Re: FIFA: England lack creativity Exactly. They invent the 4-4-2 but may currently be the worst at trying to use that formation...because they lack creativity. Gerrard's injury certainly hurt, however. They'll be back in '06.
Their effort against Brazil in the last 25 minutes was just awful. Boot down field, concede possession to Brazil. 5 minutes later finally win ball back. Repeat sequence until game ends.
Can't argue with that - it was definitely our worst game of the tournament. I know he wasn't so it really doesn't matter, but Gerrard was BADLY missed. I think without Gerrard in midfield we lack a presence in midfield and that is why Ronaldihno punished us. It also pains me that over the last ten years we've been without Giggs. I bet a day doesn't pass without Giggs kicking himself about not representing HIS country rather than his Mothers. I certainly do.
Englands ball skills We all know its true, are performance in the WC at times was awful. We played like it was the 80’s again. The long ball over the top! It was god-awful. We defended, as well as normal it’s just the general movement of the ball in the final third, which was lacking again. Need to get these sorted out lads really, especially before next months qualifiers! Dan
I thought He played for England schoolboys................ Didnt he had the option to play for England and decided to play for Wales... Dan
He played for England schoolboys only because he was attending school in England at that time. However, that is not an official FIFA youth team. He was born in Wales and both of his parents are Welsh. He has never been elligible to play for any country but Wales. If you go to his website and the official Man United website this issue is explained there.
I see we're still getting abuse for the disappointing second half display against the world champs brazil.. You gotta laugh havent you??? We had a bad 45 minutes agianst the worlds best but overall I thought we were a well-organized unit in the tournament. We got written off every step of the way in the world cup journey.. written off after a bad start in qualifying...and we came back to finish top of the group . written off after being drawn into the group of death... written off after a draw with sweden... written off after being paired with 'frances conquerors' Dennmark in round two... The journey came to an end after a poor second half against the Brazil (best team in the tournament by a mile)... Face facts.. we get slaughtered whatever we do. even if we had won the cup ,some mugs would find a way to attack us.. Even the lame yanks are giving us stick.. What a joke... I thought we had a decent tournament. Sending the argie pricks home was the best thing .
Teams don't lack creativity, managers do. England have plenty of creative players, but Ericsson in his wisdom chooses to use a system which, at least in the World Cup, didn't deploy them. A central midfield whose primary concern is ball winning and a forward line of Owen (speed) and Heskey (brute force) will almost inevitably see England written off as lacking in creativity, but a central midfield containing, say, Cole and Gerrard and a forward line containing Smith would be the opposite. I'm not saying that English football is as naturally creative as Brazil's. It's not. But FIFA's report really doesn't address English football or the England team, but rather the tactics they played. Thus, it judges the head coach. What's ironic is that, in hiring a foreigner as coach, the one thing we might have expected was that the yoke of our own historically self-imposed limitations might be cast off but, as it happens, Ericsson has proved to be nothing more than a true English manager, albeit a better one than most of those we produce domestically. What the English game really needs is a manager who is as intelligent as Ericsson in man-management terms, but who is liberated in tactical terms. With that sort of leadership, we would (finally) have the opportunity to see just how creative the English game is. Our problem is that for many years, the side most effective in beating England has always been England itself. We have always lacked the courage of our convictions in selecting players (we couldn't even get the best out of Gascoigne), and have shied away from giving responsibility to the creative. Anglo Saxons have an inherent mistrust, it seems, of beauty and, instead, put their eggs in the basket of committment. Committment can bring rewards when it is good enough (the archetypal example being Alan Shearer), but it rarely excites and, alone, it is rarely enough to take a team over the top (thus the many semi-final defeats). If Ericsson is serious about building a new team for WC06, then the players are there for the first "creative" England team in a long time. Whether they will be trusted to do the job is doubtful.
whatever Having the best central defense in the world cancels out some of the lack of creativity in the front, thought, doesn't it? What in the world was wrong with England's performance this time around? They did well, and probably come in for more "official" criticism as those teams who were ousted much earlier.