What went wrong with England?

First topic message reminder :

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.

Johnson wasn't too bad, was he?

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

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.

You missed the exclamation mark there. Unless you was being serious?

I knew the two yard tap in from Rooney would paper over the cracks of his dire play. Redknapp said Rooney was our 'silver lining'......  

As for the accomodation of Rooney, I have a question. As he gets older, he's going to move backwards towards midfield. Is there an option of him playing or sitting in CM alongside a Barkley with Henderson behind?

-----------Henderson--------------
------Barkley------Rooney----------
Walcott------Sturridge-------Sterling/Ox

It kind of helps us & ends this accomodation issue. When Gerrard goes, CM is an issue & im not sure about wilshere to be honest. thoughts? slate it if u want.

kingraf wrote:Johnson wasn't too bad, was he?

pretty sure he played a part in balotelli's goal.

He should have done more on Cavani, and I don't think he ever makes life easy for the centre backs. Considering our defence was our weakness, I can't consider him or Cahill too highly.

I agree there wasnt really a player of the tournament as such, and I agree its not exactly a highly competitive stellar award, but my point remains all the same.

John wrote:I knew the two yard tap in from Rooney would paper over the cracks of his dire play. Redknapp said Rooney was our 'silver lining'......  

As for the accomodation of Rooney, I have a question. As he gets older, he's going to move backwards towards midfield. Is there an option of him playing or sitting in CM alongside a Barkley with Henderson behind?

-----------Henderson--------------
------Barkley------Rooney----------
Walcott------Sturridge-------Sterling/Ox

It kind of helps us & ends this accomodation issue. When Gerrard goes, CM is an issue & im not sure about wilshere to be honest. thoughts? slate it if u want.

Not the most outlandish of ideas but I'd rather Wilshere there myself, I can certainly see Rooney moving back toward CM as his career moves on

John wrote:I knew the two yard tap in from Rooney would paper over the cracks of his dire play. Redknapp said Rooney was our 'silver lining'......  

As for the accomodation of Rooney, I have a question. As he gets older, he's going to move backwards towards midfield. Is there an option of him playing or sitting in CM alongside a Barkley with Henderson behind?

-----------Henderson--------------
------Barkley------Rooney----------
Walcott------Sturridge-------Sterling/Ox

It kind of helps us & ends this accomodation issue. When Gerrard goes, CM is an issue & im not sure about wilshere to be honest. thoughts? slate it if u want.

A few years yet still for me, John. He is probably still our best striker really.

On the first point, he did bloody well to get there for that goal, and his cross to Sturridge for the assist was fantastic. You can't really bemoan an attacking player who scored one and created the other goal we scored.

I'd said often before that I would probably have played a midfield three. I actually think it made sense to play Welbeck in the Italy game as he was the only one committed to pressing properly. However, in hindsight, he wasnt needed against Uruguay and I'd have played both Sterling and Rooney off Sturridge with rotation between the three. Shame the Ox wasnt fit but the other man for me would have been Wilshere in with Hendo and Gerrard.

In the future, I'd consider whether Ox will play as a winger at club level or centrally. I'd also play a midfield three and use Sterling or Walcott in that revolving three with Rooney and Sturridge.

Having said all that, I would like to see us show more flexibility in formation depending on the opponent.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:He should have done more on Cavani, and I don't think he ever makes life easy for the centre backs. Considering our defence was our weakness, I can't consider him or Cahill too highly.

I agree there wasnt really a player of the tournament as such, and I agree its not exactly a highly competitive stellar award, but my point remains all the same.

I would argue that if sterling plays behind the striker in the last game he will overcome rooney for the best player award. If sturridge scores 1 more goal he will overcome rooney in my view as well.

John wrote:I knew the two yard tap in from Rooney would paper over the cracks of his dire play. Redknapp said Rooney was our 'silver lining'......  

As for the accomodation of Rooney, I have a question. As he gets older, he's going to move backwards towards midfield. Is there an option of him playing or sitting in CM alongside a Barkley with Henderson behind?

-----------Henderson--------------
------Barkley------Rooney----------
Walcott------Sturridge-------Sterling/Ox

It kind of helps us & ends this accomodation issue. When Gerrard goes, CM is an issue & im not sure about wilshere to be honest. thoughts? slate it if u want.

