considering Hodgson only had six weeks in the job, it's more than unfair to start tarring him with the brush that's still got the Eriksson/McLaren/Capello skid marks on it
really? How would it have worked out differently if he had longer? Roy's 'thing' is the same as fabio capello's 'thing'. The problems all come back to an unsuitable formation and a tendency to pick players on name, and an over-reliance on last ditch defending and moments of individual brilliance. Roy isn't going to change this by the way. He's very much a "more of the same" kind of guy.
Hopefully a big raft of retirements from international football will clear the decks of 'famous' players so England can get on with picking players on suitability for the task.
England also have to decide what kind of team they want to be. A team with ashley young on one flank and james milner on the other in a 4-4-2 is going to struggle if only because only one of them is an attacking outlet, and can be easily snuffed out, and the other doesn't do much at all.
England should take a long look at denmark in this regard. Denmark aren't blessed with great players, but they always set themselves out very well. They have great balance, in that they go with attacking wingers on both sides which always keeps the opposition guessing. They have a deep lying forward, who links attack and midfield, and who links up with both sides.
The two midfielders link up with the deep lying forward, and are always spreading the ball to the wings, so they get the most out of their players. It switches between 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 depending on the situation. They're generally speaking well organized, comfortable on the ball, and good to watch.
There has been a lot of criticism of Ashley Young at this tournament, and the reason he is in the team is because he was england's top scorer over the last year. He's also england's best winger, but the way england are set up leaves him on a hiding to nothing.
Consider the factors that make him so effective at man utd. He has a solid partnership with his fullback, so that when he goes inside, he has the option of a pass to evra on the overlap. This gives him more space when he cuts inside, or allows evra to cross from the endline. He has a solid partnership with rooney and welbeck, so that when he does get the ball, they can play triangles down the left hand side.
But crucially, he has antonio valencia/nani on the other flank to distract the defence, and he has paul scholes in central midfield, ensuring a plentiful supply of the ball, and switching it between the sides many times in the same period of possession.
In the games where man utd are overrun in midfield, young is starved of the ball, and essentially disappears. There's no-one for him to play one-twos with, and he keeps losing the ball, he gets blocked off by superior numbers. This isn't particularly young's fault. He's kind of being set up to fail. This is what happens with england.
Now I appreciate that a lot of englsnd's problems have been down to trying to piece together bunches of players who are stars for their clubs, but in this instance, ashley young isn't really a star player relying on large numbers of moments of individual brilliance to mask general stupidity for his club. He's a competent, reliable piece of the jigsaw for man utd. The things that would get the most out of him, are the things that would get the most out of all the players.
The trick for england is to find two central midfielders who can play pass and move football. Forget the "BIG TACKLES" of scott parker and the "BIG SHOTS" of steven gerrard or frank lampard. They just need to find midfield players who move into a position to receive the ball when their team has it, and can move it on simply and quickly.
Neither Gerrard nor parker were going to be able to do that, neither looked particularly fit, and england suffered.
these players don't have to be particularly brilliant or eyecatching, they just need to move into space, and move the ball. I remember an irish midfield of Kilbane, kinsella, holland, duff and finnan dominating possession against spain, and those players played for sunderland, charlton, ipswich, blackburn and fulham.
kinsella and holland are no-one's idea of superstars, but they kept moving to receive the ball, and kept moving it on. It's not that they were particularly brilliant at it either, but they kept doing the same simple things, and it kept working. They were fairly normal players, who were always looking to link up with the other players.
International football is nowhere near as difficult as england make it look. The standard is much lower than in the champions league, and most of it is below top half of the premiership standard. If only because of the nationality restriction on players, and the short amount of time international teams get together to perfect systems of play.
The key to success seems to be to try and bridge this club/country gap by focusing on players who link up well with other players, rather than focus on players who can do big things. England seem to have this entirely the wrong way around.
And as long as they keep doing exactly the same things, they'll keep playing exactly the same way, and getting exactly the same results regardless of the players at their disposal, or the identity of the manager.
