On England:
Agree with Sven's comments, if Roy was not English he'd have been sacked.
I think he lacked any kind of intensity (it was TOO calm for a world cup, there is such a thing as TOO relaxed in fierce competition it takes your edge away and you can make costly errors....). No one here can tell me Suarez did not want it more - that last goal his legs were gone, he was ploughing through treacle but he wanted it MORE - and he got it.
Hodgson, tactically naive, watch the way other teams change their shape - especially the dutch, everyone shouted first match PLAY THE YOUNGSTERS. So they did. What did Costa Rica do? They made sure their midfield closed down Pirlo, and what happened? Creativity nullified, Balotelli starts losing his rag, frustration sets in, and THAT is how you beat the Italians - everyone freaking knows that SURELY? Frustrate them, stifle their main creative outlet, get them wound up, and they throw the game away all by themselves. You nullify an enemies strengths and target their weaknesses - Roy set the team up exciting admittedly, but naively. It was dare I say it, too gung ho an approach.
However, that can be forgiven, it was a great game and we lost by small margins (which is how hard games are won, see Argentina Iran etc...) - in the absolute elite level, those tiny margins must be sought after and Roy simply didn't do that. He didn't have an answer to Uruguay either, the tactics didn't really change except for reading the newspapers and switching Rooney inside, you know what, I far enjoyed Sterling in that role he was lost on the wings. Rooney played quite well, is a hard worker, but he's just NOT world class. That's not his fault, he's just below that level of say.... Pirlo, Ronaldo, Van Persie, Suarez, Messi, Robben etc. Who would choose Rooney over any of those?
This world cup is about outstanding TEAMS, never say die mentality, working for each other - the Dutch against Chile today were absolutely outstanding! The antithesis to their game against Spain, they paid respect to their opponents, changed formation and personnel to nullify their threats, and patiently waited their moment to strike - total football made way for total tactics. Van Gaal is brilliant. Man U have got themselves a great manager for however long until he blows the dressing room up (though after Fergie, it may be his home for a while yet!).
I like Roy, he's giving the youngsters a change as well, but is he really the man with the sharp decisive mind, adaptable, elite thinking, win at all costs leader that England need to imbue that sense of pride and focus into England?
No, no way.
Van Gaal took the Dutch from 3 losses in their Euros to 3 straight wins, great football, tactically strong etc in 2 years - in Roy's 2 years, I am better impressed with the way we play but less confident in our strength as a unit!
Roy is not the man for England, not as boss anyway, development of youth squads, and more back seat roles I think yes definitely - but the pointy head of a nations hopes and aspirations on the world stage?
