Bringing on a Milner to preserve a lead...

[RedRover]

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

And also, as a said above, a very good performance. The system worked, we moved the ball quickly and with precision, kept the ball well and created chances.

More often than not a team with that level of control in a game will win comfortably.

People can criticise his substitutions, fast enough. But criticising tactics and selection after a mostly very good game is just bizarre.

This blind criticism at odds with what was actually happening on the pitch is what I don't get at all. Is Roy the best manager in the game? No. Is he naturally negative? Probably. Does he deserve credit for the performance the other night - in my opinion he does.

 

[RedRover]

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.

The point is people can't wait to pile into the England team and manager at the first sign of trouble. It's the same every tournament and its tiresome.

People will have opinions about what Roy got wrong - fine. It's blindly refusing to acknowledge the positives I don't understand. Why not give credit where it's due if you're going to have an opinion on the negatives?

People seem to want to criticise rather than support with I'll never understand.

 

[RedRover]

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.

I didn't say that. My point is that after the game it's easy to criticise. He's a player who has contributed through the qualifying games and who Roy clearly rates. You may not agree it's right and that's fair enough but as I said above, the thinking behind the substitution seems to me to be reasonable - it being an attempt to add energy into the midfield.

As for how it effects the opposition that's up for discussion. You seem to be suggesting that the right sub would be to bring on more attacking threat rather than try to shore things up in midfield. Again, that's your opinion and fair enough, but a lot of managers wouldn't take that view.

We'll see next year, there'lol be games where Jose Mourinho does exactly this to hold onto a lead.

 

[Sylar]

What is Milners purpose? Or better yet, what is his position? Is he just a known utility man with no actual position now? Or does he excel at something? It seems he is just put into a position and ie praised cos of his workrate.

He seems like a man you would bring on if theres an injury or two and you need emergency cover.

I still cant get over the fact hes meant to be the experienced one but that mistake he made was so schoolboy rushing out like that making the cross come in easier. And it shouldnt even be mental tiredness cos he was on for about 10 minutes.
I would like to know what his instructions were.

If it was keep the ball, they brought on the wrong man for that.
If it was to carry the ball and be a like for like replacement for Sterling (clearly wasnt) he was the wrong man.

So the only thing I can think of is use your workrate to stop Russia from playing. Which then makes no sense given England had the possession before that sub. Which in turn means it was, sit back and defend (which is inviting unneeded pressure). Aghhh

 

[kouroux]

The point is people can't wait to pile into the England team and manager at the first sign of trouble. It's the same every tournament and its tiresome.

People will have opinions about what Roy got wrong - fine. It's blindly refusing to acknowledge the positives I don't understand. Why not give credit where it's due if you're going to have an opinion on the negatives?

People seem to want to criticise rather than support with I'll never understand.

There were many positives things from the game and they got mentioned several times I thought

 

[TwoSheds]

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.

I didn't say anything about great promise. They're a decent-ish team with a reasonable level of talent all the way through the squad. Nowhere near as many talented footballers as, for example, the 2006 team, but they would nonetheless whitewash that abject excuse for a national side. Best since 2004 at the very least. Even in 2004, one injury to an 18 year old and the whole rest of the bunch of "world class" talent got jelly legs and threw the game away.

Same point kind of goes for 2002 side etc - good players but other than being great defensively they weren't much cop at the actual playing football bit.

IMO you have to go all the way back to 1996 to find a team that clearly had both more talent and actually played relatively well together. And even then, wasn't Darren Anderton the left winger?

 

[RedRover]

There were many positives things from the game and they got mentioned several times I thought

It's a trend in this country just to criticise it seems and it's totally over the top to me.

Roy isn't the best manager in the world, but he's done well with a squad of reasonably talented, if not outstanding players. He's given young lads a chance and despite being a manager who is probably more defensively minded than anything, he put a team out to (obviously) win that game on Saturday but to do it in the right way. That's as good a game as I've seen England play for a long, long time.

