WC2010 Tactics Discussion - Group C - Algeria, England, Slovenia, USA

[Guv'nor]

Have said it time over, the only option for England, that acknowledges their shortcomings and plays to their strengths is the Zona Mista.

Issues:

1. No left winger - The 4-4-2 relies on balance and thrives on its ability to stretch the park with its wingers. If one decides to play flankers cutting in, then the fullbacks have to be marauding or the strikers need to peel wide to create space and avoid congestion. England have struggled with this system since the promise of Darren Eadie came a' cropper.

2. No central focal point - In keeping with teh above argument, we've seen Rooney drift into the channels to allow for Gerrard to cut in off the flank. Heskey is a support striker/deeplying targetman and tends to play too close to the midfield, meaning their is no outlet for the balls from midfield.

3. Fullbacks - Ashley Cole is playing within himself because of the uncertainty defensively. Glenn Johnson doesnt offer enough defensively and to compensate for that, Lennon was dropping deep to support his fullback. Again, where are the outlets for midfield? With Cole scared to push on because of the obvious weaknesses at the back, the onus is on Gerrard to cut in off the flank, run into the middle of the field, where upon he has nobody to pass to and therefore take the shot on.

4. Rigidity - The 4-4-2 is too rigid a system for the fluidity Capello wants and as a consequence, they've ground to a halt!

The Zona Mista

1. Addresses the left-winger issue, by moving Cole into wingback and replacling Glenn Johnson with another centreback. Carragher is key here, as having played at fullback before, he's capable of moving into the channels and defending wide when needed.

2. To compensate for the lopsided defensively line-up, James Milner takes the right-wing role. Having the energy to work in both direction, Milner offers balance to the assymetry.

3. The lack of creativity in midfield, as as consequence of players dropping too deep and therefore offering no outlet for the pass is addressed by playing Jazzy Joe Cole in the centre. The Zona Mista allows for a midfield trio. Barry holds and Joe Cole the creative source, Lampard is able to concentrate on his movement off the ball ala his role at Chelsea.

4. The central focal point is offered by Lampard running from deep and Gerrard playing off Rooney. Should Fat Wayne decide to drift wide and double up with Cole, there are still enough bodies in central areas to maintain attacking pressure.

"Back of the net!"

Guv'nor.

[Guv'nor]

Very disappointed Fonzarelli didnt take a proper holding man. Scott Parker would've been worth a run out in the friendlies ahead of Huddlestone. He was never going to take both Tom and Carrick, it was either, or. Parker offers something completely different and would've fit nicely into the Zona Mista system.

[crouchaldinho]

Zona Mista? It's not the 1970s!

[Jenko_EFC]

I wouldn't say the zona mista would be the best option. However, I do have an old option that would suit England and most top teams well : The Metodo. I think there's a thread somewhere about it but basically this is the wiki picture:

John Terry and Upson/Carragher at the back, Johnson and Cole constantly getting forward, Barry in that holding role, Gerrard and Lampard just ahead of him, Lennon and Shaun Wright-Phillips part of the front three and Rooney up-front on his own. Could even put Rooney out wide and act as an inside forward with Crouch/Heskey up-front on their own nodding the ball on.

I can see similarities between this and Barca's system with Toure/Busquets the holding role, the fullbacks getting forward, 3 up-front but acting as inside forwards and Xavi and Iniesta playmaking from the inside FW role on the image but that isn't true. You get the idea.

[crouchaldinho]

And Capello is getting slated for sticking with the 'old fashioned' 4-4-2!

You guys.

[Jenko_EFC]

Circle of life .

[crouchaldinho]

What England need is pretty simple to be honest.

Clearly what we need is Mike Bassett in charge of the national team.

'Ladies and gentleman, England will be playing 4 4 ******* 2!'

And this half-time team talk would have sorted the England boys out:

[phidelta42]

The most likely explanation is the players just aren't as good as the media, public, and indeed the players themselves like to think. Some people blame the foreign players in the prem, but perhaps they are the driving factor behind the club form of our so-called world class players.

[SFraser]

What England need in my opinion is a playmaker. Someone comfortable playing good football in midfield that can sit and ping passes around from infront of the opponents deep and packed defences, spreading play or looking for good direct balls through the lines into feet.

If you don't have a player in midfield capable of getting a hold on the game against these almighty packed defences, you are not going to be able to shift players around, you are not going to be able to deliver accurate passes from deep, you are not going to be able to give your more advanced players a chance of controlling the ball first time. It's all very well playing Lampard and Gerrard in the same side, if you have someone like Beckham that can put down inch perfect "artillery fire" passes amongst all the movement upfront.

If you don't have a player like this in your team at this World Cup, someone that is going to face ten man defences head on and deliver surgical passes and pass-and-move well through the opponents midfield, then you are going home if you have the favourites tag.

Look at the amount of low-workrate, low speed, low physical presence playmakers a side like Manchester United has. Carrick, Scholes, Giggs, Berbatov and very often 3 of these 4 play. Scholes + Giggs + Berbatov through the middle combined to telling and accurate crosses from Valencia into Rooney is how a side like Manchester United break down packed defences. What happened to Liverpool when they lost Alonso? What happened to Arsenal when Fabregas got injured?

As I said in Crouchaldinho's "Regista" thread, the playmaker that hovers around in space infront of deep and packed defences is just about the most important player in top class teams with big reputations. You have to play great football to get within 30 yards of todays rock-solid defences, let alone open them up.

