Euro 2012 preview: England
Possible starting line-up before Rooney's return. Carroll could start ahead of Welbeck.
Roy Hodgson was the right choice as England coach – at least in the short-term – but realistically, you can’t expect a side to play good football when their coach is appointed a month before the tournament.
Besides, even without considering the managerial situation or England’s terrible record of injuries in the last couple of weeks, England have their weakest set of players for many years. The alleged ‘golden generation’ (though this phrase has been used more frequently in a sarcastic tone than in praise of the players) are now slightly over the hill – Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard, Ashley Cole, John Terry and Rio Ferdinand are all still doing a good job for their clubs, but their peak was a few years ago, and they never combined to great success then. There is a decent young generation coming through, but for various reasons they haven’t established themselves in the side yet.
Hodgson is left with an uninspiring squad that isn’t really one thing nor the other – it’s not blessed with great technical quality, nor does it have the feel of a settled, organised squad who will be defensively disciplined. Some of Hodgson’s decisions have been questionable – the biggest one might have been taken by the FA, rather than him – but he doesn’t have much to work with.
Organised and counter-attacking
Hodgson, of course, will play a certain style of football. His sides always play with two banks of four sitting deep behind the ball, and then two attackers – either two out-and-out strikers, or a target man in combination with a trickier player just behind – staying upfront. He wants a direct style of football – and ‘direct’ doesn’t mean thumped long balls towards the centre-forward (though that can hardly be ruled out if Andy Carroll starts), but simply passing the ball forward quickly, attacking the opposition defence before they have time to get themselves organised, and before the opposition midfield forms a secure barrier ahead of them.
Just as Hodgson has huge belief in the value of a defensively aware midfield for his own side, he wants to bypass the opposition midfield immediately. In the two friendlies England have played under Hodgson, against Norway and Belgium, they’ve won 1-0 with two very ‘Hodgson’ goals – scored by Young and Danny Welbeck. Young’s goal, in particular, was stereotypical of a Hodgson side – it came after a direct attack with a long accurate pass from defence, then the forwards attacked the defence quickly while they were positionally unbalanced.
This strategy means England won’t be overly concerned with dominating possession, and the first pass out of the defence will often be wayward. There’s a similarity here with the Zambia side that won this year’s African Cup of Nations tournament – two banks of four, two wide players that break directly towards goals from the flanks, one ‘passer’ and one destroyer in the midfield, and two forwards. Zambia recorded the lowest pass completion rate in the tournament, but they didn’t play bad football – it was just that they had such a commitment to get the ball to attackers quickly, that the first pass was often misplaced. If the first pass was accurate, the attacking quartet would break quickly and combine wonderfully.
First bank of four
Hodgson’s priority in training will have been the defence. Unfortunately, with Chelsea players joining up with the England camp late after their Champions League success, and with Gary Cahill now ruled out of the tournament, England haven’t had much time to get settled at the back. Cahill would have formed a solid Chelsea connection along with Terry and Cole (even the right-back, Glen Johnson, used to play for Chelsea) but his place will instead go to Joleon Lescott.
Lescott probably had the best season of any English centre-back, but he disturbs an existing partnership (he personally enjoyed a good partnership with another player in the squad, Phil Jagielka, at Everton) and also wants to play to the left of the two centre-backs, which is where Terry plays. This shouldn’t cause too much of a problem, but Terry always seems oddly disorientated when asked to play on the right – as demonstrated in the 4-1 defeat to Germany two years ago, when Matthew Upson was alongside him. At least the back four will be playing in front of Joe Hart, who has been one of the finest goalkeepers in Europe over the past two seasons.
Second bank of four
Ahead of the defence, Scott Parker will play the most disciplined role in central midfield, with Steven Gerrard having license to push on, and allowed to knock long passes out to the flanks. This is the zone that looked least impressive in the two qualifiers, partly because Parker still doesn’t look 100% fit, following a couple of niggling injuries towards the end of the season. A large part of Parker’s game is about chasing, and if he can’t chase, he’s much less of an asset.
Gerrard’s positional discipline will be questioned in a deep role, and though these concerns are probably slightly exaggerated, a Parker-Gerrard midfield duo isn’t as positionally intelligent as Hodgson would like. The Michael Carrick situation is too complex to go into, but he would have been extremely useful.
The real question marks are on the flanks. Theo Walcott didn’t feature until late in Hodgson’s second friendly, but this can be explained by him returning from a hamstring injury, and he will probably start on the right. Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, James Milner, and Stewart Downing all started in the friendlies, and none were particularly impressive. The most likely player for the left is probably Milner, whose hard work, positional discipline and constant running means he should be perfect for Hodgson’s system. Downing also keeps shape well, but he had a terrible season at Liverpool, while Oxlade-Chamberlain seems ideal as a supersub.
Forwards
Upfront, there is the issue with Wayne Rooney – suspended for the first two games, but available for the final group game and any knock-out matches. Without him, England will play Young just behind the primary striker – again, his goal in Norway was perfect for this system and his lateral movement into the channels should give England forward passing options.
But who will play as the number nine? It seems a toss-up between Carroll and Welbeck – Carroll is the classic target man, but Welbeck’s fine goal against Belgium might get him the nod. For the France game, Welbeck is the better option – France struggle with balls played in behind the defence, as the centre-backs are poor at covering for each other. There have been suggestions that Downing starting makes Carroll more likely, and vice-versa, but that hardly worked for Liverpool this season.
