PDA

View Full Version : England tactics discussion. time for wingbacks?


Sir.S.C Remembered
22-05-2002, 01:44 AM
El Tel came up with it recently saying his "heart told him to go with 3-5-2 but head tells him 4-4-2 will be Sven's choice)

I like 4-4-2 with England due to G Neville and Beckhams partnership and although I think Beckham is effective in the centre I feel his crosses are vital for us to do well. Thats something against the idea as it plays on the fact it allows Beckham to go central but still dift to be effective (as we dont want him as wingback too much pressure to stay back) and this may be effective despte my slight reservations if an anchor man in the centre allows Beckham to get forward. With Butt injured this may leave only Hargreaves with the skills to do so effectively and thats debatable too!

I think it would be worth a try and also allow the slightly shakky partnership of Sol and Rio to be assisted by the impressive Southgate which may work and Ashley Cole would be a capable wing back and on the right Mills could be good, or Hargreaves in a more wide area or even Dyer depending on attacking bias for each game! In the centre of midfield Beckham could have Butt or Hargreaves next to him as the anchor (Gerrard when fit after WC) and Scholes pushing forward. Worked well for Palace because of our talented wingers so could work for England.

I hope Sven doesn't use the dodgy diverse 4-3-3

opinions?

kolinkins
22-05-2002, 03:44 PM
normally, with all players fit, i would say 4-4-2. but with injuries, full backs who are good going forward but not great at defending, and with so many quality centre backs and central midfielderes in the squas, 3-5-2 is the way to go.

Elephant with mouse gyp
22-05-2002, 03:52 PM
I agree with you all the way, and have already bored people on other threads about this.

Even without the injuries I think England should play with three at the back; with the injuries it makes the case even stronger as you outline.

To add more to your argument, think of the opposition in the group.

Argentina play a loose kind of 3-4-3, with at least one of either the front or back three usually in midfield at any one time. They also like to pass the ball through this area, though have added width to their game thanks to Bielsa.

Nigeria have Kanu, who can be guaranteed to cause trouble for a strict 4-4-2 by slipping in between central defence and midfield.

Sweden have Henrik Larsson, who is also good at dropping back. And if I was the Sweden coach I would play Ljungberg more as an inside left than as a winger. I think Mills wouldn't know which way to go then and it would also put more pressure on Sol or Rio.

All these things argue the case for an extra, essentally defensive, player in midfield to play the role Paul Ince or David Batty used to when Hoddle and Venables both saw the sense of this kind of system. Butt or Hargreaves are the only ones around to do the job.

Geezer
22-05-2002, 04:06 PM
With 3-5-2 you are left open to attacks down the wings, with quality wingers like Lunjberg, he would rip it apart becuase it is hard enoguh to pick him up with 4-4-2 but with 3-5-2 hes got a lovely space on the counter attack which he is great at playing which we saw at arsenal this season. Also it limits the key man, Beckham. Hargreeves looked best to fill the hole left by Gerrard and Dyer doesnt look like hes going to be fit. That limits your right wing back role, unless you want to play Mills there.

Jaffa
22-05-2002, 04:13 PM
The 3-5-2 wont work, we dont have the personel to make it work, and in any case, I prefer 4-4-2.

We need Beckham wide right, but not as a wingback.

cpfcben
22-05-2002, 04:34 PM
we should use it
however eriksson wont do it he only does 4-4-2

Elephant with mouse gyp
22-05-2002, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Geezer
With 3-5-2 you are left open to attacks down the wings, with quality wingers like Lunjberg, he would rip it apart becuase it is hard enoguh to pick him up with 4-4-2 but with 3-5-2 hes got a lovely space on the counter attack which he is great at playing which we saw at arsenal this season.

At Arsenal he was almost always playing against 4-4-2 teams, so that hardly makes your case. His recent burst of goal-scoring came from him cutting inside with the ball, or making runs on the inside. In a 3-5-2, those areas are obviously more congested. Likewise, Kily Gonzalez is not really a take-it-to-the-byline type wide man.