I wouldn't pick either Rooney or Henderson in those roles. I don't think England have a player who can play as a pure holding midfielder, so there's little point trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Yeah, the problem with Henderson this tournament is restricting him into a holding role. He does a decent job there but for Liverpool is strength has been pressing higher up the pitch and when attacking running beyond the strikers.

Nakatomi Plaza wrote:

John wrote:I knew the two yard tap in from Rooney would paper over the cracks of his dire play. Redknapp said Rooney was our 'silver lining'......  

As for the accomodation of Rooney, I have a question. As he gets older, he's going to move backwards towards midfield. Is there an option of him playing or sitting in CM alongside a Barkley with Henderson behind?

-----------Henderson--------------
------Barkley------Rooney----------
Walcott------Sturridge-------Sterling/Ox

It kind of helps us & ends this accomodation issue. When Gerrard goes, CM is an issue & im not sure about wilshere to be honest. thoughts? slate it if u want.

I wouldn't pick either Rooney or Henderson in those roles. I don't think England have a player who can play as a pure holding midfielder, so there's little point trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

I think this is an area Wilshere should look into. I don't think hes good enough at the type of player he wants to be, yet his tackling, balance and short passing game would suit being a holding player. It would also get him a spot in the Arsenal team, whereas I don't see him forcing anyone in the front four out of their spots.

Crimey wrote:Yeah, the problem with Henderson this tournament is restricting him into a holding role. He does a decent job there but for Liverpool is strength has been pressing higher up the pitch and when attacking running beyond the strikers.

But his final third passing is so bad, whereas his transitional play has really impressed me

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:He should have done more on Cavani, and I don't think he ever makes life easy for the centre backs. Considering our defence was our weakness, I can't consider him or Cahill too highly.

I agree there wasnt really a player of the tournament as such, and I agree its not exactly a highly competitive stellar award, but my point remains all the same.

I would argue that if sterling plays behind the striker in the last game he will overcome rooney for the best player award. If sturridge scores 1 more goal he will overcome rooney in my view as well.

I think thats being a bit too nice to Sterling, who didnt play at all well against Uruguay and should shoulder some blame for that. He also didnt do enough in the final third in either game.

If Sturridge played better he'd have got it, but thats all a bit "if and buts" for me.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Crimey wrote:Yeah, the problem with Henderson this tournament is restricting him into a holding role. He does a decent job there but for Liverpool is strength has been pressing higher up the pitch and when attacking running beyond the strikers.

But his final third passing is so bad, whereas his transitional play has really impressed me

Yeah I get that in this tournament, but he was never really playing the same role, he starts much higher up for Liverpool and is often the highest player on the pitch with Suarez, Sturridge dropping deep. Think he was a bit wasted in this England team restricting him to deep. I think he's going to develop into a top player though, glad Hodgson showed faith in him rather than using Wilshere who is more flashy but less efficient.

He's won me over in this role. I think if Rodgers had played him a bit deeper at times you may well have won the league too.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Nakatomi Plaza wrote:

John wrote:I knew the two yard tap in from Rooney would paper over the cracks of his dire play. Redknapp said Rooney was our 'silver lining'......  

As for the accomodation of Rooney, I have a question. As he gets older, he's going to move backwards towards midfield. Is there an option of him playing or sitting in CM alongside a Barkley with Henderson behind?

-----------Henderson--------------
------Barkley------Rooney----------
Walcott------Sturridge-------Sterling/Ox

It kind of helps us & ends this accomodation issue. When Gerrard goes, CM is an issue & im not sure about wilshere to be honest. thoughts? slate it if u want.

I wouldn't pick either Rooney or Henderson in those roles. I don't think England have a player who can play as a pure holding midfielder, so there's little point trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

I think this is an area Wilshere should look into. I don't think hes good enough at the type of player he wants to be, yet his tackling, balance and short passing game would suit being a holding player. It would also get him a spot in the Arsenal team, whereas I don't see him forcing anyone in the front four out of their spots.

I think you're right about Wilshere short passing, but he needs to stop holding onto the ball for so long in tight areas. Before he had his run of injuries this hardly happened. Not sure about his tackling ability though, he can indulge in some Scholesque lunges at times.

