Are england the most overrated team in world football

[TightEnd]

4-2-3-1

Look at Spain, great formation when you have good footballers. Tough to break down, allows the full backs to attack too

Even though they seem to need two players to replace the role Senna played for them, look at how they pick Busquets and Alonso and leave Fabregas out


Sadly I expect British football will stick to 4-4-2 for another decade



Just wish they would try this...the kids plus a few of the old timers while transitioning



                       Hart

 Johnson    Dawson    Terry   A Cole

            Hargreaves  Rodwell 

        Milner    Gerrard     A Johnson

                   Rooney


introducing  Wilshere, Gibbs etc etc before Euros, assuming we qualify, for experience ahead of WC2014                                 

[The Baron]

4-2-3-1

Look at Spain, great formation when you have good footballers. Tough to break down, allows the full backs to attack too

Even though they seem to need two players to replace the role Senna played for them, look at how they pick Busquets and Alonso and leave Fabregas out


Sadly I expect British football will stick to 4-4-2 for another decade



Just wish they would try this...the kids plus a few of the old timers while transitioning



                       Hart

 Johnson    Dawson    Terry   A Cole

            Hargreaves  Rodwell  

        Milner    Gerrard     A Johnson

                   Rooney


introducing  Wilshere, Gibbs etc etc before Euros, assuming we qualify, for experience ahead of WC2014                                

It's funny that not 4 years ago Utd fans (and many more around the country) were chanting 4-4-2 at their managers when this formation was first employed regularly.

A couple fo things I would say about this formation. Firstly in 2008 Senna was backed up more regularly by Xavi (who is more attacking now) and Marchena was adept at the DM role and could step up from the back. But in reality you are correct, the current Spain formation is not like for like with 2008. Busquets is no Senna. Spain now play a narrow 4-4-2 and play four CMs.

The only thing I don't like with our version of it is that we have no "quarter-back" DM, like Alonso. Carrick isn't good enough IMHO.

[The Baron]

Bang on IMO....

There are few players who could sensitively and eloquently offer their sentiments on England’s troubles at the World Cup, especially without sounding at least slightly condescending. But Xabi Alonso managed to do just that in a lengthy interview with The Sunday Times this weekend. His assessment of the English game is both honest and astute and, with regards to the cultural connotations of English football, he admits an advancement of thinking is required for international success to stand a chance.

“For me it is very important to have players in a team who complement one another. Sometimes the 11 best do not make the best 11. You have to have players with different qualities and, in my opinion, the England team had too many players who can run all day long, who invest a huge physical effort, who attack and defend – ‘box to box’, as they say in England. But the way I understand the game, you also need someone who delivers short passes, even if they seem innocuous at the time. That sort of player has been missing from the England team.”

Alonso was at pains to stress that he didn’t wish to come across as an ‘opportunist’ or being ‘wise after the event’ but his knowledge comes from being a direct factor in Steven Gerrard’s repeated match-winning performances. He reiterated that Gerrard is a ‘great player [who] inspires and leads’ but also that he needs players of different skills around him to play his best. It’s certainly no coincidence that Alonso’s departure has been difficult for Liverpool, as would the departure of any world class player, but the impact has indelibly affected Gerrard’s output. Especially in the 2008/2009 campaign, Liverpool highlighted the growing importance of a trident relationship in midfield (as commented in a previous article) of destroyer-passer-creator (Mascherano-Alonso-Gerrard). One shields, one distributes, one creates – and this is an example, not a perfect model for England to replicate, of players with markedly differing skill sets complementing one another superbly.

I don’t think it is a surprise to note that Owen Hargreaves was widely derided in England prior to the 2006 World Cup for being a player who lacked telling contributions in matches. His worth was underestimated until the competition began and, by the end, he was England’s best performer. There are multiple reasons for this: the international game is more akin to the rest of Europe (Hargreaves had the added experience of honing his abilities at Bayern Munich, where the ‘rhythm’ of the game, as Alonso later alludes to, is starkly contrasting to the English Premier League) and his role of destroying, shielding and simply distributing gained in exposure/acclaim as the competition progressed.

When asked why, Alonso had no definitive answer for the English lacking conviction, sharpness and enjoyment in South Africa. But he did share an experience that goes some way in elucidating his point about the ‘rhythm’ of football playing an incalculable role in individual (and in our case, collective also) output:

“Since I joined Real a year ago I’ve been watching a lot of Premier League games and I think to myself, ‘My god, what a rhythm they play at! And I was playing like that too?’ And yet, here’s the funny thing, which I must confess I am unable to explain: during my first months playing in Spain I’d be more tired than I was in England. There might be a clue here as to what happens to the England players in big international games. The rhythm at that level is not like the rhythm in the Premier League and maybe it’s hard for the English players to adapt to…my impression was that they struggled to enjoy the game.”

