England appoint Roy Hodgson
Hodgson winning the 2010 LMA Manager of the Year award
If the decision was between Harry Redknapp and Roy Hodgson, England were choosing between two very different coaches.
The debate should not have been about ‘experience at big clubs’ or ‘how much the players like him’, but about the style of coach required: in Redknapp and Hodgson, the FA were choosing between two men at complete opposite ends of the football coach’s ideological spectrum, the most stark contrast of managerial philosophies you can find.
Redknapp
Redknapp is all about individuals. He denies he’s a ‘wheeler-dealer’, and to imply that he is only a transfer specialist would be unfair; he clearly gets on with people (summed up by his relationships with both players and journalists) and is regarded as a good man-manager and motivator. Whether it is bringing them in or firing them up, Redknapp’s skill is that he gets the best from individuals.
His tactical ineptitude can be overstated – Redknapp is generally very good at making substitutions midway through a game, as he showed, for example, with a fantastic turnaround at Arsenal eighteen months ago – followed by a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation about why he made the changes.
Yet Redknapp’s sides retain a certain anarchy, epitomised by Tottenham’s win away at Norwich late last year, when Redknapp told Gareth Bale and Rafael van der Vaart they could “play where they wanted to”. In that game it worked, as Bale scored two fine goals in a man-of-the-match performance. “He gets in those holes, and when he gets the ball and runs at you, he’s unplayable,” Redknapp marvelled. Yet in recent weeks, Bale’s desire to roam has been indulged at the expense of shape and structure, and Tottenham have been in terrible form.
Van der Vaart is another who has enjoyed that freedom at Tottenham. “There are no long and boring speeches about tactics, like I was used to at Real Madrid,” he says. “There is a board in our dressing room but Harry doesn’t write anything on it. It’s not that we do nothing – but it’s close to that.”
How much does Redknapp value the system? He’s perfectly honest about it. “Whether it’s 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 – the numbers game is no the beautiful game in my opinion,” Redknapp once said. “It is 10% about the formation and 90% about the players.”
Hodgson
Hodgson is the complete opposite, the ultimate ‘system’ manager. His teams are very simple – they defend the same way, with two banks of four supplemented with two outright attackers – either two forwards or a lone striker supported by a number ten. Whereas Redknapp employs an army of coaches to do his work on the training ground, Hodgson personally drills his players relentlessly in training so they’re completely at home with the zonal defensive system, going through the same exercises again and again.
“We work on it every day,” Simon Davies, who played under Hodgson at Fulham, told Jonathan Wilson. “Every day in training is geared towards team shape on the match-day coming up. I’ve been working with the manager three years now and every day is team shape, and it shows… I don’t want to give any secrets away, but he gets the 11 that he wants on a match-day and he drills everything in that he wants. It’s certain drills defensive, certain drills attacking, and we work very hard at it. There are no diagrams. It’s all on the pitch with the ball, nothing unopposed.”
Whereas Redknapp doesn’t care for formations, Hodgson is a member of UEFA’s technical study group and will tell you about 4-4-2 all day long:
“The back four gives you the best possibilities of covering the width of the pitch defensively, and it also gives you great options, in my opinion, to get the the full-backs forward…one can go forward and the other three can shuttle across and you’re still playing with three defenders. When you play with three defenders, you lose that possibility.
The other six players? One could discuss. There’s no doubt you need one forward…you need a point of reference…if you play with two of them, you have the added advantage that whoever receives the ball has someone in close support at all times, and if balls are going to be played forward, you’ve got someone to threat the back of the defence. If you take him (the second striker) out, the threat to the back of the defence has to come from the midfield, you need midfield players bursting forward. It’s interesting to play with two – though these days many teams are playing with them vertically, rather than alongside each other.
The central midfielders do an important job for you, they’re going to protect the back four, and they’re also going to be the catalysts for attacks. The wide players are the ones you’re looking for to use spaces.
With 4-4-2, you’ve got ‘twos’ all over the field. I would always be looking to find a team that can play with a back four. Amongst the front six there a lot more options.”
Decision
So which type of coach is needed? England are in a state of complete confusion. Going into a major tournament having appointed your coach a month beforehand is embarrassing enough. Then there is the problem that Wayne Rooney, the star attacking player, is suspended from the first two games. Jack Wilshere, assumed to be one of England’s key midfielders a year ago, will miss out through injury. A generation of very good individuals (though never remotely a cohesive unit) are now past their peak, while the next crop are not established enough to base a successful team around.
This complete failure to have any long-term project in place deserves first round elimination – an outcome that would have been regarded as ‘best for England in the long-run’, had they not consistently failed to learn lessons from previous failures.
Templates
All this should make even the most ardent England supporter realise that the team is currently a rank outsider. And the only way outsiders have overachieved in recent major international tournaments is by being defensive and functional. Uruguay won the 2011 Copa America in this fashion, and Zambia triumphed at this year’s Africa Cup of Nations with the lowest pass completion rate in the tournament, something also achieved by Greece in Euro 2004. Uruguay (again) and Ghana were the surprise performers at the 2010 World Cup, both being inherently reactive, defensive sides. It’s difficult to name a recent underdog that has overachieved by playing attractive football.
Only the best sides can contest international tournaments in an open, attractive style and succeed. For the Euros, this is probably limited to Spain, Germany and Holland. (Even they are more cautious than one might expect – this is a Spain side that won the World Cup scoring eight goals in seven games, while Germany who were thrilling in South Africa, but mainly on the counter-attack, and a Holland are considered one of the least ‘Dutch’ sides in history.) Those three can at least hope to play beautiful football. Everyone else must focus upon being well-drilled and rigid.
If a disciplined, organised style of play is perfect for leading an underdog into a major international tournament, there is only one choice. Hodgson’s successes have generally been with underdogs; the only problem anyone can have with his style of management suiting England’s situation this summer is if (a) they refuse to accept England are underdogs, or (b) they are frustrated at the confirmation of England’s status as underdogs.
(All this ignores long-term goals: granted, this is a major reason why England are currently in their current situation, but it’s difficult to see what long-term planning England can do between now and the Euros – regrouping after the summer is more logical. Talk of abandoning any attempt to compete at Euro 2012, in favour of a long-term approach looking forward to World Cup 2014, is a nice idea but assumes qualification and a reasonable idea of who would be in the side in two years’ time. Future international XIs are notoriously difficult to predict – predicting this year’s XI is difficult enough. In 2006 England took Theo Walcott to the World Cup, and though he didn’t play, he picked up ‘good tournament experience’, supposedly. This was totally useless when England didn’t qualify for Euro 2008 or when Walcott wasn’t deemed worthy of a place at World Cup 2010, and it was a wasted place in the 2006 tournament. To ‘do a Walcott’ with an entire squad would be suicidal.)
Caveats
There are two questions about Hodgson’s suitability. The first involves whether he’ll have enough time at international level implement his strict positioning correctly. This is a genuine issue – coaches who have had two years to prepare find it difficult, Hodgson only has a month. It will mean Hodgson’s style of football is probably even more boring than usual, as he would focus on defensive drills before planning any attacking moves. In that Davies interview quoted earlier, the Welshman finishes by saying, “We’re two-and-a-half years down the line now, so we’re all converted.” Hodgson does need time – when he arrived at Fulham, the team started poorly before a sharp recovery.
The second question is whether England’s players would respect Hodgson and be willing to follow his instructions. This is a problem for any England coach, though: Fabio Capello was ‘too distant’, Steve McClaren was ‘too chummy’. Hodgson isn’t stupid, and will be able to work out which type of players will be on board – he must be brave enough not to select anyone he believes will be a significant problem.
Conclusion
The point here is not that England have no chance of winning the tournament – it’s that they had no chance of winning the tournament by playing the anarchic football favoured by Redknapp. The type of football Hodgson offers is, in theory, the type of football that will maximise England’s chances of getting out of the group. In the current state of confusion, that must be regarded as a sensible target - although if Hodgson states this or voices satisfaction when this target is reached, he will be slaughtered for lowering expectations.
England must attempt to win the tournament; the chances are extremely slim, but have marginally increased with this appointment. England don’t have good enough players to be open and indulge individuals, and therefore Hodgson’s system-first approach makes sense.
Why not just hit the reset button now and leave out the veterans who have an ‘international’ reputation but have underperformed this year i.e. Gerrard, Ferdinand etc. I think England should pick a team for 2014 and bring them this year.
Well, because there’s a tournament to be won, and as mentioned in the fifth-to-last para, “building for 2014″ is extremely difficult in practice – and also risks humiliation this summer.
Dropping anyone underperforming is a must, though.
Totally agree, England need to try and achieve something this summer. It is refreshing to read a point of view which doesn’t bang the 3 lions drum but also doesn’t assume that we have absolutely no chance at all either, so thanks for that. For what it’s worth I think Hodgson is the sensible choice which is progress from the FA already…
I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one ZM. I think Redknapp would be the better choice. This crop of players needs someone they like, someone they respect and someone to get them fired up. They don’t need someone to flop them through defensive marking drills for a week before the tournament, as you imply Hodgson would be doing.
The players that jumped on twitter to call for Redknapp says enough, and you don’t think these players are going to head into camp thinking “this guy? really?”
I don’t think it’s about what the players want (or at least it shouldn’t be) I don’t trust the judgement of John Terry, Wayne Rooney or Frank Lampard beyond their abilities on the football pitch. If they aren’t capable of getting behind an internationally respected manager then it’s about time we brought in new players.
I suspect that those same players will be able to hold their tongues when there is a tournament to be played (Ok, maybe not Terry, but that’s a case for his exclusion, not Hodgsons)
I think England’s players will be more than fired up by the fact that they’ll be competing in a major international tournament. I have no reason to doubt that they’ll do their best, and had no reason to doubt that in the last tournament. Any reason to assume the Germans were fired up by Joachim Low? Or the Spanish by Vicente del Bosque? Neither of those strike me as great man motivators. England performed badly, but ZM has written extensively about why.
If Hodgson sets them out well and they get results, that’ll guarantee their motivation. If they don’t, then expect them to start getting frustrated, and the press to start accusing them of treachery.
(further to this, RDM comes across as fairly…dull maybe? I think the players are enjoying his management largely because of the results, not because of his interpersonal skills, which appear to be absent at his press conferences)
AVB’s appointment and plans were perfectly logical until RDM took a bunch of has-beens to the Champions League final. I agree with most of the article except when you said England’s chances of winning the tournament have slightly improved by this appointment. I disagree. They have been reduced to none. Harry had a slight chance of great success small chance of utter failure, Hodgson has minimised the chance of failure and eliminated the chance of gret success.
ZM’s article may be biased towards a tactical coach, after all he’s not going to suggest that tactics can be outdone by man management in a website all about the importance of tactics!
