Hodgson shows the way

Roy threw off his cautious, over-negative approach on Monday, selected youngsters with some pace and power, gave them a basic shape, told them he'd stick with it after training showed it suited them, gave them their head.....and what a transformation in effectiveness and entertainment-value.


 Were you watching, Dougie? (Ps: if you're going to retort that you haven't got players with a modicum of speed and physique, then start recruiting now.
 Don't need a huge budget to do this.)

 BSA showed the way in this regard, but you seem to want to disregard the foundations on which our most successful period was built and go for your own stubborn, "modern", crazy philosphy based more on a kind of lunatic version of Gary Kasparov)


I also liked the fact that Wayne was allowed to call players' meetings with no management or coaches present. Good on him. You could sense togetherness on the pitch. Innovation from Spudulike! Amazing!

The "I want there to be one chance, and we win 1-0" comment a couple of weeks ago turned my stomach.

Whether he plans to achieve this with a one up front system or a 4-4-2, I don't know. Either way, it's a stinking mentality and to voice it publicly as and when he did leads me to think he's an even bigger moron than I thought.

I thought the game was dull as dishwater, England set up to soak up pressure and play on the break, in the second half they were hanging on for dear life and the Swiss really should have had at least a goal.

effective on the break because they have pace with Spearing and Wellbeck, obviously credit to Roy for utilising those two but the praise in the OP is laughable IMO.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:I thought the game was dull as dishwater, England set up to soak up pressure and play on the break, in the second half they were hanging on for dear life and the Swiss really should have had at least a goal.

effective on the break because they have pace with Spearing and Wellbeck, obviously credit to Roy for utilising those two but the praise in the OP is laughable IMO.

The game was end to end, I don't know how you can suggest it was dull. Then again you're Scottish. What would you know about international football?

Well coming off that "blistering" performance against Norway I'm not surprised it entertained.

setting up to play on the break is the right idea for England clearly but to call it "positive" is going a bit far, it naturally means the team sits deeper and allows the other team to have the ball in certain areas, they should have paid for it too the Swiss had a lot of good chances.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

setting up to play on the break is the right idea for England clearly but to call it "positive" is going a bit far, it naturally means the team sits deeper and allows the other team to have the ball in certain areas, they should have paid for it too the Swiss had a lot of good chances.

I'm sick of your anti-English bile. I demand you set up your own Bolton Nuts north of the border.

Hipster, I think you'll find that the media and most fans on the BBC website do not agree with your reading of Monday's match. If you're going to compare with the Norway game, of course the performance against Switzerland looked sizzling......but that's the point!! The manager was able to change the whole approach for when it mattered. Do you see DF able to do likewise?

And this from someone who has doubted RH's ability from the outset....but credit where it's due.

I thought the England game was great and that the young team did better than expected against a decent Swiss side. Wilshere was poor and the return of Barkley in his place would strengthen the side further.
However the only thing that side have in common with BWFC is that the manager sets his team up for the players he has fit and available.
If we had the pace of Welbeck and Sterling and the all-round quality of the England midfield to work with it would be a different story but we don't and our young players - the ones that Okocha is suggesting Dougie might introduce - are nowhere near that level, at least not yet. 
I don't think meaningful comparisons are possible - unless you are just looking for a reason to nitpick over Dougie's selections without the benefit of watching players and systems being rehearsed in training - which is a pointless exercise as we'll never be as knowledgeable as the manager who picks the team.

Surely you'd agree that Dougie could adopt a less cautious, fearful approach, use each player in his optimum role and allow each the freedom to express himself. 

Conceding possession so readily puts unnecessary pressure on our shaky defence.

 Hodgson showed he could change fundamentals and succeed. Dougie would lose nothing by trying a bolder approach, as the negative one currently in place is not working anyway.

But the Hodgson method isn't "bolder." It's the same method Dougie uses, conceding possession and allowing the opposition to play in front of you, aiming to take them on the break. England were hanging on against the swiss because the "bolder" method you speak of put "unnecessary pressure" on their "shaky defence" 

the point about what players he uses and how is valid but to the actual tactics are the same.

Dougie won't change tack for anything or anyone. He is a tactical genius and who are we mere mortals to question his methods. Where would we be without that one point from our first 5 matches. We have to trust him and shore up our defences for the next 5 matches and who knows,we may even earn another point if we get lucky.

Change in what way though? We wanted 4-4-2. He's doing that. It's not working. 

It's obviously less about tactics and more about the players he employs.

