International Roundup

[cdmphy]

Lennon,Robbo and Defoe

While Defoe was given 13 minutes to do make up the disaster that was Andy Johnson, Lennon looked extremely dangerous throughout the game being foced to the left so that the uber-tactician Steve McLaren could try to fit Fat Frank and Stevie G into a midfield that will never hold them. Had McLaren been born with a set of balls, this could have been a much different game with Lennon in his preferred position.

Robbo had little to do but did something that we don't see much these days: he kept a clean sheet.

Routledge scored at Wembley, while Hudds was a late sub and Alnwick was an unused sub in the U21 draw against Italy.

Keano led the team out but missed a number of good chances in the Republic's 1-0 win at Croke Park

Lee is assumed to have started in South Korea's loss to Uruguay.

[Danners9]

England were woeful. Truly terrible. It's because of the midfield, they insist on picking Lampard, Gerrard and one other centre mid (Hargreaves or Carrick, OH yesterday) and then fitting in Lennon somewhere else - on the left. Then replace Lennon with Downing!! Start with Downing AND Lennon you tool.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5411/mclowneq7.jpg


Impressed with Pazzini of Italy u21, i knew he was good but he was very good. And also Nani and Quaresma of Portugal, saw them yesterday too.

[Gordon]

Stalteri scored in Canada's 3-0 win over Bermuda.

[Breezy]

Lee Young-Pyo played the first-half in Korea's game.

[JSpur]

---------------Robbo----------------
G.Neville---Terry---Ferdinand---A.Cole
---------------Hargreaves-----------
---------Gerrard---------------J.Cole
Lennon------------------------------
---------Owen-----Rooney-----------

To me this seems like our most balanced side and it is a good international side, comparable with any other European team. With G.Neville, A.Cole, J.Cole and Owen unavailable, I would have picked Richards, Barry, Downing and Defoe. Those 4 replacements are definitely far from top international quality, but it would keep the side balanced at least.

Like against Chelsea, Lennon does well on the left, he's just better on the right because he can get to the byline and cross virtually every time he gets the ball.

[cdmphy]

HG14 Scored a goal and forced an own goal and scored in Egypt's 3-0 win against Mauratania.

[pookspur]

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5411/mclowneq7.jpg


a particularly cruel and childish image.






i can't stop laughing.

[DigitalTron]

I just don't think Lampard has shown the ability to perform with the England National Team, and I'd make him Gerrard's sub. Sure, his ego would take a hit as he's a phenomenal player ... but he's duplicative without adding much. I wouldn't mind seeing this lineup:

--------------------------------Robbo--------------------------------
Neville------------Ferdinand----------------Terry-----------------Cole
----------------------------Carrick------------------Hargreaves------
Lennon--------------------------Gerrard-----------------------------
----------------------------------------------Rooney----------------
------------------------Crouch---------------------------------------

Rooney supplying the attack on the left with freedom to roam, Gerrard generally patrolling the middle but also with freedom to roam, and Lennon pinning the midfielder and fullback to their own goal line on the right. Then Crouch would get a lot of service with Rooney and Gerrard there to pick up the pieces.

Gerrard plays enough defense to help out and Hargreaves is mobile enough to limit the area Carrick needs to cover defensively. Crouch would be with Gerrard and Rooney--a best case scenario for England's best target forward--and have Lennon, Neville, Cole and Hargreaves to supply crosses.

Then on set pieces shift Cole and Hargreaves back to defend and bring both Ferdinand and Terry forward.

Honestly, the Gerrard + Lampard midfield with Hargreaves as Dmid isn't good enough. Lampard's presence stifles Gerrard and Lamps isn't really adding anything. On the troubled left wing Hargreaves can free up Cole to attack a lot, while also helping to cover for Carrick's lack of range. As it is, Gerrard isn't generating nearly enough from the right, Lampard is generating virtually nothing in the center, and Hargreaves is carrying the water defensively but without any offensive production.

