Roy Hodgson | Appointed England Manager

[walsh]

Really wouldn't worry too much, England weren't THAT bad and were missing a lot of players. 2-0 flatters Chile, although it doesn't flatter Alexis himself one bit, he is awesome. England just lack identity, a real obvious gameplan or assertive strategy. Summed up by Rooney chasing everyone and turning around to see the rest of the team sitting deep. Chile pressed as a team, knew each other's games. Hardly surprising when loads of these England players have never played together before.

Cahill not good enough for me, neither is Johnson or Milner. Rodriguez was anonymous. Lallana and Rooney were the only positives for England in my opinion.

 

[Proud_Lyon]

It seems as though against Chile tonight. The defence was awful, the midfield containing Wilshere (for all of his hype), an ageing Lampard and a toothless Milner was terrible and the less said about the attack the better. I hope all of Englands areas are covered by decent players, because if not, now matter how much hype one player gets or one is lauded as a "white pele", this England team is not going past the group stages. If they cannot beat Chile, then they are simply done for before they even fly over to Brazil because our players, no matter how good they are, are out of their comfort zone, that being Europe.

 

[alastair]

This business about not being able to compete in Brazil is ridiculous.

It's still a football pitch. Same goal size, same dimensions. No hotter than Euro 2012.

 

[Hellboy]

Not for certain but it was suggested as a possibility when he went straight down the tunnel after being subbed.

feck it would be a massive blow with Carrick's injury. Hope he's alright.

 

[JulesWinnfield]

It seems as though against Chile tonight. The defence was awful, the midfield containing Wilshere (for all of his hype), an ageing Lampard and a toothless Milner was terrible and the less said about the attack the better. I hope all of Englands areas are covered by decent players, because if not, now matter how much hype one player gets or one is lauded as a "white pele", this England team is not going past the group stages. If they cannot beat Chile, then they are simply done for before they even fly over to Brazil because our players, no matter how good they are, are out of their comfort zone, that being Europe.

You can't really judge all that off one game. Based on that logic England are also one of the main contenders given they've beaten Brazil at home and drawn away to them this year.

Of course friendly results are pretty meaningless, every round of international friendlies always throws up a few odd results. It was a truly awful performance tonight but its hardly unusual for international football. We place far too much on friendly losses in this country. I didn't see anyone proclaiming Germany's hopes for the world cup as over after conceding 4 to the USA in June, nor Italy only salvaging a draw against Haiti.

 

[walsh]

Phil Jones doesn't get substituted, substitutes get Phil Jones'd.

 

[Proud_Lyon]

This business about not being able to compete in Brazil is ridiculous.

It's still a football pitch. Same goal size, same dimensions. No hotter than Euro 2012.

Indeed not, but you cannot compare the altitude of Ukraine/Poland and Brazil. Don't forget, Portugal lost in Brazil twice, the first time when Ronaldo played there and they conceded 6 goals if I remember correctly, secondly Portugal lost again 3-1 (without Ronaldo) but with an on-form Neymar. So, it does affect some players.

 

[alastair]

Indeed not, but you cannot compare the altitude of Ukraine/Poland and Brazil. Don't forget, Portugal lost in Brazil twice, the first time when Ronaldo played there and they conceded 6 goals if I remember correctly, secondly Portugal lost again 3-1 (without Ronaldo) but with an on-form Neymar. So, it does affect some players.

I'm merely saying it will inevitably be over-stated.

Losing to dross at the World Cup cannot be explained away by altitude or heat. I'm sure it will be though.

 

[Proud_Lyon]

You can't really judge all that off one game. Based on that logic England are also one of the main contenders given they've beaten Brazil at home and drawn away to them this year.

Of course friendly results are pretty meaningless, every round of international friendlies always throws up a few odd results. It was a truly awful performance tonight but its hardly unusual for international football. We place far too much on friendly losses in this country. I didn't see anyone proclaiming Germany's hopes for the world cup as over after conceding 4 to the USA in June, nor Italy only salvaging a draw against Haiti.

I agree, tonight was an odd result in that England have some pretty decent footballers and to be honest, the England side was enough to beat Chile easily tonight so, I do not understand how they could lose. On one site, there was a 72% vote on an England victory, that is how much people think about our overpaid stars who cannot be arsed.

 

[Proud_Lyon]

I'm merely saying it will inevitably be over-stated.

Losing to dross at the World Cup cannot be explained away by altitude or heat. I'm sure it will be though.

