England 1-1 USA: England poor in possession, US get wide players forward well
The line-ups
England were the better side, but struggled to make their dominance count and came close to losing the game. The USA’s 4-2-2-2 shape caused problems and prevented England’s full-backs from getting into the game.
England started with their usual shape from qualification, Wayne Rooney partnering Emile Heskey upfront. In Gareth Barry’s absence, Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard played together in midfield and James Milner started on the left – although only stayed there for half an hour.
The US also fielded their usual shape, a 4-4-2 / 4-2-2-2 that saw Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey supporting Jozy Altidore and Robbie Findley. Steve Cherundolo started ahead of Jonathan Spector after the latter’s poor run of form.
Firstly, we must clear one thing up about England’s formation, as it has been expressed as both a 4-4-2 and a 4-2-3-1 throughout Fabio Capello’s reign in charge. The two systems look different in pure numbers but can be similar on the pitch – if one striker drops off and the wingers push on in a 4-4-2, you have a 4-2-3-1 fairly seamlessly.
England, however, played a 4-4-2 in this match. Wayne Rooney did not play between the left-winger and right-winger, he played upfront and, in fact, often in advance of Emile Heskey for much of the game.
One of the biggest issues from the game was always going to be the question of whether the Gerrard-Lampard combination worked. Slightly surprisingly, they were given the freedom to dovetail at will throughout the game, rather than one of them being given a specific brief to sit in front of the defence. When this has happened before, it has often resulted in an unbalanced centre of midfield with both looking to make forward runs, but both were responsible positionally whilst getting forward when appropriate, and it’s fair to say that defensively, England rarely had problems stemming from a position those two were meant to be occupying (with the obvious exception of the goal, for which the blame is clearly not with the midfield).
This shows why the US system is often termed 4-2-2-2 rather than 4-4-2. The defensive midfielders (green) and the strikers (blue) take up conventional positions, but Dempsey and Donovan play very central (pink) forcing the England full-backs to come narrow.
The problem with declaring the system a (partial) success, though, is that they were never going to be tested in that respect anyway. In Michael Bradley and Ricardo Clark, the US play two defensive-minded midfielders that rarely look to link up directly with the forwards. They leave that to the wide players – and in fact, the full-backs offer more attacking threat than the central midfielders.
Onyewu dragged towards the ball, example 1. Here, he is too concerned with Rooney (in pink) and gets too far in advance of his defensive colleagues (all four in yellow). Gerrard (in blue) exploits the space and scores.
It’s simply not possible to treat this as an audition for the Gerrard-Lampard partnership being deployed against sides that play a deep-lying forward or an offensive central midfielder, where their defensive abilities would come under a lot closer scrutiny.
Heskey plays role brilliantly
Another classic England-related debate concerns Heskey, a notoriously goal-shy striker that many fans would prefer to see nowhere near the squad. This game showed his value to England, however – he constantly won aerial balls, held the ball up, and (perhaps surprisingly) showed very good movement when England’s creative players got the ball. He had done his job within the first five minutes with his assist for Gerrard’s goal – receiving the ball to feet, playing a simple pass for an onrushing midfield player, and England were ahead.
Onyewu dragged towards the ball, example 2. Again, he is caught too far up the pitch. The left-back Bocanegra covers, but this leaves an easy ball on for Aaron Lennon, who ended up playing the ball across the box rather than shooting.
As seems to have happened in every opening game of major tournaments in recent years, England went ahead and then became sloppy. The US goal was unfortunate and was slightly against the run of play, but England were not controlling the tempo of the game, nor were they dominating possession as well as they should have.
Both Gerrard and Lampard played some awful passes and demonstrated exactly why so many believe England’s poor ball retention skills will prevent them from winning this competition. On paper the technical qualities of the England central midfield pairing are far superior to their opposite numbers on the US side, but Bradley and Clark were not overawed and did their calm, unspectacular jobs well.
US ambitious in possession
Firstly, the problems Oguchi Onyewu suffered throughout the game are documented in the three pictures here. This problem was something ZM highlighted when previewing the US side – see the bottom picture here. Some might say he was “Doing a Vermaelen”.
Great credit should go to Bob Bradley for getting his wide players into advanced positions. Donovan and Dempsey came off the flanks to provide a threat from a position England aren’t used to dealing with. The England full-backs were forced to play very narrow, and this in turn opened up space on the flanks.
Onyewu dragged towards the ball, example 3 - it happens yet again, this time, the space is exploit by Heskey, who should have scored.
This helped the US full-backs, because they constantly looked to bomb forward and provide the width that was lacking when the front four all moved centrally. Although they rarely had a direct influence on the game, it stretched the England defence and helped the attacking quartet find space. An example of this was the early headed chance for Altidore – the crossing opportunity was there because of Cherundolo’s 50-yard decoy run from full-back (see bottom picture). Many sides would have kept their full-backs at home against an England side containing plenty of pace, but the US’ attacking instincts paid off.
In particular, Donovan’s advanced position made it very difficult for Ashley Cole to get forward, and he rarely had an influence in the attacking third. This is a key part of stopping England – with no left-footed attacking player, they rely on Cole for attacking width on that side, and with the right-winger Aaron Lennon asked to hug the touchline and generally not being involved in build-up play, England found it difficult to create chances, especially with Bradley and Clark patrolling the midfield side-by-side and tracking the runs of Gerrard and Lampard well (after the goal).
Late on
Cherundolo provided good support from right full-back. Here, he provides an overlap (blue) shifting Milner out of position, and letting Donovan find room to cross.
Neither side really used substitutions to change the game in terms of tactics and formations. England started to push forward late on but this forced their centre-backs into a high line, and exposed the lack of pace at the back. Jozy Altidore outpaced Jamie Carragher incredibly easily and had his shot turned onto the woodwork by Green. Carragher looked a yard off the pace for the entirety of the second half, diving in and getting himself in poor positions.
England’s best opportunities were when the US defence became narrow, and a late ball was played to one of the two wide players. Aaron Lennon did his job well – he got to the byline and put in a couple of excellent balls, whilst also playing a good through ball for Heskey who shot straight at the goalkeeper. Shaun Wright-Phillips wasted a good chancend did little of note in his hour on the pitch.
Conclusion
England rarely start well in major tournaments, and the result was not entirely unpredictable. We should avoid going overboard, but the game presented so many problems for Capello – Milner’s indiscipline, King’s fitness worries, Carragher’s lack of pace, Green’s confidence after his mistake, Heskey’s wastefulness (despite his otherwise excellent display).
England’s formation as a whole didn’t look to be the problem, but this game suggests that stopping Rooney getting on the ball and stopping Ashley Cole getting forward stops England. The one bright spot was the right-hand side, where Lennon and Glen Johnson attacked well and created chances.
The US will be delighted with the result. Bradley’s instructions to the wide players helped the US get a grip on the game and caused England problems – a straight 4-4-2 v 4-4-2 would probably have resulted in England dominating to a greater extent, but Donovan and Dempsey’s position put pressure on the England central midfielders and the England full-backs.
There were issues at both ends of the pitch, however. The centre-backs get dragged towards the ball too easily, leaving gaps in the defence – if those gaps are filled by the full-backs, then easy balls to the opposition wingers can cause problems. Meanwhile, the Findley-Altidore partnership worked reasonably well but was fairly easy to read – there’s surely a need for one to drop off to a greater extent, in order to provide the US with a different option when they win the ball.
England 1-1 USA: England poor in possession, US get wide players forward well
Great writeup.
As I understand the US setup, Onyewu’s role is to play higher up while Demerit sits back and cleans up a bit. Though both were obviously found wanting for pace, I thought that they did an admirable job winning the ball relatively high up the pitch and eliminating any imbalances that would’ve existed otherwise.
Whilst its hard to judge when only seeing the narrow band we get on the television screen I thougt that Lampard was repeatedly isolated in midfield with Gerrard doing his best impression of a Messi butterfly up front.
Heskey made a nice layoff for the goal and caused the centrebacks some problems but also blew some attacks through niggling fouling and made a mess of a great pass and run with a weak shot at Howard’s stomach.
Drop Heskey, move Rooney up front, Gerrard roaming behind him and a proper midfield alongside Lampard, this should mean both Gerrard and Lampard play better and that the striker will score from those (relatively in international football) open chances that are presented.
