Rooney

[mrsblue]

Because binning the captain mid-tournament is a recipe for success?

I stated that is what I would do yet we all know Roy won't even consider it.

My idea of captain is the bloke who will give his all and lead by example and Gerrard failed to do this IMO,He neither breaks up play with meaty challenges and rarely sets up play with long pinpoint passes,For Liverpool he is good very good yet for England he flatters to deceive .

Just my opinion .

 

[Jam_Man]

You wont see him play 442 at the World Cup and certainly wont drop Gerrard.

I would like to see Barkley given a chance at somepoint, hard to see where you could squeeze him in though.

 

[Jim Levenstein]

I stated that is what I would do yet we all know Roy won't even consider it.

My idea of captain is the bloke who will give his all and lead by example and Gerrard failed to do this IMO,He neither breaks up play with meaty challenges and rarely sets up play with long pinpoint passes,For Liverpool he is good very good yet for England he flatters to deceive .

Just my opinion .

I'd say for one game he hasn't played his best. Last couple of major tournaments he has been our best player.

 

[mrsblue]

You wont see him play 442 at the World Cup and certainly wont drop Gerrard.

I would like to see Barkley given a chance at somepoint, hard to see where you could squeeze him in though.

Of course Roy will never play 442 as it's no longer modern yet Uruguay play 442,Roy's tactical nous has had only 2 wins from the last 7 games with 3 defeats and failing to score against the might of Honduras,In fact During those 7 games we lost against every good team and only scored once .

 

[Jam_Man]

Of course Roy will never play 442 as it's no longer modern yet Uruguay play 442,Roy's tactical nous has had only 2 wins from the last 7 games with 3 defeats and failing to score against the might of Honduras,In fact During those 7 games we lost against every good team and only scored once .

'Formations dont win or lose games'. -Phill Brown.

 

[mrsblue]

'Formations dont win or lose games'. -Phill Brown.

Ahh if Phil said that then I am convinced:winking:

 

[RHB]

I think Rooney really has got to produce the form that we all believe he is capable of if we are to see off Uruguay. Gerrard will definitely start, but if Roy is going to change anything then it has got to be Johnson on the bench. Phil Jones for me instead at right back.

 

[Blue_Wes]

I think Rooney really has got to produce the form that we all believe he is capable of if we are to see off Uruguay. Gerrard will definitely start, but if Roy is going to change anything then it has got to be Johnson on the bench. Phil Jones for me instead at right back.

Whilst I'm far from Johnson's biggest fan, if you made that change against Italy, do you think it would of changed the result? I think that's what we need to be looking at, where we fell down in that game.

For me Supporting Baines on the left hand side, picking up the opposition on the edge of the box (especially for set pieces), and moving Rooney to a more central role; this would work to supportng Baines as well. I'd also look at Milner in for Henderson also. Although not his natural position (he can play very well in the centre as he proved for Villa), and he has excellent discipline, so slotting in for full backs, and covering Gerrard when he moves forward. Whilst this is probably a downgrade in distribution in the middle, it would certainly upgrade the impact baines could have on the game, and our defensive strength; it would allow us to retain our range of attacking options up front, rather than sacrificing one of them to have Milner in a defensive wing position. Up top, I'd have Sterling on the right, Wellbeck on the left, and Rooney behind Sturridge.

 

[Blue_Wes]

Of course Roy will never play 442 as it's no longer modern yet Uruguay play 442,Roy's tactical nous has had only 2 wins from the last 7 games with 3 defeats and failing to score against the might of Honduras,In fact During those 7 games we lost against every good team and only scored once .

How did the static 4-4-2 fair against the the fluid 4-3-3 formation of the group's whipping boys? We saw what having wide attacking players with overlapping full backs did against Urugauy in their first game. Why would you want us to move away from this tactic?

 

[mrsblue]

How did the static 4-4-2 fair against the the fluid 4-3-3 formation of the group's whipping boys? We saw what having wide attacking players with overlapping full backs did against Urugauy in their first game. Why would you want us to move away from this tactic?

