Starting from scratch

Well... its hard being KO'd for a big tournie (I know), but ussually this set back is followed by improvement, and there's a good likelihood that this will benefit England on the long and short term.

Let me start by saying that I believe that England do have the enough quality international players and one WC player to make a very solid first XI.
The key is balance: its not about mindlessly lumping the 'best' players into the first side to tell them to "have a go".
As it stands, the only two departments England have probelems with are goalies and strikers. And I believe that only the keeper issue is a problem, but not even that bad as it seems, because (on paper) England also have one of the best defenses in the world IMO.

Pros:
great defensive players and generally ridiculous strength in depth .
good international quality AMs
decent wing players
decent strikers
very promising youngsters (Young, Agbonlahor, Richards, Milner, bentley etc)

That's better than about 40% of the teams that qualified (Russia, Greece, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Turkey etc).

A good first XI
------------------GK
Richards - Rio - Terry - Cole
-------------- Barry
Young--------------------Cole
---------------Rooney
---------- Crouch - Bent

That's just one idea for a formation - there are others for a 4-42 et al.. What England miss is the flexibilty to exchange some players while more or less retaining a similar gameplan.

Part of current the problems stem from having 'undroppable' players. Not only is this the wrong mindset, but the probelm also lies in these players: Lmapard needs a system; Gerrard (with Lampard is an unbalanced central partnership); Rooney is a good player, but has no good foil to play off in the England squad and his automatic inclusion hampers England more than helps (takes away the inclusion of a 'lesser' player wo would be more benificial).
It isn't that these players aren't or shouldn't be allowed to play anymore but within a a balanced context.

England also needs to learn to play to its strength: premiership style tempo and strong atlethic players. This while adding a bit of continental style by taking the foot off the pedal once in a while to survey the situation than attack again (holding and tempo setting).
You can have the best of two worlds, but you're not even playing to your supposed intrinsic one (prem tempo football).
Merely by playing the (for the players) familiar prem style, you'd juggernaut over most opponents - and not lose your identity and style.

I also see people talking about technique (or lack thereof) and this also has to be viewed within context: its not about having an army of Ronaldinho or Kaka clones, its about having players who are able, capable and comfortable on the ball - basic skills.
Not like Gerrard and lamprd in the middle but the opposite. Croatia (or even Russia!) didn't have great ball skills: they just had the basic ones.
By having the basic ball controlling skills (comfortable and confident on the foot, able to trap a ball) a team is closer to being a team and not a collection of individuals.

Ego/arrogance: some of these players actually need to give a $h!t. Instead about talking about passion and watching every team they play against 'outpassioning' them. Also willing to listen to the managers, tactical discipline.


For every country who are rebuilding (or should be) there are different aspects to focus at, and I think these are only some of which need to be looked at.

- Fa
- Manager
- Grass roots level


Care to add more? Hope this one becomes a good discussion about a football revolution.
In my opinion, England is hardly in a tight spot, it just needs to review things and actually do something about their shortcomings.

Excellent excellent post.

However, unlike the Dutch, who are culturally renowned for their embrace of change and revolutionising new ways of thinking,

the English culture is very traditionalist and not so open to change.

Look at the failure in 1994 to qualify. There was a number of new ideas proposed (such as a youth football academy similar to Clarefontaine), however these have been abolished and in reality, not a lot has changed in 13 years - despite the fact that in my opinion the Euro 96 Venables side and the 98 Hoddle side were progressing in the right direction, looking at new formations, bringing in new players and playing good football - since 1998 we have gone backwards, focussing on conservative old school values, despite hiring a foreign manager.

Im just not sure, now the EPL is such a force in World football, the Internation team is of high enough importance in this country anymore.

We could do with following the Dutch/French/German models and removing the old traditionalists running the game in this country and focussing on how to merge English strengths with Continental strengths.

Not gonna happen with people like Howard Fucking Wilkinson still hanging around the game

Team I'd like


-------------- James/Foster

Richards -- Ferdinand -- Terry -- A Cole

----------- Hargreaves -- Barry
--- Gerrard ------ Rooney ----- J Cole

------------------- Striker


James should be put in goal until one of the young keepers is good enough to step up. I think it'll be Foster but Green has almost as good a chance.

