The Key to the England Puzzle

[muser]

Tommers, he is right. Even defensive teams have to score goals. Spurs use to try and play cavilier football every week, jol has just got you defending more and working harder for the team. The beautiful stuff is still there, the neat passing, ball to feet, quality lay offs, though now its coupled with a work ethic.

 

[Crazy_diamond]

sorry mate, but whoever told you that is talking bollocks.

ask ossie ardiles about the need for a defence (remember his time managing tottenham?). ask keegan about his time at newcastle.

defence is just as important as attack. trust me.

am I the only one to appreciate the irony of somebody who says that defence doesn't matter then going on to attack the english coaching staff?

Look at what happens in the real world when England play the way you say, the score a goal and then sit and try to defend on the 18 yard line and the other side score goals against the UK while they are defending so deep, that is what has happened over the last few years and is still happening just look at the Sweden game.

How do you win a game of football without scoring goals?

Just as an aside what is the penalty box in metric I have a feeling I could get an on-the-spot fine for calling is the 18 yard box as we are metric and European

Defenders need to defend it is their job (but it isn’t as important as scoring goals) but they also need to score goals so it is important that they can score goals as goals win games.

Not hard to understand surely?


If England had had some really good results against world class teams I'd agree with you, but they haven't so I don't

 

[tommers]

Tommers, he is right. Even defensive teams have to score goals. Spurs use to try and play cavilier football every week, jol has just got you defending more and working harder for the team. The beautiful stuff is still there, the neat passing, ball to feet, quality lay offs, though now its coupled with a work ethic.

of course teams have to score goals.

but I read the original post as saying "defence doesn't matter", and that's just not true.

as you say spurs under martin jol are "defending more and working harder for the team". and they are doing much better than ardiles' "attack at all costs, just concentrate on scoring goals" team.

it's a balance, that is what I am saying. to say "all you need to do is attack" is utter, utter, bollocks.

 

[tommers]

Look at what happens in the real world when England play the way you say, the score a goal and then sit and try to defend on the 18 yard line and the other side score goals against the UK while they are defending so deep, that is what has happened over the last few years and is still happening just look at the Sweden game.

How do you win a game of football without scoring goals?

Just as an aside what is the penalty box in metric I have a feeling I could get an on-the-spot fine for calling is the 18 yard box as we are metric and European

Defenders need to defend it is their job (but it isn’t as important as scoring goals) but they also need to score goals so it is important that they can score goals as goals win games.

Not hard to understand surely?


If England had had some really good results against world class teams I'd agree with you, but they haven't so I don't

yep, you're right. it is dangerous to sit back and try to defend a one goal lead. always has been, always will be. but "attack at all times" is not a good policy. you need a balance, surely?

and you don't need defenders to be able to score goals. sure it's nice. but a defenders job is to stop the other team scoring, primarily. the odd header from a corner is a lovely bonus but it isn't their main job. or else they would be strikers. I would much rather have four defenders who can defend than four who are bad at defending but like getting forward. there are strikers, attacking midfielders, wingers for that.

as you keep saying, you need to score more goals than the opposition to win the game.

well, there are two sides to that statement. yes, how many goals you score, but also how many they do. to keep their score down is as important as increasing yours.

 

[muser]

Because England's players aren't comfortable on the ball, they tend to think safety first. The midfield pass the ball back when under any sort of pressure. The defence then hump a ball over the midfield into the strikers who have taken up a midfield position in order to get the ball. Majority of the times possession is lost. England players can rarely see a pass, Gascoigne was lauded for this ability. Southgate was on 606 a while back and said that when he got into the England set up he could remember thinking the players weren't as talented as he thought they might be.
That is a damning comment in itself. For those like myself and Zed who think that England are playing a different game to the rest of the world, what changes can be made. I don't buy this it is the tactics of the manager nonsense. At set plays we are awful, at neat and tidy football we are awful, technically we don't exist. How does the football academy choose its players?
What is the criteria?

 

[Crazy_diamond]

yep, you're right. it is dangerous to sit back and try to defend a one goal lead. always has been, always will be. but "attack at all times" is not a good policy. you need a balance, surely?

and you don't need defenders to be able to score goals. sure it's nice. but a defenders job is to stop the other team scoring, primarily. the odd header from a corner is a lovely bonus but it isn't their main job. or else they would be strikers. I would much rather have four defenders who can defend than four who are bad at defending but like getting forward. there are strikers, attacking midfielders, wingers for that.

as you keep saying, you need to score more goals than the opposition to win the game.

well, there are two sides to that statement. yes, how many goals you score, but also how many they do. to keep their score down is as important as increasing yours.

