More questions than answers for Capello after Switzerland draw
The first half formation
Two poor goals conceded and then a decent fightback, but it’s hard to draw many positive conclusions from England’s 2-2 draw with Switzerland.
1. Leaving out Ashley Young was a mistake
It’s difficult to see the logic in omitting Young. He had probably been England’s best performer over the last three games, and tactically was important because of his ability to move off the flank. England were good against Wales in the 4-3-3 system because Young and Wayne Rooney were able to come inside into central positions and provide connections with each other, the midfield players, and Darren Bent upfront.
Against Switzerland, there was no clear objective to the attacking play. James Milner scurried up and down the wing and Theo Walcott was direct, but neither are particularly good crossers. Meanwhile, midfield runs from Jack Wilshere and Frank Lampard were rare until England went 1-0 down, when Wilshere moved forward to win the penalty. There was no-one in the ‘red zone’ Swiss coach Ottmar Hitzfeld often speaks of.
It was notable how much England improved when Young came on in the second half. He played centrally and combined with Darren Bent, but also with the two wide players by making diagonal runs to the flanks – as a ‘central winger’. He was again crucial in what England did well, and should be regarded as one of the side’s key players.
2. England still can’t retain possession
England had 52% of possession against Switzerland. A majority, but considering this was at home against a side often content to sit back and play defensively, England should have been enjoying much more of the ball.
Possession doesn’t equal victory, but when Capello’s main excuse is tiredness, the obvious solution is to try to hang onto the ball for longer, and spend less time chasing. Capello’s use of three central midfielders should, in theory, make it easier to keep the ball, but the mentality is still not there – England aren’t patient enough.
The second half formation
3. England don’t have a cohesive strategy without the ball
Sometimes England press, sometimes they stand off. In this game, they stood off and then dived into tackles unnecessarily, conceding free-kicks around the box. Even Rio Ferdinand managed to pick up a booking, having gone 65 games without a caution.
It would be tempting to conclude that England play in phases – sometimes pressuring the ball, sometimes dropping off – but there is an inconsistency within the side at individual moments that makes this generous interpretation impossible. Capello supposedly wants Barcelona-style pressing, but with fitness levels poor, England needed a different approach.
4. Joe Hart’s main problem is his distribution
Two embarrassing goals conceded, but the blame can be shared – the first should probably have been headed away, the second was clearly the fault of James Milner in the wall.
Hart’s more obvious weakness is with the ball at his feet – constantly in danger of his kicks being charged down by opposing strikers, and even when he is free to play a pass, he simply doesn’t have the ability to pinpoint a teammate in space. Being a good ball player used to be regarded as a bonus for a goalkeeper, but these days it is a must. One can’t blame Hart for England’s poor passing as a whole, but just as Barcelona’s slick passing starts from their keeper, England’s lack of imagination in possession starts from theirs.
5. Is 4-3-3 now England’s default formation?
Whether England played 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 throughout the World Cup qualifying and World Cup tournament itself is debatable, but that/those system(s) are clearly different to the 4-3-3 Capello has used against Wales and Switzerland.
The problem was, of course, that it didn’t work very well here, and Capello had to revert to a 4-2-3-1 with Ashley Young as a central attacker. In that sense, Capello might be back to square one – and whilst the result and performance wasn’t a complete disaster, England are no better off a year on from the embarrassing World Cup exit last summer.
____________________________________________________________
ADVERT
More questions than answers for Capello after Switzerland draw
Playing Milner on the wing is such a waste of the player. What was Capello expecting to get from playing him there? While Milner has a great work rate and willingly tracks back, his offensive skills on the wing are crap. Capello should’ve started Young on the wing, yes, but he didn’t. So a better option than Milner could’ve been Downing who would’ve been a lot more of an offensive threat and wouldn’t have had to worry about tracking back the Swiss FB, who was no danger.
Milner really doesn’t have a place in the first team. Young/Parker/Wilshere/Carrick/Johnson would be enough against most teams.
Can someone explain James Milner? He’s sort of stolidly above average, but surely that doesn’t explain his frequent inclusions for England or his huge transfer fee?
Milner is played so often by Capello on the wing because of his workrate and willingness to track back and help out the defense. Against teams with an attacking fullback he’s a great asset because he will cover the fullback’s runs. But when you’re playing lowly Switzerland, you don’t need Milner on the wing. Man City payed a huge transfer fee because City always has to overpay. If he was played in his favored role in the centre of the park he would’ve been worth more than he is on the wing.
“Lowly Switzerland”? I see that the English still have this delusion of thinking they’re better than they really are. Face it, England are a 2nd tier footballing nation(not unlike Switzerland).
First of all I’m American, i could give a rats ass about the English….and secondly, England should be dominating teams such as Switzerland if they have ambitions of winning the World Cup.
Why have people started saying “I COULD give a rat’s arse / shit / etc about…” It’s COULDN’T, surely…
Second of all, you’re American so you don’t have too much scope to criticise other footballing nations.
@ZonalMarking-
I’ve always been equally baffled by people insistance on using could rather than couldn’t as in “I could care less” (I at least care somewhat if I’m capable of caring less) rather than “I couldn’t care less” (It is not possible to care any less than I do now)
@Mark-
Don’t sink to that level of ignorance. I thought the same would be true before I started attending university in the states and for the most part I was right, but there are exceptions. If someone is interested enough in tactics to be on ZonalMarking and comprehends the idea of defensive wingers then I’m guessing he is capable of understanding football tactics as much as the next guy on here. From what I can tell, the problem for Americans is a lack of intelligent coaches (quantity not quality) or any sense of infrastructure. The FA has 92 league clubs who have an incentive to train young footballers. They (Americans) have pay-to-play youth teams that demand thousands of dollars from their youth in the hopes that they get a scholarship to play at a university where even then it is part time. How would your country fair if you had mostly poor coaches until the age of 18 at which point they had to spend 4 years earning a degree while playing football only to start their professional careers at 22? We give players professional deals at 17 (or even younger in some cases). It’s no coincidence that Barcelona’s number one transfer target is the best product out of their country ever and yet he played youth football at Parma from the age of 12.
