No defence for England?

The prevailing mood demands that England play more attacking football but should Roy Hodgson’s side really just go for it? Caution wins tournaments, argues Adam Bate…

After England’s World Cup elimination in Brazil, the consensus emerged quickly. Amid the usual talk of grass-roots issues, outrageous expectations and a general appetite for self-flagellation, there appeared an acceptance that a more ambitious approach was needed.

A number of top pundits and journalists were asked to pick their preferred line-up for the next World Cup. All but one went without a holding midfielder. Perhaps the only thing more damaging than failure is the inability to recognise the reasons for that failure.

It was a particularly perverse reaction given the evidence. After all, England had found the net in their defeats to both Italy and Uruguay. The more obvious problem had been the fact that Roy Hodgson’s side were unable to negotiate a half of football without conceding.

Hodgson’s reputation as a defensive coach overshadowed all. Even the decision to start with four forwards – Daniel Sturridge and Wayne Rooney were flanked by Danny Welbeck and Raheem Sterling – was not enough to shake off those familiar accusations.

In midfield, Hodgson went with a poor imitation of the Liverpool midfield that had so lit up the preceding season’s Premier League. Steven Gerrard and Jordan Henderson were included, although there was no third player around to help them.

Predictably, they were unable to recreate the energy of the Reds in the sweltering humidity of Manaus. And it was the rest of the world left to reflect upon a tale of naivety not inertia; of recklessness rather than restraint.

FIFA’s technical report recognised Sturridge, Rooney and Sterling as the …

continue reading in source www.skysports.com