McSven’s England

[J'Arry the Spurrier]

McSven’s England

Once again the England team is lacking sharpness or sense of purpose, with the majority of players looking a shadow of their club selves. Against Macedonia the players who showed the most enterprise were the fringe players. So does that tell us anything? Could it be that the players that have something to prove, are the ones who are up for the game? And that those who are sure of their place are not?

While it would be a terrible indictment of the players and the team management, it is hard to see any other explanation for the teams poor performances than complacency among the senior players. This was the criticism of Sven’s England and nothing seems to have changed.

Steve MacClaren started his England tenure by attempting to show he was different from the previous regime. Lets ignore the hiring of Max Clifford and the teeth whitening and consider his first football decision. To show his boldness, he dropped Beckham from the squad. While there are good cases for playing Lennon, SWP or Gerrard on the right, there are also major caveats. Lennon is still young and learning the game, SWP was not playing club football on a regular basis, and Gerrard is better in the centre. There is still a case for having Beckham in the squad as an option, either off the bench or for certain opposition. Yet McSven dropped him from the squad and made it almost possible to recall him.

So what is the reason? Whether it is his “Walcott moment” – a desperate attempt to show boldness – or a means of avoiding making a choice between Lampard and Gerrard in the centre, neither inspires confidence.

So what is the answer?

[J'Arry the Spurrier]

Competition for Places

Lets assume that one of the bigger problems with the England team has been that too many players were assured of their places. To correct this we need competition in every position so that the players must fight for their places (maybe even take friendlies seriously) and to provide experienced cover. Against Macedonia we saw how Ledley King and SWP stepped up and put in good performances. Obviously, the opposite extreme of constant changing is no good either, but that is the job of a good manager.

Goalkeepers. Robinson is rightly the incumbent. Yet he seems to have developed the England malaise. James is still an experienced backup, but the youngsters need to start making their case, as some of the so-called youngsters are only a year or two younger than Robinson. Most goalkeepers reach their peak in their 30s and it is worth noting that Shilton and Seaman were not first choice England keepers until over 30, and Robinson got his 30th cap at a much younger age.

Right Back. Gary Neville. Still the best England righback and only now fully appreciated when his absence is considered. Not one of the guilty players. Luke Young has been dropped and Phil Neville seems to be first choice replacement now, ahead of Carragher.

Centre Back. John Terry, Rio Ferdinand, Ledley King, Jamie Carragher. One area where there is decent competition. Terry and Rio at their best are probably still the first choices. But we saw how King did against Macedonia, and he brought the ball out of defence very nicely, making the best cross of the game. Carragher is also a quality player, as long as he’s not paired with Terry, and Woodgate may actually finally recover from his perennial injuries (oops, too late). Michael Dawson and Wes Brown have also been in recent squads, demonstrating the strength in depth.

Left Back. Ashley Cole and Wayne Bridge. At the moment, there is no question about the 1-2, but Bridge needs to know he can win the spot. Cole at his best is one of the top left backs in the world and Bridge was playing well for Chelsea early in the season. Unfortunately he is now stuck behind Cole for club and country. Hopefully he can get a move in January. Should Gareth Barry or even Leighton Baines be considered?

Right Wing/Midfield. Aaron Lennon, Shawn Wright-Phillips (Steve Gerrard). All have the strengths and weaknesses here. Lennon is still young and learning the game and SWP is not playing club football on a regular basis, although he has shown sharpness off the bench. Wayne Routledge is another candidate as a winger. Gerrard provides a different option, but seems less sure of his role for England than when he plays on the right for Liverpool. He also spends much of the time of the left getting in the way of Downing. He is surely better in the centre where he and Lampard can get in each others way.

Central Midfield (holding). Owen Hargreaves, Michael Carrick, Scott Parker. If there is to be a holding player, then Hargreaves, Carrick and Parker are the obvious choices. Carrick has the passing ability to provide a creative spark, but his tackling is weak. Instead he relies more on interceptions and shepherding the opposition into other defenders. Hargreaves is a better tackler, but is he ideally suited to the holding role. His passing is average and his positioning poor when receiving the outlet pass from the defenders – he always seems to have an opponent between him and the ball, whereas Carrick gets in position so he is better placed to get the attack going. Hargreaves strength was revealed when released from the shackles of the holding role. His dynamic running for 10-man England against Portugal was a revelation. Two different players providing two different options, but we should remember that we do not have a Makelele type player and forcing round pegs into square holes is something even toddlers learn not to do. The more dynamic and combative play of a Hargreaves or Parker - who deserves another chance in a friendly – is probably more in keeping with the England style.