I thought England were horrible myself.
4-4-2 will not cut it at this level and I thought that Cole between Wright-Phillips and Lennon with Ronney up top should have been tried in the closing stages.
King’s failure to last more than 45 minutes and Carragher’s lack of pace were concerns.
Green’s mistake…well. Anyone recall the days when England had Clemence and Shilton in the squad. Now its three Alan Rough’s
Yeah, you’re a little hard on “Gooch” but otherwise, great writeup as usual.
I agree that Gooch was largely culpable for the first goal (although Clark would have done well to track the run from midfield), and was caught out from time to time. However, many times he stepped and won a crucial ball, either in the air or in a tackle, to mitigate a threat from no less than Rooney, Gerrard, or Lampard. A player who steps frequently to great effect will get burned from time to time, comes with the territory.
He also made the saving tackle on Lampard’s chance, and won many crucial balls for us in the air.
I agree that he wasn’t wonderful, and he needs to improve positionally, but you made it seem like he had a nightmare…when he was actually pretty good!
The same problem Vermaelen has, great tackler and ball winner but sometimes loses his head.
I didn’t really notice him playing that badly when I first watched it, but then watched the highlights and all England’s chances came from him moving up the pitch.
Think he’s a good player overall, but the fact that three of England’s best four chances came when he was drawn out of position do indicate problems.
He certainly won the ball on occasions, but if you’re charging forward like that you can’t be exposed so blatantly three times in one game.
ZM, I also think you’re being a bit harsh on Gooch. In example 1 he has to close Rooney down or Rooney gets a free shot from 20 yards In example 3 Rooney doesn’t need two defenders to mark him, the other centre back is too far across – the left back has found an ineffective position and the deep midfielder can’t commit to lennon due to the presence of gerrard and lampard in the centre, really the leftback should be closing lennon down, but once Gooch steps up the other centre back should be shifting across. That situation was very avoidable.
Defensively the US were all over the place, that England only created 3 clear cut chances shouldn’t fill Slovenia with too much concern.
Agreed on Gooch’s play. I have seen a lot of comments on other boards about his “massive” game yesterday, but I found him lacking as well. To charge up the field and give Heskey (Heskey!) a stone cold breakaway is unacceptable. That said, Ricardo Clark gets just as much blame for the goal for missing Gerrard’s run, probably overawed in moment.
Really, this game was a catalog of each team’s weaknesses. It was the most exciting WC game I’ve seen so far this year, but the least tactically interesting.
One more thing, off-topic from tactics: How long before everyone starts talking about the ball and altitude? It seems like all the teams are having major issues with control and shooting, and I’m assuming that’s it’s from a very light and bouncy ball being used at altitude.
The amount of miscontrolled passes and shots into Row Z have been shocking in all the games I’ve seen.
Personally, I think Findley needs to do a better job of getting into wide areas, holding the ball up, and exploiting the space that the fullbacks vacate as they mark Donovan and Dempsey. Altidore did what Altidore usually does, which is be nonexistent for most of the game, before showing up with a touch of brilliance later. I wish he had a more dynamic partner, but alas. With Donovan and Dempsey cutting inside, and Bocanegra and Cherundolo rarely attempting to get forward, USA needs some sort of width moving forward, especially against the next two teams, who will look to defend more robustly than England did. Without width, I can see Algeria or Slovenia parking the bus until we get someone in wide areas
I thought Cherundolo got forward very well. I agree with Findley needing to run the channels more effectively though. I would have liked to see Donovan on the left making an out-to-in run once or twice late on, but who would pass it to him? I had hoped Dempsey would have been in the hole for the last ten minutes to maybe be that man, but he stayed well forward. But then he often scores late in games as a CF so I wasn’t cursing Bob or Deuce.
Yeah, Cherundolo did get forward, just not as much as I would’ve liked, especially with 2 defensive CMs. We need people to support the buildup so we can recycle possession better. I also hoped to see subs like Findley for Holden and Clark for Torres, as I think Dempsey would have been great in the hole for the last 10 minutes.
Again, great article keep up the excellent work ZM.
For me the England side is too functional with the 4-4-2. They require a more dynamic force in the middle of the park. Too many side ways passes and no penetration. I agree the ball retention skills were poor and a Lampard-Gerrard partnership will not work. What they need is a creative playmaker or something – in the mould of a Fabregas/Xavi. The decision to drop Walcott was a poor one. It would have been handy if he was on for the last 20mins against a tired defence as he demonstrated in the Barca quarter final match. Even though 80% of his decisions are poor and he frustrates me 80% of the time, the other 20% is where he causes havoc and destruction in the opposition half running at defenders. An impact sub is what England need.
Walcott is one-dimensional, has poor decision making, does not track back and is not in form. Simply sprinting will not cut it at this level. Even looking at similar players Walcott is unfortunately closer to Odonkor than Rommedahl at this stage and neither of them were that good. England have Lennon and Wright-Phillips, both far superior wingers, and they also have Cole waiting in the wings to be an impact substitute.
You can beat tired players with superior passing and movement. It is also far more reliable…
Wright-Phillips is a poor player, and proved it again with another inept display. With Walcott, at least his pace provides a real threat which drags defenders out wide, without him having to do anything at all.
Of course, I think Adam Johnson or Joe Cole should be starting ahead of either of them.
Wright-Phillips is better in several departments. His problem last night (and that of Cole) was the triumvirate of Cherundolo, Bradley and Donovan. They worked together to close down space and track runs. England could not cope which is why their left flank did little. As I said above speed is good but not the most important factor particularly with Lennon starting and offering a lot more overall.
Donovan and Dempsey’s inside positioning would be interesting against teams that keep possesion better. Onyewu’s dragging would be suidical against teams that those same teams too. He’s trying to regain match fitness though.
England were bad. Milner’s confidence has to be shot after being yanked(ha!) at the half hour. Is it the formation or the players? Milner or Barry might be better than the Lamps and Gerra combination due to Hamsik’s presence for Slovenia. Scott Parker or Huddlestone would be welcome additions to the squad honestly. Carragher was shambolic too. I shouldn’t criticize Capello’s squad selections after vowing to forgive Maradona. Anyway, England fans should not be too worried as the USA was the toughie in the group. If they lose to the physical Algeria then they should be afraid. They need a point from Slovenia too.
Hamšík plays for Slovakia, so England won’t be up against him.
Thank you. I just made Robert Green look good
Forgot to mention Rooney. He came into midfield to receive and play the ball but he never got a touch until after the quarter of an hour mark. Unbelievable! The 4-3-3 might be better for him just because there’s more fluidity to the system but who would play on the sides and rotate into the middle? England just don’t have the players for that. 4-5-1 might suit them too with Barry as a holder and deep ball player at once but Lampard doesn’t really fit into that system. Gerrard would have his Liverpool role and Lampard would be forced into a deeper role. So much talent that they might have to leave some on the bench
On the broadcast I saw, the commentator said Rooney had his first touch in the box after 71 mins. I don’t know if that’s 100% true, but if so, it’s emblematic of how ineffective England were at supplying Rooney in good positions and/or how infrequently Rooney was in the box to receive chances. Heskey won a lot of ball, but didn’t actually play Rooney into good positions often enough. Likewise, SWP and Lennon, and Johnson and Cole too, failed with their crosses to hit the England players in the box. Lampard’s set pieces didn’t hit the mark often enough either.
As it was the first match of the tournament, I don’t think the lack of fluidity or problems maintaining possession are too critical. Nerves, unfamiliar conditions and a solid U.S. team were a factor in that. If their execution in the final third had been a bit more composed in and around the box, and Rooney had had more touches in that area (and, if not for Green’s error too, of course), this would have been a routine 2-0 or 3-0 win. I wouldn’t be dropping Lampard or tweaking the system just yet.
I believe the header wide from Gerrard’s over hit cross around 70 minutes was the first time England found him in the box. He was making the runs and getting into space but England’s final ball was frankly abysmal.
Bob Bradley is doing remarkably well with the resources he has. It seems that the movement of Findley and Altidore is focused entirely on making space for Donovan and Dempsey, USA’s best players. They have taken a bit of (ridiculous) criticism for not having the attacking impact on this game people might have liked, but I thought they did their defensive duties very well and were opportunistic going forward.
It’s weird to say this for an American team, but there frankly aren’t a lot of international teams with attacking midfielders as good as Donovan and Dempsey. It’s good to see them used effectively.