Thoughts on Milner: I agree with most of the above. He’s got little to offer offensively. His only quality is that he’s a workhorse and willing to play anywhere (albeit at a lvel that is no more than average). Anyone who’s ever played amateur football down in the local park knows there’s always one guy who isn’t really any good at football, but is a gym-obsessive who can bench press like a beast and can run all day, doesn’t drink as much beer as his team-mates, and “gets stuck in” – that’s essentially what Milner brings to the England team (i.e. not much).
@ZM – it’s a weird American habit to say “I COULD give a rat’s ass” or “I COULD care less”, when actually they mean the opposite. I’ve always thought it weird that this corruption fo the phrase is so common in America, the land of Hollywood, that gave us the famous line “Frankly my dear, I couldn’t give a damn.” Imagine how stupid and nonsensical that would sound if he said he COULD give a damn.
No, we’re in the group of first tier nations.
Spain, France, Germany, Italy, England, Holland, Argentina, Brazil – top tier teams.
I’d have The Swiss as a third tier team, behind the likes of Croatia, Serbia, Russia, Ghana, Uraguay, Mexico who are all good teams but not at the level of the above elite teams.
Compared to England, Switzerland are an inferior team, simple as that, hence we should have beaten them, we just currently have a dreadful, clueless manager.
Portugal would easily get ahead of England into your top tier – they’ve progressed further than England in every tournament since 2004, knocking you out of two of them.
I meant to have Portugal in there, accidently forgot them.
Mark: What scope do i need? Americans are just as capable of being football fans as any other nationality. Using my nationality as an excuse is stupid. I know just as much about football as you, if not more.
By the way ZM, criticizing my English isn’t going to endear me very much to your articles when I’m thinking in the back of my head “What an A-hole”
I really looked up to you as a football writer until you decided to be so slick.
lol, I see people here are a bit too emotional.
@Brian-
I think he (Michael Cox) was commenting more on popular culture with you as an example rather than attacking you personally. I agree with you that you have every right to know as much about football as the rest of us, but don’t take things so personally some times.
One could argue that best 10 national teams are first tier nations. If that is so, England is certainly there. However, there is a big difference between first or second and number eight or nine.
In the last decade, Spain was winning a bit more than 70% of their matches (their historic high point, and actually not just theirs, only Argentina in forties, when most of the world had other priorities, was winning more). Brazil, a bit less than 70% (more or less their usual level). England, a bit more than 50% (their usual level for a couple of decades). Everyone sometimes play badly against inferior team but it is much more probable that it would happen to England than to Spain or Brazil. It is also much more probable the former will win some competition than the later.
England may well be first tier team but they will occasionally lose or draw with teams they are expected to beat, miss a tournament or, on the other hand, win against a better team. All that regardless of who is the manager.
Yet another deluded England fan!
England are no way a first-tier team.
I’m an Italy fan and would currently put them on the second tier, too.
Although, tellingly, they have overhauled their squad and are five points clear with a game in hand, playing a completely fresh style of football under a NEW COACH and a new system. England simply do not have the depth of players to do this.
I would take Italy, Croatia, Ghana, Mexico and Uraguay to beat England more than 5 times out of 10.
Paolo, as I said it depends how you define first tier teams.
Paolo, as I said it depends how you define first tier teams. If it is best ten (judging from their wining percentage over longer period) England is a first tier team. It is just that they are not likely to win anything. To do that, they would probably need to win three games (from quarterfinals up) against teams equal or better than themselves. Possible but not likely.
However they still win their games more consistently than anyone bar Italy from your list.
England have the players and they have the depth. England’s problem, as it has been for the last twenty years or more, is the style of football and mentality that has been embedded in their national psyche.
Why is it that players like Ferdinand, Terry, Cole and Johnson resort to hoofing the ball forward for England, yet will more often than not try and play the ball out properly for their clubs?
I don’t think the manager is the whole problem. Capello’s record as a manager is almost impeccable.
The problem is the English national side have something wrong in their heads. They play ugly football. Long ball tactics don’t work. You only have to look at Barcelona to see what does. When was the last time you saw Pique dink what up for Messi to head down to Xavi? Never.
It’s a pretty simply formula. Keep the ball as much as possible, and instead of hoofing it, try and play your way to goal.
I see no reason why England can’t change. You had similar problems with your Rugby and Cricket teams, (who were hopeless) but the governing bodies decided to make important changes, and the teams started to win.
Until England change their mentality, yes, they will be considered a 2nd tier nation by the rest of the world.
Calm down Brian, was just a jokey observation. Sorry for being an ‘a-hole’
@The Praying Mantus
I have to disagree a bit. England for sure have players and depth but typically both to a less degree than teams like Spain, Brazil, Argentina or Germany. To be at the same level with them you would need to work smarter than they do, probably for a decade or two. The problem with the mentality exists, but not on a national team level. Rather it is a problem of complete English football sector, starting with number of certified coaches, the question of who are footballers, youth development etc. You could see what those who overachieve relative to their resources (the Dutch, Portuguese or even Spanish) are doing and copy their methods. Or, alternatively, don’t change anything and hope you get lucky one day. You might, but not too often and not for long.
(Yes I am basically repeating what Kuper and Szymanski have said).
England finally needs to ‘bro-up’ (to use an American term here) with fellow beloved rivals Wales, Scotland and N.I. and form the GBFA.
(It is actually happening for the Olympics, isn’t it?).
More players, more depth.
And they finally again need a ‘home-grown’ coach. Somebody that actually feels British. Somebody that actually wants ‘England/GB/UK’ to win. And somebody that the British people/fans can identify with.
Seriously, being German myself, I would be totally pissed-off if ‘we’ had an Italian national football coach
Based on my experience of watching the sport (I’m 27) I think Brian’s right and you’re wrong, Mark. I’d lay odds on Mexico, Ghana and Uraguay to take England down in a second, and I think it’s pretty ethnocentric of the English to think otherwise. Brian’s not walking around talking up the US’s chances in international competition…
But Brian, he’s totally right about “I could care less”. I don’t know why we say that when it literally makes no sense in the context it’s used, so to abuse ZM over his pointing it out is overly defensive.
@ Josef
Ghana who have had one successful tournament in how long are suddenly on a par with England, really? They went all out at our under strength team in a friendly and managed a last minute equaliser…
Ditto for Uraguay, take Suarez and Forlan out and they haven’t got a great deal going for them.
Mexico are decent, but once again, England are still better.
