Switzerland 1-3 England: more positives for Capello

The line-ups after Theo Walcott's early injury
England dominated the majority of the game and fully deserved their victory. Switzerland were very underwhelming.
The hosts went for a 4-4-1-1 shape with (initially) inverted wingers – David Degen started on the left, Xavier Margairaz on the right. Alexander Frei played very deep off Eren Derdiyok, who was isolated upfront.
England made one enforced change from the 4-0 win over Bulgaria on Friday – Michael Dawson was injured, so Joleon Lescott came in, presumably as Fabio Capello wanted to keep the Lescott-Jagielka axis that had performed well at Everton until last summer.
There was a good chance that England’s breakthrough was going to come by targeting Switzerland’s left-back, Reto Ziegler. He has a tendency to move high up the pitch and look to link up too quickly with the midfield, and is often caught out of position. Switzerland’s tendency to play very narrow also made Theo Walcott a threat down the right flank with his pace, and he was very involved in the game early on.
Opening goal
It was Walcott’s run inside – similar to his run against Blackburn which created a goal for Andriy Arshavin – that created the goal, however. As Bacary Sagna did at Ewood Park, Glen Johnson skipped forward, and he beat Ziegler to the ball, before playing a low cross into the box for Wayne Rooney to convert. The move was also not dissimilar to the fashion in which England took the lead against Bulgaria – a full-back getting forward early on and squaring for one of the strikers to finish from close range.
It also highlighted another reason why getting full-backs forward can be so effective – as Johnson was the creative outlet, Walcott was able to get into a goalscoring position (where he unfortunately picked up an injury) so England had no fewer than four players in the penalty area.
After the goal, and Walcott’s departure, the game became rather static. Adam Johnson was brought on in his place, but while England were certainly seeing more of the ball, it’s hard to remember any meaningful chance either side had between the opening goal and half-time.
Tactics neutralise game
There were two reasons for this – firstly, neither set of central midfielders looked to venture forward and drive at goal, so we had something of a stand-off with those players looking to distribute the ball calmly out wide. Secondly, with Johnson’s introduction we had both sides playing inverted wingers, and all four widemen looking to come inside into the centre of the pitch. This often makes for a slightly stale contest - see the Hamburg v Fulham game, with four inverted wingers.
So central midfielders who weren’t looking to break into the box, and wide players who were intent on creating more congestion in the centre – and add to this the fact that Frei and Rooney were dropping deep to make both sides look like 4-5-1s when not in possession. Goals didn’t look likely, aside from when Ashley Cole crept forward into a dangerous position on the left.
Sure enough, things got slightly more promising towards the end of the first half when Switzerland switched their wingers onto their more ‘natural’ sides and the game was slightly more expansive, but they needed a half-time change.
Second half
That came with the introduction of Xherdan Shaqiri, who showed more creativity than the rest of the Switzerland side put together. He was much more direct than the other Swiss attacking players, and started to cause England problems in the full-back zone. England had a couple of nervous moments, but in general they looked solid at the back – credit should go to Fabio Capello for picking Lescott over Gary Cahill, as he had a very good game.
Just when Switzerland started to rally, however, Stephan Lichtsteiner, the right-back, was dismissed after picking up two needless yellow cards. England took advantage of the numerical advantage by calmly playing the ball around. Ottmar Hitzfeld didn’t seem to know how to reorganise, with the Swiss going to something like 4-4-1 – but unsure of whether to drop off or press England. Pressing is a dangerous tactic with one fewer player on the pitch, but the Swiss retreating into their own half and waiting for England moves to break down meant that Steven Gerrard, Gareth Barry and James Milner were able to slow the tempo and put England in charge.
Bizarrely, despite England having an advantage, the second goal came when it was effectively 10 v 10, as Jermain Defoe was lying on the ground injured. Rooney got too much time on the ball in a deep position – as he did all game – slipped it to Gerrard, who knocked the ball through for Johnson coming off the left flank into a central position. He finished cooly.
Switzerland hit back immediately with a belter from Shaqiri, and threatened to make a game of it – but ultimately they couldn’t cope with a man less – they were inferior enough at 11 v 11. The lack of pressure on the ball meant England were able to play balls past the defence ludicrously easily – Shaun Wright-Phillips managed to waste one chance with a spectacularly bad pass, but another substitute, Darren Bent, powered home his first England goal to make the points safe.
