What went wrong with England?

How has our WC turned into such a nightmare?

I believe not having Ashley Cole in the squad left us with no alternatives to Baines who has looked poor all tournament.

The central defence looked very poor. Jagielka is just not good enough at this level and also he was coming back from injury. I believe JT should have been in the squad.

Tactical decisions cost us. At half-time when we were 1-1 with Italy why not substitute Rooney for Milner who offers more protection on the flank? It was so obvious Italy if they did score, and they did would make it happen down rooney's wing as he just was not protecting Baines.

Why did steven gerrard play the full 90mins in both games?? he hasn't got the legs to do that and we really could have used someone like OX or Wilshire coming on.

I also think it was a horrible decision to play sterling on the wing in the 2nd game so that we could accomodate rooney in the middle. Sterling was the best layer on the pitch in the first game behind the striker so why move him? It cost us against Uruguay as Sterling looked poor on the wing.

Things do not look good for the England national team for Euro 2016 as we look to have gone backwards.

A loss to Costa Rica would mean 3 defeats in 3 games and would signal just how bad we are.

Agree. Don't look good at all.

Players earn too much money, not under enough pressure to perform.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Players earn too much money, not under enough pressure to perform.

They earn the market rate. Simply supply and demand.

The EPL system is a flaw, overseas players make a wealth out of it and garner necessary skills to exhibit for their respective nations, in contrast most English players are lazy and show no interest in international level sports, the flaw lies with fans they have to decide whether they are more passionate towards the clubs or for national sports.

No idea why on earth Rooney deserve $20 Million , rather many upcoming kids could be encouraged to take the sport more seriously. Look at Dutch team, they brought in lot of youngsters and they are grabbing the chances.

The fact is the current English squad is very average and they made Italy look a very strong side, I was surprised with the way Italy was handled by Costa Rica.

The fate of English team will never change until the formula changes, and the formula will never change and EPL will keep encouraging foreign players to make a wealth and garner skill out of it. We should be just happy with EPLs and local clubs and not as a nation.

I sincerely hope and wish Costa Rica beat us and beat us by a handful margin to make fans realize the actual state of English Soccer team and not to live in media hype, the very fact is we are one of the worst side as a team to take part in this world cup.   

What happened to there being no expectations for this tournament?

Crimey wrote:What happened to there being no expectations for this tournament?

Football fans are fickle liars.

Crimey wrote:What happened to there being no expectations for this tournament?

doesn't excuse horrible tactical decisions by the management.

Had you put the question "Whats right with England?" it would have been a very easy answer for everybody, Nothing.   

I think the problem lies with the English fans and the media. England are just not as good as the expectations that are put on them by the majority of the fans of the three lions. A poll on this site showed that over 40 percent of the fans after the first match (an england loss) thought that England would win the tournament. Nearly double at that time the number of fans that picked Germany. England clearly ranks behind Holland, Spain, France, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, and Uruguay in footballing pedigree. And it is no surprise that they are out of the world cup when two superior footballing nations and teams are placed in the same group. Everyone needs to stop being shocked. England is a team that is good enough to routinely qualify for the major tournaments out of Europe, which is an accomplishment in itself but they aren't good enough to make any noise in those tournaments and actually win.

What went wrong? Doesn't there have to be something right before it goes wrong? Most of the other good teams have learnt a system that they never change from a young age all the way up to the senior team. England's seem to do it by the seat of their pants, which is fine if you have a few world class players capable of turning games. How many players in the English team is wanted by the likes of Bayern, Real or Barca?

What's wrong with England?

1 - The players see their clubs as more important than playing for their country.

2 - The attraction of the EPL for foreign players means we haven't the strength in depth to pick from that we should have

3 - Capello / The FA not realising after (or even before) 2010 that the team needed a complete overhaul, so lesving us coming in to this tournament with a mix of a few of the old guard, a bunch of teenagers and a few 'stop gaps'. Does anyone really believe Cahill and Jagielka are a long term solution to the central defensive partnership?

