Us oldies had to suffer missing out on Euro '84 too, under Bobby Robson, then to suffer worse under him in '88 when we finished bottom of our group after losing all our games. '92 under Taylor just set the tone for our non-qualifying for USA '94. To be fair though the Euro's didn't really take off until '96 when it went to 16 teams. So you youngsters, be grateful that although we are shit, we've been shitter!
But you saw us win it in 1966 so its not all bad is it
Nah, he missed out. The charabang from the Derby and Joan was late because of all the toilet stops.
What Southgate has to do is work out a strategy for the World Cup. He can only pick players available to him - but he does have some good players available to him. He needs to forget that the England team should be the eleven best fit players in the country. Instead, he needs to identify the key players then work out the most effective team around that - which might mean selecting players who might be weaker in some aspects but have the attributes that the team needs. One of those attributes has to be goals - I'd say to Henderson for instance - start scoring goals or you are nowhere near my squad, despite your qualities. I'd say to my centre-halves that I want one in seven at least from them!
I just don't think he is the sort of manager that thinks like that. We are heading for same old same old.
What Southgate has to do is work out a strategy for the World Cup. He can only pick players available to him - but he does have some good players available to him. He needs to forget that the England team should be the eleven best fit players in the country. Instead, he needs to identify the key players then work out the most effective team around that - which might mean selecting players who might be weaker in some aspects but have the attributes that the team needs.
I just don't think he is the sort of manager that thinks like that. We are heading for same old same old.
I mostly agree with this. Southgate currently has a bit of the Robinsons about him; he's shackled to this 4-2-3-1 he likes at the moment with two holding midfielders regardless of the level of the opposition. We aren't playing to our strengths. At present we have an array of very decent fullbacks who are either good enough at defending or quick enough to play as attacking wingbacks. We also have a lack of consistent and effective wingers; Sterling is an inconsistent impact player and Oxlade-Chamberlain is lucky to be in the squad. Rashford is a striker. We don't have much in the way of 10s either. Lallana is decent but Alli is morphing into more of a second striker and he seems lost when asked to be the creative fulcrum; there's a reason Eriksen has that responsibility for Spurs. That means we're setting up with two plodders in Dier and Henderson, wingers who struggle to affect the game and no real creative focal point.
We'd be much better off setting up with three at the back with any of Rose, Walker, Trippier or Bertrand (less so) providing the width. We can then afford to put in a midfield three with Lallana being protected by someone like Dier or Henderson. If he starts playing this season I wouldn't hate the idea of Drinkwater in there to move the ball forward more quickly than the likes of Dier and Henderson ever do. Up front we can have Kane and Rashford, with Vardy available to use his pace as well. Not all the players in there are the best we have but the system would suit our current strengths, which are pace and strength, and cover our glaring weakness in creativity in midfield.
What Southgate has to do is work out a strategy for the World Cup. He can only pick players available to him - but he does have some good players available to him. He needs to forget that the England team should be the eleven best fit players in the country. Instead, he needs to identify the key players then work out the most effective team around that - which might mean selecting players who might be weaker in some aspects but have the attributes that the team needs.
I just don't think he is the sort of manager that thinks like that. We are heading for same old same old.
I mostly agree with this. Southgate currently has a bit of the Robinsons about him; he's shackled to this 4-2-3-1 he likes at the moment with two holding midfielders regardless of the level of the opposition. We aren't playing to our strengths. At present we have an array of very decent fullbacks who are either good enough at defending or quick enough to play as attacking wingbacks. We also have a lack of consistent and effective wingers; Sterling is an inconsistent impact player and Oxlade-Chamberlain is lucky to be in the squad. Rashford is a striker. We don't have much in the way of 10s either. Lallana is decent but Alli is morphing into more of a second striker and he seems lost when asked to be the creative fulcrum; there's a reason Eriksen has that responsibility for Spurs. That means we're setting up with two plodders in Dier and Henderson, wingers who struggle to affect the game and no real creative focal point.
