Englands World Cup chances just got worse

PHB

Sven:

"We will start the competition in a 4-4-2. At the moment, my midfield is built with Joe Cole on the left, Gerrard and Lampard in the centre and Beckham on the right.

"Then we will see match after match. That is why I have tried 4-1-3-2 in the past. Unfortunately we don't have any English Makelele."

Does anyone think they can win a world cup playing 4-4-2?

therecklessone

They can do well (I won't say win ) with a 4-4-2, just not with that middle 4.

Jammer

Owen and Wallcott up front?

Owen and Crouch more likely....i dont care what anyone says, Crouch can not win a world cup, he's far too average.

What 4 would be better in the middle Reckless? I'd have thought that would have been their strongest midfield. All very attack minded players though, they'll need discipline not to get caught on the counter...

Pepe LeFrits

I take back what I said about Sven's squad selection. 4-4-2 with that squad, complete nonsense.

PHB

If you are going to play a 4-4-2, you simply have to drop Gerrard or Lampard, full stop.

besty

---

robinson

---

neville----rio

---

terry---cole

---

carrick

---

-beckham----Lampard---Cole/Lennon-

---

Gerrard

---

---

Owen

---

therecklessone

Jammer wrote:

What 4 would be better in the middle Reckless?

PHB wrote:

If you are going to play a 4-4-2, you simply have to drop Gerrard or Lampard, full stop.

What he said.

I'm a Spurs fan,so I'll be accused of being biased, but I can't see past Michael Carrick as the holding midfielder. Failing that, get Phil Neville called up. That lineup he's touting relies on Gerrard hanging back too much which is a complete waste of his talents.

Good and all as Lampard is, I'd drop him. And I'd give serious thought to Lennon being given more than a bit part role.

PHB

Gerrard isn't like Rooney, I wish people would stop talking like that.
He isn't anywhere near as good playing with his back to goal, he needs to run at people.

Heres thing ultimate question:
Who is more likely to score/create a goal?

Gerrard with little defensive duties

OR

Crouch

mike65

---

robinson

---

neville----rio

---

terry---cole

---

carrick

---

-beckham----Lampard---Cole/Lennon-

---

Gerrard

---

---

Owen

---

Thumbs up though I'd sooner have Lennon on the right.

Mike.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

therecklessone

mike65 wrote:

---

robinson

---

neville----rio

---

terry---cole

---

carrick

---

-beckham----Lampard---Cole/Lennon-

---

Gerrard

---

---

Owen

---

The beauty of that lineup is the scope for interchange between the midfielders, Gerrard/Cole/Lampard could all fill the position behind Owen.

One worry would be the fact that Lennon (if he plays) is a touch shot shy, but he will win a load of frees in dangerous positions.

Revelation Joe

PHB wrote:

If you are going to play a 4-4-2, you simply have to drop Gerrard or Lampard, full stop.

I don't understand why everyone thinks Lampard and Gerrard cannot play together?
And what is this obsession with holding midfielders?
In any 'regular' 4-4-2, one central mifdielder goes forward when the team is attacking and one stays back. It doesn't matter which one goes, as long as they don't both go at the same time.
They are both intelligent players and are not daft enough to charging upfield together

Del

mike65

Lampard wants to get forwards all the time though! Hence Gerrard gets stuck with holding role.

Mike.

Vokes

In recent years having one forward dropping deep has got more and more popular which makes a holding midfielder against the better teams an absolute necessitity.

Although saying that, against T&T and maybe Paraguay, i see no problem in playing a flat 4-4-2 with Gerrard/Lampard.

Revelation Joe

mike65 wrote:

Lampard wants to get forwards all the time though! Hence Gerrard gets stuck with holding role.

Fair enough. Only England game I've seen for a couple of years was the home qualifier vs.Poland, so I'm not too in touch

Del

Revelation Joe

SofaKing wrote:

In recent years having one forward dropping deep has got more and more popular which makes a holding midfielder against the better teams an absolute necessitity.

Although saying that, against T&T and maybe Paraguay, i see no problem in playing a flat 4-4-2 with Gerrard/Lampard.

