Is Capello set to switch to a three-man defence?
There are strong rumours this morning that, in Gareth Barry’s absence, Fabio Capello is considering switching to a system featuring three centre-backs for the World Cup. It would unquestionably be a risky move, completely changing England’s shape that was so successful in qualifying, and installing a three-man defence that hasn’t been used effectively by England for twenty years.
The BBC report states that “A switch in formation would be a major change for the Italian, who has demonstrated his preference for 4-4-2 throughout his coaching career”, which is certainly true, but a three-man defence has not been alien to him. One of his greatest sides was the Roma team that won the 2000/01 Scudetto, by using a 3-4-1-2 throughout the season, with Francesco Totti as the playmaker. The key, as ever, was the wing-backs – Cafu on the right, Vincent Candela on the left – able to get up and down the line non-stop for 90 minutes, and, as converted full-backs rather than converted midfielders, able to defend well.
And despite the decline of the three-man defence in the Premiership, it is still alive and well in Capello’s home country this season. Genoa and Napoli have been successful with a three-man system, Palermo have switched between a 4-3-1-2 and a 3-4-1-2 to good effect, and Lazio have also used three at the back (covered in detail at the end of this article), and have looked defensively excellent in recent weeks, despite a poor season overall. It was only two World Cups ago that Brazil triumphed with a 3-4-1-2 / 3-4-2-1 – again, Cafu was involved, with Roberto Carlos on the left, and South Korea reached the semi-final that year with their 3-5-2.
The two instances of top Premiership clubs using a three-man defence this season were both unsuccessful, however – Liverpool away at Sunderland, and Manchester United away at Fulham.
Theory
So why has the three-man defence fallen out of favour? As covered in greater detail here, the problem is that it is only really effective against a two-man attack. With the popularity of 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 systems that feature one central striker, it either leaves a surplus or a shortage of centre-backs, depending upon whether the responsibility of marking the opposition wide players is left to the wing-backs (more common) or to the two outside centre-backs. A further problem is that a 3-5-2 system invariably leaves the opposition full-backs unopposed. If the full-backs are now the most important players on the pitch, it is suicidal to give them so much time and space on the ball, which is part of the reason the three-man defence is becoming more often seen in a 3-3-3-1 system (like in Marcelo Bielsa’s Chile side) which provides two wide midfield players to halt the progress of the opposition full-backs.
History
Tony Adams believes English players can successfully switch to a three-man defence with the right instructions
England have traditionally been uncomfortable playing three at the back. Some will point to the system in World Cup 1990 as proof that it can work, but frankly that was in a different era of football formations, as the aforementioned developments demonstrate. More recently, Steve McClaren’s 3-5-2 was widely seen as a disaster when England lost away in Croatia in qualification for Euro 2008. Perhaps the most worrying lesson from that day was the fact that the formation, in theory, was correct. As Jonathan Wilson outlines towards the end of Inverting The Pyramid, the system was entirely logical, because Croatia were one of the few European sides left playing two out-and-out strikers. The system failed not because it was wrong in theory, but because the players were completely uncomfortable in it.
The key, as with any change in system, is that the players understand where they are supposed to be in every instance. Tony Adams outlined in his autobiography, how Terry Venables convinced him that a three-man system could work:
“At the back, Terry put more time and effort than anyone into actually carrying out ideas rather than just playing lip service to them. Like three at the back. He would tell you where you should be in a given situation and he liked me, as spare man, to step ahead of the two markers to track a deep-lying attacker or forward midfield player, so that we didn’t lose the all-important numbers game in midfield. When I expressed a concern that I was leaving the middle exposed at the back, he simply explained to me how I should drop into the backline when the opposition sent the ball wide.”
Capello will doubtless be surprised, if he does decide to switch to a three, at how unaccustomed his players are to the shape – in Italy, players are able to switch between a four- and a three-man defence at will. Adams’ quote shows that English players are more than willing to embrace the change (Adams later outlines his preference for a three-man system despite having the vast majority of his trophies with Arsenal in a four), but they need to be given the most basic instructions on how to carry it out.
Composition of the side
The most surprising aspect of Capello’s idea about a three-man defence is the fact that – obviously – it necessitates playing an extra centre-back, at a time when there are fitness doubts about Rio Ferdinand, Ledley King and John Terry (though he now appears to be perfectly fit). That said, if they all manage to prove their fitness, England are probably stronger at centre-back than any other area of the pitch, with Michael Dawson and Jamie Carragher also featuring in the squad, and so the three-man defence may suit England in terms of raw quality of the starting XI.
A system featuring wing-backs could suit Glen Johnson
Wing-backs are crucial in a 3-5-2, and have an extremely difficult job. Positionally, they are expected to provide a wide attacking outlet for the central midfielders, whilst also having a duty to get back alongside the centre-backs in certain situations. This results in a need for extremely fit players, and the much-talked about ‘cooler climate’ of South Africa (in comparison to the last few major tournaments) will unquestionably play in to England’s hands if they play this system, since wing-backs in a 3-5-2 probably get through more running than any other position in any other formation. In Ashley Cole and Glen Johnson England have two fit, athletic wing-backs – although both have had injury problems recently – and both are at their best when getting forward to support the attack, so may embrace wing-back roles.
The real question concerns what Capello would do with his three central midfield players – after all, the loss of one of them is what is prompting this apparent re-think. It would presumably mean Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard together, which didn’t work in a 4-4-2, but in a three-man central midfield it has potential – even if both would probably prefer the most advanced role of the three. The final, deeper midfield position could well fall to Michael Carrick. Off form he may be, but with considerable Champions League experience in a three-man midfield, he might be best-suited to the job. ZM has previously put forward the idea that Carrick could be extremely important in a three-man midfield for England, after he came on against Egypt at 0-1 down, changed the game and England ended up winning 3-1.
The more popular choice would certainly be PFA Young Player of the Year James Milner, but whether a Milner-Gerrard-Lampard would have the discipline needed is doubtful, and it would depend on how Capello wanted to play his back three – if a ’sweeper’ was stepping up into midfield – Rio Ferdinand or Ledley King – then it may work, but otherwise there is surely a need for a designated deep player in the centre of midfield. Tom Huddlestone would be another option, but throwing an uncapped player into such a crucial position would be a huge surprise.
Upfront, relatively little would change, although it would mean Wayne Rooney would have to do more work in wide positions, but he is more than comfortable doing that.
Opponents
Looking at England’s World Cup group opponents, the system might actually work very well, since all three sides use a two-striker system. Slovenia have used a basic 4-4-2 throughout qualification, Algeria tend towards a 3-5-2 (England’s 4-4-2 struggled against Egypt’s 3-5-2, so a switch might help here) and the USA have played a variety of shapes, but seem to favour two strikers.
But then, England should be getting through the group stage anyway. The real test would come in the latter stages, where it’s very difficult to imagine how a 3-5-2 would not be taken apart by a side possessing quality full-backs, which would return to the basic problem of the formation. Look at Brazil’s formation – that would be very difficult for England to beat with a 3-5-2.
