A Different England

[PTP]

Then you simply end up with different problems, like having three centre backs marking one striker or having one of them go into midfield and being all at sea because they don't know what they're doing there, the midfield being outnumbered or whatever.

Outdated systems might utilise the players better but they're still outdated systems. The reason they're outdated is because good teams have worked oout how to overcome them. So it still won't work.

so what would you do then? what system and players do you think would work

[Neil Young]

I think you are being a bit harsh there, man for man I think England at least matches Germany individually, starting XI that is. But Germany is well setup and the players have a great mentality. I think Podolski's and Klose's combined total goals for last season didn't exceed 5, and Podolski has scored more goals on national level then for clubs.

Possibly.

I think though we are blinded by the hype surrounding our players. The idea Germany have only one player who might get into England's team, which is what the commentator suggested yesterday during the game, isn't so much biased as ignorant.

Rooney (who isn't bad but nowhere near a world beater), Gerrard and Ashley Cole are the only ones who are anywhere top class.

[Mattshark]

I think you are being a bit harsh there, man for man I think England at least matches Germany individually, starting XI that is. But Germany is well setup and the players have a great mentality. I think Podolski's and Klose's combined total goals for last season didn't exceed 5, and Podolski has scored more goals on national level then for clubs.

Starting 11 yes, but Germany is set up to get the most out of their players, England isn't and Germany (even with 5 players out) has better quality to bring off the bench.

[Neil Young]

so what would you do then? what system and players do you think would work

Play the same system as the best teams and muddle through from there.

I think though the core of it is down to development - a long term approach within the England team.

It'll take a long time and I doubt the powers within English football care enough to make it happen.

[Craig_H]

Then you simply end up with different problems, like having three centre backs marking one striker or having one of them go into midfield and being all at sea because they don't know what they're doing there, the midfield being outnumbered or whatever.

Outdated systems might utilise the players better but they're still outdated systems. The reason they're outdated is because good teams have worked oout how to overcome them. So it still won't work.

If you have 3 centre backs, it gives you the option to have one come out to face up against a withdrawn forward, and still have one spare with the main striker.

It's the scenario you have when you play one striker - both CBs can deal with him and one will often be spare, whereas if you have 2 strikers, both centre backs can be occupied meaning a forward runner from midfield is likely to find more space when he pushes up. 3 centre backs can help counter this because if you're facing 2 strikers, you can go one-on-one and still have another spare, or if you're facing a side with 1 striker and 1 second striker/withdrawn forward, you can send a CB out to close down that space, without leaving your other centre back one-on-one.

[Neil Young]

If you have 3 centre backs, it gives you the option to have one come out to face up against a withdrawn forward, and still have one spare with the main striker.

It's the scenario you have when you play one striker - both CBs can deal with him and one will often be spare, whereas if you have 2 strikers, both centre backs can be occupied meaning a forward runner from midfield is likely to find more space when he pushes up. 3 centre backs can help counter this because if you're facing 2 strikers, you can go one-on-one and still have another spare, or if you're facing a side with 1 striker and 1 second striker/withdrawn forward, you can send a CB out to close down that space, without leaving your other centre back one-on-one.

I understand how it's supposed to work. However the fact no-one uses it suggests it doesn't.

[Craig_H]

Possibly.

I think though we are blinded by the hype surrounding our players. The idea Germany have only one player who might get into England's team, which is what the commentator suggested yesterday during the game, isn't so much biased as ignorant.

Rooney (who isn't bad but nowhere near a world beater), Gerrard and Ashley Cole are the only ones who are anywhere top class.

They dont have to be top class, but there's certainly enough there to be far better than england are.

Gerrard, Rooney, Ashley Cole, Lampard, Terry and a fit Ferdinand are all among the best out there, for the positions they play. People speak about Rooney and Lampard underachieving this world cup, but that's down to them not being utilised properly and not being in a system which suits them best, rather than them being not actually great players.

[Rich]

Think NY is spot on. All the major forces play a similar 4-2-3-1 formation, with three centrally - whether that's two sitting or one sitting, two wide forwards, and one through the centre.

We actually have the benefit of most of our big teams playing a similar way - yet for some crazy reason we're using an outdated 4-4-2 system and then shoehorning players into unfamiliar positions. Madness.

The nail in the coffin yesterday was having Barry and Lampard (neither defensive in the purest sense) playing in a midfield two - then throw in the fact that neither has pace and England are on a hiding to nothing.

What's obvious to me is that 4-2-3-1 is the dominant formation so let's go with it.

[Craig_H]

I understand how it's supposed to work. However the fact no-one uses it suggests it doesn't.

That, in itself, is ignorant.

Just because people arent using it, doesnt suggest it doesnt work. It just suggests that other teams, with the personnel they have, prefer to use other systems. And given that quite a few of the big guns have failed miserably, perhaps the fact that they are using the systems they use suggests that they might've been better off using something different - like a 532.

Point being, the fact that other teams use whatever systems they're using, doesnt suggest those systems work. Especially not for teams who have failed so poorly.

In essence, any recognised football formation, much like zonal marking, works if you have the right players for it, and they implement it properly.

[Rich]

That, in itself, is ignorant.

