England 1-0 Ukraine: cagey game
The starting line-ups
Wayne Rooney returned to head in a simple goal, and England finish top of Group D.
Roy Hodgson dropped Andy Carroll to bring in Rooney, so Danny Welbeck returned to his position as the primary centre-forward.
Oleh Blokhin made various changes – Andriy Shevchenko wasn’t fit enough to start, and Andriy Voronin was dropped, so there was an all-new centre-forward partnership of Artem Milevskiy and Marco Devic. Serhiy Nazarenko was replaced by Denys Harmash, and Yaroslav Rakitskiy came in at the back.
Like all three of England’s matches, this was poor technical game lacking in quality, and many of the chances came from set-pieces and crosses.
Flanks
This was a clash between two similar sides – 4-4-1-1, with one forward dropping off into midfield. It created a cagey, frustrating game that saw little creativity from the centre of the pitch, and both sides looking to work the ball into wide positions.
The most interesting battle was Oleh Huisev against Ashley Young. The Ukrainian right-back played extremely high up the pitch, pushing Young back towards his own goal. At the start of the game Young appeared surprised by Husiev’s attacking intent (he shouldn’t have been, based upon Ukraine’s two games), and Ashley Cole moved out wider and allowed too much space between himself and Joleon Lescott. When Young adjusted his positioning and played deeper, however, Husiev was no longer a threat. Blokhin later tried to get Husiev into more space by moving him to the right of midfield.
It was crucial that England stopped Husiev, because they’ve looked vulnerable to crosses in this tournament, and Husiev was the main threat in that respect. The two wingers came inside, though Andriy Yarmolenko sometimes looked to receive long diagonals up against Cole.
On the other flank, Yevhen Konoplyanka stayed wide initially, then cut inside suddenly to have long-range shots. One tested Joe Hart, forcing him into an awkward save, but four were off target. England were probably happier with a winger coming inside rather than one charging down the outside and crossing, but they must be careful in that zone ahead of the back four, having conceded from that position against France.
England on ball
England were disappointing on the ball, with little invention from the midfield zone. Steven Gerrard and Scott Parker play flexibly and switch sides depending on where Gerrard ends up after attacking, but Gerrard tended to stay more to the right of the pitch in this game, having previously spent more time to the left – though this may have been unintentional.
Rooney found space in deep-lying positions, but England couldn’t get the ball to him via the midfielders, who were closed down quickly. Instead, England looked better when the defence hit ambitious balls forward, bypassing the midfield completely. Their best chance of the first half came after a long diagonal from John Terry to Young, followed by a cross that should have been headed in by Rooney.
Corners
Either side of half-time, it became a game of set-pieces. England built pressure with corners in the first half, and while they went ahead following a right-wing corner (Gerrard’s third right-wing assist of the tournament, which might hint at why he spent more time towards that side), they then became penned in by a succession of Ukraine corners.
In truth, the game never developed into a truly exciting spectacle. England were content with their 1-0 (in fact, with news from the other game, they would have topped the group with a draw) while Ukraine were disappointingly tame in front of their home crowd, needing a win to progress – though they probably would have rallied had Milevskiy’s deflected shot been given as a goal.
The substitutions changed little, with only one significant re-structuring by either coach. Blokhin introduced right-back Bohdan Butko for Milevskiy – on paper a very defensive change, but Blokhin moved Husiev forward and Yarmolenko inside, and Ukraine played in roughly the same system.
Hodgson called upon Theo Walcott, Andy Carroll and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, who have all played previously in the tournament, to give a renewed attacking threat – but they completed five passes combined, and their introduction was irrelevant to the feel of the game.
Conclusion
4-4-1-1 versus 4-4-1-1, and two naturally reactive teams. As in England’s previous matches, set-pieces were crucial to England’s goalscoring, although they still don’t appear comfortable defending them at the other end. Still, England have their back four and two central midfielders sorted, and Hodgson has options in the other four positions, with players who offer different attributes and tactical variety. Regardless of how England fare in the knockout stage, Hodgson’s performance as coach has been quietly impressive.
Ukraine rarely played well in this tournament. Even their win against Sweden was down to brilliance from Shevchenko rather than great overall play, and Blokhin may regret that unnecessary half-time substitution against France. Still, the Shevchenko-inspired turnaround against Sweden will be remembered forever in Ukraine – and in the absence of a realistic chance of winning the competition, that was probably the best possible outcome.
I think that Harmash was a poor choice (Nazarenko should have been brought up earlier). Sometimes Ukraine had a huge gaps between Defence and Forwards, as Harmash was god knows where and Yarmolenko pushed up. Therefore Milner, Gerrard and Parker were successful pressing when Ukraine tried to bring the ball up, leading to many long balls from Ukraine.
You could argue the same for England though, Rooney played high up and Gerrard and Parker rarely got forward.
Harmash is very young player and his positional mistakes are not surprise for me. Game with France shown that Nazarenko had poor phisical condition and Blokhin understood it. Parker and Gerrard are main players of Hodgson’s tactic, it’s not secret. As for me, for pressing central midfielders of Englend Harmash is a better choice than Nazarenko. It was good tactical game for us( I’m Ukrainian), but skills of our players was very poor.
I don’t quite see the BBC’s theory of Gerrard MOM.
Is it me or are England actually just very slow to track back into position? I counted a 10-pass move in the first half, not much else. Isn’t it really rather easy to move between two banks of four?
Someone please explain to me how England are good, and not simply lucky. Genuine request.
Well, they weren’t worse than their opponents and in this group that was enough. Sweden were absolutely dreadful, the Ukraine never got past trying and the French have been a sore disappointment so far.
Can’t blame England for any of that though, going through top of the group was the maximum they could achieve and they did.
The funny thing is his best attacking work in this tournament has come when he has drifted to wider positions, not centrally. Him and Parker still aren’t a good central foundation for the team to recycle possession well to alleviate the pressure (though that is also to do with the collective too, that problem). Defensively, Parker sometimes makes the odd decision to press……whilst everyone else sits back. As a pairing, defensively, they go too deep sometimes too quickly, hence the long shots France, Ukraine and possibly to a lesser degree, Sweden, have had. Italy, especially its midfield, got it right for me against Spain, in terms of getting a balance between pressing and sitting back. You can’t or at least shouldn’t let the opposition always pummel you all the way back to the 18 yard line. At least slow them down higher up the pitch once in a while. To be fair, England did do it from time to time in the second half, which was good to see, in terms of pressing decently.
as ive said in previous england posts , gerrards best seasons for liverpool have been when he played behind the front man and on the right of midfield.
for many years rafa benitez prefered, Alonso/Hamman , Alonso/Sissoko and Alonso/Mascherano OVER Stevie G in center midfield.
What does that tell you?
Can I remind you all that England rank 6th on the current FIFA rankings. There are only 5 nations on the planet that have enjoyed better results than England over the last few years.
Yeah our game has problems. We lack technique. Tactically we are not very bright. We prioritise position over posession too much. We don’t produce enough good players and so our domestic league is flooded with imports. Our game is dominated by some of the world’s richest clubs and our national team suffers as a consequence. When our players get to major tournamants they can be terrified and underperform. If we ever want to win something we have to change and improve. The good news is that if we ever get it together and improve, that improvement will contribute to what remains a pretty solid base.
Group D was an evenly matched group in which everyone achieved at least one win. England negotiated the group better than three sides ranked below them by FIFA. It’s not as big a surprise as you think that England came top. If the group went to form, they were always going to do that.
A quarter-final bearth was hardly beyond this national team. In fact anything else whould have costituted a collapse in form of Holland-like proportions.
The big question is how will they fair against Italy. That I suspect will be a step too far for a footabll culture that has not beaten one of the major nations in the knock-out stages of a World or European championship since the 1960s.
Why not? Italy rank below England in the all important FIFA rankings….
I agree with Seth. I think England could beat Italy who haven’t really impressed either.
I suspect beating Italy will be a step too far for a football culture that has not beaten one of the major nations in the knock-out stages of a World or European championship since the 1960s.
Really, I mean it. Eliminating Spain at Euro96 on penalties is the closest we have come.
Besides I think that Italy (like France) only rank below us on the FIFA ranking because they managed an even worse World Cup than we did (at least we managed to stay in it until we met one of the defeated semi-finalists). Italy failed to qualify from a group containing New Zealand!
One post-world cup form the difference between them and us is much closer
you lack technique because you have coaches like sam allardyce and tony pulis who gives more importance to players strength than his technical ability . england players are also too over pampered with their little success . you need coaches who can teach the basics of the game not tell him to built his mass .
I’d like to think you are being sarcastic?
For a man who makes such good sense analysing games and strengths of teams/players it can’t be anything else.
Do you know how boxers work their way up the rankings?
What you actually think is a very good prospect with an impeccable record is more often than not exposed for the novice he is once he reaches a top-10 ranking and starts fighting the cream!
In short, these rankings are not worth the paper they are written on
tony pulis is…erm…Welsh?
This is not the British Olympics team yeah
Yeah our game has problems. We lack technique. Tactically we are not very bright. We prioritise position over posession too much. We don’t produce enough good players and so our domestic league is flooded with imports. Our game is dominated by some of the world’s richest clubs and our national team suffers as a consequence.
Thanks for making my point.
Copy-paste is gr8.
It was odd seeing Ukraine’s reluctance to put crosses in the latter part of the second half, instead electing to keep on trying to come inside and go for long shots. What was the point of bringing on Shevchenko, if you aren’t going to give something to feed on. There was a moment of ‘flapping arms’ frustation from Sheva when yet another Ukraine long shot went over, after the player in question elected to ignore the space his team mate (left back) had to cross a ball in if he was given a pass. Disappointing decision making by the Ukrainians at times in the last third.
I would have thought more crosses and width would have troubled England. Husiev’s initial width in the game showed some promise. The width showed by Debuchy troubled England but like Ukraine, France were reluctant to put crosses in as their only striker on the pitch was dropping deep. Feels like the opposition are letting off the England full backs and their back up with their reluctance to test them one-on-one. Ashley Cole is a brilliant left back but Ashley Young sometimes has real trouble in getting it right defensively ahead of him, Glen Johnson is not the most reliable of full backs defensively. Though that said, better teams should be able to bypass that central midfield of England or at least push them very deep, as that is one reason why Ukraine, France and to a lesser degree, Sweden, were able to land a lot of long shots. So width and/or crosses isn’t the be all and end all to defeating England but it certainly could do with looking at, width and/or crosses.
Will be interesting to see how Maggio fares against England with his lung busting runs on the right flank. I think he could give England some big problems and a potential tactical headache for the England players on that side, in relation to balance between defence and attack. Once Maggio starts motoring and finds his rhythm, he is a real handful. Can just imagine Pirlo’s long quick switch ball from left to right on the counter attack.
On the flipside of that, England have two fullbacks who are very good offensively, and if Hodgson goes with Walcott over Milner, him and Johnson on the right and Cole and Young on the left will be 2 vs 1 against the wing backs. Rooney will have to stick tight to Pirlo (or him and Welbeck taking turns depending on who’s closer, Welbeck was obviously told to close down Källström against Sweden) but Cassano dropping off is still likely to cause Gerrard and Parker problems.
If Hodgson wasn’t so averse to using a holding player England could make a lot better use of their fullbacks – having a DM willing to drop into defence to make a back three would enable Cole and Johnson to play more offensively as well as using the likes of Walcott without so much concern about covering FBs. Also would allow Parker & Gerrard to press higher up in the defensive phases…
That said I’m quite happy (as a Scotsman) for England to keep playing the way they are – I suspect they will get found out against more tactically nuanced higher quality opposition: defending the Hodgson way (two rows of four) leaves obvious issues with opposition players who like to play between the lines, either they end up getting too much time on the ball or (as has happened so far) they end up sitting too deep. Bring on Italy!
True enough, in 4-4-2 it’d take a lot of bravery to tell England’s fullbacks to take the fight to Italy’s wingbacks and leave a 2vs2 at the back, particularly as Cassano moves to the flank, that could easily pull Terry out of position.
We’ve potentially got the perfect man to play behind Gerrard and Parker and go back into defence when needs be in Phil Jones, because he’s comfortable in both positions, but yeah Hodgson don’t like holding midfielders for whatever reason.
Milner on his day could do a good job of nullifying Giaccherini, but more liely he’d be drawn infield to help Parker and Gerrard instead, and more to the point, he just isn’t playing well at all so far. So I’d say play Walcott and try to outnumber their wingbacks. If England play it smart it could work.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35536497@N00/7404608962/in/photostream
Look at this pic. Look where is yarmolenko (up front) and Harmash is all the way on the left pressured by 3 English midfields. Ukraine had no solid middle. and all more or less good attacks came when players moved from wings into center.
Even though England are very boring to watch. Roy Hodgson deserves credit he has got them winning with an organized team. Tactically like you said Michael he has options to switch it up on the flanks or up front. Great article Michael! You never fail to disappoint.
Actually I thought that England were very un-Hodgson like today. Very chaotic, there was no organization, no proper two banks of 4 while defending. Ukraine were bale to bypass several players because no one was in their place. I had a big problem with Gerrard off the ball today. He helped England with another assist (although deflected twice, but still) and helped create some chances, but as ZM pointed out, his partnership with Parker leaves us with as many questions as answers.
Walcott was introduced but not utilized at all when England had the ball. The attacking moves were chaotic and pressed. There was a lack of fluidity in play. Its as if England feels they need to score with every possession and they try to do too much too quickly. This is not a technical team, why not do the simple things instead of trying to do everything at 100 MPH. I hope England win they QF, but right now I am not sure what set up and tactics would be best against Italy. And am not sure that any will help,Italy might be too strong for England. Spain would have been a much tougher game, but much simpler tactically. Play like you did against France, backs against the wall, and try something off the counter or set piece. But now, not sure if that approach will work. Italy have more variation in attack, and better movement. Plus if you defend too deep they might get you on set pieces. Giving up a corner against Italy is far more dangerous than against Spain.
Lack of fluidity in play? England rush because they, like you already stated, lack basic technical skills. Its perplexing how this roster struggles to string five passes together. Besides Rooney’s fortunate goal (keeper error) and his missed header, did England create any clear opportunities?
It’s not like they’re that solid defensively either. Italy have two attributes that Ukraine lacked in this game – an aerial threat and a creative maestro named Andrea Pirlo.
That last point you made, Pirlo, is where England might fail with a 4-4-2. It would be better to play a 4-4-1-1 at least, 4-3-3 would be better, and put someone like Milner on Pirlo. Rooney would be a waste and also not good enough defensively. Neither is Young. When Pirlo has the time and space he can open teams up easily. However when he is harassed and has a shadow its fairly easy (relatively of course)to nullify his talents. United did this with Park and it worked very well, England don’t have a Park, but Milner, for all his limitations, is best fit for that job. Rooney is not an option as you can’t have your most talented player running around all match doing a job of a destroyer. But if England wont have anyone on him it might get ugly. Playing a 4-4-2 against Italy would be a mistake. However Italy set up, 3-5-2 or 4-2-3-1, England will lose the midfield battle.
The point on Pirlo is important.
England will go with their 4-4-1-1 formation.
But how will Prandelli set up Italy?
If they go 3-5-2 again, with only Wellbeck in an advanced position, De Rossi can step forward into midfield.
With an extra body in there, Pirlo will get time and space.
I don’t think that will concern Hodgson too much as long as England retain their shape but whereas France only had Benzema moving around, Italy have 3 strikers who will stretch the England defence.
