Having seen how stale both individual "star" players and quite a few entire teams looked, the big thing Mr Hodgson could have done different and which might have changed our fate was to select Rashford and Sturridge up front, let them work the line as they wanted and emphasise their relative freshness. Enthusiasm is infectious. Unfortunately our two most enthusiastic players were full backs and even they often climbed into the freezer against Iceland.
My solution to the format would be 20 teams, 4 groups of 5, top 2 qualify for last 8 knockout. I would ensure an attacking attitude in all group games by having the top-goalscoring group winner playing the lowest scoring group runner-up, second top scorer versus next to lowest scoring second placer and so on. I reckon 47 games in all.
But then I'd also alter the over-long qualification process that disrupts league programmes. If there were 56 countries I'd seed perhaps 12 so they couldn't draw each other, but I'd have 28 matches played on a home and away basis - winners go through. Down to 28 teams, seeds still can't play each other, drawn into 14 games, winners through to Euro finals. So you have 14 countries who have won two home and away matches to qualify and a host. So 15 countries. The remainder will mostly be smaller countries welcoming the chance to develop alongside a couple of big name failures. Divide them into 5 groups, the winners of which qualify via this second chance. Because these will be smaller countries in general the impact on top-level league games will be greatly reduced and Liechtenstein and Andorra might get to compete against each other rather than Italy and Holland in games in which they can only hope to minimise the embarrassment.
Loved Wakey's comment by the way but how many English fans would have stayed in at Wembley to applaud Portugal beating us 0-1 in a final? Seven? Twelve?
My solution to the format would be 20 teams, 4 groups of 5, top 2 qualify for last 8 knockout. I would ensure an attacking attitude in all group games by having the top-goalscoring group winner playing the lowest scoring group runner-up, second top scorer versus next to lowest scoring second placer and so on. I reckon 47 games in all.
But then I'd also alter the over-long qualification process that disrupts league programmes. If there were 56 countries I'd seed perhaps 12 so they couldn't draw each other, but I'd have 28 matches played on a home and away basis - winners go through. Down to 28 teams, seeds still can't play each other, drawn into 14 games, winners through to Euro finals. So you have 14 countries who have won two home and away matches to qualify and a host. So 15 countries. The remainder will mostly be smaller countries welcoming the chance to develop alongside a couple of big name failures. Divide them into 5 groups, the winners of which qualify via this second chance. Because these will be smaller countries in general the impact on top-level league games will be greatly reduced and Liechtenstein and Andorra might get to compete against each other rather than Italy and Holland in games in which they can only hope to minimise the embarrassment.
Loved Wakey's comment by the way but how many English fans would have stayed in at Wembley to applaud Portugal beating us 0-1 in a final? Seven? Twelve?