I also thought it was odd that Capello went the Crouch route rather than bringing on Joe Cole for a more creative and unpredictable attacking option. It didn’t look like England had a hope of winning a header in the penalty area, and their best attacks came along the ground.
Exactly. I forgot to add that below. With 4-2-3-1 in the last twenty minutes, England could have used Joe Cole in the
Middle since the yanks’ CBs were succeptible to through balls galore (the VermAlen effect). England looked awefully lot like Steve mcclarens version from three years ago.
I thought England were pretty poor and I was disappointed by Capello’s system and player selection. Let me deal with THAT incident first. Green made a mistake that was so bad the opposition automatically gained an advantage from it. I’m not going to lambaste him because he has a history of errors. Questions also need to be asked of the Gerrard/Lampard partnership as Dempsey was given too much time and space to take the initial shot. With that small incident out of the way let us deal with the rest of the performance.
England allowed Ashley Cole to be pinned back by Cherundolo and Donovan operating from the right side. When in possession this prevented him from getting to the byline which made it easier for the United States to limit the impact of Milner/Wright-Phillips and to effectively shut the left flank of England down. This in turn limited the opportunity Rooney had to link up on that flank which left England unbalanced. When possession was lost Milner/Wright-Phillips failed to track Cherundolo while Donovan found it too easy to operate in the space afforded to him by Cole, Milner/Wright-Phillips and Lampard. Fortunately this issue was not replicated on the right flank as the combination of Johnson and Lennon had more joy.
Defensively England were weak aerially as the United States had several headed chances that were not cut out. Once King departed the distinctly uncultured pairing of Terry and Carragher struggled to cope with the movement and pace of the United States strike force. With fitness issues surrounding King and the strike force in question not being top tier it does not bode well for later rounds should England qualify. In their defence part of the blame can be attributed to the combination of Gerrard and Lampard in central midfield. I accept they were not exposed as usual and managed to remain relatively disciplined but it was an open game. Defensively they left a lot to be desired notably when they pushed forward as England chased a winner. The sooner Barry returns the better because he provides much needed stability and defensive positioning to the side.
Regardless of whether Rooney is used as a striker or forward he needs to have movement around him and England need to be able to get him involved. In this game Rooney created a few good opportunities (putting Lennon and Wright-Phillips clean through) but despite making good runs into space in the box England failed to find him until the 70th minute when he put an over hit Gerrard cross wide. It is simply not good enough. The crossing and final ball from England throughout the match left a lot to be desired. Heskey did his job but England were not playing well enough behind him to make use of his ability to hold onto the ball and simply resorted to aimless punts at times, particularly when King departed.
I am disappointed in Capello because England effectively reverted to the tired systems of old with two stoppers at the back, a muddled midfield combination of Gerrard/Lampard to ensure a 4-4-2 and aimless punts to Heskey which left Rooney isolated. I thought that was in the past.
I agree that Heskey did his job well. He repeatedly beat Demerit and Onyewu to the ball, as well as pulling them out of position. The lofted balls that started coming in once Crouch came on helped Onyewu gain confidence as he looked much better when he could stay back and challenge more effectively.
Both teams could have used a more cultured passer to try thread balls down the channels behind both right backs. The pace of either sides center backs was rarely tested (Jozy coming up trumps once). I would have used Donovan or Dempsey in the hole a little earlier to stem England’s advanced positions in the second half.
Overall, I’m satisfied with the performance and result (thank you Green), but the same problems remain for both sides.
ZM: What does “Green’s confidence after his mistakes” mean?
Are you not sure whether he can start the 2nd game confident and should thus be replaced, or did he do an interview afterwards where he said something “too confident” about his game?
And what is your prediction about Barry? Will he be back in game 2?
I was a bit surprised about how unfair England played at times – Heskey’s dangerous play against Howard, the quick throw in by Johnson when Dempsey was lying on the ground right in front of him, and some other scenes.
Thought sportsmanship was huge for them generally.
Johnson did leave a great first impression(haven’t seen him before) apart from that scene on me though, brillant technically really.
Heskey’s challenge was legitimate and Johnson has every right to play the ball in that situation. It’s the referee’s responsibility to stop play if he deems the injury to be serious. It’s a world cup to win – not a fair play place in the UEFA draw for a Europa Quallifiing place!
I don’t know if Heskey’s challenge was legitimate, but if it is, the rule baffles me. Of course he has a right to go after the ball the way a defender has the right to attempt a tackle on a player with the ball. But if he misses the ball with his tackle and slides into the player, it’s a foul. So when Heskey slides, but Howard gets to the ball firsts, and Heskey cleets Howard in the chest, how is that not a foul? What’s the difference?
Indeed, Sam I should’ve mentioned that it was a free kick. However, it didn’t need further sanctions. Both players clearly went for the ball with no malicious intent.
(If you think it was a yellow or more then so was the attempted tackle on Gerrard for the goal where the US defender kicks Gerrard’s ankle after he strikes the ball)
Having the right to do something doesn’t legitimate it necessarily, at least not for me.
It’s perfectly fine to play rough within the rules, but exploiting that a player is lying injured right in front of you is something just unsettling me.
You also have the right to keep the ball after the opposition kicked it out when a player is injured, still it’s played back almost always.
Since you seem to be an England fan..
Would you have been happy if that throw in resulted in the winning goal?
Football is a physical game and a contact sport. Players will always come together notably due to momentum.
I thought Heskey’s tackle was worth a booking, very hard tackle with studs up. He wasn’t close to the ball either…
Ah nothing really, other than the fact it was a shocking error and he’ll spend the next few days thinking about it.
Can’t really judge whether he should replaced; he would have been my third-choice keeper anyway…
England’s biggest issue is that they didn’t dominate possession the way they should have against a team that had as laid back a press as the US. The pass accuracy – as mentioned – was very low, and I think highlights the fact that the team lack an accomplished distributor of the ball.
England have two extremely fast wingers in Lennon and SWP, and yet neither had very many touches on the ball, and when they did get the ball, it was rarely in a position to isolate the much slower US defenders in space. There were no passes to carve the US defense, and there were no players able to EFFECTIVELY beat defenders to put themselves in position to create numerical mismatches in the box.
Carrick would have been a great addition, as he seems to be the best distributive passer, but his form this year has not been deserving of anything than making up numbers on the squad, and there really isn’t a visionary passer of the ball on the team.
One last side note is that, for someone so tall, Crouch is terrible at headers – he’s better with the ball at his feet. He’s also not really very big or strong, more just a goalscorer with decent footskills – I agree with ZM in assessing Hesky as the best partner for Rooney.
Totally agree about Carrick. Should have been slotted into Berry’s spot in the 4-2-3-1 which would have allowed England to keep possession, control Donovan and Dempsey and gradually wear out the Yanks who are really susceptible to teams like Mexico, with intricate passing. The yanks played better in the first half but I think it had to do more with adrenaline then with anything else. One last thing – as a Gooner it pains me to say, but Fabio needs to pair up Dawson with Terry. He is in form and can take away guys like Altidore. Screw the experience, that’s why Terrys there.
England dominating posession? C’mon , Capello’s a great manager but he’s not a magician…
A damning indictment of the FA’s model of technical development…
I often wonder what Rooney would be like if he were withdrawn a bit more into a passing role. He is the most creative distributor on the team, yet he plays as the most advanced striker at times, and can get marked out of the game. No one else seems capable of taking up the mantle of distributor, so you take Rooney out and you lose a lot of controlled creativity. Play him as a true trequartista, with another goal gobbler ahead of him perhaps? Although maybe Capello has already tried this – I didn’t watch all of the friendlies.
I really don’t appreciate having to wait so long before your analysis of this game went up – it was sheer torture! Kidding, of course. Thanks for another excellent article!
For a Saturday night it was still pretty impressive
A draw first game up between the 2 sides expected to qualify is not the most unexpected result.
Overall disappointed with both sides, but its early in the tournament and both sides would look to improve.
Apart from the Altidore chance America never looked like scoring in open play despite England’s defence looking shaky. They had to rely on a fantastic error by Green and some wasteful play by England to get the draw. I’d expect a bit more from a side ranked 14th in the world.