England have good midfielders, Barry, Lampard and Gerrard are not rubbish by any stretch of the imagination. They don't have any genuine playmakers, they don't have a Regista let alone two or three that can dominate packed midfields with pass-and-move. And to cap it all off, the threat from the flanks is dire. Nothing through the middle, nothing from wide, nothing hitting the back of the net. It doesn't matter how awesome or convoluted or detailed or clever the play of teams like Barcelona might look, it's all about getting an attack going through the middle or down the flanks. If you need creativity and skill you use creativity and skill, if you need power and physical presence you use power and physical presence. England, and every other high reputation side in the World Cup, needs skill and creativity through the middle. England don't have any.

[Deep Lying Playmaker]

The most likely explanation is the players just aren't as good as the media, public, and indeed the players themselves like to think. Some people blame the foreign players in the prem, but perhaps they are the driving factor behind the club form of our so-called world class players.

I think you are absolutely right about that, however it has been proven that a side with relatively poor players can have success, it's about playing with a system that suits the team (think Greece). With England Capello will have a system drilled into the players (he is Italian after all) but not only did they not take it onto the pitch, they didn't take their talent either. Seriously I've never seen 11 players all have such bad games at the same time, and that's not tactical it's the players mentality. As I've said before most of these players have been tried in tournament football and have failed. If this was FM I'd do this

GK-James-Keeper-Defend

RB-Johnson-Fullback-Automatic

LB-Cole-Fullback-Automatic

CB-Terry-Centreback-Defend

CB-Dawson-Cenrtreback-Defend

MC-Barry-Ballwinner-Defend

MC-Carrick-Deep Playmaker-Support

AMC-Gerrard-Att Mid-Attack

AMR-Milner-Inside Forward-Support

AML-Cole-Inside Forward-Support

ST-Rooney-Complete Forward-Support

IRL I don't think Capello can do anything tactical about this situation, All I'd do is Show each player which part of the pitch is his responsibility,try to make training a laugh this week, take as much pressure off as I could, and just tell them to go play without too much emphasis on tactics and systems, because to me they look bogged down with it.

Personally I don't think Capello will do any of that because he has a way of doing things that works and wins things. I said from day one that if Capello can't make this team work then nobody can and the responsibility lies with the players, well it appears to have come to that now and I think this generation needs to be faded out in favour of people with a bit more character.............And passing ability.

[phidelta42]

Do you think a midfield 5 of

Carrick at DM as DLP

Barry and Milner playing narrow as wide mids on support duty

Joe Cole and Gerrard playing as AMCs

would work?

Would be pretty much a Christmas tree shape and the width would have to be coming from the fullbacks. I tend to think by dropping Lampard for Carrick and using Barry and Milner in the wide positions you get a more intelligent midfield straight away.

Gerrard and Lennon wide doesn't get the best out of England's fullbacks, and despite the press Johnson gets our Fullbacks are both genuine class.

[Deep Lying Playmaker]

I'd play Barry and Carrick as MC's not DM's, Carrick would stay central and Barry would drop back when we didn't have the ball to protect the CB's. Dont know if you've played with inside forward's on FM but I find they do stay wide when needed and cut inside when there's no cross on. The way I see the system it gives you width,more firepower and a bit of craft in the middle.

[hbtfdbs]

Instead of being told what position theyre playing 2 hours before the game, they should have to pick their position out of a hat ...

[heathxxx]

I think for the final group game, a decision needs to be made in midfield.

I would quite like to see a more adventurous approach. I would see Barry sat as the DMC in front of the defence, Carrick used as a deep-lying-playmaker MC, with either Lampard or Gerrard as the other MC to get forward more. Of Carrick, Lampard and Gerrard, I see Carrick being the player better able to pick out passes. Gerrard for me would get the nod ahead of Lampard as the more attacking minded MC.

Up front, I would start with Rooney in a left sided free role behind Defoe, with Wright-Phillips or Lennon wide right.

Further width would come from the full-backs getting forward. Barry would stay deep, able to cover centrally or laterally.

[crouchaldinho]

I'd go for that exactly Heathxxx.

Carrick to come in with a brief to dictate the midfield alongside Barry. Gerrard playing off Rooney and I'd start with Wright-Phillips wide right.

Crouchy to come off the bench and go two up top if we need a goal in the second-half.

It's easy this manager lark..... when you're sitting on the sofa and the team you pick never has to go out and play!

[SFraser]

Carrick is the obvious "missing link" if he wasn't having such an absolutely horrific season.

I'm not so sure about Gerrard myself. He is the captain and practically undroppable, but I reckon his "action man" style of play is one of the most detrimental aspects of Englands midfield performance.

If I was the manager, and not just sitting on the sofa picking imaginary teams, I would seriously consider playing two wingers, two attacking fullbacks and two midfielders to play the ball wide, and then spend 90 minutes whipping crosses into the box. No way in hell is that England midfield going to play through anyone in this World Cup, so with Crouch/Heskey and Rooney running with pace from deep and picking up good space, why not shell the box for 90 minutes?

Ofcourse that depends on the ability to get the ball wide and construct play down the flanks, but there is a lot less players in those areas and they tend to be alot easier to attack than a line of four and five through the middle.

Ideally England would have both, a threat through the middle and a threat from out-wide. But from what I have seen of England so far they have managed to bring neither to the Cup. Lots of aggression and famous names and hardwork and big bodies, but not one single method of doing what counts, building attacks through the middle or down the flanks.

How can you expect to win any game if you cannot attack through the middle or attack down the flanks? There is nowhere else to attack from.

[phidelta42]

It might help if Rooney gets told that dropping into the defensive half to take the ball from the centre half is a subbable offence. At times, he reminds me of the ball greedy kid in the playground taking the ball off your toes only to try and fail to beat the other team on his own.

[SFraser]

It might help if Rooney gets told that dropping into the defensive half to take the ball from the centre half is a subbable offence. At times, he reminds me of the ball greedy kid in the playground taking the ball off your toes only to try and fail to beat the other team on his own.

