Just because there peoples idea of the best 4 midfielders in the country,after the japan friendly can people finally see that Beckham Gerrard Scholes and Lampard all playing in the midfield dosent work.It has to be 3 out of the 4 not all of them,you could argue that Gerrard should be at the base of the diamond but i cant see Lampard or Scholes good enough to protect A Cole there far to attacking.Lampards been tried there and wasnt good enough leaving Cole exposed etc,and as for Scholes there i dont trust his tackling and cant see him staying on the pitch esp if Cole has made a run forward and scholes has to react quickly to save out blushes.Gerrard on the left of the diamond isnt his best position we all know,but who have we seen that can be TRUSTED in that position and the only one of the 4 is Gerrard.There are only 2 positions on the Diamond that Lampard could play one is on the right in Beckhams place with him at the base,or in Scholes position which is the only 1 id like to see him in but you'd have to drop Scholes i dont wana see him on the left. If people must have Lampard playing (though ive yet to see him play great for England) then it must be Butt/Hargreaves at the base Gerrard on the left Beckham on the right with Lampard at the point. Even with a 5 man Midfield i dont think all 4 would work ie J Cole Lampard Gerrard Scholes Beckham pushes Beckham much wider not shure he can play that wide anymore (hasnt all season and never had much pace even slower now).Id rather see J Cole Gerrard Lampard Beckham Dyer/Hargreaves with Lampard more forward of the rest linking up with Owen,couldent leave owen on for 90mins though not on his own so would have to sub Vassell on to run at the tired defences Im shure people have plenty of there own ideas (most better than mine) on who and how to play midfield,But trying to accomidate the big 4 into the same midfield just isnt gona work its like trying to put a square peg into a round hole
yeah sure ,its clear that lampard and scholes cant play at the same time in the starting 11 . Lamps has got no defensive discipline or any defensive positional sense. I was watching him during the game and he was asleep when he should be pressing the ball or defending around the box . Lamps has still yet to have a good game at international level. Id go with scholes /becks/butt and gerrard for euro 2004 .
Butt is fcuking useless and no-way should he play - as soon as he came on he gave the ball away and he gives silly free-kicks away outside the box! I don't know what all the panic is, after all we don't expect to actually win Euro 2004 do we? We played 30 minutes of the best stuff I've seen for ages - I was actually feeling sorry for the Japanese - then we lost the plot, mainly due to Gerrard getting frustrated - he didn't hold his position and began wandering, he then started to hit long, hopeful balls, Beckham and Lampard went missing and Scholes had a forgettable game. I also noticed how our guys were jumping out of tackles, so as not to get injured - it was only a friendly, means nothing - wait 'til the heat is on, then we'll get going! Don't panic - ..........................yet!!!
This is hardly a new conundrum. We have no one to satisfy on the left side. That means someone else has to do the job and that someone will, at best, be partially suitable. Be it Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, Hargreaves, Cole or even Heskey (they've all been tried there more than once). That, in turn, means we have issues through the centre. Primarily because the best way to militate against the negative impact of playing someone out of position on the left is to adopt the diamond formation that SGE uses. Which, also in turn, means that the presence of a holding midfielder becomes more or less a prerequisite to the gameplan. Which, finally, means we have this Lampard/Butt/Gerrard debate. In a straight 4-4-2 you can get away without an orthodox, one-dimensional anchor man like Butt. In a diamond formation, you cannot, because the deployment obviously creates a channel on either side of the midfield between the deepest midfielder and the two wide players. Further, the player that is chosen for the left will always, to some varying extent, be a waste. Whether it be Scholes or Gerrard, both of whom must play somewhere, their presence on the left of the diamond negates their impact. And, of course, causes them to drift inside, causes them to get frustrated, causes the team in general to lose shape, etc, etc. Likewise, the choice of player for the holding role assumes an otherwise avoidable degree of importance. Pick Butt and you are setting up a defensive team with, effectively, five defenders and five attackers. One of whom is not at the top of their potential by virtue of being stuck out on the left. Pick Lampard and you lose defensive solidity, pick Gerrard and you lose forward thrust. And so on and so on. The Japan game told us nothing we did not already know.
Sven has had years to sort something out on the left, whether it was giving Thompson a chance to prove himself, giving Bridge/Cole a serious try, getting a midfielder used to playing there, or working on some other shape whether wingbacks or whatever. What are the FA paying him such a vast fortune for?? Butt is surely out of the equation, he would needed to have played the full 90 in both of these warmup games to get his sharpness back. Bit of a waste having him in the squad. I think Hargreaves really should get the nod for now in that anchor role. His fitness is a lot better than the others from playing in the less physical Bundesliga and having fewer games for Bayern this season than the likes of Lampard had for Chelsea. He's also got a lot of pace, which I think we really need there, Terry-Campbell and either Butt or Lampard is just too slow. It can be argued that he doesn't really have the experience or the presence of the others, but I would give him a go against Iceland and see how he does.
Cole looked dodgy at left back with this diamond formation . The diamond cant be used vs france ,no way . Cole/Bridge on the left would be a good combo. and yeah stick hargreaves in ahead of lampard..
Sven has had years to sort something out on the left, As has every other manager since Bobby Robson. And yet here we are. I don't think it's as simple as all that. whether it was giving Thompson a chance to prove himself, giving Bridge/Cole a serious try, getting a midfielder used to playing there, or working on some other shape whether wingbacks or whatever. What are the FA paying him such a vast fortune for?? It's not really an issue related to his pay though, is it? It's an issue rather more tightly tied to resources of another kind. Thompson is not good enough and has never been. I agreed with his inclusion against Portugal because it was a meaningless friendly and you never know, he might have surprised us all, but lo and behold, he did not. A tad unfair on him to give him his only chance this close to a major tournament, but that's life. Likewise, the Bridge/Cole thing is beguiling, until you spend any length of time watching either of them going forward for their respective club sides. "Productive" is not the most obvious description one could use. When a full-back rampages forward, then it's usually twice or three times a game and if on one of those occasions he manages a decent cross, an astute pull-back or in some other way makes it easier for the front players to get something going, then he is deemed to have done OK. But put a player judged by those standards on the left wing - especially England's left wing - and the bar is raised somewhat. You want constant outside runs, consistent crossing, intelligent running AND diligent cover of the full-back behind you. It's a completely different ball game, so to speak. And SGE HAS tried that, remember? He did it before the World Cup. It didn't work. Now, I still believe it COULD work, but again, I don't like to treat it like it's a simple, logical step to take in solving the problem we have on that side. Butt is surely out of the equation, he would needed to have played the full 90 in both of these warmup games to get his sharpness back. Bit of a waste having him in the squad. Don't agree. I still think he will start against France. A central midfield of Viera and Makalele is not to be trifled with and putting just Gerrard or Lampard at the base of a diamond against that lot is asking for trouble. Especially with Messrs Zidane and Pires floating in and out of those channels I mentioned in my previous post. I think Hargreaves really should get the nod for now in that anchor role. His fitness is a lot better than the others from playing in the less physical Bundesliga and having fewer games for Bayern this season than the likes of Lampard had for Chelsea. Yeah, I can agree with that. The only doubts would obviously be around his lack of time on the pitch for England. But then it has to be remembered - SGE actually started him against Argentina at the World Cup, so he's clearly comfortable with the player as a resource.
