|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2012 22:39:47 GMT
Rob: Sweden's midfield played much better than ours IMO and they are the most 'England like' team that we could play. It was a good (close) game but we could easily have lost it as we could have the Ukraine game. The general opinion would have been very different had that happened so I don't think we should be blinded by an overall poor performance against some pretty average teams and a France team that went home in disgrace (although they still completely outplayed US). You said "Guess what France and Italy are better than us". Strangely enough many were saying this was the poorest Italy side for many years and we would beat them! I ha-ppen to think you're right, they are both better than us but not MUCH. Furthermore we are better than Sweden and Ukraine but struggled against both IMO. France had a terrible tournament and only managed to look good against ONE team. Can't quite recall who that was. It was Ukraine. Who they beat 2-0. France didn't look amazing against us but were the better team because they're better. Again, context. We had less preparation time and our weakest squad for years. People seem to be struggling with that. England are closer to teams like Sweden and Croatia than to Italy and France.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jun 27, 2012 22:40:09 GMT
Indeed, thank you for that. I DO get carried away. Still think we were second best for most of the Ukraine game though and could easily have lost ALL of our games. I thought we were very, very lucky in every single game. Maybe slightly lucky against France but can you recall them creating a clear goal scoring opportunity? Against Sweden and Ukraine we were the better team. We weren't brilliant and there were certainly spells where we struggled but we just about deserved the victory. Against Italy we were very lucky. They probably should have won at least 2 or 3 nil before in the ninety minutes. Maybe because you're angry with how wank we were against Italy you're looking back on our games in the group stages slightly differently? You need to have seen my posts from a few days ago mate to realise why your last sentence is so wrong. I was saying back then that Italy would murder our midfield because I knew we wouldn't cope with Pirlo playing 4 -4 - 2. It's pretty depressing that our manager either didn't know it or chose to ignore it even after witnessing it for the first 45 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jun 27, 2012 22:56:20 GMT
Rob: I agree that we are closer to Croatia and Sweden than France and Italy. That said, France and Italy are no world beaters either IMO. I know they beat Ukraine but they weren't GOOD in that game. They only actually looked GOOD against OUR midfield but were poor up front. No wonder to anyone that their midfield was so much better than ours since they had an extra man in there. To then go into a game against Italy and do the same again was very poor management IMO. Given that France and Italy are better than us and both build on a 5 man midfield, just how stupid is it to give them a man advantage and play to their strengths?
I've said it again and again, I accept where England are and that there are many much better teams than ours. My complaint lies in the managerial decisions that were made during this tournament which actually fly in the face of what we know about the manager's experience and tactical awareness. And I'm not blinded by "how close we came" when I know that we came very close to going home in disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2012 23:03:35 GMT
Rob: I agree that we are closer to Croatia and Sweden than France and Italy. That said, France and Italy are no world beaters either IMO. I know they beat Ukraine but they weren't GOOD in that game. They only actually looked GOOD against OUR midfield but were poor up front. No wonder to anyone that their midfield was so much better than ours since they had an extra man in there. To then go into a game against Italy and do the same again was very poor management IMO. Given that France and Italy are better than us and both build on a 5 man midfield, just how stupid is it to give them a man advantage and play to their strengths? I've said it again and again, I accept where England are and that there are many much better teams than ours. My complaint lies in the managerial decisions that were made during this tournament which actually fly in the face of what we know about the manager's experience and tactical awareness. And I'm not blinded by "how close we came" when I know that we came very close to going home in disgrace. I really don't think "disgrace" is an appropriate word anyway Doz. That implies a weight of expectation we had no right to have. Tactically I agree that 442 has got to go but again, this tournament was about confidence and players and manager getting a feel for each other, no more, no less. For me, it showed that there is cause for optimism for the first time in a while. TP tactically leaves a lot to be desired yet you're far more forgiving there?
