Don't think Kane and Vardy together would work though, and we don't have a good enough midfield to play 2 up front.
Either Kane or Vardy for me to start, couldn't argue with Roy whichever he picked out of those two as tye both deserve it.
Completely disagree with that, United_Mike. I think a Vardy/Kane partnership is the best thing England has going. Putting the rest of the team together to make it work is another matter though - the only formation that makes sense this way is the diamond but that provides such little width.
Vardy's a great option from the bench. Our best formation, for me, is probably going to be a 4-3-3 or a 4-1-2-3, and if Kane is the no. 9 then Vardy is either out of position on the left or he's on the bench.
People have a go at England managers when they try and get too many players in the same position(e.g. Gerrard and Lampard) and then others are critical when form players are left out because they don't quite fit the formation.
Kane / Vardy partnership would definately work if they were put together at the top not pushed wide for Rooney to be CF like last week!
All those premier league goals between them, build the team to make the best of their abilities don't build a team to accommodate certain players.
Thats always been the England way.
I remember Scholes playing on the left.
This is why England won't win anything when they have numpty managers in charge, would never happen in Germany.
Rooney should be nowhere near that England side and Vardy and Kane should be starting.
Right decision, Vardy is no winger and kane rightfully main main up top.
if vardy is asked to do anything other than play on the last man...
then just dont bother with him.
Hes good at what he does, thats about it.
In my view this is the right decision. Roy has not been playing a formation that benefits Vardy at all so leave him on the bench and let him run at tired legs if we're in need of a goal.
Whilst Hodgson perseveres with playing all of our players in the wrong position, we may as well let Vardy wait and then try to stretch defences late on.
The problem for Vardy is that Kane is always going to get picked ahead of him in his preferred role. Which I think is wrong but most who read my views on here will know what I think about Kane. I'll put my neck on the line and suggest that we're about to find out how he gets on against top quality teams on the international stage and I'm not sure he'll impress.
But hey, I didn't think he'd follow up on last season with the one he's just had so what do I know.
Let's be honest, England will disappoint as always, I'm just steeling myself for it.
If it's between Vardy and Kane starting then Kane would be better. He is the better all round player. To play both is to jeopardise the balance of the side. You need actual wingers in the side.
I would rather see Vardy on the bench than wasted.
There are two ways of looking at this. If Hodgson had identified Kane and Vardy as players he couldn’t leave out of his team then he should have picked, and practiced, a formation that suits them.
However, his two preferred formations are 4-3-3 and the diamond. I don’t think either formation accommodates both so he has to choose between them. In this instance I’m not averse to Kane being chosen because of the amount of Spurs players likely to be in the team and that understanding will already be there. Kane, with Alli behind and Dier in front of the back four makes sense.
What Hodgson has actually done is played about with formations that don’t suit his players and players that don’t suit his formation. He’s failed to identify what he actually needs and where better players might have to be dropped for the sake of team understanding and players complementing each other.
In a diamond or a 4-3-3 it makes sense for Kane and Vardy to be an either/or situation, but is Alli and Rooney an either/or? Does 4-3-3 make best use of best players or does it mean they have to be dropped for lesser players who suit the formation better.
All these questions should have been addressed during the friendlies but, once again, we’re still tinkering around trying to find that magic formula right before the first match.
Jobyfox makes some good points, and in a way it is reassuring that roy isn't trying to squeeze two strikers into a formation that doesn't require two strikers.
But i'd rather have seen vardy shoehorned into the team than rooney. and i'll also make a large bet with anyone that if vardy's role does become that of the supersub, that he is typically brought on to replace lallana/sterling/milner than to replace kane, so that we do end up with 2 strikers on the pitch at the same time, just not for 90 minutes at a time.
Not surprised and probably the right decision if we are going to play 4-3-3 which seems to be Hodgson's favoured system.
Kane is the best man to lead the line in a 4-3-3 and you need two wide men either side to support him. The puzzling thing for me is why Roy has taken so few wide men to France if this is how he wants to play. No problem with playing 4-3-3 but surely Walcott or Townsend should be in the squad to provide cover for the wide positions.