The top teams whatever system they use have been found out by opponents allowing zero time in their face no nonsense football,Look at Spain blown away by the Dutch who only deployed 3 at the back likewise Uruguay never allowed to settle on the ball and were eventually well beaten by so called underdogs.

How many times did we get into good situations against Italy yet we had nobody in the area to deliver to,With Rooney hopefully behind Sturridge we will in effect play 442 of sorts which IMO gives us our best chance of success.

Roy's last 7 games have produced 2 wins 2 draws and 3 defeats with the defeats against Italy,Chile and Germany producing only 1 goal in these 3 games so not exactly a good advert for fancy dan formations.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I'd drop Gerrard and bring in Leonard.

 

[Blue_Wes]

The top teams whatever system they use have been found out by opponents allowing zero time in their face no nonsense football,Look at Spain blown away by the Dutch who only deployed 3 at the back likewise Uruguay never allowed to settle on the ball and were eventually well beaten by so called underdogs.

How many times did we get into good situations against Italy yet we had nobody in the area to deliver to,With Rooney hopefully behind Sturridge we will in effect play 442 of sorts which IMO gives us our best chance of success.

Roy's last 7 games have produced 2 wins 2 draws and 3 defeats with the defeats against Italy,Chile and Germany producing only 1 goal in these 3 games so not exactly a good advert for fancy dan formations.

I wouldn't put too much credence into the outcome of friendly games, Italy drew with Luxembourg, Germany with Cameroon and both came out on top against decent opposition in competitive fixtures using the same formations. The friendlies you are basing your all-change policy on were for acclimitisation and to intrgate some of the new less experienced players into the team, to try different formations and learn how players fair against different types of opposition.

All you ever seem to shout for on here is change. change the strikers, change the players, change the formation; change for change sake is damaging. How would any player, team or manager progress under your guidance. The constant chopping and changing would never allow any cohesion or growth in any team. The knee jerk philosophy of if it doesn't immediately reap results then change change change is what makes the managerial merry-go-round of the Premiership so laughable.

The team is improving, they are playing good football, and only narrowly lost to one of the strongest sides in the tournament; despite fielding a lot of fledgling internationals. A result that most unbiased critics felt should of ended in a draw. A result that bar the usual tired boring pub bore comments of 'England are ****, we always lose' and 'Rooney's rubbish ' had us leaving the game with more plaudits than critics. We only need to make a few tweaks to iron out the few flaws that were evident in the Italy game to improve the side enough to overcome a lacklustre Uruguay. Why you would want to scrap all that work, change all the personal, the formation and playing ethic, in the middle of a tournament from something that is working and improving the squad is beyond me. It's suicide.

Using a very narrow loss to Germany, one of the most impressive national sides of the last 4 years, a loss to Chile, one of the most impressive sides in this years World Cup, and an unfortunate narrow defeat to Italy, a side that consistantly performs at tournament level to justify your all-change policy doesn't work either. The World Champions just lost 2-0 to Chile, Portugal, a team that have just edged us twice in recent tournaments were spanked by Germany.

Change for change sake doesn't work.

Looking at your formation of 4-4-2, there's only one team that have employed it thus far, and that was Uruguay. They lacked energy, movement, link up play between midfield and forwards, were static and therefore overun from Costa Rica's fluid wing play. I just don't get your solution of removing a formation and tactics that are improving us and taking us back a decade to play a formation the players aren't familiar with players they aren't used to playing with, in the middle of a tournament?

 

[mrsblue]

I wouldn't put too much credence into the outcome of friendly games, Italy drew with Luxembourg, Germany with Cameroon and both came out on top against decent opposition in competitive fixtures using the same formations. The friendlies you are basing your all-change policy on were for acclimitisation and to intrgate some of the new less experienced players into the team, to try different formations and learn how players fair against different types of opposition.

All you ever seem to shout for on here is change. change the strikers, change the players, change the formation; change for change sake is damaging. How would any player, team or manager progress under your guidance. The constant chopping and changing would never allow any cohesion or growth in any team. The knee jerk philosophy of if it doesn't immediately reap results then change change change is what makes the managerial merry-go-round of the Premiership so laughable.