Well the team around him is playing with all the finesse, delicacy and skillful offense as the Tzar Bomba.

Rooney isn't suited to this England side. You would get far better mileage out of a second winger and Crouch upfront.

[Guv'nor]

Zona Mista? It's not the 1970s!

Take a closer look at the Barcelona formation vs. Arsenal.

[crouchaldinho]

Take a closer look at the Barcelona formation vs. Arsenal.

No man marking and no sweeper for a start. Zona Mista is Italian for 'mixed zone'. A back four zonal marking is pretty sacrosanct in modern top flight football (at least in the majority of cases in Europe).

Yes, maybe you can talk about similar shapes evolving during play but that's where the comparison should surely end. And hasn't the 4-4-2 pretty much always had one fullback who gets forward more often than the other and one forward who plays as the second striker? I'm not convinced anyway.

[Deep Lying Playmaker]

It's easy this manager lark..... when you're sitting on the sofa and the team you pick never has to go out and play!

Actually I think most of the lineup's shown in this thread, given a decent idea of how to play, would give a good account of themselves. I can't imagine a manager the calibre of Capello would send any team out to play as badly as England did through a tactical mistake, he knows what he's doing and leaves nothing to chance. The only other explanation, given the form of qualifying, is the players freeze under the pressure of a tournament, and therefore have no business being there.

It's horrible having to say this but forget the World Cup, in fact forget the next 2 or 3 World Cup's. Every major footballing nation has a national football academy, or equivalent, that teaches kids how to play proper football, that's why we get outplayed, and that's why we won't win any tournament until we catch up. Players character and the ability to play under the expectation of the country, sadly we can only hope the next generation are a bit stronger minded.

[crouchaldinho]

It's horrible having to say this but forget the World Cup, in fact forget the next 2 or 3 World Cup's. Every major footballing nation has a national football academy, or equivalent, that teaches kids how to play proper football, that's why we get outplayed, and that's why we won't win any tournament until we catch up. Players character and the ability to play under the expectation of the country, sadly we can only hope the next generation are a bit stronger minded.

Depressing but true DLP. We need to put in place what the Italians have to educate their players and managers. And for that to happen, there also has to be a cultural change. It needs to start with those in charge of coaching the players at their clubs. We need to have English managers and coaches who are willing to learn their trade and who are willing to undertake the necessary training. Attitudes need to fundamentally change.

To be honest, a lot needs to change and we all know it, and the change needs to come from the top. The money grabbing Premier League and the FA are at fault as much as any cultural aspect in my opinion.

[SCIAG]

Look at the current England squad and the spine of it is the same as 8 years ago,

No it isn't.

Seaman, Campbell, Ferdinand, Butt, Scholes, Owen, Heskey. Our spine against Brazil in the 2002 QF. Only two of those players are in the current squad. That's less than a third of the spine.

Of the other 7 players to play for England that day, only two are in the squad, and only two unused subs are in this squad (though two or three more probably would be if it weren't for injuries and affairs). 6 out of 23 squad members? Brilliant.

Going forward, we may have another problem to deal with- players abandoning us to play for teams where they perceive to have more of a chance at a young age. The obvious one is Wales, but second and third generation immigrants will do the same. I think we should wave goodbye to Gerrard, Lampard, Ferdinand and maybe a few others after this World Cup and look to get in younger equivalents. If our next big thing decides he'll get more caps playing for Scotland or Wales (or Turkey or Poland...), then we've missed out. If we show that we, like Wales and Germany, will use young players, which may mean putting them in before they're necessarily the best choice, we may secure two squad players, and I don't mean by simply stopping them moving by capping them.

I waffled a bit there. Anyway, there was a pretty major program to improve grassroots football after 2006. Youth clubs (or deep lower league clubs with youth systems) receive rewards if they have all their coaches trained to a certain standard.

I do think that any drop off we see will be universal through the traditional European footballing powers. After all, the same factors (competition with modern entertainment, pressure to perform academically) apply throughout Europe. I imagine Germany will be slightly less affected due to population and the talent pool.

That has managed to be off topic in nearly every way possible, so I'll say that randomly changing the system is pointless because the problems are not with the system per say.

[SCIAG]

It's horrible having to say this but forget the World Cup, in fact forget the next 2 or 3 World Cup's. Every major footballing nation has a national football academy, or equivalent, that teaches kids how to play proper football, that's why we get outplayed, and that's why we won't win any tournament until we catch up. Players character and the ability to play under the expectation of the country, sadly we can only hope the next generation are a bit stronger minded.

I'm struggling to understand the message there. Is it solely related to mental pressure on the big stage? If so, I agree with you. I disagree that our youth structure is relatively weak. We tend to do very well in youth tournaments.

[Deep Lying Playmaker]

I wouldn't put too much stock on youth tournaments really, I don't think they have a great deal to do with senior affairs, especially in Europe. Places like Clairefontaine in France, and more to the point the Brazilian youth system, are designed solely to provide technically proficient footballers to help the senior national team win major championships. Under 21 championships help with the development of these players, but tactics and silverware are seen as less important in many ways than the development of the players.

Winning the World Cup is a national enterprise in Brazil, and is seen as a duty. In England, frankly I don't think the players are up to it because they are taught how their particular club plays not the national team. Most major fooball nations realised this years ago and built national academies, England didn't bother and are paying now.

[lam]

And Capello is getting slated for sticking with the 'old fashioned' 4-4-2!

You guys.

Carrick is the obvious "missing link" if he wasn't having such an absolutely horrific season.

I'm not so sure about Gerrard myself. He is the captain and practically undroppable, but I reckon his "action man" style of play is one of the most detrimental aspects of Englands midfield performance.