The defence is pretty easy to pick as you say. It's the midfield and attack which is a brainf*ck. Gerrard will have to play, we can't get rid of both Gerrard and Lampard, one is enough and at least Gerrard is more versatile than Lampard.

Hargreaves and Barry will offer the solidity in midfield we've lacked for years. Both stay deep, both are good at distributing, Hargreaves can offer the protection.

Joe Cole will be in the team, however Young could easily replace him in the coming years.

The only problem after that is the striker. Owen is injury prone, Crouch doesn't always link well with Rooney.

Alternative is to play Rooney as the lone striker and someone else in the hole.

Spankeltoe wrote:Team I'd like


-------------- James/Foster

Richards -- Ferdinand -- Terry -- A Cole

----------- Hargreaves -- Barry
--- Gerrard ------ Rooney ----- J Cole

------------------- Striker

has got to be Agbonlahor, I can't believe we've seen the likes of Andy Johnson for England but never this really talented youngster...

Spankeltoe wrote:Team I'd like


-------------- James/Foster

Richards -- Ferdinand -- Terry -- A Cole

----------- Hargreaves -- Barry
--- Gerrard ------ Rooney ----- J Cole

------------------- Striker


James should be put in goal until one of the young keepers is good enough to step up. I think it'll be Foster but Green has almost as good a chance.

The defence is pretty easy to pick as you say. It's the midfield and attack which is a brainf*ck. Gerrard will have to play, we can't get rid of both Gerrard and Lampard, one is enough and at least Gerrard is more versatile than Lampard.

Hargreaves and Barry will offer the solidity in midfield we've lacked for years. Both stay deep, both are good at distributing, Hargreaves can offer the protection.

Joe Cole will be in the team, however Young could easily replace him in the coming years.

The only problem after that is the striker. Owen is injury prone, Crouch doesn't always link well with Rooney.

Alternative is to play Rooney as the lone striker and someone else in the hole.

I'd play a similar team. I'd probably play Carrick over Barry tho. I also agree with what you say about Young.

Zwarte Piet on weed wrote:

Spankeltoe wrote:Team I'd like


-------------- James/Foster

Richards -- Ferdinand -- Terry -- A Cole

----------- Hargreaves -- Barry
--- Gerrard ------ Rooney ----- J Cole

------------------- Striker

has got to be Agbonlahor, I can't believe we've seen the likes of Andy Johnson for England but never this really talented youngster...

Not sure, certainly should be in the squad like Young though.

Spankeltoe wrote:Team I'd like


-------------- James/Foster

Richards -- Ferdinand -- Terry -- A Cole

----------- Hargreaves -- Barry
--- Gerrard ------ Rooney ----- J Cole

------------------- Striker


James should be put in goal until one of the young keepers is good enough to step up. I think it'll be Foster but Green has almost as good a chance.

The defence is pretty easy to pick as you say. It's the midfield and attack which is a brainf*ck. Gerrard will have to play, we can't get rid of both Gerrard and Lampard, one is enough and at least Gerrard is more versatile than Lampard.

Hargreaves and Barry will offer the solidity in midfield we've lacked for years. Both stay deep, both are good at distributing, Hargreaves can offer the protection.

Joe Cole will be in the team, however Young could easily replace him in the coming years.

The only problem after that is the striker. Owen is injury prone, Crouch doesn't always link well with Rooney.

Alternative is to play Rooney as the lone striker and someone else in the hole.

I think that's quite a good side, but the only gripe is with Rooney yet again. Crouch is England's best striker but doesn't seem to have chemistry with Rooney. And not playing Rooney also seems like a waste.
If Rooney play, its best to have him play in a partnership upfront than alone. When Rooney plays alone its a repeat of the portugal game: no chances, drops too deep, shut out by good defenders, a yellow card and then he gets frustrated.

