England 4-0 Bulgaria: Hattrick for Defoe as England cruise to victory
The starting line-ups
A great start, a quiet first half and then a dominant end to the game, as England opened their qualification campaign with a much-needed high-scoring win.
Fabio Capello chose to play Wayne Rooney with a partner, Jermain Defoe, rather than in the lone striker role he occupied in the recent friendly against Hungary. Theo Walcott and James Milner were the choices in wide positions, whilst the rest of the team was as anticipated.
Stanimir Stoilov opted for a 4-4-1-1 system, with two deep midfielders and Ivelin Popov playing just off Valeri Bojinov upfront.
The most notable feature of the first half was how poor the away side were. Bulgaria lacked any kind of cohesion when they didn’t have the ball (which was most of the time) – there was frequently a huge space between their defence and their midfield, which Wayne Rooney constantly looked to drop into, and found plenty of space in the hole. The role of Bulgaria’s midfielders was confusing – they neither seemed to be pressing England’s central midfielders, nor dropping close to their back four and denying space in that area. They ended up being bypassed as England played the ball around them.
Cole key for England
England’s best attacking moves came when Ashley Cole was involved in build-up play. With England using James Milner on the left – able to get to the byline, but more often than not coming inside, Cole had plenty of space in wide areas, and a couple of excellent passes from Steven Gerrard and Gareth Barry brought him into play nicely. It was Cole’s dart into the area that had given England the lead – he knocked the ball into the six-yard box, and Defoe’s swivel and volley put England one up.
The goal had also stemmed from a mistake in possession by the right-back, Stanislav Manolev. What England were doing far better than at the World Cup was pressing high and early, and in the opening stages Bulgaria had problems getting the ball out of their own third. Here Bulgaria’s two banks of four played into England’s hands – had they played with three central midfielders, for example, they might have been able to play the ball around England’s pressing.
England rarely threatened to extend their lead despite their first half dominance – Milner was doing a good job defensively but there didn’t seem to be any specific tactic to involve him in attacking moves, whilst Walcott wasn’t being used to his full potential – balls were being played to his feet, rather than in behind the Bulgaria left-back Zhivko Milanov for him to run onto. When on the ball he seemed reluctant to try and beat Milanov (either with a trick, or with raw pace) and took to standing the ball up high towards the far post – probably not the best tactic with Rooney and Defoe hardly towering strikers.
Issue with pressing
The game was more exciting in the second half. Bulgaria were much improved – their passing was more assured and also more direct, and they were constructing decent attacks by playing the ball over the top, in behind the England defence. This is a factor to consider when praising England’s pressing – the knock-on effect is that it means playing a high defensive line (or leaving a huge gap between the midfield and defence), and England probably don’t have enough pace in their defence to justify this approach. It’s been cited as a problem with John Terry – perhaps slightly unfairly – but balls over the top have certainly caused Michael Dawson and Phil Jagielka some problems in the last two England games.
The more Bulgaria came forward, however, the more England had space to break into. All three second half goals came from counter-attacks, or mini-counter-attacks. Most interesting was the fact that Wayne Rooney assisted Jermain Defoe for two of those goals – that is a partnership that has never worked well. Today, Rooney played deeper than he did in the summer, and therefore there was more of a creator-finisher model, than the situation in South Africa where both stood upfront and waited for service. Adam Johnson’s goal was also a plus (although it was awful goalkeeping), and the central midfield partnership of Gerrard and Barry worked nicely, aided by the lack of Bulgarian runs from central midfield.
Conclusion
Was it a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-4-2? It was probably both – and neither – so 4-4-1-1. Rooney was certainly deeper than Defoe, coming into midfield and looking for the ball, whilst Walcott was more advanced than Milner (split wingers having been a key feature of Brazil, Holland and Spain’s sides in the summer).
Ultimately, it wasn’t a particularly good test for England – Bulgaria were poorer than expected both tactically and technically. The Switzerland game on Tuesday will be far more interesting.
England 4-0 Bulgaria: Hattrick for Defoe as England cruise to victory
Great piece, as usual.
What I found quite interesting was: in spite of his regular forays into Bulgaria’s half, Ashley Cole did seem to be more selective in choosing when to ’stay’ and when to ‘go’ in today’s game than he was at the World Cup.
At one point he started a counter attack (perhaps for the third goal)and it was noticeable that he suddenly stopped once he got to the halfway-line, rather than pour forward with his teammates.
