France 1-1 England: France dominate possession but creativity stifled by England sitting deep
The starting line-ups
A match with little invention, played at a very slow pace.
Laurent Blanc chose his expected side in a 4-3-3, with Florent Malouda shuttling forward from the midfield.
Roy Hodgson’s side contained one surprise name – Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, who started on the left. James Milner started on the other flank, and Danny Welbeck got the nod over Andy Carroll upfront.
As expected, France dominated possession (65%) and had 21 shots compared to England’s 5, but many were from long-range, as Blanc’s side struggled to create clear-cut chances.
Formation battle
This was a fairly simple battle. England had two banks of four, with Ashley Young and Welbeck paired upfront – a mobile, energetic duo that looked to work the channels with support from the two wide players. Steven Gerrard and Scott Parker sat much deeper.
Blanc asked Alou Diarra to stick tightly to Ashley Young when Young came deep, and play deep in front of Young when he moved forward to partner Welbeck. Yohan Cabaye was higher up near Gerrard, and Malouda tried to drift past Parker into space. But there was little space for France, as England packed their own half with eight very narrow players. The space was generally in the wide zones, and although Mathieu Debuchy and Patrice Evra got forward well, they rarely caused significant danger. Playing the ball out wide tended to result in lots of corners, which England sometimes defended nervously.
France attacks
France’s front four (ie including Malouda) were very fluid. While Ribery generally stayed on the left, Samir Nasri had license to wander infield and play where he wanted (which opened up space for Debuchy). It was Nasri who was the game’s key player – he played more passes than anyone else, also played the most in the final third, and created eight chances – the second-most in the tournament so far, after Wesley Sneijder.
Nasri was the only man using space intelligently, moving into a zone between the lines where England didn’t know how to deal with him: whether to bring a defender out from the back, drop the midfield deeper, or ask Ashley Cole to track him inside. That confusion resulted in his large influence on the game in general, while his goal came when England’s two central midfielders both moved too deep – Nasri got space on the edge of the box and fired in, equalising Joleon Lescott’s earlier header.
Aside from Nasri’s movement, England coped well with France’s attacks. Blanc’s side were patient on the ball and didn’t over-commit players into the final third. Cabaye, for example, only seemed to become an attacking force in the final quarter of the game, and the full-backs tried to make sudden powerful runs rather than permanently placing themselves high up, which would risk counter-attacks at transitions.
England attacks
England’s game was about soaking up pressure, then breaking quickly – they’d done this well in the two pre-tournament friendlies, but today they were much less fluent in their attacking play. The main reason was Young’s lack of influence upon the game – he completed only twelve passes, the fewest of the 20 outfield players that started the match.
A lot of credit should go to Diarra, who was extremely clever with his positioning and simply prevented Young from being an option when England got the ball. Statistically, Diarra was immense – 100% pass completion rate, and all five of his tackles were successful.
The only clear-cut chance England created in open play (when James Milner missed after rounding Hugo Lloris) came from a rare occasion when England overloaded Diarra. Oxlade-Chamberlain had moved into a central position, Diarra got drawn to him, which then left Young free for the first time – he slipped the ball through the defence for Milner coming off the other flank. England probably didn’t do this often enough – although, of course, they had to get the ball first. Welbeck ran the channels well, and would have been a greater goal threat if Young had seen more of the ball.
Young and Welbeck played very intelligently without the ball. They didn’t chase and press the French centre-backs – instead, they stood off and prevented passes being played forward into the midfield. Philippe Mexes and, in particular, Adil Rami’s passes were extremely horizontal, and France found it difficult to get the ball forward. As a result, the game was played at a very slow pace – which probably suited England.
Second half
There was absolutely no progression in this game. England continued to sit very deep, while France didn’t significantly increase the number of players they attacked with. The tempo of the passing was still slow, and both sides seemed to tire quickly and recognise that a draw was a decent result.
Perhaps the only significant development was Karim Benzema’s movement, as he became frustrated with the lack of service – he only received the ball in the penalty area once . Instead, he dropped into deeper zones, the type of positions Nasri was playing in, and had a couple of long-range attempts saved by Joe Hart.
It was highly surprisingly, especially considering the heat, that neither coach made a substitution until the 77th minute. England brought on Jermain Defoe for Oxlade-Chamberlain, with Young going left, while Jordan Henderson replaced the exhausted Parker. This was broadly attack-minded, but really just about fresh legs.
Blanc brought on Hatem Ben Arfa and Marvin Martin for Cabaye and Malouda, but on 85 minutes it was too late to have a significant impact on the game.
Conclusion
On the whole, the first round of Euro 2012 matches have been relatively open and entertaining, but this was a slow game. The two sides wanted to ‘not lose’ more than they wanted to win, so a draw seemed likely from early in the second half, with only France’s long-range shots threatening.
England’s shape was good, but their transitions were disappointing because of Young’s anonymity. He’s a key player for this system, and France did well to nullify his influence. Hodgson will also be concerned about the space between the lines, and the Parker-Gerrard combination needs to be a little more disciplined, and make sure one of them is occupying that zone, rather than chasing the ball or being drawn to opponents.
France were certainly the more positive side, but moved the ball too slowly to draw England’s players out of shape, and maybe needed more variety and movement from their midfield triangle. They put England’s defensive unit under persistent but never particularly strong pressure, and seemed to be waiting for the other two group matches.
Good views as usual.
I thought Welbeck was immense up top.
I thought he played well but his first touch was often poor, which allowed the French to nick the ball off him.
Generally i think we were poor and lacked ideas. Gerrard wasnt used to his full potential in the CM position.
He needs to play further forward. As a CM he is painfully average.
England need his creativity further up
for liverpool the last 8 years the CM partnership were Alonso/ Hamman, Alonso/ Sissoko, Alonso/ Mascerano, Gerrard played as a RM and Second striker in his best seasons for liverpool.
Is Gerrard better than the replacements for that position? Milner could go in the middle while Henderson is not a starter. I think it is preferable to leave Gerrard in the middle to use his ambitious and direct passing. England clearly play on the break and the United forwards are very good in this respect.
If England try to build attacks through patient build-up I would agree he could be played further forward, but England’s lack of CM’s for a ‘pivot’ behind Gerrard (not to mention Hodgson’s default style of football) mean that CM is where he will likely stay for the tournament. He acquitted himself well within his role.
I cannot disagree with this point more.
Gerrard was told by Hodgson to sit deep and hold his position. He did this well, playing simple passes, not harrassing the French players (this was left to Parker), but holding his position (he only was caught out of position twice, once due to a foul, the other coming back slowly from a corner near the end). This was almost a Carrick-type performance and I think demonstrates the future use of Gerrard in this tournament by Hodgson.
I think Gerrard’s discipline in this game was a key factor in making England so solid defensively, and he was able to spread the play well to the wings (normally right wing), and play a few good through balls. I thought he was England’s best player in this game.
as a side to this: ZM, I actually believe that Gerrard was the deeper of the two England CMs in this game, mainly because Parker was the one pressing the ball.
@kyl and PCD.
I do believe Hodgson asked gerrard to play a certain way. But do we want to get the best out of our best players or do we want to be slaves to a ’system’ ?
i would have been interested to see how we would have played if france (or any team) get the goal first
Yes Gerrard did a solid job (despite his wayward passing in this position), but im sure wayne rooney would do a ’solid job’ playing left Wing if asked to do so, but we would all agree it would be a complete waste to play him there.
The point im making is i dont believe the team is playing to its full potential the way Roy is setting them out.
