England v Italy 11 PM. (Mod warning linked in OP)

glued

I thought Henderson done well considering how much space he had to cover and how poor Gerrard was. He's never going to be top of the ratings but he was quite effective at closing down space for England.

Soups123

glued wrote: »

I thought Henderson done well considering how much space he had to cover and how poor Gerrard was. He's never going to be top of the ratings but he was quite effective at closing down space for England.

I thought him and Gerrard were non existent throughout. It's a big problem for England

glued

Soups123 wrote: »

I thought him and Gerrard were non existent throughout. It's a big problem for England

Gerrard should be dropped but Roy doesn't have the bottle to do that. Also Rooney shouldn't be in the side if he isn't going to play him up front.

England have terrible central midfield options: Gerrard, Henderson, Lampard, Wilshere. They also have no natural replacement for Gerrard either.

England's World Cup hopes lie with Raheem Sterling based on last night.

Bannerman7

This old man ran the game and while England players were going down with cramp not one Italy player did

Ulysses Gaze

glued wrote: »

Gerrard should be dropped but Roy doesn't have the bottle to do that. Also Rooney shouldn't be in the side if he isn't going to play him up front.

England have terrible central midfield options: Gerrard, Henderson, Lampard, Wilshere. They also have no natural replacement for Gerrard either.

England's World Cup hopes lie with Raheem Sterling based on last night.

Sterling and Sturridge are the keys for England. Perhaps Barkley as well.

Son Of A Vidic

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Scholes never demanded the ball. Ive never been a huge fan of his. I always felt he had to be carried in midfield. Had some great aspects to his game but I dont think he was ever regarded as a playmaker.

So you know precisely nothing about football.

mike65

It would be much easier for Hodgson if the media were not populated by idiots - last night Gabby Logan ended up prompting the England manager to say something nice about Rooney, instead of letting the fact Roy had failed to mention him when talking about the players who had impressed in the game speak for itself.

Ulysses Gaze

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Scholes never demanded the ball. Ive never been a huge fan of his. I always felt he had to be carried in midfield. Had some great aspects to his game but I dont think he was ever regarded as a playmaker.

dd972

I'm indifferent as to whether they win or lose however watch their games due to the familiarity with the players, I thought it was a creditable performance and they needn't get stick off their voracious media.

Soups123

glued wrote: »

Gerrard should be dropped but Roy doesn't have the bottle to do that. Also Rooney shouldn't be in the side if he isn't going to play him up front.

England have terrible central midfield options: Gerrard, Henderson, Lampard, Wilshere. They also have no natural replacement for Gerrard either.

England's World Cup hopes lie with Raheem Sterling based on last night.

I think Hendo and Wilshire might be the best option, lots of energy. Lampard is def not an option.

Sterling was very impressive in spurts last night if I was an England man I would want to see him and Barkley starting

vidor

mike65 wrote: »

It would be much easier for Hodgson if the media were not populated by idiots - last night Gabby Logan ended up prompting the England manager to say something nice about Rooney, instead of letting the fact Roy had failed to mention him when talking about the players who had impressed in the game speak for itself.

He will still end up playing him in the next game so I wouldn't be blaming the media here.

MisterAnarchy

glued wrote: »

Gerrard should be dropped but Roy doesn't have the bottle to do that. Also Rooney shouldn't be in the side if he isn't going to play him up front.

England have terrible central midfield options: Gerrard, Henderson, Lampard, Wilshere. They also have no natural replacement for Gerrard either.

England's World Cup hopes lie with Raheem Sterling based on last night.

Serious lack of creativity in the central midfield has been England's undoing for as long as I can remember.

Gerrard isnt up to the job of playing in a 2 man central midfield ,he doesn't have the legs or patience to play there .
He had a very average season for Liverpool ,he was poor in the first half of the season .

Hendersen and Gerrard against a 3 man midfield is asking for trouble,they would probably have been better off having an extra central midfield player and leaving Rooney out .

I thought England played quite well but ran out of steam which was ineveitable considering the style they play.
I wouldnt be surprised if alot of the team were suffering from malaria tablet side effects which include diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, stomach pain and headaches.

jonneymendoza

Dempsey wrote: »

Name 50 better than him

better than who?

Moneymaker

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Scholes never demanded the ball. Ive never been a huge fan of his. I always felt he had to be carried in midfield. Had some great aspects to his game but I dont think he was ever regarded as a playmaker.

paulmazz4

Newsflash. ... Hodgson fired ... job given to that guy of the Mars bar advert..lol.

microsim

Dempsey wrote: »

Name 50 better than him

Let's start with Wayne Rooney at the WC - Gary Breen has scored more goals at the World Cup than Wayne.

Wilberto

microsim wrote: »

Let's start with Wayne Rooney at the WC - Gary Breen has scored more goals at the World Cup than Wayne.

"We all dream of a team of Gary Breens,

a team of Gary Breens,
a team of Gary Breens."

mike65

NIMAN wrote: »

Rooney was often held up as somewhere in the Top 5 players in the world, behind the likes of Messi and Ronaldo, but he's not even close to the Top 50 players in the world.

Very over-rated player. Of course has produced moments of class, but a lot of top players do that.

Dempsey wrote: »

Name 50 better than him

This is the kind of straight line thinking that has been the bane of so many football squads - concepts such as "best" need to be thrown to one side.

What is required is a system that works and the players to make it work, that might mean leaving out a technically superior player in favour of someone who will work the system better - last night the obvious examples were Rooney and Welbeck. Only Dannys mother would suggest her son is as good a footballer as Rooney but it was Welbeck who did his job to a higher, more effective standard last night.

Professional Griefer

Because everyone else was class..

Ronin247

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

You could argue that Rooney's ability to adapt to different roles has actually hampered him. If Rooney was a less versatile player and could only play in his favoured position up front then he would always be played up front. In turn, he would probably be playing much better.

Johnny Giles summed it up very well on RTE last night

" Imagine Italy playing Pirlo on the left wing "

For me it hits the nail on the head. Rooney was out of position again and was murdered by Darmian getting down the right.

Adamocovic

Ridiculous, England play Rooney (Arguable their best player) out of position and then the media criticise him for not doing better. Scapegoat at the ready for if they fail to get through.

djPSB

Adamocovic wrote: »

Ridiculous, England play Rooney (Arguable their best player) out of position and then the media criticise him for not doing better. Scapegoat at the ready for if they fail to get through.

Don't see where they can play Rooney tbh.

Sturridge is their best striker, Sterling did well playing as the number 10.

If they want to retain the balance of the team, Rooney should be benched.

Professional Griefer

djPSB wrote: »

Don't see where they can play Rooney tbh.

Sturridge is their best striker, Sterling did well playing as the number 10.

If they want to retain the balance of the team, Rooney should be benched.

Rooney > Sturridge

djPSB

Professional Griefer wrote: »

Rooney > Sturridge

Sturridge was good last night.

Wouldn't be moving him from there.

CurryFlavoured

The truth is; he isn't as effective as Sturridge in the CF role and things didn't really work when he played off Sturridge. After Sterling's performance last night I doubt we'll see him play off the striker either. They're his 2 best positions so he's pushed out to the wing, but it's to the detriment of the team. Italy's right back was one of their biggest threats last night because Rooney didn't know what to do on the left. He should be dropped for Barkley or Chamberlain who actually know how to play there. I'd drop Welbeck as well, he has pace and strength but no real threat. He's an athlete, not a footballer.

shamrock55

Tbf if rooney is going to bd in the team he should play the no 10 role, sterling is just as effective playing left or right of that

Adamocovic

djPSB wrote: »

Don't see where they can play Rooney tbh.

Sturridge is their best striker, Sterling did well playing as the number 10.

If they want to retain the balance of the team, Rooney should be benched.

If you ask me, put Sterling on the wing and Rooney in number 10. Sterling played well but has shown with Liverpool he is well able to play out wide, Rooney on the other had needs to get the ball in the box and have more of it to have a control of the game. He's not as useful out wide, only had two-three touches in the box yesterday, and couldn't offer Baines support. Sterling has proven he can play out wide though so I would just switch Rooney to 10 and Sterling out wide.