The Algeria and Slovenia game will be interesting. England look capable of conceding against anyone and Slovenia have a good defensive record, equally America can’t expect the same good fortune they got tonight… Both side will need to improve.
England must keep the ball better.
I lost count of the number of times the eng CB’s had the ball but the CM’s did not offer themselves as outlets. This is a damning criticism for CM’s.
When will the english footballing bourgeois realise that Gerrard is not a central midfielder?
He can do a decent job there but not much else. Classic CM’s need to be much faster at turning, receiving and giving the ball. Gerrard is actually rather slow at this. He gives the ball away frequently with attempted simple passes too. (Liverpool fans will testify to this)
His positional sense in that area is not natural. If England are to harness his clear talent he must be deployed where his skills will be effective. Either as a right midfielder or an attacking CM in the 4-2-3-1 that he did last season for his club.
The sense of him just behind Rooney is clear. This would free up a space for a proper CM such as Barry. How England cried out for him last night.
The lack of a proper LM is hurting England badly. Both Milner and SWP were unable to defensively cover Cole on the left. Cole would take more overlapping risks if there was a defensive CM to cover. Again, Barry being fit is crucial for the team.
Rooney needs to be the focal point of the attack. He must stop coming so deep to receive the ball.
Agree totally about Lampard and Gerrard shying away from picking up the ball from the defenders. This, for me, was the primary reason Rooney hardly got on the ball, with the defenders forced into hoofing it up the pitch.
Another thing I noticed was that none of the centre backs, except King on one occasion, strode forward with the ball, despite the space in front of them. So you had this humongous chasm between the defence and midfield, cue a very disjointed team. In that sense, both Barry and Ferdinand were missed.
I don’t see why Carrick can’t play until Barry is fit again. He hasn’t suddenly become a bad player. He’d definitely link the defence to the rest of the team much much better than Lampard and Gerrard did. And get into better defensive positions. And find Rooney more often with balls to feet/to run onto, since he knows the kind of spaces he likes to occupy, having played on the same team for the last four seasons.
Apart from the muppet next to me that claimed to have played high school soccer for four years, yet kept on screaming the entire time for the US to hoof the ball up the field and complaining about attempted through balls being “wasteful”, it was quite an enjoyable match.
For the Gerrard goal, Ricardo Clark’s traffic cone impression was exhibit A for US supporters’ claim that Maurice Edu should always be picked ahead of him. I’m a supporter of his former MLS club, and whilst he was fine for them, that was mainly the case due to a strong midfield in front of him and the general lack of pace of MLS forwards. Edu would have at least moved to close down Gerrard rather than Clark’s spectator move.
Up top, my only quibble was that there was little done ro bring Robbie Findley into the match. He had pace to burn against England’s ponderous centre backs, and even though 99% of the passes didn’t make their mark, you got the sense that if they would he would have caused them a lot of trouble… until he fluffed his scoring chance, that is. Having said that, the one pass that hit the mark sprung Findley, and it took a disgraceful arm barge by Carragher (He was the last man, yet not sent off) to stop him from going 1 v 1 with Green.
One last thing: it’s amusing to sit back and carp at England and their inability to retain possession and do something with it. It was astounding to see England with this same problem against a USA side that in many ways has a similar issue with the personnel on the field. If Torres, Edu, or perhaps Holden were on the field instead of Bradley and Clark, they could have caused England some problems in terms of keeping the ball out of England’s possession.
Overall, good draw and glad for the US to have gotten England out of the way before they (maybe) figure out how to play in this tournament.
“Apart from the muppet next to me that claimed to have played high school soccer for four years, yet kept on screaming the entire time for the US to hoof the ball up the field and complaining about attempted through balls being “wasteful”, it was quite an enjoyable match.”
It sounds like he did play high school soccer for four years. Although the youth programs in the United States are becoming increasingly sophisticated (primarily fueled through a move towards an academy club system (with less emphasis on the ODP system, at least at the regional level)), high school soccer remains a plague on our youth players. It is largely devoid of tactics and the emphasis is all too often on strength and speed and “hoofing the ball up the field”.
Fair enough, and you of course are right about the problems in high school soccer. I played high school soccer for all 4 years for a team that played possession football in a 4-3-3 and did well until we got kicked off the park in the quarterfinals against neanderthalian sides every year. I guess we just didn’t like it up ‘em. ;^)
But unlike this genius, I know when a player runs at a pile of defenders with a teammate streaking down the field to his left, oftentimes that’s so he can make the pass and leave those defenders out of the play. When the US would try to retain possession and build from the back, he’d whine that the US weren’t going forward. I ended up spending more time mocking the West Ham supporter next to me for Green’s gaffe than listen to this guy prattle on senselessly.
I can attest to that. I was told I was too small, and ended up being a four year starter on my college rugby team!
England were horrible and their long ball game played into the hands of the US.
I wrote an article a few weeks ago about Barry’s importance to the side. His most important role is to allow Ashley Cole to overlap by covering the space on the left (Barry can play as a left back so he is comfortable in this role). None of Gerrard/Lampard/Milner can do this so Cole had to stay back and pick up his man, denying England of their key attacking outlet. Barry cannot get fit quickly enough because this team does not seem to have a plan B.
Awful game to watch but Carragher’s thug-ishness and lack of pace made me laugh. Penalty and red card waiting to happen.
As a Liverpool supporter, I felt dismayed by Carragher’s performance last night. If the USa could discomfort him as easilt as that, what’s going to happen when the real quality rolls up?
I have real doubts about Capello’s judgement after last night’s game
England weakness at short corners, still. (As you pointed out before)
Ashley Cole needs to get forward more… somehow. He’s ‘world-class’ while SWP ain’t.
Lennon awesome running at players but some early crosses needed, too.
Defence/Midfield link-up weak towards the end… hence CBs hoofing balls forward in last ten minutes, easily picked up. When are they going to play the extra man in midfield?
The real question for me is will this side improve with Barry back?
Barry gives cover behind Cole when he pushes on, which Cole could not do today.
Barry allows Gerrard to push forward as a false left winger
Barry is disciplned enough to sit when Lampard moves upfield
Is Barry really England’s key player?
I think he is. Gerrard and Lampard cannot play together as a midfield pair because they are both the playmaking star for their respective clubs and they are always looking to play the killer ball. If England want to retain possession and build more gradually, they need someone who can get and give, play short, intelligent passes that keep the ball moving and allow others the time to find space. Barry is the closest they have to that player.
Agreed
Hi ZM & Fellow Football Enthusiasts,
Would like to share something about a debate I had with my friend about England.
He said that England should do away with a holding midfielder.
His reasons were:
1) Barry’s fitness concern in this WC.
2) None of the England players are actually a holding midfielder by nature.
3) Play to their strengths which is the flanks.
4) Adopt the ‘If you score 4, we’ll score 5′ approach.
Personally, I disagreed much.
I felt that England cannot do without a holding mid simply because Stevie/Lamp cant play tgt in the middle. And there’s still too little time left to experiment now that WC has started.
Plus, no matter how you look at it, even if you play Carrick as a deep lying playmaker, he is still stayin deep, providing defensive cover, in a sense your defensive midfielder.
And as much as Barry isnt a holding mid by nature, he is so important because he stays deep and provides that defensive cover and presence for the full backs and CMF when they go forward.
And I do not think that against the better sides, England can defeat the likes of Spain/Brazil without a holding midfielder.
England flanks aren’t that devastating as well unlike what my friend suggested.
Lastly, the performance last night did nothing to change my mind.
Hence, I feel that my friend’s suggestion wouldnt work.
Because
1) Flanks aren’t strong enough to provide a real threat.
2)England aren’t a high scoring side / attacking side.
3) You have to have a holding midfielder simply to let the attackers Lamp/Fullbacks to hurt other teams more.
So guys, any thoughts about this ?
Would love to hear you guys out.
Think Gerrard played pretty well last night – I’d suggest dropping Lampard and replacing him with Barry to form a partnership which Gerrard has said he enjoys. He can then play a proper CM box to box type role with Barry sitting more often than not. I do not buy the nonsense about Gerrard lacking positional discipline. Thats an unfair stick Lampard supporters use to beat Gerrard with to cover up for Lamps’ general lack of effectiveness. Claiming that Lampard did not have an impact on the game because he showed positional discipline is neither here nor there. I honestly think that Gerrard can do for England what Alonso did for Liverpool season before last if he has a Mascherano type player next to him – and the closest england seems to have of that type is Barry (A 2004-2006 vintage Hargreaves would have been better than the 2010 Barry though).