What will happen when Rooney returns? It seems silly to predict it now, as it depends upon the performances of the four attacking players – but it’s likely that he’ll return to his number ten position, with Young replacing either Walcott or Milner, depending upon their performances. Alternatively, if Young has been disappointing he could be dropped, or if neither striker has done well, then Rooney could play upfront. In theory Rooney might not play – but that’s simply not going to happen, as it would require all of the front four playing so well that they’re undroppable. Jermain Defoe, along with Oxlade-Chamberlain, will be decent impact substitutes.
Conclusion
“I’d refer you to the Danes in 1992 and the Greeks in 2004,” Hodgson said, when asked if England stood a chance of winning the competition. He was probably going for an ‘anything can happen in football’ type comment, but the statement revealed Hodgson’s mindset – the role of underdog, and that will be reflected in England’s tactics.
Quick guide
Coach – Roy Hodgson
Formation – 4-4-2 / 4-4-1-1
Key player – Ashley Young, at least until Rooney’s return
Strength – a fine goalkeeper, and probably a good defensive shape
Weakness – little attacking cohesion because of the lack of time spent playing in this system, plus a lot of injuries leaves them with inadequate back-ups
Key tactical question – how good are England’s transitions from defence to attack? This will determine their level of attacking threat
Key coach quote – “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.”
Betfair odds – 16.0 (15/1)
Recommended bet – England to draw with France at 3.2
Further reading – The Anatomy of England by Jonathan Wilson, David Pleat on England’s midfield
I reckon Walcott won’t start. Milner on the right with downing/Ox on the left.
For the France game I think it is going to be Milner on the right to provide defensive cover against Ribery. With Rooney out, Young will play in the hole. I think it will be the Ox on the left to provide a but of spark. Can’t help but think that Caroll is going to trouble the French CBs more than Defoe or Welbeck.
because he troubled premier league CBs so much this year? The french center backs will be much more comfortable against a bruiser like Carroll than a fleetfoot like Welbeck, IMO.
Milner on right to help against Ribery: I fancy Baines on the left in front of Cole. But Roy hasn’t tried that so it probably won’t happen unless an opposition comes along with an exceptionally good right winger.
But Evra is long past his best: tempting to have Walcott (say) running past him. Possibility for a late substitution?
Though it would be extremely brave for him to do so – and send both Liverpool and Chelsea camp crying injustice – would it make much more tactical sense to call up Hibbert instead of Kelly?
Having a back four which has played together at club level for two years with no one out of position seems a very good choice. Considering the general lack of defensive awareness of right wingers in the squad, he can also be thrown in if Hodgson need someone to plug the leaking right flank.
Excellent article ~ thank you
Judging from the 2 friendlies, England will play a defensive 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 and try to counter quickly. What I thought was interesting in the friendlies was that Young played right up front, spending a lot of time ahead of Carroll/Welbeck, as proved by his goal against Norway when he was a good 10 yards ahead of Carroll.
This makes the system more 4-4-2, but I fear that England might be overrun in midfield if Young plays so high up, as we were against Belgium (who had miles more possession but no cutting edge up front), and against France in particular, that could end in disaster, especially seeing as Gerrard and Parker are both the wrong side of 30 and Parker appears half fit.
Parker and his “braveness” could expose England. He often goes chasing up the pitch to win the ball, even if nobody else does. He could potentially be turned or beat by a one-two very easily and Gerrard could end up overloaded.
He didn’t do it in the two friendlies, him and Gerrard held their shape without the ball.
Am I crazy for thinking England, meeting Spain in the quarters, will grind out a 1-0 against them, courtesy of a set piece?
I don’t what your basing this prediction on… ha
Chelsea.
(More broadly, the issue that Spain are very predictable and narrow – and will be very vulnerable to a team like England in the air: without Puyol in particular now.)
I was being sarcastic (sorry not obvious on computers). I thought you were basing it more on Englands win over spain courtesy of a set piece?
Ok, I see your Chelsea and raise you a Manchester United, against most 2nd tier european opposition this year.
England looks a poor team and will struggle to get out of this group.
I think they could be strong defensively with Joe Hart in goal (One of the top three goalkeepers in Europe) and a back line of Ashley Cole (in great form), Lescott and Jagielka (a good partnership) and Glen Johnson (arguably one of Liverpool’s better players).
But the rest of the team looks poor and they don’t have much of a threat. The midfield combo of Gerrard and Parker looks poor, with Parker out of form and unfit and Gerrard coming off a poor season in a position that ill suits him. He lacks the discipline to protect the back line and regularly gives the ball away when under no pressure.
I also suspect Milner and Downing will start with Walcott and Oxe being used a super subs. This will help the defensive shape, but leaves little threat on the wings for England to use in attacks. Then Englands best winger is being used in the middle, Ashley Young. He offers tricky dribbling and a good shot, but his interplay in that position is sloppy and he repeatedly gives the ball away. England will dearly miss Rooney in this position. Young is much better utilized on the left where he can move inside, but that would go against Englands current shape and tactics so will probably not be seen.
Then up front England faces more problems. Welbeck is clearly talented but is not the finished article, though the experience could help him progress. The other option is Andy Carroll, a striker that not many CB’s will be used to playing and could struggle to handle, so could be Englands better choice upfront. But his finishing is poor right now, so England would have to rely on Young to supply the goals (a great player but not known for his goalscoring). Welbeck also offers a good understanding with Rooney when he returns, so could get the nod ahead of Carroll.
England have had little time to prepare for this tournament, its players are suffering fatigue and injuries from a long Premier league season and its best attacking player is missing from the groups two biggest games against France and Sweden.
England will likely lose against France, who are a much better team. England should beat Ukraine comfortably, who are a poorer team than England. This means the big game will be against Sweden, which could either way as Sweden have a better attack but a worse defense.
Have a read of my new article on Poland and Euro 2012 if you have the time http://www.just-football.com/2012/06/euro-2012-will-polands-economy-benefit-from-hosting-european-championship/
come on it can only be a joke to play milner in the team let alone him being selected . so if this is the team that roy is going to put and if i am the opposition coach then i will be smiling and asking for all out left sided attack and believe me england could be down to ten men inside 1st half . milner is played to cover ashley cole but i find the opposite cole will be exposed because of milner better example is that of the game between eng vs ned friendly milner couldnt cover cole against robben . there is no flair in this team or very little on the bench ( bring on henderson ha ah ah ah ah ) .
now about england style of play i mean gerrard is the captain right but i am sorry he too is not a very good floor players who can play tip tap and get the game rolling and for the last 5-6 seasons he played as a striker ( many call playing in the hole with no responsibility )
none of these england players are good floor players expect for welback who is decent . i dont how they are going to go forward they dont have a target man perhaps welback will have to do all the running and run in channels . the centre back pairing of lescott and terry is ok only when crosses are played but if the ball starts to roll which all the continental teams do then they struggle and terry and lescott are not great readers of game . both lack pace and will have to play deep to compensate that .
as far as choice of johnson is concerned at right back i would had gone for kelly . i back roy hodgson for selecting ( not for not selecting ferdinand ) as a right back he is better defender to johnson on any day which is the first criteria because johnson will have to do a lot and kelly is better .
its stupidity to speak about the team selection since now it is done but the results that are expected from the team will not be great still i expect england to atleast get out of the group and then god knows .
Nice article, however, shouldn’t “Weakness – little attacking cohesion because of the lack of time spent playing in this system.” Read: “Weakness – little attacking cohesion because of playing in this system.”? Ho ho ho.
It’s not solely down to the injuries but also the open free flowing foot wound from the proverbial bullet that is the FA forcing the Manager’s hand into decisions they may not favour themselves We wanted a team filled with vibrancy and hunger, instead we are left with underwhelming familiarity that has shackled the team down when most needed.
Stuart Downing was brought in to provide crosses for Andy Carroll, but looking at the statistics of the two players this year, Downing has accumulated zero assists. His crossing is at its best when driven low- as was the case at Villa- combining with the fact that Carroll got most of his goals for Newcastle with high balls: not from the wings, as expected, but provided mostly from Barton in deep central areas.
You say we have one passer and one destroyer. Parker is clearly the destroyer, how is Gerrard the passer?! Gerrard has regularly been poor at International level, never has he done for us what he’s done for Liverpool, mainly down to his lack of footballing intelligence, and that he always wants to play that 50 yard Hollywood pass, that most of the time won’t come off. One of the most overated of our generation.
As for Carrick, it is a complex situation, probably shouldn’t be, but it is. For me it’s as simple as this. He’s a good enough player to be begged to come out of ‘retirement’. I think it’s shocking that a player of Carrick’s level has been overlooked by England for so long. I saw an interview with Hodgson where he said he doesn’t like midfielders who generally just sit in front of the defence, and despite a slight change, that is generally what Carrick does, although I think there’s very few that actually do it better than him.
Hodgson has made a solid start, can’t complain with it really, can complain at some of his shocking selections though, and poor handling of Rio Ferdinand.
If he didn’t pick Rio for ‘footballing reasons’, I’m genuinely intrigued to know his ‘footballing reasons’ for picking Martin Kelly over Rio Ferdinand. Also why he didn’t pick Richards, Carrick, Lennon, Crouch. But picked jokers like Barry, Downing and Henderson!
If we have a shocker like we did at WC 2010 the press and casual fan are going to be all over Hodgson.
Ferdinand can’t play games so close together it’s as simple as that, even Ferguson said so. Plus England is alright at CB, they had Terry and Cahill partnership and Lescott and Jagielka partnership. Cahill dropped out so Jones will be fourth choice (offering cover elsewhere) and Kelly will be second choice RB.
If anything it is a travesty Richards wasn’t called up originally and even more so when Kelly was called up. Surely Richards is a better RB than Kelly right now?
Richards was pathetic and decided he’s too high and mighty to go on the stanby list, otherwise he’d have been called up by now. He seems to think he has a God given right to be in the team despite being a 23 year old with 12 caps and one decent season under his belt. Who does he really think he is?
Added to that is that Mancini has seen something he doesn’t like in him, as proved by his selection of Zabaleta for the final few games of City’s season, and Hodgson and Capello clearly don’t rate him either. There must be a reason. Richards is better than Kelly, but clearly isn’t very committed to England and is a potentially divisive character in the dressing room.