However, reading between the lines I think it would suggest to me that Redknapp would be the better short term appointment (what was in fact needed if we are attempting to do well rather than work towards 2014) and Hodgson the better long term.
Roy’s results only kick in after he’s had time to work with the players (with England he does not for this tournament), whereas Harry had an immediate affect on a Tottenham squad floundering under Ramos.
Great site BTW, but I can’t always think you’re right.
The game is about a team, not individuals. There have been instance where players don’t like managers and vice versa but get on for the cause of the team. If any individual thinks he’s bigger than the team, Roy should dump him into the Atlantic.
Germans, Italians and Spaniards come out with tactics. The individuals who play for England will be found wanting if Harry were to be appointed
Brilliant article ZM. Completely agree. Waddaya reckon his line-up might be?
I reckon this workmanlike side (4-4-1-1):
Hart – Johnson, Lescott, Terry, Cole – Milner, Lampard, Parker, Young – Gerrard – Zamora (Rooney when he’s available)
Having played in the champions league is a must and also tactical disciplined ruling out Gerrard and Richards and maybe Johnson. I think that he might spring a surprise with a view to 2014 and go for:
Hart (c) -G. Johnson, Lescott, Cahill, Cole – Walcott, Carrick, Barry, Milner – Young/Rooney – Rooney/Welbeck 4-4-1-1.
You could then have Sturridge, Crouch/Zamora (different option), Baines, A. Johnson, Ferdinand, Smalling, Jones, Cleverly (if he’s fit), Lampard and then two back up goalies (lets face it we all hope they don’t play)
And Aaron Lennon. He’s been good this season.
I would go for:
Hart
Richards – Lescott – Jagielka – Cole
Parker – Barry
Walcott – Gerrard – Young
Welbeck/Rooney
I think you need a CB pairing that has played together before, these two still seem to have a good understanding. Parker and Barry can provide a good solid barrier for the defense. Walcott and young can provide pace outwide and Gerrard some inspiration (hopefully) from midfield. Welbeck would start first two matches and then Rooney would take over when his suspension is up.
Then as attacking changes, bring on Carrick and Cleverly CM, partner Rooney with Welbeck up front.
Personally I’d use another CB over Terry, as Terry seems to need to quick covering partner to operate well defensively. I’d also pair Carrick with Parker in the middle as they’re both good at covering and passing from deep in the midfield.
I don’t think Gerrard has the ability to change or control games like he did six or seven years ago, so I’d go with either Rooney dropping deep from a forward position alongside maybe Welbeck or Crouch, or maybe Lampard in an advanced mid position. Maybe Walcott as Rooney’s strike partner? I think he plays better in the middle than from the wing.
Speaking of which, I haven’t the foggiest who I’d play on the wings, as so many of them have been out of form this season. In the fullback positions I think Cole is an automatic starter, but I’m not sure about Johnson. Maybe Jones or Smalling back there, as I’d be surprised if Hodgson wanted his outside backs charging down field like wingbacks. I think he’d value their defensive abilities over their inability to consistently put in good crosses.
Who knows, but hopefully this will be an exciting tourney to watch. I’m really looking forward to it.
Wrong link for “fantastic turnaround at Arsenal eighteen months ago”. Links to the wheeler-dealer youtube clip again.
Not that we don’t love that clip
Thanks for linking to that BBC article from 2003, it’s even funnier when you realise England didn’t qualify for the 2008 tournament.
Anyway I do think England has an advantage in the upcoming tournament though it’s shared with seven other teams: all the favourites are in a tough group.
Ha, what a clown that guy is…you can tell the standard of the article by the team he’s picked. I mean none of the midfield has any defensive capability at all, they’d get torn apart, regardless of ability.
Wait, isn’t that article a piece of satire?
For my sake I hope it is, I read it and almost got brain cancer!
Great piece.
First off, that BBC article on why England will win Euro 2008 is hilarious.
Anyway. What’s most interesting about Hodgson’s appointment is that it’s not reactionary: Sven was brought in as an anti-Keegan; McClaren was essentially not Sven (English, even if he was Sven’s assistant); Capello was supposed to be the opposite of chummy McClaren; while the press (most of them anyway) were clamoring for Redknapp, it would have been yet another reactionary appointment intended to manipulate the players’ psychology rather than picking the best coach.
If the manager must be English – a country with a football infrastructure like England’s shouldn’t have to import their national managers – then Hodgson is a good coach for a good group of players. Even if Liverpool’s players didn’t appreciate being told where to stand, it would benefit an England team that far too often falls apart when they need to stick to a tactical plan.
I would rather see England actually have a go at teams, than play defensive the whole tournament. Against Spain yes, but England do have some good players that could play good football, given the right tactics and structure.
If Hogdson can this then great, but I dont want to a team just scapping for wins, I really think England can follow in Germany’s footsteps and create a good philosophy for the whole England set up.
A good football philosophy begins with discipline. Look at Mourinho’s Chelsea, Inter and Madrid, Guardiola’s Barcelona. The last time England had a go at a big team was against Germany in Africa, and we all know how it ended up.
Playing good football doesn’t mean not trying to defend well. Football is both defending and attacking.
Discipline is important definitely, its what Capello brought to England when he first joined. Just suggesting Hogdson will have to be allow England some creativity in attack if we want to be a big team, something he has failed to do with big clubs in his past.
But yeah I wouldnt want another Mcclaren ha
I don’t understand why England should be considered as “favourites” or play like a “big team”. What matters more is that they win. But neither looks possible under Woy.
Also, I don’t understand what the clamour is to get an English coach to manage the country. In cricket, which is a game built on nationalistic sentiment, there is little or no real screaming for coaches to be of the same nationality. I think its a negative thing.
Well, Germany were rebuilding since the 2004 World Cup. They had a clean break, removed the veterans from the squad and changed their whole approach including their youth teams. I don’t think England can do this in one month
But England should try to compete this year, but as ZM said realize, that they aren’t on the same level as Spain, Germany and Holland. They are underdogs, not only by current form, but also because of the last international tournaments. England does have nothing to show besides their top 4 Premier League teams, which rely heavily on international top players.
Oh I’m not expecting any success from this tournament, England ruined that when they hired a new manager just before the tournament. But thats the very reason I wouldn’t bother going defensive and trying to get results. England should bring in some young players into the squad (they dont even all have to play, but they will get tournament experience) and try out some different combinations throughout the team, without the big pressure of previous tournaments.
England has some really good players they could play, both young and old. Lescott has matured into a great CB for Man city. Richards and Walker are great attacking RB’s. Ashley Cole is still one of the best LB’s around. I still cant believe Carrick isnt getting games for England, while Barry has had a great season for Man city in deep midfield.
Then there’s Young, Rooney, Welbeck who have all played together all season, gaining good chemistry. While Sturridge, Cleverly and Walcott/Johnson could gain good tournament experience.
So some good talent for the England manager to pick
Germany didn’t really have a “clean break” though. Look at their 2008 squad, with Ballack, Frings, Fritz, etc. They were lucky that Müller, Özil and Kroos came into the scene right before the world cup (Müller made his debut in March 2010) and that Ballack forced a transition in central midfield by getting injured and letting Khedira become a starter. They still will likely play a striker this summer that started the 2002 World Cup Final (Klose) and will have multiple players who have been playing for the national team since 2004. The key is that they were gradually phased in, and that Germany hasn’t had to deal with drastically high expectations that are out of touch with reality. Remember, they weren’t expected to do well at all in 2006, and after Ballack’s injury many people wrote them off before the 2010 tournament. It’s a model that England could model, but it would require patience. I think the use of Hart; Walker, Cahill, Terry, Cole; Parker, Carrick; Walcott, Gerrard, Milner; Welbeck initially would work. Add Jones, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Rooney, Sturridge, Lampard, Lescott, Baines, Crouch, Lennon, Barry, and two back-up goalies and you have a squad that mixes youth and veterans who, crucially, can be phased out with obvious replacements who already have experience within the international squad and in the same squad. You also have obvious replacements who won’t be in this squad, but make sense for the future (Wilshere for Carrick, Smalling for Terry/Lescott, Cleverly for Milner, etc.) Whether you want to call it a 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 is largely irrelevant, as ZM has explained already.
I don’t see that as lucky.
Germany have Schweini and Kroos and Müller because Bayern developed them or in Schweini’s case, retooled him.
England had no new talent of note in 2010 because the big English clubs failed to produce anyone.
Holland isn’t even remotely on the same level as Germany and Spain. I’d rank it about equal to or just below England.
In 2010, they were rather lucky to get as far as they did (meeting just one serious opponent on the way to the finals), and the side has severey deteriorated since then. The heart of that 2010 team has hardly played during the past year, due to injuries, loss of form or being on the wrong end of 35. They two world class strikers, only one of whom will play due to the 1 striker system, and a world class winger, who has lost his form and has rarely played a full game since 2010. World class forwards will not win you any silverware, only a solid midfield and defense will.
What makes you think that scrapping for wins isn’t a good approach for England?
Well whats the point of just paying defensively and nicking draws or wins. Its not like club football, where clubs need points to survive relegation and stay in their leagues. England are playing for their country and nothing else really, so they should try and adopt a good long term policy of playing attractive football and developing their players.
Against the likes of Spain, Germany or Holland it makes sense to play more defensively, it would be stupid to open up against these teams this summer, but against the other teams England should try and have a go, they don’t really have anything to lose.
I can’t agree with that assessment, really. There’s no better approach for Cup tournament than playing cautiously, especially after the group stage. Teams like Germany, Spain and Holland, could adapt gung-ho mentality as far quality is concerned, but even those teams rely heavily on structure and patience. They play that way against teams they’re expected to beat comfortably as well.
The foundation for playing attractive football isn’t lain in a tournament, it goes far, far deeper than that. As you mentioned Germany, they made massive changes to their youth development, after some disappointing cup runs around the millennium. It wasn’t as if someone snapped their fingers and said ”let’s go and play pretty football”. They made fundamental changes to what kind of players they want to produce as a country, and the rewards for that approach are for all of us to see. They play the way they play, because it utilizes the player material in the best possible way, not because it looks nice.
I don’t think that a tournament of such stature as the Euro’s, has place for experimentation. It’s about representing your country, and the measure for being successful isn’t in aesthetics, it’s in getting the best possible result. Though for some small teams, playing good football in itself might be a good cause for national pride, but England hasn’t fallen that far as far as realistic expectations go. I’d say that most people would far happier with England scraping their way to, let’s say, the semi’s- than trying to play ineffective yet good looking football, and not progressing from their group.
Sure a consistent and positive long term philosophy would be nice but it’s impossible until St George’s Park is open and even then it will take the best part of a decade before we see a crop of national players raised with that philosophy break through.
