|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 7:57:32 GMT
Whether Italy were contenders it not they were always likely to be better than us. Because they, you know, are. That's why I didn't get the wailing and gnashing of teeth on here. It's folly to expect England to do anything at the best of times, but it's especially daft to expect a lot from the weakest England squad in 20 years, with key players missing and a managed parachuted into the job six weeks before the tournament. People on here seemed to expect us to play swashbuckling football and match France and Italy step for step. It was never going to happen. We actually marginally over-achieved of anything. I'm not sure that being completely shite and very lucky can be even remotely close to an achievement, marginal or otherwise. We weren't completely shite. We were good against Sweden and though not brilliant we were the better team against Ukraine. Many tipped us not to make it out of the group. We topped it. France and Italy outplayed us but then they're better than us. Yes we were a touch negative but people need to view it in the context of a team and manager at the very start of trying to build something. There are a fair few positives to take from England's tournament. It's just some people would do anything rather than take them, because it's more fun to keep peddling the "NO PASSION! PRIMA DONNAS!" line rather than accept that England aren't a footballing powerhouse and never really have been in the course of the last 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by superjonnywalters on Jun 29, 2012 8:20:46 GMT
It doesn't make me feel any better at all.
In fact, it makes me feel even worse.
The Semi's have proven that none of the teams, Spain and Germany included, are unbeatable or out-of-reach.
If we'd have been positive we could have done better.
More Ox, less Milner would have been a decent start. More Theo, less Young.
Just a more positive approach in general instead of surrendering 70% of possesion and dozens of chances to the opposition.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 8:26:16 GMT
It doesn't make me feel any better at all. In fact, it makes me feel even worse. The Semi's have proven that none of the teams, Spain and Germany included, are unbeatable or out-of-reach. If we'd have been positive we could have done better. More Ox, less Milner would have been a decent start. More Theo, less Young. Just a more positive approach in general instead of surrendering 70% of possesion and dozens of chances to the opposition. Theo only really had one good spell off the bench didn't he? Few were clamouring for him to start before the competition. Given we topped the group, the only real criticisms that can be laid are in the second half and extra time performances against Italy, where fatigue set in and the manager got it wrong in terms of set up and subs.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Jun 29, 2012 8:33:00 GMT
Feeling better? Marginally - however I think that we would have lost to Germany.
Although I believe that the German team expected to win their semi whoever they played - so well done to the Italians for outplaying them for most of the game.
Just a pity I have no Italians in my Dream Team!
|
|
|
Post by superjonnywalters on Jun 29, 2012 8:35:06 GMT
It doesn't make me feel any better at all. In fact, it makes me feel even worse. The Semi's have proven that none of the teams, Spain and Germany included, are unbeatable or out-of-reach. If we'd have been positive we could have done better. More Ox, less Milner would have been a decent start. More Theo, less Young. Just a more positive approach in general instead of surrendering 70% of possesion and dozens of chances to the opposition. Theo only really had one good spell off the bench didn't he? Few were clamouring for him to start before the competition. Given we topped the group, the only real criticisms that can be laid are in the second half and extra time performances against Italy, where fatigue set in and the manager got it wrong in terms of set up and subs. You say Theo only had one good spell from the bench but how many good spells did Ashley Young and James Milner have combined in the 4 games they were given by Hodgson? Ox looked a much better and more exciting option in the opener and then got dropped. Theo changed the game when he came on and then wasn't allowed to push on from there. We were too negative IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Jun 29, 2012 8:48:12 GMT
No. Because come 2014 we will still be miles behind technically,and most likely in 2016,2018 and 2020 too. Anyway,because we draw with Italy and Germany lost to Italy, does not make us better than Germany. Last season we got a draw V Chelsea.Chelsea got a draw V Barca,that doesn't put us on a par with Barca. does it.?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 9:10:08 GMT
Theo only really had one good spell off the bench didn't he? Few were clamouring for him to start before the competition. Given we topped the group, the only real criticisms that can be laid are in the second half and extra time performances against Italy, where fatigue set in and the manager got it wrong in terms of set up and subs. You say Theo only had one good spell from the bench but how many good spells did Ashley Young and James Milner have combined in the 4 games they were given by Hodgson? Ox looked a much better and more exciting option in the opener and then got dropped. Theo changed the game when he came on and then wasn't allowed to push on from there. We were too negative IMO. None, but that's being said with the benefit of hindsight (where Young's concerned at least). I don't recall a big movement for Theo to start ahead of Young before the Sweden game, and Theo didn't do much after the Sweden game when he came on either. In my opinion Theo's role in future should be as an impact sub. Milner was there as a stopgap to babysit Johnson and I think going forward he won't play as big a role. As I said, we topped the group ad created some decent chances in most games. The only time it was really a problem was after half time against Italy, and the manager definitely got it wrong then.
|
|
|
Post by superjonnywalters on Jun 29, 2012 9:21:27 GMT
I don't have the stats to hand Rob but I'm pretty sure Italy had 2/3 of possession and around 30 shots to our half a dozen.