That is what I am afraid of though. All our England players are vastly overrated and we supporters swallow the guff that the media feeds us. I stopped believing the media years ago and lost all faith in the England side, since I cannot see one single player stepping up to the plate and taking the game by the scruff of its neck, be it Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney or Wilshere.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

Chile were playing what is pretty much their first eleven of fit players. They were also super motivated to beat us, they even had a little pep huddle during half time. Our team featured a few players who in my opinion should not even be in the squad for Brazil. The Southampton lads and Milner did little to inspire. I thought that Lallana tried hard but didn't really convince whilst Rodriguez looked well out of his depth. Nonetheless, we still had a fair few more chances than Chile, even whilst performing poorly.

Personally I don't see the point in these' B team' friendlies. I think that we should approach these games like Chile did: as a moral boosting game where the players who will be representing us in major tournaments get to play together as a team, to practice operating as a cohesive unit. Surely with the relative paucity of international games the first team players should take every opportunity to gel as a unit.

We ended up with Cleveley and Henderson running the middle of the park. God forbid that happens at Brazil! Running them out seems a waste of time to me. If a player like Lallana plays himself into contention through his league form then bring him into the squad by all means, but give him a run out with a team that knows each other a bit.

 

[Proud_Lyon]

Chile were playing what is pretty much their first eleven of fit players. They were also super motivated to beat us, they even had a little pep huddle during half time. Our team featured a few players who in my opinion should not even be in the squad for Brazil. The Southampton lads and Milner did little to inspire. I thought that Lallana tried hard but didn't really convince whilst Rodriguez looked well out of his depth. Nonetheless, we still had a fair few more chances than Chile, even whilst performing poorly.

Personally I don't see the point in these' B team' friendlies. I think that we should approach these games like Chile did: as a moral boosting game where the players who will be representing us in major tournaments get to play together as a team, to practice operating as a cohesive unit. Surely with the relative paucity of international games the first team players should take every opportunity to gel as a unit.

We ended up with Cleveley and Henderson running the middle of the park. God forbid that happens at Brazil! Running them out seems a waste of time to me. If a player like Lallana plays himself into contention through his league form then bring him into the squad by all means, but give him a run out with a team that knows each other a bit.

According to Sky Sports, there were about 5-6 players who play for Cardiff, Osasuna, FC Twente etc, but the rest of the players were "undefined", that is to say they have no information on them. However, most of the England side have played at the top level, and have played in the Champions league so, it is rather a weak excuse.

 

[Steven Seagull]

Calling the England team a bunch of overrated mercenaries who don't try hard enough is sooo 2007.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

It sound like this was a good game to have missed.

I'd have kept Jones back for the Germany match so it would be doubly disappointing if his use tonight resulted in an injury.

Was Forster culpable for any of the goals, how did he do would you say?

 

[Carl]

It sound like this was a good game to have missed.

I'd have kept Jones back for the Germany match so it would be doubly disappointing if his use tonight resulted in an injury.

Was Forster culpable for any of the goals, how did he do would you say?

Nothing he could do for the first. The 2nd was a nice nice dink over him but he made Sanchez's mind up going down too easily.

 

[Drifter]

People read too much into friendlies.

Yes ,and what i've read is that when we come up against any team with a modicum of skill we will be out of the World Cup.

 

[LR7]

Seems silly that the team were booed off.

 

[FCBarca]

Bielsa's legacy continues in Sampaoli and Argentina continue to boast some of the most innovative tacticians in the game atm

Forster can't be blamed for much at all, I thought he was fine considering the circumstances. Sanchez continues his scintillating form, easily MOTM - even without the goals.

Thought Lallana looked very good at times, showed a lot of technical skill, workrate & desire - one of the few for Three Lions that didn't look out of his depth against the Chileans who were without two key players in Valdivia & Vidal. And Wilshere continues to look like he's far from the world class tag he was prematurely annointed with

 

[17 Van der Gouw]

Phil Jones doesn't get substituted, substitutes get Phil Jones'd.

Jones doesn't get substituted, the substitutes are in such awe, they try their best to become Phil Jones.

 

[Sixpence]

Yes ,and what i've read is that when we come up against any team with a modicum of skill we will be out of the World Cup.

Didn't everyone know that already? Since 66' England have hardly beaten anyone of note when it matters in a tournament.

