Euro 2016: England

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
17,689
Philadelphia
England entering a tournament with high hopes and having them hilariously dashed is a punchline at this point. But I think they really do have a legitimate shot to win, with a group of younger players in form and, perhaps more importantly, no world beaters among the competition. Unfortunately, the tournament starts in a few days and nobody, including Roy Hodgson, seems to have any clue as to who will play or what formation will be utilized.

Harry Kane will start at CF, Dier will play as a holding MF, and the back line will be Rose--Cahill---Smalling---Clyne or very similar. It all gets fuzzy after that. For better or (likely) worse, Wayne Rooney will play somewhere, because he has to play somewhere. Dele Alli has had too good of a season not to play somewhere. If he is fit enough, I think Wilshere will be in the mix given how good he was during the qualification period and England's total lack of passing ability and technical quality in midfield otherwise. Sterling seems likely to start because he is basically the only real winger on the team. So my guess is the following:

Sterling------Kane-----------Rooney
-----------Alli------Wilshere----------
---------------Dier--------------------
--Rose--Cahill-Smalling----Clyne
--------------Hart---------------------

Or the same formation but with Rooney playing in Wilshere's position and Vardy on the wing.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Staff member
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
7,730
KPWT
Considering his age, wouldn't the best use of Rooney be to bring him on with 20 or 30 minutes left? Sterling - Kane - Vardy seems like it would be awfully dangerous, especially with one of the wings knowing he could run full bore for an hour and then come off for Rooney.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Hodgson loves Rooney, so he'll start. Which nobody here wants.

The paradox of England is that nobody could stand the Golden Generation of Gerrard/Terry/Lamps/Ferdinand/Cole/etc. that promised so much and delivered so little - Rooney is the last player left from that generation - yet there is zero hype about what I agree is a pretty decent side because there's nobody from the Golden Generation. People just don't know that much about any of them. This is the almost-clean slate people have wanted since about 2006!
 

Bailey10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2013
411
An argument for Rooney starting is that Vardy has been exposed in the friendlies. With teams playing deep against England and Vardy out wide left, he isn't getting touches or chances to poach by running behind the last defender.

With his pace, I like Vardy much more as an impact sub off the bench than Rooney.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
17,689
Philadelphia
An argument for Rooney starting is that Vardy has been exposed in the friendlies. With teams playing deep against England and Vardy out wide left, he isn't getting touches or chances to poach by running behind the last defender.

With his pace, I like Vardy much more as an impact sub off the bench than Rooney.
I agree, although this surely depends also on matchups and tactics, as better teams will probably dominate possession against England.

Losing Welbeck really hurt England as he was the most natural RW they had. A 4-3-3 with a Sterling-Kane-Welbeck front line and a midfield of Dier-Alli-Rooney/Wilshere was their best and most balanced lineup.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
7,248
Hodgson loves Rooney, so he'll start. Which nobody here wants.

The paradox of England is that nobody could stand the Golden Generation of Gerrard/Terry/Lamps/Ferdinand/Cole/etc. that promised so much and delivered so little - Rooney is the last player left from that generation - yet there is zero hype about what I agree is a pretty decent side because there's nobody from the Golden Generation. People just don't know that much about any of them. This is the almost-clean slate people have wanted since about 2006!
Seemed for a long time that England supporters had a pre-2004 Red Sox outlook that combined this-could-finally-be-our-year optimism with we're-doomed defeatism. But now they're just stuck in a New York Jets we're-too-stupid-to-ever-win-anything depression.
 

Royal Reader

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2005
1,778
UK
This is spot on, actually. The creeping realisation that England have knocked another major nation out of a tournament all of once since 1996 has had a generally deflating effect.

Regarding Vardy, it's not so much that he's been 'Exposed' as that he's an out and out centre forward and can't play out of position. He's fast and a good finisher, but isn't great at crossing and not especially technically gifted, so he needs to run without the ball and get on the end of things.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Yeah, he's not playing well because he's out of position. If you put Rooney in the centre and give him the ball, he'll look more effective than a Vardy standing alone on the wing.

MMS's point about any knockout round opposition likely dominating possession is also crucial. Vardy is perfect for that kind of counter-attack, Rooney not so much with his lead boots these days.

This sort of square peg into a round hole business, gotta get the superstar in there no matter what, is often what has hurt England in the past.

With it being fifty years since 1966, there's been a new round of documentaries on that old subject and it can't be understated that so much of England's problems over the years has not been managers saying What would Alf do? but doing what Alf wouldn't do. I'm not even sure Alf would have Rooney in the squad.

Having said all that, I'm being a bit unfair on Rooney, who does desperately want to play well in a major tournament for England and is likely going to retire from international football after this year.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I don't agree with a lot that has been written here, but in particular the items on Rooney. Rooney is no longer the threat up front that he once was, but he is still one of the best and most imaginative creators in the Premiership and has always been a good creator in the England shirt. Having two very different, but effective, scorers up front in Kane and Vardy is a lovely match up for Rooney's skill set. I have spent far too much time screaming at the television about Wayne Rooney in an England shirt as a scorer, but for the first time in a long while I really like him up front as the creator, far more than I like a Wellbeck-Vardy-Kane front.

Sadly, England has a mediocre-at-best defense coming into the tournament and goalkeeping that is about the same. But if they can get into a rhythm and get some confidence early in the tournament you never know.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,015
Somerville, MA
I don't really get playing Vardy on the left. He's played all season as a forward in a 4-4-2, mostly on the right. He seems like a perfect fit with Kane, who is a *very* rich man's Shinji Okazaki. Vardy and Kane would be a menace pressing other teams without the ball. With the ball, Vardy loves making runs to the right channel that should be able to open up room for other players, whether he's able to get behind the defense or not. And Kane can provide a lot in build-up play if teams try to park the bus.

Rooney as a more attack minded central midfielder could be not terrible in a 4-4-2 if he was paired with Dier, but Ali seems like a much more obvious choice.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I have zero doubt that I will be wrong about this, but I think you will see Vardy on both sides of the pitch throughout a given match. I think Kane will be more in the center and Vardy will play the edges with Rooney in the attacking center-mid you were describing. Let's see though, there is a lot of noise about exactly how England will set up right now in the various news reports, blogs et al. You are bang on though, Alli seems to be very much the man, which makes sense following the season he just produced with Kane.
 

kbourdon

lurker
Apr 26, 2016
21
I don't think Rooney should start games. I honestly think that Sturridge should play with kane and Vardy up front. Because as we saw and have seen rooney is not as good as he is with Man U. Honestly England have a ton of potential in the striker department. Rooney is getting to old and he has proved that he is better on club level then national.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Better on the club level is a common thing for England (and many countries frankly) dating back to Glenn Hoddle and a myriad of others. You get some who shine in the shirt, guys like Gascoigne, Lineker, Shilton, Butcher (oof am I dating myself....), but for the most part it is rare for someone to be as great for their country as their club. Kane has come out of the gate strong and there is good reason to feel good about his ability to light up a tournament Lineker-style, he plays a physical style and is deadly in the box that is well suited for the international game.

Rooney has been amazing for his club. He has done things for Man U that have been quite ridiculous. He has been less effective as a consistent scorer for England, but I would note that he has not done poorly on the (few) occasions where he has been the creator. He has an incredible vision of the pitch and a deft touch on the ball, even at his relatively advanced age. I can't believe I am saying this about a guy who just two years ago I was hoping would die in a fire following the WC, but give him the benefit of the doubt. Having some experience in a key role and having a guy who is so good at unlocking defenses can be invaluable with two very different scorers such as Vardy and Kane.

I feel like I need to break it to you guys. If we are talking about guys who "shrink in the shirt," Daniel Sturridge is almost the dictionary definition, much more so than Rooney. Lightning quick, great for his club, crap once he pulls on the three lions.
 

inter tatters

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
544
Sheffield, UK
England have plenty of talent going forward and I expect they will score goals, but I get the impression they are looking to play a counter-attacking style of play, using the pace of Vardy, Ali, Sterling and Kane, against the better teams. The problem is, I don't think they're good enough defensively to make it work. Against weaker attacking sides that won't exploit mistakes, yeah, good plan, especially with Dier sitting in front of the back 4, but teams like Germany, Spain and, especially, France will capitalise on the slightest mistake and I can't see that England defence playing flawless Football for 90+ minutes against those teams.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
17,689
Philadelphia
I don't agree with a lot that has been written here, but in particular the items on Rooney. Rooney is no longer the threat up front that he once was, but he is still one of the best and most imaginative creators in the Premiership and has always been a good creator in the England shirt. Having two very different, but effective, scorers up front in Kane and Vardy is a lovely match up for Rooney's skill set.
How much Premiership football have you watched in the last couple years? Because the bolded is not remotely true in a league with the likes of Ozil, De Bruyne, Silva, Payet, Mahrez, Eriksen, Fabregas, etc. I think any Manchester United fan would readily agree. Rooney was an elite forward who is nothing special as a 10 or, even worse, as a deeper lying midfielder. He still may (or may not) be the right option for Hodgson to play in that position given the other alternatives but you lets not pretend he's something he isn't.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
How much Premiership football have you watched in the last couple years? Because the bolded is not remotely true in a league with the likes of Ozil, De Bruyne, Silva, Payet, Mahrez, Eriksen, Fabregas, etc. I think any Manchester United fan would readily agree. Rooney was an elite forward who is nothing special as a 10 or, even worse, as a deeper lying midfielder. He still may (or may not) be the right option for Hodgson to play in that position given the other alternatives but you lets not pretend he's something he isn't.
I would agree that pretending he is something he is not is a bad thing and I wasn't doing that. He has been playing with mediocre talent around him the last 2-3 seasons and he has been mismanaged by Van Gaal (plus, he has had some injuries and most likely a few doses of the clap). He is no longer an elite striker, but Man U have continued to want him to be the Wayne Rooney of 4-5 years ago and it is not working. If they sign Zlatan I think you will see some amazing shit to be honest, an incredible creator matched up with an amazing finisher. Rooney is certainly a polarizing figure, as was Gascoigne before him, people feel strongly about him. But he will do well in this role with those two up front. Book it.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
17,689
Philadelphia
I would agree that pretending he is something he is not is a bad thing and I wasn't doing that. He has been playing with mediocre talent around him the last 2-3 seasons and he has been mismanaged by Van Gaal (plus, he has had some injuries and most likely a few doses of the clap). He is no longer an elite striker, but Man U have continued to want him to be the Wayne Rooney of 4-5 years ago and it is not working. If they sign Zlatan I think you will see some amazing shit to be honest, an incredible creator matched up with an amazing finisher. Rooney is certainly a polarizing figure, as was Gascoigne before him, people feel strongly about him. But he will do well in this role with those two up front. Book it.
Van Gaal's system didn't help matters but Rooney has played 27 games the last two years as an attacking midfielder behind the main striker and has a total of three assists in those games. He doesn't pass the eye test either: His touch is mediocre by the standards of elite players in that position and he very rarely plays any kind of killer ball. He isn't the same guy he was 4-5 years ago but he has actually been much more effective when played at center forward than as an attacking midfielder in the last few years.

Ferguson predicted all this and wanted to get rid toward the end of his time. But Moyes didn't have the balls so he gave him an untradeable contract instead.
 
Last edited:

Zomp

Dope
Dope
Aug 28, 2006
12,096
The Slums of Shaolin
Ehhhh. I still think Rooney is England's best player (maybe aside from Kane), and his biggest strength is his adaptability. Rooney doesn't do anything at an elite level anymore, but he does everything well. I don't think he gets enough credit for adapting his game to play with Tevez, Berbatov, Chicharito, then RVP...all strikers who have unique qualities than the rest. He'll never be the striker he was a few years ago when he was player of the year but I don't think England have a better option to play behind Kane (and maybe Vardy) than Rooney. His touch isn't the best but I think he's the best passer on the team.

Ferguson didn't want to get rid of him though...not sure where that came from...He formally asked for a transfer once and was denied and the other time never got above more than whispers but Ferguson made it clear he wasn't for sale.

If what I assume killer ball means is correct, then I'd agree that he doesn't have that in his game. What he does have though are ridiculously accurate long balls, pinging passes over the field to either wingers or overlapping fullbacks to send in crosses.

I think if England are going to go far they'll need to play and win ugly.

I'd set up like this


------------Kane----------------Vardy---------------
----------------------Rooney-----------------------
-------------Alli------------------Wilshire------------
-----------------------Dier----------------------------
Rose-------Cahill-------Smalling----------Clyne
---------------------Hart------------------------------

and basically challenge teams to break them down.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
17,689
Philadelphia
Ferguson didn't want to get rid of him though...not sure where that came from...He formally asked for a transfer once and was denied and the other time never got above more than whispers but Ferguson made it clear he wasn't for sale.
I don't follow the club that closely but this is a very commonly held belief on redcafe - not that Ferguson actually tried to sell him but that he believed that Rooney's influence in the team needed to be minimized, with the implication that if Ferguson had stayedRooney would have been told to either accept a much smaller role in the team or have been encouraged to leave if he wasn't willing to conform to that kind of role.

I believe it based on the fact that Ferguson was absolutely ruthless in moving on from star players throughout his career (and almost always right), that in the summer of 2012 he bought Van Persie (forcing Rooney off his preferred position) and Kagawa (at that point, seen as a potential star in the making at the other position Rooney might have played), and that he dropped Rooney altogether in the most important game of the 12-13 season against Real Madrid.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
16,800
As a West Ham fan I'm excited for when this team goes out because of mediocre midfield play and/or a missed penalty.
Seriously how is Noble not in this squad?
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
7,304
Chelmsford, MA
He's really none of those things. The best passer in the team is probably Wilshere. But who knows how many minutes he can play. Maybe Alli or hell even Stones. Rooney does enjoy pinging a pass to a winger which would be more useful if he could play as a deeper midfielder but he really just doesn't have that in his game.

Vardys emergence is a problem for England in the sense that they were already struggling with the 1 or 2 striker problem and the seeming need to include Rooney but having a third viable striker has really messed things up. Given a stable of mediocre to solid midfielders and two legitimate strikers a braver team may have tried a 3-5-2 but there's almost no chance of an English manager trying that type of experiment because they'd be ridiculed and fired too quickly. At this point it seems clear that they lack a winger for a 4-3-3 or 4-4-2. Shoehorning Vardy out there has not looked good.

For a tournament, I think you could make an argument for sitting Kane and defending deep and trying to spring Vardy on the counter like Leicester did so effectively. I was actually surprised Drinkwater didn't make the cut for this reason. But I think we will see the sort of 4-3-3 with a bunch of players out of position and Rooney playing far more than he should


Edit: if anyone wants a better understanding of why Arsenal fans are so bitter, watch this 11 minute video of tremendous Wilshere passes all being somehow turned into posts, misses, and other defeat from the jaws of victory squanders
 
Last edited:

Tangled Up In Red

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2004
2,932
Bernal
Just not strong enough at CB to be a real, credible threat in the tournament, imo. But they'll be fun to watch in early matches. I love Dele Alli, provided he's not forced to a flank for Rooney.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,015
Somerville, MA
Maybe they should just go full Spurs. Half their starting lineup is Spurs' players, just keep them in the positions and system they've played all season and fill in the pieces with similar players. Something like:

----------------Kane----------------------
Rooney--------Ali-------Vardy/Milner
----Henderson/Barkley---Dier-------
Rose----Cahill---Smalling----Walker
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Glenn Hoddle played three at the back and is quite well remembered for doing so (as compared to his views on disabled people).

The bigger problem is that nobody in England really has much experience with it. I know United experimented with it this season but that's it.
 

inter tatters

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
544
Sheffield, UK
Anyone that has watched Spurs will know that Kane and Ali have a telepathic understanding and to get the most out of them you HAVE to play Ali in the hole behind him, as he makes runs into spaces that Kane instinctively knows where he will be and vice-versa. Unfortuately, it would appear that, that is the position most have pencilled Rooney into, which would completely destroy the affect. Pushing Ali onto a wing is a complete waste of his talent too, so my guess, is that they'll play something like this, with Rooney and Ali pushing up alternately, while the other covers behind...

----------------Kane---------------
Vardy/Sterling, Rooney, Ali, Milner/Sterling
----------------Dier-----------------
Rose, Cahill, Smalling, Walker
 

sachmoney

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2008
9,513
Tim Thomas' Bunker
Maybe they should just go full Spurs. Half their starting lineup is Spurs' players, just keep them in the positions and system they've played all season and fill in the pieces with similar players. Something like:

----------------Kane----------------------
Rooney--------Ali-------Vardy/Milner
----Henderson/Barkley---Dier-------
Rose----Cahill---Smalling----Walker
Haven't you learned from watching Spurs that you never go full Spurs? ;)

I do rate Kane and Alli though. Both should play.

Unless he's physically incapable of playing or you don't want your best passer in, Wilshere has got to play. Us Arsenal fans have been so frustrated with Wilshere's injuries (and the fact that the club has counted on him to be healthy instead of buying someone) that even we tend to forget how good he is (see video Bonger poster). When you look at the England roster, who has more technical passing abilities? No one. Wilshere's one footed but amazing when healthy. The problem may lie in whether you want to play that kind of game. The lack of others that can pass with him might be why you leave him out, but I think that he can combine well with Kane if you can hold possession. If you're relying on the counter and need guys who can break up play, I'm not sure I play Wilshere. He can make a tackle, but that tackle may also break him. If you believe you're going to dictate the play, then I think that Wilshere has to be central to that along with Kane (creating chances for him).

Let's not pretend like there is one line up and formation that you have to use. Opponents and strategy should dictate who plays. This squad isn't perfect, and Hodgson will have to make changes game to game.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
5,428
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Rumours abound that both Lalanna and Sterling are in the squad with Vardy being dropped and the diamond being abandoned..

So maybe ..

---------Kane--Rooney-----
Sterling, Ali, Lalanna -----
----------------Dier-----------------
Rose, Cahill, Smalling, Walker

It also may mean Rooney is striker .. ugh.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
If Kane is going to look as bad as that and then play largely one up top and have Rooney as you core creative midfield general (I thought he played ok vs an unchallenging opponent) then they aren't going to score much. And at the back ... Yeah it's not going to be a team going far.

Hopefully just a bad game from Kane.

Really needed to win that. All so English football 101. Wales becomes a really inportant game.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
7,248
Amazing how quickly they went from young, dynamic team that dominated the opposition to Same Old England. The Fleet Street hype machine must have done a very quick pivot at the end of that game.
 

Jimy Hendrix

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2002
3,442
I am completely baffled by the set piece takers. Having Kane take corners rather that being in the box to receive them seems bizarre, and honestly even though it worked a lot better having Dier over free kicks seemed as weird if not weirder.

Is there any explanation for these decisions?
 

inter tatters

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
544
Sheffield, UK
"Same old England", is exactly the phrase I would have used. If you're going to go defensive for the last 15mins, you need to have an outlet player to counter and at least be a threat to get the killer second goal, right? I can understand bringing on one of Wilshere or Milner, but at least also bring on Vardy to exploit the gaps that teams are going to leave as they search for that winner. If you're not going to use him (Vardy) in that situation, which is what he's made for, when are they going to use him?

Wales did exactly that in their game against Slovakia. Brought on Ledley for a bit of defence, but also brought on Robson-Kanu up front to exploit any space left behind. Guess who got the winner? It's not exactly rocket science, but England seem to completely ignore it. I guess it could be because they never had a player with Vardy's pace in recent years but, either way, they really need to learn and quickly.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I watched the match with the URIs and Zomp, which made it less crappy, but overarchingly it was not a great performance for England, nor a great match in general. Attacks fizzled out for both sides instead of being stopped, both sides struggled with counter attacks, Kane seemed a bit out of it and ultimately the defense/goaltending bouillabaisse o' mediocrity let in a goal that should have been stopped on three separate occasions.

Regardless, it was a draw in the first match of the group stage against what is probably the strongest opposition in the group. Obviously England need to do no worse than draw against Wales, and beating them would be the way to go, but I am far from jumping off a bridge after this result. Talk to me on Thursday though.
 

inter tatters

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
544
Sheffield, UK
Strongest opposition in the Group? Nope, that, statistically at least, should be Slovakia, who have been on a serious run of results recently (beat Germany away 3-1 for example) and are ranked 5 places above Russia, with Wales actually between them. So, if you go by that, Russia are actually the WORST team in the Group, which on the basis of that performance I agree with.

This game is the perfect situation for Wales. They can sit back and let England come at them, as a draw is a perfectly good result and they have a VERY good defence, then use Bale to exploit any spaces in behind an attack-minded England.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Your point on Slovakia is valid, they did play well in the run up, but I don't like their team that much. I may end up eating crow on that one though. As far as Wales, since qualifying (where they played horrible teams), they have been appalling:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/teams/wales/results

Russia haven't been setting the world on fire, but they have been wining matches and playing stiffer competition (like beating Portugal last Nov).

Maybe I am wearing glasses that are tinted by history, but I can't see Wales winning this match, and I think even a draw is unlikely. The Welsh struggled in the run up to the tournament but that may not mean much, we'll see. England know they need to shut down Bale (who, as an aside, played a shit-ton of big matches in the last 90 days. He is an impressive specimen, but you wonder if he is tired. Kane looked tired frankly), but we'll see.
 

fletcherpost

sosh's feckin' poet laureate
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,780
America
Your point on Slovakia is valid, they did play well in the run up, but I don't like their team that much. I may end up eating crow on that one though. As far as Wales, since qualifying (where they played horrible teams), they have been appalling:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/teams/wales/results

Russia haven't been setting the world on fire, but they have been wining matches and playing stiffer competition (like beating Portugal last Nov).

Maybe I am wearing glasses that are tinted by history, but I can't see Wales winning this match, and I think even a draw is unlikely. The Welsh struggled in the run up to the tournament but that may not mean much, we'll see. England know they need to shut down Bale (who, as an aside, played a shit-ton of big matches in the last 90 days. He is an impressive specimen, but you wonder if he is tired. Kane looked tired frankly), but we'll see.
Pre tournie results don't mean much in this case. There's a theorie shared by some/many that the Welsh players in the pre tournie friendlies were not playing anything like full pelt. They're so stoked to get to the finals the last thing any of em want is to get a knock, never mind an injury, in a meaningless match prior to the main dance. Obviously some players would trying to catch Coleman's eye but not the guys who are first on the team sheet.

All that said i think, but i hope I'm wrong, Wales might (like Scotland) get a bit of the little brother syndrome when they face England. They'll need Ramsay to up his game and be more positive, dynamic and instinctive. They're a good solid unit, Wales. England are still less than the sum of their parts. If Bale's the best player on the pitch, they've got a shot and a draw will likely see them into the last 16.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
England could really use a wide midfielder who could track back when Walker/Rose overlap. Rooney and Alli aren't really that kind of player so Dier has to stay back. They are forced into a 4-3-3 because of that. If they had a multipurpose wide midfielder, they could play 4-4-2 with Sturridge or Lallana on the opposite side, and Kane or Sterling tucked in behind Vardy up front. That's how NT pools go, you can't just get a guy like with club teams. I think Hodgson's making the most of what he's got, while keeping the forwards fresh. He can really send out any number of lineups up front for the next match. With 3rd place teams going through, 4 or 5 points might get into the 2nd round, and having fresh players will help.
 
Last edited:

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
To be blunt, everything I said about England outside of "I can't see them losing to Wales" has proven to be completely incorrect. I thought Steve McManaman (sp?) nailed England's problems throughout the match today, they were clogging up the center of the field and not creating any space on the edges. I thought that Kane was actually playing decently given that he was put in that position (his through ball to Lallana that Sterling couldn't bury was gorgeous), but I had no problem with him being pulled. Alli is really struggling in my mind. outside of the lovely touch he had on the Sturridge goal he has just not been that effective. Rooney has had some nice touches, but everyone is clustered together like 3rd graders, so there is nothing for him to make happen.

Still, they control their own destiny, which is good I guess. I really enjoyed the little we saw of Rashford. He made some mistakes, but he is a burst of energy and a talented dude. I hope we see more of him in the tournament.

Bale's free kick was beautiful but man did Joe Hart screw up on it. Come on kid.
 

sachmoney

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2008
9,513
Tim Thomas' Bunker
I didn't think that Rashford was the right substitution given that England brought on two strikers at half time, but he looked very bright...like he belonged on the pitch. I thought Rooney looked good given his reduced ability to impact games. I thought he was quite active and influential. England's best player, to be fair. Felt Wilshere would have been the right call given that England needed someone to unlock the defense for the third substitution. Sometimes you've gotta get lucky, but when you do, you take it. England were lucky today between the egregious non-offsides call and the heinous slip by the Welsh defender on the second goal.

I wouldn't be surprised if Slovakia takes all 3 against England.
 

americantrotter

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2005
491
Portland
Football eh? The previous generation was stacked with central midfielders and couldn't produce a thing in the end. Now they're stacked with everything but central midfielders. Got to put Rooney on the bench and play a shape that makes sense. Felt bad for Kane, he can do the business if he's supported, but there was no support. Overall the talent level is there, but organized and similarly talented sides will outlast them as they always have if England cant learn to use the whole field.

A lucky goal to each team and Wales was punished for parking the bus. It honestly reminded me of every qualifier that England has ever played against teams equal to or lesser than them in talent.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
2,109
So some English papers are reporting that England will make 6 changes for tomorrow's match with Bertrand, Clyne, Wilshire, Henderson, Sturidge and Vardy replacing Rose, Walker, Rooney, Alli, Sterling, and Kane. Not sure if I believe that, but we'll see tomorrow
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
17,689
Philadelphia
So some English papers are reporting that England will make 6 changes for tomorrow's match with Bertrand, Clyne, Wilshire, Henderson, Sturidge and Vardy replacing Rose, Walker, Rooney, Alli, Sterling, and Kane. Not sure if I believe that, but we'll see tomorrow
Appears to be true. I can understand Vardy and Sturridge replacing Kane and Sterling, given how the last match went. And I can understanding finding a place or Wilshere in midfield, since he is their best ball playing midfielder, was their best player during qualification, and probably should have been starting from the beginning of the tournament anyway. But jamming Henderson, Clyne, and Bertrand into the team is totally inexplicable to me. They haven't wrapped up qualification, the difference between topping the group and finishing second or third could be significant in terms of the quality of the first knockout opponent, and players like Walker and Rose really don't need to be rested given that they'll have a week until the next game if England do top the group.