Germany 4-1 England: Brilliant German performance demolishes lifeless England

The starting line-ups
A monumental thrashing for England, at the hands of a German side who had pace, movement, tactical awareness and ruthlessness in front of goal.
At times they appeared to be playing football from a different world. England were simultaneously boxey and positionally woeful - quite a difficult combination to achieve. Germany, on the other hand, played superbly. This performance from a young side in a high-pressure situation demonstrated remarkable quality in both technically and mentally. The analysis of the goals will go on for days, the obituaries of English football will go on for weeks, but Germany’s performance should not be underestimated.
England remained unchanged from their win over Slovenia, a slightly surprising decision considering Matthew Upson had started the tournament behind both Jamie Carragher and Ledley King in the pecking order. Jermain Defoe continued upfront, and there were no major positional shifts from previous games, it was a 4-4-2.
Germany also played their expected side. Mirolav Klose returned after suspension and replaced Cacau, whilst Philip Lahm and Jerome Boateng continued in their full-back positions. Bastian Schweingsteiger was fit to start.
Germany were on top from the start. As expected, Mesut Ozil was the key man, playing between the lines of attack and defence and causing England problems even when he was nowhere near the ball. Ozil is an interesting player because his positional awareness and movement are far better than his touch on the ball. That’s not to say he is bad with the ball – he is clearly very good – but he’s a player whose ability stems from his intelligence and understanding of the game, and in this game against an England side who were tactically woeful, that was all the more obvious.
England fail to deal with Ozil
The natural England player to try and pick him up was Gareth Barry, and he started the first five minutes in close proximity to Ozil. But Ozil had been given something approaching a free role and was able to wander across the pitch towards the flanks, always providing an option in a dangerous position. Another reason for his excellent performance was the return of Klose, a really underrated player who is so much more than just a finisher. His movement is wonderful, he’s able to occupy both centre-backs at the same time, which leaves Ozil able to drift in unnoticed behind the defence. The first opportunity of the game was on six minutes through that very approach, as outlined below. The writing was on the wall from that moment.

The movement for Ozil's chance in the sixth minute. Klose (green) drops deep, dragging Upson (pink) towards the ball. Gareth Barry is looking at the ball, and lets Ozil (yellow) go free, and he has a glorious chance.
England’s problems stemmed from the simple and predictable fact that they had a numerical disadvantage in the centre of midfield. This is a problem even when the sides are evenly matched in terms of quality, but when England had both a numerical disadvantage and an inferiority in terms of passing ability, it was absolutely suicidal. Gareth Barry had a really poor game in the holding role, but you can’t help feeling slightly sorry for him and Frank Lampard. What were they supposed to do? Track Ozil and leave Schweinsteiger with time and space in the centre of midfield to dictate play, or close down Schweinsteiger and leave Ozil free? In truth, they didn’t really do either particularly well.
Problems with 4-4-2
The first half could be held up as an example of why teams have moved away from playing 4-4-2 and started playing 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 formations. Germany simply always had a spare option in midfield, and England were playing with two strikers doing either (a) the same thing or (b) nothing, depending on your perspective. There are wider arguments about how to use Wayne Rooney, but the most surprising thing tonight was that there was no thought to move him into a slightly different position, even within a broad 4-4-2 shape. He didn’t drift wide, he didn’t drift deep, he stayed upfront and waited for service that never came.
Bob Bradley identified this same problem with his 4-4-2 against Ghana yesterday and changed his shape at half-time, moving to a 4-4-1-1 / 4-2-3-1 system that gave the US another option in build-up play, as well as closing down Anthony Annan, the spare man in midfield. Fabio Capello persisted with a formation and shape that, regardless of the good performances in qualification, or the terrible performances in the group stage, was clearly not working in this game.
The formation had nothing to do with the first goal, of course, with Matthew Upson and John Terry getting in crazy positions from a long punt down the pitch from Manuel Neuer, which travelled 100 yards before Klose tapped in.

Klose (yellow) this time drags Upson (pink, right) out of position again, this time to the flank. Terry (pink, left) is concerned about Ozil, and the gap in the centre of the pitch, between the green dots, is huge. Muller exploits the space Klose has created, and creates the second goal.
Upson put in a horrible performance and was exposed again when Klose’s drift to the flank took him out of position, creating space for Muller’s run into the centre. He casually knocked it over Glen Johnson for Lukas Podolski, who steadied himself before firing it past David James. Upson got a goal back from a corner, Lampard scored a perfectly good goal that wasn’t given, but 2-2 would have flattered England at half-time.
No changes at half-time
The late rally towards the end of that half covered up England’s deficiencies, and presumably convinced Capello that there was nothing wrong with the system England were playing. There didn’t appear to be any change in the second half, bar the fact that Ashley Cole was pushing forward more and giving England natural width on the left-hand side.
But Germany continued to dominate, although they were playing slightly deeper and more conservatively in the second half. Lampard again hit the bar from a free-kick, and another Lampard free-kick resulted in the third German goal. Barry’s poor touch on the ball was unforgivable considering how many defenders England had forward for the free-kick, and Germany countered with a classic quick three-man break. Schweinsteiger went left, Muller went right, Ozil made a decoy run through the centre, barely looking to receive the ball, but distracting the England defence and making space for Muller on the far side. His finish was superb – watch the replay from behind the goal to see him stare momentarily towards the far post, before smashing it in at the near, sending James the wrong way. Awful play from England, but Germany took 12 seconds and 8 touches to get the ball from their own penalty area, to the England goal.
The final goal was also Barry’s fault – given a significant head start on Ozil, but being beaten to the ball and outrun as Ozil gradually brought the ball towards goal. And ‘gradually’ was the key – OK, it was a fairly simple path to goal with England’s defence high up the pitch, but a lesser player would have sprinted as fast as possible towards James. Ozil held the ball up slightly, allowed Muller to catch up with him, before squaring the ball across the six yard box. It was 4-1, and not an unfair reflection on the balance of play.
Capello’s second half substitutions were irrelevant but nevertheless frustrating – Joe Cole and Emile Heskey on, but no change of shape. Ultimately, no combination of England players in 4-4-2 would have beaten Germany today.
Conclusion
Some sections of England football supporters hate the fact that two foreigners – Sven-Goran Eriksson and Capello – have been brought in as manager in recent years. The ironic thing is that both foreigners have been fixated on the standard English 4-4-2 for the duration of their time in charge; Terry Venables, Glenn Hoddle and even Steve McClaren tried different shapes to make England less predictable. You could probably list 100 things that have, in some way, contributed to England’s disastrous performance at this tournament, but the formation must be the biggest factor.
For the past six years, the major talking point regarding the England team has been an inability to get the best out of both Gerrard and Lampard. Both Lampard and Gerrard? Neither are at their best in a 4-4-2. Nor is Rooney, nor is Barry, nor is Carrick, nor is Joe Cole, nor are any of England’s small band of creative players. Even if Capello thought 4-4-2 was best before the tournament, he surely must have seen that it wasn’t working when England limped to draws against the US and Algeria, and a narrow victory over Slovenia.
But the main focus should be on Germany, who were fantastic throughout and exploited England’s weaknesses from the first whistle. The performances of individuals was not the highlight, it was the understanding between them, the way they interacted and swapped positions, the way they retained the ball, the way they created a shape to drag England’s defenders out of position.
Germany didn’t just outclass England, they offered a template for what England must seek to become.
Germany 4-1 England: Brilliant German performance demolishes lifeless England




You’ve been waiting a while to write this, eh ZM? Know it makes you feel good but it ain’t the game I watched. Yep England fail, but expected a more nuanced piece here.
I’m gonna be honest, and say I have literally no idea what you mean.
Do you think that maybe as much as Ozil is Germany’s blessing in attack, he might be their curse in def? I dont know how committed Ozil is to defending because if he’s lazy in defending, that could be where England’s weakness is… Imagine then a team that also plays 4-2-3-1 like Brazil (or their 4-4-2 diamond, whatever) that players like Melo and G-Silva would have all the time in the world to pick out their passes or 4-3-3 like Portugal that Mendes would have all the time in the world to pick out his passes..? Then Germany has only 2 mid players (since Ozil then doesn’t defend) and would then be in the 3 v 2 disadvantage in the center of the pitch (and we can now all see how crucial it is to have a disadvantage in the center of the pitch)
I don’t think that’ll be too much of a problem – they defend quite well with two banks of four, I think.
Great piece and spot on. I think Germany’s unselfish play is what is leading to such beautiful goals. Most people in Mullers position would have shot the ball instead of passing off to Podolski. Same with Ozil. Its been like that with almost all of their goals. They are a “team” and I expect to be finals bound if not champions with the way they are playing.
England….bleh. James was a train wreck in goal and that decision was just as crucial as the squad selections to start. I agree wholeheartedly that the comeback before half masked the real dangers tactically and hurt England dearly.
James a train wreck?? He was our best player yesterday, and probably of the tournament.
I’m guessing he means lots of pundits can’t wait to put the boot into England, what about the disallowed goal and the shambles Germany were in that period, and the uselessness of “sophisticated continental” Capello perhaps.
british idiot, germany was just much better
I’m saying what I thought he meant, not my view – profound analysis though, cretin.
Spot on for me. It’s the arrogance from the English fans and press that puts us in positions like this. If you read the papers or listened to the fans you’d have thought we’d win the game at a canter because the Germans were “inexperienced” and “average”.
Agree totally about England. Squad selection was wrong (Bent, Parker and Adam Johnson all should have been in imo, formation was wrong, not knowing who was going to play in goal was wrong, Rooney’s position was wrong, he played as the main striker for Utd all season, why make him play deeper? And this is all down to the manager.
If he has been waiting it’s because it was obvious it was going to happen, who couldn’t see that coming after Mexico, Japan, the US, Algeria, and even Slovenia?
A false dawn against the worst Croatia in years was just that, a false dawn.
It seems that England game was concentrated only to one goal: revenge to Croatia for Wembley 2007. Intentionally loosing against Ukraine, they have reached their goal. End of story for England, no more motivation.
Spot on Ergas. The whole euphoria of Capello’s England was based solely on 2 matches against an injury and suspension addled Croatia (who were on their own run of poor form). What had they done besides that made so many in England believe they could actually win the competition? Revenge may motivate for 1 match but you can’t win a tournement by relying on it.
With regards to tactics, Its hard to believe that a difference in formation wouldve changed the end result (Germany winning). Most of the goals were scored either from counters originating deep in the German half(and from the goal kick), where defending and defensive organization- not formation- were the issues.
I remember reading an interview with Eriksonn where he tried to implement a 4-3-1-2 with England only for captain Beckham to pull him aside and “ask” that they go back to 4-4-2 because the players felt “more comfortable” playing it. Who knows whether something similiar went on this time around…
I thought it was spot on myself. Were you expecting a glowing review of England’s performance?
Anything else would be biased
Cheers
McStay
Care to elaborate at all?
Pierre, as someone who doesn’t care for either of these teams, I fail to see what nuance the above analysis lacks. Maybe “the game you watched” was overshadowed by your loyalties…
“The formation had nothing to do with the first goal, of course, with Matthew Upson and John Terry getting in crazy positions from a long punt down the pitch from Manuel Neuer, which travelled 100 yards before Klose tapped in.”
I have to disagree on this one with you. Ozil’s starting position helped cause that goal. The ball was flighting in towards Ozil and Terry suddenly had this “Oh crap!” moment and went forward to meet Ozil. This, couple with the fact that he misjudged the flight of the ball which went sailing over him, allowed Klose to expose the space behind him. After that it was Klose vs. Upson 1v1 and that’s never good for England.
I liken it to the first Milito goal in the CL final. A long ball where the initial positioning of the players favoured Inter. van Bommel wasn’t deep enough to cover Sneijder on the knock down, van Buyten went behind Demichelis to cover the invisible second forward.
The point is I totally agree with you. Ozil found himself inbetween the two bands and even though Barry was deeper than Lampard he wasn’t deep enough to track him and the two center backs (Upson in particular) chose to close down Ozil leaving the space behind them exposed. I can’t fathom how these professionals can’t figure out that the space behind them as a center back is more dangerous than the space in front of them. Maybe Capello told them to close down Ozil at any opportunity but still, Upson went out of his way to meet him and Klose and co. ran ragged in behind him.
In saying that, hitting the ball before it bounces is a fundamental requirement that completely falls outside of any discussions of formation. The ball was in the air for that long that there was no excuses for anyone to come and meet it.
I don’t understand why England pushed defence line so high up early on, this is totally wrong. They didn’t use the width of the pitch either. England should be better on flanks but they never ultilised it, they put too man balls into the centre. J.Cole for Milner is a bad decision, which weakened the right wing defence of England, and this is exploited. Great game by the Germans.
In the early part of the second half it appeared that England were playing a catanoccio style. What then followed was England’s inability to maintain that shape and tactic. The defenders were woeful and I felt Terry and Upson were always being drawn out of shape. This left gaps that Germany could easily exploit. The logic of Capello’s system was correct but was far to complicated for the England national team. They would have worked fine at club level but at national level something a little simpler may have been more effective. On a side note, my brother has made a fantastic observation. This world cup has really highlighted the benefits of technical players while the vogue in Europe is altheletic players. Something to think about!
“The logic of Capello’s system was correct”
Not really. England were always going to be overmanned in the middle as long as he played that 442.
Although it was a 442, you had Gerrard whose start position was on the left but had the freedom to cut in. This would give cover to Ashley cole and allow Gerrard the freedom to roam a little. This also allowed Barry into this side so that the back 4 would be protected. The right winger had to always stay out wide so that the team had a midfield outlet. Glen Johnson was supposed to be a little more defensive than Cole so that there is cover for the right winger. Rooney was key to this strategy as he would need to drop in the whole or go wide to drag players and out of position to create chances for others. What failed was that the players did seem to not know how to play they roles in such a system. Rooney was too static. The right winger did not provide a sufficient outlet in 3 games. Gerrard was not stick to his starting position enough and therefore did not protect the left side enough. Less said about the defence the better. It is wort remembering that 442 is a number and does give the whole story.
Thanks for the assessment of the game. I’ve said this before but Capello is/was the right manager at the wrong time. He’s certainly brought some improvements in the England national team with his results driven, disciplined approach, but his constant insistence on a 4-4-2 system only made his job harder.
What’s the point of having two strikers if the team cannot build reliable services for them? I think Bayern Munich is the only team resembling a 4-4-2 system, but Mueller and Olic last season were industrious up front and they’ve often dropped deeper to assist their build-up.
Fabio Capello needs a link to this website, specifically the team of the decade article regarding Chelsea. It’s no coincidence that competitive Premiership teams playing 4-4-2 like Arsenal began to lose more often against Chelsea etc. and this was 6~7 years ago. Time to catch up Mr. Capello…
For me, this game just shows how old-fashioned and antiquated English football really is. The reliance on a rigid 4-4-2 against the fluid 4-2-3-1 played by Germany was always going to be difficult. The extra man in midfield was always going to dominate the English central midfield.
The movement of Ozil throughout the whole game was effective, as you’ve rightly highlighted the English midfield and defence did not know how to pick him up. He dragged the defence all over the pitch providing space for Podolski, Klose and Muller to run into. He really is some player.
When David James said Rooney was banging them in in training we all thought he meant Rooney had found his form and was ready for the game, it turned out it was an indication that the English defenders were going to be awful.
England were terrible, the defenders didn’t give them a chance and the formation didn’t help, as ZM says, Germany always had an extra man in midfield and we England never even tried to compensate for that.
On the other hand, Germany looked almost as bad at the back, England had much more possession, even accounting for Germany playing keep ball in the last 10, and the passing percentage was about the same. If you had switched the back for of both sides the score might have been 10-8 (to the Germans of course!)
2 Goals on counter attacks, 1 from a goal kick and 2 saves forced from David James in the first half from good build up play… 2-2 would have flattered England at half time, and I’m pretty sure Germany would have scored again, but I’m not sure they were as good as your piece indicates.
Horrible game by Barry, upson and Terry gifting goals to a side who had a tactical advantage anyway… They probably didn’t need the gifts…. Maybe if Germany had given England 3 goals it might have been different.
Actually I thought it was kind of brilliant from loew to give the ball to the English. He knew that the way England is dangerous is when they have a lot of space in front of them and and run into there with pace and in numbers. So just give them the ball, rely on your superior technique and wait for mistakes. England always looks bad, when they have the ball, cause they don’t have any really creative players.
CB. I read a splendid tongue in cheek comment somewhere last week that pointed out a majestic part of the Algerian game-plan to give the ball to Carragher and then receive it back in a slightly better position. This is essentially what you are implying.
Your observation is actually spot-on. Löw said as much on German television in an interview after the game. He said that it was their idea in half time to give up the ball to England to force them to make the play because he knew that they would get into difficulties that way.
I guess barring the English think tank, everybody associated with the game watched Mourinho’s demonstration on how to play without the ball in both the CL semi and finals !
It’s a pity that with the resources available today, neither Capello nor any of his team worked a way to counter this !
England need to desperately overhaul like Germany did in 2000 and 2004. They have historically been isolated and dismissive of whatever changes occurred on the continent and it continues to cost them.
As for Germany, this was a good example of the new generation and style of football that has been implemented at academy level over the past decade and it’s only going to reap further rewards with several more young players coming through the ranks in the Bundesliga. This German team is far from the finished product, don’t think they have what it takes to go all the way but it’s a sign of things to come for German football, football based on quick passing and intelligent movement.
A 4-4-2 doesn’t get the players they have but they seem to be uncomfortable in any other formation. Quite the Catch 22.
On the plus side, many of the players they have now will not be around for the next World Cup. I’d be surprised to see the debate on whether/ how to use both Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard in 2014, not least since Lampard will be 36 and Gerrard 34. Beckham will certainly be out of it. Perhaps this will free England up to be more tactically innovative?
Was that Lampards best performance this world cup? Unlucky with a couple of shots and a goal that should have been given…
Even as a german, I am very sorry for England’s lost generation of great players. What a waste of Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard etc. And I feel sorry for the clear second goal not given to England. But that fitted the game, as the poor performers normally are also the unlucky ones, here with the only human on earth not seeing the goal was the linesman.
Anyway hearing the English coach after the game, I wonder if he was serious, seeing a good game of his side. I feel your pain ZM, as the tactical solution seems so simple and obvious. Maybe a lesser great coach would have been big enough to change the side. But I guess even then a win would have to be considered lucky as the Germans were technically and physically so much better tonight. I never saw such a cool German side in my life. This is like it was watching Holland. So I have to be thankful, that Capello do not read or value your publication.
