PDA

View Full Version : England - Change of formation


davematt
02-06-2002, 09:17 PM
After todays performance we can say that emile heskey can't play on the left wing. during the last three years we have played around 20 diffrent players in that position. so i think we should change to the 3-5-2 formation as we have the players to suite it.

seaman
campbell ferdinand souhtgate
hargreves a.cole
beckham dyer
scholes
owen vassell

with this we could pass the ball around without having to play that long ball rubbish and we have the advantage of not needing a natural left winger. if sven has real guts he would change the whole system that we used today or face the dissapointment of elimination, because argentina will love to play a team that plays the long ball coz they have the defenders to deal with it.

Jaffa
02-06-2002, 09:21 PM
I think the answer is not to switch formations this late, but instead to play Ashley Cole at Left Midfield and Wayne Bridge at Left Back.

We need Beckham out wide.

davematt
02-06-2002, 09:29 PM
possibly, but again we are not playing someone who plays on the left wing. i would like to see sven give that a go but i firstly want us to use our world class players like scholes, dyer, and give it there feet and stop hoffing it up to the oppositions area for owen and co to chase on to, coz defences just need to defend deep to stop us creating any chances, just like sweden did today

davematt
02-06-2002, 09:31 PM
possibly, but again we are not playing someone who plays on the left wing. i would like to see sven give that a go but i firstly want us to use our world class players like scholes, dyer, and give it there feet and stop hoffing it up to the oppositions area for owen and co to chase on to, coz defences just need to defend deep to stop us creating any chances, just like sweden did today
i think beckham could be as effective in the middle as he is always roaming around every part of the pitch anyway

New_Malden_Eagle
02-06-2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Jaffa
I think the answer is not to switch formations this late, but instead to play Ashley Cole at Left Midfield and Wayne Bridge at Left Back.

We need Beckham out wide.
I agree, but I think it is too late to start experimenting with changing around Cole and Bridge now, I wish Sven had done it in one of the warm up games.
After today I was almost tempted to say we should bring Beckham infield. Did he actually touch the ball in the second half before he went off?

LLCOOLSTEVE
02-06-2002, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by New_Malden_Eagle

After today I was almost tempted to say we should bring Beckham infield.

I mentioned that too here (http://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23153)

davematt
02-06-2002, 10:06 PM
we have got a serious problem coz i dont think we actually have a system that suites the side. i think we needed to bring on teddy sheringham today as he is a experienced player and it would of made us play the ball to his feet and not hoof it into the air

BUNGLE
02-06-2002, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by davematt

seaman
campbell ferdinand souhtgate
hargreves a.cole
beckham dyer
scholes
owen vassell



I'd have this but with Dyer in Hargreves place, Butt in Dyer's place and Heskey in Vassell's place.

Jaffa
02-06-2002, 10:10 PM
Teddy Sheringham...









My ARSE!

davematt
02-06-2002, 10:35 PM
the main problem is that we are too predictable at the moment, and argentina will murder us. if sweden had a work class striker like batistuta, they would of won the match. i watched the argies today and they play a formation that we would not be able to cope with defensivly, with 3 up front and veron just behind them. hopefully if dyer is fully fit i would start him, but would u start with him on the left, or in the middle where he is so effective

pete eagle
02-06-2002, 11:07 PM
the problem with Sheringham is do you bring him in as the second striker or as a deep striker in 3-4-3.

Personally i think he will stick Heskey up front in place of vassell and put Dyer on the left and Butt to replace Hargreaves. At least with heskey up front, the ball can be held up and others brought in. Hargreaves played ok but got more and more lost as the game went on. Euro 2004 will be his chance to shine i think

davematt
02-06-2002, 11:51 PM
i think that sven has a massive decision to make in the next few days. firstly who plays up front. now owen and vassell are 5.4ft & 5.5. respectivly but we lack the big forward like heskey to knock the balls down for the little striker to run onto. vassell had a good game, but owen was rubbish, but owen has to start, so he will have to drop vassell in my view due to the fact that owen and vassell are to alike and theres not a player like heskey to knock balls down and also hold up the ball. the other alternative would be sheringham in the heskey role.
in midfield we have so many different options. beckham is a definate on the right ( if fit) with scholes in the middle. now who partners scholes. butt, hargreaves or dyer, but dyer is supposed to be the problem solver on the left. i personally feel dyer is the best central midfielder in the squad when he is fit and playing to his potential. if dyer comes in the middle then who goes on the left. there are so many things to be sorted out in the next 5 days. its a shame that we have played 8 qualifiers to get there and after 180 minutes we may be on our way home.
i think it will be svens most testing week of his managerial career, and lets hope by friday evening we wont be talking about all these problems and celebrating a great victory!!!!!!!