 

[Moriarty]

Didn't everyone know that already? Since 66' England have hardly beaten anyone of note when it matters in a tournament.

How much ink has been spilled since that day in July 1966 trying to work out the answer why? Still, with every tournament comes hope, team songs (Back Home, and that one from 1982), and loads of overtime for the subs on the sports desk to concoct ludicrous headlines before and after England's exit.

 

[Suedesi]

Pretty good article, from Didi Hamann

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...y-why-its-never-really-a-contest-8944685.html

 

[Proud_Lyon]

Didn't everyone know that already? Since 66' England have hardly beaten anyone of note when it matters in a tournament.

The closest team we ever had as far as competence is concerned, was the team that played in Italia 1990. That was a class team and they were capable of playing together, and there was a sense of pride of playing for the shirt, unlike the teams ever since who are simply interested in money, since there is no honour in playing for the national team, hence the reason why some players are capable of picking and choosing the matches they play...i.e. England v Faroe Islands will see the majority of players with supposedly bad injuries only to be playing for their club a week later, whereas if they were playing against a good side, then no-one surprisingly is injured.

 

[Suedesi]

This business about not being able to compete in Brazil is ridiculous.

It's still a football pitch. Same goal size, same dimensions. No hotter than Euro 2012.

Unlike Euro 2012, you'll have Latin American teams which I predict will crush Europeans. Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Uruguay and of course Brazil will be very tough to beat. I can lonely see Italy and Germany as serious contenders from the old continent (I think Spain will fade)

 

[SteveJ]

Pretty good article, from Didi Hamann

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...y-why-its-never-really-a-contest-8944685.html

Christ...

Dietmar Hamann's analysis is not only of an England team but of English society. The English boys that went to war in 1914 were brave boys that knew how to die for their country but not to kill, and died they did. Heroes!

But I still think that the English don't really understand what it is to truly kill and it shows on the football field. There is no structure, no system, no thought...it's running, chasing, kicking, defending...lots of huffing and puffing and then the random brilliance of a great ego, such as Rooney, puts the ball in the net. A team like that will always come up short. Just as one cannot win a continent by defending an island, England will never win a cup by being stoic defenders. What might be needed could be a mentality of fans and journalists being less enthusiastic about rustic teams 'deserving' their point or even their victory, after having defended well. You 'deserve' your points when you attack, create and go for it!
It is a strange fact, that in modern day journalism, the only place where defending well is celebrated is in the United Kingdom. It needs to end.

 

[Brwned]

Pretty good article, from Didi Hamann

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...y-why-its-never-really-a-contest-8944685.html

He does make a good point there indeed. The difference between Gascoigne's self-centred attitude then and Charlton's selflessness in the World Cup final is stark. It is strange that nearly half a century has passed and England haven't managed to learn from what made that England side successful. Jimmy Greaves the superstar was dropped for the considerably less gifted Geoff Hurst. Alan Ball - one of the most technical, intelligent players to wear the shirt - was played in a functional supporting role, sacrificing himself to give the side balance. Nobby Stiles was less gifted than others competing for a place in that midfield but he knew his role in the team and played it to perfection. Bobby Charlton (who finished 5th in the Ballon d'Or rankings the previous year) put the team first as he spent the entire final marking Beckenbauer.

What made them successful is so blatantly obvious that it's hard to understand how the recent group of "superstars" failed to incorporate any of these qualities in the team. Ultimately the team didn't have the quality to repeat that success anyway, but they still could've used that England side as an example of how to make the team greater than the sum of its parts.

Christ...

Obviously that whole comment is a mess but I wonder where he's got this idea that defending is only celebrated in England. I don't think the Italians or Germans would agree. I suspect the resident Uruguayan would disagree too.

 

[Proud_Lyon]

He does make a good point there indeed. The difference between Gascoigne's self-centred attitude then and Charlton's selflessness in the World Cup final is stark. It is strange that nearly half a century has passed and England haven't managed to learn from what made that England side successful. Jimmy Greaves the superstar was dropped for the considerably less gifted Geoff Hurst. Alan Ball - one of the most technical, intelligent players to wear the shirt - was played in a functional supporting role, sacrificing himself to give the side balance. Nobby Stiles was less gifted than others competing for a place in that midfield but he knew his role in the team and played it to perfection. Bobby Charlton (who finished 5th in the Ballon d'Or rankings the previous year) put the team first as he spent the entire final marking Beckenbauer.

