Tactical analysis of England’s system
With just a couple of weeks until the World Cup begins, this was a game posing more questions than offering solutions for Fabio Capello. Whilst England recorded a 3-1 win, they were outplayed and outpassed by a technically superior Mexico side for large parts of the game.
Few individual performances stood out for England – Glen Johnson was awarded the man-of-the-match award, presumably solely for goal, but this was one of his weaker displays; he looked very uncomfortable up against Mexico’s extremely high winger, and contributed little in attack. That he was England’s best player sums up what a poor show it was.
Capello was expected to try a different shape for this game, with a possible 3-5-2 system rumoured last week, followed by suggestions he could play two out-and-out wingers either side of Wayne Rooney. In the end, Capello went with the modified 4-4-2 he played throughout qualification, which was a little disappointing for those who wanted to see him try something different, but gave us a chance to analyse this shape in detail, and it remains the system England will most likely play against the USA in their opening World Cup game.
First, we should make clear that there were notable absences from this game. The players who contested last week’s FA Cup Final were not considered; John Terry, Ashley Cole and Frank Lampard would surely all have started tonight’s game. Gareth Barry, too, is absent through injury, though with him battling to be fit for the World Cup, it was an opportunity to test out alternative midfield options, so James Milner and Michael Carrick dovetailed in midfield.
The basic formation
Hopefully the basic 4-4-2 shape should become clear above. When Rooney drops off, it becomes a 4-4-1-1, when the wide players push on, it becomes a 4-2-3-1. But the basic starting shape is a 4-4-2.
The modifications to the system basically start with Steven Gerrard (marked in pink). England have notoriously not had a decent left-winger for decades, and Gerrard fills this role by playing very narrow, always looking to come inside and link with Wayne Rooney. His narrow position means that Leighton Baines (marked in green; to be replaced by Ashley Cole for the World Cup) has license to get forward on the overlap, and the fact that Gerrard has drawn his marker inside has opened up a lot of space for Baines to exploit here – he has a 15-20 yard band of space all to himself on the left.
On the opposite flank, the situation is rather different. Theo Walcott (marked in yellow; vying with Aaron Lennon for the right-wing position) keeps his width at all times, hugging the touchline and stretching the play. He is rarely involved in the build-up play other than from long diagonal balls to him, and the basic idea is to isolate the full-back, and get England’s right-winger running against him at pace. Walcott’s wide role means there is relatively little space to be exploited by Glen Johnson, the right-back (marked in blue), and here he remains more level with his centre-backs than Baines does. The defensive nature of Johnson’s role is probably partly why Jamie Carragher appears to be his natural replacement, rather than a more typically rampaging right-back.
In midfield, Michael Carrick and James Milner (marked in red) play as a traditional partnership in a 4-4-2. Neither had the holding role, neither had more license to attack, although Carrick’s natural tendencies means he dropped deep to receive the ball from the centre-backs more often.
Upfront, Peter Crouch and Wayne Rooney do not have ‘fixed’ positions to one side. When England don’t have the ball, Rooney tends to drop to the left, but when they do, Crouch (marked in purple) takes up a position on the opposite side to where the ball is, pulling off the centre-back and providing the option for a long, diagonal ball.
Evolution in possession
When Gerrard comes in a lot from the left, England look a better side. Here, he has drifted in further, and creates a midfield triangle with Carrick and Milner (marked in pink). This allows Carrick to drop deep to receive and have time on the ball.
When this happens, Baines (marked in yellow) finds himself in even more space at left-back, whilst Wayne Rooney tends to drift towards that side too (run marked in orange), creating a left-sided option high up the pitch.
As mentioned earlier, Crouch (marked in green) tends to drift from side to side, according to which flank the ball is on. Here, he takes up a position outside Mexico’s left-sided centre-back.
Creating space for the right-winger
England’s build-up play tends to start on the left, from Rooney and Gerrard, with England’s central midfielders moving to that side. England’s right-winger always stays very wide on the right, though, creating an option for the midfielders to switch the play quickly to the right-hand side, using the pace of Walcott (marked in pink). Here, he is not within 40 yards of another England midfielder, making the Mexico defence slightly wider than it would like to be.
Defensive worries
Firstly, this shows that Wayne Rooney (blue) takes up a left-sided role when the opposition have the ball, which sometimes means he ends up at full-back if the opposition right-back gets forward. Whilst Steven Gerrard and James Milner were switched permanently after half-time, they tended to swap naturally within the game anyway – here Milner (yellow) and Gerrard (green) have switched roles briefly in the first half. England looked uncomfortable with this switching, particularly as they had no designated holding midfielder, so they were quite flimsy infront of the back four.
That back four, though, was the main worry – especially as it is the one area of the team that pretty much remains the same regardless of the shape in midfield and attack. England were consistently opened up through easy balls from midfield towards the onrushing wingers making out-in runs into the centre of the pitch, and were only saved by two excellent saves from Robert Green.
