England 0-0 Algeria: shocking display from Capello’s players
A terrible performance from England in a game completely devoid of any attacking inspiration. Algeria defended excellently in their unusual 3-4-2-1 shape and got the result they were playing for, but England made it easy for them.
England made three changes from their first game against the United States. David James replaced Robert Green after his mistake, Jamie Carragher replaced Ledley King after his injury, and Gareth Barry replaced James Milner after his nightmare on the left.
Algeria made one outfield switch from their opening day defeat to Slovenia – Rafik Djebbour was dropped and in came Ryad Boudabouz. They also changed their goalkeeper after a sub-Green mistake in the first game.
This meant further changes for both sides in terms of positioning, although both kept the same formation. Gareth Barry’s presence in the centre of midfield meant Steven Gerrard moved to a narrow left-sided position with license to roam, whilst Boudabouz played as the right-sided attacking midfielder, a role previously taken by Karim Matmour – he instead moved upfront and looked to drop deep.
Algeria achieved their objective by simply defending in numbers. The wide players drop back when not in possession and create a 5-4-1 system when they don’t have the ball, which made it very difficult for England to work the ball into dangerous positions. The movement of the two attacking midfielders was particularly troublesome for England – when Algeria attacked, they caused the central midfielders problems, when Algeria defended, they were trying to prevent the full-backs getting forward.
England struggle
England never looked like getting past the Algeria defence because they were faced with a spare man at the back, in a fairly flat three man defence. The key to getting the better of a three-man defence in a 2 v 3 situation is to try to pull them across the pitch, but England rarely did this – Wayne Rooney was surprisingly static and could have drifted into slightly more intelligent positions when not in possession, but instead he and Emile Heskey either stayed alongside each other, or looked to drop deep. There was never any lateral movement.
The key when facing a 3-5-2 (or variation) is to get your full-backs forward, and Ashley Cole did that throughout the game, often playing ahead of the midfield. On the other side, Glen Johnson needed to be more reserved because of the threat of Karim Ziani, and the fact that England had natural width on the right-hand side anyway.
Gareth Barry did a very good job defensively, often tracking one of the midfield runners well into a goalscoring position, and he should be praised for his positional awareness and concentration levels – playing as the sole holding midfielder against a side playing two players ‘ in the hole’ is a difficult job, and England were far better with him in that position than if they had persisted with the Gerrard-Lampard partnership.
Problems with width
Aaron Lennon constantly came inside rather than getting down the touchline. He needed to be braver and give Nadir Belhadj more of a problem by staying wide and high when Algeria got the ball – this would have either pushed Belhadj backwards to pick up Lennon, and therefore take him out of the equation, or forced one of the three centre-backs to come across to the left-back position, which would have removed Algeria’s luxury of a free man at the back.
This is fairly basic stuff, though. Under Fabio Capello, England’s wide-right midfielder has always been meant to hug the touchline rather than drift inside. Capello reportedly left Theo Walcott out of the dquad because he was positionally undisciplined and looked to move into the centre of the pitch, and with Lennon doing the same here, it was no surprise when he was replaced by Shaun Wright-Phillips – who did nothing of note but at least stretched the play.
Minor Algeria threat
Algeria dominated possession for periods of the game, as you would expect for a side essentially fielding six midfielders. Indeed, you can stretch that to seven – because Matmour is plainly not a forward, let alone a lone striker. His movement was decent but he offered no threat in behind, which is the obvious way to catch out a defensive partnership of John Terry and Jamie Carragher.
They threatened down the flanks when the wing-backs combined with the two attacking midfielders, but they then had no further pass, with Matmour marked by the two England centre-backs. Passing in triangles is the best way to unlocking defences, but Algeria’s passing combinations in attacking zones were in pairs rather than trios, and they struggled to create in open play.
England sloppy
England, too, were playing in straight lines. Off-the-ball movement was non-existent. Gerrard’s license to drift in from the left seemed to evolve into a free role – something rarely suited either to a 4-4-2, or to an English footballer. Lennon and then Wright-Phillips tried brief spells on the left that seemed to confuse the whole team, and at one point on 24 minutes, Lennon was on the left, Gerrard was right-centre and Lampard was right midfield. This wasn’t fluidity, it was confusion.
The most shocking thing was how many misplaced passes there were when England players were under no pressure whatsoever. They needed a player deep in midfield to retain the possession and switch play, and a player higher up the pitch with genuine technical quality on the ball. Michael Carrick and Joe Cole would have been appropriate replacements, but both sat on the bench whilst Peter Crouch and Jermain Defoe came on – as if Capello thought England had been creating plenty of opportunities but needed someone on the end of them. The one England player who had a decent game, Ashley Cole, wasn’t being used enough. He attempted 37 passes compared to the 71 of his full-back colleague Johnson.
With the Algeria attacking midfielders ending up centrally when attacking, and their wing-backs being reasonably ambitious in their attacking intentions, sometimes England needed to get the ball forward quickly. When they tried a more ambitious pass, though, it was a long punt to Heskey, which produced nothing because Heskey was having one of his off-nights. And when Heskey has off-nights, he is a truly awful footballer – his first touch deserts him, he times his jumps wrong, he clatters into opponents. He was excellent against the US, but offered nothing here.
Egypt similarities
Disappointingly, Capello had a warning about this three months ago. England’s friendly against Egypt at Wembley saw them playing a North African side that used a 3-4-2-1 formation. They had less possession of the ball and were deservedly 0-1 down at half-time, when Michael Carrick came on and was by far the best player on the pitch. He transformed the game, resulting in a 3-1 England win – he would have been perfect tonight.
The case for Carrick’s inclusion has been argued on this site before and doesn’t need to be repeated, but some quotes from Xabi Alonso this week made for interesting reading:
“John Terry, Stevie Gerrard and Wayne Rooney are the obvious names when you think of the important players for England…if they are on top of their game and if Carrick plays, because for me he is a top player, then England will have a chance. If Carrick plays for the national team the way that he does for Manchester United, then it would be very good news for England. I think that he could easily fit in the Spanish system because I really like the way he plays. He reads the game so well, he is always ahead of what is going to happen and he is always in the right position. When he gets the ball, he plays it easy and he is available to his team-mates all the time. For me, he has the profile to play for Barcelona or any of the Spanish teams. He would also be very complimentary to Stevie.”
England plainly can’t even vaguely control a game with two central midfielders – so there’s a need for a third, and that third man is Carrick. He is alarmingly off-form at club level, but should that matter if the player is being brought in to play a specific role in the side to bring the best out of others? Capello clearly doesn’t think so, considering Heskey’s place in the side.
Conclusion
A good, dogged display by Algeria defensively and a well-deserved point, but in their two games so far they’ve offered nothing in an attacking sense. If they don’t score against the US in their final game, they’ll be out of the competition.
Their defensive display doesn’t explain England’s lack of movement or creativity, nor their terrible passing. It’s not the end of the road for England, but one more performance like this, and it will be. They can still progress to the latter stages, but it surely won’t be with this XI, and maybe not with this formation.
England 0-0 Algeria: shocking display from Capello’s players


You should draw up a suggested formation/squad
Algeria are missing a striker clearly, they might eek out a draw against USA but that’s about it.
Interestingly any side can qualify in this group,
*if USA and England win their games they are through.
*If Algeria win USA big to fix their goal ratio they can go through (with 4 pts) with either of England (5 points) or Slovenia (5-8 points)
*Slovenia can go through with a draw against England, a win will mean the winner of Algeria-USA is through
Greetings from Saudi Arabia.. I recently discovered your site, and I am truly impressed as I enjoy tactical debate and discussion.
Sometimes I just refresh the website over and over waiting for your next article.
I have just a small correction here:
“Algeria made one switch from their opening day victory against Slovenia – Rafik Djebbour was dropped and in came Ryad Boudabouz.”
I think you mean their loss to Slovenia..
——
Keep up the good work mate..
Oops. Thanks for the correction!
a
Capello insists on selecting the high profile names. Gerrard is exceptional when playing as an advanced midfielder behind a striker capable of holding the ball up and distributing. Rooney is exceptional as striker playing with two attacking wingers and a skillful support striker. Neither player is playing in this role.
The suggestion on this website has been to play Gerrard on the left of a lopsided midfield, however this is incorrect. If he is not playing off the front striker he should not be playing, simply because his ability to control a midfield possession game that Capelo is trying to play is non-existent.
Heskey is a wonderful foil but doesn’t have the pace of movement to unsettle agile defenders.
Simply England are lacking genuine width on the left and a bulky mobile striker. Adam Johnson and Darren Bent failed to make the England squad for reasons not yet explained, considering the inadequacies of Milner and Heskey that most of us were awre of I can’t wait for Capello to explain his rational behind his squad selection.
Other than the left side of midfield and the 2nd striker England are not far away from being a very good team but there is a serious flaw in the thinking behind the team selection/
I think England had left-sided width tonight with Ashley Cole but the rest of the team didnt get the ball to him enough and most of England’s build-up play was down the right with Johnson. They may have been trying to target Belhadj but it didn’t work. Heskey did drift wide right in the 2nd half to exploit the space there but he is not a threat on the flanks and kept tripping over his own feet.This is the third time this year that England is facing a 3 man defense but they still have no answer for it. Unbelievable.
I dont care much about the result but England are a horrible team to watch(France are slightly worse). Algeria were clearly playing for the point but I felt England were there for the taking.