4 - Individual errors / poor finishing and a little luck in both the games we've played. Pretty sure in both we've had more shots and more shots on target than our opponents, and it's not ridiculous to say that we could have been sitting on four points if these things gone the other way. I know IF is a big word in this context, but my point is more that we are not that far away from the level of the likes of Italy and Uruguay, and that is with a team clearly in transition, so there are things to build on. At least we've performed better than Spain...

There are many problems imo that went wrong for England at this World Cup. I'm not surprised that they went out at the group stage, it was going to be one or the other, and they had a tough group but I am very disappointed to see them go out of it all so early.

First of all, I think the tactics were wrong. 4-2-3-1 was never a recipe for success. It had to be 4-4-2, it would have worked to a charm. Rooney isn't good enough unless he is played through the middle, when I say that, I mean CF, alongside Sturridge. Teams would be worried. You could have Welbeck tracking back and Sterling on the other flank, that works well enough for me.

Another faulty problem was the defence. Baines I though was poor and doesn't look up to the level yet. Attacking wise, he was half decent and didn't do badly, because he is known for that sort of game. But defensively he was poor. Getting beaten all too easily, being caught out of position too often (not always his fault though) and just playing poorly in a poor defensive display in truth.

Anther problem that could have easily been fixed is why didn't terry have 1 last World Cup? That's my question. Him and Cahillat the back would have worked wonders because they could have prevented at least 2 of the 4 goals we have conceded this World Cup (Suarez's 2nd goal, Balotelli's header). They have worked well, kept clean sheets and proved a real handful at Set Pieces. Switch Baines around for Shaw and if Walker was fit, them him at right back. Then we have got a cracking defence. It should have been -Walker-Terry-Cahill-Shaw this World Cup, but it wasn't due to Hodgson not trying to talk him out of retirement and Walker being injured.

A couple more minor problems. The managers decisions weren't always correct regarding formations and when and why to bring players on. The formation, I've explained why it is wrong. But some of the substitutions just haven't made an affect at all. Could we have brought some different players purely for back-up and to bring on as an impact sub? Carrick (would have been great to start in the midfield), Lambert rarely got a chance and didn't give us much, Lallana needed to come on earlier in games and even Aaron Lennon! I think he is highly underrated and he fits the bill for another problem we have faced this World Cup.

The final problem is we have missed Walcott. This is why Aaron Lennon fits the bill. He does also have lightning quick pace and get really get at defenders like Sterling can and can put some good crosses of variety into the box and can run at defenders, like Sterling can. Then you have got 2 complete wide men on the wings with Rooney up front and Sturridge alongside him.

This would have been my team (providing we had the players):

---------------------Hart-------------------
----Walker-----Terry-----Cahill-----Shaw----
-------Gerrard/Carrick---Henderson----------
--Lennon--------------------------Sterling--
------------Rooney-------------------------
-----------------------Sturridge------------

(As you can see, Rooney just playing off Sturridge, but he does partner him. Gives him the license to drop into AM and collect the ball to start attacks and make himself known up top.)

Subs: Forster, Johnson, Jones, Townsend, Welbeck, Lampard, Lambert.

Sorry if I've missed any key players.

Lennon.....seriously? Walker is twice as bad as Johnson too.

I agree with John, Aaron Lennon is not a solution to anything. The fact is that the players aren't good enough to win a major tournament. Rooney is a good footballer but he isn't as good as Suarez, Messi, or Ronaldo and neither of these guys can win a cup on there own either. I think England missed out on the pace that could have been provided by Ox or Walcott. There is some good young talent in this English side. If the next manager plays the youngsters maybe we will see an England that can play better in the Euros. But to win it or win a world cup could be out of their league. For me it would be almost as big an upset for England to win the Euros as Greece. Not quite that big but almost. The fans need to realize that England's national team is far down on the pecking order. And it isn't the EPL's fault or foreign players in the EPL. A lot of leagues have a high percentage of foreign players but manage to produce enough domestic quality to compete. Like Germany, Spain, or Italy. The national team's problems are not a result of the EPL. If anything the EPL gives the domestic players the experience of competing against the best players in Europe and the world.