We’re still a top tier team in my opinion, but the problem with England is without doubt Capello. He has based so much more emphasis on work horses (Milner) big lumps (HESKEY!?) and players who are just quite simply not good enough (G.BARRY the midfield equivalent of Heskey, Glen Johnson, Walcott) when he’s got better, more skilled players he could call on.
Milner – why not Downing, Young, Adam Johnson?
Heskey – what could he do that Crouch couldn’t? Heskey is a big useless lump. Crouch is an intelligent footballer, good touch and control, good link up play, good in the air and of course most importantly, he scored GOALS! There are two international goalkeepers who’ve scored more goals than Heskey having played only a handful of games more, but for some reason Capello saw this bumbling oaf as the ‘answer’ to get the best out of Rooney!?
Barry – Capello’s insistence on playing someone who really does epitomise useless, I’ve seen milk turn quicker than this pathetic excuse of a footballer. Painfully slow, lacks agression, positionally poor, painful to watch, but Capello saw him as a better option than Michael Carrick, England’s best midfield passer by a country mile!
He’s also failed to address arguably the most fundamentally wrong thing with the England team, the inability to keep a football, when International football is so much about that! And don’t tell me England don’t have the players to play it, we do, Capello just hasn’t picked them. Milner’s passing is dreadful, we have players technically better who could play his position, same with Walcott but arguably most important, we have Carrick, who would go along way to making England a better passing side, but Capello would rather Gareth Barry, and now Scott Parker. This isn’t going into Capello’s regular poor tactics and team selection, which I could go on about in detail, but I’ll just put it like this, the sooner he goes the better, but one thing I’ll end on, I guarantee every contributor to ZM could do a better job than Capello has done for England.
ZM: My bad, I overreacted!
@Mark
Yes the problem is Capello. And before that the problem was McClaren. And before that Eriksson. And before that… Newer mind you got the picture. After all managerial changes England made they continue to suffer from the same problem. Guess that you were changing a wrong thing.
hey wrenny hun, im back
u wanna lick of this lovin?
u no i like my beats fast and my bass down low!
get on the floor and begin to blow
o o o goes i
keeep going till u wanna cry
i love u wrenny be my boy
next time bring rabbit toy
o mama mia why’a u critize my players like a this?? they playa good football!! you want to manager them yourselfa then go ahead and we can all laugh at a you’a fail ha ha ha ha and then they give me telephonie call and say fabio we needa you backa, please fabio please
I don’t agree that Capello is back to square one.
Like you said England played well against Wales but struggled yesterday because Capello omitted Young. Young and Downing should have started behind Bent.
4-3-3 would seem to be the best system for England, Capello just needs to get his selection right.
i think the best shape for England would be a 4-4-1 with Rooney behind Bent and Young/Walcott/Downing on the wings. Rooney would track back which would stop the centre of the park from being overwhelmed. If England played a 4-3-3 either Rooney would have to go to the wing where he doesn’t play as great or Bent would be omitted.
So if Fabio’s willing to play Rooney out of position or bench Bent then yes the 4-3-3 could be used, albeit not as effectively as a 4-4-1-1 in my opinion.
They’ll never beat spain with a 4-4-1-1 for the same reasons Manchester Utd. couldn’t beat Barcelona and surely a nation as proud as England should be aiming to be the best. Rooney in a narrow left sided role or as a false 9 seems more applicable to the modern game.
I don’t think anyone can really beat Spain (maybe Germany with their solid defense and counter attacking style). The most important thing for England to realize is that they’re best on the counter and need to employ a system (against strong sides) that puts three men in the midfield to counter possession based sides. In my opinion, sticking to a variant of the 4-4-2 (the 4-4-1) and having Rooney drop off would be a lot better than expecting three English midfielders to have the technical ability to hold the ball against strong sides like Spain, Brazil and Argentina.
don’t compare spain with barcelona, they are very different teams tactically. switzerland beat spain with 4-4-1-1 so yes it can be done.
Your argument is not viable. Sometimes 72 preflop-wins against AA in hold-em poker. And that is more likely than Switzerland winning against Spain in any formation.
Well indeed, but if he didn’t play Young and Downing when (a) they’d played so well and (b) Rooney was unavailable, there seems to be little chance he’ll do better next time
Maybe, but managers don’t always select teams from a tactics based viewpoint. Capello was almost obligated to select Lamps for so many reasons. He was the real problem, not Milner (who played a delicious ball for the second goal. Even if Lamps converted the penalty, being subbed at halftime is not a good review, to say the least. I think Fabio can now say “we do it my way” and start with Young and with Milner (who is a lot better than people in England want to admit) centrally. We shall see, but that’s how I interpreted the second half/the future for England.
Agreed. Get Lampard out of there. He only seems to work in a system built around him.
Is it just me that thinks Adam Johnson should be starting over Walcott? It wouldn’t solve any of the problems listed in this excellent article but he’s a far better winger than anything else England have right now.
I totally forgot about Adam Johnson. I’d prefer him on the wing to Walcott because of his ability to cut inside and run at defenders. I don’t understand why he doesn’t start more at City. Johnson and Silva on the wings is a lot better combination that using Balotelli or Tevez out wide.
I think Milner comes under the “Boss’s Son” … the type of guy who happily collects the cones during training, and does not step out of hand at any time. “He never lets you down” is another expression that comes to mind.
The bloke is OK, but England genuinely have some talented players. But England managers tend to pick the Milners and Lampards. It always baffles me … especially since the international game is reliant on gift, not grit.
From what I have seen from Milner (in the games against Switzerland on Saturday and Germany at the World Cup) he does let you down if you ask him to stand in a wall.
However, he plays with confidence and doesn’t ‘hide’ when things turn bad, i.e. when his team is behind and he was clearly at fault for one of the goals). Is that what you mean by ‘grit’? In that case, I would say you do need players with grit in your team. I recall German coach Mathias Sammer saying that a ‘winning mentality’ (grit?) is more important than anything else. Ideally, of course, your gritty players should also be gifted, or at least skilled.
don’t associate lampard as being average like milner. He’s the second best England player at retaining the ball behind wilshere.
Oh no he isn’t. Internationally Lampard is consistently poor with the ball at his feet. Carrick, Ferdinand, Rooney and Young are all better at retaining possession than him
England’s best passer at last years world cup by a fair distance. Get your facts right.
Ha, “Boss’s Son” is an excellent summary – I tried to describe him (further up in the thread) as the guy who goes to the gym a lot and doesn’t drink, so gets a place in the team by virtue of being fit and willing rather than footballing ability, but I think “boss’s son” nails it.
Milner starting was a huge mistake, I’ve never been a fan of the player, he offers nothing in attack and his defensive capabilities aren’t needed at home.
Check out my blog @ http://www.inforthehattrick.blogspot.com
Hart’s distribution is decent for City, and they play as well out of the back as any team in England. However, that could be down to City having a competent holder, who finds space and offers an easy option for the keeper and center backs. “Football Writers Player of the Year” Scott Parker makes Nigel De Jong look like Sergio Busquets in possession. And he might still be the best option as holder (other than Carrick). Wilshire is plainly a box to box player, and would best serve England at the tip of a 3 man midfield. A Carrick, Parker, and Wilshire midfield is probably England’s best in terms of keeping possession. Up front I would play a fluid trio of Young, Rooney, and Adam Johnson. I think Baines works at left back (he’s better than Cashley at the moment) and either Glen Johnson or Micah Richards on the right. However, I have absolutely no idea who to play at center back, as the options are either past it, mediocre, or simply not ready. This makes for grim reading (http://www.caughtoffside.com/2011/04/15/changing-of-the-guard-englands-centre-back-dilemma/)
Don’t completely agree about Hart – I’ve mentioned it before for City – here http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/05/14/man-city-1-0-stoke-fa-cup-final/
and here http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/nov/15/premier-league-chalkboard-analysis
I think he is sufficiently good and confident on the ball. These were special cases. You mentioned the lack of height in City’s front three against Birmingham.It was a similar case against Stoke. Apart from some hasty punts (which he overhit), he was obliged to play the ball out wide to either Balotelli or Richards, who stayed at the sidelines, requiring more-than-usual accuracy. Nevertheless, I think that’s England’s least worry!
The usual dross from England under the ever increasingly clueless Capello.
As has been mentioned, WHY OH WHY was James Milner playing! Defensively he will track back, but that can be programmed into any player if you drum it into them enough, but going forward, Milner is awful. He’s pretty much a perfect example of what is wrong with the ‘typical English player’. Work rate, strength, ‘good engine’ but technically poor. Downing (a player I’ve always rated) has had arguably his best season of his career at Villa, plus you get the added bonus that he works well with Bent, but Capello would prefer an inferior player who’s not a regular at his club. (Anyone remember the spin Capello gave us about only playing players who are playing regularly at their clubs? Why did Downing play over Milner then?) Not only a useless manager but a hypocrite as well.
Moving onto the baffling decision to drop Ashley Young. I’m not even Young’s biggest fan, slightly overated in my opinion, but credit where credit’s due, he was arguably the best player against Wales, he was getting in behind with his pace and movement, and was coming in central areas to good effect as well, so why the hell was he dropped in favour of Walcott!? Theo Walcott who can do only one thing, run fast, other than pace he offers absolutely nothing. His touch is poor, his control is poor, he can’t cross and he can’t pass. I could name four players who could do a better job on the right, Young, Lennon, (is he injured or just not selected?) Downing and Adam Johnson.
Onto arguably the most important point you’ve raised though, England’s inability to keep a football. We were playing a team as you rightly say that did look to sit back, we should have slaughtered them for posession, but as usual, we can not be patient or composed in possession! Would have been interesting to see if Capello had played Carrick if he’d been fit, England’s best midfield passer by a country mile. Now, I’m not criticising Jack Wilshere here, I believe he could go onto be one of the world’s top players, but at the moment the media are putting too much pressure on him, and he does still have alot to learn. His ball retention in the closing stages of the season hasn’t been as good as it was earlier on in the season, this could be down to fatigue, but he hasn’t been keeping possession as well, and yesterday he was a bit rash in possession at times, he was looking to play the killer ball when perhaps he should have been looking to just keep possession, look for it back, and then build the play up again.
Lastly, Scott Parker. He is not a defensive midfielder. There was quite alot of occassions yesterday when Switzerland had opportunities to run straight at the England defence, where was Parker on these occassions? I’m not saying he’s a bad player, it’s great he’s in the team ahead of Barry, but I think he’s in the team because he’s been massively overhyped by the media. Yes, he’s had a decent season, but Mr Blobby would probably have looked good in comparison to some of the dross that’s been down at Upton Park this season. Is he better than Carrick, no. And Carrick’s been regularly playing well in a team that’s reached the CL Final, FA Cup Semi-Final and won the Premier League…
Just to finish, something I was thinking earlier, if only Aaron Ramsey was English… The closest thing to Xavi and Iniesta in the future will Ramsey-Wilshire at The Arsenal, if only it could be the same for England.
Think your point about lack of patience is right on. England do not lack fitness in a raw sense; they are tired because they are chasing the game both on offense and defense. Where a Spain, or a Manchester United, or even a Germany or Portugal will use their possession both to pull players around, to probe, and to tire the opponent, England is too eager to have at it and doesn’t value wearing down their opponent. When they decide to move into “possession” mode, therefore, they tend to keep it at the back and not be too threatening, waiting for a winger to do something special or win a corner. Makes England good if a) scoring first, b) forced back by a team to whom they must concede possession (Spain, Brazil, etc), or c) playing a team who makes lots of mistakes. So they look good against top opposition, crush minnows, and generally flatter to deceive against fellow mid-tier teams with less talent but a more intuitive sense of space.
I think you’re spot on about Parker. To be honest, I myself had been mentally campaigning for Parker’s inclusion in the England team for the past year or so on the basis that England NEED a DM (rather than trying to stack the midfield with luxury show ponies who want to do their own thing and not get dirty), and if Parker is a DM, even an average one, then he is preferable to having no DM at all. However, I admit I didn’t really watch W Ham often enough to understand Parker’s real playing style, and was just basing my opinion of him on the fact that he’s often described in write-ups as a tough tackling, tenacious midfield workhorse.
Having watched the game yesterday (and a few W Ham games too) I see you’re right – there were several times (esp in the 2nd half) where there was a HUGE gap between midfield and the centre backs – space that a DM should be covering. Switzerland just strolled into this space at will. Parker was generally further up the pitch, contributing little as Switzerland broke towards the England back line. I’m not sure if that was a tactical decision (eg to have Parker pressing higher up the field) that went wrong, or simply an inherent tendency of Parker (and having seen a few W Ham games, I’m inclined to think the latter – he’s more of a roving midfield general than a deep-lying genuine DM).
