Same old England failings

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
England weren't able to put together the cohesive patterns of passing and movement that the better teams in the tournament, especially Spain, could. I think there are a number of reasons for this.

Southgate clearly isn't tactically as a sophisticated manager as some of his counterparts and I think he focused too much on accommodating his best players over finding the most effective structure. But I think it's also harder for England that our players are spread across more clubs, playing in a variety of tactical systems, and generally there isn't much of a unified 'English' style of football that's common to all the academies and clubs these players have emerged from. Contrast that with Spain, and there's a lot of chemistry in the squad thanks to domination by 3-4 clubs (this time Real Sociedad and Bilbao contingents making a big contribution). There are also certain principles that are fairly recognisable across Spanish football which makes it easier for them to get on the same wavelength. (For instance, if you watched this year's African Cup of Nations, the Equatorial Guinea team, which mainly consists of Spanish-born players plying their trade in the lower leagues in Spain, you immediately think they play Spanish style football.)

I do think England players were fatigued and battered by the time of the Euros too. Those in the PL have completed a season in the most intensely competitive league in the planet. Those playing abroad have been involved in title races and the latter stages of the CL.

In my view, it would be a good point in time to bring in a new manager who has a greater interest in tactical refinement and possession patterns - e.g. Potter or Howe. But we would be naive to expect that the above factors don't impede them too, or that they can create the kind of team coherence in half a dozen training sessions per year that they have in their club sides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's an intersting thought although you'd have to say that this Spanish team playing with out and out wingers and more willing to concede possession (still very possession based but not as tediously so as they have been in the past) did not really play in a classical Spanish way.

For me their CM was the defining part that lets everyone else around them operate effectively. Shielding the defence, quick accurate passing in transition, keeping the ball moving positively in moments of controlled possession, pressing effectively.

We lacked that massively. Rice had a poor tournament. I think Ruiz probably played more forward passes in the final than Rice managed all comp. Mainoo is a rookie and looked out of his depth in the final, Bellingham strutted about to much.

May be this lack of quality ball playing CM is a bit of an English disease. We havent had a true top quality one since Scholes. Spain from this high quality and technical base were able to release their wide attackers and their full backs with regularity.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

It certainly wasn't Barcelona-era Spain, but for me the point still stands that they have much more of a shared sense of how football is played than English footballers. That doesn't mean there's a specific formation or tactical plan: I had more in mind the smaller triangles and on-field relationships, movements, etc.

That's not to say it's the singular cause of the disparity. I think there are lots of factors that combine, including the lack of English press-resistant, tempo controlling midfielders. (Hopefully Mainoo and Wharton are an indication that we are starting to produce that profile of player.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the old days there used to be a big difference between the English style and that of Europeans. That has closed massively now but there still seems to be a lack of sophistication in even the best English players, and particularly the CM. Rice is the stand out in this position but his attributes are still more energy and thrust and driving than say Rodri who is far more controlled, precise, reading the game and positioning.

We still seem to have this old skool mindset, it still lingers and its evident from the grass roots level up, which i think goes to your point about football culture and intelligence.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
England weren't able to put together the cohesive patterns of passing and movement that the better teams in the tournament, especially Spain, could. I think there are a number of reasons for this.

Southgate clearly isn't tactically as a sophisticated manager as some of his counterparts and I think he focused too much on accommodating his best players over finding the most effective structure. But I think it's also harder for England that our players are spread across more clubs, playing in a variety of tactical systems, and generally there isn't much of a unified 'English' style of football that's common to all the academies and clubs these players have emerged from. Contrast that with Spain, and there's a lot of chemistry in the squad thanks to domination by 3-4 clubs (this time Real Sociedad and Bilbao contingents making a big contribution). There are also certain principles that are fairly recognisable across Spanish football which makes it easier for them to get on the same wavelength. (For instance, if you watched this year's African Cup of Nations, the Equatorial Guinea team, which mainly consists of Spanish-born players plying their trade in the lower leagues in Spain, you immediately think they play Spanish style football.)

I do think England players were fatigued and battered by the time of the Euros too. Those in the PL have completed a season in the most intensely competitive league in the planet. Those playing abroad have been involved in title races and the latter stages of the CL.

