Decent performance from England as Capello experiments with new systems
England, 4-3-3
A nervous performance, but overall a deserved win and a decent night for England in their first game since their embarrassing exit from the World Cup against Germany.
The result and performance will largely be ignored in the mainstream media, thanks to the news that David Beckham’s England career is supposedly over. The determination to not give Capello or England any praise whatsoever means that the ‘announcement’ was superbly timed – no need to focus on what actually happened on the pitch.
As much as the news that a 35-year-old who is recovering from the most serious injury of his career, who is playing in a weak league, and who has only started one competitive game in the two-and-a-half years Capello has been in charge won’t be considered for international football is a huge shock, the current England players actually did quite well.
The biggest positive was not the performances of individuals, but the fact that Capello is clearly looking past the rigid shape that England played throughout their awful World Cup campaign, in favour of slightly more fluid, flexible systems. Last night England used three distinct systems – first 4-3-3, then a 4-2-3-1 / 4-4-2, and then a standard 4-2-3-1. The differences between those last two may seem slight, but when the central player in the band of ‘3′ is first a forward, Wayne Rooney, and then a midfielder, Steven Gerrard, there is a clear shift in the way the team operates.
4-3-3
The 4-3-3 in the first half was good – England kept the ball much better than they did at the World Cup – this may have been against a weak side, but then Algeria and Slovenia are hardly world-beaters, and England struggled with the basic task of keeping possession against those two.
The extra man in midfield clearly helped – Gerrard played deeper than we might have expected, dropping back on the left side of midfield to pick up the ball from deep, but also making late runs to link up with Rooney. Lampard did OK to the right of the midfield triangle, and Gareth Barry occupied something approaching a holding role, although the three midfielders were flexible and alternated their positions nicely.
Theo Walcott was the brightest player in the first half, as England played with two natural wingers on their natural sides. This stretched the play, although left Rooney isolated upfront, often the only man in the box when Walcott got into crossing positions.
England, 4-2-3-1 / 4-4-2
Adam Johnson is not naturally a player who gets into goalscoring positions, but the one time he did so created England’s best chance – Walcott pulled the ball back for him, but he blasted over the bar from on the penalty spot. This – and England’s relative lack of goalscoring opportunities for the rest of the half – showed that you need your wingers to get into central positions when the ball is coming in from the opposite side of the pitch, and the main concern ab0ut playing this sort of 4-3-3 would be a reliance on goals from Rooney, especially with Gerrard playing so deep.
4-2-3-1 / 4-4-2
After half-time, England switched to something much more like their qualification shape. Rooney was deployed just behind Bobby Zamora, who is favourite for the ‘big man’ role Emile Heskey previously filled. Capello wants a player like this to hold the ball up, if not permanently in the starting XI, at least to be part of a plan B. Zamora is a better choice than Peter Crouch in terms of his all-round game, simply because this is the role he actually plays at club level – holding the ball up for midfield runners. Peter Crouch, whilst a better goalscorer, is not much of a hold-up player.
Another interesting feature was that when Ashley Young replaced Walcott, he played on the left, with Johnson moving to the right – the same positions both occupied at club level last season. This is Capello’s first experiment with the inverted wingers craze that was so popular last season, and in theory should be effective with a hold-up player – the wingers are more likely to come inside and provide options for him. Young linked nicely with Zamora, in particular.
4-2-3-1
England conceded a disappointing goal following Michael Dawson’s mistake, and Capello opted to withdraw Rooney – who was quiet – and introduced James Milner, who played in the centre of midfield alongside Gareth Barry. This moved Gerrard further forward, and had an instant impact – Gerrard turned the game around with two magnificent goals – first a long-range dipping strike, then a tremendous piece of skill to get past three defenders and poke home. This was the first time Gerrard had been deployed in his favoured role (in the playmaker role in a 4-2-3-1) under Capello, and it would be a surprise if he doesn’t star there in the qualifiers.
England 4-2-3-1
The other point of interest was the performance of Kieran Gibbs on his England debut, who got up and down the line well, showing good skill on the ball. Indeed, he was probably better on the night than Ashley Cole, although there is no case for saying he should be included ahead of Cole in the next game. But the pertinent point here is not the individual performances, but the fact that Gibbs was more impressive because he had more space to exploit. He played behind Ashley Young, who drifted inside immediately and created space on the overlap. Cole was behind Adam Johnson, who hugged the touchline to a greater extent. One positive from playing Gerrard on the left in World Cup qualifiers was the fact it allowed Cole forward, with the left-footed Barry offering cover from a central midfield position. It would be a shame to lose that outlet.