What made them successful is so blatantly obvious that it's hard to understand how the recent group of "superstars" failed to incorporate any of these qualities in the team. Ultimately the team didn't have the quality to repeat that success anyway, but they still could've used that England side as an example of how to make the team greater than the sum of its parts.

Again, the England team simply doesn't have the players who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the team. There are too many individuals who think clearly about themselves rather than the good of the team. The moment they start to function as a single unit and keep that particular template, then they might just get further. For so long we have had players of great individual quality, but only great in that we see it through "English eyes." I don't even think the Spanish, the Germans, the Italians, the Brazilians or Argentinians even give us a second thought. They know we just haven't got it in us to beat any of the aforementioned countries in the World Cup.

 

[#07]

He does make a good point there indeed. The difference between Gascoigne's self-centred attitude then and Charlton's selflessness in the World Cup final is stark. It is strange that nearly half a century has passed and England haven't managed to learn from what made that England side successful. Jimmy Greaves the superstar was dropped for the considerably less gifted Geoff Hurst. Alan Ball - one of the most technical, intelligent players to wear the shirt - was played in a functional supporting role, sacrificing himself to give the side balance. Nobby Stiles was less gifted than others competing for a place in that midfield but he knew his role in the team and played it to perfection. Bobby Charlton (who finished 5th in the Ballon d'Or rankings the previous year) put the team first as he spent the entire final marking Beckenbauer.

What made them successful is so blatantly obvious that it's hard to understand how the recent group of "superstars" failed to incorporate any of these qualities in the team. Ultimately the team didn't have the quality to repeat that success anyway, but they still could've used that England side as an example of how to make the team greater than the sum of its parts.

This.

 

[nemanja nemagic]

Keane in Turin comes to mind.

 

[Drainy]

"sacrificing yourself for the balance of the team"

That sentence is in a nutshell why Tom Cleverley and Danny Welbeck need to play- Whether moronic fans appreciate them or not.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

What made them successful is so blatantly obvious that it's hard to understand how the recent group of "superstars" failed to incorporate any of these qualities in the team. Ultimately the team didn't have the quality to repeat that success anyway, but they still could've used that England side as an example of how to make the team greater than the sum of its parts.

Its odd. Someone like Rooney is willing to sacrifice himself in a United team by playing out of position (until recently anyway) but I couldn't see him doing something similar for England.

 

[Proud_Lyon]

Its odd. Someone like Rooney is willing to sacrifice himself in a United team by playing out of position (until recently anyway) but I couldn't see him doing something similar for England.

It depends on who you believe really. I prefer to believe Sir Alex since he is not someone who hides the truth.

 

[mic.m]

I will never understand why England never attempted to play Rio, Scholes, Carrick and Rooney. From 2006-9 this was the spine of the best team in Europe. Attempting to play Gerrard and Lampard in a 2 man midfield was stupid. They were 2 highly rated midfielders but their best work was further up the field behind the striker. Gerrard had Alonso and Mascherano behind him whilst Lampard had any combination of Makelele, Essien, Ballack and Mikel supporting him. Mclaren and Capello (of all people) played teams without a midfielder who could control a game. Their blue eyed boys are simply experts at bombing up the pitch but were useless whenever the team went under any sort of pressure. Hodgson is trying to resolve that by playing Wilshere. However I don't think he is quite ready for the role. He easily gets frustrated and is petulant.

 

[MrMarcello]

Its odd. Someone like Rooney is willing to sacrifice himself in a United team by playing out of position (until recently anyway) but I couldn't see him doing something similar for England.

United usually have another world class forward or two, what does England have after Rooney (in years gone by)?

I find England's problem, as pointed out above, is a group of individuals versus a team concept. Managers seem to bow to FA/media pressure, or whatever the feck, and never drop a Gerrard and/or Lampard. Not to forget taking the best midfielder of a generation, the one player that can break the opposition with a sublime pass, and shunting him out wide - what the feck.

The 2002 and 2006 sides had the collective ability and talent to go far but individualism cost them IMO. I imagine had they lured SAF or Del Bosque to the helm, England would have won something in the last decade.

Paul Scholes on the left wing. Christ on a bike.
http://sabotagetimes.com/reportage/...les-and-the-cowardice-of-english-footballers/

 

[Gio]

Pretty good article, from Didi Hamann

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...y-why-its-never-really-a-contest-8944685.html

I'm not sure a manchild like Gascoigne is much use in any comparison of mental approach.

