England 1-0 Slovenia: England more balanced and better in possession
The starting line-ups
A much improved performance from England that sees them narrowly progress into the knockout stages of the competition. Slovenia looked to be through at full-time, but a late goal from Landon Donovan against Algeria sends them out.
England made three changes from their 0-0 defeat with Algeria. Matthew Upson replaced the suspended Jamie Carragher, with John Terry shifting across to play as the right-sided centre-back. James Milner came in for Aaron Lennon, and Jermain Defoe was ahead of Emile Heskey.
Slovenia were unchanged from their match against the US, with Milivoje Novakovic dropping off Zlatan Ljubijankic upfront.
In raw tactical terms, this game was possibly the least interesting of the competition so far. 4-4-2 against 4-4-2. Both sides with attacking full-backs, both with one forward playing slightly behind the other.
The biggest difference between the two teams was their pressing, and their tempo. This was probably a reflection on the objectives of the two sides – England needed a win, Slovenia would have been content with a draw. Slovenia’s forwards generally dropped deep into their own half when they lost possession, trying to cut off the ball towards England’s central midfielders, rather than pressuring the centre-backs. Partly as a result of this, John Terry and Matthew Upson played quite high up the pitch – maybe too high, as on a couple of occasions Slovenia exploited the space in behind, and quicker players would have caused England more of a threat in this respect.
England’s approach was the opposite. Wayne Rooney and Jermain Defoe harried and pressured the Slovenian centre-backs, exposing their weaknesses on the ball, and England won possession in the final third far more often than in previous games. It was a typically ‘English’ performance in this respect, with the cooler climate of South Africa more conducive to high-tempo football than in previous international tournaments. This suits both Defoe and Rooney – not the most intelligent or positionally-aware players when not in possession, but certainly ones who will work hard to try and win the ball.
Milner’s positional discipline key
England's shape was a lot more balanced today. James Milner (pink) hugged the touchline, meaning Glen Johnson (green) was able to make Chile-style diagonal runs from full-back, into a position where he caused a threat, and he was slightly unfortunate not to win a penalty in the second half. Meanwhile, Milner's width meant that Steven Gerrard (blue) could venture inside without making too narrow, and in turn Ashley Cole (yellow) was able to overlap.
A big part of why England played well today was because of the positional sense of James Milner on the right-hand side. As outlined in the England v Algeria report, Aaron Lennon’s frustrating tendency to come inside from his wide position made England narrow and predictable in the final third, especially with the nature of Steven Gerrard’s left midfield role.
Milner was a constant outlet for England when they had the ball in midfield and he also stretched the Slovenian defence. It was fitting that he provided the assist for England’s winner – a simple but superb cross which met Jermain Defoe’s near post run.
Defoe and Rooney have rarely functioned well together, but today it worked reasonably well. In England’s first two games (particularly against the US), Emile Heskey dropped deep to win the ball in the air, whilst Rooney held a position high against the defence. He rarely got on the ball to influence the game in a creative sense, and there were few crosses coming his way to provide a goal threat. Today, Defoe played the ‘on the shoulder of the last defender’ role, and Rooney dropped deeper. From here, he frequently linked up well with Steven Gerrard – most notably when their interplay created a good chance for the Liverpool captain at the start of the second half – he shot straight at the goalkeeper.
Slovenia lacklustre
It certainly wasn't...
Slovenia were fairly disappointing. There was little plan B when they went behind. Of course, they didn’t know that they were about to be eliminated, but have you ever seen such a low-key exit from a major tournament from a side losing the game by one goal? They pushed forward slightly, but nothing remarkable. They brought on attackers, but took off attackers. They seemed to switch to something more like a 4-3-3 at the end of the game, but the full-backs (both of whom are very quick and decent on the ball) could have been told to move 25 yards higher up the pitch, with England unable to retain possession upfront until Heskey replaced Defoe.
That said, they still had their chances – and although Terry, Upson and Johnson all made superb blocks and tackles at various points, it was still slightly alarming to be seeing such last-ditch defending against a side that really offered very little creative threat throughout. Valter Birsa, Slovenia’s best player in the competition so far, was particularly underwhelming, only completing 19 of his 39 attempted passes. Halfway through the group stage Slovenia looked to be sailing through to the knockout stages for the first time in their history, but they’ll now go home wishing they’d given it more of a go in the final game.
Conclusion
England played well. The tempo was quicker, the passing was slicker, but they’ll need to play much, much better to defeat quality opposition. The positives – Gerrard and Milner’s positional sense, Defoe’s goal, the attacking displays from the full-backs – should be balanced with a recognition that the tactics they used today might come up short against a quality side. Future opponents will not be as limited on the ball as Slovenia’s centre-backs, or allow Milner to get crosses in so easily. They will also counter-attack much more effectively – with both England full-backs getting forward, Terry and Upson/Carragher on a 2 v2 situation is not desirable considering the relative lack of pace in that department.
But this was not about honing tactics for future opponents, it was about getting the tactics right on the day to pick up three points. Capello got it right.
England 1-0 Slovenia: England more balanced and better in possession
The removal of Heskey was the key. Prevention of the long ball, and improved movement, pace and speed meant that England relied on their ball skills to move the ball from back to front.
Heskey should not start another game from England, and after this tournament should not be called upon again.
To be fair, he was vital for the last ten minutes.
I agree he does he certain job well, and I would say that individually he did quite well in the first two games, and he had a wonderful assist in the first game.
