To what end though? Their position in the group was fixed unless you are suggesting brown envelopes of cash!?
I was half-joking, but they just looked like they couldn't be bothered all game and Sirigu was beyond ridiculous throughout, especially for the goal. They didn't even bother trying to defend for the goal either. I've heard some people suggesting that it was possibly to make sure that Sweden didn't get through after Sweden and Denmark played out a very suspicious mutually beneficial draw in Euro 2004, which ensured that Italy didn't make it out of their group and was pretty controversial at the time.
Oh yeah - I remember that. Italians were seething about that. But if Sweden beat Belgium they would still have gone through irrespective of Ireland result. To be honest it seems harsher on other perspective 3rd place candidates Albania. If Italy had done their job and got a draw Albania would have qualified (I think).
Well it's not just the Republic who have the luck (not that they didn't thoroughly deserve it tonight)... Thanks to their magnificent efforts it means you get to face Wales (who otherwise would've played Turkey) and not France nornironhorn! Bet you're delighted. Real cracker of a tie awaits too in the last 16 in Portugal vs Croatia, who definitely aren't the guaranteed finalists that many seem to think. Awesome end-to-end match between Hungary and Portugal (and to think this was one of the games I was contemplating skipping!) - best game of a pretty dull tournament by far, let's hope it really opens up with most if not all of the defensive teams out by the quarters.
Incredible to think that one team from Switzerland, Poland, Croatia, Portugal, Wales, Northern Ireland, Hungary or Belgium will definitely be in the final. Just the French and Germans/Italians/Spanish to get through for us. If we beat Iceland. Yay.
The bet Mr HH put on Croatia before the tournament started isn't looking too shabby at the moment. Btw someone I know who was out there for the England vs Slovakia game has commented on social media how good the atmosphere was between the English and Slovakian fans. Shame that didn't get the same level of press coverage as the earlier trouble.
Croatia were my dark horse from the beginning, still think they could go all the way. A real shame Hodgson decided to 'rest' players, really would have stood a good chance of getting quite far with the teams on the other side of the competition. Iceland are going to be incredibly difficult to break down and I can see an extremely frustrating 0-0 and having to go into extra time/penalties to finally get that goal.
Same, I think there were a few of us on here who had money on them. That Iceland goal, while better for England, makes it far harder for the Croatians!
Croatia look good and their strip is excellent too! Roy's little hissy fit after the Slovakia game will resonate with Iceland.Can't see them changing their game plan just to appease Roy,that well known attack minded coach!
It was like that at the Wales game as well. No hint of trouble and both sets of fans enjoying a beer and song together. Difference is there were no mental Russians springing out of narrow streets to stamp on heads, no local gangs looking to settle scores or pick off lone tourists and no tear gas happy police who just stand by watching it all unfold before massively overracting. Marseille was a total shambles.
Just like Croatia decided to "rest" players by making five changes to their team with Modric already out, and risk playing Italy, only to beat the defending champions? Nothing wrong with a bit of squad rotation if the players used are good enough and it keeps them all fresh and happy. I suppose those criticizing Hodgson for making a few changes are the same who were criticizing Flores for playing the same team week in and week out? Dearie me. As I said, the players Hodgson picked were more than good enough to beat Slovakia and had more than their fair share of chances to do so - there's only so much a manager can do once the players cross the touchline. It's all too easy and convenient to look for a scapegoat. Hardly, with them likely to face Belgium in the quarters, and then Croatia/Portugal in the semis.
Hi Roy! I agree, nothing wrong with squad rotation if it works, however in our case it didn't work. I had no idea you followed our beloved football team so closely, but I'm failing to see the link between QSF playing the same team week in week out and your selection choices? If that team you chose was good enough to beat Slovakia, then surely, they wouldn't have drawn 0-0? Good shout putting Harry Kane on corners against Russia, worked a treat. Sterling is world class, make sure you keep playing him! Best wishes CB xx
I'm struggling to think of any England manager who has ever f**ked up as badly as Hodgson has this time at a major tournament. Completely unforgivable really. Unbelievable how much of a better position we'd be in had we topped the group.
Well we would be playing Northern Ireland I presume - again a team we ought to beat I guess but certainly they would have been up for it. Whilst Belgium/Portugal would have been easier than France in their own backyard I would have not been totally confident of beating them it has to be said.
If the players had seen the game out in the dying minutes against Russia and/or stuck away just one of the numerous chances we had against either them or Slovakia, we'd have topped the group, simple as. Quite unfair to accuse Hodgson of "f**cking up" when it was the 15 odd players he had justified faith in to do the job did that and surely have to bear the much greater part, if not the whole of the responsibility. Very easy to criticize with the benefit of hindsight...
If you'd stop trying to be facetious just for a second, perhaps you'll realize the point I was making was the changes he made (which should have been pretty minor in the grand scheme of things) are an integral part of squad management, making sure the players he picked to go to France get their deserved chances (otherwise why take them to the tournament at all?), and the key performers are kept fresh and fit against tougher opposition in the upcoming rounds. Everyone knows how much England tend to struggle in the summer heat in major tournaments (with the weather in Lyon yesterday a warning of how hot it could get over the next couple of weeks, even during evening matches) so I'd have thought it'd be important to conserve energy by not playing exactly the same starting line up every game. It's obvious to everyone why our form dropped badly during the second half of last season when our squad was not sufficiently rotated and players who'd earned their place were not given enough match play. I am going to address this to the forum populace as a whole as I have yet to hear a convincing argument, so if you can be bothered please answer these questions as clearly and unambiguously as possible: (a) What exactly did Roy do wrong that directly caused us to concede at the death and cost us two points against Russia? And if you were the England manager, what would you have done to pre-empt that problem? (b) What was wrong with the team selection with a side that dominated from start to finish against Slovakia and created enough chances to have won handsomely even when faced with a packed defence? Again, what changes would you have made?