This example above shows why, because the defensive line was poor throughout the game. Admitedly, England had just won possession of the ball so the Mexico attackers are not an immediate threat, but England’s centre-backs have got themselves into an awful shape where the full-backs are five yards behind the centre-backs (all marked in red). This means that England had a huge gap in the centre of their defence – any balls played into the box marked by the pink dots would be an immediate threat. Ledley King had an awful game – constantly being dragged towards the ball by Franco, before being forced to suddenly turn and run towards his own goal – and a quick change in direction is not something King likes. john Terry remains a far better option.
Defending corners
No manager wants to see goals lost from set-pieces, and that’s how England conceded tonight. Leighton Baines marks the near post (yellow), whilst the rest of the players have a hybrid marking system, where Gerrard and Crouch (blue) zonally mark the near post area, with the rest performing man-marking roles. With three players in a specific zone, six man-marking, a goalkeeper and one player staying up the pitch, England were prone to short corners – sometimes tempting Crouch and Gerrard out of position. A potentially lethal set-piece routine would be for the opposition to attempt to move one of Crouch or Gerrard with a run towards the corner-taker, before getting a second player to exploit the space left.
Franco was allowed to wonder into the space between Crouch and Gerrard fairly easily for the goal:
Conclusion
England were flattered by the 3-1 win – two goals came exclusively because Peter Crouch is ludicrously tall, another came from a tremendous strike Glen Johnson is unlikely to replicate in South Africa. There were very few chances created by good build-up play, the ball retention throughout was very poor, and England’s defensive shape was awful, with the full-backs (and the defence as a whole) too deep, combined with the centre-backs coming too high up the pitch towards the ball.
The midfield partnership didn’t work – Carrick has received inevitable criticism but was not particularly worse than Milner. The problem was surely that the two didn’t seem to have set roles, and seemed confused about what they were supposed to be doing. Walcott remains a threat because of his pace (which is vital to that right-wing position considering how much space that player has) but Aaron Lennon remains a better option on the ball. Gerrard looks good in his left-wing position drifting inside, and that part of the pitch will be much more productive when Ashley Cole returns from injury. Crouch might well have moved ahead of Emile Heskey for the ‘big man’ role – he can win the ball in the air and hold it up, but he is also much more mobile than Heskey, which is crucial considering the nature of his role – moving from side to side according to where the ball is.
England’s players look relatively comfortable in the system, although some slight changes in personnel and positioning are clearly needed. The problem is not that this 4-4-2 doesn’t suit England, it’s that it seems too easy for technically good, intelligent players to play against. England struggled to cope against Mexico’s fluid system that dominated possession, just as they have done whenever they’ve faced a top-class side under Fabio Capello.
This shape will easily beat weaker sides, but Capello must experiment with an alternative shape (in training, but hopefully also against Japan) if England are to triumph against world class opposition.
Tactical analysis of England’s system
Great read, but some analysis of the Mexican side would’ve been nice.
That’s coming later. Separate articles.
Edit: Mexico’s system was far more interesting, actually, genuinely fascinating how Marquez played.
Can’t wait for that one!
Hey, you stole my comment from The Equaliser! http://equaliserblog.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/england-mexico/#comments
Nice!
This is great stuff! England, however, were not great…
England will win it, like with every world cup. ;/
I have confidence in capello though, they will most probably reach the quarter/semi finals.
In all honesty I would rather watch them crash and burn later than earlier. Since I live in the UK the commentators will at least remain interested in the whole thing. This year’s champions league commentating was awful because all the English teams were out.
I think it’s safe to say that Michael Carrick or even Milenr won’t be getting that role again, unless Capello notices some drastic improvements. The main problem for England was when they didn’t have the ball, Carrick and Milner dropped very deep which created a congestion and invited attacks from Mexico.
Regarding Mexico, they’re full of flair and have decent amount of creativeness, but really lack the end product. If they had a world class finisher up front (or two) and a decent backline they’d be a fantastic outfit.
They do have. It’s that Javier Hernandez guy that Man U has bought. World Soccer’s correspondent is raving about him. Didn’t he play in this game? (Great article once again btw)
Great, great article. Was wondering why the press were so frustrated after a 3-1 WIN!
Great stuff.
Fantastic analysis ZM. Explains exactly why Capello puts Steven Gerrard where he is, and why he should stay there.
With a full-strength squad, I don’t see why England can’t match any opposition, bar Spain and Brazil.
I think Capello will play an alternative shape from time to time – it won’t be too much of a change, except Rooney will play alone up front, with Gerrard and Joe Cole (yes, I think he’ll go to South Africa) switching between the hole and the left wing behind him, and Lennon/Walcott staying wide.
The Barry situation, of course, is critical. I wonder if Capello will try Parker against Japan.
And I wouldn’t leave Carrick out, if I were Capello. He may not be at his best, or even near it, but England isn’t exactly brimming with experienced holding midfield options.
I still think your suggestion of playing a Barry-Carrick midfield (the former’s fitness permitting) is still a good option.
Surely England should go 4-3-3? Either Crouch up front with Lennon to the right and Rooney to the left with Lampard, Gerrard, a holding midfielder (I’d go with Parker if Barry doesn’t make it). It brings up the Lampard/Gerrard debate again but with a defined holding midfielder, they should be able to work it out.
