Spraying water into his eyes surprisingly didn't aid his performance
Okay, before we start I can already see the look of disbelief in your face, you’re ready to rip this article to shreds before you’ve even read it.
You’re fully aware of the point I’m about to try and make and every instinct within you is poised to shoot it down. James Milner, England’s weak spot, the slow cumbersome bloke with the poor first touch and haphazard passing. The one who makes you either sigh, shake your head or scream at the television. Surely a Manchester United fan, isn’t about to make a case that Milner is far from the useless bastard we’ve all made him out to be? Well forgive me but I am going to defend him- the clue was in the title.
First of all, I’ll admit, I’ve been one of Milner’s strongest critics, for the player ratings versus Sweden I gave him a five, the second joint lowest rating of the England side. During and after the France game, I tweeted how poor he’d been and how he’d looked out of his depth. Before the Ukraine game I cried out to anyone that would listen, that Theo Walcott had to start. So why after a fairly uninspiring display by Milner in the final group game do I suddenly feel the need to make a case for the City man retaining his place?
Well allow me to elucidate, first of all lets look at some stats- yes I know this isn’t an article about Michael Carrick but lets do it anyway. In the final third Milner has attempted 37 passes 30 of which have found their target giving him an 81% success rate. Overall the number is 61 out of 77 for a 79% pass success rate. Now I can already hear you saying “77 passes in three games is pretty shocking” and to be completely honest it almost is. Let’s not forget though that first of all it’s more like two and a bit games as Milner has been subbed twice missing over one half of football, secondly Ashley Young, who no one has really called for to be dropped- well apart from the ABU mob, has made less passes both overall and in the final third, while Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain has managed a mere 17 in just under 90 minutes worth of football. The point is none of the wide men have shone in the passing stakes, mainly due to the fact England haven’t had that much possession.
When it comes to tackling Milner’s hardly set the world alight, making only six tackles but in his defence that’s actually more than the likes of Joleon Lescott and Ashley Cole and unlike them all of the midfielder’s have been successful, naturally giving him a 100% success rate- the highest of any England player.
Now I know stats and percentages don’t detract from what you witness on the pitch and at times Milner has looked woeful, but let’s ask ourselves an honest question “why is he preferred to Walcott?” The answer is simple, he protects Glen Johnson more than Walcott would and the Arsenal man is better as an impact sub, a fact proven by his stunning performance against Sweden.
All of a sudden people assume that a player booed by his own fans at times last season and one who’s been roundly criticised for poor decision making is now the answer to all our right wing problems, well despite my championing of him to start against Ukraine, I’m beginning to see the logic in not starting Walcott.
Not even the most ardent Milner fan would claim he’s got any ‘impact’ potential so he’d be almost useless as a sub, while young Theo is the sort of player a full back like Federico Balzaretti who’s the wrong side of 30 would dread see coming on in the latter stages of a game.
Part of the reason I’ve decided to defend Milner is when I think back to United player’s who’ve been criticised in the past for not being good enough, yet have done an important job for the side. When I first started attending games at Old Trafford, with my mates, rather than my dad, it was Brian McClair everyone seemed to think should be dropped in favour of an ageing Bryan Robson. Years later no one could understand what Jesper Blomqvist was doing getting a game, yet he played 25 league games in United’s treble winning season, not to mention a place in the starting XI in the Champions League final at the Nou Camp. More recently players such as Quinton Fortune, Phil Neville- let’s not pretend he wasn’t- Michael Carrick and even Danny Welbeck- I was chastised on twitter for claiming he should start ahead of Chicharito early last season- have been labelled ‘not good enough’ by many Reds. Yet every single one of those players has done the job asked of them and in many respects that’s exactly what Milner is doing for England.
I realise he may not be the quickest most skilful winger on the planet, in fact he’s not even the most skilful English winger on City’s books, but he’s become an important part of an England team that’s finally finding some success.
As the old saying goes ‘if it aint broke don’t fix it’ and while the name Milner on the teamsheet against Italy may not inspire us, I’m beginning to think it could just be what’s needed for the type of game Hodgson’s England like to play.
Have I finally truly lost it or is Milner an important cog in the England machine? Feel free to comment, suggest or abuse below:
Follow me on twitter @RFFH
Think it’s a bit premature to say this is an England team finally finding success – quarter- finals (after not particularly convincing wins over very average Sweden and Ukraine sides) is fairly standard for England, no?
Milner does a job but he’s not particularly great at it – there’s just no real alternative if we accept Walcott is too gung-ho to start for Hodgson. Understandable to criticise Milner for his obvious flaws while doing that job though, not least the fact he offers nothing on the counter, which is a pretty big flaw when England set up as they do.
England played with nine men in the whole tournament,,,,,,,,,Milner and YOUNG were useless and should have been dropped after first game. Rooney world class my ass he sholud have been subbed against ITALY. Looks like half of Englands problems come from Manchester.Thank God for Hart and Lescott! Losing is not as bad when you have been entertaining and leave some sort of legacy this whole crap about they tried and had heart is so stupid that should be automatic when you put the shirt on its talent we need and someone that knows how to let the ball do the work, embarrassing how we are seen in the world of football!
lol
By the way the story has it that Young missed his penalty because he did not have to DIVE first for it!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t remember Milner being booed by his own fans, either for club or country.
He’s actually a very fast, direct player. As soon as he gets the ball, you know he’s going to whizz it fast and low across the face of goal, in an inviting “get on the end of that” kind of way.
I don’t understand why Glen Johnson is right back, anyway. i’d rather see – dare I say it? – Micah Richards.