We'd be much better off setting up with three at the back with any of Rose, Walker, Trippier or Bertrand (less so) providing the width. We can then afford to put in a midfield three with Lallana being protected by someone like Dier or Henderson. If he starts playing this season I wouldn't hate the idea of Drinkwater in there to move the ball forward more quickly than the likes of Dier and Henderson ever do. Up front we can have Kane and Rashford, with Vardy available to use his pace as well. Not all the players in there are the best we have but the system would suit our current strengths, which are pace and strength, and cover our glaring weakness in creativity in midfield.
I think there are different ways you can go but you have to go. Southgate lacks imagination and I am investing zero optimism for the World Cup finals. I am not going to allow myself to get sucked in to any optimism which will result in a kick in the teeth. The thing is, a manager like Pulis or Warnock might be more effective as they are managers who look at what they need to do - whatever it is and try to do it. Allardyce may have been a good manager but he was greedy and stupid. How we have ended up with Southgate - nice chap but that is it - is incredible.
What Southgate has to do is work out a strategy for the World Cup. He can only pick players available to him - but he does have some good players available to him. He needs to forget that the England team should be the eleven best fit players in the country. Instead, he needs to identify the key players then work out the most effective team around that - which might mean selecting players who might be weaker in some aspects but have the attributes that the team needs. One of those attributes has to be goals - I'd say to Henderson for instance - start scoring goals or you are nowhere near my squad, despite your qualities. I'd say to my centre-halves that I want one in seven at least from them!
I just don't think he is the sort of manager that thinks like that. We are heading for same old same old.
Good post - totally agree. The bit about selecting the best 11 players - This is where is goes wrong all the time. Pick the best 11 that can play as a team. If for instance, Alli doesn’t fit in to that - don’t pick him. If you can’t find a number 10, don’t play that way. If the best holding midfielder happens to play for Watford, pick him. Time and time again we seem to play players out of position just to get them in the team. Rooney, Gerard (the lampard Gerard debate was a joke - just pick one and leave the other out) and scholes all spring to mind.
2002 World Cup. Injuries meant that Danny Mills, Trevor Sinclair and Owen Hargreaves got it. Guess what? They did well, they wanted it.
Are we not always playing for the following competition ? sure seems that way to me
No, quite the opposite.
IF we don't win a game or win it well or do badly at a tournement then it's all change, sack everyone, get some pride back, bring back the aging players who didn't do much when they played but hey, they play for big clubs, get stuck in, let's copy whoever won the last tournement, repeat to fade.
Long term = 10 to 15 or even 20 years. Look at Iceland or Germany. Long term plans and I think we are seeing something with the youth tournement success. Taking youth tournies seriously at last, not pulling players out of youth tournements for meaningless first team friendlies, have a manager who comes from the system and understands it.
Aim for 2022.
As @SDAddick said the other day... Hopefully they're finally doing this by having the Youth Teams coming through together which'll breed familiarity - What we'll need though is a Senior Manager who is prepared to drop underperforming / aging players for those ready from the U21s. As at the moment, the youth are coming through to the U21s together and then it suddenly stops
But we also have the problem of the actual top league game time and experience our U23's and 21's get compared to the top countries. Can't remember where I read it recently but the other Countries youngsters actually regularly play top level league football for their clubs. They get far more real experience than ours. Where ours get hovered up by the likes of Chelsea to play the occasional league cup game or maybe get loaned out to a lower league in the hope Chelsea can make a profit out of them.
We have decent enough wing backs who are fit enough to do 90 mins of the running.
We have poor CBs so having an extra one in there will help us out.
We have a poor midfield which would benefit from freedom knowing there are 5 defenders behind them and we have two decent forwards in Kane and Rashford.
It's our only chance of doing alright in the World Cup.
Only problem is I don't think our players are tactically aware so not sure they could pull it off.
The prem isn't built for tactics. It's built for forest gumps.
We have decent enough wing backs who are fit enough to do 90 mins of the running.
We have poor CBs so having an extra one in there will help us out.