Barring that Rooney up front with Lennon on the right and try Walcott on the left for a team full of pace.
If Lennon can maintain some semblance of defensive discipline in a 4-3-3/4-5-1, that seems an excellent idea. I’d still prefer Rooney as a central striker/lone-frontman with Gerrard on the left and one of the other options partnering Lampard in front of the holder. Yes, the big man would be left out, so I’m guessing this will never happen.
Seems like Walcott is fast cementing his place… as the new David Odonkor.
it’s not as though walcott lacks the technical ability, if that’s what you’re suggesting. his decision making is affected because he inherently lacks confidence and self-belief, not to mention th efcat that he is still only 21 (i think) and has been severely disrupted by injury.
this lack of confidence isn’t helped by rooney throwing his arms up like a tart every time he doesn’t get the ball from walcott just where he wants it. when walcott did put a fantastic cross, rooney failed to get on the end of it – he didn’t move. walcott should have had a go at him back, but he didn’t – and therein lies the problem.
I’m glad someone has made this point, Walcott gets far too much stick.
Everyone loves Lennon, they’ve loved him for all of 9 months!
Two years ago all they could see was the lack of an end product in Lennon’s play.
Everyone expects players to be mature role models, excellent technically, athletically outstanding and full of confidence. All of this by the time they’ve left home.
Agreed. Rooney’s body language from the very beginning, with regards to Walcott, was disappointing.
yeah, I agree with that too…..I also agree with you, steve, about Walcott. If Walcott does not have the sufficient confidence/self-belief, then it is too late for him to learn it and he shouldn’t play on the right in the World Cup – Lennon should get the role…….however (there’s always a however with me), if Capello choses to play a 4-3-3 type system, then I think Walcott would be a good choice for the right-sided Striking/Forward position (like where he played in Croatia). Remember, Walcott is basically a Striker (a pacy finisher – like Michael Owen) who is being played on the Right Wing by Wenger so that he improves his all round game (very gracious of Wenger to allow Walcott to learn his trade in the Arsenal first team – very stupid as well – like that idiot Benitez allowing Emiliano Insua to learn his trade as a Left-Back in the Liverpool first team – if a player is not good enough then he should learn and improve in the reserves, or on loan in someone elses first team…..). Look at the goals he scored in Croatia and against Barca – running onto the ball and putting it away, he’s rubbish at beating Full-Backs and crossing/threading through balls…..Lennon and Johnson are the boys for that type of role…….
that’s some great info you have there!
I have never thought of him as a Michael Owen, but his goal against Barca seemed pretty owen like.
good article! england potentially have a nice balance with gerrard tucking in from the left, ashley overlapping and walcott/lennon staying out wide right.
one issue mystifies me though. wayne rooney had his best ever season playing as the most advanced player for united. arguably gerrard has played his best football just behind a lone striker, so why does capello play them both out of position to accommodate crouch/heskey?
surely it’s worth trying gerrard behind rooney, with a pacy right winger and joe cole cutting in from the left. this seems the way to maximise the potential of england’s best players.
i don’t think milner played particularly well in the middle. he lacks the experience and positional intelligence to play there in a major tournament IMO. might be worth a go on the left instead of joe cole though
Barry is vital to making this whole thing work because he can cover for the left back when he goes forward. Barry can also move into the left wing slot when Gerrard cuts in. England don’t have a replacement for him so I think the tactic will have to change if he is not fit (not necessarily the formation). I don’t see Milner working in this role.
Great write up. I have always loved how you broke down the Brazil system but you didn’t include set pieces which is an important part of their game. Nice work.
really informative stuff ZM, look forward to the article on mexico, who i thought were fantastic in the first half – so brave in committing numbers forward and so willing to provide options for one-another.
i was thinking that if england are going to play with 2 up front, couldn’t rooney be allowed to drop deeper as well as wide-left when our centre-backs/deepest midfielder has the ball? i’d like to see him come back right into england’s own half, looking to receive the ball short.
this would create many options. the ball could go into rooney’s feet, with his back to goal, and he is almost certain to keep possession. he might even be able to turn his man and run at the opposition. a longer ball into crouch, bypassing rooney, is also an option – if crouch can control it, he could then look to find rooney, who will crucially be running towards goal, using his power and drive. alternatively, rooney coming to receive the ball could open up the space for gerrard to make a forward surge of his own.
so for me rooney didn’t come deep enough. doing so could also have allowed him to check the dominant marquez stepping up into midfield – he was free to dictate the play (as I’m sure you’ll go into in the mexico article). if you’re gonna play him up front on his own, then he obviously can’t come so deep, but in a front two, i think you can get more out of him and the team by allowing him to do so.
The big problem yesterday was that the forward unit as a whole failed to live up to their defensive tasks. It didn’t help of course that the defensive line was shockingly deep – on the edge of their own box – while the forwards were very high up.
This meant a lot of space in the middle to exploit and the lack of pressuring made this even easier for Mexico to exploit.
England’s idea to have the focus being on the left side is a double edged sword and means it puts lots of strain at the back and slant play to the left. That means Glen Johnson has to tuck inside and Walcott dropping almost as a right back.