In my view, it would be a good point in time to bring in a new manager who has a greater interest in tactical refinement and possession patterns - e.g. Potter or Howe. But we would be naive to expect that the above factors don't impede them too, or that they can create the kind of team coherence in half a dozen training sessions per year that they have in their club sides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's an intersting thought although you'd have to say that this Spanish team playing with out and out wingers and more willing to concede possession (still very possession based but not as tediously so as they have been in the past) did not really play in a classical Spanish way.

For me their CM was the defining part that lets everyone else around them operate effectively. Shielding the defence, quick accurate passing in transition, keeping the ball moving positively in moments of controlled possession, pressing effectively.

We lacked that massively. Rice had a poor tournament. I think Ruiz probably played more forward passes in the final than Rice managed all comp. Mainoo is a rookie and looked out of his depth in the final, Bellingham strutted about to much.

May be this lack of quality ball playing CM is a bit of an English disease. We havent had a true top quality one since Scholes. Spain from this high quality and technical base were able to release their wide attackers and their full backs with regularity.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

It certainly wasn't Barcelona-era Spain, but for me the point still stands that they have much more of a shared sense of how football is played than English footballers. That doesn't mean there's a specific formation or tactical plan: I had more in mind the smaller triangles and on-field relationships, movements, etc.

That's not to say it's the singular cause of the disparity. I think there are lots of factors that combine, including the lack of English press-resistant, tempo controlling midfielders. (Hopefully Mainoo and Wharton are an indication that we are starting to produce that profile of player.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the old days there used to be a big difference between the English style and that of Europeans. That has closed massively now but there still seems to be a lack of sophistication in even the best English players, and particularly the CM. Rice is the stand out in this position but his attributes are still more energy and thrust and driving than say Rodri who is far more controlled, precise, reading the game and positioning.

We still seem to have this old skool mindset, it still lingers and its evident from the grass roots level up, which i think goes to your point about football culture and intelligence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tbh, I think the English overthink things and are too fixated with copying what they think works with other teams. Germany found a lot of success historically with direct football. The Italians were never really known for their flair and technical ability and found a lot of international success too. Spain's 2008 - 2012 dominance made everyone look to copy their model and we had the Germans and Italians trying to play like them. I believe this is partly responsible for the strange dearth of top class strikers in modern football - where youth development overstresses tactics and systems and dissuades individual expression (which I'll imagine is necessary to be a striker).

The French team that reached the last 2 World Cup finals weren't renowned for their cultured passing. They were pretty solid and defensively robust, and used Mbappe's pace upfront as their main weapon. England does not need some tactical revolution to win international titles.

comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 32 minutes ago

Grimaldo is more a wing back though, isn't he? Not watched much of him in Leverkusen, but his stats suggest he's very good and productive going forward, but probably isn't as good a defender as Cucurella.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is, you're right, but when you look at Spain's average pitch positions throughout the tournament, only Austria's were higher. Specifically, Cucurella's average position was inside the opposition half, so while it is probably true that he was preferred for his defensive output, it would equally have been a position Grimaldo in which he may well have excelled.

comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
England weren't able to put together the cohesive patterns of passing and movement that the better teams in the tournament, especially Spain, could. I think there are a number of reasons for this.

Southgate clearly isn't tactically as a sophisticated manager as some of his counterparts and I think he focused too much on accommodating his best players over finding the most effective structure. But I think it's also harder for England that our players are spread across more clubs, playing in a variety of tactical systems, and generally there isn't much of a unified 'English' style of football that's common to all the academies and clubs these players have emerged from. Contrast that with Spain, and there's a lot of chemistry in the squad thanks to domination by 3-4 clubs (this time Real Sociedad and Bilbao contingents making a big contribution). There are also certain principles that are fairly recognisable across Spanish football which makes it easier for them to get on the same wavelength. (For instance, if you watched this year's African Cup of Nations, the Equatorial Guinea team, which mainly consists of Spanish-born players plying their trade in the lower leagues in Spain, you immediately think they play Spanish style football.)

I do think England players were fatigued and battered by the time of the Euros too. Those in the PL have completed a season in the most intensely competitive league in the planet. Those playing abroad have been involved in title races and the latter stages of the CL.