You can say we were perhaps unlucky and point to the Johnson chance etc but if you try and look at it from a neutral point of view, we didn't deserve anything from the match.
If it had been 2 other countries playing, and not England, I'm pretty sure we'd all be saying the team that dominated possesion and created 5 fold more chances deserved to go through.
I agree, not many were calling for Theo to start prior to the tournament but after his cameo from the bench I'm pretty sure it can be labelled a negative move to start the following match with Milner again at his expense.
The "Milner is in to cover for Johnson" argurment angers me too. Basically that equates too "Hodgson picked a liability at full back so he had to pick a shit winger to cover him".
Don't get me wrong, I think we did ok and there's no shame going out, unbeaten over 90 minutes. We topped our group and went out on pens and Italy have gone on to make the final so in that aspect, given the quality of our squad and the fact Hodgson's had hardly any time, we've done pretty well.
I still think we were too negative though. Milner is not an international winger. He's not an international player full stop.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 9:24:01 GMT
If we carry on like we are England as a football nation will be on a par with Scotland and Ireland in 20 years time. We are light years behind in terms of ability, plenty of effort but no where near good enough. Such a sad state of affairs.
|
|
|
Post by prideofthemidlands on Jun 29, 2012 9:28:58 GMT
accept that England aren't a footballing powerhouse and never really have been in the course of the last 50 years. Remind me how many World Cups Holland have won? Portugal as well?
|
|
|
Post by prideofthemidlands on Jun 29, 2012 9:30:10 GMT
If we carry on like we are England as a football nation will be on a par with Scotland and Ireland in 20 years time. We are light years behind in terms of ability, plenty of effort but no where near good enough. Such a sad state of affairs. Not really. Scotland can't even qualify and Ireland lost all their matches. We did better than Holland and France at this tournament.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jun 29, 2012 9:30:53 GMT
The biggest disappointment for me was the witless move back to the caveman 4-4-2
Regardless of any technical deficiencies, that's basically playing with one hand tied behind your back.
|
|
|
Post by prideofthemidlands on Jun 29, 2012 9:32:21 GMT
The technical/tactical inferiority is huge all consuming and growing. There's nowhere to hide anymore. If Man you (Jones, Ferdinand, Rooney, Smalling, Carrick, Young, Welbeck, Scholes, Cleverley) played Juventus (Buffon, Chiellini, Pepe, Marchisio, De Ceglie, Barzagli, Quagliarella, Bonucci, Padoin, Pirlo, Giaccherini, Storari, Matri, Marrone) in the Champions League next season would they get dominated like we got dominated by Italy? No. Why? Because Fergie does not employ cautious, negative tactics.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jun 29, 2012 9:33:31 GMT
The technical/tactical inferiority is huge all consuming and growing. There's nowhere to hide anymore. If Man you (Jones, Ferdinand, Rooney, Smalling, Carrick, Young, Welbeck, Scholes, Cleverley) played Juventus (Buffon, Chiellini, Pepe, Marchisio, De Ceglie, Barzagli, Quagliarella, Bonucci, Padoin, Pirlo, Giaccherini, Storari, Matri, Marrone) in the Champions League next season but they get dominated like we got dominated by Italy? No. Why? Because Fergie does not employ cautious, negative tactics. Assolutely. Hodgson's approach really baffled me. Rabbit caught in the headlights stuff. He wasn't that negative at the Baggies, was he?
