The England Thread

[Ronaldo]

The Germany game was lost primarily because of mis-firing forwards, a non-performance from Barry and a shockingly pedestrian defence.

 

 

 

You seem to know a lot more about it than a world class international football manager. Wow, you're more knowledgeable than I thought.

They gave us a 90 minute dry bumming because they knew how to exploit our weaknesses.

 

You're an embarrassment, stop it. You have so much confidence in your own arguement, you resort a throwaway quote from Joachim Loew that doesn't even support it?

 

Our best 3 attacking players are Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard. You can arguably factor Walcott and Johnson in there next.

 

None of those players suit 4-4-2. Not one. Stop it.

[steve_69]

This is a wind-up right, Steve?

 

Incase it isn't; Where was the left footer in Spains 3 man midfield when they won the World Cup?

 

So just because Spain can do it, England can as well?

 

If they didn't have one, fair enough but Spain play a formation that their players are used to and suited to, and a style of football that the players have grown up playing.  They are more adaptable, more skillful and most of them are much better with their weaker feet than English players.

 

 

 

 

[SEMTEX]

I wonder where the left footed player was in the Argentinian midfield 3 who beat Brazil yesterday?

[SEMTEX]

How about the normal 3 in Chelsea's midfield, Essien Obi and Lampard.

 

Or maybe Arsenal's preferred three of Fabregas Nasri and Diaby. Or maybe Song.

 

A left footer in there is fine, but not essential and not necessarily beneficial, given you're likely playing a lesser player to accommodate the needless wish for a left footed centre mid.

[Colocho]

Of course a left-footer isn't essential, it's a ridiculous comment.

[SEMTEX]

Cahill Arteta Rodwell

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

How about the normal 3 in Chelsea's midfield, Essien Obi and Lampard.

 

Or maybe Arsenal's preferred three of Fabregas Nasri and Diaby. Or maybe Song.

 

A left footer in there is fine, but not essential and not necessarily beneficial, given you're likely playing a lesser player to accommodate the needless wish for a left footed centre mid.

I was just about to post the exact same thing. If your midfielders are good, than their footedness doesn't matter at all. Especially if there are three.

[steve_69]

How about the normal 3 in Chelsea's midfield, Essien Obi and Lampard.

 

Or maybe Arsenal's preferred three of Fabregas Nasri and Diaby. Or maybe Song.

 

A left footer in there is fine, but not essential and not necessarily beneficial, given you're likely playing a lesser player to accommodate the needless wish for a left footed centre mid.

 

Same argument as above. South American players are technically better than English players so they more versatile. English players are mostly very one footed, Gerrard included. This is down to the English way of coaching which is universally accepted to be not as good as it could be. If you're able to use both feet competently, it stands to reason that you can play in a number of positions.

 

Arsenal's midfield 3 is made up of one Spanish and two French players - again, more technically adept than our lot due to better coaching. 

 

Until our grassroots coaching improves we will not have players versatile enough to play in a variety of positions and formations competently. 

 

In reference to your other point, I don't have a needless wish for a left-footer in that position because I don't think we should play 4-3-3.  I think we should play 4-4-2 because I believe the players we have are better suited to it

[steve_69]

How about the normal 3 in Chelsea's midfield, Essien Obi and Lampard.

 

Or maybe Arsenal's preferred three of Fabregas Nasri and Diaby. Or maybe Song.

 

A left footer in there is fine, but not essential and not necessarily beneficial, given you're likely playing a lesser player to accommodate the needless wish for a left footed centre mid.

I was just about to post the exact same thing. If your midfielders are good, than their footedness doesn't matter at all. Especially if there are three.

 

Sadly, ours aren't good enough. They are nowhere near as good as the Spanish, French, Germans, Argentinians, Dutch, Brazilians etc etc.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Chelsea's midfield three consists of an Englishman, a Nigerian, and a Ghanaian. These are not nations that produce "technically better" players. When you are dealing with the top level players they will be able to adjust. The problem rreally is Gerrard's unwillingness to do the dirty work (which he has the ability to do). If you play a three, then Lampard should be the most advanced with Gerrard operating in behind, similar to Iniesta and Xavi or Essien and Lampard. What England really needs more than anything is a high quality holding player. Maybe Huddlestone or Rodwell can become that. That's the key, really.

[JCONA]

Walcott and Johnson/Young either side of Rooney needs to be tried. As does Walcott and Rooney either side of Carroll.

You already said Rooney is Englands best player and had his best season playing as a lone striker in a 4-5-1/4-3-3, so wouldn't it be a waste for him to be put out wide in a front 3?

 

Can't argue with Walcott & Johnson/Young out wide though.

 

It needs to be tried.

 

What we do know, is that he can be very ineffective in a 4-4-2. When he played in a 2 with Van Nistelrooj he was effective, but only because he primarily worked the channels. He could do that in a 4-3-3.