I actually do think Henderson and Parker with Gerrard either as second striker preferably) or Right Midfield with some license to roam would be more effective that gerrard in the center.
We will see how this all plays out.
We are assuming that we are going to beat Ukraine and Sweden. But we always assume we are going to beat teams like this and it rarely ever happens. I hope i am wrong, but we shall see.
Because the main idea is to work the channels using Gerrard’s direct passing. To open up the channels you need space between defensive players – hardly accomplished if Gerrard played in the hole.
but as documented many times; his famed ‘long range passing’ is more often than not. inaccurate.
Again i would point to the best seasons in his career. Not a CM.
I would also mention that Torres is the archetype ‘channel worker’
who played behind him at liverpool ?
Stevie G
yes, but gerrard is now older and less capable in terms of pace and stamina of covering the distances required to play the role as well as he used to be able to
Well for a start England will be playing a much more reserved style in this tournament, so giving Gerrard license to roam will only really be worthwhile against the weaker teams. Plus we already have a “license to roam player” in Ashley Young. I think it is better to use Gerrard deeper and rely on his range of passing to instigate counters. He can be a bit giddy higher up as I alluded to in my earlier post. In club football it’s fine to use him there, but considering England will spend more of this tournament in their own half than the opposition, it’s better he is deeper, he can be wasteful higher up.
Honestly, having watched England try to get the “best out of their players” under the previous 3 managers, I’m actually fascinated to see a manager trying to force England to play under a system first style. I’m not convinced this generation of England players have the tactical awareness and flexibility to play a “player first” style.
As an England football fan, the game against France was absolutely horrible to watch. As someone who is interested in football tactics, seeing England playing a 4-4-2 effectively (with players chosen specifically for the system) in international football after just 1 month coaching, and seeing Steven Gerrard actually do a job instead of trying to win the game by himself, I am definitely in the system camp for now.
PCD – I think you’re right on the money there. Agree with all you say – system approach is right for this tournament at least. With six weeks in post Hodgson’s only option was making us hard to break down imho
But you’re assuming, Adrian, that Gerrard playing in his strongest position , or a position that brings out his creative qualities is the best thing for England in terms of attacking and creating. But youre ignoring the opposition. Youre ignoring that particularly if youre worse than the team youre against, you have to play REACTIVE football or else youre pretty much playing with fire and are going to be undone.
Hodgsons style is very reactive but rightly so. If youre worse its about minimising the opposition’s threat, because they at their optimum attacking proactive football are better than England at their optimum proactive football. So you minimise their threat because their threat is greater than yours.
With this in mind, playing two deep lying midfielders is minimising their threat. Throw in Milner who is a disiplined midfielder and you are going to minimuse them. O-C is then an outlet when you do win the ball back, but make no mistake he has to be disiplined too, and would not be setting foot on the pitch if Hodgson wasnt certain he was going to carry out the defensive instructions properly as well. Thus, the problem with Gerrard Attacking Mid, playmaker, floating wide player, free role or second striker, is that its a luxury if youre being reactive. Stoke dont play with a playmaker, neither did Chelsea v Barca, heck sometimes neither do Madrid v Barca. Because It’s not benefitting your ultimate aim of minimising the opposition. Utd v Barca in 09 wrongly thought they could be proactive and put Giggs in an AM role. Whether this was a defensive marking strategy i dont know, it may have been, but nevertheless Utd were playing a player in a proactive luxury position against a team that were more of a threat than them. This is dangerous and youre likely to be punished for it because youre not being as reactive as possible, thereby not reducing the oppositions threat as much as you can.
But Gerrard at DM isnt just about not being adventurous and minimising the opposition, its also beneficial for our attack, because we’ll be winning the ball in deep positions, and he’s the best player we have at playing direct long balls. These are ‘Hollywood’ passes if you’re Spain or a proactive team because its flying in the face of ball retention, and conceding possession unecessarily, like Charlie Adam has done this season at Liverpool too much. But in this England team, where we are going to rely on direct football, and are not overly conerned about not having the ball or giving it away cheaply, because lest we forget we are primarily concerned with minimising the opposition, Gerrard can do this, and it will actually be beneficial for him to do this.
If your attacking threat is less than the oppositions in your appraisal then yes you HAVE to be a slave to the system because you should build a system and do everything you can to minimise their threat, especially if theyre significantly more dangerous than you. In that case you are a slave to the system and you dont have license to make brave or creative calls. If youre being proactive and are more dangerous like Spain, then the system is more irrelevant (not totally) and hence they can play 4-6-0 with no wingers and no striker.
Henderson Parker as a double pivot with Gerrard in front is assuming youre going to see possession enough to jusitfy it, but against France that simply wasnt going to happen.
mate wouldnt it be better to use walcott in place of milner and teach him the discpline that is expected of him since walcott can offer something extra which milner cant . its fine no two teams cant play the same style but to play so deep and so negative isnt it shame for english football . this is team which is devoid of any flair or pure match winners . sorry mate but england needs to build on something since sweden and ukraine seem to use the width which france didnt and that can undo the england defense .
I think Welbeck and Young were too isolated up front when they received the ball.
Englands zonal defence was good at stopping France play but I feel we had little to offer in attack. Generally, counter-attackingt relies on a quick transistion from defence to attack with pace, but I dont think that happened. I would have liked to see Gerrard or Chamberlain bursting up to support the forwards more. Having said that, this may have left space for the French to create more clear cut chances. Overall, I think England played well for the draw.
If you like 5 a side football please check out http://leaguefinder.co.uk
It doesn’t matter people spin it, Gerrard looks like an average box-to-box midfielder for England.
I agree with this. Gerrard had an excellent game in defensively to my eyes, but he is a liability in terms of springing the counter attacks from deep. People expect his range of passing to be a major asset for a counter-attacking side, but the reality is that he is quite poor on the ball when not given space. When England won the ball around their own box France were already close to them, and they really struggled to make the first two or three passes to break the pressure. A lot of this is down to not having a CM who is comfortable getting on the ball and making passes in tight spaces. Carrick in for Gerrard would make a massive difference for England.
Playing in this system Gerrard got to use his passing range twice maybe, and got the ball in space maybe another three times. It’s a complete waste of his best attributes.
Afew things need to be made clear
Gerrard is a box to box midfielder = MYTH
Gerrard playing deep will use his long range passing to open defenses on the break = MYTH. the majority of his long passes will be inaccurate. It easily gives the opposing team posession.
Gerrard in CM position. HORRIBLE
Would Gerrard be better than Young in the position further fwd. YES
Would Henderson be better in the cm position. YES
Would young be better than Milner offensively and be able to be composed defensively. YES.
Therefore, the conclusion is an obvious one.
Chelsea – the most boring club side of the last 10 years, England – the most boring international side of the last 10 years.
Call me a hater or whatever, but I fall asleep every time I watch a side defending deep in two banks of four and launch long hopeful balls to the wings.
Also I don’t like the fact that many high profile games were played in the 1st matchday because in the first game every team is satisfied with a draw.
Did you see the french fan who was sleeping (right after halftime) killing the beautiful game 90 minutes at a time
Haha, yes. I don’t blame him for sleeping at this game tho
Chelsea aren’t boring. They scored over 100 goals a few years ago.
Just because they had to play defensively against Barcelona and Bayern Munich this year doesn’t mean that they are always like that.
Yeah but that was a few years ago.
They weren’t boring in 2009/10, they were as boring as boring can get in 2012.
