Tactical error by Mr.Eriksson

[Sky_]

Anyone else think the blame should be put primarily on Sven Goran Eriksson, rather than the players or luck/skill of France?

First of all, if Heskey didn't go on for Rooney, the free kick wouldn't have happened. Seeing Heskey did ZILCH for offense, I'm assuming that Eriksson put him on as an extra tall defender. But the fact is, England defense was NOT FLAWED, there was no problem at all, save for the one or two Trezeguet headers in the first half, but in the second we all thought he was subbed. He did nothing to threaten the defense. Why fix something that doesn't need fixing? In the end he did more harm than good.

After saving that sub, Eriksson should have replaced Gerrard with Phil Neville or Butt. He was having an off game, his beautiful passes and perfect tackles as seen in Liverpool were AWOL today. He did make a few good tackles but nothing Phil or Butt can't do. He was the only weak link in defense, Lampard did OK, Beckham's passes were sharp, and Scholes, well he did nothing as well and got subbed anyways.

What does anyone else think?

[its called football]

Rubbish. Heskey came on as Rooney was looking like he may get a card. He worked well with Vassell to hold the ball up. The subs coninsided with the begining of England getting hold of the ball more. Also, Gerrard was very good today untill his lapse in injury time.
As for the free kick, Heskey had to come back and cover the surge forward by the frenchman, was it Thuram, I can't remember. He was clumsy but the real blame rests with the midfield for not holding onto the ball or covering for him, not with the big man. Rooney would have given a foul away in a similar position, impressive as he was today.
As for Beckham, he needs to get his late nineties form back. As a friend of mine commented, "Beckham didn't take that penalty, his ego did," unfortunately the same can be said of his whole game today. he's at his best when he has a point to prove, so I hope people get on his back and bring his phenominal best out of him. Maybe Sven should drop him to the bench as Fergie did against Real last year when he came on and played well for a change.
Your Man U bias is betraying you.

[sendorange]

Rooney did not look like he was going to get a card, he had an aggressive few moments for a while but that only fired him up to go on that run for the penalty. Truth be told he was looking tired after having worked so hard.

What Sven should have done was brought off Owen a bit earlier for Vassell, maybe even at half time. Once Vassell came on it was easier to get the ball forward and keep it, it kept coming right back for a good 20 minutes after half time.

Apart from that it was just 2 individual errors which cost both goals, can't really blame Sven for that and I'm sure Gerrard in particular will learn from it.

[When Hell Unfreezes]

I blame David James for making a basic error with the free-kick. He lined the wall up to cover the near-post, then stood behind it in the centre of the goal, rather than nearer the far-post, where Zidane hit it. Other than that he didn't do anything wrong.

The only change I would have made was Vassell for Owen as he had completely disappeared from the game! :(

[DutchFootballRulez]

Zidane can dip that ball over the wall mind you. If James plays Far Post, it just means Zidane has to be all the more perfect and just lift it over the wall and under the bar, which isn't impossible.

If anything, why didn't Eriksson insert a winger or Wayne Bridge to help hold and walk the ball down the field, I'd prefer Vassell for Rooney, not Heskey.

[Matt Clark]

First of all, if Heskey didn't go on for Rooney, the free kick wouldn't have happened.

And SGE would also not have forced his opposite number to put a right-back on for a centre-back whilst 1-0 down with 10 to go. Santini could instead, as intended, have thrown Rothen on and we may have conceded a goal in any case.

If's and but's of this nature really are the worst. If Eriksson had not selected Gerrard then he would not have played that terrible back-pass either. In fact, if we had lost to Turkey in Istanbul, then we would never have had to suffer the disappointments of last night!

Life, eh?

Seeing Heskey did ZILCH for offense, I'm assuming that Eriksson put him on as an extra tall defender. But the fact is, England defense was NOT FLAWED, there was no problem at all, save for the one or two Trezeguet headers in the first half, but in the second we all thought he was subbed.

The problem was not in what the England defence did to restrict the attacks that came their way, it was the frequency with which they invited those attacks in the first place. Simple fact: you keep banging it forward to relieve the pressure of attack and you had better have someone up there who can at least have a hope of getting to the ball. Rooney and Owen are not the players to have on the field if, as England did last night, you elect to shut up shop and spend the final 20 minutes of the game just hoofing away anything that comes within in spitting distance of goal. Heskey was put on to push up against the central defenders and to lengthen the lines of communication between them and France's midfield. The hope being, of course, that this would allow us the space to re-establish spells of possession higher up the field and even perhaps to start the odd meaningful counterattack.