The team is improving, they are playing good football, and only narrowly lost to one of the strongest sides in the tournament; despite fielding a lot of fledgling internationals. A result that most unbiased critics felt should of ended in a draw. A result that bar the usual tired boring pub bore comments of 'England are ****, we always lose' and 'Rooney's rubbish ' had us leaving the game with more plaudits than critics. We only need to make a few tweaks to iron out the few flaws that were evident in the Italy game to improve the side enough to overcome a lacklustre Uruguay. Why you would want to scrap all that work, change all the personal, the formation and playing ethic, in the middle of a tournament from something that is working and improving the squad is beyond me. It's suicide.

Using a very narrow loss to Germany, one of the most impressive national sides of the last 4 years, a loss to Chile, one of the most impressive sides in this years World Cup, and an unfortunate narrow defeat to Italy, a side that consistantly performs at tournament level to justify your all-change policy doesn't work either. The World Champions just lost 2-0 to Chile, Portugal, a team that have just edged us twice in recent tournaments were spanked by Germany.

Change for change sake doesn't work.

Looking at your formation of 4-4-2, there's only one team that have employed it thus far, and that was Uruguay. They lacked energy, movement, link up play between midfield and forwards, were static and therefore overun from Costa Rica's fluid wing play. I just don't get your solution of removing a formation and tactics that are improving us and taking us back a decade to play a formation the players aren't familiar with players they aren't used to playing with, in the middle of a tournament?

Roy has been in charge for 2 years yet in his first WC game plays his best player out of position that to me is not progress.

I constantly read Italy were a very good side yet IMO England made them look good by not tackling and allowing them far too much time on the ball,Many pundits who have played at the top level said the same .England had one major standout player which was Sterling now take him out of that game and your fluid play suddenly becomes non existent .

I have always advocated for young players to play mainly because they have not been coached to death and they don't have the fear factor as Sterling showed.

Friendly games are there to hopefully boost confidence yet Honduras could easily have won that game which is not progress to me.

I think if Roy had played Rooney behind the striker and the players had got into Italy from the off we would have battered them and won comfortably .

 

[londonblue]

I'd drop Gerrard and bring in Leonard.

Then you're an idiot.

It's quite obvious Lenny should replace Sterling.

 

[Blue_Wes]

Roy has been in charge for 2 years yet in his first WC game plays his best player out of position that to me is not progress.

I constantly read Italy were a very good side yet IMO England made them look good by not tackling and allowing them far too much time on the ball,Many pundits who have played at the top level said the same .England had one major standout player which was Sterling now take him out of that game and your fluid play suddenly becomes non existent .

I have always advocated for young players to play mainly because they have not been coached to death and they don't have the fear factor as Sterling showed.

Friendly games are there to hopefully boost confidence yet Honduras could easily have won that game which is not progress to me.

I think if Roy had played Rooney behind the striker and the players had got into Italy from the off we would have battered them and won comfortably .

Rooney was played out of position to accomodate the youth that you so highly advocate. But I do agree that was a mistake, Rooney should be behind the front man.

Yeah, I've read your posts that indicate the midfield were poor because we didn't give away enough free kicks. I think we suffer enough from set pieces without giving Italy any more. Wellbeck was better, because he attacked, created chances and also restricted Italy, harried them in possession and won the ball back more than any other forward. Italy didn't look the stronger side until he was subbed off. Sterling was positive yes, but what did he actually do?

I disagree. We need players who are good enough. Why you focus on age I don't know. Age should have no bearing. We need players that are good enough. The reason younger player may be overlooked is because they lack to experience to cope with pressure, there are the rare examples who are good enough to flourish at the highest stage at an early age, but by and large, younger players need a gradual introduction into the side.

Italy and Germany seemed to cope with embarrassing results. The friendlies prior to World Cup are purely fitness, acclimitisation and familiarising yourself with team mates.