Chelsea played that way vs Barca and Bayern for a reason. Call it boring if you will, but there is skill in playing a deep defensive system as well and as we all witnessed, when executed correctly it can yield results. I can find just as much enjoyment out a 1-0 game that is tactically played to perfection as I can from a 5-3 match with a run and gun offense.
I guess you shouldn’t watch England or Ireland play this year then.
Later hater.
That’s exactly what I’m going to do. Except I will watch Ireland, their game against Croatia was fun to watch.
A hater is some one who is hating something without rational or logical reason. Yet Victor in this case hates because of a valid reason, that England are boring. That’s fair enough, and makes him entitled to his view, and disqualifies him as a hater.
I diasgree personally, i dont find it boring, i like watching England execute a reactive gameplan where they are tecnhically inferior and we are underdogs, its hugely intruiging. But that doesnt make me right and Victor wrong it just means we have different interpretations
What is interesting is the complete reversal of the English media to defend this type of Football suddenly.
On tactical and strategic grounds and so on.
All know Football has varieties but shit is still shit & deserves to be called out on being shit, diving is part of the game now that doesn’t make it all right.
Chelsea were boring in the season just gone but like someone said, they weren’t so bad in years gone by.
England, on the other hand, have been amongst the most boring in all tournaments I have watched. There were a couple games in ‘96 which weren’t so but that’s about it.
They suck the life out of football itself. England 0-0 Algeria was one of the worst games I have ever seen at a major tournament.
Glad I got that off my chest. Anyway, France didn’t exactly do much to raise the standard. I would have preferred this game to be later on in the group stage, that way France might have played more to win. England would play the same no matter what and it’s not anti-football according to the esteemed panel of pundits employed by the TV companies.
Of course it wasn’t anti-football. There wasn’t the overt cynicism.
For example, quote from below:
“The app stats show [Gerrard] as top blocker, top tackler, and *_committing only one foul_*.”
QED
Excellent analysis, as usual.
Despite his bad position for the Nasri goal, I thought Gerrard played an excellent defensive game.
The app stats show him as top blocker, top tackler, and committing only one foul.
Not bad for an old ‘un!
A promising performance from England given the sort of game they want to play. There were a few disappointing moments where they got very impatient and tried to launch the ball forward impatiently, but overall pleasing to watch.
Given Gerrard’s reputation for errant positioning I thought he acquitted himself well, covering parker decently and surging forward at opportune moments (though he was caught once or twice), and whilst you have brought up the fact that space was left between the lines, it was probably better left there than in front of them, the goal proves that! In fairness though, a few french midfield runs weren’t tracked which could have lead to danger if they were played in.
For a player who is usually over-ambitious in his distribution Gerrard play a positive role in the transitions, he played a few good long ones to cole, and in particular a ball he bent to Wellbeck in the channel was sublime and very useful for the counter-attack that England will seek to make good use of in this tournament. Parker mainained possession better than people give him credit for, but it doesn’t matter if he isn’t top drawer at that because that isn’t the sort of game England are looking to play, just a bonus really.
Thanks
Would playing Martin instead of Malouda help France in this respect ? He certainly has more creativity and technique than Malouda, but doesn’t do as much running or defending.
This is what I was thinking. France’s midfield was good at retaining possession, but took little risks and had little movement, they would benefit hugely from a deeper lying creative player if you ask me. Then maybe Benzema would actually get the ball played to him.
In general I think this hit both sides. You can see from the chart above that Ashley Young was playing as a number 10/support striker and not as a “central winger.” That role doesn’t suit him of course, because he is naturally a winger, though Rooney’s return will obviously solve that issue. In this game, neither side had creativity in the midfield, and as a result it became a slow paced snorefest.
Spain and France have both now tried playing without a conventional number nine. That method seems to work better when the non-nine is Messi.
Since England’s tactics are simple and probably won’t change much, all that’s worth discussing is personnel. Hart was weaker than usual but can’t sensibly be replaced. I thought Johnson poor, but Kelly is ill so there will be no change there. The rest of the defence picks itself too.
Parker scurried to good effect until he didn’t. Gerrard is clearly never going to learn not to fire the ball into touch. Milner would have looked a good pick if only his shot had gone in. Ox was so-so, which isn’t bad for a novice. Young was snuffed out. I thought Wellbeck did not badly for a beginner, even being useful in defence.
In short, it’s the desperately thin squad that we all knew it was, but well organised by Uncle Roy, and it gave a decent account of itself, all considered.
Benzema didn’t really play as a false nine, he was just suffocated by the wall of English players in front of him so dropped slightly deeper to get more possession. There is a slight difference, but a distinction nonetheless!
The difference is that Benzema is actually a striker, while Fabregas/Silva are not. Benzema just couldn’t get the ball to save his life
I guess it’s pretty difficult to justify taking Ashley Cole out of the starting XI, especially considering the defensive game England is set on playing, but I couldn’t help but feel like at times Leighton Baines could have been a useful asset today. He adds a little bit more width and speed on the counterattack and might have helped create a few more opportunities to get the ball to Young, especially when paired with Ox.
They could play him in front of Cole in place of Ox.
I also thought Cole looked average in the match. I think its partly due to Ox not tracking the opposing fullback’s run that well and also due to the system and instructions (i.e. don’t go bombing forward).
Michael, this might be more pertinent for your Guardian piece about England’s problem position between the midfield and defence but the comments section here seems more civilised!
2mins and 24 secs into this brief interview with Roy Hodgson at the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18307784 Gary Lineker asks about holding players.
Hodgson says: “I’m not sure about holding players..I’m not 100% convinced I want someone just to sit on his own in front of a back four…I’d like the protection of the back four to come from the whole of the midfield”.
So if we accept that Hodgson doesn’t want the midfielders to hold does it mean in your opinion that it is a tactical oversight by not playing Parker or Gerrard deliberately in that role, just a temporary positional lapse by the both midfielders simultaneously retreating too far, or an Achilles’ heel for the way Hodgson will setup all his teams?
I don’t think so. Hodgson prefers his midfielders to be semi-holding players – very astute positionally and scrupulous when supporting the attack. Generally, his midfielders take it in turns to get to the edge of the box. I’d say that Gerrard and Parker aren’t Hodgson-style midifielders. They both base their games around robust running, inevitably leading to them getting caught out of position.
brilliant extract i want Michael attention to be drawn to this for sure
i wish at some point England had switched to a 4231, milner going next to parker, gerrard as the COM,young on a side, because the welbeck+young 2 vs the 3 diarra+mexes+rami were never really working on counter attacks
young was kind of useless because of diarra as you mentionned, and this 442 also meant 2 vs 3 in midfield, which was the main tactical explanation why france looked better (you can add technical explanations with the quality of players like ribery, benzema etc)
Ok when rooney comes back probably you want him as your second striker but for the moment just play gerrard in a 4231, you’ll also tire him less for the following of the competition
But did France look better? They had their game-plan, we had ours. Sure in terms of possession and pro-activeness there is no doubt who was better, but we played on the counter. We actually created more CLEAR-CUT chances than them: Lescott, Milner’s miss. Nasri’s goal was an excellent finish, but not clear-cut and then there was the Diarra header. Sure France were on the cusp of a few more through Ribery and Benzema, so were England, particularly when Wellbeck was blocked on the half-way line with Ashley Young in possession and 50 yards of green grass ahead of him.
Excellent day at te office for the Royster
1 point against France and Sweden beaten. The Swedes will have to come at England next game which will open up space for the counter.
If Sweden sat back it would have been 2 anglo-scandanavian 4-4-2’s which has 0-0 written all over it.
this
I commented on the preview on the flaws of Malouda, and today he showed those to a ridiculous extent.
In the first half I hardly saw him with the ball once and in the second half seemed to make every effort to not have the ball and to nothing of any value with it. A total passenger, Malouda showed no creativity, drive, defensive or attacking talent in the match.
Also for large portions of the first half Malouda moved over onto the left wing (his natural position, although continued to add nothing to the game) displacing and forcing Ribery to the right where his ability has been proved in the past and within this match to be lessened.
Nasri hardly played on the wing at all preferring to drift into his most natural position as a central attacking midfielder (where he performed and usually always performs excellently). This allowed Debuchy to fill the space and he made excellent crosses several times during the match, proving his talent. However, at times Debuchy was certainly overstretched having the fulfil two roles throughout the match. There were a few moments where during an England counter attack Oxlade-Chamberlain managed to break free past Debuchy with ease. There was a lack of any true right midfielder or winger, and this I feel showed itself in the match. Considering England’s weaknesses down the wings, the use of a true winger like Hatem Ben-Arfa would greatly add to France’s attacking threat whilst also placing less pressure on Debuchy. Nasri could then truly assume his role in the centre and would be able to work even more freely.
Blanc should seriously consider dropping Malouda, placing Nasri into his natural role as a central attacking midfielder and actually using a winger on the right side (4-3-2-1). The use of another winger would allow for another quick avenue of attack and stretch the England defence more allowing more space for the likes of Ribery, Nasri and particularly Benzema.
Final note on the French defence and Diarra: Mexes and Evra have shown themselves to be vulnerable, particularly Evra who played pretty awfully in the friendlies. However, in this match I sensed a greater understanding and energy behind the two players. At times they still seemed a little shaky, but generally they managed to maintain a calm. I still believe Blanc should have brought the likes of Sahko and Yanga-Mbiwa however, and should certainly start Clichy ahead of Evra. On the Diarra front, although defensively excellent and a great aerial contributor, Diarra severely reduces the creativity and penetration of the French midfield. Although also a defensive-midfielder, M’Vila adds a lot to the team going forward also and reveals his skills as a deep-lying playmaker which he plays as for Rennes. I felt far too much responsibility was placed on Cabaye in orchestrating the French midfield when in possession and tiredness is bound to take it’s toll (he was taken off towards the end of the pitch, looking visibly tired). Blanc should have considered taking a player like Cheyrou as a back up for M’Vila against such defensive opposition like England.
Overall, a frustrating match for the France supporter. England played well albeit at times perhaps parking the bus, but Blanc could have exploited England’s weaknesses more and I feel picked the wrong line up and formation for the game.
I agree about Malouda. I also think diarra didn’t have as great of a game as people are saying. Yes, young played very few passes, but considering that England played counterattack the whole time, it makes sense. Diarra had a good game, but young to me still looked dangerous because of his movement into the channels. Perhaps that is just the fraility of France’s defense.
Also, kos must start. Mexes had a horrible game.
I think starting Menez, Ben Arfa, Martin, Valbuena or starting Giroud so they could play with two strikers would have been better than starting Malouda. He really didn’t provide much.
Diarra was sublime statistically and did a great job at suffocating Young’s influence but don’t forget he was the one who lost Lescott for the goal.
But he nearly scored from the French set piece too
Great analysis as always, but how do people think Rooney is going to affect the system when he returns for the third game? Assuming Hodgson won’t abandon the two banks of four and number 9 and number 10 up front, I’m going to go with Rooney to play in Young’s position and Young to go on the wing considering our third game is against Ukraine.
I think you are right. This could work our for the better as I think Young stayed too far up today. As England dropped much too deep after we scored and there was no real outball. A downside could be Rooney gets frustrated though and drops too deep to get the ball, resulting in the same problem and leaving Welbeck even more isolated.
I hate to say it because Nasri is turning out to be a pretty huge prick, but he was my man of the match. He was consistently roaming in from wide right and stationing himself in between England’s two banks of four. He linked up very well with both Ribery and Benzema.
In general England should be happy they defended well, but disappointed they didn’t do more offensively. It was disappointing to see England not doing more to take advantage of the fact that France only had Debucy covering the right flank. With Nasri drifting centrally, there was space out there. Woud’ve been interesting to see AOC storming down the left and attacking Debucy with Cole overlapping. Could’ve been a great route to launch counter attacks. Hopefully AOC stays in the lineup and Walcott replaces Milner. I’d like to see Walcott’s speed replicating the run that Milner made diagonally into the box today. England should explore that option more often.
For the style of football Hodgson seems set on, I’d prefer it if England switched to a 4-3-3 vs Sweden, with Young, Welbeck and either Walcott/Oxlade-Chamberlain as the three forwards. England would still have Gerrard, Parker, and Milner as a (primarily) defensive midfield 3, supplemented by Welbeck and Walcott/Ox, but having three forwards (all of whom are quick) and the extra width would make England so much more potent in rapid counter attacks. Young and to a slightly less extent Welbeck were just too isolated today, and to actually create chances (i.e. more than one chance from open play) they will need more options going forward.
There was positive and negatives to take from the game, but we’ve got to be happy to take a point from the French. We’ve been touted as no hopers, our worst squad ever taken to the Euro’s. France bang in form, Ribery and Benezema looking good, based on that, you’d surely think France would beat us easy?
Thought we defended solidly, Lescott and Terry made all the headers, blocks and clearances they had to, Cole defended well as always, his attacking play was limited due to the system really, the only problem I had with the defence was Glen Johnson, who I thought struggled. Positionally he is so poor, always getting dragged into unneccesary areas, and he was struggling with Ribery when one on one.
Thought we attacked reasonably well. Glad we went with Welbeck, his movement is actually more intelligent than he’s given credit for in my opinion, he’s not just a pacy strikers who’s going to run channels for you, although he does that well. He’s quite good at dropping deep and creating spaces, and I like the link up between him and Young. I don’t really think Milner justified his inclusion. He did a decent enough job on Ribery, but the way Chelsea got pretty much ‘undisciplined’ players sticking religiously to a shape and system, playing in a disciplined way, I’m sure Theo Walcott could have played over Milner. He offers so much more going forward, much better movement, and Evra’s been in poor form in the warm up games, I bet he was delighted when he saw Milner over Walcott.
I still fancy us to go through, I can see us beating Ukraine and Sweden. And who knows how far we can go? You can analyse the system of the way Chelsea and England played for ages, the simple fact of the matter is, if you’ve got an 8 man block basically on the edge of the penalty area, it’s going to be extremely difficult for the opposition to score. Will Spain be able to break the way we played down today? Even the Germans? How many clear cut really good chances did France actually create? Hardly any in my opinion, and I think as a trio, Ribery-Benzema-Nasri is the best in the competition, I genuinely do.
Lots of reasons to be positive.
I thought Johnson did well, kept Ribery quiet and hardly any dangerous delivery from that flank, job well done.
I thought Young was poor apart from the milner chance, is a much better player when outwide and not central to creating every move.
I’d agree with you to some extent on Walcott – I think Evra’s been on poor form for some time and Walcott could have caused some problems if he was introduced earlier, but I’m going to have to disagree with you about Johnson. I think he often gets tarnished with the labels of ‘poor positionally’ and ‘better going forward than defending’ regardless of his performance. For me he had a really good game and did a good job containing Ribery.
As a sidenote on Milner I think he’s regressed since joining Man City. He’s still reliable and disciplined, but in his last season at Villa he was full of confidence and was a lot bolder when attacking.
