England v Italy preview
Possible starting line-ups
After three one-sided quarter-finals, this should be a much tighter, tenser tactical battle.
Roy Hodgson will name a standard 4-4-2 / 4-4-1-1 formation, and although there’s a chance that a more direct winger could start on the flanks, it’s probable that he’ll stick with the starting XI that overcame Ukraine in the final group game.
Cesare Prandelli’s formation is much less clear. Having used a 3-5-2 for Italy’s opening two games against Spain and Croatia, he switched to a 4-4-2 diamond for the win over Ireland.
Italy formation
Which formation will Prandelli play here? Prandelli has been keen to keep his starting shape a secret throughout the competition. First, he was annoyed that Italian journalists leaked his plan to switch to the diamond against Ireland. Then, he told off Andrea Barzagli in a press conference, when the Juventus defender told the media that Italy would “defend with four defenders”. Could this be an elaborate hoax, with Italy trying to trick Hodgson?
It’s not impossible, but it seems much more likely that Italy will play the diamond. Of course, they could switch between the formations within the match, as Daniele De Rossi played at centre-back in a back three, then in central midfield in a diamond. “We used Daniele De Rossi at centre-back in emergency situations, when using the three-man defence,” says Prandelli. “Now he is returning to midfield because we need his quality there.”
Wing play
The 3-5-2 arguably makes more sense in theory – it would allow a spare man at the back. But Italy were caught out with two-versus-one situations down the flanks against Croatia, and the system worked better against a Spanish side that had no proper wingers (or striker).
England will attack with width, and while the diamond doesn’t offer great protection for the full-backs, it should be able to shift laterally across the pitch to close down the England full-backs – who generally only attack one at a time. (With the diamond sliding from side to side, crossfield balls and switching the point of attack is theoretically the right approach for England, but unlikely unless Ashley Cole and Glen Johnson play higher up.)
Wide defenders
A more telling sign will be the selections of the wide defenders. For a back three Prandelli prefers natural wing-backs Christian Maggio and Emanuele Giaccherini, for a back four he wants Ignazio Abate and Federico Balzaretti. Prandelli has been intelligent in recognising the differences between playing as full-back and playing as wing-back, and has changed players accordingly.
Maggio is a fine wing-back for Napoli, but uncomfortable as a full-back. Giaccherini is a winger and can adapt to playing at wing-back, but full-back is too deep for him. As it happens, despite being more comfortable in a four, Abate and Balzaretti are better at going forward themselves, so England must attack them.
False ten?!
The other decision for Prandelli to make is at the top of the diamond. Thiago Motta played that role against Ireland, but is an injury doubt and Riccardo Montolivo may take his place. This position is a very interesting role within the context of the rest of the diamond, especially when Motta, more of a holding midfielder, plays. This man isn’t playing as a traditional Italian trequartista (like, for example, Francesco Totti). He isn’t directly connecting the midfield and attack. Instead, they tend to drop back into deeper positions and create space for the two shuttlers on the sides of the diamond to break into, while Pirlo also moves forward to become Italy’s true playmaker.
In the game against Ireland, Motta passed to Pirlo more frequently than any other player, showing that the Juventus man is the main creative threat despite being positioned twenty yards deeper.
Upfront, Mario Balotelli will probably start rather than Antonio Di Natale.
Hodgson decisions
For England, the first seven places in the side are assured – the goalkeeper, back four and two central midfielders have started all three games so far, and are set in stone. Ahead of that, Wayne Rooney will also play and Danny Welbeck is highly likely to be the main striker.
On the wings, there are question marks. Whichever way Italy play, they’ll be most vulnerable down the sides of the pitch – either England can create two-versus-one situations against the wing-backs in a 3-5-2, or (more likely) they can get their wingers to take on the full-backs, who will lack protection.
Hodgson likes James Milner because of his defensive awareness, and because England’s wide midfielders might get sucked inside to cope against Italy’s four central midfielders, Milner is well-suited to this game. Looking at the graphic above, he might be asked to pick up De Rossi. On the other side, Ashley Young has been disappointing so far, and because he tends to drift inside with the ball, Hodgson might be concerned he doesn’t have a direct winger to take advantage of Italy’s weaknesses on the flanks. Theo Walcott and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain will, in all probability, be substitutes – but either would be a great addition to the side, in order to stretch the play.
If Milner does pick up De Rossi, with Gerrard and Parker dealing with Montolivo (or Motta) and Marchisio, plus Rooney dropping back on Pirlo, the left-winger might be the out-ball.
