Euro 2012 Match Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter CJACKO11
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 1K
  • Views Views 106K
I wouldn't say conspiracy, I didn't use that word, just a very unsetlling chain of events.

I will end this with the note that I expect the ref to be impartial and that the match doesn't have any controversial decision, and may the best team win.

There's a difference between incompetence, and conspiracy. The former is far more common It sounded like you were far too quick to move to conspiracy before a ball was even kicked.
 
Good start from him, I think. He did about as well as could be expected. Now, it's all about phasing in youngsters and revamping the team properly, to be able to do more than just play on the counter.

It's how he always sets up his teams though.... it won't suddenly change and become more attacking. He will base everything from that and I just think he is the wrong choice as manager. No ambition, no clue on what a deep-lying playmaker is, wish the English FA had some bottle and tried to appoint someone who might make us something worth watching, 4-4-2 just does not cut it at international level, proven time and time again with Capello in charge.
 
Exactly why I said you were justified in thinking that. Bertrand's been excellent, and he's showed a bit of versatility too. Whilst Gibbs has progressed defensively to the point where he is no longer a liability, it's nice to have an old-school properly good defender left-back option in Bertrand. Dunno whether he's learned from Ashley, but there's definite shades to his play that are Cole-esque. He doesn't quite have Cole's blistering early-career pace, but there are similarities.

There was an interview with him towards the end of the season and he said he owes a lot to Cole. He said Cole stays behind and works a lot with him one on one and its good to see it's working.
 
It's how he always sets up his teams though.... it won't suddenly change and become more attacking. He will base everything from that and I just think he is the wrong choice as manager. No ambition, no clue on what a deep-lying playmaker is, wish the English FA had some bottle and tried to appoint someone who might make us something worth watching, 4-4-2 just does not cut it at international level, proven time and time again with Capello in charge.

Capello playeed a split 4-4-2, that was almost 4-2-3-1, against Spain it was 4-3-3. only in the world cup with an unfit Rooney was it straight 4-4-2
 
Capello playeed a split 4-4-2, that was almost 4-2-3-1, against Spain it was 4-3-3. only in the world cup with an unfit Rooney was it straight 4-4-2

We got torn to shreds playing 4-4-2 in the World Cup and struggled even in a really average group under Capello. Then against Germany we got absolutely torn apart. England need to modernise and use a better formation/system and forget any 4-4-2. None of this will probably happen with Hodgson though.
 
We got torn to shreds playing 4-4-2 in the World Cup and struggled even in a really average group under Capello. Then against Germany we got absolutely torn apart. England need to modernise and use a better formation/system and forget any 4-4-2. None of this will probably happen with Hodgson though.

We played 4-4-2 because Rooney was too immobile to do anything else. Hence the change after the world Cup to 4-3-3 against tough sides.
 
It's how he always sets up his teams though.... it won't suddenly change and become more attacking. He will base everything from that and I just think he is the wrong choice as manager. No ambition, no clue on what a deep-lying playmaker is, wish the English FA had some bottle and tried to appoint someone who might make us something worth watching, 4-4-2 just does not cut it at international level, proven time and time again with Capello in charge.

Meh, we don't know. Look what he did in Sweden: he revolutionised their tactics, playing a high defensive line and furious pressing. Admittedly, it was in a 4-4-2 framework, but there's nothing wrong at all with a 4-4-2 so long as it is played in a modern way and with some kind of overarching framework in place. If we play a split 4-4-2/4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1 amalgamation with high tempo, hard pressing and long counterattacking balls from central positions to the flanks to take advantage of our surplus of pace - all things we're very capable of, given the impending return of Wilshere and Cleverley to the England squad - then we can compete with anyone.

To say Roy has no idea what a deep-lying playmaker is is to completely ignore his Fulham spell, which had Danny Murphy playing as one. Funnily enough, I reckon if the English FA appointed someone who tried to make us worth watching, we'd probably crash out in the qualifiers. We're not good enough or familiar enough in a system yet to try and play it expansively.

Also, Capello played a 4-4-2 and raped the qualifiers with us. In fact, there was only one real time it was proven to come up short, and that was in the World Cup, and that's all because Capello ****** up in telling Rooney to stay high, making it a classical 4-4-2 which was horribly outdated.
 
Meh, we don't know. Look what he did in Sweden: he revolutionised their tactics, playing a high defensive line and furious pressing. Admittedly, it was in a 4-4-2 framework, but there's nothing wrong at all with a 4-4-2 so long as it is played in a modern way and with some kind of overarching framework in place. If we play a split 4-4-2/4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1 amalgamation with high tempo, hard pressing and long counterattacking balls from central positions to the flanks to take advantage of our surplus of pace - all things we're very capable of, given the impending return of Wilshere and Cleverley to the England squad - then we can compete with anyone.

To say Roy has no idea what a deep-lying playmaker is is to completely ignore his Fulham spell, which had Danny Murphy playing as one. Funnily enough, I reckon if the English FA appointed someone who tried to make us worth watching, we'd probably crash out in the qualifiers. We're not good enough or familiar enough in a system yet to try and play it expansively.

Also, Capello played a 4-4-2 and raped the qualifiers with us. In fact, there was only one real time it was proven to come up short, and that was in the World Cup, and that's all because Capello ****** up in telling Rooney to stay high, making it a classical 4-4-2 which was horribly outdated.

Hodgson caused half the problems this Euro's himself though.. I mean 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.

We lacked for Central Mid options when Frank Lampard got injured, especially a deep-lying playmaker and Carrick said he would come if he was needed, which he was desperately for some creativity in the central midfield to supply the wingers/forwards, but he ignored it and just took Henderson leaving us with Gerrard and Parker as the first choice pair, although Gerrard was great we always struggled with possession in every game and needed a Carrick badly.

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.

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.
 
Hodgson caused half the problems this Euro's himself though.. I mean 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.

Because Walcott is an excellent impact sub, but really didn't have the season to justify being started. He's all pace, but STILL hasn't worked out how to play as a proper winger in anything other than Wenger's 4-2-3-1, which uses direct players like strikers on the wings anyway. As such, Walcott isn't a 'pacey winger', he's a pacey striker from the wing. He's really not that great that far away from goal in a 4-4-1-1. Milner made sense.

We lacked for Central Mid options when Frank Lampard got injured, especially a deep-lying playmaker and Carrick said he would come if he was needed, which he was desperately for some creativity in the central midfield to supply the wingers/forwards, but he ignored it and just took Henderson leaving us with Gerrard and Parker as the first choice pair, although Gerrard was great we always struggled with possession in every game and needed a Carrick badly.

Certainly. It was hardly Hodgson's fault that our best deep-lying playmaker, Wilshere, was handled with all the grace and precision of a sledgehammer by Arsenal's physios. Carrick... well, I've made my feelings clear on him before, but I can certainly accept that he doesn't want to play second fiddle any more. Hodgson was boxed in: either he guarantee a starting spot to Carrick, which is a bit unfair on everyone else, or he says 'thank you for your service, but no thanks'. I, frankly, agree with Roy on this one.

Our troubles with possession go far beyond Gerrard and Parker. It's a deep-lying, mentality problem, and Hodgson couldn't be expected to solve it in two weeks.

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.

Undeniable, but for the most part the defence did well.

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.

Again, true. But we didn't concede any goals from our defensive line playing someone onside in open play, so I'm loathe to take it as a major problem.

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.

And thus we come to one of Hodgson's only faults for this tournament, though I'd be perfectly willing to lay a lot of the blame at Rooney's door. If he'd actually tracked Pirlo consistently like Hodgson asked him to - and I'm taking an educated guess that he did, given that Rooney's marking of Pirlo in the first few minutes was excellent - then it could've been a totally different ball game.
 
Richards isnt a defensive Right back.

More than Johnson, why does a Right Back need a bodyguard. Ashley Cole is not exactly a "defensive Left Back" but he did not exactly have a bodyguard like Johnson did. If he was worried about using Johnson as a Right Back then he should of used our best defensive option as a Right Back Phil Jones/Micah Richards.
 
Again, true. But we didn't concede any goals from our defensive line playing someone onside in open play, so I'm loathe to take it as a major problem.

Despite our best efforts with Balotelli, of course.
 
More than Johnson, why does a Right Back need a bodyguard. Ashley Cole is not exactly a "defensive Left Back" but he did not exactly have a bodyguard like Johnson did. If he was worried about using Johnson as a Right Back then he should of used our best defensive option as a Right Back Phil Jones/Micah Richards.

Johnson didn't need a bodyguard. And he is better defensively than Jones. In fact, Johnson was very good. And off this tournament deserves to be the number one right back.
 
Johnson didn't need a bodyguard. And he is better defensively than Jones. In fact, Johnson was very good. And off this tournament deserves to be the number one right back.

Don't agree. Johnson's fine and had a good tournament, but Walker and Richards are both younger and better than him.
 
Johnson didn't need a bodyguard. And he is better defensively than Jones. In fact, Johnson was very good. And off this tournament deserves to be the number one right back.

Overall he had a good tournament but I do not agree with he should be our no.1 choice over Walker/Richards at all. Did you not see his loose positioning from a dead ball situation after we had cleared it he never pushed back up with the rest of the defensive line and it almost cost us multiple times. Also if we do play with a higher defensive line in the future, it is something Johnson has to work on if he is selected for first choice.
 
Don't agree. Johnson's fine and had a good tournament, but Walker and Richards are both younger and better than him.

And it will be upto them to remove it from Johnson. If they play as we know they can, then it can happen. But going into next game (which is august IIRC) I dont see why we should remove it from him. After that its anyone's business.
 
Johnson gets too much stick, and people call his defensive side... when yet again he has proved that not only is he a very good attacking full back, but that he can also defend, no doubt about it he is the 1st choice right back... Performances at the Euro's prove it
 
And it will be upto them to remove it from Johnson. If they play as we know they can, then it can happen. But going into next game (which is august IIRC) I dont see why we should remove it from him. After that its anyone's business.

They have played as we know they can. I don't see why they need to prove anything else. They've had much better domestic campaigns than Johnson, and didn't play in the Euros for whatever reason. Johnson's been good but occasionally shaky. There's no point waiting more months as Richards and Walker outplay Johnson domestically and don't get an opportunity internationally. In our next game, I think Walker probably deserves a shot, if he keeps his domestic form up. When else are we going to bring him into the team if not now?
 
Back
Top