Agreed that England were awful to watch. I was almost dissapointed that Algeria didn’t go for it more considering how bad England were but I guess they’re a limited team.
england looked very latharigic to play…they didnt press the game almost the entire game,…. where is the tempo for playin in a world cup..very disappointed by rooney especially… his work ethic is wat i like the most but his un willingness to go for the ball and awful first touches…
Have to say you’re spot on regarding the 2 players- left winger & 2nd forward.
what is appalling is the choice & timing of substitutes – swp in place of lennon is in fact as good as no substitution – joe cole should have come on… gerrard was pathetic and I dont know if capello has the guts but he should have been replaced by 60 min mark. Its not just being out of position but his passing was also woeful. o do :But dropping your captain might not be the best thing to do
Crouch /defoe should have come on much earlier(45)in place of Heskey – Should he have started is a question to be asked. Against US there was a need for someone like him to counter onyewu-esque presence. But against algeria should they have gambled with someone like crouch who satisfies capello’s thesis of having a targetman whose presence aids rooney and also provides decent movement to trouble centre backs which sadly heskey wasn’t able to do.
About Carrick though i have my own doubts – I guess they have two players capable of playing the creative midfielder & finding passes so no need of another. On the contrary what they needed was cover for barry – parker was the perfect bet. I would have played him in the first 2 matches till barry is match fit.
Atleast against slovenia i hope they start this way
crouch rooney
a.cole bar lamp j.cole
warn ter ups glenn
Subs: Gerrard, Lennon, dawson, defoe
1. Surely warnock is a surprise? yea but right now a.cole is the best left sided player england have. And surely if you have warnock in ur squad you deem him to be a good enuf player.This would free cole of defensive duties and he can happily maraud the left side.warnock can be the sedate and conservative left back. A GAMBLE but worth taking right?
2. The only way gerrard can fit in is 3-4-1-2 with gerrard in the hole. His recent form makes me doubt whether he can do justice but worth trying. It gives a good attacking shape but wings are exposed. This will be a good line up to go for the kill in the last quarter (if reqd.) of course johnson will have to make way for dawson .. in the back 3.
3. Joe should get a look in over lennon/swp. lennon can come in in the last quarter to provide direct attack.
England Fans seem to be split between Gerrard/Lampard and its hard to judge comments when one of them gets criticised and the other doesn’t when clearly both are playing below par.
Personally I feel Lampard has to be dropped. The lampard from the friendly before the world cup, and the lampard from the opening 2 games isn’t the same lampard who plays for Chelsea. He is such a tidy passer for Chelsea… And yet for England has probably been the worst passer… Gerrard has been as bad but at least he has tried the odd creative pass, lampard is being sloppy with 4 yard passes to the side. Currently Lampard isn’t offering the side anything. Hopefully he proves me wrong and scores in the next game.
Its a good point about teh left side, but it would be too big a gamble to take Cole out of left back and into an unfamiliar role. Don’t forget the underperformances of Gerrard, Rooney and Lampard are because they are playing in unfamiliar roles and seemingly unable to adapt. Cole in for Gerrard would give England some natural width, particular with J.Cole’s propensity to cut in that would allow A.Cole to get forward into space. Carrick is more familiar as a central midfielder without inclination to get forward than Lampard. If England are attacking with two wide men and two forwards Lampard’s attacking play would not be missed.
If Capello insists on playing Gerrard that is fine, but he should not be playing him on the left or in the centre of midfield, only behind the striker.
A lot of people want Joe Cole to play and were suprised he wasn’t used. I’m not sure Capello will ever play him if he couldn’t even get on as a sub in this game.
As with other commenters I was really dissapointed by the subs used last night.
I agree with you in general about Carrick, his qualities and what he could bring to the England team. I have argued it to death elsewhere but at the moment Carrick would be an utterly pointless inclusion. Putting side his complete lack of form at club level the main issue facing Carrick with England is one of utilisation. For Carrick to have an impact he requires movement ahead of him. No movement forces him into either playing a safe ball that any other central midfielder could play or taking risks which leads to possession being lost. Even defensively his positioning and reading of the game is good but as England do not track people correctly teams who are comfortable on the ball and do possess movement can simply bypass him. For a good example of this think back to the Mexico friendly were England spent most of the game chasing shadows and Mexico always found space to exploit. England fundamentally lack movement, tempo and imagination. They are far too predictable and far too static. Unless these fundamental problems are addressed first then Carrick would be a waste as he would be unable to play his natural game.
Agreed. What’s the point of a passing midfielder with no one to pass to?
England’s movement is astonishingly bad.
Stick Joe Cole in there and play Rooney upfront alone and you’re sorted for movement.
England already had movement from Rooney and Gerrard but the rest of the team needs to provide a lot more. As I explained above it also applies to defensive movement as well. Simply claiming that the inclusion of Joe Cole and Rooney further forward is the solution is being very disingenuous about the fundamental, team wide problem. As it stands Carrick would be completely wasted in this team.
I’ve had a little rethink in another comment. If Carrick is used it would need to be with the understanding that he would provide defensive positioning and anything he added in an attacking sense would be a bonus considering the clear problems England have.
Couldn’t agree more: everyone is agreed on England~s main problem being ball retention
So why not field as many technically adept players as possible? To this end, Joe Cole is a must.
Whatever about arguments over his consistency Every year we listen to England fans complain that the country does not produce enough No.10s or technically adroit players; then when one appears in the for of Joe Cole, he is lambasted for not being a box-to-box merchant. And I happen to think that Cole’s supposed tactical/disciplinary shortcomings are infuriatingly exaggerated – he’s hardly a languid Riquelme type player and for a No.10 he has added considerable graft to his game.
While there are clearly superior NO.10s to Joe Cole in the international game, is he really any poorer than, say, Diego of Juventus?
Surely, for a side like England, such a player becomes a necessity even for the puropses of educating future generations of young players; if English schoolboys have no such native player to look up to, they will resign themselves to the self-fulfilling prophecy that England simply does not or should not produce such “effete”, “fancy-dan” players.
What seems most depressing about these England performances is that Capello, as is his right, appears to be compounding the fatalistic cliche that England can only produce results at a long-ball game.
Fair enough, Capello has a long documented history of producing solid, competitive teams of varying degrees of flair/dourness and depending on the human material at his disposal. But and then going on to win championships; the fact remains that on arriving for his second stint at Real Madrid, he expressly ordered the signing of two destructive midfielders in Mahmadou Diarra and Emerson Ferreira. His Milan side from 1991-96 inherited Sacchi’s basic formula but was noted for stalling Sacchi’s radical march toawards attacking ambition games such as the 1994 final versus Barcelona were fleeting moments of arberation.
If the F.A. were going to hire Capello on sound information, then prior to this they must have conducted a forensic technical analysis of their players’ technical characteristics at senior and U-21 level in order to know what they were signing up to.
Or am I being too generous in my appraisal of the FA´s far-sightedness.
Oh, you’re definitely being too generous.
Definitely being too generous.
Agree with what you’ve said not just in terms of how Joe Cole is a different sort of player but also that when he plays we play a different (better) style of football. Kids need to learn to play more than one way.
Great Analysis as usual, it gives such a wonderful, different insight into the game and clarifies a lot of things=D
Maybe England should have switched to a 4-3-3 (or 4-2-3-1, but preferably 4-3-3) at HT, this would have stretched the CB’s (and added a lot of width) and/or forced their full-backs back and they would have a 3 v 2 advantage in midfield (ok maybe 3 v 3 if you consider Matmour a midfielder due to his movement) but it’s easy to speak in hindsight… Also, I don’t think England have ever played 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 so it would be a huge change for them and maybe cause even more confusion for them… Cmon england, pick yourselves up!!
I can not understand why Capello persists with the tactics he does. I agree with those who say that Rooney is best as when dropping to receive the ball to create or when pushed out slightly to the left side as he played for United a few years ago when Ronaldo was in the squad, the evidence from this last season is that he can play up front on his own and do so effectively. Playing him with Heskey up high affects the positioning of the midfield, specifically how deep Lampard plays. We saw during this last season how much less effective he was when Chelsea played a midfield diamond at the start of the season and how much more influencial he was when they reverted back to a modified 4-3-3. Personally, I’d like to see Capello show the guts to drop either Gerrard or Lampard, as it’s become painfully obvious that they both are at their best in the same position on the pitch and poor when asked to play elsewhere. Personally, I’d drop Gerrard as I think that unless the formation is built on his forward runs from up top, he simply doesn’t have the tactical disipline to effectively shine in this squad, and he always wants to play at a pace that hurts England’s build-up play. Incidentally, in his post match interview tonight, the first thing he said England needed to do better was win the ball back quicker. Apparently no thought as to attempting to keep the ball a little bit longer in the first place.
I’d like to see a hybrid formation of Man Utd and Chelsea, with Rooney up top, two advanced wingers [one who can cross from the right (I know it's a fantasy)] with a three man midfield of Lampard, Barry, and Carrick. It won’t happen and even if England manage to escape out of this group, they’re going to get passed to pieces as soon as they come up against a top three man midfield, which in looking at the possibilities, probably means Germany, Ghana, or even Serbia.
