Quadrant Posted June 24, 2012 Report Posted June 24, 2012 Very pedestrian, interspersed with poor finishing from both sides. Fingers crossed this next half will be better! GO England!
lyndon Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 I think England are far better now than under Capello. The players seem to like and respect Hodgson, and he's gotten the best out of Gerrard who is our key player. We need to use the ball better when we have it, at times we were under no real pressure and just gave it away. Hodgson hasn't had time to work on that yet, but if we can get that sorted we'll be a more potent force in attack.
Quadrant Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Posted June 25, 2012 I like Roy too. He is at that perfect age where he commands respect with all his experience, and doesn't strike me as a panicker; rather, measured and collected. Losing in the QFs is probably about right for England at this stage. If they make the Semis of the World Cup now that would be a great effort. Just need to work on retaining the ball better. Rooney clearly wasn't fit and I would have picked Defoe ahead of him yesterday.
lyndon Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Rooney will always get picked, even at 35 with a broken leg. But this is a problem for England, it's like they don't want to drop the big names. And if Rooney isn't playing as well as he can like yesterday, then you may as well play with 10 men. I have to say the game was crying out for Andy Carroll's ability to hold onto the ball from early on. As soon as he came on we had that flurry of attacks towards the end of the game. Holding onto the ball is vital though, we really need to work on that over the next 2 years. If we could have done that yesterday Gerrard could of got further up the field than he did, and make those trademark runs onto goal.
Max Kane Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 I will repeat my thoughts posted from elsewhere: Pirlo was indeed magnificent and the right team won. I'm not sure why (most likely my apathy towards the England team at the moment) but it is the least I have cared about us going out. Hodgson achieved the minimum requirement so he cannot take too much stick but he got his tactics sorely wrong last night. We absolutely should have played with 5 in midfield to crowd Pirlo and try to force the pace in midfield, something which the Italians have historically struggled with. His failure to change things was dissapointing too, I actually though Welbeck was doing ok. Of course he wasn't helped by gross ineptitude from Rooney who was abysmal during the two games he came back for and Ashley Young who was utterly anonymous.
Quadrant Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Posted June 25, 2012 Lyndon spot on, lol Owen should replace Rooney with the broken leg btw. Still class... probably going to Stoke this year.
lyndon Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Michael Owen was one of my favorite players growing up, he takes a lot of stick from some club quaters but he's been one of Englands best forwards. A bit more luck with injuries and he would of smashed Charltons record. I hope he gets to see out his career with less injurys and more luck wherever he ends up. But I think even last night, when he was at his best at 21 years old. He wouldn't of been able to do much. He would of been starved of service, he'd of realisticly been up there alone. The battle in midfield was the key and that's where we were second best to Italy. If we had more confidence on the ball and passed our way out of trouble, instead of lumping it up the field to players like Welbeck & Rooney. Then maybe we could of had a better grip on the game. If so players like Defoe, Welbeck and Owen would be able to have an impact. I refuse to believe that one striker upfront is the way forward. There has to be a way to get the ball back without sacrificing attackers, England seemed to panic a bit last night when they did get the ball.
Number2Fan Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 It was nice to see our team ACTUALLY trying
Max Kane Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 I refuse to believe that one striker upfront is the way forward. There has to be a way to get the ball back without sacrificing attackers, England seemed to panic a bit last night when they did get the ball. England have to adapt to this and stop playing the same shape (4-4-2) at every tournament, it is too inflexible and gives us zero options. We struggle to keep the ball anyway so why limit ourselves to less players in midfield? The Italians dominated the ball, leading to our fatigue, through Pirlo. Hodgson's plan appeared to be to have Rooney drop back to cover Pirlo but this is nonsense, why have your best attacking player (on rep at least) man marking their deepest lying midfielder? Hodgson should have adapted his shape, playting Walcott from the start on the right, this would also have dictated that their left back (often their most potent attacking threat) would have more to worry about defensively, played MIlner on the left and put Ashley Young just off the striker, able to drop back into midfield when we lost the ball. This is Young's best position (he was useless when playing on the left) and would also have congested the midfield making the Italians have to play faster and with more pressure on the ball (both things were sorely lacking). We would have had more of the ball and tired less due to not having to chase around for 2 hours!
lyndon Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 As Capello proved, Rooney is no good in a lone striker role. He isn't tall enough and strong enough to have 3 defenders onto him for the ball, while he waits for support from midfield. If we were to play 4-5-1 then Welbeck and Defoe may as well not even be there, use to two spaces to bring an extra utility player or two. If we were to play that system, then Andy Carroll is the only player strong enough and tall enough to do that. It would then be up to the manager to decide if Young or Rooney gets to play infront of the two defensive midfielders (Gerrard & Parker). I still don't think the problem is winning the ball though, even with four midfielders we just wasted it when we got it. Maybe the fact that Ashley Young has been useless all tournament has made it look like we had three players there.
lennox2s2s Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 As a Irish man I was quite upset to see England lose. But very simple they dont have enough world class players. Schweinsteiger and Ozil for Germany have impressed me the most, I hope for Germany Spain final and Spain to win.