That said, all successful sides need a ‘plan B’ – the expectation, however, was that England’s would be a three-man attack, not a three-man defence. With a month until the first World Cup game, Capello certainly has time to work with his players and make them comfortable in the formation, but it will be a system that not one of his players has ever played in at a top club.
Of course, the story could be nonsense, and Capello might dismiss the suggestion at his next press conference. Either way, it’s an intriguing prospect, and ZM will report back from Wembley next Monday.
Is Capello set to switch to a three-man defence?
Excellent article. I have been suggesting to anyone who’d listen that this would be a great formation for England. If one has full-backs of the caliber of Johnson, A Cole, Cafu, Candela, Roberto Carlos, it’d be a shame not to use this system. The three at the back allow those players to excel in attack while not worrying as much about defense.
In the first round, it would probably be best for England to play Gerrard and Lampard in the center of midfield, with an attacking option ahead of them–Joe Cole, probably. Later on, a more defensive option should be introduced next to Lampard, with Gerrard in the Totti role.
Not sure dude, I still believe that a 4-4-2 is much better. Or even a 4-3-3 looks good. England had played 4-4-2 in their quqlifying rounds and they have been brilliant. Just my opinion though.
In theory, I think 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 would be the optimal systems, although these are mostly numbers. First of all, a 4-4-2 with one of Lampard/Gerrard will be slightly lacking in the defense department, especially with Hargreaves out. A 4-2-3-1 with Carrick – Lampard as defensive midfielders and Gerrard in front of them would be better since he could also fall back and they’d also take deeper positions. England has quality on the wings and they should use that quality, not push Gerrard out wide. Rooney is also excellent as a lone striker.
have i missed something? why does Barry being injured mean that 442 is impossible?
Carrick doesn’t have the dynamism for a two-man centre midfield: against a three-man midfield, you’re going to get hassled a lot in the centre, and Carrick’s best when he has time on the ball, to dictate play. (I don’t think even Xavi, a far better touch-and-go passer, would function effectively in a two-man CM partnership).
Huddlestone is even less mobile than Carrick, has inferior passing (against Man Utd, he spent the whole game spraying the ball into touch, under no pressure), and the same fragile confidence, with none of the caps.
Gerrard doesn’t have the dsicipline. He claims it’s his best position, and Liverpool fans are often heard to claim he can “even play at right-back”, but that’s only on Championship Manager – IRL, he plays the “Roy of the Rovers” position, which can be great, but can’t be relied upon in the heart of the midfield, where defensive discipline is necessary. Houllier didn’t trust him there after a while (shunted him out to the right) and Benitez doesn’t trust him there now (plays him further up the pitch). For instance, his great performance against AC in Istanbul is only great if you ignore the first half – Kaka ran riot, Gerrard was nowhere. When Hamann came on for Kewell and did a proper CM’s defensive job, allowing Gerrard the AM role, it all went right for them.
So with no Hargreaves or Barry, who partners Lampard? That’s why a three-man CM is proposed.
You could try Milner, but it’s a risky time to throw a new face into the engine room. And like Gerrard, his positional discipline could be a little suspect (I hear, I don’t watch Villa often).
Please remind me – what really did Kaka do in the 2nd half at instanbul ?
You’re correct about Gerrard not dictating play from CM, his best position is AMC. But make no mistake, there’s a reason Liverpool fans say he can even play at RB and it isn’t Championship Manager (how derogatory); he’s played the position extremely well several times in his career, including his debut and part of the 05 European Cup final. Until Glen Johnson was signed I would have described him as the best RB LFC have, far better than recent RBs including Arbeloa, Heggem, Josemi and Carra.
Arbeloa is a fantastic defender, something Glen Johnson could only dream of being. This notion that full backs have to be good attackers before defenders first is absurd, and in my opinion what ruined Liverpool’s season. Aurelio is a much better defender than Insua as seen with his excellent defensive displays 2 years ago, keeping the likes of Ronaldo locked down – and Arbeloa is certainly better than Johnson at defending too. The deployment of these 2 players for the majority of the season has been Liverpool’s downfall, requiring Carragher to essentially cover for every defensive position when the incompetent and anxious Martin Skrtel plays also. This is why many think Carragher had a “weak” season, when if you analyse it from this angle you’ll see he had a fantastic season – much better than many of his England counterparts
engalnd cant play 3/5/2 we dont have the right centre backs you need wide defenders who can be draged wide terry in the centre rio in the centre king in the centre .they are not comfoble when strikers take them wide . /4/4/2 or /4/3/3 only i think .
The 3-5-2 possibly suits the group of players we have more than any other formation. We have excellent centre backs, central midfielders and wing backs. It would also allow Capello to play another striker alongside Rooney without sacrificing a man in midfield.
There is no space for wingers though, but given that Lennon and Joe Cole have just come back from injury and Walcott & Wright-Phillips aren’t consistent enough, maybe it wouldn’t be too big a problem?
I’d be worried about pace. None of our centre backs are quick. Balls down the channels would thus leave Terry or Ferdinand waddling out to the wings, where I can imagine them getting put on their arses all-too-easily by a semi-decent winger.
That is exactly how you go about beating a 3-man defence, but if you only have a 2 man attack and you’ve knocked the ball into space in the channels, this suggests that you are counter attacking, the opposing full back has come forward on that side (which is why you have space there) your winger/wing back will have come back to cover as well.
Jamie Carragher in the squad gives you the possibility of playing a centre back who knows how to move right and deal with balls in the wide areas confidently.
Attacking the channels is not as much of a weakness in the back as people think if the players know how to be flexible. Let’s say Team A are playing three in the back, and Team B play 4-4-2. Team B plays a long ball into Team A’s right channel for the forward to chase. Team B’s forward chases it. As the ball is moving, the RD is moving to pressure. The CD is moving to cover 2-5 yards behind and 5-10 yards lateral to the RD. The LD is moving to cover the CD 2-5 yards behind and 5-10 yards lateral to the CD. Team A has a choice that they will have worked on. If they play with two defensive mids, one of them may slot into the backline to make it a temporary back 4. Alternatively, the far side wingback will be dropping into the traditional FB position on the weak side, 5-10 yards lateral of the LD, but 2-5 yards AHEAD of the LD, making what’s known as the “check mark” shape in a normal back 4. So the numbers, as always, aren’t important. What’s important is space, time, and mobility, and who uses it best in all four moments of the game.