Rooney can do a job as a forward or as a striker. His precise role is not the issue. The issue is the complete lack of movement and support around him. It either leaves him isolated further forward or forces him to to drop too deep to get the ball which puts him in less dangerous positions and enables the opposition to regroup and get men behind the ball. In recent games only two players have linked effectively with Rooney. These are Gerrard and Joe Cole. Unfortunately there is usually too big a gap between Gerrard and Rooney which limits their effectiveness and Joe Cole has been completely snubbed by Capello this tournament. If you are talking about getting the best out of key players then the logical solution is to play Rooney and Gerrard as a tandem further forward. It puts Rooney in the role he performed for Man Utd last season and Gerrard in his favoured role for Liverpool over recent seasons. It gives them an opportunity to link up to a far greater extent in the final third. With that ’sorted’ the question becomes what do you do with the wingers and what do you do in central midfield. I am less clear on this because of the squad selected by Capello. If you include Joe Cole from the start and in a role that would enable him to drift centrally you then have three clear options: (1) use a winger on the opposite flank who will stay wide, (2) use Milner as an outside midfielder who will form a midfield trio to enable Joe Cole to have even more freedom (consider the use of Park at Man Utd to release Ronaldo – it is not perfect but the best England can do with the current squad) and, (3) go 4-3-3 with a definitive central midfield trio, free roles to the attacking three and rely completely on width from the full backs. Three possibilities, none perfect and it would be difficult to implement for one crucual game.
As for Carrick, wait for it ZM, I think he would be wasted in all of these but if we accepted that he would provide defensive stability and anything he provided in an attacking sense was an added bonus then we could adopt a wait and see approach. I think his preference would be option 3, 2 then 1 from the perspective of movement ahead of him. In terms of central midfield partnerships we could discuss it all day. Barry is a given to provide hustle and, if Carrick did play, to provide cover for Ashley Cole on the left. If Milner could do likewise on the right there would be balance.
Ultimately Capello would probably stick with the same or an equally safe option…
I like your line of thinking, Teso.
Whilst not being too enamoured of James Milner, I could see an argument for placing him on the wide right of midfield as a ‘tornante’, similar to the role Elano;/Ramires play for Brazil… he would afford protection to Glen Johnson.
For the other advanced-mid and forward positions; any combination that allows Joe Cole and Rooney (plus maybe Gerrard) to liaison….oh, and no Emile Heskey, Christ no!
I think if Capello is intent on playing Lampard and Gerrard then it seems wise to go with the 4-3-3 and stick Carrick in with Lampard and Barry.
Gerrard in the tandem with Rooney as you suggest then Joe Cole and either Lennon for the width or Milner for the defense.
That way you get the passing of Carrick, the defense of Barry, the movement of Joe Cole which aids Carrick in having an outlet. Plus you get Gerrard in his best role and Rooney in a place where he can finish.
But no pace on the pitch and no width as Joe Cole likes to come inside and Gerrard constantly ends up abandoning the left side of teh pitch to run into the middle even when asked not to. It’ll never happen, but I’d like to see Capello sit Gerrard and give Lampard a chance in the position he’s been world class in for the last five years. Choose two from Cole/Lennon/SWP for the wings.
Barry and Carrick can sit deep, allowing the full backs license to get forward, therefore giving pace and width.
Cliche: England is less than the sum of their parts. Maybe they should hire Dunga next…
I didn’t watch England in qualifiers or the friendlies, so can someone compare and contrast why England seem so dire? No David Beckham? (just kidding…)
I think in the simplest terms it relates to not being able to play against 3 at the back, which they didn’t really have to do in qualifiers.
You just feel that the English players lack technique (stereotypical) and this Capello side is very similar to previous English sides.
When Capello was first appointed as coach the first thing I said was that he is a great coach to win a league but a bad one in knock-out competitions because I hated him when he was with my Juve.We would seem like beasts in serie A and then get knocked out by weaker teams like Arsenal and Liverpool.
That was probably because in reality Juve were not as good as they were in your head.
“They needed a player deep in midfield to retain the possession and switch play, and a player higher up the pitch with genuine technical quality on the ball. ”
Unfortunately Capello has never liked player with good passing qualities. Just think of Guardiola: when he played in Roma Capello excluded him from the team.
Maybe, but I think Guardiola had declined slightly by that stage and wasn’t really right for football at that time, as covered here – http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/05/04/how-the-2000s-changed-tactics-1-the-fall-and-rise-of-the-passing-midfielder/
And besides, they did have Emerson who did a similar thing
Emerson: Emerson Ferreira?
One of the most technically limited players I’ve seen in a long time. Even by the destructive standards of Brazilian volantes, he has been viewed as a bit of a brute by fans here in Brazilian (except among sections of the Gremio support, owing to their fetishisation of such players).
I recall how Capello ditched his Championship winning 3-4-1-2 after signing Guardiola and in order to compensate for Pep’s defensive nulities he mounted a flatter 3-5-2 (or 3-5-1-1 with Totti becoming more of a second-striker) with Emerson and Tommasi shielding Guardiola. But soon after that he ditched Guardiola completely and maintained the more defensive midfield nonetheless.
Eemrson was an attacking midfielder in his early days and often played behind the strikers or as a central midfielder.
As he became older he was moved more towrads defense and his technical ability declined.
Thanks for the great writeup. I couldn’t decide whether England’s or France’s performance was poorer. I really hoped Fabio Capello spent the time to experiment with some of the friendlies involving Carrick and Joe Cole in a 4-5-1. He would have learned something out of it agaisnt decent opponents as well as his players and the fans.
I can only think of one successful 4-4-2 team currently and that’s Bayern Munich. But they have fantastic wingers in Robben and Ribery as well as an efficient center/forward line.
I’m beginning to think he’s the right manager in the wrong time. He built up the player’s confidence and performance during qualification, but I feel his rigid tactical approach and timidity is eroding his own achievements.
I can’t find the justification for fielding just two central midfielders who can’t dictate the field on their own. This England side needs to sort out their midfield problems fast and it’s time for Capello to get out of his iron shell.
I think Capello was able to achieve club level success because he had great footballers that needed discipline and direction. He’s probably had better players in all positions compared to this England squad.
Thanks again and I really hope England produce something in their final group game.
USA! USA!
Hey ZM, spotted one typo. You said ‘Algeria made one change after their opening day VICTORY against Slovenia’. I believe Slovenia beat Algeria, actually.
* Must keep the ball much more – 47% against Algeria!? Please.
*Lampard/Gerrard DOES NOT WORK. Does any other team try to play with 2 players in the same position? Do Brazil use 2 right backs? Or Everton 2 goalkeepers?
*Remember Capello telling Rooney early in his tenure to stop coming so deep for the ball? Well when playing with a strike partner (Heskey)means 2 CM’s that can’t keep the ball or create anything – so Rooney comes looking. The midfield must be rectified.
*I’m sounding like a broken record here but 4-2-3-1 is the way to go. But in effect
4-1-1-3-1. Barry holding, Carrick in front of him as a quarterback/playmaker, and either Gerrard or Lampard as an attacking midfielder supporting Rooney. Joe Cole LM and Lennon/SWP RM – with explicit instructions to stay wide.
Show us you’ve got the stones to drop either Gerrard or Lampard, Capello you strong willed Italian!
I honestly feel, and I’m not kidding around, that Lampard and Gerrard have some very damaging information on some very big and important people in the FA and use it to blackmail coaches to make sure they both see 90 minutes in an England match. It’s obviously not a footballing matter anymore. Lampard and Gerrard has not and would never work in the same midfield unless Gerrard, through some miracle, acquire winger-cum-forward abilities so he could actually play the inverted winger role well. It has always baffled me why these coaches insist on trying to make this work. It just doesn’t work. Never has and never will…
Coaches can make good descisions, but poor executions by players can make those decisions look bad. Personally I feal Copello got the substitutions wrong in both games, and the players didn’t make them look any better!
The comments about Carrick are good ones, but his problems towards the end of the season with Manchester United and agaisnt Mexico in the Friendly weren’t lack of passing options, he has been awful!
But Copello has a problem and a decision to make, does he stick by these players or does he try to shake it up and hope the players he brings in don’t let him down?
I think Englands biggest problem over the 2 games is they have had nothing from Lampard and Rooney, who along with Ashely Cole and Gerrard are our best 4 players. Those are the too big decisions for the next game.
I don’t think you can do anything about Rooney, you have to play him… Heskey has played better then him in both games, and part of his selection has been because it benefits rooney and the team but I don’t think he will start the next game.
As for Lamaprd, you can blame the formation, Gerrard (Some people will) or the general poor performance of the team but what are you going to do? Show faith? Change the team to suit him or replace him?
With neither Cole or Carrick getting any time on the pitch its hard to know if either of these guys will provide the answer? I’m not sure Copello will do without the pace of SWP or Lennon on the right so the options in the middle are limited unless Copello plays Gerrard and Rooney as the front 2. Copello’s comment that this side isn’t the same as the side he sees in training is worrying… Lennon needs to take his man on more! Gerrard and Rooney are the only 2 risking anything and they need to improve their execution! This England side with the injection of some German aragance could still do pretty well!
“This England side with the injection of some German aragance could still do pretty well!”
In Spain they have this saying, “If Grandma had balls she would be Grandpa”. I don’t see these players up for it anymore. They just looked too terrified last night.
England are too politically correct to do well. It all started in the 70’s. Nowadays they rightfully feel no pride for the Union Jack.
flag of st george love? and since when did political correctness come into this?
Agree that lennon needs to take on his man more in general. Last night he had two men to take on most of the time though because the midfielders for Algeria tracked back.