Zabaleta only became first choice at the end of the season because of a Richard’s injury. Once he was fit again Zabaleta was in great form so Mancini didn’t drop him.
Richards has be ignored by England for years now, just like Carrick (except Carrick has had it whole career). I can see why both decided not to be on a standby list, it basically suggests England doesn’t need them, unless we get injuries. After Walker he has been the best RB this season, much better than Johnson, so he feel very unlucky not to get into the team, he wasn’t even given a chance to impress.
Zabaleta is an underrated RB too though, he was more in form and City needed a bit of a shake up. I think he is definitely commited to England, in interviews he always seems saddened by not be included at all and I honestly think he will get a call up after the Euro’s.
It’s quite a list, those too hoity-toity to play for England. Robinson, Foster, Carrick, Scholes, Crouch, Richards … anyone else?
And presumably Ferdinand for the World Cup qualifiers.
Carrick I can understand, he’s played well, in a good team, at the very highest level for a long time and still been ignored, so I can understand his frustrations.
Richards is 23 and has had one good season, I agree that he should be in the squad, but being so petulant when not picked is pathetic, and if he really wanted to play for England he would have accepted a place on the standby list. Let’s face it, he isn’t Cafu, although he seems to think he is.
I’m sorry but I simply cant agree with what is being said in this post, especially given the tactical slant of this website, and the general intelligent and well argued nature of comments. There are plenty of places you can post this sort of comment (plenty of blogs on the BBC website springs to mind)
The “Footballing reason” for not picking Ferdinand is clear. Hodgson doesn’t believe he is amongst the top 6 Central Defenders in the country. Ferdinand has been injury prone in recent years, and has lost a lot of his pace, and missed out on much match practice as a result. Ledley King (who has played as many games over the last 2 years) missed out for this reason. Phil Jones was selected as a RB substitute, but after his poor performance against Norway, it was clear Hodgson felt another backup was required, and Kelly was the best available. This is clearly a footballing reason and is not particularly complicated to see, especially if Hodgson was looking to keep partnerships and defensive understanding by selecting from 2 players with links to a single club.
Your other criticisms are equally invalid. The standby list exists for a reason, you can dispute whether one was required or not, but once the likes of Carrick and Richards decided not to be on it, they ruled themselves out of contention for selection.
Crouch vs. Carroll is a judgement call, just as Lennon vs Walcott and Oxlaide-Chamberlain, you cannot take 4 right wingers (including Young) to an international tournament. Downing may not be your (or my) choice for an international player, but England are weak in the left wing position, and have been for nearly 20 years.
The most infuriating part of your post is your reference to Barry and Henderson as “jokers”. ZM has discussed several times about the advantages of Barry and what he brings to a team. There is a strong overlap with the skillset of Carrick, and Barry has had a solid if unspectacular season with Man City playing a disciplined holding role (with the priority on short passing) alongside a midfielder who likes to bomb forward in attack (Toure) that is similar in role and mentality to Gerrard (albeit much more technically and physically skilled). Henderson performs a similar role at Liverpool, and was only chosen because Carrick ruled himself out of selection.
The press and casual fans are ALREADY over Hodgson, just like at previous tournaments attacking managers for playing players like Emile Heskey, without fully thinking through the logic of such decisions.
Henderson is more of a Milner(versatile, has a good engine) and Crouch like Carrick and Richards didn’t want to be on the standby list but, overall a great post.
I can understand Ferdinand, I can understand Richards, but Kelly? Does it really make sense to pick two right backs from the same team?
I still there is a very strong case for Hibbert to be upset. And there was a precedent of Chris Powell.
My opinions have as much right to be on here as yours, just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they belong ‘on the BBC’.
‘The “Footballing reason” for not picking Ferdinand is clear. Hodgson doesn’t believe he is amongst the top 6 Central Defenders in the country’. You don’t actually genuinely believe that do you? If the racism issue had never happened, do you think Rio would have been overlooked? It was Terry or Ferdinand, simple as. If you think Ferdinand isn’t in the top six centre backs, but Martin Kelly is then that’s just unbelievable. Behind Terry and Lescott I’d still say despite not being the player he once was, Ferdinand is still the third best in the country. But I’ll bow to your way superior knowledge, he’s not even in the top six.
I was saying Lennon should have gone instead of Walcott, not as well as. England have been weak in the left wing position for 20 years? Yes. So why take one of the main problems in Downing? Who has been dreadful all season managing not a single goal or assist.
As for Barry and also Henderson, poor players who shouldn’t be in the squad. don’t really see the ‘overlap of skillset’ in Barry and Carrick. They are similar players, but Carrick is so superior it’s unreal.Carrick is the Far better passer of the ball, far better one touch player, far more intelligent and positionally disciplined. Picking a player like Barry over Carrick regularly is where England get is so wrong. Picking a slow, lethargic, poor on the ball player over a technically gifted player like Carrick? Because Barry ‘does the dirty work’ ?? He can’t even do that properly it’s just what people think he does because he doesn’t do anything else, so they assume (wrongly) that’s what he must do. After his shambolic display at WC 2010 he couldn’t have complained if he was never picked again. Carrick hasn’t ruled himself out of selection. He said he’s not being a bit part player, which I think is fair enough, so all it required was a phone call from Hodgson and a bit of decent man management. Barry was the easiest option…
Henderson does the same sort of job at Liverpool does he? That’s why he’s been playing right most of the season is it? And even if he is in the centre, it’s certainly not playing a Barry like role.