Tigerandahalf

Sterling is much better in the hole. He is not a great crosser of the ball so out wide he is lost. He is also too light to defend down the wing.
Rooney biggest weakness is his temperment. The great players all have it. Rooney looks like he is going to lose the rag or blow his top, when things get tough. If he cannot adopt to that wing role he could be limited to the bench.
Perhaps as said above England are too light in CM and could do with a Milner to up the workrate. Pirlo is able to play so well as he has two other players to do the donkey work for him.

Pro. F

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

By good enough I meant that Rooney isnt the world class player that the media make him out to be.
This belief that he is up there in the same bracket with Messi and Ronaldo is laughable,he isnt fit to lace their boots.

Ferguson saying that Rooney is as good as Pele,Charlton and Best is heresy.

So when you said Rooney isn't good enough what you really meant to say is that he isn't as good as some people say he is. But in the rest of your post you go on to argue that Rooney doesn't show the signs of a "good forward". Yeah I'm going to assume that you did mean what you said and that you do think that Rooney isn't good enough.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Ok the English midfield is poor but it is still better than alot of teams that qualify for major tournaments yet their forwards can muster a half decent return.
That's the sign of a good forward,one who can feed on scraps or create something out of nothing ,that's what seperates the top players from the rest.

Robbie Keane has a fairly impressive scoring record for Ireland ,its more impressive than Rooney's,are you trying to tell me that Keane had better midfielders at his disposal than Rooney ??

Rooney's international scoring record is as close to Robbie's as makes no difference.

Keane: 62 goals in 133 games = .47 goals per game
Rooney: 39 goals in 93 games = .43 goals per game

If you're talking about their scoring records at international tournaments then you're not comparing like with like since the sample size for Robbie is less than half of that for Rooney.

Adamocovic

People forget this is one of the few major international tournaments Rooney has entered without an injury or suspension. I hope he gets a few goals to silence the doubters, I don't see why the English media always seem to tear apart their top players before and during big tournaments, we've seen it with Shearer, Beckham, and Seaman in the past.

SeanJ09

Some of the criticism toward Rooney is unfair. The Media put massive pressure on him. Also the likes of Paul Scholes are doing both Rooney and England no favors with their recent comments about him. Do they want Rooney and England to fail?
He was clearly uncomfortable on the wing last night and shouldn't play there again but probably should be benched though. For me, the front three of Sterling, Sturridge and Wellbeck did quite well last night and have to be retained for the next game v Uruguay.

Tigerandahalf

Sean, Rooney is on 200,000 plus a week with Utd. You would expect a great player for those wages. He has always been inconsistent, having patches of great form and spectacular goals and then going through a period of doing little. There has always been issues around his weight and fitness and his attitude.
A lot of people have pulled me for saying Scholes wasn't a playmaker or a top top player. Scholes never produced it in the tournaments. If he was such a great player why was he never nominated for the Ballon D'Or or other honours. I dont think Scholes would have been capable of being the playmaker for England even if the team was wrapped around him. Like Gerrard and Lampard he is great coming onto the ball but poor at receiving it with his back to goal and playing the simple passes.

Smithwicks Man

In all the excitement of the Italy win, I forgot to make my usual pro-Serie A comment last night :eek:

With the way people are going on here you'd think that England lost to a small nation "if they had have played Rooney here, if he didn't play Gerrard " etc... Even though they played different formations and used a different system - player for player, the Italian team is better than England's in most positions.

Sirigu is as good of a keeper as Joe Hart and both Italian full backs are superior to their English counterparts.

I always think CB's are a pair rather than individuals and Cahill+Jagielka are better than Barzagli+Paletta (Although Italy's 1st choice pairing of Bonucci+Chiellini is much superior)

Hard to compare the midfielders cause of their differing roles but contrary to what the English media would have you believe, Daniele De Rossi is as good of a player as Gerrard and Marco Verratti is a better player than Henderson. De Rossi has been fantastic for years and but he's been overshadowed at Roma by Totti and with Italy by Pirlo for a long time. His pass accuracy of 94.5% of 110 passes last night won't be regarded as a major deal in Italy but if that was Gerrard then you'd be seeing that stat on SSN for the next 3 months. Verratti had a good enough game last night but he is capable of much better. Has forced his way into a strong PSG side and is considered by many as Pirlo's heir.

