What would you have done different?

[Hoop Blah]

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's fair enough, I understand the sentiment and agree with it to an extent, I'm just wondering what changes in personnel you'd have gone for because I think in leaving Barkley and Lallana on the bench I think Hodgson pretty much did that anyway.

[melonhead]

cole terry milner
rooney moved up front instead of studge


possibly lallana instead of sterling since hes not young and naive and has played alot of 1st team games

[Vision]

Which is pretty much the same team that stunk the place out at the previous 2 tournaments.

Personally I think the reason we got out of the group stage at those tournaments rather than this one has little to do with personnel and all to do with the fact that we didn't have gift wrapped group to splutter our way out of. Of course that extra bit of experience and nouse might have turned one of the defeats into a draw or the draw into a victory and might just have seen us sneak out of the group but long term there really wasn't much point. It was worth including Gerrard,lampard,Rooney this time around to take the pressure off of those promising players.

Of course theres no guarantee that any of those young players will kick on and improve but I'm glad we took the chance on at least giving them a chance to do so.

[melonhead]

Personally I think the reason we got out of the group stage at those tournaments rather than this one has little to do with personnel and all to do with the fact that we didn't have gift wrapped group to splutter our way out of. Of course that extra bit of experience and nouse might have turned one of the defeats into a draw or the draw into a victory and might just have seen us sneak out of the group but long term there really wasn't much point. It was worth including Gerrard,lampard,Rooney this time around to take the pressure off of those promising players.

Of course theres no guarantee that any of those young players will kick on and improve but I'm glad we took the chance on at least giving them a chance to do so.

no other nation just chucks half of a team of inexperienced kids in at world cups.
and theres a reason for that


you say not much point in getting out of the group- but not getting out of the group seems to be the be all and end all for many now calling for woys head
plus the entire point of world cups is to go as far as you possibly can. Thats pretty much the only point.
building experience is for friendlys and qualifiers imo

Which is pretty much the same team that stunk the place out at the previous 2 tournaments.

its not THE same team, teams are supposed to evolve...you dont just chuck entire teams out when you fail and start again....and at least they won games, and got into later rounds

[Extended-Phenotype]

+1 Vision.

It's laughable that we'd have done any better with the old guard being propped up on the pitch, considering how shite they were in previous tournaments against weaker opposition.

Euro 2012
France (absolute dross at this point) – struggled to a draw
Ukraine (pedestrian) – narrow win
Sweden (forgettable team) – narrow win

World Cup 2010
USA (crap) – draw
Slovenia (who?) – struggled to beat them
Algeria – (whipping boys) – couldn’t beat them

Euro 2008
Couldn’t even get to the tournament

World Cup 2006
Sweden (oh no, what a mighty adversary) – draw
Paraguay (LOL) unconvincing 1-0 win
Trinidad & Tabago (LOOOOL) flattering 2-0 win

I mean, ffs - Italy and Uruguay? Even Costa Rica were harder than any of the best teams we have faced in the last decade.

I appreciate the ease of statistics but "first side to lose their opening two matches in blah blah blah" or "first side not to get of the group since yeah yeah yeah" is pretty meaningless.

Cole, Terry, Lampard - whichever of the "experienced" and "known quality" some pundits and fans are suddenly suggesting we should have played; fact is, they were even more dogshit than this years personnel.

[wingnut]

+1 to Vision's and E-P's points. Kind of what I said several pages back that a defence with Terry in it is just as prone to failing to deal with simple long balls down the middle.

[Hoop Blah]

cole terry milner
rooney moved up front instead of studge


possibly lallana instead of sterling since hes not young and naive and has played alot of 1st team games

I'm still really not sure on what team you would've played and why you think it would've been much different, especially with the history of basically that same team consistently failing AND playing pretty abject football over the last two or three tournaments (edit: basically what E-P and Vision have said).

[Man Friday]

+1.

Nothing we'd have done differently would have made it any better because, any way you look at it, we're fairly cr@ppy (in a relative sense of course).

[melonhead]

+1 Vision.

It's laughable that we'd have done any better with the old guard being propped up on the pitch, considering how shite they were in previous tournaments against weaker opposition.

Euro 2012
France (absolute dross at this point) – struggled to a draw
Ukraine (pedestrian) – narrow win
Sweden (forgettable team) – narrow win

World Cup 2010
USA (crap) – draw
Slovenia (who?) – struggled to beat them
Algeria – (whipping boys) – couldn’t beat them

Euro 2008
Couldn’t even get to the tournament

World Cup 2006
Sweden (oh no, what a mighty adversary) – draw
Paraguay (LOL) unconvincing 1-0 win
Trinidad & Tabago (LOOOOL) flattering 2-0 win

I mean, ffs - Italy and Uruguay? Even Costa Rica were harder than any of the best teams we have faced in the last decade.

I appreciate the ease of statistics but "first side to lose their opening two matches in blah blah blah" or "first side not to get of the group since yeah yeah yeah" is pretty meaningless.

Cole, Terry, Lampard - whichever of the "experienced" and "known quality" some pundits and fans are suddenly suggesting we should have played; fact is, they were even more dogshit than this years personnel.

except cole, who never let england down, and continued to be the best and most consistent left back england have ever had.
i can understand not taking him, due to not playing for most of the season.
but his games late on convinced me he still the best LB we have.


terry had retired, and the onus was on him to come out and say he was up for it again, so i understand him not going too.

lampard gave the best midfield performance from an englishman in the 3 games- albeit against a team who were already out, and continued the good progress we had seen in terms of passing and ball retention we had seen in the previous 2.

cole alone, with milner on the wing in front would have cut the italian supply line, & stopped the crosses that won them the game.
Terry would have provided the nous and sheer ability to not let luis suarez wander around in our box unmarked, and won us that game.

all of which without sacrificing our new shiny style of attacking play.

[melonhead]

cole terry milner
rooney moved up front instead of studge


possibly lallana instead of sterling since hes not young and naive and has played alot of 1st team games

I'm still really not sure on what team you would've played and why you think it would've been much different, especially with the history of basically that same team consistently failing AND playing pretty abject football over the last two or three tournaments (edit: basically what E-P and Vision have said).

because i KNOW that cole is a better Left back than baines, and would have coped better with the crosses coming from that side.
and I know that terry is better than jagielka and wouldnt have lost suarez in the box.
i know that a proper midfielder/winger would have offered more protection to the left back than rooney in the first game
and also know that an experienced midfielder would have done a better job on pirlo than sterling.

the rest of the side would have been the same in terms of attacking youth.

our issues were silly naive defensive errors.
these changes would have made them less likely to happen.
this would have enabled us to take our shiny young attacking players into the round of 16.


ive also said however that im pretty sure pure luck and randomness plays as much a part as anything based on tactics or personnel.


but the question was "what I would have done differently?", not what could i have done differently that EP would agree with, so....

[wingnut]

Brendy, take a look at this for naive and silly defending:
http://youtu.be/6v_t3NCDZG8

[tmesis]

no other nation just chucks half of a team of inexperienced kids in at world cups.
and theres a reason for that

There were very few "kids" in the England squad. People are talking about 22, 23 & 24 year old players as if they are teenagers.

[Victor Meldrew]

no other nation just chucks half of a team of inexperienced kids in at world cups.
and theres a reason for that

There were very few "kids" in the England squad. People are talking about 22, 23 & 24 year old players as if they are teenagers.

Yes other countries play "kids" like Neymar, Oscar,Shaqiri, Lukaku and the ancient 23 year-old Hazard.

[Ian Royal]

no other nation just chucks half of a team of inexperienced kids in at world cups.
and theres a reason for that

Didn't Germany take a very young and inexperienced side to a major tournament a few years ago and do unexpectedly well.

You never win anything with kids.

Agree with most of what Hoop, E-P and Vision have said.

We just need a little better judgement from the likes of Wilshire, Barkley, Lallana, Stirling etc. They just have a tendency to try a little too much and play a step too far into trouble. This World Cup will be a useful experience for them.

[Extended-Phenotype]

+1 Vision.

It's laughable that we'd have done any better with the old guard being propped up on the pitch, considering how shite they were in previous tournaments against weaker opposition.

Euro 2012
France (absolute dross at this point) – struggled to a draw
Ukraine (pedestrian) – narrow win
Sweden (forgettable team) – narrow win

World Cup 2010
USA (crap) – draw
Slovenia (who?) – struggled to beat them
Algeria – (whipping boys) – couldn’t beat them

Euro 2008
Couldn’t even get to the tournament

World Cup 2006
Sweden (oh no, what a mighty adversary) – draw
Paraguay (LOL) unconvincing 1-0 win
Trinidad & Tabago (LOOOOL) flattering 2-0 win

I mean, ffs - Italy and Uruguay? Even Costa Rica were harder than any of the best teams we have faced in the last decade.

I appreciate the ease of statistics but "first side to lose their opening two matches in blah blah blah" or "first side not to get of the group since yeah yeah yeah" is pretty meaningless.

Cole, Terry, Lampard - whichever of the "experienced" and "known quality" some pundits and fans are suddenly suggesting we should have played; fact is, they were even more dogshit than this years personnel.

except cole, who never let england down, and continued to be the best and most consistent left back england have ever had.
i can understand not taking him, due to not playing for most of the season.
but his games late on convinced me he still the best LB we have.


terry had retired, and the onus was on him to come out and say he was up for it again, so i understand him not going too.

lampard gave the best midfield performance from an englishman in the 3 games- albeit against a team who were already out, and continued the good progress we had seen in terms of passing and ball retention we had seen in the previous 2.

cole alone, with milner on the wing in front would have cut the italian supply line, & stopped the crosses that won them the game.
Terry would have provided the nous and sheer ability to not let luis suarez wander around in our box unmarked, and won us that game.

all of which without sacrificing our new shiny style of attacking play.

Cole perhaps, but I think you kinda miss my point that the veterans have not really performed well for England or made much of a difference in previous tournaments to warrant faith that they would have been much of a solution this time around; regardless of their club form.

[melonhead]

no other nation just chucks half of a team of inexperienced kids in at world cups.
and theres a reason for that

There were very few "kids" in the England squad. People are talking about 22, 23 & 24 year old players as if they are teenagers.

in international terms it is

[melonhead]

+1 Vision.

It's laughable that we'd have done any better with the old guard being propped up on the pitch, considering how shite they were in previous tournaments against weaker opposition.

Euro 2012
France (absolute dross at this point) – struggled to a draw
Ukraine (pedestrian) – narrow win
Sweden (forgettable team) – narrow win

World Cup 2010
USA (crap) – draw
Slovenia (who?) – struggled to beat them
Algeria – (whipping boys) – couldn’t beat them

Euro 2008
Couldn’t even get to the tournament

World Cup 2006
Sweden (oh no, what a mighty adversary) – draw
Paraguay (LOL) unconvincing 1-0 win
Trinidad & Tabago (LOOOOL) flattering 2-0 win

I mean, ffs - Italy and Uruguay? Even Costa Rica were harder than any of the best teams we have faced in the last decade.

I appreciate the ease of statistics but "first side to lose their opening two matches in blah blah blah" or "first side not to get of the group since yeah yeah yeah" is pretty meaningless.

Cole, Terry, Lampard - whichever of the "experienced" and "known quality" some pundits and fans are suddenly suggesting we should have played; fact is, they were even more dogshit than this years personnel.

except cole, who never let england down, and continued to be the best and most consistent left back england have ever had.
i can understand not taking him, due to not playing for most of the season.
but his games late on convinced me he still the best LB we have.


terry had retired, and the onus was on him to come out and say he was up for it again, so i understand him not going too.

lampard gave the best midfield performance from an englishman in the 3 games- albeit against a team who were already out, and continued the good progress we had seen in terms of passing and ball retention we had seen in the previous 2.

cole alone, with milner on the wing in front would have cut the italian supply line, & stopped the crosses that won them the game.
Terry would have provided the nous and sheer ability to not let luis suarez wander around in our box unmarked, and won us that game.

all of which without sacrificing our new shiny style of attacking play.

Cole perhaps, but I think you kinda miss my point that the veterans have not really performed well for England or made much of a difference in previous tournaments to warrant faith that they would have been much of a solution this time around; regardless of their club form.

still better players. regardless. and thats the only point worth making

[Extended-Phenotype]

No, not regardless. Regarding England, the vets have done f/ck all to warrant any confidence in them doing better this year.

[melonhead]

No, not regardless. Regarding England, the vets have done f/ck all to warrant any confidence in them doing better this year.

apart from be better, generally

better is better, no matter what competition its in

[Ian Royal]

And this year was never about this tournament.