Until then: Football is not entertainment, it is a sport and in a sport you compete to win. England wont win anything by trying to imitate Spain, Holland or Germany because our current players aren’t good at the same things theirs are.
If we play to our real strengths (instead of our delusions of strength), with a disciplined shape that’s hard to break down, then we can do well.
The future will have to wait.
The use of attacking full-backs under Hodgson is not existant. Also there’d be no point picking either Gerrard( he was useless under Hodgson) or Lampard in that 4-4-2. Rooney and whoever partners him will be very isolated and be expected to score out of nothing. I remember when ZM did that piece on the merseyside derby in 2010. That was Hodgson’s Liverpool in a nutshell.
ZM: “It’s difficult to name a recent underdog that has overachieved by playing attractive football.”
What about Bilbao 2012 ?
In France : Monaco 2004, Lille 2011
In Germany : Dortmund 2011 and 2012
In Italy: Udinese 2011…
I think you’re on the right idea with Bilbao but I would not throw Dortmund or Udinese in the same category. Dortmund is one of the largest clubs in Germany and Udinese have been finising in the top half of Serie A for some time now.
I don’t know anything of or follow French teams.
It’s right that teams like Udinese, Dortmund and Lille have performed well enough in their national league, however their success was not astonishing compared to the supposed quality of their players.
Bilbao and Monaco may be more obvious examples. You may not follow the French league, but Monaco went to the finals of Champions League in 2004, progressing by playing attractive football with plenty of goals against teams like La Coruna, Real Madrid and Chelsea
I also get the point that it’s easier to have a coherence at club level. But defending will always be the easiest solution, so I think that the teams I mentioned deserve some credit.
I think ZM’s statement points at international tournament (World Cup, Euro, etc) where teams have much less time for preparation and normally do not have such the cohesion and fluid (especially in attacking) as at club level. Defending is much easier and does not require a lot of time to pratice.
Mixing club leagues with international football knockout tournaments in the analysis doesnt make sense imo.
I think Chile and Uruguays 2010 teams epitomized this logic, Chile completely destroyed weaker opposition during the qualifying campaign but struggled against the stronger sides. OTOH Uruguay struggled against weaker opposition but were a stiffer oppostion for the stronger sides.
I think he meant international football.
Well you miss the whole point.What Cox is trying to say is that no INTERNATIONAL team has won any tournament in recent years playing attacking football unless they have players who are well accustomed to do so. Even then it wouldn’t guarantee victory as it involves so many things going your way(Spain Vs Switzerland where Spanish/Barca players came up against a well drilled Hitzfield team ). Also if players who are familiar with a system have such problems then what would happen to England who are the most diverse team at the moment.
As for Athletic Bilbao, Well even for all their Great young payers coming through they needed some 3 months to start clicking at Club level!
Athletic being considered an underdog was far more a function of their players being young and how that then framed the conversation — inexperienced, untested, inconsistent and, to an extent, unknown — than their talent level, which is already enormous.
If the core can be convinced to stay together and their youth development pays off with a deeper squad in the following years, the Basques are going to be more than European regulars.
I get the impression ZM only watched the highlights of the African Cup of Nations, otherwise he’d have noticed Zambia really impressed precisely because of their exuberant, attacking style.
The reason they may have had a low pass completion rate was because they were never afraid to take risks with the ball and were always looking to inflict maximum damage in the opposition half.
Watch the game where with better finishing they could have racked up a netball score against Senegal(Demba Ba, Papiss Cisse and all)…
Bilbao and Dortmund may play attractive, proactive football, but they’re both highly structured and based around a clear and aggressive strategy without the ball. It’s not as though they’re a bunch of aesthetes prancing around the pitch, they needed a robust and intense defensive system to overcome their relatively low wage structure (in terms of their larger league competitors). The kind of suffocating pressure they outperform with would be even more difficult in international tournament situations, where weather is often unhelpful and games come very quickly. Combined with the training limitations, reactivity is left as the path of least resistance in international football.
Once the decision was made that they wanted an Englishman, it was a two horse race: Woy or Boris. They chose well.
what worries me is that clearly a lot of evidence suggests that he spent a long time implementing the defensive strategies with the Fulham team who played very well under him. do England have anywhere near that amount of time? If they crash out of this tournament in the first round, the media will pounce on him, and undoubtedly the players will lose confidence in him.
he’s a great coach, and i would very much like to see how he sets the England team up, but i fear that he won’t have the job for very long.
who knows, England could start playing exciting counter-attacking football by the euros
Excelent post. Im a Liverpool fan and I think we ( liverpool and roy) were an awful match because Roy simply wasnt good enough against slightly worse teams.
OTOH I think England and Roy go preety well together.
I think that Hodgson’s philosophy was also too different from Benitez’s. It was going to take quite some time to change the team’s way of playing so radically.
Liverpool were awful at that time. Roy bought in some rubbish players and alot of the player s were in transition. players that fit a rigid 451 were never players who were going to fit a 442. Dalglish has tried to play a 442 like hodgson this year and has found he doesnt have the personnel either. Downing hasnt been a good enough left midfielder, Kuyt and henderson are not right midfielders and the CM’s have been painful to watch. It wasnt the tactics that let us down it was the really poor personnel. With that in mind Hodgson may have been better off reverting to a RDM style and just playing the players to type using the mourinho formation rather than the AVB style. So what Im trying to say is liverpool players when Roy was around were still a 451 team and therefore shoe horning them into a 442 was only ever going to lead to tears. Its still leading to tears now.
In theory, England have the basis of a decent starting XI
Hart; Cole, Ferdinand, Terry/Smalling/Lescott, Richards; Carrick, Parker, Milner/Barry/Lampard; Young, Rooney/Bent, Walcott
Jagielka is also an option at the back, as is Jones – who could also deputise in midfield. I doubt we’ll see that line-up, though. Richards and Carrick are almost certain to be left out, despite having good seasons. Carrick especially (particularly in the second half of the season.)
I’m under the impression Bent won’t be available because of injury. I would like to see something like this:
Hart
Richards Cahill Lescot Baines
Walcott Barry Lampard Young
Rooney
Crouch?
Welbek has played well enough this season to deserve a start.
Worrying about who deserves what is no way to pick a team.
Than poor phrasing on my part. I am saying that based off his club form Welbeck is England’s best option as lone striker.
@ Monty
“lone striker” … did you read the article?
Hodgson likes playing 2 upfront either as a partnership or a striker and a 10 … the whole article mentions sets of 2 … a lone striker could be considered if they could hold up the ball for a midfielder to run onto … wouldn’t Welbeck be trying to utilize space to run into instead of being a physical presence that holds and knocks the ball down for others to run onto?
read … think … comment.
Another great post. I think this appointment is the way to go. Redknapp doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing tactically sometimes and he will always want to play Lampard/Gerrard/Terry etc whereas Hodgson may bring in some of the younger players, which is what is needed.
I like Roy Hodgson and have liked his teams. Normally I’m not one for his style of football but I kind of enjoy looking at the organisation and discipline on display from his teams. I think it helps if you know a bit about his methods. I also think that when he appears as a pundit on TV, he’s very good value.
Anyway, I have long thought that he was the perfect choice for England. It never surprised me to see him overlooked – the media circus surrounding England is ridiculous – but I always thought he was a great candidate. The reason is I have never bought into this notion that England have had players comparable to the world’s best. There’s no doubt they’ve had talent but the myths spouted by much of the media – particularly the ‘Golden Generation’ – are just crazy. For me, England have pretty much always been average in tournaments and so a manager who can get a team working as a unit, hard to beat and squeeze a little more than the sum of their parts is perfect.
Sadly, I feel that this appointment has the potential to go very wrong. The media circus had already made their mind up as to who they wanted and are now quite upset that they got it so wrong. (Personally, I don’t think the F.A. wanted someone with ’skeletons in the closet’, but that’s another matter).
The reaction has not been particularly positive so far, with a great deal of emphasis placed on Hodgson’s time at Liverpool. England will go out earlier than wanted by the media – they’ll use Hodgson’s claim that he wants to win the Euros against him when the exit happens – and they’ll hound him for it. He won’t be given the time to implement his ideas and they’ll want him out.
I think the F.A. would have been better leaving Pearce in charge as a caretaker because when the inevitable exit happens it can be put down to not having a permanent boss – or simply that Pearce is rubbish. Then, they could appoint Hodgson with the view to building towards the World Cup. For me, they’ve got the timing all wrong.
With the England team and manager’s job, the media always have a role to play and it’s usually negative. But what do you expect from a mob whose second choice after Redknapp was Guardiola? What planet are these people on?
Couldn’t agree more .. and I’m an Albion fan (and an England fan ) who is disappointed to lose him … i fear the worst for him .. He’s in the same situation Terry Connor found himself in at the Wolves … The fall guy .. The rabid press pack will destroy him and he won’t even have a honeymoon period as others have had ….Look for my St Georges flag at Bolton on Sunday … Thank you Roy .
I would rather they offered Maradonna the chance to manage England at Euro 2012 then waste the tournament on Pearce!
Great comment, couldn’t agree more. Roy seems like a great choice for England, but he has almost no chance of succeeding in the situation being handed to him. He will have almost no time to put his system in place and he’ll be missing his best player for two group stage games. On top of that Rooney will be esspecially critical if England play the 4-4-2 that Roy prefers as he is one of the only players England has capable of playing as a supporting striker. Without him it’s particularly difficult to pick out a pair of strikers that make much sense together.
Given time to implement his system and a full complement of players I think he can make England very difficult to play against. Hart is a fine goalkeeper, and few international teams have stronger options at the back than Cole, Lescott, Terry and Richards with Ferdinand, Baines, Johnson, Cahill, Smalling and Jones all in the picture as well. With solid defensive minded midfielders in Parker, Carrick and Barry I think he can build a very strong defensive team in time that is still relatively dynamic in attacking areas with Rooney behind Welbeck and decent wing play.
But in all likelihood the team won’t be well-drilled enough to play his defensive style, but too cautiously selected to win games any other way. They’ll crash out in the group stages and his selection, which should and probably will leave out some of the “name” players will come under fire particularly since he’s not the man the media wanted. I can’t see him holding the job through to the world cup.
I believe england can play a very disciplined style. But to do this you have to drop tactically poor players. This includes in particular gerrard, who is unable to fathom a style of play or realise when he is a hinderance. Im a liverpool fan and nothing was more frustrating than watching him in the fa cup in front of the back 4. The cb’s couldve played balls, the 2 cm’s couldve played balls but instead he tried to be a hero.