It could be a very interesting and entertaining game.
http://www.chalkontheboots.wordpress.com
why do you guys always take numbers game and the formations and all those things . players performance and the cohesion between them is thing that comes first rather than the formation . secondly instead of worrying about pirlo england needs to worry about cassano and balotelli who is fed by pirlo . most importantly these guys like to stretch the game they run the channels very well are good at turning on defenders and most importantly england defenders especially terry and lescott are yet to be tested in that manner . they were once tested in the ukraine and that play resulted in an goal which was disallowed .both havent chased forwards out of their zone or the opposing team didnt test them in that region if you would remember correctly terry lost to ibra in the foot race in the sweden game when he went on chasing him wide . so that is the main problem for england .
although england do have a chance if they can find cohesion in their team .he needs to drop milner and start with chamberlian and walcott or else all through out the match we will see england defending in their own half .
That’s what’s called a back-handed compliment!
Seriously though, we know you wanted to say,”you never disappoint”
A very poor performance from England our worst of the tournament but we won. Even though we kept a clean sheet i thought we were weak defensively throughout this match and never comfortable. Ukraine created some great chances and ashley young is horrible defensively. We must improve alot if we are to beat italy. England looked ragged tonight.
I think Italy, finally, have the tactical advantage over England,mercilessly, out of the Euro’s. Expect a return to the 3-5-2 and the Italian wingbacks (mostly Maggio) to get the job done for the Italians… It is set up for Balotelli to put England out of their misery…possibly on a header from Cassano, Maggio or Pirlo on a free kick…
Will be interesting to see what Hodgson does to try and deal with the three-man central midfield, especially the freedom it provides for Pirlo. Either go 4-5-1 or get Rooney to try and do a discipline job in the 4-4-1-1, otherwise Pirlo will dictate the proceedings me thinks, with Marchisio and Motta doing the dirty work to allow him to do just that. Numerically, its a tricky situation for England in relation to the central midfield battle. Pirlo and Maggio the key men for me against England.
Hodgson obviously has so little faith in our technical skills, he see’s putting 10 men behind the ball for the majority of the match against Ukraine as our best hope of winning the game. That is playing to our strength’s, we didn’t want to risk it like the Sweden game, being too open again, but are we really that bad on the ball that we can’t go out and attack Ukraine?! I think if we’d gone at them a bit more, played Walcott over Milner, we’d actually have won the game comfortably.
I actually thought we were pretty solid defensively, kept the narrow shape well, Terry and Lescott were absolutely solid, apart from 1/2 occassions where Terry was dragged a bit deep, and Cole did well when he was forced out wider away from the narrow central block. Johnson is still a worry for me. Konoplyanka’s play was obvious every time, cut inside onto right foot. Johnson allowed him to do it every time!
I like Gerrard and Parker as a midfield duo, didn’t think I would, but I think it’s going well. Gerrard is proving he can be more disciplined, they offer a good shield to the defence when we’re defending with the two banks of four. A fantastic quote was once spoken by Brian Clough; ‘people talk too much about football tactics, when they wouldn’t even know how to win at Dominos’! So even if you did ignore the role they played in the system, which I think their both doing well, but if you don’t, the ammount of blocks, tackles, clearances Parker does for us has been fantastic, always putting his body on the line. And Gerrard has three assists in three games. Can’t be argued with in my opinion.
Rooney despite his goal was not at his best, got the goal though so I’m not arguing. Few wayward touches here and there, to be expected perhaps after his lay off. Thought Welbeck was poor tonight though, been impressed with him first two games, but not tonight. Movement was pretty poor, no real threat from him. Rooney and Welbeck do have good link up play, particularly in close quarters, nice one touch, quick stuff, but I’d like to see more of a Klose-Ozil. Welbeck creates space pretty intelligently, I’d love to see a bit more of the Rooney of old, explosive pace, bursting in behind exploiting the created space.
read my comment to robert you will stop praising england centre backs .
Regarding your comment to me: Tracking runners is ALWAYS a responsibility of defenders. And besides, both Lescott and Milner know Bollotelli very well. They know the danger he poses. That is if he even starts. However as dangerous as he, or Di Natale may be with Cassano, they would be much more dangerous if they actually got the ball. No ball, no danger. And that is where the concern about Pirlo comes from. England naturally want to sit deep and defend. Even if they track the dangerous Italian forwards, the tactic might fail if Pirlo is given time and space on the ball. So that is why some of us are concerned about Pirlo.
we were passengers today.
ukraine dictated the whole game. we will be found out against better opposition and will struggle to qualify for the world cup if we choose to play in this manner.
we’ve rode our luck A LOT.
AGAIN, We need CM’s who can do the simple job of giving the defenders a passing option when they have the ball. Keep possession in tight spaces and get the ball to the fwds/winger. SIMPLE yet overlooked part of our game. This just does not happen. Everything is scrappy and we JUST get by. again im not saying we need to string 50 passes together , but christ. we are just stumbling through. The worst of if is that we have the players to do better.
gerrard (and parker to a lesser extent) are afraid to take the ball in these positions that can release the pressure we had for about 35 mins in each half.
milner is so boring , cant cross and wont take the defender on, he’ll always pass backwards. Gerrard can cross , take the man on and also cross from deep.Gerrard needs to play right midfield.
I would put henderson in CM with parker. if hodgson did this there would be a huge improvment in our play imo.
I agree that Milner has his limitations, but he can cross. Stats from this past season show that his crossing accuracy is 22%, compared to Lennon at 26%, Downing and Ox at 23%, and Walcott at 13%. But in this system he is not getting into a position to cross and part of the reason is because he can’t dribble, for example he only completed 9 successful dribbles last season (translates to 0.35 successful dribbles per game), compared to Walcott’s 35 (translates to 1.0 successful dribbles per game). Of course stats need to be taken with a grain of salt because these players play in different systems and the amount of playing time needs to be taken into consideration. But its still interesting reading to compare how they compared over the course of a season.
Reference: http://www.eplindex.com/14760/aaron-lennon-england-squad-opta-stats.html
What’s missing from this analysis is a breakdown on passes, such as backwards, sideways and forwards. Chances created from open play (non-assists) gives an indication of this though and Milner is poor in this category with a total of 19, compared to Walcott’s 32.
Is it just me or did the article clearly say England has an uncreative midfield and things only looked dangerous when the ball was lumped forward?
Sounds like England are playing the same type of football, over and over again, for nearly 50 years
I truly hope the Italians put this team to the sword.
The last thing football needs is the international version of Chelsea winning another major trophy.
at least chelsea had some level of creativity in midfield.
I don’t really understand how Milner has been used at International level and at Manchester City.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I I’m not mistaken, James Milner shot to prominence in the 09/10 season after being a mediocre winger for a few seasons because Martin O’neil used him in a central position behind the striker in his system at Aston Villa.
Manchester City bought him after his fantastic performances there and never really played him there.
Strangely enough, Ashley Young played as a central winger prior to his move to Manchester United, and hasn’t really reprised that role at club level either.
In my opinion, England would be better off with Gerrard on the right and Milner in the middle.
Yes in his last season for Villa they used him as a box to box central midfielder. But, at City they had Toure, Barry and De Jong. Because of his work rate and discipline Mancini deployed him as either a defensive winger or a “runner” in the midfield(sort of like how United have used Park Ji Sung over the years).
For QF against Italy, do you think Prandelli will field a 4-3-1-2 or 3-5-2 against England?
I expect Italy to dominate possessions so 4-3-1-2 might be a better option, especially because Italy will have no Chiellini, I dont think Barzagli is suited to playing the left center back in 3 defences formation (Barzagli is more suited to play at the center of the 3 defences, but so is De Rossi). On the other hand, 4-3-1-2 offers lack of width, so it might result in a crowded central midfield. For attacking phase, I am sure Cassano can help to provide the width by drifting to the wings, but how about the defensive phase? I would like to know which formation will Prandelli ultimately chooses, any insight?
As for England, I am sure they will plae 4-4-1-1 with Rooney tracking Pirlo when England is out of possession, England will hope for a very cagey, physical game, but the cards are on Italy’s hands to play…
I think Italy will switch back to the 3-5-2 and just overload the midfield, in my opinion Gerrard and Parker don’t make a good partnership and Italy will want to exploit that. But keeping the 4-3-1-2 lets them have that ‘number 10′ between the lines which will surely cause problems for both of England’s CM’s. So many options!