McGie gives excellent explanation.
to continue: two attacking midfielders running at Terry (centre centre-back), with the two forwards spreading both flanks and you wish Carrick have had the speed to catch up.
what if opponents play 4231? in general its the same as 4222, 4213, or 442/424 (as McGie76 suggests, these are just numbers), since there are 4 attacking opponents against 3 defenders. either you supply 2 additional defense personnel through the wings, or anchors drop deep. either way, the need for speed is taken away from centre-backs – who focus at zonal rather than stubborn man-marking. hence: Adams begging for instructions.
you’d love being anchor for this reason. as your team tracks back to defend, you point at defender’s zonal coverage, your twin anchor Ledley King already picked up an opponent midfielder and hassles. your defense closes down the side of play, Terry behind Luis Fabiano, Carragher at right pushing Robinho toward the sideline, and Rio sucks his thumb between them two. you jog and observe, awaiting for the moment when your opponent’s extra-man thrust into that penalty area of yours. It happens to be Ramirez! oh that cheeky boy. you, Carrick, rush into that zone to greet the Benfica man a welcome. Hello, Ramirez. keep at controling that ball. in fact, sends it back to Maicon, who is shadowed by Ash Cole. That goes forever as long as England can stand closing down the zones while Brazil revert to their long forgotten passing game. no space! nowhere to muscle into. no plan B for Dunga!
then, in quick succession you release attack, knowing five players are ready in waiting. who would they be? Rooney, Ash Cole, Johnson, Lampard and ??? I say Gerrard in the hole, just to disappoint Gilberto Silva.
I can’t see Juan and Lucio do well roaming forward in open-play scene, so this could be the formation against Brazil. but other opponents? this post is another reason why I rate England more than Brazil in 2010.
Wow, its nice to see an optimist out there. All I seem to read right now is doom and gloom articles about england’s chances!
I would actually say this could work very well and I echo the sentiments that it is probably the formation which would utilise the English squad.
I think it would be possible to close down opposing fullbacks in this formation if you instructed either the forwards to split and work the channels, or possibly keep one *target man* forward(Heskey) to hold up the ball when in the defensive phase with the second forward(Rooney I would presume) and the most forward midfielder(Lets say Gerrard) presurrising the opposing full-backs. Here you would retain two in midfield, with an added defender pushing up if necessary, your two wing-backs could drop into the defence and effective create a back 4 with an advanced defender/defensive midfielder.
I don’t see how this is a viable formation for England when Carragher is reserve right-back and we have a bunch of wingers in the 30 who could not play wing-back. As pointed out by ZM – Brazil, or indeed anyone playing 4-5-1 (France in QF?), would cause this formation all sorts of problems.
I’d expect the reserve RWB would be James Milner, who has been used (briefly) at full-back under Capello.
Good point about the reserve right-back being Milner, and surely the point is that the 3-5-2 formation would probably work with the fit personnel that England have; if Johnson was injured, he probably wouldn’t use 3-5-2 anyway.
Gerrard for RWB !
Gerrard has no positional sense and would be massively exposed.
@Anonymous
Keep believing that!! What nonsense!!
@Niranjan
Why do you think it is that Rafa plays him off Torres? He was almost exclusively considered in this country as a CM but despite having the technical and physical attributes necessary to play in this position he clearly lacks the discipline to take any kind of defensive responsibility. Liverpool’s best season in the league recently featured a highly effective two man screen behind Gerrard in the shape of Mascherano and Alonso, compensating for his weaknesses and allowing him to run around like a headless chicken in front of them. See Arrigo Sacchi.
SWP was a star playing right wingback at City in Keegan’s 3-5-2, so he is a possible backup, but that was a long, long time ago.
I do think that it is a particularly English trait to feel malaise towards any other system than a 4-4-2. I don’t think top quality English players feel apprehensive about other systems, but tabloid journalists, inept pundits and armchair fans do. What foreign coaches and players have proved is that, with tactical nous, there is a myriad of systems that could be effective in any given situation.
I remember a decade or so ago having many discussions with people about England’s lack of a left-footed left midfielder, and I stressed that with the right tactics – whether within a 4-4-2 or not – it is not necessarily an issue. Joe Cole was fairly effective for England in that position, and if I remember correctly Zidane used to play a roaming left position for France and Real Madrid despite being a right-footed player. Adam Johnson has been called up to the 30-man preliminary England squad for his excellent performances on the right despite being a left-footed player. My point is, it’s this tactical naivety that can get in the way of rigorous and intelligent debate about formations and tactics.
I think Tony Adam’s comment above is telling, and suggests that Terry Venables was perhaps ahead of his time for an English coach. I remember Venables being derided for attempting the ‘Christmas tree’ formation (4-3-2-1) with England on the run-up the Euro ‘96, but nobody mentioned that he used the system when England hammered The Netherlands 4-1 at the tournament!
I totally agree that a three-man defence with, say, Ferdinand, Terry and King, with Johnson and Cole as wing-backs, is an enticing prospect and utilises England’s strength at the back. With King or Ferdinand pushing up into midfield when needed, I can see this formation working effectively against the right opposition. With a couple of friendlies coming up without a fit Gareth Barry, it’s a good time as any to try it out. I’d still be a little surprised if Capello did go with the formation change, as I assumed he was keen on a pacey outlet using either Lennon or Walcott, which worked very effectively in the qualifiers; but I don’t think Capello will rigidly stick with 3-5-2 even if he was to adopt it for the early games. Perhaps, when Barry is fit and England (hopefully) progress from the group stage, he will go back to 4-4-1-1 and use Lennon or Walcott’s explosive pace against better opposition.
Capello is an excellent coach, and a mark of an excellent coach is tactical flexibility. But I’ll leave the last point to Capello himself. When asked after the game against Belarus whether England were playing a 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1, manager Fabio Capello bluntly dismissed such notions. “These figures are stupid. In the modern game, the only formation is 9-1.” The point being that there are far greater subtleties beneath the physical arrangement of players.
“I do think that it is a particularly English trait to feel malaise towards any other system than a 4-4-2. I don’t think top quality English players feel apprehensive about other systems, but tabloid journalists, inept pundits and armchair fans do.”
I tend to agree, but then again, when Sven-Goran Eriksson tried to implement a 4-4-2 diamond shape (which (a) made sense given the players England had at the time and (b) is a fairly minor change from a basic 4-4-2) the players didn’t like it and (if I remember rightly) asked to switch back to the basic 4-4-2.
Capello’s point about the ‘figures’ being stupid certainly has its merits when being asked about two systems as similar as 4-4-1-1 and 4-2-3-1 (the only difference is obviously the exact positioning of the wide midfield players). I suppose, if you need to ask what it is, it doesn’t really matter. But the three-man system is obviously a huge step away from any four-man defence system.
I think Sven’s problem was that he had a lax relationship with his players. He wasn’t exactly a strict disciplinarian in the Capello mould. There was more than one occasion where it was rumoured that player power was rife under his reign, so I’m not sure that citing a Sven-related example is justified.
Under Capello, Gerrard has played reasonably well on the left, Milner has been effective in various positions and Lampard has played a deliberately more subdued role in central midfield. I think English players – particularly those from the top clubs – have no problem playing in different positions and formations. Rooney, for example, has played for most of Manchester United career on the left wing, up until this season.
Of course Capello was being flippant when he said all formations are essentially 9-1; but I think in essence his point is correct, that it’s the players movement and tactical intelligence that matters most. As your site regularly highlights, journalists like to obsess about formations but view them with such simplicity. Slaven Bilic once said that “Systems are dying”, and that “it’s only for journalists or at the beginning of each half. When defending, great teams want many behind the ball. When attacking, players from all sides. It’s about the movement of 10 players now.”