Also, he really is a very poor player technically. He’s extremely one footed, never looks comfortable on the ball, and (and I know this sounds like a weird thing to say) he just looks physically wrong. He has really short stumpy legs, and holds his arms like a T-Rex when he runs.
Hart is a good keeper,but his distribution must improve.
A starting 11 i would pick for england would be;
Hart
Richards Ferdinand Terry Cole
Carrick Wilshere
Gerrard
Walcott Young
Rooney
Richards over Johnson – I just think hes as capable going forward as Johnson but is much more solid and the back,and can also play at CB
Carrick & Wilshere – Two good passers,and this season in particular carrick as improved in his DM position,making many interceptions in matches,where Wilshere attempts more tackles!
Gerrard over Lampard – Gerrard for me offers more to the team. Lampard seems past it,based on his England performances of late.
Rooney alone upfront – can play the false 9 role brilliantly and link up Gerrard,Walcott,Young
By the way, zonalmarking .. yet another great article !
You have many of the same opinions as me.
I rate Richards over Johnson for the exact same reasons as you.
You seemingly rate Carrick for the reasons I do, breaks up play well, intercepts play and is also good in possession.
Rooney up top on his own.
Got to disagree with you about Walcott though, don’t rate him myself.
Walcott or Lennon i couldnt really decide,i would ofcourse add Adam Johnson to that list also,but i personally prefer a right footed winger on the right,left foot on the left etc. But,atleast Johnson has abit of a killer instinct,where on the other hand Walcott doesnt show it enough to be fair. Certainly he needs to improve his all round game.
I cant really think of an English player on the wing who is good with both feet,similar to lets say .. Nani !
I used to have the same opinion about you on the right on right, left on left thing, changed my mind a bit now, can work if you have the right players and right system for it, but as for Lennon, I think he’s massively underated. Due to the fact he’s extremely quick, people automatically will just say ‘he’s got no end product’. Bit like Alves, people will automatically say he can’t defend, when in fact he does a great job defensively for Barcelona with his pressing and his speed covering things, but back to the point about Lennon, his crossing in fact is very good, and he crosses very well when running at speed.
Another thing we agree on, unlike many people, I also think Nani is a quality player, his assist stats speak for themselves. Creative, quick, good crosser, can play with both feet, can’t ask for too much more can you!?
I’d drop Gerrard and play Wilshire as the most attacking midfielder myself. I know he plays behind Fabregas at Arsenal, but he also has Song to cover for him. I’d play Huddlestone (if fit) or Parker as the second holder, though that position is clearly a weakness.
Also @ Mark, the closest thing to the Xavi/Iniesta tandem in 2014 will be Iniesta/Fabregas for Spain, Banega/Pastore for Argentina, Nasri/Gourcuff for France, Götze/Ozil for Germany, or Hernanes/Ganso for Brazil.
@ Matt
Disagree on your suggestions for the ‘new’ Xavi-Iniesta.
Banega does not play like Xavi, more of a defensive midfielder, he doesn’t have the passing or technical ability of a Xavi.
Ozil is a different player to Iniesta, he stays high up the pitch and specifically looks to play between the lines, he doesn’t look too much to join up in the build up play by keeping possessionf for long periods.
Nasri seems to be more of a winger these days and if he does play centrally, he’s much more like an Ozil between the lines player as opposed to Iniesta.
Fabregas/Iniesta could be another close thing, but Fabregas is another who looks for the killer ball more often than not, as opposed to Xavi who will just completely dominate the game with his passing. Couldn’t comment on Heranes/Ganso, never seen either of them play.
Iniesta is quite a phenomenon in the modern game in my opinion. He can combine passing and playmaking skills with fantastic dribbling, can’t think of too many players in the modern game who can do both so well.
As for Ramsey, I used him because from what I’ve seen of him, he’s the closest British thing to Xavi. Before his broken leg, he was ahead of Wilshire in the pecking order at Arsenal. Yes, he’s older, but the fact that Wilshire is a regular this year shows that age is just a number. But his playing style is to be the one who gets on the ball, plays passes, and control the game, Xavi esque.
Completely agree, I think Iniesta is the only player of his kind in the world, he seems to play in 3 positions at once.
Great way to describe him,arguably hes the most creative player on the planet right now,having him and Xavi in a team certainly makes Messi’s life much easier !
I was just referring to top midfield duos, rather than the precise virtues that Xavi and Iniesta bring to the field. Also, I was speculating that many of these players would develop their games and drop deeper by 2014 (which is a long way away). For example, I think Iniesta is the long term replacement for Xavi (with Fabregas or Thiago sliding into the Iniesta role for Barcelona/Spain), and I think that Ozil will play deeper in 2014 to accommodate Gotze (as will Gourcuff to accommodate Nasri).
if you are going to play young on the left then adam johnson should be played on the right. both johnson and young are wingers that cut in from thier flank, take defenders outta the game, and lay shots in on goal..it give you the tactical option of swapping wings to get better width or to throw crosses in the box.
i would also put baines at the back over cole…baines deserves it (based on this season)..plus i think hes better than cashley (at least going forward).
Another problem is that England still haven’t sussed out how to use Walcott properly. He has phenomenal pace and is a good finisher but isn’t blessed with great skill or close control (although it has improved somewhat this season), yet he’s constantly given the ball to feet and asked to beat his man.
Walcott needs to have balls played into space behind defences for him to run onto, where he will win the foot race every single time. But for that England need to have creative players who can actually see and play those passes. Arsenal are blessed with such individuals but England only seem to have two – Rooney and Wilshere. (Remember Croatia – two of Theo’s goals came from excellent Rooney through balls). Yesterday Rooney wasn’t on the pitch, and in the first half Wilshere was often pinned back as the deepest midfielder by Parker who kept wondering forward. In such cases Theo is going to be rendered ineffective, and he might as well be left on the bench for a conventional winger like Young or Johnson. They can more easily create a bit of space with the ball at their feet to supply a cross or cut in and shoot.
maybe walcott could be utilized as an english chicharito up front with rooney or as a super sub
A player so limited in his options as Walcott shouldn’t even be in the squad. He’s so fast that he gets behind defences, but he can’t pass, can’t cross, doesn’t know where to go when he’s dribbling.
