Hart - Carroll was our most successful pass combination :|

 

Exactly. Carroll can hold the ball up well, but when he laid it off to Rooney/Young they'd just lose the ball again meaning another attack from the Italians. It's another problem Roy has, he won't criticize the bigger players. Rooney should have gone off after 55 minutes, he was completely ineffective and clearly nowhere near match fitness.

Cheered for England to begin with. Have to say I ended up cheering for Italy and especially Pirlo. Player of the tournament so far.

I've said before and I'll say again, Hodgson was the absolute perfect appointment for the short-term, but for the long term it's a bit ridiculous. Having said that, the younger players we have that could come in are better ball retainers, more creative, less workmanlike than those that will be outgoing....

Or the FA could have made sure Capello stayed on until the end of the tournament as planned. I'd then have gone for a manager who is interested in the long term development of the squad and not just to improve his CV

 

Cheered for England to begin with. Have to say I ended up cheering for Italy and especially Pirlo. Player of the tournament so far.

If I had been watching as a neutral then I would have wanted Italy to win. The were clearly the better side.

 

 

Or the FA could have made sure Capello stayed on until the end of the tournament as planned. I'd then have gone for a manager who is interested in the long term development of the squad and not just to improve his CV

Are you suggesting Hodgson is looking to improve his CV? Surely this will be his last job.

4-4-2 is not the way forward for the future

I mentioned this before the tournament started and still don't understand the logic behind playing it. Why allow yourself to be outnumbered continuously in midfield ?

 

Hodgson should have recognised that Pirlo was running the show and that we needed another man in midfield to stop them from dominating in that area. It would have also given Gerrard a chance to have more of an influence on the game rather than concentrating on defensive duties

 

Are you suggesting Hodgson is looking to improve his CV? Surely this will be his last job.

CV probably wasn't the right word to use there

 

I'm referring to him being a short-term solution, who will be more interested in results and the public's perception of him rather than building something for the future

Or the FA could have made sure Capello stayed on until the end of the tournament as planned. I'd then have gone for a manager who is interested in the long term development of the squad and not just to improve his CV

 

And then we'd have gone out at the group stage, most likely. I'm not entirely sure who you've got in mind as a long term manager that would be willing to take on a team in such a mess as the one Capello would have left us in had he taken us into the tournament.

 

Hodgson's way was the only way that we were ever going to be in with a chance of winning Euro 2012, the squad is a stopgap one as we do have youngsters coming through who were either not ready or injured.

And then we'd have gone out at the group stage, most likely. I'm not entirely sure who you've got in mind as a long term manager that would be willing to take on a team in such a mess as the one Capello would have left us in had he taken us into the tournament.

 

Hodgson's way was the only way that we were ever going to be in with a chance of winning Euro 2012, the squad is a stopgap one as we do have youngsters coming through who were either not ready or injured.

I'm probably in the minority, but I don't see Capello's reign as this big mess like most England fans do. He made mistakes in South Africa and should be blamed for that, but seemed to learn from those after the campaign ended

 

Hodgson can use these tactics with our current players, but realistically he's not going to change them as some of the youngsters come through. Sitting back and soaking up pressure is his style

 

 

 

The problem with England in general is people have the opinion that 4-4-2 is the best, it was, but football has evolved now. Right now England are best suited to a 4-4-2. Good old 4-4-2. We don't have the players with the tactical astuteness or technical ability to play 4-6-0, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or anything like that. Capello tried it and failed miserably. There's a solid basis however. The problem is people just do not know a lot about football, or think they do at least. Johnson is by far England's best right back. People can tell me they're right and I'm wrong, but I know I'm right. This tournament has proved it. People want pace and power over technical ability and positional awareness. It's not going to grab you individual glory, but it'll help your team.

 

I think the FA identified this problem after the dismal 2010 showing, and they upped their game as grassroots level. It will probably take 10 years for this to have an effect, but the more cultured style Spain and Barcelona use is being coached more at younger levels, whereas before you were getting coached too much and losing your technical ability to hoof it. Unfortunately after 2010 Capello was wanted out by the media, the fans and the FA. He was a dead man (and a very expensive one) walking.

