England 0 Chile 2

Well, that was a lesson, wasn't it..? If any match could demonstrate the enormity of England's task next summer, this was it.

It was nice to see Frank Lampard get his celebratory 100th cap before the game. It was all downhill from there, wasn't it.

England have been comprehensively put to the sword by a Chile team that were quicker, sharper, better skilled, better organised and also, when they deemed it necessary, happy to resort to the dark arts. Frankly, they were miles better than England and with a scoreline of 2 - 0, I'd say England were lucky to get nil.

It has to be said that this was not an England 1st XI, but that's no excuse. I reckon this Chile team would have beaten any team England put into the field.

Well played, Chile. Let's hope we don't meet in the World Cup. If this is how they play on a chilly Autumn evening in London, I dread to think what they would do to us on their own South American turf.

#WoyOut

yep the all important friendly when we lose, unimportant when we put teams like Brazil and spian to the sword.


/headsgone

Gets some p[perspective OP

mystiroakey wrote:yep the all important friendly when we lose, unimportant when we put teams like Brazil and spian to the sword.


/headsgone

Gets some p[perspective OP

??????

I hardly think the stuttering, ordinary performance against Spain in 2011, and the win against an experimental Brazil earlier this year could be described as "putting them to the sword".   But  hey... it's all about opinions, isn't it..?

However, I do wonder what bearing those matches had in relation to preparing for the World Cup next year (which, at the time of the aforesaid Spain and Brazil matches, England hadn't yet qualified for), which was what tonight's game was all about.

Quote:   What we see depends mainly on what we look for  (John Lubbock in "The Pleasures of Life")

Perspective, indeed.

You have only just proved the point, no need to use so many question marks.

You use excuses when we win  and put relevance when we lose.

you put validation on Brazil experimental side but not englands

get a grip its a friendly and no one expects us to win the WC anyway

Nothing good about getting outplayed at home 7 months before the cw kicks off.

I don't get the logic of putting so many people in for their first cap etc to get a look at them.

How are they going to impress in a disjointed team?

Best to play 1 or 2 in an otherwise full strength team to see what they are at.

Well Hodgson did play some form players.

However I think we all know he is going to play the best side possible against Germany.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:yep the all important friendly when we lose, unimportant when we put teams like Brazil and spian to the sword.


/headsgone

Gets some p[perspective OP

??????

I hardly think the stuttering, ordinary performance against Spain in 2011, and the win against an experimental Brazil earlier this year could be described as "putting them to the sword".   But  hey... it's all about opinions, isn't it..?

However, I do wonder what bearing those matches had in relation to preparing for the World Cup next year (which, at the time of the aforesaid Spain and Brazil matches, England hadn't yet qualified for), which was what tonight's game was all about.

Quote:   What we see depends mainly on what we look for  (John Lubbock in "The Pleasures of Life")

Perspective, indeed.

But this was an experimental England team!!!!!


Too much is made of friendlies when we lose yet when we win people dismiss the win due to it being a friendly.

TBH the worst pick was wilshire for me.

We know what he can do when he is fully fit and in form and regularly playing. There was no point playing him at all

mystiroakey wrote:You have only just proved the point, no need to use so many question marks.

You use excuses when we win  and put relevance when we lose.

you put validation on Brazil experimental side but not englands

get a grip its a friendly and no one expects us to win the WC anyway

Get a grip..? Hmmm... two things. Firstly, I think I have a very sound grip on the situation, thank you very much. Secondly, I don't take orders from you, young man. I'll thank you to speak to me with a more polite attitude and manner in future. Manners cost nothing.

Actually, I don't expect England to win the world cup either. What I do expect is for them to compete at a level that shows them in a good light on the world stage, and my point was that we were shown a lesson tonight which does not bode well for the tournament at this time.