But there must surely be other options?
3-1-4-2 maybe? One centre-back pushes up and man-marks the striker who is dropping off? The other centre-back then plays his normal role and picks up the other striker. The rest of the team can then play *their* normal roles

Just an idea. I'm sure someone will now tell me why it can't work

Del

Slash/ED

Revelation Joe wrote:

I don't understand why everyone thinks Lampard and Gerrard cannot play together?

Because they have spectacularly failed to do so nearly every time I've seen them play together would be my reasoning. That whole mid field four is woefully unbalanced and will never control a top class football match.

zAbbo

Wrong time to try messing with formations now. Imo they should have fast tracked Carrick into the holding role, or at least someone. Look at Spain for example, they've brought in Senna who has 1 cap to give them the option of a terrier in midfield, Why? It gices them the option of playing there flair attacking players(the match winners) fruther up the pitch.

Lampard relies heavily on someone winning the ball in midfield for him.

eirebhoy

Revelation Joe wrote:

I don't understand why everyone thinks Lampard and Gerrard cannot play together?
And what is this obsession with holding midfielders?
In any 'regular' 4-4-2, one central mifdielder goes forward when the team is attacking and one stays back. It doesn't matter which one goes, as long as they don't both go at the same time.
They are both intelligent players and are not daft enough to charging upfield together

Del

It's not an obsession, a holding midfielder is pretty much needed in today's game and 99% of teams use one. The stats don't lie and the only team England actually matched for possession in the last Euros was Croatia (50-50). They had less possession in the 3 other games. A holding midfielder basically means there's someone there at all times to pass the ball to at all times and you'll obviously keep the ball a lot more.

I've said this a few times but it's no coincidence that England performed well against Poland, Argentina, USA and Colombia by playing a holding midfielder. They're a much better team with an anchorman in there and it seems it's only the Irish that realise this.

Also, when was the last time Gerrard, Beckham or Lampard were better than average in an England shirt? It must be at least 2 years now.

Revelation Joe

All very good points raised by eirebhoy, zabbo and Slash/ED

But there *must* be another way to combat the opposition other than by slavishly copying what they do?
Two teams playing the same formations often lead to stale, boring football
That's why Ramsey came up with the 'wingless wonders' in '66

No comments on my earlier 3-1-4-2 suggestion?
Surely a holding centre-half is a better idea, releasing the midfielders to play box-to-box

BTW are we defining a holding midfielder simply as one who doesn't attack in a flat four or one who plays the back of a 'diamond' ?

Del

dcarroll

Jammer wrote:

Owen and Wallcott up front?

Owen and Crouch more likely....i dont care what anyone says, Crouch can not win a world cup, he's far too average.

What 4 would be better in the middle Reckless? I'd have thought that would have been their strongest midfield. All very attack minded players though, they'll need discipline not to get caught on the counter...

In the latter stages of the 98 WC France had Christophe Dugarry and Stepahne Guivarch up front. While I rate Crouch as being at a level between Gary Doherty and Jason Byrne, it shows it can be done

Chucky the tree

Revelation Joe wrote:

All very good points raised by eirebhoy, zabbo and Slash/ED

But there *must* be another way to combat the opposition other than by slavishly copying what they do?
Two teams playing the same formations often lead to stale, boring football
That's why Ramsey came up with the 'wingless wonders' in '66

No comments on my earlier 3-1-4-2 suggestion?
Surely a holding centre-half is a better idea, releasing the midfielders to play box-to-box

BTW are we defining a holding midfielder simply as one who doesn't attack in a flat four or one who plays the back of a 'diamond' ?

Del

If you can figure out a way a way to easily combat the opposition who use a holding midfielder you should apply for the boro job. You'd be a shoe in.

Your 3-1-4-2 suggestion wouldn ever work. You are presuming that every team thats plays 2 up front will have one of their strikers dropping off. WHat happens if they stick 2 up front. Leaves them vunerable down the wings.

If England want to do as well as possible they need to play Carrick.

Revelation Joe

Chucky the tree wrote:

Your 3-1-4-2 suggestion wouldn ever work. You are presuming that every team thats plays 2 up front will have one of their strikers dropping off. WHat happens if they stick 2 up front. Leaves them vunerable down the wings.

But that's my whole argument :rolleyes:
*If* one striker drops off, then one CB pushes up to man-mark him and you play 3-1-4-2. If they have two up front then the CB drops back and you go to a straight 4-4-2. What's so difficult about that?
Formations need to be fluid to adapt to changing circumstances in the game. That's how a good coach earns his corn IMO

Or play 3-5-2, so that you have 3 CBs to cover 2 strikers, but that runs the risk of your wing-back being over-run by the wide midfielder *and* the full-back on the overlap. Although *in theory* you have a CB sweeping who should cover...

Del

Vokes

However your 1 CB in that 3-4-1-2 formation could be overrun by an oppositions centre midfielder making runs.

Revelation Joe

SofaKing wrote:

However your 1 CB in that 3-4-1-2 formation could be overrun by an oppositions centre midfielder making runs.

Not if your CM, who should be tracking back with him, is doing his job

Del

Vokes

Touche

Chucky the tree

Revelation Joe wrote:

But that's my whole argument :rolleyes:
*If* one striker drops off, then one CB pushes up to man-mark him and you play 3-1-4-2. If they have two up front then the CB drops back and you go to a straight 4-4-2. What's so difficult about that?
Formations need to be fluid to adapt to changing circumstances in the game. That's how a good coach earns his corn IMO

Or play 3-5-2, so that you have 3 CBs to cover 2 strikers, but that runs the risk of your wing-back being over-run by the wide midfielder *and* the full-back on the overlap. Although *in theory* you have a CB sweeping who should cover...

Del

But why not have your CM(the holding player) pick up the striker who drops off? Keep the back 4 together. that makes it alot easier.

If the stiker drops off too deep that leaves a big gap in the back 3. There salot of space for the striker and wingers to attacking wingers to run into. Its too risky relying on the CM to track back. Especially with the CM england have(lampard and gerrard).

3-5-2 wouldnt work with England.

carra-rio-terry
beckham-gerrard-carrick(holding)-lampard-cole
crouch-owen


Beckham and cole would be over run. THey arent good enough defenseively. The only player england have who could play as a wing back is Ashley cole. That means taking out joe cole though.

England best formation is 4-4-2 with carrick in place of lampard. Its far too risky though, sven would be lynched.

So that leaves a 4-5-1 with owen up front. If thats the formation Sven went with the rooney injury might be a good thing for them nearly. If he was fit it would be a 4-4-2 with him and owen up front with gerrard and lampard it wouldnt be their strongest team. However since sven is just replacing rooney with crouch it makes them alot weaker.

besty

Chucky, you think Carragher would play ahead of Gary Neville in that formation?
I think not.

PHB

Gary Neville has the ability to play CB, infact Fergie thought he'd be the best center back he'd ever seen, but then he stopped growing and stayed small so he went to full back. He's been playing out of position his whole life.

ButcherOfNog

I'd actually play Gerrard on one wing, Cole on the other, and Beckham and Lampard in the center. Back 4 would be Terry, Campbell, Neville, A Cole.
Crouch and Owen up front.

Yes theres no holding midfield player, but at least Beckham would tend to sit back and pass rather than Lampard and Gerrard who'd be storming forward at every oppertunity, or else doing a pi$$ poor effort at trying to hold.

With Campbell, Terry and Crouch playing, England would be a real handfull at every set play, with the likes of Gerrard and Beckham delivering the corners/free kicks.

With Cole, Gerrard and Owen feeding off Crouch, who most if not all teams will struggle to stop him (and he'll win a fair few free kicks doing this, see point above), I can see most teams adjusting to try and counter England, so they could get away without a holding player in a 4-4-2. Either way, playing some water carrier to sit in midfield is a waste with the midfield talent they have.

Its a real pity Rooney will most likely miss this, but even without him I think England can and should go all the way. I think they'll win it if Owen stays fit, without Rooney and Owen, can't see them doing it, but they'd still go close.

singingstranger

ButcherOfNog - are you counting Owen as the major open-play goalscorer there or would you rather be hoping that Campbell, Crouch and Terry could get them through by nodding in goals from corner kicks?

Revelation Joe

Chucky the tree wrote:

But why not have your CM(the holding player) pick up the striker who drops off? Keep the back 4 together. that makes it alot easier.

