HEROES IN WAITING ... subs can make the difference
IF I was Roy Hodgson I’d name an unchanged starting line-up for England’s Euro 2012 quarter-final clash against Italy on Sunday.
Yes, I would stick with the same formation that started Tuesday’s 1-0 win over Ukraine.
But I would not be surprised if NONE of those 11 players ended up as our hero against the Italians.
That starring role could quite conceivably be filled by one of the dozen understudies on the bench.
That is because as well as an effective formation, a new-found defensive resilience, rediscovered national pride and qualifying for the last eight as group winners, one of the other major plusses about England at this tournament has been our surprising strength in depth.
Not many critics expected that when Hodgson’s 23-man party was dubbed “the weakest England squad ever to go to a major tournament.” With stars like Gary Cahill and Frank Lampard dropping like flies, and Wayne Rooney suspended for the first two matches, some reckoned the Three Lions would not have a team to compete at these finals, let alone a squad.
How wrong they were.
Or rather, how Hodgson and his players have proved them wrong. For the first time in ages, England have shown at a major competition that we not only have a starting line-up capable of mixing it with the best, we also have subs who can.
Subs like Theo Walcott, Andy Carroll and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, who have already left their mark on this tournament.
Others like Jermain Defoe, who you know can sniff a chance out of nothing. We have options like rarely before. That is why — even despite our unconvincing performance against Ukraine — I believe we should field an unchanged team and stick with the same way of playing.
Some say it is 4-4-1-1, rather than 4-4-2. I say it is more 4-4-1-1-12.
It is not about the team, it is about the squad. We don’t just have options 1-11, we have options virtually 1-23. I have heard calls for Hodgson to replace James Milner with Walcott on the right of midfield — after that substitution worked a treat for the final 30 minutes against Sweden.
I’ve also heard Carroll should be brought in for Danny Welbeck. Nothing against the players involved, but I would reject both suggestions.
Yes, we did not play well against Ukraine, but we won.
Milner may not have had his best game, but he played a part in that and the previous victories, providing the defensive stability we require down the right to counter full-back Glen Johnson’s attacking tendencies.
Similarly with Welbeck. He was not at his best against Ukraine. But neither was he so bad that he deserves to be dropped. That is unfortunate for Carroll, who was excellent against Sweden when he scored the opening goal in the 3-2 win.
I have no doubts he will feature at some point against Italy as their defenders will not fancy playing against him at all. And he is a great weapon to have on your bench.
Nobody is saying England have to wait until the last 15 minutes before making changes. If things are not going right, Roy will switch it sooner.
It is all too easy to say the manager should make changes and be more adventurous. But under Hodgson we now have a formation that is proving effective, if not entertaining.
I hardly changed my starting line-up at all during Euro 96.
The more you can keep a steady side the better. You have to keep the momentum going.
I am not saying Hodgson’s starting line-ups are setting Euro 2012 alight. But tournament football is no longer just about the first XI.
Substitutes are more important than ever. And England have some who could take us into the semis.
But I would not be surprised if NONE of those 11 players ended up as our hero against the Italians.
That starring role could quite conceivably be filled by one of the dozen understudies on the bench.
That is because as well as an effective formation, a new-found defensive resilience, rediscovered national pride and qualifying for the last eight as group winners, one of the other major plusses about England at this tournament has been our surprising strength in depth.
Not many critics expected that when Hodgson’s 23-man party was dubbed “the weakest England squad ever to go to a major tournament.” With stars like Gary Cahill and Frank Lampard dropping like flies, and Wayne Rooney suspended for the first two matches, some reckoned the Three Lions would not have a team to compete at these finals, let alone a squad.
How wrong they were.
Or rather, how Hodgson and his players have proved them wrong. For the first time in ages, England have shown at a major competition that we not only have a starting line-up capable of mixing it with the best, we also have subs who can.
Subs like Theo Walcott, Andy Carroll and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, who have already left their mark on this tournament.
Others like Jermain Defoe, who you know can sniff a chance out of nothing. We have options like rarely before. That is why — even despite our unconvincing performance against Ukraine — I believe we should field an unchanged team and stick with the same way of playing.
Some say it is 4-4-1-1, rather than 4-4-2. I say it is more 4-4-1-1-12.
It is not about the team, it is about the squad. We don’t just have options 1-11, we have options virtually 1-23. I have heard calls for Hodgson to replace James Milner with Walcott on the right of midfield — after that substitution worked a treat for the final 30 minutes against Sweden.
I’ve also heard Carroll should be brought in for Danny Welbeck. Nothing against the players involved, but I would reject both suggestions.
Yes, we did not play well against Ukraine, but we won.
Milner may not have had his best game, but he played a part in that and the previous victories, providing the defensive stability we require down the right to counter full-back Glen Johnson’s attacking tendencies.
Similarly with Welbeck. He was not at his best against Ukraine. But neither was he so bad that he deserves to be dropped. That is unfortunate for Carroll, who was excellent against Sweden when he scored the opening goal in the 3-2 win.
I have no doubts he will feature at some point against Italy as their defenders will not fancy playing against him at all. And he is a great weapon to have on your bench.
Nobody is saying England have to wait until the last 15 minutes before making changes. If things are not going right, Roy will switch it sooner.
It is all too easy to say the manager should make changes and be more adventurous. But under Hodgson we now have a formation that is proving effective, if not entertaining.
I hardly changed my starting line-up at all during Euro 96.
The more you can keep a steady side the better. You have to keep the momentum going.
I am not saying Hodgson’s starting line-ups are setting Euro 2012 alight. But tournament football is no longer just about the first XI.
Substitutes are more important than ever. And England have some who could take us into the semis.
No comments:
Post a Comment