Q. Why is there no Michael Carrick, even on stand-by?A. The Manchester United midfielder has effectively retired from international football, Hodgson revealed yesterday. The decision was made months ago, before Hodgson's appointment, although Carrick has given the new England manager an assurance that if the situation becomes dire – and Scott Parker is still a major doubt – then he would be available. Carrick's England career has never been a particularly happy one. He made his debut as a 19-year-old in 2001 but there were almost four years between his second and third caps. Having grown tired of being a squad member but rarely playing, he last featured more than two years ago against Mexico, the country he made his debut against. Hodgson said: "I wouldn't dream of putting Michael Carrick on a standby list after he's made it clear in the past he doesn't want to be involved like that. I'd have to be convinced he was better than the four I've selected, and that he'd be happy to come out of retirement."
Pretty sure if its any other player (Terry) who had done something like this then he would have been crucified by the media and quite a few people on here (including me)
Fair point.
Last edited by a moderator:
ty for proving the point
Wasnt trying to prove any point. Just pointing how its occured, and his history for England.
Well Carragher and Scholes did the same, and neither were crucified, nor Carson.
Discussing the tactical options for England’s ‘non golden generation’ ahead of Euro 2012
Club form can help a national team on the biggest of stages. Portugal reached the finals of Euro 2004 in the same year that Mourinho’s Porto had won it. Obviously Barcelona’s form has contributed to Spain’s dominance and Bayern’s resurgence has helped Germany. Still, there’s always the exception that qualifies the rule say France, irrespective of what was going on in ligue 1 in 1998 and 2000 when they dominated world soccer, you could count on a slew of star players coming from different leagues. Then there’s Italy’s 2006 winning campaign after the whole Calciopolii scandal but that’s a whole other story for another day.
Anyhow, the point here is that either you have an on-form club team in your own league made up mostly of home grown players or you have a plethora of stars in other major leagues. Considering that the English do not travel well and that’s attested by the fact that there’s hardly a player
l
let alone a top star in other big teams on the continent, the second option is the only realistic option. No wonder there’s strong support for the proposed rule on home grown talent in the country and even though it would undoubtedly affect the quality of the Premier league, the national side could be the ultimate benefactor.
The last time England had this sort of advantage was between 1998 and 2000 when Manchester United’s project made up of several key home grown players had reached maturity and there were a force to be reckoned with across Europe. As events would have it, a certain Zinedine Zidane and his colleagues had other ideas at World cup 1998 and Euro 2000 but that was a time when the three lions definitely deserved their ‘favorites tag,’ this time around not so much and even the national team captain was quick to acknowledge that England simply aren’t favorites,
Maybe in the last two or three tournaments, as a group of players, we’ve maybe thought we were better than what we were. I think this time there’s a lot of realism about. Expectations are maybe down because we’ve not performed and we haven’t delivered in the previous tournaments
Club form can help a national team on the biggest of stages. Portugal reached the finals of Euro 2004 in the same year that Mourinho’s Porto had won it. Obviously Barcelona’s form has contributed to Spain’s dominance and Bayern’s resurgence has helped Germany. Still, there’s always the exception that qualifies the rule say France, irrespective of what was going on in ligue 1 in 1998 and 2000 when they dominated world soccer, you could count on a slew of star players coming from different leagues. Then there’s Italy’s 2006 winning campaign after the whole Calciopolii scandal but that’s a whole other story for another day.
Anyhow, the point here is that either you have an on-form club team in your own league made up mostly of home grown players or you have a plethora of stars in other major leagues. Considering that the English do not travel well and that’s attested by the fact that there’s hardly a player
llet alone a top star in other big teams on the continent, the second option is the only realistic option. No wonder there’s strong support for the proposed rule on home grown talent in the country and even though it would undoubtedly affect the quality of the Premier league, the national side could be the ultimate benefactor.
The last time England had this sort of advantage was between 1998 and 2000 when Manchester United’s project made up of several key home grown players had reached maturity and there were a force to be reckoned with across Europe. As events would have it, a certain Zinedine Zidane and his colleagues had other ideas at World cup 1998 and Euro 2000 but that was a time when the three lions definitely deserved their ‘favorites tag,’ this time around not so much and even the national team captain was quick to acknowledge that England simply aren’t favorites,
Maybe in the last two or three tournaments, as a group of players, we’ve maybe thought we were better than what we were. I think this time there’s a lot of realism about. Expectations are maybe down because we’ve not performed and we haven’t delivered in the previous tournaments
Granted Man United, Liverpool and Chelsea have gone on to lift Europe’s premier club competition in recent years but they’ve done so with squads that were dominated by foreign players. Take Chelsea v Bayern for example, while Bayern had 6 German players in the starting line-up in Munich, Chelsea only had 3. Couple that with the dismal showing at the last major tournament alongside Rooney’s suspension and you can appreciate why England is not one of the favorites.