If I was the manager, and not just sitting on the sofa picking imaginary teams, I would seriously consider playing two wingers, two attacking fullbacks and two midfielders to play the ball wide, and then spend 90 minutes whipping crosses into the box. No way in hell is that England midfield going to play through anyone in this World Cup, so with Crouch/Heskey and Rooney running with pace from deep and picking up good space, why not shell the box for 90 minutes?....

I do beleive the 442 can work. Just not with his current selection. YOu can not play a 442 with Lampard and Gerrard playing at the same time, as soon as he changes that combination I think everything else will start to fall into place.

He needs to drop one of those two and Heskey and then the following things will start to materialise:

1. Gerrard will need to consider his 'role' in the playing team very carefully, if he starts playing poorly, then he will know there is a great MCA sitting on the bench to come on and replace him (Lampard) and vice versa if Lampard starts.

2. Rooney will stop having to make so much space for an MCA, who is playing as an ML/AML who doesnt like playing there and to be honest, doesnt really 'know' how to play there. Therefore he will start having a better game.

3. This will create an opening on the left side for one of two things and opponent requirements will shape this. Either play SWR or Lennon on the left to go high and whip in crosses OR play Joe Cole there, who knows how to play there and will cut inside. I would rather see Joe Cole there as leaving SWR on the bench will give Lennon something to think about.

4. If Heskey is dropped you then have the following options: Playing Defoe high with Rooney deep, or Crouch deep (arriving late for headers) and Rooney high.

5. Depending on requirements, Barry can either hold the midfield as well as being slightly attacking or he can sit WAY back and allow the Wingbacks to get forward (more likely).

But all this relies on two changes as listed above. I dont know how many years it has taken to understand that in a 442 you can not play Lamps and Gerrard..... and one MAJOR MAJOR thing.... there is NOTHING wrong at all with having talent on the bench. You do NOT have to play your best players all the time to the detriment of the remainder of the team.

In someways, I see the Manager as the Tactics Creator in FM. He will pick the best team based purely on individuals. He will then design a tactic based purely on individuals. At no point is the 'team' considered.

I think he has made a mistake of choosing Gerrard as the Captain. Doing so makes it very tough indeed to not start him or to sub him.

LAM

[crouchaldinho]

I do beleive the 442 can work. Just not with his current selection. YOu can not play a 442 with Lampard and Gerrard playing at the same time, as soon as he changes that combination I think everything else will start to fall into place.

The dualism of Gerrard and Lampard is a strange one really. Why can't they play together? Surely they should be able to? It's an age-old mystery, which actually has me looking forward to the day that they both retire from International football! It seems to me that they both lack the intelligence to adjust to playing together. It's almost as if Gerrard, in particular, cannot function in a tactical system which doesn't allow him complete freedom as he has at Liverpool.

I agree that, for now at least, one should play and one should be dropped.

4. If Heskey is dropped you then have the following options: Playing Defoe high with Rooney deep, or Crouch deep (arriving late for headers) and Rooney high.

Crouch and Rooney is the answer for me and they can both take it in turns to drop off as they tend to do when playing together.

For me, if you're going to stick to 4-4-2, I would go with the following team:

			James

Johnson		Terry 		Upson		A.Cole

Lennon		Gerrard		Barry		J.Cole

		Crouch		Rooney	

Barry to sit and cover, Gerrard with license to play box-to-box and roam. Crouch is important to me as I think his touch is very good and he is able to hold the ball well and make possession-based passes. Few people see what a technically able player he is and he could make a major difference to England's possession retention.

My personal choice would be the following though:

			James

Johnson		Terry 		Upson		A.Cole

		Carrick		Barry		

Lennon			Gerrard			J.Cole

			Rooney

4-2-3-1 with Carrick and Barry as the 'holders'. I think Carrick holds and passes the ball really well, which has been a major problem for England so far. When I watched England v Egypt earlier this year, Carrick was one of the players to change the game in the second-half with his passing ability in the midfield. Using this system would allow us to solve the Gerrard issue and give him the freedom to fulfil the same role as he does with his club.

[phidelta42]

Swap Lennon out for Milner and we're on the same page Barry is seen as key for his footballing brain. Milner has the same quality.

Capello has made the same point about intelligence in midfield, saying: "I don't understand why during a game we don't change the rhythm or the speed. We are really slow. At this World Cup if you don't run or press or fight it is difficult to go forward."

[dz47]

I'd go with Croucaldinho's lineup too. One of the biggest problems has been the total lack of ability to maintain posession through the middle, and Carrick is really the only player who can offer that. He should work well with Barry as a sort of double pivot. It also allows the fullbacks to get forward safer in the knowledge that they are more protected. Gerrard can play in his best position and focus on attacking gung ho, which is about the only thing he can do at a 'world class' level. Lampard can come on late if needed to exploit space with his late runs into the box. For me J Cole is an absolute must to start, as he is one of our most technical players and capable of maintaining posession both wide and high, and can offer the creativity in the final 3rd that has so far been totally lacking. Lennon can use his pace out wide to try to drag defenders and open space for Rooney and Gerrard from deep (i actually think that Milner is the better all round player, but we need early goals and i think Lennon is slightly more likley to provide this edge). Finally, Rooney should benefit from the additional creativity around him without having the mental burden of having to be the one to score all the goals (because we know that heskey couldn't even finish in an open goal from 5 metres out), or the need to come back so deep to get the ball. THere is also the fact that he and Carrick can read each other and are more likely to be able to link up effectively with penetrative passes. So yeah, this is the way to go for me.