The one crucial difference here is a draw is good for England here in the group stage. Spain or Germany might just decide to not commit forwards (more likely the latter) and indulge in a borefest. That’s effectively what Portugal tried, and they lost 1-0 from a header on a deflected cross, might offend Spain and their purist crusaders, but Germany won’t mind. Portugal’s all-out-attack display at the end strikes me as being beyond this England squad, too. Holland are also more pragmatic, and have a proper number 9 in Huntelaar waiting in the wings.
That being said, I actually think England might just beat Spain in the knockouts, at the very least, their odds are better than the bookies will give them (presuming they escape the group, of course) …
England impressed me, I actually thought they would lose this game. Hart was great in goal (the difference between him and Green at the WC is immeasurable) and should be captain of this side (such a likable character). The fullbacks Cole and Johnson defended very well and stopped France getting decent delivery onto the box, while Gerrard and Parker did similar in the centre. Otherwise the untested partnership of Terry and Lescott could have been exposed more, they were well protected today but could face problem against Sweden.
Gerrard had a very good game for all the uncertainty of his position. He was disciplined, defended well and managed to get the ball to the wings well. The oxe was also impressive, showing enthusiasm to chase the ball and beat his man, while his movement was good at times.
I thought Young was poor really, apart from the chance created for Milner he struggled to get into the game. He also wasted possession with sloppy passes and was easily subdued by Diarra. Milner managed to get the beating of Evra at times but wasted the final ball. Welbeck had an okay day at the office but more will be expected for him to keep his position.
France were unimpressive. They struggled to break down England and will need to improve if they are to win this competition. Their CB’s struggled with any good movement from England, Kol should get a chance in that back line. The fullbacks, Debuchy in particular got forward well and stretched the play. As ZM mentioned this allowed Nasri to roam free into central positions and cause havoc, with his goal deserved for a good performance. Ribery struggled to get past Johnson on the left though and Cole defended against Debuchy well, so delivery from outwide was poor. Benzema struggled to get delivery but looked good when he dropped deep and connected with Nasri. What France needed most was a better attacking midfielder than Malouda, as he offered nothing to break down England. Valbeuna should get a chance in his position, his movement is much better and he can deliver that killer pass France need.
So there were some positives and negatives for France. Cabaye kept possession excellently, Nasri linked with Benzema well, Diarra defended well in midfield and Debuchy motored down the right excellently (though his delivery will need to be better). The con’s were Ribery was easily kept quiet, Malouda was a mistake in midfield, Evra looked vulnerable and the CB’s do not look like a good partnership. Kol and Valbeuna would deeply improve this team.
Check out the blog if you haven’t already http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/
Im confused as to why Hodgson continues to rate Milner…for me, he doesn’t fit in with the system England are trying to play. I’ve always considered Milner as disciplined and positionaly and tactically sound. I don’t', however, see him as a counter attacking threat that England need out there. Surely Walcott would be the better option? When Young is closed down like he was today, they need a second option to start the break
Or Lennon….
why risk it when milner is better balanced for defence? theres no reason to risk it in this game it would be dumb. hes still a threat in counters and walcott is to me inconsistent and better as a pacey impact sub. personally would prefer to see young/welback/rooney combo out there in some form when possible… 4-2-3-1 with parker/gerrard holding (seemed to work ok?) and oxlade appears to have the skill and pace to link up with the man u trio in counters. any team would be scared of that threat right, the threat alone means they have to play more carefully
shots/possession is deceiving when one team plays like this.. i’d take englands throughballs and early link-up play to speculative shots and clipping people myself, especially when rooney is back
Pretty sure Milner was picked to double up on Ribery, which makes good sense.
Only because Parker and Gerrard are about as positionally disciplined as puppies with bladder infections. Milner would have done more to deal with Debuchy on the left, and the key space ended up being in the hole anyway, where the central midfielders performed a curious disappearing act. In any case, Walcott has become a much more responsible defender at Arsenal in the last year and he would have done fine doubling up against Ribery whilst also breaking forward to give Young options when he got the ball to feet.
Englands defensive shape was excellent today. The CM two were better than they had been in the warm up games, especially in terms of their defensive discipline. It will be interesting to see if those two have more of an impact offensively in the up coming group games.
I watched the French against Estonia in their final warm-up game and their attacking play was far more fluid amongst the broken ranks of a ragged Estonia. Valbuena came off the bench in that game and had an impact in the space between midfield and attack. I know he’s had a poor season domestically but I thought he might have come on in place of Malouda at some point. He could have served as a “move-starter”, increasing the tempo of the team with his busy, bustling style.
It’s clear that the England team are listening to Hodgson and on the whole carried out the plan he set for them.
Both teams will be pleased with a draw, nothing lost and nothing gained. As I said in the Group D analysis, it will be the Sweden game that makes or breaks us and having a manager that knows the Swedish game so well can only help our cause. Sweden are not great at the back, as you might expect, so this will be a chance to see how England play in the opponents half. France will feel that a win in the next game should be on the cards and, with Ukraine not being as solid tactically as England, they will enjoy the extra room up top.
michael, your nostradameus like prediction came true.
review predicted draw. result is a draw.
Not a bad game by England at all. France’s best opportunities came when they took shots from distance, which is probably not a bad thing. Offensively, I would say an issue might be that England aren’t creating quite enough overloads like they did on Milner’s chance. I thought Ashley Young’s play as a central winger would help create a few breakouts from the flanks, but, as stated, Young was quite poor.
Something I’d like to see is Young and Carrol as a forward pairing. That seems crazy, but if you use Young as somebody to create overloads on the flanks and run the channels, while Carrol holds the ball up and drops into the midfield when needed, there is enough variation in that attack to trouble the opponent. That said, Welbeck was good. He naively showed the ball a few too many times, but overall could be a handful for the French defense.
we’re finally playing without a big donkey striker isolated for most of the game in favour of who has some actual technical ability and experience with young and you want to put the big failure no9 old-style striker? when are teams even threatened by this at this level anymore unless they are really world class like drogba. forwards need to be versatile now in general and carroll isn’t even competent enough to boss lesser teams like crouch has proven he can so why is he even in the team. crouch is a unique player who has proven to be a threat at high level and carroll is objectively inferior in every way if we want to play that style of game surely
First off, I never said Carrol would be completely isolated. Young would be playing quite close to him, maybe even in advance of him depending on how high or deep the opponent plays. Moreover, the idea that a pure target man can’t be threatening anymore is absolutely ridiculous. I’m just saying that Carrol’s hold-up play might be useful. I also don’t think he’s bad on the ball at all, especially for a player his size.
Well Welbeck’s hold up play is actually better than Carroll’s.
Disaggreeing with ZM doesn’t happen frequently… but in this case I do.
What we have here is a chicken-egg situation.
England defended well because France didn’t push men forward… I’d go as far as saying that Blanc tried to replicate Spain…
Benzema never tried to be a #9… instead he always dropped deep whenever France were near the opposing area.. we was clearly playing the false 9 role.
Problem was Nasri likes to drift inside (and did a good job in doing so) and Ribery tried to do the same… so when France managed to play through balls to the flanks and get the side backs in good offensive positions, there was actually no one in the penalty area to receive those crosses…
So England managed to soak up the pressure well, despite going 90min without doing anything relevant with the ball (Milner chance excluded).
France were narrow, predictable and despite overloading the center of the pitch, failed to get players into scoring positions.
France tried to be Spain and England tried to be Italy…. but both their counterparts from group C managed a better display.