Instead, we have a squad full of central midfielders and centre forwards. Strange.
If we're going 4-3-3 I would go with.
Hart
Walker - Smalling - Stones - Bertrand (if it, of not Rose)
Wilshire - Dier - Rooney
Lalana - Kane - Sterling
Alli would be unlucky to drop out but I think you need Rooney's experience in there.
comment by Andy Carrot (U2440)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
Right decision, Vardy is no winger and kane rightfully main main up top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Vardy off the bench against tired defences is a mouthwatering prospect.
comment by For Fox Sake (U4263)
posted 1 minute ago
Not surprised and probably the right decision if we are going to play 4-3-3 which seems to be Hodgson's favoured system.
Kane is the best man to lead the line in a 4-3-3 and you need two wide men either side to support him. The puzzling thing for me is why Roy has taken so few wide men to France if this is how he wants to play. No problem with playing 4-3-3 but surely Walcott or Townsend should be in the squad to provide cover for the wide positions.
Instead, we have a squad full of central midfielders and centre forwards. Strange.
If we're going 4-3-3 I would go with.
Hart
Walker - Smalling - Stones - Bertrand (if it, of not Rose)
Wilshire - Dier - Rooney
Lalana - Kane - Sterling
Alli would be unlucky to drop out but I think you need Rooney's experience in there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This looks about right to me but I'm pretty sure you'll be seeing Milner in there for Wilshere.
I think we all agree that it's right for Kane to start in a 4-3-3 and for Vardy not to play. It's a nice option to have Vardy and Kane on the pitch if we need a goal and go 4-4-2.
Maybe Sturridge will start and Vardy will come off the bench when he picks up an injury in the second minute........
FFS makes some good points.
The squad make up is a bit baffling when you consider Roy's preferred formations.
The formations are also forcing us to play inferior players, or players out of form, because they fit the formation better.
"The formations are also forcing us to play inferior players, or players out of form, because they fit the formation better."
--------
I'd much rather see that than see us trying to fit our best players on the pitch in the wrong positions. We've been doing that for the best part of two decades now.
There is no single decent formation that includes everyone we'd want.
Well obviously not as Clyne, Llallana and the other Liverpool lot will start ahead of their spurs and Leicester counterparts
With a slow, almost static CB pair I see the Russians sitting deep and hitting me n the break.
If England can control possession and pinch a goal then the game will open up and play into the hands of Vardy.
I don't believe Woy ever really wanted Vardy in his team but had no choice due to public opinion after the season he had.
Strange comments he made about Vardy being grateful to play anywhere he's asked, plus of course, playing him anywhere except his most potent position point this way.
He could be right of course, England managed by someone like Woy are nothing like the Leicester of this season.
Poor Old Roy speaks 6 different languages has managed around Europe successfully and is written of a and derided because hes old and has a lisp.
Surely as LCFC fans we see the dilema Vardy suits our style of play because we don't have the players this season to keep posession.
Roy is promoting youth and attacking football but we moan like hell and a balls not been kicked in Anger.
If we don't make the semi's then have a go but just give the man a chance.
Vardy comes on and scores then its the right call to have him on the Bench where he will have more impact coming on.
Come on England
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
"The formations are also forcing us to play inferior players, or players out of form, because they fit the formation better."
--------
I'd much rather see that than see us trying to fit our best players on the pitch in the wrong positions. We've been doing that for the best part of two decades now.
There is no single decent formation that includes everyone we'd want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with that Dunge.
But I still feel we could have fit more of our in form players in with a system that suited them, if he'd picked them, and practiced.
Some in form players have been left at home in favour of badly out of form players who fit Woy's system.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Vardy on the bench
Page 1 of 1
posted on 10/6/16
Don't think Kane and Vardy together would work though, and we don't have a good enough midfield to play 2 up front.