See above. It’s only different in attack. In defense, a 3-5 2 is easily converted into a 4-4-2 in a number of ways. Capello is right about looking at the numbers. It is a misdirection. The keys to all tactics are space, time and movement.
I agree with an awful lot of that. I fear you over-estimate the top-class english footballer though. I’ve had the dubious pleasure of reading Steven Gerrard’s autobiography and it’ll be a big test to get players onboard with this. The last thing I am is a dyed-in-the-wool 4-4-2 merchant, I just feel the 4-5-1 is a better alternative given the players we have. a 3-5-2 would I assume still be playing Heskey (Crouch) whilst sidelining Lennon?
Johnson and Cole pushing up could destroy USA’s defense, players like Johnathan Bornstein(Left side defense)has been murdered by players running at him with speed lately.
By the same token, as an American, I’d be ecstatic to see King, Terry, or Ferdinand having to drift out wide to deal with Dempsey or Donovan on the counterattack if Cole or Johnson get caught too far upfield.
I can see it working against the group stage opposition, but the question would be why bother? Surely England’s 4-man defence has enough cattle to handle the attacks of the USA, Algeria and Slovenia. (Slovenia even has a player in Weiss who could potentially do a lot of harm out wide.)
Then you are through to the second round, where Ghana/Australia/Serbia/Germany then probably France/Mexico/Nigeria/Argentina wait. Is Capello really comfortable going with a largely untested formation against that kind of opposition? Barry would be fit again at that stage anyway.
Weiss plays for Slovakia and not Slovenia (both teams qualified for WC). Nonetheless, Slovenia has really fast transition from defence to attack that could cause big problems to the 3 men defence. With advanced WBs and when lost in possession England would have difficulties to close down 3 or 4 fast Slovenian players (wide midfielders Kirm and Birsa attacking wide and one or two forwards in Dedic and Novakovic through the middle). Very difficult to see England’s 3 CB’s stopping fast wide midfielders. The help of England’s WBs would be needed, thus opening space for Slovenia’s FBs.
In JW’s Inverting the Pyramid Slaven Bilic is explaining that he really wanted England to play with 3 at the back (that game in Zagreb, Euro 2008 qualifier), because then Croatia at each side has one player more. Bilic is saying that while his team is playing slow, 3 men defence is able to close them down. “But sometimes we played really fast. We were very direct, very brave and caused them problems,” he concludes. Just the way Slovenia likes to play.
There are some differences between Croatia’s team of 2007 and current Slovenia’s squad. Slovenia’s wide players are not so effective in 1 on 1 situation (Slovakia’s Weiss would come handy here). Croatia has usually had better ball playing FB’s than Slovenia, although Slovenia’s Jokic and especially Brecko can create goal opportunities. And finally, while defending Slovenia’s 4-4-2 is often changed into 4-5-1 or even 4-1-4-1.
Martin O’Neill played 3-5-2 from 2005 to 2005 with Celtic which worked well except at European level when too often the less mobile centre halves were being pulled into the full back areas by sharp passing, quick forwards. No centre half wants to be out there so its a system not without high risk.
You hit nail on the head that its wing back dependant. Ash Cole i will give you but my preference for RWB is Milner.
Yeah it was more the earlier part of his tenure up until the UEFA Cup final run in 2003 where we started favouring the 4-4-2.
Memories of more “cumbersome” defenders like Balde or Varge getting dragged out into the channels only to lunge against a tricky winger/forward and earning a nice yellow card.
On topic you can imagine Terry (presumably the natural RD) lumbering into no-mans-land against the likes of Messi, Ribery or even Dempsey and getting himself into deep trouble.
2 of the 3 centre backs would have to be comfortable playing as fullbacks for this to work. Do England have such players? Why does the absence of Barry lead to a change of formation? Even if they switch to a 3-5-2 they will still need a holding player to sit in front of the defense. So in any formation a player like Barry is necessary so why switch ?
I dont buy this.
The British media are just trying to create controversy before a world cup. Usual story.
I just don’t agree that this will work against the US… You’re making things much easier on the US wide defenders by giving them only one player to deal with instead of a winger and an attacking fullback. This will allow us to defend more narrowly both in midfield and at the back. Against an Egypt side playing 3-5-2 and with everything to play for at the Confederations Cup, we easily won 3-0 to qualify for the next round despite only 3 points.
A key player in the successful use of a 4-2-2-2 system, Charlies Davies, has not returned to fitness after a life-threatening car accident so it’s far less likely the US will go with two true strikers. That system worked well in the Confederations Cup and against Egypt because of Davies excellent running (even noted by Johnathan Wilson), starting from wide positions. Unfortunately we won’t have his contributions so instead, you’ll probably see Dempsey playing behind the striker. Since Dempsey and Donovan are generally very high up the pitch, the weakness is getting pulled out of shape trying to deal with overlapping fullbacks – hence all the joy Maicon had against the US in the second half of the final against Brazil.
The US doesn’t play in the center of the park – all our creativity is out in wide areas with a workmanlike central midfield partnership tasked with breaking up play and distribute quickly to the creative players breaking up the wings. Since Dempsey will likely play behind the striker, Bolton’s Stu Holden will play on the right of midfield. He’s a much more solid defensive player with a high work-rate, capable of tucking into the middle of the park as well as getting up the wing and putting in a very good delivery (as Bolton fans got only a glimpse of in appearances limited by a De Jong challenge on international duty). He can deliver given yard or two of space but also has the speed to get around the fullback. Jonathan Spector at right back also puts in a good cross from deep which led to two nearly identical Dempsey goals against Egypt and Brazil.
Basically, the 3-5-2 is going to give the US an extra man situation in the areas of the pitch we attack from as well as giving fullbacks who often struggle in possession under any pressure enough time on the ball to actually contribute to the attack. Instead of pinning back the wide midfielders dealing with a winger and an attacking fullback, there will be lots of space to get behind the wingback and stretch England’s defense.
More likely, in my opinion, is the US going to a 4-5-1/4-3-3 with three central midfielders (Bradley and Feilhaber or Torres playing in front of Clark or Edu) and Dempsey and Donovan playing on the wings. I think that most likely regardless of what England does, but it would be even more effective against a 3-5-2.
Just don’t see that happening. Two CMs playing flat at the base of midfield has been a constant in our setup. Against England I expect to see Bradley plus Edu or Clark. Bob Bradley is not suddenly going to decide to deploy a holding player behind two CMs in a 4-1-4-1. If you have some evidence that Bob has toyed with this idea, let us know.
He could easily have tried that against the Netherlands but instead used Torres as an organizing presence paired with Bradley at the base of midfield before replacing him with Edu to go back to default. With the MLS players, he’s used a complementary pairing of Kljestan and Beckerman, but they still play quite flat. He prefers two dynamic players capable of winning the ball and springing counters. A holding player is not in the plans.
