***Official*** Road to World Cup 2014

[GIMH]

Montenegro and Poland are not bad sides but we should have enough to beat them at home. Agree with UC though, will be a nervy couple of games.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, they could definitely turn out to be "one of those" England matches tbh. Can see it now.

That said, I agree with GIMH, these are teams that England should be looking to beat. No doubt about that. And if they can't beat the likes of them at home, then they have no place in a World Cup anyway.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Aren't Ukraine in the box seat?

UKRAINE
Poland (h)
San Marino (a)

looks easier than:

ENGLAND
Montenegro (h)
Poland (h)

They have an easier run in, yeah.

If we win our two games tho we qualify, so it's in our hands regardless of what the Ukrainians do.

 

[NUFAN]

They have an easier run in, yeah.

If we win our two games tho we qualify, so it's in our hands regardless of what the Ukrainians do.

Yeah I know its in your hands mate, it is always in the hands of the team coming first. I was responding to GF who said England are on the plane to Brazil barring a monumental **** up, Montenegro will park the bus at Wembley and England are still without a win against any of the other 3 teams still in the hunt to quality. I just think 1 win, 1 draw and Ukraine 2 wins could very easily happen and it wouldn't be a monumental ****up. Of course anything could happen in the next group stage.

 

[GIMH]

Montenegro have a lot to gain from winning at Wembley, be interesting to see if they do just come for a point.

 

[NUFAN]

I should have said 'could' park the bus. They do have heaps to play for.

 

[Furball]

Yeah I know its in your hands mate, it is always in the hands of the team coming first. I was responding to GF who said England are on the plane to Brazil barring a monumental **** up, Montenegro will park the bus at Wembley and England are still without a win against any of the other 3 teams still in the hunt to quality. I just think 1 win, 1 draw and Ukraine 2 wins could very easily happen and it wouldn't be a monumental ****up. Of course anything could happen in the next group stage.

Not beating Montenegro and/or Poland at home counts as a monumental **** up in my book.

 

[Ikki]

Montenegro and Poland are not bad sides but we should have enough to beat them at home. Agree with UC though, will be a nervy couple of games.

IMO the problem is that Hodgson has a conservative approach against all sides and both Montenegro and Poland are good enough that if they feel confident on the ball they can cause a lot of problems. UC is also right in that the English fans will get on their backs fairly easily. I hope for your sake you score early.

OTOH I think England with Sturridge, Rooney and Welbeck back will have enough firepower. That's just too much quality IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

TBF Montenegro have some fairly serious firepower up front too. Also I can totally see Hodgson getting the midfield combination horribly, horribly wrong if he goes with two up front. I'm amazed that Carrick still isn't playing.

 

[Ikki]

Carrick for who though? I wouldn't replace him with any of the 3 players currently in midfield in terms of a straight swap, unless you want to reshape the formation and tactics.

 

[grecian]

Carrick for who though? I wouldn't replace him with any of the 3 players currently in midfield.

You replace him with one of Lampard or Gerrard, I'm not bothered whom, because in dozens of ****ing matches those two have consistently proved they have no ****ing idea how to play together.

Now people can say, they're very good players they rarely should find a way, but they haven't been able to in 10 years, so I really don't think it is going too happen now.

Carrick actually works well with both, not sure about Wilshere, as I can't remember seeing them together.

 

[Furball]

Get Wilshere out of the side so he doesn't injure himself.

 

[Ikki]

You replace him with one of Lampard or Gerrard, I'm not bothered whom, because in dozens of ****ing matches those two have consistently proved they have no ****ing idea how to play together.

Now people can say, they're very good players they rarely should find a way, but they haven't been able to in 10 years, so I really don't think it is going too happen now.

Carrick actually works well with both, not sure about Wilshere, as I can't remember seeing them together.

Carrick for me just isn't worth the effort to bring him in the side. He is at best negligibly better than Gerrard in passing from the deep; yet doesn't have the work-rate nor half the creativity. Right now they're playing Gerrard as the deepest midfielder with the other two ahead; and I don't think England has the defence that United does to cover him sufficiently if they play that formation. Having Gerrard alone, as it is, is playing with fire; which is why I reckon they looked so much more stable (even if similarly disjointed) in defence with someone like Parker.

Lampard is playing a bit further ahead and he provides goals (making or scoring them) and for such a defensive team, I think it's somewhat vital. Carrick just doesn't add enough in that regard. I think England could do better with someone younger but I don't think Carrick is adept at that role at all. It's not like he is Xavi or Schweinsteiger whose passing and game-control alone are worth their spots. He isn't mobile or accurate enough passer to play a game like that and dominate with ball possession.

Then you have Wilshire who is playing the furtherest forward and a position that Carrick doesn't play at all. As before, I just don't see how you fit him in without a pretty big change to the side and I don't think he's worth that change. England not being able to pass well is less about the players and more about the fact that they have a manager whose main aim is to get them right positionally in defence. Watch England play, no movement and very little cohesion. This is a pure Hodgson team.

On the plus side (and for tournaments it may just work) he makes the team hard to beat; and England have enough speed and skill (Rooney, Sturridge and Welback IMO) to score on any opponent. England are also a big threat on set-pieces. Without changing the manager or the system, this is as good as it gets I reckon. For all the **** he gets, I really wish Redknapp had gotten this team.

----

tl;dr: just doesn't do enough to displace either of them without changing the team dynamics IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

Carrick doesn't have a low work rate, he's just more conservative positionally. Gerrard gets drawn to the ball too easily. There's a reason Liverpool are so much tighter when Lucas plays behind him.

