England 0-0 Montenegro: England outnumbered in the centre and too predictable on the flanks
The starting line-ups
Roughly a 50:50 split between a lack of English creativity and some good Montenegrin defending produced a goalless game at Wembley.
England went with their expected side – Peter Crouch and Wayne Rooney upfront, with Adam Johnson on the right and Ashley Young on the left, both cutting inside onto their stronger feet. Aside from that, Capello had few options and the choices were straightforward.
Montenegro were dealt a big blow with a pre-match injury to star man and captain Mirko Vucinic. Zlatko Kranjcar replaced him with an additional central midfielder, with Milorad Pekovic returning after suspension. Other than that, the side was unchanged and as expected.
The injury to Vucinic meant Montenegro set out more defensively than Kranjcar probably intended, and it meant they had an extra man in the centre of midfield – the zone centre-back Miodrag Dzudovic identified being as key before the game. The three central midfielders worked hard to close down Steven Gerrard and Gareth Barry when they got the ball in midfield, and one of them – generally Milorad Pekovic – swept up behind and also took care of Wayne Rooney when he dropped deep.
No natural width
With such a difficult situation in this area of the pitch, England needed to stretch the play and get the ball to the flanks quickly. Unfortunately, Young and Adam Johnson were both keen to come inside and add to the battle in the centre. England’s best moment of the first half in open play came when Johnson finally went down the line rather than cutting inside, though his cross with his right foot was poor. Young’s inclination to cut in should have opened up space for Ashley Cole on the flank, but the left-back was surprisingly conservative and could have played twenty yards higher up the pitch when England had the ball.
England too deep
Indeed, the same could have been said of the whole England team. Barry and Gerrard seemed to alternate, but far too often Gerrard was playing deep in midfield rather than influencing the play in the final third. The usual ‘Hollywood balls’ criticism is not valid here since Gerrard’s passes were generally very accurate from deep positions and quickly switched plan from flank to flank, but this wasn’t where England needed him. Even the centre-backs were deeper than usual – neither Joleon Lescott nor Rio Ferdinand looked to step forward and play ambitious passes. There was no tempo to the game.
Montenegro barely got out of their half, and their attacking intent can be summed up by the lack of movement arrows in the above diagram. However, they were defending well – it wasn’t last-ditch stuff as one might expect, they were instead working very hard to stop England attacks in midfield. The two wide players, Simon Vukcevic and Branko Boskovic also put in excellent performances without the ball.
No tactical switches
If there was little flexibility on the pitch, there was even less from Fabio Capello. Young was encouraged further up the pitch but there was no similar instruction for Cole, who was subdued throughout. The most surprising aspect was that Capello didn’t instruct Adam Johnson and Young to (at least temporarily) change flanks – in a game crying out for the hard-working but fairly immobile Montenegro defence to be stretched, all too often England played into their hands with unambitious play from the creators. Rooney was again underwhelming and dropped deeper and deeper to try and find the ball.
Capello’s changes were straight swaps – Kevin Davies caused some problems and is a better hold-up player than Crouch, but England didn’t get bodies around him, with Barry and Gerrard so deep. Granted, Capello’s bench was weak because of various injury problems, but the reluctance to switch Young and Johnson suggested that Capello didn’t consider changing the system necessary. Some degree of consistency and belief in a formation is understandable, but such a simple change would hardly be undermining England’s structure as a whole.
Montenegrin resilience
Kranjcar didn’t change his system either, keeping nine men behind the ball. Montenegro broke forward slightly more in the second half and actually came closest to scoring when Milan Jovanovic’s dipping strike smashed against Joe Hart’s crossbar. Equally, this meant England had space to break into and they created more chances in the second half.
Montenegro were clever at breaking up the play with tactical fouling, and England only briefly exerted consistent pressure on the away side’s back four. The two Montenegrin centre-backs were also happy to come up the pitch and try and win the ball rather than constantly be reactive and on the back foot. Mladen Bozovic had a few decent saves to make, but England simply didn’t create enough clear goalscoring chances.
