Normally agree with you but not on this one sorry.

The 1st goal came about from him giving the ball away and then going half hearted into a tackle and coming off second best. Just like he had earlier in a challenge with Suarez.

Not going to blame him for the second, he was unlucky with the header and poor defending cost us.

Just think he hasn't shown up in either game and can't really see what he's been told to do, not created much going forward in this deep lying 'pirlo' role and haven't seen him make any crucial challenges.

Can agree on Johnson, he's dire.

Oh well.

What 'excuses'? It's factual. England have been at this kind of level for 40-odd years, it's nothing new.

The national team is nowhere near important enough to make the changes at club level that you suggest.

If anything, the influx of highly skilled, foreign players has increased the technical ability of the English players that do make it to the top level. Gareth Bale may be Welsh, but he came through the same system as the English players, and he plays for Real Madrid who can pretty much sign whoever they want.

This replay shows it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2T89AI70_8

Yes Gerrard got on the end of the ball but only because a Uruguay player went up for it too. And at the time the header happens.. Suarez is already along side our last man.. the other three too far forward and the rest was a piece of cake for him.

The pundits in the studio made a big deal of Suarez and his "genius" in spotting what was coming but imho it looks like standard football to me. Keeper hoofed the ball up. He saw a Uruguay player going up for the header and hoped it would come to him.. which it did. Standard poachers goal. England back four (or back one to be more accurate) were caught napping. Suarez was given too much freedom.

What could we have done differently? Perhaps we needed a John Terry or someone with a lot of experience at the back. But I think ultimately it was just football. Keeper got his kick right, the ball was headed back due to Uruguay pressure and Suarez being the type of player he is was always ready to receive and run.

Fair enough. I was specifically talking about the second goal, just to be clear.

Gerrard was awful but so were most of the team! There's no use in pointing out individual failures here. As a team we have failed yet again and that is what we should be concerned about!
Even though we lost to Italy there were some real positives for the future. Sadly, last night it was back to the 'old England' and back to square one again.

Very well put, I completely agree with every word you said.

I agree with you there, but it's never going to be important when most the the big PL teams and Championship teams are owned by foreign nationals, why would they want to help England knock out their own country.

Something needs to change. I'll use rugby as an example the Welsh team (I support England, btw) had been awful for about 10 years or so late 90's early 20's, but from 2006 they started to improve, clubs re organised, new training methods etc and went on to win 3 Grand Slams. They improved a lot, ok, now they've maybe stagnated a bit, but it can be done.

That paragraph sums it up. Italy didn't really press us and we didn't press Italy. It was a nice open game to watch with lots of chances in which they came out on top. Uruguay, on the other hand, were on us like mad dogs the moment our players got the ball, and we didn't know how to cope. Our front 4 were all caught in possession time and time again. To make things worse, we didn't alter our pressing game at all from the Italy game, but then I don't think we've ever had one under Hodgson.

I think that this is the crux of our different viewpoints.

In theory, there's nothing wrong with the example that you give, but in reality you can't apply it to football. International rugby is the absolute pinnacle of the sport. In comparison to football, club rugby garners very little interest.

In football, the Champions League is the pinnacle. All of the world's best players play in it, and there's huge money on offer, due to the enormous interest. International football is basically a pleasant distraction. Obviously, you can wish that this wasn't the case, but I don't see this state of affairs changing any time soon.

^ I agree with you, hence my suggestion that for perhaps 10 years or so English teams should concentrate on the International team and be given incentives by the FA for not thinking that the Champions league is the pinnacle.

Would you say that a footballer would rather win the Champions league or the WC?

In rugby we have the equivalent of the Champions League in the Heineken Cup, then we have the 6 Nations, I suppose the equivalent of the Euro's to an extent but played every year, thus allowing the International team to develop quicker, then we have the WC every 4 years, every player wants to win the WC in Rugby.

So in effect playing a major competition every year like the 6 nations is great because it allows better team management, and the "blooding" of new players in preparation for the WC. Perhaps English football could benefit from some sort of tournament every year.

Gerrards job is to sit infront of the back four and offer them protection, and he didn't do that. He looked unfit and stood around like it was a kick around in the park with his mates. Poor.

I think Hodgson should be getting a lot of the blame I'm afraid. Tactically England were totally outplayed. You might defend them against Italy by saying they were up against a better team and they had their chances. But yesterday was poor. It was a game in much cooler conditions, but England didn't seem to adapt. As was said above, Uruguay really hassled England, who in turn just stood off. As a Liverpool fan it was no surprise to me that a Gerrard-Henderson midfield would work. For all this talk about the 'amazing' Pirlo there's no way Prandelli would pick the 35 y/o in a 2 man midfield. He's got at least 2 other alongside him. England needed a 3rd midfielder. Did Hodgson not trust Barkley from the start? Was it so essential to play Welbeck? If you actually look at the Italy game, it's true England were dangerous at times, but it was largely on the counter attack against who weren't going to press hard in those conditions.

