good attacking formation but for England team it'll be a disaster.
Click to expand...
You don't HAVE to have tiki taka anything. The tactics for the team I choose are to attack directly by running with the ball and running off the ball, no focus on passing backwards and sideways. When you have the ball be positive and direct and try to score, objective is score. Attack the opposing team. That is Barkley and Oxlade are chosen because they are strong at running with and without the ball, they have energy to get around the pitch and are very positive.
 
@philmcnulty
Roy Hodgson says Raheem Sterling was "unstoppable" and "breathtaking" in training today.

@England
RH: Raheem Sterling's sending off against Ecuador won't affect his chances of starting against Italy


Please start him. He's the Liverpool player that has the potential to make the biggest impact for England.
 
Hodgson electing to start one pacey wide player doesn't strike me as being particularly far-fetched [he did so against France and Montenegro after all]; what i feel would be an unrealistic expectation however, is for him to play Barkely or Lallana in addition to that.
 
Last edited:
BarneyLFC said:
@philmcnulty
Roy Hodgson says Raheem Sterling was "unstoppable" and "breathtaking" in training today.

@England
RH: Raheem Sterling's sending off against Ecuador won't affect his chances of starting against Italy


Please start him. He's the Liverpool player that has the potential to make the biggest impact for England.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel that way? Sturridge would be my choice, strikers always have the best chance to make the biggest impact in my mind.

Definitely want Sterling to start, mind you. Not really an England supporter but since there are United players in there I can't help but like them.
 
Stack said:
I might have this wrong but didnt Carrick opt out of being on standby?

Also Roy is saying there is no reason why England cant win the world cup. Does he really believe it or is he doing a PR thing?
Click to expand...
England have as much chance as teams like Holland and France who everyone says have a chance. England will most likely go out in the quarters to either Brazil/Spain. I would expect Brazil or Spain to beat pretty much every other team in the tournament, and Holland might not make it out of their group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eboue
dbs235 said:
England have as much chance as teams like Holland and France who everyone says have a chance. England will most likely go out in the quarters to either Brazil/Spain. I would expect Brazil or Spain to beat pretty much every other team in the tournament, and Holland might not make it out of their group.
Click to expand...
England havent got anywhere near as decent a chance as Holland or Spain. England simply dont have the quality of players to have a decent chance. England arent even on the same page as Holland or France with the player quality, not even close. Also which manager would you prefer, Roy or LVG?, there is another layer of quality where England are behind....
 
gooDevil said:
Why do you feel that way? Sturridge would be my choice, strikers always have the best chance to make the biggest impact in my mind.

Definitely want Sterling to start, mind you. Not really an England supporter but since there are United players in there I can't help but like them.
Click to expand...

I just think he has the talent to go into the tournament and be our best attacking player as well as do the most damage to the opposition.

I want him to start too, but I would expect him to be the first sub on rather than in Woy's first eleven.
 
Stack said:
England havent got anywhere near as decent a chance as Holland or Spain. England simply dont have the quality of players to have a decent chance. England arent even on the same page as Holland or France with the player quality, not even close. Also which manager would you prefer, Roy or LVG?, there is another layer of quality where England are behind....
Click to expand...

Come off it, our squad is quite a bit better than Holland's.
 
BarneyLFC said:
I just think he has the talent to go into the tournament and be our best attacking player as well as do the most damage to the opposition.

I want him to start too, but I would expect him to be the first sub on rather than in Woy's first eleven.
Click to expand...

Has Woy been preferring Ox to him? With Walcott out, and Townsend, I'm struggling to think of another player with speed out wide who would be preferred to Sterling. He was certainly in nearly all the formations people submitted on here for their England XI.

There is Lennon, but he's so frustrating. Lallana can have the other wing at this point I suppose.
 
Stack said:
England havent got anywhere near as decent a chance as Holland or Spain. England simply dont have the quality of players to have a decent chance. England arent even on the same page as Holland or France with the player quality, not even close.
Click to expand...

The Dutch can certainly bring more experience to bear so far as their attack is concerned, however a like-for-like comparison to determine the quality of the two back fives would be a closer contest i think.
 