Central Midfield (no holding). Steve Gerrard, Frank Lampard. Unless, or until, someone works out how to get them to play together, let them know they are competing for the same attacking midfield spot. If Lampard wins on performance, then let Gerrrard also be considered on the right in his Liverpool role. Gerrard should be the starter for now. However, since he is suspended, Lampard will play away at Croatia, while SWP may get a chance to shake of the rust. How Sven-like to have to try this in the toughest game, rather than in a friendly or against a less taxing opponent.

Central Midfield (other). If we are to use 4-5-1 or 3-5-2 on occasion, then it is essential to give some other players a chance in friendlies. Jermaine Jenas is a regular in the squad, presumably as backup to Gerrard and Lampard, but Nigel Reo-Coker and Kevin Nolan also deserve a chance. But they need to tried in turn with the A-team to see how they function with the regulars, not all thrown in together as a B team. A five man midfield should be a tactical choice, not a way of squeezing all the regulars into the same team.

Left Wing/Midfield. Joe Cole, Stewart Downing. Two good players providing very different options. Cole has made the position his own by being one of the few players to step up in an England shirt. Ironically, he used England to force himself into the regular Chelsea team. He also seems to combine well with Ashley Cole. Downing is more a classic winger and capable of excellent crosses, but has been disappointing in the last few games and is reluctant to take on the fullback. He is young, though. Kieran Richardson is the other possibility, has been in recent squads and has looked lively in his limited chances.

Wayne Rooney. There is no competition and if there is one player who almost deserves to start every game, he is the one. But only when fully fit. We need an alternative game plan when he is absent through injury or suspension, so plan ahead so the options are considered before a crucial world cup game.

Strikers. Michael Owen, Peter Crouch, Jermain Defoe, Darren Bent, Dean Ashton, Andy Johnson. Owen is out for the foreseeable future, Crouch is still an enigma wrapped in a giraffe, Defoe is still in a slump and Bent must despair of every getting a chance. Play whoever is fully fit and in best form, but some consideration must be given to the pairing, i.e. who works best with Rooney. Give new players a chance in a strong line up, so that we can see how they perform in the A-team. And don’t use uncertainty over the best striker as an excuse to play five in midfield.

[MozzaBedfordSpur]

And as you break it down caps wise, there is a lot of experience in the present squad, even without David Beckham, hopefully, this is one off result and a blip. McSven knows Downing from his Middlesbrough days so should be able to get the best out of him, he may be a bit star struck playing along side the likes of Gerrard, Rooney, Lampard and Terry, and we have Joe Cole to come back. As for the Michael Owen situation, it is an opportunity for one of the fringe strikers to stake their claim, but will McSven give the likes of Defoe, Johnson and Bent enough games to do this, as Rooney is always going to start if fit? And Crouch seems to of cemented his place, so it will be very difficult for those lads to make the break.

The Croatia game will be the biggest test for McSven, and this is the game where we will all see exactly what he is about.

[ESR]

I'd like to see Dean Ashton get his chance, but you can't fault Andy Johnsons form plus Bent deserved to be called up for the WC after his performances last season

Hargreaves must be the first name on the teamsheet, Gerrard can't play right wing, so the only option is dropping Lampard but no one dares because he's playing for the Champions! Lennon for the right wing IMO

[J'Arry the Spurrier]

Pace

McSven made a big point of emphasising the importance of width and pace. Yet he picks a team with little of either.

One of the few players to have enhanced their reputation at the world cup was Aaron Lennon. SWP has shown remarkable sharpness off the bench, given how little he has played recently. Both these players offer pace and can beat their man one-on-one. Wayne Routledge is also becoming a contender with his U21 and Fulham displays. So the obvious solution: move Gerrard to the right, depriving the side of pace and width, while removing the best central midfielder.

He has picked a genuine winger in Stewart Downing, who is capable of putting in good crosses, but he is not the fastest of wingers. Downing seems unable or unwilling to take on his man, and constantly cuts back inside, at least when playing for England. Perhaps he is following instructions, but for whatever reason he is not providing width.

At the same time McSven is selecting a slow forward line. Rooney brings a lot to the team - touch, control, vision, power - but, while not slow, pace is not a major part of his game. Crouch may run a lot (apparently more than anyone else) but he is not going to out-sprint the defenders. One of the two forwards should have genuine pace.