[quote="John"]I knew the two yard tap in from Rooney would paper over the cracks of his dire play. Redknapp said Rooney was our 'silver lining'......  [/quote

Except of course it wasn't just a tap-in, he won the ball back from Uruguay, started the move, made a perfectly timed run, and then tapped it in.

If you want to be delusional & overhype Rooney during this WC, like you thought England would beat Italy & Uruguay, then do so. Rooney was terrible vs Italy & hardly `world class` against Uruguay.  He missed clear chances, unlike Suarez.

Rooney`s produced a tap in during a WC warm up & a tap in vs Uruguay. That's it, we`re out after eight days & have been totally embarrassed in the group by Costa Rica. If you want to praise that & try & squeak out any positive you can, from Rooney`s dire performances, then you are an idiot.

Let me guess, you think Roy did a good job & we`re favourites for Euro 2016.

I thought Rooney did well, not world class...then I never thought he were such a player, and Roy my boy, he was disappointing. I thought our organisation and set-pieces let us down...areas I thought we could count on with Hodgson in charge.

I am convinced that the three lions folded under the pressure of Duty's predictions. Knowing that he would cry in front of his poster of a shirtless Beckham at night if they lost was too much pressure for them to bear.

I thought Rooney was okay - fantastic assist for the Sturridge goal, and a decent tap in (not giving him credit for "starting" the move, it was a decent goal, but he didn't put up a defense splitter to start it, so that's much ado about nada), But in this world cup, all the big names have come to the party, and England's star man didn't do enough.

Rooney was okay but to say who England's best player during this WC was would be akin to saying what the best Westlife album is (as Rowley would say).  
Rooney was decent by his current standards but lets be honest, he's a shadow of the player he was in 2004. Gone are the days where he totally torments defenders throughout. He now gets contained relatively easily while occasionally producing a moment of class.

socal1976 wrote:I am convinced that the three lions folded under the pressure of Duty's predictions. Knowing that he would cry in front of his poster of a shirtless Beckham at night if they lost was too much pressure for them to bear.

Becks? More like Theo Walcott.

Crimey wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Crimey wrote:Yeah, the problem with Henderson this tournament is restricting him into a holding role. He does a decent job there but for Liverpool is strength has been pressing higher up the pitch and when attacking running beyond the strikers.

But his final third passing is so bad, whereas his transitional play has really impressed me

Yeah I get that in this tournament, but he was never really playing the same role, he starts much higher up for Liverpool and is often the highest player on the pitch with Suarez, Sturridge dropping deep. Think he was a bit wasted in this England team restricting him to deep. I think he's going to develop into a top player though, glad Hodgson showed faith in him rather than using Wilshere who is more flashy but less efficient.

Henderson plays in a diamond at Liverpool which basically gives them a v-shaped three in midfield where you have Gerrard at the base and Henderson and Coutinho/ Allen ahead either side. Therefore Gerrard is already in the deeper position.

When Henderson plays with Gerrard in a two for England, they have to move together as a two. The trouble is Gerrard wants to drop deep to get the ball of the centre backs (which there is no need for) and drags Henderson back. All or a sudden there's a gap between the midfield and attack. If you go back and watch the friendlies against Peru and Honduras, once Gerrard goes off the midfield start to play much higher and our tempo increased.

For me this was obvious in the friendlies and in Euro 2012 and could have been solved by a) dropping Gerrard or b) switching to a three man midfield.

It is no coincidence that our best games in the past two years:-
2012 2-1 vs Italy Carrick, Lampard Cleverley
2012 2-1 vs Brazil Gerrard, Wilshere, Cleverley
2013 2-2 vs Brazil Jones, Carrick, Lampard

...all features three in midfield

Duty281 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I am convinced that the three lions folded under the pressure of Duty's predictions. Knowing that he would cry in front of his poster of a shirtless Beckham at night if they lost was too much pressure for them to bear.

Becks? More like Theo Walcott.

Theo is the gunner's favorite baby faced assassin.

sportform wrote:

Crimey wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Crimey wrote:Yeah, the problem with Henderson this tournament is restricting him into a holding role. He does a decent job there but for Liverpool is strength has been pressing higher up the pitch and when attacking running beyond the strikers.