While Prandelli has many options England sadly do not. Hodgson will continue to use his 4-4-2/4-4-1-1. One things for sure, Rooney’s discipline without the ball will be tested.
It’s really hard to guess what formation Prandelli will pikc.
It seems to me that Prandelli doesn’t trust Bonucci in a back four. He’s a good stopper but tends to take useless risks and that friendly vs Russia exposed this. In the first two group matches Barzagli was injured and Bonucci had to play; this affected the choice of the 3-5-2 a lot. In the game vs Ireland, Barzagli was back and Prandelli could use him and Chiellini in a back four. But now that Chiellini is injured and Bonucci has to play, chances are Prandelli will get back to 3-5-2.
But, on the other hand, Prandelli was very well impressed by Abate and Balzaretti as FBs in the back four. Much more so than by Maggio and Giaccherini as WBs in the previous matches. And while Balzaretti can indeed play as a WB too, Abate doesn’t have enough offensive game to do that.
Also, Prandelli likes the 4-3-1-2 much more because he really loves his “quality diamond” for the creation of the offense.
If I had to bet, I’d say he will stick to the 4-3-1-2. He will let his offensive intentions prevail over his defensive concerns.
I really think England need to play more of a 4-5-1 (or 4-4-1-1, whatever you want to call it) against Italy with Gerrard as CAM behind Rooney. Not only is this more suited to Gerrad’s skill set, but there is a much higher chance of getting Gerrard to track Pirlo than Rooney (see 2011 Champions League Final). I would play Milner next to Barry in CM and have Young and Walcott as the Wings and outlet for counterattacking. I just don’t see Rooney tracking Pirlo, and we’ve already seen what problems that causes Italy’s opposition in this tournament.
I think you mean Parker Barry is injured.
i did, thanks
To play that 4-5-1 you need a holding midfielder and England have none at the moment. The only option I can think of is putting Phil Jones as the holder but that is way to risky.
Wait, doesn’t Scott Parker play as a holding midfielder?
It really looks like he does.
I don’t agree with this article at all re: Ukraine in this game. At least in the first half, Ukraine looked by far the better technical side. The “front four” of Yarmalenko, Konoplyanka, Devic, and Milevsky played really well (although obviously couldn’t score), moving the ball neatly and quickly across the face of England’s penalty box. Yarmalenko especially showed good trickery, completely making a fool of Parker on one occasion. Ukraine were lacking a cutting edge in the final third, but I thought the decision to take of the old heads Sheva, Voronin and Nazarenko was a good one, since the attackers looked far fresher than the English ones. One of Harmash and Tymoshuck always seemed to have plenty of time on the ball, most likely due to the combination of Gerrard/Parker sitting deep and Rooney not fully committing to dropping onto the deepest lying midfielder. England were robust in defense as we’ve come to expect in this tournament, but their midfield was hugely disappointing and Rooney failed to provide any constant link between the midfield and Welbeck. But to say that this was overall a poor technical game I think is very harsh on Ukraine. Yes, England were pretty bad, especially in the first half, but Ukraine showed that they can hold the ball well and manufacture chances.
And like people have said above, the combination of Gerrard and Parker sitting deep and Rooney not doing enough defensively could be a huge weakness vs. Italy, who obviously rely on getting Pirlo in space in front of their defense. It’ll be interesting to see if Hodgson will sacrifice Welbeck and go to a 4-5-1 with Gerrard in the hole behind Rooney. I suspect he won’t because he’s naturally a conservative manager and England haven’t played that system at all so far (and have, admittedly, done well in the points department).
I can see him dropping Rooney a long way off Wellbeck to deal with Pirlo. If he compensates for Rooney’s movement into a very deap position by drafting in Walcott for Milner, he’s half way to a 4-2-3-1.
I cannot see Rooney having the discipline to mark Pirlo over the course of the game.
He was supposed to pick up Busquets in the CL final but constantly let him go free.
The other concern for England is that you want your best attacking player in good positions when you have the ball. Not marking an opposing player.
http://www.chalkontheboots.wordpress.com
spot on, the adjustment england needs to make is gerrard to CAM behind rooney as the lone striker with young and walcott as the wings. Italy will not have much width anyway if they play 4-3-1-2…
not only has rooney showed that he lacks the discipline or interest to track an opposing deep-lying playmaker, England (as chalkontheboots has pointed out) don’t want to neutralize their best offensive option by having him chase pirlo all over the field. Let Gerrard do it with Parker and Milner as the shield in front of the back 4. Look to counter through the wings and Gerrad
Just don’t see Roy trying Gerrard that high up the pitch.
Do not know why, he’s played there for Liverpool long enough but its not Roy’s style.
edited
Nice read. A very drab match that had me drifting in and out of sleep as the game went on. I most definitely agree with a poster up who said the last thing we need in this tournament is to have an international version of Chelsea win a major trophy. Heck even Chelsea were more creative. Zm for the umpteenth time his name is Oleh Gusev, not Husiev. I thought he might influence the game but he faded during the game and became less of a goal threat. The only Interesting talking point of the game was the disallowed goal that further amplifies the call for Goal line technology. Who knows? Maybe ukraine could have rallied on that, maybe not. I hope Italy puts this english team to swords.
As for the french game(as it seems unlikely Zm will cover it) Isn’t it ridiculous how deep Benzema has to come to get the ball? He’s never in the box and as the game progressed Ribery became more and more of a goal threat. What’s really wrong with this french side they been disappointing so far.
With the 4-2-4ish approach in the last two matches they seem to try to emulate the WC2010 Germany with Nasri playing the part of Oezil, Benzema that of Klose, etc. To support four ultrafluid attackers you need a solid block behind them though and France so far have failed to establish one.
The central defense is shaky at best, Mexes even got his second yellow and will miss the quarter final. I’m not sure what Blanc is trying to achieve in midfield. With only two midfielders, playing Diarra, who will basically just sit back all day unambitiously, just doesn’t work. Khedira otoh, as the more defending part in Germany’s midfield two, motors over the entire pitch and is involved in pretty much everything ( the guy is one of the players of the tournament so far, brilliant performances ).
That leaves Diarra’s partner, M’Vila against Sweden, Cabaye against the Ukraine, to pretty much do all the link up play and balance the side, too much to ask even of these two talented players. This French side may not be a “broken” one all of the time, but it certainly has been on the edge of breaking for most of the group stage. Shockingly they weren’t that much better when playing somewhat of a halfassed 4-3-3 against England.
With the individual quality they got up front, they still should be able to cause Spain some trouble, sitting back and counter attacking should suit them better than having to take the game to the opposition. They’ll have to drastically improve on individual and team performance to stand any chance at beating the reigning champions though.
first of all mexes second yellow is a boon in disguise as the spaniards would had taken into account that he is very slow and can be turned on . the same goes with rami who too looks very pedestrian . benzema came too much inside to get the ball instead if he had made run in the channels he would had got the defense to open and perhaps pass to someone . he could had even turned and run on the cb,s . another aspect of the french team is that they spent too much time on the ball which slows down the game allowing the defense to adjust themselves also they can be closed down and lose possession which happened sometimes with ribery . blanc has to address these issues his side is good enough to beat spain but only if he can make some adjustments . he doesnt needs his cb,s to be get exposed or they will be caught .
IMO England would be better off playing a 4-1-4-1 with Gerrard and Parker in front of a more disciplined DM, with license to roam and press freely (as they’re used to). So in fact more like a lopsided 4-2-3-1.
Problem is, not many English midfielders can play that DM role. Carrick could have been perfect for it, but he wasn’t selected.
Not to dwell on what could have been, but in each of England’s 3 matches I found myself dreaming of how much improved they would be with Carrick in the squad. Why carry players like Dafoe, who is just a worse option to what is already on the roster, rather than another mid who does things that no one else on the roster can do? boggles the mind.