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jun 27, 2012 23:14:33 GMT
Rob: I agree that we are closer to Croatia and Sweden than France and Italy. That said, France and Italy are no world beaters either IMO. I know they beat Ukraine but they weren't GOOD in that game. They only actually looked GOOD against OUR midfield but were poor up front. No wonder to anyone that their midfield was so much better than ours since they had an extra man in there. To then go into a game against Italy and do the same again was very poor management IMO. Given that France and Italy are better than us and both build on a 5 man midfield, just how stupid is it to give them a man advantage and play to their strengths? I've said it again and again, I accept where England are and that there are many much better teams than ours. My complaint lies in the managerial decisions that were made during this tournament which actually fly in the face of what we know about the manager's experience and tactical awareness. And I'm not blinded by "how close we came" when I know that we came very close to going home in disgrace. I really don't think "disgrace" is an appropriate word anyway Doz. That implies a weight of expectation we had no right to have. Tactically I agree that 442 has got to go but again, this tournament was about confidence and players and manager getting a feel for each other, no more, no less. For me, it showed that there is cause for optimism for the first time in a while. TP tactically leaves a lot to be desired yet you're far more forgiving there? Rob: I like your posts mate and, even if I often disagree, you're a clever chap and it's good to debate but I have often criticised Pulis even though (admittedly) I support him in general. He makes some mind-boggling decisions at times and he just HAS to be the most frustrating of managers. Thing is though, he does tend to do what HE thinks is the best for coping with the opposition. He gets criticised all the time for paying too much attention to our opponents to the detriment of improving our own game and I think some of that criticism is well founded and I HAVE said so many times rob. In these few games, I'm accusing the England manager of doing the opposite and ignoring the threat that the opposition present. I agree that he's tried to 'settle' the side and build some confidence and I think he's achieved SOMETHING if only in getting his players on side and willing to follow him. I'm just expressing a view on what I've seen rob and I can't fathom his thinking, particularly in the France and Italy games. I know, at the end of the day, the tournament looks a pretty solid one from England's point of view if taken literally but I think that hides a multitude of sins. Bit like Stoke at times ;D BTW: I AM forgiving of Hodgson and I think he's got a hell of a job on his hands but I AM allowed to criticise decisions if I disagree with them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2012 23:21:15 GMT
I take those points on board Doz but I still think people aren't appreciating the context and the circumstances.
I think Hodgson went out there mainly with the intention of getting the players used to his methods and getting a bit of belief back. For once, we had an England team that played for the shirt, that didn't look like it had the weight of the world on its shoulders, and that looked like it gave a shit. And all with the weakest squad for years. I think it was a tougher group than many are making out and we did very well to top it all things considered. At this stage of the game I think the positives on balance outweigh the negatives.
Anyway, I'm off to bed. A pleasure as always Doz - you're a gent.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jun 27, 2012 23:24:05 GMT
I take those points on board Doz but I still think people aren't appreciating the context and the circumstances. I think Hodgson went out there mainly with the intention of getting the players used to his methods and getting a bit of belief back. For once, we had an England team that played for the shirt, that didn't look like it had the weight of the world on its shoulders, and that looked like it gave a shit. And all with the weakest squad for years. I think it was a tougher group than many are making out and we did very well to top it all things considered. At this stage of the game I think the positives on balance outweigh the negatives. Anyway, I'm off to bed. A pleasure as always Doz - you're a gent. Night mate. I'm hard to please at times (so the wife says). ;D
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Jun 28, 2012 0:01:43 GMT
Hodgson's biggest dose of luck was the fact Lampard and Cahill got injured.
With Cahill at the back instead of Lescott, as Roy had planned, we'd have had a much worse tournament.
With Lampard fit either (A) he would have picked him alongside Gerrard to relive our favourite nightmares or (B) with Lampard dropped the old Terry/Lampard/Cole clique would have wrecked the team spirit as they did at Chelsea this season.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jun 28, 2012 1:44:01 GMT
My argument is fairly straightforward.
Hodgson made a lot of little mistakes, but also took one big stride forward.
He killed off the arrogant attitude that English supporters, players and managers have about England being world beaters and the players needing to play their natural game and being a match for anyone etc. Gone were the days of playing players in roles they weren't suited to, shoehorning the players with big sponsorship deals and reputations in the side and so on. He chose a system, picked the players for it and in a very short time made sure they were well drilled in it. In the last tournament England lined up against a pacey German attack with the monopaced John Terry and Matthew Upson playing a high defensive line on the halfway line. It was a bloodbath. This year, the defenders played deep, with the two midfielders covering them. How much more solid were England? In 120 minutes, they restricted Italy to half chances and shots from 30 yards. They went out without losing a game.
Until some players come through who are genuine world beaters, then this must be the approach.