Conclusion
A no-win game for Capello – if he had lost it would have been an embarrassment, but the victory will be downplayed as being recorded against a poor side.
But that misses the point – the major criticism from the World Cup was that England were too rigid and didn’t have a plan B. Capello’s desire to try out new formations and different combinations of players shows that he has learnt lessons from the World Cup.
It wasn’t a vintage performance like Brazil’s victory over the US – there was still relatively little movement and Rooney’s form is a concern. But, from a friendly where the major talking point before the match was how much England would be booed, it went as well as could be expected – even the boos had stopped by full-time.
Decent performance from England as Capello experiments with new systems
Fair assessment of the game, although I would suggest Lampard’s movement was as non-inventive and dogmatic as usual. And what about Rooney’s sarky clap as he left the pitch?.. Is Rooney’s attitude stinking up the whole team? I think he is becoming a real problem.
Put Gerrard in the right place and let the rest of the team play. that’s all england has to do
(sorry for my english)
Exactly what I wanted to say, only actually put into understandable words!
Obviously I have Fulham blinkers on, but I thought that Zamora did better in the “Heskey role” than Heskey, and even showed a bit of goal threat with a dipping volley and a couple of headers. Ashley Young looked dangerous for the first time in an England shirt. Adam Johnson has clearly worked on his fitness over the summer, as last season he would struggle after an hour. Gibbs was very impressive.
What’s still strange to me is why England shifted from the 4-2-3-1 that was so effective in qualifying for the World Cup to a stagnant 4-4-2. Delighted to see Capello trying to be more flexible. We all know he tried to early in his England career, but said that England players weren’t flexible enough. Perhaps now with the likes of Gerrard, Milner, Young and Johnson around the squad, he has the personnel now who are comfortable in different positions and roles.
As for Beckham – this is typical of the English media. They go on an on about the need to start again with new, young players. Then there’s outrage when a 35-year-old is dropped. As much as we all love Beckham, it IS time now to move on. We have plenty of hungry options on the right. Capello should be praised for wanting to give him a farewell game, rather than just shutting him out for good.
Lots for Capello still to consider, especially in the midfield. As well as working out where Rooney fits best in his plans. He must fit into the team – it cannot be based around him, especially as he is infuriatingly inconsistent for England.
The media in Germany would do the same with Ballack or Klose (or Frings, Kuranyi …).
It’s always wrong, what the coach is doing and it is always the wrong moment he is doing it. the only time the media is nice to the coach / team is during the tournament if they win.
I think they conceded the goal because at the time they were playing a 442 with no holding player. One of the centerbacks had to come out and defend the hole and this led to Dawson’s mistake. England’s 442 leaves too much space between midfield and defense, asking too much of the centerbacks. Even though they didn’t create many clear cut chances I thought they were most solid in the 433 because they kept possession and had protection from the counter. I hope Capello tries that shape again, maybe asking Gerrard to play closer to Rooney.
I don’t think it’s hypocrisy about Beckham. This isn’t really about a desire to keep Beckham in the team. I think the justifiable complaint is quite how Capello went about publicly revealing that a 100+ cap internationl career was ending. Would he have said “Cheers Paolo but you’re a bit old now” about Maldini? Of course he wouldn’t. I don’t imagine Capello would’ve meant to be mean but his communication really comes across as shocking at times.
His English obviously isn’t at its greatest ability. After great progress he seems to have stalled. But the media did jump and make too big a story of it. I think it would be hard now for Beckham to get back into the side now that England are preparing for the future. Maybe this is a legacy that Capello wants to leave us even if he doesn’t claim Euro 2014
Beckham should have been dropped years ago, its just no body had the courage to do it. I don’t find anything wrong with what Capello did. Coaches do it all the time. Nobody remembers when Luis Aragones dropped Raul from the national right in front of the press. Del Bosque didn’t tell Raul personally that he wasn’t in his plans. The same thing happened with Del Piero and Lippi. Was Capello a little too cold? Probably, but Beckham is a pro and he needs to move on.
Beckham seems to be the only player, that I can think of, who used the club game to prolong his international career. Usually, its the opposite. Most guys quit the international game to prolong their club career.
Who did England play against? The article doesn´t say…
The URL does
Another Fulham supporter, but have to say Bobby Zamora going up top in the 4-2-3-1 made things tick.
When Rooney plays alone he keeps dropping off while Zamora stays more upfront – a real handful for the defence and gives players like Gerrard a lot more space to play in.
We appear now to have a lot of wide players but the crossing is still abysmal. Young being the worst culprit.
Wish we had a passing playmaker in a deeper role – we have a great deal of talent in this country but I believe the academies kill off the really creative players.
But why do we need players to cross? I think your right we don’t look like good Crosses, but I think this should be the job of the full backs to be doing while the wingers should be cutting inside and putting in short passes along the floor to the likes of Gerrard and Rooney or the other winger who can cut inside.
I am not a fan of a crosser and I don’t think we particular have the players to get on the end of crosses (although Rooney is doing better) as long as they are getting the ball in dangerous areas, something Young did do that will make for better quality chances.
Hungary.
Thanks!
Haha, was thinking the same thing… Not everyone has their football world evolving around the English national side and clubs…
i would disagree about the starting formation. gerrard played in a much more advanced position than lampard and barry. he was clearly given the freedom to roam around behind rooney while barry sat in front of the back four and lampard played deeper and looked to link up the play.
interestingly, as soon as rooney went off and gerrard moved into the hole behind zamora, he came to life and scored two great goals.. with rooney in such terrible form for england and seemingly stifingly gerrard, is there an argument for dropping him?
i don’t think he can be dropped yet, but equally, how many more non-existent performances can he get away with? he isn’t just playing badly, like gerrard and lampard have done in their time, he is barely able to control the ball or stay on his feet!
But he didn’t play in a significantly more advanced role. He sometimes became the deepest midfielder, and when defending England’s midfield was quite a clear ‘v’ with Gerrard alongside Lampard.
I would totally agree with that and Lampard in the qualifiers for the WC played as a holding midfielder alongside Lampard. Although I think Carrick would play his role much better when he is on form.
But impressive was the better fluidity that England move with and interchanged positions in midfield.
ashley cole sometimes became the most advanced player in the england team, but that doesn’t mean his starting position was a forward
there was certainly more fluidity than normal with england, but a lot of the time barry was holding, lampard playing slightly more advanced of him with license to get forward and then gerrard furtherst forward linking up with rooney
@ZM
that is a little bit like my question. (I havn’t seen the game.)
in a 4-3-3 with one holding midfielder, how is the destroyer-passer-creator division implemented? Who is the creator, who the passer?
Was Lampard a passer? Is Xavi a passer, when Iniesta looks like the creator?
or is there no division of this roles in a 4-1-2-3 system?
I like teams without a rigid separation of roles in midfield.
ZM distincted these three functions you are talking about in regard of top Premiership teams. But does Barcelona’s midfield trio fit this division (I’m focusing on passer-creator ambiguity, because destroyer role is clearly in hands of Busquets)? At first glance, I would say “no” – partly because of Barcelona’s style of play (1), and mainly because of uniqueness of Xavi (2).
1) Perhaps because whole Barcelona team plays “passing game” they do not need to assign one of their players as “a passer”? Was that the case when Iniesta was featured in the midfield along with Xavi?
2) On one hand, Xavi is a creator, but one playing very deep. On the other hand, he often might resemble a passer, especially when he comes back to play some tiki-taka in the midfield. But when he gets the ball forward or initially finds himself in a more advanced position to play some killer ball, there is no doubt he is a creator. But then again, a creator is supposed to play higher up the pitch than a passer. And Xavi is playing deeper than the other midfielder next to him (Iniesta/Keita).
So, if you cannot call Iniesta a passer, where is the passer? Perhaps the answer to this question is… Keita! Such an annonymous player on the pitch, generally underrated, disliked and denied a place in Barça by the fans (similar criticism to the one Denilson is facing in Arsenal). Is the need of a passer the reason why Pep has sent Iniesta on the wing and has been including Keita in the midfield ever since? Keita played more games last season than Iniesta. And when both were on the pitch, it was Keita who stayed in the centre. Why? ; )
The reason i was asking was that i have not seen that many Barca games (full 90 minutes), and not the last England game (and the style Lampard / Gerrard were playing).
‘Perhaps because whole Barcelona team plays “passing game” ..’
It’s like saying: when every one is a passer, the team as a whole is the creator.
Arrigo Sacchi should love this. what is better every player is a creator (or the one with the ball), or the team as a whole is the creator?
I understand what you are saying. Keita changes the scene.
I had this game in the background watching it while I was doing some work so I didn’t watch in great detail but the pluses I took out of the game were all from the players that have only just been introduced to the England team.