But his final third passing is so bad, whereas his transitional play has really impressed me

Yeah I get that in this tournament, but he was never really playing the same role, he starts much higher up for Liverpool and is often the highest player on the pitch with Suarez, Sturridge dropping deep. Think he was a bit wasted in this England team restricting him to deep. I think he's going to develop into a top player though, glad Hodgson showed faith in him rather than using Wilshere who is more flashy but less efficient.

Henderson plays in a diamond at Liverpool which basically gives them a v-shaped three in midfield where you have Gerrard at the base and Henderson and Coutinho/ Allen ahead either side. Therefore Gerrard is already in the deeper position.

When Henderson plays with Gerrard in a two for England, they have to move together as a two. The trouble is Gerrard wants to drop deep to get the ball of the centre backs (which there is no need for) and drags Henderson back. All or a sudden there's a gap between the midfield and attack. If you go back and watch the friendlies against Peru and Honduras, once Gerrard goes off the midfield start to play much higher and our tempo increased.

For me this was obvious in the friendlies and in Euro 2012 and could have been solved by a) dropping Gerrard or b) switching to a three man midfield.

It is no coincidence that our best games in the past two years:-
2012 2-1 vs Italy Carrick, Lampard Cleverley
2012 2-1 vs Brazil Gerrard, Wilshere, Cleverley
2013 2-2 vs Brazil Jones, Carrick, Lampard

...all features three in midfield

You are agreeing with me about Henderson, he's restricted by having him as a holding midfielder as that is not where he has been used all year and doesn't play to his strengths. I think you can have a two pivot system without having to pull Henderson back. The key would have been to allow Gerrard to sit deeper, almost between the two centre halves where he can distribute with Henderson having more of a box to box role. Think that would have played to both strengths. I do think there is a need for Gerrard to come get the ball off of the centre backs, he does it at Liverpool and there is even more of a need to do it at England with Cahill and Jagielka not being the best at playing the ball out. Think having Gerrard there wouldn't have exposed him as much either. 

The problem with a three man midfield is you then have to either drop one of Rooney or Sturridge or play them out of position. I think it would have been a shame if Sturridge, who had come off a fantastic year and one of the best for an English forward in a good few years, had been shoved out wide or been dropped, which is I imagine what would have happened.

Crimey wrote:The problem with a three man midfield is you then have to either drop one of Rooney or Sturridge or play them out of position. I think it would have been a shame if Sturridge, who had come off a fantastic year and one of the best for an English forward in a good few years, had been shoved out wide or been dropped, which is I imagine what would have happened.

Sturridge has had a good year but he isn't and out-and-out striker for me. I said that before the World Cup and stick by it now. In the two games, Sturridge kept drifting wide and deep when he should have been occupying the two centre backs. They just let him wonder. Look at Thomas Muller and he most stays between the two centre backs with the main aim of getting into the box. Sturridge didn't do that enough. I would have played Rooney in the centre. Sturridge could have played wide and made runs into the box when Rooney came short. that would have got the best out of Sturridge.

Crimey wrote:I think you can have a two pivot system without having to pull Henderson back. The key would have been to allow Gerrard to sit deeper, almost between the two centre halves where he can distribute with Henderson having more of a box to box role. Think that would have played to both strengths. I do think there is a need for Gerrard to come get the ball off of the centre backs, he does it at Liverpool and there is even more of a need to do it at England with Cahill and Jagielka not being the best at playing the ball out. Think having Gerrard there wouldn't have exposed him as much either.

For me that is just asking for trouble. No reason why Gerrard has to drop deep. Why can't the centre back bring the ball out? I don't see too many teams have midfields that do that.

Gerrard does do it at Liverpool because he has Coutinho and Henderson either side which keeps the shape. Plus from watching Liverpool last year, they were more of a counter attacking team anyway.

I am guessing you are a Liverpool fan?

I think the key problem is that we do not have a long term plan. I 100% agree with Guillem on Skysports. We don't have enough coaches and young players are paid for too much at a young age. The FA is one of the key reasons for this problem. If they came out today saying look we have a 10 year plan, we plan to increase the number of coaches, build more pitches, set a cap on what young players in England can earn, and build towards winning the world cup.