You can try your line-up with any from Bent, Defoe and Agbonlahor (& Ashton) in the 'lone' striker role, and see which one devlops the best understanding. Other wise I still think that if you need to play Rooney, just mak it a partnership upfront or in a #10 role like I suggested behind two strikers. Oh and don't forget about Heskey...

As for Gerrrad, I still think he can should play in the first XI. It would be plain stupid to waste someone like Gerrard or even Flumps by not selecting them again. Just as long as you play to their strengths and that they are bothered to play decently.
Lampard imo would make an excellent supersub round the 70 min mark to have a few pot shots.

And you still have the likes of Bentley, Young, Milner, Lennon, SWP and Downing to choose from for the flanks.

DD wrote:

Spankeltoe wrote:Team I'd like


-------------- James/Foster

Richards -- Ferdinand -- Terry -- A Cole

----------- Hargreaves -- Barry
--- Gerrard ------ Rooney ----- J Cole

------------------- Striker


James should be put in goal until one of the young keepers is good enough to step up. I think it'll be Foster but Green has almost as good a chance.

The defence is pretty easy to pick as you say. It's the midfield and attack which is a brainf*ck. Gerrard will have to play, we can't get rid of both Gerrard and Lampard, one is enough and at least Gerrard is more versatile than Lampard.

Hargreaves and Barry will offer the solidity in midfield we've lacked for years. Both stay deep, both are good at distributing, Hargreaves can offer the protection.

Joe Cole will be in the team, however Young could easily replace him in the coming years.

The only problem after that is the striker. Owen is injury prone, Crouch doesn't always link well with Rooney.

Alternative is to play Rooney as the lone striker and someone else in the hole.

I think that's quite a good side, but the only gripe is with Rooney yet again. Crouch is England's best striker but doesn't seem to have chemistry with Rooney. And not playing Rooney also seems like a waste.
If Rooney play, its best to have him play in a partnership upfront than alone. When Rooney plays alone its a repeat of the portugal game: no chances, drops too deep, shut out by good defenders, a yellow card and then he gets frustrated.

Alot of people seem to base Rooney's performances as a lone striker on what he has done for England. When for Man United he's done that role excellently. He did it when Ruud was injured in 2005/2006, when Saha was injured last season and he's basically playing as the furthest forward striker this season, because Tevez is playing so deep.

The difference is the amount of support he gets. Against Portugal, we had nobody to support him. Lampard and Gerrard disappeared again and J Cole and Beckham because of this hardly recieved any possession.

Not to mention he wasn't properly fit.

If you left the midfield work to Hargreaves and Barry and had players like Young, Joe Cole, even Gerrard (with less shakles) it'd operate a hell of a lot better.


As it is, he can still play the role behind a striker, it's just finding one he can properly link with. Gabby or Ashton may be the trick.

Pele Says No Excuses wrote:Excellent excellent post.

However, unlike the Dutch, who are culturally renowned for their embrace of change and revolutionising new ways of thinking,

the English culture is very traditionalist and not so open to change.

Look at the failure in 1994 to qualify. There was a number of new ideas proposed (such as a youth football academy similar to Clarefontaine), however these have been abolished and in reality, not a lot has changed in 13 years - despite the fact that in my opinion the Euro 96 Venables side and the 98 Hoddle side were progressing in the right direction, looking at new formations, bringing in new players and playing good football - since 1998 we have gone backwards, focussing on conservative old school values, despite hiring a foreign manager.

Im just not sure, now the EPL is such a force in World football, the Internation team is of high enough importance in this country anymore.

We could do with following the Dutch/French/German models and removing the old traditionalists running the game in this country and focussing on how to merge English strengths with Continental strengths.

Not gonna happen with people like Howard Fucking Wilkinson still hanging around the game

Excellent post, my fellow Spud

Seeing those old cronies in the press conference made me feel sick. The new manager should get 2 years, and only 2 years to get the job done. If he's a success, you look at extending it for another two years.

Pele Says No Excuses wrote:Excellent excellent post.

Too much credit, its not really structured or owt.