From some we're still getting the usual deafening criticism. A post I quoted above highlighted it, "wrong squad, wrong tactics, wrong team selection..." etc. Must have been watching a different game.

I've no problem with people picking faults, evidently a lot disagree with the decisions he made in the game and that's we're all on here. It just seems some just go into default mode where England are concerned and go totally over the top with the criticism. At the end of the day we'll win more games than we lose playing like that and while the Russia goal was a hard one to take, it happens.

As it is I'm no big fan of Roy Hodgson particularly, but after years of managers sticking with the same old players and the same systems (and trying to figure out the same problems) he's at least given the younger players a chance and wants to entertain it seems - at least based on that game. I respect that.

 

[ivaldo]

The title implies there is more than one Milner, hideous thought.

 

[GloryHunter07]

More than who the substitution was I think it was just unnecessary. Often in those situations I feel the team that has been out grafting for 70 odd minutes needs to be trusted, they are focused and doing the job already.

If someone is gassed, on a yellow or playing so poorly they are a liability then change it.

I just think given the natural momentum swing that is guaranteed to happen in the last 10 mins, you have to be dead sure the person your putting in has the mental cajones to sure things up.

Sub should have been earlier and a forward who would be an outlet, if it needed to be made at all.

I thought Sterling was a liability tbh.

 

[Duafc]

I thought Sterling was a liability tbh.

I thought he was really poor but he wasn't going to cost England, and as poor as his end product was he did carry it well.

I'd have swapped him for a similarly attacking player.

 

[GloryHunter07]

I thought he was really poor but he wasn't going to cost England, and as poor as his end product was he did carry it well.

I'd have swapped him for a similarly attacking player.

Id have swapped him too. Arguably he did cost us, he fecked up so many attacking opportunities that the game shouldve been over by the time Russia scored.

 

[jesperjaap]

I didn't say anything about great promise. They're a decent-ish team with a reasonable level of talent all the way through the squad. Nowhere near as many talented footballers as, for example, the 2006 team, but they would nonetheless whitewash that abject excuse for a national side. Best since 2004 at the very least. Even in 2004, one injury to an 18 year old and the whole rest of the bunch of "world class" talent got jelly legs and threw the game away.

Same point kind of goes for 2002 side etc - good players but other than being great defensively they weren't much cop at the actual playing football bit.

IMO you have to go all the way back to 1996 to find a team that clearly had both more talent and actually played relatively well together. And even then, wasn't Darren Anderton the left winger?

Sixknote was, but he was consistanly good when not consistantly injured. We were linked with him many times (strangely in my opinion as we had better players anyway). That side also had Neville, Tony Adams, Stuart Pearce, McManaman, Ince, Gazza, Sheingham and Shearer. The 98 side was goods and unlucky against Agentina, the 2002 side did ok in my opinion, beaten by a freak goal by a Brazilian side with the 3 Rs....that for me was the last decent England side performance wise. As you said only an 18 year old Rooney carried us in 2004, we have been utterly abysmal ever since.

We played ok the other night, it is nit picking about the Milner substitution but Hodgson is paid over £3m a year and he is just an average manager who hasnt done anything of note since taking charge. I agree we have been playing decent football the last 12 months or so but we havent played anybody of any note competitively including Russia and it may be a team game but this side really doesnt have the talent at all to win the tournament, we seriously over rate young English players as we all want a great one to come through. For me Wilshire should be that player by now, ou rown Veratti. Barkley should have deceloped far more than he has the last two years as well, they are both very gifted players. Ali looks like the next one and I hope he progresses the next coupld of years more than those two have. ALthough dealing with Levy is a nightmare and unlikely to happen I am surprised all the names bandied about for the midfield maestro nobody mentions him as a target.

