Bringing on a Milner to preserve a lead...

[RedRover]

Agree with this. For all that they didn't round things off, the football he got them playing was pretty excellent. Honestly it's going to be difficult to give a proper assessment of where the team, and Hogson, is at before we see them play against a few different kind of teams in this tournament. A bit early to be taking out the knives in any case.

Indeed.

The play was well structured, we kept possession well and created chances. We lacked a bit of luck and should have taken more of our chances.

The fact is, had we won the game Roy would be being praised and a lot of those fans blindly complaining about it would be convinced we were going to win it. It seems to some fans there is no middle ground.

Whilst obviously disappointed, I'll take the positives. A good performance, a young team and hopefull a bright future overall, as well as a few better results in this tournament.

 

[RedRover]

Typical Roy move. Cowardly.

Russia were really poor, we should have taken the game to them and put in Rashford or Vardy. Architect of his own demise.

We aren't going far in this tournament with this negative attitude.

If we play like we did last night we've as good a chance as any team of progressing.

 

[RobinLFC]

You'll find negatives just for the sake of moaning about them instead of remembering all the good things that were on display during the game... Very few, if not no manager would bring on Vardy when you're protecting a lead and try to see the last minutes of the game out. Milner gives you workrate and he's more than comfortable enough on the ball to keep possession. I think Roy should've brought a new striker on much earlier instead of Kane because he was bad up front, but he didn't feck it up by putting on Milner.

He was partly at fault for the goal though, went in pressing way too enthousiast and allowed the Russian player to go past him too easily. Still, just remember the good things from yesterday, you'll qualify without any problems if you keep that standard of performance.

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

The sub didn't work out, but I don't think there was anything wrong with it, in my opinon. Sterling was tiring, and we needed fresh legs on the pitch. Yes, we could have gone with Vardy or Rashford on the wing, but we were trying to see a game out, so it's natural to bring on a more defence minded sub.

Milner has good energy, and he tracks back. Unfortunately, he made two silly mistakes whilst he was on the pitch, one of which we got punished for. He over committed himself and got dribbled past. All he had to do was stand the player up and force him wide or back.

I wouldn't blame Roy, though. This is exactly the type of sub Mourinho would, and none of you lot be moaning.

 

[Sylar]

The funniest part, is Milner should be blamed for the equaliser. He rushes out like an idiot and allows the Russian to beat him easily, to change the angle to put in a dangerous cross. The one thing Milner is brought on to do, he cant even do properly. And hes meant to be one of the players with experience. I hate this "he gives you workrate" BS. Whats the point of workrate if you cant keep the ball or actually pressure somebody properly.

It was a negative sub that cost us. It wasnt luck, it was a brainless decision from Milner. To stop a header like that, you stop the supply and Milner allowed it to easily happen.
That and the way he slipped like an idiot when Wilshere was near the corner and passed it to him. It was like he was surprised.

I understand why Roy did it, but ultimately it cost England and he should take part of the blame. He invited pressure. England looked so comfy all night, Russia had no ideas and that sub just invited pressure and allowed them back into the game. You bring on Vardy for Sterling and it gives their defense something to worry about to stretch the game.

 

[TwoSheds]

The shocking decision was to not bring on a pacy forward for Kane, and possibly Alli too tbf. The Milner sub alongside that would've been fine.

No way that Russian backline would have withstood 20 mins of Vardy off the bench.

 

[Fergus' son]

Even before the sub was made, it was obvious that it had more potential to interrupt our game than improve - how Hodgson couldn't see this from the touch line I have no idea.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

Sitting back and inviting pressure when you're 1 goal up is a pretty awful tactic, unless you've got a rock-solid, impenetrable defence. England don't. There was little need for England to change what they were doing because Russia were so poor, they were offering nothing. Sitting back and losing control of the game gave Russia one opportunity, which they took.

Taking Rooney off was stupid, because he was doing well and controlling most of the game. To bring on Wilshere, who looked rusty and out of sorts, was weird. He gave the ball away a few times and offered nothing.

Would have made more sense to bring on Vardy or Rashford, tell them to press high and keep Russia deep in their own half. It's a risky tactic when you're playing against a good team, but Russia didn't have the skill to play through England's press and were just hopelessly knocking it long. I can't fathom why England needed to change at all. They just needed to stay high up the pitch.

 

[Klopper76]

Personally I would have subbed Lallana off after 60-65 minutes for Milner to play wide right (where a lot of his better stuff for Liverpool has come). Lallana always tires himself out in games and was clearly knackered in the second half.

That and Kane for Vardy were the subs to make in my opinion. Taking Rooney off when he was clearly the calming figure in midfield was daft.