Back to england, against spain we were excellent discipline wise. I believe its always best to go with tried and tested partnerships. I for one hate Terry however terry and cahill could work well. Adding cole into this mix would make it even stronger. They would know where they are at all times. Id much prefer Jagielka and lescott in the middle as they showed against spain they are worth their salt. Baines could be added but I feel Cole is a better player. england dont really have a rb and even mancini chose zabaleta infront of richards against Man utd. Johnson isnt really like by hodgson although I think he is decent. Walker could be a bet but Ive not seen him enough. Same for the attackers, go for players who paly with one another week in week out. Even as Pool fan go for Rooney, Wellbeck and Young. Even select carrick as a passing midfielder for this. I however feel carrick isnt that great and can unfortunately be pressured.
This way Roy doesnt have to waste as much time drilling his players. He picks the ones who know one another rather than selecting players from different clubs who probably hate one another. Its all about little partnerships. Look at Gerrard and Torres for liverpool, both fortunes have declined dramatically since being split. Roy can do it. I dont mind playing defensive because thats the way to win any tournament. Germany and brazil are the 2 most successful world cup teams, the thing they have in common is that they both have the best defensive records. Football is a low scoring game, defending will always win out. I dont mind if we score only from set pieces (svens era thats all we did, either beckham whipped it in or owen just ran as fast as he could!). A win is a win. play within your means. We are never giong to outplay spain just like how chelsea were never going to outplay barca.
I greatly admire this article, but the “Germany scored mainly on the counter-attack in 2010″ meme needs to die.
It’s not a meme, it’s true. Did you watch their games?
3 of 16 goals is not “mainly”.
When you score early (like for instance against England & Argentina) and you defend deep (because you have a Mertesacker in your side) then you are going to look like a counter attacking team.
Germany can score everywhichway.
I blame Jonathan Wilson.
What bothers me about Hodgson is that when he talks about his beloved 4-4-2, he seems critical of the fact that coaches like Lippi (5x Italian League, Champions League and World Cup winner) drops a striker in the hole. It bothers him because he thinks that when you lump the ball into the box, there are a lack of bodies attacking the ball.
Maybe Hodgson needs to realise that there might be a reason why such a coach employs such a tactic. I am no Mourinho but I have seen enough international football to realise that if you are over-run in midfield, then you are stuffed, and lumping the ball into the box isn’t going to create chances.
Maybe I am being unfair – at Fulham, he played Gera in a Totti type of role. But even so, it is strange that he didn’t seem to grasp such a simple and widely used tactic (and successful) and the simple reason behind it.
I don’t think he is critical of Lippi, but the possible weakness of the tactics used. His pount was mainly that not every team has the players to play like that. (Because not every team has Totti).
“The point here is not that England have no chance of winning the tournament – it’s that they had no chance of winning the tournament by playing the anarchic football favoured by Redknapp.”
That is a grossly unfair characterisation of Redknapp’s style of football. Spurs were a crap mid-table side in the relegation zone when he took over.
Turning Spurs round has been a great achievement, no doubt about that. But they were a financially strong, well financed side who were grossly under-performing given the quality of their squad (within the context of the EPL). This is quite far removed a from managing England and international football.
ZM explains quite well why Redknapp’s not very well suited and why England need a different type of manager. I disagree that England have a chance though. Okay, England do have a chance in the way that Greece showed in 2004 that anyone can win something, but it would be as much as a surprise as the latter’s shock triumph.
I would prefer Hiddink myself! But thanks to the media, the manager just had to be English.
Hiddink needs time to prepare just the same as Hodgson.
When he took Australia past Uruguay to the 2006 World Cup and then out of the group it was based on months of preparation. The players said they had never been fitter, and just as importantly, they understood what Hiddink wanted them to do, and that he was the boss.
Hodgson has visited Australia with club teams. In media appearances at the time he came across as very thoughtful about football. He’s obviously got the right experience for the job, but what a way to get it. Poor bastard; he’s been given no time, and he has to deal with a substantial proportion of press and public who have delusions of grandeur about England. And how many of the players are bigger than the team?
Australia are ranked 21 in the world but we know that’s a bloody miracle and are amazed that we have that ranking with no world class players. That ranking says everything about the willingness of the players to work collectively. It’s because the players have to leave Australia to improve and succeed, and always as an outsider from a country whose football no-one takes seriously. They are humble because Australian football has no reasons to have delusions of grandeur.
If England are ever to succeed they will need to forget all that crap about how wonderful the Premier League is and subsume their egos. I wish Hodgson and England all the best and some luck for a change; they will need it.
This is a strange myth. Tottenham were a midtable team from the start of 2000’s until about -05, then they went on to win the League Cup, finishing once ninth (three point gap to Uefa Cup spot), twice fifth, reached the quarter finals of the Uefa Cup etc. After that, they had a bad start to -08-09 campaign and Redknapp came along. They had been making good, steady progress for years before ‘Arry’s arrival, and he has been able to top that 5th place finish only once since then, no cup glory either- despite heavy investment I might add.
I like Redknapp, and he certainly isn’t a bad manager, but he didn’t ‘’save” Tottenham. That’s just media nonsense.
Well said. What’s more, the idea that Redknapp, as Michael Cox puts it above -
“…clearly gets on with people (summed up by his relationships with both players and journalists) and is regarded as a good man-manager and motivator…”
- overlooks the number of players at Spurs with whom he’s fallen out; the ones he’s bought, only to leave on the sidelines; those he’s alienated to the extent that they demand a transfer; and those whose errors or performances he’s used in the press to shift blame from himself whenever things go wrong. He’s fallen out with more players at Spurs than any past manager I can think of.
What’s more for every match in which he’s supposedly made good tactical changes when behind, there’s one where he’s done an automatic switch to 4-4-2 and left the midfield utterly overrun, or done nothing to change the match result and simply sat with his head turtled down in his warm-up jacket.
Lately he’s been playing to the gallery (the win against Newcastle was particularly embarrassing), convinced he’d been selected for England. His press buddies were also convinced, and they don’t like being wrong – hence the nasty playground bullying they’ve indulged in before Hodgson has even taken charge of a match.
Agree with you 100%. The media LOVE Arry and not because he’s achieved so much. He’s their buddy and they get more quotes from him on every topic than any other manager. He was actively campaigning for the job before Capello got fired and he’s been doing it ever since.
It’ll be interesting to see if Hodgson picks Gerrard after his experience at Liverpool. It’ll never be proven but there was always a suspicion that Gerrard deliberately skied his penalty against Blackburn in the dying days of his tenure at Liverpool.
Terrible choice,he wouldn’t manage to control the players,they will do whatever they want.He is not bad coach,but to be the manager of England-no.He is perfect for mid-teams like Fulham.We saw what he did in Liverpool.And only using 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 is a mistake.Everyone knows how Hodgson prefers to play,so there will be no surprise.
“He is perfect for mid-teams like Fulham”
- and therefore perfect for a ‘mid-team’ like England
Hahaha,yeah that is right.England have good players,but as national-they are mid-team.Only with Bobby Robson in World Cup 1990 they were a good side.
Almost everything that you have just said is wrong…
Why is he not going to be able to control his players? I’ve never heard of player dissent during his time at Fulham or West Brom, yes granted at Liverpool thinks turned sour but look at the situation surrounding the Liverpool job at the time. Change is hard to control at the best of times.
If he is perfect for mid-table teams then surely he is the absolute perfect fit for England regarding recent tournament results and not based on the overstated public held perception.
And frankly your last comment about formation is absolutely laughable. How can having a preference for 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 be a mistake? It’s no different to Mourinho favouring a 4-2-3-1 or are you suggesting each manager should go into each game with a brand new formation?
Before you berate the man, at least give him the dignity to highlight what he can do!!!
Mourinho switches between 4-3-3,4-2-3-1,4-5-1.Morever at Inter he was more counter attacking,now in Real he tends to play like dominating possesion,controling the match and attacking from the firt minute.
Hodgson always plays the same.And what you are saying about Fulham,WBA,Liverpool just confirms what I have just said-he is perfect for mid-teams.
We’ll talk again after the Euro’12,and we’ll se who is wrong.
Are England not a ‘mid-table’ international team? do we possess the flair players like Spain, Holland, France, Portugal? No, we have a bunch of hard working, physically sound players!
So Mourinho swtiches from 4-3-3 to 4-2-3-1 to 4-5-1, all fairly identical formations? and Hodgson uses 4-4-2 and 4-4-1-1, so your argument is; if Roy used just one more formation then it would no longer be a mistake? You’re talking rubbish!
As for dominating possession/counter attacking argument, that decision is purely based on the type of players he possesses…
In the same manner that all managers assess the players they have before deciding what style of football to play.
I see you are an englishman,so that’s why you are reacting like this.Take it easy man,it will be success for England to qualify for 1/4 finals.You have never had a solid national team(except 1990),and yes you have a quality players,but as team you are just bad.At the best you can do,you will lose with penalties.
Hart
Walker ? ? Cole
G Johnson Parker Barry Baines
Walcott Crouch
If they do well in the first two matches, persevere without Rooney.
Logic: play defensively but with two threats that the opposition won’t be comfortable with viz the height of Crouch and the speed of Walcott. Johnson and (especially) Baines are capable of good crosses. Walker and Baines can take free kicks that’ll punish fouls on Crouch and Walcott.
Johnson would be no on the wing. He does so well going forward from RB because the full back is taken out of the equation by the winger in front of him and he has space to go into. I don’t think he would be any good up against a full back. See the same for Baines. Walcott is also better when counter-attacking against teams and has space to move into. Once again I don’t think he would be very good up against a centre-back where there wouldn’t be enough space for him. He could move out wide and drag the defender with him on a counter I suppose but I don’t see it working as well as we would all like.
Also Crouch would be no good at an international tournament as he gives away too many fouls when challenging for the ball, which aren’t called in England but would be in Europe.
I like the look of walcott and crouch, you cant drop deep and you cant push up. Service might be an issue though
“you cant drop deep and you cant push up”: that was my thought. As for attacks down the wing, I see Walker + Johnson, and Cole + Baines, as pretty formidable. The big weakness of my suggestion is that it has three men playing out of their usual positions, and there’s not much time to practise it. A strength is that it doesn’t depend on Lampard, Gerrard or Desperate Dim (who anyway isn’t available for two games – which may be two-thirds of all the games they’re going to play).
Not sure I agree with ZM’s assessment here.
Broadly speaking England have done well in recent years if they could force the EPL style game on their opponent. At the core that is still all about isolating opposition players constantly and forcing them to make ultra quick decisions, some of which will eventually be the wrong ones. Pressuring opponents and forcing errors is an integral part of pretty much any approach to competitive football of course, but in the EPL it’s much more pronounced than in other leagues, even though it may not be appearant at every club and in every match.