-Digital

[The Double]

HG14

Please. Don't.

[JSpur]

I just don't think Lampard has shown the ability to perform with the England National Team, and I'd make him Gerrard's sub. Sure, his ego would take a hit as he's a phenomenal player ... but he's duplicative without adding much. I wouldn't mind seeing this lineup:

--------------------------------Robbo--------------------------------
Neville------------Ferdinand----------------Terry-----------------Cole
----------------------------Carrick------------------Hargreaves------
Lennon--------------------------Gerrard-----------------------------
----------------------------------------------Rooney----------------
------------------------Crouch---------------------------------------

Rooney supplying the attack on the left with freedom to roam, Gerrard generally patrolling the middle but also with freedom to roam, and Lennon pinning the midfielder and fullback to their own goal line on the right. Then Crouch would get a lot of service with Rooney and Gerrard there to pick up the pieces.

Gerrard plays enough defense to help out and Hargreaves is mobile enough to limit the area Carrick needs to cover defensively. Crouch would be with Gerrard and Rooney--a best case scenario for England's best target forward--and have Lennon, Neville, Cole and Hargreaves to supply crosses.

Then on set pieces shift Cole and Hargreaves back to defend and bring both Ferdinand and Terry forward...

-Digital
I have a few quibbles with this.

1) Hargreaves as left midfield. He is only effective as DM - he's not a creative player. His strenghths are breaking up play and short passes. We shouldn't be relying on him to get crosses in - and certainly not from the left. With Ashley Cole overlapping like he used to for Arsenal it might work, but it's asking a lot. Surely Joe Cole would be better than Hargreaves on the left.

2) Carrick and Hargreaves in the same midfield. Too defensive. Our problem is getting people forward and scoring goals (1 in the last 5, I think). Our defence is actually pretty tight. Even in the World Cup we only conceeded 2 goals and they were in our meaningless Sweden game. IMHO we should play an attacking midfield and leave our very capable defence to look after itself, along with one holding midfield player.

3) Crouch. He's too slow and can't run beyond defenders. With Rooney often playing deep this will mean the game is squashed and we'll resort to hitting long balls up to Crouch who isn't even very good in the air. He does quite well holding the ball up, and with runners from midfield we could be dangerous, but stretching the game with Owen, Defoe or even AJ means that there's more room for players like Lennon and Gerrard behind the strikers.

[Danners9]

--------------------------------Robbo--------------------------------
Neville------------Ferdinand----------------Terry-----------------Cole
----------------------------Carrick-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------------Gerrard----------------------
Lennon-------------------------------------------------------Downing
------------------------Rooney--------------------------------------
----------------------------------------Defoe-----------------------

If Downing is going to play every game, and it seems he is.. he has to start. Also, even though I have put Carrick there he is interchangable with Hargreaves for different kinds of games. Plus Owen would probably take Defoe's spot, or Crouch or Johnson or anyone other than Defoe really.

[pookspur]

Please. Don't.

seconded.

[DigitalTron]

I have a few quibbles with this.

1) Hargreaves as left midfield. He is only effective as DM - he's not a creative player. His strenghths are breaking up play and short passes. We shouldn't be relying on him to get crosses in - and certainly not from the left. With Ashley Cole overlapping like he used to for Arsenal it might work, but it's asking a lot. Surely Joe Cole would be better than Hargreaves on the left.

2) Carrick and Hargreaves in the same midfield. Too defensive. Our problem is getting people forward and scoring goals (1 in the last 5, I think). Our defence is actually pretty tight. Even in the World Cup we only conceeded 2 goals and they were in our meaningless Sweden game. IMHO we should play an attacking midfield and leave our very capable defence to look after itself, along with one holding midfield player.