Jaffa
02-06-2002, 11:51 PM
How can people contemplate dropping Vassell?

Our best player today by a distance.

davematt
02-06-2002, 11:54 PM
if we dont drop vassell then the same things that happened today will happen on friday. we need a striker to hold up and knock balls down for owen to run onto, but hopefully if sven gets us passing the ball around and abolish the long ball, we could start with owen and vassell, but on the showing of today, sven must think that the long ball is the best way forward for us, i say bollocks to that

Daniel_Nash
03-06-2002, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Jaffa
I think the answer is not to switch formations this late, but instead to play Ashley Cole at Left Midfield and Wayne Bridge at Left Back.

We need Beckham out wide.

I agree about not changing, it would be more of a gamble than it's worth. Biggest game in years and you change everything with no practise? Sounds like madness.

The MOTD crew were calling for and Bridge/Cole left side, i'd be a little wary of Wayne Bridge getting nervy. Then Scholes and Hargreaves in the middle and Beckham wide right, but not always on the right. He has to be able to roam towards the middle otherwise the Argies can just isolate him.

Argentina might be missing Ayala too, he hurt himself in their warm up today and might not be certain to play.

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 12:21 AM
for me - Nicky Butt has to come back in

Daniel_Nash
03-06-2002, 12:24 AM
Off topic slightly.....

Argentina goalkeeper German Burgos has fired the opening salvo in the build-up to his side's next Group F game on Friday by claiming that England have "cheated" by employing a foreign coach. "It's no better than allowing a foreigner to play - it amounts to cheating," he said.

:veryangry :veryangry :veryangry

Have Argentina ALWAYS had an Argie manager?

Cheating?? who are they to talk about cheating!!! "It's no better than punching the ball into the net - it amounts to cheating", he should have said. Diving, punching the ball, shirt pulling, rolling around crying, conning the ref.. and he says employing a foreign coach is cheating??!!

03-06-2002, 12:43 AM
not very bright the Argentinian team.

ozeagle
03-06-2002, 12:46 AM
i thought heskey was one of england's best today...

Originally posted by davematt
After todays performance we can say that emile heskey can't play on the left wing. during the last three years we have played around 20 diffrent players in that position. so i think we should change to the 3-5-2 formation as we have the players to suite it.

seaman
campbell ferdinand souhtgate
hargreves a.cole
beckham dyer
scholes
owen vassell

with this we could pass the ball around without having to play that long ball rubbish and we have the advantage of not needing a natural left winger. if sven has real guts he would change the whole system that we used today or face the dissapointment of elimination, because argentina will love to play a team that plays the long ball coz they have the defenders to deal with it.

sydney eagle
03-06-2002, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by Jaffa
How can people contemplate dropping Vassell?

Our best player today by a distance. agreed,he was outstanding.

Sleeping Giant
03-06-2002, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Jaffa
How can people contemplate dropping Vassell?

Our best player today by a distance.


Very simple. Owen is a World Class player and Vassell might become one (though i doubt it) but isn't yet. You can't play both, they are too similar so Vassell, who did all that could be asked and more has to be dissappointed unfortunately. Owen was awful in this match when he did see the ball but won't be dropped for one bad game.

Martin H
03-06-2002, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Jaffa
I think the answer is not to switch formations this late, but instead to play Ashley Cole at Left Midfield and Wayne Bridge at Left Back.

We need Beckham out wide.

Jaffa,

completely agree!

What?
03-06-2002, 03:36 AM
I too agree, with Heskey up front.

davematt
03-06-2002, 12:50 PM
sven has just given a press conference and gave a few clues that there will be some changes on friday. i think he may start with sheringham coz he is the only player in the squad who can hold up the ball. also with sheringham in the team it means that the long ball system will go out of the window as sheringham demands the ball to his feet. i think dyer will come in on the left to replace heskey. sven also added that no fresh injuries were picked up and that beckham has woken up with no after affects from the match

Celestial Empire
03-06-2002, 07:27 PM
Vassall and Owen - two little guys who are nippy and strike well.
That's where the similarities end.
Owen has lightening acceleration, and goes straight for goal.
Vassall is a very clever ball player who drops off and can make killer passes (at least for Villa he does).
Not saying they necessarily complement each other at the moment, but they could do in the future.

Daniel_Nash
03-06-2002, 07:31 PM
If Ayala is fit for the Argies, then we need either a big man next to Owen to hold him off and win free kicks... or a clever man to hold the ball up and link the play.

Ayala is a tough, and somewhat dirty and devious defender. Bit of trickery is needed. Heskey would be the big man, and Sheringham the clever man.

anti-addick
03-06-2002, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Jaffa
I think the answer is not to switch formations this late, but instead to play Ashley Cole at Left Midfield and Wayne Bridge at Left Back.

We need Beckham out wide.

Absolutely. We should have also taken McManaman along since he can play there. I'd give Beckham a free role anyway - he's by far the classiest player we have.

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by anti-addick


Absolutely. We should have also taken McManaman along since he can play there. I'd give Beckham a free role anyway - he's by far the classiest player we have.

Are you talking about just behind the strikers, it's a interesting option but Beckham isn't your traditional free role player like Totti,Zidane,Figo or Ballack. He does a lot more donkey work than those 4 put together which is what makes him a world class player not just a great crosser and set piece taker, he sets the example for everyone else in terms of work ethic and running

Daniel_Nash
03-06-2002, 07:54 PM
Just behind the strikers.. no, don't think that would work in the way we'd hope. BUT, a free role to do whatever he needs to, wherever he needs to.. that might.

I think maybe Sheringham, or someone like him, should play behind 2 strikers - Owen and Vassell possibly. With a midfield of Scholes, Beckham and with Hargreaves sitting infront of the defence. Almost like a midfield diamond. Not sure if this is just fantasy or if it might actually do the trick, it's a bit late to be trying brand new ideas though.

Symon10
03-06-2002, 08:22 PM
been discussing england a lot with a mate.... here's the basics of the e-mail i sent....

(ALSO --- why does everyone rate dyer so highly? he has been abysmal every time he has played for england and has been injured so much. to be suggesting he is the best player to play left wing for his country when two years ago he was a right back is stupid!!!)

************
what options do we have? the obvious thing to do is play our best team and best formations for us - regardless of the opposition.

ok so if we played our best team...

it'd be 4-4-2.

------seaman

mills rio ferdinand cole

beckham butt scholes ?????

------heskey own


that would be the proven best team and formation because it is the nearest we can get to how we beat germany.

who played wide left against germany? was it barmby?

anyway.... argentina

they played a back four of

Placente, Sorin, Pocchettino, Samuel ??? isn't sorin a midfielder??

we need to have owen, vassell and heskey to rip that apart with pace.... if ayala plays they'd play a back three though???
still with three up front we'd cause them big problems as they're slow.

then they had veron in that playmaker deep/free role thing <--- we need to do something to limit him playing.

with zanetti and simeone either side.

we have to put beckham v simeone - he must want to get one over him so badly!!!

if we look at their strike force of a three up front ---- Ortega, Claudio Lopez , Batistuta

the way to defend that is cole/mills pick up the wide players. campbell takes out batistuta and rio drops off picking up the pieces.

so for a team so far we have 3 up front and a back 4. what do we do in midfield. well we have beckham in a inside right position. then scholes somewhere else plus one other. scholes at times yesturday was good - he got the ball down and had some control on things... he was the only player able to do it. so ok his tradmark is late runs into the box - but without gerrard i don't think we can allow him to do that if we play 3 up front. if we played the 4-4-2 above then yes he'll do that and play how he normally does. why not scholes in a role like veron? he tried to play it yesturday in a way but in a midfield four and it left hargeaves not sure where to go, no left winger and nobody passing the ball simply.

what i'm tyring to argue is play this


---------------------Seaman

-------------------Rio
----------Mills----------Campbell--------Cole

---------------------Scholes
--------------Beckham------ Hargreaves

---------------------Owen
Vassell--------------------------------------Heskey

you are right - we can't play owen as a target man - so don't have.... him dropping off! have him getting in the position and scaring argentina by dribbling - he wanted to do it all the time yesturday and argentina are going to be scared of him turning and running at them. also it should make veron think - if owen's dropping deep he can do a job when he doesn't have the ball and limit veron. in playing this we have two target men not just one. we can hit the ball wide whenever we need outlets in the forms of heskey and vassell - vassell is not as small and like owen as people say (well i dont' think anyway). i think he's more like heskey. then we have scholes playmaking with beckham hitting heskey whenever he can.

i know what you are thinking --- surely you play butt in a holding role in midfield and not scholes with scholes further up on the left not hargreaves.... well maybe it should be. i'm not sure. the reason i want to play hargeaves there is because he can use his left foot and provides more of a balance. also he will want to prove himself because he will know he was poor yesturday. there is also a question over butts fitness.

i'm starting to see problems in our back four. i'm asking mills and cole to do what they can't do. defend against quality strikers. i'm not sure.... anyway. what you think?

and no saying we must play sinclair (**the person i'm writing to is a west ham fan who loves sinclair). i don't think there can be any call for him to play unless people are injured. he has not showed anything to merit being put in and joe cole/dyer are both preferences to him.

********

then i also was thinking along the lines of changing to a 3-5-2 as well.... these are all of course suggestions and i think you should always consider every option. it is not necesarily too late to change formation. sven has 4 days to drill it into the team. which for a 3-5-2 isn't too difficult. the basics are you have to keep possession - so that theme has to be there for the next 4 days and probably would be anyway...campbell rio and southgate are all intelligent enough to kow how to play a back 3. southgate plays in one regularily and we always used to say how rio could only play in a back three.

so in 3-5-2

i think play dyer right wing back. i really used to rate him as a wing back. but now i seem him as an attacking midfielder who doesn't really fit into things. yesturday he couldn't cross and just looked shoddy. but surely he can go back to how he naturally played a few years ago?

beckham and scholes running things in midfield. scholes can have much more of a licence to go forward and should basicaly go one on one with veron - try and prove he's a class above. also they know each other. then as normal beckham v simeone. :) fight fight fight fight fight fight hehehehe

with owen and vassell up front. heskey can't be picked over vassell in this formation. you don't ned a target man. it is a passing formation. all players must be comfortable on the ball. and amazingly every single one is. vassell and owen must both be able to drop and get the ball to feet. also getting into the wide areas as they both love to do....giving scholes even more insentive to go forward...


--------------Seaman

--------Southgate Rio Campbell

Dyer---------------------------- Cole

----------------Butt
------Beckham--------Scholes


-------Vassell----------Owen

******************

btw - i don't agree with everyone who's saying we should play sheringham. i don't think he's good enough and is past his best.

Trigger Happy
03-06-2002, 08:23 PM
we have to drop vassell even tho he was better than owen gainst sweden, who is more likely to score? we need goals not tricks. Owen came closer to scoring against sweden even though he hardly touched the ball throughout the game. Just look at how many goals vassell scored for villa, if we are going to play heskey or shringham up front we need them with a proven goal scorer, ie owen, not someone with lots of tricks.

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 08:25 PM
owen is more likely to score a goal out of nothing or when he has been quiet for long periods of the game

Symon10
03-06-2002, 08:28 PM
totally disagree with dropping vassell - it's his birthday on the 13th :D

vassell should be picked over heskey - he has been consistently better than heskey for the past 4 games. I don't understand the idea of bringing sheringham in.

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Symon10
totally disagree with dropping vassell - it's his birthday on the 13th :D

vassell should be picked over heskey - he has been consistently better than heskey for the past 4 games. I don't understand the idea of bringing sheringham in.

Vassell and Owen are too similar because they both run on to balls over the top - hence it makes it too easy for the argentinian defence because they know what is coming. But with someone like Sheringham, he wants the ball at his feet outside the box and can place balls through for Owen and it varies the england play more and gives the defence more to think about. also with Sheringham, he's good in the air and so can flick on balls and can get on the end of crosses in the penalty area. Heskey is different to Owen because he likes to get the ball at his feet with his back to goal and turn defenders with his strength and speed, he is also reasonable in the air and gives an extra dimension to England's front two as he gives a physical presence and he can batter the defence and give Owen that extra yard of room. Again it gives the england attack variety. defenders love predictability as they know what is coming and they don't have to worry about much else, with Owen and Vassell, it is too predictable so the defence just sits deep and doesn't give much room behind them.

to give an example of what someone like Sheringham can do is the Italy game today, the Italy attack was varied as they got Totti on the ball a lot and he was always looking to put Vieri through with 20-30 yard passes as well as balls coming from 40-50 yards over the top. This variation made the defence unsure of what was coming and therefore that attack has an advantage.

Symon10
03-06-2002, 08:39 PM
I think i'm the only one who doesn't think vassell and owen are "too similar". you do not need to bring in sheringham to vary attacks. that's ignorant and short sighted. owen dropped off quite a bit early on yesturday and was trying to make things happen. yes they both have pace. and yes they do both like balls over the top. however vassell into the channels more - how many times yesturday was a ball hit wide and vassell chased and got there ahead of the defender to win it. owen needs the ball more centrally. anyway - there is no reason owen and vassell can't hold the ball up. it was the problem of the central midfielders and tactics not the personel. we were playing direct balls far to much - always looking for those through balls behind for owen and vassell. the two central midfielders needed to be getting the ball down simply and passing it simply - not the through balls all the time. it has to be varied. with owen and vassell you can do both - we just didn't do it yesturday!

Symon10
03-06-2002, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by pete eagle



to give an example of what someone like Sheringham can do is the Italy game today, the Italy attack was varied as they got Totti on the ball a lot and he was always looking to put Vieri through with 20-30 yard passes as well as balls coming from 40-50 yards over the top. This variation made the defence unsure of what was coming and therefore that attack has an advantage.

they were playing ecuador

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 08:43 PM
the point is that because those two are pacy and like balls over the top is that the defence keeps hitting them because that's what they think they should do. But if they know that Sheringham is there, he isn't going to want balls over the top all the time so they are forced to think and play balls through the midfield to his feet. He is also very good at slotting passes through the defence from 20-30 yards which gives the extra variety i was talking about, Owen and vassell aren't those sort of passers

Symon10
03-06-2002, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by pete eagle


Heskey is different to Owen because he likes to get the ball at his feet with his back to goal and turn defenders with his strength and speed, he is also reasonable in the air and gives an extra dimension to England's front two as he gives a physical presence and he can batter the defence and give Owen that extra yard of room.

vassell is certainly able to muscle out defenders a lot. he is not quite as big as heskey agreed. but he's not bad in the air. he does win the ball in the air unlike owen.

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Symon10


they were playing ecuador

and...... if you don't have variety in your attack you ain't gonna win many football games.

France were playing Senegal and lost. Why? Because they were too predictable and so made it easier for the Senegalese defence

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Symon10


vassell is certainly able to muscle out defenders a lot. he is not quite as big as heskey agreed. but he's not bad in the air. he does win the ball in the air unlike owen.

he didn't win much yesterday in the air. Against someone like Ayala, can you really see him winning much in the air

Symon10
03-06-2002, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by pete eagle
the point is that because those two are pacy and like balls over the top is that the defence keeps hitting them because that's what they think they should do. But if they know that Sheringham is there, he isn't going to want balls over the top all the time so they are forced to think and play balls through the midfield to his feet. He is also very good at slotting passes through the defence from 20-30 yards which gives the extra variety i was talking about, Owen and vassell aren't those sort of passers

thats a error in management. they should know what they should do from the management. they do not have to play the ball over the top at them.

i agree sheringham can be superb at slotting passes through - and if i still believe he was good enough still to do that i would be agreeing with you. but i don't. i think he's slower now. i think his touch is going and isn't quite there for this level. the argentine defence is slow by the way - have you read my long post about the three different options??

1) 4-4-2 best team
2) 4-3-3
3) 3-5-2

personally i'm not sure which we should go for, if i was confident is how heskey is playing and we had a left winger i'd say no problem option 1) but we don't. option 2 would really give argentina problems but we might struggle defensively.

Symon10
03-06-2002, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by pete eagle


and...... if you don't have variety in your attack you ain't gonna win many football games.

France were playing Senegal and lost. Why? Because they were too predictable and so made it easier for the Senegalese defence

i agree. we both agree we need to vary attacks. of course you do. that's a basic thing... as i said to a friend yesturday - there were so many basic fundamental problems yesturday.

i just disagree with the method of making us vary attacks. you dont' have to change players to do that.

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 08:53 PM
i'm talking about when England are under pressure, that's when the endless hopeful 50-60 yard balls appear. That's a question of their ability to cope under pressure, Sven likes the team to be direct, but not as direct as that, he likes it as it was in the first 30 minutes, a few over the top balls, but passing it a bit around the back and getting it forward through the full backs and wingers quickly

davematt
03-06-2002, 08:54 PM
sven may go with 4-3-3 with owen, vassell, and then heskey playing more of a striker than a winger. but u could play owen, vassell up front with sheringham behind with a midfield of beckham, scholes, ???. i would like to see us playing the ball on the ground. alan hansen said last night that we did not have good enough passers in the team, bollocks. beckham, scholes, dyer, hargreaves, ferdinand, sheringham are some of the best passes in the game. if we play long ball on friday the argies just have to defend as deep as the swedes did and then thay will get a good grip of the game and tear us to pieces. defensivly we are shaky, and if we cant handle larrson and allback, we wont be able to handle batistuta, crespo,lopez, ortega, veron, gonzalez, the list goes on. sven made a big mistake in not changing the whole formation in one of the friendlies last week to see how they would work. we are now stuck with a side so predictable anyone team in the top 10 in the world could beat us

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 08:58 PM
they type of 4-3-3 formation that you showed is the one we used against Holland and worked well, it could work but I'd have Butt instead of hargreaves because hargreaves still isn't quite ready in my eyes.

Another point about having Heskey or Sheringham is that they tend to pull defenders with them, especially Heskey when he peels wide and Sheringham when he drops deeper. This allows Paul Scholes to exploit the space left and there is nobody better in my view in the world who is better than Paul Scholes at making runs from midfield and running past the strikers or arriving late in the penalty area. When Owen and Vassell played together, Paul Scholes looked like he was playing half his game

Symon10
03-06-2002, 09:00 PM
davematt - interesting you say we were defensively poor yesturday.

rio and campbell had excellent games. they won absolutely everything.

defending starts with your attackers. then you midfielders. then defenders.

i didn't watch owen and vassell closely enough when sweden had possesion - so i can't comment if they were chasing the ball enough.

our midfielders were nto good enough defensively. they made that problem for themselves by not keeping the ball. for their goal scholes was to blame - obviously that is ignoring the massive mistake by mills - but when the ball came out to the edge of the box scholes could have got back two yards won the ball of the swede. he didn't.

at times i agree we were poor defensively. cole and mills are not the best defensively and both made mistakes.

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Symon10


our midfielders were nto good enough defensively. they made that problem for themselves by not keeping the ball. for their goal scholes was to blame - obviously that is ignoring the massive mistake by mills - but when the ball came out to the edge of the box scholes could have got back two yards won the ball of the swede. he didn't.

.

I think all 4 of the players around Alexandersson have to take some blame for not closing down the ball. Messrs Scholes,Cole,Campbell and Ferdinand all stood and watched

Symon10
03-06-2002, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by pete eagle
This allows Paul Scholes to exploit the space left and there is nobody better in my view in the world who is better than Paul Scholes at making runs from midfield and running past the strikers or arriving late in the penalty area. When Owen and Vassell played together, Paul Scholes looked like he was playing half his game

the reason scholes didn't make these runs yesturday was not because vassell and owen were not drawing defenders out. it was because scholes for some reason was playing basically a holding role. hargreaves was more attacking most of the time. i agree with you that i don't think hargreaves is quite ready unfortunetly. so yes butt could be a better option - although there are problems with that like i've said earlier.