Even if there were players in the box, I doubt they would have beaten England’s players in the air. Malouda, Cabaye, Nasri and Ribery aren’t really known for noggin knock-ins. France’s best aerial threat was probably Alou Diarra, and he was their defensive midfielder.
“England defended well because France didn’t push men forward…France were narrow, predictable and despite overloading the center of the pitch, failed to get players into scoring positions.”
You nailed it.
England was never really in danger because France played a dissapointing game considering their attacking talent. Especially their narrownes was key to not being able to break the England defense down.
In the first 70 minutes they were scared to move forward from the back. Key here was Debuchy whose lack of forward runs slowed down several attacks of France in the first half.
There was an enoumous gap on the right side of the pitch which if used more by France would have stretched the England defense which is key to beat them(stretching England’s defense wide was main tactics in 2010 by Germany but ingnored by Blanc yesterday)
And that stretching would have been in favor to Ribery and Benzema who could have worked the channels with their outstanding runs. But it didn’t happen. And so England felt comfortable to sit deep and head out the high balls which is by far the key strength.
But I now see why all the Englishmen on this site are so sceptical about this England team. The lack of inspiration is tremendous.
Against top teams , one does think about nullifying the other teams threat hence compromise on the attack part of their own game. A draw was likely on cards from early onset and no surprise that both teams happily took it.
Next game, particularly for England, will be important since they would have adopt an attacking mindset, not rely solely on counter-attacks. One switch could be ( assuming the same set of players start ) Milner shifts inside and young out wide. With Gerrard pushed further forward, Milner can make runs from deep position.In absence of Rooney, they would have to provide a consistent goal threat. Hence if they win that game ,they are more likely to qualify to knock-out round
France had a poor game. The singular weakness in the french team was the complete lack of an creative threat from central midfield. As it turned out, nasri and to a lesser extent ribery had to drift infield to create, while benzema went deep to get on the ball (he was not a false 9). The french angles of attack were very narrow, and concentrated in the centre. There were hardly any crosses or attempts to beat the fullback on the outside. This played right into the hands of england’s compact defence. France needed to stretch the english defence as much as possible and move the ball around much quicker. I’m surprised Blanc did not instruct his players to try harder on this. I would have played a 4-2-3-1 with Cabaye and Diarra in midfield, Ribery on the left, Nasri in the centre and Ben Arfa out on the right with strict instructions to stretch the defence and find the gaps to play in benzema. Malouda’s presence was a stumbling block.
I was on the other hand pleasantly surprised by england’s performance. yes they lacked prolonged possession but they showed enough glimpses in this game that they can keep possession well and create chances while remaining compact when the ball is lost. Against Sweden, Hodgson should be more adventurous, perhaps starting Walcott on the right in place of the one paced Milner, and enouraging Gerrard to get forward more often to support Young.
This game got me thinking a lot about whether “playing a referee” (in the same way you play, for instance, weather conditions) counts as tactics, and how (if?) a football manager should encourage this in his players?
I generally thought the referee had a poor game. He didn’t put a stop to the more cynical pre-emptive tackles used by several French players (in particular, I can think of 4-5 incidents involving Cabaye) to stop English counter-attacks, and there were a few offside deicisions (2 each for France and England) which were judged incorrectly. Yellow cards were given only for late, and dangerous, tackles.
However, given that this was clear by half time, and certainly a factor by about the 60th minute, surely it would have been better for the two sides (in particular England, I felt France did this well for the last 20 minutes of the game), to commit more men forwards, given the relatively minor concession for breaking up counter-attacks? Could it be argued that Hodgson just made a mistake in factoring this in?
I was about to write that comment myself. Relying on counterattacks is relying on the ref to give yellow cards to stop the professional fouling that can abort those attacks. And last night he didn’t.
Yeah I thought the ref was poor too. Cabaye should have been booked on like 4 different occasions.
I think parker got tired earlier than expected and had to be replaced rather than walcott coming on. But maybe not. I expected a bit more of a lategame short burst of countering but would it really be worth the risk? i’d trust the judgement of a man who almost won the europa league with fulham to play it safe.
Sick of these defensive teams sitting behind in 2 banks of four around the penalty box (or 2 banks of 5 in Chelsea’s case) and asking the more positive oppostition to break through it.. For a change, I would like to see the positive teams play this way for some time and then if they don’t see the opposition attacking, get behind in their own half and pass it around instead of attacking again.. the negative teams can only use their tactics if the other team is positive..
So, the Spains, Frances and Bayerns should just pass the ball around in their own half and see what happens then.. Who cares about the beauty or the spectacle of football when one team is not interested in it. Will be nice to see a Chelsea vs Chelsea CL final, England vs England type of matches when both teams just sit back afraid to go out.. then we can see what the supporters of these types of teams talk about..
But this is the nature and whole point of knock out competition. Safety first, attacks second. You can always blame your luck in penalties, but not in poor positional open play.
So, the whole point is to ‘blame’ your loss on something ?? Who has proved with data that defensive teams had won more competitions in the past than attacking teams irrespective of the players in the teams ? May be some times like Greece and Italy.. but who has proved that defensive teams have more probability to win than offensive teams ?
Also, thats the exact point I’m making.. if one team sits behind on ’safety’ first, why not the other ? Let both teams build a gate at the center of the pitch and ‘lock’ it.. it will be even more ‘SAFE’..
8-2, 5-1, 5-3, remember those? A Chelsea vs Chelsea final wouldn’t need to employ the tactics they did in the first place would they. The Man united vs barca final where they set out with tactics doomed to fail is less entertaining to me considering it was obviously bad tactics.
It may be bad tactics.. but it was good football.. Man U knew they were not a match for Barcelona midfield but still they scored a goal in open play.. they did not play 8-1-1 formation and sat back near the penalty box like a fourth division relegation team.. If anything is true, for all Barcelona’s attacking play, their defense is a weak link and a tactics intending to test that is much more positive than sitting back..
Having watched England played in major tournaments for many years, I consider this is the time when they play really good. Hodgson’s tactic is even better than Capello’s. I believe England has achieved their intention in avoiding the lost. Some might say they played negative football, but I think it is fine considering they have to face stronger opponents in terms of tactic and technique. England no longer rely on physical and no brainer game. They’re not the smartest team in the competition but they are much smarter than they were.
I believe Hodgson realized that his players are generally mediocre in addition to the lost of some key players. The only way to hold on is their discipline and that is what they did brilliantly. They gave no room for Ribery on the flank, and despite Nasri played well, he couldn’t pass the ball to Benzema. While Benzema himself is not a Klose’s style who will pick up the ball, not much that France can do against the discipline English side.
There’s a good chance for England at least to reach semi final. As long as they can avoid defeat from stronger team and win against 2nd tier teams they can go further. With a bit of Chelsea’s luck they might even win this year tournament.
Let’s see what happens if they have to face a fast playing team interested in winning the game.
Surprised no mention of France’s infuriating use of ‘tactical fouling’ breaking down England’s counter again and again. Blanc said he was working on nullifying the counter attack, this was obviously what he was referring to.
ha ha.. LOL!! England supporters claiming their bus driver could not accelerate.. This is awesome.. First, you blanket cover the penalty area and claim it as tactics.. then, you want the opponent to allow the counters without resistance.. great.. If tactical fouling can stop negative teams, I even wish it to become legal.. no foul calls and no cards..
How is blatant clipping/bodychecking not more negative than playing a specific tactical plan? People are talking as if if France isn’t even a top team.. if we actually attacked in a mindless no plan 4-4-2 like 2010 and you’d be complaining how shit they were when they get done on the counter outnumbered by their multiple world class attackers. The fact our weakened team actually outplayed them for the 30minutes is actually impressive, especially with the inexperienced Oxlade in the team too.