Just because people arent using it, doesnt suggest it doesnt work. It just suggests that other teams, with the personnel they have, prefer to use other systems. And given that quite a few of the big guns have failed miserably, perhaps the fact that they are using the systems they use suggests that they might've been better off using something different - like a 532.

Point being, the fact that other teams use whatever systems they're using, doesnt suggest those systems work. Especially not for teams who have failed so poorly.

In essence, any recognised football formation, much like zonal marking, works if you have the right players for it, and they implement it properly.

But why would having 3 centrehalves work against a team which only plays one through the middle?

[Craig_H]

Think NY is spot on. All the major forces play a similar 4-2-3-1 formation, with three centrally - whether that's two sitting or one sitting, two wide forwards, and one through the centre.

We actually have the benefit of most of our big teams playing a similar way - yet for some crazy reason we're using an outdated 4-4-2 system and then shoehorning players into unfamiliar positions. Madness.

The nail in the coffin yesterday was having Barry and Lampard (neither defensive in the purest sense) playing in a midfield two - then throw in the fact that neither has pace and England are on a hiding to nothing.

What's obvious to me is that 4-2-3-1 is the dominant formation so let's go with it.

4231 only works if the 3 behind the striker are powerful, quick, direct and offer genuine and consistent goal threat and creativity.

If they dont, then you get what we got at Liverpool so often - a side which plays sideways and slowly, without actually creating much going forward.

Spain can play that system because they have the right balance of pace, passing ability, creativity and the ability to dicate the tempo. Similar to Argentina, (normally with Cambiasso and Mascherano as the holding mids), they'd then have the main striker (higuain) with tevez, Messi and either Maxi or Di Maria as the three behind the front man - genuine drive, pace, trickery and creativity.

Who do england have to play those roles? Gerrard, yes. Who else? Lennon? Milner? Lampard?

I dont see it.

So as i was saying, like any system, it only works if you have the right players to make it work.

[The_weatherman]

Possibly.

I think though we are blinded by the hype surrounding our players. The idea Germany have only one player who might get into England's team, which is what the commentator suggested yesterday during the game, isn't so much biased as ignorant.

Rooney (who isn't bad but nowhere near a world beater), Gerrard and Ashley Cole are the only ones who are anywhere top class.

Hype in England? No, that can't be. I take it he was talking about Özil then? I reckon Neuer, Lahm, Schweinsteiger, Özil and Muller at least would stake strong claims, and Podolski and Klose based on success on national level. A mixed team would have to include Terry, Rooney and one of Gerrard/Lampard and maybe A.Cole.

But the major factor is the way the team is setup and the days of 4-4-2 are gone, I find it a bit surprising that Capello of all managers wanted it, unless the players had something to say about it.

[Craig_H]

But why would having 3 centrehalves work against a team which only plays one through the middle?

Why wouldnt it?

Playing 3 centre halves would enable Cole and Johnson to offer much more going forward, with the security of having proper protection behind them. And as i said, if you play a side with only one striker, they're going to inevitably have a player playing in the hole or as a withdrawn forward - in which case, one of your CBs can come out to close down that space, safe in the knowlegde that his two CB partners behind him will still have a two-on-one against the out and out striker.

[The_weatherman]

4231 only works if the 3 behind the striker are powerful, quick, direct and offer genuine and consistent goal threat and creativity.

If they dont, then you get what we got at Liverpool so often - a side which plays sideways and slowly, without actually creating much going forward.

Spain can play that system because they have the right balance of pace, passing ability, creativity and the ability to dicate the tempo. Similar to Argentina, (normally with Cambiasso and Mascherano as the holding mids), they'd then have the main striker (higuain) with tevez, Messi and either Maxi or Di Maria as the three behind the front man - genuine drive, pace, trickery and creativity.

Who do england have to play those roles? Gerrard, yes. Who else? Lennon? Milner? Lampard?

I dont see it.

So as i was saying, like any system, it only works if you have the right players to make it work.

I disagree I think England has lots of options for that system. Rooney up top with Gerrard/Lampard behind him and Lennon, Cole, SWP, Walcott on the flanks. You could even put Crouch up top and Ronney on the left cutting in.

[Craig_H]

I disagree I think England has lots of options for that system. Rooney up top with Gerrard/Lampard behind him and Lennon, Cole, SWP, Walcott on the flanks. You could even put Crouch up top and Ronney on the left cutting in.

Lennon and Walcott are nowhere near good enough to make that work. Joe Cole, yes. Lampard yes, if you drop Gerrard - cos neither of them would be suited to playing one of the wide roles.

So if you play Joe Cole in the left sided position, with Gerrard behind Rooney, who plays right?

As i've said, Lennon, SWP and Walcott are a million miles away from being good enough IMO. Compare them to someone like Iniesta. Worlds apart.

And then, who do you play as the holding mids? Barry and one other?

As chris said, Barry is neither a Mascherano type terrier, he doesnt have the legs. He isnt a Didi Hamann type of player who always has the know-how to get into the positions to keep breaking up play. And he isnt an Alonso, who can dictate the tempo and pull the strings, with his passing.

Who do you play alongside him?

England dont have the players for it IMO.