Gerrard played very good (box-to-box). but i don’t thing this position is the best for the team. put him behind Rooney in a 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 and he will play much better (and Rooney also).
I agree, I just hate the fact that Lampard clogs the spaces in which Gerrard operates and in which Gerrard does so much better.
It is usually Gerrard clogging the space that Rooney operates in.
How does that work now ?
(1) Gerrard did not play ‘pretty well’ last night. He got a good goal but after that he was part of a central midfield duo that struggled to contain the United States, allowed Dempsey to take a free shot for their equaliser and left Terry/Carragher badly exposed in the second half.
(2) You might not like it but the fact remains that Gerrard does lack positional discipline. Why do you think Benitez and Capello have played him in a free role from the right and left wing respectively? Why do you think his best performances have been when he was playing as an attacking midfielder with little defensive responsibility behind Torres? Gerrard is at his best when he has the freedom to push forward and attack. He simply cannot do that without compromising the team as part of a midfield duo.
(3) Lampard is a more limited player but he is more disciplined which is why he can have an impact further back and as part of a midfield duo.
(4) There is no chance that Gerrard can emulate Alonso because they are completely different types of player. As are Mascherano, Barry and Hargreaves for that matter.
Talking about last night – Gerrard did hang back more than Lampard did. Considering that Lampard had the freedom to do what he does “best” in his favoured AM position, he sucked. And Gerrard did track back to help his defence out on more than occasion. Plus I did not notice him run around out of position all that much. He hung around in the center and tracked back when defending – isnt that what you’d call positional discipline ?
As for your point 4, Gerrard can do an alonso because he has that range of passing – I know its sylish to knock down non-continental players as lacking technical ability but Gerrard is one of the 2 or 3 in this english squad (include Rooney and possibly J Cole here) that does possess the requisite technical ability to compete and succeed at the highest level. Give him a destroyer in the mascherano mould (the closest the english have is hargreaves, something barry tries to do these days) and he can pick up the ball and ping passes all day long – of course, the odd ball will likely miss the target but I would put that more down to team-mates’ inability to stay on his wavelength (the overhit balls is a smaller percentage than you’d want to believe – it destroys your myth about “Gerrard – the Hollywood ball passer”
“Lamps general ack of effectiveness”? Are you mad?
Gerrard is not a box-to-box midfielder. He should have a free role as hs positional discipline is indeed shambolic at times. Lampard can not play the free role as he isn’t creative enough. Lamps strength lies in controllig the game from midfield without having Gerrard cloging his space, and hence build fro behid and make late runs into the penalty area.
Capello must break the Lampard/Gerrard partnership in midfield, but if he drops Lampard altogether Egland has zero chance of winning the world cup.
A midfield of; Lennon, Barry, Lampard, Gerrard (in a free role) or a 2-3 combo with Barry, Lampard; Lennon, Gerrard, J Cole is the way forward.
Totally agree on those two midfield line-ups, I thought this had been established in qualifying so why has Capello disgarded it? Smoke screen for later stages? (this is the theory I’m clinging to).
The point I am trying to make is the same as the on you made for me. Lampard is not creative enough in any position. He is only good at rushing into the box to take shots on goal and he is brilliant at timing his runs. Now Stevie in/through the middle could actually create something out of nothing, which Lamps cant.
I was asking mayself why is England playing 4-4-2. How many English players are playing 4-4-2 at the club? and even the teams that play a four man midfield have two attacking wingers and two defensive central midfielders, but Lampard AND Gerrard as holding midfielders? Why not 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1? Lampard in a defensive role is okay, but Gerrard too? Maybe Englands wingers are not good enough, or they miss a good holding midfielder? And if you play with two strikers, you have to bring in crosses etc.
I’m a little disappointed, a lot of the games have been boring. South Korea was good, Argentina was good (I’ve not seen the whole games), South Africa was okay, some others were average, but the big teams France, England (and Greece) have played like s***. I’m loking forward to see Brasil, Netherlands and Spain. Maybe we’ll see more combinations and players who know how to win a game.
For that matter, we’re seeing a lot of 4-4-2 across the tournament so far. It’s really been one of the big stories for me.
a lot of 4-4-2 and a lot of three man defence.
England stink out another international tournament with their ineptitude.
The very same ineptitude which renders tactical analysis redundant as they literally cannot string two passes together -I was watching the match with friends at a wedding and between the 52nd – 62nd mins all of Englands passing moves consisted of a single pass- unless, of course, this surrendering of possession at every opportunity is a Capello master-plan.
I knew England were crap but it seems I overrated them – they’re worse than crap. I really don’t know where the rest of the world get this impression that England is a nation of long-ball primitiveness. Maybe it’s the continued lumping of the ball from the back to some big lump up front, whilst the central midfielders are forced to do shuttle runs for the entire match.
Don’t think the real tournament favourites -Brazil, Spain, Argentina et al- will be losing any sleep over this shower of shit.
£6m a year his salary! Sort it out, man!!
I disagree with the Heskey chance in the second half being created by a poor tactical decision form Gooch. If you watch again, at the 51:12 mark of the second half the ball is speculatively played in the air by Lampard. Heskey is in the area, at the 51:14 mark we see Heskey challenge for it along with Gooch who wins it but doesn’t decisively clear it or control his touch well enough so the ball squirms away to Lennon. Gooch’s momentum is going forward leaving him in no man’s land, Lennon plays the ball first touch through to Heskey and we all know what happens from there. It’s a technical issue of Gooch not dealing with the ball well enough more than it is a tactical error. The tactical error, for me, is Bocanegra who fails to drop back enough to cover Gooch as he steps to win the ball, again the 51:14 mark gives a clear picture of Boca standing ball watching rather than dropping and perhaps even pinching in a bit.
I do think that Gooch got caught a bit on the goal, but really it comes down to Clark’s recognition of the situation–it’s not as if he’s not in a position to tuck in behind Gooch to cover, he’s just switched off, ball watched and paid the price for it. Demerit also a bit too eager to step up toward Heskey as the ball in coming in to him. Rooney, yes I would be worried about him turning and running at me if I’m a defender, not so much Heskey.
Tim Howard v England
I LOVE THAT GUY
In a sense, Capello did try and alter things tactically via a substitution. Wright-Phillips was more willing to carry the ball, and this was surely designed to give Cherundolo something to consider before going forward?
But it was just because Milner was on a card rather than a pure ‘tactical’ substitution.
Just because he was on a card, or because he was getting skinned for pace regularly? It’s very unusual for a coach to make a substitution after 30 mins, even if a player is booked. I think Capello must have had serious concerns about England’s left side.
As I sat and watched this game, I wondered what you would make of it. My main impression was of a very disjointed match with little structure, and a woeful lack of width from England.
I doubt he would have done so had Milner not been on a booking.
Milner is vastly overrated by England fans because he’s the type of player they like – he runs his legs off and chases every ball. But against Mexico he was woeful and last night he was even worse. Surprised Capello started with him.
We’ll never know for certain, but the card certainly provided a great opportunity to instigate a change.
Perhaps players such as Milner feel frightened to inject personality into their game under Capello. Take for example the scenario when Lennon elected to drive a diagonal ball across the box in the first-half: the ball was begging to be shot!
Well the booking and the sub were for the same reason – Milner was shocking and was getting torn apart. He was either cruising for a red or giving up a goal.
Milner is a solid player, does most things well but agreed he was awful against Mexico. The post match reaction seemed to concentrate on Carricks poor performance but Milner was almost as bad. Both players looks to have lost form at the wrong time.
To the critics of Lampard and Gerrard playing in the middle… With SPW and Lennon playing either side of them, ashley cole the only defender offering a progressive option and rooney playing so far forward passing throught midfield was always going to be a problem, especially with 2 defensive midfielders for America… Both players played some sloppy short passes but with the exception of Xavi so does everyone else!
A side with better central midfield players probably would cause a pairing of Lampard and Gerrard problems but America didn’t.
Normally I find ZM’s analysis to be very good. This time I disagree regarding the England performance.