Possession and Pirlo
Italy will dominate possession.They will flood the centre of the pitch with four good ball-players, and around 60%-40% is realistic. For their part, England’s approach without the ball will be particularly interesting. Hodgson insists on strict zone play, so Steven Gerrard and Scott Parker won’t be dragged around too much – but Italy’s midfield layout is peculiar, as Montolivo (or Motta) is essentially a decoy, with Marchisio looking to slide forward to the edge of the box, De Rossi powerfully storming forward, and Pirlo lurking in deeper positions. England could simply be outnumbered in that zone if Gerrard and Parker try to close down, but could allow Pirlo too much time if they don’t (which is far more likely).
This means Rooney will probably be asked to drop back on Pirlo and help out in the midfield zone, and Pirlo’s long distribution into the channels is very dangerous. The trouble with playing against Italy (as Spain demonstrated) is that opponents are keen to get their full-backs forward to capitalise on Italy’s weakness on the flanks – but this leaves them vulnerable to Cassano and Balotelli working the channels and dragging the centre-backs wide. If those get a couple of yards of space in wide positions, Pirlo will find them with diagonal balls.
Finally, set-pieces and crosses might be England’s best chance of scoring. Italy are the smallest squad at this tournament (although they’ll be taller than in previous matches) while Gerrard has been in superb crossing form when moving out to the right, having assisted goals for Joleon Lescott, Andy Carroll and Wayne Rooney from that flank.
Betfair recommended bets:
Marchisio to score first at 27
Frist!
cognrats.
Have a cookie.
There are people who seem to think England just have to turn up with their “passion” ans “spirit” and win it.
Name three
to an extent there’s some truth to that. we’re not going to win a technical battle and the game will depend to a large extent on how much energy we can put into pressuring pirlo. give him time on the ball and he’ll just play quarterback and we won’t be able to do anything about it. i guess ‘passion’ and ’spirit’ are just synonyms for ‘energy’ and ‘lack of technical ability’ in the media atm.
its been the same story since 1966.
While it obviously takes more than that, France v Spain showed what can happen when you don’t have “passion” and “spirit”. Needless to say, Malouda looked very spirited and passionate about his team’s cause when he stood spectator instead of tracking Xabi Alonso’s run.
Totally agreed. France could have played whatever tactics and formation against spain, with their attitude, work rate and lack of team spirit they would not have won anyhow.
I pray to GOD that Prandelli will use 3-5-2.With this 4-3-1-2 narrow formation,Italy will be destroyed by the English wingers.
Moreover,England squad is in much better fitness level than the italians.In the groups Italy have lost their domination after 60 minutes of play in each game due to low fitness level.
He’s not. Prandelli is definitely using a 4-3-1-2. The only problem I have with his lineup is his varying choices of trequartistas. It should be Diamanti or better yet Cassano behind Balotelli and Giovinco. That would be insane.
Yes,Giovinco behind the forwards would be best.
Talk about the Juventini’s understanding of the game
Ain’t de Rossi suspended due to his 2 yellow cards?
No he only has 1
this is one is really hard to call although italy likes to dominate the midfield and will flood it but still they havent anything great to impress . other than shooting from long range marchisio and montilivo havent done anything creative to stamp their authority on the game . italians are wholly dependent on cassano and in bits and part balotelli . for italy i think they like to get cassano or balotelli in one on one situations against terry and lescott where on they can do most of the damage .italy needs somebody to get beyond cassano and balotelli from the midfield . england cannot afford to have terry and lescott exposed and i am not too sure that they will follow cassano or balotelli out of their zone. which may get them the space but how of advantage can italy profit from it is a question mark .
i never like milner although people call him a tireless worker and what not but he doesnt posses any quality at all . for me my formation for england will be .
although young may drift inside he still did enough for me to start . roy’s reluctance to start walcott or chamberlain is known .
i would myself go with caroll upfront and this is my formation .
hart
johnson terry lescott cole
young gerrard parker welback
rooney
caroll .
welback has played on the left for sunderland very well and has done very well .ronney can run the channels and extend the play which can allow welback and young who both like to come inside or he can form a triangle with gerrard or parker to release both winger’s if he comes inside . caroll will provide the aerial threat which england require since italians love to flood the midfield england can find space on the wings and if the crosses ae good and accurate they can certainly cause the italian defense a lot of problem .