If the stiker drops off too deep that leaves a big gap in the back 3. There salot of space for the striker and wingers to attacking wingers to run into. Its too risky relying on the CM to track back. Especially with the CM england have(lampard and gerrard)

I'm trying to come up with an alternative to 4-4-2 with a holder. Everyone's doing it and that makes for sterile football. If CMs are not going to track back, then drop them. And yes, I know that was the point at the start of the thread

Chucky the tree wrote:

3-5-2 wouldnt work with England.

carra-rio-terry
beckham-gerrard-carrick(holding)-lampard-cole
crouch-owen

Well not with that XI. Neville at RWB and
push Beckham inside. You then don't need Carrick as Beckham is free to ping balls all over the park.

Chucky the tree wrote:

The only player england have who could play as a wing back is Ashley cole. That means taking out joe cole though.

Agree with that for the left but Neville can certainly play RWB

Del

Revelation Joe

ButcherOfNog wrote:

I'd actually play Gerrard on one wing, Cole on the other, and Beckham and Lampard in the center. Back 4 would be Terry, Campbell, Neville, A Cole.
Crouch and Owen up front.

Yes theres no holding midfield player, but at least Beckham would tend to sit back and pass rather than Lampard and Gerrard who'd be storming forward at every oppertunity, or else doing a pi$$ poor effort at trying to hold.

I like the idea of that

ButcherOfNog wrote:

With Cole, Gerrard and Owen feeding off Crouch, who most if not all teams will struggle to stop him (and he'll win a fair few free kicks doing this, see point above), I can see most teams adjusting to try and counter England, so they could get away without a holding player in a 4-4-2. Either way, playing some water carrier to sit in midfield is a waste with the midfield talent they have.

That's also true. There *must* be a way to utilise all that talent to it's fullest extent, which is why I feel that there must be an alternative to holding midfielders.

ButcherOfNog wrote:

Its a real pity Rooney will most likely miss this, but even without him I think England can and should go all the way. I think they'll win it if Owen stays fit, without Rooney and Owen, can't see them doing it, but they'd still go close.

Owen seems 100% confident that he's 100% fit. I am confident for their chance in this tourno, more than I was for Euro 2000

Del

dcarroll

lads its sven were talkin about here, gonna be 4-4-2 no matter what

ronbyrne2005

no one wins major tournaments without a holding/defensive midfielder. beckham should be dropped as he doesnt do it at highest level and he couldnt dribble past my granny. england can play gerrard and lampard togehter but only with a holding midfielder or by playing holding player and moving gerrard out wide which isnt advisable.

i'd play
robinson
neville rio terry carragher
gerrard lamps carrick(or another) cole
owen crouch (or drop crouch and play 5 in midfield but owen doesnt hold up ball or win headers etc)

if rooney aint fit.

Dont be at yourself

I think England can win with both Lampard and Gerrard on the pitch - indeed, in the absence of Rooney, I think those two need to be on the pitch. They're two of the best goal-scoring midfielers in the world, and their tally over the season has been pretty incredible.

The two of them together wont offer enough to protect the defence, but if you were to drop either Crouch or Owen (and it's debatable who would work better as a lone striker) and play Carrick (or King, or even Carra) infront of the defence, they'd have a strong team.

A lone striker mightn't be that prolific, but Lampard and Gerrard are always good for a goal or two.

The Rooster

Options to play Gerrard and Lampard together, given that both are best when playing as attacking centre midfielder:

- play Gerrard as holding centre midfielder
- play Gerrard as right sided midfielder
- play Gerrard behind striker

Isnt it odd that pretty much everyone moves Gerrard around and leaves Lamps as the attacking centre midfielder, when on current form there is no doubt that Gerrard is better than Lampard in that position. Why not move Lampard around?

Dont be at yourself

Because Lampard's game is solely attacking, whereas Gerrard is a lot more versatile.

PiE

Moving Gerrard around to the wings/holding position is silly, he's by far the most influential player they have. He should be in the center, preferably in the role Lampard has wrongfully been gifted.

I'd much rather see Lampard dropped altogether than to see Gerrard's best attributes being wasted. He offers so much more to the team as a whole than Lampard could ever hope to.

eirebhoy

The Rooster wrote:

Isnt it odd that pretty much everyone moves Gerrard around and leaves Lamps as the attacking centre midfielder, when on current form there is no doubt that Gerrard is better than Lampard in that position.

