I know I know next to nothing about the game compared to a bloke who has been in the game as long as Roy Hodgson, but certain things about the game against Wales have confused me. Wales were always going to try to defend and hit us on the break. Their only real threat is Gareth Bale. They were happy to be without the ball. They were happy to bring us forward, because that, potentially, left them with more space for Bale to break into. In that case, why did we need a defensive mid-field player like Dier in front of a back four. Now I realise that Sterling and Kane both had poor games again, but I do not go along with the idea that both are as poor as they have appeared to be in both games so far. For example, when Wales play a back 3, we need a centre forward to engage them, to stand on their toes and irritate them. But that is not Kane's game and he looked lost in the system, unable to understand his role in build up play. Sterling is better out wide, but the grand plan meant that he and Lallana had to drift in from the wings in support of Kane. The game was crying out for width and a second forward, but we persisted with the system, until half time. A system that looked good on paper, but which clearly did not work. It looked like the coach had confused the players. I have a theory about the number of forwards. It goes like this. One can be enough if he is the right one, but two is better. Three is almost always one too many. The addition of Rashford late in the game was a case of one too many. We won the game, but for me the balance of the side was worse after his introduction and I did not understand why Sturridge was playing so deep. The best player on the park was Rooney. He has the weight and accuracy of pass to change the focus of an attack quickly. Like Drinkwater, he has the range to find Vardy as he makes a long run. Today was not a day for that sort of run because Wales were so deep, but the time will come. The other England success story was Walker, who has the pace to get behind a defence and create panic. The big problem was that there was rarely anyone to pass to in the penalty area when he had made the breaks. This England team frustrates. It seems to be hobbled by tactics, confused by plans and scared by potential consequences. It needs to free itself from the overbearing thought processes of its coach, and the demands of the pseudo-intellectual commentators. It needs to get back to playing football the British way. It needs width and it needs two up front when we are certain to have more than a 50% share of the ball. That is the closest I get to a rant.
In the nicest way possible this tickled me. I agree with a lot of what you've written but then you sort of chastised yourself too. After comments about the pros and cons of different players in different formations you come up with.... My irony-meter just went off the scale.
You're forgetting that the reason Walker looked good was because Wales played 3 at the back and sat back so he had no worries defensively. From a number of your other posts I'm sure that should we have been playing Italy, and Walker was bombing forward and they were hitting the space behind him you would have said he was a liability. Wales were ****. They sat back and it took England a while to break them down. We could honestly have played 4-4-2 and think we would have smashed them. Hammil would have been twice as good as Sterling.
You're right about Rashford, that sub killed our momentum for a while, it meant we'd got one too many forwards on & not enough creators. I thought Sturridge was brilliant. A couple of his shots were wild but he completely changed the game & was dragging them Welsh defenders & wing backs all over the place, drawing tackles & releasing the ball at the last minute to make use of the space he'd created. He plays like a South American, has that street footballer about him like you get with Suarez, Aguero, Neymar etc. Just wish he could stay fit because he's got all the ability in the world
balance is the reason you need Dier. Regardless of what the opposition are going to do. The same reason Gerrard and Lampard never worked. You can't have two ball playing attacking central midfielders, plus Alli. It leads to confusion about who is to take control, who will sit, who will go. Plus you always have to respect the opposition.
A team like England should always be letting a team like Wales worry about them - not the other way round. Whatever the tactics or formation, success will depend on the players supporting each other irrespective. Attack quickly, on the break. Don't hog possession simply to play pedestrian stuff and create no chances. And don't leave a 24 goal Premier League striker sat on the bench when you're having few attempts on goal. All these Premier Leagu games you see Hodgson at - does he actually watch anything?
I must confess that I got really frustrated watching the game yesterday. Wales were strong down the centre, but we all know from past experience how weak their formation is out wide. And yet, our only forward was not prepared to commit their central defenders and we consistently played in front of them. When he did changed things, he eventually committed the cardinal error of playing too many forwards. I mean, to my eyes, it was just error after error. By the end, I could hardly sit still in my chair for the frustration that I was feeling. I swore that I would not write anything on here during these Championships. I know that people get frustrated with my analytical style. But in the end, frustration got the better of me.
Better to have the football on mute on the computer then while watching Royal Ascot full screen on the telly!
Not really, your analysis is thorough, it was perceived underlying pessimism that raised people's hackles (from memory).
I had similar feelings. I much preferred watching it Saturday night where I was drunk & singing along to the chants in the pub to yesterday when I was sober & everything seemed to be frustrating me