That
said, given the pressure the British press put on their players, this group could spring a surprise or two with that particular monkey off their back.
Tactical options
Roy Hodgson might be one of the well-traveled English managers after spells with Inter Milan and the Swiss national team but he is also one of the more conservative ones when it comes to choosing a formation. Ordinarily, it would be hard to see Roy Hodgson going for anything but the classic 4-4-2. However, with Wellbeck still moving gingerly almost four weeks after De Jong fouled him in the Manchester derby and Rooney suspended, his hand could be forced and with a tweak or two, England could end up lining up in a 4-2-3-1 formation or something close to it. To expect anything more radical like a 4-3-3 from the current England boss would be naïve at best.
The defence should be relatively straightforward except maybe for the right fullback position. In truth none of the right-backs has been outstanding especially in as far as defending is concerned. The choice will vary depending on Hodgson’s plan. Should he opt for a defensive approach then Man United’s Phill Jones might make the first team otherwise Glen Johnson should be the man for the job. Micah Richards is part way between Jones and Johnson, his defending isn’t too clumsy and he is no slouch when it comes to going forward. Johnson is definitely the better player going forward which is probably why he made the line-up which leaves Jones and Richards and the United man’s versatility probably gave him the edge over Richards.
Choosing England’s trequartista
The tough questions begin in the center of the park and if England are to exorcise the memories of Rustenburg in 2010, Hodgson will have to deal with their midfield conundrum. With Rooney out and Scot Parker still struggling with a knock, the options are limited. Gareth Barry should start alongside either Lampard or Gerard as the double pivot while the other of the latter will play ahead in the trequartista position.
Here are a couple of disparate points; Lampard did brilliantly for Chelsea in the run up to their Champions league trophy and while he has been accustomed to playing in the more advanced trequartista role, Di Matteo used him in a deeper position to utilize his tactical intuition and it worked brilliantly. However, fitting them in that midfield is easier said than done, Lampard is more accustomed to playing on the left sided part of the centre and with Barry occupying that slot since he is left footed, that could compel Hodgson to play Gerard deeper to the right of Barry and Lampard forward.
There’s also the option of playing Lampard and Gerard on the same line with Barry behind them in what would effectively be a 4-1-4-1 and while that might have been unlikely with a foreigner in charge, all bets are still on under Roy Hodgson. The permutations become even more complex when Rooney returns to the fold given Hodgson’s fondness for two-striker formations. The positioning and movement of players in midfield will be just as crucial if not more than the selection itself.
The problem for England is not the lack of central players, far from it. Instead it’s all about getting the tackler-box to box passer-creative player balance right. Gerard and Lampard are technically gifted players but the reason they’ve struggled to play together in recent years is simply because their respective strengths obliterate the midfield balance at times making England simultaneously ponderous and positionally execrable and in this tactical obfuscation lies their problem. Carrick is one of the better passers of the ball in England’s ranks and even though his overall technique might not be sufficient to merit a starting berth, his overall exclusion from the 23 man shortlist is a bit of a surprise.
Be that as it may, in a sense what England need is camaraderie and even though Hodgson might not be the sort of leader who imbues his players with confidence, he is sufficiently street-wise to know that these players are gifted and they do not need a strict disciplinarian treating them like a bunch from a youth team
Conclusion
Like many before him, Roy Hodgson’s biggest task will be to get England’s midfield to click. Just like Argentina, England has a fantastic group of players (well, maybe not as technically gifted) but just like the South Americans, they lack the cohesion and chumminess of a great side. Sometimes that can be lost in the punditry and the hullaballoo around the team and even though it’s not in their nature to pepper the opposition’s goal like Spain, they can still stake a significant claim on this trophy, probably in a similar manner to Chelsea’s Champions league- as the dark horses.