And as I like Özil, I think Müller could be the guy to watch for MVP of the world cup – even so a long way ahead. But he is a absolute fantastic player, 20 years old and last year playing minor league football.
Well, on the bright side, if Rooney takes care of himself and is lucky enough to avoid any particularly serious injuries, he’s got at least another World Cup, maybe two, left in him. As for Gerrard and Lampard, this is more likely than not the last one’s they’ll be playing in.
Germany is fortunate – their team is already ripping others to shreds and the average age is so low. Ozil’s only 21 – we’ll be seeing more of him in 2014, 2018 and maybe even 2022.
What I’ve been loving about Muller is his unselfishness. He has really looked to create as much as to try to score himself. It’s amazing that he’s only 20. He’s got a chance to become a very special player.
The funny thing is that I’ve been thinking through the last couple games that he would be a tremendous partner to Rooney at Man U (not a Man U supporter, BTW), similar to Berbatov, but less flaky, more positive. He certainly showed it with Bayern in the CL this year as well.
Germany-Argentina looks to be a great matchup.
The more I see of Muller, the more I like him, particularly his intelligence and movement off the ball. I think he was used a little too much this season for Bayern though, and I did think they needed him to contribute more in terms of goals, particularly in the Champions League. But he’s tremendous, so young and such a clever player both defensively and offensively.
Well I was raving about him before the tournament, easy to do when you have seen him for a full season. Glad to see him get the recognition he deserves.
As for Munich: They now can choose four out of Robben, Ribery, Müller, Olic, Klose, Kroos, Gomez, and two players that will be less known among you guys (Sosa, who was loaned back to his Argentinian home team last season) and another great player coming out of the youth system, Ekici (who had a great season in Germany’s 3rd league on Munichs reserve team).
Granted all those being in form, I am sure Müller will be able to rest more than last season. Everyone is looking forward how van Gaal will be able to implement Kroos who literally tear apart the league with Leverkusen for spurs (yes even more so than Özil/Marin in Bremen or Müller did in Munich).
Well first off, a fair reflection would have been 4-2 not 4-1. And while Germany played tremendous football and deserved the win, England played better for 20 minutes of the game and did push the German very hard. England definitely was unlucky at times (no, not just the 2-2, or the post – as much as they were great efforts, on a bad day, neither Klose nor Podolski’s shot go again). But in the end, Germany created more quality chances, and it was inevitable to have some of them go in.
Barry was surprisingly poor, and his lack of pace at Germany’s counter-attacks made you wonder whether he was injured or just that slow.
I am not quite sure why Capello took off Milner either, the crosses from his side seemed far more dangerous then any other build up play.
Sad to see Rooney go out without any goals again, such a great player still not be 100% fit after his injury. After his great performances at club level, one can only wish him the best.
I am glad you picked up on Özil’s sort of free role and can’t save myself from pointing how well it worked to have him drift RIGHT onto Müller’s side at times, allowing Müller to take the central position (excellent in first half). This is much better than doing the same on Podolskis side as in previous games, as Müller is far better in central position than Podolski, whos main asset is pace and his phenomenal shot. (Was hoping for these in comments in the last article).
As you pointed out, Özil also did also well in crossing before Müller’s first goal, creating space for Müller and giving Schweinsteiger three solid options. Pass to Özil, pass to Müller or shoot himself. Good movement by all three.
Biggest props of all must be given to Löw though. He was the one that decided to leave publicly demanded players such as Frings and Kuranyi at home (due to questionable team spirit). He was also set on giving young players a chance after a great club season, despite them having played for less than 5 games prior to the tournament.
And he also brought Podolski and Klose along, despite many fans wanting them off the team, questioning his judgement after abysmal (Podolski) and injury-ridden seasons.
Klose with wonderful come-back after being sent-off in the Serbia game. Not only did he fight hard to get that chance to score the 1-0, he also passed well to Müller (who then assisted for Podolski).
Although Neuer wasn’t flawless, seeing him get an assist (as weird as it was) was also deserved. Löw picked him ahead of Wiese & Butt because of his ability to create chances by speeding up the play (excellent throws), fitting well with Germany’s system.
- pushed the Germans*
- Klose’s* nor Podolski’s shots* go in*
- who* must* still not be 100% fit
Upson looked poor the whole game but it was acutally Terry who was directly responsible for the first two goals. In both cases he rushes forward towards ozil leaving far too much space behind. Just awful decisions to make. In fact, he’s also culpable for the final goal.
Also, I don’t think it’s fair to blame Barry for Muller’s goals – both were the result of suicidal overcommitment up front. He lost the ball in the opposition penalty area! Also Lampard completely fails to track Muller arriving behind him, instead standing gormlessly just inside the box.
Acutally, after watching the replay from a different angle, barry did make a mistake. Tried to beat Ozil to the ball to put it out of play, which was far too ambitious. Still, doesn’t change the fact that England were over commited up front.
I think the formation was obviously a factor, but just as much was the failing to recognize the fact that Gareth Barry is just a very average player at the international level. Too slow, too poor covering midfield runners and too poor on the ball to start in the center of the pitch for any team with ambitions of winning a major tournament.
With regards to Rooney, I don’t think he’ll ever perform for England as he does for Manchester United simply because with United he actually has multiple teammates who understand the basic concepts of movement and passing. Aside from Lampard (who’s been played woefully out of position in order to accommodate Gerrard) and Carrick there is not a single midfielder or forward on the English team with vision and/or ability to play a modern passing game.
Speaking of Gerrard, he receives a lot of praise for his surging runs and “hollywood” passes, but after this tournament I think it’s fair to say that his international career has been very poor. His positional naiveté and the constant insistence of the press and English supporters to shoehorn him into the team has cost England the services and/or effectiveness of three (THREE!!!) world class footballers – Scholes, Lampard, and Rooney. All three have been played out of position or in a manner ill-fitted to their skills in order to accommodate Gerrard, who has never done anything to warrant the sort of deference he has been granted. Serious consideration has to be given to dropping him from the side if England is to move forward as a nation.
Of course Barry’s slow – but poor on the ball and a mediocre passer? Odd comment. Consistently better in both respects than any other English midfielder.
You’re right though that England have for far too long tried to accomodate Gerrard. Again he mishit a number of booming switch passes, and steadily drifted inside as the halves went on without really influencing the game.
Barry is poor on the ball in the sense that he doesn’t keep the ball moving and doesn’t provide a good enough link between the defense and the rest of the midfield. And I said he was poor in relation to what is needed for a team to have ambitions of winning a major tournament, either club or international. It’s a small distinction, but an essential one. I’m not saying he’s not good in, just that he’s not good enough for a top nation or top club.
Well, England really are in trouble, since in that sense he’s still the best we’ve got, apart from Carrick, perhaps.
They’re absolutely in trouble for the present, unless Hargreaves miraculously regains the ability to stay fit. I agree with your comment below that Carrick and Barry is the best for the moment, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Jack Rodwell starting at the Euros in two years. Unless he moves into the center of defense, which I think Sir Alex and a few others think he might.
Whatever the case, I’d guess that Fabio is kicking himself for procrastinating on calling Paul Scholes.
What reflects worst on Capello, as opposed to his players, is that Barry played all of the last three games, except for six minutes of 4-3-3 desperation against Algeria. He had to start today — nobody could have predicted how poor he would be — but it was quickly apparent that he either needed help or to come off. And yet Carrick didn’t get a sniff. Of the four English squad members who didn’t get on the field in this World Cup, the other three (including the best goalkepper, but I digress) were there for injury cover only. The USA game showed that Capello would rather trot out the failed Gerrard-Lampard partnership in the middle than give him a run; today’s game showed that he’d rather play a woeful Barry than either of those alternatives. You can argue that Carrick was out of form, but if Capello didn’t think he was preferable to even a 50% Barry — and given his injury, a 50% Barry was a possibility that he needed to prepare for — surely he should’ve put someone in the squad who was?
Yes, but who? Huddlestone? Parker?
I think starting Carrick and Barry would have been the credited strategy against Germany, but obviously Capello never really considered this.
This is a bit of a joke, isn’t it? Gerrard played left-midfield whilst Lampard played his usual CM role. It was Gerrard that was out of position to accomodate Lampard, not the other way round.
Lot’s of accomodation for Gerrard – left midfield. If anyone should feel aggrieved then it’s …ah…Adam Johnson.
Lampard is NOT world class. Why do some people keep saying this? He only gets goals by being in a very strong Chelsea team full of FOREIGN players.
How on earth can you say that Rooney’s game has suffered from Gerrards positional sense? They’ve never been deployed near each other and have never got in each others’ way!
However, I do agree that his England performances have been poor generally.
Gerrard starts on the left but he moves inside for the vast majority of the match.
Lampard gets goals for Chelsea because he’s allowed to play much further up the pitch and make late runs into the box, something he isn’t really able to do for England. It’s similar to the beginning of last season when Chelsea was using a diamond midfield with two strikers and Lampard’s performances suffered as a result of playing too deep in the midfield. When Chelsea went back to a variation of a 4-3-3 his performances returned to the level they were before.
And I did not say Rooney’s game suffered from Gerrard’s positional sense. I think you’re wrong to say they don’t play in the same areas of the pitch though. Rooney, when playing as a second striker, always likes to drop off to the left, exactly where Gerrard looks to move. The problem between the two is not that, though it doesn’t help, but rather that Rooney is starved of the same quality service and tempo he thrives in at Manchester United and it’s my belief that Gerrard is always looking to play at a different tempo (too frenetic) than would best suit this team.
Couldn’t disagree more, Jonathan.
Fair enough. Why are England so poor then? And please don’t say because they’re all average. They’re patently not if you look at their performances with their clubs – Lampard, Rooney, Gerrard and a few others have all been essential and leading parts of their individual club’s successes in Europe the last few years.
England are poor because the talented players everyone mentions (Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney) have to be accommodated entirely to get anything approaching a good performance from them. They are better at club level is because they are the focal point of their respective teams. When Lampard was moved in Ancelotti’s diamond he was average for Chelsea. Even Rooney has excelled at Man Utd now he is the focus of the attack, rather than Ronaldo.
The problem England have is their players lack the intelligence bred into Dutch/Spanish/South American players that makes them flexible. Put Cesc Fabregas/Dani Alves/Lionel Messi out of position and he will be good, but not fantastic. Put Rooney out of position and – well, we’ve all been watching the World Cup, haven’t we?
There are so few examples of English footballers looking like they are comfortable in a fluid, continental system: Cole, maybe Carrick…
And Capello has the unenviable task of accommodating these inflexible, narrow talents in a balanced system.
Lampard being played out of position to accomodate Gerrard? Last time I checked Gerrard was playing on the left (not his favoured position), whilst Lampard was playing in the centre, largely innefectually i might add.
Where the graphic before kickoff says they are playing is not the same as where they actually play. Lampard plays in a very different part of the pitch than he does at Chelsea. Gerrard doesn’t play on the left for England any more than he plays in the center of midfield for Liverpool (he plays almost as a forward).
Have to say I don’t really agree either… Another person trying to prove Lampard is better then Gerrard (or vice versa), it’s a nonsense. They are both very good players who don’t re-produce their club form for England, but still probably offer more then the alternatives…
The only time rooney looked good this tournament was when he could work off Gerrard… For All Gerrards hollywood passes he has about the same passing accuracey as Lampard has had this world cup and unlike Lampard actually tried to create things… Gerrard would rather be playin in Lampards position, and i’m pretty sure Lampard wouldn’t want to be playing anywhere else…
Lampard is a very good player, this was by far his best offensive performance of the world cup, in fact probably his only offensive performance of the world cup… I think he had a better game then Gerrard, especially if you blame the tactics for England problems covering in midfield rather then ask why barry was so over worked.
This performance shouldn’t be getting blamed on Gerrard and Lampard, its bigger then that…
Not trying to say that Lampard is better than Gerrard, but rather that I think Gerrard’s skills don’t work with the players England has available and their respective skills.
Liverpool’s formation is built around Gerrard playing basically as a forward in the space created by Torres’s pace and forward runs. For this to be successful Liverpool have also had to deploy two defensive midfieders to cover for Gerrard and ask their wingers to be cautious moving forward and to always be looking to track back to cover. This formation fell apart this year for a few reasons, one of which was a slow central defense that was often pulled wide to cover for fullbacks that were dodgy defensively, but my basic point is that it often found Gerrard and Torres as the two most advanced players for large portions of matches. But if we really look at who England has available, this formation doesn’t work.
We’ve had eight years of watching Gerrard and Lampard fail to replicate their club form for England. Sometimes a great player, which Gerrard is even with his obvious flaws, just isn’t a good fit. That’s what I think Gerrard is at the moment for England. I don’t think his style of play works with the squad England has at the moment.
It just my personal belief, which you’re of course free to disagree with, that England would have been better served with Lampard in a similar role to the one he plays with Chelsea, simply because I think it would fit much better with the entire squad but most significantly with Rooney. When playing all three of England’s star attackers together not one of them ever really excels, and I just think Lampard and Rooney would be better for England than Gerrard and Rooney would be.
Also, I’m not a supporter of Liverpool or Chelsea, and I’m not English. No agenda other than my observations having watched England disappoint for the last decade. Cheers.
Gerrard has only really been playing as a forward since Torres joined, until then he had been playing on the right. Gerrard has pretty much played every position in midfield, as he has progressed as a player he has ended up further up the field. He never had a problem with tactical discipline when he was younger, people say he can’t play the central role in a 2 as he deserts the middle, that might be true now, but then he is expected to win games for sides now, that was never the case when he was younger.
Liverpool don’t play 2 holding midfielders because of Gerrard, that’s how Raffa liked to line up, he does the same when Gerrard doesn’t play.
“For All Gerrards hollywood passes he has about the same passing accuracey as Lampard has had this world cup”
Technically this is not true. Taking all of the games together, Lampard completed 79.7% of his passes and Gerrard 71%. If you look at the average completed pass percentages for midfielders, this is a non-trivial difference and I wouldn’t say it was “about the same”.
That said, Gerrard was playing in a more advanced role and therefore can be assumed to be making riskier passes than Lampard, who was often tasked with retaining possession and making the square pass to another England player. This would explain the disparity in pass completion, although it would bring up the fact that Lampard also had consistently higher pass completion percentages than Barry, who, if anything, was supposed to be playing an even more defensive position than Lampard.
For an even more telling usage of pass completion, you just have to compare the German central mids to the English ones.
Fantastic article. England were horrendous defensively and toothless going forward, but Germany were simply incredible. Sadly, I think the English media will focus on the Lampard “goal” and use it to cover the clear deficiencies in this England side.
I reckon they may have same problem at the next world cup as France and Italy have had at this one – a lack of quality young players coming through to replace the current crop.
As a neutral I found the arrogance of the English media to be astounding – Andy Townsend’s “I think we’ll be too powerful for them”; Match of the Day “this is a very average Germany side”. The commentators in particular were also infuriating – I thought you were Irish, Martin Lawrenson?
As someone who really likes both Rooney and Lampard it was particularly frustrating watching their abject perfomances (stifled by baffling decisions by Capello) and I really won’t miss the English media ’s arrogance towards other teams (anyone outside of the EPL is obviously not very good, etc) and England’s lack of urgency, invention or respect for their opponents
Judging by the people in the pub (who tend to know very little) and the texts I got, no one really mentioned the Lampard shot that wasn’t given… I think if it had finished 2-1 it might have been the big issue but everyone was just shocked by how poor England were.
That is always the problem with media. They mostly try to cater to their audience. For newspapers & online magazines you can choose, but for television not so much sadly :/
This sadly leads to pathetic reporting over and over again. If you want a break from that, I believe ZM’s twitter list gives you a broader view and with time you will find yourself which media outlet should be followed and which shouldn’t: http://twitter.com/Zonal_Marking/football-journalists
And please do not forget – this is not an isolated problem for England’s media – go to any country in the world and you will face the same problem. For example, German Bild Zeitung is just awful and it is painful to see some of those journalists ZM collected to eat those quotes. Fortunately German journalist ‘Honigstein’ appears to be much respected and provides a bit of a counter weight to even out some mis-translations or Bild publications.
Translation is trouble some especially. Someone says something, and now its all in the power of the translator to decide whether to go literal or convey meaning. The difference is quite astonishing. And you could see how many media outlets rode Beckenbauers quote (“stupid England”) contrary to what he was actually saying.
I am sure ZM could write essay’s on this topic ;=)
The football writers in England all have players who they suck up to, either they ghost write their books or they feed them inside stories… It’s pretty pathetic… They will never criticise their pets…
Totally agree with you and I’ll check out the list. I don’t categorically dismiss any journalists on the basis of their nationality (far from it) but I do find the tabloid media (in fact, newspapers in general aroun world cup time) to be fairly distasteful. The BBC (which usually tries very hard to remain impartial) seems to host incredibly irritating commentators – they referred to Slovenia as a “third division side” and Germany as a “very average team.”
Actually, Phil McNulty’s blog was a very good recognisation of England’s failures (as a lot more of the editorials seem to be accepting that they were comprehensively beaten rather than cheated by an offical. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/philmcnulty/2010/06/englands_failings_exposed.html
I actually often prefer writings like Sports Illustrated, who are quite often better for coverage of international football.
SI seems good, have read some of the pieces Grant Wahl had posted via twitter on that list.
Personally I am also liking the Guardian coverage a lot. I do not have great knowledge about English newspaper consistency as I do not live there, but the football coverage seems spot on.
For example this podcast about the two games yesterday, was well done: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/audio/2010/jun/28/world-cup-daily-2010
They seem to going the smart route of connecting with journalists from different heritage instead of giving voice to pundits that clearly did not even care to research the teams, tactics and players. Ironically that they apparently get paid the most (and this is the same in Germany as well, not an England only problem).
One thing I did like about the German TV coverage though was how they incorporated former international high profile referees to analyze certain incidents in games. First off they do know the rules well (unlike certain people that called Neuer’s assist offside) and then they also understand exactly the point of view of refs.
While this was obviously not needed for Lampard’s goal, there were plenty of incidents in other games that did deserve to be explained from the refs point of angle.
As a foreigner, I don’t understand this.
Every single one of the BBC pundits said that Germany deserved to win. Not a single one blamed the goal. It is the same on the Guardian website, and the ITV website.
I realize that tabloids may well be blaming the disallowed goal, but surely no one actually listens to the tabloids?
I really don’t understand this English obsession with blaming the press for “overrating England” because I never see the press doing anything other than mercilessly bashing the national team.
It’s hard not to bash them after that performance!
