Estonia v England

[Paul6754]

I agree. My gripe is about a lack of width and quick tempo. Too often we were (in both the last two games) trying pretty little close-passing movements with forwards' backs to goal and were therefore not penetrative enough. Also these close-passing phases are too easily picked-off by opposing defenders the calibre of which, in the cases of San Marino & Estonia, are not of the highest quality. If we try to do this with better opposition defenders attacks will be broken-down far more easily and this will inevitably lead to quick opposition break-outs and England dangerously exposed! At least in the 2nd half against San Marino Hodgson did substitute Andros Townsend and although I'm no great fan of his, he did give us some more width and pace. This, IMO should have been an option last night to open up Estonia once they'd gone down to 10 men!

 

Agree and Townsend is direct and not afraid to shoot from distance.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

I'd argue Bobby Robson in 1990 did a pretty good job.

 

Bit of amnesia there, a few posts back you described Gary Lineker as a true World class player. Since 1966 I would suggest Glen Hoddle, Paul Gascoigne and Alan Shearer at least as technically correct and gifted players.

 

I didn't mean technically as in their technical ability I meant technically they are failures as they haven't won anything! ;)

 

Personally I thought Robson, Venables and Hoddle did ok despite the former two starting off their memorable tournaments in poor form.

 

I'd agree with the players you mention bring world class along with Shilton, Lineker and Beckham since 66 but that for me is a sad endorsement of a nation that should have supplied more.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

We have a lot of very good players and a number of players with bags of potential, potential to be world-class. Hart, Cahill, Wilshere, Barkley, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Sterling, Sturridge, Walcott etc... Until recently Hodgson also had the likes of Terry, Gerrard and Lampard to call upon too, all of them absolutely outstanding players for their club sides and all three would have walked into any side in the world, perhaps with the exclusion of the obvious three.

 

Eriksson wasn't a failure, or anything like, and he was very unlucky not to take England to a semi-final on a couple of occasions.

 

Look at all the abuse he received when he was England manager ;)

[boltonsno1]

I can't believe anyone still cares about international football.

[valiant_593]

I can't believe anyone still cares about international football.

 

I can't believe people don't care about their national side!

[JOHNNYAITCH]

My biggest regrets are that one of Venables or Hoddle was not given a chance to build on what they started . Both tactically astute as well as making their teams difficult to beat...for example that performance in Italy under Hoddle was awesome and we all (of a certain age) remember our demolition of Holland at Euro 96.

 

Both admittedly were blessed with a number of players who would walk into the current team but you still have to get the best out of them

 

And to think there was a clamour for Redknapp a couple of years ago

[JOHNNYAITCH]

England did what they had to do, the only criticism of England is they were wasteful in front of goal, should have had 6 or 7 goals.

 

For me though this is a onstant failing..not taking chances. As recently as the match v Italy in Brazil we carved out good chances but didn't finish (Rooey being the main culprit). Other top teams seem more clinical and so win the top matches.

 

Let's hope Sturridge, Welbeck, Rooney etc get their finishing together ready for France

[Jacko51]

Stupid assumption to make without watching the match. We've seen all the England games and we look a poor side with the wrong players playing with a weak manager. Just because an average Italy side only won 1-0 dosent mean there crap as well!

 

Sorry, I forgot the six smileys at the end of my post!

[Jacko51]

My biggest regrets are that one of Venables or Hoddle was not given a chance to build on what they started . Both tactically astute as well as making their teams difficult to beat...for example that performance in Italy under Hoddle was awesome and we all (of a certain age) remember our demolition of Holland at Euro 96.

 

Both admittedly were blessed with a number of players who would walk into the current team but you still have to get the best out of them

 

And to think there was a clamour for Redknapp a couple of years ago

 

I agree about Hoddle but I think Venables was very over-rated as England manager.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Fairynuff but what did he get wrong at Euro 96? Unbeaten, hammered Holland, should have beaten Germany (if only Gazza had been wearing his long studs), tactical changes made during the match to beat Scotland (you don't see such a thing very often during a match).

 

We did have some luck v Spain (you have to have some luck) but apart from that? He was bold with his selections (Southgate, playing McManaman and Anderton with Shearer, Sheringham and Gascoigne), kept faith with Shearer.

 

The only criticism is that he had everything needed to win the thing but didn't but I don't think it was down to him that we didn't win it

 

But each to their own :)

[TylerB]

Look at all the abuse he received when he was England manager ;)

 

Because he was a foreigner, and he used to take the **** in friendly games changing the whole side pretty much every 45 minutes.

 

But his record in tournament football was decent, and with a bit of luck could have been a whole lot better. For England he was a far better manager than both Capello and Hodgson.

[TylerB]

Robaldo eh, I knew it was a rug.

 

I said Rooney is a top class player and he is, it's a matter of opinion, no doubting Messi and Suarez are true world class and are streets ahead of everyone else but in terms of effectiveness and value to a team Rooney is on par with the over rated Ronaldo and the still yet to do anything significant Neymar. Rooney is just as if not more effective for England as Ronaldo is for Portugal.

 

Bobby Charlton is probably England's finest ever player but he played his fair share of games against awful opposition, eg 8-1 and 8-0 thrashing of USA and Mexico respectively for starters.

 

 

 

England played well they hardly allowed Estonia a sight of goal, Estonia were poor as England worked hard and didn't allow them to play (an important part of playing and winning a football match to which Rooney contributes significantly), England did what they had to do, the only criticism of England is they were wasteful in front of goal, should have had 6 or 7 goals.

 

Hope your struggles are over and I await your treatise on Giroud with high anticipation, now don't go all shy on me.

 

Rooney isn't good enough to make Ronaldo a cheese sandwich. Or whatever Portuguese people actually eat.

 

Estonia are a **** side that were made to look better than they are by an inept display from England. To think that Roy was pleased with that performance and a 1-0 victory against 10 men, I think the retirement home beckons.

[For Us All]

I said he was looking tired much earlier in this thread. Unfortunately, a few numpties think that because he's young he can't be tired, obviously not quite bright enough to realize that you can be mentally tired, mentally fatigued, which has absolutely nothing to do with your legs or physical condition.

 

Sterling is a brilliant young player, a huge talent, and he will come again both for club and country.

 

Awaits the thumb downs from those same few clueless numpties. :rolleyes:

 

Is everyone with a different opinion than you a numpty?

[TylerB]

Is everyone with a different opinion than you a numpty?

 

Pretty much, yes. ;)

[For Us All]

Against teams that are less expensive than our cheapest player, inspiring :england:

 

I see Holland lost 2-0 to Iceland?