I don't think we can really tell anything from last night's match. As I pointed out elsewhere, I think I heard someone say that they had a full training day yesterday and half a day on the day of the match and you could tell after the first 30-40 minutes. After a bit if a break at half time they started well again but quickly ran out of steam. However, there's one thing I think is pretty obvious and that is the Paul Scholes is severely lacking confidence. On several occasions last night he as in a shooting position and yet failed to have a crack. Lampard was supposedly playing in the holding position, (for which he's completely unsuitable - that's also obvious), and yet he had about 3 shots, one on target which was blocked, one over the net from close range which bobbled a bit and one high, wide and horrible with his left peg. Against France I'd play Butt or maybe Hargreaves as the holding midfielder and the same four players as last night in front with Lampard at the front of the diamond and Owen in front of him. Because it retains width this also protects Ashley Cole who has little or no positional sense but is good going forward. Personally I think we should be playing Wayne Bridge bit that's another matter. With Owen and Rooney we haven't got anyone to challenge on crosses anyway so we're going to have to rely on working the channels and movement which, against the ageing French defense, I think can work.
ive said it 100 times .........gerrard beckham......lampard .........scholes .................rooney ....owen
Lampards been tried there and that didnt work either,people complain if Gerrards on the left he's out of position but so would Lampard be only know where near as good as Gerrard.People are still trying to get Lampard into the squad based on prem form not England form,Left of a diamond isnt the same as left of a flat 4 but its still half out of position for all 4 of them.Only 1 of the 4 (the most important player in the squad imo) can play at both the base and the left Gerrard the others simply arnt good enough in those 2 roles,so that leaves 3 of them fighting for the other 2 slots and why we dont need all 4. The KEY player to Englands squad IS GERRARD and you need to weigh up the pro's and con's of playing him at the base or on the left,If Gerrard is 100% effective at the base and only 80% on the left Butt might only be 80% effective as Gerrard at the base that still gives you 160% were as Lampard is about 50% effective on the left giving you 150%.We all know the left ISNT Gerrards best possition but hes a lot better than the other 3,and we have better cover for the base Butt/Hargreaves than we do on the left including playing defenders out of position in midfield
Have you? Oh dear - I've got some catching up to do... Now, who wants to hear about my 'five across the midfield' idea?
5 in midfield vs france sounds good .. becks /gerrard/scholes/hargreaves/bridge.... not that sven has any intention of ever trying it.
Hehe not that clear is it (couldent be arsed to read it back before i posted that decided to make a cup of tea instead so just hit post) So ill try again the ideal would be to clone Gerrard and play him at the base and on the left,but we cant Butt and Gerrard gives us much more balance than Lampard and Gerrard.Still means 1 player is out of position but so is Lampard Gerrard or Gerrard Lampard at base/left of diamond ,Gerrard can play out of position Lampard cant
See above. That wastes both Gerrard and Lampard, as well as leaving the back four in trouble whenever the opposition launches a swift counterattack to exploit any loss of shape in that formation. Given that we WILL play the diamond formation at Euro 2004, there are no right, or even best answers. There are just a variety of differently wrong solutions and SGE has to pick the best of a bad bunch. And that remains a diamond with Butt at the base, Gerrard on the left, Beckham on the right and Scholes in the hole.
I agree with you, but I wish Sven had given Hargreaves the run in Butt's spot yesterday. I think he is capable of doing everything Butt does but with better range of passing & more composure. There may be some relevance to the point someone else made that England was tired yesterday & worried about injuries but you are still left with the point that Lampard is not a defensive midfielder and I don't think England can play against France without one. There is no shame in that as plenty of great sides play with someone sheilding the back 4. Makele has played that role for France, Madrid & Chelsea.
Stupid question, but here goes...As someone noted, Beckham needs a target forward to be truly effective. Since you don't really have one (unless heskey starts), can Becks play the D-Mid? He played in the center this season at Real, and based on the few highlights I saw of the game last night, it appeared that no one was tracking back on defense. Becks work rate is highly valued, and would give a better distributor in the center than Butts. Can he tackle well enough to play D-Mid? It would allow you to play Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard across the midfield...? Just curious.
No. Beckham will do his part to get back, but he is not a defensive midfielder. Real have figured that out this year.