I know we say this all the time but you talk as if Gerrard was the second best player in a team that walked the league last season and Carrick was an above-average performer in a team that didn't even make Europe.

 

[Pothas]

Can't believe Parker is even being mentioned.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah Parker's distribution is embarrassing. Even Gareth Barry would be better.

I might actually pick Barry if Carrick wasn't fit. Having one defensive-minded midfielder shouldn't be considered optional, every good team has at least one and they're generally wildly unpopular but the team goes to pieces when they don't play. I don't think it really does to just shoehorn goalscoring midfielders in there once they get to a certain age, not against reasonable opposition.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Carrick's not exactly a panacea, tbf.

Pretty sure he played in Montenegro, which was an even worse performance than Tuesday when we were in serious danger of losing and our ball retention was on a par or possibly worse.

In all honesty and, much as I love the boy, Wilshere isn't there as an international player yet. Not that we looked any better when Cleverley came on either.

If either's fit I'd give serious thought to playing Rooney or Ox-C in the midfield apex role, myself.

 

[Ikki]

Carrick doesn't have a low work rate, he's just more conservative positionally. Gerrard gets drawn to the ball too easily. There's a reason Liverpool are so much tighter when Lucas plays behind him.

I know we say this all the time but you talk as if Gerrard was the second best player in a team that walked the league last season and Carrick was an above-average performer in a team that didn't even make Europe.

Gerrard was the 2nd best player in a team that lacked a lot of confidence and had a weak/inexperienced mentality. We had some ridiculous stat where if we conceded one goal, we were almost surely to concede two. It was the equivalent of having two superstars playing in a minnow Test side. Yet even then, we finished with the same goals conceded record as United - which illustrates how important it is to have a great attack and not to concede in crucial moments.

Yeh, we look much greater with Lucas in the side, but it should be that way. I don't see how that is a surprise. My point previously was despite the fact that Gerrard shares the minority load in defensive work in midfield for Liverpool...he still has a similar amount of tackles, interceptions, etc as Carrick. Carrick in that regard is actually unremarkable considering he is the sole holding midfielder for United. Statistically, and for me, even just watching him play, I don't see the work-rate you're speaking of. Aside of all that, Gerrard is the captain...he isn't going to be benched for Carrick.

England, unfortunately for them, don't have a lot of players that create a lot of genuine chances and when you play this defensively you need guys like Gerrard who is maybe one of a handful of players in the world who are amongst the top passers and chance creators, playing as a holding midfielder. Heck, even though for me Cole is arguably the best LB in the world when Baines comes on they look more dynamic. I don't think England will ever be a great passing team with Hodgson, regardless of who knits the play. It takes more than one guy to do it and the England team in general don't move for each off the ball, or well.

As for Parker, you don't want him distributing. You want him harrying and pressing and simply staying close and giving the ball to the regista as much as possible. If people have a better alternative, name him; but my point is that the second holder should be more defensive as I don't think Gerrard has the legs to hold it together himself. Even if you have Carrick, I think that kind of midfielder is necessary for England.

-----

I don't particularly like Taylor, but thank god someone's saying it: English football under Roy Hodgson going backwards from the Dark Ages | Daniel Taylor | Football | The Guardian

Perhaps the most revealing moment came when someone gently pointed out England still appeared to have a profound inability to take care of the ball in the games that really matter and it was immediately obvious, from the way Roy Hodgson tensed up, that he did not like what he had heard.

"You're going down the wrong route there," he said. "Did we play longer balls forward early? Yes, we did. It was a tactical change. We didn't want to play out from the back and invite pressure. But you've just seen us play against Moldova. And if you are prepared, seriously, to stand there and say the England team that I'm coaching can't keep the ball, can't play from the back and through the midfield, there's really no point us having a conversation. Because we totally disagree. You keep your opinion and I'll keep mine."

It was not the only time Hodgson mentioned the game against Moldova, the nation rated between Grenada and Turkmenistan at 123 in Fifa's world rankings, as an accurate gauge with which to measure his own team. Yet it was the admission that he deliberately set them out to play over-the-top football against Ukraine that jarred the most. Hodgson, in other words, simply did not trust his players to take enough care of the ball in the way that other managers would. So the instruction, by his own admission, was to hit it long, aim for Rickie Lambert and go for the second ball.

 

[Cevno]

Thought England's performance in that game in Montenegro was better than in Ukraine personally. The 2nd half was bad after the goal conceded by a defensive **** up, but in the first half England started brightly and controlled the game more than any time in Ukraine. Carrick's performance personally was poor though.

Think that formation with Carrick deepest DLP, then Gerrard as the double pivot and Wilshere AM could work decently and better than the current one where Lampard doesn't offer much except his long range shooting.

Anyways Ikki underrating Carrick's creative passing from deep, ability to control the game and also his defensive positioning and ability to screen in front of defence. He needs a good run in the England side and really deserves it having been the best midfielder in the league last season after taking his game up a level. Also, Gerrard is in no way better defensively than Carrick and Schweinsteiger and Xavi are both different type of players really.

 

[Cevno]

In all honesty and, much as I love the boy, Wilshere isn't there as an international player yet. Not that we looked any better when Cleverley came on either.

If either's fit I'd give serious thought to playing Rooney or Ox-C in the midfield apex role, myself.

If Sturridge can make the leap to International level then Rooney behind Sturridge could work.

But then Rooney would play as Second striker more than a AM and that would leave a bigger gap between Midfield and attack with Welbeck and Walcott playing advanced wing roles as well. Would need a box to box mid to bridge that gap well.