Uruguay Vs England 8pm (RTE/BBC/ITV) Group D

Fescue

I don't accept England have don't have the players. What they don't have is a clear idea how to use what they do have effectively.

Lennonist

Fescue wrote: »

I don't accept England have don't have the players. What they don't have is a clear idea how to use what they do have effectively.

We've heard that story for a long time. Hodgson will probably go now. What do they do now? They tried Capello and the players wouldn't play for him. If they wanted to give it to an English guy after Capello, they should've went the whole hog and given it to Harry Redknapp.

Fescue

Lennonist wrote: »

We've heard that story for a long time. Hodgson will probably go now. What do they do now? They tried Capello and the players wouldn't play for him. If they wanted to give it to an English guy after Capello, they should've went the whole hog and given it to Harry Redknapp.

Perhaps that is exactly what England need. A manager like Redknapp. Simplify things for them.

Lennonist

Fescue wrote: »

Perhaps that is exactly what England need. A manager like Redknapp. Simplify things for them.

At the time they should have appointed Redknapp as opposed to giving it to Hodgson which was a "safer" option optics wise.

They should've appointed Brian Clough back in the day. That's a totally different story to picking Hodgson over Redknapp, but I reckon that was also a mistake and I think the EFA's innate conservatism is behind these type's of errors.

citytillidie

Kolido wrote: »

Has any team ever qualified with 3 pts before since the 3 pts for a win rule was introduced? I can't recall any team.

Only reading the thread now so may have been answered but yes Chile did it in 98 drawing all 3 group games and going through

Iused2likebusts

There should be nobody shocked that England went out at this stage. They have offered nothing at international level in close to 50 years now. One semi final since 1966 and that was when Ireland reached the quarters in 1990 and poor negative long ball football was somewhat in vogue. 1990 was the worst world cup I can remember. England can't keep the ball against a decent team and haven't been able to for the last 30 years it doesn't matter if the players look good in the Pl as your English dynamic player is supplemented by a more composed foreign player or are playing against a similar team where technique isn't so important. England or Ireland for that matter don't have that type of player and will consistently fail until they change the mindset. By the way some of the Liverpool United point scoring going on throughout the world cup threads is tiresome enjoy the greatest world cup in living memory that stuff can crank up again when it's over

dfx-

Billy86 wrote: »

When teams are getting 9 points (which would have been a record in England) and finishing second, it is a lopsided league. No doubt some other Spanish sides are very well run and have success despite (though they also take competitions like the Europa much more serious, also because...) the wealth distribution from TV deals, etc is a farce in that country and was/is arguably the biggest disparity in tat regard in the history of the game. 2012/13 was the first time in four years tat either of them failed to et at least 90 points, while in that same timeframe not a single Premiership team managed to break the 90 point mark.

With a little luck, the EPO crackdown miht help keep thins a bit more level in the long term, but that is a whole other matter.

English football is also doped with money and lopsided from wealth and constant CL qualification. The top seven are always the same top seven (who don't have many English players) and the rest don't care where they finish or where they are going as long as they get the TV money. That Newcastle can be in the top ten is a massive indictment on the EPL.

Outside the top division because of TV money, the financial gap between the leagues is enormous and then there's parachute payments which make sure there is no level playing ground there either.

feargale

Ballotelli said he expects a kiss from the Queen when Italy beat Uruguay. Maybe on reflection he will have to settle for a kiss from the president of Uruguay.

Utopia Parkway

Pro. F wrote: »

Leon Briton and Jack Cork are England's two best DCMs by a long way. They are both very good defensively and, unlike Barry, they are also very good at controlling possession even when pressed. It's ridiculous how they have been completely ignored.

It's not really.

Do people honestly think old Leon Britton and Jack Cork who can't get into the Southampton team are the answer for England?

Coillte_Bhoy

rob316 wrote: »

Brendan Rodgers is the best British manager out there with a clear idea of how he wants to play. They need someone of that ilk but knowing the English FA they will sack Hodgson and appoint Big Sam!

Irish i thought?