Everyone knows Pirlo so no point going on about him. (Juventus nabbing him on a free is possibly the greatest Bosman transfer of all time?)

Candreva and Marchisio did fantastic jobs last night playing in roles that they're not used to with the club. I know a lot of people who looked at the lineups, didn't know half the Italy players and thus presumed they weren't any good. Candreva and Marchisio are both better footballers than Welbeck for example (in my opinion of course). I know Welbeck is employed to perform a workmans role in closing down and chasing and he does that well, but that's not enough. I still think Roy was right to start him btw.

Then you have Balotelli who I rate highly. Has a problem with consistency but he can win a game at any minute and is all-round play is generally good. Another player who is not rated by many PL fans because of his time with City were he was often played out of position (and then there's the off-field antics) but his ability is undoubted.


I thought England played well enough last night but imo they were beaten by better players who were better organised by a better manager. This is without considering that Italy were also without 4 first choice players - (Buffon, De Sciglio, Bonucci and Montolivo). And fact that Italy had the luxury of bringing on Serie A top scorer Immobile for the last 20 mins says a lot about their depth.

It's unreal to think that England had been backed into favourites before kick-off but then again, that must have been because the Premier League is the best league in the world and all that :pac:


TL;DR - England played well but Italy are just a better team. England to get out of the group behind Italy

SeanJ09

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Sean, Rooney is on 200,000 plus a week with Utd. You would expect a great player for those wages. He has always been inconsistent, having patches of great form and spectacular goals and then going through a period of doing little. There has always been issues around his weight and fitness and his attitude.
A lot of people have pulled me for saying Scholes wasn't a playmaker or a top top player. Scholes never produced it in the tournaments. If he was such a great player why was he never nominated for the Ballon D'Or or other honours. I dont think Scholes would have been capable of being the playmaker for England even if the team was wrapped around him. Like Gerrard and Lampard he is great coming onto the ball but poor at receiving it with his back to goal and playing the simple passes.

The fact that Rooney is on 200,000 plus a week is pretty irrelevant to my point above. I do admit that Rooney has probably gone off the boil the last few seasons, hasn't lived up to his maximum potential etc.. However, some of the criticism of Rooney after last night was unwarranted IMO. As someone alluded to earlier, if Pirlo had been played out of position, would he have been as effective? Rooney needs to be played in his best position, if he is is to play at all: number 9. As I said, on form, he shouldn't be in England's starting eleven. But blame that on Hodgson's lack of balls to make the required selection. I'm not sure why you have selected to discuss Paul Scholes merits for the Ballon D'or either.

rwg

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Nasri? Really? Looks good because he is in a fantastic squad.

If you'd said Bale fair enough as he is a glaring omission from your lists

Not complete yet, 20 easy picks off the top of my head to prove point that Rooney could easily be out of the top 50 best players in the world. Haven't even got into the Real Madrid team yet so plenty of room for more - Utd would do well to get rid and have some suckers like PSG pay through the nose for a player who has his best days well behind him

Richard Hillman

I dont understand why people would want to move Sterling back out to the wing after last nights performance. He can get the ball deep and put terror into the CBs when he is running at them. If he is out on the wing he is quite restricted in what he can do.

Its quite similar to what Anchelotti did with Di Maria. Play a "winger" in a central position and let them run wild in the middle.

After Rooneys performance from WCs and EC from 2006-2014, Hodgson should just tell him to stop whinging and suck it up on the left or get somebody else to play there. He has played there enough for Man Utd so he knows what he is doing there.

eagle eye

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I dont understand why people would want to move Sterling back out to the wing after last nights performance. He can get the ball deep and put terror into the CBs when he is running at them. If he is out on the wing he is quite restricted in what he can do.

Its quite similar to what Anchelotti did with Di Maria. Play a "winger" in a central position and let them run wild in the middle.

After Rooneys performance from WCs and EC from 2006-2014, Hodgson should just tell him to stop whinging and suck it up on the left or get somebody else to play there. He has played there enough for Man Utd so he knows what he is doing there.

Sterling looked better to me playing out wide than in the no.10 role. Rooney is a better no.10 than Sterling but the gap is not huge, Sterling is a better wide player than Rooney and the gap is huge.

