2006 Friendly Part 2: England vs Uruguay

First topic message reminder :

England unchanged, Uruguay make 5 changes with Suarez in.

John wrote:There will be managers out there, with the ability to take this new generation forward

You say that, but who? There aren't many (if any) English managers out there with any sort of reputation, let alone the sort people want. And even if you get a big name foreign coach (because nobody's accepting some relative unknown), how many people are there that know English football, have an exciting reputation, and don't already have a better job?

Crimey wrote:Henderson was being used totally wrong, he's not a holding midfielder at all. What he has been good at for Liverpool all year is being right in the middle of things and running forward into the space left by the forwards dropping off.

For me Henderson plays the type of football England should be playing at international level. He keeps it simple, keeps the ball moving, looks for players in space, tries to move the ball from left to right with short quick passes and tries to move the opposite. Because it is not the flashiest football he gets slated for not being creative enough. Tonight England had too many headless chickens like Sterling, Sturridge, Welbeck who kept running into defenders.

If anybody genuinely suggests harry Redknapp as England manager I'm afraid I will have to ban you from the site #bewarned

I'm not caught up in WC hysteria, Roy must go. How you want Roy to continue or think Roy is the right man to take this new generation forward is beyond me.

Let me guess, F.A arrange some more easy Wembley friendlies vs shambolic sides to keep Roy in the job.

Under Roy, we`re going nowhere fast. Roy is a spanner, he just said in his interview, `we nearly got the draw we needed`......we should be wanting to win for gods sake   

Blow your own trumpet there Owen. Rooney scored and genuinely our best player today. Also called us to play negative football. We've probably gone out but not the way you called. Some of us knew this England team had weaknesses but didn't bleat on.

Rooney isn't why Welbeck was off tonight. He isn't why Sturridge played poorly where he needed to play well. I'm gutted right now, but Frak me I'll be happier in a month just to see us have evolved a bit as a team. Not perfect, no, but we've hit a real weakness in defence and some of our players are a little young in the areas we're strong. Disgraced? No. Naive? Yes. Lacking in quality? Yes.

Painful, but either side of the positive/negative coin we all knew this could happen against decent sides. Maybe Woy isn't the man, but I'm happy with his tenure in the long term targets we as a side have long talked about.

Harry Redknapp for England!!   

You don't have the power olly

owen10ozzy wrote:Harry Redknapp for England!!   

You don't have the power olly

I do on some people!

Haha super Mario balotelli `s tweet!

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Blow your own trumpet there Owen. Rooney scored and genuinely our best player today. Also called us to play negative football. We've probably gone out but not the way you called. Some of us knew this England team had weaknesses but didn't bleat on.

Rooney isn't why Welbeck was off tonight. He isn't why Sturridge played poorly where he needed to play well. I'm gutted right now, but Frak me I'll be happier in a month just to see us have evolved a bit as a team. Not perfect, no, but we've hit a real weakness in defence and some of our players are a little young in the areas we're strong. Disgraced? No. Naive? Yes. Lacking in quality? Yes.

Painful, but either side of the positive/negative coin we all knew this could happen against decent sides. Maybe Woy isn't the man, but I'm happy with his tenure in the long term targets we as a side have long talked about.

   

To be fair Dolph;

I agree we were better than expected. Yet tonight we were hardly stellar...in fact seemed to revert back to England of old. We only got going when chasing the game...like so many times in the past.

Welbeck (a player people insist is a winger) played as a winger in both games but offered next to nothing going forward.

Rooney was best player but only because as a team we were poor...if you think he was anything other than 6/10 then you must have been drinking all day.

I worry whether we are evolving. We have the players to but if Hodgson insists on not dropping big name players and refuses to change tact i.e. get England playing a more pressing game then against the big teams we will continue to lose.

People say that Hodgson is progressing this side but how much of it is down to him and how much of it down to circumstance and the players.

In the qualifiers he only changed it up because he had too...up until the final two games the quality on show was hardly great. We needed two wins to ensure qualification and he was forced to be offensive.