However looking at England in the first two games you would come to the conclusion that they had been built around Heskey tactically. Frankly a ridiculous situation for a major football team considering his limited ability. That might do well in home and away situations in a qualifying campaign that was not particularly tight. At a tournament like this one, where teams are defending for their lives and giving every inch, playing with Heskey prevents England from maximising what they have, which is skilful players and an exceptional ability to move the ball quickly from back to front in a controlled manner.
Some players seemed to rely on the long ball, or use it too quickly in the first games. Who knows if that was by instruction or by individuals taking the easy way out. The removal of that route, forces the players to rely on their best qualities and not to degrade to their worst.
I know you can’t blame Heskey for everything in the first two games, but in my opinion it was the flimsiest of foundations.
I’m not English by the way.
This sounds like the Mexico thread on Guillermo Franco. Identical issues.
true.
they always looked to hit long balls towards Heskey first and thought about actually passing around later.
Obviously a massively improved performance but still lots to improve on. The balance that came from the width Milner provided and Gerrard’s less rampaging role on the inside left gave the fullbacks a much better chance to cross the halfway line and get involved in the play (Johnson and Cole completed the most number of passes in the game, 54 and 48 respectively). See the image: http://totalfootball2010.posterous.com/engs-better-balance-got-the-fullbacks-involve-1
But as a team they still need to improve their ball retention to compete with the better sides in the knockout stages. 73% today overall was what they managed whereas the likes of Argentina, Spain, Brazil are always over 80%.
I think once the dust settles, most people will still question the team and formation Capello has picked. Good enough to get the result today but not completely convincing.
Great point Colm. It also highlights the absurdity of Slovenia’s tactics – if you play with wingers high up the pitch, you nullify this threat as Cole and Johnson cannot get forward so often. It is especially important to nullify Cole, as he is England’s only attacker on the left touchline (contrary to what BBC pundits said, Gerrard still cut inside).
Two changes from Capello were massive – Defoe and Milner.
Milner was outstanding, I had ruled him out after those two games where he was obviously ill and not in any state to start, but today he was fantastic and fully merited Capello’s persistancy in choosing him.
Defoe was the big thing though. It’s handy to have a striker who can score, isn’t it? That could be the nail in the coffin of Heskey’s international career which should have been hammered months ago (at least as a starting player) – he does his job well, very well, but he is not of international standard and would struggle to get into 50% of the squads at this year’s World Cup.
They scraped it, for me. It wasn’t pretty, they were tense and fearful. Gerrard and Rooney didn’t have their best games in England shirts and the question must be raised how two class acts suddenly become liket that despite playing in many big games for club and country previously.
I think England will struggle in the next round, be it against Germany or Serbia. They better be hoping Ghana pull off a miraculous win because they’re the only team that they can beat.
I agree that the two changes were key. However, I think the assessment of Defoe needs to be tempered – he did little else other than score the goal, and (as expected) won virtually nothing in the air.
I thought Defoe contributed quite a bit all over. Yes, England will struggle in the next round. But they will play better (esp Rooney). Don’t write their obituries just yet.
totally agree with defoe not contributing apart from the goal. but with rooney firing blanks (just pure unlucky or nervy due to expectation), i reckon it’s better off to have rooney winning the ball and feeding to defoe. but that also comes with a risk, he gets riled up easily if he was to make challenges.
Defoe didn’t contribute much in terms of being on the ball, but his presence has two vital effects for England’s play:
1) A quick striker who plays on the shoulder of the central defender forces teams to either drop deep or play a high line (i.e. to catch him offside – the riskier approach). In the group stages at least, teams are likely to go for the former due to concerns over lack of pace in defence.
2) Forcing the defensive line back seemed to create space between them and the midfield, which is crucial to making the most of England’s talented drifters (Gerrard and Rooney, who drop into this space). Without this space, Gerrard and Rooney cut frustrated figures (see Algeria). With this space, there is at least a chance that these two provide the creativity they are clearly there to deliver.
Defoe (or indeed any pacy CF who plays to run behind the defensive line) means Rooney drops back, and there is space for him and Gerrard to exploit in front of the opposition defence. Whether this plan A, and the plan B of crossing to an onrushing Defoe, are enough to beat well-organised, quality teams (Brazil/Spain) remains to be seen. But it plays to England’s strengths more than Heskey and Lennon/Wright-Phillips
I think Germany or Serbia (if they go through) have to be salvating at the chance of playing England or USA. If Capello sticks with the outdated 4-4-2 Serbia and especially Germany will like their chances. I see England having a hard time breaking down any team out of group D. Tatctically and organizationally England have been much better and more balanced from their previous games, but creatively they have really created nothing in three games. They still have not done much from a creative stand point in three games and from a ball retention standpoint they have been woeful. I guess if your players don’t put an emphasis on keeping possession and are not skilled enough it doesn’t matter what formation Capello plays.
They miss Paul Scholes and Carrick, sadly, needs to play. A disciplined and balanced midfield will give England huge fits. If Capello wants to go far he has to either play Gerrard upfront or drop one of them (Lampard or Gerrard). England fans should not be optimistic about this team going far especially since they have been drawn on the harder side of the bracket. Slovenia will be saying what if more than any other eliminated side in the tournament. I think they were unlucky to go through. Although tactically boring, I thought they played the best football in this group.
