England Thread

[ajt09]

Rio Ferdinand has criticised Roy Hodgson's management at Euro 2012, claiming the England boss underused his younger players and was too defensive in his tactics. The 33-year-old defender, who was overlooked by Hodgson, wanted to see Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Phil Jones given more game time. He also criticised Hodgson's choice of formation, and questioned whether Andrea Pirlo, the Italy playmaker who was instrumental in England's quarter-final exit, would even have been selected for the Three Lions squad.


He told The Sun: "I am a fan of 'The Ox' and I wanted to see more of him but in the end he finished up as a spectator."
He went on: "Phil Jones is one of the most adaptable players we have in our country and where was he? When we need to take the ball from midfield, run 40 yards with it and put the other team on the back foot, he is the man for the job. Instead, we stayed cautious and Jordan Henderson was used instead. That's not a criticism of Jordan, he is a different player to Phil, but I thought it showed we were being too conservative."

Since England's exit, Hodgson has talked about getting more young players into the team for the upcoming World Cup qualifying campaign. Ferdinand said: "I'm reading a lot of stuff about how it's time to get the youngsters in and all of that but you only find out if they can do it when you throw them in there.nnWhat did we learn about Alex and Phil at this tournament? Do we know how much influence Alex can have on a game in a finals? He did fairly well against France, so why not persist with him and let him grow into it? As for Phil, we will now have to wait until the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, provided we qualify, to see how good he can be at the highest level. Expectations were low so the manager had a free shot to find out about our youngsters and I feel it was a missed opportunity."

Ferdinand was impressed by the performance of Pirlo, but added: "If Pirlo was English would he have made the squad let alone been on the pitch? I don't know as his qualities may have been overlooked... not by just the current manager but maybe those before him too."


One England player who impressed Ferdinand was his Manchester United team-mate Danny Welbeck.


"The only time we really kept the ball properly was when Danny Welbeck dropped short to collect it and linked the play," he said.
"But, usually, he was having to stay up and wasn't allowed to drop too much because we had set out a certain way with a 4-4-2 which didn't offer a great deal of flexibility." He added: "It's okay saying we were very good defensively and hard to beat but if you set out to be defensive then that's your first priority. I'd love to see us running at other teams. I want to see Alex and Theo and Adam Johnson, who I thought should have gone too, causing problems instead of worrying about covering back as the first thought."

Rio - Hodgson got it wrong | Football News | Sky Sports

Bit harsh imo on Roy. Had very little time to get things sorted and could only use what he had. Yes, our possession and passing was at times woeful, but still.

 

[zzeezzy]

Rio - Hodgson got it wrong | Football News | Sky Sports

Bit harsh imo on Roy. Had very little time to get things sorted and could only use what he had. Yes, our possession and passing was at times woeful, but still.

He was negative though against every opponent.

 

[GodCubed]

He was negative though against every opponent.

Yes, we get that you think this, you've said it numerous times already. What's your point?

 

[Alcaraz]

He was negative though against every opponent.

Exactly as GC said, whats your point? Is negative football against the law?

 

[ajt09]

I didn't mind. Even if it was "negative", it came out with positives

 

[zzeezzy]

Exactly as GC said, whats your point? Is negative football against the law?

You only say this because Chelsea had success with it in the Champions League, in the Final you had one chance with a Drogba header and equalised. It was all total luck, if it was not that you would of gone out without a whimper and you know it.

 

[zzeezzy]

Yes, we get that you think this, you've said it numerous times already. What's your point?

My point is England won't get very far under a manager like Hodgson if he sets his team up always to be the one on the back foot in matches, not only that he ignores statistics.... how can you not realise possession is so important in football and ignoring statistics in football is very stupid. He does not even set us up to have possession, counter-attack only, in the Euro's there was way more negatives than positives. Some England fans thinking Roy has done a good job are deluded, it won't change either, it is how he is, pragmatist.

Here are two extracts from previous posts which is what I feel and is my "points" -


Lack of a deep-lying playmaker and we lost possession far too often cheaply. But I feel hopeful we may have Jack Wilshere for the WC Qualifiers whether Roy picks him is another thing entirely.

The formation was wrong and we needed an extra layer in our team to compress the spaces better e.g. 4-2-3-1. Will we see Roy change from a 4-4-2? I highly doubt it, which is a problem because so many top teams use formations like 4-2-3-1, 4-1-2-1-2 etc.