 

[TwoSheds]

Sixknote was, but he was consistanly good when not consistantly injured. We were linked with him many times (strangely in my opinion as we had better players anyway). That side also had Neville, Tony Adams, Stuart Pearce, McManaman, Ince, Gazza, Sheingham and Shearer. The 98 side was goods and unlucky against Agentina, the 2002 side did ok in my opinion, beaten by a freak goal by a Brazilian side with the 3 Rs....that for me was the last decent England side performance wise. As you said only an 18 year old Rooney carried us in 2004, we have been utterly abysmal ever since.

We played ok the other night, it is nit picking about the Milner substitution but Hodgson is paid over £3m a year and he is just an average manager who hasnt done anything of note since taking charge. I agree we have been playing decent football the last 12 months or so but we havent played anybody of any note competitively including Russia and it may be a team game but this side really doesnt have the talent at all to win the tournament, we seriously over rate young English players as we all want a great one to come through. For me Wilshire should be that player by now, ou rown Veratti. Barkley should have deceloped far more than he has the last two years as well, they are both very gifted players. Ali looks like the next one and I hope he progresses the next coupld of years more than those two have. ALthough dealing with Levy is a nightmare and unlikely to happen I am surprised all the names bandied about for the midfield maestro nobody mentions him as a target.

So you agree it's the best side for at least 12 years then, maybe longer?

 

[jesperjaap]

So you agree it's the best side for at least 12 years then, maybe longer?

To peform better than any of the England sides have at major finals over the last 12 years means absolutely nothing as the side have been utterly abysmal as I said.just look at our results the last 10 years.

 

[red4ever 79]

I think a couple of points can be made about the England V Russia match the other night. Yes England were slightly more adventurous than usual and yes some of the younger players performed well, however shouldn't that be the expectation, that an international team plays attacking football

However, let us not forget how poor Russia were also. I think along with Northern Ireland they have been the worst two performing sides in the tournament. If that had been Ukraine, or Romania, I think they could have caught England on the break

As for the substitutions they were typical of the mindset of the manager. Too much is made of players making the final squad before the tournament, because in reality it is usually the same 15 or so players who play throughout the tournament without too much rotation. Should Kane have come off against Russia for Vardy Yes. Should Milner have come on for Sterling No

The manager makes these decisions and time will tell if they were a costly two points dropped

 

[Rednotdead]

The thing is, Hodgson will always revert to type. How long has he had, and neither he nor we have a clue about his best eleven or best formation. It will change from match to match, desperately seeking something that might work. According to some we played well against Russia. Apparently "playing well" doesn't include taking chances or preventing the opposition scoring. Apparently "on another day" we'd have scored a barrowload. With Hodgson it's always "on another day", never "this day".

He should have been sacked after the last World Cup. Why did anyone expect any different from him here?

 

[Rednotdead]

I think a couple of points can be made about the England V Russia match the other night. Yes England were slightly more adventurous than usual and yes some of the younger players performed well, however shouldn't that be the expectation, that an international team plays attacking football

However, let us not forget how poor Russia were also. I think along with Northern Ireland they have been the worst two performing sides in the tournament. If that had been Ukraine, or Romania, I think they could have caught England on the break

As for the substitutions they were typical of the mindset of the manager. Too much is made of players making the final squad before the tournament, because in reality it is usually the same 15 or so players who play throughout the tournament without too much rotation. Should Kane have come off against Russia for Vardy Yes. Should Milner have come on for Sterling No

The manager makes these decisions and time will tell if they were a costly two points dropped

Sterling should have been off long before that. He spent 85 minutes threatening but producing absolutely nothing. Hodgson's error wasn't bringing on Milner for him, it was leaving him on the pitch for as long as he did.

 

[Jayvin]

However, let us not forget how poor Russia were also. I think along with Northern Ireland they have been the worst two performing sides in the tournament. If that had been Ukraine, or Romania, I think they could have caught England on the break

I didn't watch the Northern Ireland game but I find it hard to believe they were worse than Turkey against Croatia.