One of the fundamental problems with England is movement in general. In practically every game Carrick has played for England he has effectively been a defensive screen with little role distributing because either Lampard has taken charge or the movement around and ahead of him has been poor which leaves him with a simple short pass or no pass at all. His best games for England were in the United States because the team allowed him to hold while they stretched the play and made runs ahead of him. The lack of movement and support causes problems for Rooney as well. He is isolated without the ball and either receives it far too late or needs to drop back to get it himself. The end result is the opposition have time to get back and park the bus. It is a fundamental problem with this English side. Contrast it to the movement and passing of other teams in this World Cup. England needs to have a serious rethink about the approach taken to games.
The lopsided midfield clearly does not work nor does the 4 4 2 that england tried against the USA, Fabio Capello has simply failed to find the right system for England. for me not picking Adam Johnson was a mistake because he could have provided natural width in a 4-5-1 formation however i think the below formation will be the best for england even if it means dropping Gerrard
— Johnson — Upson — Terry– A.cole
——— Carrick —- Barry—
——– — Lampard
Wright-Phillips ———– —- J.cole
——- Rooney
Lampard has played in a similar position for Chelsea all season long though it was a diamond rather than a triangle and he will be the main creative force Joe Cole will give them the guile that was oh!so missing yesterday.Carrick and Barry will help them retain possession,and Wazza has done so well as the lone striker for Man Utd.
the only problem with this is that the entire responsibility of providing the “service” or playmaking will be on Lampard
But this is a big tournament he’s a big player time to step up !!!
Lampard SWP and J Cole would have played/trained together a lot at chelsea so at least the system would have that benefit.
Come on man – how creative has Lampard been for chelsea, ever ? All he does is rush into the box when they are attacking to shoot. He times his runs into the box brilliantly – he could be a striker alas he does not have the finesse to operate in the box. I’d use your formation but retain gerrard – he has actually been Liverpool’s attacking playmaker and has done reasonably well with masch and alonso behind him and it could work for england with barry (masch) and carrick (alonso type).
ZM,
The heat map on this page might be of use: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=249722/match=300061464/report.html
England didn’t use Ashley Cole nearly enough for my liking, to stretch the play on the left. And when he was on the ball, he had no Steven Gerrard to share the ball with and attack with, as Glen Johnson and Aaron Lennon did. For me, Gerrard’s inward movement in the midfield third was of no value whatsoever. I think that Fabio Capello would have preferred for Gerrard to remain on the left until the attacking third, and that it was the player’s failing rather than the tactical one.
Also, I think Algeria changed their goalkeeper from their opening game.
And the diagram names Djebbour, who the article correctly states was dropped in favour of Boudabouz.
Indeed, apologies for that error.
I have no idea how to sort this lot out, I don’t think the problem is tactical. The tactics employed could have beaten the USA and Algeria (a Spain, Italy Brazil, Argentina no, but USA and Algeria yes it is level of performance that is too low.
These players can’t retain posession because they do not realise its the repsonibility of those without the ball to make themselves available for a pass. How many times have you notice Ashley Cole cannot even find someone to take the ball at a throw-in? No wonder its not working in open play.
I think the porblem is fear of failure and thanks to that they are failing
Noticed that a lot actually. The players are hiding from the ball. That’s a confidence issue. Indeed the midfield players often jog into positions so that an opposition player is directly between them and the ball – hiding!
Noticed Gerrard made a 20m sprint in the first 10 minutes then immediately walked around the LB area for about 90 seconds after while the play was in CM/RM. That’s madness. Either he has an injury or is not fit!
Captain Gerrard > Fat Frank, I’m sorry.
And SWP over Lennon? Please.
Upson? :S
Upson only because Carra is suspended,he’s better than Dawson and has got more experience on the international stage.
and Lennon kept coming on the inside despite his role required him to stay on the touchline he was overawed by the occasion and didn’t look confident enough ,SWP is a better option any day of the week.
Can you now agree with me now and say the left-side is not a good position for Gerrard?
Thought England at least attempted to play a more patient game – certainly less back to front than usual ie: against the US. Albeit a very ponderous, lacking much purpose type of passing game under little pressure. That Is until running out of any Ideas 15-20 yards outside the congested Algerian area. Possibly the comments from Das Kaiser, which the press made a big thing of and the England camp didn’t seem comfortable In answering, might have had an effect on Capello’s thinking?
At times, particularly 2nd half, Heskey was redundant upfront with not much going up to him directly and even less sticking due to his Fred West like touches. Extremely surprised to see him still on the pitch after the Interval.
A genuine left footed winger would have been an Idea. To open the pitch up, keep the RWB in check and allow A Cole somebody closer to link up with. Trouble Is there wasn’t one on the bench & Adam Johnson’s probably on a beach somewhere nice.
Slovenia were Impressive 1st half before becoming overrun at the back 2nd half under admirable & Intense pressure from the US. Good thing too that Birsa Is on the opposite flank from Johnson after the mare of a performance he put In tonight. It’s absolutely not a given but England & Capello have 1 last chance to put this right.
Heskey is a one in a million player. There’s not a national side he wouldn’t walk into and immediately improve. There’s nobody like him except for maybe Drogba, but Drogba lacks awareness and makes silly mistakes.
I agree that they were trying to play more patiently but it’s hard to work the ball forwards if you misplace simple passes. That’s why it would have been nice to see if Carrick could at least get on the pitch, same with Joe Cole.
England would be better off playing a Spanish style system, by far. As this site has shown with respect to Barcelona, England have the players to play like this (shocking to say so).
First, Carrick comes in as your deep-lying midfielder, who functions like a libero. This allows Johnson and Cole to get upfield, something at which they both excel. Then you can play Lampard and Berry in central midfield. Lampard is more of the box to box threat, with Berry being more of a enforcer. (Berry and Carrick could be duplicative, but you need another MF for defensive cover if you give your FB’s attacking freedom). That leaves 3 remaining spots.
One should be Rooney as a lone true striker, so he has the ability to roam. I know Fabio (and countless other English managers) love Heskey- they look at his big body and see instant outlets, hold-up play, etc. That is all well and good, except: (1) he can’t score goals well, and (2) his presence actually limits Rooney. Rooney is much better at sniffing out goals when he isn’t preoccupied with being a second striker. England need the selfish Rooney, because his strike partner isn’t a finisher.
That leaves two spots. One should be Gerrard, who has an inverted winger/hole role slightly on the left. This allows Cole to get upfield (especially with Berry for some cover). The other can be given to either Lennon or SWP or even Milner, depending on the team and tactics.
Essentially, you are switching Carrick for Heskey, and requiring your MFs to get more involved up front. England’s failings usually occur because Lampard and Gerrard both try to get forward. Why not let them- they are better goal scorers than Heskey, anyway.
I think English players are shooting from distance more rather than passing. However long range shooting looked only way to score for England given their horrendous passing.e.g.when Gerrard couldn’t pass when 3 English payers were waiting in the box.
Guys did you notice that so far team that scored first have remained unbeaten? any logical explanation? Do you think teams are becoming more conservative when they are scoring first?
Unfortunately, that didn’t hold true for Nigeria! Although, admittedly, Greece only came out of their shell after Kaita’s red card.
Not true. Nigeria already went into full Lagerback turtle mode after the first goal. Anybody else hate the way African teams are playing this year?
The US was also able to mount a comeback and win…
FYI US didn’t win!!
oh sorry i forgot about that match!!! Yes as mentioned in ZM red card changes games.
One of the main problems I saw was how much space there was between the three lines of defence, midfield and attack, especially defence and midfield. Due to having slow central defenders and mostly very attacking midfielders that space was left making it easy to counter on us and a better team would have taken more advantage – without a couple of excellent interventions from Barry they probably would have done. Offensively what it meant is that we often had a situation where the two centre forwards plus the two wide midfielders and Lampard would be strung out in an attacking line waiting for a pass that would be delivered only by Gareth Barry. No movement because the passing was over too long a distance to allow it as a result of this. The defensive line needs to move up to allow the midfield to move up and Carrick needs to come in to give greater depth to the midfield to start moves more effectively.
good review as always but i thnk ZM missd a essential point.High passes particularly were bad,during the last 15mins when England started attacking by a string of short passes,they were easily able to divert and break the Algerian defence.is b’coz of the Jabulani or pressure is surely a question mark but England were always trying to play high and hence gave away possesion easily.But the times they were attacking through short passes i thnk they were easily breaking the Algerians.Especially David James, Glen Johnson(n all others) were continously trying to find Rooney and Heskey,but infact was resulting in the change of possesion and Algerians were trying to counter.This cycle repeated a lot srsly a lot of times.England were tryn to swich play again with the help of high balls which resulted in the same thing.So i thnk England should have tried to build a patient attack of short passind(by finding each other) rather then alwayz trying to find players through high balls(this goes for the whole team)
I’m always amazed how England cannot break down defensive formations such as this 3-4-2-1 formation – but what also amazed me is how even a contest it was – when Algeria got the ball they looked as effective as England did, even with sort of one up front.
You’d thing Fabio with his cupboard full of medals would have a solution to the problem.
Love the site; but, a shame you skipped the U.S.-Slovenia match. since it was a pretty interesting study in half-time tactical changes. Oh well.
Cheers, but can only cover two games a day.