England's forwards didn't show very much interplay, but do you imagine a coach like Hodgson would have been focussing much on that? They need a new manager but I'm not sure a foreign manager would impose themselves in the way that is needed. Rio was right, the last England manager who imposed himself was Hoddle. There just isn't a quality English option who would take the job. If Redknapp is too controversial a choice, the best bet might be to try and get Hiddink on a 2 year deal to go into the Euros. Top coach experienced in international football, speaks fluent English and has worked with English players in the PL. Would they win the Euros? Probably not but they might be watchable.

As you know, there are major international football tournaments every 2 years, so I don't see that having one every year would make a particularly radical difference.

As for whether players would rather win the World Cup or the Champions League, I think that it's a moot question. Only players from a handful of nations will ever get the chance to really compete for the World Cup, regardless of their own ability. Best, Giggs and Bale are obvious examples of extremely talented players who will never get close to winning a World Cup, no matter how good they are. By contrast, all players have the possibility of winning the Champions League, if they are good enough.

As for the FA incentivising clubs to concentrate on the national team, I don't see how that could ever work. The clubs are businesses, and are not run for the benefit of any national team. Any financial subsidy from the FA wouldn't be sustainable, and the 'brand awareness' (*shudder*) of the clubs would drop substantially over this 10 year period, so I don't see any benefit to them.

The goal was entirely his fault and he has been a waste of a jersey in this world cup along with the anonymous Henderson. Gerrard effectively ended Liverpool's title challenge and now has practically put England out the world cup.

How are Gerrard and Henderson supposed to cope against 3 or 4 man midfields? The biggest problem was tactics.

Hodgson has never been about pressing high up the pitch, his tactics at Liverpool were always negative - two lines of four dropping deep as the game went on. It was shite to watch.

He's had a degree of success as a coach but only working with average players. Lasted 2 years at Inter, 1 at Blackburn (when they were an ambitious team lest we forget) and 6 months at Liverpool. Says it all.

I think what annoyed me most in this WC and the warm up games, to which everyone said "don't worry, we'll be much better in the WC" was the very pedestrian way we go about our football, pass left, pass right, pass back to the centre, then try a long kick to a winger who has about 3 players ready to jump on him. The amount of times Wellbeck and Baines took the ball down the left only to be forced off the ball was embarrassing. Surely you run down the wing then cross into the box, thats your job, don't worry about players being there to receive it, thats their job.

Another thing that annoyed me was at one point, Hart saved a goal and was busy picking to up etc, and there was about 5 English players in our box, what the hell!, soon as it was safe, they should of been getting back up field to attack, not watching the goalie pick up the ball.

Welbeck spent more time running backwards than forwards. England had 62% of possession, it's what they did, or didn't do with the ball that mattered. Gerrard, Henderson, Sterling and Welbeck were empty shirts. At 1-1 you shut up shop and take the draw, you don't make a schoolboy errors like Gerrard did.

When Luis Aragones took over the Spanish team, he got rid of Raul and Guti - their influence over the team was too much. The same should apply to Gerrard now, whoever comes in or if Roy stays, they should drop him. He's had a brilliant season at Liverpool but his role for England is slightly different to that for Pool, no point in playing him when his influence isn't the same for country as it is for club.

Well that's fine considering average players is all he has to work with now.

A manager should not have to tell an international backline to drop back to cover a run. A manager should not have to tell an international backline to close down a cross. That's how we lost last night. 10 year olds would have embarrassed by the defending on display last night.

I'd be pretty sure that Gerrard will retire, meaning that he won't need to be dropped.

Mostly agree with this and said as much after the Italy game. Ideally we need three in the middle but the problem is that ATM both Barkley and Wilshire give the ball away too much. I do see a future where they and Henderson/the Ox will be part of a formidble middle but the timing was off.

Also, could we really trust Rooney or Sturridge or Lambert to play as the sole front man in a 4-5-1? Rooney gets isolated that way, Lambert lacks the pace and Sturridge is better at beating his man not holding up the ball.

I do think Hodgson should have had the guts to sub Gerrard not Henderson but based on the players he picked I don't think any other formation would have bought more success.

I don't know - I can see him maybe trying to play the Euros. As a Pool fan I hope he does retire.

But surely as a captain you should turn around and tell the manager, "this ain't working". I know I keep going back to rugby, but even in the 2003 WC where England won, Martin Johnson (captain) turned around to Woodward (Manager) and told him "no, this is what we're going to do", when he thought Woodward was talking crap.