Either Kane or Vardy for me to start, couldn't argue with Roy whichever he picked out of those two as tye both deserve it.
posted on 10/6/16
Completely disagree with that, United_Mike. I think a Vardy/Kane partnership is the best thing England has going. Putting the rest of the team together to make it work is another matter though - the only formation that makes sense this way is the diamond but that provides such little width.
posted on 10/6/16
Vardy's a great option from the bench. Our best formation, for me, is probably going to be a 4-3-3 or a 4-1-2-3, and if Kane is the no. 9 then Vardy is either out of position on the left or he's on the bench.
People have a go at England managers when they try and get too many players in the same position(e.g. Gerrard and Lampard) and then others are critical when form players are left out because they don't quite fit the formation.
posted on 10/6/16
Kane / Vardy partnership would definately work if they were put together at the top not pushed wide for Rooney to be CF like last week!
All those premier league goals between them, build the team to make the best of their abilities don't build a team to accommodate certain players.
posted on 10/6/16
Thats always been the England way.
I remember Scholes playing on the left.
This is why England won't win anything when they have numpty managers in charge, would never happen in Germany.
Rooney should be nowhere near that England side and Vardy and Kane should be starting.
posted on 10/6/16
Right decision, Vardy is no winger and kane rightfully main main up top.
posted on 10/6/16
if vardy is asked to do anything other than play on the last man...
then just dont bother with him.
Hes good at what he does, thats about it.
posted on 10/6/16
In my view this is the right decision. Roy has not been playing a formation that benefits Vardy at all so leave him on the bench and let him run at tired legs if we're in need of a goal.
Whilst Hodgson perseveres with playing all of our players in the wrong position, we may as well let Vardy wait and then try to stretch defences late on.
The problem for Vardy is that Kane is always going to get picked ahead of him in his preferred role. Which I think is wrong but most who read my views on here will know what I think about Kane. I'll put my neck on the line and suggest that we're about to find out how he gets on against top quality teams on the international stage and I'm not sure he'll impress.
But hey, I didn't think he'd follow up on last season with the one he's just had so what do I know.
Let's be honest, England will disappoint as always, I'm just steeling myself for it.
posted on 10/6/16
If it's between Vardy and Kane starting then Kane would be better. He is the better all round player. To play both is to jeopardise the balance of the side. You need actual wingers in the side.
posted on 10/6/16
I would rather see Vardy on the bench than wasted.
There are two ways of looking at this. If Hodgson had identified Kane and Vardy as players he couldn’t leave out of his team then he should have picked, and practiced, a formation that suits them.
However, his two preferred formations are 4-3-3 and the diamond. I don’t think either formation accommodates both so he has to choose between them. In this instance I’m not averse to Kane being chosen because of the amount of Spurs players likely to be in the team and that understanding will already be there. Kane, with Alli behind and Dier in front of the back four makes sense.
What Hodgson has actually done is played about with formations that don’t suit his players and players that don’t suit his formation. He’s failed to identify what he actually needs and where better players might have to be dropped for the sake of team understanding and players complementing each other.
In a diamond or a 4-3-3 it makes sense for Kane and Vardy to be an either/or situation, but is Alli and Rooney an either/or? Does 4-3-3 make best use of best players or does it mean they have to be dropped for lesser players who suit the formation better.
All these questions should have been addressed during the friendlies but, once again, we’re still tinkering around trying to find that magic formula right before the first match.
posted on 10/6/16
Jobyfox makes some good points, and in a way it is reassuring that roy isn't trying to squeeze two strikers into a formation that doesn't require two strikers.
But i'd rather have seen vardy shoehorned into the team than rooney. and i'll also make a large bet with anyone that if vardy's role does become that of the supersub, that he is typically brought on to replace lallana/sterling/milner than to replace kane, so that we do end up with 2 strikers on the pitch at the same time, just not for 90 minutes at a time.
posted on 10/6/16
Not surprised and probably the right decision if we are going to play 4-3-3 which seems to be Hodgson's favoured system.
Kane is the best man to lead the line in a 4-3-3 and you need two wide men either side to support him. The puzzling thing for me is why Roy has taken so few wide men to France if this is how he wants to play. No problem with playing 4-3-3 but surely Walcott or Townsend should be in the squad to provide cover for the wide positions.