That
said, given the pressure the British press put on their players, this group could spring a surprise or two with that particular monkey off their back.Tactical options
Roy Hodgson might be one of the well-traveled English managers after spells with Inter Milan and the Swiss national team but he is also one of the more conservative ones when it comes to choosing a formation. Ordinarily, it would be hard to see Roy Hodgson going for anything but the classic 4-4-2. However, with Wellbeck still moving gingerly almost four weeks after De Jong fouled him in the Manchester derby and Rooney suspended, his hand could be forced and with a tweak or two, England could end up lining up in a 4-2-3-1 formation or something close to it. To expect anything more radical like a 4-3-3 from the current England boss would be naïve at best.
The defence should be relatively straightforward except maybe for the right fullback position. In truth none of the right-backs has been outstanding especially in as far as defending is concerned. The choice will vary depending on Hodgson’s plan. Should he opt for a defensive approach then Man United’s Phill Jones might make the first team otherwise Glen Johnson should be the man for the job. Micah Richards is part way between Jones and Johnson, his defending isn’t too clumsy and he is no slouch when it comes to going forward. Johnson is definitely the better player going forward which is probably why he made the line-up which leaves Jones and Richards and the United man’s versatility probably gave him the edge over Richards.
Choosing England’s trequartista
The tough questions begin in the center of the park and if England are to exorcise the memories of Rustenburg in 2010, Hodgson will have to deal with their midfield conundrum. With Rooney out and Scot Parker still struggling with a knock, the options are limited. Gareth Barry should start alongside either Lampard or Gerard as the double pivot while the other of the latter will play ahead in the trequartista position.
Here are a couple of disparate points; Lampard did brilliantly for Chelsea in the run up to their Champions league trophy and while he has been accustomed to playing in the more advanced trequartista role, Di Matteo used him in a deeper position to utilize his tactical intuition and it worked brilliantly. However, fitting them in that midfield is easier said than done, Lampard is more accustomed to playing on the left sided part of the centre and with Barry occupying that slot since he is left footed, that could compel Hodgson to play Gerard deeper to the right of Barry and Lampard forward.
There’s also the option of playing Lampard and Gerard on the same line with Barry behind them in what would effectively be a 4-1-4-1 and while that might have been unlikely with a foreigner in charge, all bets are still on under Roy Hodgson. The permutations become even more complex when Rooney returns to the fold given Hodgson’s fondness for two-striker formations. The positioning and movement of players in midfield will be just as crucial if not more than the selection itself.
The problem for England is not the lack of central players, far from it. Instead it’s all about getting the tackler-box to box passer-creative player balance right. Gerard and Lampard are technically gifted players but the reason they’ve struggled to play together in recent years is simply because their respective strengths obliterate the midfield balance at times making England simultaneously ponderous and positionally execrable and in this tactical obfuscation lies their problem. Carrick is one of the better passers of the ball in England’s ranks and even though his overall technique might not be sufficient to merit a starting berth, his overall exclusion from the 23 man shortlist is a bit of a surprise.
Be that as it may, in a sense what England need is camaraderie and even though Hodgson might not be the sort of leader who imbues his players with confidence, he is sufficiently street-wise to know that these players are gifted and they do not need a strict disciplinarian treating them like a bunch from a youth team
Conclusion
Like many before him, Roy Hodgson’s biggest task will be to get England’s midfield to click. Just like Argentina, England has a fantastic group of players (well, maybe not as technically gifted) but just like the South Americans, they lack the cohesion and chumminess of a great side. Sometimes that can be lost in the punditry and the hullaballoo around the team and even though it’s not in their nature to pepper the opposition’s goal like Spain, they can still stake a significant claim on this trophy, probably in a similar manner to Chelsea’s Champions league- as the dark horses.
When AVB was accused of having poor mismanagement, and half the Chelsea squad throw a strop - AVB's fault.
When Carrick is spectacularly mismanaged by four consecutive managers - Carrick's fault.
I don't necessarily agree with his decision, but I fully understand his argument. The argument against him is that he's in some way betraying his country by not wanting to sit on the bench where he is no more able to contribute to any victory than he is on a beach in the caribbean. Just look at the numerous amount of players who reject their home nation whom they're not good enough for in order to just play international level. Are they betraying their nation by not wanting to sit on the sidelines of internationals contributing nothing, by having their talent (rightly or wrongly) feel under appreciated?
When Carrick is spectacularly mismanaged by four consecutive managers - Carrick's fault.