|
|
|
Post by superjonnywalters on Jun 29, 2012 9:35:40 GMT
If Man you (Jones, Ferdinand, Rooney, Smalling, Carrick, Young, Welbeck, Scholes, Cleverley) played Juventus (Buffon, Chiellini, Pepe, Marchisio, De Ceglie, Barzagli, Quagliarella, Bonucci, Padoin, Pirlo, Giaccherini, Storari, Matri, Marrone) in the Champions League next season but they get dominated like we got dominated by Italy? No. Why? Because Fergie does not employ cautious, negative tactics. Assolutely. Hodgson's approach really baffled me. Rabbit caught in the headlights stuff. He wasn't that negative at the Baggies, was he? I work with a big Baggies fan. When he talks to me about Hodgson he could be talking about Pulis. "Well organised" "2 banks of 4" "1 up top, 1 in behind" "Difficult to beat"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 9:38:56 GMT
I don't have the stats to hand Rob but I'm pretty sure Italy had 2/3 of possession and around 30 shots to our half a dozen. You can say we were perhaps unlucky and point to the Johnson chance etc but if you try and look at it from a neutral point of view, we didn't deserve anything from the match. If it had been 2 other countries playing, and not England, I'm pretty sure we'd all be saying the team that dominated possesion and created 5 fold more chances deserved to go through. I agree, not many were calling for Theo to start prior to the tournament but after his cameo from the bench I'm pretty sure it can be labelled a negative move to start the following match with Milner again at his expense. The "Milner is in to cover for Johnson" argurment angers me too. Basically that equates too "Hodgson picked a liability at full back so he had to pick a shit winger to cover him". Don't get me wrong, I think we did ok and there's no shame going out, unbeaten over 90 minutes. We topped our group and went out on pens and Italy have gone on to make the final so in that aspect, given the quality of our squad and the fact Hodgson's had hardly any time, we've done pretty well. I still think we were too negative though. Milner is not an international winger. He's not an international player full stop. I never said we were unlucky against Italy or that they didn't deserve to go through WD? Don't know how you've got that from what I said? My point was that the tournament wasn't the disaster people on here have portrayed it as, given the circumstances. People seem to think England have a divine right to compete for trophies. We don't. We're not good enough and never really have been. Johnson had a decent tournament in the end. There wasn't really anybody else given that Walker was injured and Richards refused to cancel his holiday. Hodgson for this tournament had a gameplan based around shape so Milner played to offer protection. Don't necessarily agree with that stance but I can see why he did it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 9:41:35 GMT
If Man you (Jones, Ferdinand, Rooney, Smalling, Carrick, Young, Welbeck, Scholes, Cleverley) played Juventus (Buffon, Chiellini, Pepe, Marchisio, De Ceglie, Barzagli, Quagliarella, Bonucci, Padoin, Pirlo, Giaccherini, Storari, Matri, Marrone) in the Champions League next season but they get dominated like we got dominated by Italy? No. Why? Because Fergie does not employ cautious, negative tactics. Assolutely. Hodgson's approach really baffled me. Rabbit caught in the headlights stuff. He wasn't that negative at the Baggies, was he? Early days Grapey. Build confidence by keeping it tight and go from there.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jun 29, 2012 9:46:23 GMT
Hope so, Rob.
I hope he's got a more progressive gameplan in his head for the next 2 years.
Anyway, that's my all-consuming England-supporting head off for 2 years now. I'll dust it off in June 2014 for Brazil after no doubt a straightforward qualification for the World Cup (!)
I'm back to worrying about Stoke now!
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jun 29, 2012 9:59:23 GMT
I'm not sure what you were watching rob but it wasn't the same games that I did.
We were shockingly bad and could easily have lost every game. Had we gone on to win the whole tournament, we would still have been shite and even luckier.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jun 29, 2012 10:02:37 GMT
I'm not sure what you were watching rob but it wasn't the same games that I did. We were shockingly bad and could easily have lost every game. Had we gone on to win the whole tournament, we would still have been shite and even luckier. You say it was shockingly bad yet defend the Stoke performances to the hilt?? That Italy game was how we approach games. Surely the two deserve the same praise or criticism depending on your viewpoint?
|
|
|
Post by superjonnywalters on Jun 29, 2012 10:06:16 GMT
I don't have the stats to hand Rob but I'm pretty sure Italy had 2/3 of possession and around 30 shots to our half a dozen. You can say we were perhaps unlucky and point to the Johnson chance etc but if you try and look at it from a neutral point of view, we didn't deserve anything from the match. If it had been 2 other countries playing, and not England, I'm pretty sure we'd all be saying the team that dominated possesion and created 5 fold more chances deserved to go through. I agree, not many were calling for Theo to start prior to the tournament but after his cameo from the bench I'm pretty sure it can be labelled a negative move to start the following match with Milner again at his expense. The "Milner is in to cover for Johnson" argurment angers me too. Basically that equates too "Hodgson picked a liability at full back so he had to pick a shit winger to cover him". Don't get me wrong, I think we did ok and there's no shame going out, unbeaten over 90 minutes. We topped our group and went out on pens and Italy have gone on to make the final so in that aspect, given the quality of our squad and the fact Hodgson's had hardly any time, we've done pretty well. I still think we were too negative though. Milner is not an international winger. He's not an international player full stop. I never said we were unlucky against Italy or that they didn't deserve to go through WD? Don't know how you've got that from what I said? My point was that the tournament wasn't the disaster people on here have portrayed it as, given the circumstances. People seem to think England have a divine right to compete for trophies. We don't. We're not good enough and never really have been. Johnson had a decent tournament in the end. There wasn't really anybody else given that Walker was injured and Richards refused to cancel his holiday. Hodgson for this tournament had a gameplan based around shape so Milner played to offer protection. Don't necessarily agree with that stance but I can see why he did it. I don't think we have a divine right to win anything. I don't think we'll win anything with a negative approach either, mind. May as well go out fighting and giving it a good go instead of leaving the tournament in a whimper, trying not to lose. At least 'arry would have given it a good go.