Bottom line is that our team (players) isn't very good. Even the best squad we've had since Italia '90 only managed to make the quarters (2002). That squad with messrs Beckham, Scholes, Owen, Lampard, Fowler, Sheringham, Cole, Ferdinand, Capmbell etc, looks like a dream team in comparison to the current one.

Yet they only reached the quarters and in all honesty that is probably what they deserved.

Michael Ballack was asked which of the England players would get into the German team. He said none. I think he's right.

If you look at why we went out it was the mistakes by the senior players that done us,against Italy Baines is skinned for the cross,Cahill loses Ballotelli for the header,Jagielka hasn't got the brains to track and watch Suarez and be in a position to make a challenge that makes the header difficult,and Gerrard's well timed header to set Suarez up for Uruguay's 2nd, just sums up everything about Gerrard,nearly as bad as the back pass to James against France  

The problem we have is the players who have consistently under performed for England,Gerrard,Rooney,Lampard, have been picked time and time again regardless of how bad they've played or who the manager is.

Glen Hoddle would have started the 1st game with Lampard and Gerrard despite these 2 doing absolutely nothing when playing together 80 odd times,sums English football up.

Same thing as usual. A highly divisive media and group of fans that are completely out of touch with reality.

Best thing to do is read back all the comments from the build up and have a chuckle.

Then brace yourself for all the armchair experts who know exactly what went wrong and what SHOULD have been done from their position of hindsight.

Finally wait for the hilarious infighting of the fans from different clubs blaming each others players for the usual failure.

England player of the tournament? John Terry!

I believe hodgson has to go. Putting Rooney on the left wing against Italy was a mistake but not changing him at half time when everyone could see rooney being there was a weakness is unforgivable, and it cost us a goal and the match.

Not taking off Gerrard after 70 mins is also a tactical mistake as Gerrard does not have the legs.

I also question his judgement in not bringing Ashley Cole who has over 100 caps and has always performed well at major tournaments.

Also have to question Hodgson's tactical ability when we were 1-1 with uruguay why we didn't play for the draw which at the time would have made us favourites to progress from the group going into the last game.

All those errors by Hodgson are true. Tactically inept & can't even fathom out how to play players in there correct positions, even though he's had years of preparation. I believe he isn't the right man for the job, his negative/defensive coaching style is the complete opposite, to that of the true strengths of our new generation, which is the attacking element of our side. To fail to get out of the WC group is appalling & the excuse of 'it was a tough group' is nonsense, judging by the actual average nature of both Uruguay & Italy, who were beaten by Costa Rica.

Issue is, certain fans, think the only option is 'Arry', so they are lazy & happy to settle for Roy & more importantly, the F.A can't be bothered to find a replacement anyway & don't want to start paying off another manager. There has been no progression under Roy, only failure. Expect more disappointment in France.

John wrote:All those errors by Hodgson are true. Tactically inept & can't even fathom out how to play players in there correct positions, even though he's had years of preparation. I believe he isn't the right man for the job, his negative/defensive coaching style is the complete opposite, to that of the true strengths of our new generation, which is the attacking element of our side. To fail to get out of the WC group is appalling & the excuse of 'it was a tough group' is nonsense, judging by the actual average nature of both Uruguay & Italy, who were beaten by Costa Rica.

Issue is, certain fans, think the only option is 'Arry', so they are lazy & happy to settle for Roy & more importantly, the F.A can't be bothered to find a replacement anyway & don't want to start paying off another manager. There has been no progression under Roy, only failure. Expect more disappointment in France.

What names would you put forward as a replacement for Hodgson?

Havent you read the comments on forums all over the net or listened to the pundits and the media??

There are millions of better candidates than Hodgson out there who would have done better!

How about Robbie Savage or Alan Shearer for starters?

There are options but they won't go down that route, we have Roy for two more years. Brendan Rodgers, Michael Laudrup, even Frank De Boer, who has done a tremendous job at Ajax & knows how to develop & nurture young talent. Him & Laudrup were fantastic players on the International stage & now have good club C.V's under their belt. They would bring the best out of a new generation, who's strengths are attacking, unlike Hodgson, who only knows how to manage teams with defensive shape & discipline. Options aplenty......just pure laziness not to explore these options.