The future is promising under Hodgson.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 28, 2012 6:42:59 GMT
We clearly lacked flexibility in the squad to make differences to our system. This is where Roy Hodgson shouldn’t be heavily criticised. The nature of English football doesn’t make for international success. No manager can change an entire football culture in six weeks. That is the key issue.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 7:39:10 GMT
We clearly lacked flexibility in the squad to make differences to our system. This is where Roy Hodgson shouldn’t be heavily criticised. The nature of English football doesn’t make for international success. No manager can change an entire football culture in six weeks. That is the key issue. if he'd made a couple of substitutions and went to a 5 man midfield and brought the ox on to stick nearer to pirlo then i doubt we would have been as outplayed as we were. a simple tweak was required and he didn't have the imagination. the only problem in this country is the lack of tactical awareness and inability to adapt during a game situation. we always get out-thought against the top teams we do need to overhaul the system and pay for more coaches so this awareness and intelligence can be coached in to youngsters and we can get more players through. but the gulf is not great. people have reverted to the old cliches since sunday and it is total rubbish. a change in our tactical approach is required and if we work on a new shape now we can already see marked improvements by the time the next tournament comes around lets hope hodgson learned his lesson
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 7:41:32 GMT
We clearly lacked flexibility in the squad to make differences to our system. This is where Roy Hodgson shouldn’t be heavily criticised. The nature of English football doesn’t make for international success. No manager can change an entire football culture in six weeks. That is the key issue. if he'd made a couple of substitutions and went to a 5 man midfield and brought the ox on to stick nearer to pirlo then i doubt we would have been as outplayed as we were. a simple tweak was required and he didn't have the imagination. the only problem in this country is the lack of tactical awareness and inability to adapt during a game situation. we always get out-thought against the top teams we do need to overhaul the system and pay for more coaches so this awareness and intelligence can be coached in to youngsters and we can get more players through. but the gulf is not great. people have reverted to the old cliches since sunday and it is total rubbish. a change in our tactical approach is required and if we work on a new shape now we can already see marked improvements by the time the next tournament comes around lets hope hodgson learned his lesson What exactly are these "old cliches" that are "total rubbish" out of interest?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 7:47:14 GMT
if he'd made a couple of substitutions and went to a 5 man midfield and brought the ox on to stick nearer to pirlo then i doubt we would have been as outplayed as we were. a simple tweak was required and he didn't have the imagination. the only problem in this country is the lack of tactical awareness and inability to adapt during a game situation. we always get out-thought against the top teams we do need to overhaul the system and pay for more coaches so this awareness and intelligence can be coached in to youngsters and we can get more players through. but the gulf is not great. people have reverted to the old cliches since sunday and it is total rubbish. a change in our tactical approach is required and if we work on a new shape now we can already see marked improvements by the time the next tournament comes around lets hope hodgson learned his lesson What exactly are these "old cliches" that are "total rubbish" out of interest? the two Alan's last night, talking about foreign players being better at trapping a ball, that sort of thing. it's total rubbish. Martin Samuels column in the mail yesterday is excellent and sums up better what i'm trying to say. tactics/shape is the key failing with england. although alarmingly, poor physical fitness was apparent on Sunday
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 7:51:11 GMT
What exactly are these "old cliches" that are "total rubbish" out of interest? the two Alan's last night, talking about foreign players being better at trapping a ball, that sort of thing. it's total rubbish. Martin Samuels column in the mail yesterday is excellent and sums up better what i'm trying to say. tactics/shape is the key failing with england. although alarmingly, poor physical fitness was apparent on Sunday I think there's no question that other nations and footballing cultures value technical ability more than we do, and that that's held us back. There's rarely been room for a Maradona type in our game. Or even a Pirlo, arguably.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 7:58:20 GMT
the two Alan's last night, talking about foreign players being better at trapping a ball, that sort of thing. it's total rubbish. Martin Samuels column in the mail yesterday is excellent and sums up better what i'm trying to say. tactics/shape is the key failing with england. although alarmingly, poor physical fitness was apparent on Sunday I think there's no question that other nations and footballing cultures value technical ability more than we do, and that that's held us back. There's rarely been room for a Maradona type in our game. Or even a Pirlo, arguably. true, if pirlo was english he'd probably be plying his trade somewhere in the lower divisions right now. but what is this 'technical ability' everyone talks about? passing a ball? keeping possession? all the top players have that ability including the english players. and how many people before the game were saying it was a '50-50' game? that's because on paper there wasn't much to shout about in terms of the italian players. it is preposterous to argue that on paper they are significantly better. tactics/shape determine how well these top players keep the ball, keep possession, and prevent the other team from hurting them
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 8:18:00 GMT
I think there's no question that other nations and footballing cultures value technical ability more than we do, and that that's held us back. There's rarely been room for a Maradona type in our game. Or even a Pirlo, arguably. true, if pirlo was english he'd probably be plying his trade somewhere in the lower divisions right now. but what is this 'technical ability' everyone talks about? passing a ball? keeping possession? all the top players have that ability including the english players. and how many people before the game were saying it was a '50-50' game? that's because on paper there wasn't much to shout about in terms of the italian players. it is preposterous to argue that on paper they are significantly better. tactics/shape determine how well these top players keep the ball, keep possession, and prevent the other team from hurting them I agree to an extent but I do believe that we don't bring youngsters up to be comfortable with the ball (hence panic ensuing when things aren't going our way) and we don't look to build our teams around the creativity and invention of the number 10 types that the better footballing nations do (nor do we produce anywhere near as many). I never quite bought the 50-50 thing with Italy. Looking at their side and ours, 6-8 of them would easily get into the England team and about three of ours at an absolute maximum would get into theirs.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 28, 2012 9:11:12 GMT
The 50-50 thing was utter bollox. We were underdogs. As we were delighted to avoid Spain in the quarter final, Italy were just as relieved to facing England not France.