Brain,
I think there are certain teams and certain circumstances which for which it is recommendable to play a deep line. Just look at Mourinho’s Inter: his justification? His defensive players are too slow to play high up the pitch.
Maybe England will have to settle for a formidable counter-attack (provided Capello can fine tune its mechanisms)in order to overcome their creative deficiencies in the midfield. But if, as a result, they are gonna keep a deep defensive line, then the centre-backs (whoever the pairing will be)will have to synchronise their movements of one staying behind and one-stepping up. And for this, England really do need a dedicated holding midfielder in order to help this centre-back to shut down the opposing player who has drifted into the hole.
Sure, the England defenders being so bereft of confidence to pass the ball forward or take it out may be a reason to defend deep. But, to aid Engalnd’s ball circulation and recovery of ball, they needed to push higher and press.
Of course they may have fallen foul to Mexico’s excellent movement but if England can impooe thier tempo and dynamism they can beat any side. And that means having the correct distances and assignments.
Would love to see the possession stats or the passing stats; the like of which UEFA compile for their Champions League matches.
Was looking through the various papers this morning and any analysis of England’s play was puddle deep; and no honest questions posed to Capello, such as:
- Does this team practice their transition from defence to attack?
Or like Mourinho’s protestations after the CL semi-final 2nd leg, is Capello happy to GIVE the ball away so as not to disrupt the shape of the team? Truly, it was like watching Inter Milan; but without the defensive solidity or decisiveness up front!
I assume from Capello’s remarks this morning that he wants more than just counter-attacking football. This implies that he HAS worked on actually keeping the ball and building attacks from the back. Well, the players either can’t execute his plans via technical limitations or rather, as I believe, inherent in all the English players -bar Owen Hargreaves, who isn’t in the squad- is their footballing culture.
From infants soccer all the way up to the Premier League, English football is about pace and power; none of this Johnny Foreigner, tippy-tap, be able to actually pass the ball out from defence, through midfield and then to the forwards bollocks.
I don’t believe that the English players are technically less able than their international counterparts; even though this tired, lazy, cliched excuse is routinely wheeled out whenever the national side is outplayed – which is most of the time.
I don’t believe that Capello is happy to concede possession and merely play on the counter-attack, as he knows that if you give too much of the ball to the likes of Brazil, Spain, Argentina etc, then they WILL punish you.
I don’t believe that Capello hasn’t worked tirelessly on ball retention, even if it’s solely for the mundane task of defending a 1-0 lead.
No, there’s something else at play here. Something that has been apparent to followers of the English national side that have seen them squander possession for decades.
And it’s the one thing that these highly paid professionals have in common with your average Sunday League clogger: THEY WANT TO GET THE BALL TO THE OPPOSITION GOAL AS SOON AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
It’s akin to a curse: this impulsiveness; the sheer amateurishness.
In hindsight, maybe Capello’s on the right lines. He recognises the limitations of the English player and realises that the only way to succeed is to play it safe, play it tight and hope for something from Rooney or on the counter-attack; because as it stands, England’s players are far too unsophisticated (some would unfairly label them bloody stupid) to mix it with the very best in the world. And as far as I can tell, this won’t change any time soon.
I like your comment. As a foreign student in England, I have found it frustrating and demoralising to play the kind of football i’ve grown up with when i play with my mates here. I think the problem is, as you mentioned, the need to score a goal and know the advantage on the scoreboard rather than on the field of play hinders the English players’ ability to express themselves. Only during the 3 months after Barcelona’s 6 trophy season did keeping the ball seem fashionable. Once the fade passed away and Inter won the UCL playing the way they did, it was back to square one.
I read somewhere that counter-attacks are a weapon of choice, executed whenever possible by the big teams, but never a strategy on its own. England cannot depend on it alone, and they should find more productive ways of building up play. I cannot forget Torrado’s “hollywood pass” (as my English mates call it) that opened up England’s defence, but for Vela’s poor finishing to render it useless. Against top opposition, these mistakes will cost you. Yes, it was mostly second string players, but shouldn’t this be the best 23 men?
It’s one thing not being able to see mistakes, but when so-called “analysts” and ex-”managers” don’t see them, especially on TV, therefore misinforming the public, its a bit naive really. Johnson was average, King was suspect, Milner was average, Walcott was one-sided, etc…you cannot give them undeserved praise!vZM, if me, you and a handful of guys on this site can see these mistakes, how can those “experts” be so blind???
Anyway, good luck to England. They have the potential. Can’t wait for Mexico’s analysis. Efrain Juarez and Rafa Marquez looked top-class for me
I’d imagine that the television commentators are under strict orders to hype up the England team (or the English clubs in the CL) as it makes for better television. Which fan (customer) would enjoy his or her team being trashed publically on television?
Great piece. You obviously highlighted the deepness of not only the England defence, but of Milner and Carrick, which i think was a big reason behind Mexico’s dominance. I tend to agree with the consensus regarding Milner’s naivety when it comes to playing as the shield in front of the back four. I think we missed the facilitation that Heskey brings to the side as Crouch, whom I’m a big fan, is unable to occupy the defenders and bring the best out of Rooney and Gerrard as well as Emile does.