We have a poor midfield which would benefit from freedom knowing there are 5 defenders behind them and we have two decent forwards in Kane and Rashford.
It's our only chance of doing alright in the World Cup.
Only problem is I don't think our players are tactically aware so not sure they could pull it off.
The prem isn't built for tactics. It's built for forest gumps.
Well since Chelsea's success with playing 352, more and more teams are playing that way now, certainly Arsenal, Spurs and occasionally City these days, so i don't see why the national team can't adjust and play that way too
Formations have to fit the players you have. I don't see why the national team can't adjust to it either. That doesn't mean we should do it, but we do have to find something that is going to give us half a chance in a major championships.
We have decent enough wing backs who are fit enough to do 90 mins of the running.
We have poor CBs so having an extra one in there will help us out.
We have a poor midfield which would benefit from freedom knowing there are 5 defenders behind them and we have two decent forwards in Kane and Rashford.
It's our only chance of doing alright in the World Cup.
Only problem is I don't think our players are tactically aware so not sure they could pull it off.
The prem isn't built for tactics. It's built for forest gumps.
Well since Chelsea's success with playing 352, more and more teams are playing that way now, certainly Arsenal, Spurs and occasionally City these days, so i don't see why the national team can't adjust and play that way too
Players get used to playing all sorts of formations. 352 was fashionable in the 90s (England played that way for a while) then went out of fashion, with everyone preferring 4 at the back, whether 451 442 4231 4411, 41212 etc
Chelsea get great success with 3 at the back (do they play 343 or 3421 ?) so 3 at the back is en vogue again...
Jack Butland set to play today against Lithuania...
This'll be the sort of game where I want to see him make a 100 saves (all of which should be impossible for any other 'keeper) with Harry Kane scoring at the death (no doubt the latter will happen)
What Southgate has to do is work out a strategy for the World Cup. He can only pick players available to him - but he does have some good players available to him. He needs to forget that the England team should be the eleven best fit players in the country. Instead, he needs to identify the key players then work out the most effective team around that - which might mean selecting players who might be weaker in some aspects but have the attributes that the team needs.
I just don't think he is the sort of manager that thinks like that. We are heading for same old same old.
I mostly agree with this. Southgate currently has a bit of the Robinsons about him; he's shackled to this 4-2-3-1 he likes at the moment with two holding midfielders regardless of the level of the opposition. We aren't playing to our strengths. At present we have an array of very decent fullbacks who are either good enough at defending or quick enough to play as attacking wingbacks. We also have a lack of consistent and effective wingers; Sterling is an inconsistent impact player and Oxlade-Chamberlain is lucky to be in the squad. Rashford is a striker. We don't have much in the way of 10s either. Lallana is decent but Alli is morphing into more of a second striker and he seems lost when asked to be the creative fulcrum; there's a reason Eriksen has that responsibility for Spurs. That means we're setting up with two plodders in Dier and Henderson, wingers who struggle to affect the game and no real creative focal point.
We'd be much better off setting up with three at the back with any of Rose, Walker, Trippier or Bertrand (less so) providing the width. We can then afford to put in a midfield three with Lallana being protected by someone like Dier or Henderson. If he starts playing this season I wouldn't hate the idea of Drinkwater in there to move the ball forward more quickly than the likes of Dier and Henderson ever do. Up front we can have Kane and Rashford, with Vardy available to use his pace as well. Not all the players in there are the best we have but the system would suit our current strengths, which are pace and strength, and cover our glaring weakness in creativity in midfield.
I agree with a lot of this, and yet I think there are a lot of problems here too, not necessarily because of your argument, but because of the players England have at their disposal.
First off, I agree I think going to 3 at the back makes a lot of sense. England have a lot of center backs who are much of a muchness, and most of them are playing in a back three for their clubs.
But, as you say England have a lot of erratic wingers, I'd argue they have equally erratic fullbacks. Walker is great if he has lots of space to run in to. As we see time and again with him at international level, he doesn't. Rose is good going forward but he can be gotten at defensively, which is an argument for a back Three. Trippier is as yet unproven at international level and while he's a good crosser of the ball, I think a handful of good performances last year have paper over the facts that he's not a great defender.