Germany may suit England. They commit men forward and play at pace (a bit like England) so there should be more space for England to exploit in-behind. I also think England’s system is not entirely boring – it is asymetric with just one winger, but this can be exposed if Ashley Cole is nullified going forwards.
Watching the Germany-Ghana game right now (half-time) and I reckon England’s in with a real chance against either team. This new dynamic, attacking, penalty-missing Germany instills less fear in me than the more ‘traditional’ Germany. In fact, I’m sort of hoping Germany come in top of the group because England would match up well against Germany, but Ghana, looking particularly deadly on the break, could cause all sorts of problems for England.
I think Germany;s 4-2-3-1 would give England plenty of problems. Muller and Podolski’s hard work could stifle Cole and Johnson, but more importantly, I don’t see England winning the midfield battle – you can probably trust Barry to be disciplined in his tracking of Ozil’s movement, but that leaves room for Schweinsteiger to take a more creative role, and be relatively free to do so. And anyway, Ozil’s such a fantastic player he could still do great damage.
England need to target Germany’s weaker defense, particularly their left back. Once again, Milner could prove to be key.
I thought Boateng played well at left back today
Boateng was unadventurous, and struggled to stem Ayew’s delivery. Here’s to Khedira out-Lampard’ing Lampard in the late box-run stakes!
I think that the United States and especially England should be confident heading into a match with anyone in group D right now. Germany have not shown a great deal of discipline and struggled to break down Serbia. Ghana have been extremely organized, but haven’t managed to put that many shots on goal. In the realm of common opponents- Australia- the US handled them in a way that suggested they could have scored more than the three they got, but I’m not sure that that match has any bearing.
I’d be bullish on the Germans beating the Americans but not the English, and fairly confident that Ghana falls to the U.S but not England. The United States had the most goals scored, the highest amount of passes completed, and most shots on goal for the group, and have shown a great deal of flair and adaptability in terms of formations and tactics (subjective, but they’ve scored three and conceded none after the half, and the shots on goal conceded and created and possession is even more disproportional). They have trouble with pace in the back, something Germany can exploit but Ghana have failed to do so. They are fairly well organized, and particularly good at effective counter-attacking and wide play from their full backs.
England played very well today, and Milner was a key part of it, but I have reservations about them moving forward. England’s weakness is it’s back line as well, for different reasons. I don’t believe Milner has been very good when run at (particularly by the U.S.’s right back), and that’s his duty, cleaning up the wings. Johnson is good at getting forward, but again, he’s not proven to be a particularly good defender, and has a somewhat faulty sense of positioning. You’re absolutely right about Carrick, he needs to play, but what happens if Germany, Serbia, or Ghana throw weighted wings at Milner? Milner looked foolish against the U.S, and as good as Cherundolo has been, he’s old and doesn’t have a great burst of speed. Johnson hasn’t really had to keep a close eye on his zone of the field, but Ghana will feel they can test him man on man. The key is for those left and right backs to maintain their sense of position.
Don’t forget the 2 disallowed goals the USA scored. The 1st was the BS call on Edu vs. Serbia on the free kick, and the 2nd was Dempsey’s goal today vs. Algeria.
Sepp Blatter was even in the stands! Outrageous.
Germany struggled to breakdown Serbia because they had 10 men. Even with ten men, they should have won that game. England have very little chance of winning.
I watched the USA – Algeria game, I feel this is the better one, actually…
When J. Cole came on did anyone think a good idea would be to play him left wing and have Gerrard go up top? Maybe not in the scope of this game (Gerrard better defensively in midfield) but J. Cole looked lost playing centrally behind Heskey.
Maybe because Heskey is so big, and Joe is so small.
I definately agree. Been saying this for ages. Joe will still drift central allowing Ashley to create width and gerrard brings a scoring threat (half of your goals so far)
“have you ever seen such a low-key exit from a major tournament from a side losing the game by one goal?” – yep, greece last night.
cappello’s interview straight after the game was telling – “their minds are now free”, i think he said. this is a truly great way for england to qualify, in terms of the rest of the tournament. they’ve come back almost from the dead, and avoided a humiliating exit. they’ve put in a performance which, although it only resulted in beating a woeful slovenia 1-0, will increase the confidence and the mood of the camp about 1000 per cent. the wide players finally (FINALLY, STEVEN GERRARD!!!) have learnt that discipline, in terms of their starting positions, is critical and rooney will be absolutely chomping at the bit, fitness allowing.
psychologically, they are now in perfect condition. nothing whatsoever to lose, and absolutely everything to gain
Addition by subtraction. Still think Lampard needs to come off, and England needs some speed on the field.
I was trying to watch both games at the same time, but Slovenia never really got a feeling of urgency, and Algeria for some reason seemed content with draw…
lampards being asked to play a game that isnt his natural game, on the wrong side of the field that he is used to. Same goes for gerrard who is being asked to play out of position and gerrrard just doesnt have the passing ability to play his current style.
now i think lampard is miles ahead of gerrard in midfield duties but thats only at club level because lampard needs 1 thing to tick, that is a competent left winger. Lampard thrives in the space that a fullback and a left winger make him on that left side. Alot of his goals come from that and alot of assists come from that too. capello tried his hardest to make that system work on the right but lampard isnt a natural lefty so he cant cut into or run onto his natural foot, that and compared to malouda and a.cole the right side of england is trash.
my suggestion is drop lampard, who i love btw but instead play a 4231 with rooney as the left winger, gerrard in the centre and defoe up front. rooney is much better at playing that role and it gives him more time on the ball, something he isnt getting at england because his wingers and support arent set up to benefit him.
if push comes to shove, j.cole on for defoe, rooney up front and then finally lamps can come on for gerrard or barry.
the other option is a diamond or playing gerrard as a right winger, both destined to fail. an interesting choice would be a set up similar to brazil’s. having a roving right sided midfielder in gerrard, j.cole in the robinho role, rooney in kaka’s role and defoe as striker. A straight 442 wont work against germany’s 433 setup because the wingers will stay pushed up without sacrificing the midfield and will be able to counter easily.