Bearing in mind that Roy Hodgson has only two more matches, and around four training sessions before the world cup starts (although it is to be hoped that the FA may be able to squeeze some more in somewhere along the line), our shortcomings could be exposed to the harsh light of day. I think you would agree that neither of us would want that to happen.

4th Lion we have progressed imo(in the last few qualifying games) and i thought there was some positives and negatives to take from tonight's game..

The positives and negatives are both very helpful for hodgson.. As long as he learns from them

Exactly Ent. I just think Roy/media have just got carried away with this Southampton youth system & this friendly just kind of felt like, 'lets throw them in & celebrate their start to the season' but really we have no intention of playing them again, when the serious business starts.

We were so dis-jointed tonight, we were mis-match, thrown together side with no cohesiveness whatsoever, in complete contract to Chile. Rodriguez & Lallana playing outwide, who have no pace whatsover, was never going to work. We had a chance to exploit their attacking fullbacks but we didn't. If it had been Welbeck & Walcott or Townsend from the start, would of been a different outcome for me. Also the service to Rooney would of been vastly improved. You could see him throughout the match shouting & thinking, 'christ we're s***'.

Just a mess tonight really but I do think when we get the propa team back together, we're a half decent outfit. Nothing special but not too bad. wilshere thought for me is an issue. he either gets fit or just should not be picked. numerous ineffective displays now, only getting picked because of name n club side for me.

I totally understand your wilshie and rodriguez points. BUt i ma starting to think i saw a different lalana out there- as i thought he was a plus today

mystiroakey wrote:4th Lion we have progressed imo(in the last few qualifying games) and i thought there was some positives and negatives to take from tonight's game..

The positives and negatives are both very helpful for hodgson.. As long as he learns from them

I quite agree. There are always positives to be taken out of any situation and I would also suggest that Roy Hodgson is smart enough to see and address them.

The positives from tonight seem to come in the form of negatives... if that makes any sense.

Ashley Cole is still England's best left back, evidenced by the way that Baines allowed the Chilean striker to get in front of him for the first goal.... something that Cole would be more likely to have not allowed to happen.

England don't press the opposition in their half of the field effectively.... evidenced by the way that Chile did it to us.

Cahill is improving as an international centre half, but still has a way to go before he is likely to go an entire game without making a serious error.

Lots of little things like that. Not nice to talk about, but necessary to recognise and address. I know it wasn't a 1st team out tonight, but football is a harsh taskmaster and learning curves are steep. Especially when practice opportunities are few and far between.

I would like to say that I saw something that England did well tonight, but in all honesty, I can't think of anything. Gerrard, Cole, Hart et al should be back for the Germany game and the performance should be better. I hope so.

One positive I can s ee bar the negatives is lalana.

I haven't heard any one else say he had a good game on here, but i have just read on bbc's ratings that they gave him a 7/10 (best English player on the day)

Its only one mans opinion but its better than nothing!!

I thought the OP was nicely composed and moderately fair. Granted this was more of an experimental side as others have mentioned - better to lose now than in the tournament is the often quoted refrain for such performances. But England is not expected to win the World Cup and it is debatable whether the English system generates sufficient players of individual flair and ball control to win or regularly challenge in such international tournaments. There was a recent BBC interview with Jurgen Klinsman who called English football a powerhouse that needed to change its culture of training at the grass roots level:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24945281

Ps it could be worse - just look at France   Expect France to overturn the deficit in Paris (maybe). 

So you mirror his thoughts that when England lose friendlies is more important than when we win friendlies. Or do you understand that firendlies mean zip all in relation to RESULTS

I like experimental friendlies - You can spot the actual talents that need to be moved up(Lalana), cross the others of the list and also validate your first team..

Spain allways lose friendlies.

To be honest that is what friendlies are for..(germany will be different due to our national passion and pride against them!)