Read just the match reports and you’ll just see negativity. But the actual performances in games seems to be forgotten so quickly, when people consider the individuals. The media pundits become incredibly arrogant. I wish I’d kept a lost of all the amazing things the ‘experts’ on BBC/ITV said before this game – nonsense like how not one German player would get into the England side, and that English would have no problems beating them.
Out of curiosity, who would be in your England/Germany side?
Errr I’m not sure. But unquestionably Lahm, Ozil, Neuer and one of the central midfielders, and possibly more…
Being German, before the match I’d have said England could have used any of our three goalies, Lahm, Schweinsteiger and one of our offensive midfield (Özil though Kroos would work almost as well).
After the match I’d take the goalkeeper suggestion back. James got burned, but goalkeeping was clearly not the difference.
If you were picking a club side to compete in the champions league how many of each side would you pick? Would your decision be the same then?
Germany look like having a very good group of players coming through, how do you think Ozil would do in a big European side? With the greater cohesion and team play of club sides do you think his clever movement would over come his relativley poor first touch? Is his finishing getting better or is he (like joe cole) always going to be a poor finisher?
Goalkeeping not the difference? Well, although there have been several areas of the game that set apart the two teams, the goalies were surely among them. Neuer obviously bottled it twice with crosses to the edge of the 6-yard box, but apart from these he had a very convincing match. Caught several difficult, hard shots – the ones you see being dropped once in a while in top-level football. Besides, he had two monster saves – Lampard 1st half, Gerrard 2nd. James, on the other hand, can be seen as complicit for three out of four Germany goals (I don’t see him as the major culprit for any of them, though) – ironically, he looked very good on crosses.
Well if ignoring age & financial aspects, from a pure performance level I would keep the German team and swap in A.Cole on left.
Well ignoring the world cup, I would have said Terry over one CB (before world cup, I would have said keep Mertesacker, get rid of Friedrich – now everyone would say the other way around) and fit Rooney ahead of Klose.
Midfield I would have considered a different holding midfielders, but England doesn’t seem to offer a better one. Though to be fair picking Lampard instead of Khedira would probably be what I would have said before the tourney.
Gerrard I definitely like, but with Germany’s system I would not have picked him ahead on left wing position. Judging from Podolski’s club performances you’d definitely be looking for upgrades though. (Again the world cup now clearly proofs that wrong). So I would have probably played Gerrard mid, and move Özil left wing instead. To be honest though, Özil could still start mid and given his free role drift left or right freely as he wants as both Gerrard or Müller can cut in.
So German GK
Lahm, one CB each, Cole
Schweinsteiger, Lampard
Müller,Gerrard,Özil
Rooney.
Again, this is before tournament though, and I do have bias for Müller as a Munich fan ;=)
Regarding James/Neuer. Yes James didn’t make any of those high profile saves – very true. Neuer did. But judging from that game the one difference between them was that Neuer was involved in the build up play (the so-called modern goalie). I wouldn’t say his saves were any more convincing than James attempts, he just was a bit more lucky.
I know thats easy to say though. It’s just that when you (as an arrogant German fan) see an England goalie you expect them to mess up royally every game (just as Green delivered) which in truth James clearly did not in any of the games. He pretty much put in a Jörg Butt performance (3rd in national team, 4th in order if Adler was fit, and well that was still good enough for the CL final), steady but unspectacular. On a good day all those are saves, on a bad day they all go in.
OK, this may be a rather marginal discussion, as neither James lost the match, nor did Neuer win it. However, I don’t think Neuer’s aplomb with e.g. two firm, flat Milner crosses (2nd half), two Lampard attempts from around 20-25 yards, as well as an outstanding reaction against Gerrard towards the end of the game (the Lampard chance before half time, near post after cross from the right, may be considered lucky, although Neuer’s pretty brave here and covers the goal well) can be considered lucky.
The 3rd German goal (Müller on the counter after delayed give-and-go with Schweinsteiger) is exactly the goal Butt usually doesn’t concede – in fact it’s a must-save. The Klose and Podolski goals surely are different in this respect; yet, on both occasions James did not decide for either decidedly throwing himself into the ball or for remaining on his feet and closing down angles, but chose some unfortunate middle ground.
Aye fair enough, it definitely wasn’t a good game by James. But far from horrible too.
I think NiWa probably had it right…
Neuer ahead of James,
Lahm and Cole are clearly the best fullbacks and you aren’t spoilt for choice at CB, any 2 from 4 slow iffy players…
Schweinsteiger, Müller and Özil are musts…
Lampard and Gerrard are Englands best 2 options…
I think on current form you would take Kloser over Rooney but thats probably the best side of the 2… Would it suit the players?
English side shows frustrating inabilty to the opponent’s tactics. Like Capello was expecting from other teams to adjust to his tactics.
One thing – I believe formation’s clash was important for Klose 1st goal. When Neuer was kicking out the ball Terry IMO thought that Ozil will be a player, who will collect it. He made a few steps towards him (Barry was further up the pitch and Terry probably hoped to win a header), realizing too late, than goalkeeper’s kick was stronger. He started then to move back, but was too late and it left Upson being isolated against Klose.
If England would play with 3 man in centre of midfield, one of the midfielders would be closer to Ozil, so Terry probably wouldn’t do that mistake and Klose would have tougher task scoring.
For the first half-hour of the game, brittle England paid a price for consolidating the midfield as they were left without any penetrating power what so ever, save the two front men. Milner and Gerrard on either side were drifting inward , perhaps in search of solidity, but left the wide players isolated and stifled. The four man midfield in principle didn’t warrant much value defensively either, as it was laterally incoherent also out of posession, thus rendering the 4-4-2-ish shape more a USA-like 4-2-2-2 albeit unintentionally. The England defence’s weaknesses were over due to be exploited by the likes of Özil, Podolski and Klose as the game seemed to tip eastward by the minute. The over-reliance on Rooney as a creating force then meant for him to drop deep to gain posession as there was a lack of quality deliverance from the scattered midfield as well as the defence. Shortly following Germany’s second goal, it seemed as if England were happy to throw away much of their back-tracking redundancy, and they were able to activate Frank Lampard in a fashion pretty much unseen so far at the world cup. This warded the key for England as they through Lampard managed to concentrate more play up high on the German half, and forcing the germans to retreat somewhat. In that process, space also appeared for the england side backs to provide the wide coverage that seemed lacking early on. England went from attacking with two, to effectively attacking with seven, seemingly meerely by releasing Lampard from some defensive responsibilities, atop it all him being only unfortunate to have his long range effort denied scoreline value.
Following the half-time show one can only assume given by Fabio Capello, the english players’ skills seemed to magically reappear. Give or take the odd helpless long through pass at the corner flag from Matthew Upson, or Steven Gerrards “optimistic” finishing from 20 yds. out, suddenly it seemed like Premier League players out there, Jermaine Defoe seemed like a threat again and James Milner had the good fortune to wake from his slumber just before being yanked. The defensive english ineptitude centrally was underlined, though, on the hour mark as Müller was allowed to take a 20-yard stroll unhassled with the ball, his poor finish deflected wide and even leaving all too lucky England without a corner to defend, so all was not well. But the team appered with more coherence, not with top form, but with players being able to perform at some sort of level apart from the lowest. Being caught on the counter, as they were, is forgiveable but the disorganization of the defensive line, even when as unstabilized as England were in the seconds before 1-3, would be highly correlated with not playing a World cup quarter final. By the time Müller got ready to do England in with his second, England was cracking at the seams, as if the team couldn’t handle the stress of their post-break efforts. The following removal of the quick and mobile Defoe for Heskey looked helplessly parodical. When Shaun Wright-Phillips replaced Glen Johnson, the cameras showed England fans asking the obvious question–”Why?”–as the hour had run too late for anything tactical to save the evening, it all seemed to underline the english failings on virtually all fronts.
Lampard’s delicate cannon round off the bar and past the goal line may prove the worst bit of disfortune for english football for decades. Not only for it leaving England without the equalizer they perhaps had deserved, but also for it being such an explicit expression of the english curse, and most of all for providing the english tabloids with a refreshing outlet for their dismay. Depending on the depths of self-derogatory introspective abilities of the british press, the goal-denying quartet of officials may be handed the blame, although some players (Barry, prominently) and Capello (the substitutions) made their best efforts to take away the blame from the boys in sky blue. It would be a godsend for those looking for ways to outsource the misfortune: Rio Ferdinand’s and Ledley Kings’ injury woes, not to mention David Beckham’s, John Terry’s display of poor personal judgement, Robert Green’s soapy gloves (symbolically as well), the Jabulani, the long season, Fabio Capello’s tactical dispositions, substitutions or just being italian, or something with the french, anything to point the bow away from anything that could reveal the utter mediocrity (in the international context anyway) of the english contributions to the on-pitch activitites of the Premier League. And it would be slightly surprising if the papers tomorrow will point out that one-sixth of this match (last third of the first half) actually was the best 24th of England’s campaign.
With further comparisons left for joyous occations, it might be worth noting that all the England players of today earn their wages in the Premier League, while all the Germany players correspondingly live in the Bundesliga.
Sorry for sounding pretentious, by the way. Guess I am.
Player comments translated by google: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fsport%2Ffussball%2F0%2C1518%2C703179%2C00.html&sl=de&tl=en
If anyone cares about the exact quotes I ll try to translate them properly, e.g.:
Manuel Neuer: “After I turned, I focused solely on the ball. Just now at the ‘doping test’, I saw that he was in there. I had tried to fast forward the play, so that the referee would not think that the ball was in there. We proudly move forward after this game [not sure how to translate this best, literally he talks about having broad breast, similar to having wide shoulders in English?], and naturally want to reach the semifinals. “
The part about broad breast means “with confidence”. He has his chest puffed out.
“Wir gehen aus diesem Spiel mit einer breiten Brust ”
We go out of this game with our chest out
Aye, that would be the fitting translation, thanks!
ZM, you can list this team right under your “Trends of the Decade” list, particularly the increasing importance of movement and mobility. That is the most important aspect of this German team.
“If the two sides perform to the standard as they have so far in the competition, then England are in for a thrashing”
Nuff said.
Thanks for giving proper credit to this German side. No other media outlet has made similar efforts. If this side was Brazilian, Argentine, Spanish or Portuguese we’d probably be hearing more.
Mourinho would be the ideal manager for the individuals England have. Of course he won’t but that type of manager is seemingly the only one capable at the moment of changing things up.
Sorry but i dont think so. I think his option will be limited too
One thing – I believe formation was clash was important for Klose 1st goal. When Neuer was kicking out the ball Terry thought that Ozil will be a player, who will collect ball. He made a few steps towards him (Barry was further up the pitch), realizing too late, than goalkeeper’s kick was stronger. He started then to move back, but was too late and it left Upson being isolated against Klose.
If England would play with 3 man in centre of midfield, one of the midfielders would be closer to Ozil, so Terry probably wouldn’t do that mistake and Klose would have tougher task scoring.
Germany played brilliantly. Their squad is a great example of how any system not only has a structure to it in the formation but just as important a dynamics. They played a remarkably fluid game, one which made the notion of them playing a “4-2-3-1″ a somewhat nominal one.
One can expect fluidity from the attacking players. But perhaps one of the most striking aspects to Germany is how fluid and multidimensional their two holding midfielders are. Schweinsteiger is one of the more under rated players in the world. How many holding midfielders have the skill to lead a counter attack at speed as he did on that third goal? He carries the ball with pace for dozens of yards and then close to the box he pauses to let the defender over run the play and sends a perfectly weighted pass to Mueller. Could Melo or Silva do that? Similarly Khedira repeatedly makes intelligent runs forward. These are two “holding” midfielders who don’t simply hold. They are integral parts to Germany maintaining possession and building up play. At the same time both are solid defenders. The contrast to Gareth Barry was stark.
Ozil is a truly gifted player. His vision and understanding of space are things which are difficult to teach if it’s possible at all. Not only was he acting as a central playmaker moving dynamically from flank to flank, Ozil freqently played advanced of Klose as they switched positions. He is extraordinarily difficult to mark if a squad wants to maintain it’s shape. It would be interesting to see how he responds to playing a more constricted role at a top club.
England had their problems. But into the early second half, England had over 60% of possession. By the end of the match that was down to 52% possession. This match was about the dynamism and skill Germany displayed, qualities which greatly amplified the numerical advantage they had in midfield based on the structural formation.
Great point. Schweinsteigers transformation from a tricky winger to “holding” midfielder has been unbelievable. Germany’s midfield is clearly their strongest aspect. Why Capello chose to persist with Jermain “flat track bully” Defoe was baffling, all probably because of his shin straight at the keeper against Slovenia and f all else, bar a sitter he missed.
Melo-Kaka-Ramires-Robinho – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBdF2_rWrLo#t=1m36s
Melo – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7ww-HwwsbI#t=6m12s
Ramires or Melo have done that…
Melo is curently underrated due to a terrible (to say the least) season at run-down Juve, but he’s always performed at Seleção)
Completely true. England had no answer to Germany’s fluidity, speed and movement. Schweinsteiger and Özil were almost unstoppable, assisted by England’s tactics and/or application. I find it incomprehensible Capello maintained his 4-4-2 formation and line-up that beat Slovenia, as if that 1-0 win ‘justified’ him doing so. He made no concessions to the fact that Germany are not only superior to Slovenia, but also play in a completely different style. The result was, England had no specific solution to Özil’s movement or the fluidity that Schweinsteiger and Khedira enable the team to play with. Plainly Gareth Barry has neither the speed nor the alertness to stop Özil, but it seemed that he was expected to. He needed more assistance, and wasn’t helped out by his fullbacks either, who had their own problems tracking Müller and Podolski (and co-ordinating their positions with Terry and Upson). But in context, I think most (if not all) defences at the World Cup will have problems with the fluidity and movement of Germany’s six midfielders/forwards (not to mention Lahm, who was pretty quiet today). If you want to commit players forward, you will always be vulnerable to that highly fluid movement, skill and pace.
The holding play was very 01-04 Arsenal esque, Vieira and Parlour used to be excellent at doing what you described. Diaby for the French could in theory perform a similar role but they are/were in such a state it’s hardly worth mentioning.
114 comments and not one mention of the absence of Ballack.
I saw little of Germany in qualifying, so I wonder: is Germany better with Schweinsteiger and Khedira, and without Ballack? They appear quite the dynamic duo. I could see Ballack’s experience helping in a tight game further down the road, but so far, is he truly missed?
I haven’t seen that much of Ballack, mostly international play, but my memory of the last World Cup and Euro is him blasting balls (with little result) from outside the box. This Germany is much less dependent on air attack than those teams, and he never struck me as a creative force. I like the current lineup.
Ballack is better than Khedira is, hands down.
But one has to give credit to Khedira, he has the best work ethic on the team, and the stats back it up. He logged the most km out of any player so far in the tournament (except for USA/GHA extra 30 mins due to the overtime).
It is a big compliment to Khedira to make us forget that Ballack is out injured. Rest assured Ballack is going for 2012 as his new goal, he turned down better offers to go to Leverkusen on a 2 year contract, ignoring Champions League. Just to have another shot at an international tournament in two years. In Rolfes they do also have another great holding midfielder though that if there were no injuries would likely have been ahead of Khedira as well.
I hope Ballack does win something at international level, he deserves it. Then again, so did Maldini…
Ballack would be nice to have as a substitution, but not more.
I think the real problem Englad had today was Capello’s switch from zonal marking to man marking for his defenders. They never quite got it right and were doing both things all at once, but both only halfways. The 3:1 for example was a 3 against 3 situation. Two of the defenders however were tracing the left attacker, leaving Müller free. In this they acted as if they were playing a back for on zonal marking (leaving the man on the far wing free) whereas they should have been taking on man on man. Such confusion emerged several times. So Englands poor defending was not only the defenders fault (allthough Barry’s defending against Özil before the 4:1 was really inferior) but also Capello’s (imo at least). I have no clue why he switched to man marking for this game. Probably it’s just that my interpretation is terribly wrong and he did no such thing at all (to me it looked hecks like it though).
Not only was it 4-4-2 it was a 4-4-2 diamond which made things worse. As pointed out then you can neither get a proper grip on Ozil nor get into the two deeper lying midfielders and therefore we got the worst of both worlds, not helped by Barry never being a defensive midfielder at club level really. Far too open with again not enough depth in midfield meaning the German midfield always prevented us passing from defence into midfield effectively while also meaning there was massive space between the lines to exploit. Ozil again did that move where he drifts to the right which led to the second goal and we never found a way to prevent that and Argentina will have to if they want to beat Germany.
Personally I think Germany will beat Argentina – they are more balanced – Argentina looked disjointed today to me in attack relying on luck and clinical finishing from the front men which will give them a chance especially against a weak German defence but Germany will control midfield with five against four and playing closer together than Argentina’s and get at the defence without many problems given the openness of Argentina with only one holding midfielder and little support for the full backs in flank defence.
England need to finally learn Gerrard and Lampard cannot play in the same team, drop one of them and play a 4-3-3 with a proper holder (Rodwell coming through I reckon could be the answer) and two wingers with Lampard playing his Chelsea role breaking from the midfield three.
Individually none of these players look the same for England as they do at club level.
If Gerrard had gone to Chelsea all those years ago would they have been able to play together? Probably.
The Gerrard Lampard debate muddies the water a little. I’m not sure what formation would make the most of Lampard, Gerrard and Rooney? But you would need to have 2 players holding behind them.
“Argentina looked disjointed today to me in attack relying on luck and clinical finishing from the front men which will give them a chance especially against a weak German defence but Germany will control midfield with five against four and playing closer together than Argentina’s and get at the defence without many problems given the openness of Argentina with only one holding midfielder and little support for the full backs in flank defence.”
!!
Where did you learn to write like that?!
I agree that Germany are more organised than Argentina in the middle and should be able to break down Argentina if Argentina doesn’t decide to defend deep from the beginning. However, if Argentina decide to let Germany come forward then Messi may be the key to their success.
Messi or no Messi, DeMichelis, Burdisso, Heinze and Otamendi are unlikely to have the capacity to stop Germany for 90 mins. That quartet lack pace, discipline, concentration, which all plays into Germany’s hands. Müller on Heinze? Podolski on Otamendi (or Gutierrez)? Klose on Bayern teammate DiMichelis? If Mascherano can’t keep Özil quiet, Germany could do to Argentina what they did to England’s defence. I suspect that Schweinsteiger and Khedira will dictate the midfield, shut down Veron (if he plays) and cut off a lot of Messi’s supply and Argentina will need moments of individual brilliance like we saw from Tevez to beat them.