There were of course many occassion when he did commit to attacks, but it seemed like his mandate had changed since the World Cup – from almost entirely free to get forward, as against Germany, to having to excersise more restraint. Either that, or he was never intended to have such freedom, it’s just that only now has Capello forced it into his head…
Yeah, I wonder how much Cole’s lack of forward charges were because of the fact England were ahead for 95% of the game, and therefore he was more conservative than usual…
*occasions.
Damn it.
Expected M.Petrov to cause Johnson a lot more problems tonight, but its funny that Johnson doesn’t need an opponent to make mistakes. He’s quite lucky Joe Hart is so agile. Good to see clear confidence from an England keeper having the audacity to do keepy-uppies during his first competitive game.
Thought Defoe was excellent at the poacher role we see less of now.
Johnson’s positioning throughout the match was awful. He was often 5 yards (if not more) behind any bulgarian attacks and often the wrong side of the penalty spot when bulgaria attacked down england’s left. He’s a disaster waiting to happen against teams who can spread the play well
Johnson positioning defensively is shocking at times. he ball watches and gets caught way too narrow way too often. i’m not sure england have a better alternative, though
Wes Brown and Luke Young would be the next two names, I think. you could recall the ancient Gary Neville, or play Jagielka out of position (I think he would make a good right back actually). nothing inspiring… there’s no standout candidate in the U21s either. of the right backs they used during qualifying, only Kyle Walker was a regular club starter at right back last season – that was for Sheffield United in the Championship. in the previous generation, Martin Cranie was the starting right back… I’d play 3 at the back before calling him up to an England squad.
Ashley Cole was obviously a great attacking output tonight, but went forward much less than I’m used to with Chelsea recently. Think we could bring him even further forward with England, especially when Terry plays who is excellent with covering for him defensively.
with only 2 in central midfield it will always be more dangerous for him to go forward and milner was usually in the space he likes to occupy. when kalou or malouda play in front of him for chelsea they look to go inside much more often.
Please tell me you saw or will see the Portugal/Cyprus game. That game is screaming for a proper ZM review.
Only the last 25 mins…and I wouldn’t know where to start!
You can start with Portugal’s right back, Miguel, who had the worst game I have possibly ever seen. Follow that up with the arrogance displayed by Danny in front of goal at 4-3 and then finish off with a complimentary comment on the progression shown by the Cypriots over the last couple of years taking some fairly big results away with them!
Walcott saw very little of the ball..looks like no really wanted to use him or the space he creates effectively. Against a more cohesive attack, England will be in trouble. Cole plays really high and Miller keeps cutting in-I wonder what would have happened if someone as fast as Walcott had played for Bulgaria…
the reason he started the season so well with Arsenal is because he’s been switching with the striker – Chamakh or van Persie. that’s not something you normally do in a 4-4-2, so if the players don’t work to get him the ball, he won’t be very involved. their attack seemed decent enough without involving him so you can’t really fault the other players for that.
I disagree with your positioning of James Milner. Surely he was as far forwards as Walcott most of the time? Occasionally in the first half he changed places with Rooney, and with Ashley Cole getting forward so often he would pop in behind to cover, but for most of the game he was further forward.
England alternated between 4-4-2 and 4-2-3-1. And they were far more effective in the latter shape because of Rooney’s threat in that deeper role.
Why wasn’t Berbatov playing?
He retired from international football a while back.
He doesn’t play for England
good review ZM, but it’s just unfortunate that England lacks more people like you to show both the good and bad of England’s games.
I was hoping you’d review the France-Belarus game, a very unfortunate loss, but a very promising and much improved French side. The tactical and positional switches during the game were interesting, but as usual with France, individual errors lead to the group’s loss.
I’ll try and have a look at that today…
Ever since our failure to qualify for the Euro’s I’ve been convinced that England without Lampard is the way forward, I hope Capello leaves him out.
Why? If Lampard had played instead of Barry I don’t believe this game would have turned out much differently, Bulgaria posed very little threat, and when they did they more often it seemed to bypass the midfield. Also England’s attack were mostly concentrated down the wings and when balls did go through the middle the work was done by Rooney not the midfielders.
I would like to say about England’s formation, no matter what may be said about it definitely was a 4-4-2, you could see the england midfield set out in a very straight line when they didn’t have the ball. Any similarity to 4-2-3-1 was much more down to the fact that Rooney has always ran all around the pitch to get the ball and the England wingers had time and space to run at the ineffectually Bulgarians.
Ultimately its a difficult game to analyse because England could have done almost anything and got the same result last night. It wasn’t much of a test in terms of tactics but it didnt highlight the individual talents of many of the england players
“No matter what may be said about it definitely was a 4-4-2, you could see the england midfield set out in a very straight line when they didn’t have the ball.”