Main problem: Playing style selected by Mr Capello
Coaches should always select a playing system fitting to the available players and the other way around. So, how can Capello select Lampard and Gerrard as holding players (playing left to right) when both are best at playing in the attacking midfield roles (supporting the striker). Together they scored more goals than Rooney so why keep them back. Look at how the England goal was scored… that’s where Gerrard is supposed to be: coming into space left behind by the striker dropping back.
Next up: Heskey AND Rooney? Why? What did Waine do to deserve this? He should be the lone striker with Gerrard behind him. If something goes wrong, for some reason Crouch needs to play in the final half hour, switch to a two striker system to change things up.
I’m Dutch so my knowledge of the 40% English players in the premiership is poor but you guys do have some sort of holding midfield player to add to the side replacing Heskey, right?
Final question: Did Capello really select the goalkeeper only two hours before the game??? Should be enough to get him fired on the spot for gross incompetence without severance pay.
Good luck sorting out the playing style before the second round otherwise you won’t even get to the penalty shoot-out’s
I’m not sure what you mean – you can’t really have both Lampard and Gerrard supporting the striker. There’s no point saying Gerrard wasn’t able to get into his best position and then say that he scored the goal from it!
They were played together because the first-choice holding player, Barry, was injured. It didn’t work too badly, in fairness.
Gerrard was able to do what he should in the first part but not throughout the game. My point was that the playing style should complement the players capacities, not detract from it. Gerrard normally gets into position more often than vs USA.
Why not play Carrick as a holding player and Gerrard and Lampard taking turns supporting Rooney up front? That way the three midfield players may complement each other. Even if Carrick is not the best at the task, this way you don’t subtract from the others (i.e. Gerrard, Lampard and especially Rooney who was frustrated about the lack of involvement).
In my suggestion above I have Rooney and Gerrard/Lampard attacking in the middle of the pitch vs Heskey/Rooney by Capello. My choice is more dynamic/fluent.
England have 3 top players (Gerrard/Lampard/Rooney) and none of them was used in their prime position, that’s poor coaching.
That will probably happen in the latter stages, but Heskey was probably England’s best player last night in terms of what he was in the side to do. Playing with him worked very well throughout qualification.
If you really need to have Lampard in the starting 11, maybe FabCap should consider playing a christmas tree – Rooney as 1, Lampard and Gerrard as the 2, Barry and 2 others as part of the 3 and 4 defenders. What do you think ?
However, I am in favour of doing whatever is necessary to free up Gerrard and let him do his thing even if that means benching Lampard. He is england’s best and probably only world class player IMHO(before you all scream Rooney, I just think that one reasonably good season is not enough – all his goals have come in bursts much like jermaine defoe except that for the first time since he started playing, rooney has had more than one burst). England will need to get the best out of Gerrard to have any shot at progressing beyong round 2.
Couldn’t we have had Lampard and Gerrard supporting Rooney if the shape had been a Christmas Tree?
Carrick as centre half (pulling between the centrebacks out of posession, pushing forwards when we have it) so that Cole and Johnson could provide width.
Then you could have had Gerrard, Lampard, Joe Cole, and Milner alternating between the deap positions to Carrick’s left and right and the two inside forwrad positions.
Shall I launch my “Carrick is God” campaign yet?
I think you’d have a problem getting a “Carrick is good” campaign up.
Since I thought Capello was a tactically astute coach, I thought he would go with Carrick in the middle. Maybe he’s not. He was, after all, out-thought by Bob Bradley. Why bring Carrick at all if you’re not going to use him when your first-choice holding player is injured?
Hart- A.Cole, Terry, King, Johnson – Barry, Carrick – J. Cole, Gerrard, Lennon – Rooney
in a 4-2-3-1 with Gerrard high up the pitch providing support for Rooney.
It seems like I’ve seen Lampard do nothing for so many world cups yet here he is, still at it.
Well, perhaps that’s because he is never allowed to play his natural game for England? Capello was on his way to find a shape to get the best out of both Gerrard and Lamps but switched it ahead of the USA game without any reason. I just don’t get why England isn’t playing three centrally, or just stick with 2 but with Gerrard drifting in from the left.
In Euro 2004 Lampars was head and shoulders Englands best player. World Cup 2006 he was average. But he was voted the best England player both in 2004 and 2005.
Great assessment as usual, except for analysis of England’s 1st. goal…Unyewu had no choice but to close down Rooney. He would have been ripped apart if Rooney was allowed to turn and get a shot off. The biggest mistake was by Clark not tracking Gerrard. You stated this issue yourself…”tracking the runs of Gerrard and Lampard well (after the goal)”. Further, perhaps the other backs are to blame for not pushing up after England’s throw in to Lampard. This is where mere snapshots don’t give the full story of the situation just prior, as excellent as they otherwise are. I agree with your overall assessment of Gooch’s negative tendencies, but fully disagree that it applied to this goal.
Disagree, watch how slow he is once the ball goes past Rooney, he just stops. Clark could have tracked Gerrard better, certainly, but look at the first picture, that’s a suicidal amount of space between De Merit and Bocanegra.
Disagree. Gooch doesn’t stop. He hesitates, seemingly deciding whether to track across following the ball or not. He decides against it, drops in but not quickly enough to take away the passing lane. Does DeMerit need to step out to Heskey when the ball comes to him? I’m not so sure he does. I agree that there is a huge gap left by Gooch but there is cover available provided those players do their job and do not ball watch. Unfortunately for the US, that didn’t happen.
Your counter arguments do not support your initial assessment of Gooch’s supposed mistake…”watch how slow he is once the ball goes past Rooney, he just stops”…that error speaks not to his decision to step up and challenge one of the finest goal scoers in the world just outside the penalty area, but to your claim of a mistake AFTER the fact…perhaps he should have tracked back quicker, but that does not make his initial decision tho close down the golden boy a mistake!
Further…”that’s a suicidal amount of space between De Merit and Bocanegra”…The picture and replay tells me Bocanegra could also be blamed for not moving more central.
Regardless, Clark was THE man who fluffed his lines, and you predicted this action from a previous review of the USA squad…i wrote you an email last night congratulating you on that issue.
Of course it supports it. If you get dragged out of position, you have to make up the position straight away, it’s two parts of the same error, really.
Maybe Bocanegra should have been more central, but then that simply opens up space for Lennon (see the other pic).
Correct…2 parts of the same equation….but you said it yourself! 2 PARTS!!!! just like a striker’s 1st. touch to settle for the strike and 2nd to shoot well on goal!!! You can get one PART correct but mess the whole EQUATION up by missing the other.
In this case, Gooch got part 1 correct and part 2 wrong, making the end PRODUCT a mistake! But the blame is ONLY on the part he got wrong, which is learned as a schoolboy.
Maybe if Bocanegra hustled to clear the ball rather than let it out for a deep throw, the goal would never have happened. It is unusual for a US team not to hustle to balls.
Haven’t read all the replies, so apologies if this post covers issues raised above…
As mentioned in the article, the fact that Lampard and Gerrard played well together in this one game is not necessarily indicative of whether they can do so against other teams.
The US had nobody regularly looking to play in between the 2 banks of 4, and that is where the Gerrard-Lampard axis struggles. Against teams who have players more intelligent at finding space, this partnership may yet struggle.
However, I’m sure Capello will look to re-instate Barry so I guess this is something of a moot point.
I thought, in the main, England controlled the game fairly well, and created a great number of chances. However, the fact that they only converted once, suggests that a lack of composure in front of goal will eventually be their undoing. Players like Lennon and Wright-Phillips are effective but will not be good enough to win them a World Cup.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Joe Cole begins to play more of a part, because he has demonstrated the ability to play well and score goals at big tournaments in the past.
Hi, maybe I wrong here, but I never considered Lampard or Gerrad as creative players. They can’t dictate the way a game goes or play constantly good passes, can dribble or keep possesion of the ball. Especially Lampard is just world class in running into the box to convert a cross or have a shot from a pass from outside. But who in england’s squad can produce what Lampard or Gerrad need to score? They crowed the box with players, but where does the creativity comes from, to help the wingers to produce? IMO England desperately needs a player like Deco, who can spread the game and include the wide players.
Like Paul Scholes.
Carragher’s problem, as it was with Liverpool last season, is that Johnson leaves him woefully exposed. He’s OK centrally but when dragged out wide to cover for Johnson he is vulnerable. Johnson is brilliant going forward but he just doesn’t defend. At Liverpool Carragher at least has the mobile Agger or Skrtel to back him up, rather than the pedestrian Terry. When the equally slow Kyrgiakos is in the Liverpool side Carragher plays right-back to avoid the chronic lack of pace in the centre.