Instead, we have a squad full of central midfielders and centre forwards. Strange.
If we're going 4-3-3 I would go with.
Hart
Walker - Smalling - Stones - Bertrand (if it, of not Rose)
Wilshire - Dier - Rooney
Lalana - Kane - Sterling
Alli would be unlucky to drop out but I think you need Rooney's experience in there.
posted on 10/6/16
comment by Andy Carrot (U2440)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
Right decision, Vardy is no winger and kane rightfully main main up top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Vardy off the bench against tired defences is a mouthwatering prospect.
posted on 10/6/16
comment by For Fox Sake (U4263)
posted 1 minute ago
Not surprised and probably the right decision if we are going to play 4-3-3 which seems to be Hodgson's favoured system.
Kane is the best man to lead the line in a 4-3-3 and you need two wide men either side to support him. The puzzling thing for me is why Roy has taken so few wide men to France if this is how he wants to play. No problem with playing 4-3-3 but surely Walcott or Townsend should be in the squad to provide cover for the wide positions.
Instead, we have a squad full of central midfielders and centre forwards. Strange.
If we're going 4-3-3 I would go with.
Hart
Walker - Smalling - Stones - Bertrand (if it, of not Rose)
Wilshire - Dier - Rooney
Lalana - Kane - Sterling
Alli would be unlucky to drop out but I think you need Rooney's experience in there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This looks about right to me but I'm pretty sure you'll be seeing Milner in there for Wilshere.
I think we all agree that it's right for Kane to start in a 4-3-3 and for Vardy not to play. It's a nice option to have Vardy and Kane on the pitch if we need a goal and go 4-4-2.
posted on 10/6/16
Maybe Sturridge will start and Vardy will come off the bench when he picks up an injury in the second minute........
posted on 10/6/16
FFS makes some good points.
The squad make up is a bit baffling when you consider Roy's preferred formations.
The formations are also forcing us to play inferior players, or players out of form, because they fit the formation better.
posted on 10/6/16
"The formations are also forcing us to play inferior players, or players out of form, because they fit the formation better."
--------
I'd much rather see that than see us trying to fit our best players on the pitch in the wrong positions. We've been doing that for the best part of two decades now.
There is no single decent formation that includes everyone we'd want.
posted on 10/6/16
Well obviously not as Clyne, Llallana and the other Liverpool lot will start ahead of their spurs and Leicester counterparts
posted on 10/6/16
With a slow, almost static CB pair I see the Russians sitting deep and hitting me n the break.
If England can control possession and pinch a goal then the game will open up and play into the hands of Vardy.
posted on 10/6/16
I don't believe Woy ever really wanted Vardy in his team but had no choice due to public opinion after the season he had.
Strange comments he made about Vardy being grateful to play anywhere he's asked, plus of course, playing him anywhere except his most potent position point this way.
He could be right of course, England managed by someone like Woy are nothing like the Leicester of this season.
posted on 10/6/16
Poor Old Roy speaks 6 different languages has managed around Europe successfully and is written of a and derided because hes old and has a lisp.
Surely as LCFC fans we see the dilema Vardy suits our style of play because we don't have the players this season to keep posession.
Roy is promoting youth and attacking football but we moan like hell and a balls not been kicked in Anger.
If we don't make the semi's then have a go but just give the man a chance.
Vardy comes on and scores then its the right call to have him on the Bench where he will have more impact coming on.
Come on England
posted on 10/6/16
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
"The formations are also forcing us to play inferior players, or players out of form, because they fit the formation better."
--------
I'd much rather see that than see us trying to fit our best players on the pitch in the wrong positions. We've been doing that for the best part of two decades now.
There is no single decent formation that includes everyone we'd want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with that Dunge.
But I still feel we could have fit more of our in form players in with a system that suited them, if he'd picked them, and practiced.
Some in form players have been left at home in favour of badly out of form players who fit Woy's system.
Page 1 of 1