Coillte_Bhoy

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

There should be nobody shocked that England went out at this stage. They have offered nothing at international level in close to 50 years now. One semi final since 1966 and that was when Ireland reached the quarters in 1990 and poor negative long ball football was somewhat in vogue. 1990 was the worst world cup I can remember. England can't keep the ball against a decent team and haven't been able to for the last 30 years it doesn't matter if the players look good in the Pl as your English dynamic player is supplemented by a more composed foreign player or are playing against a similar team where technique isn't so important. England or Ireland for that matter don't have that type of player and will consistently fail until they change the mindset. By the way some of the Liverpool United point scoring going on throughout the world cup threads is tiresome enjoy the greatest world cup in living memory that stuff can crank up again when it's over

Neither can i ,I was there, football aside, ah come on

bucketybuck

Fescue wrote: »

Perhaps that is exactly what England need. A manager like Redknapp. Simplify things for them.

Harry Redknapp wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to this English team.

Its actually hilarious to hear people blaming Hodgson and then saying Redknapp should have been given the job, Redknapp would have been a far bigger slave to the media than almost anybody you can think off.

Fescue

bucketybuck wrote: »

Harry Redknapp wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to this English team.

Its actually hilarious to hear people blaming Hodgson and then saying Redknapp should have been given the job, Redknapp would have been a far bigger slave to the media than almost anybody you can think off.

I think he would have got England to just go out and play. Whether it would have yielded better results is open to debate but they wouldn't have been as restricted as they were with Hodgsen.

If you look at the way France played last night, I think that was the blue print for England.

Ardillaun

National managers in elite league countries have little room for manoeuvre these days. Nobody listens to them. Sir Alf would not be impressed. They can establish a decent atmosphere and leave potential troublemakers at home and that's about it before the game. I think Deschamps is doing a decent job along these lines. Blaming Roy is missing the elephant of insufficient talent, more accurately a national system that does not nurture talent. If a random Championship manager had been in the job instead of Roy, would England have been any worse?

Pro. F

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

It's not really.

Do people honestly think old Leon Britton and Jack Cork who can't get into the Southampton team are the answer for England?

Nah, sure I just wrote that for the laugh... Of course I think it, I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.

England's biggest problem has always been that they can't keep and use possession well enough when under pressure. They have had the exact same problem again in this tournament. Central midfield is the critical position for that issue.

An additional, serious, problem England have at this tournament is the defence being left exposed by their midfield when out of possession.

Gerrard's first touch and close control are very weak for central midfield. That's why he can't control a game properly when playing in the middle of the park. As an added bonus Gerrard is also weak defensively. That's why their back four has been so exposed. Playing a DCM who is better than Gerrard would go a long way to fixing those two big issues.

You could pick Barry or Carrick (dependant on form) who are good defensively, but they are still lacking in the first touch and close control needed for the position. So you would still have the issues in possession.

Cork and Britton have all the skills needed for the position, both in defence and possession. They are overlooked because English football thinking doesn't value those possession skills as much as character, flashy long passing and shooting. That's why good CMs like Cork and Britton can end up at mid-table clubs, why Gerrard and Lampard can be considered good CMs (rather than more attacking positions where they actually are good) and why a CM genius like Scholes can end up on the wing.

If you get passed what clubs they play for and look at the skills that they have, Cork and Britton piss all over the other options England have for the DCM position. Sure look at where the CMs of the better international teams play for, it's an extremely mixed bag.

...
You are mistaken about Cork not being able to get into the Southampton team by the way. He was dropped to make room for the big (waste of) money signing, Wanyama, at the start of last season. Plenty of Saints fans thought he shouldn't have been dropped. Once Cork was given his opportunity again, after Wanyama got injured in early December, he re-established himself as a key part of that team and was an ever present for the rest of the season.

Schwiiing

Pro. F wrote: »

and why a CM genius like Scholes

ABU's in 3.2.1...

Omackeral

Schwiiing wrote: »

ABU's in 3.2.1...

Here it's the World Cup. Let's just leave all the petty sniping over English clubs alone for one month, that'd be great.

Agueroooo

Schwiiing wrote: »

ABU's in 3.2.1...

Nah Scholes is a rare one in that he is admired across many many fan bases.

Guy was amazing full stop.

Christy42

Pro. F wrote: »

Nah, sure I just wrote that for the laugh... Of course I think it, I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.

England's biggest problem has always been that they can't keep and use possession well enough when under pressure. They have had the exact same problem again in this tournament. Central midfield is the critical position for that issue.

An additional, serious, problem England have at this tournament is the defence being left exposed by their midfield when out of possession.

