The Official England Thread-The Team We All Support [Vol 2]
Discussion
Cobnapint said:
Thankyou4calling said:
to be honest, i think far too much is made of tactics and formations. Football isn't a sport like say American football where you have "Plays" and special teams.
One thing doesn't necessarily lead to an assured outcome.
I think tactics and formations are talked about a lot by say the presenters on Talksport as they have so much airtime to fill they have to say something and that leads to armchair experts (myself included) focusing on it too.
I was at Wembley last night, up in the gods and it's a very interesting place to watch a match. If you weren't told before you literally wouldn't have known who was a striker and who was a defender.
When England are defending a corner, all 11 players are in there area defending, no one is hanging around the centre circle.
When they are attacking all players are attacking hence Smalling a central defender scores from a "Strikers" position.
Modern footballers don't hang around the six yard box, blimey even the goal keeper is coming 20 or 30 yards out of the area for large parts of the game.
So all this talk about diamond, 442, 4321, 433 is coming much more from us and commentators than the actual football managers who seem to field what they've done for years and that is a left back, a right back, two centre halves, 4 midfielders and two strikers and a goalie.
Obviously there is a formation and tactics but the players are, it seems to me a lot more fluid and interchangeable.
A lot of commentators fixate on formations as if they are the key to success, I disagree and again I'm not looking to be argumentative for the sake of it.
Quite agree. I've always said this. Once the whistle blows, everybody more or less scatters into space appropriate for where the ball and/or opposition is at any given moment.One thing doesn't necessarily lead to an assured outcome.
I think tactics and formations are talked about a lot by say the presenters on Talksport as they have so much airtime to fill they have to say something and that leads to armchair experts (myself included) focusing on it too.
I was at Wembley last night, up in the gods and it's a very interesting place to watch a match. If you weren't told before you literally wouldn't have known who was a striker and who was a defender.
When England are defending a corner, all 11 players are in there area defending, no one is hanging around the centre circle.
When they are attacking all players are attacking hence Smalling a central defender scores from a "Strikers" position.
Modern footballers don't hang around the six yard box, blimey even the goal keeper is coming 20 or 30 yards out of the area for large parts of the game.
So all this talk about diamond, 442, 4321, 433 is coming much more from us and commentators than the actual football managers who seem to field what they've done for years and that is a left back, a right back, two centre halves, 4 midfielders and two strikers and a goalie.
Obviously there is a formation and tactics but the players are, it seems to me a lot more fluid and interchangeable.
A lot of commentators fixate on formations as if they are the key to success, I disagree and again I'm not looking to be argumentative for the sake of it.
Milner was absolutely rubbish last night.
He looked out of place for so many reasons.
Portugal are an aging side yet he still looked extremely slow and was taken off the ball almost every time when he was lucky to get it.
He and Rooney looked old and tired in a next gen team. Shame they were hamstrung by an idiot's plan.
What do you think he brings to the team?
He looked out of place for so many reasons.
Portugal are an aging side yet he still looked extremely slow and was taken off the ball almost every time when he was lucky to get it.
He and Rooney looked old and tired in a next gen team. Shame they were hamstrung by an idiot's plan.
What do you think he brings to the team?
Mothersruin said:
Milner was absolutely rubbish last night.
He looked out of place for so many reasons.
Portugal are an aging side yet he still looked extremely slow and was taken off the ball almost every time when he was lucky to get it.
He and Rooney looked old and tired in a next gen team. Shame they were hamstrung by an idiot's plan.
What do you think he brings to the team?
I'd pick Drinkwater ahead of him personally....needs someone else who can tackle, can't all be left to Dier. So it's either Milner or Henderson and I think that Milner would offer a bit of width, over Henderson. It's a choice of 2 not very good players though I'm afraid.He looked out of place for so many reasons.
Portugal are an aging side yet he still looked extremely slow and was taken off the ball almost every time when he was lucky to get it.
He and Rooney looked old and tired in a next gen team. Shame they were hamstrung by an idiot's plan.
What do you think he brings to the team?
TEKNOPUG said:
Mothersruin said:
Milner was absolutely rubbish last night.
He looked out of place for so many reasons.
Portugal are an aging side yet he still looked extremely slow and was taken off the ball almost every time when he was lucky to get it.
He and Rooney looked old and tired in a next gen team. Shame they were hamstrung by an idiot's plan.
What do you think he brings to the team?
I'd pick Drinkwater ahead of him personally....needs someone else who can tackle, can't all be left to Dier. So it's either Milner or Henderson and I think that Milner would offer a bit of width, over Henderson. It's a choice of 2 not very good players though I'm afraid.He looked out of place for so many reasons.
Portugal are an aging side yet he still looked extremely slow and was taken off the ball almost every time when he was lucky to get it.
He and Rooney looked old and tired in a next gen team. Shame they were hamstrung by an idiot's plan.
What do you think he brings to the team?