However, unlike the Dutch, who are culturally renowned for their embrace of change and revolutionising new ways of thinking,

We started with the right idea after the WC02 fiasco but people (Dutch FA) got arrogant too soon and appointed a fucking cretin in van Basten. To me were worse off than we have ever been - it has ruined our reputation, our excellent chances and will take decades to get undone.

the English culture is very traditionalist and not so open to change.

Look at the failure in 1994 to qualify. There was a number of new ideas proposed (such as a youth football academy similar to Clarefontaine), however these have been abolished and in reality, not a lot has changed in 13 years - despite the fact that in my opinion the Euro 96 Venables side and the 98 Hoddle side were progressing in the right direction, looking at new formations, bringing in new players and playing good football - since 1998 we have gone backwards, focussing on conservative old school values, despite hiring a foreign manager.

Its time to look at them again. Disregarding them for any chauvinistic reason is not good enough and simply madness. Looking at some of the games by the English side I do think that technical basics need to be taught to keep up with the rest of world. What good is it to hae players like Gerrard when a lesser player but more comfortable on the ball can run rings around him.
The basics need to be taught again: I'm not talking about stepovers or such but trapping and holding a ball and being able to comfortably play it to a teammate in the knowledge that he can comfortabley control the ball as well.

Im just not sure, now the EPL is such a force in World football, the Internation team is of high enough importance in this country anymore.

There's no doubt tis has had a detrimental effect on English football and their perspective on football as well, but you could also argue that it has had one on the players as well. If the players play for their clubs like they play for the side, most would be playing in a lower division. The argument for being overpaid (and not bothered) is also one. So is the one for managers to dictate when a player is 'allowed' to go. I'm not referring to a Domeonech wanting an injured Gallas to play situation, but good players hampered to play.

We could do with following the Dutch/French/German models and removing the old traditionalists running the game in this country and focussing on how to merge English strengths with Continental strengths.

This is what you should be looking at. Playing your uptempo style, with a little more ball control (roots and basics), and a bit more holding and tempo setting (continental influence).

There's no need for stepovers, there is one for ball control.

And btw, I do think that with a half decent manager you would have qualified this time as well.

Not gonna happen with people like Howard Fucking Wilkinson still hanging around the game

Don't know who he is, but I'll take your word for it.

El Gaffer wrote:
Seeing those old cronies in the press conference made me feel sick. The new manager should get 2 years, and only 2 years to get the job done. If he's a success, you look at extending it for another two years.

No point giving a manager a 4m a year 4 year contract. Like Sven got in 2004/2005.

2 years only. If he does well and wants to stay on, then offer him another 2 years, even if this means losing out on a good manager.

[quote="DD"]

Spankeltoe wrote:Team I'd like


-------------- James/Foster

Richards -- Ferdinand -- Terry -- A Cole

----------- Hargreaves -- Barry
--- Gerrard ------ Rooney ----- J Cole

------------------- Striker

I've said all this before. Trouble is we don't have a striker.

(Already posted this in another thread)

My plan for the long term future is dead easy. The FA should ppoint Van Gaal as manager Youth Football. He already wrote a great Masterploan for the Dutch FA, which dramatically imrpoved the already good youth football infrastructure in Holland. Let him map that plan to England and roll it out asap.

You'd still say Carson though, after last night.

Also like I said, Joe Cole and Gerrard's places shouldn't be set in stone. We could do with a wide man with Young's pace and crossing ability.

Spankeltoe wrote:You'd still say Carson though, after last night.

Yes. I'd play Cason over an injured, 3rd choice for his club Ben Foster.

I'm not saying he should get as much rope as Robinson, but having been thrown in at the deep end on that pitch I can forgive and have have sympathy for him. Particularly given the saves he made at 1-2.

Chinders wrote:

Spankeltoe wrote:You'd still say Carson though, after last night.

Yes. I'd play Cason over an injured, 3rd choice for his club Ben Foster.

I'm not saying he should get as much rope as Robinson, but having been thrown in at the deep end on that pitch I can forgive and have have sympathy for him. Particularly given the saves he made at 1-2.

I said I'd take James for now.

I didn't think the save from the corner was that spectacularly either.