Too many red bin-dippers, not enough manchester players of either colour.
This the same Milner that tore United to shreds in the 1 – 6? And when was he booed by City supporters. You keep your magnificent midfield and we’ll make do with ours.
He’s talking about Walcott getting booed by his own fans.
The reason he has made so many tackles is because like Park, his first touch is so poor, his second touch NEEDS to be a tackle.
He’s only made six in three games, all being succesful. Did you read the piece, properly I mean?
Yes I did. My point refers to where it says that he has made more tackles than Lescott and Ashley Cole who you would assume to make more tackles.
I agree with the author. Honestly, England doesn’t look very good against Sweden and Ukraine. In fact, it was Ukraine who dominated the game and could have won it. But that aside, England took their chances when it came. Milner’s job was to do precisely what was expected of him. Looking at the current squad, there’s no other player who could fill his role with his tireless running and covering for the defence. Can’t expect him to be like Walcott or Young as they are of different types of players who can’t defend as well as Milner if needed.
England have probably already exceeded most people’s expectations by winning their group but it is fair to say that they have not set the world alight with the quality of their football.
Personally, I believe that all the criticism concentrated on Millner is unfair. Milner is not a right winger and has not been playing there for his club side. He has been selected to do a job there, primarily to support a defensively suspect right back. At least no one can fault his work effort; he led the England players in terms of km covered.
Over the first two games I thought that Young was the worst player on the pitch by a good margin looking little more than a passenger. This is not a case of United bashing by a City fan. Over the same two games I thought that Wellbeck was one of the best performers. Luckily Young’s performance against Ukraine was somewhat improved. Hopefully he will get better as the tournament progresses.
Surprisingly, given that they are a striking partnership at club level, Wellbeck ‘s performance appeared to suffer by the return of Rooney to the team. Wellbeck seems particularly adapt at roaming about all over the front of the field harassing defenders and making a nuisance of himself with his speed and ball control. Playing Rooney as a withdrawn striker/playmaker to cover for the luck of a genuine playmaker in midfield forces Wellbeck into a more advanced striking role, which in my opinion is less well suited to his game. Rooney himself had a lot of success two seasons ago playing this out and out striker role for his club. Should England consider switching their roles and play Wellbeck in a free role behind Rooney?
England have probably already exceeded most people’s expectations by winning their group but it is fair to say that they have not set the world alight with the quality of their football.
Personally, I believe that all the criticism concentrated on Millner is unfair. Milner is not a right winger and has not been playing there for his club side. He has been selected to do a job there, primarily to support a defensively suspect right back. At least no one can fault his work effort; he led the England players in terms of km covered.
Over the first two games I thought that Young was the worst player on the pitch by a good margin looking little more than a passenger. This is not a case of United bashing by a City fan. Over the same two games I thought that Wellbeck was one of the best performers. Luckily Young’s performance against Ukraine was somewhat improved. Hopefully he will get better as the tournament progresses.
Surprisingly, given that they are a striking partnership at club level, Wellbeck ‘s performance appeared to suffer by the return of Rooney to the team. Wellbeck seems particularly adapt at roaming about all over the front of the field harassing
defenders and making a nuisance of himself with his speed and ball control. Playing Rooney as a withdrawn striker/playmaker to cover for the luck of a genuine playmaker in midfield forces Wellbeck into a more advanced striking role, which in my opinion is less well suited to his game. Rooney himself had a lot of success two seasons ago playing this out and out striker role for his club. Should England consider switching their roles and play Wellbeck in a free role behind Rooney?
In the 1st 2 games Ashley Young was absent, Danny Wellbeck AKA ‘the fresh prince of bell-end’ has got the touch of an elephant, Scott Parker vs. Sweden was atrocious.
Good to see some rational analysis of Milner’s performance.
Welbeck has kept the ball better than any other England player in the final third with a 94.4% pass success rate.
England have probably already exceeded most people’s expectations by winning their group but it is fair to say that they have not set the world alight with the quality of their football.
Personally, I believe that all the criticism concentrated on Millner is unfair. Milner is not a right winger and has not been playing there for his club side. He has been selected to do a job there, primarily to support a defensively suspect right back. At least no one can fault his work effort; he led the England players in terms of km covered.
Over the first two games I thought that Young was the worst player on the pitch by a good margin looking little more than a passenger. This is not a case of United bashing by a City fan. Over the same two games I thought that Wellbeck was one of the best performers. Luckily Young’s performance against Ukraine was somewhat improved. Hopefully he will get better as the tournament progresses.
Surprisingly, given that they are a striking partnership at club level, Wellbeck ‘s performance appeared to suffer by the return of Rooney to the team. Wellbeck seems particularly adapt at roaming about all over the front of the field harassing
defenders and making a nuisance of himself with his speed and ball control. Playing Rooney as a withdrawn striker/playmaker to cover for the luck of a genuine playmaker in midfield forces Wellbeck into a more advanced striking role, which in my opinion is less well suited to his game. Rooney himself had a lot of success two seasons ago playing this out and out striker role for his club. Should England consider switching their roles and play Wellbeck in a free role behind Rooney?
Hi As usual a very fair and balanced article which I have no arguement with in respect of Milner. However he does seem to be singled out by he media as the ‘weak link’. Fine OK but lets be honest our ‘creative’ player, Ashley Young, has done no more or no less than Milner. 13 passes I believe in the France match, 60% success rate. Hey he wears the ‘red’ shirt so must be great. Flatters to deceave to be honest. Cant wait for Spain, if IF we beat Italy. Thanks .