I think the reaction to the US team is being a bit over egged.
Belgium had 39 shots. If we played anyone and had 39 shots and about 6 1v1's against us then people would be moaning.
Yes the US were gritty and tough and committed, all the things you can take for granted with them, but only Belgiums abject finishing stopped them getting hammered.
The US had more shots in the last 15 mins of ET than they did in the rest of the game out together. They showed spirit when chasing it, but Belgium were always the more impressive side.
The US were reminiscent of us in knock out rounds actually.
As a lesser football nation they should be commended for a decent tournament that has raised the profile, but if England are going to get anywhere it's not the US we should be looking to emulate.
We already have the same qualities they have, we just didn't show them this time.
The Dutch are a better template for us of we must follow one (and it would be better if we found OUR way, whatever that may be). They don't have a great squad of players, but have maximised their squad and got the best our of their best players.
comment by CurrentlyInChina84 (U11181)
posted 8 hours, 58 minutes ago
We lost defensive stability in favour of a more attacking approach which we couldn't really work out because its not in Hodgson's nature.
-----------------------------------------------------
I think the fact that he played Gerrard there (who may have had a good season with Liverpool but they leaked goals), just shows that he isn't as good or as brave people think he is.
Take a look at the Dutch side. They are very adaptable and most of the players are making noise like they will give it all for their coach. How many in the England team will do that for Roy?
Sadly, England doesn't have any English coach that can inspire and be tactically competent at this level.
After the first game, I though Roy would use an extra man in the midfield (though Milner would come in). But then the issue with Rooney playing out left, Sturridge scoring, Sterling having a good game. All that came to nothing against Uruguay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did leak goals, but it wasn't gerrards fault, roy (and most fans) clearly dident understand liverpools tactics last year if they think gerrard was a defensive midfielder.
There is a difference between playing "deep" and being primarily defensive, just as playing deep and being attacking isn't mutually exclusive, gerrard made the least tackles per game of any of our midfield 3/4 (depending on formation) because the more defensive midfielders played IN FRONT of him, this shielded him and allowed hos extraordinary range of passing to dictate games (don't be lazy and scoff at it, look at the stats and give the man his facking due) that's why he had an amazing season, look how many chances/CCC's/assists he made. And goals he scores (a lot of pens) he was an attacking player, he just doesn't have the mobility to play high up anymore and track back to pad the midfield out.
Gerrards role with liverpool ensured he was always available for an "out" ball too, enabling him to switch the play with one pass.
Roy did not deploy him like this, because he's too technically limited as a manager to understand brendans tactics. He basically played gerrard out of position alongside henderson and expected them to compete with three man midfields, we lost the battle in there in every game, even the Costa Rica manager was more progressive and modern tactically than roy!!
Then we come tp his man management, people complain raheem was only good in the first game.. Now let's get it straight, raheem was great. But how was he rewarded for his performance? He was shifted out wide because rooney had a poor game (and studge wasn't great either) in effect rooney was rewarded for his poor game (yes he made an assist, but once he was behind the defence any cross to sturridge would have been a one on one, it was a great cross, it dident need to be) and sterling was punished for his (he won the ball back, then split the defence for the goal, all Wayne did was cross, all studge did was swing a leg at it, raheem won the ball and made the movement, yet he spent the rest of the tournament coming from wide.
Sturridge too was poor, and this is largely due to roys tactics, he had a number 10 pushing up, two wingers pushing up (when we had the ball) and a striker pushing up. Leaving two midfielders to try to dictate play when being pressed by three opposition, this doesn't work, 4 men sprinting at speed up the pitch getting further and further from the two men who need to pass it to them, we had no one to carry the ball or dictate play high up, a lallana or lambert. Lambert would have excelled with three quicker players bombing past him. He holds the ball and lays it off well, England lacked any cohesion up front because all the players were too similar with no one to gel them together.
Defensively we suffered because as soon as we lost the ball, our midfield and wingers were too busy bombing back to form two lines of four, they had their backs to the oncoming attack and the opposition just passed through them, England were lucky not to conceed more!
England will not succeed at major tournaments, our great players are too overhyped and the average ones who will complement them are thus overlooked, we have defensive manager after defensive manager appointed as a "safe pair of hands" when we need someone progressive to get our top to bottom playing systems in order, including each England agegroup implementing the same style. We need a long term footballing identity, that subsequent managers will then sign up to. This will ease player transition and they will get used to a style.
Finally as a country we need to stop accomodating players and play the best team, rooney and sturridge should have been dropped to make us a more cohesive team.
Welbeck needs repositioning as a fullback, that's what a "winger" who is better defensively than offensively should be doing, in the same way bale was a fullback who was much better offensively than defensively and was moved!! Welbeck was good, he just isn't what we needed, it will take a brave young manager to get our national team back on track!
