The Official England Thread-The Team We All Support [Vol 2]
Discussion
uk66fastback said:
JustinF said:
It's the same every time we get a new man in the job, there is hope that players will be picked on form not reputation or which parent club they are from. That the manager will have a formation and tactic in mind and pick the best player and an understudy for each position, rather than the 'square pegs round holes' we've put up with since 1996; all the right noises are made in this direction, 'clean sheet' 'fresh broom' 'everyone has to earn their spot' but when it comes down to it there are no risks taken and the 'safe' choices that mean we have dead wood and a team capable of nothing more than a semi final capitulation.
Take a f
king risk, gamble on youth and flair, be fking Leicester not ing Arsenal.
Agree with this 100% ... if we did give youth and flair a chance, played some good football and lost in the quarters, semis etc no-one would mind (the public, not the press) as we would have had a go ...Take a f
king risk, gamble on youth and flair, be fking Leicester not ing Arsenal.But to stick to the old rigid formula again and again and exiting at the same time again and again is mad ...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Very true.
The morning after we lost 2-3 to Croatia in the Euro qualifiers...2007 I think, the wally with the brolly was sacked and Brian Barwick, then head of the FA, apologised for our failure and said there would be a "root and branch" report into the International set up, the FA, how managers were appointed, and our ongoing failure in International football. This report would look at everything and leave no stone unturned.
Anyone got any idea when it might be published?
Yep - when England next win a major tournament The morning after we lost 2-3 to Croatia in the Euro qualifiers...2007 I think, the wally with the brolly was sacked and Brian Barwick, then head of the FA, apologised for our failure and said there would be a "root and branch" report into the International set up, the FA, how managers were appointed, and our ongoing failure in International football. This report would look at everything and leave no stone unturned.
Anyone got any idea when it might be published?
JustinF said:
It's the same every time we get a new man in the job, there is hope that players will be picked on form not reputation or which parent club they are from. That the manager will have a formation and tactic in mind and pick the best player and an understudy for each position, rather than the 'square pegs round holes' we've put up with since 1996; all the right noises are made in this direction, 'clean sheet' 'fresh broom' 'everyone has to earn their spot' but when it comes down to it there are no risks taken and the 'safe' choices that mean we have dead wood and a team capable of nothing more than a semi final capitulation.
Take a fking risk, gamble on youth and flair, be fking Leicester not ing Arsenal.
Hodgson is the very definition of average. He's never won anything out side of Sweden, he's got an average win-rate, he turns poor teams into average ones and good teams also into average ones. Why anyone thinks he'll achieve anything with England beyond average is beyond me.Take a f
king risk, gamble on youth and flair, be fking Leicester not ing Arsenal.TEKNOPUG said:
Hodgson is the very definition of average. He's never won anything out side of Sweden, he's got an average win-rate, he turns poor teams into average ones and good teams also into average ones. Why anyone thinks he'll achieve anything with England beyond average is beyond me.
Looks good in the FA Blazer n Tie though.
uk66fastback said:
if we did give youth and flair a chance, played some good football and lost in the quarters, semis etc no-one would mind (the public, not the press) as we would have had a go ...
But if we did give youth and flair a chance and limped out at the group stages, the press would be screaming for blood asking why certain more experienced players were left out. The football press in this country is so absolutely toxic, particularly when it comes to the national team, that criticism is inevitable whichever route is taken- 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' etc.Personally I don't have any major issues with the selection, he's still focused on the same players that performed well throughout the qualifying campaign. For me the one that does stand out is Rooney, yes he scored a few goals in qualifying but was far from convincing and his domestic form has hardly been stellar. He can certainly do a job but it's how it might upset the balance of the team trying to shoe-horn him in that concerns me- but it's a moot point, he's going to play somewhere regardless. Fingers crossed he hits form at the right time and bags a few goals.