This was hardly Inter vs Barca second leg now was it… France were the ones relying on fouls and couldn’t even get in the box. I’d rather two teams playing counter each other in phases than pass it around for ages and taking a long shot now and then. Apparently attempting essentially the same thing as link-up play in a counter, but slower, is beautiful football? They were not playing long ball or anything like that either; it was throughballs that looked very dangerous and our pace, early on. I’ll take that over Ribery passing sideways, never managing a clear shot on goal, while clipping and diving repeatedly. The first 30mins was more entertaining than Frances 60mins of relative possession imo.
Hmmm.. Let the opponents to England play a 6-3-1 formation and cover the penalty box with bodies.. then lets see how they do anything other than passing around sideways.. especially when they dont have someone taller to be a target man..
Well, obviously I AM biased, as I’m English.
You fail to make the obvious differentiation that, sticking 8 men in front of your box all game is perfectly legal whilst deliberately cutting men down is not only illegal, but also cynical and dangerous.
I thought the referee was weak, and that England played a good game before they went ahead and went into their shell whereafter they were awful to watch by any stretch of the imagination.
You could at least attempt to not make it obvious how bias you are against England. Trying to play on the counter-attack because it suits the players you have best is worse than deliberate fouling? Please carry on, this is funny.
As I said in my comment above, maybe it could be argued that Hodgson made a mistake by not exploiting this trait of the refereeing in the same way that Blanc did for France. England could have attacked more, and also relied on this type of cynical fouling to buy time to get back…
That said, as an England fan, I cannot belive that Cabaye was not booked in this game.
Is it just me or did anyone notice France’s backline becoming something of a back 3 when the Lloris has the ball?
Evra-Mexes-Rami
Debuchy pushes forward, same line with the midfield.
Yep, saw that too. It made sense, since France mostly played without an attacking wide player on the right (Nasri played mostly centrally), so Debuchy needed to go forward a lot, and switching to a back three gave him more freedom to do so.
kudos to hodgson at least he has stamped his marked and made them work as he wants not like his predecessor ( capello ) who didnt know as to what to do with the team . apart from all the big teams england is the only team which is devoid of flair . england defended pretty tightly and offered space for france on the wings but france couldnt make use of it . there was hardly a cross from the wingbacks or even the wingers to test the defense .they were too narrow on their attack which suited england . apart from nasri none of the midfielders or anyone seemed to interested to get beyond benzema or play one two with him . i really could not understand blanc’s substitution instead of bringing on a forward who would join benzema in the front line he just replaced like for like players who couldnt offer anything new .there was a lot of space between middle line and the defense which should had been decreased and made england to play more tight .
all in all if france want to make themselves a real contender then they need to improve . debuchy just made his stock go up by his performance .
for me on the defense france offered a decent space to welback and neither rami or mexes tried to press him or get tight on him .instead he was given the space so that he could release the pressure the reason may be that blanc might be afraid of welback who seem to be the best england player on the pitch and on one occasion when he turned on mexes had he shown a little bit of maturity and went to by line and waited for others and then tried to pick a player they might had a nice chance . although i dont like milner and the reason was evident when he cant shoot in an open goal but he did his job well on defense . there was also evidence also of how he wants his players to play crosses which were low compared to how they are played in england . young was played behind welback but hasnt got the guile to play there . cant release the ball in one go gets off side on most of the plays when the support is wanted his positioning is poor cant keep the ball allowing diarra to excel although for me diarra had a bad game apart from marking young he didnt offer anything new and his positioning to get the ball from the defense and release the pressure was also not done properly .
. there was evidence of how hodgson wants his team to play in triangles and moving with ball rather than stupid off the ball running . one of the improvements he needs to go is play chamberlain behind welback in the next game although he is young he has got that maturity and get walcott to start play young on the wing and drop milner and he needs to ask gerrard to work a bit more to get more up and down the pitch . rest he will make teams to show something extra to beat them ( many a teams have got that ) but he needs to make progress on the offensive front .
players to watch definitely :- debuchy and oxalde chamberlain.
The sleeping French fan told the story for this game.
To all the experts here, I like to ask one question, how do they think can a team play against a parked bus – or diplomatically speaking two banks of four on the p.box?
Assuming that the other team is legitimately defending at all costs (i.e. Chelsea/Inter vs. Barcelona, not Napoli vs. AC Milan when they were set out to counter-attack)
Three options:
1) Physicality
Germany chosing to playing Gomez vs. Portugal is a good example of this. Someone who can cause a physical nuisance in the box can force CBs backwards, and get on the end of crosses. Heskey did this well for England in the past (this is why he was consistently picked over Crouch, even though Crouch was always the better goalscorer)
2) Width
By stretching the playing area, you create more space for your fellow players to exploit. Daniel Alvez (and last season, Pedro) does this for Barcelona. If the defensive team refuses to stretch its defence, wide, there is a lot of time to pick a good cross
3) Long Shooting/Set Pieces
A deep defence in two banks of 4 is likely to be vulnerable to shots from range (France had many chances from mid-range in this game, including the goal). Furthermore, free kick opportunities will be nearer to goal.
Other than that you are relying on building up pressure, and mistakes from the defence (all players will make mistakes, but if you are a CB or GK this can lead to a goal, whereas a Striker will just lose possession to the other team).
Excelllent post.
France failed on point 1) and 2).
Will be interesting come the Ukraine game as to whether our shape will adjust when Rooney returns. I am hoping we become a 4-3-3 and allow our front 3 of Rooney, Young and Welbeck to mix around with the positions (as has happened with United in some games, where Valencia sticks to the wide right, whilst the other 3 interchange with each other)
Would be good to see a slight change to our 2 banks of 4 to maybe a wall of 3 in front of the back 4 and allow Young to drift out wide and Rooney to drop deep in order to stop (if needed) any deep anchor like oppositions, whilst Welbeck sits on the last defender.
I think against any team that contains at least 2 “A class” players we will stick with the 2 banks, but I think with the pace (and creativity!) we should attack these teams more. We cannot afford to sit back in our last 2 games, all it takes is for France to lose and us to slip up otherwise we could be going home!!
England were clearly happy to defend the draw.
I thought France had the same problems as Spain, only with less talent. Too many midfielders in central zones, not enough overlap from the fullbacks, no focal point in attack. The slow pitch and the heat did not help, but Blanc could have made substitutions earlier and brought in Giroud.
The Ukraine-Sweden game was more entertaining. On paper Ukraine are the weakest team of the group (although they have a few very good players) and yet they are leading so that group D looks very intriguing now.
it was bewildering to see for me that the french full backs happily provided the needed width giving the english two banks of four, bringing themselves in good positions to make crosses, only to have to stop and turn back because there was no one in the box to make a cross to. sure, the english centre backs have an advantage in the air, but first, benzema, being the all around striker that he is, is also quite good when it comes to headers, and there is also always the possibility of a low cross.
England needed to give Young more help in the hole to add some variety. From time to time, it needed Milner, Oxlade or Gerrard to link up with him a lot quicker. Because it made life for Diarra too easy, as he was very rarely overloaded. If you are going to play a counter attacking system, than you have to get the wide players into the game by either offloading the ball wide a bit more or allowing them to come inside.
Too much respect given to the France full backs, as the England wide players were being too cautious, i.e., staying back and keeping a eye on them. Even without hindsight, with only one striker, Benzema, they were hardly going to rely on crosses from Debuchy and Evra. You have to risk the occasional foray forward as a winger, without having to be wary about the full back when the possession is turned over.