Spankeltoe wrote:

Chinders wrote:

Spankeltoe wrote:You'd still say Carson though, after last night.

Yes. I'd play Cason over an injured, 3rd choice for his club Ben Foster.

I'm not saying he should get as much rope as Robinson, but having been thrown in at the deep end on that pitch I can forgive and have have sympathy for him. Particularly given the saves he made at 1-2.

I said I'd take James for now.

I didn't think the save from the corner was that spectacularly either.

In slow motion it looks easy. Real time though that would be past you before you knew where you were. I like James too, but if we're looking forwards (Starting from scratch) then Carson/Foster/Green need to be fighting it out for no. 1

I do think the lack of technique and adaptability is a genuine problem, and that its not a fitting solution to ask England to play to traditional strengths like physicality and a high tempo. Most players today are strong and athletic, whilst the superior technique of other nations is enough to subdue a high tempo with nothing behind it, with no nous, no creativity or flexibility of style - and its these things that England lack. I agree with Pele in that the set up has gone backwards in this respect since 98 - from 1990 when England implemented a sweeper system during the World Cup, there was more of a willingness to adapt and to play with formations and address weaknesses, through Venables' Christmas Tree and Hoddles 3-5-2s. If anything, this latest generation - a feature of which has been an excess of player power, whether from the Man Utd contingent or more recently from Gerrard - have taken things backwards, the influence of certain players, the lack of managerial strength and the fact that theres a few players who have excelled at club level meaning that the national team has resorted too much to a standard, naive 4-4-2, playing the best players rather than the best team, with the overriding assumption that England and the English style are superior to that of other nations and should be more than good enough to give success.

I think theres various stages to correcting this, to making the team more flexible and to improving technique. The starting point should be to do this smaller pitches at youth level thing, to focus on ball control and passing rather than hoofing and mindless running. And the England team needs a manager now who will actually provide a team, who will get rid of the egos and the player power and who will bring a sense of team spirit and harmony. This is a difficult task when football is club-centred and when international meets are short and infrequent. But just looking at Croatia last night, and they played as a team, passing the ball around, looking comfortable with each other, knowing their positions whilst still being able to drift and not mess things up. With a proper team spirit and a lack of ego, England could start to play with formations, could ask players to switch positions for the national team rather than there being outcries any time a right back is asked to play as part of a five man defence.

In this respect, more English players playing abroad would help, simply because it makes players adapt to new styles of play, broadens the range of footballing knowledge amongst the national team. But progress can be made without this.

Im surprised to see people saying that Gerrard still has to play. For me, him and Lampard would be impact subs at best. They have both proven time and time again that they cannot dictate the play from the middle, cant control the pace of the game, and this is obviously a vital failing. The number of passes that flew into the stands from both of them last night was amazing. As it is, I think England are weakest in the central midfield positions.

Looking at Parkys team, and I think it has potential. I think Cole and Gerrard in the wide positions lacks width and pace and that its possible that the three attacking midfielders could all end up too central and get in each others way. Id drop Gerrard and play Young on the left and Cole on the right. I still have qualms about playing just one up top too, and so the other option could be to play DDs sort of formation, which maybe suits in another sense because I think England are most struggling for natural central midfielders. As Ive said, Lampard and Gerrard cannot dictate the play from there and misplace too many passes. Then you have Barry, Carrick and Hargreaves, but none of these three are particularly creative or offer attacking threat in terms of breaking runs or dribbling ability - and for this reason, I wouldnt be entirely happy with a central midfield of Barry and Hargreaves, for instance. But then the creative players, the likes of Rooney, Cole, Bentley, arent players who fit in a traditional central midfield, give and take partnership.

And so the concept of playing one holding player and one just behind the front two works. If England did play that, particularly after last night, Id be tempted to play Hargreaves in the holding role ahead of Barry. Barry is neater with the ball, and to my mind he is a better passer of the ball, but Shaz made what seems like a valid point a while ago in that Barry perhaps isnt athletic enough to cover defensively when others are pushing forward, whereas Hargreaves covers a lot of ground.