Conclusion
Another good performance from England with Rooney playing in a deep-lying forward role. This was where he excelled during the qualification campaign for the World Cup, but in South Africa he was used as a simple striker who waited for service rather than becoming involved in build-up play.
The performances of Joe Hart, Theo Walcott and Adam Johnson have prompted questions about why they weren’t involved in South Africa, but more crucial is surely why Capello moved Rooney away from the position he had done so well in for his country. Take away the World Cup, and England under Capello have been terrific…
Elsewhere, with the teams playing similar shapes, technical quality shone through and the red card settled the match. Switzerland were very disappointing – Derdiyok was completely anonymous (although was starved of service) and the defending was far worse than at the World Cup.
In personnel terms for England, Adam Johnson furthered his reputation with a good showing and another goal. Phil Jagielka and Joleon Lescott also performed well and (along with Michael Dawson) should be ahead of Matthew Upson in the centre-backs queue, while Gareth Barry also showed his quality in the centre of midfield. He’s not a natural holding player, so we can forgive a couple of rash tackles, but his passing in the past two games has been excellent.
This 4-4-1-1 works better than the 4-4-2 at the World Cup – if the difference in formation is slight, the difference in performance is certainly not. It still is yet to be tested against a side playing three central midfielders, however, and there is where England still might struggle.
Capello said before this game, of Rooney’s role, “It depends on the opponents. If they put one midfielder in front of their back four, the position Rooney played is not as easy.” Future opponents would do well to put one midfielder in front of their back four.
Switzerland 1-3 England: more positives for Capello




Defoe really impressed me tonight. He linked up play better than I initially gave him credit for and took up intelligent positions, managing to occupy both centre backs without resorting to simply standing between both defenders and looking for physical confrontation (as Heskey often did). By being constantly on the move and looking in-behind, the Swiss defence were unable to step forward and press Rooney – as you alluded to in the article. Defoe also carries a larger proportion of the goal scoring burden which appeared to affect Rooney at times whilst partnered with Heskey. I didn’t expect to come to the conclusion I have, but I now feel Defoe can be an intergral part of the England first team, for the time being anyway.
First time to comment, but long time reader. Keep up the great work mate!
Yes, recently he seems to have become a much more well-rounded player. At the backend of last season he was surprisingly good at dropping off the front and linking play. And thanks!
One thought I’ve had to justify the switch from 4-4-1-1 to 4-4-2 is that perhaps Capello deliberately reduced the importance of Rooney’s role in the team during the World Cup, having seen him look poor (tired?) in training. Probably a long shot though; I imagine it had more to do with Heskey’s loss of form and fear of playing him alone up front, coupled with a lack of trust in the ability of either Crouch or Defoe to play effectively in a more isolated role.
Maybe, that’s a decent shout. Or maybe it was jsut because Rooney had done so well as an out-and-out striker at United last season…hard to say.
Heskey loss of form?!! You a funny man
Only Capello can explain why he altered the formation in South Africa after England did so well in the qualifiers. Rooney was a shadow of himself in South Africa and much of that had to do with the tactics Capello deployed.
Rooney seems to be doing very well as a deep-lying forward. Some of his passes will make Xavi jealous and his combination with Defoe has been productive. The midfield is still a worry though cos i think they don’t dominate games like they should.
You pose a good question: How would England line up with a team playing 3 central midfielders.
I think the answer is to match them up and play 4-3-1-2(with Rooney a bit withdrawn and playing just behind 2 strikers).
Hard to imagine England playing with a diamond as you suggest, with a playmaker to masticate the play – seems to go against England’s footballing DNA, which I know is depressingly fatalistic to say. But Capello’s that most Anglophile of Italian coaches.
His Madrid side from 2006-07 was all about running in straight lines, hitting them on the break, plus two tough central mids in Mahmadou Diarra & Emerson with nary a shred of passing ability between them.
