Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 15 Oct 2013, 2:45 pm

Yes, it'll do for now. There's a bit of a dilemma about whether Walcott gets back in the team given how well Townsend has played, but I think he probably will come back. In all probability we'll see Johnson come back in at right back as well when he's fit, I don't think Walker or Smalling are quite good enough. Otherwise there's the bones of a decent side there assuming we get lucky with injuries. Cahill and Jags are a decent combination I think, and it has the advantage that whichever one of our left backs we go with will have a clubmate to play alongside in the back 4. The concern, as you say, is that we run the risk of being too exposed against the better teams if we use this system. Hodgson will know that though, and I suspect he'll revert to 433 if we come up against one of the top sides.

The pleasing thing is that we've seen clear progression over the last couple of years since Hodgson was appointed. Obviously we're not good enough to win the tournament, I don't think anybody would try to argue otherwise, but the team are gradually showing signs that they're playing to a clear plan and that they understand their roles. It's a positive development and certainly grounds for encouragement. At least now we won't have to put up with perpetual moaning from the press in the run-up to the World Cup. If we can also keep a lid on the patriotic tub-thumping then things are really looking up.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 15 Oct 2013, 3:18 pm

Well I suppose there's usually one team who come from nowhere and make a strong run to the later rounds. With a bit of luck that could be either England or USA. I don't see the need to think about that right now though.

What I'd like is a good competitive group with some interesting teams to play, preferably teams we don't normally get to compete against. Something like Colombia, Ghana and Australia would be great. Certainly not a walkover by any stretch but not impossible either, and it would include some potentially fun matches that we could look forward to.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Oct 2013, 7:17 pm

I am not a big fan of...football, but I do like to see the analysis here of the teams (and hope you guys will continue to do so during the World Cup) And Randy, if you have not done so already and feel like it, please assess the US team's strengths and weaknesses. The analysis here is quite interesting, at least to me.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 16 Oct 2013, 9:29 am

It's interesting that you mention the defence as a weakness Randy. Successful US teams have always relied on a solid defence allied to athleticism in the middle of the park. There's still no real substitute for that at the highest level if you don't have the flair players to dominate possession. It sounds like you'll be heavily reliant on counter attacking football and set pieces because if you're still wheeling out the likes of DeMarcus Beazley then the top sides will be licking their lips.

That said, Donovan and Dempsey are both very good players who could still be playing at a much higher level. I've never seen Bradley so can't really comment on him, but I've heard he's a decent player as well. That means you'll have a good midfield in place, which is crucial in the modern game. US teams have never lacked for commitment either of course, and that will always take you a fair way.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 16 Oct 2013, 2:58 pm

Thanks Randy/Sass for an informed analysis. All I know is that the US made it to the quarters in South Korea in 2002 with a good deal less talented team (I think) that the one we have now (and pushed Germany in that game; if that it wasn't for a hand ball save by a German defender who knows what would have happened). Maybe that 2002 team was just incredibly lucky...but getting to another quarterfinal game would be nice.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 17 Oct 2013, 11:17 am

Germany was at a low ebb in 2002. The US team wasn't so bad either. You had Friedel, Donovan, Reyna, McBride and a few other solid pros in the ranks. Yes, it was a surprise that you got so far, but that was a well-drilled unit that was tough to beat.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Oct 2013, 12:41 pm

Sassenach wrote:Germany was at a low ebb in 2002. The US team wasn't so bad either. You had Friedel, Donovan, Reyna, McBride and a few other solid pros in the ranks. Yes, it was a surprise that you got so far, but that was a well-drilled unit that was tough to beat.
2002 was an odd competition as well. You had the holders out without scoring a single goal, Argentina also failing to get out of the group stage, Italy and Spain falling to South Korea, Turkey coming third...

The US team was a little fortunate - Victor Baia had a nightmare in the opening game (and the Portuguese came close to undoing the 3-0 lead), and they lost to Poland and had to rely on South Korea to beat Portugal. They outclassed Mexico (who always flatter to deceive in the World Cup), but despite not having a lot of world class player they did have a fair amount of quality and crucially a very good tactical coach.

The way that the US play now is more exciting, and relies more on ball skills than on strength and stamina, and I can see them getting to the QFs. Of course we have to wait and see who else gets there and what the draw delivers.

I don't have a problem with seeding though. The top seeds still have to win their groups to get full advantage, and while there's no way to completely balance the groups it does help. I don't want to see top teams failing simply because they are sat in a group with other top teams (although it's good when they fail because they were turned over by a minnow).

On England, I think we have a better team than last time and crucially a better outlook. I like seeing new talent being tried out and succeeding. I think QFs are about our best outcome though - again depending on the draw.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 17 Oct 2013, 12:53 pm

Yeah, we certainly have a stronger team than last time (assuming they stay fit of course). We had Heskey, Crouch, Upson, Warnock, and SWP (!) in the squad for South Africa. Hardly surprising we were poor really.