 

[AlwaysRed66]

I am amazed the England Manager is getting attacked for actually playing attacking football with an exciting young team, who were clearly the better team throughout, but didn't put away their chances. After putting up the last season with the boring drivel LVG has been dishing up, I thought Utd fans would at least appreciate a side trying to play a more open attacking style.

 

[NoPace]

The shocking decision was to not bring on a pacy forward for Kane, and possibly Alli too tbf. The Milner sub alongside that would've been fine.

No way that Russian backline would have withstood 20 mins of Vardy off the bench.

This seems right to me. Ignashevich and Berezutsky are 36 and 34 and were slow when they were 26 and 24 as I recall. Kane wasn't looking sharp. Why not throw Vardy on after the Dier goal when you know the Russians will have to push up a bit to look for the equalizer?

 

[pierrethesnack]

He's the fifth best player in the tournament - who else should the Hodge bring on?

 

[Red Dreams]

Hodson is not fit to manage a Championship team much less the England team.

Russia are the weakest team in the group.

Gross incompetence.

Retire already.

 

[Giant Midget]

The subs should have been:

1) Lallana - Milner
2) Kane - Sturridge/Rashford
3) Sterling - Vardy

England would have been way too quick on the counter for a slow Russian backline to push forward. Seemed like Roy panicked and bottled it.

 

[RooneyLegend]

There's never ever a real reason to put on a player like Milner, he has absolutely no use and its a mystery how he's managed to carve out the career he has.

 

[Sandikan]

Reading through a lot of moans on here, but surely the whole point of Milner being there is to shut out games like yesterday!

Although I personally wouldn't have him near a squad, managers seem to love his type of player, so like to use him in the right scenario, which was probably yesterday.

I'd have probably done Sterling to Vardy though.

Oh well, looked fairly decent all in, against a crap team though.

 

[Sandikan]

Typical Roy move. Cowardly.

Russia were really poor, we should have taken the game to them and put in Rashford or Vardy. Architect of his own demise.

We aren't going far in this tournament with this negative attitude.

I don't overly get the negative criticism, when he's started with Lallana, Sterling, Kane, Alli and Rooney. Hard to get much more attack in there!

 

[Giggsy92]

Taking Rooney off, not bringing Vardy on and not using up the third sub were all bigger mistakes than bringing Milner on.

 

[Flying_Heckfish]

I don't overly get the negative criticism, when he's started with Lallana, Sterling, Kane, Alli and Rooney. Hard to get much more attack in there!

He had Rashford, Vardy and Sturridge all on the bench champing at the bit. Russia were there for the taking, he erred on the side of caution and got burned.

In that moment, he was negative.

 

[Red Dreams]

Forget about who he started with.

Its basic. Holding a 1-0 lead and trying to close down the match when all he had to do was put on a fast player who will punish them as they tried push forward for the equaliser. How difficult is this to understand.

This guy is managing the England team.

 

[ManUArfa]

I don't see the logic in it. Surely if you want to preserve a lead, you want workrate - yes, but you want players who are comfortable with the ball so that you can keep the ball better in the face of increasing pressure from the opponent trying to get back into the game and also with the opponent pushing forward you'd put yourself in a good position to expose their high backline.

I have seen England always get defensive and look poorer for it. Secondly if you are trying to preserve a lead why always kick long from goal kicks.. surely better to pass short and retain the ball, kill off time.

Thoughts?

If we want to progress we need technical players throughout the side. Hart and Milner are not that. Players who are poor decision makers who want to over-do it like Sterling also need to take a hike.

I agree 100%

 

[Ducklegs]

All anyone has to do is read the match thread as soon as Milner started warming up to see just how shit a decision it was.

To be fair to the talentless donkey, it wasn't just his fault, all of Roys subs yesterday were late, and wrong.

Kane, Sterling, Lamelama, all were the number one candidates for getting the hook either at half time or on the 60 minute mark.
To take off your best player, for a player who hasn't kicked a ball in 9 months, and leave on two others who have contributed nothing for the enitre match, the mind boggles.

 

[Dug's Heid]

England were very unlucky and on another day might have beaten the Russians.

The Wilshere sub had a great deal of thought behind it from Roy Hidgens - Rooney was clearly tiring in the hot weather and it's going to be long tournament for England; keeping Rooney fresh for the latter stages is important. Wishere also needed game time to remind him what a football pitch looks like.

Milner came on because England clearly needed a hoof-headed lump who could fill a variety of roles to get them through the last five minutes and he mostly did his job successfully.