The 2 strikers would be the problem I would think… Defoe is one of them, but who is the other? Is Peter Crouch really good enough to justify leaving out Walcott, Adam Johnson, Milner, Carrick, etc. (assuming your 3 midfielders are Gerrard, Barry, Lampard)? Walcott could play up front but not with Defoe. It would have to be Crouch, Heskey (hahahahaha), or maybe a deep-lying forward like… Rooney!
I think 4-3-1-2 would actually be a decent idea, but not with Rooney at the tip. I would play it with Lampard at the tip, Rooney supporting Defoe (or Walcott) up front to make it more like a 4-3-2-1. Pick two of Gerrard, Barry, and Milner to play as the carrileros, and either Carrick or Huddlestone as the deepest midfielder. You’d have to leave out Adam Johnson but you’ll have to leave out someone good no matter what formation you play, with this team.
Zonal Marking said: “Future opponents would do well to put one midfielder in front of their back four.”
And isn’t that the salient point? All the good teams will have two players occupying that space, because they all play a dynamic 4-2-3-1/4-3-3. Obviously, not both will be destroyers (unless we play Holland or the New Orange Model becomes popular), but two players it will be.
At the risk of slipping into tired cliche, it’s deja vu allover again. The lessons of the world cup have been forgotten, and one can already feel the fog of hubris building to levels that will obscure that truth. Already, the thud and blunder EPL is back, churning out its weekly diet of thrills and spills to sate the appetite for exciting, muscular, end-to-end football, and is being hyped by the Murdoch machine as The Best League in the World; England are comfortably rolling over a poor qualifying group.
But the EPL’s style is utterly irrelevant to international football. It clearly isn’t the best league in the world when it comes to quality (just make a list of the top 20 players in the world, or look at where the World Cup quarter finalists play). And dominating this group isn’t a fair representation of what England will face in Euro 2012, if they’re to do well.
We’re not Spain or Brazil. We don’t have 15 genuine world class players. Nor are we even Germany with a thrilling group of young, skillful tigers emerging. We don’t have the players for a four man midfield, even with Rooney dropping deeper. In a 4-4-2 (even with split strikers to make a 4-4-1-1), the two central midfielders have to drop deep to ensure that the gap between defence and midfield remains compact. But the central midfielders we pick are from two classical English styles: the box-to-box man or the non-playmaking number 10 who likes to get beyond the ball and score goals by surging into the box.
Yet, 4-2-3-1, as well as being better in and of itself, can solve these problems. Spain and Germany, for instance, didn’t play with a holding man in the world cup. Because they had three men in central midfield, they didn’t have to, because they had two men (Alonso and Busquets and Khedira and Schweinsteiger, respectively) holding that position. England have players who could do that (Milner has the discipline, energy and technique), and others could work there: Huddlestone, Barry, Arteta, Carrick, and Wiltshire are all worth a try. This would also free Gerrard to do what he does best, with Lampard — pretty much as good — in reserve.
Further, the assumption that Rooney is better in the hole was exposed as a canard by last season, when he played upfront all year for Man Yoo. He is big, strong, skillful and intelligent enough to play in that system, intermittently target man and false nine.
That would also fit nicely with Capello’s new-found preference for inverted wingers, which seem to work best with false nines.
But 4-4-2 (even with split strikers) will get us nowhere in tournaments.
I see the same story as before: false hope provided by an easy qualifying campaign and a hyped premiership, followed by unpleasant exposure in Ukraine-Poland.
exactly right carbo. for the short-sighted and forgetful tonight must seem like a great leap forward. but, in terms of really learning anything from the world cup shambles, england could barely have met a less testing team than switzerland – technically poor, and one of the few sides in international football (along with england) still playing a 4-4-2 variant.
the 4-0 over a woeful bulgaria was also flattering in the extreme. if it’s acceptable for england to beat technically inferior, tactically old-fashioned teams in the qualifiers only to fail miserably in the tournaments proper, then fair enough. but if not, then why all the inevitable false hope of yet another brave new dawn, when eventual embarrassment and disappointment are so predictable?
if england really want to do well at euro 2012 and brazil 2014, they have to implement a plan NOW that’s going to give them a chance when they come up against the better teams. quite obviously, although amazingly not to capello it would seem, a central midfield two of barry and gerrard and a front two of rooney and defoe is not going to make us competitive in those big games.
my conclusion is that capello is happy to follow in eriksson’s footsteps of qualifying and making the quarter finals, and thus avoid maclaren’s failure to qualify at all. the only explanation is that capello thinks england have no chance of competing with the likes of spain, brazil, germany and holland in the years to come, so he’s not going to try
I’m with you there Steve,
you could go further to say that Switzerland were effectively lining up like one of those many lower-table Premier League sides who hold on to dear life with two flat banks of four and pray to thwart relegation.