The team should have been built around Rooney long ago but it was never done which is the first problem. The second problem is Sturridge up front on his own, he is not suited to that role.

Personally I'd drop Wellbeck and bring in Lambert as the CF, play Sterling on the left of him and Sturridge on the right and Rooney behind.

trashcan

I was quite surprised with England last night, I thought they were very good for an hour/70mins, after which point they started to run out of steam/ideas. Gerrard was largely anonymous though, had to laugh a Shearer on the Beeb wanting him to do what Pirlo does for Italy. Not in this lifetime Al.

(BTW wasn't Pirlos effort near the end just an outrageous piece of skill :eek:)

GreNoLi

Timmyctc

GreNoLi wrote: »

Gratuitous quote.

Pirlo sold Sturridge so many dreams there.

tyrion1234

I must say some of the Italian players really impressed me. I taught Damian was excellent at full back. Candrava is a great crosser of the ball, Barzagli was rock solid at the back and I taught De Rossi was one of the best players on the pitch.

Certainly dont think Italy will win it but theyll be a very hard team to beat.

Balmed Out

tyrion1234 wrote: »

I must say some of the Italian players really impressed me. I taught Damian was excellent at full back. Candrava is a great crosser of the ball, Barzagli was rock solid at the back and I taught De Rossi was one of the best players on the pitch.

Certainly dont think Italy will win it but theyll be a very hard team to beat.

an awfully big Italian diaspora in Brazil too so in most cities they will get a large support

Looper007

was impressed by England last night but think they need to bench Henderson and Welbeck for the second game. I go Ox Chamberlin/Barkely for Welbeck and Wilshire for Henderson. they don't need a two defensive midfielders for Uruguay.

The forward line of Sturridge and Sterling is very good and will rip the defence of Uruguay apart, get Ox or Barkley in there going at them they win that battle. Welbeck for me doesn't do enough of that. They need a midfielder in there who will string the passes together too and Wilshire is the only one they have.

I still fancy England to get through but he needs to change the team a little.

Italy were very good and Pirlo totally ran the game.

Pudsy33

They got destroyed in midfield. Removing Henderson and sticking in Barkley will make things worse. Barkley in for Welbeck maybe

Blackpitts

Boskowski wrote: »

Come on England (Did I just say that? )

you are not the only one.
I know plenty of irish England fans out there, all in denial

Looper007

Pudsy33 wrote: »

They got destroyed in midfield. Removing Henderson and sticking in Barkley will make things worse. Barkley in for Welbeck maybe

Well Uruguay ain't up too much in the Midfield and not all the teams in the world cup have a Pirlo, Pudsy33.

eagle eye

Pudsy33 wrote: »

They got destroyed in midfield. Removing Henderson and sticking in Barkley will make things worse. Barkley in for Welbeck maybe

I must be the only one who thinks Barkley is not ready for this level yet. He had his head down the whole time and doesn't have great vision as a result. He certainly has the talent to become a major star but he is far too raw right now imo.

Pudsy33

Looper007 wrote: »

Well Uruguay ain't up too much in the Midfield and not all the teams in the world cup have a Pirlo, Pudsy33.

Fair point, I just think England had enough attacking players on the pitch and adding more would be detrimental.

Looper007

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Fair point, I just think England had enough attacking players on the pitch and adding more would be detrimental.

I agree, if they were playing top teams but Uruguay and Costa Rica they have to go out and beat them. I don't know how fit OX is but he will be far more dangerous out the right more then Welbeck and I think playing a far more attacking midfielder would cause that Uruguay midfield and defence a lot of problems. I don't see it happening really but that's how I go.

Tigerandahalf

eagle eye wrote: »

I must be the only one who thinks Barkley is not ready for this level yet. He had his head down the whole time and doesn't have great vision as a result. He certainly has the talent to become a major star but he is far too raw right now imo.

I haven't seen much of him but yes looks like another player being built up. Didn't think he had a great impact. He generally ran down the middle into traffic. Has ability but seems to be like Rooney and Sterling, in playing in the hole being his best position. That is the problem for England. They have a lot of similar players in certain positions and not enough talent/depth in others.