You can’t keep on relying on one player (Young) to link it all, when its always three on two (Rami, Mexes and Diarra on Welbeck-Young), even in a counter system.
So certainly not a polished counter system, in my view, yet. In turns, one of wingers/Gerrard need to gamble once in a while.
I guess Hodgson will be pleased as he got what he wanted from the system defensively, mostly, at least. Maybe would have been disappointed at how deep England were for the France goal, as the midfield central duo were in the box next to the defence. Generally, he will be pleased with the discipline of the team, apart from one or two stupid PL-type tackles from Oxlade and Gerrard.
Despite my criticism of the attacking problems, considering the deliberate tactics of England, despite the flaws, it was a solid performance.
I thought Cabaye played the ref well or the ref was oblivious to the number of fouls done by Cabaye, especially the ‘counter stopping’ ones.
A fair point about being too conservative vs. the full backs, Debuchy lost the ball a couple of times when pressured in this way, and Oxlaide-Chamberlain looked to pressure him well in the first half. Its a shame he was booked, and thus stopped taking the risks.
I think Malouda should be dropped, him not performing well enough led to a lack of support for Benzema forcing him to drop deep. If Malouda could get the ball Benzema could stay and the box ready to receive some passes.
Also i dunno if its just me but France seemed successful when they ran at England’s defence, it seemed that if no members of the defence pressed the French attacker in possession of the ball and instead sat back, the whole defence was pushed back as a result. It seemed to happen occasionally in the first half, in the second half though it seemed the French players were being pressed and forced to go wide.
On top of the Debuchy shouldve used his space more, England were leaving gaping holes on that flank but Debuchy’s crosses were poor it seemed, but maybe if he did manage to cross no one wouldve been in the box anyway.
France did well though for me, i unlike many others was abit disappointed with England, they defended decently but today showed me that unlike Chelsea they can’t hold the ball up as well and don’t have a striker as good as Chelsea who can cause real problems (Drogba) so their attack isn’t as strong as it could be.
Also even though they defended decently, they cna still be broken down – But yeah good game for me.
Malouda is an odd one.
He flushes out of games a lot, but even if you look at this game, he did a tremendous tactical job.. always in good position, trying to receive the ball in open areas, and defensively was extremely important.
He lacks an ability to influence the game directly because his intensity has been dropping from year to year… but he was still effective.
Just don’t ask him to be a creator or even link midfield and attack. He’s much more of a support player.
Yeah thats a fair analysis
But don’t you think a more creative player in that position would be more effective? I think Benzema dropping deep limited France’s number of clearcut chances, him dropping deep meant all their shots were from outside of the box
I think England are yet to play a proper number 10 under Roy, it’ll be interesting to see how their defence deals with it
I am really impressed along with your writing abilities and also with the layout in your weblog.
Is this a paid subject or did you modify it your
self? Anyway keep up the excellent high quality writing, it’s rare to peer a great weblog like this one today..
Perhaps a note of interest if you read this analysis and the Ukraine vs Sweden analysis is that Diarra defending very well against Young was vital for stopping England’s counter attacks, and that Sweden’s deepest midfielders defended poorly. Maybe Sweden will play Svensson instead on Friday in light of this?
I’m English supporter but a realistic one.I mean,common people,this was a poor,dull game.English team just is not good enough.Ok,Hodgson is makeing most of what he’s got but in the other hand he made a mistake with selection- A.Johnson,Scholles,Carrick,Richards should’ve been in starting 11.With this weak squad quoterfinals are the limit.
For the life of me I cannot understand why Carrick is not in the squad. I am by no means his biggest fan, but if Hodgson is going to adopt two holding midfielders in front of the back four then he is a no brainer to be in the squad. IF Hodgson maintains this formation Gerrard will eventually be pulled out of position and England will be punished!
Agree completely also i think Wilshere is a HUGE miss. Wilshere and Carrick defensive mid suddenly our team looks like it should be great on the ball. If only Wilshere was FIT!! I remember him comfortably holding his own against Xavi and Iniesta who are the best in the business. Carricks range of passing i easily rate over Gerrards aswell.
Carrick had told the FA months ago that he wasn’t interested any more. Scholes cried off years ago. Richards refused a place on the reserve list. Crouch too, I gather. Also two goalies. If this is part of the Capello legacy, it’s a grim part.
Pretty sure Richards and Scholes not being involved is not Capello’s issue. The English FA should of chosen Scholes over Gerrard at the CM position to begin with, I mean a decade ago.
Spanish FA forces Del Bosque to take Fernando Torres over Soldado.
English FA forces all managers to take big names over better players.
etc. etc. Tons of this happens all over international football.
I don’t think Carrick wanted to be in the squad as a back up, which he would certainly have been if Wilshere, Barry or Lampard had been fit, or to be in-and-out of the squad depending on injuries. If everyone had been fit, I don’t think he would have have been selected by Capello or Hodgson even if he was keen to play a squad role. As it is, however, particularly with Wilshere and Barry injured, I think there’s no question Parker/Carrick would be the ideal midfield 2 in Hodgson’s defensive 4-4-1-1 system, enabling Gerrard to play. perhaps, as the No.10, and Young out wide. Carrick’s tidy passing and eye for a long pass would almost certainly improve England’s transitions from defence to counter attack and his famiiarity with Rooney, Welbeck and Young would be a bonus.
But you don’t take someone who’s been hoity-toity about not being first choice and has told the FA he’s not interested any more.
Overall i take encouragement as an England fan. With Rooney back available i can see hodgson replacing milner and getting Rooney to play the young role and Young on the right(In my opinion where he can cause the most danger). Suddenly when you see this the threat on the counter by us becomes much greater. I also agree with ZM on parker and Gerrard needing to become better positionally but this can be improved upon, they will get better with time. I believe if we qualify from the group with Rooney back we will be very dangerous in the knockout rounds. Of course questions will be asked why replace milner hes better than young defensively but the opposition arent worried about milner on the counter they definitely will be worried about young on the counter and will not be able to throw men foward. Young, Chamberlain, Rooney, Welbeck very dangerous on the counter.the 2 wingers are capable of beating a man with pace. Rooney is probably only 2nd to Messi in this role between the lines and Welbecks pace will frighten any defence.
You have to make it out of the group stage before that can happen.
We will make it out of the group.
Does no-one see a role for Carroll? Or some of the other squad members?
How tired are many of the first XI players going to be come the Ukraine game?
A poor game, but that suited England anyways, who should be happy with their point, considering they only had a single shot on target, and it went in. Introducing Rooney against Ukraine should also improve their strike pairing, and Rooney’s capable of being a workman without possession, too. France didn’t create much, in that sense, comparing this game to Chelsea’s match is wrong, since Chelsea botched their own defensive game and rode their luck, whereas England genuinely prevent France from doing much inside the box.
Why didn’t France introduce Giroud, though? Not necessarily for Benzema, perhaps for Malouda, to provide a bigger presence in the box both in terms of goalscoaring and aerial play to break down the parked bus mechanically.
My question is why were Gerrard and Parker playing so deep – often in their own penalty area?
On several occasions deep crosses were being headed clear by one of them.
I think the reason is that Terry just cant play right CB and they were covering for him.
He must not play there again in my opinion, or we will be hammered by better opposition.
If we (France) needed a win, we will have win. But both teams didn’t take much risks. Giroud would have been decisive but Blanc didn’t want to substitute Ribéry or Benzema (who played far too deep and make our play too predictible as we didn’t have depth).