They barely propose any kind of pro-active tactical problem, not any of the kind that England might be less familiar with anyway.
the only plausible lesson learnt so far from the world cup : don’t play gerrard & Lampard together….on a more negative note though, Carrick might be considering International retirement (i certainly hope not),…zero playing time 2 World Cup…so far no slightest hint of him playing even against weaker teams such as Bulgaria etc…he can’t be that bad, is he…?
I agree with most of the comments above, but I feel I have to argue the point about the leagues… the EPL may not have the best individual teams in the world, but the league is certainly the most exciting out of the italian, spanish and german due to the higher average quality of the teams. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t be surprised if the UCL was dominated by a mixture of bundesliga and la liga, but in terms of entertainment value throughout a season becvause of close competition between… the EPL seems to have it: three/four teams competing to win, nearly eight competing for europe, and about 6-7 fighting relegation.
It’s most probably one of the effects of having largely unsustainable club growth in the league, but it’s still there and it’s still exciting.
Disagree completely with your latter point. The EPL, since its inception, has been far less competitive than was the old First Division, and no more competitive than any of the other leagues in Europe, including the SPL and La Liga. Indeed, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the EPL is LESS competitive than other major European leagues. Of course, this year, with the big clubs stymied by global credit conditions, and Citeh spending big, there has been a concertina effect; however, the general trend, and the actual fact, of the last ten years is the opposite of your position. Read this excellent article by Jonathan Wilson for a more detailed explanation: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jonathan_wilson/08/24/epl.observations/index.html
As for being the most exciting league, I think that’s debatable when you look at the Bundesliga last season, which I reckon was the most exciting by some distance; however, let’s pretend that you’re right and for the purposes of this argument concede that the EPL is the most exciting league in the world. So what? Exciting isn’t analogous to “good” or “best”. When people say something is the “best” it tends to invoke something about the overall package, that, considering a variety of factors, that something is better than the other things we might compare it to. And clearly the Premier League isn’t. Die Hard was a knuckle-whiteningly exciting film, but I don’t think anyone would call it “the best film ever”, would they?
La Liga clearly has the best players and the best two teams in the world at the moment, and has plenty of attacking football with superb technique and skill on show. It’s also played at a faster tempo than people give it credit for. The Italian league, while it hasn’t got the concentration of exceptional players it had 20-10 years ago, is still tactically the best, and the Budesliga was far more exciting than the EPL last season, has as many top players as the EPL, and is far, far, far more competitive.
None of that would suggest the EPL is “the best league in the world”.
Of course, it would be harmless hubris if it didn’t also raise expectations for the national team, which, on close analysis, has far fewer top class players than Spain, Brazil, Germany, Argentina and a few others.
Enjoyed reading the original analysis by ZM and the points here Carbo, but have got to take issue with the comment that “La Liga clearly…has the best two teams in the world at the moment”.
You could make a case for Barcelona, absolutely, although there are plenty of fans of Brazil’s Internacional and Italy’s Internazionale that could make arguments for their own sides being the top two.
But is the other one you’re referring to Real Madrid? Entirely possible in the future, but certainly not at the moment.
I enjoy watching La Liga, and agree there is plenty of attacking football and great technique within that league, as you point out. But whenever I hear it praised to the high heavens I remember going to watch Levante v Gimnastic a couple of years ago; it was one of the worst matches I’ve ever been to, and that’s including years of watching lower division and non-league football in England. It’s no wonder Real Madrid look half-decent domestically given some of the piss-poor opposition they often face.
As for England – what’s wrong with people raising expectations after the last two performances? I appreciate it will probably lead to the inevitable great disappointment at the hands of a better side at Euro 2012, but why not raise your expectations here and now? For starters, it’s actually fun. Is it really better to expect nothing instead of expecting a good performance in an international tournament for once (if we get there)? Having perspective is all well and good, but sometimes I feel like I’m happy to leave it to the journalists, and would rather get carried away with hope yet again. I’d rather be one of the fans that go back for more with raised expectations after being continually disappointed.
I think that these are all very fair points, UC. However, Real Madrid were only one win behind Barca, and nobody can say that Real haven’t strengthened this summer. Perhaps it’s too much to argue that they are “clearly” one of the best teams in the world, but I think one might say “arguably”.
“why not raise your expectations here and now?”
because doing so completely buries the tactical issue – capello is employing a formation and personnel that simply will not work, if the aim is to do well at an international tournament.
england’s awful performance against germany highlighted the flaws of a 4-4-2. but now we’ve beaten two similarly archaic, and very average teams, the resulting false optimism will mean those flaws are left unresolved.
it’s like a fat person trying to lose weight, but every time he fails at the weigh in, he goes and eats another cake.
we can say to this fat man, “you enjoy the cake, by the time the next weigh-in comes around things might just be different, your metabolism might have changed and you might lose weight – you can have your cake and eat it, literally”.
or we can say to the fat man, “stop eating the fucking cake! you want to lose weight, it is a straight-forward fact that if you eat cake, you won’t achieve your ambition. you must do things differently this time – you cannot have your cake and eat it”.
this is a totally ridiculous analogy. but my point is that the false hope and expectation are part of the vicious circle of failure. i’m off for a victoria sponge
The EPL does have two very powerful arguments to be the best league in the world. firstly it tops the UEFA coefficients which measure performance of teams in european cups. secondly it has by far the highest revenue which must illustrate some form of global popularity. all the stuff you mention is very subjective.
the EPL is without doubt the most popular and the biggest money-spinning league in the world
“best” or “most exciting” is entirely subjective though
Thanks for the article… which was very interesting. It makes decent points but I don’t think he looks at his initial criteria in enough depth, especially comparing mid table point spreads. In reply to your post though:
“La Liga clearly has the best players” … Something I potentially agreed with until I looked up the castrol rankings:
http://cn.castrolfootball.com
Where looking at the top 60 players in the top 5 leagues in europe shows that it doesn’t match up like that. EPL – 22, L – 21, B – 13, the spreads between EPL and L being quite similar, however with EPL having twice as many players in the 1-40 range (26) than L (13). Of course this relies on how much credibility you give these rankings, but I hope we can agree that it’s one of the most thourough, objective methods of rating players that’s widely available.
Serie A’s superiority in tactics can only be compared through competition, and even there, the most notable example beign Inter vs. Barca, and that was mainly due to Mourinho’s efforts, who has since left for Real. Even in Europa, Fulham overcame Juventus, further putting doubt into the tactical brilliance of italy, which as far as I can see, has been declining.
The bundesliga may have a better spread of points through it’s league, but with fewer teams and less quality in their top players (from castrol rankings), together with spain basically having two teams fighting for the league (which is noted in Jonathan Wilson’s article), I’m inclined to believe that EPL is more entertaining
well, I would argue the Bundesliga is “more entertaining” because of all the crazy stuff that happens, like Mainz 4-3 Wolfsburg after Wolfsburg were up 3-0, Hoffenheim 4-1 Werder Bremen, Moenchengladbach 6-3 Leverkusen (who are considered title contenders), Kaiserslautern 2-0 Bayern… in England so far, there have been quite a few high scoring games but with the exception of Newcastle – Villa, they’ve all been blowouts with a big team beating a small team.
but I don’t think anyone would argue that the Bundesliga, as a whole, has better quality players than the EPL. Bayern would probably be in the top 4, but behind them… Leverkusen are no better than Villa or Tottenham, and teams like Dortmund and Stuttgart would have trouble breaking the top half.
You have two Glen Johnsons and zero Theo Walcotts in that diagram.
edit: Doh, that’s Adam Johnson.
I guess Capello perceived Johnson (A) as a straight swap for Walcott and hence the tactics did not change. I am not sure who is the better prospect, a pity one is not more adpet on the LHS. While, for the sake of posterity, the starting line up would be nice to have, I am more than happy to trade that off for the insights ZM offers up.