Would rather see Albrighton myself, he has the makings of a fantastic footballer.
There are two ways to use Walcott. One is, just as you suggest, to play schoolboy passes in front of him for him to run on to. The other is to play him up the middle, where his pace is such that he could probably pin back a four man defence on his own. Neither would work unless the midfielders were trained to use him properly. (At Arsenal, the man who knew how to use him was the otherwise preposterous Bendtner.)
What do ZM and ZM readers think of this system that illustrates a point I made above about how good England’s midfield, and potentially also team could be with Ramsey…
Hart
Richards-Terry-Rio-Cole
Carrick
Ramsey (if only) – Wilshire
Lennon/Young – Rooney (dropping off, Messi like) – Downing/A.Johnson
Yes it is based on the Barcelona system, but I think that’d be some team, we just need a playmaker, Xavi type player who will just be patient in possession and keep things calmly ticking over by dominating the play with his passing. International football is all about keeping the ball, that midfield would be able to keep the ball, and you’ve got Carrick offering the defensive shield.
What do fans think? And can any fans think of any players coming through that could play in the midfield alongside Carrick and Wilshire? Henderson came to mind but don’t think his passing is good enough.
England isn’t going to become a possession based squad anytime soon. For the foreseeable future they will need to rely on the counter attack. There aren’t any players coming up through the English system that will be able to play a Barcelona style other than Wilshere who is already in the Three Lions setup.
Carrick, as ZM stated before, works best in a 4-4-2 as a player that makes simple passes to the playmakers on the wings. In my opinion, he’s not that great of a defender.
As for Jordan Henderson, I think he has a promising future on the wing, not int he centre of the park.
If England can model themselves after such potent counter attacking sides such as Germany, then the country can do well internationally.
Yep – having a Ramsey would be great; Carrick could play the Busquets role (without the acting) and Wilshire one of the two. I actually think Lampard age 28 did this pretty well; not sure who has the technique now who isn’t quickly converted into a winger.
You would need inverted wingers at the minimum if not wide forwards to make this work. Young certainly offers the goal scoring threat to play this system but do Lennon, downing, or johnson? that’s all I’m uncertain about. I think Wilshere and Carrick together in midfield would really help maintain possession but a third midfielder is hard to find to fit the system. Either way, johnson on the right and young on the left would be best for the front three.
don’t need ramsay, josh mceacheran will be better.
Oh Yes! Why did I totally forget about McEachran! Decent player from what I’ve seen, patient and composed in possession, which is exactly what we need! Can’t believe I forgot about him!
in one champions league game i calculated around 90% for his pass completion! watch out xavi.
If he can stay out of trouble, Ravel Morrison will be better than both.
1. He sounds like an ass**** lol
2. He looks more of a number 10 who would do great damage in a free role, as opposed to in a deeper role like wilshere/mceacheran.
However, if he can stop being a badass, then the trio of mceacheran, wilshere and morrison in their prime would be even more satisfying than xavi, iniesta and busquets. And I can say that confidently. Big, big promise for england.
Henderson’s execution of a pass is fine, but I find his lack of patience frustrating. It came up again in the under-21 game against Norway – England would be happily passing the ball around between the defence and midfield, catching their breath and making Norway chase possession, and then all of a sudden Henderson would come haring back to receive the ball, adjust his gaze to 50 yards and “spray” a ball out to a marked player near the touchline. Some of these balls went straight into touch, some were controlled under duress by the player who was promptly tackled, and others were controlled by the player who had no option but to play the ball backwards. Far less commonly did anything positive come out of the pass.
I’m not saying that there’s never a benefit in a quick, direct ball out to a player on the wing, but surely it’s only a worthwhile gamble if you’ve spotted someone in a particularly advantageous position; if you mentally commit to playing that kind of pass before you’ve even checked, you’re just giving possession away cheaply more often than not. It’s the kind of approach that I find equally frustrating from Gerrard – a more exceptional talent than Henderson, but with similarly grandiose and thoughtless habits. It’s why I prefer to see Gerrard played further up the field, where he won’t have the chance to play these kinds of passes, and it’s also probably why I’ve been more impressed by Henderson’s performances playing wide right for Sunderland.
Incidentally, Henderson appears to have been picked out by many watchers as the star of that game, so clearly I’m in the minority in being bothered by this sort of play. Rodwell, by contrast, got ordinary reports, whereas I thought I saw a player who could receive a pass in the tightest of spaces and whose first touch and relatively simple but effective passing almost always took the pressure off. He shouldn’t be asked to play as an attacking midfielder, as his shot and ability to play a killer ball are merely decent, but he’s the best prospect we currently have of a truly excellent holding player.
Oh, and yes, the best chance of an English Xavi-Iniesta axis is clearly Wilshere-McEachran. We’re very lucky to have those two coming through so close together. At the same time, let’s not underestimate just how good Xavi and Iniesta are – it wouldn’t surprise me if no pairing comes close to their current level over the next decade, since none has in the last one.
“At the same time, let’s not underestimate just how good Xavi and Iniesta are – it wouldn’t surprise me if no pairing comes close to their current level over the next decade, since none has in the last one.”
Here here!! Football fans are always have ‘the next George Best syndrome’ – i’d be very suprised to see anyone come close to these two in terms of ball retention (not forgetting Busquets/Messi’s contributions) for a very long time – arguable the best pair of midfield playmakers the worlds ever seen and it would be very suprising to see two such compatible players come together in the same team (national or club) again any time soon
Not sure what my p0oint is here – maybe just that we should enjoy watching them while we can and stop looking to compare the players of the future to players of football folklore of the past (or present as the case is here)
Excellent points. You’ve highlighted one of the main symptoms that English football need address if they have any intention of progressing on the international stage. This ‘cavalry charge’ mentality is, as you say, grandoise and thoughtless. Someone really needs to inform the players that the oppositions goalposts aren’t moving away from them at steady rate, which is how they seem to play whenever they get the ball….charge!!!
