Defoe in England squad: right decision or ridiculous?

[Charly***]

So I'm applying preconceived ideas and hindsight? That's good right?

Him scoring confirms your bias not mine? It enables you to say "look, he scored, I'm right, he is great and should have played".

My ideas on Defoe were unchanged by the outcome, they are the same now as they were before the game and that would have been the same if he'd scored a hatrick against the mighty Lithuania.

So you're not applying preconceived ideas but no matter how a player performs in a game your outlook will remain exactly the same? OK mate.

& I'm not saying I told you so, I wasn't on here championing his inclusion prior to the event. I did however think his performances this calender year deserved consideration, his goals record backs that up, so I'm glad Southgate picked him & he subsequently delivered so that decision was vindicated i.m.o.

Players being picked on merit in their correct positions is fundamental to us achieving anything.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

So you're not applying preconceived ideas but no matter how a player performs in a game your outlook will remain exactly the same? OK mate.

& I'm not saying I told you so, I wasn't on here championing his inclusion prior to the event. I did however think his performances this calender year deserved consideration, his goals record backs that up, so I'm glad Southgate picked him & he subsequently delivered so that decision was vindicated i.m.o.

Players being picked on merit in their correct positions is fundamental to us achieving anything.

I don't think it's that simple, putting a team together is about getting a balance right, not just picking who's on form. I'd rather have Son or Janssen up front for us than Defoe because they both do more than score goals, they perform other functions that help the team dynamic. In England's case (in any teams) it's also about developing a team that can compete at tournaments, not just qualify against third rate nations. Southgate could have played Rashford up front, he has Defoe's pace and has the ability to beat players and can finish, he would have given England another dimension and he'd have been developing a player for the future. Or he could have played Alli as a false 9, and included Barkley or even Redmond as AM's.

Dier and Oxlade-Chamerlian picked on merit in their correct positions ? Dier hasn't played CM all season, and when he has he's been terrible there. They were awful. Defoe scored but contributed fuck all else. Three reasons why England were so turgid, amongst others.

 

[nailsy]

I don't think it's that simple, putting a team together is about getting a balance right, not just picking who's on form. I'd rather have Son or Janssen up front for us than Defoe because they both do more than score goals, they perform other functions that help the team dynamic. In England's case (in any teams) it's also about developing a team that can compete at tournaments, not just qualify against third rate nations. Southgate could have played Rashford up front, he has Defoe's pace and has the ability to beat players and can finish, he would have given England another dimension and he'd have been developing a player for the future. Or he could have played Alli as a false 9, and included Barkley or even Redmond as AM's.

Dier and Oxlade-Chamerlian picked on merit in their correct positions ? Dier hasn't played CM all season, and when he has he's been terrible there. They were awful. Defoe scored but contributed fuck all else. Three reasons why England were so turgid, amongst others.

It's also about winning games though. I'm pretty sure no-one here thinks Defoe is going to be the first choice striker for England. We all know Kane will come in and take that role when he's fit. All Southgate was doing in this match was looking at alternatives both in formation and players in certain positions. He had a look at Vardy in the game against Germany and gave Defoe a chance against a weaker opponent who was going to sit back and try and frustrate us - the kind of opposition we often come up against in tournaments. Personally I think it's good management to give the form player a chance as it helps to change the mentality of the players, the fans and the press. All of a sudden Southgate's gained a lot of support as he's not just following the route of previous managers.

Form also extends to the national team though, it isn't just something that applies at club level. Diers been excellent for England in that position so why would Southgate change it? If his form with England dips that's when you start looking at the alternatives.

 

[Charly***]

I don't think it's that simple, putting a team together is about getting a balance right, not just picking who's on form. I'd rather have Son or Janssen up front for us than Defoe because they both do more than score goals, they perform other functions that help the team dynamic. In England's case (in any teams) it's also about developing a team that can compete at tournaments, not just qualify against third rate nations. Southgate could have played Rashford up front, he has Defoe's pace and has the ability to beat players and can finish, he would have given England another dimension and he'd have been developing a player for the future. Or he could have played Alli as a false 9, and included Barkley or even Redmond as AM's.

Dier and Oxlade-Chamerlian picked on merit in their correct positions ? Dier hasn't played CM all season, and when he has he's been terrible there. They were awful. Defoe scored but contributed fuck all else. Three reasons why England were so turgid, amongst others.

Yeah I agree to a point. It is about long term planning with the caveat it's balanced with getting results in the here and now. Even in the prem Poch has an eye on the future but it's a gradual progression as we're seeing with Winks a.t.m. You make the point that Rashford could've started up top, but he did come on. & from what I saw each time he got the ball he looked to turn and run with it. This was far more suited to coming on on the left once the game had opened up than playing in the center with no space to run into. In a game against better opponents I can see Rashford being effective down the middle, pushing their defence back and creating space for the AMs. In the Lithuania game I could see a young player like that become frustrated at his lack of touches whereas JD wasn't phased, he gobbled up his chance once it came. Which is probably why he was picked to start.

As for Dier / Oxlade Chamberlain well Dier was the incumbent & with Henderson out I think the inclusion of Livermore in the prior game spoke volumes. He was picked because he plays that position competently rather than shoehorning in an established player from a different position. I assume Southgate thought he hadn't done enough to usurp Dier & that he could get away with just one DM against Lithuania hence Oxlade Chamberlain being picked. Now I don't think that was merited and his performance wasn't good despite the space he had all game but there aren't many options available in that position. If he'd have wanted a more attacking player in there then having a look at Barkley may have been a better option. But he's at least had a look at Oxlade chamberlain there & we got the result.