Then coming into the World Cup the media called for Hodgson to play Sterling...I wonder whether he would have if the vocal backing for it wasn't so high from those within the game.

Tonight when we needed to hit the ground running and attack we failed to. We lacked tempo and direction for much of the game...much like we have for the past 5 years...if that's Evolution then no thanks.

His record for England in competitive games stands at 18-8-7-3 ....given 4 of those games were against the might of Moldova and San Marino it's hardly a stellar record is it!!

Crimey wrote:Gerrard has just come off one of his best ever seasons, hardly past it.

Gerrard wasn't great last season. The media just hyped him never more noticeably when they made him runner up in the Football Writers Award ahead of Yaya Toure. Liverpool had Suarez that was there difference.

To be fair he should be sacked.

2 years to build a side for a tournament and he takes several players with very little top level experience or caps then loses both games.

He'll have cost the fa and the economy millions on top of poor on pitch performances.

Italy are average and Uruguay are poor aside from Suarez.

He's probably hit many of the England higher up's targets. Young players, better football, build a team for tournaments beyond this one.

The calls for Terry are just lolz

Cos of course we never conceded a goal straight from a GK's clearance when he played...

Trying to think of an England team for the games in the Euro 2016 qualifiers.

Hart
?, ?, Cahill, Shaw
Oxlade-Chamberlain, Wilshere, Henderson, Barkley
Rooney
Walcott

Dolph

Slightly disagree that Rooney was our best player, thought Henderson was. He was the guy that made the difference early in the second half when he started to push forward more (bringing Baines with him). Everything positive England did started from there.

Gerrard had a mare - error in the run up to the first Uruguay goal and an error that led almost directly to the second. Didn't contribute that much in a positive sense and simply doesn't have the engine that made him special a few years ago.

Agree on Welbeck - while we have lots of dynamic forwards, why are we picking an attacker almost entirely for the ability he has in nicking the ball back from defenders high up the pitch? His touch and his passing isn't up to the job.

Also I'm still not convinced that Sturridge is really all that great - very inconsistent in how he holds the ball up and sloppy in his passing when trying to link with advancing midfielders. Has the odd moment of individual brilliance, but I can imagine him being quite infuriating to play with.

I think your later comment is right - Roy has done the job asked of him by the FA, which was to develop a side with potential for the future. If we can build round the likes of Shaw, Henderson, Barklay, Sterling then there's potentially something there for the next manager to work on. Unfortunately, previous managers (Capello in particular) held on to the old guard so long that there is almost a missing generation of players (look how few of the urrent squad are between about 24 and 30). Same problem England's rugby team had a couple of years ago, but the difference is that under Lancaster we've managed to remain competitive while blooding the younger players.

I'd have given Rooney a 7. He played with three players around him today that didnt turn up. Sturridge played poorly, Sterling too. Welbeck wasnt as necessary in this game and should have been off earlier. Very good against Italy, but not so important today and I'd have sacrificed him for Lallana or Milner, both of whom would have been closer to the midfield. But he was our best player, scored his goal and proved why he needed picking. I am sure many will just ignore his performance because its Wayne Rooney. If any of the younger ones had played that well he'd be signing sponsorship deals left, right and centre and this site would be creaming.

End of the day, our weakest point has been obvious all the while in our route here. Our defence is not what it was. Waddle is going mad about building from the back, but we tried to play to our attacking strength and got exposed.

It was a system that majorly exposed Gerrard's weaknesses too. He isnt done as a player, but you don't play him in a midfield like that and expect him to run the midfield. The theory was clear: hide those weaknesses by giving opposition more to think about. Gerrard's mistake for that second goal is so minor; the defence so static and Suarez so lightning of mind and body. Welcome to world class talent.

Henderson was very good in the areas he was set to play in and he has won me over in that regard. However, he lacks quality in the final third. Again, I don't see that as a major problem as in the areas he was meant to affect he did his job perfectly.