That would take eyes away from results, and look more at performances on the field. The fact that the fans have no direction as to where their country is going it just comes out in violent outburst about how England failed etc...We won't get out of this cycle until someone has the arrogance, and the stubbornness to establish a long term plan, and stop these leagues of having all the power, as it the FA that represents England, and not these leagues who push for any additional penny they can get.

I am not upset about England going out, Roy was always in a losing battle as the media, and fans would always jump on his back if things didn't go his way. People focused on the result rather than the performance, and overall I am left feeling optimistic rather than pessimistic about the future. We have a core group of players who can play together for the next 4 major tournaments, in Joe Hart, Luke Shaw, Chamberlain, Sturridge, Barkley, Cahill, John Stones, Jones, Flanagan, Zaha, Caulker, Rodriguez, Walker, just to name a few who could be around the squad. Onwards and upwards. Enough of this golden generation, and false expectation!

John wrote:If you want to be delusional & overhype Rooney during this WC, like you thought England would beat Italy & Uruguay, then do so. Rooney was terrible vs Italy & hardly `world class` against Uruguay.  He missed clear chances, unlike Suarez.

Rooney`s produced a tap in during a WC warm up & a tap in vs Uruguay. That's it, we`re out after eight days & have been totally embarrassed in the group by Costa Rica. If you want to praise that & try & squeak out any positive you can, from Rooney`s dire performances, then you are an idiot.

Let me guess, you think Roy did a good job & we`re favourites for Euro 2016.

have to say I agree with this post 100%. In my view Rooney has had a horrible tournament and only someone who is delusional would try and argue that Rooney has had a good tournament.

have to say that I understand why other uk nations want England to fail. Reading Duty's posts before the tournament where he was blindly telling everyone England would top the group and beat italy and uruguay was just painful to read and comments like duty's make other teams dislike us because some english fans arrogance is unjustified. Comments like England will top our group or comments by duty that England were the 2nd best team at the 2002 WC or comments that we were just unlucky not to win Euro 2012 by Duty illustrate how some English fans are blindly arrogant and why the English national team has so much pressure to perform.

We have to accept that currently this English team is not favourites for anything and at this world cup there are probably close to 20 teams that I would put money on them beating England.

Something needs to change and I think it starts with Hodgson, he made some horrible tactical decisions at the WC and some horrible selection choices for our final 23 man squad. Bring in a younger manager who can play fluid football, none of these old managers who have ancient tactics eg capello, hodgson, McLaren etc

We need to drop the old guard eg gerrard, lampard, jagielka, baines, johnson and breed in some new fresh talent for euro 2016.

But no one outperformed Rooney. So...

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:But no one outperformed Rooney. So...

Well it is all subjective. In my view he cost us 3 points against Italy with his shocking tracking back and lack of tactical discipline and poor shooting.

Even if it was 'proven' he was England's best player that doesn't mean anything at all, it only highlights he was the best of a bad bunch and still played horribly, just less horribly than the others.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:But no one outperformed Rooney. So...

He's an easy target, isn't he? Why blame Gerrard, Baines, Jagielka, or Sturridge, when you can blame Wazza?

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:But no one outperformed Rooney. So...

He's an easy target, isn't he? Why blame Gerrard, Baines, Jagielka, or Sturridge, when you can blame Wazza?

What are you talking about? All of the above players have received criticism......

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

We had low expectations for this tournament, but not this low.   This has been a disappointment even by England standards as this team has plumbed new depths of ineptitude and indifference.

I come from a generation where England players were expected to give blood for the team.  From Nobby Stiles through the likes of Kevin Keegan, Terry Butcher, Ian Wright and hey, let's not forget how even Beckham redeemed himself after his 1998 brainf*rt.   His performance against Greece in that World Cup Qualifier at Old Trafford was almost an out of body experience.   That was what we expect from every England player, every time they pull on that shirt.

The truly disappointing thing for me isn't so much the losing of the games, it is the limp, insipid performances from players who have no heart.  Yeah, they say they care, but that's just what they've been trained to say by their PR coaches.   This generation of media-savvy footballers know the things to say in front of the cameras and they can get away with weasel words.