I noticed that the Algerians were far more comfortable with the ball than English. Their control and passing was far more assured (though sometimes lead to overconfidence in short passes in defensive third). Is is that the Algerians were more comfortable with the Jabulani ball or were the English players frozen under pressure. I am not sure what tactics could have been deployed given the lack of movement from English players. Carrick is used to playing in a team with a lot of movement in the front and he is very good at picking these movements but what does he do in a team which is so static. Most times in football you create more by movement into spaces than with the ball in your feet.
Absolutely disgusted by last nights performance. Feel sorry for anyone who had to endure it.
Do you think that this was possibly the death knell of the 4-4-2 at the top levels of international football?
You need to sleep more, friend.
Algeria made two changes, the other being M’Bolhi as the keeper in place of Chaouchi (why he was their first keeper remains a mistery to me –he’s always been below average).
Also, Algeria lost to Slovenia.
I know, I’m groggy too, having to wake up at 4 AM to watch/record the first game.
Alparagon.
Just wanted to make a point about how Aaron Lennon is used because he was unfairly criticised by some in the English media last night.
At Tottenham the ball to Lennon is NOT PLAYED TO FEET but is played into the SPACE IN FRONT OF HIM.
He then races the FB to the ball and beats his man so he is able to cause chaos to opponents and provide crosses from unusual angles.
For England he was poorly used and every ball was to his feet which is a hand brake on his game.
I think the England players are too stupid to realise Lennon is not Beckham.
Beckham is slow but has incredible technique for crossing so you play plain balls to his feet.
Lennon is fast and has less technical ability for crossing but can deliver it from strange positions so you play the ball five yards in front of him.
It really is that simple. Lennon could have created problems but was used poorly. Lennon is not Beckham. If you are going to use him that way there is no point having him on the pitch.
After last night which was the worst England performance I can recall and I am completely astonished that Capello apparently looks at the performance and does not see a disaster in need of urgent chance. But I decided to just defend Lennon because the way we do not even get the basics right with him shows the problem England have. They are not even getting the most basics of basics right and do not deserve to win anything based on last night.
I noticed the same thing when Walcott played in the friendlies. He kept making runs out wide and behind but no one played him in. Instead they’d work it up the field and play it to his feet with the defender already in front of him, with little space to work with he finds it hard to take on players.
It seems to be a similar situation with Lennon.
That (ball into space) was generally how he and Walcott have been used for England. But it wasn’t really possible last night with Algeria playing a back five rather than a back four; there was no space.
I think you are wrong there ZonalMarking because Tottenham play the ball into space in front of Lennon all the time against all kinds of opposition set up in all kinds of ways. There may have been reduced space last night but there was still space and when you have good players playing well they should be able to use that space. Huddlestone and Modric manage to do for Lennon for Spurs. Tottenham’s full backs like Corluka and Kaboul manage to do it even providing the overlap to change the angle of the pass to Lennon.
Tottenham do that because that is how you get the best out of Lennon. Playing the ball to Lennon’s feet is a not getting the most out of Lennon just as playing it five yard in front of Beckham would not be the way to get the best out of Beckham.
Note that the passing to Lennon was not the key problem last night. Far from it. In fact switching to five in the middle and putting Cole on the left would make a bigger difference than using Lennon properly. I am just using Lennon it as an example of where England are making really basic errors in their play.
Against a back five? Do Tottenham ever encounter a back five in Premiership football?
..and besides, the game is generally quite open in the Premier League.
PLus, there are so many loose balls flying around; the defenders are (outside of the elite sides)technically poor and so there is always the chance that if they sloppily conceded possession, the wide players like Lennon can capitalise on this.
Sorry guys but there was space to be exploited there. England just did not use it effectively. Not only with Lennon but all over the pitch.
Do you think the width is essential for England? If there is no space on the wings would a player like Joe Cole be better who has slightly better feet and is better at moving inside away from the ball.
I realise this is unlikely as Capello seems to constantly want the width but it often leaves the players not involved with the play. I suppose the danger is you turn in to Spain with all the players in a central area but the full back could actually push forward.
I think you make a good point there Jim. You pass differently to different players. It is simple. Thing is though this is the ABC of football. So why are they forgetting it.
Not just with using Lennon but all over the pitch there are basic errors – for example with central midfield – we are just getting the basics wrong there too. We have not dominated in the middle in either game. In fact we have been dominated there in both games but Capello is not acknowledging it and making changes. Everyone in football knows how important central midfleld is. It is like someone forgetting their alphabet or times tables. Very odd.
I think Carrick would help to dominate the central midfield. It is dispiriting the teams seem to play straight through us.
Agreed. Dispiriting and destructive too. If you get teams playing through you the knock on effect is dramatic. Impossible to get your game going or dominate opponents.
Like most people I would stick Gerrard behind Rooney and Cole on the left with Barry holding. But I think there is a judgment call to make whether Lampard or Carrick should partner Barry because Frank has done so little in the two games.
I was under the impression that fitness played a role as well. I thought you could clearly tell which side has played a Premier League season plus champions league in the case of some, whereas for instance Matmour and Ziani played 25 and ten matches in Bundesliga, respectively.
Why were players like Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney so timid? It almost seemed they were trying to hide between Algerian lines. The tactics is one thing, Algeria closed them down well/the English movement without ball was terrible, but I also didn’t see any one putting up a fight in terms of morale.
This issue of games played is spot on and its effect on performance needs to be highlighted.
How many games has Gerrard or Lampard played this year? 40? 45? And then to go into a pressure packed tournament and expect to perform at a high level?
Meanwhile, this Algerian side has quality — Ziani I think is a borderline top player. You can actually think of this as a French A2/B team, with better organization and tactical discipline than the “A” group.
Hi everyone, I read this web-site everyday – have learnt so much more about the game – great work ZM, I have been telling all my mates about the site too.
What made me post back here – the South American teams had to play 18 world cup qualifiers to get to South Africa. I heard on the commentary that Maicon was playing his 63rd game of the season and he has been outstanding so far – the amount of games for me is no excuse at all.
I just don’t see why Capello keeps putting square pegs in round holes. The qualifying campaign was very good however we didn’t come across many top top teams.
4-5-1 is the way to go, the whole nation see’s this – why doesn’t capello?
He is a great manager – no question about that, I just dont see what he sees!!
The next game vs. Slovenia will be very interesting since Slovenia is playing a simple 4-4-2, regardeless of the opposition.
ZonalMarking already stated “Slovenia have triumphed by doing the simple things well – defending with two banks of four, playing a targetman alongside a hard-working willing runner, and most importantly, being very well organised.”
From Slovenian point of view, I sincerely hope that England team will play as they did vs. Algeria
Well 4-4-2 is the one formation England seem to be able to play well against. But based on yesterday’s games I think it is a stretch to say England will beat them with the way both teams are playing.
Slovenia is technically very good and tactically organized, but they lack team speed. Landon Donovan — one of the quickest players in this tournament — undressed them time and again in the second half of their game with the USA. England needs to get their fastest player on the pitch — and that means Cole and Lennon.
It’s very strange that Capello wrong two games in a row. Especially mantaining the same formation in the two matches. But there have been many setbacks before this world championship. First of all injuries: the lack of Ferdinand forced Capello to redesign the defense; then it was the turn of Barry which left the midfield unguarded; finally Rooney injury broke his magic moment with the shirt of Manchester and therefore stopped riding to South Africa.
Nevertheless is very important freeing the big two Lampard and Gerrard from tasks defensives. So to do this, you must draw a midfield three with the top down. In this situation falls perfectly in United that Carrick played in that position. Accordingly Gerrard and Lampard can move freely in the most advanced field. And so it’s more easy counteract teams that thickening the midfield.
Passing attack Capello makes me wonder how to play Rooney. He told to an important italian sport newspaper that Roo makes a deluge of goals since he does play more at the door. But I do not think in these first two games he has published his thoughts. In a better way Heskey should be sacrificed to switch to a tridente United style with two attacking wings (Wright-Phillips on the left and Lennon on the right) that can back to midfield and while playg forward. With Rooney in a false 9 role (his favorite) to create spaces for the wings.
Perhaps the goals rained.
England has been sooo much overrated by their media and it seems even the English players have fallen for it and thought everything should be so easy. They didnt expect Algeria to play, the way they did in the opening 30-35 minutes, and seemingly was in dis beleif. If Algeria had at least two players with first class International experience (Ziani is not the right person), somebody like Pedro/Nani or even a Walcott, England would have lost this game in the first 30 minutes. The lack of international game experiences is what cost Algeria. They lacked ideas and players in attack.
Also England is playing really result oriented, unattractive bad football, I am not sure whether the players are really enjoying it. There was no passion at all in their game.
I think the lack of movement was a problem for England but the real issue is that they couldn’t pass the ball forward. Too many times they lost the ball trying to build an attack. Possession is quite important but not overly so as mention in Jonathan Wilson’s article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/may/12/the-question-important-possession
But keeping the ball when trying to attack is very important otherwise you’ll never create any chances, as we saw with England last night.
I’m hoping it was nerves that can be overcome but even if it is, who’s to say it won’t happen again soon.
Algeria was great. even Bougherra was attacking on the wing in the first half, but they need to score.
What to say about England? I think it is a psychological problem. Capello said that this players were not the same he knows from the training.
We can talk about tactics, fitness, what the players have done wrong etc.
but I think the players have to find out why they have this problems. it’s no longer about who made what failure. now it’s about the source of the problems and fighting this source.
Understandably, this seems a somewhat unusual ZM analysis, as the criticism towards the England team is less tactical in nature, but centers on the failure to breathe life into their system. You primarily, and correctly, note a lack of movement, poor passing, a lack of positional awareness and the unnecessary constriction of the middle of the park.