Lampard needs a competent left winger to tick? Half the time his club plays without any left winger at all, and it doesn’t seem to have handicapped him in the slightest.
umm im 100% sure that lampard nearly always has a left winger playing if one is available. i think his name might be malouda, you know one of the best if not the best left winger at club level last season.
sure if malouda is injured or not playing due to rotation then j.cole or anelka or some1 could fill in but in those games lampard nearly always takes more of a backseat to the scoring and instead controls the tempo of the game.
Is there any system, you’d think, would fit England better for the rest of the tournament?
A false dawn, I feel. Germany will dispatch England in the next round with consummate ease (I’ll refrain from using the word “efficiancy”!) The USA, on the other hand, have a great chance against Serbia and I’m backing Bob Bradley’s men all the way. They’re so impressive and his son is just the business – what a player. I’ve heard it said that, as a captain, Roy Keane was like an extension of Alex Ferguson, almost giving his manager a presence on the pitch. Well Bradley Jr has certainly taken that idea to the next level! You couldn’t get a better personification of his manager’s will on the field – he even looks just like him!
P.S. I presume many tears were shed at ZM Towers last night as your “team of the decade” fell a goal or two short of qualifying for the next round. You can talk all you want about tactics, but at the end of the day, you’ve gotta stick the ball in the old onion bag!
“The USA, on the other hand, have a great chance against Serbia and…..”
that might be, ….when is this friendly match???
Hehe. That comment was obviously written before the Group D games. The US have an even better chance against Ghana than they would have done against Serbia!
Hope you go back and write up the USA-Algeria match as well, very interesting from a tactical standpoint on the USA end and I’m sure a lot of your readers would be interested.
This match, England looked much better, but they still only scored one and still look too slow both on defense and on the ball in the center of midfield and defense. I fear to see what happens when the come up against Germany (most likely) – Ozil is going to run circles around Barry.
I think the US – Slovenia match would be more interesting than the Algeria game personally. The US was pretty much all over Algeria the whole game with Algeria threatening on the counter.
To be honest though, none of the games in this group were that tactically exciting; Algeria providing the only exception with their 3-4-2-1.
What I find interesting though about this group and the world cup in general is that while wingers that cut in was a tactical theme of the last year, it seems that so many teams are having trouble because they lack width. Both the US and England have problems when Gerrard, Donovan, Dempsey and Lennon all cut inside. It just seems ironic.
Disagree, while the starting 11 was pretty standard for the USA, Bradley the senior made some changes at the half and in the second half to change things up. Agree that the game against Slovenia was also interesting and would have liked to see some analysis on that match as well.. Think others agree.
Think both the USA and England are having problems with wingers cutting in partly beacuse both teams are playing with two central mids and two central strikers. I think the USA haven’t had too many issues with it (other things, yes) but England have had problems because Gerrard isn’t cutting inside so much as deciding he wants to play in the center of the pitch, and with Rooney dropping deep that creates a lot of congestion in the center.
USA has problems because they are just plain poor technically. The 1-0 result today would have been a blowout thrashing by any of the key teams in this competition. They simply couldn’t see/connect easy through balls in the porous Algerian defense, nor finish any of the half dozen sitters they had. Really, just amateur hour technically, torture to watch.
When you write “key teams” to which teams exactly are you referring? I assume not England, especially if you’re arguing on the basis of technique.
Plus you contradict yourself – did the USA not connect easy through balls or did they waste multiple sitters? Because the two ideas don’t really go together. Either the USA carved apart the Algerian defense only to miss easy chances or they didn’t create anything of note and therefore would have had no easy chances to miss. Actually watching the match would show it to be the former.
Eh, it’s not just technique. No Italian team lacks technique, but this current one couldn’t break down nz or paraguay.
Having one goal mistakenly called offside (again) and one hit the post is hardly what one would call amateur hour. This kind of performance can and does happen to teams of all levels. Every goal requires at least some iota of luck and sometimes the breakthroughs take a while.
Honestly I would call the game the definition of exciting: US going through with a dramatic 92nd minute goal. USA winning 4-0 would have actually been less exciting.
USA’s two biggest problems are overall quality and seemingly perpetual first half complacency.
jonathan,
It’s not a contradiction. They moved the ball into the opponents half well enough (an improvement from the even worse Confederations Cup version of the team, which could rarely connect two passes together out of the back). Once there, the ball handler, usually running up the middle, either failed to take advantage of passes to wide open advanced players, attempted inaccurate passes although there was plenty of room and little pressure, or if the ball actually ended up in the final third in/near the box, the finishing was terrible even though there was plenty of time/space to hit. Watch the first half again and count the sitters. Also, whenever US gets possession in Algeria’s half, look at the open players who the ball handler doesn’t pass to.
No certainly not England. Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil, and Portugal would have destroyed Algeria given the same opportunities allowed to the Americans.
BerkeleyBernie,
But Spain were blanked by Switzerland and then could only score two (one a deflected shot) against Honduras, Holland have been relativly poor attacking, except for the match against an Australian side the USA scored a few against (albeit in a warm-up friendly), Germany haven’t been scoring freely. I could go on, but I think you get what I’m saying. I’m not arguing that the USA didn’t miss chances against Algeria, and I agree that their finishing needs to be better if they hope to progress in the next stage, but I think you’re being overly critical of a performance that on another day could have led to a three or four goals.
jonathan,
I don’t disagree entirely, but surely you realize that even bothering to compare the US to those teams (the best few teams in the world) is an enormous compliment. Only the most optimisitic US supporter thinks we belong in that bracket, so saying we’re not as good as them isn’t exactly hurtful. It’s as if you were responding to a made-up claim that the US was one of the best teams in the world, which a) is a complete strawnman and b) actually reveals that the US has gone way up in general reckoning.
that last one was supposed to be to Berlkley Bernie, sorry.
Don’t forget that in Algeria game the US had 10 shots on goal (and most were good quality shots). Algerian keeper had a number of great saves and US had one goal incorrectly disallowed. The pressure, refs mistakes, and good goalkeeping played a greater role in the low scoring result than poor technique. No, the US are not Spain or Brazil or Argentina technically (not many teams are), it is unfair to call their technique poor. They have players that are quite good technically. Dempsey made Gerrard look foolish with his dribbling, when he scored against England. It was not a great strike and the goalkeeper should have saved it, but the dribbling leading to it was excellent. Dempsey’s goal for Fulham against Juventus was a masterpiece. Donovan is good technically. Torres, who played against Slovenia, has really good Latino-style technique. The US team scored 4 goals in 3 games (twice of what England scored in the same group) and had 2 more goals improperly disallowed. You don’t do this in the world cup being poor technically.
You know, I’ll qualify my remarks. Many USA players are not without technical ability, although it often seems to go out the door when it counts, on precise through-passes and on shots. Donovan fortunately controlled the sitter he got for the win, but for example, look at two mistakes he made in the first half. At 17′, unobstructed at the top of the box, he blasts the ball 20 feet over the crossbar, though (a common theme in the first half) he has an easy layoff to an unmarked Gomez to his right, and Dempsey to his left. At 21′, Donovan has another easy through-pass to unmarked Gomez on his right, but chooses to try a flick to himself to run around his marker up the middle. Altidore made a handful of similar mistakes, but let’s chalk that up to inexperience.
There is a part of playing I included as “technique,” but it’s different from ball-handling skill. One could call it “player tactics” (as opposed to team tactics). It’s the ability to 1) understand and execute the team tactical plan, and 2) see and understand the options available at any moment (both on and off the ball) and to make the best choice (i.e. the one with the highest chance of success (or defensively, the least degree of risk). The US team is certainly hardworking and opportunistic, but it’s the overall lack of skill in this department that makes them (for me) so unappealing to watch.
I’ve seen these supposed “key teams” make more mistakes of the type you describe than USA. Does this mean they’re poor technically and have no chance against other “key teams”? Well some of them aren’t in the World Cup anymore anyway
Both games were odd today in the sense that in both cases the losing team needed a goal or two to progress but neither looked like they were actually going for it.
The final result of the group, I believe, is a fair result. England and the US deserve to go through because they were ambitious enough to go for wins. Algeria offered the least and deserved last, while the US arguably played the best over all 3 games, with only poor finishing and questionable refereeing decisions keeping their last two games as close as they were.
On an unrelated note, I’m starting to think England’s biggest liability is Capello. Maybe it’s just a reaction to their shaky group stage performance, but Capello doesn’t seem very tactically flexible. He seems to have his own opinions on tactics, squad selection, and match preparation and seems pretty stubborn about them. Furthermore, from a casual outsider point of view, he doesn’t seem particularly good at motivating the players.
It also doesn’t seem likely that Capello will divert from his 4-4-2 in the knockout rounds; they’ve played the same 4-4-2 system for the last 5 games straight.
So, without out any hint of a pessimistic attitude, I think England would have a very uphill battle if they do confront Germany in their next game.
Italian philosophy and English soccer understanding doesn’t go together
…. especially if you don’t have a strong goal keeper…. how will England cope in a penalty shootout? 
….
the Irish channel, RTE, thought that England were poor…? is there anything to this or is it just bitterness towards England ?
I’m Irish, and saw this, but what do you mean?
I don’t think the guys on the panel said England were “poor” in the harsh sense of the word, but they did outline their mistakes and sloppiness which was evident throughout the whole game. They all admitted that it was a massive improvement, but still full of flaws.
ok, just wandering
it was a surprise considering BBC and ITV said pretty much the opposite, i know that’s probably because it’s BBC and ITV
RTE were right. For all the excitement about Milner, he gave the ball away repeatedly. Lampard was again anonymous, gerrard hit and miss and the defense was opened up by mediocre attacking play. Even Defoe faded a lot in second half and stopped making the runs across the front of his marker.
England were good enough but no more. A better team should have won 3-0.
I’d consider the performance of RTE a bit like England’s against Algeria…. Shocking!
Are RTE as critical of other sides when they don’t play perfect football or is it just Ireland and France?
People really need to get some perspective. None of the England players had a shocking game, none of them were outstanding either. On the whole they did ok, they should have scored more but a lot of sides can say the same thing at this world cup. I hope my side Chile are not going to pay the price for their misses… Worried!
A slightly improved performance – so credit where it’s due. England played with more effort.
However, the ball retention (while better than the first 2 games) was still very poor. Secondly, the team seems toothless in an attacking sense. Rooney seems laboured.
Thirdly, the lack of a left footed LM prescence hurts possession. Gerrard ought to be fairly easy to mark in LM as he will usually come inside onto his right. (I can’t believe Cappllo didn’t consider this and fast track Adam Johnson a bit more.)
I couldn’t sleep last night so watched the Argentina Greece game again. I watched with no real aganda and began to be impressed with Veron’s passing. So I watched again just focusing on Veron. His passing and moving is beautiful to watch. He ALWAYS moves towards the team-mate in possession and offers himself. As he does so he seems so aware of the immediate opponents and presents himself in space (often not a lot). He then moves the ball on taking 1 or 2 touches at the most.
So as I watched the Eng game I watched Barry, Gerrard and Lampard. Barry offered himself especially in the first half – but nowhere near Veron’s level. Gerrard was not half as good as BARRY and Lampard was worse still. I find this an abysmal situation.
Hence, unless a miracle occurs and Eng’s midfielders suddenly develop confidence and ability to pass and move then it’s beach time for the players.
could not agree more. Lamps has been just poor. Gerrard only slightly better. I think Lennon carried the can for a midfield that could not find him with the ball and could not make a long switch pass on which all wingers thrive
Spot on about veron’s movement – while the hype is always about his passing, what is beautiful to watch is the movement after he gives a pass. He always keeps going into space and offers for the ball back. Gerrard and Lampard in particular might play a good pass but then stand and watch it.
So none of our midfield play like Veron, were they supposed to?
No. But there is an expectation that CM players be able to keep possession by simple passing and moving.
Better game by England. Although it must be said they won partly because Slovenia was horrible and were absolutely clueless going foward. England looked much better and kept their shape going foward. The main difference for me was the inclusion of Jermain Defoe. He is clearly a better choice up front with his pace. Heskey is to slow and predictable.
Can’t believe Lampard is getting stick again. Granted, against Algeria he was poor, as most England players, but thought he was good today. Good in possession, always looking for the fluid pass and good defensively. He surely were heaps better than Barry, who I still struggle to see why he is in the side? How Barry is keeping Carrick out is a mystery of epic proportions. is passing game is by far the worst of all midfielders in the squad.
Gerrard was better today but he still cuts inside way too much, getting in the way of both Lampard and Barry and blocking Lampards runs into the box. Unless Lampard will be given the freedom, and the rest of the players can utilise it, England will throw away one of the greatest attacking threats in the world. They can’t afford that. Doesn’t really help that Rooney is dropping down deep as well on the left hand side making the midfield slightly congested. To get the best out of both Lampard and Gerrard (and make no mistake, England has no chance of winning it unless both will play on top of their game) Gerrard needs to be given his normal second striker position behind Rooney and letting Lampard do what he does best – control the game from midfield and timing his runs in to the box without the ever running headless chicked Gerrard getting in his way. Talented player he is but there is ther players in this team as well. Asolutely no discipline in his positioning and movement on the field.
Upson will struggle against better opposition but is still a vast improvement on Carragher who i don’t thin is good enough to even be in the squad. Barry needs to sort his distribution and understand he isn’t even half the player Carrick is. The sooner he does that the better, as Carrick doesn’t seem to be considered for any game time.
But a vast improvement on the Algeria game. If they do win against Germany they are likely to go up against Argentina. For those games the midfield needs to be sorted. I’d still go with:
——–Carrick
–Gerrard——Lampard
Milner—Rooney—Cole
Sorry, but I think you’ve got it all wrong. Barry is essential to the balance of the team. Also, he displays so much more creativity than Lampard, who far all his goal scoring in the EPL is a limited player.
I’m absolutely staggered that you think Barry has the worst passing game of our central midfield options. Gerrard hits a few spectacular passes (with a high error rate) but is certainly no distributor. Lampard doesn’t have Barry’s passing range, and looks ponderous in the middle of the park.
yes top assist maker in the EPL last season, very few if any coming from freekicks or corners. lampard also has the best pass completion rate of all the english midfielders.
Lampard has made the most passes for England so far, out of anyone in the team. He keeps things ticking over in the midfield and is horribly underrated for it.
if you want someone to keep things ticking over, play carrick. not a bad idea, since that’s all lampard seems to do at the moment.
some of his passes during the slovenia game were very good, put the strikers onto 1 on 1 situations which they scuffed, even the offside goal was started by lampard. lampard keeps the game ticking along but can see the killer pass when needed.
ok, but he plays in a different position essentially for england.
still don’t see how you can claim barry has a comparatively poor passing game.
After his last few performances for England I was wondering if he was going to stay in the side but I thought he had an ok game. His short passing game isn’t as good as when he plays for Chelsea but I thought he did a good job.
Barry did ok for the first hour and like the last game tired badly. But that’s to be expected and he needs game time. Barry needs to improve his passing as it’s not up to his usual standards…
England are going to be ripped to shreds by Germany. The midfield will be puzzled by Germany’s passing triangles especially since they’re playing a 4-4-2 with Gerrard on the left. It won’t matter if he comes into the middle simply because he’ll be everywhere and totally out of position plus he’s generally poor in the tackle. Glen Johnson will have an especially difficult time with the Muller-Lahm-Schweni or Muller-Lahm-Ozil triangle.