In my view, it would be a good point in time to bring in a new manager who has a greater interest in tactical refinement and possession patterns - e.g. Potter or Howe. But we would be naive to expect that the above factors don't impede them too, or that they can create the kind of team coherence in half a dozen training sessions per year that they have in their club sides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's an intersting thought although you'd have to say that this Spanish team playing with out and out wingers and more willing to concede possession (still very possession based but not as tediously so as they have been in the past) did not really play in a classical Spanish way.

For me their CM was the defining part that lets everyone else around them operate effectively. Shielding the defence, quick accurate passing in transition, keeping the ball moving positively in moments of controlled possession, pressing effectively.

We lacked that massively. Rice had a poor tournament. I think Ruiz probably played more forward passes in the final than Rice managed all comp. Mainoo is a rookie and looked out of his depth in the final, Bellingham strutted about to much.

May be this lack of quality ball playing CM is a bit of an English disease. We havent had a true top quality one since Scholes. Spain from this high quality and technical base were able to release their wide attackers and their full backs with regularity.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

It certainly wasn't Barcelona-era Spain, but for me the point still stands that they have much more of a shared sense of how football is played than English footballers. That doesn't mean there's a specific formation or tactical plan: I had more in mind the smaller triangles and on-field relationships, movements, etc.

That's not to say it's the singular cause of the disparity. I think there are lots of factors that combine, including the lack of English press-resistant, tempo controlling midfielders. (Hopefully Mainoo and Wharton are an indication that we are starting to produce that profile of player.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the old days there used to be a big difference between the English style and that of Europeans. That has closed massively now but there still seems to be a lack of sophistication in even the best English players, and particularly the CM. Rice is the stand out in this position but his attributes are still more energy and thrust and driving than say Rodri who is far more controlled, precise, reading the game and positioning.

We still seem to have this old skool mindset, it still lingers and its evident from the grass roots level up, which i think goes to your point about football culture and intelligence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tbh, I think the English overthink things and are too fixated with copying what they think works with other teams. Germany found a lot of success historically with direct football. The Italians were never really known for their flair and technical ability and found a lot of international success too. Spain's 2008 - 2012 dominance made everyone look to copy their model and we had the Germans and Italians trying to play like them. I believe this is partly responsible for the strange dearth of top class strikers in modern football - where youth development overstresses tactics and systems and dissuades individual expression (which I'll imagine is necessary to be a striker).

The French team that reached the last 2 World Cup finals weren't renowned for their cultured passing. They were pretty solid and defensively robust, and used Mbappe's pace upfront as their main weapon. England does not need some tactical revolution to win international titles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that is where Southgate has got himself in a muddle.

He picked players not a team.

He set up to defend but offered nothing on the counter attack.

He played Kane but had no one running beyond him.

His players played in a possession style but at the sacrifice of any incision.

Coherent and consistent tactics is what is needed, whether that's direct, counter attacking or tippy tappy. I dont think any one cares or is particularly snobby about how we play, it just needs to offer more than Southgate-ball in terms of chance creation, goals scored and victories (and entertainment)

@Sheriff, RR & Devonshire

I do agree that there's more than one potentially successful style. Sheriff's reference to France is interesting, as it does seem that Southgate has partly tried to mirror that approach of keeping it tight and trusting that star players will be enough to tip the scales.

That said, though, it's perfectly natural to want to learn from others. I wouldn't say it's so much a fixation in England with other teams' styles as it is a comparative scarcity of tactical innovation and excess rigidity in English management, coupled with a long-standing failure to identify and decide what its own style might be. That probably helps to explain why, Potter and Howe aside, there have so few English managers at the top level in recent years.

As RR pointed out, the broad range of styles currently deployed in the PL probably doesn't help, but you can't really say that it doesn't occur elsewhere. Spain's squad was sourced from 15 different clubs (one more than England), and 5 countries (vs 3), with 7 players vs 2 plying their trade abroad.

My feeling is that it is probably more to do with what goes on at the grassroots level. There's a football adage in Spain, 'lo que tiene que correr es el balón, no el jugador', which loosely means that it's the speed of the ball and not the player that makes the difference. That's the root of the emphasis on passing triangles, because the ball can be moved about much faster by passing than by any one player running with it.

There is also one interesting cultural attitude I've observed in England vs Spain, which is that in Spain there seems to be much stronger view and acceptance of football as a global game.