The question is would a manager like Brendan Rodgers get enough time to work with the players at international level? When Sven Goran Erikssen went to Man City, they played a passing game out of the back. When England manager he just played 442 and a typical English style game.

There is no point bringing in a new England manager and expecting a change in style if we are not developing players from grassroots and through youth systems playing that style.

In the Netherlands, they play total football from a young age. Everyone is comfortable on the ball and everyone knows how to play every position. In this country we just pigeon hole players as soon as they kick a ball, you're a striker, you're a defender etc.

sportform wrote:The question is would a manager like Brendan Rodgers get enough time to work with the players at international level? When Sven Goran Erikssen went to Man City, they played a passing game out of the back. When England manager he just played 442 and a typical English style game.

There is no point bringing in a new England manager and expecting a change in style if we are not developing players from grassroots and through youth systems playing that style.

In the Netherlands, they play total football from a young age. Everyone is comfortable on the ball and everyone knows how to play every position. In this country we just pigeon hole players as soon as they kick a ball, you're a striker, you're a defender etc.

This whole grass roots issue is a scape goat. What is the grass roots situation like in costa rica or uruguay or colombia or ivory coast or chilie?

Our youth teams eg under 21's under 18's etc do very well I believe we won the u17 eurooean tournament in 2010 and 2014 and lost in the final of the u20 european tournament a few years ago as well so our youth teams and youth players are clearly working so it is not really a grass roots problem.

I think the original post on the this thread is excellent. I agree with the vast majority of it. A month ago I was happy that JT and Cole weren't selected. In hindsight, perhaps they were needed for the reasons stated in OP. Cahill played quite well, but Jaglielka defended appallingly for both Uruguay goals.

I didn't like Sterling being moved from the 'no 10' position in the second game. You don't move your best player from game 1 out of the position from which he produced that performance. It backfired, as he was less prevalent in the second game, like England.

The only thing I disagree with though is how bleak things look. What I feel is being lost in the outrage is that England actually played ok. We were better on the ball than I've seen in a few tournaments (2 years ago we had a dark ages 39% possession across the whole tournament), Sturridge and Sterling have transformed us in the final third. They've modernised us and given us flair and mobility, and Barkley looked good against the Italians. There are bright spots.

If Rooney had scored his great chance against Italy, and his even better left footed chance against Uruguay then we'd still be in this. We were edged out in both games. 2 statistically close games. In 2 years I think we'll do ok. Quarters is a realistic aim if we can find a partner for Cahill and Shaw improves.

To conclude, I've seen England play far worse football in previous tournaments and qualify. Unfortunately, those previous tournaments had defenders like Rio, Terry, Cole, Campbell and Gary Neville. That's where we're lacking. The future looks bright in all other departments.

Danny_1982 wrote:I think the original post on the this thread is excellent. I agree with the vast majority of it. A month ago I was happy that JT and Cole weren't selected. In hindsight, perhaps they were needed for the reasons stated in OP. Cahill played quite well, but Jaglielka defended appallingly for both Uruguay goals.

I didn't like Sterling being moved from the 'no 10' position in the second game. You don't move your best player from game 1 out of the position from which he produced that performance. It backfired, as he was less prevalent in the second game, like England.

The only thing I disagree with though is how bleak things look. What I feel is being lost in the outrage is that England actually played ok. We were better on the ball than I've seen in a few tournaments (2 years ago we had a dark ages 39% possession across the whole tournament), Sturridge and Sterling have transformed us in the final third. They've modernised us and given us flair and mobility, and Barkley looked good against the Italians. There are bright spots.

If Rooney had scored his great chance against Italy, and his even better left footed chance against Uruguay then we'd still be in this. We were edged out in both games. 2 statistically close games. In 2 years I think we'll do ok. Quarters is a realistic aim if we can find a partner for Cahill and Shaw improves.

To conclude, I've seen England play far worse football in previous tournaments and qualify. Unfortunately, those previous tournaments had defenders like Rio, Terry, Cole, Campbell and Gary Neville. That's where we're lacking. The future looks bright in all other departments.