Watching this match tonight
Page 3 of 3
posted on 2/7/14
I think the reaction to the US team is being a bit over egged.
Belgium had 39 shots. If we played anyone and had 39 shots and about 6 1v1's against us then people would be moaning.
Yes the US were gritty and tough and committed, all the things you can take for granted with them, but only Belgiums abject finishing stopped them getting hammered.
The US had more shots in the last 15 mins of ET than they did in the rest of the game out together. They showed spirit when chasing it, but Belgium were always the more impressive side.
The US were reminiscent of us in knock out rounds actually.
As a lesser football nation they should be commended for a decent tournament that has raised the profile, but if England are going to get anywhere it's not the US we should be looking to emulate.
We already have the same qualities they have, we just didn't show them this time.
The Dutch are a better template for us of we must follow one (and it would be better if we found OUR way, whatever that may be). They don't have a great squad of players, but have maximised their squad and got the best our of their best players.
posted on 2/7/14
comment by CurrentlyInChina84 (U11181)
posted 8 hours, 58 minutes ago
We lost defensive stability in favour of a more attacking approach which we couldn't really work out because its not in Hodgson's nature.
-----------------------------------------------------
I think the fact that he played Gerrard there (who may have had a good season with Liverpool but they leaked goals), just shows that he isn't as good or as brave people think he is.
Take a look at the Dutch side. They are very adaptable and most of the players are making noise like they will give it all for their coach. How many in the England team will do that for Roy?
Sadly, England doesn't have any English coach that can inspire and be tactically competent at this level.
After the first game, I though Roy would use an extra man in the midfield (though Milner would come in). But then the issue with Rooney playing out left, Sturridge scoring, Sterling having a good game. All that came to nothing against Uruguay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did leak goals, but it wasn't gerrards fault, roy (and most fans) clearly dident understand liverpools tactics last year if they think gerrard was a defensive midfielder.
There is a difference between playing "deep" and being primarily defensive, just as playing deep and being attacking isn't mutually exclusive, gerrard made the least tackles per game of any of our midfield 3/4 (depending on formation) because the more defensive midfielders played IN FRONT of him, this shielded him and allowed hos extraordinary range of passing to dictate games (don't be lazy and scoff at it, look at the stats and give the man his facking due) that's why he had an amazing season, look how many chances/CCC's/assists he made. And goals he scores (a lot of pens) he was an attacking player, he just doesn't have the mobility to play high up anymore and track back to pad the midfield out.
Gerrards role with liverpool ensured he was always available for an "out" ball too, enabling him to switch the play with one pass.
Roy did not deploy him like this, because he's too technically limited as a manager to understand brendans tactics. He basically played gerrard out of position alongside henderson and expected them to compete with three man midfields, we lost the battle in there in every game, even the Costa Rica manager was more progressive and modern tactically than roy!!
Then we come tp his man management, people complain raheem was only good in the first game.. Now let's get it straight, raheem was great. But how was he rewarded for his performance? He was shifted out wide because rooney had a poor game (and studge wasn't great either) in effect rooney was rewarded for his poor game (yes he made an assist, but once he was behind the defence any cross to sturridge would have been a one on one, it was a great cross, it dident need to be) and sterling was punished for his (he won the ball back, then split the defence for the goal, all Wayne did was cross, all studge did was swing a leg at it, raheem won the ball and made the movement, yet he spent the rest of the tournament coming from wide.
Sturridge too was poor, and this is largely due to roys tactics, he had a number 10 pushing up, two wingers pushing up (when we had the ball) and a striker pushing up. Leaving two midfielders to try to dictate play when being pressed by three opposition, this doesn't work, 4 men sprinting at speed up the pitch getting further and further from the two men who need to pass it to them, we had no one to carry the ball or dictate play high up, a lallana or lambert. Lambert would have excelled with three quicker players bombing past him. He holds the ball and lays it off well, England lacked any cohesion up front because all the players were too similar with no one to gel them together.
Defensively we suffered because as soon as we lost the ball, our midfield and wingers were too busy bombing back to form two lines of four, they had their backs to the oncoming attack and the opposition just passed through them, England were lucky not to conceed more!
England will not succeed at major tournaments, our great players are too overhyped and the average ones who will complement them are thus overlooked, we have defensive manager after defensive manager appointed as a "safe pair of hands" when we need someone progressive to get our top to bottom playing systems in order, including each England agegroup implementing the same style. We need a long term footballing identity, that subsequent managers will then sign up to. This will ease player transition and they will get used to a style.
Finally as a country we need to stop accomodating players and play the best team, rooney and sturridge should have been dropped to make us a more cohesive team.
Welbeck needs repositioning as a fullback, that's what a "winger" who is better defensively than offensively should be doing, in the same way bale was a fullback who was much better offensively than defensively and was moved!! Welbeck was good, he just isn't what we needed, it will take a brave young manager to get our national team back on track!
Page 3 of 3