England have some hope though. They’ll need to target whoever plays down the left for the Germans. Podolski doesn’t do as good a job of covering as Muller and Badstuber/Boateng/Jansen may struggle.SWP should start! Pity they don’t have Adam Johnson. Also, Germany’s lack of a tradtional holding player means that there will be space for Gerrard and Lampard to have the ball at their feet like Ghanians midfielders did. This is the perfect game for Rooney to come deep during counters or during buildup.
After, a few 0-0 matches, it’s heated up!
Is Glen Johnson going to be playing left back?
Good result today for England but against poor opposition and that style of play is not going to trouble a quality side. Good central defenders would gobble up those crosses and only a poor Slovenia allowed England to play through them repeatedly. England played in straight lines with a predictable build up. Only hope for England would be a lot of luck plus fielding players who can beat their opposite number like Joe Cole, SWP, Lennon. Unless England go up a few levels, or Germany down a few, Sunday will see the Germans celebrating.
It strikes me that Capello has an agenda with the England players – he is trying to remove all shreds of doubt and fear and give them confidence (he has said this many times). To acheive this he is using kind of shock-tactics. Parts of his regime, like not announcing the team until 2 hours before kick-off are done to make the players in the squad think in a certain way. Every pundit who has talked about England this last week has said that they definitely think that any player would want to know the team maybe the night before, so that they have time to mentally prepare themselves if they are picked to play. Capello, however, has said that he expects every player to BE ready to play at any given moment.
What he is doing here is actually trying to mentally and psycologically condition the players into thinking in a more confident, professional way. His thinking is, that if you as a player need a large amount of time (say 24 hours before a game) to mentally prepare yourself into producing your best in a game, then you as a player are no good to him, because that is showing a mental weakness (a confidence deficit, if you will). Capello expects the players to believe within themselves AT ALL TIMES that they are ready and capable of producing their best performances, thereby making them more confident and less fearful……this reason is probably why he employs other strict disciplinarian routines within his handling of the England players – he has an agenda which he is trying to implement at all times, which he believes is what the England players need to produce the kind of performances which can make them go far in the tournament.
I’m finding what he’s trying to do very interesting, and I’m impressed that he’s stuck to his ideas this last week and not given in to John Terry’s desire to allow the players to have more of a say in how things are done around the squad……..we’ll see how far his stubbornness and beliefs take England……
‘I’m finding what he’s trying to do very interesting, and I’m impressed that he’s stuck to his ideas this last week and not given in to John Terry’s desire to allow the players to have more of a say in how things are done around the squad……..we’ll see how far his stubbornness and beliefs take England……’
Well it can boomerang though. The players are the ones that play on the pitch, and if u pressurise them, they will falter. It happened at Chelsea, where the players were askes their frank opinions on playing style and formation. They said that they were not comfortable in Ancelotti’s diamond system as it affected Lampards run in the box. They changed the formation and Chelsea went on a glorious trip, securing the title.
Chelsea are a club though. This is a national selection of players on a part-time team. Not only that, the squad can change dramatically at times. It’s a wiser choice I feel to give the national coach greater power and say, since the players have very little time and opportunity to meld as a squad. And in the case of England, Capello is trying to break the ‘Reep-nees’ of default English play, which is seriously embedded in their game (Arsenal aside).
@ZonalMarking,
So long as Milner is able to have possession of the ball in the final third, it’s going to be fairly difficult to prevent him from getting crosses in given the angles he’s able to deliver them from (i.e. bending crosses). That and if you show him the inside, he’s got a fairly handy left peg as well. Pity about his relative lack of pace…
Having said all that above, I do think he’s made some howlers at this World Cup, for instance, SWP as a Left-Winger?!?!? (he’s put him there twice now, I hope he’s now learnt from that one…..) Robert Green?!?!? (even before the USA game I said to myself if England do well at this World Cup then it won’t be with Rob Green in goal – unfortunately for everyone Capello had to find that out the hard way…..)
Could you do a piece on the US game? There is a distinct lack of understanding of football tactics here in the US. Here is just one example:
USA has started all of their games with their predictable 4-2(double6)-2-2. At half-time they took off a forward (Gomez) for a midfielder (Feilhaber – UCLA!).
The ESPN commentators were confused and said that they do not understand why a midfielder should come on for a forward even though the US needed to score. Little did they know that the US had done the same thing in the game against Slovenia at half-time where they had also gone to a 4-3-3 with a midfield of Feilhaber, Bradley and Edu and a three-man attack with Altidore as the target man with Dempsey and Donovan on his side upfront.
Needless to say, the commentators also had no comments for the other substitutions in the USA-Slovenia and USA-Algeria game, both of which made for pretty interesting tactical formations. I believe I even saw a rare 3-4-3 …
The US still has a long way to go when it comes to understanding football … and your insights would be much appreciated.
As much as I would have liked them to, the US did not go to a 4-3-3 when Feilhaber came on in the Algeria match. Dempsey moved up top and played as a conventional striker, even with Altidore, and Feilhaber took over his role on the left (although he drifted inside a lot). Donovan stayed in just about the same position — wide right cutting into the penalty box.
One of the few things to really infuriate me about Bob Bradley is just that, as a matter of fact. Even when he has the personnel out there to shift to a more appropriate formation, he persists with a 4-4-2.
Agreed a thousand times. And yet the team has done so well under his stewardship that you can’t fault him too much.
