Hodgson mounts defence of England tactics

[Jonathan Fairfield]

Hodgson mounts defence of England tactics

England manager Roy Hodgson says he has no regrets about his team selection at the World Cup despite his side being eliminated after back-to-back defeats by Italy and Uruguay.

Former England striker Gary Lineker has asserted that Hodgson "got it wrong" by opting for a 4-2-3-1 formation that saw Liverpool team-mates Steven Gerrard and Jordan Henderson aligned in central midfield.

Lineker felt that England were outnumbered in midfield as a result and said that Hodgson's side would have been better served by a 4-3-3 system, but the manager stood by his tactical choices.

"In the first game (against Italy) we played with Raheem Sterling in behind Daniel Sturridge and he was quite often in a fairly deep position around Andrea Pirlo and Daniele De Rossi," Hodgson said.

"In the second game we had Wayne Rooney doing a similar job. So if you suggest having more in midfield means one behind a four (4-1-4-1), that's an opinion, but I don't think it would have made a big difference.

"I didn't get the impression we were overrun in midfield in either game. But the teams were more clinical, their finishing was better than ours, and they took their chances.

"If we win, people will say that's good and we like what you did. If we don't, people will find things to pick holes in."

- No moping around -

Hodgson admitted that the blow of falling at the first hurdle had been hard to take but said he was determined to boost morale in the camp.

"Certainly I haven't been moping around, staring at the wall," he said when asked how he had spent his time since England's 2-1 loss to Uruguay on Thursday.

"I had a bad night and a bad day following the game. But my job leading the team is to pull myself out of that and make sure the players aren't suffering in the same way, give them some of the qualities I've got.

"So I've been working hard to make sure people do get out of it, try and find the mental, physical and emotional strength to move on."

Hodgson has twice finished on the losing side in European club finals -- with Inter Milan in the 1997 UEFA Cup and Fulham in the 2010 Europa League -- but he said that this was his lowest moment in management.

"I had two European cup final defeats. That was pretty tough," he said.

"And losing the job at Liverpool as well. I've had other moments. But this is England -- a job that means so much to me and so many people, a massive job. So yes, this is the worst."

However, he said that he had no intention of revisiting his decision to remain in his role until the 2016 European Championship.

"No, I shan't change my mind. I see no reason to resign," he said.

"I feel an allegiance to the players and the staff. I think we work well together. I accept this campaign has not been good.

"I'm grateful I've not been made that scapegoat and that people think I can take the team forward, and that's what I will be doing."

England play Costa Rica in their final group game on Tuesday.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2014-06-23

[StevieH]

"I didn't get the impression we were overrun in midfield in either game" - utterly delusional.

"I'm grateful I've not been made that scapegoat" - and there you have it. that's hodgson in a nutshell that.

[P45Mustang]

Seems to be remarkably skilled at self preservation.

As for tactical acumen on a football pitch....you are having a larf.

I wouldn't want him putting the cones out for training games at Chelsea.

FA management will listen to, or accept his inadequacy, unfortunately.

[StevieH]

"remarkably skilled at self preservation" is a pre-requisite for working at the FA. greg dyke excels in it. basically you have to have failed in at least one top job previously and then be prepared to throw anyone and everyone out of the boat when it becomes clear you are just as incapable at your job at the FA.

[P45Mustang]

"remarkably skilled at self preservation" is a pre-requisite for working at the FA. greg dyke excels in it. basically you have to have failed in at least one top job previously and then be prepared to throw anyone and everyone out of the boat when it becomes clear you are just as incapable at your job at the FA.

Unfortunately

You are spot on.

[bigbamboo]

"remarkably skilled at self preservation" is a pre-requisite for working at the FA. greg dyke excels in it. basically you have to have failed in at least one top job previously and then be prepared to throw anyone and everyone out of the boat when it becomes clear you are just as incapable at your job at the FA.

And when all else fails he can always recall Roland Rat.

[Travel2003]

I think it is a bit too much talk about formations, whether it is a 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 2-2-6 (maybe not, lol), etc.

Each and every individual player will have his assigned task anyway, as long as the formation is not totally out of wack (as 2-2-6).

England will not be as good as Brazil, just because they change their formations.

The individuals are just not good enough.

[cyborgx]

I don't consider myself an expert, but I was very concerned when I saw the selection of 23 players, NONE of which were out and out attacking wingers. This seemed to leave him with fewer options and a very narrow attack (hence easily defended, thus no goals), or playing fullbacks as wingback, and leaving only the central defence of 2 + Gerrard...... again frequently leaving our rear flanks defenceless.

Edited June 23, 2014 by cyborgx

[stevenl]

He could have done the same as the Dutch, just parked the bus. English defense would even be stronger than that of the Dutch, problem is the Dutch offense with Van Persie and Robben is unique.

[P45Mustang]

Formations and the importance of:

Messi said to the Argentine manager after their first game: i think we should play 4-3-3 next game.

What do Messi and Lineker know?

Yep. You got it. A lot less than Hodgson.

[Travel2003]

So the formations that was chosen, is the reason for England's failure?

[P45Mustang]

It's complex.

This is interesting.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27963599

[hanno]

So the formations that was chosen, is the reason for England's failure?

No, the reason was lousy defense and no real commitment to win on the English side.

[Travel2003]

It's complex.

This is interesting.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27963599

Agree very complex.

Remember the discussions around what formation Man Utd really played with, during their the period they had their best performance.

Lined up with a 4-4-2, but looked like they played with a 2 central def - 2wing backs - 2Midfielders - 2wings - 2Strikers, which would make the system 2-2-2-2-2.

And when Chelsea was high flying with their 4-3-3 line up, but really looked like something different as soon as the game started.

Personally, I think the experts put a too much importance into what they call the system/line up.

[P45Mustang]

It's complex.

This is interesting.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27963599

Agree very complex.

Remember the discussions around what formation Man Utd really played with, during their the period they had their best performance.

Lined up with a 4-4-2, but looked like they played with a 2 central def - 2wing backs - 2Midfielders - 2wings - 2Strikers, which would make the system 2-2-2-2-2.

And when Chelsea was high flying with their 4-3-3 line up, but really looked like something different as soon as the game started.

Personally, I think the experts put a too much importance into what they call the system/line up.

Better raise your concerns with Clarence Seedorf, van Gaal and Mourinho then.

Wouldn't want them to make any mistakes, would we.

[Travel2003]

It's complex.

This is interesting.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27963599

Agree very complex.

Remember the discussions around what formation Man Utd really played with, during their the period they had their best performance.

Lined up with a 4-4-2, but looked like they played with a 2 central def - 2wing backs - 2Midfielders - 2wings - 2Strikers, which would make the system 2-2-2-2-2.

And when Chelsea was high flying with their 4-3-3 line up, but really looked like something different as soon as the game started.

Personally, I think the experts put a too much importance into what they call the system/line up.

Better raise your concerns with Clarence Seedorf, van Gaal and Mourinho then.

Wouldn't want them to make any mistakes, would we.

Well, if any of them fail to deliver, there will be a lot of famous x-players, and of course the sacked managers, in a studio, discussing why they failed.

[P45Mustang]

Hodgson's not been sacked.

Immunity guaranteed by Greg Dyke.