|
|
|
Post by billybigballs on Jun 29, 2012 10:09:42 GMT
i thought we were better in this tournament than we had been for a long time. The reactions when we inevitably get knocked out always amaze me, we must be the most deluded nation on earth, we never have been any good.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 10:11:01 GMT
I'm not sure what you were watching rob but it wasn't the same games that I did. We were shockingly bad and could easily have lost every game. Had we gone on to win the whole tournament, we would still have been shite and even luckier. It depends on whether you can appreciate the context and how realistic your expectations were. England were the better team against the two poorer (but by no means dreadful) teams we played. We were solid but outplayed by the French and totally outplayed and lucky against the Italians after a decent first half display. Considering this is the worst England squad for years and expectations were low, there are a fair few positives to take.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 10:13:10 GMT
I never said we were unlucky against Italy or that they didn't deserve to go through WD? Don't know how you've got that from what I said? My point was that the tournament wasn't the disaster people on here have portrayed it as, given the circumstances. People seem to think England have a divine right to compete for trophies. We don't. We're not good enough and never really have been. Johnson had a decent tournament in the end. There wasn't really anybody else given that Walker was injured and Richards refused to cancel his holiday. Hodgson for this tournament had a gameplan based around shape so Milner played to offer protection. Don't necessarily agree with that stance but I can see why he did it. I don't think we have a divine right to win anything. I don't think we'll win anything with a negative approach either, mind. May as well go out fighting and giving it a good go instead of leaving the tournament in a whimper, trying not to lose. At least 'arry would have given it a good go. I don't think things would have been any better under 'Arry. We'd have lost against France IMO for starters. Again, it's all context. It was a transitional tournament and Roy is trying to rebuild a bit of confidence. Patience is required, we're building something, or at least trying to.
|
|
|
Post by superjonnywalters on Jun 29, 2012 10:16:54 GMT
I just wish he'd try to build something with younger and better players.
|
|
|
Post by stokelad84 on Jun 29, 2012 10:23:01 GMT
I think Hodgson will end up doing that WD.
Phil Jones, Rodwell, Wilshere and Ox should be the players he builds around for the future.
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jun 29, 2012 10:30:17 GMT
I'm not sure what you were watching rob but it wasn't the same games that I did. We were shockingly bad and could easily have lost every game. Had we gone on to win the whole tournament, we would still have been shite and even luckier. You say it was shockingly bad yet defend the Stoke performances to the hilt?? That Italy game was how we approach games. Surely the two deserve the same praise or criticism depending on your viewpoint? It was nothing like a Stoke performance, so I struggle to see your point. The England team he played would not be capable of a Stoke performance. Stoke may well have done better, you can bet that SJW would have run Pirlo into the ground
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jun 29, 2012 10:39:48 GMT
I'm not sure what you were watching rob but it wasn't the same games that I did. We were shockingly bad and could easily have lost every game. Had we gone on to win the whole tournament, we would still have been shite and even luckier. It depends on whether you can appreciate the context and how realistic your expectations were. England were the better team against the two poorer (but by no means dreadful) teams we played. We were solid but outplayed by the French and totally outplayed and lucky against the Italians after a decent first half display. Considering this is the worst England squad for years and expectations were low, there are a fair few positives to take. I don't think I had any 'expectations' but they are not a baseline for achievement, I don't think we were the better team in any of the games. Ukraine were pretty awful, but I doubt anyone that didn't know who was playing would have recognised either of the teams as supposedly being toward the top of the world rankings. The main positives for me are that it should be the last England game for quite a few of the squad, but I suspect that it won't be.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 10:49:39 GMT
It depends on whether you can appreciate the context and how realistic your expectations were. England were the better team against the two poorer (but by no means dreadful) teams we played. We were solid but outplayed by the French and totally outplayed and lucky against the Italians after a decent first half display. Considering this is the worst England squad for years and expectations were low, there are a fair few positives to take. I don't think I had any 'expectations' but they are not a baseline for achievement, I don't think we were the better team in any of the games. Ukraine were pretty awful, but I doubt anyone that didn't know who was playing would have recognised either of the teams as supposedly being toward the top of the world rankings. The main positives for me are that it should be the last England game for quite a few of the squad, but I suspect that it won't be. Sweden had one decent 15-20 minute spell. In the rest of that game, England were by far the better team. Ghost goal aside we were comfortable against Ukraine once we'd scored. Of course you're going to be disappointed if you think the world rankings are in any way shape or form accurate or relevant. They're not. Again, there was no way six weeks into a new manager's reign with a weak squad and key players out that we were going to play teams off the park and IN THAT CONTEXT topping the group was a decent achievement.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jun 29, 2012 11:10:12 GMT
you can bet that SJW would have run Pirlo into the ground
|
|