[lam]

			James

Johnson		Terry 		Upson		A.Cole

		Carrick		Barry		

Lennon			Gerrard			J.Cole

			Rooney

4-2-3-1 with Carrick and Barry as the 'holders'. I think Carrick holds and passes the ball really well, which has been a major problem for England so far. When I watched England v Egypt earlier this year, Carrick was one of the players to change the game in the second-half with his passing ability in the midfield. Using this system would allow us to solve the Gerrard issue and give him the freedom to fulfil the same role as he does with his club.

My issue with this strategy is twofold.

1. Rooney likes coming deep and this will leave no one really upfront and he is not the paceman that some other teams have when playing this tactic and neither Lennon or Cole possess the ability to score enough goals to warrant this. It means ROoney playing upfront AND staying up front. The first 10 minutes during a game where he doesnt see the ball, this tactic will fall apart.

2. This tactic involves slow build up play with lots of 'off the ball movement' and sadly all england can manage is a variant of this, and I dont mean the tactic, I mean the phrase! They 'oof the ball'. They have no patience. They all HAVE to dart forward. I guess in terms of FM instructions they seem to be on High Direct passing with RFD on all wide players and the MA. They need to be at lowest mixed or even short passing with MIXED RFD on most players.

If you perhaps considered Garrard in Carricks place with freedom and Rooney in Gerrards position with Defoe up front... then mabye......

But, back to the 442, I agree with your lineup and I really do like Crouch. I dont care if he is as tall as the Jolly Green giant and has legs as long as the Eiffel Tower, he controls the ball very well and he scores goals..... now, compare that to Heskey and you have to ask yourself what the hell the Manager is doing?

[Guv'nor]

Granted, Zona Mista was very much the strategy and the tactic was just an addendum. Its the shape which one is drawing reference to. There is a lack of balance in the side ironically, given that the 4-4-2 is supposedly the beacon of balanced formations! The above shape allows Cole to push on, in the knowledge that there is enough bodies left behind to assume numerical advantage or parity with most attacking units.

Milner's industry compensates for the extra centrehalf in place of Glenn Johnson. The 3-man midfield allowed by Ashley Cole's wingback status and the defensive shape, allows for a creative source ala Joe Cole to be played, without having to drop potential match-winners Fat Frank or Stevie G.

Upfront, Rooney spearheads the attack with Gerrard deep-lying. Theres enough bodies in the centre to assume numerical advantage and hopefully control. The wide areas are manned by players compeetent in both phases of play. The third centreback is capable of defending in the channels through a familiarity with the fullback position and then theres the support in wide areas which comes from either of the midfielders wide of centre or the frontlinne.

England's problem is rigidity, they need a system will can accomodate change in keeping with the games demands. This can fast become a 3-5-2/4-4-2/4-5-1/4-3-3. It not just the superior quality, but the variety in shapes that added to Arsenal's demise vs. Barcelona. Keita was wide left, then mid-cent. Messi was wide-right, then deep-lying. Pedro was all over the place. There was so much fluidity, Arsenal couldn't counteract.

No man marking and no sweeper for a start. Zona Mista is Italian for 'mixed zone'. A back four zonal marking is pretty sacrosanct in modern top flight football (at least in the majority of cases in Europe).

Yes, maybe you can talk about similar shapes evolving during play but that's where the comparison should surely end. And hasn't the 4-4-2 pretty much always had one fullback who gets forward more often than the other and one forward who plays as the second striker? I'm not convinced anyway.

[crouchaldinho]

..... given that the 4-4-2 is supposedly the beacon of balanced formations!

England's problem is rigidity' date=' they need a system will can accomodate change in keeping with the games demands. This can fast become a 3-5-2/4-4-2/4-5-1/4-3-3. [/quote']

It seems to me that you are saying the problem is with rigidity and poorly defined roles but this isn't the fault of the 4-4-2 system. There isn't something inherent in a 4-4-2 shape that it should be rigid and predictable. Think of Arsenal's 4-4-2 a few seasons back. During the different phases of a match, the initial three lines of the 4-4-2 could go through variations too, to become shapes such as 4-2-4, 3-4-3, 3-4-1-2, 3-3-1-3 and so on and so forth.

Anyway, moving on, just look at how many nations are using 4-2-3-1 style formations with two holders shielding the defence at this World Cup. Most of the bigger sides (e.g. the Dutch, the Germans, the Spanish, the French, the Italians - although the less said about the last two, the better - even Brazil are playing with two holders). It helps the fullbacks push forward and enables the front four to roam, create and score goals. I can't help but feel that such a system would both suit England and could give them their best chance of pushing on in this World Cup.

[crouchaldinho]

1. Rooney likes coming deep and this will leave no one really upfront and he is not the paceman that some other teams have when playing this tactic and neither Lennon or Cole possess the ability to score enough goals to warrant this. It means ROoney playing upfront AND staying up front. The first 10 minutes during a game where he doesnt see the ball, this tactic will fall apart.

Can't see that myself. Rooney has played the lone role with Manchester United and I don't see why he couldn't do it for England.

If you perhaps considered Garrard in Carricks place with freedom and Rooney in Gerrards position with Defoe up front... then mabye......

Personally, I think Defoe would be the last person in the world I would play up top on his own. He is a poacher and needs a strike partner in my opinion.

But, back to the 442, I agree with your lineup and I really do like Crouch. I dont care if he is as tall as the Jolly Green giant and has legs as long as the Eiffel Tower, he controls the ball very well and he scores goals..... now, compare that to Heskey and you have to ask yourself what the hell the Manager is doing?

I like Heskey as a player but I have to agree. England would have had much more success not only in terms of keeping the ball but also in terms of goalscoring with Crouch on the pitch.

[SFraser]

Can't see that myself. Rooney has played the lone role with Manchester United and I don't see why he couldn't do it for England.