Any system the US play will start with 6 players in the 4-2 arrangement. We can debate the arrangement of the other 4 attacking players all you want. That means any 4-5-1 shape would be a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-4-1-1. A 4-3-3 would have to be a 4-2-1-3 but I don’t think we’d have wide players that high up the pitch or the number 10 to make it work.
To be fair, I haven’t seen the US play with Dempsey (or someone like him) centrally behind a lone striker in a long time, either. The last time the USMNT played with a single striker was back during the Gold Cup, so far as I recall, and to my eye it looked more like a 4-3-3/4-5-1 at that point — I didn’t think Arnaud (the most attacking of the central mids) was as high up the pitch as the wingers.
I could very well be wrong, though, and might be projecting my hopes for what the USA should do over what Bradley actually will do.
I think we’ll definitely be looking at a 4-2 base, hopefully as Spector, Onyewu, Demerit and Bocanegra… not pacey, but defensively solid… with Bradley and my choice would be Edu partnered with him…
As for the attacking band(s), I’d guess it’s a fluid, shapeless 4 of Dempsey, Donovan, Altidore and I hope Holden if he’s fit. Dempsey, Donovan and Holden can all play centrally as a “10″, on either wing or up front off of Altidore…
As it is, I hope we don’t see England in a 3-5-2 as I think this is to their benefit, and I don’t see it as a pure 3-5-2 anyhow.
As far as this article’s point of England in a 3-5-2…
I got curious after the roster of 30 was announced, with all the centerbacks… but here’s my take… He’s thinking of using Ledley King in a slightly advanced role from Carragher and Terry/Rio… With Terry’s form and Rio’s health, I think he asked Carragher to come back in and play a big role. With his familiarity playing wide, it makes sense to stick him on the right of the back three, and he’ll drift wide right… Ashley Cole at LWB comes back to cover the wide left zone. Milner is the wild card. I think he’s the first choice RWB, who plays a bit more advanced than Cole on the left… Carragher will pick up a lot of his slack on the right.
But the key is Ledley, he’s on form right now, and he did a great job in his last England cap as a holding mid, he can drop deep when out of possession and slide up and play that Barry role when England has the ball.
So basically they are drifting between the 3-5-2 and 4-1-3-2, with Carragher and King floating around to change the shape…
In midfield, I think with King playing the holding role from the back 3, we may see a midfield of Lampard and Gerrard, which could be great or a disaster… nothing in between, I’m afraid… but using a guy like Joe Cole slight ahead of them or Lennon slight ahead and wide of them as the speedy outlet… Then up front, sadly, I’m afraid he’s gonna keep using Heskey as the target man with Rooney as the deep lying forward.
I personally would go with Joe Cole slightly advanced of the midfield 2, with Rooney as a ‘false 9′ type, and Lennon or Walcott floating from wing to wing… granted, that’s 3 short, non-target men up front, but it hasn’t hurt teams like Barcelona…
But I’m really excited to see Ledley as a holding mid / central defender in the 3-5-2 if these reports are true.
unless the sweeper is mobile enough to push up in a 352 its hard formation to play. yes a.cole and johnson can play as good fullbacks but it can be argued that a.cole plays best with a winger who can take the ball centrally in front of him.
the 352 for instance is being considered more so because of englands lack of quality DM’s, england will basically put their current midfielders into a roving band. i think the most logical thing to do with a 352 is to actually play gerrard right behind roooney and use milner/lampard/carrick as the midfield. milner can cover glen johnsons runs as well as putting his own stamp down the right, lampard and cole work down the left all the time at chelsea and by playing more withdrawn lampard can play a more withdrawn style(he is great defensively rarely gives away the ball), carrick for the defensive stability in the middle as well as the passing range to supply rooney from direct balls.
Gerrard needs to be the main man though, he has to be the number 10, i rate lampard as a better all round midfielder but gerrard is probably equal with kaka as the most dominant central second striker in the world. basically the team needs to either use the wings for attack or the central game has to go through gerrard for a 352 to work in attack(the return of the 10 to england in some ways)
3-5-2 doesn’t require playing with a sweeper though. It’s an easier formation to play than 4-4-2 in many respects.
I know that the perceived wisdom at this point is that Theo Walcott is a sprinter with no football skills or ‘brain.’ But is the revisionism so strong already that we’re going to pretend he wasn’t an important player for us in qualifying. Not just in the Croatia match either.
An extra body in midfield is no doubt sensible, I’d argue even if Barry was fit, against the good teams at least. Getting rid of both wingers and adding an extra centre back seems like a less effective way of achieving this than simply having Rooney play up front by himself, though Capello definitely seems set on two strikers. Especially considering the surplus of wingers in the 30 man squad.
I think that in a 433 or 352 the most balanced midfield trio would surely be Carrick, Milner and Lampard. I wouldn’t shed any tears about Gerrard on the bench but Capello would have to be brave to do so.
Why would you leave someone like Gerrard on the bench ? He is easily your best footballer (his poor season notwithstanding).
If your going by having the players suited, it leaves only three wing-backs (Cole, Johnson and Milner – Baines and Warnock are full-backs and will surely be dreadful if used), And it alienates the likes of Lennon and Walcott.
But it WILL be Plan B or C if anything, as Crouch is usually B. But stick to what you do best England
err.
Why would a formation with a 3 man defence be picked apart by the Brazilian formation ?
i didnt understand that.
anyone ? :\
Well Maicon would tear them a new one on the right for starters.
On the left Robinho will stand in the hole left by the advancing right wingback, not doing any defensive work, and wait for the ball to come to him.
Having a spare centre half that can step up and cover Kaka if he drifts between the lines would help, though a fit Kaka is more than capable of doing any of those three CBs for pace.
ohh right.
But doesn’t this formation function like Lazio’s (as covered by ZM) ?
As in, it becomes a 5 man defence w/o the ball ?
the CMs might cover for the wing backs.
Frankly, the thing that’s scary about England’s attack is having to deal with a speedy winger like Lennon or Walcott and an attacking fullback in Johnson wide on the right, while on the left Gerrard or a tricky player like Joey Cole is cutting in with A. Cole providing width on the overlap on the left with Rooney finding space in the center as the defense gets pulled out of shape. Stick Carra at RB and it’s more solid defensively and A. Cole can more forward to support the attack more freely without really changing the system.
Want an extra player in midfield? Rooney’s shown perfectly well this season he can play on his own up top so drop Heskey and play Gerrard behind Rooney, Joey Cole on the left, Aaron Lennon on the right with Lampard plus Carrick, Huddlestone or Parker at the base of midfield. I can see 3-5-2 as a possible plan B that releases both Gerrard and Lampard to get into the box. Plan C is sticking Peter Crouch on – Maybe it’s a 3-5-2 plus Peter Crouch.
Great point: Lennon/Walcott + Johnson is what should frighten the USA, since our options at left back aren’t good. The only one with any positional sense is Carlos Bocanegra, who has very little pace. I’m sure Landon Donovan would have to spend a lot of time defending deep against Lennon/Walcott + Johnson. Against 3-5-2 Donovan would move inside more than back.