Speaking generally about the wide midfield positions, I do like to have at least one player with pace and who can provide genuine width. So Id go for Young and Cole rather than Cole and Bentley, for instance. As I said in another thread, SWP cuts inside a lot and lacks a final ball at times, and I do think Milner gives another option for the right wing, and should be considered in the future, because whilst hes not slow, he relies more on trickery and closer control, and hes good at hugging the touchline and playing crosses into the box. Him on the right and Young on the left could give good balance.

Up front, Im all for Agbonlahor being given some games and being worked into the team. I think Rooney is one player who should be in the team whatever when fit, because he can play a variety of positions and hes clever enough to work wherever he plays. The question would be whether to play him as part of a front two or behind either a front one or two. And in relation to this, I think Owen is a starter when fit. The fact is that he and Beckham have been essential to England in the past; Owen is a more natural goalscorer than anyone else England have; and his build up play is good too. Rooney and Owen have never been sensational together, so considering that, perhaps England could try Rooney behind Owen or behind Owen and Crouch.

Spankeltoe wrote:

Chinders wrote:

Spankeltoe wrote:You'd still say Carson though, after last night.

Yes. I'd play Cason over an injured, 3rd choice for his club Ben Foster.

I'm not saying he should get as much rope as Robinson, but having been thrown in at the deep end on that pitch I can forgive and have have sympathy for him. Particularly given the saves he made at 1-2.

I said I'd take James for now.

I didn't think the save from the corner was that spectacularly either.

It went straight at him and him him in the shoulder - it wasn't a save, as such, as it wasn't at all deliberate on Carson's part.

That save was about his positioning. Good job IMO.

Krimbo wrote:That save was about his positioning. Good job IMO.

He stood in the obvious place and the ball happened to hit him.

I suppose when you're impressed by Shay Given every week, your standards of expectation drop dramatically...

Christ the Redeemer wrote:

Krimbo wrote:That save was about his positioning. Good job IMO.

He stood in the obvious place and the ball happened to hit him.

I suppose when you're impressed by Shay Given every week, your standards of expectation drop dramatically...

Another good joke saints.

He did the right thing and stopped a strong header, so yes it was a good job. I don't even rate Carson and i can see it.

Krimbo wrote:

Christ the Redeemer wrote:

Krimbo wrote:That save was about his positioning. Good job IMO.

He stood in the obvious place and the ball happened to hit him.

I suppose when you're impressed by Shay Given every week, your standards of expectation drop dramatically...

Another good joke saints.

It wasn't a joke.

He did the right thing and stopped a strong header, so yes it was a good job. I don't even rate Carson and i can see it.

Whereas I do rate Carson and I see that as the ball hitting him. After it rebounded off his shoulder he flapped it away quite well, I'll give him that much. But it was barely a save, let alone a good one.

It was funny nonetheless, lolled my heart out.

Merry ChristBash-machkin wrote:rhubarb rhubarb

some interesting points, I don't think using Croatia's performance last night is a fair example. The pressure was off and although they had their fair share of the play, the core of their team defended deep and got men behind the ball. A fairer test would have been in a knockout or must win game. But I take your points.

Agree with your Carrick/Hargreves/Barry assesment, infact I made the same point an hour or so ago. Carrick and Hargreaves have for a while in my mind been a possible English Pirlo/Gattusso or Alonso/Sissoko. Whether Gerrard has the discipline to play as a 3, the jury's out. Some of his best goalscoring form came playing in a narrow RM role and his link up play with Crouch when played as a 1 in a 4-4-1-1 also impressed.

Ashley Young seems to be flavour of the month at the moment, and like Lennon and SWP before him the less chances he gets the better a player he is. We need to be careful of over-hyping these kinds of players because many of them stop developing as soon as they think they've made it.

Youth development has been an issue for a while now, with short term results seemingly important the bigger/stronger/faster boys are picked ahead of the ugly ducklings and so for every Joe Cole there are a dozen SWP-alikes, the latest of which I have alluded to already. Lee Trundle is probably the best example I can think of offhand. Remember Cherno Samba? He was a a wonderkid at 16, all power and pace - he's at Wrexham now, washed up at 22 like some dodgy Will Ferell movie.