Could not agree with this more  

Olly wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I think the original post on the this thread is excellent. I agree with the vast majority of it. A month ago I was happy that JT and Cole weren't selected. In hindsight, perhaps they were needed for the reasons stated in OP. Cahill played quite well, but Jaglielka defended appallingly for both Uruguay goals.

I didn't like Sterling being moved from the 'no 10' position in the second game. You don't move your best player from game 1 out of the position from which he produced that performance. It backfired, as he was less prevalent in the second game, like England.

The only thing I disagree with though is how bleak things look. What I feel is being lost in the outrage is that England actually played ok. We were better on the ball than I've seen in a few tournaments (2 years ago we had a dark ages 39% possession across the whole tournament), Sturridge and Sterling have transformed us in the final third. They've modernised us and given us flair and mobility, and Barkley looked good against the Italians. There are bright spots.

If Rooney had scored his great chance against Italy, and his even better left footed chance against Uruguay then we'd still be in this. We were edged out in both games. 2 statistically close games. In 2 years I think we'll do ok. Quarters is a realistic aim if we can find a partner for Cahill and Shaw improves.

To conclude, I've seen England play far worse football in previous tournaments and qualify. Unfortunately, those previous tournaments had defenders like Rio, Terry, Cole, Campbell and Gary Neville. That's where we're lacking. The future looks bright in all other departments.

Could not agree with this more  

The only part I disagree with is the part about us still being in this if rooney scored his chances. If I remember Italy had 2 shots that hit the post and a shot that was headed off of the line, so if Italy had scored those chances.......

What went wrong?

The players aren't good enough. Technically English players, collectively at least, aren't solid enough. We're a team of triers and have been for a while now.

Going out at the first hurdle doesn't surprise me. We're the Stoke City of the football world.

Agree totally that Ashley Cole shoulda gone. The only genuine world class player we've possessed in the past 15 years.

But everyone loves a trier...

FreekShow wrote:What went wrong?

The players aren't good enough. Technically English players, collectively at least, aren't solid enough. We're a team of triers and have been for a while now.

Going out at the first hurdle doesn't surprise me. We're the Stoke City of the football world.

Agree totally that Ashley Cole shoulda gone. The only genuine world class player we've possessed in the past 15 years.

But everyone loves a trier...

Yep i agree, it was a massive risk not including Cole and solely relying on baines. baines had never played a game in a major tournament before and has never played in the champions league so it was unknown how he would perform and cope with the pressure and he really struggled. if Cole was in the team then at least we would have had an alternative so that we could sub baines or dro him in favour of Cole who has ALWAYS performed at major tournaments.

Personally I think not having Cole and JT cost us massively.

FreekShow wrote:What went wrong?

The players aren't good enough. Technically English players, collectively at least, aren't solid enough. We're a team of triers and have been for a while now.

Going out at the first hurdle doesn't surprise me. We're the Stoke City of the football world.

Agree totally that Ashley Cole shoulda gone. The only genuine world class player we've possessed in the past 15 years.

But everyone loves a trier...

Me more than most, Freek!

I think I preferred Euro 2012 in all honesty. We were resilient, honest, true, and brave, the hope lasted longer, and it was all about two banks of four, spirit of Agincourt and the Blitz,  whilst enduring a spirit that England could pull off the greatest of great escapes.

Shield walls and gallant defending? That's England.
Pretty passing and seamless attacking flair? Pftttt...we've won more World Cups than the Dutch.

Duty, I'd love to throw the V2 family into a time machine and take us back to the summer of 1996.

I was 18 back then and I was you, only straighter! Eng;and rocked.

We'd have all believed back then. Pessimism didn't exist in the 90's   

Lampard, Gerrard, Scholes, Owen, Terry Ferdinand, Neville, not world class then?

I don't buy a) Sterling was our best player in the Italy game as he flicked in and out of the game as much as anyone or b) that moving him out wide, to a position hes actually probably more used to, was a huge mistake. He didnt perform at all well in the second game and is being protected because people want to complain about Rooney for some reason.

I believe stats show Glen Johnson and Wayne Rooney tied as the England players who created the most chances (5 each).