Do you see a role for Lampard in this formation ZM? Does he offer more than Barry – other than age?
I am intrigued that that well known international side Citeh had five players in the line-up above. Liverpool had two, with Chelsea, ManU, Everton and Tottenham one each. Add the one from Arsenal who started. That looks remarkably like the top eight(?)teams in last year’s EPL (especially with Hart at Birmingham City and Milner at Aston Villa at that time). Any thoughts?
Do you play Football Manager? lol
Seems like a lot of praise for Rooney playing in the hole, but I thought his touch was poorer than usual (possibly due to the conditions) and also seemed subdued, a step slow at times. Defoe also had some woeful touches, particularly whiffing on Gerrard’s first-time curler over the defense. He did offer variety in his positioning upfront, mixing back-to-goal hold-up play with runs to the wings, where his pace enabled him to reach balls that Crouch and Heskey might not have. I was impressed with Gerrard–the most disciplined I’ve seen him play–he reminded me a bit of former teammate Alonso at times and the assist to Johnson was not his only incisive pass. Is he likely to play that deep consistently though? I’m not sure.
ZM is there any chance of you covering the argentina spain match?
I’ll second that request – although I can’t vouch for how much time you have on your hands, and (frustratingly for me) where you manage to find the video to re-watch the game!
As for this game: the issue with Ziegler pressing too high was definitly a major factor in England’s initial dominance, but it also allowed for most (that is, not very many) Swiss overlaps on the left. Johnson doesn’t seem to have the positional awareness in coming back from an attacking position that Ashley Cole has – or perhaps it’s a dual issue between pace and work rate. I suppose tracking back is always going to be an issue with attacking full-backs, but you just don’t see the Coles and Lahms getting caught out on their flank often, unlike Johnson.
England played quite a high line in the beginning too and I was surprised the Swiss didn’t try more balls over the top for Derdiyok to run onto. The slick suface must have been a factor, but they really lacked the technical and creative instinct to play through England, so I expected a more direct game.
For supposedly England’s toughest game in the group though, it was an excellent result.
i found a link!
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IFKEP9SJ
ZM if you have time maybe you can watch and give an analysis? thanks a lot!
Yes! I second this!!
What’s you definition of a meaningful chance? Defoe blazing over the bar from close range (albeit a tight angle) after A Johnsons trick on the touchline. Defoe hitting the only defender when he should have put Rooney clear through on goal or Defoe deciding against a first time volley with his left foot when put in by Gerrard only to miss the ball entirely when he tried to take it down with his right? I seem to remember a chance where Defoe refused a left foot shot cut inside and managed to get his shot away but hit it over (although that might have been in the second half). The keeper might not have made any great saves but I think England forced enough openings to consider themselves unlucky not to have scored more in the first half.
I know it sounds like I’m being critical of Defoe, but I’m not, he was very good apart from his finishing, a real role reversal!
we could, and should, have scored 4 or 5.
Apologies if someone has mentioned this already but i think ZM hinted strongly at it at the end of the piece.
I am still not a big fan of 442 or 4411 particularly. I think it is significant that these two wins as well as many in the previous qualifiers were against other 442/4411 teams. In the instance England will almost always win assuming the opposition has inferior players in most positions.
Switzerland and Bulgaria had only to play a deep lying midfielder on Rooney and the two games would have been much harder. Granted obviously that someone man marking Rooney could create more for England if they were wise enough to exploit it.
Just a thought
An interesting analysis and an interesting, if ultimately misleading, game. Like ZM mentioned it is clear that when England play a 4-4-2 variant against significantly inferior opponents then they will generally win. The question is how they will perform against a top international side playing 4-2-3-1/4-3-3.
However I do not think that anyone can claim that this current side looks anything but significantly more fluent than the World Cup variant. This leads me to suggest that the problem with Capello is his inherent conservatism – he simply did not make the big calls when needed (i.e. drop Upson, Lampard or Gerrard, Heskey) or select Walcott and A Johnson to the squad. In this team we had Rooney playing as a deep lying forward interchaning with Defoe, an inverted winger in Milner on the left, a pacy winger in Theo (replaced by more technically gifted A Johnson) on the right and two centre midfielders playing centre midfield. We also had no Terry and no Upson, which is a significant improvement on the World Cup pairing.