Hidgens was right to leave Vardy out - we all know Vardy doesn't like foreigners and it don't get much more foreign than the Soviets in France.

England will come good and I'm sure football will come home at some point in the future.

 

[jesperjaap]

Good performance first half. I think we tired a bit as a team and faded in the second half. Great performances from the two tottenham fullbacks and Dier, Delli was good but can be better and Rooney had a decent game as well.

Nothign wrong with the Rooney substitution for me and I thought Wilshire did ok. My one complaint would be why take so many strikers if you are not going to use them. The front three I thought Lalana really tired the second half after chasing everything down first half, Sterling was very average all game and Kane didnt have a good game at all, nothing seemed to run for him.....with that in mind why wasnt Vardy or STurridge bought on for him and why wasnt Rashford or Sturridge bought on for Lalana when he tired to hit the advancing Russians on the break? Milner for me is a decent central midfielder, he is a shit wide player though, he really isnt a utility man for me.

We were unlucky, bar the result it was a decent start all in all. Still I thought the same thing in the world cup with the Italy game, and we really havent come any further than that. We sould beat Wales and go through, if we dont that would be just 3 of our last 12 tournament games won in the last 10 years, a truly awful possible statistic.

This England side has no hope of winning the tournament. I saw SUn writers polled for there team to win the tournament and player of the tournament. About 1/4 of them picked England and Im sure 1/3 of them or so picked Kane, laughable. This is actually the weakest England side for quite a while in terms of individual talent. i heard our two good performances in major finals from my las time started with with draws being Italia 90 and Euro 96. Look at the those squads though and compare them to this one, there is barely a current player would get in either of them.

 

[Offside]

Does anything sum Hodgson up more?

I've never seen such a glaring example of poor management from squad selection, to team selection to tactics and subs. Awful, awful management.

 

[TwoSheds]

Good performance first half. I think we tired a bit as a team and faded in the second half. Great performances from the two tottenham fullbacks and Dier, Delli was good but can be better and Rooney had a decent game as well.

Nothign wrong with the Rooney substitution for me and I thought Wilshire did ok. My one complaint would be why take so many strikers if you are not going to use them. The front three I thought Lalana really tired the second half after chasing everything down first half, Sterling was very average all game and Kane didnt have a good game at all, nothing seemed to run for him.....with that in mind why wasnt Vardy or STurridge bought on for him and why wasnt Rashford or Sturridge bought on for Lalana when he tired to hit the advancing Russians on the break? Milner for me is a decent central midfielder, he is a shit wide player though, he really isnt a utility man for me.

We were unlucky, bar the result it was a decent start all in all. Still I thought the same thing in the world cup with the Italy game, and we really havent come any further than that. We sould beat Wales and go through, if we dont that would be just 3 of our last 12 tournament games won in the last 10 years, a truly awful possible statistic.

This England side has no hope of winning the tournament. I saw SUn writers polled for there team to win the tournament and player of the tournament. About 1/4 of them picked England and Im sure 1/3 of them or so picked Kane, laughable. This is actually the weakest England side for quite a while in terms of individual talent. i heard our two good performances in major finals from my las time started with with draws being Italia 90 and Euro 96. Look at the those squads though and compare them to this one, there is barely a current player would get in either of them.

All well and good talking about individual talent but Lampard and Gerrard had that. Awful team players for England nonetheless. This is one of the better England 'teams' I can remember in my lifetime regardless of what you think of their talent. I think Hodgson has built a good foundation and a new manager will be able to take them on for the next world cup by not making shit substitutions.

 

[Oo0AahCantona]

Was embarrassing all round. even the queen was probably sitting at home with a tv dinner tray on her lap screaming at her telly "Bring on Vardy you cnut" chat shit get banged, sterlings gash etc.

 

[kouroux]

It's amazing to see all the armchair coaches putting the boot in.

England were much the better side and on another day would have been three of four up. The system, and selection - heavily criticised by a lot of people on Twitter (and on my Facebook feed at least) produced open, attacking possession football, which is surely what we want to see.

The defence had a lapse, Russia scored - it happens. Milner is a go too player for Roy and while in hindsight you might say it was a mistake, we were still comfortable after the sub. Unless the suggestion is Milner was at fault for the goal I don't see the fuss.

Seems to me some people just like to criticise - before, during and after the game.

It's not so much about blaming Milner for the equal but the signal it sends to Russia and how it contributed to them controlling the match better in the last 10-15 mins of the game. Football is a psychological game and I would have been afraid to see a quick player with good technique coming on (not necessarily Vardy) instead of a very boring and bland player like Milner.