For all the squawking about Rio (and I understand it to an extent b/c it’s an ugly story), the biggest omission in terms of footballing needs was Carrick.
I’m not English or British but for some strange reason I always support England?Yes ,they lack quality,flair,possesion etc. but they are in quaterfinals so let’s give them some credit?!As I wrote the other day this tournament looks like “Mike Basset,England manager” more and more.Considering squad depth and quality,lack of time for preparation and the fact that England had no proper result for ages,I think this is already a succes.
About Rooney:one can say a lot of negative things about him but to question his defensive work is ludicrous.He did not track Buskets 3 years ago?Maybe but than that is the only game he didn’t track back in his career!For fuck sake ,when Ronaldo played in MU Rooney was playing as a left winger and this year he played as defensive mid. for some games!I can’t think of another atacking player with that kind of defensive work.
Ukraine were far better than in the previous games.
England were lucky Shevchenko was not available as with some composure first half they could have scored a couple easily.
Rooney looked awful. WTF has he been doing during his time off? Non stop PS3 maybe? Certainly has not kicked a ball judging by the sluggish puffing performance last night.
Gerrard/Parker is as good as England have in the middle. They work hard and compliment one another. Last night was a problem for them with Ukraine operating a high temp pressing game they found it tough to win the vital CM battle.
This was mainly as they were a man down due to Rooney’s inactivity. But also because Young and especially Milner offer little alongside them.
Not saying there is much better available but Walcott for example adds far more than Milner.
In short a couple of average players at LM/RM + Rusty Rooney were struggling to cope with an average side firing on all cylinders. Would have been punished if Ukraine could finish.
Next game I would drop Rooney no question. He is not even at 50% of his Man United form.
People talk a lot of rubbish about needing your best players. A team needs to function with each part fully operational. Better to have a decent Carroll performance than sleepy Rooney.
For the rest I would go with the Sweden line up but Walcott in for Milner.
The worst thing about this all is this ‘England exceed expectations’ stuff I hear.
Truth is we are doing exactly what we have done in the past 20 years. Only change is that we are putting a tick there instead of a cross. Same old England.
Actually re reading that I was way harsh on Rooney. Not his fault that he was injured before and returning for England is harder than for United and the conditions were difficult. Also not his fault that England are taking this “Chelsea like” where all 11 have to be at 100% for the plan to have a chance of functioning.
So things were stacked against him last night.
I would have taken more midfield ball players (Carrick/Scholes/Cole) to give the option of a different approach to the defensive workmanlike one we are using. That way Rooney can work his way back into match form.
Not that I harbour any thoughts of winning the tournament whoever we took. But we would likely have gone just as far and at least people might smile at our style rather than call us boring.
the perfect way that ukraine could had opened england was the play when they had a goal disallowed . the ball was passed into the channel for one of forward players who too the centre back along with him . once they took the english centre backs out of their comfort zone that sit in front of the box and deal with balls that are in front of them or crosses . everybody could see as to how easy they could be played around and the ukrainian players did that . although the luck wasnt on their side but the coach should taken the cue and asked the ball to be passed in the channels more . there is a worry for hodgson in the next game as cassano likes the ball to be played in the channels as he drags the centre backs out of their positions and this will leave england exposed .further more he has put motta upfront to get to the end of crosses that cassano might put up . i think group d has the most pedestrian centre backs .
why does hodgson keeps on picking milner who is hopeless . if he doesnt wants to pick walcott then he can better start with chamberlain who is a live wire . since they need someone who can peg back teams . at times i want welback to be a little selfish and should go for glory alone rather than passing the ball same goes with chamberlain.
even though johnson had a good game i still suspect him since he can have a lapse of concentration and i would still want kelly to start his place ( i predict here now 2 years from now he will be the one who will be starting ).
all and all good luck england .
Is Milner’s inclusion not more down to his work rate when England don’t have the ball (i.e. most of the game) and when they lose the ball (transitioning from attack to defence)?
It’s noticeable that Gerrard is pretty poor when these transitions occur so it makes sense to have a work-horse like Milner in there to sturdy things up a bit. Oxlade-Chamberlain and Walcott are decent options to bring on later on in games, ‘impact players’.
what impact will you have if the game suddenly changes inside 5 min and it is milners side from where team will try to exploit . england got lucky against sweden but then it wont happen again and again .
Excellent result for England, but a little bit worrying how so many England players didn’t want the ball (hello Mr Lescott)or didn’t seem to know what to do with it once they got it (hello Mr Parker). The wide players didn’t offer much attacking threat either, and no-one passed the ball to our most penetrating player (Walcott, not JT)in the 25 minutes he was on the pitch.
England have done very well to finish as group winners on 7 points. The goals we have scored from dead balls has kept us in this tournament so far, but Italy don’t give away goals like we have been scoring easily, and unlike the teams we have faced , they have a world class keeper in Buffon. We will need to start creating opportunities from open play, which means that Roy will have to do lots of work on attacking moves on the training ground, and hopefully choose a more attacking front 4. We will know if he has done this within the first 15 minutes.
It would be a big surprise to see England pick an attacking front 4 or be the more proactive side in any game. Opportunities from open play will be few and far between – IMO no more than 2 – so they will need to be taken when they come.
This was quite an open game really, with both defenses staying deep but the forwards high up. Seemed a lot of space for one of the CM’s to charge into, the problem was neither side was brave enough to do this (perhaps Gerrard on occasion but not enough). England were very lucky to get the win here, with a draw probably a fairer result (especially considering the disallowed goal). Rooney had a good game, getting a goal and looking bright whenever he got the ball, a big improvement on Young in that position, though Rooney still doesn’t look 100% yet. Welbeck had an alright game but rarely saw the ball enough, while Ashley Young probably had his best game of the tournament (which perhaps says more of his past two performances than anything). The real problem was Englands midfield and defense. Parker broke up play well, but was far too conservative in his positioning. Gerrard played a good game, hitting most of long passes accurately, but was caught out of position a few times yet never really charged forward to good effect (should have done at least one well). In defense (as much as I hate to say it) Terry is having a good tournament and seems to have a good partnership with Lescott. But the fullbacks still seem to conservative to me, they could be an important bridge between defense and attack and with the big gaps to run into today, I was surprised neither got forward consistently.
But in context England only ever needed a draw and were always likely to beat this Ukraine side. It’s just that more problems were shown that positives; England’s passing looks poor when under pressure, the team can become broken when the defense and midfield stay too deep and they didn’t react tactically well to going in front, they could have dropped back and looked to pick off Ukraine (which they did originally) but then lost their shape a bit and allowed Ukraine back into the game.
England face Italy next, which could be a hard game to predict given Italy could play with a back four or a back three. The key will be stopping Pirlo, which could become Rooney’s role (a task he has mixed results in). If Pirlo moves higher up the pitch I’m not sure how far back Rooney will track him. For England’s attack, they should look to hit long diagonals to the wingers or strikers in behind the fullbacks, who tend to move forward and don’t have wingers to protect them – Italy’s weak point.
Follow me @econinterests and blog http://economicinterest.wordpress.com/
Yeah I’m surprised less people have mentioned Italy’s potential weakness of being outnumbered on the flanks, particularly seeing as England’s fullbacks are both very good going forward. If Milner starts then we lose that advantage down the right side, though. I guess he could maybe help in midfield and we’d just try and exploit the left side, but, that holds risks of it’s own given that Milner is playing poorly at the moment in my opinion and Johnson can’t be relied on defensively.
Do you really expect England to be bold enough to throw their full-backs forward? I can’t see it myself. Particularly, given the lack of pace in the centre-backs (especially Terry). And, this has the potential to leave them 2 v 2 against Italy’s strikers – I doubt Hodgson would take such a risk. Imagine Balotelli in a 1 v 1 against Terry with open space.
Further, I can’t agree that the full-backs are both ‘very good going forward’. Cole has diminished in this respect and is now more of a defensive full-back and often is sloppy with his passing. Johnson a right footed very inferior version of Cole. Neither are great at retreating back into position when caught up field (Cole used to be).