Welbeck missing out was a blow because as far as Roy's concerned nobody else really does the 'bust-a-gut, hard working, attacking winger' role as well as he does (whilst scoring a decent amount of goals). Townsend coming in was the obvious choice in my opinion, because whilst not offering quite the same role, his willingness to play completely direct and 'have a go' is a great option to have on the bench- his recent form for Newcastle has made this an easy call.
Defoe was never going to be a replacement for the injured Welbeck as they are completely different players- Welbeck is a hardworking wide-forward for England (and also top scorer in qualifying) and Defoe is a very good poacher but who contributes nothing outside of the box.
Some people have questioned Defoe missing out, but as fifth choice striker (as above Welbeck is a winger for England) how many minutes would he really have played? With 1 or 2 of Kane, Vardy, Sturidge, and Rooney presumably being on the bench ahead of him, what would be the point. May as well include Rashford, let him get some early England experience in the friendlies and drop him from the final 23- he'll benefit from it in the future. Defoe at 33, wouldn't.
Including both Delph & Henderson seems an odd one to me considering their lack of match fitness and they both encompass the midfield 'run around a lot' role- already easily filled by the more versatile and currently in-form Milner. I wouldn't be surprised if one of those is dropped from the final 23. Both Delph & Henderson are Hodgson favourites, but even he must see that duplication here is pointless given their fitness and the other options within the squad. Personally I'd rather see one (or both) of these dropped from the 23 and Drinkwater remain, as he appears to have a bit more of a footballing brain than the others, something that appears to be criminally undervalued when playing the 'tidy-up' role in midfield.
Wilshere was also always going to be picked, at least in the preliminary squad- as far as Hodgson is concerned he's England's best midfielder 'when fit' and will give him every chance to prove his fitness before making a call. As evidenced by him starting every game for which he was available for in qualifying, and getting MOTM in most of them. From Hodgson's point of view he's seen him play in the last 3 games for Arsenal (where he has looked pretty sharp), and now has 3 England friendlies to confirm whether he's fit enough or not. Given how much he rates him I'd say that's pretty minimal risk, for the potential reward of having him available in France. I would argue his experience playing with this system, with this group of players, in qualifying, is worth more than bringing in an alternative that has had no prior involvement with this group in qualifying.
He's already admitted that some of the players have played too much football, so providing after 3 friendlies Wilshire is looking sharp & fit (and I'd say he did after the Man City game), having a player fresh and ready to go could actually be a blessing. Or he could of course break down again in one of the friendlies and not make the final squad altogether...
Antonio at West Ham was arguably unlucky to miss out, but again I think Hodgson is trying to keep the core group of players that have done so well in qualifying together as much as possible without bringing in too many new faces- which I can understand.
Personally I think how well we do will come down to the tournament form of Kane, Vardy, and Alli, and how Rooney is inevitably crow-barred into the team.
The defence is an obvious weak point, but that's down to lack of options rather than poor selection. For the first time since Euro 96 I am actually looking forward to going into a tournament with a well stocked, pretty exciting (and in-form) forward line, and a ton of options in midfield including a couple of genuine match-winners. With a squad that is full of confidence after a very successful (and at times very enjoyable to watch) qualifying campaign.
Most of the squad is young, half of them have not been a part of previous tournament disasters, and the mood amongst them as a group seems to be overwhelmingly positive.
Obviously we aren't going to win it, but I am actually pretty excited!
Squirrelofwoe said:
But if we did give youth and flair a chance and limped out at the group stages, the press would be screaming for blood asking why certain more experienced players were left out. The football press in this country is so absolutely toxic, particularly when it comes to the national team, that criticism is inevitable whichever route is taken- 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' etc.
This is true. When McLaren dropped Beckham (the only good thing he did in his reign) the press went mad. And the press and public blamed that on our subsequent failings. But Beckham was playing crap when he was dropped. He was worse than Rooney is now. Here's why Kane has to start http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/spurs-tv/features/...
Daz68 said:
Spanna said:
Two lots of brilliant build up play already, good finish by Kane.
Yep nice build up but well Off Side.Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff