Big club bias

Status
Not open for further replies.


Wembley67 said:
Vardy is an out and out sniffer of goals, Llana has been our most creative player all tournament (not saying much admittedly) - playing a winger formation, with no wingers and no one that can cross a ball (or anyone that can head it either). No wonder we didn't score many goals
Click to expand...

Crackers, Vardy is the same type of character as the Icelandic lads, all heart, full of running, and you can go direct to him. Llana looked like a decent creative influence, and understands how to get back into position.

The whole thing was a shambles, fuck knows why Alli is flavour of the month he iis miles away from being a starter, and I rate Kane but he was shit, allowing your (theoretical) main threat to take corners and indirect free kicks beggars f***ing belief.

Well done Iceland by the way, fair play to them.
 
Boinger said:
That's an absolute given for me. Anyone who prefers country over club, wrang uns.
Click to expand...
Rugby and cricket I support England over my club/County. However the national football team has underachieved so often I feel absolutely no connection with them in the way I feel for SAFC.
 
He'd been in the job just over 4 year and I'd say at no point in all that time did he know his best team or formation.
Constantly tinkering with it right up to and including the tournament itself was a recipe for disaster and that's exactly what happened.
He quit last night and wouldn't even take one single question about the game, his tactics, his style, picking players etc. Showing himself up to be the arrogant, incompetent cluless fucker that he is.
He walks away leaving England no further forward than when he took over.
 
Iirc I was slaughtered on here when I took umbrage with the decision to take Wilshere instead of Drinkwater.

Wilshere was a disgrace all tournament as he usually is. There is no way Drinkwater would have done any worse IMO.
 
Leicester Fan said:
You might be right but none of those are glaring omissions, apples and oranges.

It's not like we left a world class player out of the squad.
Click to expand...
I think they a glaring omissions, the 2 biggest ones being Townsend and carrol, you can say what you want about a player being shot or whatever but they're 2 players that should fit together like a well oiled machine, Townsend cross the ball, carrol head the bastard down or at goal. So simple
 
I hate all this guff about big club bias, and picking "form players". Two of the biggest disappointments of the tournament, Ali and Kane, we're two of the best players in the league last year. You can't more in form than them.

England were rubbish for a few reasons. One is that our players aren't good enough - the ones we picked were by and large the best (you could squabble if you wanted to about one or two but it's borderline stuff), and they just aren't as good as we think. Secondly, Hodgson went from a man who has built his career on being organised, clear thinking and logical/pragmatic suddenly went ducking barmy and couldn't make his mind up. He played 433 for two years, then one injured striker and he builds a squad for a diamond system he's never tested, before changing his mind and reverting back to 433, by which point we have no wingers. He's got a striker in midfield, a striker on the wing but constantly cutting inside. A shot to bits winger playing in a role which isn't his best and his biggest, best centre forward taking set pieces , but never getting an actual cross into the box.

Just utterly muddled thinking all around really. But nothing to do with a big club bias or anything like that. That's just silly.
 
Lewberry pie said:
I think they a glaring omissions, the 2 biggest ones being Townsend and carrol, you can say what you want about a player being shot or whatever but they're 2 players that should fit together like a well oiled machine, Townsend cross the ball, carrol head the bastard down or at goal. So simple
Click to expand...

I'm not defending Hodgson, far from it.

If putting a lot of balls in the box wasn't going to be a game plan then Carrol shouldn't have gone. If he had of took him then he would be a good option the last 15mins as we weren't passing through them but unless that's a tactic you'll consider then it's pointless bring him.

It's not like he left out Kane, Vardy and Ali out of the squad who were probably the best three English players last season, decisions were made but none were a glaring mistake.
 
I think Rooney was useless and why take Wiltshire and Henderson who had just returned from injury when other options were available. Muddled thinking on Roys part. Why change the system that worked in qualifying rounds.
 
Leicester Fan said:
I'm not defending Hodgson, far from it.

If putting a lot of balls in the box wasn't going to be a game plan then Carrol shouldn't have gone. If he had of took him then he would be a good option the last 15mins as we weren't passing through them but unless that's a tactic you'll consider then it's pointless bring him.

It's not like he left out Kane, Vardy and Ali out of the squad who were probably the best three English players last season, decisions were made but none were a glaring mistake.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the reason he should have been taken, look at the Iceland and Slovakia games as examples. Anyone who watches football knew we would struggle to break down teams who sat in against us so having a target man as a plan B makes perfect sense. I think it's ludicrous he took Rashford instead of Carroll, I can however understand the reasoning behind leaving Defoe behind

Having said that I'm fairly certain you need an actual plan A before you can have a plan B
 
Morny said:
I hate all this guff about big club bias, and picking "form players". Two of the biggest disappointments of the tournament, Ali and Kane, we're two of the best players in the league last year. You can't more in form than them.

England were rubbish for a few reasons. One is that our players aren't good enough - the ones we picked were by and large the best (you could squabble if you wanted to about one or two but it's borderline stuff), and they just aren't as good as we think. Secondly, Hodgson went from a man who has built his career on being organised, clear thinking and logical/pragmatic suddenly went ducking barmy and couldn't make his mind up. He played 433 for two years, then one injured striker and he builds a squad for a diamond system he's never tested, before changing his mind and reverting back to 433, by which point we have no wingers. He's got a striker in midfield, a striker on the wing but constantly cutting inside. A shot to bits winger playing in a role which isn't his best and his biggest, best centre forward taking set pieces , but never getting an actual cross into the box.

Just utterly muddled thinking all around really. But nothing to do with a big club bias or anything like that. That's just silly.
Click to expand...
So why did he take Wiltshire, sterling and rashford then?

Its because they play for the 'glamour' clubs, pure and simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top