I was fascinated with the way that mexico played. They seemed to set up with a 3-4-3 yet the fluidity with which they exhibited within that system meant that they often had 4 or 5 up front, particularly with the left sided player often staying high up the pitch.
I also think that the man of the match should’ve been given the the excellent Torrado who hardly ever gave the ball away in his role as regista.
FYI, a yank here, the key to emasculating Mexico’s very fluid attack is to clamp down on Torrado who, along with Marquez, is El Tri’s most complete player. It is the “prime directive” given by Bob Bradley in our games against Mexico. It works..but then again, this game for England was not about neutralizing an opponent but working on its own tactical issues.
I was certinaly impressed with him, always showing and being bery much the fulcrum in their fluid system. In a competitive game i’m sure Capello, well i hope, would’ve instructed either Gerrard, from his nominal left side position, or one of Rooney/Heskey to drop back in the holes Torrado found himself in front of the defence, to put pressure on him. That role would suit Rooney more with him being a more natural ‘false nine’ but the thing i worry about is that that move is more reactionary than pro -reaction(ary)..
The eternal Mexican problem: lack of effectiveness at the most important moment… if Vela scored those two goals we would have seen a more attractive game. And it’s kinda alarming how easy the Mexican defense was failing on the Corner Kicks.
Not to mention that during England’s third goal, nobody went to stop Glen Johnson from scoring the goal…
But overall, I like Mexico’s progress in their game. Then again, I felt that England let Mexico have the ball on the first half… partly in purpose.
Love the detailed nature of the analysis. Cant wait to read about Mexico’s formation.
Glad you’ve put it down as a 4-4-2 rather than a 4-2-3-1.. it wasn’t that ITV
ZM isn’t this shape similar to that of united this season when they have started with Giggs on the left. Giggs drifting in from the left and Valencia/Nani isolating the opposite full backs on the other side. This made Evra push up from the left and Neville being relatively defensive. The obvious distance between the United team and the team that played yesterday was in the central midfield. United had clearly defined roles with Scholes/Carrick in the holding role with Fletcher/Anderson/Gibson playing higher up the pitch.
I thought the partnership between Carrick and Milner was the weakest point and the lack of strength in the midfield seemed to be the reason that King and Ferdinand were pushing up.
That being said I would prefer England to play with a traditional 4-4-2 with Johnson/Wright-Phillips on the left with Lennon on the right. The best backup plan will be to play a Christmas formation with Gerrard playing just off Rooney and Lampard being the other attacking midfielder. Carrick, Barry and Milner as the midfield trio against teams who lack width.
I can’t wait to see Mexico’s analysis too but I’ve got a question. I believe F. Lampard will play as a strater. Would he replace Milner here? Don’t you think he should play higher up the pitch?
He’s played pretty deep alongside Barry in qualifying. It wouldnt be too much of a problem, they just need one of the midfielders to sit deeper than Milner and Carrick did.
Great article. If I remember though it seemed as if after halftime Capello switched Milner and Gerrard. With Gerrard in the center of midfield England looked a lot better and added a bit more fluidity in their attacks than with the Milner and Carrick partnership which seemed to be confused as to what they were supposed to do as you pointed out.
Great analysis, as usual. I found this website earlier this year and love the fact that it is so different than everything else out there.
I am always a little amused by comments about Peter Crouch. In this case how two goals were scored only because he is so tall, as if this is either cheating or somehow lucky. I have always found hime to be one of the more effective players on the pitch with most good things happening for England going through him, but everone always seems to dismiss him. Am I missing something?
I didn’t see the match, but judging from your photos here I think it’s interesting at just how deep Walcott is playing: practically aligned with Milner-Carrick duo during static periods of play. Clearly as a wide-midfielder/tornante. But I wonder if this is an offensive ploy, rather than a defensive measure. By which I mean, Walcott’s backing off of the Mexican left-back is aimed to drag the opponent forward and leave even more space behind for Theo to inevitably beat him to.
It looks like England, if they are to go far, will probably do so on the merits of being a counter-attacking side: though of course they are nowhere near as well-drilled in this aspect as are, say, Brazil at the moment.
And the positioning of that England defensive line looks awful! It’s not just that the full-backs are 5 yards behind the centre-backs and thereby jeopardising the offside-trap (since centre-backs and not full-backs are typically a better point of reference for pushing up), it’s the fact that both England centre-backs seem to echo the similar affliction of the twin central midfielders in front of them: they both play so flat; instead of one stepping out to follow the forward before passing him on to the defensive midfielder, and with the other staying behind, both England centre-backs move up at the same time. Thank goodness Mexico weren’t fielding a more mobile player than Franco as a false No.9 (as per the Messi strategy with Barca) or else that vortex in defence would have invited the inverted wingers Dos Santos and Vela to stroll their way in there.
at least they made these mistakes now (in friendlies) so that Capello has time to fix these ugly little mistakes…
I’m seriously worried about England after watching last night…..I know that some of our best players were left out (the Chelsea boys), but England were absolutely woeful last night, I thought. I’ve decided that the true result of the game was a 1-0 win to Mexico…..how did I decide this? well, better sides in the World cup will not defend as badly as Mexico did for Englands first two goals, so we can knock those goals off as insignificant, and Glen Johnson scored an absolutely World-Class strike with his wrong foot…..how many times will he do that in the World Cup? none, so we can chalk that off as well, which leaves a dodgy piece of defending at a corner (no blame for Baines on that one) which Mexico scored from, thereby the true result being a 1-0 loss for England……..ok, so Rooney and Gerrard did combine very well a couple of times to create some glorious chances, but if it wasn’t for Green we may have let more in as well……..