I don't rate Mills at all, but feel he would be safer as a wing-back than as an out and out full-back; safer because when pushed back by Ljungberg or Gonzalez would at least have a spare centreback to cover for his many mistakes.

Similarly, Ashley is not the best defender in the world but is good going forward.

The Omen
22-05-2002, 05:29 PM
Too late to change things now. To do so would be really silly after we've played with a flat back four and had good results for the past year.

Elephant with mouse gyp
22-05-2002, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by The Omen
Too late to change things now. To do so would be really silly after we've played with a flat back four and had good results for the past year.

Maybe you don't remember 1990? Great though he is, Bobby Robson was a 4-4-2 loyalist right up to the finals. Then a players rebellion led to a change in tactics at the 11th hour with Mark Wright as sweeper which helped allow Gazza to play with freedom. It wasn't 3-5-2 admittedly, but it wasn't so far off.

In 1986, Robson changed things late as well, junking the striker he had planned to use, Kerry Dixon, for Peter Beardsley. That wasn't a simple one-for-one switch either, as Beardsley added to the midfield and getting balls to the wide men for crosses into the box wasn't the main attacking option anymore.

I think I'm right in saying that Sir Alf also changed things pretty late on in 1966, with Peters and Ball both not certain starters beforehand but both, for my money, the attacking keys to England's win.

As to the other point, I know the Germany result was out of this world, but since then, how many good England performances can you name. Paraguay maybe?

BUNGLE
22-05-2002, 05:57 PM
Why play 4-4-2 when we have no natural left winger? Play a formation that fits the players not the other way round.

The Omen
22-05-2002, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Elephant with mouse gyp


Maybe you don't remember 1990? Great though he is, Bobby Robson was a 4-4-2 loyalist right up to the finals. Then a players rebellion led to a change in tactics at the 11th hour with Mark Wright as sweeper which helped allow Gazza to play with freedom. It wasn't 3-5-2 admittedly, but it wasn't so far off.

In 1986, Robson changed things late as well, junking the striker he had planned to use, Kerry Dixon, for Peter Beardsley. That wasn't a simple one-for-one switch either, as Beardsley added to the midfield and getting balls to the wide men for crosses into the box wasn't the main attacking option anymore.

I think I'm right in saying that Sir Alf also changed things pretty late on in 1966, with Peters and Ball both not certain starters beforehand but both, for my money, the attacking keys to England's win.

As to the other point, I know the Germany result was out of this world, but since then, how many good England performances can you name. Paraguay maybe?

History has nothing to do with the present team though.

Good performances? You only need them when they matter and the only time we haven't got the desired result was against Greece and even then we still got the minimum required.

By playing a 3-5-2 means Beckham would have to move to the centre - where he is not as effective.

zonin2000
22-05-2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Geezer
With 3-5-2 you are left open to attacks down the wings, with quality wingers like Lunjberg, he would rip it apart becuase it is hard enoguh to pick him up with 4-4-2 but with 3-5-2 hes got a lovely space on the counter attack which he is great at playing which we saw at arsenal this season.


To me, calling Ljungberg a 'quality winger' is like calling Paul Scholes a quality winger.

To answer the question, yes I would prefer a 3-5-2, with Beckham, Scholes and Hargreaves in the middle but I doubt that it will happen. Surprise me Sven.

skeletor_80
22-05-2002, 06:31 PM
I don't see why we'd have to stick to a single formation, surely both formations could prove useful depending on the opponents and stage of a game.

The 3-5-2 formation would allow Gareth Southgate the opportunity to play in the back 3(as Sven seems to have decided on Campbell and ferdinand as his st choice) and this could help sure up the defence as he's been a consistent performer all season, it would also give Cole and Mills more liscence to roam forward and provide much need balls into the box.