But that is how 4-2-3-1s operate too – see Germany at the World Cup, they defend in two banks of four.
I’d argue that Germany played a 4-2-1-3 per conventional connotation or even a 4-2-4 when using a purely functional perspective. Defending in two very narrow and rather deep banks of four is indeed rather common amoung the tactically versed managers using some 4-3-3/4-5-1 derivate however.
It’s comparatively easy to pull off, the wingers have to fall back into wide midfield positions while the player behind the single striker stays ahead of the two banks to serve as a relay for counter attacks.
With a well drilled side it can be an extremely effective routine, considering the awful positional awareness of Glen Johnson and the English players in general being rather one dimensional I’m not sure it’s the way to go for the Three Lions though.
There is a lot of groundwork to be done and it’s gonna be very difficult for Capello to pull it off in the short periods he can work with the players.
Stupid 4-2-3-1! is there no limit to its application… What is the difference between 4-2-3-1 and a traditional 4-4-2 where one striker is likely to drop slightly deeper to help build up play?
Galvatron – see my post below re: 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2.
Well, often very little. Take this Arsenal side – http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/02/12/teams-of-the-decade-9-arsenal-2001-04/ – was widely called 4-4-2 then, but today maybe people would say it was 4-2-3-1?
I think you could argue that the England formation was a lopsided 4-3-3, quite similar to that of Man Utd when Park plays. Milner seemed to be fairly central but at the same time covered a lot of ground. He was on the left, in the middle and on the right which is sort of the role that Park takes up. And then on the right you have Walcott (for Man utd it would be Valencia) who plays as a more natural wide player, who makes diagonal runs through the channels. Rooney dropping deep was similar to Berbatov’s role at Utd.
Very good point re: pressing game resulting in either a high line or a gap between Defence and Midfield. At Chelsea, JT is, or rather, was instrumental in the tactics and set up which meant Chelsea often played very deep, particularly under Mourinho. The reason why the Def-Mid gap was never present was because of the meticulous understanding of the DMC role by Makelele and more recently, Mikel (although he is yet to perfect the art).
England don’t have anyone to play that role, let alone 2 players. My hypothesis is that because England do not have a natural DMC who can play this role, Capello is reluctant to adopt an orthodox 4-2-3-1. I think that he has realised that when Barry and Lampard play the central roles, they both have tendencies to push too far up the pitch, such is their desire to be amongst the play. I think you could argue that only Hargreaves is capable of filling that space – in both senses of the word. The other player who I would argue can play it is Lee Cattermole – understands the need to protect the defence.
Against a better team, or even with a single better player (Berbatov) that gap would have been exploited more and Bulgarias two chances may have been capitalised upon. For now anyone, it will help Capello get some confidence amongst his team.
At the other end of the pitch – well done to Capello to picking Rooney in behind Defoe. Defoe was excellent at stretching the play and creating space for Rooney to play in. Again, I wonder if against a better team if that space could have been created – but I guess you can only beat the team that is put in front of you.
I think the last sentence there says a lot – I think the tactics were designed to beat a weak side. With these players in these positions against a top side, I expect it would have been a a poor performance.
Cattermole doesn’t strike me as a true defensive midfielder either – seems more like a destroyer, more like Vieira than Gilberto, for instance. Vieira doesn’t play well if he needs to sit back and cover the whole time – at Arsenal he played with Parlour (who would cover for him when necessary) and Gilberto (who sat back all the time). he was sold because Wenger knew Gilberto would make a better partner for the attack-minded Fabregas… I would agree that Hargreaves is their only good option in this position. Next best is probably Rodwell. As an Arsenal fan, Craig Eastmond could be the future – but not for another 2 or 3 years at least.
well, a defensive midfielder is a destroyer per si…
and i think it’s still 4-4-2, the diference is that in a 4-4-2 gerrard and lampard can’t play together, problably only in a chelsea style 4-3-3
Juliano, i would say there are two types of DMC. Mascherano / Makelele who are more interceptors. Savage / Carsley / most english DMCS – who are destroyers.
David – Take your point on Cattermole being put into the destroyer category. However, I genuinely do think there is more to his game that could be developed.
It seems as though with most international teams – the players just do the job they’re asked to do, but England’s midfield don’t or can’t. The main reason we conceded so many goals against Germany was because Lampard and Gerrard and even sometimes Barry all went awol high up the pitch when England attacked. Hence Germany had the run of the pitch whenever they won the ball back.
England look a better team when either Gerrard or Lampard is injured, as per Croatia at Wembley last year.