Can you play that kind of football within a largely reactive framework ? It’ll certainly be extremely difficult and in other areas, say, individual craft or team cohesion, most of the other teams expected to go past the group stage at the Euro are just flat out better.
Putting ZM’s expectations as I understand them in less favourable terms he’s mostly hoping Roy will avoid complete desaster and humilations like the trashing by Germany in South Africa 2010, and that things will somehow improve from there. Me I don’t see it with the players on the radar for the immediate future. The English national team is literally years behind the competition and while it’s possible in theory they could pull a Greece the infinitely more likely outcome using a reactive approach is a long string of very modest results. ZM and most of the more knowledgeable fans will be aware the underdog status is a pretty accurate reflection of the current stature of the team, but it’s not gonna sit well with the general public, some of the egos on the squad and the FA.
Of course no England manager can change any of that on his own and whoever gets the job has to make do with what’s available, while taking the full blame for what went wrong in English football outside of the glamorous top flight during the past decade or so. Until the FA get off their ***** and rebuild everything below the Championship from the ground up the job is damage control basically and I guess that’s something Hodgson can do. I doubt he can help close the gap to the competition and it’s not gonna be pretty or enjoyable for anyone on and off the pitch, in the stands or in front of the TV though. I don’t think he’ll be popular with England fans a year or two down the line and I see a big risk of the FA destroying the little he could achieve by letting him go early hiring a manager employing the exact opposite approach, as they’ve done plenty of times recently.
In fairness to Hodgson, his time with the Swiss and Finnish national teams was quite successful. He would have had the same short time frames in which to implement his tact
* tactics, so I don’t think that will be too much of an issue.
What is of greater concern is that the English players consider themselves to be “above” the sort of rigorous positional drilling that Hodgson will insist on; however, as the players’ egos have been indulged over the years, and the team has failed to perform, they should have the sense to realise that this systematical approach will give them the best chance of playing to their potential or even overachieving. Plus, whilst it can be suggested that Roy has generally had players of less ability at the clubs that he has done well at, the better players in the England squad will mean that the team will play better football when they have the ball, provided that they are humble enough to work as hard as he wants them too without the ball.
But surely the point is at international level he can tell the players to sodd off if they don’t buy into his systems. He’s not forced to play a Steven Gerrard or a Torres because he has no other options, if anyone says boss this is boring I don’t wanna do this – or doesn’t apply themselves in training he can just pick someone else. They might not be as naturally talented but if they’re better in the system then it’ll be better overall.
I get your point, but it’s never that easy. He’ll possibly get short shrift from the media because he got the job in front of ‘Arry. So, if he dropped “big-name” players from the squad because they didn’t approve of his methods, he’ll be condemned rather than applauded. It’s a bit like when McClaren played the 3-5-2 against Croatia – it made sense tactically, and it would’ve worked but for Robinson’s howler, but because of how he was perceived he was slaughtered in the press.
Did you mean to link to that video from the “a fantastic turnaround at Arsenal eighteen months ago” text? Just thought I would check as I thought it would link to a video of Redknapp explaining how he turned around that game.
Interesting article and I can understand the reasoning for Hodgson over Redknapp. The only chance England has of getting any points at all is if they are a coherent group from the start. However, the root cause for the dismal performances of England in recent years/decades lies in the youth development, or lack of it. How is it that academies of teams like Arsenal, Man Utd., Liverpool, are never able to produce technically gifted or creative players. The Gerrard’s, Lampard’s, Parker’s of this world are great football players, don’t get me wrong, but one can hardly fail to see that there is a lack of English prospects with a more creative skillset. With all the money that goes around in British football, how is it that the youth development is so extremely poor? Is it a refusal of understanding that a static 4-4-2 is no longer the only way to go? is it a lack of investment in youth academies? A lack of gifted trainers?
Soccernomics made the point that the likes of Germany, Spain, France, etc have much more licensed coaches than England does.
Also lack of opportunity in the Premier League. Clubs often opt for the already ‘finished’ article they can purchase abroad rather than blooding their own youth players which takes time and slightly risky!
There is more professional opportunities in England then there is anywhere else(there are hundreds of professional clubs). So a few foreign players in the Premier League won’t hurt the chances of English players getting professional experience(even if it is in League One or League Two).
Before you attempt to counter argue what I have said try reading it thoroughly first!
I said, quite clearly, IN MY OPENING SENTENCE ‘also lack of opportunity in the PREMIER LEAGUE’, I never once said lack of professional opportunity.
Although I am concerned that you feel a few games in League One or Two means a player is then ready for international duty. How many players on a given weekend in the Premier League are English? Find the answer then you will realise what I mean about lack of opportunity.
It is a problem not only in England but other nations such as Italy, HOWEVER nations like Spain, who don’t seem to be doing too badly these days, have a ridiculously high number of Spanish born players in their league. If you have an argument for that then please, I would love to hear it.
That’s right, they do make that point in their book and it’s an interesting one. It just always still seems strange to me that the country that arguable invests most in a sport, fails to produce world-class talent. In that sense I think the England/football case is unique when compared to other sports. But yea, perhaps licensing and training coaches better is part of the solution.
I dunno: England has always had far more rugby players than anyone else and yet rarely shines at that game either. I think there’s an intrinsic anti-intellectualism about sport in England, a refusal to think about things and then apply the results of the thought. Look how few English managers there are in the EPL, for heaven’s sake.
There is not a lot of English managers in the EPL, but most managers are British and/or came up through the English ranks(Martinez is Spanish and Di Matteo is Italian but, both started coaching in England).
i think the exception to this (anti intellectualism) is seen in english cricket – the reform they have placed is pretty good. it shows that if the English FA does apply its mind (or get someone else to apply it in their place), there maybe some hope
Yes you’re suggestions are kind of getting there but I’ll add my tuppence worth.
I can’t say this with authority but commonly raised problems are:
- a large portion of the big money going round the top end of English football is spent on transfer fees and high wages for established players – a high proportion not English – rather than long term academy funding. Much of this money is also hoarded by the top clubs – the real reason for the inception of the EPL – rather than filtered down to lower leagues or ‘grassroot’ levels.
- as the EPL clubs can go out and buy foreigners to fill the creative parts of their teams, they are less inclined to develop English players who can perform the role.
- the coaching has been described as poor at youth level by some in that the emphasis is on winning rather than developing technical skills. Some have disputed this claiming the youth are now being taught well but once they reach senior level are being forced into out-dated styles of play – long balls etc. Either way, there is a problem somewhere along the line. I would assume the former more than the latter – many people have said that kids are thrust into competitive matches at too young an age when they should be focusing on ball skills.
- the education of coaches has also been described as poor by some. Again, I can’t say either way whether this is true or not. I’ve seen one coaching tutor on TV claim that the standard of applicants often aren’t equipped for coaching so it probably depends on who you ask! There is also allegedly a ‘jobs for the boys’ culture where ex-players are chosen ahead of non-players, regardless of respective ability.
- there is a shortage of coaches, particularly at youth level. This is a fact that I am more confident in stating. Also, the majority of top level UEFA standard coaches in the UK – of which there are far fewer than in other European countries – do not want to coach at youth level. Apparently there are more top standard coaches working at youth level in Spain than there a coaches of any standard working at any level in England. That surely tells you something.
- tactics have not really been part of the English football culture, not to the same extent as elsewhere. There is a general rejection of intellectualising football. It’s within this culture that tactically speaking, English football is relatively unsophisticated and as such less of the coaches and players are tactically aware.
- In Spain, Holland, Germany, Portugal etc. players grow up playing in a number of different on field positions. This is less common in the UK and so compounds the previous point.
I’m sure there are other points that others would like to add to this, and indeed some people may dispute some of what I’ve said. Like I say, I’m no authority on it, just giving an overview of commonly held views of what’s wrong with football in the UK.
I’d echo all of the above but would add:
In so far as financing goes, I don’t think the EPL teams having so much of the money is the biggest problem.
On the contrary, I think there’s too much money in the lower league teams (and increasingly, non-league teams). And there are too many teams in general. So merge most of the ones we’ve got.
1. A lot of these teams are financially mismanaged – developing players are basically lost in a myriad of poor clubs (with crap coaches) on the brink of insolvency.
2. The money, even when “appropriately” spent, is normally going to older players who, frankly, would be more reasonably employed in road maintenance or outside Tesco.
3. (further to 2) I think this works like an over-sized insurance system. If you go into football you sacrifice big chunks of the rest of your development (primarily but not only academic) and so if you fail you’re in trouble. But if you’re half decent, don’t worry, you can still eke out a living kicking a ball about for Aldershot F.C. Obviously this has a useful function in so far as it encourages more players to take the risk. But I think we have plenty of players – what we need is to develop the ones we’ve got.
Take my (adopted) city, Bristol. Two big teams, City and Rovers. For the life of me I can’t work out why Rovers exist. City are bad enough as it is – give whatever assets Rovers have to City. City now have a nice posh ground for their reserves, more money to spend on them. Rovers fans will just have to take it for the country I guess, can’t all be winners (unless England win the World Cup, in which case, we can.)
There was actually an article written by somebody about this general problem, can’t find the link though. Very tongue in cheek but it still good.
I actually think this is starting to change. Look at the top English central midfielders coming through: Wilshere, Mceachran, Henderson (who I still maintain will be a good player). They’re of varying quality, for sure, but they like to recycle possession and generally do non-”English” things, and (again, to varying degrees) have the potential to be quite creative. Then you have players like Oxlade-Chamberlain and Sterling behind him who have a lot of qualities of the typical English winger but are more technically gifted and (especially) are better at integrating themselves into a passing team. I’m not saying this is going to be a “true” golden generation or anything, but I do think the style of player that comes through top clubs is slowly changing.
Great stuff enjoyed this “This complete failure to have any long-term project in place deserves first round elimination” in particular.
If the FA, the media and the ones bolstering the stereotypical English arrogance had half the objectivity displayed or suggested by the article, English football would go a long way.
ZM who would have been your pick other than two both English and foreign?
Obviously International teams do not have the luxury of time to train together in-order to create a solid tactical framework.
To combat that, I would suggest partnering capable Premiership players who play at the same club, and interact within relatively the same part of the pitch, whenever possible.
Starting line-up:
Hart, G.Johnson/Walker or Richards, Terry, Cahill, Cole. A.Johnson/Milner, Barry, Carrick, Scholes (will never happen, but I can dream!), Young, Rooney, Welbeck.
Possible Subs: Lescott and Barry, Smalling, Ferdinand and Jones, Chamberlain and Wilshere, Parker and Lennon, Baines and Jaglieka. Sturridge and maybe Lampard.