Upson’s distribution was awful, particularly in the first half.
He was far too willing to hammer the ball away when under any kind of pressure (and sometimes when under none).
Hahaha, loved how you included that Sun’s cover with your commentary.
However, many say that England that will certainly lose against Germany. However, seeing how Germany performed in the group stage I say… both teams suck and the less worse will advance and then they’ll lose against Argentina/México.
On the other hand, one semifinalist will come from Uruguay/South Korea/USA/Ghana… I think that Uruguay deserves to be on that semifinal, but we’ll see… it wouldn’t be the first time that they fall in the most important moment.
Why not do a write up on the USA? Notable for being neglected on this excellent site.
The games were on at the same time. I can’t watch both. Surely this has been figured out by now?
Surely you have heard of this marvelous invention known as a DVR?
yeah sort it out ZM – we’re depending on you for every single match in the world cup because… well, y’know.
Zonal Marking – I demand you go back and review the videos for every single available match of all time! I’m looking forward to the write up of the 1993 Aston Villa vs Oldham Athletic Premier League game in particular.
ah…. i remember that day well.
Clearly you need a donate button where donors can add the game they wish to see covered
i was involved in a cracking game of 5- a-side the other day, when you gonna write that one up? we went with an interesting 1-1-1-1-1 shape, marking zonally of course… pull your finger out
steve, against that line-up I’d play a highly-adventurous 2-1-2 formation, with one of the back 2 acting as a rush keeper…….(that’s the adventurous bit)……
The bookies have England as very slight favourites over Germany, which sounds about right. Shockingly, despite the presence of Carragher or Upson in the starting line-up, I think England’s back four has defended together pretty well over the last two games, whereas Germany are giving away a few too many chances in the area for their comfort. On the flip side, James hasn’t really been tested yet, and it’s not like Portsmouth’s last season fills one with confidence.
The key, as always, will be to get the best out of both Gerrard and Lampard. Gerrard in particular is having a weird tournament: his shooting has been excellent — with Rooney in indifferent form he’s England’s most likely goalscorer — and he’s making a decent number of plays, but his passing has been horrible, his crossing in particular (looking up FIFA’s stats, he’s completed one cross out of twelve). I’m finally starting to be convinced that he should be playing behind a single striker, with Joe Cole on the left. This would be very harsh on Defoe, but it’s a harsh game.
Does anyone else think the USA’s late winner against Algeria caught Capello out?
I mean at 90 minutes England they are contemplating the possibility of Ghana/Serbia followed by Uruguay then a semifinal. The US score their goal, England place second in the group and suddenly it starts to look like Germany followed by Argentina then a semifinal. Its a much harder path on paper.
Although I actually fancy Mexico over Argentina. Argentina’s 4-3-1-2 shape will match up nicely agaist Mexico’s 3-4-3/4-3-3 hybrid. Mexico als flood the flanks where the Argentinians lack resources. It’ll be a fascinating encounter.
I also expect the Dutch to win their group and run into Italy in the round of 16. Likewise I expect Spain to finish runner up in their group and hit Brazil in the round of 16. Two of the four biggest names in what is now England’s half of the draw will be gone by the quarter finals.
Tactically, I though England looked OK tonight but I’m still unconviced that Capello’s asymetric 4-4-2 will work against the best sides.
Yes, when Ronney and Gerrard float, the system can resemble 4-2-3-1 (which is why most British journalists actually thought it was 4-2-3-1 all along) but my guess is that at some point Capello is going to have to sacrifice a forward for Carrick (not Cole as the players want) and push Lampard further up the pitch.
“England made three changes from their 0-0 ‘defeat’ with Algeria.”
just out of curiosity, is the defeat a metaphor when they were expected to win?
it’s satirising the mainstream press, i think.
zm?
write up the usa
Milner’s crosses weren’t that good but Defoe made the good one counts. AFAIK, Lennon’s crosses were nowhere as good as Milner’s but being a pacey winger who’s comfortable with the ball, can’t he cut into the box and have Johnson overlapping to create width? it looks more or less the same to have johnson cutting in and milner staying wide
What did you guys make of the referee? There was some criticism on the decision to put a German referee in this match.
Seeing as no one brought it up so far, I am guessing you guys were fine with him?
One yellow looked a bit harsh, but over all he seemed always in control of the game to me.
Johnson was fortunate to escape without a booking for two crap challenges, then a Slovenian (Jokic?) got a yellow for ONE tackle on him. Thought that was odd. Too lenient throughout, I thought, but nothing to do with him being German/
He was a good champions league ref… Not booking the big name players…
I cant beleive the goal keeper let that ball in. We have seen so many amazing saves from most goal keepers in this WC. This one was a gift to England.
In fairness the slow motion replays make this look so easy to save, but in real time the ball goes beyond the keepers shoulder before he can react – it’s a powerful shot (more thanks to the distance of the cross than anything) and from point blank range.
That keeper is going places though, he looked good – Arsenal/Man U were you watching!?
He didn’t look nearly as bad on that shot as he did on Landon Donovan’s goal. Clearly short-range reaction saves are not his strength.
ball at a really difficult height – to get your arm up to quickly at close range. seen van der sar beaten like that in champs league last season (cska) – gk looks foolish but v difficult to stop.
long shots low, short shots high? That’s what I’ve always been told.
yeah – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPOr2Ju4Gek&feature=related
Would love to see the last two USA games written up!