I won't have criticism for Hodgson picking players cos he was made to. Hodgson isn't that weak willed. He had an absolutely massive excuse not to pick Sterling due to his lack of game time before the World Cup. The press were all over Sterling being a great bench option. He picked him. Didn't need to take Shaw or Barkley, could have taken Carrick and Cole and everyone would have understood. I will say this for Roy Hodgson: He has made the decisions he's made for the good of English football. Not like Fabio or Sven who made their decisions based on their personal goals. Thats not criticism of them, both fine fine managers, but I certainly have enjoyed having Roy Hodgson as England manager.

It's gutting. Truly. It hurts me a lot, it always does with England. They are so very West Ham as a side. The past shines so much brighter, the fans are desperate for youth and demand a certain style. Yet given both they will then demand results at all costs if their new idea for English dominance fails. Capable of a bit better, but when you face it probably at the level they deserve. Yet always disappointing because of man's (as in the human race) capability to welcome hope and dreams even when it only brings inevitable anguish.

I was at the least encouraged that Rooney and Sturridge have shown the ability to link. Sturridge will play better games and learn where to play too. Sterling will come back stronger for showing glimpses of quality on the world stage.

As for cost to the economy   

dummy_half wrote:Dolph

Slightly disagree that Rooney was our best player, thought Henderson was. He was the guy that made the difference early in the second half when he started to push forward more (bringing Baines with him). Everything positive England did started from there.

I would put Henderson close. He does the job asked of him very well. A real positive of this world cup. Still not great in the final third but not really his calling in this England side. Rooney was the only way anything really good was going to come in the final third and I think he showed with his play across the pitch why he is a very good number 10. Certainly has a better passing tempo than the majority of that side too.

Pass completion rates of England's front six players
Henderson 89% 61 passes
Sterling 82% 22 passes
Gerrard 78% 40 passes
Sturridge 77% 26 passes
Rooney 71% 35 passes
Welbeck 68% 22 passes

He has probably hit all the targets...though they couldn't have been any lower after 2010..in that sense he has walked into a usually impossible job at the best possible time.

Though like I said whether he actually is the reason behind the attacking football is another thing. We weren't attacking in 2012 and we weren't attacking throughout 90% of the qualifiers. Injuries, withdrawals and retirements forced his hand in a few of his selections in this tournament and when push came to shove he still opted to use players out of position or out of form over those who were naturally better in certain roles or in better form....

We shall see how he fares come the qualifiers in Sept/Oct but if Johnson, Gerrard, Welbeck or Rooney (if not playing or not showing form) is anywhere near the starting XI then i'm sorry but the evolution you talk of is simply not happening.


That type of line up with any of those in it is what we should be heading for in the future. Now that is a team that excites me and could be good.

Lot's of alternatives as well in the likes of:

Ward Prowse
Berahino
Redmond
Ince
Jenkinson
Zaha
Morrison
Ings
Caulker
Walker
Gibbs
Rodriguez

We are hardly short of options...certainly not as short as some people suggest. Yes many of them are players with potential...some may not fulfill it. Others are already well on there way to doing so. But there are more than enough options there for Roy to pick a vibrant team with good technical players and build a system which works around there strengths as a unit.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Dolph

Slightly disagree that Rooney was our best player, thought Henderson was. He was the guy that made the difference early in the second half when he started to push forward more (bringing Baines with him). Everything positive England did started from there.

I would put Henderson close. He does the job asked of him very well. A real positive of this world cup. Still not great in the final third but not really his calling in this England side. Rooney was the only way anything really good was going to come in the final third and I think he showed with his play across the pitch why he is a very good number 10. Certainly has a better passing tempo than the majority of that side too.

Dolph

I don't think we are far different in opinions - I'd probably rate Rooney at a 6.5 and Henderson a 7 tonight and I suspect you have them the other way round. Them and Cahill were probably the only guys who can think they played acceptably well. You are right though that Henderson is a player picked to do a job, which is variously to shield the defence and provide one of the links between the defence and attack. He's not the next Lampard or Scholes, in being a great attacker from midfield, more an all round midfielder. Perhaps a bit unglamorous for many fans to appreciate.