3) Crouch. He's too slow and can't run beyond defenders. With Rooney often playing deep this will mean the game is squashed and we'll resort to hitting long balls up to Crouch who isn't even very good in the air. He does quite well holding the ball up, and with runners from midfield we could be dangerous, but stretching the game with Owen, Defoe or even AJ means that there's more room for players like Lennon and Gerrard behind the strikers.

I can see your concerns, and I honestly thought I addressed them in my original post, but here goes.

1. & 2. Hargreaves would be playing like Edgar Davids did for Tottenham, pinched in, not as a left winger, but more like a left Dmid. His role would be to shorten the space Carrick has to defend so that Carrick can play a zone defensively and create from the back. Additionally, Hargreaves would play defense on the left with the intention of using Cole like he was used at Arsenal, as a very attacking left back.

If you followed Hargreaves time at Bayern you'd recall that he very often played an attacking right back and sometimes left back, and yes he can whip in crosses when needed, but more importantly, he's a very capable defender at the fullback position.

His inclusion would A) allow Carrick to contribute to the attack from a deep position, something sorely lacking for England, and B) allow Cole to attack down the left flank, because honestly the best left wingers that England has are both fullbacks, Cole and Bridge. Hargreaves facilitates the attackers.

At present, Gerrard is stifled because Lampard is on the pitch, and Lampard isn't adding enough to the offense and is a bit of a liability in defense. Allowing Carrick to be the holding mid and a deep lying playmaker frees up Gerrard to roam and find spaces. Carrick holds the fort so that England doesn't turn over the ball, and Hargreaves is the tenacious ball-winner. On attack England would finally have two flanks attacking--Lennon on the right and Cole on the left. There would be creativity from the back in Carrick and up front with Gerrard and Rooney.

If you prefer, maybe you could view it as Cole being the left midfielder and Hargreaves a left back who pushes up into central midfield with Cole tracking back defensively. I could easily be wrong, but I think it would maximize England's attack without sacraficing too much defense.

3. The biggest issue would be that neither Crouch nor Rooney have enough pace to scare defenses back, but with Lennon and Cole on either side, I think they'd be scared enough pace-wise as it is. I agree that not having a pacey striker is a drawback, but honestly, pairing Rooney with any of Owen, Defoe or Johnson would result in a complete waste of aerial attacks. In international play, you need at least the threat of aerial goals to collapse the defense and create space in close. Otherwise, it's very hard to pull international defenders out of their shape and create dangerous situations.

England has been looking to find a left winger for a long time ... but they have 2 pretty darn good ones in Cole and Bridge ... so just let them attack from the fullback position or call them what they are ... left wingers. With Lennon and SWP on the right, England would have consistent flank speed and service which would open up spaces for Rooney and Gerrard. As it is, without Crouch, opposing defenses just need to keep Rooney and the midfielders in front of them and hold England scoreless unless they give up a set piece.

What's holding England back is a misconception that the best players must play. Lampard and Becks are two of the very best players ... but I'd start Cole and Lennon on the wings ahead of both of them with Gerrard in the middle. And, that would be a frightening attacking midfield. Any attack that puts Lennon on the left or (shudders) starts Downing is never going to be as good as it could be. Pushing Gerrard to the right is a mistake. England has the players ... they just need a Scolari type to sit the square pegs like Lampard and put the round pegs in the round holes ... like Gerrard in the middle with license to roam, Lennon on the right, Carrick to hold and create from deep, and a formation that allows Cole to attack a lot from the back.

Sorry for the long post. :D

-Digital

[LedleybetterthanSol]

Please. Don't.

Agreed. Don't mean to be nasty, but that sounds like something a gay American Arsenal fan would say.

[JSpur]

1. & 2. Hargreaves would be playing like Edgar Davids did for Tottenham, pinched in, not as a left winger, but more like a left Dmid. His role would be to shorten the space Carrick has to defend so that Carrick can play a zone defensively and create from the back. Additionally, Hargreaves would play defense on the left with the intention of using Cole like he was used at Arsenal, as a very attacking left back.