Great site!
I do think it’s worth bearing in mind that Green essentially gave us a 1 goal handicap. It’s not simply an example of the element of chance inherent in footie, it’s just a game changing disaster. It’s always going to be a challenge to effectively beat a solid, well organised team like the US by 2 goals.
Overall, quite a good analysis. I don’t know what people really expect from England – compared to qualification, we were fairly fluent and controlled in posession, and the gerrard-lampard axis actually worked quite well, although it won’t work with every team as you say. This is how England sides play I’m afraid, and it’ not necessarily ineffective. Germany got to the Euro finals playing with even less fluidity than this.
As ever, big emile having a cracker… still, he underlined exactly why he’s a starting player. I’m not impressed with Crouch, who is after all barely more of a goalscorer than heskey, and otherwise a very mediocre player
Agree completely with the US defensive problems with a defender pushing too high up the pitch, noticed it several times during the game.
I don’t think either team played particularly well, both goals could be attributed more to opposition errors than good team play.
I do think the US deserved at least one goal. Particularly in the first half the US had more possession and while their crosses looked dangerous, Altidore characteristically could not get a good header on the ball. Surprisingly, the US players looked more comfortable on the ball enjoyed more of it than England.
In the 2nd half as the game went on the US clearly played for the draw. At one point one of the forwards was able to control a long forward pass in a counter situation only for no support to arrive from the midfield, the 2 forwards were going up against 7 defending players.
It’s a real shame that the US got their goal through a massive defensive error. I think that the US was fully capable of scoring if their players stayed motivated to do so. Taking in the US’s 2nd half retreat though, England did wind up playing a better game and while its definitely a bit unfortunate for England to lose, I can’t really call it an unfair result.
Must say that the result in itself wasn’t very surprising, although it took a freak goal to get to the final result. After this game, all my fears regarding the England team has been realised.
I have a number of issues. 1) Goalkeepers, 2) Squad selection, 3) Formation, 4) Starting XI against the USA:
1) Why Capello has chosen to go with Robert Green as first choice goalkeeper is for me a great mystery. I’d rank him as third choice goalkeeper in the squad, and although James has had fitness problems I’d rather have gone with Joe Hart, the standout goalkeeper in the Premiership this season. For the future games in the tournament I assume James will retain his position as the England no 1.
2) The mistakes Capello did with his squad selection were highlighted last night. The absence of a left winger, weak cover at CB, no cover at RB, unbalanced midfield, inclusion of SWP. The mistakes are most highlighted in central defence and at right back. With Rio Ferdinand out inured the England defence looks very vulnerable. King is a quality player but his injury record and fragile knees where always going to pose problems, which was highlighted after only 45minutes last night. Jamie Carragher may be good enough as a fourth choice CB, but his performance yesterday just showed what most followers of the Premiership already new, he’s far from the player that he used to be. With King now injured, Carragher looks likely to play a bigger part in this tournament then anyone would like and that also ensures that there is no cover for Johnson at RB. England will have to hope to avoid suspensions or injuries to either Ashley Cole or Glen Johnson and that King will return to fitness asap. Why Gary Neville or Wes Brown was left out altogether is a great mystery, and there inclusion would have offered a more balanced defensive set-up.
Likewise, why he opted to include both SWP and Lennon in the squad is a mystery. Neither is really good enough to play in the starting XI of a team aspiring to win the World Cup and Joe Coe must count himself very unlucky to not play a part yesterday. Lennon is a very direct player and has speed, but SWP is clearly not good enough at this level, something that was highlighted during his time at Chelsea time and time again.
3) The functional 4-4-2 may work for England, if Barry/Carrick is playing at the defensive midfield position and Gerrard vacating a relatively free role to the left, with Lennon offering a direct threat from RW. However, if England is supposed to be a success at this world cup they must find a formation that will get the best out of Rooney, Gerrard and Lampard. Playing Gerrard and Lampard centrally in a flat 4-4-2 is not going to achieve this, and Capello will have to play one of two formations: some sort of 4-3-3 (either Barry and Lampard, or just Barry holding, with Gerrard or Gerrard and Lampard in more advanced roles) or a 4-4-2 (with Barry holding and Gerrard in a free role to the left). The 4-2-3-1 (or 4-1-4-1) would enable England to play the key players in their favoured positions such as; James; Johnson, King, Terry, Cole; Barry, Lampard; Lennon, Gerrard, J Cole; Rooney. I also feel that Rooney should play along up front, with Gerrard supporting him (much like he does for Liverpool) in order to get the best out of Rooney.
4) Starting XI against USA made no sense. Why he chose Milner on the left wing, only to sub him for SWP 30 mins in, made no sense. Milner’s best position is inside, or on the right. If Gerrrad is not playing at LW, then the only real option out left is Joe Cole. With Barry being out, Capello should have started with a 3 man midfield, especially since Donovan and Dempsey is seeking central positions behind the opposition midfield continuously. By employing a defensive midfielder this attacking threat (basically the USA’s only threat) would have been neutralised. I would have gone for a 4-2-3-1 with James; Johnson, King, Terry, A Cole; Carrick, Lampard; Lennon, Gerrard, J Cole; Rooney. If 4-4-2, Gerrard should have been wide left once again with Carrick and Lampard holding centrally.
“England rarely had problems stemming from a position those two were meant to be occupying (with the obvious exception of the goal, for which the blame is clearly not with the midfield).”
I don’t understand how you can say this. Gerrard was turned inside out multiple times by Dempsey for the goal. The shot ended up being tame and obviously should not have gone in, but with the space Dempsey got out of Gerrard it could easily have been a better shot. There seemed to be several shots like this (usually Dempsey or Donovan cutting in IIRC), with poor shooting letting the USA down.
Very disappointed with Capello’s decisions for this game.
1) Green is rubbish. Has been since the start. Even Robinson should’ve been starting instead of him, if Capello is (understandably) afraid of Hart’s lack of experience in the big time.
2) Why did Capello pick Carrick for the squad? I don’t agree with that decision, but once made surely he is backup for Barry?
3) Playing Milner – a slow, rather mediocre player who doesn’t play on the left usually – to stop Donovan? Huh? SWP is awful, but at least he can match Donovan for pace.
A typically inept England performance, that part was no surprise, but Capello’s poor decisions were.
How can you say that Green is “rubbish”? It’s so easy to say these things in hindsight. Green hasn’t been rubbish “since the start”, in fact he had been pretty solid for England up until that error. The problem isn’t Green, it’s not having an established number one – and this has been exacerbated by Capello keeping the players all guessing about who will be playing right up until the eleventh hour.
Most of the leading nations have an established number one goalkeeper, but since Seaman retired the goalkeeper has been an issue for England. In the late 70s/early 80s Ron Greenwood could never decide between Shilton or Clemence, but Capello’s problem is worse, since we have a number of very good ‘keepers but perhaps none that are truly world class.
“How can you say that Green is “rubbish”?”
Well, because he is. Galactic clanger, most errors leading to goals in his league, what more do you want? The guy is simply a rather bad goalkeeper.
“It’s so easy to say these things in hindsight. Green hasn’t been rubbish “since the start”, in fact he had been pretty solid for England up until that error.”
Not hindsight, I’ve been saying Green will lose England games since he got in the squad.
“The problem isn’t Green, it’s not having an established number one – and this has been exacerbated by Capello keeping the players all guessing about who will be playing right up until the eleventh hour.”
England don’t have an established number one because the options – including Green – are so bad. Green proved why he was never the established keeper quite effectively.
“Most of the leading nations have an established number one goalkeeper, but since Seaman retired the goalkeeper has been an issue for England. In the late 70s/early 80s Ron Greenwood could never decide between Shilton or Clemence, but Capello’s problem is worse, since we have a number of very good ‘keepers but perhaps none that are truly world class.”
England have zero “very good” keepers. Their best ones are highly erratic at best.
Well, let’s have a look at the stats shall we? Green has played 10 games for England and in those 10 games England’s record has been W6, D2, L2, GF26, GA10, GD+16. In those ten games England only conceded more than one goal on two occasions…against Spain and Holland. On average England have conceded exactly 1 goal per game when he has been in goal. I hardly think that makes Green look “rubbish” do you?