Much agreed, we're not far apart on ratings and I agree with every other word you've said.

owen10ozzy wrote:He has probably hit all the targets...though they couldn't have been any lower after 2010..in that sense he has walked into a usually impossible job at the best possible time.

Though like I said whether he actually is the reason behind the attacking football is another thing. We weren't attacking in 2012 and we weren't attacking throughout 90% of the qualifiers. Injuries, withdrawals and retirements forced his hand in a few of his selections in this tournament and when push came to shove he still opted to use players out of position or out of form over those who were naturally better in certain roles or in better form....

We shall see how he fares come the qualifiers in Sept/Oct but if Johnson, Gerrard, Welbeck or Rooney  (if not playing or not showing form) is anywhere near the starting XI then i'm sorry but the evolution you talk of is simply not happening.

Hart

Flanagan/Stones Cahill ..... Shaw

Henderson

Wilshere/Ox/Barkley

Walcott/Townsend  Lallana Sterling

Sturridge

That type of line up with any of those in it is what we should be heading for in the future. Now that is a team that excites me and could be good.

Lot's of alternatives as well in the likes of:

Ward Prowse
Berahino
Redmond
Ince
Jenkinson
Zaha
Morrison
Ings
Caulker
Walker
Gibbs
Rodriguez

We are hardly short of options...certainly not as short as some people suggest. Yes many of them are players with potential...some may not fulfill it. Others are already well on there way to doing so. But there are more than enough options there for Roy to pick a vibrant team with good technical players and build a system which works around there strengths as a unit.

Top bit: works with what he works with. Whatever the back story, the play on the pitch is what people thought Capello never even attempted and what was demanded by fans. Can't fault the man for doing exactly what we wanted. Euro 2012 also a slight gimme for him really; just came in to do the work his predecessor left him.

On the others: You'll be surprised to hear I agree. But I always agree that if players aren't playing well you don't play them.

And we do have decent options. Sadly, most of them are in areas we are already decent in. Half that list I doubt will make much impact on the world stage, but thats true of most nations and their prospects.

What we expected to have at this tournament and didnt have were Jones and Wilshere at the level their trajectory suggested. Neither, for differing reasons, have become the players we needed. We should have had a Jones that was a commanding centre back and a Wilshere who demanded a place. They havent come on as expected, sadly, and its to our detriment. Unfortunate with Oxlade too who I feel would have had a very good World Cup.

We need Stones to come on very strong, as well as Shaw. I think we'll remain weak with one central defender and at right back.

And, although I shouldnt say it, I think we've had a little bit of bad luck too. No excuse, but a shame nonetheless. Should have been a red today, and I still think Gerrard was fouled in the box vs Italy. That happens though so I won't mention it much again

AZZY said on the euro division page that Walcott would've been perfect for what we wanted to do here as well, he is to come back into the fold providing he (touch wood) recovers from his injury

Tell Azzy I miss him

He's right. Really, we all knew this could happen. We are not as good as Italy and the game with Uruguay could go either way. We played with intent, we played in a way we have been hoping England would start to play. It hurts, but its not golden generation f*ck up style disappointment

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:He's right. Really, we all knew this could happen. We are not as good as Italy and the game with Uruguay could go either way. We played with intent, we played in a way we have been hoping England would start to play. It hurts, but its not golden generation f*ck up style disappointment

Hopefully fingers crossed it'll be a good experience for the youngsters, and we'll learn from our defensive naivety. As you've said I'd rather see us play with some intent and with some genuine hope for the future, rather than what we served up in 2010/2012. 

Shaw and Stones are the ones we really need to come on well. Could be our Rio/Cole of the next generation

And, as much as I'm not a fan, Kyle Walker is only 24. He's not great, but he has time to sort out his weaknesses. By standards of defenders peaks he is very young.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Dolph

Slightly disagree that Rooney was our best player, thought Henderson was. He was the guy that made the difference early in the second half when he started to push forward more (bringing Baines with him). Everything positive England did started from there.