After saving that sub, Eriksson should have replaced Gerrard with Phil Neville or Butt. He was having an off game, his beautiful passes and perfect tackles as seen in Liverpool were AWOL today.

Rubbish. He was superb throughout, the one final error notwithstanding. Gerrard's dynamism was the one thing that allowed England to get as far as they did without conceding the increasingly inevitable equaliser. Had it not been for Gerrard's role in the heart of midfield, we would now be talking about a far more routine defeat.

[Prenn]

After saving that sub, Eriksson should have replaced Gerrard with Phil Neville or Butt. He was having an off game,

:confused:

I don't think anyone in the midfield had a bad game, even a certain number 7 who I've been giving a bit of a slating to.

[RichardL]

As for Beckham, he needs to get his late nineties form back. As a friend of mine commented, "Beckham didn't take that penalty, his ego did,"
Beckham's penalties, from a techique point of view, are nothing special - he just steps up and whacks the thing as hard as he can. A lot of times that pays dividends, but this time Barthez guessed right and saved. It happens. If he'd dived the other way everyone would be saying what a good penalty it was.

The fact is, with both the penalty and the game itself, you can sometimes not put a foot wrong and still not come out on top. On those occasions it's not worth trying to hold an inquest into what went wrong. England were perhaps too negative, but that isn't why Zidane was able to curl in a brilliant free-kick. Only Gerrand knows why he attempted a suicidal backpass rather than just putting the thing into row Z, but it certainly wasn't because we bought on Heskey, or because Beckham was having a quiet night.

[lanman]

Zidane can dip that ball over the wall mind you. If James plays Far Post, it just means Zidane has to be all the more perfect and just lift it over the wall and under the bar, which isn't impossible.


Players like Zidane will often hit freekicks it is impossible to stop - what the keeper and the wall have to do is make it as hard as possible. ie up and down over the wall rather than a clear shot to the far side. If James is covering the other side of the goal to the wall then only a perfect free kick or a deflection will score, and if that happens you simply can't do anything about it. Play the percentages - Zidane is more likely to score to the left of the wall than over the wall so that is where the keeper must cover.

[onefineesq]

Ok. so there is a lot of talk about that first goal, but almost none on the second goal. is everyone scared to say that Gerrard was an absolute BONEHEAD in sending a ball blindly back to the keeper in the last minute of stoppage time, or are the people here as blind as they are on the US side ....... which means that you let certain fan favorites off the hook when they cost you a game?

[sendorange]

Ok. so there is a lot of talk about that first goal, but almost none on the second goal. is everyone scared to say that Gerrard was an absolute BONEHEAD in sending a ball blindly back to the keeper in the last minute of stoppage time, or are the people here as blind as they are on the US side ....... which means that you let certain fan favorites off the hook when they cost you a game?
No-one is letting him off the hook, it's just a very obvious individual mistake that he did and I'm sure would take back if he could, it's not something that is part of his usual game unlike Heskey and his regular crapness.

[etcheverrito]

Ok. so there is a lot of talk about that first goal, but almost none on the second goal. is everyone scared to say that Gerrard was an absolute BONEHEAD in sending a ball blindly back to the keeper in the last minute of stoppage time, or are the people here as blind as they are on the US side ....... which means that you let certain fan favorites off the hook when they cost you a game?
I think Gerrad intended to make a back pass to a dfender, but was just too high and too fast for any of them to see it coming...he should have attempted to send it out of bounds, hopefully hit a french.:)

[ferrari77]

i beg to differ in that i think becks tries to finesse his PKs , rather than just knock em to a spot left or right, he is trying to curl it top corner,just slot it in and not down the middle like the argentina 02 game. gerrard was terrific, just mental break downs in injury time, lets stop moaning and get back up and support out lads, coz if this is how we feel you know they must be feeling 100 times more gutted than we were, you could whinge about how they are playing for national team bonuses and what not but when you have on the shirts, and especiallyagainst a team of france's caliber, you are playing for pride, and those lads sweated and gave their all for 90 mins and just messed up in injury time but mind you i wouldnt put it past them to get the needed wins against croatia and switzerland and see overconfident france slip up against one of those two. come on lads, also great post as always matt clark.

[bostonsoccermdl]

Zidane can dip that ball over the wall mind you. If James plays Far Post, it just means Zidane has to be all the more perfect and just lift it over the wall and under the bar, which isn't impossible.



not only that, but if James over commits to the far post, it allows zidane the choice of hitting it softer rather thna HAVING to whack it full force..

This makes it much easier to lob it over the wall. James wasnt at fault. Zidane was just brilliant.