Gerrard's first touch and close control are very weak for central midfield. That's why he can't control a game properly when playing in the middle of the park. As an added bonus Gerrard is also weak defensively. That's why their back four has been so exposed. Playing a DCM who is better than Gerrard would go a long way to fixing those two big issues.

You could pick Barry or Carrick (dependant on form) who are good defensively, but they are still lacking in the first touch and close control needed for the position. So you would still have the issues in possession.

Cork and Britton have all the skills needed for the position, both in defence and possession. They are overlooked because English football thinking doesn't value those possession skills as much as character, flashy long passing and shooting. That's why good CMs like Cork and Britton can end up at mid-table clubs, why Gerrard and Lampard can be considered good CMs (rather than more attacking positions where they actually are good) and why a CM genius like Scholes can end up on the wing.

If you get passed what clubs they play for and look at the skills that they have, Cork and Britton piss all over the other options England have for the DCM position. Sure look at where the CMs of the better international teams play for, it's an extremely mixed bag.

...
You are mistaken about Cork not being able to get into the Southampton team by the way. He was dropped to make room for the big (waste of) money signing, Wanyama, at the start of last season. Plenty of Saints fans thought he shouldn't have been dropped. Once Cork was given his opportunity again, after Wanyama got injured in early December, he re-established himself as a key part of that team and was an ever present for the rest of the season.

I don't think Gerrard is a weak defender, he can tackle and does so fearlessly. He has issues covering as much ground as England wanted him to and definitely can't control the pace of the game. He should be getting replaced anyway.

Even a defensive midfielder is left with the issue that that defense isn't very strong. Cahill is the best and hardly a world beater. Johnson and Baines just aren't picked for their defensive abilities. Johnson especially is considered a weakness defensively.

The other issue is that a team should know what it is doing defensively. When England have 8 men back they didn't seem to have a shape like other teams. Players were just standing in the vague area. This is down to the coaching. Get a bunch of people from the pub and a decent coach for the week and they will be able to take up good positions defensively. They might get exposed horribly for pace, jumping, skill etc. but you should be able to give them a good shape. They will also follow there man, whether or not they think it is needed on this occasion.

A defensive midfielder like the ones you are suggesting (I have no idea how good they are) will not fix England, it might help but there are other issues.

Pro. F

Christy42 wrote: »

I don't think Gerrard is a weak defender, he can tackle and does so fearlessly. He has issues covering as much ground as England wanted him to and definitely can't control the pace of the game. He should be getting replaced anyway.

Even a defensive midfielder is left with the issue that that defense isn't very strong. Cahill is the best and hardly a world beater. Johnson and Baines just aren't picked for their defensive abilities. Johnson especially is considered a weakness defensively.

The other issue is that a team should know what it is doing defensively. When England have 8 men back they didn't seem to have a shape like other teams. Players were just standing in the vague area. This is down to the coaching. Get a bunch of people from the pub and a decent coach for the week and they will be able to take up good positions defensively. They might get exposed horribly for pace, jumping, skill etc. but you should be able to give them a good shape. They will also follow there man, whether or not they think it is needed on this occasion.

A defensive midfielder like the ones you are suggesting (I have no idea how good they are) will not fix England, it might help but there are other issues.

No one change is going to fix all problems. But it would fix one of their constantly recurring problems - keeping useful possession - and it would go a long way towards fixing a new, significant problem that has popped up in this tournament - the midfield not covering the defence properly.

Even considering the lack of protection, the back four has been weak. That is not a constantly recurring problem for England, it's an anomaly. In due coarse they will almost certainly find a better balance of defenders and select some of their best and organise them properly. Hodgeson is usually excellent at organising a defence, I would trust him to do that as well as any manager. So sorting out their defence is something the English have shown themselves capable of doing most years. Fixing their midfield is not.

trashcan

Pro. F wrote: »

Even considering the lack of protection, the back four has been weak. That is not a constantly recurring problem for England, it's an anomaly. In due coarse they will almost certainly find a better balance of defenders and select some of their best and organise them properly. Hodgeson is usually excellent at organising a defence, I would trust him to do that as well as any manager. So sorting out their defence is something the English have shown themselves capable of doing most years. Fixing their midfield is not.

Have to agree with that. Whatever else you could say about England over the years they were usually solid enough defensively and pretty hard to beat, Their problem was always actually winning games against the better teams. The amount of times they've lost in penalty shoot outs is evidence of this.