Great podcast from BBC Five Live Football Daily (last 10 minutes of the show) talks about the impact and implication of Hodgson http://bit.ly/KoP8R6
When you say “England don’t have enough good players to play attacking football” I take issue with that, although not in a conventional way. The players we do have, have proven themselves at the highest level in the premier league, their technique and physical attributes cannot be questioned. However I don’t believe we have the right TYPE of player to play attacking football. Barcelona, Spain and Mourinho’s Inter being my examples here, to play to EXTREMES of attack and defence you need to have CONTROL, that comes from patience, composure and calm. All of the players who I regard as good enough are very direct in the way they play, the only players we have who fulfill the criteria i just outlined are Scholes and Carrick. They sit deeper which is good, but we have few if any of those players closer to goal. English football massively lacks composure and patience at the elite stages (in comparison with other top nations)
I saw someone post on a forum earlier about Hodgson’s stats being superior to Redknapp’s in terms of win percentage, trophies, countries managed in etc, and this doesn’t even take into account the fact that Hodgson is without doubt the more methodical manager who despite Redknapp not being as tactically naive as you say is still tactically inferior compared to Hodgson.
However, all of this taken into account, I’d still rather have had Harry Redknapp. I related it to last night, you could analyse the game for ages, how the systems matched up, what United did to combat City, and vice-versa, but the simple fact was that the game came down to one piece of poor defending for a split second at a set piece and the game was lost. So what I’m saying is, the stats, the tactics, they could all be in Hodgson’s favour, but sometimes it’s simply down to someone who is going to get the team playing and properly motivated to play for England, and I don’t think anyone could do this better than Redknapp. I actually see Hodgson similar to Capello; experienced, stick to a tactical belief, stubborn, and not great man managers…
That said, I wish Roy all the best, he seems a nice guy, he does have a good managerial record, and for all I know, I could be wrong and he’s a massive success for my country!
Just to jump in with all the others expressing potential team line up’s, I’d go with…
Hart (goes without saying)
Richards-Lescott-Terry-Cole
Carrick-Gerrard
Walcott-Rooney-Young
Welbeck
Think the German system of 2010… Rooney as a number 10 between the lines, Welbeck has very good movement, lots of pace on the wings, energy and drive from the midfield.
Hmm, they just need motivation? Kevin Keegan was the perfect motivater, and quite because he realized he couldnt do it tactically.
no one lowers expectations like roy hodgson
great read! i trust hodgson will do a better job than redknapp
this appointment makes sense once u start to consider england as big underdogs
He will remain in charge of the Baggies for their last two games of the Premier League season.
The 64-year-old will lead his country after managing 18 teams, including three national sides, during a coaching career spanning 36 years.
He will remain in charge of the Baggies for their last two games of the Premier League season.
The 64-year-old will lead his country after managing 18 teams, including three national sides, during a coaching career spanning 36 years.
Am I the only one who think England will do relatively well?
Confidence and expectations are at an all-time low, and as a result any decent showing will probably be viewed as a success.
Gerrard has been injury-prone this season and even Lampard is not the absolute first choice at his club anymore.
And most importantly I think there is pretty good depth in the squad. They can call upon Hart, Ricards, Lescott, Barry, Milner, Adam Johnson from Man City. Jones, Smalling, Ferdinand, Ashley Young, Carrick, Cleverly, Rooney, Welbeck from Man Utd. Gibbs, Walcott, maybe AOC (a shame Wilshere can’t make it) from Arsenal. Walker, maybe King, Parker, Defoe, Lennon and Dawson I’m not sure, from Tottenham. Lampard, Ashley cole, Cahill, Terry, Sturridge from Chelsea. Maybe some from Liverpool and Everton.
Rooney is probably the only world-class english player currently but that is a decent pool definitely.
Rooney world class? Bah: if I were picking an EPL XI to face a La Liga XI, Rooney wouldn’t be in it.
Whereas A Cole certainly would be: he’s the nearest England have to “world class”.
Rooney has 26 goals even though he has been playing as a support striker(and a few games in midfield). He is my choice for player of the season in England.
Well that maybe true, Van Persie is probably ahead of him in an EPL XI, doesn’t mean Rooney is not world-class. Obviously that is a subjective term that can be interpret differently by everybody so I won’t argue with you there but I stand by my opinion.
I agree about your point with Ashley Cole though, I knew I was forgetting someone.
am i the only one who thinks these ‘potential squads’ are just fantasy?
if you look at the spain and dutch squads that played the 2010 WC final you’ll find a good percentage of each squad play in top top club sides. I’m talking about guys like van bommel, sneijder, robben, who played in the 2010 CL finals. Guys like xavi, iniesta, xabi alonso who are key players in top spanish clubs.
England have absolutely no players who fit there. Gerrard has no football brain, lampard’s play style is chelsea’s play style. Terry is half retarded, Ferdinand is past it. Imo the only legitimate ‘top player’ england has is ashley cole, and maybe rooney at a stretch, and even then, rooney to england isnt as vital as Van Persie to netherlands, and Klose to germany etc.
Some of the other names mentioned are just a joke. Who is Daniel Sturridge? Who is Ashley Young? Who is Darren Bent? These guys have no reputation outside of England, at all. I think its time for England fans to realise the team is a joke, and from a european perspective, tactically and technically archaic.
That’s all very true, but it tends to be the case that the England managers prefer a Lampard over a Carrick, and a Milner over an Adam Johnson.
I am not saying that people like Carrick and Adam Johnson are world beaters. But there is the issue that you should pick the players that are most suited to international football, not the people with the biggest wage-packets and egos, and the players that the media are obsessed with.
I don’t think Hodgson has the balls to pick the best players to keep possession.
Lampard and Gerrard have been fine players for their clubs and routinely flops for England, whether played separately or together. In the Barcelona games Lampard twice released Ramires beautifully. The chance of his doing the like for England is vanishingly small. Sad, a bit puzzling, but surely by now undeniable.
Lampard is not being picked over Carrick. The role Carrick would play on the national team is being filled by Gareth Barry.
I am thinking of historically, not just in the last year or so.
It appeared that Capello didn’t rate Carrick, Lennon or Joe Cole – they were relegated to bit-part players. Which was a mistake.
If Carrick, Lennon and Joe Cole are worse than Lampard, Milner and Walcott, then I live in a different space-time universe.
Lampard is a completely different type of player than Carrick. Lampard is expected to create goal scoring opportunities while Carrick job is to shield the back four and recycle possession. Gareth Barry was the player who was expected to fill the duties that Carrick would. And yes Milner and Walcott are better than Cole and Lennon.
Also, I think most of this post is ridiculous. England chances are very slim but, don’t degrade their entire team trying to make your point. John Terry has made some mistakes on and off the pitch but, he is still one of the best defenders in the Premier League, Gerrad when fit has been solid and would be much better if Daglish played him in his best position(attacking midfielder). Also, England shouldn’t be criticized for using players not known outside their country. Kevin Strootman, Luuk De Jong, Yann M’Vila, Oliver Giroud are all players who aren’t big outside their countries who are going to be key for their teams at the Euros.
I’m not degrading the entire england squad. I’m pointing out the obvious. England aren’t a great side. And i think the sooner the fans, the FA, and the players realize they’re 3rd rate and not cream of the crop, the sooner they’ll be able to work out some sort of plan to improve the caliber of players produced in the country. Because I mean seriously, Argentina got ripped in WC2010 because of a crazy coach, England just got ‘humiliated’
You’re being silly. England clearly aren’t a “3rd rate team” – they’re a top ten team and they usually fulfil that in tournaments by reaching the quarters. It’s just that the country expects more which is what leads to discussions about player development etc. But clearly England will be favourites against the vast majority of teams.
I think this is a first in a very long line of articles that I really don’t agree with you. I don’t think Roy Hodgson’s method is right for England for two main reasons:
1. You don’t only need to convince your players to play a system suited to underdogs, you also have the problem that your opponents won’t treat you as underdogs.
You might not have the same level of talent as Spain, Germany and Holland (nor anywhere near), but still half of the sides you’ll face in the Euros or in a World Cup will still sit back and give England the burden of attack. That forces England to be proactive not reactive in those games, and if you’re drilled in a defensive rigid 4-4-2, go a goal down by accident and you’re fucked. The issue will then be further exacerbated in qualifying for the tournaments as you’ll face the Estonias and Austrias of this world. Fail in those games and it’ll be even harder for Hodgson to convince the media, the public, the players, the FA staff that this is the right way. Moreover England is not Italy, there is no defensive culture at all, it’s all much the opposite, the public is not lenient enough to tolerate this style.
2. England’s main problem is the lack of technical creative players and you won’t develop that kind of player under such a rigid system.
Now this might not be a problem for the main senior squad to solve, granted, but I still believe the national team manager needs to work closely together with the U-21, U-19, etc squads and give them a clear vision of the future. Please do not dismiss this as “doing a Walcott”, that was an isolated, disjointed, failure of an attempt to build a future, what I mean is England needs a much larger deeper plan. Hodgson is hardly the man for this job.
Play a modern proactive game from the youngest age possible and carefully bring them through the ranks all the way up to the main squad. Sure it’s tough to predict the future and there’ll be plenty of players that won’t make it after early promise, that doesn’t mean you can’t make long term plans. This was what Germany did after that unbelievably dull squad we saw for the 1998-2002 period, and it’s taken them a decade to get things right, but now they’ve built the players to play a proactive game. Spain had never won anything and what got them there was a sheer deep belief in the way they played through all the ranks.
England have got superb youth facilities developed in recent years by the likes of Man City and Chelsea, and a top team with plenty of tradition to develop players which is Man Utd. They just need a more forward thinking mentoring staff, because otherwise there is absolutely no reason they can’t develop such players in the future.
————————————
I’m not saying I have an alternative for Roy Hodgson. I don’t think Redknapp’s the right man neither, I agree he’s far too limited tactically for England, nevermind for developing the next generation, they not only need more technique and creativity, they also need more tactical awareness. Hiring a foreign manager so close to the tournament would also be a disaster as he wouldn’t have the time to adapt. But a 4 year deal with Hodgson? Perhaps the best solution would be to appoint Hodgson as a caretaker for Euro 2012 (his tactical style is indeed the most correct to maximise the chances for this tournament) and then start from scratch with a modern character for the next cycle.
Why was Redknapp even in the running for this?
year on year, Spurs sit almost precisely where you would expect for their squad.
What alpha does Redknapp offer?
Then there is the PR disaster waiting to happen when you look at his private affairs.
Not surprising that a National Brand would not want to appoint him to a public facing role.
Yes, I alluded to the ‘PR disaster waiting to happen’ in a previous post.
I have a suspicion that the dallying over offering the position and subsequent ’snub’ had something to do with this. It’s very likely they were interested in him but as I posted earlier they don’t want someone with skeletons in the closet. Who is to say the tax man won’t come calling again either?