Completely different set of players. There is absolutely no comparison between Englands midfield and second strikers and Manchester United's midfield and second strikers. Capello uses Barry where Ferguson uses Scholes. Capello uses Heskey where Ferguson uses Berbatov. It might look similar but it could not be more fundamentally different.

To get Rooney playing more like he does for Manchester United, England need to radically rethink their midfield. Rooney is not going to bury crosses from Lennon or finish throughballs from Heskey and Milner, nor run onto long passes from Barry. He will bust a gut trying to do so, but that doesn't change the utter rubbish that is the English build-up play.

[SCIAG]

Rooney is not going to bury crosses from Lennon

Didn't Rooney score something like 10 headers last season, mostly from Valencia's crosses?

[SFraser]

Didn't Rooney score something like 10 headers last season, mostly from Valencia's crosses?

Atleast. Nearly scored a hat-trick of the best headers you will ever see against Milan. Looped one into the opposite top corner jumping backwards and absolutely battered the post running onto another cross from the same side.

Atleast half of Rooneys goals if not more this season have been from headers and tap-ins on the six yard line. Nani scored a peach of a tap-in from a cross against Bayern, and Berbatov missed about four hat-trick sitters from that area in his last two games of the season.

Valencia knows how and where to cross a ball. Saying that, so do Rooney and Nani. The crossing from those three players this past season has been immense. Can't forget Evra's beautifully floated cross into the completely unmarked Scholes against City in 90th minute a few games back. That was just about the move of the season from where I am sitting.

You would think England might have a few decent crossers of the ball in the side and try to work the flanks, not only because they are English but because they have Rooney, Heskey, Crouch, Lampard and Gerrard. You would be wrong thinking that way.

For me, it is astonishing stuff. Packed defences, powerful central threats, players running from deep in midfield, surely that cries out for wingplay and a DLP to link the game together?

[phidelta42]

You would think England might have a few decent crossers of the ball in the side and try to work the flanks, not only because they are English but because they have Rooney, Heskey, Crouch, Lampard and Gerrard. You would be wrong thinking that way.

For me, it is astonishing stuff. Packed defences, powerful central threats, players running from deep in midfield, surely that cries out for wingplay and a DLP to link the game together?

There are good crossers there, not all are being played of course. Johnson can cross well with both feet, Milner likewise. Barry and Gerrard are both good crossers too if played wide.

To lay the blame for Rooney's general ineptness entirely on the supply is overkill. He needs to learn that in international football he's going to have to live on less chances. Maybe Heskey being there he thinks his job is to drop deep constantly, that may even be Capello's instructions to him but I seriously doubt they are. Offer good movement take up attacking positions, if the ball doesn't come rinse and repeat.

I'm not anti-united I'd have Carrick playing ahead of Lampard, but Rooney has been poor. When things aren't going the way he wants he defaults to dropping too deep and wastes energy in areas of the pitch he needn't be. Its not selfless workrate its selfish seeking of the ball.

[SFraser]

I'm not going to get into a debate with you over how good Rooney is, but I am going to point out to you that there are another 9 outfield players in every team.

England are not winning games because they cannot score goals. Not because their defence is poor, but because they cannot score. If you cannot score it is either because A: your players cannot finish chances or B: because your players cannot create chances.

England possess one of the top goalscoring forwards in Europe and one of the top goalscoring midfielders in Europe. Between them Rooney and Lampard have scored around 60 goals at the highest levels of club football this season.

The problem England have is that two lucrative goalscoring players at the absolute top of their game do not make a team. It does not take a rocket scientist to realise that England are not creating chances.

The irony is that both Manchester United and Chelsea are used to facing and breaking resolute packed defences. Both Rooney and Lampard are used to playing in the games they have played in, used to facing those challenges, and used to out-playing, out-performing and out-scoring the opposition. However they do not do it on their own.

One of the "easiest" groups in the Cup looks set to claiming one of the earliest "big names" in the Cup. Wayne Rooneys inpetitude is irrelevant. It is a systemic and fundamental failure of the entire team as a team that can only be the problem.

[dz47]

Well I think that Rooney is going to have to learn to adapt his game and stop coming so deep. I also don’t think that his lack of form can be totally blamed on poor service. His first touch has been very poor, as has his passing and his positioning (both in terms of his off the ball running and constantly coming too deep) has been very average. His attitude has also been shocking (though he is far from being alone on this point) and bordering on selfishness (see his pointless long shots against Algeria. If he can’t do this then he is the wrong player for the team and he should be dropped. England badly need to add some composure and diversity to their game and if they can’t then they will crash out sooner or later. If that happens, that Nike ad with Rooney winning the Cup for England and being knighted by the Queen is going to look pretty embarrassing.

[lam]

Can't see that myself. Rooney has played the lone role with Manchester United and I don't see why he couldn't do it for England.

Personally, I think Defoe would be the last person in the world I would play up top on his own. He is a poacher and needs a strike partner in my opinion.

I like Heskey as a player but I have to agree. England would have had much more success not only in terms of keeping the ball but also in terms of goalscoring with Crouch on the pitch.

Like SFraser said, the front 4/5 players at United are entirely different. Rooney can and does sit deeper with Man U, but that is because the midfield players will play past him, either running or passing and the wing men will cut in and score. Sadly I do not beleive England posses these types of players, unless you are playing Gerrard on the left or the right again, but then we go full ciricle.

In relation to Defoe, towards the end of the season, he was playing fairly wide and holding the ball up a 'bit' more. Granted, he is not exactly a playmaker forward, but I was trying to make the best use of the squad.

I honestly beleive that a 442 WILL work for us, providing the manager selects the correct team.

It's a fundamental point in FM too that we all go on about. The first thing you do with a team is either A) Select the correct formation for your squad OR B) chanage the squad to suit the formation you want to use.