I can’t wait for this game for the simple reason that the two defences are relatively porous. However, I feel Veron and Mascherano can hold their own against Khedira and Schweini; also Argentina, as it was pointed out by ZM plays four defenders strictly in the back with no push which will leave fewer holes for Oezil to exploit. I also think Germany’s D will be horribly exposed – it’s payback time for 06. Argentina will win comfortably…
I know ZM hates comments like this since they are somewhat subjective, but I don’t think this German team can come back from being, say two goals down. In four years though, watch out…
To be honest, going into this match, I am just afraid of the referees. A lot of early yellows or a wrong decision could have this match decided. And this would be awful, as this should truely be a great match.
It will be interesting what Löw has in mind. So far Argentina’s offense has been unstoppable. Teams are focusing on shutting down Messi and as a result this frees up space for the rest of the brilliant offensive cast.
In past tournaments, our goaltending often saved us in mediocre games.
So it might have to come down to a good game from Neuer, and I hope hes up for the task. He has that upside, we will see whether he can show it in 2010 already or it is too early for him.
It’s difficult to predict Rodwell future position, recently he was playing as AM in 4-2-3-1 in Lampard/Gerrard Chelsea/Liverpool style. It was expected of him to end as ball playing CB (something England really lacks), but it’s tough to see at the moment.
Well nobody saw that coming!
I think as well as the obvious stuff mentioned about formation, tactics and technical superiority what stood out for me was football intelligence.
The German players are young and almost completely inexperienced at this level. Most of the English have been at playing at this level for many years. How depressing that it is the youngsters that show the good decision making, the well timed runs, the ability to cover for each-other. Its not an original observation but English players are all blood and thunder headless chickens. The ability to make a correct decision is absent totally.
This is a problem with a long history in English football (and maybe broader English society) – a distrust of anything ‘clever’ or ‘theories’. When England got humiliated by Hungary they could have learnt something but the response actually laid the foundations of the Stanley Reep school of hoofball with its emphasis on physicality and athleticism.
Anyone who played football as a kid in England,be it at school, district or club level, knows how it works. A coach screams at you to get stuck in, to get it in the mixer, to hoof it out. The big fast players are favoured and the technical kids get kicked about. Pitches are mudbaths and the games are helter skelter. The Gerrards, Terrys and Defoes dominate because their style suits this environment. Never, ever are players encouraged to think for themselves. Anything ‘expressive’ is stamped out of them. The coaches never trust the kids to ust figure it out for them selves. From age 6 my experience was always ‘victory at all costs’, never ‘go out and learn’.
The saddest thing is that the reaction in England will be ‘the players failed’ or the players weren’t good enough’ or (most depressingly) ‘the players needed to show nmore commitment. Nothing ever changes, no matter how often we get shown it so clearly. Insular, island mentality…
So much wrong with this post. For a start, it was Charles Reep, not Stanley. Secondly, the Hungary game didn’t usher in the “era of hoofball”. It was a) already there, and b) Reep had been conducting his research for a few years before that fateful game. In fact, the Hungary game prompted the work of Allan Wade, who wrote “The Principles of Play” – a manual that is a reading essential in any coaches library. Wade could not be further from Reep in his view of the game.
England failed because of big time stars trying to run the show (has everyone forgotten the Terry press conference?), bad chemistry between players, bad chemistry between coach and key players, and a coach who changed his ideas at the last minute, which is not just a massive failure in football management, but in all fields of management.
i accept your points. My post was a bit of a rush when i was still het up.
My point about the hungary game is that it was an illustration of a possible road English football could take but that it was ignored in the large. It was the first massive undeniable suggestion that something was flawed with the English model (which as you rightly state had long existed). There was an oppurtunity to absorb some of the lessons and evolve a new style.
I agree that a lot of people saw the light but what actually happened? Wolves managed a scrappy win on an over-watered mud-bath and the football establishment was able to kid itself that English football was superior and change wasn’t necessary.
There never was a revolution of technique or intelligence and you can trace a line right through to Taylor at Watford and Wimbledon ugliness in the 1980s and to the ongoing dearth of technical intelligent footballers in England today.
The tradegy was how the English football/coaching establishment’s distrust of foreign ideas blinded it to the obvious.
All your points arbout the England team at this WC are valid; my point is that it is a deeper problem. Even at their best an England team would only ever have one through upping the tempo and overpowering the opposition. To play like Germany did (and yes I realise they have weaknesses), is incomprehensible to English players.
Not sure where the ’stanley’ came from though.
You’re wrong about the Hungary – Wolves comparison. Reep had analysed that game, as had Cullis, and both had (separately) found something that had been missed amidst the display of skill and the new tactic of the deep lying forward – Hungary played more long balls than England, and all but one of their goals were scored in 3 passes or less. The difference was that they didn’t play WM, and they had more skill on the ball. England as a whole missed that. Instead, just like Wimbledon (but not Watford – remember, Watford played a revolutionary 3-4-3 system with their direct play, as well as having John Barnes on the left wing; hardly football of the Neanderthal) and others, the concentration was on the long ball alone, and not the skill required to make the long ball a viable tactic. Wolves took the real lesson of Hungary and went on to win the Double. Manchester City took the deep lying forward and arrived at the Revie Plan. The lessons were learned in pockets. But in general, the same crisis of identity was observed. All but the emphasis on high skill, rather than tactics alone, was seen. The denial of the importance of skill is what has English football where it is.
You can blame the tactics all you want but the truth is that England does not have the quality to compete at this level. Rooney is not on the level of Messi.
Please list the players on the same level as Messi? And how many teams have them?
England were poor, Germany much better… We had the worst tactics and the players who made the most mistakes… Result 4-1…
Ronaldo. So one team.
And it’s more that England don’t have enough quality in their full squad, and the couple world class players they do have seem not to play well together.
Messi is in a class of his own… Cristiano or Kaka etc. are not at the same level…
Oh another Ronaldo vs Messi debate. Though i agree Kaka doesnt match up to Messi, I still think Ronaldo is a better player than Messi. Messi loses the ball too easily.
Didn’t Ronaldo himself say that Messi was the better player at the moment? Doesn’t get more clear than that.
Ronaldo dives better than Messi, so he must be the best.
Perhaps no counter-attacking team truly deserves to be called brilliant, however sharp and incisive their moves may be. The Germans were smarter, quicker, and more intelligent in their approach than the English, but they were far from faultless. What was more fundamental to the result was the staggering ineptitude of the English defense, and what was curiously striking at the end of the match was the English players’ lack of emotion, as though they weren’t really surprised by what had just happened.
Shellshocked
English football analysis has an obsession with the personnel on the pitch (ie. Heskey or Joe Cole, Upson or Dawson) like they were football stickers for an album. It also has an obsession with formations, and that once you find the right one then everything will click: but you still have to have the basic dedication to teamwork and to good football to make it work.
Factors more important than either of these are: Transition play, and cohesion. England players running straight into a defender in the hopes of bundling him over is not attacking as a team, and shows no cohesion. Rooney, Lamp, Gerrard too often tried to beat their man to pay homage their media-honed egos, instead of holding the ball and allowing the options to develop in front of them, a basic football trait that a Wenger would look for when signing 13year olds, not when watching adult pros!!
Transition between attack and defense should see your team look a bit like an accordian, the defence squeezes tight when defending an attack, and fans out when in possession. That didnt happen.
There should be an instinctive view that a team should gradually grade between defence and attack, rather than 3 distinct bands, it has been common football knowledge for years now that there needs to be a defensive presence between your midfield and defense, that was non-exist today.
Germans proved that who you play in your team does not matter, they had one of the weakest sides theyve produced (and have done for a few tournaments now), but a cohesiveness as a team makes the sum greater than its parts. An understanding on the part of the players to play for their teammates is not what this team possessed today.
I really don’t know. If that goal wasn’t invalidated, then it would have been such a different game. Just like Argentina vs Mexico today, Mexico was clearly the better team and the one who deserved to go through, but a big mistake just ruined all the game. Many people will hate Osorio for his mistake, however, I think that the fact that they saw that Argentina was given an “offside goal” (by the way, how could that happen in the stadium?) really made Mexico get out of control.
four to one, even england scored
praise for joachim leow..he is the bravest manager in the tournament..dropping average seniors like hilderband, kuranyi, hitzpelger, metzelder, frings and not being afraid to try out youngsters..he is yet to make a defensive substitution in this worldcup…he is one heck of a brave man…
I think the good part of that is that it gives his players confidence. If you take off an offensive player to put in a defensive one, you send a clear message out that you want to contain the score. And it also says, hey guys our defense is having trouble, lets help them. (Which in reality is a job of everyone on the pitch anyway, regardless of whether they start up front or in the back.)
Now this statement is far from the standard this blog deserves, but I do believe that instilling confidence in his players is one of Löws biggest accomplishments for so far.
Anyone else think wilshere is quite similar to özil?i think he will develop into such a player not the fabregas mould as most think.i think in him they potentially have a genuine playmaker…
I’m an Arsenal fan and it’s way too early to tell. He’s definitely got the skill as well as strength. Whenever comparisons with Cesc and Wilshere were drawn up, Wenger would always remind people that Jack Wilshere’s game has more dribbling than passing.
Given these characteristics he might be more of a David Silva.
What makes Oezil stand out as mentioned in this piece is his intelligence on the pitch. I haven’t seen enough of Jack Wilshere to comment on that yet.
Jack Wilshere is a good player, but he needs to consistently deliver performances at Arsenal or maybe another loan spell to develop himself into an international level star.
Unfortunately, Arsene Wenger has too many attacking midfielders like Nasri, Arshavin, and Rosicky for Jack to start breaking through.
Early development is crucial for talented youngsters.
The english team has enough good high-speed dribblers (cole, SWP, wilshere…), the good dribbling is not the main point. I think a player like Özil would not fit into that “straight-forward-blood-and-thunder”-style, that the english side is always playing.
There is a difference between a high-speed dribbler (Ronaldo, Nani) and a dribbling playmaker (Zidane, Arshavin, David Silva, Iniesta, Ronaldinho)
That’s exactly what I meant (but couldn’t express, because I am not really familiar with the english language). These dribbling playmakers can’t really “make” the game, if everyone is running at high speed against their opponent (as SWP or Johnson does).
What I was trying to communicate: the way the english team played yesterday (and that reminded me a little bit of Manu vs. Bayern in the championsleague) leaves no room for a playmaker. Özil can play his intelligent passes only if Müller, klose and Podolski are running into the right zones. Podolski is a little bit poor in this, but Klose and Müller have the intelligence to cooperate with Özil.
@Aussiedler: Ahh thanks for the clarification and point well taken sir
Yes, good attacking teams have built a strong understanding amongst the players and they make good off-the-ball movement. I enjoy watching teams making fantastic attacking movement/buildup more than a wonderstrike and I think Gerrard/Lampard usually makes better runs for their club teams.
Unfortunately Gerrard and Lampard had different instructions and positions playing for the national team and I personally feel this England system didn’t allow them to fully express whatever class they have. Lampard had to help Barry and the defenders out but that didn’t work out. Stevie wasn’t as effective as playing behind a main striker.
Rooney is usually praised for his intelligence as well, but everything didn’t work out.
I feel England did/does have the quality to try these plays, but they just didn’t show up for one reason or another.
Not saying England are world beaters, but they’re definitely better than what they’ve shown in the World Cup finals. Germany was fantastic and they deserve all the praise they’ve gotten after the match.
Even when England produce high technical players they rarely have a good football brain, look at Joe Cole… Players who can think on their feet during a game are not valued in English football, you are supposed to do what you are told.
Flair players in England are hidden away and forced to conform…
Is the average Joe Bloggs on the street in England so THICK to realise the same pattern has been repeating itself for 60 years!
Players average at best but pre tournament press builds them as world beaters only for national devastation when they fail to be the world beaters they never were.
It sickens me that people just suck up everything that a newspaper tells them.
There is a lack of independent thought.
Nothing will change while kids are addicted to playstations.
“Nothing will change while kids are addicted to playstations.”
Do you think Germany’s style of play has always been like it was shown in this game?
No, there have been massive changes. That should be impossible according to you, given the fact that almost all of the german players are addicted to playstations.
Very good.
But I stand by my comment. Kids ought to be outside playing football instead of virtual reality/dreaming of being Rooney. Get out and get some touch!
When they are world class players then they can play the gamestation when resting!
It’s American Football, but you might like this article from January’s Wired about how gaming is affecting modern sports, specifically tactical awareness amongst players…a little more time in front of the Playstation for Joe Bloggs Jr. might help England in the long run. The basic thrust of the article is that there’s only so much football you can play in a given week, but you can play much, much, more simulated football. If the simulation is good enough that it provides a reasonably accurate picture of how tactics affect the game, it can massively improve a player’s on-field performance.
Article: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_gamechanger/
I haven’t played any of the FIFA games since about ‘94, but the constant refrain from my five-a-side guys when we talk about positional awareness, etc. is “play FIFA 10.”
I actually learned hockey via Ea’s sports sim (granted back in the 90s), before starting to play inline hockey. These simulations do teach you a lot about positional awareness because you are not focused one position anymore, and really take more the position of the playmaker. Thanks for the link, I ll check it out.
It’s a very young and promising German sides, but even poor German sides seem to do well… Why is it players like Podolski and Klose can struggle at club level but do so well for the National team?
What is it about the German set up that can get the best out of players where as the English set up consistently fails?
Germany haven’t won the world cup since 1990, but have had some good runs…Do they have less pressure on them then England have?
England are ranked a 1/4 final team, tend to be ranked a 1/4 final team and that’s where we tend to finish… But we don’t tend to look as abject as we did tonight… Maybe if we had won the group we would have got to play Ghana and maybe would have made another round and the expected exit, but I doubt it.
Good luck to Germany… I look forward to the Game with Argentina… Both side will think they can score against the others defence!
That kind of thing happens to the “big teams”. Take Italy for example. Most of the time, the players they take to World Cups are ‘average players’ (for the Europeans leagues, of course), but when they wear the Italian shirt they suddenly become dangerous at attacking, effective at defending and great at managing their games. Sure thing, this World Cup was an exception, but take the last 4 or 5 World Cups to see what I’m saying.
The same thing happens for Germany and Brazil. The players that Brazil took for this World Cup seem to be a weak selection compared to other World Cup Tournaments… but as soon as they wear the Brazilian shirt they become geniuses. Germany, once again, shows this. In the 2002 World Cup they pretty much took a middle-level squad, yet they had an overall good performance and that seemed just to happen by wearing the German shirt…
Which is kinda frustrating to say the least… because it tells you that World Cups are won, in big part, thanks to the shirt you are wearing.
Germany also had the best player in the world at that time, it took Brazil to force him to make an error.
That German team was the worst German team ever in World Cup history. They would have lost to any decent team without any chance. They made it to the final because (with all due respect) their opponents were Paraguay (much worse than this year), the US (same thing), South Korea. No Netherlands, no Argentina, no England, no Italy, no Spain, no France. Brazil in the final, with the obvious result.
Different this year: If Germany want to reach the final, they have to beat England, Argentina and Spain. Whereas Uruguay or Ghana at least will reach the semis before they meet a favourite.
So at times it doesn’t say too much how far a team gets at a tournament.
Good analysis with a few things that haven’t been remarked upon that are worth highlighting:
1. Klose will get moost of the credit, but Ozil’s movement was directly responsible for the first two German goals. For the first, he sucked Terry out of position and he was caught under the high ball. For the second, Terry tracked Ozil wide left, leaving space in the centre.
2. Part of the reason England were so exposed at the back was because of the high and wide starting positions of the full backs, especially Cole. For much of the game they were playing essentially as wing backs. And when you have two slow centre backs like Terry and Upson up against a fluid and pacey attacking line with no full back cover, you are bound to concede.
3. The German defence effectively snuffed out any threat from the England attack by playing such a deep defensive line, especially in the first half. Defoe poses litle threat when there is no space behind the defence for him to run into. He repeatedly failed to hold the ball up when it was played into his feet – replacing him with Crouch or Heskey on the half hour would have been the brave but sensible call.
4. The impact of the flight of the new football has only been partly acknowledged. Widely documented has been the increased tendency for shots to swerve violently or balloon over the bar. But nobody has remarked upon the difficulty it seems to be causing defenders and attackers as they prepare to head the ball. How many times in the Premier League has John Terry misjudged the flight of a straightforward kick out as horrendously as he did for Germany’s first goal? Even Upson, when he headed England’s goal, was practically falling backwards in order to compensate for the unexpectedly long delay before the cross started to dip.
Just remembered something and want to ask around now:
How well do you guys rate coach development (courses etc needed before getting a license) in your countries? There is often talk about youth academies and their success, but I guess it is really also up to coaches who need to develop these kids.
The coaching courses here are rather expensive and not very accessible. More is being made of it, but we’re still miles behind, say, Italy in this respect.
The FA coaching courses are VERY accessible. They’re not cheap, for sure, but your club will usually offset some or all of the cost. But they are very accessible if you want to get on the coaching ladder.
The courses themselves are accessible, in a ‘Yes we’ll take your money’ way, but getting a link with a club, even a lower league youth club, is very difficult.
I disagree. Clubs are crying out for coaches with qualifications. Taking a local U8 team should get you enough purchase on getting on to the Youth licenses.
Why could England not forsee the problem that Ozil would cause? It was entirely predictable that he would play between the lines and that Germany would outnumber England 5 to 4 in midfield.
In my view, it was this failure to deal with Ozil that led to both of the first two goals. In each case, Terry was drawn forward toward Ozil because there was no holding midfielder doing the job. This left a huge gap, and Germany exploited it ruthlessly.
I can’t understand why Capello persisted with 4-4-2 when the major players in the team don’t play it at club level. None of Chelsea, Liverpool or Man Utd play 4-4-2, so why should they suddenly be falmilier with it at international level? Lampard is used to having a holding midfielder behind him, Gerrard two. Is it any wonder it appears they “can’t play together” when they are played without the support around them that allows them to be at their best?
Because Capello is stubborn, great club managers do not necessarily make great national managers. Capello has been found out as too inflexible to be a successful national manager, his insistence that they play 4-4-2 is evidence of this. As a national manager you need to find a strategy that allows your best players to perform, because unlike managing a club you can’t just buy players that suit your system.
Agreed. On the club level, especially if you’re managing one of the elite clubs (as Capello did), you can basically buy all the players needed to fit your desired style and formation, and the individual quality of your players and their fit for that style simply overwhelms any tactical inefficiency. (Like, for example, the foundational problems a 4-4-2 has with a 4-2-3-1)
However, in the international game, there’s more of a “salary cap” (well, except for Brasil). The national manager must acknowledge what type of players he has and adapt his tactics and style to suit his best players the best he can. Loew has done that. He has created a system and tactical formation that allows for Oezil to float. That allows Schweinsteiger to go box to box. That mitigates Podolski’s weaknesses in the air and exaggerates his strength in pace and rocket shot.