This is an effect, rather than the cause, of something far more entrenched in the English game. Countless discussions have raged before and after England’s World Cup exit with regards to the emphasis on skill sets at youth development. To succumb to a generalisation, we place too great an emphasis on physical attributes at the youngest level. Subsequently the pace, tempo, and ‘rhythm’ of our football is far quicker than the rest of Europe. But the danger of our long standing affiliation to grit, determination, strength and pace is that technical proficiency degrades and, when separated from the complementary abilities of their club teammates, English players are exposed.

“I remember when I used to go to the Liverpool Academy I would ask the kids there what their virtues were as football players and the first answer they’d give would be ‘tackling’. Now, that can never be a virtue; that’s a resource that you deploy when needed. Your chief virtue can never be the ability to make a good tackle. Now, I’m just giving one example, but you can extrapolate that there are other qualities that should be given greater priority at youth level. For me the notion of ‘game intelligence’ is so important.”

This is certainly the central issue of Alonso’s argument and it all interlinks to the cultural tenets we connote to typically ‘English’ football. Our young players forgo technique and the finer, more cerebral, aspects of football (tactics, understanding how to play with our teammates, composure when faced with decisions on the pitch) and the result is a noticeable dearth of what Alonso calls ‘game intelligence’. Arrigo Sacchi used to say individuals could be great footballers but terrible players and the adage gains in meaning when juxtaposed with Alonso’s sentiments. We can’t teach game intelligence; it can only be nurtured, honed and experienced from youth academies – in a technically focused manner – through to the professional game.

“It basically means how to associate with other players. The rest follows, the physical aspects, the technical aspects. But understanding the game, that is what is most important.”

[boldie]

Excellent article

[Hairydude]

Excellent article

+1

The thing with the tackling being a focal point is british wide...even from when I was a kid(and it still goes on) it was always about the winning; so the biggest and strongest kids were the ones who were always selected first as they'd bully and win the ball all the time....but what actually happened was rival teams would also have these giants in their team too so it just descended into a battle of brawn with not much decent football being played.

Some of these guy I played with at under 14's football were absolute beasts...basically fully grown men at 6ft so when you want to win so badly at that level its so easy to see why managers select them 1st but its plainly wrong.

Funnily enough, conversely in Brazil they are doing the opposite of what we think should be happening; in their youth development they are going for more powerful and stronger lads over the footballing side of things but I guess they have the footballing "genius" instilled in them already

[boldie]

Excellent article

+1

The thing with the tackling being a focal point is british wide...even from when I was a kid(and it still goes on) it was always about the winning; so the biggest and strongest kids were the ones who were always selected first as they'd bully and win the ball all the time....but what actually happened was rival teams would also have these giants in their team too so it just descended into a battle of brawn with not much decent football being played.

Some of these guy I played with at under 14's football were absolute beasts...basically fully grown men at 6ft so when you want to win so badly at that level its so easy to see why managers select them 1st but its plainly wrong.

Funnily enough, conversely in Brazil they are doing the opposite of what we think should be happening; in their youth development they are going for more powerful and stronger lads over the footballing side of things but I guess they have the footballing "genius" instilled in them already

It's amazing that one of the reasons soo many young players get rejected in Scotland is because they are "too small". I hardly ever came across that in Holland. (might be different now, I'm not sure but I hope not). Imagine Ajax telling Marc Overmars; "Sorry mate, just not going to happen for you" Or sending Wesley Sneijder home (only 5 foot 7)

[DUNK619]

Yes they are

[TightEnd]

Guardian blog.

Football geek porn


What have been the tactical lessons of World Cup 2010?

Spain have adopted the Barcelona formula, which seems to be the way club football is going

This has been the tournament of 4-2-3-1. The move has been apparent in club football for some time; in fact, it may be that 4-2-3-1 is beginning to be supplanted by variants of 4-3-3 at club level, but international football these days lags behind the club game, and this tournament has confirmed the trend that began to emerge at Euro 2008. Even Michael Owen seems to have noticed, which is surely the tipping point.

Formations, though, are one thing, their employment something else, and what has been noticeable in South Africa has been the vast range of 4-2-3-1s. Spain, when they finally adopted it against Germany, and stopped trying to squeeze Fernando Torres and David Villa into the same side, fiddled with the line of three, pulling Xavi back and pushing Andrés Iniesta and Pedro forward so it almost becomes 4-2-1-3, which seems to be the route club football is taking. It has had very attacking full-backs and has pressed high up the pitch, essentially using the Barcelona formula.