The crux of the matter here is that we're left with Gerrard, Lampard and Barry to fill that role. Not only are none of them even based on playing that role (Barry, maybe.), Carrick far eclipses them. If it was AVB's fault that Lampard threw a strop because he wasn't informed he was on the bench, by the same logic it's Hodgson's and all his predecessors fault that Carrick feels exactly the same way when a) They don't even recognise what his role on a football field is. b) Tell him that players who don't even play his role, play it better than him.
I don't necessarily agree with his decision, but I fully understand his argument. The argument against him is that he's in some way betraying his country by not wanting to sit on the bench where he is no more able to contribute to any victory than he is on a beach in the caribbean. Just look at the numerous amount of players who reject their home nation whom they're not good enough for in order to just play international level. Are they betraying their nation by not wanting to sit on the sidelines of internationals contributing nothing, by having their talent (rightly or wrongly) feel under appreciated?
For what? Playing for England isn't a duty. This is football not fighting the Nazis on the sky above of London.
It has always been voluntary thing. He makes a living by playing in MU not in national team, if he would rather recover after season, i don't see how thats anyone's bussiness.
If goverment would try to force 7 day work week on everyone because "England needs it", you would scream ****** murder, but a footballer cant go on vacation because ...England needs him (to sit on bench).
G
It's hard to believe you actually read my post but anyway..
People were complaining about it when the issue hadn't been clarified and if they still are it's because they haven't been paying enough attention to the news to find out about the development.
I'm not sure if there is any sort of logic to your second point. Why would the fact that football is your job make it easier to accept being constantly overlooked?
He really hasn't thrown his toys out his pram. He took this decision months ago, it was not an emotional decision made due to being snubbed. It's happened to other players like Robinson, Foster, Carragher and Scholes; he just got to the point where he didn't want to be involved anymore. So he informed the FA but made it clear he'd be willing to step in if they were in dire need (as the independent put it).
Nothing about that suggests a tantrum of any kind. Players are allowed to retire without it being some kind of hissy fit.
I'm sure Carrick would have when he was 20 as well but after a while you're not going to feel the same.
It's a reality of life. It's like Rooney, I'm sure when he was young he would have given everything to play for Everton but when that became a reality and he realised he could do more (no offence everton) he didn't hesitate.
Players aren't going to have the same attitude they had on there debut after 11 years in the team and it's unrealistic to expect them to.
Last edited:
Because it was the FA's and more pertinently a procession of England's managers fault for having driven him to this situation in the first place.
The point here is that he has 'handled it'. He's handled it for about a decade now, and he's pretty understandably sick and tired of it. Paul Scholes - as humble, hardworking, and sensible a footballer as anyone - made this choice too, and he did it at with three times as many caps as Carrick. Carrick's perfectly fine with being away from his family for a few weeks, but I'm sure he'd rather do it if there's some actual end product. What's the point in being away from your family just to wear down your body a bit more after a long season and sit on the bench whilst your teammates ineptly punt the ball to the opposition?
Again, Paul Scholes, a man about as devoid of arrogance as you can get amongst footballers, made this same decision. Carrick's not being arrogant, merely weighing up the pros and cons and deciding that being dicked around by the FA isn't to his liking.
Of course they would, that's how it goes. Players always aspire to better. Evidently Carrick thinks that his England career isn't really bettering him in any way at all, so he's getting out now, so he doesn't waste any more time. If we put a misguided sense of patriotism aside, this actually makes total sense.
England to go with two up top | England Football Team News, Fixtures, Results | Sky Sports
Well Roy seems to know where to play Rooney judging by this, thank god, personally I would go with Welbeck over Carroll as the first striker though, but I can see why Carroll is useful.
Well Roy seems to know where to play Rooney judging by this, thank god, personally I would go with Welbeck over Carroll as the first striker though, but I can see why Carroll is useful.
Just read this article on Carrick:
Why Michael Carrick should start for England this summer - Stats Zone - FourFourTwo
Why Michael Carrick should start for England this summer - Stats Zone - FourFourTwo
Who will be the two holding defensive mids now for France game? Parker and Lampard? Gerrard AM?
Parker and Jones probably.
I
iNickStuff
Guest
Now that we have been dealt another blow in the form of Barry, this now means that Lampard will play more prominently in the midfield. As it is indeed a good thing to see Jagielka in the side, will this mean now that Phil Jones will be given a midfield role potentially? He can play as a holding midfielder as well as a full back and centre half, so his versatility could be useful.