I’m really sad that Ledley King had such a bad game cos I genuinely think he’s one of the best Centre-Backs in World Football, and we never see him make those kind of mistakes for Tottenham (although one of Mexico’s chances owed more to Baines’ missing the ball, putting Ledley in a precarious situation which he was unable to rectify unfortunately……clearing up other people’s mistakes is a very difficult skill to get right 100% of the time……)…….the thing is with England, though, is that we genuinely do have goals in us, which is the most important thing in winning Football matches……I’m sure in qualifying we’ve looked pretty ragged at many times, and then suddenly plucked a goal out of nowhere…….If England do get to the final and even win the World Cup, then it aint gonna be pretty, and I’m gonna have bitten my fingers off, let alone just my nails………
There was a recent coach crash in the north of England where three people died (one Adult and two children – the coach was full of school kids) and the news reporter on the TV said about the crash that it had “scenes that children should never have to see”…….well, I say that the England team in the upcoming World Cup is a “Team that children should never have to see”………
……..please don’t think worse of me for coming up with that……..
Is it possible that England had so much trouble making this system work because Capello intended it to be a 4-3-3 in possession and it wasn’t properly executed? Given the rather asymmetrical positional nature of the starting midfield (Gerrard not being a left sided midfielder and Walcott being in essence a right wing forward)it is feasible that Capello intended for a diagnoal positional shift to occur within the match. Namely, Rooney pushing out left, which he has been so comfortable doing at United, Crouch being the traditional CF and Walcott operating in a strictly attacking role while Gerrard tucks into the center, slightly ahead of Carrick and Milner.
Considering the personnel available last night it would make sense theoretically but it’s nothing more than a guess at this point. Would also make sense since Capello was thought to want to experiment with a 3-5-2 earlier and this was just another tactical tinkering session to find the best fit for the WC.
Not sure about that, it was the same formation as he used throughout qualification, been various termed as a 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1 and 4-2-3-1, hard to make a case for it being a 4-3-3 though.
It’s not a 4-3-3 but given the personnel fielded a 4-3-3 is very plausible, almost what “should” have been played. Perhaps it’s something Capello thought of but wasn’t executed well? Or he is just going to insist on using Walcott and Gerrard out of their “natural” positions.
I think with regards to the two centre midfielders it was more of a problem them being too square with each other when out of possession, neither provided any kind of effective front screening of the 3 forward players. This thus allowed some great Mexican counter attacking play where we saw the speed and mobility of vela and dos santos which I think promises a lot for South Africa, and balls to be played into the strikers feet too easily. Carrick I still think should be considered for a more defined defensive midfield role looking more to restrict forward passing options rather than be a ball winner, although I was disapointed with his distribution yesterday. Walcott gets far too much stick and looked good yesterday, although I think he would be much better in a 4 3 3 where his great movement off the ball (often underappreciated) would make him a better penetrative option to get in behind defenses, where he is much more effective than having to beat players. I really feel England do not utilise their counter ability enough also and don’t look to have enough attacking structure when they win possession to counter attack effectively al la Inter Milan.
Tomorrow Mexico is gonna play against Netherlands… let’s see how they play… perhaps something to consider to analyze as well?
Don’t get me wrong, love your posts but can’t agree with the Gerrard point.
He looked out of place on the left and for me, hasn’t ever played well from there for England.
When he was switched to the centre the team looked a lot more balanced and he thrived in the role. Can’t help but feel he’s wasted out there, I know he comes inside but that vacates the left side.
Can Glen Johnson do anything right? Thought he was pretty spot on defensively last night (as he has been for Liverpool all season really) and yet people still aren’t happy! If anything Theo Walcott switching off on a couple of occasions made look like there was space on England’s right.
It wasn’t that Johnson was bad, just that he was OK. And the fact that he got the man-of-the-match performance for such an average display sums up how bad England were. But he wasn’t defensively spot on, the wingers kept getting past him off the ball, and he was dragged into the centre too often.
Surely part of the advantage of him playing on the left is that he vacates the left side? This seems to be regarded as a negative thing, but it plays into the hands of Ashley Cole, who is near enough the best attacking left-back in the world. Look at the photos at the amount of space Baines had – that’s perfect for Cole, and that space wouldnt have been there had England been playing a more conventional left-winger.
Oh, and I look forward to the Mexico analysis because that was one weird system!
Playing three at the back and yet one of them, Salcido, found himself on the edge of England’s penalty area all the time!
Hmm. If Carragher is indeed going to see some time at RB, and the RB is clearly the more defensive of the FB’s due to Gerrards movement on the left side… wouldn’t that essentially be a 3-5-2 when attacking?