There may have been pressure from sponsors and generally the FA just wanted someone squeaky clean.
I think Roy should pick that BBC team just to see what happens.
Spot on article ZM, ta
Generally nice article. I would share the skepticism that Hodgson has enough time to implement the kind of football he favours, but probably he is smart enough to realise this. I take the point about an underdog needing to play constrained football, I’m not sure you can take much from “It’s difficult to name a recent underdog that has overachieved by playing attractive football.” since of course they are generally underdogs because they don’t play attractive football. I’m not suggesting an underdog shouldn’t play constraining football, the question would be, if England were to choose to play attractive would they still be underdogs? Well, probably, but I’d argue not against *most* of the teams in the competition. What’s wrong with playing attractive football in the group and then tightening things up when you face Spain, The Netherlands and Germany?
Additionally I share the revolt against “building for the future”. Scotland are perpetually doing that. I’m just not completely convinced a player gains so much from “the experience of a big tournament”. If you look at England’s top players in many recent tournaments, I think it’s as often debutants as the experienced (although perhaps there is some confirmation bias there). What if by *not* picking, say Walcott for 2006 you had inspired him to work harder?
front 4 of Young-Rooney/Carroll(1st 2 games)-Walcott and Gerrard in the hole. Would do well I think, afterall divers do well in International Competitions.
I assume we can conclude that he’ll field 4-4-2? Isn’t that formation pretty dead internationally?
Just like England…
That bbc team was hilarious, how on earth did THAT get posted.
England is the worst team to manage. you have so many players at the same level you can always be wrong. If Roy is going with a 442, he must copy greece and uragauy and have one attacking fullback and one attacking winger. It ends up looking like 352/532. Uragauy looks good when Pereiras play in different banks of 4.
something like this
ST ST
CM-CM-CM-RM
LWB-CB-CB-CB
Managing England is probably like managing Liverpool. Lots of hope and expectation but in actual fact very little substance to work with. People harping back to glory days etc. Roy will be fine in his position. Not many managers can really turn it around. No need to waste millions on someone like Capello when in actual fact a manager cannot really do much. I fuly support roy and believe he will actually exceed expectations and get us at least into the knock out rounds.
I think you are being unfair to state England have no chance of winning the tournament playing the “anarchic football favoured by Redknapp” while in comparison suggesting Hodgeson offers the best chance of getting out of the group. While both comments sound about right they are hardly the same benchmark. Would you fancy the chances of ANY manager leading England to the title this summer? I wouldn’t.
Considering the options Hodgeson is a sensible choice. I’d trust him to qualify us for the world cup, although I don’t suppose he will give is a very enjoyable experience. Redknapp I’m not convinced about, I could see it being a total disaster but *if* he made a tournament at least you might go out having had a bit of fun! I guess it depends if you really expected to win the things… I don’t.
Totally agree, but while reading a doubt raised in my mind
I Thought about Mourinho vs Guardiola debate
Is Mou more of a System Manager like Hodgson and Pep more of an individualist like Harry ?
They’re both system managers, but Guardiola employs a far more fluid system than Hodgson’s (understatement of the century, i’m giggling at even the idea of comparing them), whereas Mourinho has been through a few systems in his various jobs.
Actually Mourinho may be the more “individuals” kind of manager, as he’s well known for extracting the maximum from his players through a series of psychological tricks. He’s also very deep tactically though, even if he’s played different systems. Guardiola has not yet shown such tactical flexibility but he’s only had one job, too, so you can’t assume what he’ll employ in the future…
Dear Zonal Marking,
Good piece, but I wanted to ask a question about your selection of ‘templates’.
You’ve included Uruguay in with Greece, Ghana and Zambia, but aren’t Uruguay unlike the others and very much unlike Hodgson, in that (and I think you pointed this out on ZM) they were very reactive, adopting a different tactical set up for each opponent?
As the Hodgson quotes points to, and the way he’s set up West Brom, Fulham etc suggests, he has very little tactical flexibility, changing second striker for a number 10 being the one of the only significant changes, while Tabarez was flexible. The crucial difference between the two is predictability. Greece were predictable but effective, as have Hodgson’s recent teams been, but Uruguay were unpredicatable (though no less pragmatic).
So while, Greece, Zambia and Ghama may all be templates, the disadvantage of their set up, and I assume Hodgson’s too, is that the opposition know exactly what to expect. As Harry’s quotes suggest, he avoids this by letting some of his more talented players do essentially whatever they want.
Be interesting to see what you (+ commenters) think?
Another very big difference is that Uruguay have 3 world class forwards up there in terms of technique and creativity – Suarez, Forlan and Cavani. One of the reasons they’re so good playing in the counter is that their front 3 is so good, plus fluid and versatile enough to cause problems on their own. Combine that with a very hard working defense and midfield, and a tactically adaptive coach, and it makes for a pretty formidable opponent.
That’s completely unlike Hodgson and the available English players.
Spot on!
it does not matter that much what coach they have. england needs to renew their youth system. financial fairplay could come in handy as it will force the premiere league not to focus on spending money they dont have on expensive stars but to build their own stars. the debts of the teams will force them in the near future (if the uefa really enforces the rules) and it will be better for the english football.
germany has been brought up a lot. look at germanys cup wins and at englands: germany has won three world cups and three european championships whereas england only has one worldcup from 1966. but the english public and the media still try to sell england as a team that could win anything when they pretty much always performed bad at tournaments. (again germany has reached 12 semifinals out of 17 worldcup appearances).
germany performed really bad at the 2000 and 2004 european championship (and 2002 reached the final in the worldcup with a team that was as bad as the teams that started at 2000 and 2004, with lots of luck and oliver kahn being near invincible) so they realized (also under the pressure that they will have a home tournament in 2006) they must change things. so two poor tournaments are one of the reasons germany is now in the top three. england performed poor in most tournaments and still hasnt changed anything. look at the wembley goal. english people still bring it up. what did the germans do? wiped their mouths and proceed to win two more worldcups and three EC since then. that is the big difference. some people learn from mistakes and defeats, others dont.
spain, germany and holland have really good youth systems, thats one of the reasons they are in the top three.
im sorry if some english people are offended but i cant read it anymore that england will win a tournament or “we are the motherland of football”. uruguay has accomplished more in football and they dont have such an unrealistic view on their own team.
england should bring young, hungry players. forget the results, look at 2014. let them get some experience. im sure they will perform better and play better football and with a little luck they will surprise us all.
i think is the big difference between sides that play orthodox 442 and 433. the 442 sides are much more rigid in how they play, yes with 2 strikers vertical to each other it lets them be a bit more cohesive but i standard 442 seems to be too insistent on certain ways of playing, very hard for the players to build a move organically. a 433 seems to make the game more fluid in the sense that the midfield takes up more varied positions and drags the wide players and fullbacks in to help with playing the ball. think lots of triangles linking up the defense to attack in a 433 whilst the 442 is more a rigid line based system, to simplify if a fullback wanted to pass to a central midfielder, he would choose to pass to his CB or winger in front of him who would then pass it to the CM. obviously a very simplified view but thats what it feels like when watching lets say a hodgson style 442 and a more modern 4231/433. the ability of the players to play between the lines and link up much more easily whilst retaining shape i think is very important.
yes 442 can work defensively and is hard to break down as the 2 banks of 4 basically leave very little space between the lines, especially when playing very deep however in a transition the 442 struggles, basically you resort to long ball to the wings a big man up front to start attacks. some teams get around it by playing an inverted winger that comes in centrally to provide that spark between the lines(arsenal with viera, pires and bergkamp coming deep). Another issue is if these teams do play a player between midfield and Central defense it comes down to the coach to decide to decide to mark them, essentially a knockdown effect dragging a midfielder to a semi defensive zone, a striker to a semi midfielder zone.
the issue is if england play the 442 i think it would be detrimental to their football, unless they go for set piece goals or pure counter they will struggle to create too many chances against the better teams. not to mention nearly all the supposed starting 11 plays their club football in a 433 type shape.
I hope you … and everyone who keeps harping against a 4-4-2 system as it being rigid etc and not good against a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 … watched the Chelsea – Newcastle game … that was a 4-3-3 lined up against a 4-4-2.
If you haven’t seen this game then please do, it might open your eyes to the possibilities of a 4-4-2.
In that respect … ZM, how about an analysis of that game here on the site? Couple it with an England side that we might see at the Euros and which players could fill each role.
I understand it will be easier once the actual squad has been picked, but call it a set-up pass that can be knocked in once the squad is known and an actual tactical analysis can be made referring back to an article like this …
i did actually watch the game.
A saw chelsea win the midfield battle most of the time but with newcastle using essentially 2 defensive midfielders they really stopped the final ball of chelseas midfield, lack of much creativity in that chelsea midfield didnt help.
newcastle scored 2 genuinely amazing goals, both came from the Left for them which was easily chelsea’s weaker side on the break and santon had a wonderful time against both sturridge and bosingwa as well as mata later on. they also didnt play as rigid a 442 as you think, for one ben arfa although starting on the flank is given free reign to come inside and influence games, they also used a LB who is right footed to come inside whilst still having gutierrez to stretch play if needed.
chelsea controlled the majority of midfield play but struggled to really hold their own past the halfway line, it was obvious that newcastle were fine to give chelsea control up to a point and then close down, they in turn used the wings far more effectively, ben arfa and santon both used the space between mikel, and the fullbacks. rarely were they closed down in this way, partly because of chelsea essentially playing malouda who isnt really a proper midfielder so very often he would stay quite high up the pitch even when service was barely getting to him. the amount of mikel longballs to torres in the first half i saw because he barely had a midfielder to pass to that wasnt marked was horrendous.
again this comes down to good tactics by newcastle, they sacrificed the centre but as soon as either meireles or malouda tried to get into the newcastle third they were picked up quickly, the newcastle RB wasnt adventurous but contained ramires well who isnt really a very good left sided winger type player.
that said i still think in the end newcastle played into a more arsenal or even manchester-esque 442 in that one of the midfielders came in centrally alot to add creativity in the middle of park between midfield and attack.
the stand out players for me that game were ben arfa who had the CBs worried and just drifted around and found pockets of space everywhere and santon who did the same from a fullback position. cisse got some great goals but over the course of the game i though he was relatively contained.
How much does Redknapp value the system? He’s perfectly honest about it. “Whether it’s 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 – the numbers game is no the beautiful game in my opinion,” Redknapp once said. “It is 10% about the formation and 90% about the players.”
In fairness, isn’t that pretty much exactly what ZM has said on occasion?