An ex-colleague’s (Tom English – shout out to the Colchester massive) nephew was on trial at Liverpool in the mid-late 90’s, when Roy Evans was manager and Ronnie Moran the first team coach. During a training session, said nephew, sprayed the ball 40 yards to a team-mates feet, play continued. When he tried the same ball just minutes later he failed to find a team-mate. The coach blew his whistle, stopped play, and asked him why he hadn’t just played the simple ball, 5 yards, and moved into another position to receive the ball. Needless to say, he thought long and hard before playing the ‘hero’ ball again. Oh, and he was released.
Isn’t the point about 4-3-3 that your wide forwards need to come inside whilst the full backs overlap?
Milner and Walcot don’t do enough of that, whereas Rooney and Young will.
This is why this 4-3-3 failed
G’day Locost, You can play the 4-3-3 in multiple different ways. The point of it is not always for the forwards to cut in and have full backs bombing on all game (although I do enjoy watching this happen).
The point of playing 4-3-3 (4-1-2-3/4-2-1-3) over 4-4-2 is that it creates better passing angles all over the park, as well as an extra player in midfield, making possession football easier.
Defensively it is very good when pressing, as you already have 3 up front to press the back four (wingers can also pin back the full backs) and with 3 in midfield it is unlikely you will have a numerical disadvantage in midfield, making for an effective press.
England’s problem playing the 4-3-3 wrong is the least of their worries. The main thing is developing players who can build up play with more than 10 passes before thinking.. it’s time to play a miracle ball!
We have had the same problems in Australia over the years, but the FFA have had a huge revamp to grassroots development, creating a very similar set up to the KNVB (dutch) approach to junior development.
We are now beginning to see the benefits, with all our elite youth teams now playing excellent 4-3-3 possession football (Senior AUS team is still crap!).
Can someone, even ZM if you know, let me know what Englands approach to Junior development is like? Small sided games, Junior coach philosophies, Youth formation requirements, etc.
Cheers.
“Spain, France, Germany, Italy, England, Holland, Argentina, Brazil – top tier teams.”
France, England and Italy are no longer top tier sides. In fact Spain are probably within their own tier at this moment in time!
I don’t feel like Argentina will TRULY be a top tier side until they get the proper coach who can employ Messi in a role that will get the best out of him. Argentina NEEDS to be built around Messi to be great.
Also, when your coach (Maradona) leaves out two of your best players for the WC (Cambiasso and Zanetti) you have a problem.
I find it hard to accept the argument that winners of 2 of the past 4 world cups are not in the top tier of world football.
I find it easy to accept that England(winners of a world cup 45 years ago) are not in the top tier of football.
I agree with Stephen that even if you want to hate on England as being below the best… arguing Italy and France aren’t top tier teams because of 3 games at last summers’ world cup is just asinine.
It’s only partly to do with the last world cup. Looking at France and Italy and comparing them to 1- previous teams from those respective countries and 2- other teams and squads currently playing at international level. I think it’s fairly obvious France and Italy are not currently part of the elite.
Watched any of their qualifiers recently? I’d say France, and especially Italy, look quite good and promising. Since WC2010 they have new coaches that brought in a decent amount of younger players and/or managed to restore with elder/established players.
Look at Italy. They have top strikers and some hopeful-looking young midfielders, they will be back on track soon.
Whilst watching this match my mind was almost immediately drawn to the previous game that was played on the Wembley turf; primarily because of England’s, atypical, uselessness at retaining possession. While I agree with most of the points raised why this is the case: lack of patience, poor players, possession and patient build-up play being an alien concept to the native Englishman etc….. I believe that one crucial point hasn’t been discussed as much as it may should’ve been; and most definitely wasn’t alluded to on the ‘analysis’ on the box and that is the simple act, almost insultingly so, of Darren Bent dropping 20 yards into midfield to give England an extra man in midfield.
Now, England were struggling, as usual, with their transitions whilst the Swiss had no problems in moving the ball through midfield onto the edge of the England penalty area. Messi had given a masterclass in the false 9 position just days earlier, on the same bleeding pitch, yet by watching England labour on the ball only to inevitably resort to the hoof upfield you’d have thought that the game had taken place a decade ago….on the moon.
I would imagine that the counter to such a preposterous proposition would be that Bent isn’t ‘that sort’ of player. But surely asking an international footballer to drop deep, receive the ball and then pass it to another white shirt thus aiding the progression of the move upfield isn’t a huge ask.
So, why didn’t this happen? Had Capello forbade such an elementary movement from his no.9? Was Bent instructed to hang off the shoulder of the last defender as Wilshere, Lampard and Parker will easily bypass Hitzfeld’s midfield formation? Maybe Capello actually preferred the aerial route and cunning channel balls. Or, maybe, and depressingly all the more plausible, is that Darren Bent just never thought to do it. English no.9’s don’t get up to that sort of shit; fannying around with the ball in the middle of the park. And why didn’t the £6.5m pa saviour do anything about it? It’s not as if everything was going swimmingly.
Come back hirsute Rooney all is forgiven? Oh, God.
Whilst watching this match my mind was almost immediately drawn to the previous game that was played on the Wembley turf; primarily because of England’s, atypical, uselessness at retaining possession.
So you’re saying watching England vs Switzerland was like watching Reading vs Swansea?
Touché, my friend. Touché.
Ha, if you WERE trying to say England are like a Championship-level side of journeyment, then you wouldn’t be that far wrong!
Stop comparing every team to Barcelona. We get it, they’re the greatest team of all time.
Just a quick question about your articles. I’ve noticed that you have stopped using annotated images taken from the match footage. I always find those interesting because the pictures clearly show what you are writing about in your article. Is there any chance that you could bring them back? or have you just stopped using them?
Thanks
I thought James Milner had a solid game when you disregard his sleepwalk for the second swiss goal.
One problem for him was the aforementioned problem of England to maintain any possession, especially in the first half. When you play an inverted winger you need a good amount of the ball to play it into his feet. Also with Theo Walcott on the other side it screws up the MO for England because Walcott needs the ball to be played behind the back four to run on to; he is more suited for a counter attacking game. Capello should have been able to see something like this beforehand.
But the biggest worry was that the midfield trio of Wilshere, Parker and Lampard were not able to impose their tempo and will onto their swiss counter parts Inler, Xhaka and Behrami. Had they faced even higher quality players England would have been ripe for another beating.
The usual bashing of individuals after yet another poor England display. Player X isn’t good enough, Player Y doesn’t offer anything, picking Players A & B would be much better (until a few games down the line, when Players A & B are no good either).