 

[whitesocks]

If Defoe is extremely lucky, he'll be playing in the premiership next season - either by Sunderland somehow staying up, or one of the teams coming up taking him on. His prospects of remaining an elite striker in the near future are very slim.
More likely he'll be briefly playing in the obscurity of the championship where they cannot afford the kind of salary he is used to. Then off abroad again - he's no fool.
The best you can say about this cap is it kept Wallcock out the team which is a nice twist after Eriksson kept the inform striker at home in favour of a kid with zero first team experience. It closes that chapter nicely.

 

[danielneeds]

If Defoe is extremely lucky, he'll be playing in the premiership next season - either by Sunderland somehow staying up, or one of the teams coming up taking him on. His prospects of remaining an elite striker in the near future are very slim.
More likely he'll be briefly playing in the obscurity of the championship where they cannot afford the kind of salary he is used to. Then off abroad again - he's no fool.
The best you can say about this cap is it kept Wallcock out the team which is a nice twist after Eriksson kept the inform striker at home in favour of a kid with zero first team experience. It closes that chapter nicely.

No way he'll be playing in the Championship next season. He's practically a saint up there because of the goals and what he's been doing with Bradley. The fans won't begrudge him his move when they go down.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

@nailsy & @Charly***

I think he should have either played a false 9 and given the team another tactical string to it's bow, or played Rashford, which would have given him much needed game time at International level, hopefully helped develop an asset going forwards for the medium/long term, would have offered more as a package to the team dynamic and I don't think he's any less competent than Defoe as striker.

But lets just agree to disagree eh?

 

[nailsy]

@nailsy & @Charly***

I think he should have either played a false 9 and given the team another tactical string to it's bow, or played Rashford, which would have given him much needed game time at International level, hopefully helped develop an asset going forwards for the medium/long term, would have offered more as a package to the team dynamic and I don't think he's any less competent than Defoe as striker.

But lets just agree to disagree eh?

The false nine might have been an option to an experienced International manager, but do you think it's something Southgate should be trying in a competitive fixture in only his 4th or 5th game in charge? Part of the problem England have these days is that all of our friendlies have to be prestige matches against the best teams in the world. I sometimes think that we'd learn much more by playing a team like Norway or Denmark than by playing Germany or Spain as we could try some of these formations without the fear of being ripped apart.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

The false nine might have been an option to an experienced International manager, but do you think it's something Southgate should be trying in a competitive fixture in only his 4th or 5th game in charge? Part of the problem England have these days is that all of our friendlies have to be prestige matches against the best teams in the world. I sometimes think that we'd learn much more by playing a team like Norway or Denmark than by playing Germany or Spain as we could try some of these formations without the fear of being ripped apart.

What does it matter if you lose a friendly?

Would you really think trying something like s false 9, or playing Rashford would be a huge gamble against a team like Lithuania ?

I think tactical frigidity had stifled English managers for decades.

 

[talkshowhost86]

What does it matter if you lose a friendly?

Would you really think trying something like s false 9, or playing Rashford would be a huge gamble against a team like Lithuania ?

I think tactical frigidity had stifled English managers for decades.

Nothing, unless you are England manager.

I'd love to see an England manager actually use friendlies for experimenting a bit/developing a style and then taking that into the competitive games, but if we'd played a false 9 against Germany and it hadn't gone well, Southgate would have been pilloried and horse-whipped by the press which wouldn't have helped him or the squad generally.

Perhaps that's something that he and the FA need to manage, and I agree with the fact that we should stop playing these 'prestige' friendlies and actually play some that are useful to the squad generally, but as it stands, England have so few games that if any manager loses any of them, they are suddenly under massive pressure so it's understandable that we don't see too many changes being taken.

 

[nailsy]

What does it matter if you lose a friendly?

Would you really think trying something like s false 9, or playing Rashford would be a huge gamble against a team like Lithuania ?

I think tactical frigidity had stifled English managers for decades.

It doesn't matter if you lose a friendly at all. I just think that it's harder to judge a new formation against an elite team than one of the sides from the next tier down as there's still a lot riding on the result.

Do I think it would be a gamble to try that in a qualifier against poor opposition? I don't but it's not my job on the line. I can understand why Southgate would play it safe. As for the tactical frigidity Southgate's already said we need to be more flexible in our approach so hopefully we'll see a few different systems tried out over the next 18 months. Although saying that we need a plan A before we spend time on plans B, C & D.

 

[gushayes11]

He's a free transfer if Sunderland go down according to a north east journo.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Nothing, unless you are England manager.

I'd love to see an England manager actually use friendlies for experimenting a bit/developing a style and then taking that into the competitive games, but if we'd played a false 9 against Germany and it hadn't gone well, Southgate would have been pilloried and horse-whipped by the press which wouldn't have helped him or the squad generally.

Perhaps that's something that he and the FA need to manage, and I agree with the fact that we should stop playing these 'prestige' friendlies and actually play some that are useful to the squad generally, but as it stands, England have so few games that if any manager loses any of them, they are suddenly under massive pressure so it's understandable that we don't see too many changes being taken.

I thought Southgate was doing that in the Germany game, playing the 3cb system, I don't know why he then reverted to 4231 against Lithuania against whom that formation would have been effective.

 

[Donki]

Ok so we leave out an English striker in form, scoring goals, who is still in great shape and carrying a terrible team?? Yeah sure great signal to send out to other "elderly" players that just score goals... honestly words fail me.