There are those who protest at their lack of goals (no side has reached the final scoring fewer) but they are a classic example of a team that prefers to control the game than to become obsessed by creating chances. Perhaps they at times become mesmerised by their passing, perhaps there is even something attritional about it, wearing opponents down until they make the mistake, but it is beautiful attrition. Those who have protested at the modern Holland, and their supposed betrayal of the heritage of Total Football, which is being painted as the ne plus ultra of attacking football, should perhaps look back at the European Cup finals of 1971-73 when Ajax expressed their mastery by holding the ball for long periods. Frankly, if they ever faced a side who took them on rather than sitting eight men behind the ball, we may see a more overtly attacking Spain.

Which brings us to Germany. They too play a 4-2-3-1 and, although Philipp Lahm breaks forward occasionally, theirs is essentially a defensive set-up. Here again goals are the great betrayers; it was bewildering how much praise was heaped on their supposedly fresh, open approach just because they scored four goals in three games. This Germany was superb on the counterattack, and the interaction of the front four of Miroslav Klose, Thomas Müller, Lukas Podolski and Mesut Ozil was at times breathtaking. But this was reactive football.

In three games, Germany scored an early first goal – against Argentina and England, it was essentially handed to them – and in those games they ruthlessly took advantage of the space opponents left behind them as they chased an equaliser. England, Argentina and Australia all defended idiotically against them, and were severely punished. In the other three games, teams defended decently against them and the early goal didn't arrive surrounded by watercress on a silver salver. In those games Germany managed one goal, and that a wonder-strike from Ozil. Against Spain their poverty of ideas was such they ended up sending the lumbering centre-back Per Mertesacker forward as an auxiliary striker, an idea so bereft of subtlety that the only time I remember it working was when Dennis Smith once sent Gary Bennett forward for Sunderland against Oxford in 1990.

Reactivity, in fact, has been a feature of this World Cup, which is one of the reasons the proactivity of Spain is so welcome. It's probably too early to highlight it as a definite trend, for the world seemed headed in a similar direction in 2004 when José Mourinho's Porto won the Champions League and Greece won the European Championship, only for attacking football to return the next season, but with Mourinho's success with Inter, it may be that the great creative boom of the past decade is drawing to a close.

Holland and Argentina both effectively played broken teams, the former in a 4-2-3-1, the latter in a 4-3-1-2. Certain players were clearly designated to defend, others to attack, with very little to link them. The allure of the approach is understandable, for with the limited time available to managers it is difficult to develop sophisticated systems (Spain benefit from the fact that so many of their players play for the same club, and that they have essentially played the same way, with minor evolution, for four years), and simplification is desirable.

It can be effective, and the way Nigel de Jong and Mark van Bommel have protected Holland's shaky back four has been admirable, but it can render a team static and reliant on the ability of a couple of individuals (Arjen Robben and Wesley Sneijder; Lionel Messi and Carlos Tevez). And if the forwards do no tracking back at all the system can very easily be unsettled by a breaker from midfield, as for instance Bastian Schweinsteiger showed against Argentina.

Even Brazil had an element of reactivity about them, often sitting deep, pressing only when the opponent had crossed halfway, and then hitting the space behind them. They played an angled 4-2-3-1 that had the advantage of getting Robinho into an area other 4-2-3-1s found difficult to counteract. Although they capitulated miserably in the second half against Holland, and although they have an utter disregard for the samba stereotype, they have been arguably the strongest side in the world over the past four years, winning the Copa América, the Confederations Cup and finishing top of Conmebol qualifying. That they and Spain never met feels like one of the great missed games.

Then there was Ghana's 4-2-3-1, with the five midfielders packed deep and Asamoah Gyan the lonest of lone strikers, only in bursts breaking free with the sort of passing that suggests they might actually be a force in years to come. Japan played a 4-2-3-1 with a false nine, almost embracing their historical lack of midfield flair (and no, two free-kicks, brilliant as they were, plus a goal on the break against Denmark doesn't suddenly make them a creative force, even if Keisuke Honda offers great hope for the future).

The rise of 4-2-3-1 has had knock-on effects. Attacking full-backs have become rarer – and the difference in attitude of the respective pairs of full-back is arguably the major difference between the two 4-2-3-1s that will meet in the final. It had seemed that the advance of lone-central-striker systems would spell the end for three at the back, for who needed two spare men? Well, it turns out that teams intent merely on surviving, playing for goalless draws, do, and that's what Uruguay did against France, North Korea did against Brazil, and New Zealand did on a regular basis.

Again, that suggests a preparedness to absorb pressure that it's hard to believe wasn't in some way, if not inspired then at least encouraged, by Inter's success in Barcelona. There was evidence that a technically inferior side could, though discipline and industry, endure a prolonged assault. It is that same battle between proactivity and reactivity that will be fought on Sunday; and for once, it is the Dutch who find themselves cast as the destructive force

[The Baron]

Hmmm..... this article is a bit polite. Football isn't going this way, it's been this way for years. We're just catching up on the British Isles.