If Loew came into the tournament an established club manager that had won 10+ trophies with like a Manchester United running a 4-4-2 simply because he had 11 all-star players, he may not have been so willing to be humble and let the players be the stars of the show.
another example (wrt “great clubmanagers are not necessarily successful national team managers”) is LvG failure as a bondscoach with Netherland. His system definitely needs intesive training, something you just can’t do with a national team…..
What a beautiful game of Germany! The German’s 4-2-3-1 worked perfectly. Ozil, Muller, Schweinsteiger, Khedira…. So many players giving pretty moments of a nice, attacking football.
About England, I really don´t understand why Capello don´t change the team, even the poor performances in Group Phase. If I was the England manager, I would played in a 4-2-3-1 too, with Barry and Carrick at Mc positions, Gerrard, Lampard and Joe Cole at attacking midfielders and Rooney as a striker and free role.
Even if referee gave the Lampard’s goal, I don´t think that England would make the game result different.
A poor performance of England and a nice, very well played, a lesson of competitive, attacking and beautiful football of Germany.
I think it’s unfair to bl;ame Upson for the second goal, you can see in the photo that Muller has already gone straight past Ashley Cole who was th eplayer that was supposed to be marking him at that time. Then how does Ashley Cole respond? Sprint like a mad man to fix his mistake? No he jogs back and hopes that no one will realise that he was the player that was supposed to be marking Muller. So while Upson was dragged wide the biggest mistake made was a case of Cole showing no commitment, Muller ran straight past him and he didn’t care.
Am I the only one to see strong similarities between this game and the Australia vs Germany game?
4-4-2 formation, overrun in midfield, central defenders tore apart, similar scoreline.
Did England management not consider this game when they devised tactics?
Frankly, England had a lot of friendlies to realize their game plan wasn’t working anymore. This site specifically talked about England’s friendly with Egypt and how Michael Carrick’s substitute appearance turned the match in favor to England. That was early March this year and there were the Spain/Brazil friendlies as well.
Capello had plenty of time to think between that time and the post-season friendlies to address the problem, but he simply chose to leave it as mental/injury/fitness problems rather than tactical ones.
I think he trusted and expected his core members to perform brilliantly at their last World Cup finals.
He should have thought of a plan B and rigorously tried it out during the post-season friendlies. If it didn’t work, people would have commended him for experimenting and being creative. If it did work, I don’t think they’d be leaving after the first K.O. round.
For me, the two worst coaching performances (in terms of tactics) of the World Cup have been Pim Verbeek in Australia v Germany, and Capello in England v Germany. The formation, personnel, style of play, and lack of in-match adaptibility from both was awful. It’s a fact that technically, England’s players (and Australia’s) are inferior to Germany’s, but both coaches did their teams a disservice in our they were set out.
I agree with those two being the worst…
There should be a rule that teams have to play a high defensive line against Germany, so we can counter them with speed =)
Excellent analysis of what I found a wholly dispiriting match. Given the tournament he’s having, I feel it’s time we tried to spell Mesut Özil’s name correctly. Instead of typing “[shift-O]zil” try typing “[shift-7][shift-3]214;zil” Yes it’s a lot of keys to type but it’s the difference between getting the chap’s name right and getting it wrong.
Or at least write Oezil.
Or just copy from above
This is a tactics Blog for christsakes – we all know who he’s talking about!!
Alt-8 followed by whatever letter you want the umlauts over on a mac. Özil, Müller, Schwëïnstägër, etc.
Schwëinwhat?? LOL
or Motörhead
who cares. Just no “ei” and “ie” mixing up as that produces a different sound in German
e.g. Schwienstieger = fail
Couple of obeservations.
1. If England buy in a supercoach from Italy (which we have done twice now), we should not be surprised that the England job will attract an Anglophile who’s admiration for our strengths clouds his judgement of our weaknesses. Both Sven and Fabio were 4-4-2 men who belived English heart and running would turn us into world beaters. The FA needs to do its homework better.
2. There have been attempts to update England’s tactics in the past all of which have come to naught. Vennables was essentially sacked. Hoddle was shafted. In the late 1990’s I recall Howard Wilkinson arguing the future lay with 4-3-3, one where the wide forwards dropped into midfield when defending and supported the striker when attacking. He even implemented the system with every young England side from youth to U-21 level (He had his famous falling out with the media and Hoddle friendly Peter Taylor who wanted to stick with 3-5-2). Wilkinson was derided for it because “nobody played like that at the time”. Ten years on, Wilkinson should be lauded for his visionary insight into the future, but nobody in the press wants to give him his due because he’s yesterday’s man. Its a pity his experiment was rejected. Put simply, we should not play football at this level with less that three players in the centre of midfield and should reject 4-4-2 because it does not!
3. The FA clearly has no vision for developing young players and inculcating them with the skills and understanding needed to play at this level. Where is the small army of trained coaches operating at youth level the FA promised to deliver? What became of the plan to develop the sight at Burton-on-Trent into an English Clairfontain? Its pathetic!
Your point about Wilkinson is right on the money. He is also one of England’s most derided coaches despite his great achievement at Leeds where he formed a team of “hard men” to win promotion (Vinny Jones etc) and then replaced them with fine technical talent (eg Strachan) to win the league. Not many managers have got a team promoted and then won the league with them, fewer still by changing vast majority of the team who won promotion in the first place.
I’ve been reading ZM since practically the beginning and very much love doing so. However, this is the first article I strongly disagree with. Yes England were shocking, but I feel far too much credit is being given to Germany. They were handed two goals on a platter by some embarrassing central defending, and even then conspired to throw it all away and let a 2 goal lead slip.
For 30-40 minutes of the game either side of half time Germany were dominated by a very, very poor England team. It was only more miserable play from England and the complete lack of pace at the back which led to them scoring two sucker punch goals.
Overall Germany deserve credit, but the game was lost by England and some disgracefully basic errors rather than being won by Germany;s brilliance. I fully expect Argentina to dispose of the Germans relatively easily.
As an Englishmen I am gutted by todays result, but feel that had we been playing against an Argentina or Brazil, the result would have been even worse
Personally I think you mistake Germany sitting back and hoping to score on the counter-attack in the second half with ‘English domination’.
I tend to agree with ZM on this one, Germany looked shaky after conceeding the goal but in the second half they tried to “shut up shop” and catch England on the counter. The closest England came after half time was the free kick from distance against the bar, had this gone in it would have been down to a goalkeeping error.
However many people on this blog have questioned (in a roundabout way) the validity of the statement;
‘You could probably list 100 things that have, in some way, contributed to England’s disastrous performance at this tournament, but the formation must be the biggest factor.’
Against Germany the problem wasn’t the formation, although Germany did play a much more intelligent game, it was the performances of the players. Germany rarely got themsleves out of “2nd gear”, their first goal came about due to some extraordinary defending and the second goal (although the movement to stretch the defenders was clever) would normally not trouble most competent teams say in the Premier League. Had Gerrard been playing as an orthodox left sided midfielder there would have been an extra defender supporting Cole and therefore no reason for both central defenders to get shifted across thus leaving Johnson exposed.
The problem is the England players simply are not good enough to adapt beyond their comfort zones. Lampard is only a good central midfielder as part of a 3-man midfield, Gerrard is only good as an advanced midfielder and Rooney is only good with two supporting wingers – none of these three are good enough to adapt into an unfamiliar role. I’ve argued previously on these pages that (assuming Capello wants to stick with a 4-4-2) Gerrard should have been replaced by an orthodox left winger and Lampard with Carrick but I understand the difficulty the manager has when he wants to replace his senior players. The problem Capello has is that his senior players are unable to adapt to unfamiliar roles.
All in all I’m quite proud of the effort the England team put in tonight (until the 4th goal) the problem was they just weren’t good enough.
What orthodox left winger would you have suggested for the last 2 years? Downing?
As for Carrick replacing Lampard maybe that would have happened if Carrick was in any kind of form, but Copello doesn’t seem to like him.
Do people really think Copello doesn’t understand the issues of playing 4-4-2 in international football? When Walcott/Lennon are in the side the same 4-4-2 formation is normally more of a 4-2-3-1 anyway. The biggest problem was the players weren’t playing well, not helped by Oezil causing us all sorts of problems.
Germany were good going forward, but the advantage was gained by bad mistakes by English players. Germany improved in the second half and counter attacked fantastically. I think they did retreat hoping to catch us on the break, and it was the perfect tactic. England got too desperate too early.
I would agree with the statement of too desperate too early. A little bit more patient would have been good. Also watching Barry lose that sprint trying to get to the ball before Özil was awful. If you play that role there on your own teams attack, you need a faster player (or well uninjured – not sure what the issue was).
All this said though, I think some bashing is going clearly too far. England did not play abysmal for 90 minutes, they played good football for at least 20 minutes and that was good enough to nearly turn the game around.
In a way it is ironic, that the way younger team (granted supported by the score up to that point) were more patient than the experienced team.
Löw talked about his game plan after the game on German TV, and emphasized how important it was to attempt to force the defense to drift out of position. Klose/Müller and Özil especially did a great job with this as others have already pointed out when analyzing the goals.
I can understand that point of view, but I think its quite clear to everyone that England’s ball retention is thoroughly shocking. So even if they were trying to play on the counter, I still couldn’t see a Spain or Brazil allowing England to dictate play as much as England were, even if we were generally unproductive
ZM, I agree with Brian on this one. Germany did allow England back into the game. But for the referee’s erroneous decision it would have been 2-2. Would Germany then have been able to sit back and counter-attack in the same way? Probably not. I am not saying Germany would have lost. But they were exposed as not particularly good defensively, even by this England side.
And that is because they are not good defensively so far. Lahm & Friedrich are having a good tourney, but Mertesacker and whoever plays on left have been shaky.
hit. nail. head.
unfortunately missed here.
Personally, Germany played this in a manner very much like Brazil, but without the possession. There was still the fluidity of positions, the diversity of movement and the understanding among players. The only thing different was the possession. And in this case, it made more sense to leave the ball with the Brits, since England’s style of play bleeds balls in buckets. The counterattack was ripe for the plucking.
One of Capello’s most egregious tactical mistakes today (and in the tournament as a whole) has been his use of substitutes. I don’t think he made one effective substition in the four matches.
Milner was playing well before Capello pulled him off for Cole. From memory, immediately before Milner was taken off he had the shot blocked by Boateng and had put in a few decent crosses. It was still 2-1 and England had a decent chance, so Capello could have persisted with the 11 he had. It was hardly a tactical decision, because Cole merely took up Milner’s position, but was less effective.
Heskey for Defoe was inexplicable. 4-1 down, Crouch had to come on. At least he would have offered a different challenge for Mertesacker, who ruled the air for the entire match. Crouch has a knack for scoring. Heskey doesn’t. It was a completely pointless substitution, one that almost seemed pre-meditated, not related to how the match was unfolding.
The SWP for Johnson subtitution also served no purpose. It was too late to have an effect on the match. If at 4-1 Capello still entertained the possibility of an England comeback, he needed to react immediately and decisively (not ~15 mins after it became 4-1). Moreover, all SWP does is run at defenders, which is basically all Johnson did, so it had no effect on England’s tactics or style of play.
Three completely incomprehensible substitutions. If, say, Crouch and Carrick had been called upon at 3-1 (Crouch to keep Mertesacker and Friedrich busy and Carrick to assist Barry and Lampard in midfield), England would have had (slightly) more chance of an unlikely comeback than just persevering with a system that plainly was ineffective.
Agreed. Contrast capello’s subs with what mourinho would have done.
Sure, it did seem to me that Germany was a better organized team. But, the fact remains that England got it to 2-2..
They were forced to go after the draw they already achieved, opened their defenses in the second half because they needed to score.
FIFA will not allow technology in, fans like me are losing faith in their ‘good faith’, and in professional football.
I’m not English nor German, and favor neither. I would like to be AT LEAST certain that when the ball went in, IT COUNTS. I’m not even talking about offsides and penalties, the very minimum i want is to know if the friggin ball went in or not.
Two extra goal-line refs, one per side. Still will be human error, but less. It’s surprising it hasn’t been implemented yet in WC play.
‘Still will be human error’
I think a camera-tool wil be a better solution.
no problem to see off-side (like Argentina), hand balls (France) or the line (Germany). and if you don’t see it on TV, why should a human ref see it? if a camera hasn’t “seen” the cossing, most likely the goal-line ref hasn’t seen it either. and if you don’t see it on TV, the ref sais: I have seen it (or nothing), camera doesn’t prove the opposite …
Yes it is ironic we still do not have this. How can it be that hockey has implemented this years ago and football still cannot see this? I mean I understand the problem it would create financially for many countries in the world and especially lower leagues to have a system in place but why not have it for the top leagues / international tournaments at least? And if parity is needed then please go for the refs behind the goal. They could help a lot on judgment with dives too (if allowed to watch for that too).
Though Urs Meier (former international ref, now German Tv pundit) always cringes at the idea of giving anyone but the ref responsibility to make judgment calls. He criticized off-side decisions again and again and mainly attributed that to linesman not doing their job by trying to judge other situations they should not have. In his eyes we should have an extra ref behind the goalline who solely watches that
The key to beating Germany is to not play 4-4-2 against them. I thought that anyone who had watched Germany’s first and second game would have realised this. Obviously Capello didn’t!
Australia and England played 4-4-2 and were torn apart. Serbia and Ghana both played a variation of 4-2-3-1 and contained Germany much better.
It will be an interesting match between Argentina and Germany. Argentina are willing to change formation much more than England were and have the quality to worry the German defence.
Agreed.
But in Pymms defense he did not have the benefit of seeing the same game plan getting flogged a week earlier.
England played inaffective football throughout the wc and it was a shame. Has anyone noticed that the most experienced managers at the wc – Otto Rehagel, Radomir Antic, Marcelo Lippi, Fabio Capello have all stuck to some old school football tactics that have not worked at all! and neither managers had a plan B but stuck to some fairly mediocore tactics compared to the new wave of talented modern day football coaches such as Low, Bradly and co.
These old school managers should have a good look at themselves and plan properly for a tournament such as the wc!
As for England i dont see a bright future at all but im hoping they clean out this team and give youth a go. The English youth teams have been producing some very good results and they should be pushed into the first team with Stuart Pearce as manager. The foreigners in the EPL are ruining the game in England as many talented players ply their trade at clubs outside the top 4.
If the players were that talented the foreigners would not be pushing them out. That foreigners are in a position to come to a cold and wet island to ply their trade in huge numbers is evidence enough that the locals aren’t much good.
Yes currently, the foreigners are better. Nothing wrong with that, given that the rest of the world is a bit larger than the 60ish(?) million people living in England.
But that possibly the locals do not get the time and chance to proof they can be as good, that is the real problem.
I can’t speak for England here though, can just tell you how Germany was so awful in 2000 that the DFB (German Football Association) made drastic changes to promote youth development which are now finally paying off.
Not about tactic ZM, when you post your article can also give the hour please ?
Why?!
I don’t think a lack of quality is England’s problem. Our eyes have not been lying to us all these years that Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney (and others) have succeeded in the Premier League and the Champions League. And I don’t think a lack of effort has hampered them either. Beating Germany remains a holy grail for English footballers. Pundits rarely impart valuable insight, but their habit of questioning effort and commitment irks me. These are professionals playing on the highest, most exalted stage in the sport, the world even. Of course they’re playing 100%!
Rather, England’s gross underachievement – of the last 6 years, at least, must be tied to tactical failings. It’s been clear for ages that playing Lampard and Gerrard together optimizes the abilities of neither. As primarily attacking midfielders, they perform similar functions. However you deploy them, whichever player is out of position will drift to the middle and congest the pitch because he’s programmed to play a more central role. The Netherlands suffer from this too. Part of why they haven’t entertained as much as we’re used to at this tournament is that Sneijder and Van der Vaart have played together for long swaths of games. Even though Bert van Marwijk stations VdV on the left, he instinctively drifts into Sneijder’s space in the center. Moreoever, you’ll notice he almost never takes on a defender to get to the byline and put in a cross. He’s not a winger. Eljero Elia is, and it’s not a surprise that the Dutch threaten more with him on the pitch.
I wish you’d put a screen shot of England in possession against Germany. They were woeful – narrow, predictable and cramped. Reminiscent of Spain against Switzerland but with a fraction of the technical quality. That’s what you get when you play 4 central midfielders together, all 4 somewhat out of position. As remote as their attacking successes throughout the tournament were, I don’t think it was a coincidence that both of their goals came from crosses. Natural width is something almost every team needs and England have lacked for years. This chronic logjam has made them significantly less potent when in possession because opponents know what’s coming. Real wingers keep defenders honest because they don’t know where the point of attack will be. Width allows options for the team with the ball. What’s even stranger about this is that England actually have wingers. Not one of Ashley Young, Gabriel Agbonlahor, Adam Johnson or David Bentley made the squad. Of course, we should acknowledge that a) you can raise legitimate questions about the quality of all of the aforementioned players, and b) not one of Lennon, SWP or Joe Cole performed – despite getting decent amounts time on the pitch. But England are crying out for width and I’m sure some combination of those 7 (8 if you count Walcott) could have helped their play tremendously. OK, maybe not Walcott – he should have just forgotten the ball and chosen sprinting. Would England not be dangerous with 2 of those players in a 4-2-3-1 behind Rooney and alongside a defensively unencumbered Lampard or Gerrard? Or a 4-2-1-3 alongside Rooney to give him service from the flanks and in front of a defensively unencumbered Lampard or Gerrard? Carrick, a healthy Hargreaves, Milner and Barry are the obvious choices for the holding position. What do you think, ZM?
If Greece can win the Euros, England can reach the last four of a major tournament.
Some interesting things I noticed. England actually dominated possessio during the match. But on the other hand, Schweini and Khedira were more efficient passers than Barry and Lamps (and not necessarily because they were playing safer passes).
England had 52% possession ,and that is not domination of possession,also if you are poor on the ball with absolutely no creativity what is the use of better possession you’ll just end up giving the ball away.good possession doesn’t always equal good results(look at the champ. league final and Spain v/s Switz. stats)you need to know how to use thje possession you have.
Also, possesion is no crucial value to determine the outcome of a football match. At least not from a statistical point of view, as analysis of Bundesliga data has shown in scientific research. Most goals are scored after winning a ball…
Confusing statement. First you say possession has no crucial value in determing outcome of matches, then you say most goals occur after gaining possession. Please clarify.
I haven’d done any scientific research on the topic but your claim runs contrary to a few decades of my observations about football.