Yes this is probably not a Euro 2012 winning side but at least the players are effectively playing in their strongest positions. It is quite clear that if they are to stick with this 4-4-2 variant then Barry should partner one of Lampard or Gerrard and that Ferdinand should partner one of Jagielka or Terry. The wide positions should also be taken up by Walcott, Milner or A Johnson. Defoe is getting better and deserves his slot alongside Rooney. What is most depressing is that Capello did not work out these seemingly basic issues prior to the World Cup: play your best team not best players.
And seriously…what on earth is SWP still doing in the squad. I do not think I have ever seen a more limited played hang around the highest level for so long.
Something else I noticed: whenever Ashley Cole charged into an advanced position, other players would adapt theirs. Milner pushed inside alongside Gerrard, whilst Barry slotted into a left-back position. Happened quite a few times, especially in the first half.
Or Lescott moved across and Barry dropped next to Jagielka. Either way, helped England’s balance somewhat having Jagielka (who can play RB) and Lescott (happy at LB), as both can shift across and adequately cover whilst Ashley Cole or Glen Johnson are rampaging forward.
Good performance I think from England, arguably the hardest game of the group, and we did a good job on them.
The two players I was most critical of after the Bulgaria game were Johnson and Barry. Credit where it’s due though, both played very well last night, but I don’t think anyone had a bad game last night.
Jag and Lescott both very solid at the back, don’t think they missed a single header, Ashley Cole is without doubt one of the worlds best full backs, Johnson could learn alot from him, in the fact he can both attack and defend.
Gerrard wasn’t at his best I didn’t think, but still a decent display, worked hard, closed down, and he’s producing good performances in his best position, centre midfielder. Not holding, not a deep lying playmaker, not just off of the striker, direct centre. He can go forward, and he can defend.
Best player of last night for me though, Rooney. He works very well when he drops off of the defender, drops deep and dominates play. I don’t know how many ZM contributors actually play the game, but I play, Semi Professional standard, and it’s very difficult to play against a player who is contstantly dropping off. Do you go with him, and get dragged out of position? Do you pass him over to a midfielder who’s job isn’t to pick up a striker? Both Swiss and Bulgaria didn’t really know what to do with him, and look what happened, Rooney controlled the game.
Good stuff from England, but as we all know, qualifying isn’t the problem. By the way ZM, do you have MSN/Facebook, could talk more in depth with you about football matters.
The most interesting thing I took from the game was the way it was Rooney who was taken off toward the end. Is Capello looking to pro-actively develop an England Plan B – for when Rooney is injured/tired? I do hope so – expect to see Rooney substituted more frequently when we’re in control of games. Or rested altogether if we’re playing minnows.
I do think the scoreline masked the fact that we looked quite shaky at the back though. Forgiveable when you consider the brand new partnership of Lescott and Jagielka, but against 10 men? We need a more composed midfield shield. Barry is too clumsy.
My extended thoughts here:
http://tinyurl.com/2vnmvv2
Very good stuff, as ever.
All I see is 4-4-2 with a split-stiker.
It’ll work against Bulgaria and Switzerland but not Spain, Germany, Brazil, etc.
Just what has Capello learned from the World Cup?
i dont know about capello but gerrard and barry both learned how to sit back a bit and not bomb forward every time we get the ball. which made us less susceptible on the counter than we have been recently
I believe England should keep using 4-4-2(1-1) even against teams of higher profile
Milner on the left flank will play a wide-midfielder role; two energetic full backs -Cole and Johnson- will come forward and Rooney will come deep to help midfield
(Manchester United occasionally use 4-4-2 against top clubs in a similar way, Park playing a wide-midfielder role, Evra coming forward to help midfield, and the incredible energy of Park, Fletcher, and Rooney makes united be able to control the center)
And it’s sad to say but Lampard shouldn’t be a starting, as Milner-Barry-Gerrad-Johnson/Walcott is far better than Gerrad-Barry-Lampard-Johnson/Walcott in both attacking and defense
nice post. thanks.
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