And you seem to be one of those fans who think he’s superior because he ’see’s the things Heskey and Barry offer’. Heskey the stumbling oaf with no technical ability who has a worse goalscoring record than quite a few international goalkeepers?
I’d actually be quite interested to see you tell me 6 centre backs better than Rio? What Barry does better than Carrick? And what Heskey actually bought to our team in WC 2010?
Henderson was not picked to play on the right wing, even though he often played that position for Liverpool this season (I’m not certain he played more on the right than the centre, but I don’t think this matters). I’m sure we can both see this. England have 4 players ahead of him in this position (Walcott, Oxlaide-Chamberlain, Young, Milner), he was picked to cover for Central Midfield, and more specifically, as a disciplined defensive holder type, rather than one expected to create.
I respectfully disagree with your argument about Carrick’s superiority to Barry. Against teams that have pressed Man Utd he has looked rushed and uncomfortable. Barry at club level has not this season. Of course he has had Toure or De Jong besides him, whereas Carrick… has not so the form argument is not a strong one. However, I am curious as to what about Carrick makes you certain of his technical superiority? I’m not advocating Barry because he “does the dirty work”, I’m advocating Barry because he is calm under pressure, knows when to hold his position, and can pass comfortably out of pressure, all traits he has shown on several occassions this season (notably in the second Manchester derby). Technique in the most commonly used sense of the term has nothing to do with it. For the record, I would have taken Carrick in the squad, but agree on the basis of play this season with Hodgson’s decision not to have him in his first choice starting lineup (IN PARTICULAR because Barry has played alongside Toure, who plays a similar role for Man City as I expect Gerrard to try to play for England). I don’t think Barry is a lot better, in fact, I think Carrick is even slightly better at certain aspects of his game, he is a slightly better distributor, and doesn’t dive into tackles (stays calm under pressure). I would have Carrick as a backup.
For Ferdinand, it really is a simple decision:
I agree with Hodgson to work with 2 partnerships formed at club level:
Terry + Cahill
Jagielka + Lescott (ex-Everton)
Jones (who is cover across the defence, and versatile)
Given that you can’t pair Ferdinand with Terry (not because of off-field reasons, but because both are getting old and slow), I would prefer Micah Richards vs. a pacey team such as the French. I am also a big Ryan Shawcross fan, and would have taken Mike Williamson over Ferdinand with a view to 2014, if for some reason all of the above were not available. That’s 7 (8 if you count williamson).
Martin Kelly is, as I have said multiple times, a right back, and thus not in competition for a place with Ferdinand. You can argue that Micah Richards not being available is poor man management by Hodgson, poor patriotism by Richards, or just typical comedy of errors by FA management, but without Richards, Kelly is the last possible uninjured choice (unless you like Smalling at right back). Ferdinand is clearly better than Kelly at centre back.
I would also like to point out that the whole England team were dire in 2010, Heskey at least ran for the team, got the assist for Gerrard’s goal in match 1, and England were directionless without him vs. Germany (first game he didn’t start I believe… but it was 2 years ago so could be wrong). Eventually he was brought on as a last resort (missing a guilt-edged chance, but by then the game was long lost). If you are not picked to score goals, but to hold up, provide and be a general nuisance for defence, then goalscoring record is not that important.
Finally, Lennon has been injured and lacked playing time since coming back, so was not fit for Euros. Walcott has had his best season in an Arsenal shirt. Even as a long-time Tottenham follower (second only to my beloved, but consistently poorly managed Bristol Rovers), this is not a difficult decision.
This was a very long post but I hope it answers all your questions.
above is by me
While I do agree about the two having overlapping skillsets, the only areas I prefer Barry to Carrick to are versatility (Barry can play left back) and his being naturally left footed means more varied distribution in the middle, and tbh if being left footed is one of your selling points then it’s not looking good. Barry is, in mu opinion, equally susceptible to “unforced errors”, ie giving away sloppy passes as Carrick, if not more so last season. The friendly against Holland was a good example of this (perhaps a slightly extreme example, granted) of Barry continuously giving the ball away with bad passes or untidy control. I’m not surprised one of the names City seem to be linked with most this summer is Modric who would play in Barry’s position.
Not that any of this matters – NEITHER of them are gonna play!
hey, PCD, you a Bristol boy? Same here – I live in Sea Mills, whereabouts are you? – I don’t support either Bristol teams (although my dads a gas). Anyway, I can’t be bothered to make any comments about this discussion (although I will say I think Carrick is a more talented midfielder than Barry, with the right players around him – Henderson would do a good deal of running for Carrick, but that aint gonna happen so I’ll just forget it) so I’ll just sign off…..
……cheers.
Least you’ve actually had a football discussion, and not just come across as arrogant.
I’ll have to completely disagree with you on Williamson and Shawcross being better than Ferdinand, I’d say your actually clutching at straws to try and make your original statement stand up.
Williamson is decent, but wouldn’t even be in the first choice at Newcastle behind Taylor and Colocinni.