That midfield would get overrun by Italy, with Parker and Gerrard hung out to dry by a trio of forwards and an attacking winger to support them.
i really dont know how if italy would be narrower in the midfield then so would be england and wont that attacking winger be marked by england fullback. it seems to be like you are imagining italy playing with 13 players rather than 11 and most importantly even though montilivo and marchisio are there i havent them to be good users of the ball .
England will really struggle to handle Italy’s midfield. Rooney will have to track Pirlo, but Pirlo tends to drift higher up when being tracked by a striker, and I doubt how deep Rooney will go to track Pirlo. They will also struggle with the likes of Marchisio’s late runs into the box and will have to hang on I think to the second half.
But this is where it could get interesting, as Italy have notably dropped in the second half of games and England have the subs to threaten Italy. I would expect Walcott and Carroll to come on and England to attack Italy’s weak spot – their unprotected fullbacks. So England have a chance, but they will need to keep Italy at bay (no easy task) and be clinical late on.
How England handle Pirlo is important.
Rooney must track him but strike a balace and not negate his own attacking influence.
The Italian full backs have a hard shift ahead of them. Provide width for their own side in attack but also defend well, possibly with limited support when England attack.
http://thinkfootball.co.uk/england-vs-italy-tactical-preview/
I’m surprised to see that Young has been disappointing so far. I thought he’s been very decent, and the only thing I’m disappointed with when it comes to Young is his end product.
I think he gives much freedom to his full-back (Cole) since he’s very good defensively for a winger, and sometimes he’s quicker to track back than Cole is when Cole has been going forward.
Hopefully now that Rooney is back and has had a game, the Manchester United link can produce some great attacking football. I’ll actually be surprised is not disappointed if a Young cross won’t produce a few big chances for Rooney and Welbeck, but that’s more guesswork than anything else really.
And what a weapon Walcott is. Having the option to put him in after 60-70 minutes when all the other players are tired must be great. Rooney have had a brilliant link with a similar winger at United (Valencia) and maybe, if Rooney gets his passing game going, we can see some entertaining counter attacks. Rooney and Gerrard is brilliant at finding players who runs behind the defense.
Great preview again, as always.
I thought Young was relatively decent in the hole in the first game. Less well in the two games where he’s been pushed out on the wing. I would have been tempted to put him in the hole pairing with Rooney as he’s played for England in the past, and use Ox on the left wing. He’s young, but is trying to put in the effort to track back, and is a threat breaking forward.
i doubt Prandelli will go for the diamond. i think he will (and rightly should) go for 3 at the back, with Balzaretti and Maggio working the flanks. if De Rossi is deployed as a defender, Nocerino will deputise in midfield.
i think the decisive factor will be Italy using the space between England’s 2 banks of 4. if Balotelli keeps his cool and Cassano is given decent service, Italy will win. i don’t think this game will be about Pirlo as much as the others due to the nature of the opposition. as a result, i can see this one extend to extra time, easily!
older generations might have shuddered at the thought, but for the sake of football, i hope Italy win
As big a fan as I am of Wayne Rooney, tactical discipline defensively is not his forte. Although he might close Pirlo down from time to time, because of how deep England defend, he will not track him all the way back, or at least I don’t think he will. To truly negate Pirlo’s threat England will need a man on him for as much time as possible. Against Spain, as this blog rightly picked up on, Pirlo was by far and away the best player on the park (no mean feat against Spain!) and that was because he was allowed to drift into space and had enough time on the ball. The one time he has operated far less effectively was, again highlighted on this wonderful website, in the 2nd half against Croatia, when Modric was pushed higher up the park to constrict Pirlo’s space. I fear Hodgson might not be quite as flexible or as bold as Bilic, and England may struggle to contain Pirlo.
On a slightly different point, looking at how Italy will setup this evening, will Hodgson regret his decision to leave out Sturridge/Adam Johnson? I know both are greedy and/or inconsistent, but getting the ball forward quickly to wide players with genuine ability to take on fullbacks would be invaluable in a tie such as this. The wide players Hodgson has picked are plodders (Milner and Downing), flash in the pan (Young, and I say that as a Manchester United fan!, Walcott) or players he doesn’t have faith in (Ox-Chamberlain). Also, on the same point, how valuable would a central midfielder be who could get the ball out wide quickly and accurately i.e. Michael Carrick and/or Paul Scholes? I know Gerrard has been good at the tournament, but he is not one for picking the ball up from the centre backs and building attacks that way. It is one of the reasons we have struggled to keep the ball, the fact that the person generally picking the ball up from the centre backs is Scott Parker, who has neither the intelligence or the ability to pick out a decent pass. What he does instead is either pass the ball straight back to the centre backs for them then to kick it long, or take 5 touches and suck the momentum out of any passing move, before then giving it back to the centre back. But, what we will no doubt hear after the tournament is how wonderful Scott Parker was, how he ’stuck his body on the line’ and other hopelessly sycophantic overstatements from journalists, who will then move on to criticise England for not holding onto the ball!