With a back three, you still have the problem of needing two central midfielders. I just can't see Lallana being one of them. He's never played there in his career, when he's played centrally it's been in a high tempo 4-3-3 where he has Henderson and Can and Wijnaldum (probably spelled that wrong) for cover. Leaving him in there with just Dier I think England would be vulnerable through the middle.
Moving further forward, I do not agree that Rashford is a striker. He's played most of his senior football on the wing because he can be erratic but it's also where he can take on his man and beat him, the thing he's best at. Short or a fit and firing Sturridge, I don't see England as having another center forward worth playing from the start. So for me that means a 3-4-3 makes the most sense. At that point you'd be picking two from Lallana, Dele, Sterling, Rashford, and Ox. I think in games against more attacking teams that could work quite well.
But, England aren't struggling against attacking teams. They're struggling against sides who sit deep and who are difficult to break down. And switching to a back three, taking one of the creative players off the pitch, I'm not convinced improves that. Against teams who sit deep Walker looks thoroughly mediocre, and I don't think him as a wing back changes that--if anything, in a 3-5-2 the opposition winger and fullback could double up on him and cut out England's width entirely. That central midfield two and it's lack of creativity is a problem in a back three or a back four.
I think it'd really important to remember that on Thursday night England were missing their two most creative players in Dele and Lallana. I'm not saying things will be perfect once they're back but I do think it will help. The problem remains though, are England able to break down packed defenses? And to be fair, on Thursday night they eventually did. Now, in the World Cup teams like Slovenia probably won't be taking off holding midfielders for attackers, but that is the type of team England need to break down. I'd argue there's not a huge difference in quality between Slovenia, and Wales, Slovakia, and Iceland, the latter three England struggled to break down in the Euros.
It's different , fair play to Southgate for trying something else I guess.
Helps that weve Qualified so wont matter what happens today... Even still though we could beat Lithuania 10-0 with this line-up yet come the friendlies we'll go back to the same boring team
Even if we play Outer Mongolia in the first World Cup game we wouldnt take this sort of risk
We have decent enough wing backs who are fit enough to do 90 mins of the running.
We have poor CBs so having an extra one in there will help us out.
We have a poor midfield which would benefit from freedom knowing there are 5 defenders behind them and we have two decent forwards in Kane and Rashford.
It's our only chance of doing alright in the World Cup.
Only problem is I don't think our players are tactically aware so not sure they could pull it off.
The prem isn't built for tactics. It's built for forest gumps.
Well since Chelsea's success with playing 352, more and more teams are playing that way now, certainly Arsenal, Spurs and occasionally City these days, so i don't see why the national team can't adjust and play that way too
Players get used to playing all sorts of formations. 352 was fashionable in the 90s (England played that way for a while) then went out of fashion, with everyone preferring 4 at the back, whether 451 442 4231 4411, 41212 etc
Chelsea get great success with 3 at the back (do they play 343 or 3421 ?) so 3 at the back is en vogue again...
It seems that we will be playing 3-4-2-1 today, a Chelsea type formation
Yeah fair enough. The two big things for me are Winks and how an attacking three if Rashford, Kane, and Alli do.
The other one to watch I'd say would be Michael Keane, but given its Lithuania I think there's only so much that can be learned from a defender. His passing and ability on the ball perhaps, but I'd like to see him get a run out in one of the friendlies.
Yeah fair enough. The two big things for me are Winks and how an attacking three if Rashford, Kane, and Alli do.
The other one to watch I'd say would be Michael Keane, but given its Lithuania I think there's only so much that can be learned from a defender. His passing and ability on the ball perhaps, but I'd like to see him get a run out in one of the friendlies.
Almost just stuck one in his own net! Solid player though, def deserves his chance.
Comments
I just don't think he is the sort of manager that thinks like that. We are heading for same old same old.