The 2002 and 2006 sides had the collective ability and talent to go far but individualism cost them IMO. I imagine had they lured SAF or Del Bosque to the helm, England would have won something in the last decade.

I'm not convinced either of those sides were good enough to get the better of Brazil or Portugal. Brazil simply had better players in key areas and were comfortable even when down to 10 men. Portugal were of much the same standard and, as in 2004, England got what they merited - a draw and penalties.

 

[Proud_Lyon]

I'm not sure a manchild like Gascoigne is much use in any comparison of mental approach.


I'm not convinced either of those sides were good enough to get the better of Brazil or Portugal. Brazil simply had better players in key areas and were comfortable even when down to 10 men. Portugal were of much the same standard and, as in 2004, England got what they merited - a draw and penalties.

I agree with this. Perhaps the old England team with Platt, Linekar, Pearce, Des Walker, Butcher, Waddle, Barnes and Beardsley to name a few. Individually speaking they were ok, but as a team, they were very, very good and fought to the end. No England team since then has ever had that much quality and team spirit. As for MrMarcello stating that either Sir Alex or Del Bosque at the helm, they might have won something. I am not convinced at all about that.

 

[duffer]

I will never understand why England never attempted to play Rio, Scholes, Carrick and Rooney. From 2006-9 this was the spine of the best team in Europe.

Scholes retired from England in 2004, there was not much of a window where he was available at the same time as Rooney & Carrick. He was asked to come out of retirement but refused so you can't really criticise England managers post 2004 for not playing that 2006-09 "spine".

 

[MrMarcello]

Perhaps so, but I fully believe a sound manager (SAF, Del Bosque, Low), would have recognized the right players and properly used them, sacrificing individualism for the team. This means a player like Scholes might not have told the NT to feck off, and thus a different lineup and results (hypothetically of course).

2002 could have seen this in attack: Beckham-Butt-Scholes-Cole/Dyer with Heskey-Owen up top. Or perhaps a Dyer-Beckham-Butt-Cole with Scholes in an advanced role behind Owen. I would have rather tossed the youthful energy and attack in Cole on the left than a veteran Sinclair, assuming either should have been in the squad to begin with.

2006 could have seen this: Beckham-Carrick/Hargreaves-Scholes-Cole with Lampard behind Rooney, assuming Scholes makes the roster after his eye illness. Perhaps not much changes in 2006 so could instead look at 2010 with Scholes in the fold.

2010: we can assume a better setup would have seen England top the group and thus avoid Germany, instead drawing Ghana (winnable) and Uruguay (winnable) and then Netherlands (difficult). Gerrard-Lampard central midfield is a clusterfeckup of epic idiocy and reeked of an arrogant view towards the first opponent. Shunting Gerrard out wide didn't rectify the problem either.

2010 retrospect would see: Gerrard/Lennon/SWP-Carrick-Scholes-Cole/Milner with either Defoe-Rooney up top, or Gerrard or Lampard in the hole behind Rooney (Gerrard excelled for Liverpool in that advanced role). Defoe's pace and Rooney's brilliance could have caused plenty of problems for opposing defense, and Lampard could have been used in a sub role. Why Carrick was consistently overlooked for the likes of Barry and Milner is puzzling nonetheless, and even more odd why any manager would think Gerrard-Lampard is a fantastic central midfield selection.

Seeing that Brazil scored a goal on a massive feckup by James, and Portugal didn't score at all, I don't see how hypothetically a different setup/tactics would not have seen England advance (not that I care either way, I don't support England).

 

[duffer]

P Why Carrick was consistently overlooked for the likes of Barry and Milner is puzzling nonetheless, and even more odd why any manager would think Gerrard-Lampard is a fantastic central midfield selection.

They all did though! Even Jose wanted to sign Gerrard to play with Lampard. It's almost as though the people paid millions to make these sort of decisions might know something we don't.

 

[mic.m]

Scholes retired from England in 2004, there was not much of a window where he was available at the same time as Rooney & Carrick. He was asked to come out of retirement but refused so you can't really criticise England managers post 2004 for not playing that 2006-09 "spine".

Capello only tried to lure Scholes a few weeks before the World Cup. This was only after concerns were raised about the depth of his midfield since Barry was still recovering from injury.There was never a genuine attempt to bring him back to the England setup. You don't ignore a player for almost 3 years then try to bring him into the squad with a few weeks left and no guarantee of playing time.