If only

[mrsblue]

If only Roy had gone for it!

Watched the quarter finals with no stand out side and every game tedious,I still think England could have beaten any of the last 8 if they had played all out attacking football.

Brazil Argentina Germany and Holland all look fairly average.

 

[RHB]

If only Roy had gone for it!

Watched the quarter finals with no stand out side and every game tedious,I still think England could have beaten any of the last 8 if they had played all out attacking football.

Brazil Argentina Germany and Holland all look fairly average.

Tricky call. I think England attacked far more than in previous tournaments, but I really don't think our defence would have stood up to some of the opposition forwards on view without a huge slice of luck.

 

[OldBlueLady]

If only he had played pacy young strikers...... :sad:

 

[southendkid]

No chance, the games have been tedious because teams like Cost Rica know how to put 10 men behind the ball and defend for their lives. We wouldn't do that which would make it very easy for teams to expose our weaknesses.

 

[Jam_Man]

All out attacking football.

What is that exactly?

Didnt we play 4 attacking players? How many should we have played because we still conceded 4 goals in the first two games.

 

[buffalowolf]

I still thing Hodgson got it wrong ,and should have been more adventurous with his tactics,he had nothing to lose as no one expected the team to progress through their group.But thats just my view.

 

[Jam_Man]

I still thing Hodgson got it wrong ,and should have been more adventurous with his tactics,he had nothing to lose as no one expected the team to progress through their group.But thats just my view.

What should he have done differently?

Im not a fan of his, but its very easy to say he should have been more "attacking" or more "adventurous" but no one seems to ever expand on what that actually means.

We played more attacking than in 2010 after all.

 

[mrsblue]

All out attacking football.

What is that exactly?

Didnt we play 4 attacking players? How many should we have played because we still conceded 4 goals in the first two games.

Haha name them then !,Whenever any cross was sent in there was never nobody there!,And 2 holding midfielders is hardly attacking football.

 

[Jam_Man]

Haha name them then !,Whenever any cross was sent in there was never nobody there!,And 2 holding midfielders is hardly attacking football.

Sterling, Rooney, Sturridge, Wellbeck.

You play two holding midfielders so that you can afford to have 4 attacking players.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Attack as much as you like, but if you've got Glen Johnson and Phil Jagielka in your defense you're not going to get very far at a World Cup.

 

[mrsblue]

Attack as much as you like, but if you've got Glen Johnson and Phil Jagielka in your defense you're not going to get very far at a World Cup.

Very true indeed!Those 2 must never play in an England shirt ever again.

 

[mrsblue]

Sterling, Rooney, Sturridge, Wellbeck.

You play two holding midfielders so that you can afford to have 4 attacking players.

Sterling Rooney and Welbeck were either playing just in front of the full back or simply played too deep to attack at the business end.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

If only Woy had ditched the young pacey hungry* forwards and played a cagey defensive game we'd have been going out in the quarters on penalties again:'(


*Sturridge seemingly eats more Subs than even Suarez

 

[Jam_Man]

Sterling Rooney and Welbeck were either playing just in front of the full back or simply played too deep to attack at the business end.

They are attacking players still and they still have defensive duties or you end up conceding even more than the 2 goals we did. If he wanted to be defensive he would have played Milner.

We also had more shots than all 3 opponents as well.

 

[mrsblue]

They are attacking players still and they still have defensive duties or you end up conceding even more than the 2 goals we did. If he wanted to be defensive he would have played Milner.

We also had more shots than all 3 opponents as well.

The way Roy set them up he put fear into his own players!

We had more shots because the opponents were not as good as some think!

 

[Jam_Man]

The way Roy set them up he put fear into his own players!

We had more shots because the opponents were not as good as some think!

So if we had more shots than them because they werent very good, yet they had less shots than us that makes us the best team in the group then.

 

[mrsblue]

So if we had more shots than them because they werent very good, yet they had less shots than us that makes us the best team in the group then.

We were set up not to concede yet we had more shots so just think if we had been set up to attack we IMO would have buried them.

 

[RHB]

The way Roy set them up he put fear into his own players!

We had more shots because the opponents were not as good as some think!

Based on the results, two of the three teams in our group were good enough with less shots to beat us. Ironically, the one side that didn't beat us went the furthest in the next stages. However you wrap this up we didn't have enough nous, skill and talent to go very far this time. I still think that the Euros will be a different story and we will do far better through the experience gained in Brazil. By the way, the Roy and fear bit is nonsense.

 

[Jam_Man]

We were set up not to concede yet we had more shots so just think if we had been set up to attack we IMO would have buried them.

If we were set up not to concede (which with 4 attacking players we werent) yet concede twice in two games How many would we have conceded if we werent.

 

[mrsblue]

If we were set up not to concede (which with 4 attacking players we werent) yet concede twice in two games How many would we have conceded if we werent.

Opinions!

I say we never played with 4 forwards in play,Yes they play for their clubs up front but never as a 4 for England.
I still think we could have done better with an attacking system.

Opinions we all love them.