Personally I’d drop Lampard. Yes, he’s one of the best players in Europe – when playing for Chelsea and only in a 4-3-3 formation with him the advanced central midfielder. When Chelsea play 4-4-2, he’s not the same player.
Nothing to get excited about for England. We beat a VERY average Bulgarian side, and some of the old problems are still there.
Most notably, and it has been raised on here, Glen Johnson. England are going to get no where with a defender who can’t actually defend.
Also, what exactly does Gareth Barry offer the team? He’s slow, he’s weak, and he just looks so lethargic to me. Look at the system United play, they basically play with no holding midfielder, but have a playmaker who sits deep and dominates (basically in a holding role), this could be Scholes or Carrick, and the work Darren Fletcher does for them puts less defensive pressure on them.
This system could be used for England. Carrick sits deep and dominates (he’s no worse than Gareth Barry in defensive terms) and Gerrard plays pretty much the ‘Darren Fletcher role’ in which he drives forward, but also gets back, makes tackles and closes down the opposition players. Gerrard did that brilliantly last night, he was pressing the ball all over the pitch, making tackles, he basically did Barry’s job for him, making Barry a passenger, but with Carrick you have the bonus that he’s very good when in posession of the ball, which is a vital component at international level.
So the midfield three of.
Carrick (holding, dominating play from deep)
Gerrard (box to box, pressing opposition players)
Rooney (advanced midfield role just behind the striker)
What do other ZM readers think of that?
sadly, Capello has been reluctant to try out your above mentioned formula…he could have done it in this game…especially after, say 60-odd minutes…but…as it stands…there really hasn’t been any radical change in tactics….as being very rightly put in earlier comments to this article by ZM, tactics in this match were “designed” to beat a weak side, not a top class side…oh well, let’s hope Capello at least sticks to the formula that Gerrard+Lampard in the midfield does not work….
i think michael carrick has been very unlucky with england. granted he didn’t have the best of seasons last year but before that he was oustanding for united, i thought. he reads the game so well he doesn’t need to make big tackles because he’s often in the right place at the right time to intercept the ball. he’s better defensively than people give him credit for because he doesn’t make those ‘hollywood’ tackles and does his job quietly.
and of course we all know how good he is with the ball. better than barry for sure
Barry is an accident waiting to happen. People seem to believe that just because he is limited going forward means he is a defensive midfielder. Yet he lacks any sort of positional sense and had Bulgaria deployed somebody in the whole, or at least played inverted wingers it would have been Germany 4 – 1 England like in the World Cup over again.
Since it seems Owen Hargreaves has sadly passed away (in a footballing sense), England’s lack of a proper DM is gunna cost them big time. Because quite frankly Gareth Barry is shit. Even Mancini can see this, hence why he plays 2 other DM’s alongside him. It’s strange cos he would be the ideal left footed option for a winger. Or at least Cashley Hole’s back up as left back. But in the middle? No discipline. Maybe my African mum should beat the discipline into him so he learns to play for England properly.
he’s not skilled or quick enough to play on the wing… I would play Johnson, Milner, Walcott, Downing, Gerrard, Wilshere, and Gibbs before I played Barry there. maybe against a very good team, you could use him as a Dirk Kuyt type option, but even then I would rather use Gerrard or Milner in that role.
On paper, I think this would work, but unlike club football, in international football, egoes have to be set aside for the greater good and players need to identify their strengths/weaknesses to fit into a system that pleases everyone and brings the best out of them. Example, Anelka playing as a sole striker in WC2010! you know the rest…and Spain’s Euro ‘08 side, which I think was more fluid than 2010
The current United model is based, or so I’m told, on Milan’s UCL winning side (2007) which dominated the midfield with Pirlo and Gattuso. Pirlo is a deep-lying playmaker, Gattuso is a relay runner, covering ground, closing space, making Pirlo’s work easier. I also heard, probably on ZM, that SAF attempted to try this with Carrick (the classiest and most intelligent English midfielder for me) as a Pirlo and Hargreaves as a Gattuso. Looking at his WC06 performance, Hargreaves is clearly a humble player, team before individual player, but his injuries kind of changed SAF’s thinking I guess. Unfortunately, Carrick seems to lack some personality and self-confidence at times, which is a shame, given his natural talent to orchestrate the game. Maybe Wilshere can do it one day, but he’ll need much more experience. Arteta would do it perfectly, but that’s not happening
This system, (deep-lying playmaker with a runner) will only work if the runner accepts that its not his job to create. I can only see Hargreaves filling this role for England, as Barry, Lampard, Gerrard and Milner all show tendencies to want the ball, at times too much/unnecessarily, something Fletcher at United does not do (even though his favourite player is Redondo…weird). In return, Hargreaves does a lot of his (unseen/invisible) work off the ball. I would also suggest Parker (if he improves his discipline) & Rodwell (depending on how he develops mentally)
As for Rooney doing the n10 role, I doubt it. He can be a second striker, but a 10 is just different, it requires a next level undersanding and application of the game
This match convinced me that England cannot progress playing a 4-4-2. The tactical deficiencies of a 4-4-2 against a 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 are theoretically and empirically conclusive (which should tell us that against top class opposition, it’s a formation we ought not to play); however, this is an argument that has been done to death, so I don’t want to go into that here: my point is more specific to England.