If Gerrard is playing inside, and Cole providing width, and Lampard and a holding mid of some sort, and Walcott/Lennon on the right wing, that’s a 3-5-2 to me.
It was fascinating to watch Mexico play against England, because in truth we rarely see them play this style in full flow in Concacaf, because the USA, Costa Rica, Honduras, etc. know how to play them and set out to stop them, and usually succeed to one degree or another. Capello clearly made no attempt to set out to stop them, and I suspect if England had played them in the World Cup the match would have looked much, much different. It was enjoyable to watch Marquez having so much time and space, must say.
Partly that, the other big reason is that our Football Association also makes very bad choices and decisions and that gets in the way of having the National Team in a good shape.
I second the calls here for an alteration to the shape. With the players we have and the preferred style of play, a 4-3-3 / 4-1-2-3 / 4-1-4-1 shape seems to be the most natural fit. I notice the team shape almost seems to be crying out for it, but I could not describe any recent England performances as actually using this shape. Keep the second forward in a 4-4-2 as plan B. Rooney as lone striker. A dedicated defensive mid behind any two of our attacking players who have more license for late runs to support the attack.
I too don’t think Gerrard is at his best on the left, though he can manage, of course. Bizarrely I thought he improved when playing in the centre. This would leave left free for Cole / Johnson / Walcott or even Rooney if eg: Crouch was up top.
I think such a shape would be more compact and harder to break down, as well as playing the England’s strengths. ZM and Roberticus, I’d be grateful if you could let me know why I’m wrong! Thanks and looking forward to the Mexico analysis.
Great article and you’re right that England defended way too deep, due probably to the lack of confidence of the 2 central midfielders, Carrick and Milner. In my view, neither of them should be first choice next to Lampard. Its a pity that Hargreaves could not make it for this World Cup and that Barry is now injured.
I think Capello will have no choice but to stick to the tried and tested system at the World Cup as it is a little too late to create a new tactical system that can be better than the one used in the qualifiers. Remembering the way that Greece played at Euro 2004 and how Germany got to a semi-final at WC2006 and final at Euro 2008 with what some may perceive as a limited group of players, England must play with aggression, confidence and at a high premier league tempo. Couple this with good organisation in defence, discipline and an iron will to win, I feel that England do have an outside chance to win this World Cup. More important than systems, Capello must instill these characteristics in his team, and knowing him, he will.
The one key change Capello should make is with regard to holding midfield. With Barry injured and Carrick out of form, Gerard is the best candidate. He must be more disciplined in this role but Gerard is an outstanding player and I believe he will do what is necessary. He has all the attributes for this role and on top of that can shoot from distance if given a chance. His left-sided attacking role should be sacrificed to maintain the balance in the side. Joe Cole should come in to replace him. With over 50 caps, Cole must shoulder the responsibility and put in performances to justify all his recent fighting talk about getting into the squad. Heskey must also rise to the occasion. He is fit, has not played many games and should be fresh for the tournament. He has over 50 caps and now is the time for him too to stand up and be counted for his team and his nation.
My 23:
GK: James, Green, Hart
Def: Johnson, Carragher, Terry, Ferdinand, King, Cole, Baines
Mid: Carrick, Huddlestone, Gerard, Lampard, Milner (also for RB), Walcott, Lennon, J. Cole, Johnson
For: Heskey, Rooney, Crouch, Defoe
My 11 in a 4-1-3-2:
———-James———–
Johnson Terry Ferdinand Cole
———-Gerard———-
–Walcott Lampard J. Cole–
——-Rooney Heskey——-
Good luck England!
Johnson from City i think that must be in first team, is a great player.
Capello have a great team, he is the key.
“England’s defensive shape was awful, with the full-backs (and the defence as a whole) too deep”
Could you explain what the problem was with the defence as a whole playing too deep. If they played higher up the pitch, wouldn’t that have given the Mexicans more space to exploit? Particularly as the back four weren’t used to playing together as a unit and were therefore more liable to being caught out with a poor offside trap.
The problem England faced in the first half against Mexico is the same one that has plagued them since the days of Sven and McClaren. When playing a team who is able to retain more possession of the ball, the England team tend to back off, sit deep and defend in numbers, allowing the opponent to keep possession but waiting to steal the ball and make a quick counter-attack. This tactic of sitting deep worked successfully against Argentina in WC02 (the exception) but is not going to win you games against the top sides in the knock out phase of a tournament, especially with the poor penalties record England have.
The problem is a lack of confidence and bravery needed to press higher up the pitch and to make a stab at keeping possession for longer phases. This is the key problem Capello identified when he first said England lacked confidence in their play. He has changed this by instilling the need to keep possession, to press higher up the pitch and exhibit more agressiveness whether with or without the ball. Barry, not particually great as a defensive midfielder is a key player because of his ability to help England keep possession in midfield. Heskey, further up the pitch, helps to keep possession in the opponents’ half because of his ability to hold up the ball and deliver an accurate pass. Capello’s comment after the Mexico game was telling. He said he did not want England just to be a counter-attacking side. He wants much more. If keeping possession is the ultimate goal in a match, perhaps Capello may think about playing with 2 holding midfielders. This is what Brazil do with Giberto Silva and Melo, as identified in a great article posted earlier on this site. This would mean Rooney as a lone striker, supported by 2 speedy and skillfull wide players, perhaps Johnson and Walcott?