Firstly - if you're comparing England playing Hargreaves on the left to Spurs playing Davids on the left, remember this didn't work for us. Ok, we didn't have Cole as LB but I think the tactic is flawed, because either a) we're playing a good team with a strong RM and Cole will not be able to bomb forward all the time or he'll leave us exposed, or b) we're playing a weak team - in which case we certainly don't need 2 holding midfielders (Carrick and Hargreaves).

At present, Gerrard is stifled because Lampard is on the pitch, and Lampard isn't adding enough to the offense and is a bit of a liability in defense. Allowing Carrick to be the holding mid and a deep lying playmaker frees up Gerrard to roam and find spaces.

I agree with this - I just don't think we need 2 holding midfielders. Or one holding player (Carrick) and one ball winner (Hargreaves). Look at the Israel game - our problem was not winning the ball or keeping possession. We had the ball - we just didn't know what to do with it going forward against a team who sat back. Playing 2 holding players will make this worse, not better, certainly against teams like Israel.

I agree that not having a pacey striker is a drawback, but honestly, pairing Rooney with any of Owen, Defoe or Johnson would result in a complete waste of aerial attacks. In international play, you need at least the threat of aerial goals to collapse the defense and create space in close. Otherwise, it's very hard to pull international defenders out of their shape and create dangerous situations.

Whatever the theory, in practice England just bypass the midfield and launch long balls up to Crouch, who isn't very good in the air anyway. Yes, it's a shame we don't have a Shearer to pose an aerial threat anymore, but we don't and we need to get over it. We need to play to our strengths and that is not hoofing the ball forward to Crouch. We did this a lot in the WC, for example, and it only worked once - against Trinidad & Tobago when Crouch pulled the defender's dreadlocks and headed in. I admit that if we used Crouch better (like Liverpool sometimes do) it could work, but I can't see England doing that, under McSven at least.

[cdmphy]

Agreed. Don't mean to be nasty, but that sounds like something a gay American Arsenal fan would say.


All of you get your panties out of that bind. It was a effing joke. In fact, it was making fun of those very same Arsenal people. How it could generate three posts is beyond me.:rolleyes:

[DigitalTron]

Firstly - if you're comparing England playing Hargreaves on the left to Spurs playing Davids on the left, remember this didn't work for us. Ok, we didn't have Cole as LB but I think the tactic is flawed, because either a) we're playing a good team with a strong RM and Cole will not be able to bomb forward all the time or he'll leave us exposed, or b) we're playing a weak team - in which case we certainly don't need 2 holding midfielders (Carrick and Hargreaves).


Sorry to hijak the thread. :D Yeah, I am comparing Hargreaves' role with England to Davids' role with Spurs, but we disagree because I think it worked famously. The reasons are similar, though the talent at left back is superior with England. Carrick started our attack by being a deep lying playmaker and the quintissential holding player. Carrick's play with Spurs was IMHO seriously underappreciated by most people. He was also the linchpin (sp?) of the defense that did faaaaaaaaar better than we're doing this season, and he did it by playing solid positional defense. But, he doesn't have the pace to cover 2/3 of the width of the field like some Dmids, so he needs some help along the edges, which is what Davids and Jenas supplied. So, adding Carrick would add a set of skills lacking in the England setup, a true link player to start the attack from the back.

I'm not advocating route one football, I think we all agree that England doesn't have the players up front to make that work even if it were a consideration. I'm advocating flank play, which is lacking for England. Lennon and SWP can provide it on the right, but without someone providing it on the left most international defenses can handle it. By freeing up Cole to cross from the left a lot, you've kept the defenders heads on a swivel, and the pace and service on the wings will prevent them from holding a high offsides line since Lennon or Cole can simply dribble past the defensive line and cross back to Crouch or a slashing Rooney or a late arriving Gerrard.