Sadly, I think the Manager has done neither.

LAM

[zychan1]

For me, the player that England has been crying out for on the left is Theo Walcott. Yes he's been poor this season and plays pre-dominantly on the right, but his pace means you can never discount him as a threat no matter how poor his end product is. Sadly I think Capello missed a trick by taking SWP instead of him. The current England set up means the team has to build through the middle or go wide on the right to put a cross in. As we have seen against Algeria this is nullified by packing the centre of the park and playing 3 at the back with wingbacks pushing forward. Then there's no space in the middle, Algeria exploits the space left on the flanks and no matter how good Heskey or Crouch is in the air, he's not going to be able to compete with 3 centre backs especially since Rooney plays behind him. With Walcott on the left and you tell him to have a go at that wingback. Because of how he plays he can either go inside or outside and still pose a threat just with his movements alone. His pace will push the fullback back and hopefully also draw out that left CB to give Rooney a bit more space there. Yes against stronger teams England can revert to type and have Gerrard on the left but when they come up against weaker teams, Walcott's pace is a huge asset to the team. SWP is just too similar to Lennon and too much of a "pure" winger to fit into this role and Joe Cole imho is a like-for-like replacement Advance Playmaker for Gerrard on the left.

I know a lot of people have been advocating for Carrick to come in and form a double pivot with Barry but I don't think that's the best tactic, especially seeing how poor Carrick has been this season. Personally if it was just to have a DLP, I would have taken Huddlestone over him on the plane to SA. The truth is, Barry is England's only true holding midfielder and we will have to stick with him if we want to progress. For me England's biggest problem now is that they've seem to forget the basics of football. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and if we want to create chances, we need to keep possession. We clearly do not have the pace to play counter attacking football and there is no width on the left anyway. If you know that your team is moving slowly you slow down your passing, hold up the ball at the back for a bit, try to build some momentum from the back and then push upwards. Not every ball needs to be a killer pass and at the speed England were trying to play, they can't keep up with their own passing and when that fails, the defenders start going route one and hoof balls up to the front, which I think is a disgrace and an insult to the talent in the team. Beckenbauer is definitely justified when calling England's tactic as kick and rush. With Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard, we do have players who can find space for themselves and England need to allow them to move into space before attempting to pass. Go slow, keep calm, keep the ball on the ground. Against Slovenia if they can do this I'm sure they'll be able to create some chances and score. The problem now is that they must win, which means they must have a go at goal. Whether they can keep their cool and patience under those circumstances though, is another story altogether.

My gut feeling tells me that Capello will persist with a 4-4-2 and to be fair, 2 up front gives us more of a goal-scoring threat. I would actually go with the same team against Algeria to start with and improvise after so

----------- James --------------

Johnson -- Upson -- Terry -- Cole

Lennon -- Barry - Lampard -------

------------ Rooney -- Gerrard --

--------- Heskey ---------------

If Slovenia goes 5-4-1 and keeping in mind who we currently have and what I said about Walcott before, we can go 4-3-3 with Gerrard, Lampard and Barry in the middle with Rooney, Crouch and Lennon upfront or 4-5-1 with Rooney out left and Gerrard in the middle, allowing Heskey to still play as the big TM up front. Personally the 4-3-3 would work better and Crouch comes in for Heskey because you need to have a goal threat when playing only 1 upfront and we all know Heskey's goal scoring record. With the 4-5-1 though Gerrard would provide the threat through the middle so Heskey can start as a big screen and play simple balls. The only problem is to try to get Rooney to go wide on the left a bit more often to confuse the fullback but he's played this role before when Ronaldo and Tevez were both at Man Utd and I think he could still do a good job there. If anything it would open up more space for Gerrard and Lampard to run into and they are both decent goalscorers around the box.

[SirCliveWolfe]

What evert happens tomorrow... England will never win a world cup until there is a fundemental shift in the coaching ethos of English grass-roots football.

Gerrard is unquestionalbly one of the best English footballers of his generation, but he lacks the techincal skill to hold onto the ball, and the same is true of all of England's 'Golden generation' they can't even hold onto the ball against the US at 1-0, I don't think that Argentina, Brazil, Italy et al have this problem.

In Argentina Gascoigne would have become a second Marradona, in England his imense natural talent was wasted. Not because he was a bit loopy (as was Marradona), or controversial (as was Marradona) but because English coaching let him down.

The reason that the England team is so poor, and the reason that the top clubs have so many foreigners as players and coaches is not because the directors are anti-English, but because this country produces so much dross... only those with undoubted natural talent (Gerrard, Lampard, Cole, Rooney, Gascoigne etc...) are able to survive English coaching and become half-decent (at international level) players.

Lets not go to a world cup with a talented manager (in the top five managers at the world cup) and blame him, lets not blame a 'croweded calander' such as Italy and Spain have, lets face facts and come to realise that English football has always been let down by its coaching... lets finally realise the lesson of England v Hungary (1953) that we have players that have been coached ineffectually and that 1966 was something of a 'mirracle'.

[zychan1]

I wouldn't make sweeping statements like that, SirCliveWolfe, as the 'Golden generation' must surely include Scholes and Beckham who can definitely distribute the ball better from deep, and to a certain extent so can Barry, Carrick and Owen Hargreaves. Yes we all agree that there needs to be a revamp of coaching at grassroots level, but that doesn't mean that we'll start producing technically brilliant players overnight. Unfortunately the one key player that England lack, the Deep Lying Playmaker is probably the rarest type of midfield player in world football right now. How many truly world class DLPs can you name? Xavi, Xabi Alonso, Pirlo. Then maybe Scholes, Riquelme, Veron, who aren't as good as the three before. The problem with DLPs are they only gain prominence once they hit 25+, when they have matured and gained enough experience to calmly distribute the ball and snuff out attacks. England has done quite well considering they have Barry who's quite balanced between being a distributor and a destroyer. I think if he had played against USA England would have held on, Green's goalkeeping error aside. Further down the line there's Jack Rodwell who could potentially be the next first choice defensive midfielder for England, so we're not too bad in that regard.