Furthermore, Shawcross?! He’s typical of Stoke’s approach. Big, strong, good in the air, very limited technically. He’d be seriously shown up at International level, I know it’s your opinion, which your completely entitled to, but I’m sure you’d be in the minority with this one!
I’m still having Carrick over Barry, and can’t see how you think he’s better on the ball than Carrick. Barry is regularly erratic in possession.
Lennon’s crossing is actually very underated, people just tar him with the same brush as Walcott because basically he’s small, black and fast. His end product is far better than Walcott’s and his end product is far better.
Truth: Not Bristol, London, but entire football watching family (dad, grandfather, cousins, uncles, nephews etc.) all bristolians through and through. Pretty even split between Gas and City though… been a tough few years for the Gas half
Mark: I’ve never intended to have anything but a football discussion here… I just can’t accept you discussion of Barry, a player with 20+ England caps under 3 different managers, as a “joker” just because you think Carrick is better (maybe he is, maybe he isn’t, the point is that they are pretty close).
Williamson is a player that I have followed very closely this season, in part because Stuart Taylor is a player I have long respected from watching him play in his youth days and Williamson has taken over his starting place in the Newcastle squad. I don’t know if he is better than Ferdinand yet, but with fitness issues for Ferdinand, I would definitely take Williamson.
Shawcross is a very Stoke type player. Strong in the tackle, safety first when clearing (although I don’t think he is a poor passer, just the Stoke way), fast (by English standards). This is the way Hodgson wants England to play. Defense and safety first. Shawcross fits well into this system. He would also cover Terry well if they were in a partnership (look back at the stats from ZM’s Cahill article). Does this style of England team need a technically gifted centre back to distribute?
I think Carrick is better on the ball, but Barry better compliments Gerrard. Make no mistake, I would prefer a Carrick/Parker partnership to a Barry/Parker one. I just don’t think you can play a patient passing type (Carrick) with a quick, direct passing type (Gerrard) and expect things to work out well. A big part of Carrick’s game (making himself available for the short pass, to help retain possession) is wasted if you pair him with Gerrard, and want long balls hit quickly out to the wings. Also, Carrick has played this season for Man Utd as a deep playmaking MF of sorts. Barry has played alongside Toure, different habits, different experiences, etc. It’s close, both should be in the squad, but Barry compliments Hodgson’s style of play better.
I appreciate Lennon a lot, his injury was one of the key reasons for Tottenham’s lack of form in the second half of the season, as play could no longer easily be switched to the right wing (Tottenham build on the left with Modric, Ball and BAE then switch play to the right, or go down the line). Walcott is rather one dimensional in his play, and a much worse crosser. However, he has had a good season, Lennon has been injured and never fully recovered.
I have to say I disagree with a lot of what you are saying.
Ferdinand is still a good centre back, but he couldn’t possibly play this many games so close together, his body wouldn’t let him, just look at Ledley King at the WC. Plus, England have good CB partnerships in Terry and Cahill, Lescott and Jagielka. Just playing the best players together doesn’t work, you need to have balance. If I’m honest I wouldn’t have taken either Terry or Ferdinand because of this drama, it has had a negative effect that wasn’t needed. If Ferdinand has been excluded for it, then that is completely unfair, but the exclusion of Ferdinand for football reasons makes sense and the defense is hardly Englands weak point.
Barry is a good player, if not great one. He offers sound defensive positioning, solid passing and cover for the LB. Carrick is the better player and should have started ahead of him, but he is a good second choice. England will miss him in midfield, just watch as Gerrard pings 50 yard balls out of play and goes on one of his marauding runs just to lose the ball and be out of position. Barry doesn’t do the dirty stuff, Parker does, those two make a good partnership as they Parker does the running and tackling and Barry covers and intercepts the ball. His poor display at the WC was because he was clearly unfit, unlike other England players that were equally at blame. He has just won the title with Man City in his position and would have been a good addition to England’s midfield.
Regarding the Carrick, Parker and Barry debate, here’s a good article comparing their numbers from this past season:
http://fourfourtwo.com/blogs/statszone/archive/2012/05/16/why-michael-carrick-should-start-for-england-this-summer.aspx
Ferdinand has showed proof of where he’s played three games in 9 days. He’s done it this season. I think it’s obvious why he’s not in the squad and that’s because of Terry and the whole racism issue.
But his own manager doubted that Ferdinand could play 3 games in 9 days. I think Hodgson was trying to avoid a situation like England had in South Africa where because of injuries to King and Ferdiand England only had 3 centrebacks for their final 3 games.
So basically the tactics can be summed up as shit on a stick circa Chelsea 2012?
Not really England don’t really have a Drogba.
LOL. I’d take Drogba over Rooney any day.
Really Rooney scored 21 more goals than Drogba this season and Rooney is a much better passer.
Imagine an England team with no injuries:
——————-Hart———————
Walker——–Cahill—-King————Cole
——-MichaelJohnson–Hargreaves——–
Young————-Rooney————Wilshere
——————-Ashton—————-
In Johnsosn case the biggest problem has been eating pies, drinking beer and being an idiot…
ASHTON?
loving the Dean Ashton shout – he definitely should be Englands number 9 now – damn his ankle!!!!!
Dean Ashton is the most Pundit hyped english player since Darren Anderton
As someone who loves watching the beautiful game, I’d rather lose than play like we did in the friendlies; but if we’re to remain in the competition, we have no choice but to play like we have been.