King Tubby
22-05-2002, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by The Omen



By playing a 3-5-2 means Beckham would have to move to the centre - where he is not as effective.
I think he could be more effective for England in a central role, especially as England are not very strong in the air up front, (with the exception of Sheringham but god help England if he ever gets on to the pitch) The main asset of England's strikers is pace, something Owen, Vassell and Heskey have in a abundance and therefore I think Beckham would be more dangerous playing balls through the centre than perfect crosses which no one is going to get on the end of.

kolinkins
22-05-2002, 10:37 PM
i think beckham would be more effective in the centre as 1 of 3. as for right wing back, if dyer isnt fit, then mills could do a job

as for time factor - sven plays 4-4-2 coz normally he only works with the players for 2 or 3 days before a qualifier or friendly. i feel that with 2 or 3 weeks, he may tinker with the formation

zonin2000
22-05-2002, 10:47 PM
What about the old WM formation?

palacefan_72
22-05-2002, 11:05 PM
3-5-2
seamen-rio,sol and southgate-cole,dyer-beckham,scholes,cole-heskey and owen

Sir.S.C Remembered
23-05-2002, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by The Omen
Too late to change things now. To do so would be really silly after we've played with a flat back four and had good results for the past year.

I think it would be too late as we'd have to get used to it (nice idea though!) but I don't feel results or performances have been that good at all in last year. Ok we won the group but were very lucky to do so in a weak group and also the formation would allow the shakky but excellent pairing of rio and Sol to be cemented with Southgate sweepering.

I feel Beckham is more effective out wide howver he also gets stranded out there and not much support sometimes so central role would release effectiveness in centre and he could drift. If it were any other player than Beckham I'd say our lack of aerial prescence would be a good idea to put Becks in centre but Beck's will put it right on their head. Heskey can win balls in the air and always plays well for England even though I don't rate him.

I think if we were to use this formation Becks would need someone to cope with defensive duties (although he can help) as its the same as having him as a wingback, it would restrict him going forward. Thats why I disagree with Palace fan 72's idea of J cole, Scholes and Becks in the centre with Ashley Cole and Dyer as wingbacks as this is far too attacking and would mean Beckham would be held back without a Butt or even Gerrard (though very adventurous he holds the central midfiel well) next to him.

Elephant with mouse gyp
23-05-2002, 02:01 PM
Anyone who saw last night's under 21 game will surely have realised that playing 4-4-2 against Argentina will see England well beaten. Portugal played a similar formation to the one Argentina use (3-4-3) and, espeically at full back, England were destroyed. What happened was that the wide front men combined with the wide midfield men to create two-on-ones against England's full backs, something I feel sure will happen against Argentina. Indeed, they pulled off the trick against Germany recently. Of course, I hope England do stick with 4-4-2 as I want Argentina to win.

nicky
23-05-2002, 04:40 PM
If we played 3-5-2, with Dyer or Hargreaves as right wing back, they would easily be able to swap places with Beckham in the centre when required.

Sleeping Giant
27-05-2002, 12:39 AM
What I do know is that Ferdinand AND Cole in a back four is absolutely hilarious. Standby for monumental cockups at the back. Would love to be wrong but Cole can't defend at all (Penaltyville Tenneessee) and Ferdinand, comes out with the ball beautifully but STOPPING is not his best attribute. It's my highest priority. Rather like Fan Zihiyi for us, he can look great for 89 mins but will often have that 1 blunder (probably trying to play too much football in a dangerous area) that does the damage. I can't recall having less confidence in an England defence in 30 years of following them. I'm hoping we get lucky...come on England! :)

Sleeping Giant
03-06-2002, 12:20 PM
I agree with those callling for 3-5-2 and wing backs. What on earth was Sven doing not even attempting it in the friendlies?? If he did attempt it playing behind closed doors in training maybe it is a possibility we are simply forced into. If not he can't justify playing this way at all really. He's backed himself into a corner. Rank bad management.

Celestial Empire
03-06-2002, 08:09 PM
Seaman
Mills Campbell Keown Cole
Southgate
Beckham Hargreaves Scholes/Dyer
Owen Vassall/Heskey

Two mobile mid-fielders with good engines, who can tackle and also pass (Southgate & Hargreaves).

Symon10
03-06-2002, 08:33 PM
can someone please merge this with the other thread on the same topic!!!!!!!!

http://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23176