Why Iceland succeed .

[Major Isewater]

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

So I should have named this thread " why England failed " .

No one has really picked up on the fact that Iceland have been preparing for over four years and putting in the hard miles .

They are a TEAM .

 

Or ' Why England Suck '

[Trueredsupporter]

Nothing ridiculous about my post. none of this lot would get in that 96 team. sure Hart does loads of drills practicing shot stopping but is bang out of form. sure kane practises that free kick a lot. sure they practises pass and move. it still should have been enough to see off Iceland but at the end of the day while they do care England are not all that.

[robin_unreliant]

Hodgson picked too many players who were out of form. He didn't have a clue what system to play so neither did the team. You have to blame his coaching team too - unless he sidelined them which I doubt.

Yes, England are perennial bottlers at tournaments. However the manager sabotaged the team and made it even worse than usual. No leadership either on or off the pitch.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Brazil didn't get to the final. It was Argentina. 1-0 to Germany. 

Germany beat Brazil 7-1 before that

I put my hands up, I got it wrong... dumb mistake, but in my defence, the overall point is still valid.

[Major Isewater]

9 hours ago, Trueredsupporte said:

Nothing ridiculous about my post. none of this lot would get in that 96 team. sure Hart does loads of drills practicing shot stopping but is bang out of form. sure kane practises that free kick a lot. sure they practises pass and move. it still should have been enough to see off Iceland but at the end of the day while they do care England are not all that.

The part which I was referring to was the ' one win in ten ' for Iceland, which is clearly wrong .

The rest of your post I agree with .

No offence meant.

[Cunnyfunt]

21 hours ago, handsofclay1909 said:

What hasn't been touched upon is the fact that we don't produce world class players anymore. The Germans, Spanish, French and Italians export their players to other top leagues as well as having a fair few in their own domestic leagues. Who, in the top European leagues, ever put in a serious bid for English players? In fact, who can blame them as our own clubs in the Premier league are stuffed with foreign talent so our clubs don't rate English players that highly either. The one exception to this is when a young English player does display some talent and promise whereupon a top English club then purchases them for an inflated price...way, way above what any continental outfit would pay for them, pays them megabucks and they then have to compete with world class players to get a game and their promise is eroded.

Any English player who displays a modicum of talent is swiftly overhyped by our media who treat them as the second coming, the player who will spark England into achieving tournament success. The player and his agent are media savvy and jump on this bandwagon to earn more bucks and to create a brand. The English clubs then buy into this because they want that player associated with them because it sells more shirts etc. Unfortunately, the player usually believes the hype and starts to think they have a god given right to be in the England side. This contrasts sharply with the attitude of England's 1966 World cup winners, several of whom have said that when they put on the England shirt they felt so proud and fortunate because they knew that every schoolboy in the country, and every player at every level envied them.

We (England) produced Gareth Bale. Just a shame he's Welsh. 

[handsofclay]

55 minutes ago, Cunnyfunt said:

We (England) produced Gareth Bale. Just a shame he's Welsh. 

Therefore he escaped the pressure being placed upon him to take England to tournament success and all the hype that comes with it. He was able to just concentrate on being a great player. 

[BCFC_Dan]

Iceland had a plan and the players understood it.

They are basically, without wanting to be rude, a Pulis side. They have technically limited players so they play a simple game. Solid at the back, direct going forward and physically robust. Each player knows what he should be doing and he does it.

England had a plan throughout qualifying and they stuck to it. Then in the approach to the tournament there was suddenly clamour to include Kane, Alli and Vardy, which on form was fair enough, but to put them in the team required the system to be changed. Suddenly the players no longer knew their exact roles and had to get used to playing in a new system. Wayne Rooney was given a new position altogether and while I think he's well-suited to it it was a big change to introduce without much preparation.

On top of plan A being brand new, there was no real plan B. I have no idea why Barkley was taken if he wasn't going to be used at all. I don't know why we needed so many identikit midfielders who have technical ability but do not, as Gary Johnson would say, affect the game. Did we really need Henderson, Milner, Wilshire and Lallana? Why not Townsend, who was in fine form and does affect games? And why not Andy Carroll, who may not be the best player we ever produced but at least offers an alternative way of playing.

I'm disappointed with the players but 100% of the blame for England goes to Hodgson. He took the wrong players, changed the system, destroyed their confidence and failed to motivate them when they most needed it. At half time against Iceland we were behind but playing OK. We were keeping the ball and creating chances. Another 45 minutes of that and they'd have cracked. All he needed to do was get them to be calm and patient. I don't know what he did say at half time but it had the opposite effect. Then he just sat there, paralysed by fear.