Conclusion
Fabio Capello has been treated harshly since England’s World Cup exit, especially as England have performed well in the games since the embarrassing defeat to Germany – but criticism is due here. The whole side was too deep, the tempo was slow, and there was an unwillingness to change things as the game went on. England’s three best players all failed to perform going forward – Rooney is off-form, Gerrard was far too deep, and Cole didn’t break forward enough. All sides have off days and one poor result can be forgiven, but England were very poor.
Montenegro did nothing spectacular, but kept their shape well. They achieved their result by battling hard in midfield and outnumbering England in that zone, preventing the home side from building up play and putting constant pressure upon the defence. Three 1-0 wins and a 0-0 draw (away in their toughest fixture of the group) suggests tremendous organisation and resilience, and with that backbone combined with the return of Vucinic and Stevan Jovetic, qualification for Euro 2012 is a realistic prospect.
England 0-0 Montenegro: England outnumbered in the centre and too predictable on the flanks
They need Scholes, Paul Scholes.
I kept expecting Wilshere for Barry. Very little link between the midfield and attack, especially with both Barry and Gerrard playing SO deep.
Problem then is you have no one in the center who’s any good tactically when defending. Wilshire’s too young and inexperienced, especially at international level, and the less said about Gerrard’s tactical discipline the better. While it may have worked for the last ten minutes or so in this match, it’s not the solution for the problem England has in the center of the park
Agree with Corley – was watching the bench the whole second half waiting to see Wilshire. Gerrard had a good, disciplined game yesterday and could have coped with any Montenegran threat without Barry, who again was ponderous. Wilshire could have driven into the opposition defensive banks, disrupted them, and maybe created more space for the wingers, particularly Young.
Wasn’t a fan of Barry’s attempted defence-splitting passes from inside his own half. I think there were a few attempted from several players to be honest, but only one got through, by Johnson (where Crouch almost latched onto it) which was more luck that judgement and would only ever succeed against a team like Montenegro. Too many long balls – just because Crouch and Davies can head the ball, doesn’t mean you have to smash it towards them 6ft in the air EVERY time.
Seeing Crna Gora in the Euros would make me so happy, I’d love to see them their.
Incidentally, no one mentioned our Italy – Serbia thing. I’ve feel ashamed enough as it is that I live on the same planet as these people, let alone the same country.
it isn’t unusual for any team in the world to find it difficult to score against a team that sits deep and puts 10/11 players behind the ball. Even a team like Barca can struggle to penetrate against teams that do this. However what is needed, is for the manager to show some initiative and shake things up tactically to give Montenegro a different threat. Barca did it against Inter by sending Pique up and playing long (however be it way too late), so England could have thrown 3 strikers up top centrally playing close together (around 60mins) and played long upto Kevin Davies/Crouch. Then Montenegro would have to bring on another centre back and play a different shape to the one they would have prepared before kick off.
I think the first choice change should be a (minor) tactical one, not a substitution. switch the wingers after 30 minutes (or at half time) and when this change does not work you could think of extra men up front (around the 65th minute).
For a team like England and for English players switching postitions, generally: movement and good positioning (off the ball) shouldn’t be a problem. that are basics in modern football for big teams.
For some reason we never seem to have the balls to bring on another striker, even though we were very comfortable when they were in possession. But if we don’t have a plan B, let alone C or D, we have no chance when it comes to a tournament.
As a Liverpool fan, I’m pretty sure that if Milan Jovanovic played left back, we’d have tried him there by now.
Hmmm, on further consideration it seems there actually is a Milan Jovanovic that plays for Montenegro. Aplogies.
If Liverpool’s Jovanovic actually played left back, I’m fairly certain Roy would have him playing in the hole behind Torres
The tactical insights here are sometimes in advance of the writer’s ability to express them, in a tenuously analogous way to Mesut Özil’s positional nous outstripping his control and passing.
I’m afraid ‘foots’ is not a word. I understand the need to make clear that you’re talking about two singulars, rather than a simple plural, but this can be done with the word ‘respective’ – ‘cutting inside onto their respective stronger feet’.
The musical analogy is often a useful one to make – all art does, of course, aspire to the condition of music – but it needs to be made judiciously. If the game had no tempo, the ball would never have moved. A sluggish, erratic tempo is still a tempo.