There has been a lot of news about the AB's being the best sporting team in the world at the moment, Many including Stuart Lancaster(England's rugby union coach)have agreed. I dont buy it and think Spain are still the best sporting team in the world , and it doesn't matter that the AB's have won more games, because friendlies are not actually there to win in football.. As Spain show. They dont lose competitive games but they occasionally lose friendlies due to trying different things out. On the flip side NZ have been criminal underachievers on the WC stage and where lucky to win the last WC, yet go at every single game like its there last!

Well done Hodgson for actually using a friendly for its 'best' purpose and lets learn from it.

mystiroakey wrote:So you mirror his thoughts that when England lose friendlies is more important than when we win friendlies. Or do you understand that firendlies mean zip all in relation to RESULTS

I like experimental friendlies - You can spot the actual talents that need to be moved up(Lalana), cross the others of the list and also validate your first team.. ...

It's about performance and squad depth.  I am not blaming Roy for being "experimental" but he is not being that experimental as he needs to identify those that can support his top 11.  There were a few more experienced players pulling out injured or being rested because  they were an injury risk and Roy also needs to find the younger players to replace those on the wrong side of 30.

Nore thankfully we have a different under 21 system in place from last year. those players are not being pulled out and hopefully will be staying in that squad. That is certainly the way to go imo.. those will be the bulk of the players that will be replacing our team in the 2016-2022 cups..

we need to worry about this world cup and this world cup only.

the under 21 team is going to be our future(as was the germans all them years ago)

It was a Very experimental side for our standards and well played to him as long as he learns from it. Chile on the flip side had an almost 100% first team out there.

Have to say I recognise there is a value in trying out players in friendlies, but it would be nice to get the balance right between this and looking to build a winning mentality. I went to the 1998 Chile game, it was just as embarrassingly one-sided. I wish we had a bit more pride in building Wembley as a place that is renowned as hard to win at.

Tactically and technically Chile are just one of many many teams better than us. We can't change that overnight. But we could look at how you combat that with the players we have. Our midfield looked utterly leaden footed compared to theirs. It was hard to tell if this was their fleet-footedness or our inability/unwillingness to press properly. On a few occasions we seemed to swarm and gang-tackle them. Risky, but perhaps preferable to our general approach which neither sat back nor pressed hard. Fair enough, there were some new caps so understanding wasn't great.

I do think we need to work much much harder on how we operate without the ball. Chile were very slick but I also think aided by some players who looked permanently on their heels (granted Sanchez can make anyone look that way!) Lampard looked like his legs had gone, too slow of thought and deed. Wilshere had a terrible game, what's happened to the neat and tidy possession football? He seems to have bought into the old trope of the English 'battler'. Rodriguez is an experiment I think unlikely to work out . I think the really worrying thing though is our defence. I can't remember a defence I had less confidence in. There is very little pace at CB (Cahill looked awful) nor the ability to pass it out. Oh for a 25yr old Rio!

The things England will need in the long-term is players with speed, acceleration, who are two-footed and have good balance. Barkley had a nice run which showed the latter two qualities, but maybe not the former two. It's a shame players like McEachran just have so few champions in this country.

On the plus side, I thought Lallana looked positive. Very good touch and balance and looked two-footed! Seems to me our slight issue is we are now developing lots of 10s but fewer 9s and left-wingers. Still, thought he was a plus.

why milner is still in the team is beyond me. he is useless and at most should be in the squad as back up, def not a starter.

Forster. Jones. Milner. Lampard. Lallana. Rodriguez.

What's the link?

They all started yesterday, but probably won't start for England at the first game in June.

So the result is meaningless, and England learned very little.

Should England worry? No.
Will we remember this game come next June? No.

>> So the result is meaningless, and England learned very little. Should England worry? No. <<

Well I would consider Roy Hodgson's opinion over yours. The result is not meaningless - it was a good test for England's second string. Roy as a national team manager has little occasion to get the England squad together, getting them working as a team, getting them familiar with his game plans and strategies, team drills and match play. The more time they have together the better they will work as a team. The match suggested that the quality of the Englands squad doesn't run deep - but the more time they work together the better.