I understand your confusion, what I read into that was… that most goals are scored directly after winning possesion in the “transitional” phaseses of open play, therefore, having lots of possesion is not so important however using the possesion you have is – especially in “transitional” phases when players are out of position. I may be wrong though?!!
Been reading ZM for months now, I love the fact I have a better understanding of how tactics can effect a game.
Yeah, “dominated” was probably too strong a word. I just meant to say that they had more of the ball than the Germans.
Schweinsteigers passing is once again amazing. He does appear to make so many intelligent passes it is quite astonishing it took so long for someone to figure out where his best position and strength is.
Especially his long passes have been exceptionally well and he does not shy away from playing long balls to the other flank if it is the best choice.
He also dictates tempo well now. Huge step up for him in contrast to the beginning of the season. He learned a lot from van Gaal and playing alongside van Bommel (who is also having a good tournament so far).
Excellent analysis, just like all the others you’ve posted. Your website has quickly become a favorite of mine!
My only question is: given your analyses of both Germany vs. England and Argentina vs. Mexico, as well as your coverage of the two winners from the tournament’s beginning, whom do you view as the more probable winner, and why?
I am Brazilian and want Germany to defeat Argentina, but I must admit Argentina has been quite a team during this tournament, despite some weaknesses in defense and a lack of a collective game.
Consider this. The captain (read:Terry) is removed from his captaincy days before the event starts, shattering his confidence immensely. True that was not ideal what Terry did, but that does not take away anything from his footballing skills. To shatter his confidence, when certainly his morale was done, was as bad a decision as it can be. Three top players Lampard, Gerrard and Rooney were played out of position for the entire campaign. When a team plays with half their men, and their best players, in corridors of uncertainty (read: out of confidence and out of position), what exactly were the supporters thinking of? The writing was on the wall and from a long time.
Much comes down to Capello’s lack of plan ‘B’,his system clearly didn’t work in the group stages(they weren’t convincing against Slovenia as well)and he made no attempts to change that also this system clearly doesn’t bring out the best of Stevie G(although gerrard was the player who was trying the hardest of all) and Rooney(who showed a very unusual lack of desire)
Klose,Mueller and Oezil’s movement in th final third was just too much for the likes of Terry and Upson to handle,Terry looked very immobile and has always struggled against pacy attackers and no disrespect, but Upson was just not good enough(though he scored a great goal). Barry was appalling and poor on the ball his positioning was awful,while Glen Johnson is surely the contender for the worst right back.
‘At times they appeared to be playing football from a different world.’
I dont’ think that. Spain, Brazil, and others would have done the same.
‘England’s problems stemmed from the simple and predictable fact that they had a numerical disadvantage in the centre of midfield.’
‘and England were playing with two strikers doing either (a) the same thing or (b) nothing, depending on your perspective.’
some people in Germany were saying: ‘We need a second striker!’
It’s disappointing to see England like this. Jürgen Klopp (coach of Borossia Dortmund and an expert for the TV channel RTL) said: England has great players infront of the goal (Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, great finisher), but no idea how to bring the ball through the midfield, noone is really creative.
How many midfilders has Capello and who played? It’s disappointing that Capello never tried a new shape or a new central midfielder. It was always a 4-4-2 / 4-1-3-2 with Lampard, Gerrard and / or Barry in the centre.
One other thing I was wondering about is: How much foreign football is available in England? You don’t know Müller, he played against ManUnited.
Maybe England knows about european football as much as Europe knows about south american football.
Sorry mate but I disagree. Anyone that follows football closely knows about the entire German XI. We even know about your backup players like Rolfes, Kiebling, Helmes, Adler, Hummels, Castro and Howedes. To say that we know nothing about European football is naive.
The problem was that the Germans were fluid whereas England were rigid. And as ZM pointed out, it was that extra man in midfield caused England so many problems. We stuck with a 4-4-2 throughout the tournament. The 4-2-3-1 that you mentioned would have been a welcome relief but we never had only one striker on the pitch.
I don’t say that nobody knows the German players. but in the German media it seems that England is not much interested in “european” football. so i was asking about the truth behind this bias.
The English do follow European football. You’ll always meet fans who’ll tell you that Liverpool are the greatest club in the world or Arsenal are simply unlucky but they don’t know much about football. Myself and many others knew about the likes of Di Maria, Kroos, Muller, Dzagoev, J. Hernandez and Sergio Aguero before they drew the attention of English clubs.
The best thing about ZonalMarking.com is that the people who comment on it actually understanding the physics and motives behind tactics. Goal.com is basically a site full of uneducated football “fans”.
Who doesn’t know Muller?
At a guess, Alan Hansen and Alan Shearer couldn’t tell the difference between him and a Muller Fruit Corner.
Maradona for one. But I’m sure after Sunday he’ll remember his name for a long long time.
I’d like to differ about the german team lacking international experience:
Lahm, Müller, Schweinsteiger made it to the CL finals with Bayern. (Klose hardly ever played, so he doesn’t really count in that respect)
Mertesacker, Özil lost to Valencia in the Europa League in the Round of 16 (Finals the year before)
Khedira made it to Round of 16 in the CL with Stuttgart, losing to Barcelona.
Not mentioning Neuer, Trochowski, Badstuber, Gomez, Jansen, Marin, Podolski, Klose….
And then of course keep in mind that a good part of the young players were part of last years U21 team (Neuer, Khedira, Özil, Marin, Boateng). And if you’re thinking ‘come on, where’s the pressure for the players there, nobody cares anyway’, the final against England was watched by over 8m viewers in Germany on german free-tv, with a share of about 30%. This was a very big thing last summer.
So, my point is, those players are by far not as unexperienced and unaccustomed to such stress situations, as is often told.
I think the point the media is trying to make is that this English team has been around the England set-up for a longer period of time and should have been more accustomed to playing together.
Plus playing in continental competitions does not amount to the same pressure as playing for your national side. There wasn’t a national onslaught to get rid of Wenger, Ferguson or Ancelotti when their respective clubs got kicked out of the Champions League. In truth, we should have beaten them. Who would honestly have taken Klose, Ozil and Schweinsteiger over Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard before this tournament started? Especially as Klose only scored 4 league goals compared to Rooney’s 26 and Lampard hitting another 20+ goals in one season.
The media can’t quite understand how these 3 players have failed so badly (again) when their German counterparts have grown as the tournament has progressed. But it highlights a bigger problem in the English game; we’re not producing any homegrown quality players. Of that German side that won the U21 Championships last summer, the majority of them are playing for top German sides already. In addition to the ones you mentioned, Castro is at Leverkusen, Howedes is at Schalke, Wagner is at Bayern Munich and Marko Marin is a fringe player for the German national side despite playing for Gladbach. Compare that to England’s side with only Milner, Walcott and Johnson playing for top domestic teams and even then two of them failed to make the squad. The likes of Loach, Cattermole and Muamba will never make the step-up to the national team because they’re not good enough yet the German boys just destroyed us.
I do see your point but the World Cup has a much, much bigger following. An 8 million following is nothing, especially when you take into context the teams they play for. We have to face facts, our big stars failed to deliver….again.
Anyone not picking Schweinsteiger I would have called blind. Amazing season, and he does have the national team experience already to back it all up. Agree on Özil and Klose though. Özil was expected to have a break out tournament, but hey you never know and he did have a period of bad games during the season. Klose was coming back from injury ridden season.
Wagner did not make the cut in Munich, he chose to play 2nd league for Duisburg instead where he had a good season and has earned himself a contract with Werder Bremen now for the upcoming season. Marin is also already in Bremen where he played brilliantly alongside Özil last season, the two of them made fans forget about Diego (who dominated the German league back then and transferred to Juventus).
germany played superbably,but ZM, you could olso sense that youthfull naivity, especially when they conceced that goal from England they fell apart. against Spain/Brasil/Argentina this will cost them.
But it’s clear that attacking football, team swho can both maintain possesion, launch deadly counterattacks playing intelligently with quick short passes are the best teams. Holland/Brazil/Spain/Argentina/germany, all off them.
The English need to eat their arrogance, and overhaul the whole ‘kick and rush’ football academy. They just lack technical players.
As a neutral, England were hyped up a lot and after the round games, I wished they dont progress as they did not bring the quality of football as was expected (given all the PL big names). So much debate has been going on with the 4-4-2 formation. Every whosoever in football was crying out for a different formation, which would accomodate Joe Cole (Carrick anyone) and making link up play possible with Rooney ahead and Gerrard, Lampard from the deep, plus would give them an extra much needed body in the midfield. Given this, width was to come from Ashely Cole & Johnson. I see the midfiled very very narrow in this case, with full backs providing width leaving space behind plus the defensive discipline non-existent in the midfield, counter attacks were to always open up England. It was way too easy for Klose, Podolski & Muller to get behind, who was tracking them with Ozil roaming freely. I dont think with a 5 men midfield England could have done a better job. I heard a former German International after the game and he emphasized the absolute necessity of complete midfielders (box to box). I don’t see any in England.
Excellent article ZM, once again. When the score was 4-1, I was thinking how would you analyze this, being British.
The better team won of course and all these If’s about the disallowed goal, I dont think would have changed the final result. As player for player and for team spirit and for physical and technical qualities, Germany was much superior than England and would have scored more goals anyhow. There was not a single English player who could match the qualities of Ozil/Muller/Schweinsteiger. The first two players, I beleive, will make Germany a team, playing beautiful football in the future.
It is time for English fans to realise that they should not beleive their media just like that. Your media over rated your team and you just bought it. Its time to shed your obsession with physical football, strong players, wonderful headers or free kick takers and should consider grow players with technical qualities, who can enjoy playing, while playing beautiful football. The South Americans and the Spaniards dont have strong players like you, but they play much much better.
I don’t think anyone “bought” anything, really. There’s always die-hard fans convinced we’re going to win, most fans were quite sceptical of the media’s optimism, to be fair.
Sorry, ZM, I have to disagree here. Most of my British friends, not die hard fans, (I dont have numbers, but its nor 8 or 9) were all cent percent sure about England going all the way to finals.
Then you hang around with a deluded bunch of people Rajesh.
Well, that hasn’t been the attitude in the country as a whole. Certainly not compared to previous World Cups – there was a lot of pessimism about the state of the side.
Either way, England were fourth favourites to win the competition across Europe. The view in England was largely in line with that – painting the whole footballing population as bullish and arrogant about our chances is rather unfair.
Who thought we were going to win?
I think most people expected us to get to the 1/4 finals and hopefully make a semi, and at that stage anything is possible… But no one really thought we were going to win, just hoped we might somehow, but we never sure how!
I disagree Rajesh. The problem with the England set-up has been highlighted by ZM here. I do agree that the English media has a tendency to believe we have the best players in every position (Rooney winning PFA awards despite being second-best to Drogba all season or Johnson being touted as “one of the best right-backs in football” despite possessing no tactical knowledge or positional skills) but a lot of our players would still make countless XI’s.
The 4-4-2 is far too rigid to work in modern day football. It expects too much from the wingers and central midfielders with the wingers and attacking midfielder all becoming box-to-box players. There were times when the midfield were disconnected from the defence and Podolski, Ozil, Muller and Klose each had only one man to beat. If you look at the first picture, Lampard or Gerrard should have been the first call of defence and moved towards Schweinsteiger. Instead, Barry left his man (terrible when you see that Australia never marked Ozil) and opened up a massive gap. Too often Gerrard and Lampard shirked their defensive duties and that meant Barry was dragged out of position (although Barry was quite honestly dreadful).
It’s made even worse when the left winger is a right-footed attacking midfielder who will naturally cut inwards, removing any width on the left and blocking Lampard’s forward runs. So often we’d see Gerrard and Lampard exchanging short passes in the middle of the pitch that ruined any flowing movement. Our inability to keep width has made defending so easy for our opposition throughout this tournament. Throughout the entire game we’d try and probe through the centre, congesting the pitch as Rooney, Defoe, Lampard, Gerrard, Barry, Mertesacker, Friedrich, Schweinsteiger, Khedira and Ozil all occupied that space. With Lahm and Boateng also tucking in, we were faced with a huge German wall that was never going to be broken.
ZM also highlighted what I’ve been saying for weeks about the positions. Lampard was playing far too deep and withdrawn, Gerrard was too isolated on the left, Milner is not a right winger, Rooney completely failed to move wide and deep and everyone was playing unnatural positions. We need to change to a 4-2-3-1, 4-5-1 or a 4-3-1-2 which would allow both Gerrard and Lampard to get forward or sit in the hole whilst still giving Rooney the freedom to move around. So much was put on Rooney’s ability to find the net that he began playing like Michael Owen, constantly waiting to run behind the defence to intercept through-balls rather than running at the defence with the ball.
We have to scratch this off as another failure and hope Capello or the next manager takes a more flexible approach to matters. The 4-4-2 may work for teams like Stoke who aren’t technically gifted and look for two target men but the better teams have now started changing their shape to allow for creativity, fluidity and better off the ball movement. You just have to look at Argentina and Germany to see that when it works, the opposition can’t cope with you.
The 2nd goal is an even better example of how dated the 4-4-2 is a simple one two break the whole of englands flat midfield the 3rd pass goes to the fowards who passes to podolski who scores,the 4-2-3-1 is a beautiful system for economy of movement and with a inteligent 3
can interchange. england have the players for the system but not the manager im afraid,
i would have played
james
johnson king terry cole
carrick barry
gerrard lampard cole
rooney
The reason i have lampard in the middle he is better than gerrard at the short passing game
Gerrard has the power from the right Cole is very good on the ball and Rooney can play the Bergkamp role as well as having a touch of the van nisetlroys about him in front of goal
all we see is in the 4-4-2 is tired players asked to make continuous 50 yard runs hence lots of mistakes and the old english thing of detachment of players.
Very dissapointed with Cappelo who looks like a managerial dinosaur after this campaign
Is it really Capello’s fault? Yes he made mistakes. Yes he shouldn’t have played Gerrard on the left or even stuck to a 4-4-2 but we can’t simply say, “Ok Capello. It’s your fault. You failed to get the best out of our players and if it wasn’t for you….we would have won the tournament”.
The general body language and look of boredom on the players’ faces began to get worrying. Gerrard never took the role of a captain. He never fired his players up before a match or even organised a post-game huddle. He simply walked along with a face of “I’m here for the country but I’d rather not be”. Rooney embodied Berbatov, constantly standing there with a pained expression and raising his arms as though the ball should have been placed within 1cm of his feet. When have we ever seen him do that for Man United? It was so disgraceful at the way he conducted himself throughout the tournament and didn’t help matters with his comment after the Algeria match.
We need to start reviewing each players’ role within the team. Gerrard and Lampard can’t play together. Either play a 4-2-3-1 and give the attacking midfielder role to one of them or change to a 4-5-1 and leave one of them on the bench so that the other has the freedom to constantly get forward. Wayne Rooney was worse than Defoe yesterday and yet Defoe was substituted. Why? We can’t simply sit here and pretend that “one moment of genius will change it”. Wayne never showed up in any of the 4 matches whereas Defoe did actually try his best. Get rid of Johnson. I’m sorry but he made a mistake in every single match and made Podolski’s role far too easy. He is simply not a good full back. I am by no means a fan of Gary Neville but he had a very good season for United and that old head was required against the Germans.
After the disappointment of ‘06, we all said that an English manager would be best. So up stepped Mclaren (whose only real managerial highlight was an UEFA Cup run to the final) and he failed….miserably. Getting beaten convincingly by Croatia home and away summed up how badly he coped with the player egos, media pressure and general pressure at that level. We went back to a foreign coach and Capello got us through the qualifying period with ease, albeit against an easy group. But already he has surpassed McLaren’s attempts. Yet now we sit here asking for Hodgson (whose only managerial highlight is ALSO a UEFA Cup final run) and it all seems like deja vu.
We should stick with Capello. The European Championship has always been the World Cup’s ugly sister and if he fails miserably again, then that would give his predecessor 2 years to sort out the squad. Capello did, after all, only get 2 years before the World Cup to implement his tactics. But can we honestly say there is an English manager who would cope with this job? Redknapp may be the fans’ favourite but his recent success at both Spurs and Pompey has been based on spending big.
“Yet now we sit here asking for Hodgson (whose only managerial highlight is ALSO a UEFA Cup final run) and it all seems like deja vu.”
He has experience of managing international sides well from his time with Switzerland, and he has experience of managing top players from managing Inter, one of the biggest clubs in Europe.
I’m not calling for Capello to go, or Hodgson to come in, but that’s quite a harsh assessment of Hodgson.
Uefa cup runs can be tremendous achievements, depending on the player pool you have available and the opposition you face. To exaggerate, you shouldn’t discard anyone just because he hasn’t gone deep in the champions league multiple times.
Niwa, you’re a German fan and German clubs have done well in the UEFA Cup over the past 5 years but that doesn’t make it a good tournament.
Atletico Madrid, who lost to both Chelsea and Porto in the group stages, won the Europa League. It is by miles the B competition in Europe.
I don’t hate Hodgson. Far from it. It seems my comments have been misinterpreted. I just believe that very few managers are better than Capello. Hiddink, Mourinho and Ferguson fall into that bracket but none of them will take the job. If we’re going to get rid of a man of Capello’s calibre, then we shouldn’t make a rash decision. The whole “let’s pick an Englishman” brigade are basing their opinions on hurt emotions. We should evaluate everything first.
Yeah the anti-foreigner group are rather frustrating. Hodgson is a good manager though, he’s proved that across Europe.
Thanks for clarifying. I understand your point regarding the UEFA cup (or Euro league or whatever its called now) it is very true. Being an Englishman or not should definitely not be the deciding factor to find the best one. You need someone that knows the English players well, is respected by them, can handle the media circus and foremost is an excellent coach.
I was just trying to point out that in order to find the best manager it does not necessarily have to be the one that has won the Champions League. Reaching the semi-finals at the UEFA cup can be a bigger achievement then doing so in the champions league, if you keep in mind the respective player pools and that of the opposition you face. All has to be seen in perspective.
In the Bundesliga, the one standing out the most recently is Felix Magath, who has again and again turned several good teams into winning teams. His record in that regard is amazing.
On international level, I am sure one would look at Rehagel in 2004 or Hitzfeld in Champions League.
Personally I am looking forward to see how Leverkusen, Bremen and Dortmund are doing next year as they all have great coaches in Heynckes, Schaaf & Klopp (who is probably still unknown outside of Germany so far).
Agree about Johnson and he should have taken a yellow card to stop the 3rd german goal, his postional play is all over the place as well.As for players they will always moan when they are playing bad and losing, i know that from the recent arsenal debacles, get them playing well and winning and boredom will not be a factor.