But performances don't lie.

We are becoming more tactically aware.  We are developing more skilful footballers and that's good.   But without the desire to roll up your sleeves, look the opposition in the eye and let them know that if they want to win they'll have to do it over your twitching corpse... without that, the skill is nothing.

Can Leighton Baines become Nobby Stiles...?   I don't know.  But I'll think a damned sight more of him if he tries. And that goes for all the England players.

Terrible performance, embarrassing world cup. Roy, please go.

1 point out of 3 games, pathetic, diabolical & embarrassing.

There's no excuse at all for such awful playing/incompetence.

They will never learn, neither will the fa.

Simply England don't have any World Class players. There was hardly any expectations for the World Cup so I am amazed at the suprise of the media and some of the fans that we didn't qualify. I'll be honest I thought we were a tad unlucky against Italy and Uruguay. We were undone by some very clinical finishing and poor defending. The CB's are too slow. No natural leaders in the back line. It was a shame the Ox was injured as I would've love to have seen him and Sterling run at teams. I did expect better from Henderson given how well played during the domestic season. The decision not to start Shaw was bizarre.

Rooney has got to go. 2 goals in 16 major tournament matches is just poor. Seems to have never captured the magic of Euro 2004.

Going forward? Well the FA seriously need to sit down with the PL and try and work out a solution to introduce more young english players into the league to help England as a national team move forward. We need more promising youngsters since this 'Golden Generation' has long been over.

I hope Roy peseveres with youth as we do have some talented youngsters, it is a question have how much they can push themselves individually.

it's not solely about who has the better players, tactics, passion and desire can win matches eg chilie v spaoin, costa rica v italy/uruguay, greece v Ivory coast etc etc

Problem is Roy Hodgson is tactically terrible eg leaving rooney on the left against Italy the whole game or moving our best player in the first game (sterling) to a new position to accommodate a player who played poor in the first game (rooney) or keeping gerrard on the whole 90 mins or leaving Ashley Cole at home.

Pick a manger who has some tactical knowledge and we would have done better.

Believe it or not, England's performances and results weren't that surprising for me.

I figured we'd have a hard time against Italy and Uruguay. The only real surprise was Costa Rica - ironically the team we did best against!

For me, the majority of the blame lies with the players. Not so much for anything they did wrong, but simply that they weren't good enough.

Roy Hodgson seems like a decent manager, he just doesn't have the quality of players to work with.

Until the FA (hopefully with the assistance of the PL) start taking steps to address this, we will continue to be an average footballing nation on the world stage.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

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

We had low expectations for this tournament, but not this low.   This has been a disappointment even by England standards as this team has plumbed new depths of ineptitude and indifference.

I come from a generation where England players were expected to give blood for the team.  From Nobby Stiles through the likes of Kevin Keegan, Terry Butcher, Ian Wright and hey, let's not forget how even Beckham redeemed himself after his 1998 brainf*rt.   His performance against Greece in that World Cup Qualifier at Old Trafford was almost an out of body experience.   That was what we expect from every England player, every time they pull on that shirt.

The truly disappointing thing for me isn't so much the losing of the games, it is the limp, insipid performances from players who have no heart.  Yeah, they say they care, but that's just what they've been trained to say by their PR coaches.   This generation of media-savvy footballers know the things to say in front of the cameras and they can get away with weasel words.

But performances don't lie.

We are becoming more tactically aware.  We are developing more skilful footballers and that's good.   But without the desire to roll up your sleeves, look the opposition in the eye and let them know that if they want to win they'll have to do it over your twitching corpse... without that, the skill is nothing.

Can Leighton Baines become Nobby Stiles...?   I don't know.  But I'll think a damned sight more of him if he tries. And that goes for all the England players.

I hate to say it, because 4th Lion is an excellent poster, but to me, this post epitomises what went wrong at the World Cup. English football fans and players think that 'heart' is the most important attribute a player can have. To some extent, that's correct, because without heart you can't develop the attributes that are actually important. However, it's also completely wrong, because it suggests that had our players simply 'tried harder' they could have done better. Perhaps they could. Perhaps they could have got out of their group: Whereupon they would have been hammered by the first decent team they faced.