Well England didn't learn much from yesterday.

Forster didn't have too much to do, Lallana showed glimpses, and Rodriguez was largely absent.

What exactly have we learnt from yesterday that we didn't know already?

mystiroakey wrote:One positive I can s ee bar the negatives is lalana.

I haven't heard any one else say he had a good game on here, but i have just read on bbc's ratings that they gave him a 7/10 (best English player on the day)

Its only one mans opinion but its better than nothing!!

I thought lallana had a good game...set pieces aside..he looked good on the ball, his touch was impeccable and he got stuck in...deserves another go.

The problem was two friendlies & keeping the club managers happy. Everyone admitted it was a pretty meaningless friendly & roy even said he had other things on his mind other than the result. Why didnt we just have one game against germany on the friday & played a full strength team. forget rodriguez, lallana's of this world (although he played relatively well), who lets face it, are never going to break into roy's tried and tested team & tactics. We should of played germany either last night or on the tuesday with townsend, rooney, gerrard, jagielka, cole, hart all playing. would of learnt alot more from that than that instead of the farsical patched up team last night. but i guess it's f.a money making exercise.

Hart is one player I cant really agree with playing.

If he doesn't get back in the first game foir citeh we cannot start him in the WC.

He had to look at another, sadly though we learnt zip all from that performance in regards to him

Let's give Forster a run...he's clearly a very good keeper, and he needs more than one game.

yeah, i just meant we should of arranged one friendly against germany & played the proper team + forster. You try your new goalkeeper with your settled backline, not a mis-match side. totally unfair trial in my opinion. having two friendlies just made a mockery of saving half your side for one game n the other for the next game. can't learn anything that way.

we should of played one friendly on tuesday, given the boys the end of last week & whole weekend of training with roy n getting setup correctly. then on tuesday played

- - - - - - -Lambert (if fit)- - - - -

Lallana- - -Rooney- - - -townsend

- - - -gerrard- - -wilshere- - - -

cole- -jags- - -cahill- - - -johnson-

- - - - - - forster- - - - -  - - -

Is that your first choice side?

haha first choice, u mad? im talking about what's available to roy for a friendly against germany. i would of sacked off the chile game & gone with a line up looking something like that. carrick injured, welbeck/sturridge injured, walker absent (if u call him our no.1 rb) & then hart would all come in obviously.

Thank Christ, thought you'd lost your marbles

I'd have liked to have seen both Delph and Morrison drafted up to the squad and given a run out.

- - - - -  --Sturridge- -  - - -

Welbeck- - -Rooney- - -Walcott/Townsend

- - - - Carrick- - - Gerrard- - - -

Cole- -Jagielka- - Terry-  -Johnson/Walker

- - - - - - -  -Hart- - - - - -  - - -

That would be the lineup, if I had my choice. Still some choices to make with rooney & sturridge interchangeable. I don't see a another striker who is good enough to lead england, I really don't. Welbeck on the left is a dead cert under Roy because he loves his engine, work rate n he just fits that difficult position. Walcott/Townsend offer the same thing, so decision is purely on who has a better season or is in form. Wilshere just doesn't do it for me, too inconsistant not fully fit. I think the pull of a WC will make Terry reconsider retirement, Cahill is just an accident waiting to happen. Also, right back choice is who's in the best form. I'd say Johnson would be my choice, only because we know he can do the job, like in the Euro's where we were solid. Hart I can see regaining the City gloves no problem.

Hero wrote:I'd have liked to have seen both Delph and Morrison drafted up to the squad and given a run out.

Word was that Ravel didn't get a chance cos the u21 games were important. Personally, I'd have had Rav, Delph and Berahino with England and taken out Lampard, Milner and Defoe as there really isn't anything those 3 can prove either way now.