London424 said:
Cobnapint said:
Thankyou4calling said:
to be honest, i think far too much is made of tactics and formations. Football isn't a sport like say American football where you have "Plays" and special teams.
One thing doesn't necessarily lead to an assured outcome.
I think tactics and formations are talked about a lot by say the presenters on Talksport as they have so much airtime to fill they have to say something and that leads to armchair experts (myself included) focusing on it too.
I was at Wembley last night, up in the gods and it's a very interesting place to watch a match. If you weren't told before you literally wouldn't have known who was a striker and who was a defender.
When England are defending a corner, all 11 players are in there area defending, no one is hanging around the centre circle.
When they are attacking all players are attacking hence Smalling a central defender scores from a "Strikers" position.
Modern footballers don't hang around the six yard box, blimey even the goal keeper is coming 20 or 30 yards out of the area for large parts of the game.
So all this talk about diamond, 442, 4321, 433 is coming much more from us and commentators than the actual football managers who seem to field what they've done for years and that is a left back, a right back, two centre halves, 4 midfielders and two strikers and a goalie.
Obviously there is a formation and tactics but the players are, it seems to me a lot more fluid and interchangeable.
A lot of commentators fixate on formations as if they are the key to success, I disagree and again I'm not looking to be argumentative for the sake of it.
Quite agree. I've always said this. Once the whistle blows, everybody more or less scatters into space appropriate for where the ball and/or opposition is at any given moment.One thing doesn't necessarily lead to an assured outcome.
I think tactics and formations are talked about a lot by say the presenters on Talksport as they have so much airtime to fill they have to say something and that leads to armchair experts (myself included) focusing on it too.
I was at Wembley last night, up in the gods and it's a very interesting place to watch a match. If you weren't told before you literally wouldn't have known who was a striker and who was a defender.
When England are defending a corner, all 11 players are in there area defending, no one is hanging around the centre circle.
When they are attacking all players are attacking hence Smalling a central defender scores from a "Strikers" position.
Modern footballers don't hang around the six yard box, blimey even the goal keeper is coming 20 or 30 yards out of the area for large parts of the game.
So all this talk about diamond, 442, 4321, 433 is coming much more from us and commentators than the actual football managers who seem to field what they've done for years and that is a left back, a right back, two centre halves, 4 midfielders and two strikers and a goalie.
Obviously there is a formation and tactics but the players are, it seems to me a lot more fluid and interchangeable.
A lot of commentators fixate on formations as if they are the key to success, I disagree and again I'm not looking to be argumentative for the sake of it.
Whether we agree or not its not all total football. These guys are drilled to know what runs to make when, what area's people should be playing in, how to make space for others, if Ex player is in that area, then you should be in this area etc. At international level its harder to win games, and for these reasons tatics and formations play a huge role.
Black can man said:
Hart
Clyne Cahill Smalling Rose
Dier Barclay
Walker Alli Lallana
Kane
My ideal choice & bundles of energy all over the field
That's basically the exact same setup as I would go for- with the probable exception of swapping Wilshere in for Barkley.Clyne Cahill Smalling Rose
Dier Barclay
Walker Alli Lallana
Kane
My ideal choice & bundles of energy all over the field
I really like the idea of playing Walker right-wing with Clyne at RB, Walker's link up play going forward is extremely good and he'd combine that with a ton of energy and offer fantastic cover defensively.
Tons of effort whist still providing good creativity. Would provide good options from the bench too with Rooney, Vardy, Sturridge, and Rashford all on there...
Squirrelofwoe said:
That's basically the exact same setup as I would go for- with the probable exception of swapping Wilshere in for Barkley.
I really like the idea of playing Walker right-wing with Clyne at RB, Walker's link up play going forward is extremely good and he'd combine that with a ton of energy and offer fantastic cover defensively.
Tons of effort whist still providing good creativity. Would provide good options from the bench too with Rooney, Vardy, Sturridge, and Rashford all on there...
Exactly how i see it, Clyne is a better defender than Walker but walker is lightning fast & his pace gets him out of the mire at times.I really like the idea of playing Walker right-wing with Clyne at RB, Walker's link up play going forward is extremely good and he'd combine that with a ton of energy and offer fantastic cover defensively.
Tons of effort whist still providing good creativity. Would provide good options from the bench too with Rooney, Vardy, Sturridge, and Rashford all on there...
I just feel if you let walker pile forward his pace would frighten the life out of full backs.
Two things: England play badly and by default it's Rooney's fault. Give the guy a break - Kane, Alli, Vardy and a number of others were all well below par the other night, yet somehow it's Rooney who's to blame. And no, he isn't singlehandedly responsible for everyone playing out of position hence having a bad game.
Secondly, if Germany, France, Italy, Spain or Holland had gone through their entire qualifying campaign winning every match and then subsequently their final three friendlies in the build up to the tournament we'd be singing their praises about typical winning mentality, managing to win ugly and getting results despite not playing at their best. Shame we can't do that. Yet instead when we do it we're unsure of line-ups, unsure of formations, unsure of tactics, lucky not to lose, the opposition were poor etc etc etc.