 

[jesperjaap]

All well and good talking about individual talent but Lampard and Gerrard had that. Awful team players for England nonetheless. This is one of the better England 'teams' I can remember in my lifetime regardless of what you think of their talent. I think Hodgson has built a good foundation and a new manager will be able to take them on for the next world cup by not making shit substitutions.

Agree on the Lampard Gerrard problem. Eriksson persisted with them and even moved Scholes to the left to accommodate them which had himretire, but why Capello continued trying them when it never worked I couldn't understand.

If this is one of the better teams you can remember in your lifetime I presume you must be a toddler? There currently isn't a single world class player in this side and bar the addition of Deli it is no better than the side that failed at the last world cup. As a nation we get blinded by a good qualifying campaign and friendly victory over a big nation, happens every tournament. Though we played well against Russia, lets face it they are probably the weakest side we have seen bar Northern Ireland so far judging on the first round of games.

Just look at some of the other big nations and the football they are playing and young players they have that are already established, this ISNT an England side of great promise at all, we could say the same thing 2 years ago with Barkley, Sterling and WIlshire coming though, onlky one of them has progressed.

 

[RedRover]

It's not so much about blaming Milner for the equal but the signal it sends to Russia and how it contributed to them controlling the match better in the last 10-15 mins of the game. Football is a psychological game and I would have been afraid to see a quick player with good technique coming on (not necessarily Vardy) instead of a very boring and bland player like Milner.

It's easy after the event to criticise the manager. A lot of managers, in that situation would have put on a player with legs and a more defensive mindset to try close things up in midfield.

The simple fact is at 1-0 up the opposition is always going to throw everything at you in the last 15 minutes, whoever you have on the pitch. Likewise, most teams will come under pressure as they try to hold out and the losing team will inevitably come more into the game. To that end, you could argue that bringing on another attacking player makes little difference to their mind set - it's tournament football, you may as well get beat 2-0 as 1-0.

Here's a guarantee - had he thrown on another striker and not tried to shore it up, resulting in us conceding he'd have been heavily criticised for not trying to close the game out.

My personal view is that he should have brought Vardy on for Kane with 20 minutes to go but I have no issue with him bringing on Milner, who's done well for him and who has the energy in midfield. We looked tired in there as Russia came more into the game so this was how he tried to address it.

My major point though is that a) it's very easy to point to one decision with the benefit of hindsight and criticise, and b) people are ignoring the fact that that's the best performance we've seen from an England side at a tournament in years.

 

[RedRover]

Does anything sum Hodgson up more?

I've never seen such a glaring example of poor management from squad selection, to team selection to tactics and subs. Awful, awful management.

Did you watch the game?

 

[Offside]

Did you watch the game?

Lallana and Sterling start and no Vardy but Milner brought on to preserve a 1-0.

 

[kouroux]

It's easy after the event to criticise the manager. A lot of managers, in that situation would have put on a player with legs and a more defensive mindset to try close things up in midfield.

The simple fact is at 1-0 up the opposition is always going to throw everything at you in the last 15 minutes, whoever you have on the pitch. Likewise, most teams will come under pressure as they try to hold out and the losing team will inevitably come more into the game. To that end, you could argue that bringing on another attacking player makes little difference to their mind set - it's tournament football, you may as well get beat 2-0 as 1-0.

Here's a guarantee - had he thrown on another striker and not tried to shore it up, resulting in us conceding he'd have been heavily criticised for not trying to close the game out.

My personal view is that he should have brought Vardy on for Kane with 20 minutes to go but I have no issue with him bringing on Milner, who's done well for him and who has the energy in midfield. We looked tired in there as Russia came more into the game so this was how he tried to address it.

My major point though is that a) it's very easy to point to one decision with the benefit of hindsight and criticise, and b) people are ignoring the fact that that's the best performance we've seen from an England side at a tournament in years.

Isn't that what we mostly do when talking about football ? Comment on things after they happen ? Performances don't mean a lot if the result isn't satisfying. It may be incredibly harsh to look at things like that but it is how it is at this level.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

I actually like Milner as a player and think it was a good substitution to make. Unfortunately, making a good sub doesn't guarantee anything and England were a bit unlucky to concede a last minute goal

If there's anything to moan at Woy for, it's starting Lallana. Sturridge, Rashford or even my nan starts instead of him, the last minute goal would have been a consolation only

 

[Van Gaalacticos]

It's easy after the event to criticise the manager. A lot of managers, in that situation would have put on a player with legs and a more defensive mindset to try close things up in midfield.

The simple fact is at 1-0 up the opposition is always going to throw everything at you in the last 15 minutes, whoever you have on the pitch. Likewise, most teams will come under pressure as they try to hold out and the losing team will inevitably come more into the game. To that end, you could argue that bringing on another attacking player makes little difference to their mind set - it's tournament football, you may as well get beat 2-0 as 1-0.

Here's a guarantee - had he thrown on another striker and not tried to shore it up, resulting in us conceding he'd have been heavily criticised for not trying to close the game out.

My personal view is that he should have brought Vardy on for Kane with 20 minutes to go but I have no issue with him bringing on Milner, who's done well for him and who has the energy in midfield. We looked tired in there as Russia came more into the game so this was how he tried to address it.

My major point though is that a) it's very easy to point to one decision with the benefit of hindsight and criticise, and b) people are ignoring the fact that that's the best performance we've seen from an England side at a tournament in years.

I totally agree Vardy should have come on and that this was one of the best England performances in tournament football but to pretend it's only with hindsight that people criticized the Milner substitution is incorrect, Milner is a player that many England fans feel adds nothing to the squad.

Russia may have been more attacking in the last 15 minutes regardless but we had controlled the entire game to that point, why bring on Milner who is fairly average in every department and known for being defensive when we are completely in control?

If anything it will have given Russia extra impetus to attack knowing Milner isn't as dangerous to them on the counter attack - same with the Wilshere/Rooney sub although Wilshere did well.

If we had won 3-1 then we wouldn't be talking about it, but we didn't and the subs did more to harm to the team than help.

 

[Ducklegs]

Good to see lothar matthäus on the beeb just now agreeing that James Milner was an idiotic substitution for exactly the same reasons we have said.

No pace, on the left wing, gives a green light for Russia to push on and attack.

 

[Ducklegs]

Agree on the Lampard Gerrard problem. Eriksson persisted with them and even moved Scholes to the left to accommodate them which had himretire, but why Capello continued trying them when it never worked I couldn't understand.

If this is one of the better teams you can remember in your lifetime I presume you must be a toddler? There currently isn't a single world class player in this side and bar the addition of Deli it is no better than the side that failed at the last world cup. As a nation we get blinded by a good qualifying campaign and friendly victory over a big nation, happens every tournament. Though we played well against Russia, lets face it they are probably the weakest side we have seen bar Northern Ireland so far judging on the first round of games.

Just look at some of the other big nations and the football they are playing and young players they have that are already established, this ISNT an England side of great promise at all, we could say the same thing 2 years ago with Barkley, Sterling and WIlshire coming though, onlky one of them has progressed.

Christ, whats he on?
This England side would be battered inside and out by every England squad from 1986 onwards bar Taylors bunch of missfits and the atrocity that Keegan put together for euro 2000.

It couldnt live even with Capellos obnoxious brand of football.

 

[spwd]

Good to see lothar matthäus on the beeb just now agreeing that James Milner was an idiotic substitution for exactly the same reasons we have said.

No pace, on the left wing, gives a green light for Russia to push on and attack.

Yep saw that too, got exactly what we deserved unfortunately.

 

[Stactix]

It is ultimately Hodgsons fault though.

Taking Rooney of when he was actually playing rather well. For Wilshere, who has barely played. Not a very good time to bring him on ffs, for the captain / most experienced player in the fecking team when your holding on to a 1-0 lead.
When Lalana = invisible second half played 90. Why did he play the full fecking 90?
Kane / Alli = very poor overall played full 90.. again why?
Sterling played 87? very poor overall..

But with Sterling, the threat on the left side was there.
The Russians had to be more careful. Once he was gone, feck all threat.

Should of brought Vardy on for at 70mins..
for Kane/ Lalana.
Make defensive subs if needed. Sure, i don't disagree with that.
BUT RUSSIA have 2 35/36 year old cbs.. Vardy gets past them.. ggwp.
Not even top quality like Terry either..
Not exploiting that weakness shows incompetence.


Atleast with Van Gaal he'd of kept Rooney on.. never though i'd say that..

 

[VFC1922]

I am amazed the England Manager is getting attacked for actually playing attacking football with an exciting young team, who were clearly the better team throughout, but didn't put away their chances. After putting up the last season with the boring drivel LVG has been dishing up, I thought Utd fans would at least appreciate a side trying to play a more open attacking style.

Its not about attacking him, its about logic .. like you said "England Manager" should/must see tiredness of his players. I didnt said anything about him bad, but just cant understand why, why didnt he used the third sub?

I dont know if somebody watched Croatia game against Turkey .. Ante Cacic made 3 subs, in the 86,89,91 minute .. he killed the game, they didnt play football after the 86th minute, and that is my point. It doesnt matter why he brought in Millner, he should have used the third sub.