Roy Hodgson is a manager that comes with a reputation. A reputation for tactical conservatism; for prioritising organisation over inspiration or improvisation; for closely drilling his players into two banks of four; for saying silly things at silly times in silly ways. Like most footballing reputations, it is both frequently overstated and rooted in truth. A Hodgson team does not overwhelm, nor does it destroy, nor does it tend to thrill. It functions, or not.
Roy Hodgson’s crazy jungle adventure
England’s World Cup squad, announced yesterday by manager Roy Hodgson, is young, inexperienced and not entirely unexciting. What on earth is going on?
Richard Heathcote
While the squad he took to Euro 2012 was of his own choosing, it was chosen at the end of a qualifying campaign overseen by Fabio Capello and so was informed by what had come before. This time, however, he’s had a two year qualifying campaign all of his very own making, and so the squad he announced yesterday, 23 players that will bear the burden of being England, is the first for which he bears full responsibility. And it is, rather unexpectedly, quite interesting.
As ever, the story lies as much in the players that are missing as those that are going. It seems to have been an article of faith for many England managers that playing for one of the big beasts, such as Manchester United, is more important for a player than such trifling matters as being in decent form. It would have so easy to conjure justifications for picking Michael Carrick (an experienced head, a calm passer, etc.) and Tom Cleverley (played in the Champions League, used to top level opposition, etc.) over, say, the young Ross Barkley and the inexperienced Adam Lallana. Or to take Andy Carroll (has scored at tournaments before and once played for Liverpool) over Rickie Lambert (who hasn't, and who hasn't).
Must Reads
In his own way, Hodgson is gambling, and nowhere is this more evident than in the omission of Ashley Cole. The tournament has come at an odd moment for England's left backs: Cole, the last great one, is in decline; Shaw, the (in theory) next great one, is still a kid; and Leighton Baines is the man in possession despite lacking the class of the former and the promise of the latter. Three footballers into two places won't go, but where the safest choice would have been the two older players, Hodgson has again taken something that looks, in a certain light, suspiciously like a risk.
Perhaps we should have seen this coming. Qualification for the World Cup was achieved in part after Hodgson took a punt on Tottenham's Andros Townsend, reasoning that a certain set of attributes was preferable over more familiar, more experienced name. The subsequent "space monkey" kerfuffle rather overshadowed both the size of the gamble, and the risk involved. In some all too plausible alternative universe: England Stumble; Townsend Anonymous.
This is not to suggest that Hodgson has turned into Diego Maradona, who reputedly called up Ariel Garcé to the Argentina squad after seeing his face in a dream. International squads are products of circumstance, and Cole aside, all the major omissions have pretty decent arguments against their presence. Carrick and Cleverley have been dreadful all season, bad enough to even offset the inherent favor that comes with playing for Manchester United, and perhaps their absence will turn out to be David Moyes' last gift to a grateful nation. Carroll, meanwhile, is only just back to something approaching full fitness after a disrupted and unproductive season.
(This is also not to say that the above are all the right calls. Shaw could freeze on the big stage, Carrick’s passing might well be handy in the heat of Manaus, and Lambert doesn’t quite have Carroll’s berzerker presence if things need to get truly prehistoric. And Cleverley ... no, nothing. Sorry, Tom.)
But, whether by daring or default, Hodgson has found himself with a squad that stands out in two ways. The first is its inexperience. Only four outfield players are aged over 30, while ten are under 25. While the likely starting eleven will have a fair few caps — Steven Gerrard has 109; Wayne Rooney 89; Glen Johnson 50 — fully half the squad has ten or less. England's first choice back four of Johnson, Gary Cahill, Phil Jagielka and Leighton Baines have a total of 125; the back-ups, Shaw, Phil Jones and Chris Smalling, have 20 between them. Only eleven players remain from Euro 2012; only six — Rooney, Gerrard, Frank Lampard, James Milner, Johnson and Joe Hart — survive from South Africa 2010. This is a new England.
A front six of Gerrard, Henderson, Barkley, Lallana, Sterling and Sturridge skips zestily into view.
The second is its flexibility. If Hodgson wants to return to the sweet embrace of two banks of four, he can; if he wants to continue with the 4-2-3-1 that he used in qualifying, he can; if he wants to play a three-man frontline, he can. He’s got a big man to lump balls at, and he’s got quick legs if he decides that counterattacking is the way to go. He could probably even dabble with wingbacks if he wanted to, though one suspects that Hodgson views such nonsense the way the Pope views witchcraft. Of the front six only two, Gerrard and Rooney, are guaranteed starters, and arguably only Gerrard should be.
All of which adds up to something quite unexpected. Something peculiar. A Hodgson squad that doesn't feel particularly, well, Hodgey. There's Milner, of course, the most Hodgey footballer that ever did Hodge, and there's the undroppable and predictable presence of Rooney, but most of the rest of the options are fresh and encouraging. Raheem Sterling and Daniel Sturridge are there after scoring for fun in a team that had no interest in defending, with with Gerrard sitting and Jordan Henderson scampering behind them. Lallana and Barkley have been crucial and exciting elements in smooth, sweet-passing teams. The shapes that suggest themselves are pleasing; the combinations are promising. A front six of Gerrard, Henderson, Barkley, Lallana, Sterling and Sturridge skips zestily into view.
Which is not to say that England won't end up shuttling backwards and forwards, underwhelming everybody in that prosaic, chewy, sweaty manner that they often do. No leopard ever truly changes his tactical preferences; no nation wakes up and decides to play like Chile. (Except Chile.) But still, there is an unusual freshness about proceedings. When it comes to the results, England travel more in hope than expectation, but when it comes to the performances, and the style, and the hints for the future, things might not turn out so badly after all. If he's minded, and if he's capable, then Hodgson could have some fun with this lot.
See More:
