Cautious but promising full debut for Wilshere
Wilshere's role for England
Before the World Cup, Fabio Capello used his friendlies to help England become more comfortable in a shape that was proving very successful in qualifiers. Since the failure in Bloemfontein, he’s used them to experiment slightly more. In the other post-South Africa non-competitive games, he’s used a 4-3-3 and then a 4-2-3-1, on both occasions playing Wayne Rooney as a lone forward.
Here, England were back to 4-4-2, with Rooney paired with Darren Bent upfront. The experimentation was in the central midfield zone, with Jack Wilshere fielded alongside Frank Lampard in midfield. The absence of Steven Gerrard was frustrating because it didn’t allow us to see what Capello would have done if all three were available. He’d confirmed two weeks ago that Wilshere would start – so would Gerrard or Lampard be dropped, or would England play a three in the middle?
Wilshere and Lampard were fielded in what is probably best described as an old-fashioned central midfield duo. Wilshere was used in a deep role, but not as a pure ‘holding’ player – Lampard rarely got forward too much to leave the Arsenal midfielder on his own – they generally stayed close together and worked as a partnership.
In that sense, Wilshere wasn’t really in the “Makelele role” – which was never completely defined in the first place (does it have to be as the sole holding player?) and is becoming less useful in the modern game anyway. At Arsenal he plays in a double pivot with Alex Song. The two take it in turns to go forward, and cover each other appropriately. The model many clubs are following here is the German one – Bastian Schweinsteiger and Sami Khedira last summer. Many will claim Wilshere is too attack-minded and creative to play in a ‘double pivot’, but consider that Schweinsteiger, one of the players of the tournament, was an out-and-out winger until the start of the 2009/10 campaign, and that argument looks less valid.
Although England were playing a central midfield two here, rather than the three Wilshere would probably be more comfortable in, it’s not entirely dissimilar to the German system, despite that being widely labelled a 4-2-3-1. Mesut Ozil played as an attacking midfielder but barely helped out in the defensive phase of play – instead he stayed high up the pitch and looked for space, ready to spring counter-attacks. Germany defended with two banks of four, and therefore the roles of the central midfielders in their system there, and England’s system in Denmark, were not too different.
Wilshere is not really a defensive midfielder, something Capello and Arsene Wenger agree on, but England don’t have anyone capable of playing there alone. Gareth Barry was a letdown at the World Cup, Michael Carrick wasn’t in the squad, Scott Parker won his first cap under Capello last night so is clearly not a favourite, and Owen Hargreaves is sadly barely worth consideration.
Despite being withdrawn at half time, Wilshere played well. He made a couple of good tackles, he played on the front foot to intercept balls played into opponents, and he hit some excellent diagonal passes to the flanks. In all, he did pretty much what he’s done this season for Arsenal, with the exception of his sudden charges forward, where he looks to play one-twos and move past Cesc Fabregas.
Because of that, he will probably be described as being ’shackled’ by this new role – but when considering that England don’t have anyone in the ‘Song’ mould, this was as close as Capello could get to using Wilshere where he’s impressed so far this season for his club. Capello has been accused of not playing players in the correct position during his tenure, and Wilshere may turn out to be an attacking midfielder – at the head of a midfield trio – but in his last game for Arsenal, the zone he played most of his passes from was just deeper than the halfway line.
Wilshere agreed that there was little difference from his club role. “It’s quite similar, Just not going forward as much. I spoke to the boss before the game, and he said he wants to play me there, and I’ll play anywhere for my country. It’s quite similar to the role at Arsenal.”
Wilshere’s performance was not sensational - maybe that goes with playing deep in midfield – and he is still young and inexperienced. However, it was an encouraging full debut for his country, and ignoring the fact that Capello only used him for 45 minutes, this was the right way for Wilshere to be used.
Cautious but promising full debut for Wilshere
I know he’s been out injured, but Tom Huddlestone has to be in the discussion as England’s future holding midfielder. He has all of Carrick’s passing ability while having developed into a superior defender. He’s not the destructive force Hargreaves was, but surely he must be one of the first names in the team sheet when he is healthy.
Also, why did Capello use so many 4-3-3/4-1-4-1 variants during qualifications and yet ultimately settle for a rather bland 4-4-2 at the actual World Cup? Has this ever been properly explained? Did he feel like the players were more comfortable with it? Was he more comfortable with it because of its defensive strengths? Was he expecting Rooney to be much more active in linking play than he ended up doing? Still mind boggling, the whole affair.
He’s not exactly a destroyer though, and thats what we appear to need.
While that would be useful, it’s not necessarily about being a brutal tackler. Most of modern defending is about positioning. Huddlestone, when deployed as a holding player, is excellent at maintaining his positional integrity, intercepting passes, and winning the ball in the air. He is a former center back and more than capable of playing the Busquets center-half role, dropping between the two central defenders to push the full backs on. He’s played a much more active, pressing-oriented role since Modric started playing in the center, but he’s played the holding role, as well as being part of a double pivot with Palacios, many times.
Also, Wilshere and Huddlestone passing the ball about in the midfield? Not only would it eliminate many of England’s technical deficiencies, but it would allow Capello to play his precious 4-4-2. Both players can stretch the field with their passing without losing their positional integrity, something Gerrard and Lampard fail to do in a two-man midfield partnership.
The third point is that there simply isn’t the destructive player you speak of in the England set up, unless you want to start giving Lee Cattermole caps.
Well said!
Nope he would get sent off in minutes, I’ve heard good things about Muamba though..
very correct his full potential is still to be exploited and it would be better for coyle to ask him to play that role .
muamba’s passing ability and ball retention are something to be wary of, even if he breaks up the play well
Very stilted and outdated view of Cattermole, clearly only read the headlines at the start of the season, and not seen him play.
Although Henderson got the England call-up, Cattermole has been a better player for most of the season. He doesn’t have the passing skills necessary to play top-level international football though.
I, for one, would like to see Hudlestone given a go. Seems a very receptive and intelligent player, and of course he has very good distribution.
Why do England need a destroyer exactly? There is simply a lack of a holding midfielder, such a player does not have to be ‘destructive’.
Aside from what he could bring England in terms of passing, Huddlestone has seemed much more defensively intelligent over the last 2 years. For me, reading of the game is more important than being a ‘destroyer’ (although Huddlestone has also shown a lot more positivity in physical encounters under Redknapp). This article cites ‘the Makelele role’, which certainly isn’t the role of destroyer – to brand Makelele that would be severely short-sighted – his reading of the game was excellent and for me is the defining ability of a holding midfielder.
Therefore I think that at the present (well, when he comes back from injury) Huddlestone should at least be experimented with as a lone holding midfielder, especially considering how poor England’s other central midfielders have been over the last year, especially when playing for the national side.
I feel like the makelele role is a role that is used one special occasions. To deal with extremely high quality trequatista(there that many any more not the decline in the role). The makelele role is very similar to the defensive winger role in that wont really be used for a whole season but rather in games where you’ll be defending or need to deal with with a good trequatista. If i remember correctly makelele was being used less and less but in more important games in his final years at chelsea.
Hey check out my new blog http://footballphilosphy.blogspot.com/ For any one who likes Football Theory, Methodology, Tactics, Fitness, and a lot more this is the site for you
makelele rarely came up against any trequartista’s in his days at chelsea, as the trequartista was rarely used then…his job wasn’t to mark anyone but space, and provide cover to full backs.
This what should have happened, just give a cap here and there for the younger players, not all at once.
The biggest problem is what do with Rooney. Give him another striker and the midfield has to be a lot more defensive and rely more on the wings. Play him on his own, he won’t get alot of the ball and he starts coming deep for it but have more cover in the midfield role.
Again, we only have a third of England team eligible players in the EPL, not a true ‘holding’ midfielder, not a decent right back. I think Capello is doing his best with what he has got. Unfortunately, he won’t be here to pick on the new crop of players coming in when he needs them most, at Euro 2012.
It only looks as a conundrum if you consider Rooney purely as a FW in the classic definition innit? I consider his best position at the moment is trequartista type, with his natural instinct and ability to labor hard and drop deep to get involved into the build up process. If he rekindles his scoring mentality up to the 08-09 level, then I’d say yest to keeping him high up. Until then, he is quite dangerous in the shadow striker/offensive mid position and should be used as so.
I thought that Rooney was poor last night. Two examples:
(i) Brent’s shot was saved and the ball ran to Rooney. A quick left-footed shot might score, but he laboriously brought the ball back to his right, by which time the defence had got back and managed to block the shot.
(ii) A free ball was pursued by a defender on the Danish right and Rooney began to sprint after it; then he gave up the chase early.
He never was the great player he was hailed as, but he was very good. That was then; now he is a husk of what he was.
Well, there are many types of forwards and not one by definition. For decades most teams played with five (2 x outside, 2x inside + 1 x central). Wingers (when played in the classical sense) are forwards.
Rooney is definitely a forward who can play more than one role. As to which of those roles he is best suited to is debateable.
The real conundrum is what to do when Gerrard and Lampard are fit.
From last night’s evidence (and the friendly vs Germany) it is clear that England can’t fit Gerrard or Lampard into midfield. The best combination for the central midfield is probably Wilshire/Parker, Parker/Barry, Parker/Carrick or Wilshire/Barry.
Lamps and Stevie G lack the positional discipline to play the role (one can be accommodated in either Rooney’s position or in a 3 man midfield) and Gerrard’s ‘hollywood’ passes are totally detrimental to a side trying to retain possession.
Problem is the UK media won’t accept this. No way. Neither will a lot of fans, particularly the cult of Gerrard which refuses to recognise he needs 2 midfielders behind him to account for his inability to track opposition runners (or has any kind of flaw in his game at all).
If Capello wants England to be competitive he needs to bench ‘em, but I think he’d prefer a quiet life.
I agree. Lampard and Gerrard have been very fine players for their clubs but have routinely been poor for England. Try Parker, since Carrick and Barry have seen better days.
I just do not get it.
Capello is playing the same 4-4-2 with two players wide system that looked refreshing if fragile when Greenwood introduced it in the late ’70’s with Coppell and Barnes, dissapointed when Robson tried it in the late ’80’s with Waddle and the another Barnes, and was just plain sterile when Taylor tried it in the ’90’s with the likes of Sinton and Merson.
Try as a I might, I can no longer convince myself that Rooney’s habit of dropping behind the main forward makes this formation any different to Greenwood’s when Keegan played off Bob Latchford or Robson’s when Beardsley partnered Lineker.
This is no 4-2-3-1, its the same old rigid 4-4-2 that has failed England for over three decades. The same system that is so dated that Algeria frustrated it by deploying a Italia’90 style 3-5-2 system that was hardly modern in 2010.
And yet, Capello goes to Denmark, deploys players who are no better than those at Taylor’s disposal, shoves them into the same 4-4-2, and gets a result against a Danish side that are nobody’s fools!
This England side might be getting more than its fair share of luck in friendly games and what should be routine qualifiers now; but, if it qualifies for Euro 2012 it will be found out just as it was in 2010.
Although I agree that the 4-4-2 is not the greatest formation to deploy at the top level these days, I think to compare it against England formations of decades previous is fairly redundant. For every failed attempt with Waddle/Barnes, Sinton/Merson, there are many of classic sides throughout history that played such a formation (let’s not forget that 4-4-2 was still the leading formation up until a few years ago). Unless you’re trying to claim that there are characteristics endemic to Englishmen that make them poorly suited to such a formation (which, if anything, is probably the opposite of the truth) then how is such discussion worth having?
Classic sides in a 4-4-2, you must be joking!
I can only think of Sacchi’s Milan over the last 30 years and yes I would say that the fluidity and movement of that side demonstrates the reality that England’s generally static players are poorly suited to making 4-4-2 work. Just because they always play a 4-4-2 does not mean English players play it well.
After 30 years in 4-4-2 with 2 wingers and a forward dropping off, the system has become for England what “WM” was in the 1950’s. It’s rigid, its dated, its easily outnumbered in midfield and its a hard-wired default that prevents English players from moving in relation to eachother in a way that will permiy them to retain the ball and break down an organised defence.
After four dacades of failure, I would have thought that was ample proof that 4-4-2 does not bring out the best in the players and the players do not play it well.
England need to absorb the lesson of Italia ‘90 when 5-4-1 gave them the defensive security to play a fluid midfield, of Euro ‘96 when Vanables broke the lines of a traditional 4-4-2 by experimenting with the christmas tree and 3-3-3-1, and Hoddle’s draw in Rome when his 3-5-2 circulated the ball as well as any England side I have seen.
For me that means either England must adopt 4-3-3 or a proper 4-2-3-1
Arsenal played a 4-4-2 in virtually every game between 1997 and 2005, and it’s the formation they used to win all of Wenger’s trophies, with one exception (he played a 4-5-1 in the 2005 FA Cup Final because of injuries to his strikers). Man Utd normally played a 4-4-2 during that period as well, and have been using it a lot this season… it’s true, the system has fallen out of favor recently, although last year Bayern did play a 4-4-2 in many games en route to the title and CL final. and in WC06 of course, two of the four semifinalists (Germany + Italy) played a 4-4-2.
it’s true, 4-4-2 can be an uncreative, rigid formation. teams like Wolves and Stoke go out there with the same old formula – combative midfielders, wingers who can cross, strong physical forwards. but there’s still room for creativity and innovation. Wenger used inverted wingers in Pires and Rosicky. He also changed the roles of his central midfielders depending on personnel – the partnership of Gilberto – Vieira was a lot different from Fabregas – Flamini, for instance.
I think it’s quite a stretch to call the Arsenal side a 4-4-2 in the Bergkamp-Henry era. Henry would constantly drift wide (usually to his left) and cut in to his better foot. Bergkamp on the other hand, had pretty much a free role, and he reeeally loved that gap between opposition’s defense and midfield.
Wenger also had his wide players playing very different roles (his preferred starters at the time being Ljunberg and Pires), almost to a point where they played different positions. Ljunberg starting deeper, providing width and crosses, whereas Pires played higher up the pitch- being a goalscoring threat. Full-backs had the permission to bomb forward in turns, and even one of the central midfielders would join the the attacks occasionally.
I’m not sure how to put that in numbers, but to call it a 4-4-2, is quite the understatement on the fluidity of that team.
That being said, I very much agree that 4-4-2 isn’t as outdated and rigid as it’s reputation is, it truly can be executed in number of ways.
This is where we arrive at the stupity of the “numbers game” method to describing football formations (4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 etc).
If you have a 4-4-2 “with two wingers and one forward dropping off” isn’t that exactly the same as a 4-2-3-1 (with the two wingers and the dropped off forward forming the “3″).
I think England’s problems are more deep-rooted than simply a matter of whether we label sa system as 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2 or 4-3-3.
Also, is it my imagination/fading memory, or does there seem to be a lot of revisionism going on concerning Terry Venables’ “great England team” of Euro 96 (the one that only actually won two games out of five if I remember rightly). He may have varied tactics slightly from game to game (and within each game), but wasn’t the main line-up throughout that tournament something like a 4-4-2 of Seaman – Neville, Adams, Southgate, Pearce – Anderton, Ince, Gazza, McManaman – Sheringham Shearer?
Formations offer a graphical means by which to understand how players are arranged within a team. A formation is an ideal-type which sets out to capture the approximate positioning of players in relation to one another over the course of the game. However, our apprehension of team shape is mediated by the meanings we attach to players’ roles. A clear example of this is presented by full-backs, who tend to take up positions which are more advanced than central-defenders; and latidudinally, they are probably closer to central-midfielders. However, the full-back’s principal role remains defence; so we are comfortable seeing them level with central defenders in formational designs – this is why a formation would be noted as 4-2-3-1, despite the fact that average coordinate positions over the course of the game are likely to be closer to 2-4-3-1 (with the full-backs pushing forward next to the defensive midfielders.) We also take into account player proclivities, so a team including a striker such as Wayne Rooney (with a penchant for dropping deep) is likely to be viewed as 4-4-2 with a striker dropping off; whereas a similar configuration incorporating an advanced midfielder (such as Steven Gerrard) playing behind the forward is often viewed as 4-2-3-1.
Football is a game predicated on open continuous play, with no demarcartions within the pitch prescribing where the player should be situated. The team configuration is therefore a negotiated order which is in a state of perpetual flux throughout the game. A formation is comparable to a scientific model in as much as we apprehend an ideal-type of team design, which is an abstraction from a complex and messy physical reality. But as a formation is also shaped by human understanding of role significance (rather than solely representing averaged coordinates) it can be considered a phenomenological heuristic more than a scientific model.
And I personally think a team selector which crowdsources selections would be an interesting means by which to compare “the public’s choice” with that of the lone expert (team coach). A collaborative resource could also change how we apprehend formations and their notation. A verbose outline of the concept features here: http://teamselector.net/
Locost, found your comparing last night’s system to that which Greenwood used as manager really interesting. Hadn’t made the connection until I read your post. Agree with you.
I recall Greenwood saying he only settled with that system because the players felt uncomfortable with anything that wasn’t pretty much a 4-4-2. It wasn’t how he wanted to play.
What about Rodwell. Could he be used in a similar role as Song in the future?
My first thought too.
In Wilshere, Rodwell and McEachran I think there are very encouraging options in central midfield for the future. I’d start introducing all three sooner rather than later, although the drawback is that only one is getting regular club football at this moment in time.
Fabian Delph has potential too, although he has a lot of developing to do.
McEachran and Delph have hardly played any Premier League football and they are seen as Future England players.
Players like Henderson, Phil Jones and Muamba have been playing regular Premier League football all year, and more in Muamba’s case. Just the physical strain of playing week in week out is a key stage in a players development, and something that a player has to do before he has any look in with England
I thought Rooney played far too deep for this to be a 4-4-2. It seemed to me that England were not clear what their system was supposed to be.
The first half was played at pedestrian pace after the opening 10 minutes so there isn’t much point in analyzing it. The competitive fixtures won’t be played this way and will offer completely different challenges.
Just want to say this is a fantastic site.Very informative for a lover of the game.
“He’d confirmed two weeks ago that Wilshere would start – so would Gerrard or Lampard be dropped, or would England play a three in the middle?”
Well, neither: he’d play Gerrard out of position on the left wing like he always does.
I think that’s actually a good role for him, similar to how Kevin Grosskreutz is playing for Dortmund at the moment (he’s basically Gerrard but not as good – 100% effort, decent finisher but not much more). It’s the English media that rail against using players outside their “natural position” – unless it’s a well-loved manager doing it. So sure, playing Wilshere in a *slightly* more defensive role? Capello’s lost the plot. Playing Glen Johnson at left wing back? Amazing tactical masterstroke from Kenny Dalglish. Lose a game because Sebastian Squillaci isn’t good? Wenger should’ve spent money. Lose a game because Jonny Evans isn’t good? Oh, that’s unlucky Fergie, hopefully Rio comes back soon.
“It’s the English media that rail against using players outside their “natural position” – unless it’s a well-loved manager doing it. So sure, playing Wilshere in a *slightly* more defensive role? Capello’s lost the plot. Playing Glen Johnson at left wing back? Amazing tactical masterstroke from Kenny Dalglish. Lose a game because Sebastian Squillaci isn’t good? Wenger should’ve spent money. Lose a game because Jonny Evans isn’t good? Oh, that’s unlucky Fergie, hopefully Rio comes back soon”
Yes! A thousand times yes! It’s fans too. I’m a Burnley fan and Owen Coyle playing 4-3-3
with Blake (previously a number 10) wide cutting in and Wade Elliot (previously a winger) playing as a central midfielder was seen as genius by fans then for Brian Laws playing Elliot the same way or Jay Rodriguez (striker) wide he was ‘tactically inept’.
Interesting that Capello went for Wilshere in this more withdrawn role, for me he works much better in a midfield three and against a better side England would have surely got over-run in midfield with Wilshere and Lampard, indeed England looked much better and solid with the introduction of Parker & Barry as the central pairing in the second half.
England have failed to successfully find a player to fulfill the “holding midfield” role since the days of when Owen Hargreaves was fit enough to play. Carrick & Barry have both been tried but both have flattered to deceive in my opinion and we should be looking towards the future. Good to see Jack Wilshere get a run out but I can think of three obvious candidates for this role in the future for England. Huddlestone (Tottenham), Rodwell (Everton) and Jones (Blackburn). All slightly different players the latter two have been labelled as future centrebacks playing in midfield but they both have the physical presence and understanding to play the holding midfield role well. Huddlestone is a player I admire and I’m suprised he’s not got more of a look in for England, maybe his lack of mobility works against him but he’s superb passer of the ball and I think his style of play would be more suited to international football.
My hope is that Rodwell will develop into a modern centre-half, a player who shifts between anchoring the midfield three and becomming a third centre back during the game.
What will happen is he’ll be told to play in either that back four or in midfield and his development will suffer because he is “neither fish nor fowl”.
Everyone keeps talking Rodwell up as a future central defender. Frankly, I don’t see it. He isn’t a natural defender — his first instinct is to attack. I think it more likely that he takes over Cahill’s role for Everton (assuming Everton can hold onto him) and he’ll play as the attacking mid in a 4-2-3-1 for England.
yeah I don’t get that notion either. Everton have been playing a three-man midfield of Arteta / Fellaini / Rodwell recently, and it’s Rodwell who has been playing the most advanced role (yes, even ahead of Arteta, who is a #10 if I’ve ever seen one). he also played right wing a couple times this year… either Moyes is the most daft manager in all of England, or maybe Rodwell isn’t really seen as a holding midfielder for the future…
Yeah, but Arteta has played as anything like a 10 since his bad leg injury, I don’t think. He used to be used wide and further up the pitch, but now he’s almost exclusively a regista.
I agree Rodwell isn’t a holding midfielder per se, but he could be a box-to-box ball winner in the mold of Fletcher, which would suit Wilshere very well, I think.
Oh, and the last sentence is just pure hyperbole. Moyes has one decent wide player (Coleman), one good attacking midfielder (Cahill), good depth at CB (Jagielka can’t get a game) and one of the best double pivots in the PL (Fellaini/Arteta). Of course Rodwell, a very versatile player, is being used in the positions they’re weakest in–it doesn’t mean they are his best positions.
Does Rodwell have the stamina?
Rodwell has stamina to burn, I think. No one has ever faulted him for a lack of energy on the pitch. Staying injury-free is the bigger concern.
If you’re talking about Jermaine Jones, he has German/US parentage and recently played for the US, so he’s out of the picture as far as England is concerned…
no, he’s talking about Phil Jones I believe. there’s also Michael Mancienne at Chelsea (on loan to Wolves) who is similar – a natural centre back playing in defensive midfield.
to continue the debate about 442…..
Locost, do you not recall Man Utd with Roy Keane, Beckham, Giggs and Scholes as the midfield 4, with Cole and Yorke as the two strikers?
or how about Arsenal, with Vieira, Petit, Lungburg and Pires as the midfield 4, and Bergkamp and Henry as the two strikers? – two CLASSIC teams that played straight-up 442!!!!
and everyone else, does anyone notice the two constants in both of the above classic teams? – Two WORLD-CLASS destructive Central-Midfielders (Keane and Vieira)…..
The thing is, when you play 442 with two genuine wingers (which England were doing tonight), it naturally only leaves two in Central-Midfield, so you need to be absolutely sure that at least one of those two is brilliant at harrassing the opposition and WINNING THE BALL BACK.
– Once both Ferguson and Wenger lost these two players, they then had to abandon playing 2 men in midfield and switch to playing 3 in Central-Midfield, to compensate for the lack of ball-winning cover they now displayed – leading to the 433/451 systems that we are now seeing as rampant in todays game (in fact, once Keane had gone over the hill as a player, from around 2002 onwards, Ferguson was lost in trying to rebuild his team, making a hash of matching different players in different systems – Juan Veron on the wing, anyone? – until Ronaldo and Tevez saved him by becoming genuine World-Class forwards with Rooney, meaning he could play three in Central-Midfield cos his three strikers were so good).
Everyone’s point about Huddlestone is interesting, he could be a solution for Englands holding role….
– what does everyone think about whether or not 442 can be a success without a Top-Class destructive (and by Top-Class I mean a destroyer who can pass very well and has good vision/creativity) Midfielder? – I just think that a relatively passive “reading” holding-player doesn’t cut it enough for 442 to really work……?
Vieira, Petit, Lungburg and Pires were aslo helped greatly by being fronted by Bergkamp who had learned his trade at the tip of a diamond in ajax’s 3-4-3 system and Henry’s modility. It was all very fluid, relied on imaginative positioning and off the ball running, and please note there was not an Englishman amongst them.
Even Sir Alex acknowledges that a defeat to Real Madrid convinced him that a Roy Keane, Beckham, Giggs and Scholes midfield might dominate a 4-4-2 orientated domestic leagure but it would not cut the mustard in Europe. That’s why he began an evolutionary process that produced that 4-2-3-1 system, which at the time was one of the most sophisticated in Europe.
sure, there wasn’t an Englishman among them, but that’s more of an indictment of Arsenal’s youth academy at the time (I’m an Arsenal fan by the way) than anything else. they produced basically one world class English player over Wenger’s first ten years at the club, in Ashley Cole.
———————-Hart
———-???–Ferdinand–Terry
———————————Cole
———————-???
————–Gerrard—-Lampard
——————–rooney
—Young————-???
=>gerrard and lampard at their best position, with freedom to go forward
=>rooney at his best position too
=>a striker to play in front of rooney and staying there: Bent,Crouch,Carroll, whoever
Ashley Cole with a lot of freedom to go forward
Ashley young to play wide on the other side
right back?: whoever is good enough to defend
Holding midfielder: whoever you want, slow barry, young wilshere, huddlestone, carrick
with this formation you have your stars: rooney, lampard, gerrard, cole playing at their best position and the others their to adapt and do their best
you can call it a 442 diamond, a 352 a 343 whatever you want as long as the winger and rooney know where to defend, and as ashley cole going a lot forward is not leading to counter-attacks
it’s a bizarre formation because it only has one winger (rooney ca be the second when not behing the striker…) but i think it’s waht england should do
last year madrid was doing the same thing with cristiano ronaldo doing the striker/winger
(higuain: striker, kaka: number 10, marcelo doing ashley cole, ramos doing the king of defensive right back,xabi alonso etc)
I’m a big advocate for lopsided systems – I don’t think you need to use a formation that covers the whole pitch in perfect symetrical balance(like 442). I just think that you need to make sure the middle of the pitch is well covered and use whatever attacking outlets you have at your disposal (maybe a very attacking full-back, like Ashley Cole, or a great winger like Jonhson? Young? Walcott?).
We agree then…
As you mentionned england has upcoming wingers so it should be included in the system used.
They have world class central midfielders so the 3 in midfield with one covering the 2 star is inevitable for me.
Rooney likes to be behind the striker? so be it!
if he prefered to come from a side like messi then so be it…
ashley cole and one winger is enough for the side animations for me…
as long as the winger sprints backwards to defend on the opposite left back for example, and as long as rooney defends on a holding midfielder or a right back or whatever, we have a solid defensive system, and an offensive system adapted to the qualities of the team.
There are substitutions to replace the sprinting winger if he really needs to work, you can even imagine beckham fitting there instead of the winger…
one question still bothers me:
why the hell have i never seen this system even tried for england?
Was it tried with rooney as a winger?
Does capello just not like the lack of symetricality?
Has capello never thought of putting his best players in their best position?
Read this http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/05/25/england-tactics-fabio-capello/
Capello was trying this in the world cup.
Didn’t work
Locost, my learned friend – regarding my reply to your comment earlier on: this was simply in response to you saying that you could only think of ONE team who played a succesful 442 – i.e. Milan. I wanted to point out that there were definitely more 442’s in existence, some right on our doorstep – the fact that Arsenal didn’t have any english players wasn’t part of the point.
Your point about Real Madrid is a fair point too, perhaps Fergie did abandon 442 a little earlier than I suggested above – possibly not because Roy Keane’s ability begun to wane. I guess Fergie wanted a formation that gave more coverage in the middle of the pitch against the very top sides in Europe. I’m guessing you’re talking about the Champions League Quarter-Final against Madrid in 2000. Roy Keane would have been 28 years old, going on 29, so he was definitley still within his peak years, so perhaps I’m wrong that Fergie abandoned 442 simply cos Roy Keane couldn’t run about as much as he used to. But – I’ve just read Roy Keanes Autobiography, and he says that after winning the Champions League in 1999 the whole team went into a malaise (Roy Keane names Dwight Yorke as the player to most lose his form) – where although still dominating in the Premiership, in Europe they didn’t kick on and kept on getting knocked out (Real Madrid the next year, Dinamo Kiev nearly knocked them out the year after that, with Bayern eventually knocking them out). It was after losing to Bayern that Fergie ripped the team apart and they basically fell apart over the next few years (they only won the Premier League once in the next 5 seasons after 2001, and didn’t get anywhere near winning the Champions League). Perhaps if the Man Utd players didn’t let their standards drop after 1999 (at least in Europe) then Fergie may have continued using 442 and it could have been succesful, with, as I mentioned above, Roy Keane being, at this point, within his peak as a World-Class destructive midfielder.
Your point about the fluidity of Arsenals formation (you’re basically saying that we can’t really call Arsenal around Henry/Bergkamp time a strict 442) is valid, but – all play on a football field needs to be fluid. It strikes me that formations only really become manifest when a side loses the ball – for instance – when arsenal would lose the ball, Henry would press at the top with Bergkamp, Pires would shift over to the left wing to press and support his left-back, Lungburg word stay on the right wing and press, supporting his right-back, and Petit and Vieira would stay in the middle. To reiterate that point by turning it on its head – we all accept United lined up in 442, but when the HAD the ball (notice I’ve swapped the parameters around here) they wouldn’t have attacked in straight lines – Dwight Yorke would have pulled out wide (perhaps like Henry), Giggs might have come inside if the move required it(perhaps like Pires), Beckham would have stayed out wide (perhaps in a similar way to Lungburg, sort of) and Scholes would have made runs forward (which is what Vieira would do, as well as getting back to cover – he really was a beast in his prime). Perhaps ZonalMarking could confirm or rubbish my above statement about formations only become manifest when a team loses the ball.
Also, with regards to your point about England trying a lopsided formation against Mexico – that England system very much relied on Ashley Cole giving the team the width it needed on the left, but Mexico played a system with three genuine forwards (343) which would have pinned Cole and Johnson back, making the system England were playing impotent (which is what happened in the game, I seem to recall). It’s funny that Capello should try that system against one of the only teams in World Football whose system directly nullifys either of the opposition fullbacks getting forward. If Capello had tried that system against virtually any other country then he would have had some joy from using that lopsided formation. In that game, what England needed to do was to have Ferdinand move up into midfield when England had the ball, with Englands midfielders (mainly Carrick) moving up one again, so that Cole could stay at left-back and deal with the Mexico wide forward (either Vela or Dos Santos) while England still got the numbers forwrad they needed to impress on the game (the word fluidity comes to mind again). Unfortunately England weren’t aware enough to implement that, and Capello was certainly never aware enough to change anything when faced with certain tactical situations which needed solving – look at the Algeria game, where their 3 Centre-Backs totally nullified Englands forward line and Capello did nothing to change anything to counteract it – another brilliant example of this type of tactical inflexibility was shown by Ancelotti against Liverpool last weekend – again, Liverpools three Centre-Backs and holding midfielder (Lucas) totally cancelling out Chelsea’s front two(Drogba/Torres) with playmaker(Anelka – Anelka as a playmaker? the worlds gone mad….) in behind them. By the time Ancelotti did try to change anything Liverpool had gone 1-0 up, so just went into shut-out mode and saw the victory out. These examples all show how football is as much about tactics and team cohesion as it is about simply having the better group of players out on a pitch (a point that someone else agreed with me on, whilst posting on the Chelsea/Liverpool game review).
Ok. Locost, it may seem that I’m systematically tearing your comments apart, but I don’t mean the above rant to come accross like that – I can genuinely see you have a lot of football knowledge and understanding and am simply debating your points with you and giving you my own minds viewpoints on the subjects we’ve gone into. Let me know your further thoughts on all the above.
As for the rest of you – please excuse my long, rambling thoughts and rants, and let me know if you’re going to stab me for them if you ever see me……cheers.
thx
i hope capello tries it out again when he has everybody availabable
because the team with cole, lampard, and even carragher and ashley young is far better than the one with the less experienced baines, milner and also walcott and glen johnson in my opinion
also when they tried it out it was a 442 with gerrard on the left and not a clear 3 man central midfield with the winger and rooney important in defending.
I don’t get why it was not carrick playing between gerrard and milner for example…
also if i remember well mexico played an unusual formation with marquez playing the holding midfielder and center back, and wing backs like salcido playing like true wingers when the had the ball.
It was a clear 334 when they had possession if i remember well, so the perfect tactic to beat a team less organized on the sides for a stronger central position like the one played.
Against more classic 433 or 4231 or 442 formation i see “my” tactic doing automaticaly better ^^.
In my opinion what i’ve mentionned earlier is england’s best possibility with lampard, a holding midfielder, a more playing than running right winger and a better defense with ashley cole and the experienced carragher or somebody not weak on defensive positioning like johnson can be.
Back to 4-4-2 again
I understand the point that Arsenal’s 4-4-2 was brilliant domestically (although I’d still question the extent to which it looked extraordinary in the context of the Champions League), it was very fluid with Henry drifting from the left, Pires playing as an inverted winger, Bergkamp in a withdrawn role, Cole supplying width on the overlap. My point is that Cole excepted, they were all foreign and so didn’t interpret 4-4-2 as rigidly as English players would. In Arsenal’s case 4-4-2 is a poor description of what they were doing because it was about good players making intelligent runs that were dictated by their position in relation to eachother and each player’s capabilities and strengths. But 4-4-2 perfectly describes how English players interpret that system. You get three banks of players (four if the two in midfield sit deap) moving up and down the pitch in what Hoddle used to call “Straight Lines”. All we do is turn the game into a series of individual battles. If your wingers get the better of their fullbacks you have a creative outlet. If they don’t, you’re buggered. If you main forward gets the better of the centrebacks he scores goals. If he doesn’t, you don’t. If the withdrawn forward is closed down by a holding midfielder he’s cut out of the game. If he gets the better of the holder, he’s in the game. You would need the best 11 players in the world out on the pitch to win that way and you’d still get found out in the end. There is no fluidity, no imagination, no support, and none of the synergy needed to multiply the talents of the players to create a side that is better than its individual parts. This is why I say 4-4-2 is the new “WM” for the English. 4-4-2 dictates were players stand and run,just as WM did which is why England players look poorer in international football than their foreign clubmates.
Second if there is any revsionism about Venable’s team its from those who think he only played 4-4-2. When he did play 4-4-2 it was very fluid and very un-English. Southgate was encourgaed to step out from the back confident in the knoweldge that the side would cope because the shape merely switched to a 3-5-1-1/3-3-3-1 system that the side had practiced, implemented and trusted. McMamanaman could come off the wing and join Sherringham behind Shearer because the other three in midfield would shuffle accross the pitch to cover and the shape merely changed to a Christmas Tree. With Venables, 4-4-2 was a point of reference from which the players bagan their runs. 4-4-2 did not dictate where everyone stood and ran.
The fact is Venables thinking at Euro ‘96 mirrored Bielsa’s at the last World Cup. He wanted one more defender that the opposition had forwards. This is why he played 4-4-2 against Switzerland’s 4-3-3. Switched to 3-5-1-1 against Scotland’s 3-5-2. Took on Holland’s 3-4-3 with a system that alternated between 4-4-2 and the Chritmas Treee. Switched back to 4-4-2 against a Spannish side that was undergoing the evolutionary process that would eventually produce 4-2-3-1. He finnished in 3-5-1-1 against Germany’s 3-5-2. In a competition format in which England had never advanced beyond the group stage, Venables took on three top ranked European sides and beat one of them 4:1, and drew with the other two. With the exception of 1966 and possibly 1990 England have never performed better.
Agree Hatem,
as long as the winger plus Rooney are detailed to press high (between the midfield and the main striker).. I wouldn’t want to see the winger horsing all the way back into his final third and onto the toes of his own full-back…’cos then he might as well be a wide-midfielder and he’d be far removed from danger areas
Interesting discussions about England’s failures with 4-4-2. Given that the next England manager is going to be English, who is it going to be? And how are they going to solve the over-reliance on 4-4-2?
It seems like Harry Redknapp is the current frontrunner, but his favoured system with Tottenham seems to be 4-4-2 or a slight variation on it. How would he reinvigorate this England side?
Any thoughts on Christian Erikson? The danish winger? Heard he was impressive?
he was superb yesterday, but I have seen him for Ajax and has been poor on several occasions with average ball retention, and his first touch has been suprisingly poor for such a “technical” player. He looks like he is a big game player though, hence for his excellent performance vs England
Instead of fretting about team formations following Denmark-England we should be looking at the respective performances of each team’s most celebrated player – Rooney for England and Eriksson for Denmark.
Rooney played far too deep to exploit his skill in the area still regarded as the ‘hole’ in the space between the striker and the midfield.He gets frustrated when he does not receive the ball and drops deeeper and deeper,sometimes further back than his midfield team-mates.The opposition know that if he gets the ball there he can’t hurt them too much.In contrast,Eriksson was always exploiting the space between the two allegedly holding midfielders,Wilshire and Lampard,and the defence.He was getting the ball with space in front of him to run at England defenders or play incisive passes.Neither Wilshire nor Lampard looked happy in their roles and Eriksson got past them on their blind-sides several times.I thought it improved for England when Parker and Barry replaced them for the second half.But Eriksson still persevered in looking for and finding those spaces ‘between the lines’ and so was the best player on the pitch.
As England’s best player by a mile Rooney must rediscover his ability to perform the same role or he will not become the player he was always destined to be.Capello and Ferguson have a lot of responsibilty to make this happen.
Yeah, it makes me think about England under Sven, when Beckham, the captain, who was picked to play at right-midfield, would constantly come inside and pick the ball off the back four, leaving the England Central-Midfielders (usually Gerrard) redundant, and thus unbalancing the shape of the team. That was down to Beckhams ego as a man and captain, and Rooney perhaps needs to understand his role and what is required of him a lot better. Of course, Steve, as you’ve said, the big responsibility is down to the managers to get the best out of him – either by creating a system which keeps him up top, or by simply hammering it into him that he needs to stay up top, I would think that the former is the more likely solution, which could mean playing 3 in midfield. I’ve just read David Pleats article on the Gaurdian website where he says that playing with two wingers is too much of a luxury at the highest level. He reckons Wilshere would work best within a 3-man midfield, which might mean Rooney stays more up-top (although perhaps shunted out towards the left a litte), but the shape of the team would be a lot more balanced.
I agree with Pleat’s view -if we take it that he speaks of wingers as outside-forwards – because a two-man midfield plus two wingers (plus Rooney and Bent) is basically a 4-2-4 which was starting to become too risque even back in the early 70s!
Of course, if the two wingers are accompanying a single striker up front, then we have a Dutch style 4-3-3, which is still feasible today.
But Pleat is right to suggest that a three-man midfield should be the basic template, then worry about the configuration of the forwards later (2 strikers + 1 winger, 1 winger + strikers and so forth)
i felt Rooney dropped deeper because Lampard just cant seem to be able to play in the middle in the 442 system…while i thought Wilshire was ok however lampard really needs to be playing up the field to be really effective..personally i think if Capello wants a true goal scoring rooney it has to be in a 451 system that Wenger uses or Fergie does away in Europe with dedicated wingers and 3 man midfield like with 1 or 2 defensive mids?
You say that Schweinsteiger has been a winger. Well, he was used as winger long years. But it isn’t his natural position! He was central midfielder during his youth at Bayern. And as you can clearly see he lacks speed and acceleration to be an outstanding winger. Louis van Gaal has finally seen this and made Schweinsteiger to play in a central role (this 10/11-season van Gaal misjudges him and uses him as an attacking central midfielder, which is again the wrong position for Schweinsteiger as he needs to see the play in front of him; but I digress here…).
So he played an outstanding role in the Bayern-midfield and lead the team to the Bundesliga-title and the final of the Champions League (of course with a lot help from an excellent Arjen Robben). Löw finally recognised back then that Schweinsteiger in central midfield is much more of a threat than on the right wing.
So in conclusion: Schweinsteiger started to play regularly in central midfield in professional football only just in the beginning of the season 2009/10. He never was a natural winger because he was just too slow. He made some stunning matches out on that wing-position but the most of his appearances out there were lightyears away from his performances in central midfield. He was criticised a lot back then for his sloppy performances but it wasn’t mainly his fault. It was the fault of his managers, which all have used him in the wrong position.
That is all entirely correct, but I don’t think it refutes the point that it’s possible to play an attack-minded player in central midfield
Of course not. I didn’t wanted to refute the function of Wilshere here. Just wanted to mention that Schweinsteigers natural position is just not on the wing. Because some people are used to this idea, but it is just not correct. That’s all.
Sorry if my words have sounded like criticism. Wasn’t intended. Just wanted to make the role of S. clearer.
And please keep up your excellent work! I really appreciate your articles!
Kind regards from Germany
wilshere is probably the best option in the middle, capello should concentrate on keeping him in the starting eleven,
I disagree that England dont have a suitable DM, what about Huddelstone from Tottenham? He is good at positioning and can distribute well also.
He’s not as good as Joey Barton. Though the same can be said of Wilshere.
Locost – Hello again, the forum won’t provide me with a “reply” tab under your above comment, so I’ll have to reply here……
“4-4-2 was a point of reference from which the players bagan their runs. 4-4-2 did not dictate where everyone stood and ran.”
I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement as a general rule for tactics in football. I think our long dissections of our understanding of tactics in general (using 442 as a basis) has shown we do think along the same lines as each other. So my next question to you is (and forgive me if you have already answered this in one of your earlier posts, but I’m gonna ask you again anyway…..): what do you think Capello’s team and tactics should be, based on your knowledge of how certain England players like to play? for instance, we know Rooney likes to come deep and get the ball, so would you implement a system which allows him to do that, or do you think the way to get the best out of him is by telling him to do a different role? – basically, based on your knowledge of all Englands players likes and dislikes, what would be your team and tactics? Let me know and I’ll have a think too and we’ll discuss further…..cheers….
oh, and Locost – I now understand why you made the point about Arsenals players being not-English, and I agree that traditionally English footballers are a lot more rigid in their tactical understanding (this is something that is changing within younger English players coming through, having been exposed massively to continental styles and players over the last 10 to 15 years). I think Fergie has improved a lot over his management career with his tactical understanding, the results being shown now, where his current Man Utd team, an above-average team at best (i.e. not a brilliant team) is top of the league……lets see if they can stay there……cheers again.
Also, you opened your long reply to me above with the statement: “back to 442 again” – well, this IS an ENGLAND discussion forum – what did you expect? I tell you, my man, the day we stop talking about England and 442 in the same sentence is the day we next win the world Cup…..!!!!!!!
I honnestly believe that you need to pick a side that the players simply cannot interpret as 4-4-2. They’ll just fall into bad habits.
We don’t have a decent holder so whilst I’d like one sitter, a passer and a runner in midfield I’d probably go for a midfield triangle that has two sitters at its base. Two from Parker, Carrick, Huddlestone and Barry plus one from Lamaprd, Gerrard and Wilshire as the attacker.
Attacking fullbacks we have, even if there are question marks about the quality of the RB. So Cole and Johnson it is.
Terry and Ferdinand at centreback.
That leaves three up front. Walcott, Rooney and Young provided they interchange and play with depth look to be the best option.
It seems that quite a few people on this forum like Ashley Young as a regular England starter (I like him too, and I think he’ll do better at Villa now they’ve got a decent striker in Bent – Carew was rubbish), but I myself think that Adam Johnson has been absolutely TERRIFIC since he’s been at Man City (I think he’s the closest thing to Messi we’ve got – fell free to scoff at that remark, but I do think he’s brilliant), so I would definitely have him in the side (I think you need at least ONE player who will regularly take the ball past opposition players). I also think that Walcott has shown he’s a brilliant player at International level (a hat-trick in Croatia, and he didn’t go to the World Cup? Hello? Capello?) so I would have him in my team as well. So, along with our attacking fullbacks, the system I would use for all this is this websites current flavour of the week (what, with the recent focus on Chelsea v Liverpool and how Chelsea have tried to shoehorn three strikers into their system by trying to convince one of them that he was actually Xavi in his past life – I’m talking about Anelka as a playmaker – Hello? Ancelotti?), the old 4-1-2-1-2. I have to say, Locost, I do find your desire for two “sitting” midfielders in front of the back four somewhat conservative (I understand that you want to provide some compensation for our full-backs to constantly bomb on), so I would only have one holding midfielder, and basically throw some caution to the wind (I believe in attacking more than anything else – I would be copying Barca’s current idea of a holding midfielder who can drop into the defense and make a three if need be). So, my current team and system would be:
Johnson – Ferdinand – Terry – Cole
Parker
Lampard – Gerrard
Rooney
Walcott – Johnson
Ok. As we’ve been discussing fluidity and non-rigidness, I would use this as my starting formation, and depending on what tactics the opposition are employing then I would change (or not change, if needs be) accordingly. For instance, if the opposition line up with 3 Centre-Backs (like Liverpool did against Chelsea) then I would tell Walcott and Adam Johnson to push wider, and tell Rooney to push up through the middle and take the central striking role (turning my formation into more of a 433). With the 3 strikers up against the oppositions 3 defenders they would move tem around a lot more, creating gaps for Gerrard and Lampard to bomb into and through.
If the opposition is only playing 2 Centre-Backs (i.e. a flat-back-four) then the formation wouldn’t change so much, meaning Rooney gets to do all his scurrying in deep positions for the ball, our Full-Backs provide width, Walcott and Adam Johnson can go wide when they want, Gerrard and Lampard can go wide if they want AND/OR go straight through the middle into the gaps provided by Wallcott and Adam Johnson pulling slightly wide.
Obviously the holding Midfield player is up for debate – I just really like the look of Parker at the moment – he’s a real sort of scurryer/destroyer who is nice and tidy on the ball (tidyer than Gareth Barry, I would say) , but I also like Huddlestone there as well. Also, although I’ve picked Ferdinand at the back, I think he is now too injury prone to really play for England on a regular basis, so when he’s injured I’d like to see Carragher there or perhaps Dawson (Ledley King is too injured now, and Woodgate is a long way away from challenging for an England place). The other player up for debate is Wilshere. At the moment, I would have Gerrard and Lampard in those Midfield positions, but when either one is injured (which will be quite often now) then Wilshere will replace either of them, meaning he gets to play further up the pitch and use his creative talents most effectively.
The only other position up for debate would be Right-Back, where this new Liverpool kid Kelly (have I got his name right?) looks like he could become better than Glen johnson, but at the moment I would give it to Johnson and wait for Kelly to get more experience at Liverpool and ten see what happens……
There’s my team – can I have the England job now, please (I wish)….cheers….
Two things – firstly, Carragher is ancient, and plays like he’s even older than that, so I wouldn’t like to see him as the first option we turn to when the equally fragile Ferdianand is out. Personally I think England really need to focus on developing a reliable NEW center back pairing. Both Ferdinand and Terry are too decrepit to be relied on. I’d rather see Cahill and maybe Dawson integrated into the back four. Maybe keep Terry and Ferdinannd around primarily as cover, but to rely on them to form the heart of the defence is foolhardy when the chances of them both being fit and healthy at the same time as each other is so slim.
Secondly, Kelly is not English. I think he’s Irish (or maybe N. Irish), but certainly not England-eligible.
I like some of the ideas behind your proposed England team. Unfortunately though, I think Parker would get overwhelmed, because Gerrard and Lampard would spend the game standing around with their hands on their hips on the half-way line, or shrugging their shoulders at why they’re not getting into the game. It amazes me that after 6 years, people are still trying to shoe-horn these two guys into the same team. I’d rather drop both of them (on the same grounds as Terry/Ferdinand – we should be looking to the future), although I could perhaps accept picking one of the two if needs must.
Truthandinsight,
Your proposed formation is very unorthodox – but I like it a lot!
For one thing, the absence of a big centre-forward up front may be a blessing for England as it will force them to ween themselves off long-balls.
The presence of small, pacey attackers like Walcott, Rooney and Adam Johnson, who between them can take turns to drop deep or drift out to the wings, means that England’s midfielders will almost have no choice but to link up with them and stick to elaborate passing triangles.
In fact, your formation does bear a resemblence to the great France side of the 1980s, in that Platini’s team had two wingers (in Rocheteau and Six) who alternated as false strikers. Many argued that they were pretty but a bit too lightweight and insufficiently ruthless when it came to big games.. but they were robbed of a place in the 1982 WC Final by the infamous Schumacher foul. While it lasted, it was glorious football though!
@ Dave C on February 11, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Martin Kelly is English. He has played for the English youth teams.
joey barton for england!
I prefer to see both gerrard and lampard on the team personally
but one thing is for sure in my opinion:
either we have 2 wingers and so rooney is the unique striker
either we have 2 strikers and so we need a weird formation: gerrard on the left, 3/5 at the back, a non-symetrical formation etc
rooney has prooved he likes to move from his central striker position when he plays it, but it’s not as undoable as it can seem:
france plays with benzema up front who does exactly the same and they win and he scores, brazil played with lightweights pato, robinho and neymar or nilmar up front, arsenal plays with van persie up front, united without berbatov means no pivot-like striker etc
having a drogba upfront is not the only way to score, you just need more movement and combinations which can be brought with wingers and good offensive midfielders -which england definately has-
so a 4231 or 4141 is a good option for england, especially against good teams against which england doesn’t have to assail.
This means two wingers/lateral midfielders: ashley young, adam johnson or walcott, milner, else…
A 3 man central midfield with a holding midfielder and 2 more offensive, or 2 sitting in front of the defense and one number 10:
choose them from gerrard, lampard, wishere, huddelstone, barry, parker, milner, carrick etc
this leaves england with about 3/4 tactics they can switch from during one game, more or less offensive, with few substitutions required:
4231->4141->my weird formation with ashley cole pushing a lot forward, 2 strikers, a 3-man midfield and one winger, kind of a 3142 during attack
the only substitution required is adding a striker (carroll, good ratio crouch, etc)
but you can also make one for central midfield (huddelstone-carrick-gerrard-> you add lampard/wilshere if they were not starting)
and you can secure your right back position by replacing glen johnson by carragher when ashley cole pushing forward leads to danger on counter attacks requiring a better positionment understanding, more experience and no attacking from the right back
to sum it up: give me the job!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i read today that Wilshere’s pass completion was 93%. wow. Your talking in the same bracket as Xavi’s pass completion there…
One more thing about the conversation i read on schweinsteiger:
I think we have exactly the same situation with james milner:
He is played on the wing because he has the skill to do it but is kind of slow, it’s not really his position, so at one point he should be put into central midfield where his physical power (not as much as schweinsteiger but still)and abilities will be at their best.
And just like schweinsteiger, his experience higher on the pitch will be a bonus for his new job:
dribbling skills, use to big pressure from opponents, use to fast required decision making, better knowledge of the positions in front of him and so of how to help them better (better understanding of the game )
he will be more than just a safe and clean guy like carrick, not used to be in situations when he doesn’t have the time to think of what he will do because he always has the play in front of him.
Schweinsteiger also goes forward sometimes with the ball at his feet:
he has the confidence and skills to do it (carrick likes will never do it (as well)) .
He also measures very well the risks he takes (maybe because of the extra responsibility/pressure he (re)discovers when playing central again):
he does it if he sees it will make a difference somewhere, and if the risk of losing the ball is poor, and if the consequences of losing the ball are acceptable ( a shoot, khedira behind him, ball lost where germans are numerous and can press immediately giving him him the time to go back, etc.)
That’s what i see for milner’s future, and that’s the bonuses i see playing the central midfield role after having experienced a more attacking winger role.
the only actualy out-n-out dm, destroyer that i can think of is muamba lol
Its a view of mine that one of the unintended consequences of Alf Ramsey’s 1966 4-4-2 world cup win was that it cemented the notion of a striking partnership in the English game.
Whilst we were slavishly copying Ramsey and substituting one or both of our wingers with midfield runners other countries (primarily the Dutch) were withdrawing a striker and asking the wingers and midfield to break the lines to support the remaining forward.
The result was that whilst the remaining wingers in our game stayed close to the touchline just as they always did, elsewhere wingers were not only more common but also much more mobile.
In addition, whilst our centreforwards remained dependant on close support from another forward, overseas forwards and midfielders learned to coordinate there movements more effectively.
The result was that by the 1970’s our game was stagnating around our new tactical orthodoxy (in 1974 everyone in England played 4-4-2 or an asymetric 4-3-3) whilst Dutch Total Football was demonstrating the value of fluidity and movement.
I agree with Hatem, England really needs to get over this notion that if a formation does not end in “2″, then its flawed.