Btw, it's interesting to look at the USA squad for 2010. You only had 4 players in the squad who were actually playing their football in MLS, of which only really Landon Donovan was an established first team regular. I'm guessing that will be very different this time round, which is a sign of how far the league has developed over the last 4 years.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Oct 2013, 1:25 pm

At first I thought you had mistyped 'Walcott' and were thinking of Neil Warnock (a name to strike terror into the hearts of struggling clubs all over England), but now I see he was dropped and you meant Stephen Warnock.

Stephen Warnock! A name to forget, eh?

What was Capello thinking?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 17 Oct 2013, 1:35 pm

I guess there are always one or two in every squad that you look back on with a puzzled frown. Everybody these days tends to go on about what a strong squad we had in 2002 but that included Danny Mills and Darius Vassell.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Oct 2013, 2:26 pm

sass
I guess there are always one or two in every squad that you look back on with a puzzled frown.

After watching most f the Spurs game against AV today, I came on here to see if in all the discussions about the English roster anyone had mentioned Andros Townsend...
Nope.
I think Townsend proves that there are depth of quality that can be plumbed in most of the top twenty nations. if the national coaches are truly in touch with their talent pool ...and courageous enough to go with the less well known...
If there is a dark horse for the upcoming world cup, I'd say Belgium. Although, perhaps now that they are seeded they aren't so "dark"?
And I do hope Iceland pulls off a win in the playoffs and gains a first ever appearance. .... I love the minnows who over achieve.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 20 Oct 2013, 2:31 pm

Townsend played in both of the recent England games. He was MoM against Montenegro (and scored a great goal) and he also played really well against Poland. Maybe you haven't been paying attention ?

Actually, surely that can't be the case, so presumably you did know about that and you're wondering why we haven't been talking about the latest young player to break into the England team. If so all I can say is that he's literally just broken into the national consciousness and while he did play well, he needs to maintain that for a good while yet before it makes sense to get too excited about him. I'd imagine he'll go to Brazil though, assuming he doesn't lose form and get dropped from the Spurs team.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Oct 2013, 6:03 am

ruffhaus
so Rodgers' general underachievement is a source of amusement to me
.

Liverpool are in third as of Oct 21.... What do you mean under achievement? (At least this season)
I have a friend who is a Man U supporter. He describes Moyes team at Man U as "playing like Everton". I don't know if that's entirely fair. However his replacement at Everton has Everton ahead of Man U at the moment. And they now play a lot more flowing soccer than they ever did under Moyes...

ruff
If so all I can say is that he's literally just broken into the national consciousness and while he did play well, he needs to maintain that for a good while yet before it makes sense to get too excited about him.

Oh, I think you should get excited. Its not like he's had one or two good games...
The thing is that, as his manager said on Sunday, the league play has allowed him to develop. The National team play is only a showcase. he's replaced the worlds most expensive transferred player, and I think he looks every bit as good as Bale...
Without Bale being transferred, its doubtful he would have been given the chance at Spurs..... and without the chance at Spurs would he have been given the chance by Hodgson?
Point is, going deeper into the playing pool should be considered by most national managers... Going with the same old, gets the same old results ...
I suspect the problem England has, like many nations, is that the players are from many teams with differing styles of play.Coming together only every so often its difficult to play like a well oiled machine. Spain and Germany are different in that many of their players play together a lot...
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 21 Oct 2013, 8:54 am

Townsend has replaced Lennon, not Bale.

I tend to agree with Randy about Brendan Rodgers. It's always struck me that there's a touch of the emperor's new clothes about him. He talks a good fight but ultimately Liverpool were mediocre for most of last season and I'd be very surprised if they go on to break the top 4 this time round. Most likely they'll be 5th or 6th, which is about what you'd expect for a club of their size with the squad they have. Rodgers built his reputation on the back of the work done by Roberto Martinez at Swansea. I think Martinez is a much better manager and should have been the one that Liverpool went for. His early success with Everton, a club with much more meagre resources than Liverpool, is indicative of the fact that he could have done a great job at Anfield as well.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 21 Oct 2013, 11:25 am

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Ricky, Rodgers' Liverpool significantly under performed and disappointed last season, and he has to take on a huge part of the blame for that. It's a bit early to declare him a success for being in third place after eight games this year. I guess you call victories over Stoke, Southampton, Sunderland, Crystal Place, and a (home) win over stumbling Manchester United something to crow about? Liverpool lost to Aston Villa and only managed a 2-2 draw with Swansea (a team that Rodgers should have intimate knowledge of their weaknesses), and another 2-2 draw with 10-man Newcastle (a game Liverpool deserved to lose). That's what I call underachievement. With the relatively easy schedule they have seen so far, they've should be three points clear at the top now.
Well, he did inherit a club with problems. Roy Hodgson (a manager I rate and am happy to have at England, but was happier when he was at Fulham) was unsuited to Liverpool and undermined. Dalglish was on an ego trip when he decided after being tasked with finding a replacement that he was the man for the job - yes they won the League Cup and got to an FA Cup final but their Premier League performance was poor.

So a first season of treading water is not that bad - I am always stunned by how pundits and fans expect major change to happen straight away, or for a new manager to be successful from day one. Ferguson had an awful first season at Man Utd, and didn't win a trophy until more than three years in. Nowadays boards and supporters are so much less patient - even before Abramovich turned up.