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Jun 28, 2012 12:30:19 GMT
Oh, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky Engerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrland.
Full of yes man that bow to some supposed supremist who revels in the players who've got a big branded club behind e'm...
Fcuk e'm off, the bunch of tossers and fcuk those underperforming bunch of tossers who played too.
Wankers.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 12:56:29 GMT
Oh, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky Engerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrland. Full of yes man that bow to some supposed supremist who revels in the players who've got a big branded club behind e'm... Fcuk e'm off, the bunch of tossers and fcuk those underperforming bunch of tossers who played too. Wankers. Yet when Stoke play like that you can't whack it out fast enough
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Jun 28, 2012 13:10:48 GMT
Oh, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky Engerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrland. Full of yes man that bow to some supposed supremist who revels in the players who've got a big branded club behind e'm... Fcuk e'm off, the bunch of tossers and fcuk those underperforming bunch of tossers who played too. Wankers. Yet when Stoke play like that you can't whack it out fast enough England have underperformed for years upon tears....Oh, hold on... Even with the best young players they'd had at their disposal over the years they went on to deliver the square root of jack shit. Cnuts.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jun 28, 2012 13:18:06 GMT
Oh, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky Engerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrland. Full of yes man that bow to some supposed supremist who revels in the players who've got a big branded club behind e'm... Fcuk e'm off, the bunch of tossers and fcuk those underperforming bunch of tossers who played too. Wankers. You said they were all wankers for many years now Taz and how you wouldnt want any of those overpaid underperforming wankers at Stoke. Whatever happened to Peter Crouch?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:19:46 GMT
Yet when Stoke play like that you can't whack it out fast enough England have underperformed for years upon tears....Oh, hold on... Even with the best young players they'd had at their disposal over the years they went on to deliver the square root of jack shit. Cnuts. But at this tournament they didn't "underperform" at the very least they achieved par.
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Jun 28, 2012 13:53:07 GMT
Hodgson is the classic 'safe pair of hands' appointment and did ok with the limited time and the paucity of talent we have available. That Jordan Henderson is seen is some quarters as the future of England is worrying. In my view there is only one solution to improve our players and subsequently the national team and that is a stringent limit on foreign players. It's no coincidence that the percentage of non home grown players to foreign players in La Liga and Bundesliga is around 30% foreign. In England its a massive 70%. That needs to change but it wont for all sorts of reasons and would be to implement. The down side of course is that our regular Euro representatives will bitch and moan about not being able to compete. Poor lambs...but unless you are associated with the usual suspects then many would sacrfice a few seasons of poor euro performances to improve our national team.