 

[jesperjaap]

I think a couple of points can be made about the England V Russia match the other night. Yes England were slightly more adventurous than usual and yes some of the younger players performed well, however shouldn't that be the expectation, that an international team plays attacking football

However, let us not forget how poor Russia were also. I think along with Northern Ireland they have been the worst two performing sides in the tournament. If that had been Ukraine, or Romania, I think they could have caught England on the break

As for the substitutions they were typical of the mindset of the manager. Too much is made of players making the final squad before the tournament, because in reality it is usually the same 15 or so players who play throughout the tournament without too much rotation. Should Kane have come off against Russia for Vardy Yes. Should Milner have come on for Sterling No

The manager makes these decisions and time will tell if they were a costly two points dropped

Spot on , totally agree. The Sun has Lothar Mattheus as one of there writers for the tournament and he has written some very interesting articles, been intrigued with what he has said, and he has said similar to what you said about Englands performance. What I did find strange BEFORE the game was he said Walker could be our most important player against Russia with the space he would get….turned out to be pretty relevant as well and Walker along with Rose were the two players exceeded expectations in the game, thought they were both superb.

 

[jesperjaap]

I didn't watch the Northern Ireland game but I find it hard to believe they were worse than Turkey against Croatia.

I thought Turkey looked ok?

 

[red4ever 79]

I thought Turkey looked ok?

Turkey didn't play so bad. They were certainly not as bad as Russia and NI. I found nowadays I get so frustrated with sides not being adventurous and attacking.

Maybe this is a reflection of the frustration of the Van Gaal era.

 

[Jayvin]

I thought Turkey looked ok?

Fair enough, I thought they were dire. Awful defensively and created virtually nothing going forward. Their 'best' players were anonymous.

 

[Larseno]

I think many here are undervaluing Milner. I think he is a good all round player. But I agree that the sub seems weird and I actually think England got what they deserved. I really think England should have gone for a 2nd goal. They should have sub Sterling for another attacking player. Roy Hodgson had plenty of quality on the bench.

 

[VeevaVee]

Imagine having a team of Milners. Just imagine it.

 

[Ducklegs]

I think many here are undervaluing Milner. I think he is a good all round player. But I agree that the sub seems weird and I actually think England got what they deserved. I really think England should have gone for a 2nd goal. They should have sub Sterling for another attacking player. Roy Hodgson had plenty of quality on the bench.

No mate he is shite.

Just about good enough busy body around against cannon fodder, but he shouldnt be anywhere near international football.

 

[RedCurry]

If you look at the Milner substitution in isolation it doesn't seem like the wrong decision. But when you are deciding to shut up shop with a one goal lead you need some ball carriers. Sterling, however poor he was on the night, can carry the ball and he did while pushing the Russian defense back.

Alli was an absolute passenger and Milner should've replaced him. At the same time Sturridge should have come on for Lallana who went missing for the last half an hour. Rooney was controlling the game and he was actually making runs from the midfield, makes no sense to take him off. Not for Wilshere who hasn't played a proper game in more than half a year.

The game could have been put to bed if England had the control and industry of Dier, Rooney and Milner in the midfield with decent pace and trickery of Sterling and Sturridge out wide and Kane's hold up play.

 

[normalone]

I disagree with the notion that Roy is responsible for the cohesive football we finally displayed after God know's how long. The only reason we were cohesive is because the spine of the team for the first time is made of players from one club - Spurs. It's no coincidence that the best international sides of recent times consisted of players from one side. Spain-barca and Germany-Bayern

 

[Cassady]

My thought is that Milner is such an unglamorous player. It's a buzz kill so see him play, let alone hear his name.

Most assists in the league this season and Europe since Christmas.

 

[Jacob]

Most assists in the league this season and Europe since Christmas.

Doesn't matter, he is a boring character. Last player on each to have fans

 

[Cassady]

Doesn't matter, he is a boring character. Last player on each to have fans

Strange comment.

Michael Owens character is fecking scintillating you know.