I would put Henderson close. He does the job asked of him very well. A real positive of this world cup. Still not great in the final third but not really his calling in this England side. Rooney was the only way anything really good was going to come in the final third and I think he showed with his play across the pitch why he is a very good number 10. Certainly has a better passing tempo than the majority of that side too.

I agree about Henderson. We would look a lot better if we had Wilshere and Barkley either side of him. He has got flack from others for not being creative but that is not his role. That is what Rooney, Sterling, Welbeck and Sturridge are there to do.

Indeed. I think the problem is we probably needed 3 in midfield where we had two. Today's game especially, Welbeck wasnt needed as much to press the deeper midfielders and as such we could have afforded a Wilshere in with the other two. Gerrard would have been much better with two around him too.

sportform wrote:

Crimey wrote:Gerrard has just come off one of his best ever seasons, hardly past it.

Gerrard wasn't great last season. The media just hyped him never more noticeably when they made him runner up in the Football Writers Award ahead of Yaya Toure. Liverpool had Suarez that was there difference.

He really was. Gerrard was consistently great last year, he was very important to the team in terms of discipline and his distribution and shielding of the defence. It's the role that Hodgson should have used him in, he drops back very deep, almost playing as a third centre back at times, he can do that without needing the pace of yesteryear.

I thought he was Liverpool's second best player last year behind Suarez, but to claim Suarez playing well was the only reason is short-sighted. Suarez was missing for the first six games and had a relatively long run without goals.

Hodgson said he won't resign - good, England need to keep him.

And, having considered the possibilities, I do think England will stumble into the last sixteen...just. It isn't a forlorn hope; we just require Italy to win two games in which they are favourites for, and then England to arise from their slumber.

It's not outlandish, just unlikely.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I'd have given Rooney a 7. He played with three players around him today that didnt turn up. Sturridge played poorly, Sterling too. Welbeck wasnt as necessary in this game and should have been off earlier. Very good against Italy, but not so important today and I'd have sacrificed him for Lallana or Milner, both of whom would have been closer to the midfield. But he was our best player, scored his goal and proved why he needed picking. I am sure many will just ignore his performance because its Wayne Rooney. If any of the younger ones had played that well he'd be signing sponsorship deals left, right and centre and this site would be creaming.

End of the day, our weakest point has been obvious all the while in our route here. Our defence is not what it was. Waddle is going mad about building from the back, but we tried to play to our attacking strength and got exposed.

It was a system that majorly exposed Gerrard's weaknesses too. He isnt done as a player, but you don't play him in a midfield like that and expect him to run the midfield. The theory was clear: hide those weaknesses by giving opposition more to think about. Gerrard's mistake for that second goal is so minor; the defence so static and Suarez so lightning of mind and body. Welcome to world class talent.

Henderson was very good in the areas he was set to play in and he has won me over in that regard. However, he lacks quality in the final third. Again, I don't see that as a major problem as in the areas he was meant to affect he did his job perfectly.

I won't have criticism for Hodgson picking players cos he was made to. Hodgson isn't that weak willed. He had an absolutely massive excuse not to pick Sterling due to his lack of game time before the World Cup. The press were all over Sterling being a great bench option. He picked him. Didn't need to take Shaw or Barkley, could have taken Carrick and Cole and everyone would have understood. I will say this for Roy Hodgson: He has made the decisions he's made for the good of English football. Not like Fabio or Sven who made their decisions based on their personal goals. Thats not criticism of them, both fine fine managers, but I certainly have enjoyed having Roy Hodgson as England manager.

It's gutting. Truly. It hurts me a lot, it always does with England. They are so very West Ham as a side. The past shines so much brighter, the fans are desperate for youth and demand a certain style. Yet given both they will then demand results at all costs if their new idea for English dominance fails. Capable of a bit better, but when you face it probably at the level they deserve. Yet always disappointing because of man's (as in the human race) capability to welcome hope and dreams even when it only brings inevitable anguish.

