|
|
Post by Godo on Jun 29, 2012 12:24:46 GMT
Can't compare the 2 games at all. Top teams do what they have to do to win. In a tournament there is nearly always one team that peaks early and one team that grows.
Italy compeletely out played us and Germany would have done the same. German's lost the initiative at the outset by adjusting their pattern to try and nullify Pirlo instead of imposting themselves. A few chickens also came home to roost with the German back 4 which has been inconsistent throughout. England are a long way away from the top 4 or 5 teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jun 29, 2012 12:48:24 GMT
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. I know you are a great believer in 'repeating the mantra' and nothing will ever move you from this. But, what on earth has six weeks got to do with anything. I appreciate that a lot of footballers are pretty thick but are you suggesting that in twelve months time the same players would suddenly play better? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 12:54:17 GMT
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. I know you are a great believer in 'repeating the mantra' and nothing will ever move you from this. But, what on earth has six weeks got to do with anything. I appreciate that a lot of footballers are pretty thick but are you suggesting that in twelve months time the same players would suddenly play better? I repeat the mantra when people deliberately or otherwise ignore it, yes. Which happens all the time. In a year's time the players will be more used to the new manager and his ethos and the manager will have had more time to assess the players at his disposal and decide what he wants to do with them. So I'd say yes, there's a good chance we won't be playing exactly the same way and there's room for improvement. Having just six weeks to get to know your players and impress your way of playing, set piece drills etc and decide exactly who you want to do which jobs is more difficult than having, say, six months or two years to do it. Especially when you've got at least three key midfielders out, a centre half missing and your star man out for the first two games. And a weak bunch to choose from in the first place. And confidence as a group low. |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jun 29, 2012 13:07:06 GMT
I know you are a great believer in 'repeating the mantra' and nothing will ever move you from this. But, what on earth has six weeks got to do with anything. I appreciate that a lot of footballers are pretty thick but are you suggesting that in twelve months time the same players would suddenly play better? I repeat the mantra when people deliberately or otherwise ignore it, yes. Which happens all the time. In a year's time the players will be more used to the new manager and his ethos and the manager will have had more time to assess the players at his disposal and decide what he wants to do with them. So I'd say yes, there's a good chance we won't be playing exactly the same way and there's room for improvement. Having just six weeks to get to know your players and impress your way of playing, set piece drills etc and decide exactly who you want to do which jobs is more difficult than having, say, six months or two years to do it. Especially when you've got at least three key midfielders out, a centre half missing and your star man out for the first two games. And a weak bunch to choose from in the first place. And confidence as a group low. You do realise that they are not together week in week out as a squad? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 13:19:34 GMT
I repeat the mantra when people deliberately or otherwise ignore it, yes. Which happens all the time. In a year's time the players will be more used to the new manager and his ethos and the manager will have had more time to assess the players at his disposal and decide what he wants to do with them. So I'd say yes, there's a good chance we won't be playing exactly the same way and there's room for improvement. Having just six weeks to get to know your players and impress your way of playing, set piece drills etc and decide exactly who you want to do which jobs is more difficult than having, say, six months or two years to do it. Especially when you've got at least three key midfielders out, a centre half missing and your star man out for the first two games. And a weak bunch to choose from in the first place. And confidence as a group low. You do realise that they are not together week in week out as a squad? No shit. What's your point? Do you think the England manager has no contact with them whatsoever in the intervening months? Do you think it's as easy to just turn up out of the blue and put a squad together and get them playing how you want them to at a drop of a hat. Mightn't it be easier to do so over the period of a qualifying campaign with friendlies intermingled? |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jun 29, 2012 13:26:25 GMT
You do realise that they are not together week in week out as a squad? No shit. What's your point? Do you think the England manager has no contact with them whatsoever in the intervening months? Do you think it's as easy to just turn up out of the blue and put a squad together and get them playing how you want them to at a drop of a hat. Mightn't it be easier to do so over the period of a qualifying campaign with friendlies intermingled? So are you suggesting that all of the teams that change managers mid season that cannot change the players should write off six weeks before the squad understands what the manager wants from them? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 13:50:41 GMT
No shit. What's your point? Do you think the England manager has no contact with them whatsoever in the intervening months? Do you think it's as easy to just turn up out of the blue and put a squad together and get them playing how you want them to at a drop of a hat. Mightn't it be easier to do so over the period of a qualifying campaign with friendlies intermingled? So are you suggesting that all of the teams that change managers mid season that cannot change the players should write off six weeks before the squad understands what the manager wants from them? Clearly I'm not, but I see semantics and 'winning' are clearly more important to you than any kind of football discussion. What I'm saying, and this is a very basic point, is that it takes time to build an effective, successful team, especially when you don't have much to work with and you've got to pretty much go back to the drawing board. |
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Jun 29, 2012 14:03:20 GMT
Rob
I understand what you are saying but for the most part Woy got too much wrong. His team selections weren't great but more importantly and significantly set the team up wrong. Even though he could see we were being overrun in midfield he did nothing to change it. Having been in the job for decades its nothing to do with being England manager for 6 weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jun 29, 2012 14:20:18 GMT
What I am saying and it's a very simple point, is that an England manager should be able to hit the ground running, he picks the players to presumably fit into some kind of plan he has.
I fail to see how 'semantics' can move this away from the fact that you can't sit on both 'sides of the fence'.
To struggle so badly to play as a team with a methodology that you can only wonder at regardless of who he picks is poor. It is not any kind of achievement to have beaten two very poor teams (just) while in the process of boring the whole country with such inept displays.
