What would you have done different?

[stealthpapes]

Few thoughts, in no order.

1) Inspired by a Guardian below-the-line comment, when was the last time England did a tactical job on a team? Identified a key threat and did something different to deal with it? In fact, when was the last time England showed a level of tactical acumen above "throw the best players into some formula and let them play their game"? Do you honestly think other teams think like this?

2) While the games were won and lost over small errors, it boils down to the same problems - a lack of technique and a lack of ability to play anything other than a 100 % chase every ball English game. Later on in the game, more mistakes made and they are punished.

3) The final autopsy of the campaign was just the same as the last few. Same comments made. Is it boring yet?

Disagree with point (2). We didn't chase enough in my opinion. Italy were leisurely walking around the midfield under no pressure, England players just stupid looking trees in the distance.

If (at least one of) Gerrard and Henderson chased and harried like Uruguay and Costa Rica did, perhaps Pirlo wouldn't have yet again ruined things for England.

When we don't have the ball, England don't go anywhere near it.

Disagree with point (3) as well, come to think of it - as I said above somewhere, this tournament has been polar opposite to the last lot: promising performances without the results vs frustratingly awful performances with promising results.

I was referring to the pundits more with (3). The only one speaking slightly out of turn seems to be Waddle. Redknapp's helpfully waded in with "You wouldn't fancy none of the Uruguayan lot in the PL" which goes back to point (1).

I do think Hodgson will almost certainly develop from this, but there's something so ... tedious ... about the whole media circus around the England team.

[Hoop Blah]

Disagree with point (2). We didn't chase enough in my opinion. Italy were leisurely walking around the midfield under no pressure, England players just stupid looking trees in the distance.

If (at least one of) Gerrard and Henderson chased and harried like Uruguay and Costa Rica did, perhaps Pirlo wouldn't have yet again ruined things for England.

When we don't have the ball, England don't go anywhere near it.

Agreed E-P, but isn't this a product of why, for the last how ever many years, we've been playing down expectations of England and the other European nations of a tournament held in South America.

We played Italy in conditions that dictated we couldn't really chase them down like we might in Europe. The other two teams didn't play them in Manaus and are physically used to playing in those conditions and so are physically built to play a higher tempo game out there.

Could we have done more? Probably yes, but it's really hard to say without being out there and knowing how much the conditions hit our ability to play, not just in that first game, but how killing ourselves chasing shaddows might've worsened our chances in the 2nd and 3rd games.

[stealthpapes]

Could we have done more? Probably yes, but it's really hard to say without being out there and knowing how much the conditions hit our ability to play, not just in that first game, but how killing ourselves chasing shaddows might've worsened our chances in the 2nd and 3rd games.

Now that's something I wouldn't disagree with.

[Hoop Blah]

I do think Hodgson will almost certainly develop from this, but there's something so ... tedious ... about the whole media circus around the England team.

Totally agree. The public and the media really don't help our development.

[Hoop Blah]

Could we have done more? Probably yes, but it's really hard to say without being out there and knowing how much the conditions hit our ability to play, not just in that first game, but how killing ourselves chasing shaddows might've worsened our chances in the 2nd and 3rd games.

Now that's something I wouldn't disagree with.

The Europeans haven't really set the world alight either have they? France and Germany look good, and the Netherlands had a great 45 minutes against Spain, but the teams that have really looked the business are the lesser countries from the America's where expectations of them (at least over here) are pretty low but they've been able to have a go and play at a higher tempo.

For some reason that seems to have come as a massive surprise to the World when it was kind of predictable as the big guns of Argentina and Brazil grow into the tournament and deal with the pressure and expectations.

[stealthpapes]

I kind of rubbished the whole "American world cup" thing before the tournament, but it's clearly having some effect.

[Extended-Phenotype]

We played Italy in conditions that dictated we couldn't really chase them down like we might in Europe. The other two teams didn't play them in Manaus and are physically used to playing in those conditions and so are physically built to play a higher tempo game out there.

From all accounts, it wasn't particularly hot in Manaus when we played Italy. It was also cool and raining when we played Uruguay.

So I'm not sure the weather is that much of a factor and would suggest it's either a more psychological thing or tactical issue.

[Hoop Blah]

A quick google tells me it was 30C, or upper 80 degrees, for the Italy game. That's not mentally hot but it's very rare for our lot to play in such heat but I think it's as much about the atmosphere/humidity as it is the actual temperature.

I'm not expert on it though, but I can see the logic in it playing a significant part that seems to have been totally overlooked now the tournament has kicked off.

[melonhead]

Reading between the lines I think we played Sterling in and around Pirlo to be able to get closer to him more quickly to apply some pressure (which he didn't really do enough of) but more importantly for Sterling to use his pace and directness to exploit the spaces that Pirlo leaves (which he Sterling did very well).

personally thought sterling was poor in both directions

[melonhead]

End of the day we are not good enough as a team of footballers as a whole.
We never will be good enough.

agreed
LOL

[Extended-Phenotype]

What would you have done different(ly), Melonheaders?

[Hoop Blah]

Reading between the lines I think we played Sterling in and around Pirlo to be able to get closer to him more quickly to apply some pressure (which he didn't really do enough of) but more importantly for Sterling to use his pace and directness to exploit the spaces that Pirlo leaves (which he Sterling did very well).

personally thought sterling was poor in both directions

I think he caused Italy no end of problems and was a good outlet and creative force for us. Not sure what you wanted from him if you think he was poor.

[stealthpapes]

A quick google tells me it was 30C, or upper 80 degrees, for the Italy game. That's not mentally hot but it's very rare for our lot to play in such heat but I think it's as much about the atmosphere/humidity as it is the actual temperature.

I'm not expert on it though, but I can see the logic in it playing a significant part that seems to have been totally overlooked now the tournament has kicked off.

Humidity would have been high and that fucks you up. No control of temperature.

[melonhead]

What would you have done different(ly), Melonheaders?

taken cole and terry, so our defence wasnt so naive and rubbish
played rooney up front as the main striker, with sturridge and lambert playing supporting/sub roles
probably played milner in the first game to make the midfield more solid and defensive, with more suport for baines on the left.
get at teams more down the wings with pace instead of cutting inside and trying to go through the middle every time with daftly intricate passing interplay.





i think roy got swept up with the nation and press desperately casting about for a new shiny team of younglings playing a new shiny brand of football.
i think we should play these players when they are ready-ie old enough, experienced enough, good enough - and until then they should build experience from the bench where their young legs can be used to the fullest effect.#

you go cavalier, you concede more goals.
we did, and therefore we did

[melonhead]

Reading between the lines I think we played Sterling in and around Pirlo to be able to get closer to him more quickly to apply some pressure (which he didn't really do enough of) but more importantly for Sterling to use his pace and directness to exploit the spaces that Pirlo leaves (which he Sterling did very well).

personally thought sterling was poor in both directions

I think he caused Italy no end of problems and was a good outlet and creative force for us. Not sure what you wanted from him if you think he was poor.

to achieve something, to create something.
and not to flatter to decieve.

he played some nice stuff, he played less nice stuff. most of the nice stuff didnt ammount to anything positive for us. whereas him giving the ball away and failing to stop pirlo doing what he wanted did ammount to something negative for us
i just think there's a reason you dont basically blood a young and inexperienced kid in world cup games against wily teams.

i dont think its his fault- he did what he could with the job given to him.
i just think he should have been on the bench to come on later on in games

[Extended-Phenotype]

What would you have done different(ly), Melonheaders?

taken cole and terry, so our defence wasnt so naive and rubbish
played rooney up front as the main striker, with sturridge and lambert playing supporting/sub roles
probably played milner in the first game to make the midfield more solid and defensive, with more suport for baines on the left.
get at teams more down the wings with pace instead of cutting inside and trying to go through the middle every time with daftly intricate passing interplay.





i think roy got swept up with the nation and press desperately casting about for a new shiny team of younglings playing a new shiny brand of football.
i think we should play these players when they are ready-ie old enough, experienced enough, good enough - and until then they should build experience from the bench where their young legs can be used to the fullest effect.#

you go cavalier, you concede more goals.
we did, and therefore we did

It was the experienced and ready players that let us down, imo.

[Hoop Blah]

to achieve something, to create something.
and not to flatter to decieve.

he played some nice stuff, he played less nice stuff. most of the nice stuff didnt ammount to anything positive for us. whereas him giving the ball away and failing to stop pirlo doing what he wanted did ammount to something negative for us
i just think there's a reason you dont basically blood a young and inexperienced kid in world cup games against wily teams.

i dont think its his fault- he did what he could with the job given to him.
i just think he should have been on the bench to come on later on in games

Fair enough. I think he had some decent end product. He created the opportunity we scored from, had a few shots of his own, put a lovelly ball across the box that one of the forwards really should've been tapping in and, most importantly for me, took the game to the Italians so that we had them on the back foot at times.

I'm quite a fan of Milners but without Sterlings 'naive' running at their back four we'd have been too easy to defend against IMO. Yeah he gave the ball away at times, and ran into a few tackles attempting to dribble, but ultimately that's his job.

I'm not sure he and Welbeck should be played in the same side as they're too similar in many respects, but it seems a bit churlish to suggest Sterling didn't really create anything during the Italy game.

Edit:Here's Sterlings on the ball contribution against Italy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgCvc8GYTSs

[Hoop Blah]

i think roy got swept up with the nation and press desperately casting about for a new shiny team of younglings playing a new shiny brand of football.

Interesting* point of view. I think he got the mix pretty well spot on, although I'd probably have gambled on Lallana instead of the more experiencesd Welbeck to be honest.

I guess Cole over Baines/Shaw would've been the other obvious change but, apart from that, where do you think we had more capable and in form alternatives to the younglings he went with?

[melonhead]

i wanted them on the bench- with the solid/experienced on the pitch to ensure we were less likely to concede silly goals, and their legs to come on and stretch teams in the last half hour


that said- i still think that luck played a bigger part than anything selection/tactics wise
and i did enjoy the passing possession based football we tried to play.
was certainly better in that regard than any world cup team ive seen us field.

its just that IF getting out of the group and progressing was the only true aim we had here- then cole and terry at the back, and some support for baines in the LB area from milner or even a lallana, would probably have seen us win both of the games we lost.


imo

[melonhead]

to achieve something, to create something.
and not to flatter to decieve.

he played some nice stuff, he played less nice stuff. most of the nice stuff didnt ammount to anything positive for us. whereas him giving the ball away and failing to stop pirlo doing what he wanted did ammount to something negative for us
i just think there's a reason you dont basically blood a young and inexperienced kid in world cup games against wily teams.

i dont think its his fault- he did what he could with the job given to him.
i just think he should have been on the bench to come on later on in games

Fair enough. I think he had some decent end product. He created the opportunity we scored from, had a few shots of his own, put a lovelly ball across the box that one of the forwards really should've been tapping in and, most importantly for me, took the game to the Italians so that we had them on the back foot at times.

I'm quite a fan of Milners but without Sterlings 'naive' running at their back four we'd have been too easy to defend against IMO. Yeah he gave the ball away at times, and ran into a few tackles attempting to dribble, but ultimately that's his job.

I'm not sure he and Welbeck should be played in the same side as they're too similar in many respects, but it seems a bit churlish to suggest Sterling didn't really create anything during the Italy game.

Edit:Here's Sterlings on the ball contribution against Italy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgCvc8GYTSs

yeah, good pass.
i like him. i liked what he did.
i just think that too often he looked like an inexperienced kid, lost on the biggest stage