I maybe watching a different world cup to you but what I have seen is loads of footballers many paid over £25,000 a week who can't hit the goal from inside that penalty area, I have seen some teams that were appalling in defence but only got 1 or 2 goals scored against them.

Clearly defence is part of the game but I believe the English games put to must importance on it and not enough on scoring.

I've watch football around the world and I can tell you English football is very dull compared to many other countries, yes there are some teams that are great to watch in the Uk but not many.

Tell me something, why is it that in the English game if a side goes one goal down they will often sub a forward for a defender? what is the point, when I watch other countries they seems to understand that if you are loosing you need to score goals and therefore bring on a forward or proven goal scorer, just watch England in there next games you'll see.


We are behind so we better take of a goal scorer and bring n another defender in case they score again, what is that all about??????????

 

[tommers]

I maybe watching a different world cup to you but what I have seen is loads of footballers many paid over £25,000 a week who can't hit the goal from inside that penalty area, I have seen some teams that were appalling in defence but only got 1 or 2 goals scored against them.

sorry, you've lost me. what do you mean?

Clearly defence is part of the game but I believe the English games put to must importance on it and not enough on scoring.

well, that might be your opinion. I'm not sure it is true.

I've watch football around the world and I can tell you English football is very dull compared to many other countries, yes there are some teams that are great to watch in the Uk but not many. .

really? which leagues are better? the brazilian? the italian? hmmm... maybe the italian about ten years ago. the spanish league is good. however, the english league is widely recognised to be one of the most exciting (if not technically proficient) in the world.

Tell me something, why is it that in the English game if a side goes one goal down they will often sub a forward for a defender? what is the point, when I watch other countries they seems to understand that if you are loosing you need to score goals and therefore bring on a forward or proven goal scorer, just watch England in there next games you'll see.

We are behind so we better take of a goal scorer and bring n another defender in case they score again, what is that all about??????????

I cannot recall ever having seen this. can you give me some examples? it sounds like very strange tactics.

 

[muser]

Tommers I can't think of any games off the top of my head, but I know what diamond is talking about. Didn't chelsea recently put on huth (a defender) as a striker in the barcelona game. Absurd.

 

[Crazy_diamond]

Tommers I can't think of any games off the top of my head, but I know what diamond is talking about. Didn't chelsea recently put on huth (a defender) as a striker in the barcelona game. Absurd.

Rather than waste my time with him I'll just agree with you as you seem to on the same page as me

As someone who watches Brazilian football every Sunday evening, Italian football at the weekend and lots of English football I see the difference week in and week out.

Isn't it amazing how many England fans seem to think England play really good football, most of them are under 25 still and have not seen them give wins away as much, but they'll learn

 

[muser]

Rather than waste my time with him I'll just agree with you as you seem to on the same page as me

As someone who watches Brazilian football every Sunday evening, Italian football at the weekend and lots of English football I see the difference week in and week out.

Isn't it amazing how many England fans seem to think England play really good football, most of them are under 25 still and have not seen them give wins away as much, but they'll learn

Trust me diamond they won't learn. The english mentality means that they don't want to be told. A latent superiority complex. All western countries have it, though for us it manifest itself at the world cup. Zola at 36 was still unlocking defences in our league, and was a joy to watch.
No team in this competition should be frightened of us.

 

[Crazy_diamond]

Trust me diamond they won't learn. The english mentality means that they don't want to be told. A latent superiority complex. All western countries have it, though for us it manifest itself at the world cup. Zola at 36 was still unlocking defences in our league, and was a joy to watch.
No team in this competition should be frightened of us.

The bit in bold is very interesting as I am in a debate on here about just that, I am saying it is wrong for the English to tell others they are wrong for doing something like Bullfighting.

They say it is barbaric even though it is been part of their culture an history and is legal, why do the English think they always know what’s best for others? (I find it is mainly people who have never even been outside Europe and apply the standards of the developed world onto people from the developing world)


ps Did you notice that the Brazilian sub goal keeper (Rogerio Ceni) has scored about 58 goals for Sao Paulo? I hate Sao Paulo as I am a member of camisa 12 (twelth man) for the Corinthians Paulista and watch them whenever I'm in Brazil

 

[Flashman]

Just because we're cunts doesn't mean we can't recognise cuntishness in others.

 

[tommers]

Rather than waste my time with him I'll just agree with you as you seem to on the same page as me

As someone who watches Brazilian football every Sunday evening, Italian football at the weekend and lots of English football I see the difference week in and week out.

Isn't it amazing how many England fans seem to think England play really good football, most of them are under 25 still and have not seen them give wins away as much, but they'll learn

you are quite clearly a mentalist.

where have i said england play good football? I said the english league is exciting but technically deficient. what has that got to do with the english national team anyway?

still, I'm sure that as I'm "under 25" I'll soon learn.

muser - yeah, mourinho (who is portuguese) played huth as a striker against barcelona. I may remember it wrong but I believe that was due to all his strikers either already being substituted or injured.

give me another example.

or maybe you can crazy european man?

 

[mattybadger]

Personally I think thekey is to oust Sven out now. As that won't happen I agree we need to drop lamps and becks. Don't get me wrong I think both are good players but they have dipped in form at the wrong time. For me providing no mroe injuries the back 5 picks itself. This is my midfield and striking formation


walcott rooney
cole carrick gerrard lennon

Walcott has been chosen for the squad and with the injuries despite his lack of experiance I think he has to play. All we know about him is that he is lightning fast. Imagine this scenerio.....

An opposing team push up their back line to stop joey, rooney and gerrard having their long shots which seem to be sailnig into top corners of the goal at the minute. With that space, walcott and lennon will rip them apart. They start to drop deeper to stopt his, this allows gerrard rooney and cole to work their magic and shoot, cross or turn defenders inside out. With Carrick cleaning up at the back and spraying passes all over the park I think this would be the most balanced England team in recent memory.

 

[Gmart]

Personally I think thekey is to oust Sven out now. As that won't happen I agree we need to drop lamps and becks. Don't get me wrong I think both are good players but they have dipped in form at the wrong time. For me providing no mroe injuries the back 5 picks itself. This is my midfield and striking formation


walcott rooney
cole carrick gerrard lennon

Walcott has been chosen for the squad and with the injuries despite his lack of experiance I think he has to play. All we know about him is that he is lightning fast. Imagine this scenerio.....

An opposing team push up their back line to stop joey, rooney and gerrard having their long shots which seem to be sailnig into top corners of the goal at the minute. With that space, walcott and lennon will rip them apart. They start to drop deeper to stopt his, this allows gerrard rooney and cole to work their magic and shoot, cross or turn defenders inside out. With Carrick cleaning up at the back and spraying passes all over the park I think this would be the most balanced England team in recent memory.

What a dream, but Sven will never drop Lampard. I don't mind Becks as he has played ok with good distribution. The best we can hope for is to keep Hargreaves as a DM, and hope that Cole, Gerrard and Beckham can feed Rooney or Crouch. Walcott and Carrick both should get a chance but probably won't, whilst i hope that Lennon gets put on as we looked good with him.

Still maybe injuries will force Sven's hand...

 

[muser]

you are quite clearly a mentalist.

where have i said england play good football? I said the english league is exciting but technically deficient. what has that got to do with the english national team anyway?

still, I'm sure that as I'm "under 25" I'll soon learn.

muser - yeah, mourinho (who is portuguese) played huth as a striker against barcelona. I may remember it wrong but I believe that was due to all his strikers either already being substituted or injured.

give me another example.

or maybe you can crazy european man?

That is nonsense, Chelsea had several other options that night and didn't use them. You specified 'english' manager, I can't think off the top of my head. But if the argument was change slightly where an english manager substituted a defender for a striker, then the team will still perform as though it were defending a lead that chasing one. Crazy, I personally don't agree with bull fighting. Though you might be arguing from the viewpoint that the developed nations pick and choose which way their moral compass is pointing, depending on the political climate.

 

[tommers]

That is nonsense, Chelsea had several other options that night and didn't use them. You specified 'english' manager, I can't think off the top of my head.

AAARRRRGHH!!! look! here is the fucking match report!

huth was brought on in the 83rd minute. as a replacement for joe cole. at that point the score was 2-1 to barcelona, so chelsea needed a goal.

however, he had already brought on gudjohnsen (for duff in the 58th minute), and crespo (for drogba in the 59th minute).

Therefore the only options he had left on his bench were.... cudicini, geremi, huth, maniche or wright-phillips.

now.... maybe you could argue that he should have brought on wright-phillips. heck, you could probably argue that maniche would be more likely to get you a goal, but he decided that having hulking great robert huth going for headers in the area was more likely to get him a goal.

great, whatever.

more to the point is how the fuck does that example go any way towards proving this....

Tell me something, why is it that in the English game if a side goes one goal down they will often sub a forward for a defender? what is the point, when I watch other countries they seems to understand that if you are loosing you need to score goals and therefore bring on a forward or proven goal scorer, just watch England in there next games you'll see.

We are behind so we better take of a goal scorer and bring n another defender in case they score again, what is that all about??????????

a) that happened in one particular game. give me more examples. I am all ears to hear about how "if a side goes one goal down they will often sub a forward for a defender?". Tell me about it. I am willing to listen.

b) how that example says anything about the english game. Mourinho is portuguese!

But if the argument was change slightly where an english manager substituted a defender for a striker, then the team will still perform as though it were defending a lead that chasing one.

what?!? I have honestly got absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about. it's like arguing with the chuckle brothers.

 

[muser]

You have already admitted it has happened, although with a portuguese manager. Who is managing an english side. You are copping out there. As I said I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but when the season starts listen to 606 and all the supporters of championship clubs will phone in saying how bad the manager is. I remember wolves under whelan doing something as silly as this years ago. The chelsea point is that he brought on a defender to play as a striker. The fact that he is portuguese has little bearing on the debate as he is managing the EPL. Liverpool when they won the CL had a disasterous run in the premiership, though got to the final and won. Rafa was trying to adapt to the premiership in his first season, but you look at liverpool now we still play like an English side, but have continental awareness and positioning.
You are purposely being dense to prove your point, and you have the cheek to call us the chuckle brothers!

 

[tommers]

You have already admitted it has happened, although with a portuguese manager. Who is managing an english side. You are copping out there. As I said I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but when the season starts listen to 606 and all the supporters of championship clubs will phone in saying how bad the manager is. I remember wolves under whelan doing something as silly as this years ago. The chelsea point is that he brought on a defender to play as a striker. The fact that he is portuguese has little bearing on the debate as he is managing the EPL. Liverpool when they won the CL had a disasterous run in the premiership, though got to the final and won. Rafa was trying to adapt to the premiership in his first season, but you look at liverpool now we still play like an English side, but have continental awareness and positioning.
You are purposely being dense to prove your point, and you have the cheek to call us the chuckle brothers!

oh for god's sake. no I'm not "being dense to prove my point".

so far you have provided one example. a very questionable example at that. as I showed, mourinho had already put on all of his strikers. what exactly do you think he should have done?

and, even taking away the fact that he is portuguese, how does this prove that "if a [English] side goes one goal down they will often sub a forward for a defender?"

the key word there is "often". crazy diamond was asking why english football clubs often replace strikers with defenders when they are a goal behind. I am saying that doesn't happen.

Prove me wrong. (and don't just say "I'm sure it happens".)

I mean, we were sat here quite happily slagging off frank lampard and then crazy diamond turns up and, completely out of the blue, says that attack is everything, defence is nothing. Apart from the fact that this statement had no bearing on the previous thread (which was basically an excuse to slag off frank lampard and was going very well thankyouverymuch) it is also complete rubbish.

He then comes up with the gem that english clubs often replace a striker with a defender when they are a goal down.

I'm just trying to point out that that isn't true.

I mean, am I on my own here?

 

[muser]

Tommers I'm not trying to say it is commonplace, but it does happen. No one is saying to forget about defending, but just as long as it is an afterthought not your main priority, a la Houllier. As soon as the game begins put 11 behind the ball and hit on the counter, no matter who the opposition is. Houllier for Lyon is the exact opposite. Stylish, free flowing football. I think Houllier did exactly the same thing we are discussing against Barcelona when we got thumped 3-1 at the nou camp a couple years ago.
I'll try and dig it up.

 

[tangerinedream]

I remember wolves under whelan

Who is Whelan?

Not being nasty, but really cannot remember anyone called this managing wolves.

 

[tommers]

Who is Whelan?

Not being nasty, but really cannot remember anyone called this managing wolves.

I just checked. nobody called whelan has managed wolves.

oh well, maybe he's in this mythical universe where english managers sub defenders for strikers when they're a goal behind.

and playing 0-2-8 wins the league every year.

 

[Gmart]

I mean, am I on my own here?

No yr not, i certainly don't remember slagging off any manager for doing this. It sounds crazy.