Max Kane Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 As Capello proved, Rooney is no good in a lone striker role. He isn't tall enough and strong enough to have 3 defenders onto him for the ball, while he waits for support from midfield. If we were to play 4-5-1 then Welbeck and Defoe may as well not even be there, use to two spaces to bring an extra utility player or two. I disagree, Rooney has played alone up front many, many times for Man Utd and is more than capable of doing so. Especially if Young is behind him to play as chief support. We have to realise that we are not good enough to compete with the top level sides (not defeatist, just truth) so we have to stop them playing first and foremost and then worry about what we're doing. 4-4-2 is played by nobody because, at top level, it simply does not work. Name one big side that plays 4-4-2! It is inflexible and asks too much of the two midfield players (Gerrard and Parker were both nackered at about 70mins). 4-5-1 with two genuine wingers, an advanced attacking midfielder and then two guys who sit is the only way to play in big international games - and even more so when you know full well that Italy just want everything to go through Pirlo.
Quadrant Posted June 26, 2012 Author Report Posted June 26, 2012 As a Irish man I was quite upset to see England lose. I would have thought you would like us to lose sir! Irish and English are not the greatest of friends, historically. Except in the clubbing world... I have hugged many and vice versa
Briggsy Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 I never want to see 4-5-1 in my life ever again. Saw that garbage far too many times last season. Its a dull, negative formation - and if your one and only striker is not having a good game, and your midfielders are not willing to chip in with some decent shots, its game over from the start. 3-5-2 for me. Get three solid central defenders. Ashley Cole down the left that can defend and also offer an attacking option going forward. Two midfielders to sit back - and also track back to help out in defence if needed, a decent attacking midfielder in the middle. Two strikers. Jobs a 'goodun. 5 attack minded players and 5 defence minded players should even things out a bit. England don't really have the right players to play that formation at the moment - but that would be my preferred formation in the future once we get players fit again and also bring in some youngsters that can make that formation work (and some time and patience from the public and media to allow it time to gel). England have been far too negative for years and play the most boring football imaginable - regardless of the manager (hence why I don't bother watching England these days).
Quadrant Posted June 26, 2012 Author Report Posted June 26, 2012 England have been far too negative for years and play the most boring football imaginable - regardless of the manager (hence why I don't bother watching England these days). You need a dose of patriotism sir! God Save The Queen!
Max Kane Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 I never want to see 4-5-1 in my life ever again. Saw that garbage far too many times last season. Its a dull, negative formation - and if your one and only striker is not having a good game, and your midfielders are not willing to chip in with some decent shots, its game over from the start.of the manager (hence why I don't bother watching England these days). 4-5-1 with two genuine wingers and an attacking midfielder is anything but negative! It didn't work for Wolves last year because we had poor players (in almost every position) and were so poor defensively we had no choice but to commit men to defending. Spain & Barcelona often play 4-5-1 or sometimes even 4-6 (with no central striker at all!) and they are the least negative sides I think I have ever seen!
lennox2s2s Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 Spain & Barcelona often play 4-5-1 or sometimes even 4-6 (with no central striker at all!) and they are the least negative sides I think I have ever seen! Messi has scored 63 goals in all competitions this season (2011-2012), 41 of those has come in the Spanish league. How can you call that boring? Barcelona scored a total of 114 goals in the league last season and finished on 91 points. The problem with the Spanish league is that Barcelona and Real Madrid are miles ahead from the other teams talent wise. They score 2 goals on average in every game. Barcelona play 4-3-3 and sometimes 4-4-2 (only when Keita plays). They rotate there team very heavily to keep certain players happy (Pedro, Keita, Cuenca etc). David Villa was injured the majority of last season and Spain are suffering because of this.In fairness Spain have been pretty boring and often predictable in the Euro's. I cant understand why they dont start Llorente as main striker? I can see Portugal get a victory tonight! Read this on tonight's game: http://www.totalbarca.com/2012/analysis/spain-v-portugal-a-tactical-preview/
Max Kane Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 I didn't say it was boring! Quite the opposite!
lennox2s2s Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 I didn't say it was boring! Quite the opposite! My apologies, I miss understood "least negative sides" with boring.
Quadrant Posted June 27, 2012 Author Report Posted June 27, 2012 My apologies, I miss understood "least negative sides" with boring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Understood
Number2Fan Posted June 28, 2012 Report Posted June 28, 2012 Hahaha that was well worth scrolling down for
lyndon Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 I think what contributed to Wolves downfall last season was the fact we were trying to stop in the top flight with a championship team more or less. That and Moxey and Morgan are retarded.
lennox2s2s Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 I think what contributed to Wolves downfall last season was the fact we were trying to stop in the top flight with a championship team more or less. That and Moxey and Morgan are retarded. I am sure the fact Wolves lost 23 games didn't help matters!
lyndon Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Terrible, pure agony at times. On the game where City sent Wolves down, Morgan was laughing in the stands. Said it all to me really.
lennox2s2s Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 The championship is a tough league to get out off. Bring back Mick McCarty.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.