We'd be much better off setting up with three at the back with any of Rose, Walker, Trippier or Bertrand (less so) providing the width. We can then afford to put in a midfield three with Lallana being protected by someone like Dier or Henderson. If he starts playing this season I wouldn't hate the idea of Drinkwater in there to move the ball forward more quickly than the likes of Dier and Henderson ever do. Up front we can have Kane and Rashford, with Vardy available to use his pace as well. Not all the players in there are the best we have but the system would suit our current strengths, which are pace and strength, and cover our glaring weakness in creativity in midfield.
2002 World Cup. Injuries meant that Danny Mills, Trevor Sinclair and Owen Hargreaves got it. Guess what? They did well, they wanted it.
We have decent enough wing backs who are fit enough to do 90 mins of the running.
We have poor CBs so having an extra one in there will help us out.
We have a poor midfield which would benefit from freedom knowing there are 5 defenders behind them and we have two decent forwards in Kane and Rashford.
It's our only chance of doing alright in the World Cup.
Only problem is I don't think our players are tactically aware so not sure they could pull it off.
The prem isn't built for tactics. It's built for forest gumps.
Chelsea get great success with 3 at the back (do they play 343 or 3421 ?) so 3 at the back is en vogue again...
From what i've read it seems Southgate is going to play 3 at the back in Lithuania, along with (finally) giving Butland a chance in goal.
This'll be the sort of game where I want to see him make a 100 saves (all of which should be impossible for any other 'keeper) with Harry Kane scoring at the death (no doubt the latter will happen)
First off, I agree I think going to 3 at the back makes a lot of sense. England have a lot of center backs who are much of a muchness, and most of them are playing in a back three for their clubs.
But, as you say England have a lot of erratic wingers, I'd argue they have equally erratic fullbacks. Walker is great if he has lots of space to run in to. As we see time and again with him at international level, he doesn't. Rose is good going forward but he can be gotten at defensively, which is an argument for a back Three. Trippier is as yet unproven at international level and while he's a good crosser of the ball, I think a handful of good performances last year have paper over the facts that he's not a great defender.
With a back three, you still have the problem of needing two central midfielders. I just can't see Lallana being one of them. He's never played there in his career, when he's played centrally it's been in a high tempo 4-3-3 where he has Henderson and Can and Wijnaldum (probably spelled that wrong) for cover. Leaving him in there with just Dier I think England would be vulnerable through the middle.
Moving further forward, I do not agree that Rashford is a striker. He's played most of his senior football on the wing because he can be erratic but it's also where he can take on his man and beat him, the thing he's best at. Short or a fit and firing Sturridge, I don't see England as having another center forward worth playing from the start. So for me that means a 3-4-3 makes the most sense. At that point you'd be picking two from Lallana, Dele, Sterling, Rashford, and Ox. I think in games against more attacking teams that could work quite well.
But, England aren't struggling against attacking teams. They're struggling against sides who sit deep and who are difficult to break down. And switching to a back three, taking one of the creative players off the pitch, I'm not convinced improves that. Against teams who sit deep Walker looks thoroughly mediocre, and I don't think him as a wing back changes that--if anything, in a 3-5-2 the opposition winger and fullback could double up on him and cut out England's width entirely. That central midfield two and it's lack of creativity is a problem in a back three or a back four.
I think it'd really important to remember that on Thursday night England were missing their two most creative players in Dele and Lallana. I'm not saying things will be perfect once they're back but I do think it will help. The problem remains though, are England able to break down packed defenses? And to be fair, on Thursday night they eventually did. Now, in the World Cup teams like Slovenia probably won't be taking off holding midfielders for attackers, but that is the type of team England need to break down. I'd argue there's not a huge difference in quality between Slovenia, and Wales, Slovakia, and Iceland, the latter three England struggled to break down in the Euros.
Even if we play Outer Mongolia in the first World Cup game we wouldnt take this sort of risk
The other one to watch I'd say would be Michael Keane, but given its Lithuania I think there's only so much that can be learned from a defender. His passing and ability on the ball perhaps, but I'd like to see him get a run out in one of the friendlies.