In a way, this appears to be England’s familiar WC malaise: It’s a “betrayal” of British football, which may have become much more refined over the course of the last two decades, but still is the most direct and up-tempo exponent of all big football cultures. I can’t help it, England seem uncomfortable as favorites, especially in group matches, when they again and again timidly follow slow build-up approaches. This is not a call for vertical passing at any price and time, never mind any form of long-hoof football – it’s just a mystery that the pace of the England game so clearly lags behind regular Premier League football.
Regular premier league football has only 40% english players – the others are the best of the foreign teams – bought success.
When one considers that a lot of the foreign players are not really world class then one must assume that england does not produce very good football players.
But the England squad are English and play exclusively in the Premiership, right? Btw, I don’t believe that 40% is that small a number for one of the very top leagues, considering the amount of countries with football as their national sport and mediocre or weak leagues. Besides, I believe the better part of the English first XI to be top-notch footballers (which is not to say that England doesn’t have some obvious grassroots level problems).
However, my point’s rather been that the same footballers play a very different kind of football when you compare club and country level (in particular at WCs). Whilst the club game is the arguably most straightforward and fastest (also quite successful internationally), the national team is often among the most sluggish ones at WCs (to quite a degree in contrast to qualifiers).
I understand your point. I do think that the added quality of the foreigners helps to play better quality football – faster.
Why the ‘cream’ of Eng can’t do so? End of a long season (Prem requires more physically than other leagues).
The main reason IMO is that they believe their press and relax against perceived weaker opponents, thus taking the drive out of their own game. So, arrogance and motivation.
However, this discussion diverts attention from the issue: Why does Eng not produce ball playing midfielders and penetrating attackers?
Lampard and Gerrard do not have the speed or skill of showing for, receiving and moving the ball accurately and at speed. (Xavi, Alonso, Pirlo, Riquelm etc). Rooney is the only high quality, consistently penetrating forward.
I have never understood the Heskey selection and I have heard all the arguments. He should be watching on a widescreen in Birmingham. England have the players for a three pronged attack, whether it is 4-1-4-1/4-1-2-3 or 4-2-3-1/4-2-1-3.
Before the results occured, I would have had 4-1-2-3 for USA – Hart, ACole, Terry, King, Johnsen, Carrick, Lampard, Gerrard, JCole, Rooney, Lennon.
For Algeria the selection would have been: Hart, ACole, Terry, Dawson, Johnsen, Carrick, Lampard, Gerrard, JCole, Rooney, Lennon.
For the Algeria game you could make a case for 4-2-1-3 with Hart, ACole, Terry, Dawson, Johnsen, Carrick, Barry, Gerrard/Lampard, JCole, Rooney, Lennon.
Lennon’s selection is the one I would be unsure about, with either Adam Johnson or Walcott replacing him even though in this reality they did not go to the World Cup. Walcott’s wandering is less damaging in this formation as the three front men would be expected to get central at certain times. Johnson finished the season superbly and could bring the freshness to England that is common for a lot of nation’s good World Cup runs.
The most bizarre thing about England is the way the whole team seems to revolve around Heskey. Rooney was a little frustrated when United were biased towards Ronaldo, but at least Ronaldo was a technically excellent player. We can only imagine what he was thinking with the hoofing to Heskey and the subsequent embarrassing results. Basing your team around a hard working donkey in this competition is ridiculous.
Who knows what would have happened with the above selections, but Heskey is an obstruction not an aid to this team, even though at an individual level he appeared to have halfway decent games in both.
lots of people saying gerrard and lampard can’t play together. what i find frustrating is that they could quite happily play together, and both centrally, with barry protecting behind them. lampard loves the inside left channel, gerrard loves the inside right channel, and rooney can do a good job on his own up front. surely we’re crying out for 4-5-1, possibly with milner and joe cole on the flanks, providing the work-rate to get the best out of gerrard and lampard, and moving inside to get the full-backs down the flanks. playing an out and out right winger like lennon is a luxury at this level, playing him and two strikers is suicidal.
obviously cappello is a stubborn individual, and he saw his formation work well in the qualifiers. but the atmosphere and pressure at the world cup is so different, and having possession of the ball is vital to gaining confidence and a foothold in matches. algeria had all the possession early on, and this shattered the confidence of the england players – they were a bag of nerves, desperate to launch attacks quickly to try and force something to happen, unable to keep the ball because of a lack of passing options. against the usa we scored first, but consequently started giving the ball away, again because of a lack of passing options, and then played with the fear of losing the lead.
what england are crying out for is a formation that allows them to control a game early on and gain confidence. fear of failure is what inhibits england at major tournaments, certainly not a lack of technique, and cappello’s 4-4-2 only serves to heighten this anxiety.
clearly this won’t happen, but what about it?
_______________James________________
_________Dawson______Terry________
Johnson__________________________Cole
_______________Carrick_____________
_____Milner___________________Barry
__________Gerrard___Lampard_________
________________Rooney_______________
Carrick can get the ball off the centre backs, milner and barry can get the ball off the full-backs, and we weouldn’t see lampard getting the ball from carragher, looking up and having no options whatsoever
Too narrow for me. England had problems previously with Lampard, Gerrard, Joe Cole, Rooney and Crouch all effectively trying to operate in the same area of the pitch. It congests the play and makes it easier for the opposition to defend.
I think a better ’solution’ would be for width to come from the full backs. Cole and Johnson overlap Barry and Milner respectively with the latter two providing cover for their forward runs. Carrick stays behind the play to distribute and shield the defence while Gerrard and Cole effectively have a free role to operate behind Rooney. When possession is lost Gerrard drops back to form a midfield four to create two banks of four. Joe Cole stays forward to provide an outlet for a quick break.
——— Rooney
<<>>
<<>>
It is far from perfect but it enables the attacking three to concentrate on attacking, allows Cole and Johnson to get forward as they know they have cover behind them and it enables Carrick to try to distribute with some added movement ahead of him. Crucially it is also balanced.
Feel free to discuss. I’m just throwing it out there. We all know it will never happen.
That diagram went badly wrong!
———— Rooney
—- Cole
—————- Gerrard
– Barry — Carrick — Milner
I’ll avoid adding arrows to show their general movement…
No pace, apart from Rooney, in that attacking formation which would result in even more congestion in the middle of the pitch. Lennon or SWP needs to be on the right of any formation to stretch the play and create space in the middle. And that formation just screams for Rooney to become frustrated from lack of support.
You have to include Heskey. England cannot play English football without a striker of Heskey’s mold. His holdup play is dazzling and he always seems to lay the ball perfectly to onrushing scorers like Gerrard and Rooney. Heskey-Rooney-Gerrard are a dream partnership.
Not in the slightest. Rooney, Cole and Gerrard are not slow players. Their movement, technical ability and link up play would create far more problems than the linear runs of Lennon or Wright-Phillips down the flank. With the frankly abysmal final ball from out wide from the two aforementioned players in particular there is little point in their inclusion because they rarely create any danger and rarely get to the byline. The misguided belief that pace is the answer is one of the reasons England are in this mess. The width in the above system comes from Cole and Johnson from lateral defence. They will stretch the play with Barry and Milner positioning themselves to protect the area behind them. When in possession it will appear something like this (cue another woefully inadequate diagram):
—————- Rooney
———- Cole
Cole ——- Gerrard —– Johnson
– Barry —————- Milner
–———— Carrick
Rooney is furthest forward supported by Joe Cole and Gerrard. Cole and Johnson push forward down the flank to stretch the play and provide a wide option and crossing or cut backs from deep and the byline. Barry and Milner get involved in the play but from a slightly withdrawn position and Carrick sits deep to distribute and shield the defence. There is no congestion from an English perspective because the bulk of the attacking will come from the trio of Rooney, Joe Cole and Gerrard. Rooney will not be isolated because he will actually have two technically proficient players supporting him. You saw glimpses of Rooney and Gerrard linking up against Algeria but they were few and far between because they was often too much space between them. You saw against Japan the ability of Joe Cole to link up with the rest of the attack. The key is to provide a platform for England’s best players to operate. The above gets the best out of England’s ‘key’ attacking players in Rooney, Gerrard and Joe Cole. It also provides defensive stability, balance and everyone has a clearly defined role.
The current problem England have is the players struggle to perform their roles because of the current system is flawed which leads to a domino effect of players operating too deep. Rooney does not receive the ball further forward so he is forced to drop deeper which isolates Heskey and puts Rooney, England’s creative fulcrum, in less dangerous positions away from goal. Gerrard is forced back as well which limits Cole down the left flank as he does not want to get caught out on the break. Lennon does not hit the byline and his end product is poor which limits Johnson because he is usually forced to operate more defensively. Lampard is too deep to get involved and is often outside of his effective passing range. It is just one big mess which suits no-one.
EDIT: @Anonymous
Heskey performs his limited role well but if the rest of the team are not functioning or performing then his inclusion just creates another problem. I think it is time to sacrifice Heskey in order to give England’s best players more freedom and to get them operating further forward in dangerous positions. It will also hopefully limit the aimless punts towards him that England sometimes persist with when things are not going well. All it does is bypass the midfield and other attacking players often for little in return.
Rooney does have pace (as I mentioned) but Gerrard and Cole, while not slow, haven’t been had a turn of pace for a year or two now.