Under normal circumstances a 4-1 scoreline at England’s expense would amuse me.However.Yes formations and tactics and 442’s and 4231’s and so on, are important to any game of football (and fascinating too, but the game on the field is still 80% psychological. So England are awful and England have a bad formation and England’s defenders were/are terrible and Germany are magnificent blah,blah,blah.(except for that anomally to this analysis which we will all turn into a blind spot: Germany (the magnificent)are 2-0 up and now they are suddenly 2-2, sorry 2-1, to the wretched England.)
The ignored goal was so outrageous that it drifts into the realm of the suspicious. (please,please ,please let it not be suspiscious, but if it aint?)Question I would love to as Mr Ref and Mr Linesman, “What’s going on here?”
Glenn Johnston’s yellow card to foul on Ozil in second half. Question for Mr Ref, “Ozil fell and bought the free kick.Oh you didnt notice? Why did you produce a yellow card?”
Lampard’s free kick (which led to the 3rd goal on the break). Question for Mr Ref ” Why was the free kick not retaken after the wall drifted forward?”
Friedrich’s foul on Rooney (body check in front of the goals) which led to Lampard’s free kick. Question for Mr Ref, “Why no yellow card for Friedrich (remember Glenn Johnston)? Why no red card and Germany down to 10 men and no 3rd goal Mr Ref?”
Imagine if Henry had told the ref he had handelled the ball. Imagine if Fabiani had (before been asked) told the ref that he had handled the ball(twice).Imagine if the German goalkeeper had told the ref that a goal had been scored. Not in Sepp Blatter’s world.
The game was a farce. Germany was not ,could not be good. England was not,could not be awful. Because the game moved outside of the rules of football early on and the contest ended (for teams and fans) long before the final whistle.
It does not help to preach formations and tactics when there is something fundementally wrong. That disrepects the game that we all love.
Yes, but this a website about tactics, which appears to be quite an important point you’ve completely missed.
Of course I understand that this website is about tactics! Point is ,tactics presuppose a game that is played and controlled within the rules. If the game isn’t then this needs to be addressed.
Now the “quite important point that YOU’ve appeared to have missed” is that it does the game and indeed this excellent website no good, to pretend that this was a game like any other.
I’m no England fan. I think that Germany has some wonderful players. I agree that England were going to become unstuck with 4-4-2. I agree that England are probably under talented. But it makes a mockery of Germany’s talents, and efforts, to pretend that an ignored goal pales into insignificance when compared to formations and on field tactics that were used.
yeahsure this website is about tactics… but while the reports are generally excellent, they can be rather deterministic about the tactical element.
All these decisions can’t mask the fact that England performed poorly. If you read the article above and previous articles about England, you’d see why they’ve performed so badly.
We can all claim conspiracy theories but that helps no-one. The 4-4-2 is outdated and we have no versatile players. If we simply blame the referee and put our hand in the sand, we’ll make these exact same errors at the 2014 World Cup.
Please also start imagining, EPL players telling Mr. Referee – I just dived!!!
Of course there are divers in other teams too, but EPL is the cradle for diving.
If i am the next england manager, and in prep for euro 12 and wc 14:
4-2-3-1
GK – hart (sub: green)
DR – johnson (sub: onuoha)
DC – gary cahill (sub: dawson)
DC – upson (sub: phil jones)
DL – cashley (sub: gibbs)
DM/more holding – muamba (sub: mancienne)
DM/more box-to-box – parker (sub: cattermole)
AM – rodwell (sub: milner)
WR – adam johnson (sub: aeron lennon)
WL – ashley young (sub: jack wilshere)
ST – agbonlahor (sub: carlton cole)
Agree with Hart, Cole and Parker but not the rest. This squad is far too inexperienced and haven’t progressed to international standards yet.
If Gary Cahill is making the England squad before Dawson, there is something very wrong here. Dawson has been the stand out performer in England and should have been picked ahead of Carragher and Upson. Also, you’ve chosen to play with inverted wingers which would contribute to our current problem, congestion and a lack of pace through the centre. I’d rather they switched wings as both of them are very good crossers. Also, Rodwell is too young to take such a demanding role. Milner should be given it as he has bags of energy, a mature head and plays with passion.
I think you’ve basically picked this squad on anger. A lot of these players aren’t good enough to make the step up and it would be silly to dispense of 10 first team players because of an abysmal performance.
Skysports just displayed a statistic about Rooney’s performances at the World Cup;
Played: 4
Goals: 0
Shots: 8
On target: 4
Another interesting fact was that Rooney has given the ball away more times than any other player during the tournament.
C’mon ZM, post the second part of the Round 2 preview!
I need something to calm my nerves
If the country took on an attitude of say, Sweden, they could support their team, enjoy the World Cup, and when the team lost in the 16 or 1/4 finals, say good job, lads! Instead we have this paranoid hyping up of the team through the media. I would also like to see an analysis of the comments of the players before the Germany game. For example, David James’s “we will win”. These are comments that would be immediately pinned up in the Germany hotel/changing room. Blind faith is not going to get you anywhere. Germany showed a respect for England, the game, and their performance was well planned and executed. At half time, Löw would have seen the Churchill speeches coming a mile away, and you can see by the speed of their counter attacks that it was a definite plan.
Sacrifice the Euro qualifying if necessary and let the young players learn. England has exciting young players. They need to start to get playing time in the national team with a coach who has a VISION FOR THE FUTURE.
“You could probably list 100 things that have, in some way, contributed to England’s disastrous performance at this tournament, but the formation must be the biggest factor.”
The biggest factor is not the formation but the fact that upson, milner, barry and defoe are only average footballers
They’re significantly better footballers than every player in the Algeria team which England didn’t beat.
They play for bigger clubs, but there is no way they are better footballers than the Algerians. The technique of the Algerians was beautiful. Superb first touch, perfectly weighted passes, and good movement. They lacked a finisher up front. But technically, across the board, they were better than every single England player on display in that game.
They kept the ball well because they had a six-man midfield, but to suggest the Algerian side is comprised of better footballers than the England side is complete nonsense!
Well ask any coach in the pro game who’s technique they would prefer their players to have – the Algerians with great first touch or the English leathering the ball and giving it away with passes that are 5 yards wide of their target?
Are you seriously saying that England had a better first touch and more accurate passes than the Algerians?
Algeria started diving and time-wasting towards the end of the England match to leave with a point. Then the players and fans celebrated like they’d won the World Cup when they had all but ended their own hopes of qualification.
England HAVE been poor and I openly admit they wouldn’t cope with Argentina, Brazil or even Spain but to say Algeria have better technical quality is ridiculous. This is the same Algerian side that put 6 men in midfield but were convincingly overran against Slovenia.
Algeria were the most disappointing team to watch in terms of ambition going forward.
The more I think about it the more I think that England were set up as an attacking side – kind of laughable considering the limited goal threat we possessed during the tournament. ACole is good defensively, but because we lack a natural left winger is our main attacking outlet on that side. Johnson is attacking as are Lampard and Gerrard – obviously Rooney and whoever he is partnered with are meant to play in the final third. When Lennon was in the team this added another player whose natural instinct is to get on the end of forward passes. This leaves Barry (an effective, rather than dominant DM) to protect a back 2 that lack pace.
So the typical build up play – as soon as Barry gets the ball nearly all the attacking players make forward runs, sadly no one is offering him the easy pass (except for the CBs behind him) as most are making forward runs. Barry is a good passer, but no Alonso – and is forced to make long passes to laterally moving targets (the most difficult type of pass). If he’s lucky he finds a player – but it’s rarely to feet and generally it’s into a compressed part of the pitch, meaning that player is invariably under immediate pressure. That player needs to find the run of another team-mate – who is also more concerned about getting into dangerous areas than actually making themselves available for a pass. So the second pass is another percentage ball – if you’re playing two 50/50 balls to get into the final third only 25% of them will get succeed. From this point we need another killer pass, lets say 10% of passes at this stage create a 50/50 chance. In effect only between 1 and 2% of our attacks will even give us an even chance of scoring (though if Heskey is on the end you can half this again…).
So we have all this attacking talent hurling itself at the opposition box, destroying the shape of the team and leaving us extremely vulnerable to the counter (the US, Slovenia and Algeria all had decent chances on the counter.) Obviously this is why Capello was so fond of Heskey – on form he can dominate CBs and link up play.
More balanced teams will play a series of 90% passes to get to the final third and then play one or two risky (5-25%) passes to create a chance – even if only 4% of their attacks create a goal scoring opportunity this makes them between 2 and 4 times more dangerous than England. What’s more with a more considered build up there are more opportunities to disrupt the shape of the opposition – limiting their ability to counter (how many break away goals do we score?).
Against lesser sides our passing percentages go up a bit and combine with our superior finishing, to mean we convert more chances than our opposition and can get away with conceding the odd goal (we haven’t kept many clean sheets under Cappello). With superior opponents all our percentages go down – we lose the ball a lot more, create fewer chances and our shape becomes more distorted as our players make increasingly desperate passes and runs.
The more I think about it the more I think that England were set up as an attacking side – kind of laughable considering the limited goal threat we possessed during the tournament. ACole is good defensively, but because we lack a natural left winger is our main attacking outlet on that side. Johnson is attacking as are Lampard and Gerrard – obviously Rooney and whoever he is partnered with are meant to play in the final third. When Lennon was in the team this added another player whose natural instinct is to get on the end of forward passes. This leaves Barry (an effective, rather than dominant DM) to protect a back 2 that lack pace.
So the typical build up play – as soon as Barry gets the ball nearly the attacking players make forward runs, sadly no one is offering him the easy pass (except for the CBs behind him) as most are making forward runs. Barry is a good passer, but no Alonso – and is forced to make long passes to laterally moving targets (the most difficult type of pass). If he’s lucky he finds a player – but it’s rarely to feet and generally it’s into a compressed part of the pitch, meaning that player is invariably under immediate pressure. That player needs to find the run of another team-mate – who is also more concerned about getting into dangerous areas than actually making themselves available for a pass. So the second pass is another percentage ball – if you’re playing two 50/50 balls to get into the final third only 25% of them will get succeed. From this point we need another killer pass, lets say 10% of passes at this stage create a 50/50 chance. In effect only between 1 and 2% of our attacks will even give us an even chance of scoring (though if Heskey is on the end you can half this again…).
So we have all this attacking talent hurling itself at the opposition box, destroying the shape of the team and leaving us extremely vulnerable to the counter (the US, Slovenia and Algeria all had decent chances on the counter.) Obviously this is why Capello was so fond of Heskey – on form he can dominate CBs and link up play.
More balanced teams will play a series of 90% passes to get to the final third and then play one or two risky (5-25%) passes to create a chance – even if only 4% of their attacks create a goal scoring opportunity this makes them between 2 and 4 times more dangerous than England. What’s more with a more considered build up there are more opportunities to disrupt the shape of the opposition – limiting their ability to counter (how many break away goals do we score?).
Against lesser sides our passing percentages go up a bit and combine with our superior finishing, to mean we convert more chances than our opposition and can get away with conceding the odd goal (we haven’t kept many clean sheets under Cappello). With superior opponents all our percentages go down – we lose the ball a lot more, create fewer chances and our shape becomes more distorted as our players make increasingly desperate passes and runs.
.
People need to stop complaining about talent. Just this May, England beat Spain (!) to win the U-17 Euros. And in 2009 they came runners up in the European Championship. Although they did lose 4-0 in the Final, to…Germany (woops!) Nonetheless, I don’t think the problem for the English is talent. They’ve had solid players for at least the last quarter century. But 21st century football os far has seemed beyond them.
The true test will be when these young talented players have to fight to earn a regular spot in the starting line up of their team. How will fans & media & coaches & teammates react to their bad games? Will they get another chance? And another one after that?
I hope they do, in my opinion, the most important thing for a young player is the chance to play, and learn from mistakes, not suffer. If they play a bad game, don’t bench them for a month, bring them again.
There has been alot of things mentioned since the game finished that to me really do point to real clanger dropping from Capello
Terry apparently played on the wrong side to accommodate Upson, Capello has a club partnership in King(lcb) and Dawson(rcb) at Spurs so he has no excuse for not having players play in their preferred position at the back
The ineffectiveness of Lennon is totally down to having Johnson behind him, he needs a stable, solid RB behind him to give him the licence to do what he does best, Lennon is also defensivlely good and statistically (opta stats) the best english winger in the prem last season. Carragher or Wes Brown behind Lennon would of been the best option.
If I can see on the day before a game that Oezil was going to cause us problems then why can’t Capello, we needed 3 in the middle and we didnt do anything to compensate, Capello could of pulled Barry back to pick up Oezil and have Gerrard and Lampard worry about the 2 german central midfield players, pulling Rooney to the left wing and he could of changed that mid game but yet did nothing, my only qualification is beer drinker yet it seems massively obvious to me what England had to do against the Germans.
Taking players on form and fitness was Capellos battle cry yet he persisted with an unfit woeful Barry and our other unfit stars, not trying an alternative in an off-form but potentially better Carrick or an in form Huddlestone, both of these players are the kind of players other national teams build around, England prefer to leave them out. He also didnt take Adam Johnson who is the only proper left winger England have and would of given the team so much more flexibility in shape and creating width to stretch teams.
The players didnt turn up but, in my opinion, neither did Capello
What was disturbing was on how many fronts England were outplayed not least on the physical side. For each of the German goals English players were either out-powered, out-paced or both in the case of Klose’s goal. It became evident in the first 5 minutes that Ozil could outpace Barry and that meant Barry hesitated before following his movement wide. Barry was also scared to get close to him in case Ozil out-paced him in runs behind. In fact Barry was right to be wary – as proved when his lack of pace was exposed by the last goal. To mark someone or to get into space first and create or take a chance you have to be at least as fast and strong physically as your opponent. England were n’t.
Then of course the Germans were technically better individually, more cohesive and integrated as a team, playing a more fluid formation. They took their foot off the gas in the second half – I think if they had really gone for it they could have got 6 or 7 goals.
I think the FA does not support grass roots football adequately and therefore we don’t have the number of quality players developing in our game. I know France had a lousy world cup but someone we know moved there and their boy played for a small local team that would have been “coached” by a parent in England. Instead this small team had a professional coach trained and paid for by the French FA. Just to emphasise this I recently read an article that said in Spain there is one qualified coach to 17 registered players. Guess what the ratio is in England …. 1 to 739 and many of those coaches say they cannot get work. How can we expect ever to compete until the FA takes some of the £6 million it pays for a supercoach to paper over our deficiencies and uses it to properly finance developing youngsters in our national game.
Too funny that everyone mentions Hargreaves being a big loss: a canadian who left his country at 16 to go play in Germany and had no experience of English football until he went to ManU
Gerrard is clearly a versitile player, although I would argue that he does tend to occupy the same positions wherever he starts… Maybe he no longer has the discipline he once had but I don’t think you can really blame him for Englands problems. He might not be the game winner for England he has been for Liverpool but he is hardly Englands biggest problem.
Probably not many looking at this anymore, but Klose just made an interesting revelation backed up by TV cameras for the first goal. He made gesture to Neuer to kick it hard, and shouted to Özil to stay away and to try to drag the defender with him. This is what we saw, but great to see they planned this on the fly there. Also said the ball changed direction like crazy during the flight and in the he was lucky to be going in his favor. But he was hoping for it and was rewarded.
You guys have covered most of the points, so let me say my piece on these issues that was not discussed.
First about Gerrard. No doubt he’s an excellent, perhaps even world-class player.I always thought he’s a player with big heart and 100% commitment but poor on reading the game and tactical discipline. He doesn’t have the football intelligence. Some players are still important even when they marked or off form because they can make runs and drag defenders away to create space for other team mates. But in case of Stevie, because of this lack of football intelligence, he’ll end up either the hero or a big fat zero.
However, Stevie’s strengths outweigh his weaknesses. No one expects Messi or Oezil to track back and tackle. So in order to cover these star players’ deficiencies, managers set up the team structure so that other players put extra shift. In the case of LFC, Hammann, Xabi Alonso and Mascherano and others did much of the defensive and creative duties while Stevie was given the free role. His versatality and scoring abilities justified this.
The downside of the dependence on one player is that you cannot afford to have too many stars in the team who cannot defend, tackle or cover the spaces. At most you can afford to have one player who has this free role though when you play weaker teams you can afford to have more.
So in the case of England, the manager must decide who is to be given the free role. If it is going to be Stevie, then the rest of the midfield should have players who could make up SG’s lack of defensive, playmaking duties. So when you play Lampard, the MF become unbalanced because Lampard despite his work ethics is more of an attacking than a tactically aware MF. He’s slow and not comfortable in doing the spade work in defending and tackling. Since he can score goal, he also tend to play further up, thus making things worse.
In my opinion, if England wants to play both SG and Lampard, then they should have 2 strong defensive MFs to support them. In fact I think Stevie could form a good partnership with Rooney on the same pattern that Sneijder and Millito.
Also as I had commented earlier in the Germany Ghana game thread, the only way England can beat Germany was to have used a more defensive tactics and let Stevie and Rooney up on their own versus the German CBs using their pace and skills. They should have brought Carregher into DM to close off the space for the German attackers’ to exploit. But Capello had over-estimated England’s abilities and decided on a head to head, attacking formation and they got slaughtered.
On the positive side, I thought David James did very well. In fact he was the only English player who played better than his German counterpart.
To be frank, it was very clear within 5 minutes that it was a case of Men Vs Boys in terms of footballing abilities though in terms age and experience England were far ahead. Looking at the quality of football, I thought England was appaling. They did not play as a team and looked disjointed as it was the case in the all other previous games. In fact until England scored, I thought it was the easiest 30 minutes for Germany so far in the tournament.
I would agree with you on the issue that Gerrard lacks the discipline for a central midfield role but I do not agree there was no room for him and Gerrard. I always felt that two holding midfielders (Carrick and Barry say) would have allowed three players to operate behind Rooney. I’d have gone with Gerrard, Lampard and Cole with Rooney up top.
Lampard is a more disciplined player, but I think he has more to offer through the middle than Gerrard (and I say that as a life long Liverpool supporter)
I think the point with Gerrard is not that he can’t do the defensive stuff he can, in the first game he got back brilliantly to cover for Terry’s lack of pace and made a very good tackle. Over the course of a season you will see him make lots of good defensive plays. The problem is can he be trusted to play in a holding role, and the answer is probably no.
I don’t think any Liverpool manager has ever tried to hide Gerrard or put him in a position where he wont cause tactical defensive problems, at club level the question is always the opposite, where can we maximise him, where can we put him to do the most damage.
