Quarter Finals

[Quaggas]

A bit late, but this alternate version was not trotted out, no?

[Ikki]

@ Uppercut, to be honest the crosses I am talking about were sitters. I know what you mean by a forward's movement often creating chances but he didn't have much movement, lateral or vertical, on the crosses I am talking about.

In the sense of you can't predict what Carroll would have done...sure. I just think it would have been very likely he'd have done better with the dead balls and some of the deliveries coming in. This was one tourney where the centred balls were actually quality for England. Obviously, not enough of them though.

[Uppercut]

@ Uppercut, to be honest the crosses I am talking about were sitters. I know what you mean by a forward's movement often creating chances but he didn't have much movement, lateral or vertical, on the crosses I am talking about.

That's nonsense, unless he was standing still for the entire match. Rooney tends to sit deep for most of the match so the defenders have to leave him to the midfielders and when he arrives in the box he's often not picked up as a result. The defenders aren't going to allow him a free header two yards out so if he gets such an easy chance he'll have to have lost them somewhere along the line.

Carroll's game is completely different, he stays up front all the time so one of the centre-backs can just follow him around constantly- although he doesn't really need to lose them because he tends to just bulldoze them out of the way instead, like for his brilliant goal against Sweden. The types of chances they get on the end of are bound up in their overall game and you'd be stupid to simply assume that Carroll would have been where Rooney was when he missed an easy chance.

That's not to say Carroll wouldn't have been better than Rooney had he started the game, though. He could hardly have been much worse.

[grecian]

Agree with Uppercut here, totally.

Oh and the tiresome hype continues.....

[Scaly piscine]

Rio having a whinge again. Apparently what we needed were *more* Manure players performing heroically badly.

[Ikki]

@ Uppercut, you've whittled down my point into an absurdity. Obviously he wasn't standing still but the kind of movement I am talking about in those headers in question weren't of a nature where I'd be saying "well, Carroll would've never made that run" for my point that Carroll would have finished those chances not to matter. I am considering his movement but it wasn't the kind that Carroll - or any forward at that level worth his salt - wouldn't do.

Take Rooney's miss-header from Young's cross, it is a nice, slightly late, run in the box but it's a stretch to call it some run. Carroll would've done the same and probably would've buried the chance. Or the Gerrard free kick which he half-assedly connected with. It's a two-metre straight run in the middle of the box. Although, Carroll was there on that play - far post, I think. On both he could've done far better and to excuse it as if somehow he made the chances with his intelligent running is just an underserving defense of his ineptitude.

It's speculation, subjective and arbitrary but to reiterate a bit more clearer: given the starting and finishing places of Rooney in those instances, I'd expect Carroll to not only make those runs but to head them far better. Also, Carroll doesn't stay up all the time. As a Liverpool fan, sometimes I wish he would. He's often come too deep and not made the long run in the box for there to be someone to aim to.

A correction: the Johnson cross he actually had very good movement. I must have been thinking of somebody else.

[Ikki]

Rio having a whinge again. Apparently what we needed were *more* Manure players performing heroically badly.

He's right though, and he isn't just pushing for United names (the opposite actually). Young continuously playing was disappointing/baffling. I rate Young but this wasn't his tourney. Milner at least made sense because of his work-rate which ties in with Hodgson's tactics. Ox wouldn't have been that big of a risk considering how Young was playing anyway. And Jones marking Pirlo is better than no one marking Pirlo. Those two actually could've - and probably should've - been given the chance to make the difference.

[Scaly piscine]

He's right though, and he isn't just pushing for United names (the opposite actually). Young continuously playing was disappointing/baffling. I rate Young but this wasn't his tourney. Milner at least made sense because of his work-rate which ties in with Hodgson's tactics. Ox wouldn't have been that big of a risk considering how Young was playing anyway. And Jones marking Pirlo is better than no one marking Pirlo. Those two actually could've - and probably should've - been given the chance to make the difference.

Pirlo is in a defender's position, so you've basically got to play Jones as a forward, where he's generally awful.

My main contention with the tactics was bringing Walcott on in the position he played. He was basically playing a defensive wing position due to England being camped in their own half - that doesn't suit his skill-set. I would actually have prefered Walcott to play up front to force Italy back up the pitch and he would have the energy to stay with Pirlo (bring him on for Rooney). Doesn't matter whether he could tackle or not, just stay in his face so he has to play it sideways. When England get the ball he would be in a position to run beyond the defence. Carroll can win the ball but that wasn't going to bother Italy when at best it will run onto Young or Rooney about 30-40 yards out. Who'll do **** all and lose it, if they actually manage to get into a decent position to get the second ball (England were awful at getting the second ball, if we're going to punt it you at least need 4 people up in the general area to have a reasonable chance of retaining possession - lack of outlets is why England camp themselves in their own half and give the ball away near instantly).

[Ikki]

Italy played a midfield diamond and Pirlo played the deep point (DM) and Montolivo played the front point (AM). So that is not really playing in defense. Especially since England didn't pressure high up the pitch like other teams to have forced Pirlo to come back and get the ball off his CB's feet. I would have used Henderson but Rio's suggestion of Jones isn't crazy. What was crazy was letting Pirlo run free. If there was a single tactical consideration that had to be made for Italy that was it. I don't think it can be criticised enough; even a child would've employed that tactic.

Your suggestion is interesting but IMO too much to expect of Walcott who has probably never played in the middle of a 3 (or the kind of behind the striker role you're suggesting) or had the assignment of marking a player like Pirlo in his life. Henderson and Jones would find it a far more natural ask. And, tbh, we're talking about Roy here; he'd never do something that bold.

His whole setup was for the wrong team. For a team like Spain which sit in your half and pass, having your middle 4 deep makes some sense. For a team like Italy, whose playmaker naturally sits deep and knocks balls over the top that tactic basically gave up any semblance of England contesting the match.

[sledger]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/n...ok_england2014

"If Pirlo was English, would he have even made the squad, let alone been on the pitch?"

But seriously, Rio you're such a tool.