[maxxed]

While I agree with the *subject* of this post, the reasoning is wrong. What nobody on these forums seems to realize, is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the collective English menatality under Eriksson when they go in front.

If the Brazil loss at the WC didnt teach England anything, it should have at least indicated to them that if you go 1-0 up against an attacking team, sitting back and defending it isnt going to work (and I'm aware of international tactics vis a viz EPL).

After England scored they simply looked scared. Instead of going for the kill they played and acted like some skinny kid who happend to land a sucker punch on Mike Tyson. It was a horrible 2nd half performance, and although they said they werent scared of the French, they were. They said they didnt deserve to lose, but honestly, they did.

I've now been dissapointed twice by uninspired, weak and, frankly, cowering England performances after going in front. If they think they are among the big boys, then they really need to act like it. Talent is not in question here, attitude is.

[its called football]

And SGE would also not have forced his opposite number to put a right-back on for a centre-back whilst 1-0 down with 10 to go. Santini could instead, as intended, have thrown Rothen on and we may have conceded a goal in any case.

If's and but's of this nature really are the worst. If Eriksson had not selected Gerrard then he would not have played that terrible back-pass either. In fact, if we had lost to Turkey in Istanbul, then we would never have had to suffer the disappointments of last night!

Life, eh?



The problem was not in what the England defence did to restrict the attacks that came their way, it was the frequency with which they invited those attacks in the first place. Simple fact: you keep banging it forward to relieve the pressure of attack and you had better have someone up there who can at least have a hope of getting to the ball. Rooney and Owen are not the players to have on the field if, as England did last night, you elect to shut up shop and spend the final 20 minutes of the game just hoofing away anything that comes within in spitting distance of goal. Heskey was put on to push up against the central defenders and to lengthen the lines of communication between them and France's midfield. The hope being, of course, that this would allow us the space to re-establish spells of possession higher up the field and even perhaps to start the odd meaningful counterattack.



Rubbish. He was superb throughout, the one final error notwithstanding. Gerrard's dynamism was the one thing that allowed England to get as far as they did without conceding the increasingly inevitable equaliser. Had it not been for Gerrard's role in the heart of midfield, we would now be talking about a far more routine defeat.

Matt Clark, you are a genius. Though I'm bound to think so when you think the same things as me.

Was I the opnly person who felt England actually got a better hold of the game from 80-90 minutes after the substitution than they had had before? Heskey and Vassell linked up well and Hargreaves passing was very good, helping us lift the pressure.

Then after 90 minutes.... well I can't explain that at all.

[1953 4-2-4]

Players like Zidane will often hit freekicks it is impossible to stop - what the keeper and the wall have to do is make it as hard as possible. ie up and down over the wall rather than a clear shot to the far side. If James is covering the other side of the goal to the wall then only a perfect free kick or a deflection will score, and if that happens you simply can't do anything about it. Play the percentages - Zidane is more likely to score to the left of the wall than over the wall so that is where the keeper must cover.


I actually think most every team in the world set up their wall pooly against lethal free-kick takers. I've seen a few Eastern European teams and some South American teams say "to hell with" keeping "the line," (holding the offside line even or slightly behind the wall-- and put TWO players, one on each post, for the kick. This basically prevents any freekick that is towards the extreme corners from being a goal.

[sendorange]

While I agree with the *subject* of this post, the reasoning is wrong. What nobody on these forums seems to realize, is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the collective English menatality under Eriksson when they go in front.

If the Brazil loss at the WC didnt teach England anything, it should have at least indicated to them that if you go 1-0 up against an attacking team, sitting back and defending it isnt going to work (and I'm aware of international tactics vis a viz EPL).

After England scored they simply looked scared. Instead of going for the kill they played and acted like some skinny kid who happend to land a sucker punch on Mike Tyson. It was a horrible 2nd half performance, and although they said they werent scared of the French, they were. They said they didnt deserve to lose, but honestly, they did.

I've now been dissapointed twice by uninspired, weak and, frankly, cowering England performances after going in front. If they think they are among the big boys, then they really need to act like it. Talent is not in question here, attitude is.
What an absolutely load of garbage this post is and you have succeeded in making yourself look a prize moron.

When a team has a lead at the highest level of football in a critical game they go to defend it and use the counter attack, every single team does it when they're not playing a minnow or in dire need of goal difference. Which is exactly what England have done on both of those occasions and is the accepted successful tactic in football. Barring two bad individual mistakes and a missed penalty the game the result was there for England, despite having what is accepted to be one of the finest attacking lineups in the history of European football France created nothing.