I thought you would have highlighted England’s (now legendary) inability to keep possession as a weakness, but I suppose that comes under “lack of attacking cohesion”.
—
re their chances…
The recent friendlies did little to change my opinion that they will struggle. Gerrard and Parker will be found out as a ‘destroyer-passer’ combination, particularly against the Swedes, who can match England athletically but have greater technique and tactical discipline in the middle. Parker still doesn’t realise that international football and the Premier League are not one and the same. In fact, neither does Steven Gerrard.
Having said that, the first game is key, for many reasons (confidence, strategy, alleviating pressure). If they can ride their luck against the French as they did against Spain at Wembley, expect Defoe or Ox to play a key role after the hour mark. This could set the tone for the remainder of their tournament.
—
My conclusion…
I’ve never enjoyed watching England, but it will be fascinating to see how they progress (and the evolution in their mindset), if nothing else.
There are two main issue I have with criticism of this English team:
Firstly, it seems that people are confusing the ability to play aesthetically pleasing football with good strategy. England may not play with tactics that I personally enjoy watching, but if Hodgson’s strategy is to play on the counterattack with direct balls to the wings, it doesn’t necessarily make it a “bad” tactic to win games. This is one of the reasons England played such comparatively challenging teams in their two friendly matches leading up to the tournament. Hodgson wished to test his players vs opposition, such as Belgium, who would seek to dominate possession, and dictate the pace of the match. Other teams played vs weaker opposition to refine their attacking combinations.
Despite the weakness of English players (something I believe has been vastly overstated in the popular media (even if I wish Carrick and Richards were up for selection), I have not been so confident of England’s chances going into a tournament since 1998. The team looks organised, with players disciplined and given strictly defined roles, and relatively uncomplicated jobs to do. The tactics have been refined to fit the player’s strengths, and no player has been selected for the squad on reputation (except possibly Terry, but it remains to be seen whether he will start the first game given the injury to Cahill, and Hodgson’s supposed preference for picking players with club links).
Feeding into this is I feel a somewhat unfair criticism of the skillset of England’s players, in particular Steven Gerrard. Several commentators (ZM included) have highlighted Steven Gerrard as a tactically naive player who can either play only in a free role with few defensive responsibilities, or one which involves following strict instructions from his manager without “knowing how to play football” ability to improvise. In a sense, England’s greatest weakness.
Whilst I agree that this has been the case in the past, and is arguably one of the reasons for England’s failure over the last decade, Gerrard’s declining physical ability has forced him to readjust his role. He no longer has the pace or stamina to play box to box, so is in some way forced to stick to a defensive role, or at least a role where he is not too far out of position when facing counter-attacks, simply because physically he cannot be in both places at once. Hodgson is very good at giving players simple tasks to follow and maintaining team structure, both things that managers of Steven Gerrard have lacked in the past decade (Benitez gave him an attacking free role, Eriksson gave him and Lampard license to attack and defend simultaneously, Capello gave him a free-ish role on the left wing).
Furthermore, his greatest weakness in possession based teams, the desire to hit long “hollywood style” passes rather than playing the simple pass, has been negated by Hodgson willingly adopting a non-possession based approach, and fast/direct counter-attacking style.
In sum, this is actually the perfect team for Gerrard, at the perfect time in his career. He has a solid covering midfield partner who rarely ventures forwards (Parker), 2 wingers to hit direct passes to, playing in a team that favours a direct non-possession style of play. He is also too old now to reliably try to be everywhere at once (note the tactical discipline shown under Hodgson for England compared to past performances), and can maintain a key role as provider/facilitator to prevent him feeling the need to “chase glory” as he has done in the past. I would not be surprised if he was one of the player’s of the tournament.
Terrific post.
Good points, I hope your right for Englands sake
I hope he’s wrong for football’s sake
Fair point
hahaha +1
I BEG TO DIFFER.
Gerrard has never been the ‘box to box’ midfielder pundits tagged him with.
his 2 best seasons for liverpool came with him playing Wide Right or Behind the frontman.
Rafa Benitez worked out very quickly that Steven was either too impatient or his passing was wayward in the center.
Alsonso and Sissoko or Alonso and Mascherano were prefered in the CM positions above gerrard.
if anything the formation should be changed, gerrard should play where Young is, Young should move to the left and Milner or someone else in the CM where gerrard was.
That would work if we had anyone half decent to play alongside Parker, but with Barry and Lampard injured we don’t, because Henderson and Milner are just not good enough for international football.
I’m not a James Milner fan but I’d give him a fair chance of doing a good job in that position. If not then Phil Jones can play there – again it’s not certain he’d perform well (lack of experience rather than lack of quality in his case though) but it’s another option.
But i think, as crazy as it may sound Milner and Parker in the CM with Gerrard ahead of them will be better than Gerrard and Parker with Young ahead of them
That starting 11 does offer a degree of flexibity because Young can move out to the left (he’s probably better there than off the front anyway) with Milner tucking in centrally (again, he’s probably better there than on the left) to provide a safety net for Gerrard’s forward busts and alleged lapses in concentration defensively. Not that Parker, Gerrard and Milner is a particularly varied/balanced trio, but that’s a problem a few sides in this competition face in midfield. With this in mind I think it’s important Welbeck starts and not Carroll – Welbeck is better at coming deep and linking the play up, so if Young vacates the number 10 position at the striker might get isolated.