This might sound pedantic, but such things are, to one engaged in the study of language, as important as, say, getting the suffix of an internet domain correct.
Congratulations on an excellent website.
Wolfgang Butzkamm
Honestly : STFU
+1
+1
+2
Plus two!
Those four letters couldn’t be used better, but let’s not judge all Germans after poor Wolfgang. They do make good cars and our washing machine manufactured in Gütersloh has worked over 13 years like (Swiss) clockwork.
Wolfgang, the better way to say this would be “each cutting in onto his [respective, if you like, would go here] stronger foot”, thus preserving the singular “foot” as well as subject/verb agreement….
This is at least how we would construct the sentence in the US.
To stay somewhat on topic, ZM, I’ve been considering the question of the best way to attack teams which do two things that are very popular these days, particularly at this level:
1) Play three players in central midfield.
2) Defend deep and in numbers.
It seems that you are generally an advocate of 3-man midfields, as they tend to accomplish both the control of a dangerous space defensively, while offering a greater opportunity to maintain possession of the ball. Typically, the recommendations for teams fielding two mids against three have been to supply the ball to the wings early in the buildup, thus bypassing this area and negating the numerical advantage. This places the burden of creativity on the wide players, who now theoretically are engaged in 1v1 contests with the fullbacks.
However, wide players generally thrive on being able to exploit the space behind their defender, whether by runs behind the defense or by pace and dribbling ability. When a team defends deep, this space is minimized. Not only is there little room to run into (especially for the outside-in diagonal runs that have been so effective for players such as Villa), but inverted wingers dribbling inside face a wall of defenders in the center, as you have noted above.
The solutions to these problems seem to be
a) Play traditional wingers and get crosses into the box
or
b) Fullbacks MUST get forward and get crosses into the box.
c) (not generally likely) the two central midfielders are good enough to be able to hold their own against the opposing team’s trio and exert some control on the game.
Two teams that seem to have had some success in this regard are Tottenham, with their surfeit of speedy options on the wings and players like Crouch to trouble center backs, and Bayern, with Ribery and Robben both good enough dribblers to attract extra defenders and open up space, as well as multiple forwards who are good in the air. However, that combination of wingers is extremely rare and, in my opinion, difficult to replicate in a tactically meaningful way.
What else would you offer in terms of attacking tactics against teams that defend like this?
Good post, imho.
Re. b) I only caught 5 mins of the game, but given that England’s wingers were ‘inverted’ and that both Cole and G Johnson are usually so effective on the overlap, it is perhaps all the more surprising that the fullbacks’ play was, reportedly, so conservative.
Possibly, this was was due to caution on Capello’s part regarding England’s central defensive pairing, or an unwillingness to be caught by counterattacking midfield runners (as vrs Germany in the summer)?
Taking a longer view, perhaps Capello is happy with a home draw against organised opponents (without risking an ‘unthinkable’ defeat on the counter), believing that England can win in Montenegro. Certainly, they will likely have more room to play and, imho, are better playing on the counter themselves where instinct and athleticism perhaps outweigh patience and creativity.
My first post after a year of lurking isto comment on how brilliant Wolfgang’s post was. Loved and hated it at the same time.
Is “You make me ashamed to be German you pr***” gramatically correct?
If not, at least it factually is.
There is an incredibly annoying habit or need to correct even the tiniest and most neglegible of inaccuracies that I find displayed on many a blog’s comments, all to often by my fellow countrymen. Eg, the guy who bothered to point out that Friedrich was accidently misspelt as “Freidrich” in the Germany-Australia WC analysis.
So we are a nation of pedantic “Besserwisser”s, but can we keep that to German blogs and not pester the rest of the world with this?
“There’s a speck of dust on David’s tiny left toe, Michelangelo!”
I don’t think that it’s a big thing to mention a typo or something like that.
But “If the game had no tempo, the ball would never have moved.” is an other level of stupidity and impudence.
Klugscheißer.
Im Zusamenhang ist Ihnen doch alles klar geworden, oder?