Who would the 2 holders be if Barry wasn’t fit?
Ideally, I’d pick Carrick and Hargreaves. Based on current circumstances, Lampard and Gerard, with Joe Cole in the hole. so a 4-3-3 could look like: -
Hart (impressive against Japan)
Johnson Terry Ferdinand Cole
Gerard Lampard
J. Cole
Lennon Rooney SWP (played much better than Walcott against Japan)
I have to disagree with part of this article.
While the merits of gerrard on the ”left” while england are attacking are mentioned, as well as commenting that this provides plenty of chances for overlap by the left back etc.
In the mexico game , this was not often utilised, and while gerrard is hard working and dynamic going forward, he is also selfish. He drifted in to a very central position for the most part, interplay between himself and rooney going forward was rather effective, and the left back overlap was oft ignored.
Defensively, however, there were big problems. Gerrard for the most part stayed central, and this is why imho the meixcans , most obviously in the first 20 min, were happy to pass and move in the empty box of space in front of Baines. Due to gerrard staying central, the mexican right midfielder had no tactical responsibility with respect to marking and was able to move quite a way forward and provide an consistent and reliable out ball to the midfielers and forwards who alread outnumbered Baines 2-1. Whenever Milner moved left to cover the defensive position left empty by gerrard, the mexicans took advantage of the space left empty and passed around him into a more central position. Such a pattern of play continued until milner,carrick and baines moved as a unit. When this happened, a cross field ball to the mexican left midfielder (or CM in left position) occured, the man was in plenty of space and an attacking position was maintained.
In the second half, the reason when mexico did not dominate as clearly was not so much that gerrard was now in a central role, but that there was merely a body placed in front of baines, and the 2-1 situations that lead to mexican posession could now not occur.
I think that if such a game was played agains a side and competant in posession as the mexicans but who also had a finisher in their ranks, i think england would have been punished for such defensive lapses.
Gerrard as an attacking force is a big boon to a team, however even an ashley cole can only cover him (as far as defensive covering ground) for so long, a strong team will take advantage of this with more ruthelssness than mexico managed.
I think to accomodate Gerrard is his ”left” but in reality attacking central midfield role that ultimately a forward(crouch) will have to be sacrificed. A defensive presence on the left is needed and england were just too narrow in defence for most of the game.
Gerrard in central midfield is an option, but it has been shown time and again that he sometimes forgets his defensive duties (this is a trait that has increased with his age surprisingly) , and with the lack of a truely dominant defensive option for central midfield, i think this would ultimately weaken the england side.
It is a dilemma for the coach, but i think for all gerrards boons in attack, the defensive consequences of his tendency to drift inside will out weigh the benefits, (even if he were to utilise the overlapping left back more often in attack.)
As ZM stated, more questions than answers, but imho, perhaps for slightly differing reasons
Thanks ZonalMarking, another great analysis.
One quick point about this website … might be a good idea to use the same colour for the same player(s) throughout an article. I got lost with Gerrard moving colour and position. Just a small point that might make your points easier to follow, Mr.Pink was Mr.Pink despite his protestations in Reservoir Dogs.
I would be disappointed if Heskey didn’t start, Heskey plays fundamentally differently to Crouch. Crouch plays on the opposite wing of the play when England are in possession (as you stated) always looking to score himself, but what made England tick was Heskey’s willingness to be the central fulcrum and to play his give-and-go football in the the very congested centre of the park.
Having that presence there occupied defenders and opened up room all over the pitch for Walcott, Lennon, Rooney. Missing this point is the fundamental reason why Heskey may only be appreciated when he’s gone. Heskey and Crouch are not a one-for-one swap… because unlike Heskey, Crouch is himself always lurking on the back post away from play looking for space to open up for himself, therefore asking Rooney to do more of the donkey work in initiating and building attacks, becasue SOMEONE has to do this work!
This indiscipline costs England defensively too. Playing dynamic players in holding positions, ala Milner, Gerrard, Lampard, (and Johnson as you stated above), means the team loses cohesiveness. England has always made this mistake of trying to fit the Supermans from all over the Premier League into a starting 11. If Carrick is injured/out-of-form, then someone like Murphy is the next choice, who would offer a different threat to the likes of Milner/Barry/Gerrard around him.
The main successes come from teams who used qualification to find their meaning, their philosophy. Brazil and Spain are teams who have found that, and have coaches with the guts to leave out big name players in favour of a team that makes sense (Ronaldinho, Fabregas, Pato, Adriano)
This England side looks like a good old fashioned (1970’s and 1980’s) Italian asymetric midfield and attack grafted onto a flat back four.
Is Cole as good as Cabrini at getting forward to balance the attack?
Oh and why do we need Johnson on the right when Carragher at right back would allow you to push the other three to the left to cover when Cole runs on?