To be fair Cole had the most assists for a defender this season, so hardly not very good going forward. Just been used in a defensive role for club and country recently (as you say because of Terry being in the side).
I would also argue Johnson can be good going forward, but would agree he isn’t very good getting back into position, perhaps lacks the raw pace that the likes of Cole and Clichy for example can rely on.
Cole is a very good crosser of the ball and times his overlaps brilliantly, even if he has lost some of the pace he used to possess. Johnson is very fast and is a good dribbler, but I conceed his decision making can often be poor – both defensively and offensively, for that matter. We probably won’t push our fullbacks on all the time, because we won’t have the ball that much, but if when we do have the ball we use it smartly and the fullbacks time their forward movements well that seems our best chance of causing problems. I realise this is a big ask, because we’ve used the ball poorly so far for the most part, but it’s a big ask to beat Italy full stop tbh.
I think if it is wingbacks, then England should look to contain them at first using Milner and Young/Downing? on the flanks to track them. Then in the second half bring on Walcott down the right and be more adventorous with the fullbacks and look to dominate down the wings. With this strategy I would start with Welbeck and Rooney on the break up front, then bring on Carroll for Welbeck in the second half to attack the crosses. This seems a likely strategy to me, unless Hogdson decides to play for Penalties (Risky).
It doesn’t matter if England allow Italy to dominate though, that would putting pressure of Pirlo (very hard), defending deep against Italy’s strikers (less threatening without space in behind) and tracking the late runs of Marchisio from midfield.
(i) Hodgson is the first England manager to get repeated decent performances out of Gerrard. Hats off to him.
(ii) Rooney was world class in the six inch box, scarcely League 1 standard outside it.
(iii) I can imagine Carroll replacing Wellbeck for the Italy game.
(iv) Why did nobody pass to Young Theo? Bloody strange tactics, that.
Ukraine played the better football and lost.
There was nothing quite as funny as the two Swedish goals in the previous England match. Unless it was the duff officiating on the Ukraine “goal”.
Question for ZM (or anyone else): why does the bye-line official stand on the same side of the goal as that end’s linesman? It seems odd to me.
I know it won’t happen as it’s not something Hodgson sides do, but I really want to see us press the Italian’s high up the pitch.
Ireland were at their best when they did this two nights ago and it’s crucial that we stop Pirlo dictating the play. Italy looked genuinely vulnerable when pressed so high up!
http://tttfootball.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/england-1-ukraine-0-19th-june-2012/
Another dull game from the most disappointing group in the tournament. The one saving grace being the England-Sweden game but even that was basically a kick and rush fest.
I posted yesterday what a shame it is to see Croatia exit while any one of the France, England or Ukraine would go through. Just doesn’t seem right.
Hopefully Italy will continue to progress as one of the more interesting sides to watch, tactically and quality-wise. England will probably line up in pretty much the same fashion and I think this will play into Italy’s 3-1-4-2/3-5-2 if they choose to use it. Gerrard’s positioning last night was ripe for exploitation but Ukraine never made the most of it. His partnership with Parker is something that Italy will focus on. Also, Rooney’s inclusion means England seem dead set on deploying 2 forwards, which will suit the back 3. As some have pointed out, they (England’s forwards) will need to put in the work to stop Pirlo from controlling the game.
One option will be for England to get their fullbacks forward – though I doubt they will be that bold – but this can leave the channels open for the Italy forwards. Instead I expect to see Young pushed right back by Maggio.
I can’t really see how England can win any tactical battle other than by playing in the ultra-defensive manner we saw against France. However, I don’t think they will be as strong defensively as in the France game because of fatigue and because of Rooney’s inclusion. That’s not to say they won’t win though, they seem to have luck on their side so far.
I must say folk seem to be being a bit harsh on England. They’ve had their manager in place for barely 2 months. They’ve won the group (yes they could easily not have done so), they’re 3 first choice strikers have scored, their captain has 3 assists. This isn’t bad.
People seem to have some sort of delusion that England can ’step up a gear’ as if there’s a higher level they could play at, when, in actuality, this sort of performance (poor on the ball, reasonably good at the back, scoring from dead balls, crosses and the odd counter attack and reaching the QF) is their level and has been for about 15 years. In addition, even if they did have a large number of technically accomplished attacking players available that’s no guarantee they’re results would improve (see France, Holland etc).
I would certainly make Italy favourites over England, if only because of the amount of shots England seem to allow the opposition from the edge of their box, it’s tricky not to see Motolivo, De Rossi, Pirlo or Cassano exploiting this.
Captaincy appears to have brought the best out of Gerrard, who Hodgson has managed to coach a bit of discipline into, and seems to be thriving, setting up England’s first goals in each of the three group games. His ‘Hollywood’ passes being of more benefit to this counter attacking team, as well as making better choices of when to pass long and when to pass short, although he was caught dwelling on the ball on a few occasions, resulting in quick Ukrainian attacks, that England managed to snuff out courtesy of some good defensive work http://noeasyfootballblogsatthislevel.blogspot.co.uk/
I think during all matches of Euro Ukrainians shown all that they can on the pitch.
The paragraph “Rooney found space in deep-lying positions, but England couldn’t get the ball to him via the midfielders, who were closed down quickly. Instead, England looked better when the defence hit ambitious balls forward, bypassing the midfield completely. Their best chance of the first half came after a long diagonal from John Terry to Young, followed by a cross that should have been headed in by Rooney” sums up exactly why Carrick should have been made first choice for England (and therefore called up).
Parker is totally out of his depth. Carrick has the skill to pass out of tight situations and therefore start counter attacks, which would be crucial to how England now line up.
The fact that Carrick has been overlooked for so many years by england will always puzzle me
(Great website ZM)
@Carlos – thank god you’ve said the the points above so I haven’t had to.
England are a FIFA top 10 ranked side and play like a top 10 side aka beat sides outside the top 10 and get to quarterfinals regularly.
One of my bug bears is the suggestion that England’s level of possession is statistically much lower than other equivalent side. If the stats I’ve seen are correct the only sides whose possession stats significantly outweigh Englands are Spain (in the 70s) France (59%). Germany’s is only averaging 54% with Portugal’s even lower than ours in the low 40s. This doesn’t suggest free flowing proactive football in many of our rivals. As a football lover I do enjoy seeing all the tactical variations no matter the possession percentages. (Caveat, I am not at all suggesting that I wouldn’t love to see England with better possession stats).
The things that really disappoint me as an England supporter are how poor our transitions from defence to attack often are, along with the obsession of Rooney as a world class player. He is clearly a very good player but he blows hot and cold so often I find him painful to watch in internationals while the commentators eulogise over his every move.
What are everyone’s views on the potential of England to out Catenaccio the Italians of all people? Lets face it, it won’t be pretty but Italian teams always seemed to be given the benefit of doubt and labelled cultured or tactically astute when they use it but I can see the England team being labelled spirited and technically limited if they manage to pull off a win using it.
One last point (sorry) does anyone have a football dictionary definition for the word ‘technical’ as it seems to be bandied about in a random, often illogical, manner? It seems that in every article I read England are less technical than almost every other side they play, win or lose (and any score line) to the point that the term has lost all sensible meaning. In fact you know you are about to lose a football arguement when you resort to using it – witness the tactical buffoons Childs, Shearer and Hansen saying it on a regular basis.
The possession stats are interesting.
You need to weigh Germany’s stats in the context of their opponents though and the style of football they play. Denamrk, Holland and Portugal will all play a short passing game to some extent compared with Sweden and especially Ukraine who are more counter attacking. France were the obvious exceptions in England’s group.
Engalnd do not have players who are good enough to play a short passing game. You can argue about the merits of the formation and style which Hodgson has imposed but he has limited materials to work with.
Put simply, Hodgson is not worried about whether England have the ball or not. This may change when better teams await who can inflict greater damage but Sweden (defensive howlers aside) and Ukraine were both fairly blunt in attack.
No idea on why “technical” is banded around so freely these days. At the next tournament no doubt Hansen and Shearer will talk about the false 9 role. They generally follow about 5 or 6 years behind progress.
Follow me @chalkontheboots
http://www.chalkontheboots.wordpress.com
Thanks for the response @chalkontheboots.
It’s interesting your thought that we don’t have the player to play the short passing game. Do we just not pick that type of player for the team or not play them in that position when we have them? Cole and Carrick seem ideal for that position, being able to offer themselves for the out ball and not lose possession easily? They just don’t ever seem to ever get picked. Even Milner seems better suited than Parker to this central role. In fact if Hodgeson isn’t going to play Walcott from the start should he not swap Milner and Gerrard over?
Its maybe a sweeping generalisation to a certain extent, but in the UK we do not appear to value the same type of players who are valued on the continent.
Why is Carrick not in that team?
He is not a world beater but he is probably the best passer of a ball England have.
Why did Scholes not get more caps and why was the team not structured around him?
Why has Joe Cole never really succeeded despite his ability, always getting moved around from position to position?
But it is not always about the technical ability of the player. Some players just have greater intelligence on the pitch which can help compensate for their lesser ability.
I have a problem with Gerrard in that he has been tactically indisciplined for most of his career. It’s why Bentiez pushed him onto the right where he could do less damage to Liverpool when he wandered around. He also favours the big 50 yard pass rather than a simple 5 yard give and go. Its a bit of a setreotype to a degree but why did he never just pause for a second or two and then make a pass? It was always about power and pace. The physical attributes which are easier to develop than the ability to ping a pass between two defenders.
With England, Hodgson will not change this team into a progressive attacking side.
The present style is what you will get for as long as he is in charge. Yes, the shape and structure will continue to improve but you are not going to witness free flowing football.
He is the perfect short term appointment but I don’t think he is a long term appointment to help create an identity, a philosophy for English football in the future.
Or maybe he has already found that philosophy.
4-4-2 and hoof it down the park?
Follow me @chalkontheboots
http://www.chalkontheboots.wordpress.com
COTB, I like the way you have been spouting a lot of “truisms”, obviously gained from spending a lot of time reading comments and articles on zonal marking. If you have nothing genuine or insightful to say, then please dont pretend and please do not criticise people like Hansen and Shearer who I suspect do know a lot more about football than you do.
So far everything you have said is parroting the conventional wisdom, but with some error. FYI, Joe Cole was not moved around. He played most of his games for England and Chelsea at left midfield/wing. At West Ham, he played centrally in a 3 man midfield on occasion, incidentally, with Carrick. Scholes earned more than 50 caps for England. Didnt get more caps because he terminated his relationship with England as early as 2004.
The most ridiculous statement you have made is that Hodgson will not progressively introduce a more attack minded ethos to the team. Where you get your fact from you do not say and I will suggest you got it from somewhere where the sun dont shine. RH has been in charge of the team for less than 2 months. He is without a key midfield player in Wilshere and Rooney has been suspended for the first 2 games. He has dealt with controversy over Ferdinand’s non-selection, the loss of Cahill, Barry and Lampard and the difficult travel time issue. Despite this, England have very quickly become well-organised team, which makes its luck.
Do me a favour, you have a nice blog, why dont you write a unique and entertaining piece on your blog, maybe comparing the current defensive tactical system employed by RH to other systems employed by previously successful teams, such as Bearzot’s 1982 winners or Rehhagel’s 2004 team. You have some material right here on zonal marking to help you along.
Good luck!
I thought that Ukraine were actually quite clever in CM. As Gerrard/Parker didn’t push on, they could afford to just have Harmash in there, with Tymo covering at RB for the advanced Huysev.
On Monday Croatia was robbed by the ref since they didn’t get TWO clear penalties. Yesterday Ukraine was robbed. Platinis UEFA mafia continues to protect the so called “big horses” from getting kicked out of the tournament!
If this was the intention, why didn’t the ref see Ukraine’s clear offside position before the “goal”? Would have been far easier to “rob” Ukraine that way…
Do you mean your comment seriously? Ukraine was robbed big time.And only a complete idiot can deny this
But surely, if a player was in an offside position at the start of the move, any talk of ‘robbery’ is moot?
it seems like you Brits were the only ones who saw an offside situation. Come on, guys , don’t be ashamed to admit that the ref outruled a clear goal in a ridiculous way! By the way, you will go home in a few days anyway. you don’t have the slightest chanec even against this average Italy team
The goal shouldn’t have been counted, watch in replays where Milevsky was when the ball was played to him, prior to him passing to Devic – behind Terry and Lescott. Not to say that the officials didn’t make a mess of it, but there were two poor decisions there, not one (oh, and btw, I’m not English or an English supporter).
I dunno how many times we need to say “IT WAS OFFSIDE ANYWAY” before people stop claiming Ukraine were robbed.
The good thing is that at least one shit team will go home after the clash England vs Italy
… and one will progress to the semi finals, to be comprehensively beaten by Germany, but flattered by the fact they made the final 4.
The next match against Italy is going to be very very interesting, Hodgsons biggest test so far for his “tactical” brain!
Italy may not have grand defenders as they did in the past (Maldini, Cannavaro etc) but Prandelli has added variation to their football when going forward. As so against Croatia, the key to competing with Italy will be how England deal with Marchisio, Motta and Pirlo in particular.
Hart
Johnson:Terry:Lescott:Cole
Parker:Gerrard
Walcott:Rooney:Ox-Ch (Young – If match fit)
Welbeck
If Young is fit, then id like to see him and Walcott on the wings, but if he is not available then id like to see Oxlade-Chamberlain given a chance, however i reckon Hodgson will still field Milner, probably on the right. But either one of Young, Walcott and Ox-Ch on the left up against Maggio on the break would be an interesting battle for sure.
Welbeck id want to see upfront, but i have a feeling Hodgson will choose Carroll’s aerial presence and power over Welbecks incisive movement and link-up play, purely because this isnt the most-brilliant Italian defence ever, and crosses to him could indeed cause problems for the Italian defence.
Parker, Gerrard and Rooney, have a battle on their hands for that central zone, and the 2 wingers chosen will have to cover major ground up and down the field against the Italians 2 energetic wing-backs. Intriguing match, i cant wait.
And nothing about clear goal ???
“they probably would have rallied had Milevskiy’s deflected shot been given as a goal” was mentioned.
However, this is a tactics website, and an offside shot being ruled over the goal line or not isn’t a tactical isssue
I expect Italy to play England off the pitch and win decisively. I don’t see where England come up with an answer for Pirlo. Italy’s midfield should dominate the match to an almost absurd extent.
You must not have seen Italy play since the 2006 World Cup…
Pirlo is not the same man who orchestrated the Italians midfield in 2006. Nowadays, I see him tire easily, esp.later in the game, and uncomfortable whenever he’s pressed by opposing teams. I could see Parker picked him up when he’s in England’s half, or Rooney/Welbeck pressed him in Italy’s half. Although, I agree, he can produce one moment of brilliance and that would’ve been enough to see Italy through.
What people like KluivertsBoots seem to forget is, as deeply average as this England XI is (an issue exacerbated by Wilshere’s injury), Italy are just as average (compounded now by the injury to their only world class defender). Both teams had horror World Cups in 2010, and have had enough poor moments in the past 24 months to make it difficult to back either with much confidence (or to say they will play anyone “off the pitch”). There is no substantive evidence at all that Italy will “dominate the match to an almost absurd extent” ; only a romanticised notion of Italian football (or perhaps Serie A) which hasn’t been consistently on display in quite some time.
Secondly, it’s not as if how Pirlo plays will be a shock to Hodgson or England. He’s only played the deep-lying playmaker role for Milan, Juve and Italy since about 2004! Thus, his role in the current Italy team is neither unique nor unexpected. To suggest England will simply show up with “no answer” to Pirlo seems incredibly disingenuous. Pirlo is – as he so often is – the key to Italy, and Hodgson would have been contemplating how to minimise his influence ever since he first studied the draw and England’s potential Quarter Final opponents. Not to mention England’s senior players, the ones who have Champions League experience, have all encountered Pirlo before in Milan colours and will have ideas on how to stop him.