I honestly think the best place for our under 21's is the UNDER 21's!!

and long may that stick, best method for the future

Dunno what the point is in calling people up for a run out.

I believe hodgson has these 2 friendlies and possibly 1 more before he has to pick his squad for the WC.

Anyone playing should be a serious candidate for selection IMO.

Lest we forget England were pretty poor until the last 2 group games, fair enough if they'd cruised through the group but the team is a work in progress with the current bunch never mind the youngsters.

mystiroakey wrote:I honestly think the best place for our under 21's is the UNDER 21's!!

and long may that stick, best method for the future

Are you Alan Hansen?

In less that 24 hours I have been called Alan Hansen, John inverdale and Just William on various parts of the forum.

Things are not going well!!

Agree, we got enough issues with the actual XI, let alone bringing in youth with absolutely no experience six months before a WC in Brazil. No point calling up Delph, Morrison or whoever else you want for 45 minute cameos, being played in wrong positions & struggling like Rodriguez. We already got Barkley being wasted on the bench, having a 5 minute cameo, he should of been released back to the U-21's, seeing as Roy had no real desire to play him against Chile. That's the thing which annoys me most, just no communication at all about a plan of action & who's going to be needed where & when.

It depends on the benefit. If Delph and Morrison would benefit from being part of the squad, the training etc (which I think they would) and if Roy had had the balls to play them instead of trotting out Lampard and Milner, then even 30 mins is probably worth it really. A midfield three of Morrison, Wilshere and Barkley would have been lovely to watch and should be the future we're aiming at, with Delph Cleverley and, heaven forbid, Henderson in back up.

What would they have learnt chasing the ball in a unit that's never played together before?

Better they learn each other's games playing for the u21s together for 4 or 5 games.

Well, they'd learn a lot about the set up in the seniors, they would learn about the managers expectations of them and the manager would learn more about them also.

And they would have played a good period of time against quality opposition.

I dont think Morrison and Berahino are learning that much of each others game in the u21s that they couldnt learn in the seniors

It never works though. As soon as one oif these kids gets into the full England side they invariably get worse.

Lets let these young ons be young for a bit more.

The germans did this.. And it paid off

I'm not sure you can say it has or hasnt worked. I dont think we've ever really done friendly camps where we have young players given their chance to work with the senior squad away from the normal pressures. And as for young players being good enough when theyre old enough, messrs Rooney and Owen never came to much harm

the whole Walcott thing was a joke.

and what about Zaha.. That england move may well have been the exact reason why he isnt playing first team football anymore and is stuck in the Man u youth set up!

BUt what did work is that the German under 21 team stuck at that task and then almost all moved up knowing each other and that I am sure paid off.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Well, they'd learn a lot about the set up in the seniors, they would learn about the managers expectations of them and the manager would learn more about them also.

And they would have played a good period of time against quality opposition.

I dont think Morrison and Berahino are learning that much of each others game in the u21s that they couldnt learn in the seniors

By playing together rather than chasing the ball for 30 mins.

How much really do you think they spent learning each others games in the u21s that would benefit more than being in the full team set up? This is more than just one game of football, let alone this theory that you dont learn anything from defeat (which is basically what youre saying, let alone the fact that we didnt spend the game just chasing the ball).

Id agree with this theory of people staying in the under 21s if it was implemented fully. But it isnt, with the likes of Barkley moving up because hes liked. I think you can say that there is more to learn for Barkey, Ravel and others by joining up with the full squad for friendlies on the odd occasion but moving down if they are a) not going to be used b) sitting on the bench for meaningful games where there isnt much chance of them coming on.

Do I think Wilshere, Barkley and the others would benefit more from going to the World Cup and possibly playing rather than going to the u21 tournament this summer? Arguably so. The games are important, but they are only one part of the process. I would say its better for the England team that Barkley and Ravel are on the bench in Brazil over Milner and Lampard.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hONKlo6HGWM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhONKlo6HGWM

Fatty can't do that