Then against Italy we were totally dominated in midfield and Hodgson kept with the same formation he started with and as the game went on it just got worse and worse but he changed nothing, only bringing Walcott on which would not help as we could not get the ball nor the supply to him.

Why would you use Milner as a bodyguard for your Right Back when you could just of took a Defensive Right Back in Micah Richards and used a pacey winger such as Walcott from the start.

Our defence was flawed, Glen Johnson had a good tournament but numerous times played the opposition onside from dead ball situations when the defence pushed up he was not alert, most notably against Italy.

Also Terry as well as he played (with a deep defensive line), made our defence very dodgy, we had to sit deep due to his lack of any 'pace' which often invited opposition on to us and we could not get out, the few times we did push up we were often exposed with a long ball due to either Terry's lack of pace or Johnson's positioning. Why he did not play someone like Jagielka and Lescott I never know, higher defensive line would of took a lot of pressure off if played effectively.

 

[Dunc]

I never realised someone being in a job for a month meant they were supposed to have England playing sexy football, when we haven't for at least 30 years prior to his appointment.

 

[zzeezzy]

I never realised someone being in a job for a month meant they were supposed to have England playing sexy football, when we haven't for at least 30 years prior to his appointment.

Hodgson never tried to, it is not a rant at the manager only, it is a rant at the FA being so limited in their selection. Has to be English.. for some very good reason (which I am still trying to think of). This choice of manager was far from an ambitious one, just a yes man for the FA probably.

 

[Dunc]

Hodgson never tried to, it is not a rant at the manager only, it is a rant at the FA being so limited in their selection. Has to be English.. for some very good reason (which I am still trying to think of). This choice of manager was far from an ambitious one, just a yes man for the FA probably.

It's easy to sit here and criticise, but I doubt you, or I, have a very good knowledge of the background work at the FA. While I appreciate Hodgeson isn't an amazingly inspired choice, there is no harm in giving him some time. There is no saying that bringing a Mourinho/Guardiola/Hiddink would mean we played decent football and actually had a small chance at winning a tournament, as there is no saying that Hodgeson won't have us playing sexy football by the next world cup. Also, the players at his disposal are far from brilliant. Bringing in Richards, who is a much less technical and cultured player than Johnson, would probably have made zero difference, considering how well Johnson actually played. Hodgeson made a big call taking Oxlade Chamberlain, and he actually played him and gave him a chance, more than Sven did for Walcott. I am slightly baffled by the choice of Milner on the wing also, I mean, Johnson might not be great defending, but he's not inept. I am sure him and Walcott/Ox/Young/Whoever is on the wing could work better than Milner/Johnson, as Johnson is far better attacking than Milner, who is quite farcical playing out wide. Not sure what's happened to him really, his delivery used to be first class, but for England it was woeful.

Either way, it doesn't really matter now. As long as we get rid of JT, bring in Jagielka, when Wilshire is fit, get him playing in Gerrards position, and look at pushing Gerrard to play just behind the striker, replacing Rooney who has done nothing to prove he is worthy of walking straight into the England team. His performances for United surpass those in an England shirt by a long way.

 

[zzeezzy]

It's easy to sit here and criticise, but I doubt you, or I, have a very good knowledge of the background work at the FA. While I appreciate Hodgeson isn't an amazingly inspired choice, there is no harm in giving him some time. There is no saying that bringing a Mourinho/Guardiola/Hiddink would mean we played decent football and actually had a small chance at winning a tournament, as there is no saying that Hodgeson won't have us playing sexy football by the next world cup. Also, the players at his disposal are far from brilliant. Bringing in Richards, who is a much less technical and cultured player than Johnson, would probably have made zero difference, considering how well Johnson actually played. Hodgeson made a big call taking Oxlade Chamberlain, and he actually played him and gave him a chance, more than Sven did for Walcott. I am slightly baffled by the choice of Milner on the wing also, I mean, Johnson might not be great defending, but he's not inept. I am sure him and Walcott/Ox/Young/Whoever is on the wing could work better than Milner/Johnson, as Johnson is far better attacking than Milner, who is quite farcical playing out wide. Not sure what's happened to him really, his delivery used to be first class, but for England it was woeful.

Either way, it doesn't really matter now. As long as we get rid of JT, bring in Jagielka, when Wilshire is fit, get him playing in Gerrards position, and look at pushing Gerrard to play just behind the striker, replacing Rooney who has done nothing to prove he is worthy of walking straight into the England team. His performances for United surpass those in an England shirt by a long way.

Rooney needs supply though, which leads me back to this formation 4-4-2 and the problem of Gerrard and Parker as the two CM's offer little creativity, Gerrard did have a good tournament but he is no Paul Scholes/Carrick/Wilshere etc.

 

[Alcaraz]

Rooney needs supply though, which leads me back to this formation 4-4-2 and the problem of Gerrard and Parker as the two CM's offer little creativity, Gerrard did have a good tournament but he is no Paul Scholes/Carrick/Wilshere etc.

Scholes has retired. Carrick rules himself out. Wilshere was injured... Sorry Hodgson did not pick them

 

[zzeezzy]

Scholes has retired. Carrick rules himself out. Wilshere was injured... Sorry Hodgson did not pick them

He could of picked Carrick, it was 'desperate measures' in my book when you have to revert to Jordan Henderson.

 

[Alcaraz]

You only say this because Chelsea had success with it in the Champions League, in the Final you had one chance with a Drogba header and equalised. It was all total luck, if it was not that you would of gone out without a whimper and you know it.

Not really... We played pretty negative stuff under Mourinho too and we did extremely well. Not only us. Inter under Mourinho also won the CL by playing reactive(or negative as you like to call it) football. Zambia won the Acon playing reactive football. Greece won the Euro's. Dont be so narrow-minded

You seem to think... Reactive football is negative football which I really do not get

 

[Alcaraz]

He could of picked Carrick, it was 'desperate measures' in my book when you have to revert to Jordan Henderson.

Hodgson made it clear he will not pick Carrick if Carrick does not want to play. And I agree with him. I rather pick players like Henderson who want to play for England no matter in what capacity rather than pick someone who refuses to sit on the bench

 

[zzeezzy]

Not really... We played pretty negative stuff under Mourinho too and we did extremely well. Not only us. Inter under Mourinho also won the CL by playing reactive(or negative as you like to call it) football. Zambia won the Acon playing reactive football. Greece won the Euro's. Dont be so narrow-minded

You seem to think... Reactive football is negative football which I really do not get

Jose Mourinho was no where near as negative with Chelsea, but it was reactive and no I do not class that as negative.

There is quite a difference between reactive football and plain negative football, 8 or 9 men behind the ball hoping to just keep the opposition out with no attacking intent whatsoever.

 

[Alcaraz]

Jose Mourinho was no where near as negative with Chelsea, but it was reactive and no I do not class that as negative.

There is quite a difference between reactive football and plain negative football, 8 or 9 men behind the ball hoping to just keep the opposition out with no attacking intent whatsoever.

I sympathise with Hodgson. 3 weeks to prepare. Already weak squad further weakened by injuries. Key players opting out. Controversies over politically-motivated selections

Even then he played some decent stuff like his 4-4-2 pressing tactic. One of the reasons why we appeared so negative against Italy was partly due to Youngs bad performances and Rooney's horrific performance. Not to mention Milner being included on the left. I very much doubt Hodgson went into the game looking to play for penalties. It was the bad performance from the attacking unit that made us look negative, not Hodgson's tactics

Also I recall you saying you were pretty impressed with Hodgson pre-Italy game. Why the sudden change of heart based on one game?

 

[GodCubed]

You only say this because Chelsea had success with it in the Champions League, in the Final you had one chance with a Drogba header and equalised. It was all total luck, if it was not that you would of gone out without a whimper and you know it.

Don't be ridiculous. You don't get to and win the CL final on luck alone. Chelsea made their own fortune by defending well. If they'd opened up and tried to be expansive Bayern would have cut them apart.

My point is England won't get very far under a manager like Hodgson if he sets his team up always to be the one on the back foot in matches, not only that he ignores statistics.... how can you not realise possession is so important in football and ignoring statistics in football is very stupid. He does not even set us up to have possession, counter-attack only, in the Euro's there was way more negatives than positives. Some England fans thinking Roy has done a good job are deluded, it won't change either, it is how he is, pragmatist.

Possession is important, but it is not the be-all and end-all. Hodgson realised we're ***** at keeping possession, and instead decided to focus on other aspects of our game.

How has he not done a good job? He came in and in two weeks took us further than Capello ever had at a major international tournament, with a weakened squad. I'd rather Hodgson be pragmatic than a loser.

Lack of a deep-lying playmaker and we lost possession far too often cheaply. But I feel hopeful we may have Jack Wilshere for the WC Qualifiers whether Roy picks him is another thing entirely.

Cross that bridge when we come to it. I would be extremely surprised if he doesn't.

The formation was wrong and we needed an extra layer in our team to compress the spaces better e.g. 4-2-3-1. Will we see Roy change from a 4-4-2? I highly doubt it, which is a problem because so many top teams use formations like 4-2-3-1, 4-1-2-1-2 etc.

Again, you're supposing. Judge Roy on what he's done so far, not what you think he will do.

Then against Italy we were totally dominated in midfield and Hodgson kept with the same formation he started with and as the game went on it just got worse and worse but he changed nothing, only bringing Walcott on which would not help as we could not get the ball nor the supply to him.

Walcott made perfect sense. It was 4v2 in midfield - would have been 4v3 if Rooney had done his job - so we were never going to win the possession battle even if we had played a 4-2-3-1 or the like. We had an advantage on the flanks, and so taking off the workhorse Milner in place of someone who can offer pace and penetration, albeit slightly out of position - made total sense.

Why would you use Milner as a bodyguard for your Right Back when you could just of took a Defensive Right Back in Micah Richards and used a pacey winger such as Walcott from the start.

I answered this. Firstly, Walcott isn't a winger, and secondly, Richards talked himself out of contention by the sounds of it. There was more to that story than just Roy choosing not to pick him.

Our defence was flawed, Glen Johnson had a good tournament but numerous times played the opposition onside from dead ball situations when the defence pushed up he was not alert, most notably against Italy.

Flawed, but we only conceded in two games.

Also Terry as well as he played (with a deep defensive line), made our defence very dodgy, we had to sit deep due to his lack of any 'pace' which often invited opposition on to us and we could not get out, the few times we did push up we were often exposed with a long ball due to either Terry's lack of pace or Johnson's positioning. Why he did not play someone like Jagielka and Lescott I never know, higher defensive line would of took a lot of pressure off if played effectively.

Playing a high defensive line with a counterattacking system doesn't work very well at all. Either we tried to play proactive, front-foot football - the same stuff that's had us dumped out of tournaments in the early stages in recent years - with a totally ungelled squad and a marked disadvantage when it comes to retaining possession, and get destroyed by the likes of France and Italy, or we play to our strengths on the counter.

 

[zzeezzy]

I sympathise with Hodgson. 3 weeks to prepare. Already weak squad further weakened by injuries. Key players opting out. Controversies over politically-motivated selections

Even then he played some decent stuff like his 4-4-2 pressing tactic. One of the reasons why we appeared so negative against Italy was partly due to Youngs bad performances and Rooney's horrific performance. Not to mention Milner being included on the left. I very much doubt Hodgson went into the game looking to play for penalties. It was the bad performance from the attacking unit that made us look negative, not Hodgson's tactics

Also I recall you saying you were pretty impressed with Hodgson pre-Italy game. Why the sudden change of heart based on one game?

How the **** can you blame it on Rooney, the difference between Rooney at United and Rooney at England is that he actually gets decent supply and has options when finally on the ball (which we hardly ever hard). It was his choice to pick Rooney anyway, did you expect miracles after something like 5 weeks without playing a competitive match. Picking Milner was his own fault as well, I still can't justify why a Right Back needs a bodyguard, negative?

I was slightly optimistic before, but after seeing that game against Italy he done nothing as the game went on despite having less and less of the ball as the game wore on and we were getting dominated in midfield but he did not change the formation or anything. All he done was bring on Walcott.. which as we could not even get the ball, was hardly going to make a difference.

I can't be optimistic anymore about Hodgson when he does not chang anything in a game when completely overrun in midfield and having so little of the ball. Then after in a press conference he states he does not think statistics tell the true story of a game.. well I am sorry but statistics are the best way to analyse a match, if not an opponent. Makes me think he has learned nothing, oh and I would not be suprised if he never asked Rooney to man mark Pirlo, can't be 100% sure.

Not to mention on top of this Italy are not exactly a pacey team but yet we stick with Terry and the deep defensive line, which just always invites pressure.

 

[Alcaraz]

tbh zzeezzy your just trolling now. Raising the same points again and again. Gettin rebutted by the same people again and again. And then raising the same points again

I must have heard you write that Terry and his lack of pace at least a dozen times now. As well as compressing the space by putting a extra layer or whatever