Cole is also a much better pick in hindsight. Not first choice for England all qualifying, not first pick for his team all season.

kingraf wrote:Lampard, Gerrard, Scholes,  Owen, Terry Ferdinand, Neville, not world class then?

most of those names are world class at domestic level but I wouldn't say les ferdinand or Phil Neville are branded as world class....

FreekShow wrote:Duty, I'd love to throw the V2 family into a time machine and take us back to the summer of 1996.

I was 18 back then and I was you, only straighter! Eng;and rocked.

We'd have all believed back then. Pessimism didn't exist in the 90's   

Of course it did! Look at the treatment of Robson before Italia 90! Turnip Taylor, Eileen Drewery!

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I don't buy a) Sterling was our best player in the Italy game as he flicked in and out of the game as much as anyone or b) that moving him out wide, to a position hes actually probably more used to, was a huge mistake. He didnt perform at all well in the second game and is being protected because people want to complain about Rooney for some reason.

I believe stats show Glen Johnson and Wayne Rooney tied as the England players who created the most chances (5 each).

Cole is also a much better pick in hindsight. Not first choice for England all qualifying, not first pick for his team all season.

Well Sterling was amazing in that first game and got motm. He was running at players at pace and causing havoc.

The issue with Johnson is that he cannot defend, great he made 5 chances for England but how many chances did he create for Italy and uruguay due to his poor defending?

kingraf wrote:Lampard, Gerrard, Scholes,  Owen, Terry Ferdinand, Neville, not world class then?

An international team that contains 6 world class players does a helluva lot better than the teams that the above played in Rafa.

I'd say of those mentioned Scholes possibly sneaks in.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

FreekShow wrote:Duty, I'd love to throw the V2 family into a time machine and take us back to the summer of 1996.

I was 18 back then and I was you, only straighter! Eng;and rocked.

We'd have all believed back then. Pessimism didn't exist in the 90's   

Of course it did! Look at the treatment of Robson before Italia 90! Turnip Taylor, Eileen Drewery!

I'm on about the supporters Chris.

Eileen Drewery and Graham Taylor for that matter had nowt to do with pessimism anyway.

FreekShow wrote:

kingraf wrote:Lampard, Gerrard, Scholes,  Owen, Terry Ferdinand, Neville, not world class then?

An international team that contains 6 world class players does a helluva lot better than the teams that the above played in Rafa.

I'd say of those mentioned Scholes possibly sneaks in.

Owen was world class in his pomp Freeky, early 2000's

Gerrard/Lampard for there clubs were

Not sure Neville ever was

Terry/Ferdinand were in there prime

FreekShow wrote:Duty, I'd love to throw the V2 family into a time machine and take us back to the summer of 1996.

I was 18 back then and I was you, only straighter! Eng;and rocked.

We'd have all believed back then. Pessimism didn't exist in the 90's   

Owen would still be pessimistic.

FreekShow wrote:

kingraf wrote:Lampard, Gerrard, Scholes,  Owen, Terry Ferdinand, Neville, not world class then?

An international team that contains 6 world class players does a helluva lot better than the teams that the above played in Rafa.

I'd say of those mentioned Scholes possibly sneaks in.

in all fairness all of the above are world class, Lampard was voted the 2nd best player in the world and gerrard voted the 3rd best player in the ballon d'or 2005 only losing to ronaldinho. Owen was also voted the european player of the year in 2001 beating Raul and figo and totti.

The problem is that the england team never play as a team, you can have all the best players in the world eg france 2002, spain 2014, holland 2012 but if you don't play well as a team you will lose.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I don't buy a) Sterling was our best player in the Italy game as he flicked in and out of the game as much as anyone or b) that moving him out wide, to a position hes actually probably more used to, was a huge mistake. He didnt perform at all well in the second game and is being protected because people want to complain about Rooney for some reason.

I believe stats show Glen Johnson and Wayne Rooney tied as the England players who created the most chances (5 each).

Cole is also a much better pick in hindsight. Not first choice for England all qualifying, not first pick for his team all season.

Well Sterling was amazing in that first game and got motm. He was running at players at pace and causing havoc.