I agree we would have performed better up front, but our failings were defensively, there would still have been no cover from Baines, a) leaving him exposed when Italy attacked, and b) disabling his attacking threat; and we still wouldn't be closing down the opposition on the edge of the box from set pieces, although Rooney could arguably cover this in a central role.

 

[mrsblue]

Rooney was played out of position to accomodate the youth that you so highly advocate. But I do agree that was a mistake, Rooney should be behind the front man.

Yeah, I've read your posts that indicate the midfield were poor because we didn't give away enough free kicks. I think we suffer enough from set pieces without giving Italy any more. Wellbeck was better, because he attacked, created chances and also restricted Italy, harried them in possession and won the ball back more than any other forward. Italy didn't look the stronger side until he was subbed off. Sterling was positive yes, but what did he actually do?

I disagree. We need players who are good enough. Why you focus on age I don't know. Age should have no bearing. We need players that are good enough. The reason younger player may be overlooked is because they lack to experience to cope with pressure, there are the rare examples who are good enough to flourish at the highest stage at an early age, but by and large, younger players need a gradual introduction into the side.

Italy and Germany seemed to cope with embarrassing results. The friendlies prior to World Cup are purely fitness, acclimitisation and familiarising yourself with team mates.

I agree we would have performed better up front, but our failings were defensively, there would still have been no cover from Baines, a) leaving him exposed when Italy attacked, and b) disabling his attacking threat; and we still wouldn't be closing down the opposition on the edge of the box from set pieces, although Rooney could arguably cover this in a central role.

Pirlo aged 35 required at least 2 meaty tackles taking ball and him which would have virtually put him out of the game we failed to get near him which allowed Pirlo to get his head up and pick out his team mates that was football suicide!!We failed to wind up MB who played the lone forward with ease and then scored with the defence in tatters,Baines committed the cardinal sin by turning his back which even at my level would be deemed as rare then the CB was ball watching whilst the RB went and did his own thing and Hart remained on his line because his positioning was mad.I agree Baines was far too exposed but the manager is there to change it!

 

[Blue_Wes]

Pirlo aged 35 required at least 2 meaty tackles taking ball and him which would have virtually put him out of the game we failed to get near him which allowed Pirlo to get his head up and pick out his team mates that was football suicide!!We failed to wind up MB who played the lone forward with ease and then scored with the defence in tatters,Baines committed the cardinal sin by turning his back which even at my level would be deemed as rare then the CB was ball watching whilst the RB went and did his own thing and Hart remained on his line because his positioning was mad.I agree Baines was far too exposed but the manager is there to change it!

Firstly, I'd never condone an intentional tackle, 'meaty' enough to put a player out of the game. Secondly, that would be counter productive, as it would most likely see the offending player out of the game, and not in Italy's position of being able to replace hime with a sub.

 

[Pubey]

Pirlo aged 35 required at least 2 meaty tackles taking ball and him which would have virtually put him out of the game we failed to get near him which allowed Pirlo to get his head up and pick out his team mates that was football suicide!!We failed to wind up MB who played the lone forward with ease and then scored with the defence in tatters,Baines committed the cardinal sin by turning his back which even at my level would be deemed as rare then the CB was ball watching whilst the RB went and did his own thing and Hart remained on his line because his positioning was mad.I agree Baines was far too exposed but the manager is there to change it!

I'd much prefer us to play football than anti-football.

 

[mrsblue]

Firstly, I'd never condone an intentional tackle, 'meaty' enough to put a player out of the game. Secondly, that would be counter productive, as it would most likely see the offending player out of the game, and not in Italy's position of being able to replace hime with a sub.

I never mentioned fouling Pirlo I stated ball first then him which is part of professional football which happens in most games,How many times did you see Lenny targeted last season?,Once any player receives a decent tackle they normally fade from the game uninjured!

 

[EastStandBlue]

I never mentioned fouling Pirlo I stated ball first then him which is part of professional football which happens in most games,How many times did you see Lenny targeted last season?,Once any player receives a decent tackle they normally fade from the game uninjured!

Sounds like you should be supporting Honduras rather than us.