IMHO, this is the way England should play, by pressing the flanks with pace and switching fields (left/right) whenever the defense stacks to one side or whenever the play bogs down. Use your strengths, and England has a definite strength atm in pacey flank play, crossing ability, and quick-shooting scorers like Rooney and Gerrard.


I agree with this - I just don't think we need 2 holding midfielders. Or one holding player (Carrick) and one ball winner (Hargreaves). Look at the Israel game - our problem was not winning the ball or keeping possession. We had the ball - we just didn't know what to do with it going forward against a team who sat back. Playing 2 holding players will make this worse, not better, certainly against teams like Israel.


Think of Carrick as a deep lying playmaker who plays very good positional defense if you'd rather. Then think of Hargreaves as both the Dmid and left back with Cole playing left midfield. If that makes it easier to palate, think of Cole taking the place of Downing offensively, because that's one of the major things this formation does. If you're thinking of Carrick strictly as a Dmid, that's selling him very short.

The advantage of playing Hargreaves as left Dmid is that he can cover for Carrick when needed, and he can slot into the left back slot until Cole can recover when caught forward on counter-attacks. Hargreaves is the destroyer, and yes, every international team needs one.


Whatever the theory, in practice England just bypass the midfield and launch long balls up to Crouch, who isn't very good in the air anyway. Yes, it's a shame we don't have a Shearer to pose an aerial threat anymore, but we don't and we need to get over it. We need to play to our strengths and that is not hoofing the ball forward to Crouch. We did this a lot in the WC, for example, and it only worked once - against Trinidad & Tobago when Crouch pulled the defender's dreadlocks and headed in. I admit that if we used Crouch better (like Liverpool sometimes do) it could work, but I can't see England doing that, under McSven at least.


Yeah, well let's look at my suggested lineup for a second. Gerrard playing closer to Crouch ... nobody is a bigger Crouch supporter than Gerrard, he knows Crouch's limitations and he consistently plays balls to Crouch's feet, and vice versa. Nice chemistry between those two as well, but with Gerrard playing on the right, you'll never see it. Furthermore, currently England have no flank service whatsoever really, so their options are pretty limited. Lennon can't play on the right when Gerrard is there, and Lennon isn't a good crosser from the left, simple as that. :(

Additionally, shackling Cole back into a more traditional left back role isn't using his best skills to maximum effect. There's a need for pacey service from the left flank, Downing doesn't have the pace, Lennon can't cross well from the left, and Cole isn't attacking enough in the current setup.

The coach is forcing his boy Downing into a team that he can't handle. Downing doesn't have the pace to frighten defenses and by the time he's decided to cross the ball, the only option is to cross it to a head, and England doesn't have many real target players, so he's completely ineffective. Cole can get behind defenses and cross back to feet while defenders are facing their own goal trying to catch up to the play. Likewise, Lennon can fly by defenses and put in crosses to feet.

If England want to jump-start their attack, they need a pacey crosser on each flank. Lennon or SWP would work on the right ... but not the left. IMHO, the only options on the left at the moment are Cole and Bridge, both left backs. So, make the right midfielder the crosser and the right fullback stay back--sort of like how Lennon and Chimbonda work for Spurs--and have the left fullback be the crosser and the left midfielder play a more defensive and support role--like how Davids used to do for Spurs. This is an ideal situation for a deep lying playmaker like Carrick, who can play good positional defense when he's not required to play 2/3 width of the field.

Again, sorry for the thread hijak. Good fun discussion Jspur. I don't want to hijak this thread any more though, so you get the last word. :)

-Digital

[Colm]

If England don't beat Andorra i'll probably commit suicide.

[mattie g]

If England don't beat Andorra i'll probably commit suicide.

If England don't beat Andorra, the whole team should commit suicide. It would be the only honorable thing to do.

But it's crazy to even think of the possibility of it happening...England wouldn't possibly all commit suicide ;)

[The Double]

If England don't beat Andorra i'll probably commit suicide.

See the thing is, you're not even joking when you say that. You really are that pessimistic.