Kein Tempo im Sinne von “kein erwähnenswertes Tempo” oder “keine Tempowechsel”.
Aber das ist Ihnen bewusst. Sie wollten nur mal Klugscheißen weil Sie ansonsten wenig zu sagen hatten.
Sorry for ‘feets’. This is the result of working from 9am – 11pm and being knackered by the time it came to proofreading. Humble apologies for the error – will refund your subscription.
Thankfully, hwk and Ghvinianidzigol have already said what there is to say about this post. Is it really necessary to be so pedantic and besserwisserisch?
About the match. I think other commentators have already drawn the parallel to the England- Algeria match. Of course its always difficult to break down defensively well organised opposition, but England seem to lack cohesiveness and creativity in midfield. I also don’t understand why someone like Davies (who is what, 33 years old?) is given his debut by Capello, while promising youngsters are not integrated into the team.
It is funny because my friend was talking about an episode of Cribs where an LA rapper called “Baby” was talking about the real Bear skin that he had on the floor and noted how “it’s gots claws, it’s gots teeth and it’s gots feets”. Well I thought it was funny anyway. Maybe ZM has been watching too much MTV.
Hahahaahaaahaaaaahaaa
haha! Wolfgang… as amusing as that name is, I agree with the above comment: STFU! Or is that the wrong way to say it!?
It seemed in the second half Rio Ferdinand was increasingly coming forward with the ball and looking to provide aireal balls to either Crouch/Davies or Johnson. Infact there was an instance when he was robbed of the ball and Montenegro counter attacked, though it amounted to nothing.
However, this tactic would have worked only if Gerrard was playing further up the pitch and looking to break in the opposition box. Sadly this did not happen.
Gerrard should have bombed forward after Davies came on.I think Davies holding up play and releasing Gerrard could have worked in England’s favor also with Wazza off form ,some one very direct like Bent(or Defoe after he returns from injury) playing off Kevin Davies and Gerrard behind could be really effective.
Also I think Carrick should start in Barry’s place for the next game. Barry has been poor for England for quite a while now and though Carrick doesn’t feature regularly for Utd.(his confidence has been on a downward spiral since that night in Rome) he can do the job that Capello expects Barry to do in far more better way,Having said that only until Wilshire comes of age.
Good god are you seriously talking about building the England attack around Kevin Davies?!
Big Kev is only the target man. If Capello can try Crouch(with Heskey now retired) in that position,I think you would agree that Big Kev is simply a better option for the role that Crouch was expected to play i.e. Big Man Upfront (Heskey was in the team exactly for being that).I am not at all a big fan of Capello’s tactics but since he is persisting with almost the same system I thought of an option ,which is better !
Is this you? I have never seen you comment before! Oh and I quoted you above.
Plus you are talking slight sense. Carrick is a better bet than Barry. Gerrard should be replaced by Lampard too. I would give Davies a chance as well as he has got to be a better bet than Crouch.
Also is this a parody for your own amusement?
Agree with you on Lampard replacing Gerrard.However the main problem that Capello has is in a 4-4-2 he doesn’t know which is the best central midfield pairing he can choose (and how many games has it been since he has got the job ?).He seems to have (Finally ) agreed with the general consensus that Adam Johnson should be starting games for England but I think who takes the second winger’s place is shrouded in doubt even in the mind of Capello.
Cant see why you see my post as a parody ?
Capello set england up to get a point. job done.
Thanks for yet another excellent match analysis.
Any chance of doing something similar for the Scotland vs Spain match? Would like to see your take on the way both the teams were set up.
Again, thanks for your site. It has helped me a lot in breaking down why and why not tactics, formations etc work.
Cheers.
Yes will definitely cover that in the next day or so.
Scotland vs Spain was a very interesting match and unexpected.
Scotland did their tactical changes in the second half that surprisingly did pay off but they weren’t expecting Llorente; whom i have to say, is the best plan B that Spain has… or the only backup plan. cheers.
they paid off because spain wanted to go home after the 0-2 lead. huge individual mistakes that normally do not happen to this team were the only chance for scotland.