I remember Graham Taylor putting Smith on for Lineker when we needed a goal! THAT was crazy! But that was when we had Carlton Palmer playing for England.

Even if i disagree with Sven on Carrick etc, at least we have a reasonable defensive midfielder and when Lampard finally gets pulled off, preferably for Carrick to come on then i'll be happier. Gerrard has certainly shown him who is the star and who is the Emporer is false clothes.

 

[muser]

Who is Whelan?

Not being nasty, but really cannot remember anyone called this managing wolves.

Sorry I meant Mark McGhee, had to do a check myself.

 

[muser]

No yr not, i certainly don't remember slagging off any manager for doing this. It sounds crazy.

I remember Graham Taylor putting Smith on for Lineker when we needed a goal! THAT was crazy! But that was when we had Carlton Palmer playing for England.

Even if i disagree with Sven on Carrick etc, at least we have a reasonable defensive midfielder and when Lampard finally gets pulled off, preferably for Carrick to come on then i'll be happier. Gerrard has certainly shown him who is the star and who is the Emporer is false clothes.

Why are we obsessed with defence, why not 2 attacking midfielders. The best form of defence is attack as they say.

 

[Crazy_diamond]

Crazy, I personally don't agree with bull fighting. Though you might be arguing from the viewpoint that the developed nations pick and choose which way their moral compass is pointing, depending on the political climate.

Nor do I, but I don't think I as a European have the right to tell people from the developing world (in this case Mexico) who have Bullfighting in their history or culture that it is barbaric, that is my point, but many English people think it is their right to impose their standards on others.

I guess in some way it is good that English youth still have some optimism about the English football team and how they play (the optimism of youth is the phrase I was looking for in my other post ), but what is all his bullshit I hear that they will play 4 5 1 against Ecuador, it is Ecuador not Brazil!!!

While we are on the subject, did you hear the interview with Felipe Scolari? It was very interesting to hear his words direct from him as I read and heard on the News that he didn’t take the England job because of the pressure he would get from the press into his private life, but he claims he didn’t take the job “because the F.A. wanted to announce the decision before the world cup and he said he was still contracted to manage the Portuguese side and wouldn’t take the job or want it announced until after the World Cup had finished”, so it looks like they have got someone, anyone, as Sven had caused them embarrassment and were more interested in what the press would say if they didn’t announce someone to take over rather than wait or the right person, interesting way to run a National Football team

 

[muser]

I did see the interview and create thread on that subject. The English FA are a joke, that is universally acknowledged. Though Scolari came across as a man of priniciple, he oozes warmth and theres a certain humanity behind his words and the way he conducts himself. An all round decent man.

 

[tommers]

Why are we obsessed with defence, why not 2 attacking midfielders. The best form of defence is attack as they say.

we DO currently play with two attacking midfielders. gerrard and lampard are both best going forward. hasn't been working has it? One of them has had to stay back when the other one goes forward, otherwise when we lose the ball there's no cover to stop the other team breaking.

that's kind of the initial premise of this whole thread.

even brazil play with a defensive midfielder. emerson... gilberto silva... heard of them? (although probably more capable of attack than the english equivalent!)

re: scolari - yes, at last something we can agree about. the FA have handled it all quite spectacularly badly. As usual.

 

[tommers]

I guess in some way it is good that English youth still have some optimism about the English football team and how they play (the optimism of youth is the phrase I was looking for in my other post ), but what is all his bullshit I hear that they will play 4 5 1 against Ecuador, it is Ecuador not Brazil!!!

well... the idea is that with a holding midfielder (carrick or hargreaves), who stays back and is able to break up the opposition attacks, lampard and gerrard are then free to play their natural game, which is to make late runs into the opposition penalty area. this plays to their strengths as attacking midfielders.

we would also have five players in midfield which would, hopefully, allow us to dominate that area and control the tempo of the game.

if it helps, you could consider it as being 4-3-3 (as the wingers would also be able to play much further forward than currently possible.)

or 4-1-4-1.

whatever you fancy!

it would probably actually be a more attacking formation than the traditional 4-4-2. the only problem would be that the lone striker would have to do a lot of work holding up the ball for long enough to allow the midfielders to support him.

this could be the moment when it all starts working. and, much like in 1990, this would happen due to changes enforced by injury.

 

[Genghis Cohen]

ecuador are just the sort of side the flukey undeserving fat cunt would score against.

That said anyone see bollock for germany against sweden, exactly the same, except, you know, he could hit the target, oh and pass.