 

England need to find a philosophy, it's no good playing counter attacking football if you're useless and slow when thinking what to do with the ball, as evidenced by today.

http://www.itv.com/sport/football/euro/art...nt-good-enough/

 

Carragher makes a good point here. Pointless developing grass roots for English footballers when the senior team manager isn't looking to do the same

 

and Roy Keane talking 4-4-2

http://www.itv.com/sport/football/euro/art...nt-good-enough/

 

Carragher makes a good point here. Pointless developing grass roots for English footballers when the senior team manager isn't looking to do the same

 

and Roy Keane talking 4-4-2

 

But to be fair we really don't have the players who can do that. Carrick is really the only English midfielder that is/was available that can dictate tempo. Gerrard is a brilliant football player, but he is no playmaker. He was doing the job of three men against Italy. Not a lot of our players are comfortable on the ball or have great gifted tecnhical ability, or the ability to even read football games. Take Scott Parker - by everyone he's seen as the lionheart. A great English player. When in reality he is not that good. At least not good enough to do the job that everyone wants us to do. It's not his fault, because he would have probably have worked better if we had another body in midfield or he wasn't shattered from a long season/injury.

 

The bigger problem is Roy has single-highhandedly dampened expectations. I don't care what anybody says, we didn't do brilliantly to qualify from our group, we should have qualified from that group. The man's a magician, everyone's convinced we're not good enough. My hope is that after 2014 he'll be let go, but I don't see it happening that way.

My favourite players tonight and the whole tournament are Joe Hart & Andy Carroll closely followed by Walcott

Without Joe Hart England would have been slaughtered.

 

The player IMO was the worst of the tournament was Ashley Young. Picking him was a big mistake.

 

After tonight's attempt - Hodgson out - enter Rednapp

Edited June 25, 201213 yr by euro music

Redknapp will never be England manager. We will stick with Roy for the foreseeable future (and hopefully no longer) then appoint somebody else. Perhaps Gary Neville is being groomed for the job. We need a manager in the future who understands tactics and the need to keep the ball for long stretches of play. Neither Redknapp or Roy is that man.

My favourite players tonight and the whole tournament are Joe Hart & Andy Carroll closely followed by Walcott

Without Joe Hart England would have been slaughtered.

 

The player IMO was the worst of the tournament was Ashley Young. Picking him was a big mistake.

 

After tonight's attempt - Hodgson out - enter Rednapp

I'll quote the same article I've already mentioned a couple of times:

 

Yet Redknapp’s sides retain a certain anarchy, epitomised by Tottenham’s win away at Norwich late last year, when Redknapp told Gareth Bale and Rafael van der Vaart they could “play where they wanted to”. In that game it worked, as Bale scored two fine goals in a man-of-the-match performance. “He gets in those holes, and when he gets the ball and runs at you, he’s unplayable,” Redknapp marvelled. Yet in recent weeks, Bale’s desire to roam has been indulged at the expense of shape and structure, and Tottenham have been in terrible form.

 

Hodgson is the complete opposite, the ultimate ‘system’ manager. His teams are very simple – they defend the same way, with two banks of four supplemented with two outright attackers – either two forwards or a lone striker supported by a number ten. Whereas Redknapp employs an army of coaches to do his work on the training ground, Hodgson personally drills his players relentlessly in training so they’re completely at home with the zonal defensive system, going through the same exercises again and again.

 

“We work on it every day,” Simon Davies, who played under Hodgson at Fulham, told Jonathan Wilson. “Every day in training is geared towards team shape on the match-day coming up. I’ve been working with the manager three years now and every day is team shape, and it shows… I don’t want to give any secrets away, but he gets the 11 that he wants on a match-day and he drills everything in that he wants. It’s certain drills defensive, certain drills attacking, and we work very hard at it. There are no diagrams. It’s all on the pitch with the ball, nothing unopposed.”

 

So which type of coach is needed? England are in a state of complete confusion. Going into a major tournament having appointed your coach a month beforehand is embarrassing enough. Then there is the problem that Wayne Rooney, the star attacking player, is suspended from the first two games. Jack Wilshere, assumed to be one of England’s key midfielders a year ago, will miss out through injury. A generation of very good individuals (though never remotely a cohesive unit) are now past their peak, while the next crop are not established enough to base a successful team around.

 

This complete failure to have any long-term project in place deserves first round elimination – an outcome that would have been regarded as ‘best for England in the long-run’, had they not consistently failed to learn lessons from previous failures.

 

All this should make even the most ardent England supporter realise that the team is currently a rank outsider. And the only way outsiders have overachieved in recent major international tournaments is by being defensive and functional. Uruguay won the 2011 Copa America in this fashion, and Zambia triumphed at this year’s Africa Cup of Nations with the lowest pass completion rate in the tournament, something also achieved by Greece in Euro 2004. Uruguay (again) and Ghana were the surprise performers at the 2010 World Cup, both being inherently reactive, defensive sides. It’s difficult to name a recent underdog that has overachieved by playing attractive football.