Nah, not for me. Capello in 2010 is comparable given that we would have had a pretty easy route had we won the group, but it is clear that it was the players who let him down that time. For me, Hodgson has no one to blame other than himself this time. To not win this group, given the teams in it and the fact that we would have had our best chance of getting to a final in at least 20 years with the fixtures we would have had in the knockout rounds takes the biscuit.
The players didn't see the game out against Russia because of the poor way the team was set up and the stupid changes Hodgson made. We didn't beat Slovakia because the team was set up wrong again and he unnecessarily changed the team and played unfit players. And I'm not criticising with the benefit of hindsight. These are all things that myself and many others were saying at the time. Hodgson's naivety and arrogance has cost us dear.
We had a fairly simple group in 2010 and we played very poorly. At least this time we played well but simply couldn't penetrate the 'park the bus' defences of the other teams in our group, many people saud before the tournament that the defence was the weakest part of our team; and I suppose it is, we conceded 2 goals, one was from a very very good cross and a very good looping header; the other was a bit of a howler on Hart's part.
Indeed. The problem is, that the English media both print and television have such a love-in with the England team that there are almost beyond criticism. We had 'sensational performance' statements after the Russia game, 'potential winner' comments after Wales and 'can't criticise that performance' after Slovakia. The fact that Slaven Bilic laughed at Ian Wright's assessment of the game before being shouted down is a good example of how things are at the moment. In fact, criticism should be high at missing out on the 'easy' side of the draw. Instead, the ludicrous cliche of 'you have to beat the best teams' is being thrown around. Which is laughable considering the reaction of the media and England fans to the Iceland winner and instant dismissal of our next opponent's chances.
But that was just general bollicking things up rather than wilfully resting in form players and it resulting in missing out on the easier half of the draw? If Roy had not played Wilshire and Henderson and we'd drawn 0-0 then I think you'd have a point but he went for two players who were lacking match fitness (Wilshire particularly so). It was almost as if he wanted to make a point about the last time he got grief (picking Wilshire in the first place) so he compounded the error. Little of what Hodgson says or does makes sense to me. That said, given the tournament I think we've still got as good a chance as any of the other big teams as the squad does show a lot of promise performance wise.
Surely you aren't suggesting that all squad players in an international tournament should play just because they need to get "their deserved chance"?? We have a squad because of potential injuries and to allow different tactics. That is it. If a player gets no minutes then tough. Minor tinkerings to retain freshness make sense, but wholesale changes out of loyalty is complete nonsense. It's 7 matches tops over 5 weeks. It isn't a 9 month season. As to your specific questions: A) Nothing. Just unlucky in that one - should have won by 2/3 goals. Although sitting back with the Milner substitution was daft considering how completely superior we were. B) I thought Vardy/Sturridge deserved starts. I wouldn't have rested the full backs but don't have a massive issue with as they are pretty similar standard players. What I thought was a disaster was putting two midfielders in Wilshire and Henderson who are lacking match fitness who had not really featured for their clubs for 12 months and 2 months respectively. I just don't understand it. Play Ali and Rooney (who are both clearly in a bit of form) and bring on the other two when we are ahead if he is desperate to give them game time. It was a senseless risk and given that we failed to win Hodgson must take a large part of the blame. You keep mentioning all these chances we missed but did we really? Vardy and Ali were the only two clear cut ones I can think of. Maybe Sturridge when he failed to connect.
NI have barely attacked this tournament, but have defended well. That doesn't suit us in the slightest sadly.
A) He shouldn't have brought on Milner who was presumably brought on to shore things up, yet looked massively off the pace and was at fault for their goal. He should have brought on Vardy as soon as we got the first goal and stick him on the halfway line. This way we would have either been pretty much guaranteed a second goal on the break or he would have provided enough of a potential threat for Russia to leave players back to counter his threat. Instead he left on Kane who looked like he could barely move even in the first half. And before you say it this is not hindsight - I said all this during the game. He also shouldn't have had Kane on corners for the entire game. If I remember correctly he was also taking corners in the first half of the Wales game before he was subbed. More arrogance from Hodgson. He was criticised heavily for having Kane taking corners in the Russia game, but wanted to prove a point and shut people up. It didn't work. B)He played players who weren't fit and unnecessarily rested key players. I understand the need to rotate the team at times, but he went too far and didn't ensure that the players coming in could do a job. Wilshere is not fit. Henderson is not fit and terrible enough when he is. Bertrand had a poor game. We missed Rooney. You say we created more than enough chances to win the game. The only ones I remember being clear chances are Vardy's shot when he was one on one with the keeper and Alli's when it was cleared off the line. Against a Slovakia side who were set up purely to defend that's not good enough. We had no width to the extent where Clyne was our biggest threat out wide and struggled to create clear cut opportunities. All down to poor tactics and poor selection. If that team was good enough to win they would have done. Hodgson throwing on Rooney, Kane and Alli tells you all you need to know. He realised he'd f**ked up and been naive and arrogant. Unfortunately for us it was too late.
The Icelandic journos seem to be enjoying the tournament: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36603525