First, for a 4-2-2 to be successful in modern football, both central midfielders have to drop deep, to narrow the distance between themselves and the centre backs. The midfielders England pick — Gerrard, Lampard, Barry — do not have the discipline to play this role as a pair, as all want to be the 70s-90s box-to-box central midfielder or the English non-playmaking number 10 who gets ahead of the ball and into the box. This, in a 4-4-2, leaves far too much space between the lines defensively (or, at the very least, one central midfielder hopelessly isolated), and this is exactly the space a dynamic 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 seeks to exploit. The solution, to tuck in the wingers to make a midfield diamond, is not feasible for England, as it’s a role that neither Johnson, Walcott nor Lennon can play. Milner and Joe Cole probably could, but whether the front men could interact with the midfielders and the full backs to create the necessary width in this formation is open to question given our deficiencies in tactical intelligence. And that’s quite apart from what we’d lose in pace and dribbling from the side.
Further, a diamond would still require a disciplined holding player.
Second, a 4-4-2 requires highly systemized and compact pressing to overcome the shortage of midfield numbers if it is to be successful against the dynamic 4-3-3/4-2-3-1. This means playing a higher line, and that means having centre backs with pace. Do we have any Des Walkers or Sol Campbells waiting in the wings to do this? No. So getting compact enough to make it work in the defensive phase is going to lead to new, and insurmountable, defensive problems — especially against teams with genuine strike runners.
We must therefore conclude that adopting the 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 is our only option for success against high quality opposition. That’s why I think that it is easy-verging-on-laziness just to say “well, it’s the results that count”, or, “Capello picked a team for the opposition.”
No, we need to be learning how to play the formation that can win us tournaments, and identifying the right players to fit in with it, rather than just picking the best two forwards, best two midfields, best two wingers, etc, for a formation that can hammer mediocrities.
One area where there may be hope is that it seems to me that now teams have two, rather than one, deep lying players, some teams have started playing with no natural defensive midfielders. When there are two men operating in that space, neither needs to be such an expert. Spain, for instance, played with Busquets and Alonso; Germany with Khedira and Schweinsteiger — not exactly the new Sennas and Makeleles. One tends to sit and keep the ball moving simply — that Pirilo-Xavi-Scholes role — where the other is more athletic and can surge forward or play a more destructive role, if needed. There are a few players who could do this, and they would improve England’s ball retention and free Gerrard to do what he does best.
Are you guys aware of reddit soccer? Almost all your articles are posted on there and I’m sure you get a lot of traffic from there.
http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/d9gjj/england_40_bulgaria_hattrick_for_defoe_as_england/
You might want to get an account and submit the stories yourselves.
I was amazed that Capello is continuing with the 4-4-2 system, and that is what it was. There was clear wide players on the left and right. Two midfielders in the centre and two attackers. The main change from the World Cup was that Rooney came deep very often and got a lot more of the ball, which is a big benefit as he is England’s best player.
However England will not win a tournament playing this system. Like Manchester United, 4-4-2 is excellent at home against a side which is inferior in ability, but in high quality tournaments and against tough opposition away it will, in the majority, fail to cut it.
It’s the first game of the qualifying campaign, but I see no lessons learnt yet from the World Cup.
i dont think you can really make any judgments based on the bulgaria game. like people have said before 4-4-2 was perfectly adequate for that game and it worked. you can only beat what’s in front of you as they say.
i would be worried if capello continues with this formation against better teams though. 2 things we have always struggled with – controlling midfield and keeping possession. i dont think you can do either with 2 in the middle against even half-decent opposition.
Tiffany jewelry
Tiffany
Tiffany and co
Tiffany Bracelets
tiffany co jewelry
Tiffany jewellery
Tiffany Necklaces
Tiffany Rings
Tiffany Watches
Tiffany jewelry
Tiffany jewelry
Spain Travel Guide
Spain Travel