Last 16: England v Iceland 27th June, 8pm

[PoolieTom]

Surely the obvious formation would of been the 4-1-2-1-2

Hart
Walker
Cahill
Smalling
Rose
Dier in the holding roll
Alii and lallana in midfield
Rooney just behind
And 2 of Kane,Vardy,sturridge up top..

A team that would've struggled just as much as the teams Roy picked. I find it baffling that people who watch football week in, week out, would think that this sort of team would be any good. The team's Roy picked were largely well received (on the whole) by fans when they were announced (despite it being glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain that it wasn't going to work). It's no wonder Roy pick's teams as disorganised as this when it's what the fans want.

People moan about square pegs in round holes, and then actively encourage square pegs in round holes.

Any half decent/ambitious/proven/good manager would be insane to take over the England job. It's a lose-lose situation.

 

[blademan89]

A team that would've struggled just as much as the teams Roy picked. I find it baffling that people who watch football week in, week out, would think that this sort of team would be any good. The team's Roy picked were largely well received (on the whole) by fans when they were announced (despite it being glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain that it wasn't going to work). It's no wonder Roy pick's teams as disorganised as this when it's what the fans want.

People moan about square pegs in round holes, and then actively encourage square pegs in round holes.

Any half decent/ambitious/proven/good manager would be insane to take over the England job. It's a no lose-lose situation.

I'm not saying that's the team we should of played but out of the players Roy picked that's the formation he should of played without a doubt. I don't mind the formation he did play but it needs the right players in the right positions and we have never used it really at all so why start now. By the way I don't blame Roy anymore than the tossers on the pitch. I thought rose,Walker,Rooney,dier,lallana were more than up to scratch in the group games. Cahill and Smalling had nowt to do and Alii was ok as well. Hart,Kane and sterling were an absolute fucking disgrace throughout. What happened on Monday is just beyond belief how did Rooney turn that bad it was his worst display in his career. As someone said earlier the main thing I blame Roy for is those 4 extra changes he made which were totally uncalled for it was a fatal mistake

 

[PoolieTom]

I'm not saying that's the team we should of played but out of the players Roy picked that's the formation he should of played without a doubt. I don't mind the formation he did play but it needs the right players in the right positions and we have never used it really at all so why start now. By the way I don't blame Roy anymore than the tossers on the pitch. I thought rose,Walker,Rooney,dier,lallana were more than up to scratch in the group games. Cahill and Smalling had nowt to do and Alii was ok as well. Hart,Kane and sterling were an absolute fucking disgrace throughout. What happened on Monday is just beyond belief how did Rooney turn that bad it was his worst display in his career. As someone said earlier the main thing I blame Roy for is those 4 extra changes he made which were totally uncalled for it was a fatal mistake

Why was the diamond the formation to play without a doubt? It didn't work in any of the friendlies we played before the competition, and it wouldn't have worked in the Euro's either. With the players we have, it's a truly awful formation to play. You've put two players in midfield who have never played those positions previously in their career. It's criminal.

We played the correct formation against Germany and it's probably the best we have played for 10 years. Then it was never to be seen again.

I could rant all day about team selections and tactics/formations, but it's not going to change any time soon. IMO, we need a foreign manager to come in who won't be afraid to upset the fans/media/FA. It's our only hope.

 

[merseyboyred]

Who'd have thought Roy Hodgson was a clueless chancer?

 

[Blitzballer]

Harry Kane set piece compilation from the Euros

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1054769471281707

 

[Stevencc]

Harry Kane set piece compilation from the Euros

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1054769471281707

It's fair enough to give him a go in a match situation and see how he does but when he consistently delivers shite like he did throughout the tournament it's just baffling to see him remain as the go-to set piece taker. It's even more confusing when you consider how good a header of the ball he is.

 

[Benji]

The persistence of that is one of the most absurd things about the England team this tournament. I'm yet to hear an argument in favour of it, did Hodgson comment on it at all?

 

[Stevencc]

The persistence of that is one of the most absurd things about the England team this tournament. I'm yet to hear an argument in favour of it, did Hodgson comment on it at all?

He said something along the lines of Kane being the best set piece taker we have in terms of consistent delivery which is either complete rubbish or a damning indictment on the quality of our squad!

 

[Veggie Legs]

Didn't Rooney take all the corners after the first game?

 

[smat]

Didn't Rooney take all the corners after the first game?

IIRC Kane still took them vs Wales.

 

[JimJams]

You remember wrong.


14:05

ENGLAND 0-0 WALES

4: First corner of the match goes to England as Taylor heads a long ball out and it's Rooney who takes it rather than Kane. Deep from Rooney but headed clear by Gunter.

 

[smat]

Fair enough

 

[merseyboyred]

Isn't there something in the Times that says Hodgson was annoyed by that? I couldn't find my way behind the paywall so saw an article summary.

Still unsure as to why Lallana wasn't taking them, he doesn't for Liverpool but having seen him on corner duty for England before I've wanted him ahead of Milner!

 

[Kopper]

Even a managerless England should have beaten Iceland. This is entirely on the players. The loss meant Hodgson had to go, but I would've preferred he stayed on. His time has been more or less a successful one.
A lot of England supporters forget we haven't always qualified for tournaments or played good football. We should give credit where it's due, instead of blaming all of England's many problems on one man.

 

[JoshBCFC]

Even a managerless England should have beaten Iceland. This is entirely on the players. The loss meant Hodgson had to go, but I would've preferred he stayed on. His time has been more or less a successful one.
A lot of England supporters forget we haven't always qualified for tournaments or played good football. We should give credit where it's due, instead of blaming all of England's many problems on one man.

They aren't all Hodgson's fault: but lots of problems are.

 

[Kopper]

They aren't all Hodgson's fault: but lots of problems are.

Hodgson took the best team he could find and relied on youth.
People talk about Townsend and Barkley and I laugh.
Neither are better than what we had on the pitch.

There will be a new manager, but the problems will remain.

 

[1976Bantam]

Why was the diamond the formation to play without a doubt? It didn't work in any of the friendlies we played before the competition, and it wouldn't have worked in the Euro's either. With the players we have, it's a truly awful formation to play. You've put two players in midfield who have never played those positions previously in their career. It's criminal.

We played the correct formation against Germany and it's probably the best we have played for 10 years. Then it was never to be seen again.

I could rant all day about team selections and tactics/formations, but it's not going to change any time soon. IMO, we need a foreign manager to come in who won't be afraid to upset the fans/media/FA. It's our only hope.

Agree with the point about the Germany friendly, beat them playing excellent football and then that team/formation wasn't seen again for whatever reason.

I think the players are as much to blame as Hodgson, though it's always the manager who takes the fall. The players who played vs. Iceland should have had enough to beat them, but barely turned up and got deservedly turned over.

I do think it was daft to have Kane on corners, although his performances in general should have seen him dropped too. Confidence is a big thing in football, but it drained from our players far too quickly (if indeed they ever had it) - there are always heightened expectations on the team but frankly they should be able to deal with it, because it isn't going anyway no matter how badly we do in tournaments.

Those ridiculous expectations, given how poor we are (at least in tournaments) never make any sense to me.

Anyway, I look in Wales' progress in admiration - they have a togetherness, each player knows their role and executes it exactly, tactics are spot on. They were too defensive against us and paid for it, but they have got it bang on against everyone else. Whoever comes into the England job would do well to replicate that.

 

[ThisTinpotLeague]

His time has been more or less a successful one.

You what? In three tournaments he has provided three wins - against Sweden, Ukraine and Wales. Whilst it certainly isn't entirely his fault, that is a dour reign. And the fact that we have made a mess of qualifying a couple of times doesn't really excuse it.

 

[JoshBCFC]

Hodgson took the best team he could find and relied on youth.
People talk about Townsend and Barkley and I laugh.
Neither are better than what we had on the pitch.

There will be a new manager, but the problems will remain.

But whose fault is it that we only took one winger to France when we were playing with 2 wingers...
But whose fault was it that Kane on corners...
But whose fault was it when made 6 changes against Slovakia...
But whose fault is it that Hodgson's a footballing dinosaur...

Hodgson took the best team, but with no regards as to what formation he was planning to play. If these problems remain under the new manager then my god the FA don't have a clue in regards to managers.

 

[Super_horns]

Seems strange to see so many England players on holiday - must have found some quick deals or didn't have a lot of faith in our progress!

Of course they are allowed to have one but the papers have been all over it with the usual negative headlines.

 

[Pagnell]

People still bothering with Kopper? His claim that Hodgson's time was "more or less a successful one" tells you all you need to know. Ignore.

 

[St. Juste]

The squad we have is good enough, arguably one of the best at the tournament. Can we even say we aren't producing good players? The players have always been there. There has got to be a deeper issue, which may root from the management. There is no system, no style, no clear outline of what is wanted. We have even moaned previously about ageing players, we now have a youthful, exciting squad. What's changed? Nothing.

Who on earth would argue that? Someone who hadn't seen any of their games? It's probably the worst tournament squad since Taylors Turnips. I don't understand what is so 'exciting' about the squad - it certainly can't be their dire style of play.

Passion starts with the national anthem. Half of the c*** probably don't even know the words. Watch the Italians. They sing with so much passion and look close to tears.
We needed a John terry last night.

It worked so well in 2010 aganist Germany.

I saw a stat that England had only won six knockout games in normal time in a tournament since 1966. And none of them against particularly stellar opposition - Paraguay, Cameroon etc.

You can talk about tactical problems like who is taking free kicks, or who the manager is, but this level of consistent, catastrophic failure clearly points to something much deeper.

And yet the England fans always claim how they get "excited" before tournaments, I wish I could have such blind optimism. What is the secret? Do you expect to win the lottery every time you buy a ticket?

 

[merseyboyred]

Who on earth would argue that? Someone who hadn't seen any of their games? It's probably the worst tournament squad since Taylors Turnips. I don't understand what is so 'exciting' about the squad - it certainly can't be their dire style of play.

The quality of the performances doesn't make the squad any poorer. It is unquestionably better than at least 1 semi-finalist and 3 quarter finalists. The faults you are finding Miranda are the manager's.

 

[St. Juste]

The quality of the performances doesn't make the squad any poorer. It is unquestionably better than at least 1 semi-finalist and 3 quarter finalists. The faults you are finding Miranda are the manager's.

The manager's? So every single underperformance since 1966 is the fault of the manager?

Is it Roy Hodgsons fault England have won something like 5 knockout games since 1966? Even nations like Portugal have managed more than that in the past 6 years alone!

It's clear the squad is no where near as good as you think it is, I was saying this since before the tournament even started. From Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes you've gone to a midfield of a converted centre back, a cripple who started one game in the past season, a "wonderkid" who was playing in league one last season and, er, Adam Lallana.

Yes, awe inspiring stuff.

 

[merseyboyred]

The manager's? So every single underperformance since 1966 is the fault of the manager?

Is it Roy Hodgsons fault England have won something like 5 knockout games since 1966? Even nations like Portugal have managed more than that in the past 6 years alone!

It's clear the squad is no where near as good as you think it is, I was saying this since before the tournament even started. From Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes you've gone to a midfield of a converted centre back, a cripple who started one game in the past season, a "wonderkid" who was playing in league one last season and, er, Adam Lallana.

Yes, awe inspiring stuff.

And of course, the squads of the eventual winners, with an abysmally poor Swansea reject scoring the goal that won the tournament, semi-finalists Wales and quarter finalists Iceland & Poland all show that England were outperformed solely by far superior squads of players.

You're quite simply being deliberately obtuse if you refuse to acknowledge that the squad taken could have performed much better in both 2014 & 2016, especially considering the opposition and the quality of the performances. It's laughable to attempt to suggest otherwise.

As I made no point about prior to this last tournament in the post you responded to, the rest of what you've said is irrelevant.

 

[St. Juste]

And of course, the squads of the eventual winners, with an abysmally poor Swansea reject scoring the goal that won the tournament, semi-finalists Wales and quarter finalists Iceland & Poland all show that England were outperformed solely by far superior squads of players.

You're quite simply being deliberately obtuse if you refuse to acknowledge that the squad taken could have performed much better in both 2014 & 2016, especially considering the opposition and the quality of the performances. It's laughable to attempt to suggest otherwise.

As I made no point about prior to this last tournament in the post you responded to, the rest of what you've said is irrelevant.

Poland have a decent and certainly underrated squad. But the Swansea reject comment reminds me of "Lawro" mocking West Ham reject Diamanti and he went up and scored the winning penalty to knock England out. Or Man City reject Balotelli who scored the winning goal against England in the World Cup. Is the England team so dire they make even average players look good?

FWIW, Portugal actually do have a good squad - far better than Englands - and whilst their striking options are definitely their weakest area you can't begrudge some guy firing in a hit and hope.

Also, the squad in 2014 couldn't have really performed better (well, they maybe could have finished above Costa Rica) but they weren't a patch on either the Italy or Uruguay sides in that group - as was demonstrated during their respective games with those countries.

But your central theory of "we're great, the manager just sucks" is a bit fanciful given England have underperformed in pretty much every tournament, in your entire lifetime? It could be a larger point that England drastically overrate their own players whilst acting with scorn and arrogance to the "rejects" that play for other teams. It harks back to the English media savaging the likes of Pirlo, Ibrahimovic and Brazilian Ronaldo in days gone by - the fat jabs looked a bit ridiculous as he fired them to the trophy in 2002. You're not very good, your media somehow convinces you that you are, whilst pouring scorn of Johnny Foreigners who don't play in the Premier League and are therefore probably rubbish. It's a interesting cocktail that leads to well....this embarrassment every two / four years. Don't ever change!

 

[JimJams]

Is it 2006?

 

[merseyboyred]

Poland have a decent and certainly underrated squad. But the Swansea reject comment reminds me of "Lawro" mocking West Ham reject Diamanti and he went up and scored the winning penalty to knock England out. Or Man City reject Balotelli who scored the winning goal against England in the World Cup. Is the England team so dire they make even average players look good?

FWIW, Portugal actually do have a good squad - far better than Englands - and whilst their striking options are definitely their weakest area you can't begrudge some guy firing in a hit and hope.

Also, the squad in 2014 couldn't have really performed better (well, they maybe could have finished above Costa Rica) but they weren't a patch on either the Italy or Uruguay sides in that group - as was demonstrated during their respective games with those countries.

But your central theory of "we're great, the manager just sucks" is a bit fanciful given England have underperformed in pretty much every tournament, in your entire lifetime? It could be a larger point that England drastically overrate their own players whilst acting with scorn and arrogance to the "rejects" that play for other teams. It harks back to the English media savaging the likes of Pirlo, Ibrahimovic and Brazilian Ronaldo in days gone by - the fat jabs looked a bit ridiculous as he fired them to the trophy in 2002. You're not very good, your media somehow convinces you that you are, whilst pouring scorn of Johnny Foreigners who don't play in the Premier League and are therefore probably rubbish. It's a interesting cocktail that leads to well....this embarrassment every two / four years. Don't ever change!

Willfully misinterpreting the point, fair play. "Swansea reject" was clearly showing that you don't have to be a top quality player to make a difference at international level, and that players who made significant contributions to success of nations at this tournament weren't as good as players England had at their disposal. Quite simply undeniable, unless you wish to suggest that England's players aren't as good as the might of the likes of Kari Arnason or Hal Robson-Kanu.

Portugal's squad certainly isn't "much better" than England's (unless you only count midfielders, but I'd suggest a squad consists of more than just them) but it was most certainly much better coached. (Also at the suggestion England couldn't have done better in 2014 or they weren't a patch on the other teams in the group. You actually watched Italy in 2014, right?)

The "central theory" is that Hodgson underperformed in 2016 (and 2014), no other time. This is also the quality of the displays allied to tournament performance. Again, I've no interest in prior to his reign as he's had four years and 3 tournaments. I'm judging current managerial performance, not long gone historical ineptitude.

Your point about expectation levels may have held some weight if it were say, 2006, but then if you're going to use 'newspapers' like the Sun as a reliable gauge of England fans' expectations there's really no point in debating you. To suggest England could well have been expecting a quarter final from their route of opposition to be delusional is quite frankly laughable, and to try to deny Hodgson's atrocious management is even more so.

 

[St. Juste]

Willfully misinterpreting the point, fair play. "Swansea reject" was clearly showing that you don't have to be a top quality player to make a difference at international level, and that players who made significant contributions to success of nations at this tournament weren't as good as players England had at their disposal. Quite simply undeniable, unless you wish to suggest that England's players aren't as good as the might of the likes of Kari Arnason or Hal Robson-Kanu.

Portugal's squad certainly isn't "much better" than England's (unless you only count midfielders, but I'd suggest a squad consists of more than just them) but it was most certainly much better coached. (Also at the suggestion England couldn't have done better in 2014 or they weren't a patch on the other teams in the group. You actually watched Italy in 2014, right?)

The "central theory" is that Hodgson underperformed in 2016 (and 2014), no other time. This is also the quality of the displays allied to tournament performance. Again, I've no interest in prior to his reign as he's had four years and 3 tournaments. I'm judging current managerial performance, not long gone historical ineptitude.

Your point about expectation levels may have held some weight if it were say, 2006, but then if you're going to use 'newspapers' like the Sun as a reliable gauge of England fans' expectations there's really no point in debating you. To suggest England could well have been expecting a quarter final from their route of opposition to be delusional is quite frankly laughable, and to try to deny Hodgson's atrocious management is even more so.

Well, David Healy shows that, it's hardly news, more just a desperate distraction from a long history of woeful performance. "England aren't that bad, Eder scored and he sucks?" seems to your baseline argument.

To be fair, players can develop and improve / regress quite quickly. Eder is no world beater but, prior to last year, his career utterly dominates a no mark like Vardy. The England starting 11 is full of players who have only been good for a very short period of time (Vardy, Kane), good many years ago (Rooney, Wilshere) or never any good in the first place (Hart, Cahill, Lallana, Walker). It's a desperately average squad , one made to look better by an equally poor Premier League season prior to the tournament. In fact, do you remember any squad that was worse than the current one? The 2002 and 2006 teams look like world beaters compared to this lot, with 1996 and 1998 far better too.

Of course, you're arguing that even rubbish squads, Wales, Iceland etc. can do well in tournaments and that's correct, yes, but what relevance is it? That with a good manager England might fluke their way through to a semi final like they did in Italia 90? Well, yes, maybe, that's what you're hoping for? Why have England, one of the largest and the richest footballing nations in the world, been scraping the bottom of the world footballing barrel for over 50 years? The only answer you seem to have is that Roy Hodgson is a rubbish manager (yes, we know that, his successor is even worse).

Also Portugal are a lot better than England, in pretty much every position too (bar maybe forward, but Nani would have a better wide selection than Sterling based on last season). In defence would you want Pepe or Mike Smalling?

I did watch Italy, they comfortably dispatched of England then fell off the rails. It doesn't change the fact they comfortably dispatched of England, before losing to Costa Rica and one of their defenders been bitten by Suarez. They were a much better side than England then (the gulf has grown precipitously since) as were Uruguay.

If you are arguing that Hodgson is rubbish, fine, of course he is. Who disputes this? I was shocked they didn't sack him in 2014, one in a long series of truly baffling decisions from the FA. I'm not trying to deny it at all, but saying is merely a sideshow and certainly does not explain Englands decades long chronic underachievement.

For the record, I have never (nor will ever) read a copy of the sun, the very accusation insults me, but if you want a gauge of England fans expectations look at the fawning following the Germany friendly win (infamous from some truly baffling Emre Can defending). Or watch the Sunday Supplement at any point. Or listen to 5 live. Or listen to Talksport (I don't do this, but have heard enough clips). The English media clearly hold their team is high regard, they boasted how they were fourth favourites at the start of the tournament and this is trumpeted by more than a few of their thickest fans. The most glaring example was discussing whether to drop Joe Hart for the QF during half time of the game against Iceland, which they were currently losing. Or the sneering comment of England have to beat....ICELAND! Or Sam Matterface interviewing the French players about what they were expecting against England in the Quarter Final.

It was truly extraordinary, what other nation on earth would be discussing the quarter final when they are losing at half time? Or probe French players prior to the game against Iceland? If you think this is a normal, expected and regular occurrence then, well, point proven I guess.

 

[Pagnell]

Even speaking as someone who takes English national football with a large pinch of salt, I've never known anyone take anti-England sentiment to such levels of long-winded drabness. Well done you.