Hipster, your estimation that the game was dull immediately casts doubt on your judgement. This is reinforced by your view that Hodgson's approach was no different from Dougie's in terms of caution and fearfulness.
 I would have agreed with you if we'd been talking about some of Roy's previous games in charge, but it was clear that the approach for the Swiss game showed a great change to a much more positive mindset which allowed the players to express themselves. 
Dougie could do worse than follow this lead, lift the shackles and play on the front foot. The actual formation was not the issue.

okocha wrote:Surely you'd agree that Dougie could adopt a less cautious, fearful approach, use each player in his optimum role and allow each the freedom to express himself. 

Conceding possession so readily puts unnecessary pressure on our shaky defence.

 Hodgson showed he could change fundamentals and succeed. Dougie would lose nothing by trying a bolder approach, as the negative one currently in place is not working anyway.

I think it's a nonsense that Dougie has a "cautious fearful/negative approach" simply because he requires midfielders to protect the back 4 when we are out of possession - that's called teamwork in my book.

They have plenty of freedom to express themselves when we're in possession but the players are just not that good.

Conceding possession is down to bad passing, control and movement - the basic skills - not bad management. 

And I'm sure that Dougie wishes he could afford better players who can keep the ball better and have the skill to get forward and score when we have possession but unfortunately he's been told that the club won't stump up for the last 10 or so players he's tried to get so he has to make do with whatever can be scraped off the bottom of the barrel - rather than having the choice of everyone eligible to play for England.

Liked what Roy did, but it's a completely different situation.

okocha wrote:Hipster, your estimation that the game was dull immediately casts doubt on your judgement. This is reinforced by your view that Hodgson's approach was no different from Dougie's in terms of caution and fearfulness.
 I would have agreed with you if we'd been talking about some of Roy's previous games in charge, but it was clear that the approach for the Swiss game showed a great change to a much more positive mindset which allowed the players to express themselves. 
Dougie could do worse than follow this lead, lift the shackles and play on the front foot. The actual formation was not the issue.

But you miss the point again, I assume on purpose. Roy does not "play on the front foot" 

the tactics were to let the swiss play in front of them (play on the back foot) and use their best assets (their pace up top) to hurt them on the break, which it did.

it also invited a hell of a lot of pressure that on another day, against a more ruthless team would have cost England big time.

If Dougie was to play this way he'd have to use players like Beckford, Hall, Chungy, Feeney at the expense of players like Trotter, Spearing, Medo etc. It would invite just as much if not more pressure on the defence than we have now with even less protection. But as with England put a bit more pressure on the wings of the opposition.

All well and good, I'd agree with more pace in the side, but don't pretend it's playing on the "front foot" It's not.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. That's not how I read the Hodgson approach last Monday.
 Dougie's is neatly summed up by "I want there to be one chance, and we win 1-0" ........and he expects fans to flock to the Macron to watch?? I was entertained by England's display.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying the only thing i disagree with is using the term "positive" for an approach which makes it absolutely necessary that you sit back and surrender the ball.

Don't forget the Swiss were also chasing the game, if it was 0-0 you'd have seen similar results to the Norway game. England are woeful in possession of the ball, as are Bolton. 

You could say Roy does it the right way with the personnel he's got and Dougie does it the wrong way. 

thats it really.

Ahh, now I agree with your last 2 sentences above. What I am suggesting is that, having failed with his current approach, DF may as well try to find a more attack-minded set of tactics that suit our squad better.  He can hardly do worse....and would be more likely to entertain in the process.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:
You could say Roy does it the right way with the personnel he's got and Dougie does it the wrong way. 

thats it really.

Well that's interesting - I may have to take issue with that Hipster.

In what way does Dougie "do it the wrong way with the personnel he's got"?

Or conversely, which personnel have given any evidence whatsoever that they could contribute more than their previous appearances suggest?

Moreover when did you start spending your entire week working with the players on fitness, training and systems?

Is this just armchair manager talk i.e. stating that player x would be better off playing in position y in system z?

If so, what makes you better qualified to make that decision than the team of people who watch all the players throughout the week?

I certainly didn't suggest my opinion, which is all it is, held any more or less weight than yours or anybody elses so I don't really understand the line of questioning. And I certainly didn't suggest I know more than the coaching staff.

It's an opinion. Like everything else written on this board.

If you're going to set up to soak up pressure and hit teams on the break, surely an attribute you'd want your front players to have is genuine pace and ability to run at players. Or at the very least a genuine hold up man who can relieve the pressure and allow midfield runners, I don't think we have either in the side. 

The one player who we've got who does that is Feeney he spends too much time on the bench for me, Rob Hall can also, don't rate him too highly but he's an outlet and is positive, Kellet we saw a glimpse of and he had that mindset. Beckford and Mason can both run in behind, chungy at times.