Young I feel has been a player that has been overlooked too much by Capello, especially as on the left side of midfield he would have done a better job tactically then Gerrard has done in that part of the field. But as part of the 4231 system we saw last night, he was able to work well with Gerrard and getting the ball into dangerous positions as we seen from Gerrards 2nd goal.
Zamaora’s movement looked good. He was getting into decent positions when he was playing up front by himself and maybe with a little bit more luck or sharpness he could have put away some of his half chances. He looked bright and definitely looked better then Rooney as Zamaroa was happy enough to play as the most advanced player on the pitch, which Rooney can have a problem with.I think Rooney does come search for the ball too much instead of letting players around give it to him. Although this might be better if we see Gerrard playing the role that gave him 2 goals last night instead of having to drop deeper.
I think the bottom line though is that last night we started to play like a Premiership football team the quality we know is there, we played how they know how to play for their club teams which makes it so much easier to play at international level when you are playing a familiar style. We looked fluid and we controlled the ball. The brief period were we were playing 4-4-2 again we did look dreadful. Obviously I would like to see how this plays out against some of the better teams in Europe and a few friendlies against teams like Argentina, Dutch or Spain may be helpful in further tweeking our tactics for different situations because although we controlled the midfield against Hungary last night, I would want us to do the same against the big boys. If not at least learn to do what Germany did in the World Cup.
In all accounts I think a game that was complained about by many should now be looked upon positevely.
You’re FMPundit, right?
Thats me
The second half showed that we can play (and play well) without Lampard & Rooney, which is nice to know. I wouldn’t mind seeing them both dropped for the next game, just to give them something to think about. I thought Young was poor and I’d still favour Crouch over Zamora, but otherwise I broadly agree with ZM. 4-2-3-1 is clearly the way forward (the 4-3-3 didn’t really work). The centre of defence is becoming a major concern.
Shame Beckham isn’t a few years younger because he’d be perfect for the Barry/regista role. Even now I think he’d do a better job. For some reason people in England still think of him as a wide midfielder, even though he hasn’t played there for over five years at club level and never really suited that position when he did play there.
Milner imo has the physique & athleticism to be moulded into ball-winning defensive midfielder. That was never going to happen under Martin “rigid 4-4-2″ O’Neill, but, depending on who his next manager is, I think by the next World Cup he could be a lot more like Mascherano.
the 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 weren’t that different in the end. Inverted wingers and milner/zamora for lampard/rooney were the only changes. Capello should really look to keep playing inverted wingers. by 2012 i can see young and johnson being our best wingers and both are comfortable on either side. lennon is probably number one right now but he plays far better on right then the left and glen johnson needs space.
I doubt Young will improve that much further, he’s getting on a bit himself now.
‘For some reason people in England still think of him as a wide midfielder, even though he hasn’t played there for over five years at club level and never really suited that position when he did play there.’
are you saying Beckham should have gone the way (playing a defensive midfielder) that Schweinsteiger went this season earlier in his career?
Not only people in England, I guess : ).
.
What comes to my mind first when you say “Beckham” is perfectly accurate cross/centre. And I think the best place to launch crosses/centres into the box is wide midfield
A good breakdown – I taped the game and I haven’t yet watched the 2nd half. But I’ll make a comment on the first 45 minutes.
I don’t think Barry is a good fit in the holding role. He doesn’t position himself quite well when the opposition is attacking, and his passes are often a little too ‘direct’. Michael Carrick is a better fit here for me in this position. He keeps the ball and maintains possession better.
The problem might not be with Barry, as Gerrard & Lampard don’t come back and help out enough on a build-up from England’s own end. The commentators kept saying how they needed a centre-back to come up and bring the ball out.
This clearly can’t be John Terry – its a role best suited to Ferdinand – and I think his loss hurt England in the World Cup more than we realize.
Gerrard or Lampard need to come back and provide another ‘holding’ role in the build-up from their own box. I agree Gerrard needs to push farther up the field – and this means Lampard must come back – he really doesn’t do this much for Chelsea either. The conclusion is that Lampard & Gerrard I don’t think can play together in a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 system.
Gerrard MUST be that central attacking midfielder – the playmaker – when he suits back it isolated Rooney – who through the first hald again suffered from poor service. Often he’d be targeted by passes surrounded by 3-5 Hungarian players. That’s asking alot from any striker in the world.
England looked better without Frank Lampard. He was static in the first half, the movement was much brighter when Milner and Wilshere were on the pitch.