England playing a 3-5-2 would be a godsend for the USA.
Would the middle center back be considered a libero/sweeper or are we more likely to see a flat back three?
no
I don’t know how credible the story is, but how do we know Capello is not planning on playing more of a 3-4-3/5-4-1? You accurately point out that a 3-5-2 can get outnumbered in wide areas against a 4-4-2/4-3-3, but this is not the case in a 3-4-3/5-4-1.
The way I would see it working is that Ferdinand, Terry, King would be the three centre backs, Johnson and Cole the wingbacks, Gerrard and Lampard in central midfield, Rooney playing on the left where he can drift inside in the offensive phase and press the right back in the defensive phase, a more traditional right sided player (Lennon, SWP, Walcott) and Heskey as the target man.
This would be similar to the formation Greece has used since the retirement of Zagorakis. Although the English players are of a much higher quality, they have similar characteristics to the Greek players who play in these positions.
There are a few problems with the concept of a three-man defence and they’ve been covered in the article: the main one is the lack of familiarity of the players with the system. They do not know it and I sincerely doubt that a couple of weeks and preparation matches will be enough to gel everything.
Another is the lack of complementarity of the three main CB’s. Terry, King and Ferdinand are not players to surge forward and pick deep-lying forwards if necessary. They don’t feel comfortable and do not really have the pace to get back in time. Players like Kaká, Sneijder, van der Vaart, Danny (portuguese forward from Zenith St. Petersburg), Thomas Müller, Matías Fernández, etc, could move between the lines and wreak havoc in the english defence.
One option though, is to take a different approach by using a very versatile (and disciplined) player: Carragher. If England would be willing to attack with only one wing back at a time (when Johnson would push forward, Cole would sit back and vice-versa) then Carragher could take the position of the full-back on the attacking side. This way the holding midfielder (Carrick, presumably) wouldn’t have to worry about the wing-back and could simply concern himself with the centre of the field.
True, this would mean using two players to do the job of one, but it could be an option in some matches. Maybe that’s what Capello is thinking.
actually,king is fast. ferdinand is excellent going up, terry can as well but likes not to.
I think the main problem with England is the lack of diversity in central midfield roles. Barry is so important for Capello because he is the one player able to provide a balance which no other player in the squad seems to be able to give – and even he, in my opinion, is not the ideal player for the role (he’s not that strong defensively). As good as Gerrard and Lampard are, they lack the discipline needed to coexist, and I don’t believe Parker and Huddlestone are good enough to deserve a place.
That said, while 3-5-2 is an interesting choice and does play to some of the squad’s strength, I don’t see it working well enough.
I would have to agree with a previous poster who said a Milner, Carrick, Lampard 3-man midfield sounds like the ideal choice.
A fascinating option would be Gerrard in front of the 3 midfielders, behind 2 strikers, a la Ancelotti’s Milan. This would only work with a 100% fit Cole and Johnson, mind – and it will no doubt give many English pundits a heart attack (no wingers? Blasphemy!)
Too much talk of Rooney being shunted out wide or being played as a lone striker, or as a prime frontman within a duo for me. Capello has used him as an ‘enganche’, or playmaker for a reason – when Rooney has been fit, you’ll be hard pressed to find an England game where Capello does not use a 4-2-3-1, or subtle variant of this setup. Why? Rooney is only at his best when deployed with a license to roam, within the final third. Capello plays him centrally, with an old-school winger such as Lennon hugging the right-touch line and stretching a side, while Gerrard drives in-field and creates a dilemma for a holding midfielder and Heskey occupies the central defence, stretching the forward line and offering Rooney a target to combine with.
Essentially, it’s a side set up to provide Rooney with space in the final third, to make use of his exceptional vision and creativity by loading the bullets for the onrushing Lennon and Gerrard, while also combining with either two of them and driving at goal himself.
For me, it would be suicide to play Rooney in other position, and it is the case that Capello switches to 3-5-2, I’d bet damn heavily on Rooney playing a similar role behind two strikers, with two holding midfielders to insure him and liberate the wingbacks to bomb forward.
There is nothing to stop Rooney roaming from a wide left position. Gerrard is not really a left sided player either. Rooney behind 2 strikers in a 3-5-2? It could possibly work, although I don’t know who the two holding midfielders behind him are going to be.
Your summary of how England played in qualifying is totally accurate. Barry is injured and the talk is of replacing him with a central defender. The way to do this with minimal adjustment to the rest of the team is to pull one of the 3 in a 4-2-3-1 deeper giving you a 3-4-3/5-4-1. I can’t see a midfield duo of Lampard/Rooney with Gerrard on the left, so the way I see it happening is for Gerrard and Rooney to swap.
Not saying it is the best way for Rooney/England to play, its just my speculation of how England will adjust their formation if Barry is replaced by a third defender.
Surely all this talk of Rooney being anything other than a centre forward has been put to bed by now? He scored all his goals for United this season in the box including countless headers. He’s basically a more creative Alan Shearer. He’s good enough that he’s done well playing off Heskey but suggesting that he has to play this way to be effective is mental.
My point was never ‘he has to play this way to be effective’, yet that playing this way he is at his most effective. Which is why you’ve seen Capello stubbornly stick to playing him in this way despite his form for United up front. He’s an absolute powerhouse of a player with the footballing brains and intelligence to go with it – he’s an excellent frontman, yet when you provide him with a license to roam behind a target man, you get to see those energetic drives and ferocious shots on goal, yet also the subtle side to his game, in fizzing the ball out wide or combining swiftly with teammates to distort a defence, and create space for himself or his teammates to drive into.
Fair enough. Does he really need Heskey in front of him to play like that though? I’m not convinced. Could he perhaps play something like Van Persie does at Arsenal in terms of dropping deep sometimes while still remaining the focal point of attacks.
completely agree with sacchian, rooney could play effectively anywhere, but to get the most out of him is to play him just off an out and out striker. it’s a shame england don’t have a great out and out striker to play him off, but even playing alongside someone as limited as heskey makes rooney more effective.
playing rooney up front on his own and coming deep, like van persie as luke suggests, would take away too much away from his game. he would have his back to goal, and be coming into the most congested areas of the pitch. rooney needs the freedom to find pockets of space in which he can turn towards goal – when he’s facing the opposition goal with options ahead of him, he’d terrify any defence.
having said all that, it’s about getting the most out of the team, not rooney. if playing him up front on his own means he is still pretty effective, and it gets more out of lampard and gerrard, this might be a price worth paying. but i just dont think he’s a creative shearer – he’s more a goalscoring gazza in my opinion.
Its a stuid question but y doesnt england play a 4-3-3
like BarCa
putting carrick or even carrager in the hold and giving lampard and gerrard freedom thts when they are really good lampard isnt good when playing a under instructions and neither is lampard
to make up for that gt wingers to do extra work like milner is really good at right and id go with lennon on left as his pace can be usefull especially when cutting inside on his stronger right foot …
Plz to reple ZM
An intriguing debate but Mr Zonal Marking pointed out the still unsolved problem – how do you play against a team with one up-front? The only possibility would be if the team switched to a back four for such a game, possibly with Ledley King moving from centre-back to a deep-lying holding midfield role (so as not to disrupt the team).