The English do not produce players who can dictate games. Where's the English Pirlo or Xavi? There isn't one, and there won't be until we get over the obsession with 'heart'. Were they English, both of those players would have been dumped at around the age of 12 for not showing enough 'heart' - i.e. they don't run around like headless chickens. The nearest equivalent we have ever had is Paul Scholes, and I'd hazard that the only reason he was accepted was because his ridiculous, dangerous tackling displayed 'heart'. Other than that, Glenn Hoddle - heinously under-rated for England and shunted out to the wing, because he wasn't a typical English grafter.

You would have thought we would have learned when the Marvelous Magyars spanked us by using the amazing tactical innovation of actually being intelligent footballers. But that was, what, 60 years ago and we still have the same archaic attitudes, despite the fact that professionalism means that most teams have similar physical profiles, thereby limiting the impact that 'heart' can have.

England were knocked out of the World Cup because we have no world class players, no players with any football intelligence or discipline and no tactical awareness. Furthermore, in sweltering, humid Brazil, our one ace card of 'heart' is actually self-defeating because you just knacker yourself out. This World Cup required tactical astuteness and footballing intelligence. We do not possess those qualities.

Absolutely nothing went wrong with England at the World Cup, nothing at all. The simple fact is that England, along with a lot of other teams in the tournament simply aren't/weren't good enough to progress to the next stage.

I'm not sure how anyone could read anything more into it than that. Italy, Portugal, Ivory Coast and Spain didn't reach the knockout either, no reason England should have, so let's not pretend England should have done any better than getting to the World Cup.

They didn't underperform, they weren't particularly unlucky, they weren't cheated, they weren't hampered by injury any more than any other squad. On this occasion they didn't deserve any more, and previous last 16's or QF appearances don't translate to meaning they ought to have got there this time.

Very few expected them to progress, and they didn't. Why the inquest?

The biggest issue we had was our 2 biggest players (Rooney and Gerrard) just underperformed. Ask any fans of the clubs they play for and they'll tell you that the pair of them could do a lot better.

Anyone that thought we was a shoe in to progress was pretty misguided and dragged along with the whole 'there's no pressure so we're gonna win'. We've got a plan to go for 2020 (I believe) and that's what we should focus on.

Some of the younger lads got a bit more experience on the world stage which will help them in the future but now it's up to the clubs to try and bring them on a bit more.

(Through gritted teeth) SR is right in that if you look at the other 'big' International teams that went out, it's no surprise we did and regardless of past 'glories' nobody has a right to be there.

You can ignore the points tally too as the Costa Rica game was played as a glorified friendly so wouldn't worry too much about that

You want our players to learn from the best, make a rule that states each Club has to have 3 English players in the starting 11 and stop the bigger clubs from being able to hoover up all they young talent and leave them rotting in the reserves etc.

Roll on the Euro's now

super_realist wrote:Very few expected them to progress, and they didn't. Why the inquest?

The Premier League is the richest in the world and our players are incredibly highly paid, yet we didn't expect to get out of a group that included a very average Italian team, a one-man Uruguay and Costa Rica. And it's not just that we didn't qualify. We came bottom of our group and never looked like winning any of our games.

Surely that does deserve an inquest? Why have England never been competitive at the top level? Even when we had our Golden Generation, filled with talent, we achieved nothing. Why is that?

@JBBRH

If you look at the premier league though have a look at how many world class players we actually have and it's very few.

I think the 'Golden Generation' had a detrimental effect on England as it seemed (IMO) that certain players would have 'their' number no matter what, this seems to have continued along with this I'll pick the 11 best players regardless of position and force them to play out of position. That rarely works in 1 off games, never mind a tournament. Hopefully with Gerrard et all going Roy can build a team around the way he wants to play.

But I'd take how we played (especially against Italy) over the boring Sven way any day.

Derbymanc wrote:@JBBRH

If you look at the premier league though have a look at how many world class players we actually have and it's very few.

I think the 'Golden Generation' had a detrimental effect on England as it seemed (IMO) that certain players would have 'their' number no matter what, this seems to have continued along with this I'll pick the 11 best players regardless of position and force them to play out of position. That rarely works in 1 off games, never mind a tournament. Hopefully with Gerrard et all going Roy can build a team around the way he wants to play.

