Hodgson said on ITV before the game that a draw is more than fine for him. We were set up to defend and not to attack.

Yes it was a weak squad and expectations that we'd struggle to get out of the group proved to be bang on, but weak squad or not Hodgson has a lot to answer for in what he was trying to do, not because it didn't work (none of us expected a lot from this tournament), but in the decision making and logic he applied.

Looking to the future and blooding younger players is great, but you're not going to learn anything by having them running around like headless chickens in out of position roles infront of a weak back four. Without doubt Johnson, Terry, Cole and A.N.Other would have been a stronger backline than the one he chose. Without a strong(ish) platform at the back in counter attacking weather conditions where you need quick ball and pace to get into the opposition half you'll learn very little about the young un's capabilities when the ball is forever going backwards or sideways inside our own half. I saw nothing in the three pre tournament friendlies to suggest their was a gameplan to play quick, counter attacking football in humid conditions

ITV just asked Hoddle if he would take the England job again.

His reply: who knows?

England had far more possession and far more chances than Uruguay. They were just naive and lacked cutting edge as always. They were really going after the game once they equalised though. In no way was that a particularly defensive set up.

I'd give Hoddle the job again. He had England playing some great football when he was in charge...I think we'd have won Euro 2000 if he was not unfairly and unjustly ran out of town!

You do seem to have quite a habit of thinking England are going to win everything though...

...until they don't.

Hoddle spoke a lot of sense in that interview. Even with the Gerrard stuff, even though Gerrard clearly has had his time, his point of Pirlo proving you can be old and good is spot on.

Pirlo's style of football is more suited to playing on til his late 30s than Gerrard's is. I also think Pirlo is a far more intelligent and skilful footballer than Gerrard.

Which again begs the question over his squad selection at the back.

The guy is dillusional to boot. I'm not sure how else to describe it listening to his post match interviews and his pre tournament assesment of the three friendlies.

Also, with Hoddle, when is the last time he's actually managed a team? And will he still insist on making the players do all this wacky new-age bullshit as part of match preps?

Hoddle was the victim of a witchunt...the man had England on fire when he was in charge...I think we would have beat the Netherlands, and ran Brazil close in 98, but bit of a recurring theme we were cheated by the Argentinans and the ref. Some things never change!

To be honest, against Italy at least, we played some composed possession football at times, which is exactly what we should be doing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with backward and sideways passing. You can't expect every spell of possession to end up with a shot on goal or an all out attack. England have been playing fast-paced football for years and it has gotten us nowhere. Sometimes, you have to simply keep the ball. If there's no defence-splitting pass on or no one further forward in a position to receive the ball, there is nothing wrong with knocking it back, keeping the ball and gradually working your way up the pitch again - it's what nearly all the top teams do.

Our problem is that we are too direct and always try and force things rather than create openings and pull players out of position. We just try and batter teams with long balls and quick wingers who try and take on one man too many. We barely play through the middle at all. We are obsessed with getting the ball wide, running to the line and smashing hopeful balls across the box... and all of this at breakneck speed, which ends up leaving our players exhausted.

I genuinely think Roy was trying to slow us down and play some possession football against Italy and it wasn't a bad performance at all. Unfortunately, against Uruguay, the players just reverted back to the same old kick and rush rubbish. It's in our mentality and nothing will ever change all the time the public demand this "passionate" 100mph crap that has seen us picked off on the counter again and again. We are predictable and easy to defend against and we can't open teams up. That's the English way and I doubt any manager could change it.

Gerrard is not, and has never been, in the same league as a player like Pirlo.

The best point Hoddle made in that interview was about our total inability to open teams up.

UTTER BULLSHIT!!!

Pirlo couldn't lace Gerrard's boots!

Maybe in an alternative universe somewhere, but not here on planet earth.

It wasn't Hodgson's fault that the defenders didn't defend though.
A defensive error was what cost us and there's nothing Roy Hodgson could have done about that.

Looking at all England manager's win percentages I am very surprised to see that Glen Hoddle as the England manager actually has the highest percentage of wins (60.7%) since Sir Alf Ramsey (61.1%) than any other England manager, apart from Fabio Capello who has the highest win percentage of any England manager with 66.7%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England...l_team_manager

But in that interview Glenn Hoddle spoke of continuing to depend on Steven Gerrard, which I know many would disagree with.

0/10 trolling.

Nope but it was Hodgson's fault that we were set up defensively for the entire game. A defensive mistake is what cost us but we never had the offensive quality at the other end to score one more as we were put out to keep what we had instead of go for it.


I agree I just meant his overall point was right. International players can play till they're 35. It's because most of them aren't as good as people think they should be. It's an excuse. People say Gerrard is too old. He isn't he just isn't as good. Which is perfectly normal it's just that somebody needs to tell someone that.

If Hoddle got the job, it would be Kharma for what he did in a previous life.

That's because they're two different types of player. Liverpool's Pirlo equivalent was Alonso.

Hoddle would likely have the nous to utitlise him correctly, but I still want him to retire in order to prolong his career at Liverpool.

He'd need to consult Elieen Drewery first.

Why would he want to?

Gerrard is quite capable of lacing his own boots, whilst Pirlo continues to prove that he is the finest orchestrating midfielder in the world.

People seem to forget Hoddle's last stint as a manager ..


Hodgson definitely needs to go, but Hoddle isn't the answer. Thing is, I don't really know who is.