I would concede that only keeping two clean sheets in those ten games, against Andorra and Kazakhstan, is a record upon which England should look to improve, but England’s defensive problems are well documented. After all, if it hadn’t been for the ‘keeper’s save in the second half against the USA it would have been Carragher’s shortcomings that cost England a goal.
Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by “most errors leading to goals in his league”?
Without delving deeper those stats are merely “ok”. When you look at who the games are against, they become very unimpressive. As you say, clean sheets only against frankly awful teams. True, England has plenty of defensive issues, but what does Green do to ameliorate them? He lets in pretty much every good chance his defence conceeds.
As for his save in the second half, it was very nearly another clanger, saved only by his post. He should have pushed that out for a corner, instead it bounced off his wrist (as often happens with him) onto his post, luckily not falling to an American.
Most errors leading to goals is an Opta stat which he “wins”.
More subjectively, I simply never see him making quality saves. He makes simple ones look good (perhaps due to his poor positioning), but rarely makes true quality saves. So there’s nothing to balance out the bad mistakes he makes.
You are so right about Carrick… So so right. He would be perfect
Carrick has been routinely somewhere between middling and terrible for over a year. At his best he would be good, but his best hasn’t been seen in a long, long time.
Great article ZM,
Surely we should of started with Joe Cole instead of Milner, it seems obvious to me that England need a creative midfielder. Obviously Joe Cole is not as talented as a Sneijder or Iniesta but he offers us something that Lampard and Gerrard don’t and it has been noticable, in friendlies, we look a better and more dangerous side when J.Cole starts.
I expected alot from England since they have alot of great players but i was disappointed with their performance.
2 Questions:
Why does Capello play Gerrard & Lampard in midfield? He needs a holding midfielder to support the build up from the back…
Why does Capello decide on his first keeper only hours before the match? That puts alot of pressure on the player and doubt in the players mind…
Considering his huge salary i find it weird his team is not well organised…
Bradley out-coached one of the best coaches that money can buy, having said this, Bradely still came up short and let England off the hook. The USA is capable of so much more even with this roster.
Content with the 1 point, Bradely kept some of his ace skilled midfielders on the bench or took way too long to introduce them. If Bradley would have taken out Altidore sooner and pushed Landon Donovan in the hole accompanied by Gomez or Buddle, Torres behind him and Holden wide… I can assure you there would have been some opportunities to score there. Instead Landon had to track back constantly and was basically running far too long a distance to slip past Terry.
I am not being harsh on England but I do think Capello was a little clueless with how to tactically plant a game vs. the USA. You have to take chances, they are that tough to break down.
Good point about Bradley. He usually sets the USA up very well at the start, but he rarely makes good adjustments during a match. Torres would have been very well-suited to play against a side with no true defensive midfielder.
England were awful in the middle. Neither Lampard nor Gerard sought to pick the ball up in deep positions and try and play some actual football. They are not playmakers. Capello’s slightly desperate attempt to coax Paul Scholes out of retirement now makes perfect sense.
The point is also made that because the US didn’t play a deep lying striker or an offensive midfielder then neither Gerard or Lampard were tested in their defensive capacity. This overlooks the fact that they were — and to painful effect; the shot that led to the US goal only came after Gerard had been turned inside out — not once but twice.
Surprised to see Heskey getting such a good write up. He may have loyally carried out his task but I’d hazard a guess and say that 65 per cent of the balls played into him quickly ended up with a US player.
England are sorely lacking a proper midfield. It speaks volumes about the lack of qualified personnel that a coach as astute and experienced as Capello has resorted to bypassing the middle of the field and humping balls up the park to a big man.
“Surprised to see Heskey getting such a good write up. He may have loyally carried out his task but I’d hazard a guess and say that 65 per cent of the balls played into him quickly ended up with a US player.”
True, but that’s the nature of things when your defence is hoofing balls at you all night. He did a good job under those circumstances.
Terrific work! This is the type of information that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for not positioning this post higher!
England could have a centre midfield of Xavi & Pirlo & still not be able to keep meaningful possession for more than 30 seconds. Can’t do much with the ball when It’s permanently 10 foot over your head, travelling at great velocity In the vague direction of the big lad up front.
Primary culprit Is Terry mistaking himself for a bigger, braver Beckenbauer. First noticed this pattern In the Portugal game at Euro 2004, only that time the big lad must have been imaginary – or one striker on the others shoulders under a raincoat – because we had Owen & Vassell upfront getting mauled by Andrade & Carvalho.
It’s more acceptable In the Prem League with the high tempo and all action style, In the International arena, lumping It, simply isn’t good enough.
Key conclusions from Eng v USA game for Capello: -
a) Green should be replaced by James, England’s best keeper.
b) Dawson or Upson should partner Terry in central defence, Carragher lacks pace.
c) Barry must return to the England side failing which Carrick should play as holding midfield.
d) Gerard will then move wide left with Lennon wide right
e) Rooney to play behind Heskey
f) Pray for a miracle
As for blaming Terry for the route one football the other night, I think that’s unfair.
Time after time, he’d emerge with the ball, look to Gerrard and Lampard only to find that neither of them wanted the ball.
Their first instinct is always to move forward and get on the end of something.
Terry had little option on many occasions other than playing the long ball to Heskey — in the hope that someone would pick up on the scraps — when in fact he needed someone to drop back and start something creative.
Capello may well have to resort to Michael Carrick in order to resolve this problem. He’ll be grand against poor opposition, but is likely to be rattled against the better teams.
Frankly, I don’t see England resolving this issue — certainly not in the next two weeks.
What I’m struggling to come to terms with is USA defender man per man. Well, that’s what I can remember, I was admittedly drunk.
Begs the question, if Rooney (or alternatively Gerrard/Lampard) can break free of their 1 man, that should in theory be enough to break the defence, as could be seen when Gerrard lost his man.
How come Rooney didn’t come deep false-9 style and get a chance to run at a single defender?
He did. That’s why the USMNT CB’s were so far upfield and out of position so often.
That’s also why I can’t fault Gooch (as ZM has) for coming some 15 yards off the backline so many times. It’s not characteristic for him, which is why I belive this was a coaching decision. Bradley clearly believed that when choosing between 2 evils, it was better to mark Rooney out of the game instead of giving him time & space to run at the backline with the ball at his feet, taking the chance instead that the rest of the English attack (Heskey, ahem) would not be able to do as much damage, even against a disjointed US backline, as a freely rampaging Rooney would. Overall, I think he may have been right.
Does anybody think a modified 5-4-1 / 3-3-3-1 would work better?
——————Hart——————
——Upson——Terry——Dawson——
Johnson—————————–Cole
———–Lampard—–Barry————
——–Cole—————Gerrard——
—————–Rooney—————–
We haven’t got a great defence, but what we do have is two great attacking full-backs. We should put in an extra centre-back, and let Johnson and Ashley Cole get forward and provide penetration down the flanks.
A midfield comprising of Gerrard and Lampard is useless, as Gerrard doesn’t have the tactical discipline to sit, and Lampard’s creativity is negated by having to cover. With Barry back, I suggest that we let him screen and distribute, and with three at the back, this would let Lampard get forward more.
We haven’t got any wingers good enough to play regularly – Lennon’s pace is fantastic, and on occasion, can deliver a final ball. But Ashley Cole and Johnson are both better at crossing than any of our wingers, so I’d rather give them more freedom to get forward and run with/cross the ball. If they lose it, then we have 3 at the back with Barry covering, meaning that the formation is quite fluid from defence to attack.
Our attacking strengths lie in Gerrard and Lampard’s passing/shooting, Joe Cole’s trickery, and Rooney’s, well, just Rooney in general. However, he’s developed into a world-class centre forward, so we should be aiming to get the ball to either his feet or head. We have enough quality in a front 4 of Rooney, Gerrard, Joe Cole and Lampard to threaten any team, and with the problem being our defence, we should shore it up, and accentuate the positives of our team.
Also, with three centre-backs, we’d be a huge threat from corners, as all three could go forward, and we could leave Barry and one from Johnson/Ashley Cole, or all of them, back ready for an opposition counter.
Any thoughts?
nice
))
found your site on del.icio.us today and really liked it.. i bookmarked it and will be back to check it out some more later