England look like they have some decent individuals but the same problem looks to be there: They are poor at keeping the ball.
 
This looks like the worst England team I can remember seeing. There really is very little there. Very very few individuals of the highest quality. England cant keep the ball because the overall technical ability of the side is so poor.
 
Stack said:
hahahahaha
Click to expand...

Have you seen their world cup squad? People say out defence is shit but then they have Ron Vlaar starting from them.

At the Euros everyone was claiming that France were far superior to us and they would walk the group. They ended up just getting the runners up place.

Germany, Brazil and Spain are the only teams I would consider far superior to us, maybe Argentina too. The others, we're either better than them or the difference in quality is not as great as some claim. Seriously, look at that Dutch squad, on paper they aren't better than us.
 
Reducation said:
The anti-England brigade are the most tedious people in the football world. The English anti-England types are simply the most utterly horrendous bores.
Supporting England with optimism (no, boneheads, not arrogance and not delusion) in the World Cup is bloody great.
Click to expand...

Optimism I love. I am going to be cheering England in every game they play despite thinking this is the worst England squad i have ever seen.
 
Enlgand are fecked!

The real problem lies at the centre of the park !

England has no player in the central midfield area who can control the tempo of a game. England quite simply does not produce players of that ilk.

I watched the last Euros and was amazed at the amount of stick the wide players received when the problem really lay centrally.

The inability of the central midfielders to control the pace and tempo of the game resulted in them passing the responsibility to create to the wide players who would often receive the ball to feet rather than in space and would now have to beat their marker from a standing start to create goalscoring opportunities. Obviously many moves broke down before they could start because of this. This also placed undue pressure on the full backs to create opportunities. When attacking moves broke down the full backs were often caught out of position up-field with the central midfield unable to provide defensive cover.
 
BarneyLFC said:
Come off it, our squad is quite a bit better than Holland's.
Click to expand...

And quite a bit worse than France's, who have the better keeper, better center-back pairing, better fullbacks (no Johnson), a much better central midfield, similarly talented wide options and a similar strikeforce, though at gunpoint you'd probably take their 9.

I do think Ross Barkley would be perfect for the French as a 10, though!
 
Goalfather said:
Enlgand are fecked!

The real problem lies at the centre of the park !

England has no player in the central midfield area who can control the tempo of a game. England quite simply does not produce players of that ilk.

I watched the last Euros and was amazed at the amount of stick the wide players received when the problem really lay centrally.

The inability of the central midfielders to control the pace and tempo of the game resulted in them passing the responsibility to create to the wide players who would often receive the ball to feet rather than in space and would now have to beat their marker from a standing start to create goalscoring opportunities. Obviously many moves broke down before they could start because of this. This also placed undue pressure on the full backs to create opportunities. When attacking moves broke down the full backs were often caught out of position up-field with the central midfield unable to provide defensive cover.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If this was Hodgson's first tournament and he wasn' t trying to please the fans and media and Terry wasn't a racist, I think England would be sitting deep to give their CM's less to think about. Something like this:

------Sharpest9InTraining----
Sterling----Barkley------Oxlade
------Gerrard-Carrick/Barry--------
Cole-Cahill-Terry-NotJohnson
-----------Hart-------------

and just hoping those 3 AM's can get you a goal or provoke a red card when you get the chance to break. Shame England haven't produced at least a Nicky Butt this generation around to sit in front of the D and keep Gerrard from causing mortal damage with his lack of defensive instincts since Carrick and Barry are probably past their best, but both did well and you could always burn a sub there.

No idea who should be at RB. Maybe Jagielka against tougher opponents, but more likely someone who can run a bit and defend. Maybe Ward, Flanagan or Stones could have sewed up the spot with more time to impress.

Weird to leave out Baines when England desperately need players who are comfortable in possession and he's probably the best English player, but if you're defending you can't pick him over Cole with the Chelsea CB pairing next to him. I'd consider playing Baines instead of Carrick or Barry if he looked capable of it in friendlies or training, or picking in midfield on the left against any decent right-sided team.

But yeah, Chelsea defending deep and the pace of Sterling, Barkley and the 9 (Probably Sturridge) hopefully being enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.