Deep down, some fans still seem to have this sense of England's 'ownership' of the game. As tongue-in-cheek as it might be, there's an underlying belief about football having to come home. England may have invented the modern game, but it's been a very long time since it became emancipated and took on many lives of its own. Whatever comes home, when it comes home, will inevitably have to be a very different, grown up version, not some mythical lost Eden guided by sporting principles that have long-since ceased to exist.

It also isn't anywhere near as frequent in Spain to hear about the perceived need for players to 'adapt to the league'. At most, you might hear about young South Americans having to adapt to Europe (not Spain), or at the need to adapt to the culture of a the country or of a particular club (e.g., famously, Bale).

As multicultural as the PL is nowadays, there still seems to be this widespread perception that it's somehow different to everywhere else, while the truth is that the actual change in the football played the PL has been massive and its top teams have moved much closer to the styles played by top clubs elsewhere.

A similar thing occurs relative to the discussion I had a couple of days ago with Devonshire regarding refereeing. There this odd kind of view that English refereeing is different to everything else - which might be true of every country to an extent - but that's coupled with a weird homogensation of what it's perceived to be 'elsewhere', as if the attitudes of La Liga, Bundesliga, Eredivisie, Ekstraklasa, Serie A, Allsvenskan, or Primeira Liga refs were all one and the same, and that this somehow puts PL clubs at a disadvantage whenever they cross the Channel.

Notwithstanding all of the above, I do think that England and English football are on a path towards change. You can see it in youth setups, which indicate changes at the grassroots and academy levels. But those changes don't take place overnight. This current England team already reflects a big shift with regard to the technical accomplishment of the players, and with all the engagement, available funds, and love for the game, it's only going to get better. My guess is England will win a major international tournament sooner rather than later.

England's best chance would be to not try and copy what other countries are doing, which would end up with them being just slightly worse than them at a similar style and level. Just go full Brexit on it. World Cup 2018 looked promising trying to get goals with that love train thing and then pretending to be fouled whilst jostling in the box so that it looked like a pen on var. England didn't try any of that at this euros and consequently looked out of ideas for goals. Almost like they were embarrassed to attempt such things.

The two times they lumped it into the box via crosses or knocked on throw ins, Bellingham scored.

Get Pulis in, and Brexit the fack out of it.

It would make for more interesting viewing for everyone else with the contrast in styles like when Stoke used to batter Arsenal.

Rather than trying to be a Poundland Spain or France, get back to the basics of English football and start implementing what the fans vote for: Brexit.

comment by CurrentlyInPoland (U11181)
posted 6 hours, 40 minutes ago

Systematic failure.

For some reason, we want to play all the best players together rather than see if they can play together in a system that gets the best out of them. And it's not like we have a prime Messi or Ronaldo to build the team around.

---------------

this is a very good point tbf

Certainly overrate English footy, talk like Man City are some juggernaut but yet one solitary CL win suggests otherwise. The prem is pretty crap right now, that is undeniable, City barely have a rival, Chelsea and Utd are a complete disaster.

And Pep, is he all that? Buys Grealish for 100 million. gets rid of Cole Palmer. Who would you rather have?

comment by Jim Duffy (U1734)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
England's best chance would be to not try and copy what other countries are doing, which would end up with them being just slightly worse than them at a similar style and level. Just go full Brexit on it. World Cup 2018 looked promising trying to get goals with that love train thing and then pretending to be fouled whilst jostling in the box so that it looked like a pen on var. England didn't try any of that at this euros and consequently looked out of ideas for goals. Almost like they were embarrassed to attempt such things.

The two times they lumped it into the box via crosses or knocked on throw ins, Bellingham scored.

Get Pulis in, and Brexit the fack out of it.

It would make for more interesting viewing for everyone else with the contrast in styles like when Stoke used to batter Arsenal.

Rather than trying to be a Poundland Spain or France, get back to the basics of English football and start implementing what the fans vote for: Brexit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is such an obvious wum. Pulis is Welsh.

Just read the first few comments comparing running v passing styles. IMHO psychology plays a big part in getting more out of players and part of that has got to be positivity and confidence. Irrespective the words, when it seemed the tactics were not hugely full of either then you can see it being a drag. Just a thought that you need consistency of message and execution instructions.