I’ve seen some comments here regarding the “spirit of England” and how it has almost become a shield against criticisms of the team’s lack of technical ability, and I am inclined to agree with them. Certainly the inclusion and subsequent fawning over players like Scott Parker lead me to believe that England may be making use of said shield for a while to come yet. What they need to realise is that in order to compete effectively against the top sides you need clever technical players in the middle of the park, and a manager who is willing to be responsive to action on the pitch. I fear (or more accurately, I know) England have neither. If they are to get past Italy, or even dare-I-say-it to win the tournament, it should not be seen as a blueprint for the future, and should be grounded by the knowledge that England should be aspiring towards a style of football that will see them compete consistently, rather than as a one off.
Italy 2 – England 1
How important will Balotelli be today? He knows the Man City players well and I wonder if his inside knowledge will prove key to Italy’s chances today.
Milner is the key. His work rate is terrific and I think De Rossi will have to do just as much a job on him as he on De Rossi. I hope Hodgson sticks with Young on the left rather than going for Walcott or Oxlade-Chamberlain. That Man United link is crucial as Lars mentioned above. And finally Parker v Montolivo(if 4-3-1-2) should be a good battle.
I hope Italy win
I think Italy will be crazy not to play 3-5-2.
Stewart Downing? Left winger
Shame Hodgson did not bring an even better attacking midfielder Adam Johnson also from the Middlesbrough Academy.
Agree with that 100%.
Anyway, 1-0 Italy.
England 1-0 Italy
Seems you missed a word in your last post
Blimey, Rooney is playing superb. A pity he is already looking so tired in minute 44.
Huh? Are you watching re-runs of another game? He’s lazy, just waiting for the ball. Until Carroll came on, England were playing with 9 men.
Pirlo is running the game. They’re not even trying to mark him.
England are absolutely the worst football team to walk the face of this planet. Oh they are so crap in this game. If not for three of the English backs, they’d be down 3.
English football sucks. It’s complete crap. And the commentators are whining about shirt-pulling.
England are a pretty good football team actually, you are just mentally challenged.
where art thou, unchallenged brero?
eh? you think “England are absolutely the worst football team to walk the face of this planet” is a defensible statement? We held Italy to a draw after all, which was a fine result given the players we have.
Rooney was doing a few brilliant attack build-ups. Receiving the ball, turning, going past an opponent, playing a one-two with Welbeck, passing the ball out to Milner/Young. Those kind of things. What Ozil is doing for Germany usually.
Just the problem being Rooney totally exhausted (and sweating like an animal) after just 30 minutes. And the rest of England subsequently less and less willing to advance and offer help and outballs to him. I think he would have liked to close Pirlo down more, just was too tired.
So Greece was not euros worst side after all…
That’s a little unfair
Eire were worse than England. Not by much but worse!
well eire lost all their games badly, so I don’t think this is a fair comparison. England on the other hand did not lose a single game and have the same record in 90 minutes as the Italians (but with more goals).
And New Zealand were the only unbeaten team at the last world cup!
I really am tryng to remain objetive notwithstanding the fact that that I feel let down now its over. I promsed myself ‘never again’ last time; but,I got me hopes up again.
England are sixth on the FIFA ranking. I know that ain’t bad. There’s only five sets of international supporters out there who have enjoyed more success than England’s over the last couple of years. But being organised and hard to break down will only take you so far!
I don’t blame Roy, he’s a good coach. An English coach who maximises British strengths rather the worrying about the all too clear weaknesses.
I don’t blame the players anymore. They’re just one more generation produced by a football culture that does not value technical skill, passing and possssion (if we cannot accurately move the ball over 12 metres from one player to the next, why is anyone surprised we are bad at penalty shoot-outs?)
End of the day, England went as far as they could. But yes, I do think Eire were England lite. Same tactics, same philosophy, slighly poorer players.
Why oh why do we have to always treat international football like its the Battle of Dunkirk! Couldn’t we just once bringin a Dutchman (instead of anglo-philes who used Alen Wades’ theories to create a zonal marking version of catenaccio). Sven, Fabio, Roy they are all peas in a pod!