Nice analysis as usual. Pretty much hit the nail on the head but do you not think that the all this praise being heaped on the Montenegrins should be somewhat lessend because of the systematic fouling? Although last night was a case of can’t score / won’t score. Every time England had any momentum they were swiftly kicked out of it.
Either way it seems teams are at their safest when England have the ball at their feet. As for Kevin Davies getting a cap….. it pretty much sums up the state if English football.
Depends how you treat the concept of a ‘foul’, I suppose. In this case it was probably part of ‘tactical fouling’, and therefore a tactic in itself…
fair enough but one of the least desirable tactics (in my opinion). Still, a better team would have overcome these negative tactics. Englands lack of creativity and imagination is a real worry.
Which English players demonstrate creativity and imagination week to week in the premiership in your view?
Paul Scholes.
Frank Lampard.
Am I allowed to mention his name on this site? I hope so. I’m a United fan but I can still see that he’s a brilliant players and England would be a better team with him playing. There might have to be an alteration of tactics – or perhaps (Steven Gerrard bashing coming up, so look away now Liverpool fans) just some tactical discipline from those playing alongside him. Gerrard may be the main man for Liverpool but at international level one man team don’t work. Sure he’s played well recently for England, but in the World Cup, for example, he was awful against the US because he completely went against his instructions to play a particular position. When he plays with Lampard he drifts all over the shop, Lampard cannot influence the game because he cannot get on the ball in advanced positions (he’s probably covering the massive gap left by Gerrard) and so fans say he’s crap for England.
Does anyone else remember Euro 2004 (think that’s the one), when he was our top scorer and probably our best player? Didn’t think so.
I said before the game that Young on the left and Johnson on the right was the wrong way to go – it made the centre of the park more congested and easy for a Montenegro side with 3 relatively defensive central midfielders to stifle the play.
Inevitably it meant Rooney had less space to work in – which is obviously a bad thing for England. I do think, though, that Rooney isn’t actually that intelligent at finding space. Though his awareness of where players are when he’s got the ball is good, he’s not very good at finding pockets of space. Why does he end up near the CBs so often?
Admittedly, Gerrard playing so deep forced him into this. Look at the diagram above – how big a gap is there between Gerrard and Rooney? I know I’ve said that the play was central due to Young and Johnson drifting infield, but it would have made much more sense for Gerrard to link Barry (deep), Rooney (high up) and Young/Johnson (wide players).
Watch Spain play and there is always 2-3 options within 10-20 yards for the man in possession. Sure, you can argue (rightly) English players are trained to run away from the ball at a young age due to playing on 11-a-side pitches when they’re too young to be doing so – but the system on this occasion contributed to this.
On this point, I must disagree with ZM (for once). Though Gerrard played one or two very good long passes, the success rate of long passes from the England team is low, as you would expect. And they’re forced into playing such passes by a lack of options for the man in possession.
All in all, England demonstrated the same problems that manifest in every game they play against a) teams that defend compactly and in numbers or b) against high-standard opposition where they must ensure they don’t waste possession needlessly.
“Watch Spain play and there is always 2-3 options within 10-20 yards for the man in possession.”
Spain is very impressive. They do things in the 10 yards infront of the box, that other teams do 20 yards deeper.
Yesterday, against Scotland Spains showed such great technic (and they can play even better). Passes in the box addressing players under pressure but they don’t lose possession. Spain is very good with the ball, whether they have space or not. And they are good in winning back the ball. But something is changing, I don’t know whether opponents are becoming ‘better’ or Spain is losing somthing. It should have been easy for Spain to win 3-0 against Scotland but it was just 3-2, and this was not the first game with Spain not at 100% in the last month.
spain’s defence is a bit shaky now. puyol and pique are not as solid as before, somehow. and i guess absence of xavi disrupts the tempo of spain’s game.
@ grimtoffee
Re: All in all, England demonstrated the same problems that manifest in every game they play against a) teams that defend compactly and in numbers or b) against high-standard opposition where they must ensure they don’t waste possession needlessly.
This is a superb summary.
Clever strategy is about planning PLUS operational delivery on the field. if you go back to the last decent england side (2004) they had a simple strategy which played to strengths and was within the ability of the players to deliver. In other words sit very deep, and hit long and rapidly to Owen on the last shoulder or Rooney in space.
What is the concept now? For me it is far from clear.
@ yBC – thanks.
In fairness to Capello – Defoe or Bent might have changed the dynamic of the game by stretching the defence and creating more space ‘in between the lines’. Crouch will never do this, thus making it even easier for Montenegro.
His options were limited, but why didn’t he opt to play another CM (Carrick or even Wilshere) and play Gerrard in behind Rooney as a front 2? I’ve got to say I’ve not been impressed by Capello’s tactical nous as England manager.
Presumably, Capello went with Crouch to deter Montengro from defending too deeply? Of course, this doesn’t really work when the ‘big man’ isn’t really a ‘big man’ at all, just very tall.
Why would he want to do that? Compress England’s play into a small space and the players aren’t good enough to play their way through you.
If they defend deeper, England’s play gets closer to the goal and they become likelier to score.
Not saying you’re wrong that that’s what Capello’s thinking was, but as I’ve said I’m not overly impressed by him…
Yep, unhappily, Capello does seem to be doing a pretty average job for his £6m.
I forget who exactly (I think it may have been Jonathan Wilson), but I recall reading an analysis of Heskey’s role when Walcott was in the team. The idea being being that, in order to lessen the aerial threat nearer goal, the defence is forced to push up, thus leaving space behind for pacey players to exploit.
Again, I didn’t see much of the game, but given Young’s pace, I wondered if there was a similar plan – and, as you say, it relies less on playing through the midfield.
Personally, I too would rather have seen a passer such as Carrick in the side, rather than two forwards, though the end result may well have been the same.
I’m still waiting for an analysis on the Scotland – Czech Republic match.
I thought zonalmarking would have a lot to say about that match, eh?
I don’t understand the criticism Levein’s been getting for playing 4-6-0. Wasn’t this the way of the future when Spaletti did it
What I fail to understand is why can people like ourselves watch the football from the stands or on the TV screens and see the blindingly obvious playing out on the pitch and yet Capello getting paid £6m a year does seem to rectify the problems he is paid to do. I know its easy to say it from this side of the computer screen but I think the best managers in the World can read a game and know when to change it.
Last night seemed like same old England playing an English way unable to break down a well organised side intent on defending. We resorted to playing deep against a side that was already playing in their own half aswell? Surely Gerrard playing forward was an obvious selection to show more attacking threat.
I could see the reasoning by the introduction of Davies. A stronger player then Crouch against what was become a physical Montenegro performance of cynical fouls. But it didn’t seem to the solution, when we were lacking creativity, tempo and guile.
My feeling would have been to allow Rooney further up the field. Occupying the two centre backs and to either through Gerrard in to a 4-2-3-1 system. Or bring in Wilshere to add a bit of creativity. He might not be the best in the defensive movement of the side, but when we were playing against 9 men behind the ball I think attacking and drawing Montenegro out was the piority.
To be fair to Capello, what players does he have?
I recall watching a young Gerrard back in 2001 for England. What other players have Liverpool supplied in the intervening 9 years?
Who has Arsenal developed for him?
who has Chelsea developed for England since 2004?
….and United?
Most of the new players have come from places like Spurs!
Watch out for Josh McEachran.
Arsenal has developed England’s first and second choice left backs, Ca$hley Cole and Kieran Gibbs. There’s Theo Walcot and Young Jack is on the verge of breaking into the starting 11.
Interesting that relative novices like Sami K and Kroos can master the basics of central midfield play where Gerrard and Barry cannot.
English football reminds me so much of english rugby. You toss some talented players out there and ask them to play champagne (or even just creative) football. Yet none of the key guys are demonstrating the skill set week in week out at club level.
Gerrard’s performance against Manchester United WITH an extra man in midfield demonstrates the guys lack of tactical generalship.
Why would anyone think he can do the job in a major tournament?
@yourBusinessChannel
I know nothing about the English way of educating players, but Khedira and Kroos are a new generation and they still have to learn.
That is why I used the word ‘novices’.