I understand your formation relies on width and attacking verve from the fullbacks, but I think you’re asking them to do too much and in demanding that they play so high up the pitch, England’s slow central partnership is exposed down the flanks, as there is no way Barry and Milner can defend against international class wingers when a squad like Argentina, Germany, Holland, etc counter down the outside. You have a system that has three central midfielders and three central attackers. You can’t expect A.Cole and Johnson to stretch the play enough to open space in the middle for your attacking threesome to have any space to operate. And if you’re going to play this formation, I’d think you’d want Lampard instead of Gerrard as Lampard is clearly superior at playing in small spaces. Gerrard needs lots of room to operate effectively, it’s why Capello has consistently played him on the left and Rafa basically played him as a forward with Torres stretching the defense to provide that space, and in the above formation he would not have that space. I like the ideas behind the formation (it’s basically Brazil’s formation) but it won’t work on the pitch with the players England has.
Now
Agree with your analysis including the below. The only problem I forsee is a lack of goals. Joe Cole doesn’t score many and neither do Barry Carrick or Milner. This may leave a large burden on Gerrard and Rooney.
I think that a lot has to be changed if England are to progress past the group stages or beyond (on this evidence they dont deserve to) thier problems with width are clear, but i think england need to drastically change thier shape if they are to progress. Barry played well but Lampard was poor, passing it sideways far to often and being generally anonamous defensively. For me he has to be replaced with carrick,so that Gerrard (who i would play just off rooney )dosent have to come so deep to get on the ball.I would also play with 2 genuine wingers to stretch the play and create space. It would also stop fullbacks becoming an outlet against us.
Not just Capello’s players, Capello himself.
He has been appallingly bad; playing a 4-4-2 against a 3/5 man defense when you have Rooney and Gerrard available? It wasn’t even his normal blend of 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2, it was just an old fashioned 4-4-2.
Terrible tactics; using the formation that best suits the opposition all for the sake of fitting Emile Heskey in the side.
However well Heskey has played at times, playing directly into the hands of the opposition is not worth it for anything short of an elite world class player. Not only does his inclusion lead to the formation being perfect for the opposition, it hinders Gerrard immensely, takes away the best part of Lampard’s game, and leaves Joe Cole on the bench.
Capello himself put on a disgraceful display, and the first game was not much better.
Let me give my 2 cents. What made England awful was the movement off the ball especially when the Central players played the ball to the wide players. Lampard’s movement was especially when he played a ball out to Lennon, there was no effort from him to offer himself as an outlet for Lennon. The opposition teams have set themselves up correctly. All England’s threat comes from the flanks, once opposition teams neutralized the threat its easy to control England as its up to individual players to carve something out of nothing. The one instance when England were successful was when they played the ball effectively through the middle which put Gerrard through. I was also disappointed with Capellos’ substitutions, he did not address the fact that the battle was being lost in the midfield, which he kept on shoring up the midfield. Heskey upfront is not having the desired effect as opposition teams realize that he is not a goal threat. I would play 4-2-3-1 with Rooney playing upfront on his own with Gerrard in the hole, Lennon & Milner on the flanks, Carrick and Barry sitting in front of the back 4. Lennon and Milner to work with the fullbacks during attack. Ask Gerrard to present himself as a option for the wingers to keep possession.
Hey zonalmarking, are you going to put an analysis of the USA game up? I always like to hear your takes on the games and was just wondering. This is my favorite soccer website, great job.
Capello wants out.
He’s never been a reliable tournament manager (1994 was a one-off).
So he signs the extension with the FA, then gets the results to get sacked with a massive payout.
Harry for England Manager! He might not be such a tactician, but you can be sure he improves teams and gets results.
Impartial observer here. Strictly from a footballing standpoint, England are caught in some no-man’s land vortex of the last vestiges from Sven and Sven 2.0 Capello. The real problem is those rich lads forgot what real English football is. It’s essentially the same players, regurgitating the same recipe.
I would argue that England is desperately trying to play a game that doesn’t suit them. You see more of a clue and attitude from clubs like Stoke City and Sunderland. There is little on display of the characteristics you characterize with English Football, pace, electrifying runs, hard tackling. They look a poor version of Italy. That’s not the best characteristics of English football.
In a sense, you’d be better off with an tried and trued English coach/ ex-player, even if he was limited and rough around the edges, he could be a motivator of sorts (think Maradona).
How to fix this trainwreck tactically. You have 11 field player and none of them look comfortable passing the ball. As simple as that. You find your best 11 passers: Rooney, Cole, Joe Cole, Defoe, Gerrard, etc… and you get them on the field AT THE SAME TIME!
Simple as that, get the best passers on the field. Go-4-2-3-1. Structure the lineup to get the ball to Rooney from all places on the field (deep in the mid, from the wing, on crossing routes, not just laterally from the strike partner, that is obsolete.
You might take a goal now and then but you have exactly 1 goal in 180 minutes of football with a tough Slovenia on deck. It’s gotta be all in at this point.
I have to say, as a neutral, that was an abysmal game of football – not only devoid of any action, but of any really drive, passion or direction. It was particulaely frustrating watching players as talented as Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard not only underperform but not seem to have any desire to lift their struggling team.
If France had played like this they would have been slaughtered by the commentating team (who frequently suggested that France deserved to go out.) On this evidence, so do England.
I’m not sure if it’s a problem with nerves (many of their players experience pressure all the time, playing for top 4 clubs) but their seemed to be a complete lack of cohesion, movement or technical quality. England are clearly being stifled by their formation and last night (even as a Scotland fan) was like watching a car-crash.
thats the only result, i think, after all this arrogant english media talk about easily beating algeria(nevermind wining world cup), that you could expect. yeasterday’s the sun looked like they already celebrating:) but this is just excuse of course, england just was terrible – kids stuff, can’t control the ball it was awful to watch. my opinion is fucking heskey who’s at fault of this nonsense with 4-4-2, everybody just looking for him and bashing long passes – crazy tactics. or another option rooney still injured and thats hye’s very off form, looks little hope now for england unfortunately.
Cole and Carrick are surely a case of absence making the heart grow fonder. Carrick was rubbish in his last few internationals, and he’s been rubbish for his club all season. Suddenly he’s England’s saviour? Come on.
Cole makes a little more sense, but a) he really isn’t that good. He’s being discarded by Chelsea for goodness sake, and b) it relies on Gerrard and Rooney working together. I’m sure Capello has tried it in training, maybe they just don’t work.
All feels like rearranging the deckchairs. England have fundamental problems that fiddling with the lineup and formation aren’t going to change.
“Carrick was rubbish in his last few internationals”
Yeah, like in the friendly against Egypt in March, when he came on at 0-1 down, was the best player on the pitch and ended up guiding England to a 3-1 win?
“England have fundamental problems that fiddling with the lineup and formation aren’t going to change.”
You might have a point, but what do you want Capello to do, give up?
“Yeah, like in the friendly against Egypt in March, when he came on at 0-1 down, was the best player on the pitch and ended up guiding England to a 3-1 win?”
Does one good game really make up for all his numerous bad ones this season? Calling him rubbish was hyperbole, but he has had a very poor season, so what real reason is there to risk playing him? He might work well, yes. He also might come up with yet another stinker. And his record over the last year indicates it is the latter which is more likely.
That said England’s situation is so desperate* that it may well be worth the risk anyway.
“You might have a point, but what do you want Capello to do, give up?”
No, I just don’t think changes in personnel and formation will make any difference. Playing Cole won’t stop Rooney’s first touch sending the ball out for a throw from the center circle. It won’t stop Lampard missing 5 yard passes by 10 yards. If anything I suspect Cole and Carrick will be infected by whatever is possessing the rest of them. Remember how Barry was going to save England from their mediocrity in the first game? And yet, they managed to get worse!
Only solving that issue can save England. Unfortunately, it sounds like Capello has no idea why it happens (that’s not the team I saw in training etc).
*of course they’re only a win away from qualifying, but if they don’t improve their performances drastically – and fast – they’ll just receive an embarassing hiding for their efforts.
When you play Carrick in a midfield two with someone like James Milner of course he’ll look bad if he’s off form. To get the best out of him in his current form you have to play him in a midfield 3 so he can sit deep and not have to worry about getting forward as he’ll have cover if he does. Also, poor movement doesn’t work with him. Didn’t see all of his last games for England but he didn’t do much wrong.
I’m not particularly saying it does or doesn’t make up for his numerous bad ones this season, merely saying that “the last few times he’s played for England he’s been rubbish” is a complete lie – the last time England played good football, Carrick was on the pitch.
Surely the reason to ‘risk’ him is that their situation is so bad and they have been so awful so far? I don’t think it’s a risk, really.
Take your point about Barry, but I’m not sure he was going to “save England from their mediocrity”, he was just there to give defensive protection. Which did very well, he tracked runs into the box excellently. He was pretty crap on the ball, granted, but I think he did what he was basically in the side to do.
CArrick was poor this ear for Manchester United but much of his failing stemmed from being asked to often play as a partner to Darren Fletcher in a central pairing rather than in a three man midfield as he had played the three years before when United won the league. The main reason for this was by replacing Ronaldo with Valencia, the midfield wasn’t contributing enough goals so Ferguson often played Giggs or Gibson in an attempt to bring some more attacking verve than would result from the trio of Scholes, Fletcher and Carrick he had preferred the previous years. And when it came down to a choice between Scholes and Carrick, Ferguson believed (correctly) that Scholes was more effective in a pairing with Fletcher than Carrick was, especially an admittedly off-form Carrick.