England did not do this against Brazil, you obviously did not watch the game or have a mental defiency. They played too far forward before halftime looking for a possible second goal at a time when they should have sat back more, Beckham lost the ball by the Brazilian penalty area and they had left themselves open to the equaliser via a rapid counterattack from Ronaldinho to Rivaldo. Sven noted this as a mistake. Brazil did no forward attacking and pressing when they went in front, they sat back, passed the ball around the defence and flopped over looking for a freekick whenever a challenge came in. Germany, Italy, France, Argentina and everybody else with talent in their team all approach the game the same way, you go out to gain a lead then you hold it and counter as the other team presses forward and leaves space at the back.

This is not basketball or high school soccer.

[Matt Clark]

Matt Clark, you are a genius.

Thanks ... tenner's in the post.


Was I the opnly person who felt England actually got a better hold of the game from 80-90 minutes after the substitution than they had had before? Heskey and Vassell linked up well and Hargreaves passing was very good, helping us lift the pressure.

Precisely. Prior to the introduction of Heskey and Vassell, you had Owen pushing up against Thuram and Rooney going deep. This meant only one of the centre-backs opposing us was a significant distance from his central midfielders at any given time - plus, anything that came his way he was easily favourite to win because he was marking a man who barely reaches up to his shoulder. This meant Silvestre was pushed up, marking Rooney when necessary, but more often than not being the base angle for moves between Viera and Makalele to switch play through the channels (it was from this position that he was caught out on the one occasion we did manage to spring that stranglehold). It condensed play and effectively made the midfield battle a matter of numbers, to France's advantage. And all this whilst England are themselves condensed into the final third of their end of the field.

On come Heskey and Vassell and all of a sudden Silvestre can no longer alternate with Thuram in the advanced linchpin role, they've got a pacy bundle of tricks and a seriously physical alternative to contend with. Plus we've suddenly got a snappy tackler and quick mover pulling on the left side of their midfield and pushing Sagnol back into the defensive line. Within minutes of their introduction, England again begin to play in the middle third of the pitch, even establishing some (admittedly brief, admittedly hesitant) spells of possession in that area of play.

So it didn't work out in the end. But it was a case of personal failure in both instances. The system change and the tactical motivation that underpinned it were spot on.

[johno]

Ok... here is my take...

On positioning walls... it really is not easy to do... freekick takers are different, for instance with Beckham its pointless, the wall is really there for decoration, with some, you try to force them to kick near post, ie. up over the wall and then down, to the average taker, this presents a problem, however, for some its easier than locating it top corner far post with enough swerve and power to score - and really if u know where a player likes to hit his kicks it helps, like with Roberto Carlos, Okocha or Nedved do not ever leave the near post open cuz they will outside of the footit and bend it in near post - they just will, this is not a threat with Becks who almost always goes over the wall at an angle with his kicks (he can go near post with lots of swerve over the wall or far post with tons of power again over the wall or round the wall with lots of both) so, setting up a wall is really hard to do...

As for tactics... the flaw was not in closing up shop as they say, it was the manner in which it was done... A. if you are closing up shop then bring in a defender not 2 strikers... B. Rooney was playing excellent defence for the most part and should not have come off in such an important game. C. and most importantly you close up shop Italian style, not by belting the ball long down the field, but by securing possesion and then playing it around in your half and once in awhile advacing it down the field - when the team u play against commits 2 many players into winning the ball then u clear the ball down the field... when the midfield is working as well as it was there is no need to have them sit back infront of the defense... that for me was the major flaw, they allowed the French midifielders too much space they should have been pressing, Zidane played rubbish for 90 mins... no French through balls troubled the defence so pushing up the midfield would have resulted in the defence winning the ball and having options to pass to, but when they do win the ball, if the midfield is right there with them, there is no room and its just a jumble of players, all they can do is boot it long, and allow the French to deploy massive numbers in the England half of the field...

Thats my take tactic wise...

as for players I thought Scholes was magnificent... he had the type of game with intelligent passes, sharp turns and good vision from central midfield (he was there quite alot especially in the first half) that would have had all the Zidane d!ck suckers slurping all over the Frenchie had he played like that...

Gerrard and Beckham played well, but not spectacular and Lampard was Lampard, dependable - effective and hardworking...

the defence was good and Owen was invisible... I think that while Rooney did a good job playing withdrawn I would have liked to see Owen playing withdrawn for half of the time because he is a better dribbler, quicker and the more touches he got, the more he would have gotten into the game, so I suppose thats another tactical error...



Scholes was absolutely brilliant