I suspect that if you'd thrown them a ball and told them to have a kick about it might have been better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 14:27:35 GMT
Given that we went out in the first round in '92 and 2000 and did no better in 2004 that's not strictly true is it?
Neither France nor Sweden are bad teams and Ukraine were hosts, which is rarely an easy proposition.
I don't quite see how Hodgson could have "hit the ground running"?
At the risk of mantra-ing again, do you not appreciate that he had a weak, injury-hit squad? That it might take time to win the trust of your players? That it isn't easy to mould a successful team in your own image in a month and a half? He's in it for the long game and was looking, rightly, beyond this tournament.
What more should he have achieved that he didn't?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 14:28:57 GMT
I also thought we played as a team far better than in the last two tournaments, when we looked like a fractious, disinterested team of individuals.
Considering the shouts about "passion", this team actually showed some.
|
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jun 29, 2012 15:08:16 GMT
I'm not sure how relevant old comparisons are. We looked clueless as a team whenever we had the ball, is this the players not trusting the manager?
He didn't drastically change the team so presumably they were doing what he wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 15:16:28 GMT
I'm not sure how relevant old comparisons are. We looked clueless as a team whenever we had the ball, is this the players not trusting the manager? He didn't drastically change the team so presumably they were doing what he wanted. Compared to when exactly? We've looked clueless on the ball for years, it's not a new thing. Was Hodgson supposed to come in and wave a magic wand. He's recognised that there's a lot of work to be done and started the job, as most half decent managers do, by concentrating on making us organised and hard to beat and going from there. |
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jun 29, 2012 15:45:59 GMT
I'm not sure how relevant old comparisons are. We looked clueless as a team whenever we had the ball, is this the players not trusting the manager? He didn't drastically change the team so presumably they were doing what he wanted. Compared to when exactly? We've looked clueless on the ball for years, it's not a new thing. Was Hodgson supposed to come in and wave a magic wand. He's recognised that there's a lot of work to be done and started the job, as most half decent managers do, by concentrating on making us organised and hard to beat and going from there. Don't waste your time responding Rob. What you're saying is blatantly obvious to anyone who's got two braincells to rub together. EDIT: That's not saying that Woy couldn't have done better. Just that expectations in a years time will be higher. |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jun 29, 2012 15:53:32 GMT
At the risk of going round in circles (again), I think you are confusing hard to beat with lucky.
It's you that is making pointless comparisons not me.
I don't think England have ever been as bad at keeping the ball as they were in this tournament (there's a comparison for you), even when they have repeatedly passed it across the back four we've kept it longer than this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 15:56:37 GMT
At the risk of going round in circles (again), I think you are confusing hard to beat with lucky. It's you that is making pointless comparisons not me. I don't think England have ever been as bad at keeping the ball as they were in this tournament (there's a comparison for you), even when they have repeatedly passed it across the back four we've kept it longer than this. I have a problem with the idea of "luck" in football in general. I think we were definitely more united and organised than in recent years. I don't see how the comparisons are pointless when you were saying, in effect, that we couldn't have played any worse. Which is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jun 29, 2012 15:58:38 GMT
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 Oh dear |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jun 29, 2012 16:42:18 GMT
At the risk of going round in circles (again), I think you are confusing hard to beat with lucky. It's you that is making pointless comparisons not me. I don't think England have ever been as bad at keeping the ball as they were in this tournament (there's a comparison for you), even when they have repeatedly passed it across the back four we've kept it longer than this. I have a problem with the idea of "luck" in football in general. I think we were definitely more united and organised than in recent years. I don't see how the comparisons are pointless when you were saying, in effect, that we couldn't have played any worse. Which is ridiculous. I never said we couldn't have played any worse, I used the technical term shite. How we were in recent years is irrelevant, it's now that is being discussed. You clearly see this as some kind of progress. I see it as a worry that if Woy can't get a team he picks to play how he wants, any better than that even in as little as two weeks then he should consider his position. I hope you are correct and he works wonders but I'm not holding my breath. Have a good weekend. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 17:09:52 GMT
What I am saying and it's a very simple point, is that an England manager should be able to hit the ground running, he picks the players to presumably fit into some kind of plan he has. I fail to see how 'semantics' can move this away from the fact that you can't sit on both 'sides of the fence'. To struggle so badly to play as a team with a methodology that you can only wonder at regardless of who he picks is poor. It is not any kind of achievement to have beaten two very poor teams (just) while in the process of boring the whole country with such inept displays. I suspect that if you'd thrown them a ball and told them to have a kick about it might have been better. The last line suggests that we were about as bad as its possible to get. Apologies if I misinterpreted that. I think there was progress compared to the last two tournaments (and how else do you measure progress other than by comparison)? For example: In my opinion we did play largely as Hodgson wanted us to. I think he planned for us not to have the ball for long spells, and I thought as a defensive unit, 15 minutes against Sweden apart, we were far more solid and organised. Even Glen Johnson defended well. The only game we deserved to lose was against Italy. We saw more discipline from the midfield, most notably from Steven Gerrard, who finally delivered for England and managed to temper his headless chicken/messiah complex act. We saw the likes of Welbeck and Carroll suggest they have something to offer England. Moreover, we saw a team prepared to battle and scrap and not lose their heads. They gave their all defending like Trojans against Italy, they showed spirit to come back against Sweden. Given how gutless and anaemic the England sides of the last six years at least, that's what encouraged me most. I don't think we'll be world beaters, but I think we might end up with a national side we can be proud of. Yet it's very early days in a long-term project. Have a good weekend too. |
|