I genuinely believe the English are happier when we do bomb out because it gives them something to whine about and vindicates their pre tournament whining about how dreadful we are rather than seeing us actually achieve something.
Secondly, if Germany, France, Italy, Spain or Holland had gone through their entire qualifying campaign winning every match and then subsequently their final three friendlies in the build up to the tournament we'd be singing their praises about typical winning mentality, managing to win ugly and getting results despite not playing at their best. Shame we can't do that. Yet instead when we do it we're unsure of line-ups, unsure of formations, unsure of tactics, lucky not to lose, the opposition were poor etc etc etc.
I genuinely believe the English are happier when we do bomb out because it gives them something to whine about and vindicates their pre tournament whining about how dreadful we are rather than seeing us actually achieve something.
Antony Moxey said:
Two things: England play badly and by default it's Rooney's fault. Give the guy a break - Kane, Alli, Vardy and a number of others were all well below par the other night, yet somehow it's Rooney who's to blame. And no, he isn't singlehandedly responsible for everyone playing out of position hence having a bad game.
Secondly, if Germany, France, Italy, Spain or Holland had gone through their entire qualifying campaign winning every match and then subsequently their final three friendlies in the build up to the tournament we'd be singing their praises about typical winning mentality, managing to win ugly and getting results despite not playing at their best. Shame we can't do that. Yet instead when we do it we're unsure of line-ups, unsure of formations, unsure of tactics, lucky not to lose, the opposition were poor etc etc etc.
I genuinely believe the English are happier when we do bomb out because it gives them something to whine about and vindicates their pre tournament whining about how dreadful we are rather than seeing us actually achieve something.
Who''s blaming Rooney ?Secondly, if Germany, France, Italy, Spain or Holland had gone through their entire qualifying campaign winning every match and then subsequently their final three friendlies in the build up to the tournament we'd be singing their praises about typical winning mentality, managing to win ugly and getting results despite not playing at their best. Shame we can't do that. Yet instead when we do it we're unsure of line-ups, unsure of formations, unsure of tactics, lucky not to lose, the opposition were poor etc etc etc.
I genuinely believe the English are happier when we do bomb out because it gives them something to whine about and vindicates their pre tournament whining about how dreadful we are rather than seeing us actually achieve something.
Certainly not me but i do believe we are better without him.
Jason Cundy really excelled himself on Talksport last night and I simply can't believe he wasn't being told to spout the nonsense he was saying about Rooney.
He is our captain, our highest ever goal scorer, our leader and talisman.
He will lead our team out no matter what so deal with it and get supporting ENGLAND.
He is our captain, our highest ever goal scorer, our leader and talisman.
He will lead our team out no matter what so deal with it and get supporting ENGLAND.
Black can man said:
Antony Moxey said:
Two things: England play badly and by default it's Rooney's fault. Give the guy a break - Kane, Alli, Vardy and a number of others were all well below par the other night, yet somehow it's Rooney who's to blame. And no, he isn't singlehandedly responsible for everyone playing out of position hence having a bad game.
Secondly, if Germany, France, Italy, Spain or Holland had gone through their entire qualifying campaign winning every match and then subsequently their final three friendlies in the build up to the tournament we'd be singing their praises about typical winning mentality, managing to win ugly and getting results despite not playing at their best. Shame we can't do that. Yet instead when we do it we're unsure of line-ups, unsure of formations, unsure of tactics, lucky not to lose, the opposition were poor etc etc etc.
I genuinely believe the English are happier when we do bomb out because it gives them something to whine about and vindicates their pre tournament whining about how dreadful we are rather than seeing us actually achieve something.
Who''s blaming Rooney ?Secondly, if Germany, France, Italy, Spain or Holland had gone through their entire qualifying campaign winning every match and then subsequently their final three friendlies in the build up to the tournament we'd be singing their praises about typical winning mentality, managing to win ugly and getting results despite not playing at their best. Shame we can't do that. Yet instead when we do it we're unsure of line-ups, unsure of formations, unsure of tactics, lucky not to lose, the opposition were poor etc etc etc.
I genuinely believe the English are happier when we do bomb out because it gives them something to whine about and vindicates their pre tournament whining about how dreadful we are rather than seeing us actually achieve something.
Certainly not me but i do believe we are better without him.
Rooney is still our best player imo, I hope he plays in as free a role as possible.
Roy is frustrating.
On a positive note, he has picked genuine match winners in his squad (that includes Wilshere), which is very important.
On a negative though, he's asking for way too much defensive work from his two forwards if the Portugal game is anything to go by.
Roy is frustrating.
On a positive note, he has picked genuine match winners in his squad (that includes Wilshere), which is very important.
On a negative though, he's asking for way too much defensive work from his two forwards if the Portugal game is anything to go by.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff