Roy Hodgson Successor Thread

[DannyMan2006]

Dont think there was really a better option there. Other than the Centre backs he chose, there was Jones. The Left back he went with the player who had a good season. Baines was no worse or better than Johnson over the two games.

Welbeck was the only one I probably wouldn't have picked, probably would have had Lallana in there ahead of him.

A group of us chatted last night before and after the game (probably about 10 of us, good cross section of the fan base) and every person agreed that the selection wasn't the problem. That team was the best of a bad bunch. Not much hiding that.

You lot must have been drunk.

Take Gerrard. Massive fan. But he hasn't got the legs to be playing in a two man midfield at the highest level. Painfully exposed at LFC last season until Rodgers put in players along side him to do his running.

Then you have Welbeck & Rooney playing on the wing against Italy. They're strikers, not wingers. If you go for an attacking 433 against ****e like Macedonia that's all well & good as they won't have to defend. But against an Italian team who play possession football?

We were exposed time & again. Which again, can be balanced out if you play the best defensive full back we have. Ashley Cole. Imperious at defending as shown for Chelsea when they parked the bus. Not got the legs to play every game, or to run up and down the line. But if you're playing an attacker on the wing in front of him, he's ideal.

Raheem Sterling. England's MOTM in the hole against Italy. Clearly has to play on the wing against Uruguay if you're forcing Rooney into the side. But why force Rooney in? Why not just play Sterling where he was extremely effective? Use Rooney as an impact sub.

Then we go to last night. Uruguay played the diamond. The space to exploit will be on the flanks. What do we do late on? We take off our wide players and bring on a series of players who like to play in the middle. Hence it gets congested.

Fact of the matter is that England has a massive pool of players. Any system you wish to play, you would be able to select a decent team to fit it. What Hodgson did, same as previous managers, was pick the best players and try and squeeze them into the same XI. And such is the talent available, you really don't need to.

[Kenneth]

You lot must have been drunk.

Take Gerrard. Massive fan. But he hasn't got the legs to be playing in a two man midfield at the highest level. Painfully exposed at LFC last season until Rodgers put in players along side him to do his running.

Then you have Welbeck & Rooney playing on the wing against Italy. They're strikers, not wingers. If you go for an attacking 433 against ****e like Macedonia that's all well & good as they won't have to defend. But against an Italian team who play possession football?

We were exposed time & again. Which again, can be balanced out if you play the best defensive full back we have. Ashley Cole. Imperious at defending as shown for Chelsea when they parked the bus. Not got the legs to play every game, or to run up and down the line. But if you're playing an attacker on the wing in front of him, he's ideal.

Raheem Sterling. England's MOTM in the hole against Italy. Clearly has to play on the wing against Uruguay if you're forcing Rooney into the side. But why force Rooney in? Why not just play Sterling where he was extremely effective? Use Rooney as an impact sub.

Then we go to last night. Uruguay played the diamond. The space to exploit will be on the flanks. What do we do late on? We take off our wide players and bring on a series of players who like to play in the middle. Hence it gets congested.

Fact of the matter is that England has a massive pool of players. Any system you wish to play, you would be able to select a decent team to fit it. What Hodgson did, same as previous managers, was pick the best players and try and squeeze them into the same XI. And such is the talent available, you really don't need to.

Nailed it. It's never going up make a world beating side but would produce a decent coherent team. Certainly no worse than bleeding Uruguay.

[Shaggy]

That's the word - Hodgson has talented players at his disposal but there was no cohesion whatsoever. Just a jumble - albeit in flat, straight lines.

Uruguay are average + a genius, England should've been able to get a result.

Hodgson is out of his depth, we all know that. He's failed in every single big job he's ever had. Every single one.

[Fierce]

Fact of the matter is that England has a massive pool of players. Any system you wish to play, you would be able to select a decent team to fit it. What Hodgson did, same as previous managers, was pick the best players and try and squeeze them into the same XI. And such is the talent available, you really don't need to.

[Alex]

Mate of mine said it well last night.

We have the best team on paper in the group, but the trouble is we play on Grass.

The problem with England has always been the same, managers never EVER pick a team to win a game. They pick a team who looks good on paper.

We could have had 3 centre backs last night to deal with Suarez and Cavani, played wing backs and looked at the attacking side from there. Might not have worked, but it would have served to contain their biggest threats.

[DannyMan2006]

Nailed it. It's never going up make a world beating side but would produce a decent coherent team. Certainly no worse than bleeding Uruguay.

Indeed. And as shown in the past, decent & coherent teams can sometimes go the distance. Time & again lesser sides out perform England. More often than not, teams full of players who wouldn't even get in a premier league sides starting XI. But that's because they play individuals in positions they're happy in.

[Kenneth]

That's the word - Hodgson has talented players at his disposal but there was no cohesion whatsoever. Just a jumble - albeit in flat, straight lines.

Uruguay are average + a genius, England should've been able to get a result.

Hodgson is out of his depth, we all know that. He's failed in every single big job he's ever had. Every single one.

[DannyMan2006]

Mate of mine said it well last night.

We have the best team on paper in the group, but the trouble is we play on Grass.

The problem with England has always been the same, managers never EVER pick a team to win a game. They pick a team who looks good on paper.

We could have had 3 centre backs last night to deal with Suarez and Cavani, played wing backs and looked at the attacking side from there. Might not have worked, but it would have served to contain their biggest threats.

Problem is, that side against Italy & Uruguay didn't even look good on paper.

It's simple as an international manager. You pick a system that fits your best players. Then when you have your system, you pick the rest of your squad to complement it. I & everyone on this forum could IMO select an XI that would be better equipped than the ones picked by Hodgson.

England lack genuine world class wingers, hence Rooney & Welbeck on the wings, as well as Sturridge in earlier games. Why didn't he pick the wing back system as you say, or go with the diamond used at LFC?

DM Gerrard / Carrick
LCM Henderson /
RCM Wilshere / Sterling / Ox / Milner / Lallana
CF Sterling / Rooney / Barkley / Lallana
RS Sturridge
LS Rooney / Welbeck / Lambert

In that formation above, all players would be comfortable and what's more it's getting our best players on the pitch. If you want a different system, that's fine, but you'll maybe have to select some of your less gifted players. No need to fit square pegs into round holes.

[Lecter]

What hurts the most is that I want to blame Woy, but it is the players who ****ed up, nobody can blame his decisions or selection. Unfortunately we are ****, any manager would struggle with that team.

Really???

I'm not a big England fan to be honest but do people actually think that team selection and tactics werent a factor

We've played Rooney out left in one game and he looked ****e

We've played Wellbeck in two games and hes looked ****e all year at United and was ****e in the games

We've brought in players like Barkley & Lallana but barely given them a chance

I think at the very least some questions have to be asked about Roy & the coaching staff

[tsb]

Moyes

It's the only logical choice.

[Alex]

Too be fair to him, he is bang on about if it was about England. But thats a cracking prediction for Spain.

[EwarWoo]

Too be fair to him, he is bang on about if it was about England. But thats a cracking prediction for Spain.

The reverse midas. Can we get him in charge of City and Chelsea for half a season each?

[Lecter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02191f7

[Lecter]

Tony Barrett on twitter

Barkley's biggest strength is his fearlessness & willingness to run at players. What did he get? Told to take fewer risks.

Sterling shone as a number ten in the first game. What did he get in game two? Shifted out wide & his impact greater reduced.

Henderson and Gerrard have been brilliant in a midfield three. What did they get? A midfield two that left them exposed.

Rooney is a great player. His biggest strength is getting into the box. What did he get initially? A system that wasted him out wide.

Baines is a great player. His biggest strength is overlapping. What does he get? A system that restricts his ability to get forward.

You could go on & on.The players have to take their share of responsibility but the biggest issue is strengths being turned into weaknesses.

[DannyMan2006]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02191f7

Waddle is spot on towards the end, that's exactly what Myself & others have been saying. Problem is, whether we progress or not, new manager or not, it'll probably end up just the same. Nothing ever changes.