I was at the least encouraged that Rooney and Sturridge have shown the ability to link. Sturridge will play better games and learn where to play too. Sterling will come back stronger for showing glimpses of quality on the world stage.

As for cost to the economy   

Perfect summary , cannot disagree with a word of it   

Looking through the players England have available now and in the near future I don't see them doing anything on the international stage for some time. They just aren't good enough compared to the players the top nations have talent wise.

The one thing I keep hearing people (our Adrian Chiles least) is how Roy has given youth a chance. Yet look at the starting XI. Only Henderson, Sturridge, Wellbeck and Sterling are under 25, and it's debatable whether Henderson and Wellbeck are good enough.

The other thing is how Roy's gone for an attacking game plan. Sure, we played a very attacking formation, with lots of attackers on the pitch. Why is an attacking game plan a good thing per se? Particularly when you don't have the players to execute it. I lost count of the number of times our forwards got in each other's way, or when we had no one to pass to in the middle of the pitch.

That said, while I think another manager could have used our players better, I don't think they are good enough anyway. Would any of our players be considered among the top ten in the world in their position?

Ultimately, how many of Englands players are currently at their peak and settled in International Football.

The squad was a mixture of first timers and players on the downswing. One of those stands us in better stead for 2018, the other won't be there.
Expect Gerrard to fall on his sword, Wilshere to come in. Meanwhile England need to find some answers at CB. Cahill did alright, Jagielka wasn't up to standard.

And while perhaps I'm being harsh on Rooney, at 28 and coming in injury free, this should've been his peak tournament, the one player we should've been able to rely on. A couple of so so performances hasn't really justified him for me. I'd like to see Barkley start on Tuesday.

England were bereft of ideas and ponderous for 80 mins. It was only in the last 10 or so that they actually began to play at the pace of the Premier League. Why when we supposedly have the fastest league in the world do we play at the pace of a tortoise at international level.
 
I agree defence is an issue. Jagielka just not good enough though whilst Im not a Cahill fan it would have been alot worse without him last night.
 
Time for a major clearout - manager included. And time to give youth its chance...
 
Sterling, Sturridge, Shaw, Barkley, Wilshire (if hes ever fit), Oxlade Chamberlain, Stones etc etc

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I certainly have enjoyed having Roy Hodgson as England manager.

What part? The woeful qualifying campaign, where we couldn't beat Ukraine home or away, couldn't tactically fathom out how to beat Montenegro on multiple occasions & struggled to overcome Poland. Or was the enjoyable part when we were thrashed by Germany B & Chile at Wembley? What about the woeful results against Ecuador & Honduras in thw WC warm-ups, the same Honduras who were thrashed by France? Or was it the defeats to Italy & the embarrassing display against Uruguay that were your highlights? He couldn't even fathom out how to setup the team to contain Pirlo.....for the second time. Terrible.

Roy has been a total failure as England manager, his record is appalling. He continued to select Cleverley for months, which was pathetic management, continued to play key players out of position & is way too negative for the attacking, young, vibrant squad we have, which held us back ultimately.

Preparation was perfect for the WC group games & there was no excuses. Well, it was a shambles. If you've enjoyed that, then you need to visit specsavers.

It amuses me that Suarez said he got retribution.

The press didn't make up you biting Ivanovic Luis.

Rooney scored his first world cup goal, good for him but it should not cover just how bad he actually was. He was very poor and missed a few opportunities that real world class players would have put away. His inclusion forced Sterling out wide and a as result England never looked balanced and Sterling had a poor game when only a few days ago, he had a great game against much better opposition.

Gerrard was also out on his feet after 60mins and Roy could not see that which I felt was a very bad decision not to replace him, especially when England really needed to play at a higher tempo.

Also, I am really confused as to why the ref did not show a second yellow card. That would have changed the dynamic of the game.

I said before the match that Uruguay should not be under estimated and it appears that they were.

I guess all of England will be behind Italy now.