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Jun 28, 2012 13:57:34 GMT
Oh, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky, wanky Engerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrland. Full of yes man that bow to some supposed supremist who revels in the players who've got a big branded club behind e'm... Fcuk e'm off, the bunch of tossers and fcuk those underperforming bunch of tossers who played too. Wankers. You said they were all wankers for many years now Taz and how you wouldnt want any of those overpaid underperforming wankers at Stoke. Whatever happened to Peter Crouch? What makes you think they're any good mate?... If they couldn't win something when the likes of Owen, Beckham, Ferdinand 'and there's many more' were in their prime then what makes you think than an ageing John Terry and Stevie Gerrard coupled with the wankness of a Milner and an Henderson 'and there's many more' are any better?... They're wank mate, full of their own fcuking hype 'Rooney etc etc' which is something Crouch most definately isn't full of. Come to terms with it mate that they're fcuking useless.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 14:04:18 GMT
You said they were all wankers for many years now Taz and how you wouldnt want any of those overpaid underperforming wankers at Stoke. Whatever happened to Peter Crouch? What makes you think they're any good mate?... If they couldn't win something when the likes of Owen, Beckham, Ferdinand 'and there's many more' were in their prime then what makes you think than an ageing John Terry and Stevie Gerrard coupled with the wankness of a Milner and an Henderson 'and there's many more' are any better?... They're wank mate, full of their own fcuking hype 'Rooney etc etc' which is something Crouch most definately isn't full of. Come to terms with it mate that they're fcuking useless. What's your point Taz? Most of us know England are no world-beaters. At this tournament there actually seemed to be a bit of unity and pride in the shirt for a change. That's a good thing, no?
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jun 28, 2012 14:27:09 GMT
You said they were all wankers for many years now Taz and how you wouldnt want any of those overpaid underperforming wankers at Stoke. Whatever happened to Peter Crouch? What makes you think they're any good mate?... If they couldn't win something when the likes of Owen, Beckham, Ferdinand 'and there's many more' were in their prime then what makes you think than an ageing John Terry and Stevie Gerrard coupled with the wankness of a Milner and an Henderson 'and there's many more' are any better?... They're wank mate, full of their own fcuking hype 'Rooney etc etc' which is something Crouch most definately isn't full of. Come to terms with it mate that they're fcuking useless. Answer the question mate......you said ALL OF EM all those years ago And yes we are years behind mate.....both at international and club level
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Jun 28, 2012 14:51:10 GMT
What makes you think they're any good mate?... If they couldn't win something when the likes of Owen, Beckham, Ferdinand 'and there's many more' were in their prime then what makes you think than an ageing John Terry and Stevie Gerrard coupled with the wankness of a Milner and an Henderson 'and there's many more' are any better?... They're wank mate, full of their own fcuking hype 'Rooney etc etc' which is something Crouch most definately isn't full of. Come to terms with it mate that they're fcuking useless. Answer the question mate......you said ALL OF EM all those years ago And yes we are years behind mate.....both at international and club level Bang to rights....Didn't mean all because there are a couple of decent lads who dont believe their own hype and Crouch is one of these and until those that do believe their hype change that attitude or they're fcuked off completely then England will remain fcuking useless.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jun 28, 2012 14:56:22 GMT
Answer the question mate......you said ALL OF EM all those years ago And yes we are years behind mate.....both at international and club level Bang to rights....Didn't mean all because there are a couple of decent lads who dont believe their own hype and Crouch is one of these and until those that do believe their hype change that attitude or they're fcuked off completely then England will remain fcuking useless. Quality answer and the one i expected Taz ;D And the next England player to sign for Stoke will also become immune from your opinion also? Priceless
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Jun 28, 2012 15:11:24 GMT
Bang to rights....Didn't mean all because there are a couple of decent lads who dont believe their own hype and Crouch is one of these and until those that do believe their hype change that attitude or they're fcuked off completely then England will remain fcuking useless. Quality answer and the one i expected Taz ;D And the next England player to sign for Stoke will also become immune from your opinion also? Priceless Seperate issues mate.... If they come to play for Stoke all well and good and providing they do the buisness i dont care if they believe their hype. Whereas England are concerned that's exactly why they're crap, they should be privaleged wear the famous shirt instead of coming across as though it's England that should be grateful. They're good players of which their's little doubt but they dont do it for their country. They're pathetic and until this mentality changes that you need to be with a big club before England let you in is a fcuking joke.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jun 28, 2012 15:14:24 GMT
Quality answer and the one i expected Taz ;D And the next England player to sign for Stoke will also become immune from your opinion also? Priceless Seperate issues mate.... If they come to play for Stoke all well and good and providing they do the buisness i dont care if they believe their hype. Whereas England are concerned that's exactly why they're crap, they should be privaleged wear the famous shirt instead of coming across as though it's England that should be grateful. They're good players of which their's little doubt but they dont do it for their country. They're pathetic and until this mentality changes that you need to be with a big club before England let you in is a fcuking joke. Those last few words are bang on mate. Fuck me we agree on something footie!!!.....Nurse ;D
|
|