But place him in a three man midfield with with two from Barry/Lampard/Gerrard and I think England would benefit from his ability to keep the play moving and the resultant uptick in pace and ball retention. They surely can’t be much worse.
All that being said, a) Fabio isn’t going to play him and b) word is Carrick was injured in training today so any change would have to wait, and it’s no guarantee that England have more than one match left in this tournament.
Well said about the midfield two / three issue, I think it’s very important with players like him who are predominantly ‘passers’ that they play in a three, along with a more defensive midfielder, and a more attacking creator.
Intrestingly, I think that Spain are having the reverse problem with their central midfield. Where as in 2008 Senna was able to do all the defensive work and allow Xavi and especially Iniesta to push forward and still play two three attackers (Torres, Villa, Silva) Del Bosque is somewhat forced to play both Alonso and Busquets to provide the same shield that Senna did by himself. This pushes Xavi to the top of the midfield three, where he is not as comfortable and also forces Iniesta to the left wing. Then there’s only room for two other attacking players. Plus moving Xavi up higher keeps Fabragas out of the starting 11 even if Iniesta is injured as he is now. With their current lineup, I wouldn’t be too surprised if Spain find it difficult to score goals as they’ve become awfully narrow and short of goal-scorers in the midfield.
Carrick has rarely been utilised correctly by England so his lack of international performances should come as no surprise. I honestly think some players and managers believe him to be a holding defensive midfielder and nothing else. I cringed when I saw Lampard take the ball off Carrick’s foot and attempt to distribute himself during one game. Carrick is a player who can calmly retain possession and pull the strings from behind the play with accurate passing. His ability to quickly find a forward player in space is something England sorely lacks. I agree that his inclusion needs to be in tandem with fixing some of the fundamental problems in front of him or England will never get the best out of him. At this stage it might be worth the risk. It is unfortunate that he plays a ‘European game’ which is why England have never made use of him.
Cole is one of the rare English players who has technical ability and a good reading of the game. To be frank you can give him the ball and he will do something incisive with it instead of merely making the simple pass or running with his head down before losing possession. England sorely lack movement and link up play in the final third. Cole provides it. He is only leaving Chelsea because he believes he is worth more than they are willing to offer him. Considering the obscene amount they hand out to other players he is justified. It will be interesting to see where he ends up. I would not be surprised to find him lining up and being a success at Arsenal or Man Utd.
With regard to Gerrard and Rooney I have no doubts they can work together. The evidence is there for all to see. Even against Algeria some of the best (only) link up play was when Gerrard and Rooney were close enough to exchange passes. In other games they have shown that they operate on the same wavelength. Both are good technical players so they find it easy. It is why I think England should try to maximise their ability to link up and cause problems by playing Rooney as the striker and Gerrard behind him centrally. It is where they both currently operate for their clubs after all.
I’m foeming the view that the team needs to be 4-2-3-1 with Carrick and Barry as the central “2″. I’m in two minds at retaining Lampard or Rooney (yes I am questioning Rooney’s avlaue to the team.
I’m thinking either Rooney, Gerrard, and Cole behind Defoe; or Gerrard, Lampard, and cole behind Rooney.
In both systems I think the wider two of the three (on the right its Rooney in the first version Gerrard in the second; in both cases its Cole on the left ) need to run from the outside in (wide when we don’t have the ball, closing in on the lone forward when we do). Of the two, I like the idea of Rooney, Gerrard and Cole behind Defoe. Defoe’s pace will force the opposition deap, whilst Rooney, Gerrard and Cole seems a nice balance of power and creativity.
The back four picks itself (Johnson, Dawson, Terry, Cole) and keep James in goal.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.
You rate Carrick?!
HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Too much… much too much… I laughing my arse off!
If you do not understand the clear problems England have in central midfield and what Carrick would bring to the England team then you are clearly in the wrong place. Head back over to 606 or whatever hole you came from.
A lot of people are suggesting Gerrard to play just behind Rooney. Didn’t Cappello try this early in his reign as English coach against France in a friendly and change it at half time saying after the game it doesnt work?
I thought I was suggesting Gerrard behind Defoe, or Garrard to the right with Lampard behind Rooney.
And yes I rate Carrick in the “2″ above Lampard.
Capello only gave them 45 minutes together against France before substituting them both off.
play defoe and rooney as a front 2, gerrard behind them playing slightly on the right, lampard, carrick and barry behind them. Have the fullbacks create the width.
Defoe is seen as the primary striker, rooney as a support playing slightly from the left .
england is struggling to make ideas, at least with this they should control the midfield battle and always have a spare man to pass to.
also you could drop defoe for milner, play milner on the wide right and lampard on the wide left.
Hello, first post on here, have enjoyed reading the site and a number of the comments and just wanted to add what could be a very controversial two cents.
Fabio obviously has to make one change for the Slovenia game due to the suspension of Jamie Carragher, but I feel he will need to make a couple more.
Lampard and Gerrard are both excellent midfielders on their day, but as has been discussed above, they have rarely functioned well as a midfield pair. Sacrificing Lampard will cost nothing on the basis of the first two games. Bringing in Carrick, despite his poor club form would provide further defensive cover to the midfield allowing the players around to venture further forward, but again on the basis of the first two games, England don’t need this – the only goal conceded was a massive goalkeeping error and apart from a few half-chances, the defence have done well. What the England team need is Joe Cole – his flair and technique could help to provide creativity to an England attack in desperate need of something special to kick-start their tournament.
Heskey may have set up Gerrard’s goal against the USA but his inability to convert his one-on-one in the same game indicated his lack of attacking prowess and he showed no improvement against Algeria. Peter Crouch may not have played as often as he would have liked during the domestic season but he has an impressive goalscoring record for England. Rooney has had a fantastic season for Manchester United, but apart from one shot against the USA he has been a passenger for England. His petulance as he left the field on Friday indicated that all is not well for young master Wayne. Starting with Defoe would be extremely controversial but his partnership with Crouch has paid dividends for Spurs. Leaving Rooney on the bench would lift some of the pressure he must be feeling and leave Capello with a fresh Rooney if they cannot break down the Slovenians within the first hour or so.
This would mean England starting in a similar shape -
_________Crouch______Defoe_____________
Joe Cole_________________________Lennon
__________Gerrard______________________
_____________________Barry_____________
A. Cole__Upson_______Terry______Johnson
______________James____________________
Looking at Slovenia (I will not claim to be an expert, but from what I’ve seen) – they may have 4 points on the board, but they showed defensive frailties in the second half against the USA. Donovan’s goal exploited this and Bradley’s well worked goal suggest that England will have chances on Wednesday. Edu’s disallowed goal suggests that set-pieces could offer the likes of Terry and Crouch chances.
Tactical analysis aside, there is one very important factor – England have to win. Slovenia only require a draw. An early Slovenian goal could lead to the now expected pack-the-defence tactics that many teams have utilised so far.
Their was a distinct difference in class between the 2 teams. On paper, you would expect England, with their 120k a week mega stars to absolutely hammer what is essentially a French B team (Algeria have 10 French born players in their 11, which is actually 1 more than France itself). But here lies the differences, the different teams abilities to keep the ball. England were being bossed by a side that feature nimble little players. They can whizz around and look for the ball, always looking to create (ultimately the lack of a goal poacher cost Algeria the victory). Ziani, Yebda, Boudabouz and occaisonally Matmour had England going in circles for long stages in the game. And when England did eventually retrieve possesion, they could not string together more than 4 passes. England has poor ball retention, mainly due Frank Lampard always attempting Hollywood passes. To begin with, he is overweight, and in the altitude he could not chase around Yebda, Lacen, Ziani etc. Secondly, he simply has not the intelligence on the ball to pick a correct pass. Honestly, he is only in the team based on his season at Chelsea and even then, a handful of goals were either deflected, penalties or in maulings of small teams at home. And if he cant score for England, what is the point of him? He is new Liam Miller. Completely invisible. At least Carrick has Pirlo like qualities in his ball retention skills. Lampard just goes for a shot or an overhit through ball. AWFUL.
I would sacrifice Lampard for the Slovenia game today and play Gerard as an out and out attacking midfielder with Barry as the holding player. Lennon has also disappointed me and should be replaced by Milner, if fit, who has much more to his game. Defoe plays because he has better movement than Heskey and Crouch and will trouble the rather static Slovenian central defenders. Joe Cole comes in on the left to provide some trickery to unlock a tight defence. So my team set up to attack from the first minute in a 4-1-3-2 formation:-
James
Johnson Terry Upson ACole
Barry
Milner Gerrard JCole
Rooney Defoe
My prediction, a 1-0 win for England.
..in my point of view England could really be a very good counter attacking side. They have very good CBs (they lack some pace, so sitting deep might suit them), a midfield capable of sending fast passes up front with players like Gerrad who can burst into the oppositions space with power. Also there is Rooney up front, who needs space and they also have some really pacey wingers.
That’s why they could look really good against stronger sides. Beside that, they don’t have much technique (i know, it’s a stereotype ;_)). A.Cole is the best english player (technique), as I see it, but beside that the most of the others benefit from their superior athletic. So it’s just natural that they fail against weaker teams and I can’t see anything that would change that (don’t think Carrick is enough considering his teammates).
But hopefully they have some luck today because I would really like to see them later against better teams when they will park the bus them-selfs and send deadly passes to Rooney….
Quite.