Me too, but my biggest proviso to that is "and if we start losing". Frankly, England can play the most horrifically dull brand of hoofball imaginable for the next year and I won't complain so long as results are good.
Me too, but my biggest proviso to that is "and if we start losing". Frankly, England can play the most horrifically dull brand of hoofball imaginable for the next year and I won't complain so long as results are good.
Assuming Gerrard continues to play in a double pivot, who do you see there?
Not that it will matter because they will hardly get the ball anyways
I see Young there, worryingly. Perhaps Welbeck playing off Carroll would work...
Firstly I never admitted I was wrong, I said I was perhaps a bit harsh on Cahill although he is not exactly quck is he....
Why stick with the same old players which have been tried and tried anyway, this squad for me was totally the wrong choice anyway.. should of been a fresh start and trying new players in this competition. Look at some of the stuff our U21 lads play, we have the talent coming through but yet you keep saying we can only play this way, well of course we can with this squad he has selected, the only adventure in this Euro's will be seeing players like Welbeck and the Ox.
Just look at this season.
Chelsea win the Champions League
Real Madrid win La Liga
Borussia Dortmund win the Bundesliga
Atletico Madrid win the Europa League
Zambia win the African Cup of Nations
All by playing reactive football, not expansive football. So unless you have a very good squad which very few clubs/countries do... Reactive football is the way to go
Going around in circles here. You are criticising Hodgson for playing boring football while I am arguing that this is the best he can do with the current depleted squad which you agree with. As GC also pointed out, their is not much Hodgson could do either way in terms of picking a better squad as the only real player who missed out was Richards.
As for the U-21 squad, do you really want to send players like Barkley, Rodwell, McEachran, Bertrand etc. to the Euro's and have them play expansive football against the likes of France? Not even god can save us then
Best we can do under the circumstances is to move Milner into the double pivot beside Parker. Move Gerrard further up behind Welbeck. Play Ox on the right. Doubt that will happen though
I reckon the team that played against Belgium will pretty much be the team we play against France. The winner of that game will probably win the group. Will be interesting to see how Hodgson's rigid defence holds up against a real test in FranceAssuming Gerrard continues to play in a double pivot, who do you see there?
Not that it will matter because they will hardly get the ball anyways
Why are you so 'for' this style of football? No adventure, no creativity, relying on teams not scoring, hoping to convert few chances.... have I missed anything?
Of course Alcaraz agrees with this way, Chelsea pretty much done the same and won the Champions League, but it was not far short of a miracle, Gomez could of had a hat-trick and Messi missed a penalty, not to mention Robben's in the final.
All this tells me is that you haven't seen some of the stuff our U21s play at time. Pearce enjoyed using Michael Mancienne in midfield, for God's sake.
We've hardly stuck with the same old players. Compare this squad to the World Cup team. The only ones we've kept are Hart, Johnson, Cole, Gerrard, Terry, Rooney, Green, Milner and Defoe. 9 out of 23. Out of those, Johnson likely wouldn't be there if Walker was fit, Hart, Cole, Gerrard, Terry, Rooney and Defoe all have something to offer, and Green's practically irrelevant.
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Although i agree we have a depleted squad, Hodgeson would pkay defensive if he was managing spain.
No matter who he takes charge of his foundations are a solid, hard to break down defence, which has leds most of his clubs to be mid table teams. Dont rate him as a manager at all
No matter who he takes charge of his foundations are a solid, hard to break down defence, which has leds most of his clubs to be mid table teams. Dont rate him as a manager at all
Very wrong, Borussia Dortmund play some lovely stuff and are in no way a defensive minded team, please watch a game of them playing, 5-2 against Bayern ring any bells?? Atletico Madrid play some lovely stuff as well, you really can't compare them to how England played against Norway and Belguim, or even compare them to Chelsea. Real Madrid were pretty rigid at times admittedly but for msot of the games apart from Barcelona they have been attacking not counter-attacking. Not a clue about Zambia sorry.
Umm because it actually gives us a chance of winning unlike playing expansive football as you suggest.
Plus you repeatedly state that I only want to play this way because Chelsea won the CL by doing so. You are forgetting that Chelsea had a very poor squad and if they went to Munich by playing expansive football, I can guarentee Gomez would have got that hat-trick
Anyways I have made my point. You obviously fail to grasp them and keep coming back to base 1
They played reactive football. Reactive football can look lovely as well if you have players such as Borussia and RM do.
Reactive Football=Boring Football, this is the connection you have made which is totally untrue
Huge strawman argument. All I'm 'for' is winning. The style of football matters little to me in this case, and the fact is playing pragmatic and dour football is more likely to get us results. I'm not 'for' playing reactive football any more than I'm 'for' anything else, it just so happens it's the best thing for us at this time.
Chelsea were very good value for their win. Again, Chelsea aren't the only example. Zambia in the ACON, Uruguay in the Copa and WC, Ghana at the WC, even Germany have been playing counterattacking, reactive football.
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Exactly, this requires alot of Luck, and a teams inability to score chances...
99% of the team Chelsea would have lost 4/5-0 ETC... its alright saying 'We won' but how many times will this realistically happen against top teams.. Not many
Lol you may be right but until we actually have a squad that is capable of doing more, I will not bash Hodgson for playing to the strengths of the current squad
Yes but you fail to understand that if we play expansive football, we will not have a hope in **** of winning either. At least by playing reactive football we do have a chance, no matter how slim of...winning.
Which is totally irrelevant.
I don't care what you think of him personally, the point is you just listed some of the virtues which have led International teams in the past decade to overperform massively.
Whilst Alcaraz might be a bit harsh in labelling Dortmund a purely reactive side, you picked literally the worst example in the 5-2 against Bayern. In that match, they ripped the Munich defence apart on the counter after sitting deep and absorbing pressure, classic reactive football. Madrid are primarily reactive - like Dortmund, they're a bit too good and multitalented to be purely reactive - and your comment about them 'not counterattacking' is utter rubbish. They're one of the finest counterattacking sides the world has seen recently, and it's their main method of getting goals.
I know Real Madrid do counter-attack, but they are not set up only to do that is what I meant.
At the end of the day it is each to their own opinion, I will be behind England no matter what happens but I am just not understanding how this is the right way at all, Hodgson prove me wrong please.