Playing against one up front is no different in a back three or a back four. The key is space and time. Consider this – if you play with 3 defenders against one forward, what can you be sure of? That only one player (the forward) will attack you? Or that the other team will send midfielders forward to support?
It might be a little much to ask organisationally, but could the defence not re-form according to which side of the pitch the ball was on? If the wing-back pushed up against an advancing FB, with the nearest CB covering any balls over the top to the winger, there would still be two CBs back, and a far-side WB to cover the opposition’s far-side winger.
I say this because Man Utd, especially when the left winger is someone who drifts infield like Nani or Park, often have Evra pushed all the way forward, closing down the RB, with Vidic-Ferdinand-Brown forming a temporary three-man defence behind him. Evra closes down the RB, Vidic covers any balls over the top, and there’s still Ferdinand and Brown to defend the box if someone beats Vidic.
If the ball goes cross-field, Valencia has the pace to track back, and there’s already Brown half-way there, with Ferdinand behind, until Evra has dropped and the conventional back-line is reformed (analogously, Evra and Valencia would be Cole and Johnson respectively). United don’t seem to get caught out in such moments , except when Gnev’s playing, who always over-commits to the centre of the pitch and doesn’t have the pace to get back out to the right when the ball moves cross-field (analogously = Carragher?)
———-James———–
——Rio-Terry-King——
Johnson–Carrick—Cole—
—-Gerrard—Lampard—–
————Rooney——–
—-Heskey—————-
I think that formation gives you England’s best attackers (plus Heskey…), and England’s best defenders all on the pitch in a position to do what they do best.
In a 4-3-3, if Gerrard and Lampard both get caught forward, there are three defenders back – in this formation, there are four, so Lampard could be a little less conservative than Capello has him playing, and provide some goals/assists; Johnson’s defensive problems become less of an issue; Terry never has to defend the channels behind the FB(cf. problems with Gareth Bale); you get a three-man midfield that can control possession and tempo, with assistance from a CB if necessary.
It could give an easy task to the opposition FBs, but intelligent movement from Rooney and Gerrard could help alleviate this.
If not this, then I think a Utd-style 4-3-3 would work – Carrick deep, a right-footed left winger (Joe Cole) with an attacking LB behind him, Rooney at false-9, a pacy RW (Lennon) to get on the end of Rooney’s favoured cross-field pass etc. etc. Rafael proves that it can even work with a talented but defensively flaky RB.
I don’t think Capello will use either formation – the first because the players will hate it, the second because he wants Rooney running the show, not up top on his own – but I still think they’re the best bets. Lone striker might not bring the best out of Rooney, but you get close, and you can drop Heskey who, for all his strengths, is going to cost England in a big game with his finishing.
Would it be ridiculous to suggest that England should play a 4-2-1-3? With a flat back four and Lamps and Carrick ahead of defence; then Gerrard. Have Lennon, Rooney, and Cole up working together with Rooney being false-nine? England has pretty strong full-backs who like to attack–they’re almost wingers. And Gerrard and Rooney work well together. Lennon’s a strong crosser and Cole works well as an inverted winger.
I look forward to a preview of Brazil, especially since all your article on Dunga and Brazil in general have been brilliant. This was a fun read but as a Brazil fan I was especially appreciative of the Jonathan Wilson post dealing with full-backs that you linked too.
So, any chance you’ll preview Brazil and how we might see Elano/Ramires/Daniel Alves/Gilberto/Michel Bastos employed in the midfield at times?
i just don’t get this at all. why on earth would he pick swp, lennon, walcott, j.cole and a.johnson if he was going to play 3-5-2?
if he was planning to go 3 at the back, surely it would have to be a 3-4-3 with the squad he has selected. but this still leaves just 2 in central midfield, so why would barry’s injury bring about such a change? can someone please explain the logic of why barry getting injured would result in a change to three at the back?
if it’s because we need extra numbers in central midfield to account for the loss of his wonderful positional understanding and discipline (de jong alongside him and vieira as well sometimes is a must for man city!!!), why not change to 4-3-3, 4-3-1-2, or 4-5-1? someone please help me out, i’m at a loss
my guess is that he’s looking at Ledley King as the ‘Barry’ holding mid, but instead of pushing up to join the midfield duo, he’ll be coming up from the back in a back 3 with Rio/Terry?
He seems set on a holding mid…and doesn’t seem to like any mids on the 30 man roster other than Barry in that role, so it’s logical to guess that he likes a CB or two in that spot… he’s got a bunch of CB’s on the roster, and Carragher seemed to play a holding role once or twice for Liverpool earlier this year as well…
huddlestone isn’t uncapped, he came on for his debut against brazil.
the 3-5-2 is risky given that England doesn’t have a player to press the ball at the centre who could hurry the opposition, Having said that, I think Capello would have benefited having someone like Phil Neville who can play both Defensive midfielder and press the ball more, he could also drop back if the opposition is having more possession at the edge of the penalty area and looking for a goal, that would mean a clear 5-3-2 when England are hanging for a goal but i really doubt if capello can convince Frank Lampard to be on the bench or for that matter Steven Gerrard because they can’t press the ball enough, can’t take the opposition team out of the game especially if it’s Spain because they won’t mark them like inferior opponents do, so let England play their basic 4-4-2 and they will have a chance going out in the quarter finals because Capello can’t sacrifice for star player like Lampard and it’s still my popular opinion Lampard shouldn’t start an England game with steven Gerrad.
i took into account Barry is not available
Exactly. I think that England don’t have a destructive force in central midfield could well be their downfall this World Cup. With the luxury of a fit Hargreaves, you could operate with a more flexible, dynamic midfield – he would liberate Lampard to roam and improve our creativity immensely. I recall one qualifying game in which Lampard was paired with Barry at the base of midfield. Problem is, Barry is not an anchor man, a man who can sit happily in front of the back four and single-handedly dismantle attacks as Hargreaves can. This meant Lamaprd was confined to a ‘regista’ or Pirlo role, and was unable to drive forward and influence play as he likes to, and he’ll face the same problem when paired with Carrick.
I honestly think Capello should be doing all he can to liberate Rooney and Lampard – they are out two most creative outlets, the most likely to fashion a chance, be it by ghosting into space or a sublime pass to release a teammate through on goal. In terms of world class creative midfield talent, we’re kinda short; Iniesta, Xavi, Van Der Vaart, Sneijder, Veron, Fabregas, Deco and Alonso will all be there, and Lampard quite frankly, is the only thing we’ve got remotely near to any of them in midfield, and I hope Fab does all he can to give him freedom out on the pitch.
Lampard, a creative force? He’s an excellent player who is brilliant at running into the box and a good passer, but I don’t think he’s a creative player in the same league as the names you mention, except for Veron, who is frankly past it, and Deco, who couldn’t get into the Chelsea team that Lampard played in.