I don't know about that. Gerrard has proven to be a better player than Lampard overrall but I think Lampard is definitely the better player for playing in the more attacking role. He'll get you more goals and assists while Gerrard can play with the box to box abilities he's been gifted with. I still don't see Gerrard as an attacking midfielder, more a Roy Keane of old.

The Rooster

Saying Lampard lacks versatility is very convenient for Lampard. Playing Gerrard as a holding midfielder means you get a totally different player, in my opinion you are serving to nullify the best player you have by playing him out of position.

gracehopper

Gerard will play deeper than lampard and i think it will work.

Lampard is too valuable to drop and Gerard could do the work of Micheal Carrick and all the other attacking things that Carrick doesnt do.

Villain

I'm laughing because I posted the team has said will start here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054928376&page=8 and people shot it down.

I reckon Gerrard will sit back and Lampard will do the attacking, great midfield.

eirebhoy

irish1 wrote:

I'm laughing because I posted the team has said will start here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054928376&page=8 and people shot it down.

And rightly so.

PHB

I reckon Gerrard will sit back and Lampard will do the attacking, great midfield.

Lampard is too valuable to drop and Gerard could do the work of Micheal Carrick and all the other attacking things that Carrick doesnt do.

No he can't, he's not that amazing a player, he can't be everywhere at once, he's a human.
He plays in a midfield with Alonso or Hamann, often both.
Lampard plays in a midfield with Makelele and Essien.

They are absolutely incredible for their clubs.

They play in a midfield of Gerrard and Lampard
For england, they tend to be ****e.

Have you noticed a pattern here?

Villain

I'll have to disagree I think Gerrard has enough quality to adapt his game to such a role and I think England need to play 2 up top if they want to have any chance of getting anywhere in the world. Only time will tell.

Dont be at yourself

He plays in a midfield with Alonso or Hamann, often both.

Rarely both. He plays well with Alonso, and not as an out-and-out attacking midfielder, he does his share of ball-winning and tracking back too. The issue is not that he can't play as a box-to-box type player, it's that he can't play as a box-to-box type player if he's only playing alongside Lampard, who doesnt offer enough defensively.

In my opinion, England need to drop a striker and play Carrick (or A.N. Other) behind Lampard and Gerrard, in order to play to the strengths of their two most important fit players. With over 40 goals between them this season, that second striker wont be missed!

Chucky the tree

besty wrote:

Chucky, you think Carragher would play ahead of Gary Neville in that formation?
I think not.

Of course he would. You telling me Neville is a better CB then carragher?

Revelation Joe wrote:

I'm trying to come up with an alternative to 4-4-2 with a holder. Everyone's doing it and that makes for sterile football. If CMs are not going to track back, then drop them. And yes, I know that was the point at the start of the thread

Has football been sterile lately? i certainly dont think so. Its been proven to be an essential formation. So why chane it? Football about winning, not worrying if its "sterile".

Revelation Joe wrote:

Well not with that XI. Neville at RWB and
push Beckham inside. You then don't need Carrick as Beckham is free to ping balls all over the park.

Still need a holding player. Beckham cant do it.


carra-rio-terry
neville-gerrard-beckham-lampard-cole
crouch-owen


Who would play infront of the back 3 their? Push up one of the CB's? who? Neither can do the job as holding player.

You cant play 2 CB's and 2 wing backs. The team would be destroyed.

therecklessone

Boss Sven-Goran Eriksson is expected to drop Peter Crouch, with Steven Gerrard in an advanced midfield role and Jamie Carragher as a holding midfielder.

The Swede has said he will select his best available team for the friendly against Hungary.

Story

Now Jamie Carragher is one of the best CBs in the English game, but as a holding midfielder? Is he f*cking insane? Walcott still in the squad and Lennon's dropped? Is he injured?

Anyone else get the feeling Sven's deliberately f*cking this up as revenge for the fake Sheikh?

Dont be at yourself

Carragher has previously played as a holding midfielder for Liverpool. Under the circumstances, I think it's worth experimenting with.

therecklessone

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

Carragher has previously played as a holding midfielder for Liverpool. Under the circumstances, I think it's worth experimenting with.

The Swede has said he will select his best available team for the friendly against Hungary.

This ain't no experiment.