[Murph1984]

I love how they glorify Inter's performances against Barcelona as the turning point inspired by Mourinho.

They conveniently forget that in the midst of (one of) the worst refereeing performances in history that Chelsea did the exact same to a better Barcelona side under Guus Hiddink a year earlier.

[Murph1984]

And the formation thing is true,British(club) football is just starting to catch up.

It's about 7 years since I used 442 in FM 

[The Baron]

I love how they glorify Inter's performances against Barcelona as the turning point inspired by Mourinho.

They conveniently forget that in the midst of (one of) the worst refereeing performances in history that Chelsea did the exact same to a better Barcelona side under Guus Hiddink a year earlier.

Agree, but it goes back even further tbh.

Look at some of the Milan sides who have won it - 2003/2007. Valencia finalled twice in a row by playing the best destructive football I can ever remember seeing. Sides who have won it? Porto. Liverpool. Dortmund. Juve's 3 finals in a row in the 90's. None of these were through great football but excellent coahces (Ancelotti, Cuper, Mourinho, BEnitez, Hitzfeld, Lippi) who were masters at organising themselves against better sides throughout the tournament.

Far worse than this article is how Sky Sports try to make out every season like Sam Allardyce is the Messiah who invented it in England. Give me a break.

[boldie]

Even ED can see what's wrong with English footie now;

The World Cup reminded us that good football does not stop at the white cliffs of Dover.

It issued a sobering reminder that success is a matter of hard work, teamwork and technique, not tabloid column inches and flashy TV ads.

We were taught a much-needed lesson in humility - maybe our national game is not all we believe it to be.

And now that South Africa 2010 is out of the way, we can forget about all that misery and get back to the BEST LEAGUE IN THE WORLD!!

Who cares if Wayne Rooney flopped on the High Veld when we can see him run riot at the Hawthorns?

Who needs the World Cup when we can watch a competition in which sloppy defending and tactical anarchy are positively encouraged?

Much like Carlsberg's claim to have the probably the best generic continental lager in the world, the Premier League's oft-repeated boast cannot be categorically disproven, even if everybody knows it isn't really true.

In any case, while the 'Best in the world' argument might matter when trying to conquer new, far-flung markets, it hardly matters on a domestic level.

Of course the Premier League needs to be entertaining, but if it isn't quite as good as the Bundesliga? Well, fans are hardly going to defect en masse to Eintracht Frankfurt or Bayer Leverkusen.

As the arrivals of Yaya Toure and David Silva ensure that Gareth Barry and Shaun Wright-Phillips need never see the light of day in a Manchester City shirt again, the debate is bound to reopen about whether a thriving Premier League actually hurts England.

It is one of the more perverse arguments against the internationalisation of the Premier League.

There are valid reasons why a foreigner-heavy league might not be altogether good for the national game, but when it comes to England's World Cup chances it makes no difference.

The pool of English players the national manager has to choose from might be smaller than in previous years - say, 80 instead of 200 - but the 120 who have fallen by the wayside never had a chance of getting picked anyway.

The 80 who play are the best 80.

Realistically there can be no more than 50 players at any one time who have a hope of getting picked for England.

And if it is ever the case that fewer than 50 Englishmen are able to get a game in their own country's top flight, that will just mean that English footballers are rubbish.

Those England players that are not regulars for their club, like Barry and Wright-Phillips, need only drop down to a more realistic level to earn first-team football.

In the last 20 years, four of Europe's 'big five' leagues have produced a World Cup win. Guess who is the exception?

Spain, Italy, France and Germany all have large numbers of foreign players in their domestic leagues.

But all four have realised tough competition for places at club level means you have to pay more attention to nurturing local talent, not less.

There are only so many clubs who can afford to hoover up the flashiest foreign talent. For the rest, their best chance of getting a top-class player is by producing one themselves.

And their FAs contribute significantly to the development of young players. Ours preferred to spend a billion quid on a jumped-up concert venue instead of the National Football Centre at Burton which should finally be completed in 2012 - a decade later than it might have been and 25 years after the French built Clairefontaine.

In any case, the quality of the team is more important than the quality of the players. Had things panned out slightly differently on Sunday night, Andre Ooijer, Khalid Boulahrouz and Edson Braafheid would now be in possession of World Cup winners' medals. Something to think about when people say we cannot possibly win when Glen Johnson is our best right-back.

[gatso]

england up to 7th in the fifa rankings published today, presumably due to italy and france dropping to 11th and 21st

[gatso]

no, scrap that. france were already below us. we've gone above portugal and italy with uruguay going past the other way