As for the other names you mention, Spain apart, I don’t think England are lacking in the midfield department as poorly as you intimate. I would rather let Gerrard roam free and spray balls about, creating and scoring chances, but Joe Cole is also perhaps the single most creative midfielder in Capello’s 30-man squad. Also, Carrick is as good a passer as anybody in English football, and Barry is Xavi-esque in his play.
Overall though, I agree that it’s a pity Hargreaves wasn’t in contention, as he is an excellent player, although I think there’s more to his game than simply breaking up the opposition’s play.
well capello can play a 4-1-4-1 wid a back 4 and carrager in the hold giving gerrard and lampard freedom with rooney as lone striker ..
i think this wud be v.good for england..
if any 1 can find a flaw in this please do comment
its recall me 06’s australia world cup formation~!
they almost get through to quarter final, just beaten by italian…
now… england have better players in every positions except for Centre Forward (i fink viduka and heskey and Crouch are the same level).
if they can get used to this 3-5-2 and solve the issue how to defend the attack from the side…
i look forward to see it~!
Hey ZM,
if you’ll forgive the following plug, I’ve just posted a blog article on Dunga’s list for the World Cup and the popular reaction that followed it.
Cheers
I was just thinking about this today, and the thought hit me, with Carragher coaxed back out of retirement, and the lack of right sided fullbacks (Glen Johnson the only one), could Capello be thinking of going with a Zona Mista style setup?
——————-Ferdinand—————
——–Carragher————-Terry——–
————————————-ACole-
——————–Carrick—————-
——–Gerrard—————Lampard——
-Milner————————————
——————————————-
——————–Heskey———-Rooney-
From the left, you’ve got the Chelsea trio Terry, Cole running down the side, with Lampard supporting Rooney who cuts in to play off of Heskey. Rooney is aware of the opposing RB making runs.
From the right, you’ve got Milner running wide, or dropping back to cover when Gerrard inevitably runs deep and into the box. Milner is looking for the LB of the opposition to close down as well.
With Rooney and Milner covering the FB runs, we aren’t as narrow as a 3-5-2 suggests… but the personnel is clearly 3-5-2…
Just a thought, it fits… also, Walcott is your Rooney cover, Lennon can come on for Milner if England are chasing a goal… I also like the Ledley King option if Rio or Terry aren’t fit to go… He’s quick enough to act as cover for the back 3, and comfortable wide to play outside.
The other thing is this can easily be flip-flopped with Glen Johnson as RWB and Gerrard as the LW player, with another midfielder Carrick taking up Gerrard’s CM spot and Lennon or Walcott in the attacking RF spot…
So it could keep the opposition guessing.
pleming, I just logged on to post more or less exactly what you’ve said.
If Capello is going to play three at the back, he has the option of this asymmetric formation. Ashley Cole is clearly going to play left back, and will combine well with Lampard and Terry, who both habitually play on Chelsea’s left side. Cole is a great defender but is also excellent going forwards, and perhaps it is less limiting to designate as the left flanker rather than left back: his role is to provide width up and down the whole of the left side.
Glen Johnson is the direct right-sided equivalent to Ashley Cole, but there remain doubts about his quality. It therefore make sense to play Milner as the right flanker, giving the lop-sided shape you show. Though not as strong defensively as Cole, Capello has shown an interest in Milner in that role. Carragher or King as the third back I’ll leave to Capello; I’ve not seen enough of either this year to have a valid opinion.
This formation has the added advantage of flexibility; the centre backs and wide men can easily rotate left or right to make a flat back four as the occasion demands. Furthermore, the personnel comprises four traditional defenders and four midfielders, so Capello can still call it 4-4-2 and escape much of the criticism he will have to endure from the press if he deviates from that favoured formation!
It’s a fourteen man game these days, so thought should also be given to the substitutions. It’s a tiring role for the wide men, and they are the most likely to be replaced. Capello can easily switch the formation to a more attacking or defensive shape depending on the score line. When losing, he can throw on the out-and-out wingers such as Walcott and Lennon, and when the team is defending a lead he can bolster the by sacrificing whoever of the creative talent is faltering.
Having said all that, I’ll be surprised if Capello lines up with anything but a flat back four. If he wanted to seriously use it, he ought to have been playing it before now. He hasn’t got much time to make the players comfortable with the new system, and any mistakes caused by unfamiliarity could be disastrous. We shouldn’t need to change formation to beat the lesser teams, and the good sides are going to have the quality to expose our lack of experience. The big weakness of an England 3-5-2 is the going to be in the hole at right-back, and sooner or later one of the great left wingers is going to make us pay.
As these pages have noted there is a tendancy these days amongst 4-2-3-1 and 4-1-2-3 sides to drop a holding midfielder into the back when in posession to allow the fullbacks to push on like wingbacks. The trick is that when the ball is lost, the holding midfielder returns to midfield as the fullbacks withdraw to pick up the wingers. This leaves you with 2 centrebacks against the lone forward and cover in front of the back four.
If Capello goes for a three at the back he’s going to have to mirror this against 4-2-3-1 and 4-1-2-3 by getting one of his centrebacks to step out and to do so whilst the fullbacks are returning to their defensive positions.
We’ve been told for years that Ferdinand is capable of stepping out. Carragher and King have played in midfield in the past and should be able to do so also. In theory it could work. I will admit I am dubious. British central defenders are schooled in the traditions of the WM style centrehalf. The days when English back fours contained natural winghalves who could play in midfield if called upon to do so(Bobby Moore, Norman Hunter, Emlyn Hughes, Phil Thompson etc) are long gone.
As EL Tel discovered in 1996, a Paul Ince dropping in and comming out is more fluid than a Gareth Southgate stepping out and dropping back. I’d sooner have a fit Barry (a capable midefielder who began his career on the left of a back three at Villa) for this role any day.
Good read. I agree about 3-5-2 seeming like a good fit (and I feel you have a very good point about Carrick in a three-man midfield) in the group stage but getting more problematic in the group stage, although I think the timing could work well.
Lennon (or one of the other wingers) for mine could be one of England’s better attacking weapons in South Africa, but there’s obviously no room for such a winger in a 3-5-2. But then Lennon has only just come back injury, so perhaps a 3-5-2 starting line-up in the group stage would allow (a) Lennon to continue working his way back to peak sharpness coming off the bench early in the tournament and (b) England to work around Lennon’s absence from the starting line-up in the meantime without having to stick to 4-4-2.
So maybe 3-5-2 in the group stage (and maybe the round-of-16 – Serbia play with two strikers) and then the 4-4-2 that was successful in qualifying once Lennon (or another winger) shows they’re up to a starting spot. It would also allow Barry – more suited to a two-man central midfield than Carrick – further time to get fit.
well capello can play a 4-1-4-1 wid a back 4 and carrager in the hold giving gerrard and lampard freedom with rooney as lone striker ..
i think this wud be v.good for england..
if any 1 can find a flaw in this please do comment
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
friendly match
england – mexico now
first impression: england plays a 4-3-3