Symon10
03-06-2002, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by pete eagle


I think all 4 of the players around Alexandersson have to take some blame for not closing down the ball. Messrs Scholes,Cole,Campbell and Ferdinand all stood and watched

yes agreed. scholes was not goal side however - which was lazyness/tiredness. cole/campbell/ferdinand had the problem of decision making. in a split second to decide whether to close the ball down or make sure the forwards were being dealt with. basic position which schoels lacked is easier than split second decision making.

davematt
03-06-2002, 09:10 PM
defensivly in the second half we were caught out quite alot. if it wasnt for seaman we would of lost the game. campbell had a good game, but rio was not brilliant. i am not too confident with them two as a partnership, but they are too great individual defenders. we find it very hard to keep clean sheets, and the likes of france, argentina, italy can keep clean sheets. the way the press act is that we are one of the best teams in the world, thats rubbish. when we get to the big stages in world and european cups we seem to lose our bottle. under sven i thought that may change but after the germany game we have not performed that well at all. the heads dropped after they equalised and we never looked like scoring again. if you watch our defending in set pieces our players lose there man too often. we have to prepare in training how to defend corners at the back post coz veron on sunday was looking for batistuta at every opportunity, and they eventually scored from one.

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 09:13 PM
there wasn't enough protection from the midfield which is why the back 4 became more exposed in the second half. This was because Hargreaves faded from the game - this why i think Butt should be brought in because he is a big game player, he will deliver the tackles and grit for you and will relish taking on veron and he is also very reliable and won't let you down. The added benefit is that he tends to operate closer to the back 4 and so can pick balls up from them and he passes it about a bit - simple passes to build the attack up

Symon10
03-06-2002, 09:16 PM
agreed davematt. i think i was basing my judgement more on the first half.

davematt
03-06-2002, 09:18 PM
we defended well first half coz we had nothing to defend, as they were crap. but second half when they got there game together they tore our whole team to pieces. is this coz were just not good enough yet at this level

Symon10
03-06-2002, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by pete eagle
there wasn't enough protection from the midfield which is why the back 4 became more exposed in the second half. This was because Hargreaves faded from the game - this why i think Butt should be brought in because he is a big game player, he will deliver the tackles and grit for you and will relish taking on veron and he is also very reliable and won't let you down. The added benefit is that he tends to operate closer to the back 4 and so can pick balls up from them and he passes it about a bit - simple passes to build the attack up

agreed. hence if you look to where i say 4-4-2 best team butt is in it not scholes. i dont' think hargreaves really knew what he was doing yesturday because scholes wasn't playing how he does normally - he was operating a lot nearer the back 4. hargreaves was positioned more attacking than scholes when he should have been providing the protection we both agree wasn't there. i'm not sure why they played like that. i don't think hargreaves gave a full representation of himself but i agree he isn't ready. i've been saying for months he should be in the team and given a chance and most people have laughed until now but going into the game yesturday i really feared he wasn't ready and he proved he wasn't. if butt hadn't got a knock i'm sure it would have been him starting. playing 4-4-2 against argentina i agree butt should be in

Symon10
03-06-2002, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by davematt
we defended well first half coz we had nothing to defend, as they were crap. but second half when they got there game together they tore our whole team to pieces. is this coz were just not good enough yet at this level

we didn't have anything dangerous to defend i agree. rio and campbell however did win a lot in the air.

it does look like we are not good enough unfortunetly.

anyway - time to go revise... enjoyed the discussion, cheers.

pete eagle
03-06-2002, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Symon10




anyway - time to go revise... enjoyed the discussion, cheers.

my pleasure, what you revising at this time. It's half term. :D

davematt
03-06-2002, 09:27 PM
i think our time will come in euro 2004 or germany 2006. we missed gerrard in the second half, as he would of protected the back 4 and got the team back into shape. i am a big fan of dyer and if he is fit, i would play him against the argies coz i think he has the pace and ability to unlock the argentinian defence. i think beckham will start again coz he will be so fired up to prove to the rest of the world that he has what it takes to handle the pressure of such a big game.