Sami Khedira illustrated perfectly last night how a central midfielder works himself forward from deep by passing and movement.
Gerrard against United, in a situation where he outnumbered Paul Scholes (35+) and Fletcher 3-2 just dumps the ball out wide as if that is job done.
Scholes absolutely dominated that game in terms of dictating play.
England have played well about twice since Euro 2004.
Six years!
At least poor old Sven combined a coherent strategy with players who could actually execute it. He never kidded himself that England could knock the ball around in midfield did he.
All I wanted to say was: Khedira and Kroos should improve if nothing stange will happen.
I didn’t make my question clear: What is going wrong in the English youth development? and Is the difference between Premier League football and European / international football so significant?
(Are teams like ManUnited, Chelsea … are choosing a different style in Europe compared to the PL or it it just the national squad?)
The English shape looked odd to me. I can see the point of playing inverted wingers if your central attack is little fellows like Defoe and Rooney. But if you’re going to field big chaps like Crouch or Davies then you want the wingers the other way round, each going down the touchline and crossing with his better foot. I thought that trying Davies as an “impact substitute” was a reasonable gamble, and worked reasonably well. Wright-Phillips, though, is not so much a gamble more a ludicrous long-shot.
As to why the defence lurked so deep and tried so little – beats me. Did they wish to restrict attackers’ space because they didn’t trust the defenders’ fitness? Or perhaps it all comes back to the usual conclusion that virtually all England footballers are, in football terms, desperately unintelligent. The fact that Hargreaves learnt his football abroad is just another reason to regret his absence.
I agree with you completely for all your points; especially using inverted wingers with target men, like Crouch/Davies. By reducing the number of quality crosses for the big man reduces their effectiveness and to the point of not playing him. The wingers didn’t switch once! That did not make sense not to try that at least once in the game.
I would have dropped Crouch in favour of additional midfielder. Idealy, it would be a player like Huddlestone to play deep and push Gerrard up the pitch were he is more dangerous. However, he was not available so would have been Wilshire running from deep. It is harder to defend against a moving target than a stationary Crouch.
However, with hindsight, England should have player Downing and Wright-Philips on the correct winger to stretch the play and Crouch and Davies up front to head in the goals or muscle the opposition to create chances. I would have take the England team 20 years backwards and the I think the media would crucify me …
I’m glad in your first sentence you gave Montenegro some credit – the ‘lesser’ team never seems to get any mention when we fail to win one of these games. we forget there are two teams out there – it’t not all about us!
http://www.footballfarrago.com
Well, England often looks to stretched between the lines. I think that they shuold play pressing from the beginning of the match, in that way they wouldn’t allow Montenegro to have time or space with ball and more importantly they probably would have good rhythm. Croatia did the same mistake against Grecce and Grecce was able to ˝calm˝ the game.
I thought that Rooney in many ways played very well.
The problem was that he was not doing the job he was supposed to do, leaving Crouch with no-one to link with.
If Capello gives him licence to roam or more exactly to do just as he likes then this is a waste. If he’s off form he should be dropped.
Rooney’s control and link up play was good, he continually found space, he wanted the ball, was strong and industrious but all in the wrong area of the pitch.
He had no positional discipline at all; he operated in the space that Gerrard and Barry should have been in.
Complete lack of urgency at the back. I know that Ferdinand has been injured but if he is not fit enough to play at full pace he should have been subbed. Looked as if he was going for a stroll on the beach and this lethargy was transmitted to Lescott.
Michael Carrick yeah?
Let’s give Montenegro some credit, they played a good defensive game, but England were just awful.
Let’s talk about the problems. Glen Johnson is a defender who can’t actually defend, recipe for disaster. With him playing in the team, England are never going to win a major tournament.
Gareth Barry. Weak, lethargic, slow, poor positional play, I am genuinely intrigued to know what he offers an England team that Huddlestone/Carrick don’t.
Ashley Young. Why was he even in the squad, let alone the starting line up. Did he manage to successfully beat his man in the entire evening? Did he manage a successful cross in the entire evening? No to both.