[MozzaBedfordSpur]

JTS, you have put a lot of thought into this thread, therefore, I am going to move it to the international board, and see if we get more response and opinions.

[J'Arry the Spurrier]

McSven and Formations

The England performance in Zagreb was poor. That is one thing everyone can agree on. The England players all continue to play well below their club form. The players are struggling to play together effectively even in the familiar 4-4-2 formation. While the “golden generation” may not be the world class players hyped before the world cup, they are all good players who are capable of playing excellent football at a high level.

The Croatia game was always going to be the hardest game of the qualifying tournament, along with the trip to Moscow. One has to question using this game to experiment with a new formation, one that none of the players play for their clubs. If there is any compelling reason for playing five in midfield, it is surely to try and get the best out of Gerrard and Lampard. We don’t have the forwards for a 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 and Rooney would be wasted as a lone central striker, so 3-5-2 could be a viable option. It would also allow us to use the strength in depth we have at centre back. Clearly there was a plan to try 3-5-2 in Zagreb, as they practiced it before the Macedonia game with Gary Neville alongside Rio and Terry at the back and with Ashley Cole and SWP as wingbacks. Those players could also readily change in to a 4-4-2 with Cole dropping back to make the familiar successful back four. That particular team was flexible as the system could be changed during the games with the same personnel.

Yet with Gerrard injured, McSven went ahead with the 3-5-2. Parker was brought into the side to make his first England start. Neville moved to wing back to replace SWP, removing the one player with pace from the starting XI. Carragher came in as the third centre back to complete a relatively slow back three. That is three changes to the formation tried in training the week before. The criticism should not be that a new formation was tried, but in its timing.

It is easy to put to much emphasis on formations, as a rigid formation will win little. A successful system will tend to be one that is fluid and capable of adapting during the game. Yet the base formation does say something about the general approach to the game.

The classic 4-4-2 can be an attacking or defending formation, depending on whether played with wingers or without, and on how much the fullbacks push forward. Either can be successful – witness England’s wingless wonders of yesteryear. The system can also be very flexible. If one forward drops off into a 4-4-1-1, the syetem becomes a form of 4-5-1 with more help in midfield, and if the wingers get forward it can quickly become a 4-3-3. The point here is that 4-4-2, 4-4-1, 4-5-1 and 4-3-3 are dependent on how the personnel are used, rather than being fundamentally different. All are built on a flat back four. And the England players are all familiar with some or all of these systems.

Another variation is to play a holding player, a 4-1-3-2, which can be more or less defensive depending on how closely the lines play. At its most attacking with two wingers and an attacking midfielder, it is as close to the attacking half of the classic Hungarian WW (3-2-5, or 3-2-3-2) as one is likely to see. Without wingers it can be very defensive.

The 3-5-2 is essentially a 4-1-3-2 where the holding midfielder drops back into line with the centre backs and the fullbacks are replaced by wingbacks. With an extra centre back, the formation can be more defensive playing two fullbacks, a 5-3-2, or more offensive if playing two wingers in the wingback positions. Also in the past, one of the centre backs would play sweeper and could be an important attacking player. In this formation, whether it is a 5-3-2 with a one of the centre backs as the sweeper or a 4-1-3-2 with the sweeper in what is now known as the holding position is a matter of semantics. A good sweeper or good holding player also contributes to starting the attacking play. If the sweeper becomes a mere centre back or the holding player is just a water carrier, then it is more defensive.

When Venables played 3-5-2 at Euro96, Darren Anderton and Steve McManaman were the wingbacks. This was an attacking formation with wingers providing attacking width. What McSven, or should it be McVenables, played in Zagreb was a 5-3-2. However, he also played two holding players in Carrick and Parker, so the true formation was 5-2-1-2. And with Rooney and Crouch dropping deep it became a 5-2-3-0. And surprisingly we didn’t score.

I think we should be careful to write off the 3-5-2 as a viable tactic, expecially as a variation within games. But it should be tried in a friendly, not in the toughest game of a qualifying tournament. The game against the Netherlands next month would be an ideal opportunity. Some of the players may not be comfortable in a new formation, but they must learn to be flexible, or else they should bring in other players who are capable of adapting to fluid changes in formation. Until then the team will play in a straightjacket, regardless of whether the system is 4-4-2 or 3-5-2.

[Peschi]

JTS for England!!!

[HURLOCK]

Good post JTS, exalted