I can’t remember or find the exact quote/article, but I’m sure I’ve seen ZM say that tactics are not so much about the simply annotation of pitch formations, but how individual players perform their roles. e.g. two teams might both play with four at the back, but fielding Cafu at RB is very different to fielding Ivanovic there. And whether we describe a team as 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2 is often subject to the whims of current journalist fashion: e.g. classic Man Utd sides – with Cantona as a deeper lying #10, flying wingers in Giggs and Sharpe/Kanchelskis, and relatively workmanlike CMs like Keane & Ince – were typically described as a 4-4-2, but in hindsight effectively a 4-2-3-1.
It will be interesting to see which players Hodgson will field in his line of 4. He will most likely keep the central partnership of Parker and Barry, given they are England’s most defensively aware midfielders, although Lampard has been impressive in a double pivot this season. I can imagine Walcott wasn’t very happy with the appointment of Hodgson as I don’t see him dropping so deep into midfield. The same goes with Sturridge who I think will not be picked. Milner is a more likely candidate on the right and probably Ashley Young or (shudder) Downing on the left.
I would think Welbeck is a strong and hard working forward to Hodgson’s liking with Defoe and either Carroll, Crouch or even Zamora (a favorite of Hodgson) as substitutes. The number 10 player in his “big-game” 4-4-1-1 that will most likely be played against France, Sweden and in the knockouts if they reach it, is a little harder to predict. Rooney can play there when allowed to but in the first two games he can’t. So maybe Gerrard will? He was fielded there a few times in Hodgson’s Liverpool days and it is definitely his best position. Young could also play there as a central winger like Joe Cole did for Liverpool.
i agree with the article. playing individuals who love their coach isnt enough nowadays. you could perfectly see that at the wc2010 with argentina. as soon as they faced a good opponent in germany they completly failed and had no ideas how to break down the german defence.
i think hodgson is a good choise because he has a game plan and drills his players to this plan and tells them exactly what they can do and want they cant on the pitch. thats exactly how germany and holland have snuffed out their opponents at wc2010,you had the feeling they had everything under control defensivley cause they just knew what to do nearly did it automaticly, which takes time. that hodgson doesnt have anymore sadly
Roy will play a 4-2-3-1 not the 4-4-2 that everyone thinks. The WBA players have said thats what he prefers?
” I would always be looking to find a team that can play with a back four. Amongst the front six there a lot more options”
I nicked that quote from this very article, but yes, it seems perfectly possible. While in charge of Finland national team (Hodgon’s latest national team job), he actually never used 4-4-2 from the start. But we must remember that every team managed by Hodgson (as far as I know of), has defended with two banks of four, that’s the ”cornerstone” of his teams. What his teams do in the attacking third though, has varied way more than people give him credit for.
Historically, reaching the last 8 of major international tournaments has been an excellent achievement for England. Of all the national team’s managers, only Venables and Eriksson have never failed to take England that far.
And look what happened to them. Venables was pushed out by the FA. Eriksson had his reputation and his private life destroyed by the News of the World.
Meanwhile, the press and public continue to harbour delusions of 1966 and “football coming home”.
Quite frankly, England don’t deserve a decent manager.
mixed feelings
Clearly the best English born candidate but also a desciple of Alan Wade’s theories crica 1970s
Not sure this is really the way to porgress the game in England
given the tactically rigid systems Roy favours.
It’s too much about what you do when you have lost the ball and not enough about what you do when you have it for my liking.
Roy will write the curiculum at Burton-on-Trent and I worry that will not be a positive development.
What did Barnes say in 1990? “In England we worry too much about position!”
I myself would gone for Pierce or Harry. If only because I dont think Hogdson can handle the pressure that the media will place on him. Just look at Liverpool, people are saying he couldn’t do the job because of all the craziness of the pitch with the owners. But the England job will bring the same craziness, with the media tearing through his personel life and any small problem with the team magnified.
Harry, though not the greatest manager, could have handled the media much better and taken the pressure away from the team (kinda like how Mourinho does it).
I’d go with:
————-Hart————–
Walker–Cahill–Lescott–Baines
——–Parker—Lampard——-
Lennon——-Young——-Milner
————-Rooney————
“One European Championship, hold the Gerrard”
“Sorry, we don’t serve that here.”
Young and Milner should switch positions, then Milner should play deeper, alongside with Lampard in order to provide more energy in the central midfield.
A fully fit Gerrard with be the best choice for the attacking midfield role, like what he did for Liverpool in 08-09. Since he is far from fully fit, it is reasonable to drop him and use Milner
Too many players from different clubs. Have you ever played a footy match with people you dont know? Its pretty damn hard. Too many different clubs. Pick and choose partnerships from the same club and it will work better. The clubs spend the whole year drilling terry, cahill and cole together. Everton spent years with jagielka, lescott and baines. You are choosing to smash up those relationships and partnerships? Madness. Same for the attackers. Rooney, wellbeck, young and carrick should all be chosen together. Maybe even throw in Jones as a RB. They all know where each one will run to. You cant teach these partnerships and drills in such a short time. Why not use what the clubs have instilled in these guys? If people claim hodgson would take too long. Why not use what SAF has created at Man Utd and build on it. Dont dismantle a clubs good work. This is even coming from a Liverpool fan. Pick a team from teams already created. dont pick 11 individuals from 11 different clubs, its just a nightmare. How long does it take partnerships to click for clubs? Why expect it to magically appear overnight internationally?
“…he must be brave enough not to select anyone he believes will be a significant problem.”
Agree, agree, agree! I think this is absolutely key. If Hodgson can get a group of players who believe in what he is trying to do then England have a chance of doing something in the short and long term.
Great blog!
The scary thing about the English media is how many of the English people gobble up the nonsense they spout out. I still shudder to think about the treatment given out to Beckham, admittedly there was a lot of glee in booing a United player.
a very interesting article. i wasn’t entirely convinced by redknapp or hodgson to be honest, i felt fairly neutral about both. the lack of quality english candidates is frightening for the future of our game. will be interesting to see how pardew gets on in the next few years.
i agree that ‘how well they get on with players’ certainly shouldn’t be part of the criteria for selecting a manager, and i am encouraged to read about hodgson’s tactical view.
i’m not sure i’d go as far as to rank england a ‘rank outsider’ but of course it isn’t going to be easy for us with the tough group we have and the general disarray of the past few months.
My brother recommended I may like this web site. He was once entirely right.
This post actually made my day. You can not believe just how a lot
time I had spent for this information! Thank you!
This is the best possible
4-4-1-1:
Hart, Johnson-Terry-Cahill-Cole, Walcott-Carrick-Parker-Young, Rooney, Welbeck
Does anyone think Hodgson should just pick and choose partnerships already existent at club level? Similar to what spain do with the number of Barca players they have at their disposal and what S.Korea did when Guus was in charge. Everyone seems to agree drilling defensive and attacking formations costs time. Why not use the drills and coaching the players have received all year rather than pick what is to be perceived as the best 11 individual players?
So Chelsea have spent 6 months getting Terry, Cahill and A.Cole acquainted and Everton spent years with Jagielka, Lescott and Baines. Why not shortcut Roy’s defensive drills and select Terry, Cahill and Cole. Rather than breaking up these partnerships?
Same goes for the attack, Rooney, Wellbeck, Young and even possibly Carrick (or Scholes but not both. Painfully slow without the ball these 2) with Jones as RB. Therefore we would use Man utd’s attacking and defensive patterns instead of Roy trying to drill in his own. These drills have been used by the clubs for the past year and why not just steal them? Everyone here has played footy with people they dont know before and its a pretty hard task. At least if we choose club mates they have an idea.
Therefore Id choose
Hart, Jones, Terry, Cahill, Cole. With Parker, Carrick, Young, (A Right winger or maybe Lampard in a midfield 3?) Rooney and Wellbeck.
Jones then only needs to learn to play with the Chelsea back line. Parker needs only to learn to play with the Chelsea back line and Carrick. The right winger/Lampard needs to learn Jones game and the strikers. Therefore we eliminate the learning needed for the players. The cohesive defensive pattern is then taken from Chelsea’s ideals and the attackers from Man Utd. Chelsea’s defence has been stout to say the least and Man Utd’s attackers have generally been very good.
What do people think of this philosophy?
I fully support Roy and wish him all the best. I’m defensive minded so quite enjoy how he sets out his teams. In addition being a Liverpool fan, none of Liverpool’s players should really reach the starting 11 seeing as their form has been so poor. Carroll and Gerrard would make an interesting Plan B, Gerrard has the best cross in this country since Beckham, he’s just busy trying to win games on his own and this Carroll Gerrard thing could really work…if only Dalglish/Gerrard would try it. Johnson is a fairly decent RB. And Downing just hasnt the stomach to take a game by the scruff of the neck, not really effective one dimensional play sums up Downing. Drop Downing, take a player with hope like Chamberlain.
I think similar, though have a different team:
Hart, lescott and richards and all been part of one of the best defenses in the premier league this season, so i would pick those three for GK, CB, RB. I would then add in Jakielka as you mentioned because him and Lescott have a great partnership. I wouldn’t take Terry because he is a prick and has bad relations with the rest of the England team after the racist claims. Would therefore not take Cahill (his form hasnt been that great anyway) and would instead have Jones and Smalling as back up, as they played well together in the u21’s/at United at times. Then Ashley Cole at LB just because he is our best choice there and I could see Lescott being able to cover the LB area well (as he has played there before).
In midfield, I would start Barry and Parker, as Barry fits in well with the Man city theme and both him an parker have played a few games together for England now. Carrick would be a more attacking change, along with Cleverly, as they would fit in well with the united attackers (getting to that). Then probably Gerrard reluctantly in AM, and hope he can provide the link between midfield and attack, there isn’t many alternatives, maybe would also take Osman, or Joe Cole as they could offer something different. I wouldnt take Lampard ah his best position now seems to be in deep midfield, but as he isn’t better than three of my other choices, I would rather have someone young like Cleverly, than waste it on Lampard.
In attack, with rooney suspended, would play young on the left and welbeck up front as they have played well together. Then would add Walcott on the right, mostly because his pace would be a great weapon and he has played well this season (if inconsistent). Then with rooney back, would replace welbeck, then have the rooney and welbeck partnership as a plan B, as it is perhaps too attacking for the euro’s to start off with.
I think this is RH’s strongest 1st XI in a traditional 4-4-2:
Hart
Johnson Ferdinand Terry Cole
Milner Parker Lampard Young
Rooney Carroll
My biggest issue with the 4-4-2 is that the midfield 2 can get overrun playing against a 3 man midfield. 1 forward has to drop into midfield for sure when the ball is lost.
I predict 2 draws against France and Sweden and a 1-0 win over Ukraine to sneek into the QFs. After that you’re hoping for a miracle.
That’s one of the best internet articles I’ve ever read.