Oh well back to domestic footabll, what are the chances Brendan rodgers will win the title for me next year?
What’s that? Buckley’s oh well.
nice analysis
it turned out as you predicted
england refused to play football for most of the match, so im glad they lost
If wonder if Joe Hart studied this penalty kick from Pirlo?
youtube.com/watch?v=So8svW2DBVk&feature=related
I think he must’ve done. But how much braver was Pirlo for trying it on again having missed like that in the past? I imagine Hart probably thought he wouldn’t dare.
Hodgson made subs too soon, its almost like he forgot the game was longer than 90 minutes and Walcott but especially Carroll was introduced too soon. Both are gambles and alter the original game plan so i think they should have come later. I think Walcott and oxlade chamberlain would have been better options on the wing and more work needed to be done in behind the furthest striker. Wellbeck does a lot of off the ball work that we lost when the more static Carroll came on
Would have preferred Italy to play 4-3-3, as they obviously have the weaponry to do so in Borini & co. Possession would have been theirs, Pirlo would have drawn Rooney back or had all the time and space in the world, and England’s wide threat would have been effectively nullified. I was surprised to see England react to Italy’s formation and stay narrow and disappointed Prandelli still refused to try the 4-3-3, which, I think, would have worked even better against a narrow England. Was he just afraid to give it a go? There were actually a couple of moments when Montolivo or Diamanti drifted to the right and the Azzurri then seemed a bit like a front three, but I guess it was unintentional.
Midfield domination is the answer for you. The diamond had the English get narrow and Italian FBs took turns at taking advantage of this.
I’m afraid that’s not the answer, but merely a description of the English reaction. In my view, England never seemed interested in possession and therefore a 4-3-3 would have dominated central midfield as well as stretched the play and created more room for Pirlo to dictate the game from. Indeed it is the English fullbacks that should have taken advantage of Italy’s narrowness, had Hodgson thought of anything but defending.
Well, don’t you think that the English reaction was what Prandelli had planned?
A 4-3-3 gives you 3 midfielders, not 4 like the diamond.
Moreover, this side isn’t used to playing 4-3-3. On the other hand the movements of the false trequartista in the diamond, and the switch with the other CMs, are almost automatic to them.
I bet 4-3-3 never even came to mind to Prandelli while he prepared this game.
Huh sorry, this was my post, forgot to login.
The reaction most likely was indeed what Prandelli had planned, but it doesn’t really answer why he didn’t opt for 4-3-3, which possibly would have had even more advantages, as Italy still would have had more central midfielders than a reluctantly playing England and therefore would have dominated possession anyway.
I’m not saying Prandelli should have played a 4-3-3, just pointing out that I probably would have and definitely would’ve liked to see it in action. Hard to say if it never crossed his mind when preparing for this game but he has pondered it before. The inexperience of the squad in a 4-3-3 is obviously why I suggested he was afraid to try it.
Have I finally made myself clear? I did learn something from this game, if that’s what you’re aiming at with your questoning. And don’t get me wrong, I do appreciate it as it forces me to review my thinking and become better at tactics
Sure
My point is just that I have a different opinion on the 4-3-3 for Italy.
They don’t even have the personnel to do it. Except Diamanti maybe, none of the forwards has the workrate to do the wingers role.
And against England, it wouldn’t have kept Gerrard and Parker as busy as the 4 CMs did. Imo. But I guess we will never know
Italy have Borini and Giaccherini who, imo, are there because of the possibility of an attacking trident. Giaccherini already proved his adequate workrate by twice appearing as a wing-back. Not sure about Borini’s, but he too, even more so, would have posed a different sort of threat going forward.
If Italy had had wingers, their English counterparts would have had to stay wider and leave a lot of space for the Italian CM trio to roam against Gerrard and Parker, but at the end of the day, who knows how the two lads would have been the most occupied.
Thanks a lot for the chat Stavrogin!
In the end, and even though the match went to penalties, we can say this was another one-sided quarterfinal. It’s not surprising to me, I’ve seen 2 of England’s matches (and the highlights of their match vs the Ukraine) and they seemed to be relying on pure luck. Chelsea’s luck didnt run out until they won the CL but unfortunately for England their luck just ran out. Italy are a vastly superior side and fully deserved to advance, it’s only unfortunate they had to wait so long to win the match.
A person necessarily assist to make critically posts I might state. This is the first time I frequented your web page and thus far? I surprised with the analysis you made to make this actual publish amazing. Wonderful job!