Pick any eleven Englishmen in any formation of your choosing for the next match, you’ll get much the same as Saturday.
This is a football tactics site… of course we are going to be judging, thinking up possible sollutions and commenting on the footballers… and the tactics….
Hey ZM for the record I’m having problems viewing the images in all the articles past the the 2009 final onward – is it just my computer or is there a technical fault or something? I came back from a break and wanted to read the Bolton article and none of the images would load…
RE Hart – when he played for Birmingham he used to distribute long, however his main target often seemed to be McFadden on the left hand side(who is not particularly tall)yes the ball would go out of play a fair bit sometimes. Hart is a quality keeper though IMHO
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/chalkboards/R086s7v85pCMi00G2369
6. Bent kept getting caught offside.
all the best goalscorers get caught offside the most. Its a tribute to the fact theyre always playing on the last shoulder. Look at hernandez, falcao or fillipo inzaghi for example.
Or Adebayor…
and then u just get donkeys who get caught offside e.g. adebayor!!
I am stunned that all craft and guile seems to have abandoned Don Fabio. I wonder what’s happened. Everyone knows he has been a top level coach – one of the very best – for years. But he cannot get ANYHTING out of these players.
Is it the language problem? if so, get an english manager! Can;t imagine any other “serious” football nation in Europe getting a foreign coach.
Personally, i think the players just do not play for him, do not like him, and don;t understand what he asks of them tactically.
Who actually believes it is Capello’s aim to be successful with England? If he manages to screw up two or three major tournaments with England in a row, in Italy they’ll probably decorate him until he collapses…
England don’t need Capello to screw up major tournaments….
But why pay him so much then?
What would help the English football – rather than paying gigantic amounts of money for an international star coach – is the following:
Let the FA force the premiership (1st league, 2nd league, …) clubs to finance / build up youth academies. Force the clubs to have their squad (of about 30 players?) to consist of ~40% players from these youth academies.
You’ll see how quickly the big clubs will try to educate young English players to be able to play PL / international-format football…
i think it is time for england to drop some of their older players. players such as lampard and terry have been with the team for some time now and they have never really performed above average. these players are holding them back and i think the best thing for england is to create a new team with young and determined players because their current players are never going to win anything .
nothing to do with the players.
The lack of patience in possession is just a symptom of the actual issue responsible for the England national team not performing to a standard you’d probably expect from the individual players. International football is played differently than the Premier League and the end-to-end stuff at a frantic tempo is seen much less frequently. Most English internationals just fail to adapt to the slower tempo and necessary tactical adjustments involving a more “wearing down” style approach.
Sending a few more players out to ply their trade in Spain, Germany and Italy would benefit your national team much more than any foreign manager could, no matter his pedigree.
Of course Capello is not without blame though. Adding a few more good passers would have helped his cause, Lampard, Bent, Milner, Walcott, Parker and Johnson are probably one or two too many one dimensional players and if you don’t have decent distributors of the ball half of them are pretty much completely useless.
Admittedly, adding Wilshere was a step in the right direction and there aren’t that many options available, but I don’t think there is a working alternative in current football. If you look at Germany ( at the WC 2010 ) and Real Madrid ( under Mourinho ) as two sides applying arguably the most “modern” tactics on the break, both usually use a swarm of four positionally not fixed attackers ( Podolski, Oezil, Klose and Mueller for Germany, Ronaldo, Oezil, Marcelo and Benzema/Higuain for Real ) and a band of three players as base of their game ( Khedira, Schweinsteiger, Lahm for Germany, Alonso, Khedira and DiMaria for Real ). Compared to Barca’s or Chile’s ultra high pressing both teams will usually look to get the ball in somewhat deeper positions and then get to the opponent’s goal along the most direct way possible. That is mostly the job of the swarmers though, the defense ( minus Marcelo and Lahm ) and the respective three base players will be patient if there is no opening.
The English team misses that balance and that is another reason ( although specific to the current manager and squad rather than a general one ) for why even the central defenders often look jittery and want to hoof the ball forward. The Premiere League mentality of “quick, quicker, quickest” is probably rooted to deeply in these players and if they can’t play the ball forward immediately there is a problem.
While sending Wilshire and Rooney to Serie A might not be a miracle cure for English football, I think it would be a step in the right direction. I actually think that Wilshire could be a great replacement for Seedorf as an energetic box to box playmaker, and that Rooney could do a lot of damage as an unconventional trequartista in a 4-3-1-2.
Wow, it’s cool to see an advert on your site. Usually I hate adverts but in this case I even watched the vid on youtube. You know, this guy – http://twitter.com/#!/futbolitis_aco – started with a blog on tactics, he’s a coach and he did some scouting for Benítez and others. Now he’s joining Luis Enrique in Roma, he’ll be part of his staff. Of course it’s nice to see capable guys succeeding, it’d be cool to see you ending up in a club or something.
love the site, but kind of annoys me when you completely refuse to mention anything about the opposition. they don’t even get a starting line-up. OH picked a pretty interesting team. inler was very good.
Ok this isn’t, xenophobic but could be construed as such as it’s quite general. I hate italian managers. They think defence first. One nil is better than 8pm-4. Dutch football, exported so well to barcelona is obviously a more attractive version of the game. Quick passes with one and two touches only, lots of triangles. England players just don’t on the whole seemto understand the importance of possession. This used to in my opinion be lampard greatest ability.makalele was and still is the standard barer for the dm, win the ball and keep it. carrick sadly seems to be the only english payer who understand this concept and he.s as mobile as peter crouch. The players need to be better at keeping the ball, something fabio is actually good on, and the coach needa to get the balance between defence and attacking creativity.
spain also find 1-0 better than 8-4, ask del bosque…
England, France, and Italy didn’t have the best showings in the last WC but they are always some of the most talented teams and surely that raises them above a team like Switzerland, who has maybe one or two players in top club teams. I’m not going to disparage them, but England are the more talented side, and have been since the beginning, and should win. I mean, England’s progress defeat in the second round at the WC was seen as a humiliating failure, meanwhile Switzerland didn’t make it out of the group stage and though I’m sure they were disappointed, the discontment wasn’t nearly the same.
No problem, wasn’t a go at you, just find the expression a bit confusing!