The issue with Johnson is that he cannot defend, great he made 5 chances for England but how many chances did he create for Italy and uruguay due to his poor defending?

Indeed, I agree on Johnson as a defender per se, however I think it says a lot that he set up more than many attacking players. I also don't think he was actually to blame for anything in the Italy game, whilst his contribution in the Uruguay game probably outweighed his one notable defensive mistake.

I personally found the guff over Sterling's first game a bit much and probably wouldnt have had him motm. He played well, granted, but not amazing. His dribbling was good but I always felt Italy were generally comfortable with where they were making him go and his final ball and work in the final third was not up to standards he can reach. And considering he has played more wide games in his career than central then I don't think moving ever so slightly wider should have seen him play so poorly.

Moreover, I think Rooney was probably our best player in this tournament...  

Seems both journalists and fellow professionals were drunk in love when Lampard got second in the Golden Ball, and Fifa awards, then...

Gerrard and Frank were never going to work in a diamond formation... it wasn't even their club formations.... Would have got more from them emulating Mourinhos 4-3-3 formation from his first Chelsea stint

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I think Rooney was probably our best player in this tournament...  

Oh dear god

FreekShow wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

FreekShow wrote:Duty, I'd love to throw the V2 family into a time machine and take us back to the summer of 1996.

I was 18 back then and I was you, only straighter! Eng;and rocked.

We'd have all believed back then. Pessimism didn't exist in the 90's   

Of course it did! Look at the treatment of Robson before Italia 90! Turnip Taylor, Eileen Drewery!

I'm on about the supporters Chris.

Eileen Drewery and Graham Taylor for that matter had nowt to do with pessimism anyway.

I think the supporters were pessimistic for 90 from what i've read and spoke to older people about. But we can blame that from a hangover of the 80s   

And you're right, the rest is probably cynicism not pessimism. But listen to that opening part of Three Lions in 96. Its English pundits (Hansen can count as he works here) slating England.

meant respective club formations, obviously

John wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I think Rooney was probably our best player in this tournament...  

Oh dear god

Who was better? Welbeck, Sterling and Sturridge were all poor in the second game. The defence hasnt covered itself in glory and Gerrard has looked a bit gone. So its Henderson (my second choice) or Rooney. One goal, one assist, 5 chances created and, coincidentally, WhoScored.com's England player of the tournament on ratings too.

I'm not sure there was really a "player of the tournament" for us, but Rooney would be in the discussion for it, I'd probably plump for Cahill maybe but nobody really stood out

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I don't buy a) Sterling was our best player in the Italy game as he flicked in and out of the game as much as anyone or b) that moving him out wide, to a position hes actually probably more used to, was a huge mistake. He didnt perform at all well in the second game and is being protected because people want to complain about Rooney for some reason.

I believe stats show Glen Johnson and Wayne Rooney tied as the England players who created the most chances (5 each).

Cole is also a much better pick in hindsight. Not first choice for England all qualifying, not first pick for his team all season.

Well Sterling was amazing in that first game and got motm. He was running at players at pace and causing havoc.

The issue with Johnson is that he cannot defend, great he made 5 chances for England but how many chances did he create for Italy and uruguay due to his poor defending?

Indeed, I agree on Johnson as a defender per se, however I think it says a lot that he set up more than many attacking players. I also don't think he was actually to blame for anything in the Italy game, whilst his contribution in the Uruguay game probably outweighed his one notable defensive mistake.

I personally found the guff over Sterling's first game a bit much and probably wouldnt have had him motm. He played well, granted, but not amazing. His dribbling was good but I always felt Italy were generally comfortable with where they were making him go and his final ball and work in the final third was not up to standards he can reach. And considering he has played more wide games in his career than central then I don't think moving ever so slightly wider should have seen him play so poorly.

Moreover, I think Rooney was probably our best player in this tournament...  

I think it is between rooney and cahill for best player and that highlights just how poor we have been because rooney and cahill haven't been great or anything.

Rooney for his 1 assist and 1 goal and cahill because he did well against italy in the 1on 1 near the end of the game and played well against uruguay