One thing that England are persistently poor at is feeding the ball from the centre-backs to the central midfielders. Too often the central midfielders will happily stand still and watch the back four pass the ball between each other, before eventually one of the centre-backs tries to force a longer, riskier pass that bypasses the midfield. Lampard and Barry aren’t willing often enough to come and demand the ball and start the play, perhaps part of the reason why Gerrard kept dropping deep to do that job on their behalf.
James Milner is much more pro-active and eager in coming to show for the ball to feet from his centre-backs. England need a player willing to do that, whether it’s him or Carrick or whoever. Lampard and Barry remain far too tentative in this regard, for me, and it’s one of the major reasons (by no means the only reason) that they struggle to maintain possession.
I disagree with the positive view of this performance, yes we had some fluid passes in the midfield and our wingers did some good work however other than johnsons miss in the first half we didnt look like creating chances, rooney in this formation was regularly isolated against the 2 centre backs, the wingers stayed very wide when they were on their ‘right’ side this changed a bit in the second half when the wingers played on the other side, i dont think that we had enough runners from midfield with lampard and gerrard in the first half often too deep in my opinion from this system, i think this only really changed when rooney was withdrawn, zamora has the physical presence to occupy both defenders and gerrard could play off him with some freedom to get up next to him and even in behind him whilst still finding that hole between the lines similar to ozil in the world cup,
overall i think the way capello set the team out was to create a performance without a goal threat, he allowed us to keep possesion and look fluid 40 yards from goal however if we played any team of note i think we would really have strggled to score,i mean it took 2 pieces of magic to score against hungary otherwise it would have been a much work result
I didn’t watch the game, and it was only one game so I don’t want to draw any hard conclusions, but at what point does Capello realize that Lampard is not a flexible player and needs to have a team built around him? If you’re not going to do that (and England shouldn’t), then use him as a sub because he just isn’t that effective. Or rather, isn’t as effective as other options.
Hi lads, Nic from boards, was wondering if you knew what price Stevie G was before the game to bag a brace?
cheers
I think it is pretty clear as has been argued for the past 10 years that Frank Lampard and Gerrard cannot play together and every single time Stevie G has played alone, he has shined for England. I am not even an English fan, but a Chelsea fan, bench Frank Lampard and play Stevie G alone. England is more flexible and fluid that way. Frank Lampard is not as dynamic as Stevie Gerrard which is why Capello has to stick to a 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 that accomodates two of them. It is the same for Chelsea. Ancelotti started with a diamond with Lampard at the tip, but had to resort to back to a 4-3-3 system so that Frank Lampard could be more successful. Lampard is a player that you have to make a system fit and not him fit into the system unlike other world class midfielders like Gerrard that can play anywhere in midfield. All Capello has to do going forward is to bench Lampard and play Stevie Gerrard behind Rooney. He is such a dynamic midfielder. I hope Ancelotti follows the same thing so that our star, Gael Kakuta can finally start to shine for Chelsea.
“Peter Crouch, whilst a better goalscorer, is not much of a hold-up player”…
i disagree with your above remark; Crouch is A+ in holding-up and a much better ditributor.
i feel his gangly, goofy appearance puts him at a selection disadvantage, making it hard to root for the “ugly duckling”. He should be more utilized both for club and country.
As for Stevie; best english player by far…let him shine in the hole as you suggested!!!!
ZM, could you please analyse the France – Norway and/or Argentina Ireland game(s)?
I heard positive things about Argentina’s system, which allowed Messi to flourish, and included 2 under-rated players who missed the WC, Banega & Gago
Also, I only got to see the 2nd half of the France game, in which they seemed comfortable and enjoying themselves way too much despite the loss
Thanks!
“who is playing in a weak league”
Weak league? The MLS? Couldn’t you at least have said “still developing” leauge or “young” league or “European legends pension” league?
You say “weak league” like your domestic league is something special.
So it is not weak?
Political correctness is tempering discussion, but it’s a part of a bad relativism that took over the world. Let’s just call a spade a spade.
hehehe you see?
through word we are communicated
and a “nice” word most of the time better than a “frank” word.
ps. I like your kind of people who can take all bias out of the fact
but it is harmless to be a bit more polite and careful with our word. ^_^
cheer
wow – remind me not to waste time with sarcasm.
Isn’t the reason England kept the ball better due to the Hungarian midfield not even trying to close them down for most of the game? Gera in particular excelled in giving central midfielders ample space to pass the ball around him.
Algeria and Slovenia may have been weak (although still a notch above Hungary) but they worked extremely hard.
On the other hand, this deeper formation caused Rooney to be isolated in the square of two defensive mids and centrehalves, as Gary pointed out.