Nachos Jones wrote:Gerrard was also out on his feet after 60mins and Roy could not see that which I felt was a very bad decision not to replace him, especially when England really needed to play at a higher tempo.

Not sure I'd agree with that, but only because Gerrard hand't been moving enough beforehand to notice any change. He's been a great servant of the England team, but this was a tournament too far. That was apparent even in the Italy game.

I think Gerrard could still have had a good tournament had he been managed better by Hodgson, it's almost as if Hodgson is unaware that the last four years have happened and is playing Gerrard in a position that physically he isn't up to. If Prandelli had put Pirlo in that same position he would also look poor.

GSC wrote:It amuses me that Suarez said he got retribution.

The press didn't make up you biting Ivanovic Luis.

Or being a racist. I was surprised the England players didn't rough him up last night, but then again with so many Liverpool players that was never likely.

The Special Juan wrote:

GSC wrote:It amuses me that Suarez said he got retribution.

The press didn't make up you biting Ivanovic Luis.

Or being a racist.  I was surprised the England players didn't rough him up last night, but then again with so many Liverpool players that was never likely.

I'm not, this England team came to lose regardless of what anyone says. I'm not English but usually follow England's progress in the tournaments because; none of the other home nations make it, lots of PL players I watch every week and theres usually a lot of discussion around it.

I'd say this is the worst I've ever seen England at a major tournament. They weren't there to win, call them deluded etc but they've always come to win tournaments before and gave it a good go with some passionate and determined play. These games have been damp squibs.

Incidentally, where have all the ball-playing English centre backs gone? 10 years ago we had Ferdinand, King and Woodgate. Now we put out a CB partnership of Jagielka and Cahill, and I can't think of any other English CBs who are comfortable on the ball. There's nothing I hate so much as seeing a midfielder drop back to take the ball off the CB's feet. That's poor at schoolboy level.

John wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I certainly have enjoyed having Roy Hodgson as England manager.

What part? The woeful qualifying campaign, where we couldn't beat Ukraine home or away, couldn't tactically fathom out how to beat Montenegro on multiple occasions & struggled to overcome Poland. Or was the enjoyable part when we were thrashed by Germany B & Chile at Wembley? What about the woeful results against Ecuador & Honduras in thw WC warm-ups, the same Honduras who were thrashed by France? Or was it the defeats to Italy & the embarrassing display against Uruguay that were your highlights? He couldn't even fathom out how to setup the team to contain Pirlo.....for the second time. Terrible.

Roy has been a total failure as England manager, his record is appalling. He continued to select Cleverley for months, which was pathetic management, continued to play key players out of position & is way too negative for the attacking, young, vibrant squad we have, which held us back ultimately.

Preparation was perfect for the WC group games & there was no excuses. Well, it was a shambles. If you've enjoyed that, then you need to visit specsavers.

Seriously, DZ - I'd like to know, I really haven't enjoyed one part of Hogdson's reign. Time to go for Roy, time for the new era & new style of management to be introduced. Hodgson is a dinosaur, tactically inept & found out massively on the WC scene at the group stage, even when preparation was perfect. Results have been shambolic, no excuses anymore. For everyone, saying there is no other options to Hodgson, so we'll just 'keep him' is embarrassing.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:Incidentally, where have all the ball-playing English centre backs gone? 10 years ago we had Ferdinand, King and Woodgate. Now we put out a CB partnership of Jagielka and Cahill, and I can't think of any other English CBs who are comfortable on the ball. There's nothing I hate so much as seeing a midfielder drop back to take the ball off the CB's feet. That's poor at schoolboy level.

You've really only Ferdinand as an example of a ball playing centre half in modern times (though Terry isn't the worst imo).

King and Woodgate get romanticised as they were so injury prone. Rio has 50 more professional appearances than those 2 combined despite a few injury prone seasons towards the end of his career.

England struggle to develop technically good midfielders - very fanciful there will be great ball playing centre halves coming through!!

2012 was far worse Ent. We showed ambition against Italy and played 2 good nations.