Assuming the formations in this picture (http://this11.com/boards/abCRxGeamG.jpg) are not unrealistic, am I the only one who sees Italy easily winning the midfield battle?
De Rossi will most likely start as part of a back three and end up picking Rooney, leaving Pirlo free. But yes I would be surprised if Italy did not dominate the midfield.
the best possible outcome would be to beat british, unfortunately ukraine was unlucky british very lucky
Please don’t equate the rest of the UK with this pish poor excuse of an English football team, cheers.
We just paid more to Platini than Ukraine did.
I think that the best option for Hodgson against Italy would be to field the starting XI of the game against France, with the exception of Rooney, that is: Hart-Johnson, Terry, Lescott,Cole- Milner, Gerrard, Parker, Ox-Rooney, Wellbeck , with Gerrard playing higher, taking turns with Rooney against Pirlo. This way he could match the midfield of Italy, also retaining some cover at the back. Then (65-70′) he could introduce Young and/or Walcott so as to exploit the flanks and be quicker on the break.
I’ve seen players who, when they are out of form, fail to succeed with their passes or dribbles, or lose their footing when defending, or misjudge the flight of a ball. But Rooney seems to lose his ability to control the ball. Is that unusual?
Hi, i think that i saw you visited my blog so i came to return the favor.
I am attempting to find things to enhance my web site!
I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!
England has a shitty team. even the lousy italians will destroy them. not to mention what Germany would do to this english team. Well, we would do the same thing we did two years to them. Average shit team from the rainy islands.
Disagreed. Germany themselves, regardless of your perfect record in the “group of death”, hasn’t been perfect in offensive movements. Oezil is inconsistent, sometimes brilliant, other time just a passenger in the game. The great thing about you is the defense collaboration of Hummels and Badstuber, Lahm’s consistency (best fullback in the world in my opinion), and Khedira’s good positioning.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Germany will still beat England IF they even meet, but I don’t think it’s going to be as comfortable as you expect.
The guy you’re replying to is just spouting reactionary nonsense, but I disagree with you about Ozil. He’s pretty consistant, a few times against Barca (and Spain actually) Busquets has got the better of him but he’s one of the more consistant players IMO.
I was referring to his performances in the Euro, mate. I think he’s great in the Portugal match, but against Netherlands and Denmark, he seems to wane in the second half (maybe it’s tiredness over being the primary supplier of goals in his clubside?) Anyway, maybe it’s too nitpicking of me, Germany still got a wealth of playmakers to choose from.
ZM, maybe you could write up a preview before the game on Sunday- I, along with many others would love to see what you have to think about how England’s style of play will fair against the Italians. Handling Pirlo I think we’ve all agreed will be key.
I personally think the Italians should play five in the middle, try and swamp Gerrard, Parker and the rather narrow at times Milner and Young.
If Hodgson plays the same tactics as what he’s been doing, I think the Italian coach could exploit them.
With all this focus on Pirlo, I would love for ZM to analyze other midfielders in the Italy squad, esp. Marchisio. I think his coming in late to the box will help overload that 2-man defense, esp.on the counter. I’ve not seen him much, mainly because I don’t watch too many Juventus or Serie A games, but I’m astounded by how similar his play is to Lampard in Chelsea – driving runs, good shot outside the box, good interception skills.
Di Natale will also be preferable to Balotelli for partnering Cassano IMO, because Lescott’s not that good in reading plays and intercepting passes.
Very true. An on rushing Marchisio will be important- put him near Gerrard and watch Gerrard get dragged around the park.
Do not play with your body. Your health is more important being tall or short.
When you start changing your natural features you loose the best thing in life.
Everyone is unique their own way. Start looking at people
who have deformed bodies and you will see that you have been given a
perfect body. There are people with lots of money who would trade your
body for all their money.. Let what mother nature gave
you be what you protect for life.. Cherish yourself as you are now.
Believe it or not you are going through a stage in life that will go away when as you
get older.. Be proud of your height and yourself.
Height means nothing in the end. I know things will work out for you now and in the future.
Thanks for that.
But what impact do you think it will have on a narrow midfield?
I`m surprised that Rakitskiy`s spraying of passes right up to the front in the first part of the game wasn`t mentioned. I found that interesting because Blokhin knew England would sit deep and this was a very effective way of eventually forcing the English strikers to close them down deep into their zone. The game evened out after the English forwards did that though.
ramsey12 on June 21, 2012 at 5:36 am
COTB, I like the way you have been spouting a lot of “truisms”, obviously gained from spending a lot of time reading comments and articles on zonal marking. If you have nothing genuine or insightful to say, then please dont pretend and please do not criticise people like Hansen and Shearer who I suspect do know a lot more about football than you do.
So far everything you have said is parroting the conventional wisdom, but with some error. FYI, Joe Cole was not moved around. He played most of his games for England and Chelsea at left midfield/wing. At West Ham, he played centrally in a 3 man midfield on occasion, incidentally, with Carrick. Scholes earned more than 50 caps for England. Didnt get more caps because he terminated his relationship with England as early as 2004.
The most ridiculous statement you have made is that Hodgson will not progressively introduce a more attack minded ethos to the team. Where you get your fact from you do not say and I will suggest you got it from somewhere where the sun dont shine. RH has been in charge of the team for less than 2 months. He is without a key midfield player in Wilshere and Rooney has been suspended for the first 2 games. He has dealt with controversy over Ferdinand’s non-selection, the loss of Cahill, Barry and Lampard and the difficult travel time issue. Despite this, England have very quickly become well-organised team, which makes its luck.
Do me a favour, you have a nice blog, why dont you write a unique and entertaining piece on your blog, maybe comparing the current defensive tactical system employed by RH to other systems employed by previously successful teams, such as Bearzot’s 1982 winners or Rehhagel’s 2004 team. You have some material right here on zonal marking to help you along.
Good luck!
Thanks for your kind comments. I’ll ignore the personal comments as I am not interested and don’t see the point in responding to that.
My point about Hodgson is that the structure etc of the team will continue to improve as players become more accustomed to his beliefs but in terms of the style of the team, that will not fundamentally change.
I am not criticsing what he has acheived to date. He does what he has done wherever he has been. His teams are well organised and disciplined.
The players you mention that are missing (Barry, Cahill and Lampard) would have reinforced the current structure of the team defensively and perhaps Lampard could have made more of an impact offensively.
Wilshere is a fantastic prospect but he is still developing at 20 and has only a handful of caps (5 or 6??).
With regard to Rehhagel and the Greek team, I’ll read up on what ZM has to say first and then make some posts for your viewing.
I think Ukraine played better than three lions. Roy Hodgson should’ve chosen another striker at Milner’s place. Rooney is a great player but he needs someone compatible to play with him. The coach should pair him up with a second place striker and see the magic they both can create.
I think that you guys forget that Pirlo is not the only creative mid that plays as DLP in a DM position for Italy when they play wıth a back 4. And I do think that they will play a back 4, since Barzagli is back, England will most likely play with 1 forward and will try to overload the wings. The main player will be once again De Rossi – covering Rooney and helping Pirlo with building up the play. Italy, when playing 4-4-2, posses some nice rotation, and they change from 4-2-2-2 to 4-1-2-1, 4-1-3-2, 4-2-2 diamond and a lot of different formations to keep options available. Another key will be Italy’s forward movement, and how they can keep the full backs bussy, perhaps we can see even a change from a back 4 to back 3 with De Rossi dropping back to track Rooney.
I think it will be interesting tactıcal battle and Italy having a strong Juve defense and mid with the addition of well performing De Rossi, can pass over England with an easy. But let’s w8 and see.
I have recently started a blog, the info you provide on this site has helped me greatly. Thank you for all of your time & work.