As for the Germans, I thought Boateng was a complete disaster with his positioning and tackling. His passing and clearances were astrocious. I wonder why this obvious weakness not exploited by England. The goal was his fault too.I think Leow should seriously consider starting either Aogo or Jansen against Argentina.
Per Mertasacker played better, much better but still needed the help from Friedrich or Bastian S. to bail him out. Sometimes he got his tackles right but often the balls landed in even more dangerous positions. A good example was the goal that not given.
Friedrich had an excellent game, in fact I think he played better than Lahm whom I think stayed deeper to prevent Stevie and Rooney from attacking down the left channel (which never materialised).
But the biggest surprise for me was Podolski. I have never seen his tracking back, covering and tackling as much as he did during that game.
As for Neurer, he’s a good shotstopper but his handling of crosses is still unconvincing. But he’s young and he can only get better with experience.
I think one of the biggest problems for Germany is the lack of a leader to organise the defence. As we saw there was no one to pick up Upson when he scored. There seems to be a lack of communication between the keeper and the CBs too. I don’t think Lahm can provide that being the RB.
As for Leow, he got his tactics right, but I still think he wrong to instruct Germany to let England have the ball and sit deeper after 2-0. Against England this worked but this is mainly because of English players’ poor technique. This won’t work against a more technical team.
The problem as I see it that there’s a gap between the CBs and DMs that can be exploited by the opposition. Germany’s CBs (esp Per) has a tendency to give away balls in the final third thus putting the team under unnecessary pressure.
I would have preferred Germany to play a bit higher up and keep pressing England as they did in the first 30 minutes. This should be the tactic also against Argentina, which I think not as strong or balanced as in the past (2006 and 1986). All Germany has to do is to prevent supplies to Tevez and Messi in the final third.
Mascherano will also play a major part but if the German players replicate their movements and mobility vs England, they should score as Argentina’s defence is even more pedestrian than Germany’s.
I wouldn’t stop at focusing on ball supply for Tevez or Messi. On Argentina’s team they are all dangerous in offense. Aguero excelled at cup final, Milito at CL final and Higuain is currently the top goalscorer at the tournament (keeping in mind he has played one game less).
My guess is that Khedira might be asked to track Messi, but we will see.
Regarding Podolski, yes it was a revelation to see him investing into the game defensively. If he is happy, there seems to be a lot more things he is willing to do. Cologne should take notice.
For left corner-back position, at this point I would try Jansen. Neither Badstuber, nor Boateng excelled there, sadly what was expected before the tourney. Whoever we play though, I doubt they ll really satisfy us.
About the Gerrard debate: This could easily have been (re-)solved had Capello opted to go for a 4-2-3-1 formation. He could then have experimented to find out which of Gerrard or Lampard to be first choice to play behind Rooney. Then the other would have made a quality sub. He should have gone for this fluid formation, and found good cover for each position. The obvious solution to the 8 year old Lampard-Gerrard solution is simple: only play one of them. It is the most important position in the side, so it makes obvious sense to have two quality alternatives for it. Simply pick the one who is on form at any given time. Hargreaves (if fit) and Carrick (when on form) to play as holding midfielders. Alternatively Huddlestone/Barry/Parker.
Capello should also, as his second-choice formation, have tried out 3-5-2. Why else would he pick players like Glen Johnson? Johnson and Ashley Cole would have been better suited to this formation. Why does one need 4 at the back anyway, when most teams only play one striker?
Capello failed with his tactics, his selection, his man-management, his preparation, his communication.
Dear ZM,
Overall spot on! But i have a bone to pick with u for your emphasis/slant on the 442 formation being unfashionable or outdated. There is nothing inherently wrong with 442 (which u seem to allude to… maybe it’s just writing style / i misinterpret) in fact imho it’s a great plan b when one is chasing the game. The problem is the pace and personnel one needs to play a 442… and Eng did not have either. I’d love the attacking cavalier 442 when a team needs to chase a game.
Yeah, I don’t think I said it can’t work full-stop. But it certainly has its flaws, and the more pertinent point is that it clearly didn’t work for four games, and not once has it changed.
Good article and sound analysis.
My take on the game at the time was that Schweinsteiger was a free man and the main problem. When we pushed someone up to press him it freed up Oezil who would run beyond Barry. The centre-halves were all over the shop. Instead of sitting in a line and marking zonally they began following players. Klose, Mueller, Podolski and Oezil pulled them all over the place. If we’d stuck to zones then we could’ve picked them up. Instead they picked us off at will.
I would either have dropped Rooney off the front and on to Schweinsteiger – its better to allow the German back four possession rather than Schweinsteiger. Alternatively drop Rooney wide left and tuck Gerrard in one. We are then matched up formation-wise and can push one of our midfielders on to Schweinsteiger with Barry covering Oezil. Barry then communincates with Terry/Upson to pass him on when he moves into their zones.
I really think the marking style used didn’t help us, had we gone with a more zonal system (usually the norm in England) we’d have done a lot better.
I can’t read any of the newspapers at the moment, I just don’t want to read all the babble around England (of course, I’ll read this boards comments – the real pundits view). All I want, is to open up a newspaper and see the words:
CAPELLO: I WAS WRONG.
Thats all – I just want him to show a little humility now that he’s gotten it all totally wrong. I’ve praised him on this website for sticking to his guns and keeping his disciplinarian stance, but, ultimately, the players you pick, the positions you tell them to play in and then how well they do in those positions is what gives you the results (good or bad results – in Englands case, very bad).
Unfortunately, it looks like Capello is not showing any signs of humility (i’ve read that he’s said that the main problem is that the players were too tired to perform – rubbish), and so, because of that, I think he’s a proper idiot.
Hopefully, when the dust settles while he’s on holiday (which he now is) he’ll realise that:
CAPELLO: HE WAS WRONG.
this site is fabulous
whats the name of the author?
does the author play chess also?
Is 4-4-2 the Holy Grail or the poison chalice? Capello has used it exclusively with England with good results; one lost during qualification and that was after we qualified. However, we never really played good/possession football even against, so called, lesser teams.
A quote from a pundit is “England struggles against the bigger teams” – who else should they struggle against? They lost against a team that adapted there system to overcome but England did not adapt or that’s what it looked like. I can not believe that Capello did not ask a striker to drop deep. The 4-4-2 can beat 4-2-3-1 as show by Spurs this year against Arsenal by dropping the striker against the more creative midfielder. Rooney or Defoe should have pressed Schweinsteiger and that would have gone a long way of balancing the midfield.
Before every England game a particular pundits always says the same thing; “If England plays at a high tempo then they should do well”. High tempo, in my opinion, is getting the ball to the strikers quickly; more commonly know as the long ball. Perhaps we should resign ourselves that in the near future it would be best to play kick and rush football and be damned with “good” football philosophy. We should play with a couple of pacey wingers, a target man and a fast striker. Of course the same pundit at the end of the game always says “England did not keep possession well enough”. Oh well.
The 4-4-2 is good enough for most situations. The England players know the system, and they grew up playing it and it is drummed into them when young. It also helps playing the right player in the correct role and player being motivated but that for another discussion. A good manager should know when to change and adapt formation depending on the situation.
Capello is guilt of one thing that most England managers are guilty of and that is playing a system made for his best players instead of playing the best system with the right players.
I think the 4-4-2 is an outdated concept, especially against the superior 4-2-3-1.
The big problem comes when you have 2 central midfielders and an attacking midfielder going up against 2 central midfielders. The spare man (Ozil) will always have time and space unless he’s man-marked by Barry. But all that does is give both Khedira and Schweinsteiger (two players who are equally good on the ball) time and space to move around as Lampard can’t mark both at the same time. If Rooney or Defoe are always aiming to pick up Schweinsteiger or Khedira…they’re abandoning their attacking roles and killing off counter attacks with only one striker ever up the pitch to receive the ball. Considering it’s a knockout match, you want to spend time pressing Germany too and not playing a defence-minded formation throughout.
Throw in that Gerrard kept cutting inwards and giving Lahm and Muller the opportunity to double-up on A.Cole and the marking system is completely thrown out the window.
What I would have done against Germany’s 4-2-3-1 is either play a 4-2-3-1 too or a 4-4-2 diamond. The 4-2-3-1 is self-explanatory as Ozil has to help out Khedira against the two holding midfielders whilst Schweinsteiger has to check the runs of the attacking midfielder. That would have balanced the game out a bit more.
The 4-4-2 diamond is simply to have an extra man in midfield. It would have definitely narrowed the attack (seeing as both Johnson and Cole were busy marking Podolski and Muller) but Freidrich and Mertesacker are double the size of Rooney and Defoe so crossing is pointless. Barry could man-mark Ozil whilst Lampard and Milner checked any runs from Khedira and Schweinster (who would have been marking Gerrard playing in the hole so is unlikely to run forward anyway). It may not have made their attacking play any more fluid but it would have negated the attack of Ozil whose ability to drag defenders wide is what makes scoring goals so easy for Klose. It would also have meant that Rooney wasn’t so limited to a centre-forward role and could have roamed, pulling defenders out of position for either Defoe or Gerrard.
Of course, this is entirely theoretical. But I do feel the 4-4-2 asks too much of the midfield and is far too rigid to create the fluid attacks we see from 4-1-4-1’s and 4-2-3-1’s.
Just a point about dropping Rooney/Defoe on to Schweinsteiger to prevent him getting so much of the ball…Its a suggestion I made higher up. I see you have suggested this is a negative since you’re taking up defensive positions. Its a fair point however Rooney has played in the hole before so him taking up that position isn’t the worst idea in my opinion. It negates Schweinsteiger’s effect on the game and when England have the ball Rooney can peel off him and look to link midfield and attack. There is always the possibility that by cutting of Germany’s most effective player you could force them to change their system!
My other alternative was to drop Rooney wide left and match up by tucking Gerrard in one into midfield.
Regarding playing a diamond, well to some extent England ended up doing that as for large parts of the game we had all four midfielders 20-30 yards in from the touchline. I suspect that was because the Germans were outnumbering us centrally so the wide players were tucking in to help out.
I can see what you mean and definitely agree with that. Personally, I’d like both Defoe and Rooney to each challenge Freidrich and Mertesacker rather than just one of them having to take on both centre-backs.
Rooney is certainly a team-player with bags of stamina and could quite easily take on the role of marking Schweinsteiger but I’ve always thought Germany’s two centre-backs are suspect. They lack pace and looked a complete mess when England pressed for an equaliser just before the half. If only Defoe stayed forward, they’d have the luxury of doubling up on him whereas leaving Rooney and Defoe up there would mean that should one lose their man (and considering the pace of both strikers it’s conceivable), the striker would have time and space to get a shot off.
I suppose it’s all just a difference in opinion. The more cautious manager would want Rooney to help out the midfield whereas the more gung-ho manager would want both strikers to stay in their attacking positions. Nevertheless, very good point you raised mate.
relatively observed related
include, depend societies stabilization emissions risk, academies, economy alone, phytoplankton, european reports agree, list
occurred, [url=http://asapdesign.de]era projections melting potential tar[/url], evidence, [url=http://nsidc.org]year warmer wide[/url], likely, [url=http://www.doi.ics.keio.ac.jp]videos part[/url], paper, [url=http://fine-espresso-machines.com]2005 report serious early scaled[/url], 2000
weather believed include special
nice post. thanks.
Thank for this great post, i like what you
read.
I agree so much about the lack of versatility. The one top-class player we have that can play in a variety of positions to a good standard s Owen Hargreaves, and he was brought up abroad…
Is that true?
Milner can play a few positions and does ok? Gerrard has played a number of positions well during his career (it’s only recently that he has become addicted to the attacking CMF role). Rooney can be used in a number of different ways.
Barry can play a few although maybe not any to a good standard… Lampard maybe only really Excels in a midfield 3, but he seemed to do ok for Chelsea earlier in the season when they were playing a diamond, just wasn’t able to get forward and get the goals.
Plenty of sides have good players who can only really do one role well… But Hargreaves was a big loss…
Gerrard isn’t disciplined enough for a central midfield role, and was never happy on the right. Milner is nowhere near a top-class player, although his versatility is important.
Rooney’s the exception, I suppose, but seemed to have forgotten how to play the role he was given in this tournament.
But isn’t there a difference between being able to do a job and being top class in a position?
You don’t need top class players throughout the side in order to achieve something at any level, you need a good system with everyone doing their job, do that and eradicate mistakes and then you can compete, to win you need a bit of quality and/or some luck.
England always find a problem, when they do the basics they lack the quality and when they have some quality they find something else to get wrong.
This is one thing that I have long argued – that Gerrard doesn’t have the discipline for the middle. Houlier knew it, Rafa knew it and tried him behind the striker, on the right, anywhere but the middle, numerous England managers knew it – he just doesn’t have that positional discipline.
I also found him egocentric – constantly going for goal when there were far better options.
It’s a common managerial mantra to change the formation to suit your best players, but in England’s case they’ve got too many players with zero game intelligence.
I would argue to start with a disciplined 4-5-1 variation and then find a balance between the right players to suit the roles. For example, a left winger on the left wing. 2 proper central/defensive midfielders, etc.
Even without Gerrard it should soon become apparent that England have a very strong 11 – for example a midfield of Johnson..Barry…Parker…Lennon with Lampard ahead in the Ozil role. I think there would be enough service from Johnson, Lennon and Lampard to get the best from Rooney.
Gerrard made his name as a CM. In fact, he was argued by Sir Alex Ferguson himself to be the “most influential player bar none” before Rafa had stepped foot into Liverpool. Also, Rafa has already made clear the only reason Gerrard was put on the right was for the team, not because he couldn’t play there. Liverpool lacked a winger, didn’t have the right money to buy quality but were covered in the middle with Alonso, Hamann and Sissoko. Oh, and there’s the matter of Gerrard winning a champions league title playing in the middle of the park.
These dumb, tired, soundbites have been gone over again and again. Arguing that England would be better without Gerrard is like arguing Argentina would be better without Messi or Portugal without Ronaldo. If Gerrard were a player others had to play around in order to fit, you might have a point. But you don’t because Gerrard has played DM, RM, CM and AM for England – everywhere to accomodate others. And yet, he scored and assisted 2/3 goals England achieved this WC. In fact, he has scored something like 3 of England’s last 7 goals and has been the highest goal-scorer for England in both 2010 and 2006 additions whilst playing out of position for both tourneys.
Gerrard made his name late 1990s early 2000s. Football has changed between that odd 10 years. Try reading “How the 2000s changed tactics” in this site for reference. Just because Steven Gerrard was a good CMF 10~ years ago doesn’t make him a good CMF in the current standard. The standards have changed with more emphasis in winning the midfield and it doesn’t mean Steven Gerrard is a bad player, but his strengths are more suited to an attacking position in the modern game.
Ronaldo doesn’t do the business for Portugal because he comes too deep to collect the ball. Plus there isn’t another Portugese footballer in world football that makes the top 50 of best footballers. They’re either has-beens like Deco or simply average like Leidson. Throw in a manager like Queiroz who is tactically inept and it’s no surprise that Portugal went out without a whimper.
Messi, while not scoring often, has been key in all of Argentina’s games this tournament. Had Enyeama not made those fantastic saves, he could easily have had a brace against Nigeria. Had Greece not man-marked him for 90 minutes and lunged at him every time he got the ball, he would have been more significant. Even against Mexico Messi was in full swing.
What did Gerrard do bar that surging run and goal against the USA? When he was in the centre with Lampard, Lampard was constantly telling him to get forward or stay back. Considering that Gerrard began his career as a centre midfielder rather than attacking midfielder, surely he should have been the more disciplined of the two?
Gerrard, while a good player, only ever shines when the team accommodates him. That’s why he’s never been a star for England but continually pulls it out for Liverpool. Liverpool fans will never admit that Gerrard isn’t a team player. So what if he’s versatile? How many times did you see him attempt a through-ball or a cross? He’d attempt to shoot from all sorts of narrow angles to be England’s hero.
And to say he’s England’s top goalscorer doesn’t hold much weight. Upson scored the same amount of goals as Gerrard. Should we refer to him as an attacking genius?
True it has changed, but a player with something like 10+ assists a year, for something like 10 years, is clearly a good passer of the ball.
The myth about Gerrard’s passing is just that, a myth. His passing completion rate is usually around 75% which is basically in line with Lampard and Fabregas – neither who are criticised for their passing. However, Gerrard has played in a team as weak as Liverpool’s and has been responsible for being their sole creative hub and that has often meant he has needed to create things out of nothing and that results in a lot of “hollywood balls” but he is certainly a good passer. In fact, Torres is on record saying that Gerrard is just as good as Xavi when it comes to his passing ability. I’d argue not when it comes to keeping possession but for running games Gerrard is world-class.
I do agree with you however that he is better even further up the field where he can use his explosiveness and vision to create and score goals.
Gerrard as well as the rest of England’s “famous” players are very good players. I think the FA have too many cronies with no knowledge, passion, or even an interest in the game. They just hire a top manager and expect to see famous English players to turn up and win “the English ‘4-4-2′ way”. How else did the England national team end up playing a system that inhibited most of the players’ strengths and fully exposed their weaknesses to the entire world?
At the end of the day, there was no team in this match. A lot of good players couldn’t express their potentials for many different reasons and there’s a lot of different people, including the players themselves, collectively responsible for it.
Oh come on, just because Torres compared Gerrard’s passing to Xavi doesn’t mean they are anywhere near the same class. Team-mates build up their team-mates for the sake of the tabloids, fans, match programmes and fanzines. Doesn’t hold any water with me.
Also if you recall “Gerrard’s” final, his role in the middle came with the caveat of having the postionally astute/reserved Xabi Alonso giving the midfield some discipline in behind him.
In contrast in other Liverpool and England teams where Gerrard is not afforded the same cover behind, his reckless and egocentric running only undermimes the midfield. In a 3 man centre you can get away with it (which is exactly why the Alonso/Masch/Gerrard triumvirate worked so well)
In a two man midfield Gerrard simply cannot be trusted and against a 3 man you will be slaughtered.
here here
Definitely agree.
I’m sick of hearing how positionally solid Gerrard is. Defensively, he was always out of position and was easily turned by his opponent several times. Plus his constant inward runs narrowed the midfield and blocked off Lampard.
Capello has to take his fair share of the blame for playing him on the left when he knew he’d keep running inwards but that doesn’t absolve Gerrard of all blame. Bar his goal against the USA, he did nothing significant.
Plus there were several times in the Germany game when he could have fed a ball through to Rooney or whipped in a cross but decided to go alone and miss the target by miles. Critics say Lampard should be dropped to allow Gerrard to move inwards but he isn’t positionally disciplined or a team player for England.