I think the problem we've got now is time before. I'd have liked to have seen some experimenting in some of the friendlies that made some sense. As Bizzo said, most great teams play with someone shielding the back four. Actually I think they pretty much all do. Well... Brazil played with a back three at the last world cup but I'm not talking about that level of experimentation. I think we should have been trying to see if anyone could play the DM role such as Hargreaves or Jamie Carragher some time ago. It may have been tried at some point but I can't say I noticed it if it was. I think at this stage we're down to trying to see if someone can do the role and it's never going to be ideal. There's something else to discuss, though, and that is, if we revert to Butt/Hargreaves/Carragher, whatever, as the holding midfielder and it comes down to a straight choice between Scholes and Lampard at the head of the diamond what's it going to be? I watched the match live last night and then watched it again on tape. Frankly Paul Scholes looks distinctly out of sorts. He doesn't seem to have any confidence and keeps playing square balls to people who aren't in any better position than he is. Quite a few times he could have shot or made a run into the box but didn't. I'm bound to say that, (on last night's performance, anyway), you'd have to play Lampard who had more shots and goal-scoring runs even from a much deeper position. I accept that he's no holding midfield player, though but then, neithers Scholes who, frankly, could have easily had a penalty awarded against him when he brought Alex down in the box. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what happens in the Iceland match but I fear that's not going to tell us anything about playing against France. Now, if we could just dump this bloody 'diamond' nonsense... particularly with Ashley Cole.
Lets face it, Sven played arguably one of the best central midfielders in the world at wide left to accomodate Lampard - an attacking midfielder in the holding role, and Scholes - a 'goal scoring midfielder' who hasnt scored for England in 26 games. Never thought that Gerrard would end being the answer to England's left mid problem. Barry & Thompson, perhaps even Bridge and Cole must be wondering what they've done not to even deserve a DECENT chance (a run of games) at that position... it's not like England don't play enough 'friendly' games is it?
Defenders are not midfielders. Suggesting Bridge or Cole at left mid is not a sensible option. The attacking role of a full back is different from that of a winger. Also suggesting three at the back makes sense only if we have four fit, quality centre backs, one to provide cover on the bench. We do not have this at the moment due to Ferdinand and Woodgate's absence. Also, no is not the time for a radical formation change. However, I must agree that playing Lamps and Scholes is not the option, even though I was an advocate of this before last night, they are too similar and do not give the defensive cover Butt offers, especially against the french. Butt, Scholes, beckham, Gerrard is now my vote. Maybe Hargreaves, but am unconvinced by his performances for England. I reckon he gives the ball away very cheaply. He was individually at fault for Australia's second half goal last year. I've not seen him for Bayern though, so am not really best placed to comment. Certainly that fourth midfield slot is worrying, Gerrard is by far the best option there until we find a proper left winger.
I agree right back at you. If there is one thing SGE can justifiably be questioned about in all of this, it is why has he not sought a credible alternative to Butt for the holding role earlier? He appears to me to have spent most of the season hoping that Butt would eventually get a run of games for United and/or someone else and has not used any of the friendles this season to play either a different formation or a different holding player. Hargreaves WOULD be a very good choice, I think. But as things stand now, I don't think we can chuck him in against Viera and Makalele after no time on the pitch in that role for England. Plus, of course, it still does not solve the Lampard issue. Personally, I don't think it actually is that big an issue - you play the players that can do a particular job best for you, not just the players that have come into the tournament in the best form.
No - that's wrong. He played Lampard, one of the best attacking midfielders in the world over the past 12 months, in the holding role to accomodate Scholes. Have a look at the stats over the past 12 months and see for yourself. http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/foot/ukie/2051.html http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/foot/ukie/1814.html http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/foot/ukie/363.html These figures don't tell the whole story, (when do they), because Gerrard's only been playing with Hamann behind him since about the end of november so that's, what, 25 games of the 38 this season. I don't think this is a question of Lampard against Gerrard. I think it's a question of Lampard against Scholes and I think Lampard should start. I also don't think he's as much of a defensive liability as Scholes who gave away what should have been a penalty the other day against Japan.