But the biggest problem of all is Capello, the man is just a clueless idiot who should have left as soon as the final whistle blew on our shambles of a World Cup. As always, he goes 4-4-2, it’s not against the lesser nations playing 4-4-2 is a problem, and last night if I was the manager, I probably would have gone 4-4-2 as well, but I would have instructed the players differently, Gerrard was so deep it was ridiculous, he should be up with Rooney feeding off of what Crouch will win for you, and also play for you. Is this down to Capello, or down to the tactical indiscipline that Gerrard has in the game?
Rooney was poor again, his lack of form is massively worrying. The touch is gone, the control has gone, and his passes are just contstantly going astray.
If I was to give any players any credit, I thought Rio and Lescott did OK, I wouldn’t say by any means they were the best players, they just did what they had to do, they won things in the air all night, restricting Montenegro to no chances apart from the long range volley, and Rio was bringing the ball out of defence nicely at times. Adam Johnson did OK, some good direct running, but mixed with poor end product as well, and I keep seeing comments about this Montenegro defender having Crouch in his ‘back pocket’. Addmittedly Crouch wasn’t brilliant, but he did win alot of aerial ball, that an on form Rooney would have got more out of, and if Gerrard was up there instead of treading on the toes of the two centre backs and the useless Barry, he could have made more out of also.
Next up competitively is Wales, they are a poor side, and they’ve just been spanked 4-1 by the team we beat 3-1, but trust me, Wales is going to be a tough game. They are going to be so up for it, roared on by 70,000 in the Millenium Stadium with the pressure all on England, and perhaps most worryingly of all, Gareth Bale is going to be up against Glen Johnson, and that battle is going to have one winner all night long.
Worrying times for Enngland.
Just a quick point on Stewart Downing. Massively underated player in my opinion, and I think he should be a starter for England, especially when we have Peter Crouch playing. Downing is a bit of a throw back, he’s quick, he’s direct, and he has good delivery, what else do you want from a winger? Ashley Young is too predictable, cut inside and play a five yard pass, but when he does manage a cross, it’s a faliure.
Another underated player, Aaron Lennon. Lennon’s poor end product is a myth. Players in wide positions with lightning speed are automatically associated with having no end product, fair enough in Walcott’s case, thats a valid point, but how many times does Lennon beat his full back and get good balls in for Crouch and Defoe? We need to be more direct in wing play, espcially with Crouchy (another underated player in my opinion) in the middle. A right footed winger on the right, left footed on the left. With simple instructions, get at the defender, and get a cross in, both Lennon and Downing are very capable of doing that.
Now England do not have classic wingers like Beckham – to me, Stewart Downing, though some say he’s been underated, Aaron Lennon, and other players, and other classic wingers are NOT at ENGLAND BEST XI level – and right winger Adam Johnson and left winger Ashley Young, currently the best wingers, are left footed and right footed respectively. Instead they have the fullbacks of outstanding attacking abilities – Ashley Cole and Glen Johnson. Their overlapping attacks play pivotal roles in Chelsea and Liverpool attack. Why the manager use the fullbacks so conservatively?
I actually think that Ashley Young is a decent crosser of the ball, especially from the left, and i have seen it to my teams misfortune as well (ManUtd versus Villa last year). To me the real problem for the English was the non-existent attacking fullbacks in the final third of the field. Do we just pass this off as a anomoly, that these guys will be back to their rampaging best in the next game, or have they been given instructions to fulfill a more defensive role now?
Also was Gerrard told to give Barry protection, and thats why he stayed back so far? If that is the case, why have Barry there, why not someone who can play a short simple game AND play his way out of trouble if pressed? Surely the return of Hargreaves to international action spells the end of Barry’s career (although it is a big if). The other alternative to my mind is Carrick, for reason which ZM have championed before.
What a afantastic site this is, it is THE best of its kind i have ever found, and i read it every day, congrats to everyone here who works on this site, fantastic stuff…!!!
Did anyone manage to catch the Belgium versus Austrian game…???..fantastic stuff, if only all qualifiers were like it..!
Thanks. I didn’t, although I have been subjected to some kind of mini-campaign from Austrians asking me to cover one of their games.