 

Only the best sides can contest international tournaments in an open, attractive style and succeed. For the Euros, this is probably limited to Spain, Germany and Holland. (Even they are more cautious than one might expect – this is a Spain side that won the World Cup scoring eight goals in seven games, while Germany who were thrilling in South Africa, but mainly on the counter-attack, and a Holland are considered one of the least ‘Dutch’ sides in history.) Those three can at least hope to play beautiful football. Everyone else must focus upon being well-drilled and rigid.

 

If a disciplined, organised style of play is perfect for leading an underdog into a major international tournament, there is only one choice. Hodgson’s successes have generally been with underdogs; the only problem anyone can have with his style of management suiting England’s situation this summer is if (a) they refuse to accept England are underdogs, or (b) they are frustrated at the confirmation of England’s status as underdogs.

 

The point here is not that England have no chance of winning the tournament – it’s that they had no chance of winning the tournament by playing the anarchic football favoured by Redknapp. The type of football Hodgson offers is, in theory, the type of football that will maximise England’s chances of getting out of the group. In the current state of confusion, that must be regarded as a sensible target - although if Hodgson states this or voices satisfaction when this target is reached, he will be slaughtered for lowering expectations.

 

Hodgson's value has diminished now the tournament has finished but I'd still say he's a better choice than Redknapp, it's hardly like we'll have a young and technically astute team waiting in the wings when everyone comes back from injury.

 

I don't agree with the notion that the England manager is essential to the grassroots game, at the end of the day he's in charge of a tiny minority of the country's players and I don't think how the national team plays really affects how youth players play.

You have to blame the attack for not scoring before the end of the game, we all knew if it went to penalties we'd lose.

I think the article talks a lot of sense, but Uruguay surprise Copa America winners? Only because everyone thinks South American football is Brazil or Argentina. They're a great side, and arguably the best team on paper in South America at the moment.

 

The problem our national team has is the strength of coaching. Spain/Italy/Germany have probably 20x the amount of qualified UEFA coaches we have. The only vague ball playing center back we have is Cahill. All the best strikers, wingers, holding midfielders are all foreign in the Premier League. Manchester United/Arsenal/Liverpool (although Roy tried!) would never play like this, so why should the national team. I don't personally mind playing that way if it is affective, but Roy made some massive tactical errors last night and it cost England. It's not that Italy are a million times better team than us, while they probably edge us on paper they're not a million times a better team collectively of footballers than we are. He left a striker, a bloody half-fit striker to pick up Italy's best player and talisman. No other coach in the world would let a problem like that be so effective for 100 minutes of football.

The match actually reminded me of Liverpool playing Blackpool under Hodgson. We gave Charlie Adam all the time in the world on the ball making him look like a world beater

 

Pirlo is a great player, but I doubt he'll even be the slighest bit effective vs. Germany since they'll give him very little time and space

 

Rooney or Welbeck should have been given that task or we should have played a three man midfield to stop us from being outnumbered

englands faint hopes are slashed with 2 penalties. thought we played well but rooney let us down. To be honest i think we shoulda kept forward pairing of welbeck and carroll. thought the ox shoulda had a go to at the italians.

The final will probably be spain-germany with germany winning on penalties

Rooney was clearly unfit, he had the odd flash of something going forward but his tracking of Pirlo was dreadful and probably deserved to lose us the game in 120 minutes. I'd have been tempted to play Henderson and Carroll from the start in place of Rooney and Welbeck, load the midfield and actually allow Young to play as a winger.

Rooney was clearly unfit, he had the odd flash of something going forward but his tracking of Pirlo was dreadful and probably deserved to lose us the game in 120 minutes. I'd have been tempted to play Henderson and Carroll from the start in place of Rooney and Welbeck, load the midfield and actually allow Young to play as a winger.

Something like: Hart Johnson Terry Lescott Cole; Parker Henderson Gerrard; Walcott Carroll Young

 

Would have stopped us from being outnumbered in midfield, given Gerrard more of an opportunity to get forward and Rooney could of then been seen as an option from the bench later in the game. Rather he gave a good 60 minutes rather than 120 poor minutes

 

Only problem is Hodgson would never drop Rooney in favour of Carroll/Henderson. He favours the bigger names

Rooney was tasked with tracking Pirlo, and it worked for 25 minutes, but the problem was when we lost the ball after an attack, Rooney didn't track Pirlo. That sort of job is not one you give to a striker. The guy should have been man marked out of the game, and not by a half-fit striker.