But I'd take how we played (especially against Italy) over the boring Sven way any day.

I agree with you completely about the lack of talent. Why is it the case though? I think it has a lot to do with our footballing mentality.

I'd also agree with your views on the Golden Generation. We had players getting shoe-horned into positions that didn't suit them. Was that about getting our best players on the pitch though? Or was it wallpapering over the cracks? I think it was the latter - we simply couldn't put out a balanced midfield, because there are certain types of player England doesn't produce.

Going forwards, I'm not as optimistic as you are about our chances of developing. As you've said, there isn't a depth of talent in the EPL. Do we have any good holding players coming through? I can't see any. Do we have any playmakers? Barkley's being mooted for that, but (as is typical for an English player) doesn't have the tactical awareness. Will he develop it, or will he become another Gerrard? Do we have any ball-playing centre backs? Do we have any wide attackers who are good going forwards, but also have the discipline to get back?

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

super_realist wrote:Very few expected them to progress, and they didn't. Why the inquest?

The Premier League is the richest in the world and our players are incredibly highly paid, yet we didn't expect to get out of a group that included a very average Italian team, a one-man Uruguay and Costa Rica. And it's not just that we didn't qualify. We came bottom of our group and never looked like winning any of our games.

Surely that does deserve an inquest?  Why have England never been competitive at the top level? Even when we had our Golden Generation, filled with talent, we achieved nothing. Why is that?

I'm afraid that's just arrogance.
The amount of money you get paid is only a product of what someone is prepared to pay you. It isn't a definitive measure of quality.
Furthermore, to say Italy are average, is to overlook that England are worse than average, whilst it is a little bit naive to suggest that England ought to get the better of a South American team like Uruguay (one man or not, especially when England are a "no man" team) or underestimate Costa Rica.

England don't have a right to anything, just the same as any other team that failed to get the the group.

Teams have proven it isn't the sum of your alleged "talent" in terms of the individuals or over-hype players recieve from our sycophantic press, but rather how you perform as a team, hence why countries like Costa Rica, Greece and America have shown to be better than how they look on paper as individuals.

It's not really arrogance SR it's a fact, and generally in life the more you get paid the better you are at your job, and if your not worth your wage (in the real world,) you tend to get found out and stagnate where you are (no promotions etc) or you get moved on.

Your 100 percent right in it's more about teamwork particularly at International level when it comes to success. Look at Greece when they won the Euro's or the teams going through at the moment.

I would say there is no definitive need for an inquest right now but if we completely fail at the Euro's then one is definately needed to see how we can build for the future.

We have what is touted as one of the most exciting leagues in the world (with the championship I believe around no.4 too), pay the players the most yet can't produce a half decent national squad then from grass roots up it needs looking at so we're not selling the younger generation short in pursuit of the almighty pound.

Derbymanc wrote:It's not really arrogance SR it's a fact, and generally in life the more you get paid the better you are at your job, and if your not worth your wage (in the real world,) you tend to get found out and stagnate where you are (no promotions etc) or you get moved on.

Your 100 percent right in it's more about teamwork particularly at International level when it comes to success. Look at Greece when they won the Euro's or the teams going through at the moment.

I would say there is no definitive need for an inquest right now but if we completely fail at the Euro's then one is definately needed to see how we can build for the future.

We have what is touted as one of the most exciting leagues in the world (with the championship I believe around no.4 too), pay the players the most yet can't produce a half decent national squad then from grass roots up it needs looking at so we're not selling the younger generation short in pursuit of the almighty pound.

Playing in the PL hasn't affected Ozil or Suarez, you don't think the Uruguay players, Italian Players or even the Costa Rican players aren't paid highly?
The fact you used that word "expect" says a lot. Why would you expect England to get out of that group? You said Italy were average, and perhaps they are, but do you really think England are anything but Average?

I don't understand you first statement.

The Premier League should be helping our players get better and are you now saying that the Costa Rican players are paid even nearly the same as premier league players

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/312907.html

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/costa-rican-players-push-for-minimum-salary.1534527/


Where did I use expect as I can't find it in my post?