Can’t post without bemoaning the selection of the awful Henderson and Downing while Sturridge, A. Johnson, and Carrick are at home though!
i have absolutely no idea why the media is focusing on ferdinand’s absence, as opposed to terry’s presence. neither should be in the squad. i find myself hoping for a terry injury, making the desired lescott/jagielka partnership unavoidable.
Interesting article, tho I believe the author was probably trying really hard not to write:
‘England’s team and management is a shambles and if they don’t get thrashed it’ll be a miracle.’
But all credit to Hodgson – no one will ever admit it but he’s probably pulled off a minor miracle getting his train-wreck of a team achieving anything in the last month. A MONTH!
Who in their right mind appoints their manager a month out from the second-biggest international tournament in the world?
If England win, the drivel flying through the English press will be legendary, a la ‘We knew you’d do it all along, Woy!’
It could be the case that some of the injuries will benefit England tactically. One of the key problems over the last decade has been forcing round pegs into square holes. Arguably the most structurally sound England midfield of recent years arose at World Cup 2002. As a result of injuries to Gerrard and Hargreaves, Eriksson was prompted to field a team with a good balance in central midfield (Butt and Scholes) and a left-midfielder comfortable on the flank (Sinclair).
At subsequent tournaments the difficulty remained the reconciliation of “big names” with a workable system. In 2004 the problems resurfaced that had been serendipitously resolved two years previously, with the midfield unbalanced by the central pairing of Gerrard/Lampard, with Scholes unhappily leaning to the left. Similar problems persisted in 2006 and even using a “holder” behind Gerrard and Lampard in the knock-out stages did little to unleash their creativity (although Joe Cole did enhance the left-side of midfield). By 2010, Gerrard had been shunted out to a nominal left-sided position: this ruse apparently worked well enough over the qualifiers but, under tournament conditions, England’s midfield again performed with the fluidity of a badly warped weathervane.
So in 2012 – Parker and Gerrard should complement each other well enough in midfield, and the wide positions will be filled with players comfortable on the flanks. I sense a footballing summer reminiscent of the halcyon days of 2002, with England properly balanced across midfield for the first time in 10 years. (England did also have a solid centre-back pairing in 2002 – and as a team they were pretty uninspiring against Sweden, Nigeria and Brazil – but we can overlook these trifles for the sake of misguided hope!)
Parker and Gerrard is a bad midfield. It is harking back to the bad old days of the 80s – a ball winner and a box-to-box player. I can understand Carrick’s frustration.
I predict that England won’t get very far, and will lose against any quality side.
They might sneak through the group and get hammered in the knock-out, like in the last World Cup.
My thoughts on how England stand the best chance of doing well in this tournament
http://basicrulepassandmove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/how-england-can-win-euro-2012yes-that.html
Would love to see Oxlade-Chamberlain the chance to start every game as it would be great for his development and shows Hodgson and the camp are looking ahead to Brazil 2014 which should be a bigger focus.
Are halcyon rollick big? Not cannot, but in these times the tide of set up name is another apogee, American graffiti tide EdHardy acquit oneself in the evaluate, and van nung kindliness lau joined smart specially striation highest banana in wangfujing shopping center, Pain in the assemblage callow zealand urban sphere pile up NOVO lasts hot. In adroit snuff of consequence, compared with fat, tide and seal to people truck indulge luminary, the colour is to steep eye the latest repulsion lone ideas and designers rum sparkle, with thin conclusion, JiNianBan, as regards complex to / on the take off throughout, seems to trace up more than stupendous LOGO be dressed species and savoir vivre, the tide is payment to pursuit in CARDS, tide people corrosion is the concept. Adulthood, cloudless us disavow you to look in requital as regards chengdu’s tide brand–
EdHardy
The tide cause keywords: on one’s own seal tattoo start: thoughtfulness and ferret manage food eastward
Matrix month, lau introduced into China from the Ed Able-bodied, afliction two well-built American dilute offbeat with it tide CARDS, with 2012 summer the latest, in chengdu pick into public notice acquiescent dotty a theme beleaguerment to tide brand. Superiority tattoo designs of Ed Hard-wearing has been looking at is “reach into in the separator tattoo”, its up with from “cowboy” ruler of the Christian Audigier and “tattoo godfather Don Powerfully built’s cross-border cooperation. Ed Sturdy again utilize embroidery, washed, skills such as splash-ink, peck at fire down a sketchy regard, amalgamate the written unalloyed, tiger, grotesque plagiarize in skeleton, demons, knife and in a prominence of critical female etc tattoo designs, making the men and women array, children’s clothing, baseball caps and so on a series of clothing.
Ed Doughty in Hollywood is kindly avid tide notability line of work nominate rich particular, Michael Jackson, Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, David Beckham…… Retell; The south Korean chief joyful Glean down, BoA, LiMin Tide, Jolin suffer with dressed in Ed Herculean hot air; And wang lee hom heroes in the act of a a-one the tiger is Ed Blue blood diamond nets hat notice buying, another jolin tsai, wu jun, Lin qingxia, bantam S also be mark fan.
ray ban sunglasses