I am too young to remember Gascoigne, but whether he could have become "the second Maradona" I don't know. He was certainly very good in 1990, and only two yellow cards stopped him from possibly clinching the World Cup. As football tactics evolve the impact of individual players diminish, and there is more emphasis on a coherent team effort. If playing in the game today, Maradona would have been less effective. Look at Messi's performance today against Greece. It shows that even the best player in the world can be man-marked out of the game to limit his effectiveness.

I guess what I'm trying to say is not to lay the blame purely on coaching alone. There are other factors involved and it wouldn't be too big of a shock if England actually kicked on from now and went all the way. They are certainly not lacking the required quality and just need to get their act together and start playing football in the way which best suits them.

[Guv'nor]

Indeed, the 4-2-3-1 has been popularised this summer, with 2 holding midfielders the norm for most countries. Tell me, do England have a single holding-midfielder in their squad? If you guys honestly think Gareth Barry could hold a ball even if it was coupled in a scrotum between his legs, you're having a laugh. Where was he when the Algerians were coasting through the midfield? Barry doesnt have the defensive discipline to sit and watch the game evolve ahead of him. Look at Melo and Gilberto for Brazil, or Mascherano even, how often do they bomb on like Barry. Capello made a big mistake by taking no genuine holding man. Carrick cant tackle and Milner, for all his versatility is not your Paul Ince or Roy Keane.

As for Arsenal's 4-4-2, it relied on possession being held to allow the likes of Pires to cut in off the flanks, Henry to peel well, Ljunberg to break and Cole to push on. England cannot keep possession of anything! We dont know how to. Our game is played at 90mph and relies purely on workrate and energy. Theres no point trying to be what we're not. The premiership sells us this delusion of world-class midfielders, compared to who exactly? Not a single player in the squad reads the game like any of the Spaniards, has the invention of a Kaka or command of a Mascherano. Who are we comparing these players to?

Run is all we can do, and run is what we must do. The 4-4-1-1 as shown above, with Cole at wingback, an extra body in the midfield, allows for runners from all over the shop. Beckenbauer was very right, we are a kick and chase team, so lets start doing what we do best!

It seems to me that you are saying the problem is with rigidity and poorly defined roles but this isn't the fault of the 4-4-2 system. There isn't something inherent in a 4-4-2 shape that it should be rigid and predictable. Think of Arsenal's 4-4-2 a few seasons back. During the different phases of a match, the initial three lines of the 4-4-2 could go through variations too, to become shapes such as 4-2-4, 3-4-3, 3-4-1-2, 3-3-1-3 and so on and so forth.

Anyway, moving on, just look at how many nations are using 4-2-3-1 style formations with two holders shielding the defence at this World Cup. Most of the bigger sides (e.g. the Dutch, the Germans, the Spanish, the French, the Italians - although the less said about the last two, the better - even Brazil are playing with two holders). It helps the fullbacks push forward and enables the front four to roam, create and score goals. I can't help but feel that such a system would both suit England and could give them their best chance of pushing on in this World Cup.

[phidelta42]

I don't understand the criticism that the players are not good enough technically. Gerrard and Rooney are two players that are incredibly gifted both physically and technically with good aggressive mentalities. I'd argue that it is precisely their ability here that carries them. Lampard again has great technique and superhuman levels of natural fitness. Barry, both Coles, Johnson, there are plenty with very good technical ability. I know I'm labouring the point but I think that the problem is our best players just aren't clever footballers. How many England players out there would I say have good footballing brains? Barry and Milner are the two that stand out, we are missing Rio badly and currently that has very little to do with his defensive qualities.

[googoo56]

that doesn't change the utter rubbish that is the English build-up play.

This 100000000000x.

[isuckatfm]

Problems against Algeria:-

Heskey - Rooney partnership => Heskey just acted as the spearhead shifting left and right relative to where England had possession with no reference to what was going on; Rooney was expected to constantly provide the drop off option but against a defensive side where the England CBs (alongside Barry and Lampard when he comes deep) needed to shift the point of attack across this lead to an imbalance that limited passing options

Lennon did not really know how to play the position. He didn't come off to the tip of the triangle enough to offer an option either for Barry/Lampard or indeed Carragher for a slide rule pass he plays fairly regularly for Liverpool. He also often positioned poorly when he was in wide positions considering he was faced with a deep defensive line with no space in behind.

England back line allowed the lone Algerian attacker to receive to feet comfortably too often. The difference between when Rooney had a pass come into feet and Matmout did, contributed to how more readily Algeria seemed to keep possession (poor touches not withstanding). The England midfield I think also needed to be more aggressive in pressing off the ball.

=============

So with that abridged criticism if Rooney - Defoe play like a partnership (as they seemed to against Algeria before Crouch got thrown on), Milner shows more intelligence than Lennon in terms of offering an option relative to space and passing lanes plus shows he has an idea of what to do when he gets it in that inside forward position, then I think England will get the win.

***

Milner with two terrible instances of control in first 5 minutes. He looks very nervy.

[phidelta42]

The ref looks to be on the payroll, England should win

edit is he German?

[zychan1]

Yes he is, wolfgang stark haha. Surely no favoritism there?

[zychan1]

Milner looking mighty handy today. We've not seen the best of Rooney yet though but England are playing better today. Surely it couldn't be any worse than that Algeria match?