 

It was tried, albeit 5 years ago. England lost the game 1-0 to Northern Ireland.

 

I forget, was rooney carroll and walcottt playing that day ?

[Ginola]

Walcott and Johnson/Young either side of Rooney needs to be tried. As does Walcott and Rooney either side of Carroll.

You already said Rooney is Englands best player and had his best season playing as a lone striker in a 4-5-1/4-3-3, so wouldn't it be a waste for him to be put out wide in a front 3?

 

Can't argue with Walcott & Johnson/Young out wide though.

 

It needs to be tried.

 

What we do know, is that he can be very ineffective in a 4-4-2. When he played in a 2 with Van Nistelrooj he was effective, but only because he primarily worked the channels. He could do that in a 4-3-3.

 

It was tried, albeit 5 years ago. England lost the game 1-0 to Northern Ireland.

 

I forget, was rooney carroll and walcottt playing that day ?

 

Yea, they all started. Sven was going for a youthful attack.

 

Point still stands that Rooney was wasted out wide as he didn't have as much freedom, got very frustrated throughout the match.

[JCONA]

As he does playing upfront on his own, playing him behind 2 forwards is best bet imo. We have friendlys next year. Should be tried imo.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Chelsea's midfield three consists of an Englishman, a Nigerian, and a Ghanaian. These are not nations that produce "technically better" players. When you are dealing with the top level players they will be able to adjust. The problem rreally is Gerrard's unwillingness to do the dirty work (which he has the ability to do). If you play a three, then Lampard should be the most advanced with Gerrard operating in behind, similar to Iniesta and Xavi or Essien and Lampard. What England really needs more than anything is a high quality holding player. Maybe Huddlestone or Rodwell can become that. That's the key, really.

 

True, we've seen how our midfield has been transformed with the addition of Tiote. Someone with discipline, passing and without an ego is the most important part of a modern midfield IMO.

[themanupstairs]

Left side of midfield is still centre midfield. He's not out of position at all.

 

Simple question SEMTEX:

 

Does Steven Gerrard play on the left of a midfield 3 for Liverpool?

 

LM!! Hello 

[wormy]

Left side of midfield is still centre midfield. He's not out of position at all.

 

Simple question SEMTEX:

 

Does Steven Gerrard play on the left of a midfield 3 for Liverpool?

 

LM!! Hello 

 

I've missed these kind of debates.

[Guest neesy111]

What exactly has frank lampard done for England in the last 2-3 years, can't remember much myself.

[themanupstairs]

What exactly has frank lampard done for England in the last 2-3 years, can't remember much myself.

 

Not much that I can remember either apart from "scoring" the "phantom goal"

[Guest BEN BEN BEN ARFA]

hello friend Newcastle

 

great team of France

they began to play football again

perspective on a well by the low adversity team bis English

Only English was rated satisfactory andy carroll

but he impressed friends

next season if he wants to come to L'OM

we will welcome him with open arms

 

[Neil]

Carroll on the continent. Class.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

hello friend Newcastle

 

great team of France

they began to play football again

perspective on a well by the low adversity team bis English

Only English was rated satisfactory andy carroll

but he impressed friends

next season if he wants to come to L'OM

we will welcome him with open arms

 

 

Hello again.

 

No chance!

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

I love BEN BEN BEN ARFA.

[Frazzle]

I love BEN BEN BEN ARFA.

 

Same, class poster.

[Ketsbaia]

L'Equipe's reaction is funny but accurate:

 

How weak were England, according to L'Equipe? Very weak. Four English players are given marks of three out of 10, accompanied by scathing comments. Phil Jagielka's performance is described as "catastrophic", Jordan Henderson "can say he played against France, and that's all", while Gareth Barry and Theo Walcott are subjected to open ridicule. Of Walcott, L'Equipe writes: "Apparently he is one of the great hopes of English football. Did you notice him? Us neither." As for Barry, the paper reckons that he was "totally irrelevant" and asks: "What is he for?" All in all, L'Equipe scoffs that England "were like a team from the bottom of the Premier League – they didn't have enough foreigners!"

 

While Benzema and Mathieu Valbuena are hailed as France's best players with grades of 7 out of 10, Andy Carroll is judged the best of the English players – awarded 6 out of 10 – but even the praise for the Newcastle forward is used to damn the hosts. "The fact that their best player was the debutant Carroll, who played in a very British way that suggests that applying Fabio Capello's scientific method is futile, shows the size of the reconstruction work this country faces."

 

L'Equipe's scribes even deride England's stadium, writing: "The atmosphere gave the impression of being at Miss Marple's house at tea-time … the legends of England and Wembley are finding it ever harder to convince in reality."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/18/france-press-reaction-england-wembley

[Oakie Doke]

I agree with what they're saying about Wembley, the atmosphere is sh*t.