Leaving Jamie Vardy on the bench: A mistake or an insult?

Roy Hodgson may still have been experimenting and looking for the right combination of his best eleven and best formation in the last fixtures prior to England’s opening game against Russia this weekend, but it surprised nobody that this combination would not include a start for Leicester striker and Arsenal target, Jamie Vardy. But to not even bring on the striker who has twenty-four Premier League goals in the last ten months against a poor side with slow and ageing centre-backs, was it an insult or merely a tactical mistake?

In terms of rounded and complete strikers, it’s easy to see why England started Harry Kane and why he is the primary striker; he already has the Premier League Golden Boot and can’t be ruled out of a chance to compete for it here at the Euros too, depending on England’s fate. However, he had a less effective game than we’re used to and as the lone actual striker, was often too deep or too busy taking the set pieces to be his usual dangerous presence. It’s clear that to accommodate Wayne Rooney in midfield, a tactic that mostly worked while he was on the pitch, and one that Hodgson is clearly keen to keep, it’s difficult to accommodate Jamie Vardy. Or a second striker in general. They’d be pushed out onto the wing, which we all know is not the best use of the Foxes’ top goalscorer and ultimately does favour the likes of Adam Lallana and Raheem Sterling. It was clear in the second half though that the Three Lions needed to try something a little different to dispatch their Russian opponents.

Leicester fans haven’t been particularly complimentary about the use of Vardy in an England shirt previously and we all wondered exactly how much game time he’d get in a squad that boasts four other strikers, who may well be higher up the pecking order as far as Hodgson is concerned. When Arsene Wenger stated pre-tournament that we wouldn’t see Vardy play at all, I wondered if he was right and last night did nothing to quash those concerns. Yes, us Foxes fans are biased in wanting to see him play, but our cries for him to have at least been brought on against Russia aren’t unfounded. I’ve seen some accuse him of being one dimensional, but there weren’t too many times in that second half when the Russian defence found themselves overly hassled or pressured. They looked vulnerable to pace as the clock ticked down and you feel that would have suited Vardy to a tee.

Fifteen minutes is the least that he deserved. Nobody knows whether or not that would have meant a second England goal, but it would have been interesting to see him given the opportunity to try and get it, or help set it up. A lot of his Leicester goals came from balls put towards goals, allowing him to play on the defender’s shoulder and beat them to the ball. There were players out there capable of doing that for Vardy as well and you feel that it would have made Russia uncomfortable at a time where instead they began to work their way into the game. If he couldn’t force even a substitution appearance in a game that looked perfect for him as a self confessed pest of a striker, you have to question his inclusion in this England squad.

It surprised me to not see a striker brought on at all though and that is perhaps the biggest concern. Even taking Vardy out of the equation, you had Daniel Sturridge and Marcus Rashford available and both would have given Russia something to worry about. Instead, we saw fairly late changes, Jack Wilshere was first introduced with less than fifteen minutes to make an impact, with James Milner following with just three minutes of normal time remaining. Neither felt like particularly inspiring changes, or that attacking minded either. Perhaps the opening goal changed the plan. Eric Dier’s impressive free-kick to make it 1-0 came after 73 minutes, usually the point in a game where a manager would be looking to shake things up if it’s still 0-0. There would have been a benefit to bringing on a striker though immediately after Dier’s goal, a moment that forced the Russians to take more risks in a bid to equalise, providing counter-attacking opportunities and a chance for us to finish it. Again, a perfect style where Vardy is concerned.

England had been largely comfortable throughout the match, though had failed to be clinical and kill their opponents off, which they really should have done in the first half alone with some of the play and chances created. Perhaps instead of bringing on another striker to try and double the lead, the England manager was content to try fresh legs in midfield instead and continue to dominate things and see out a one goal victory. Russia, naturally, had other ideas and a late goal dealt the sucker-punch to England, making it feel like more of a loss at the final whistle. It’s not only the decision to not bring on a striker though that feels questionable, but the loss of Rooney who had been linking up superbly with Dier.

There were positives to take from this game for England though, which makes me feel that Hodgson will be reluctant to tweak the starting line-up too much. His 4-3-3 formation looked the best of the ones he’s experimented with recently and Rooney made a strong claim to keep his midfield role. Lallana had a strong first half and showed signs that his first goal for the Three Lions is imminent.

England’s next opponent, Wales, present a different challenge to Russia, particularly when they’ll be more confident having disposed Slovakia in their opening match. The consensus though, whether it is fans or pundits, largely reflects the feeling that we had to have at least brought Vardy on. If it’s a feeling that he, Kane and Rooney cannot all play together then he could have replaced Rooney, with Lallana dropping in to cover the midfield role. Could he get a start against Wales? I’m not convinced. Though if the Welsh opt for a back three and two wing-backs again, there could be plenty of opportunities to stretch them at the back, freeing up space for others too. If he spends a second match confined to the bench again though, he may as well have been left out of the squad and given a chance to recover ahead of next season.