I agree with your youth ideology but in the real world it doesn't work. United used to do it in Antwerp - the United kids earning more than the coaches, managers, probably even Chairmen. OF course sticking Lennon and co in the Ajax academy would be fantastic, but who hand on heart can say they haven't eaten raw cake mixture while the oven warmed up?

Our problem really isn't personnel, it's our insistence on picking the 'best' or high profile players at the expense of tactics or a playing style. If having Emile Heskey and Gareth Barry improves the 'team' to the detriment of it's overall transfer value or shirt sales, then so be it. If the manager decides to build a team around Ameobi and Anichebe then so be it. Many sides have had success with worse strikers than Owen and Rooney.

Something I'd like to see is a manager who disregards club form. This idea that a player has o be a first team regular to get in the England squad annoys me. Dozens of international sides have star players who are fringe or bit part players at club level. In the modern game clubs have huge squads, if a player fits our system and is the best player for that position he should be in the squad, regardless of whether another player who gets more games 'can' play in the position 'adequately'

I return to my original point. Pick a playing style (at least one!) and pick the best player for each position, not the best 11 players and crowbar them in.

I agree with your general point about picking a team, with players in their proper positions, rather than simply playing the bigger names, and that a manager could even work on a specific style of play and/or a particular formation and pick the players that best suit that. Perhaps Croatia were able to play with a greater degree of freedom last night than usual. I havent seen enough of their recent games to comment myself, but I know Ive read on here a few of the German posters, a few matches back, commenting that the German team seems to have developed a certain style of play under Loew, and that the set up is such that, no matter which players are injured, the players that are picked to replace them come in and play in the same way. And this also helps impose a sense of team spirit.

This brings me back to my point about adaptability, about the benefit of having players who can adapt and who are willing to adapt. I think the best and brightest players can adapt their game naturally, without a lot of force or instruction, and so whilst I understand what youre saying about Ameobi/Anichebe and Rooney/Owen, I think Rooney is a clever enough footballer, and talented enough that he should be able to fit into pretty much any sort of team. With Lampard, he seems to need a specific sort of role to work; similarly I dont think Gerrard is able to dictate the game from the middle of the pitch, but at the same time I dont think he offers balance if played on the right.

The thought that Carrick and Hargreaves could be Englands Pirlo and Gattuso is a nice one (which isnt necessarily to say I dont think it would work), with Hargreaves running about and closing down ahead of Carrick, leaving him to sit and spread the ball. I rate Carrick, and I dont think its outlandish to think he could reach a Pirlo-level of a ability, though at the moment I think Carrick and Hargreaves would be some way off Pirlo and Gattuso. But its an interesting option in an area where there arent so many. Like I say, if we did play Carrick and Hargreaves Id be inclined to go with, say, Young on the left and Cole on the right ahead of them - a mixture of creativity behind the front two with a bit of pace and width. I think Cole and Bentley (for instance) would lack that extra dimension of width, and would lack pace, whereas with two deeper lying central midfielders to play two wide players (say Young and SWP) can mean a lack of connection between midfield and attack, a lack of creativity and through balls for the forwards. Otherwise, in a sort of diamond with Hargreaves sitting and Cole or Rooney behind a front two, I think Young and Milner could provide good balance.

I suppose I mention Young for two reasons - he seems to have better control than SWP or Lennon, but also he seems best on the left, and thats a position where England dont have an abundance to choose from. Cole has played there with some success, but I dont think hes especially suited to the left hand side any more than hes suited to the right.

With the English players playing abroad concept, I wasnt really focusing on youth players or youngsters in particular, just English players in general. It would be good for a few players to play abroad at their peak, in terms of improving their adaptability, their footballing knowledge, their technique. And it would also have the benefit of allowing more of an interchange of ideas - or at least, it would mean more of an interest and awareness in foreign ideas and styles in England, which I dont think would be a bad thing. I think its arguable that even Owens technique and build up play improved from his time in Madrid.

Young can actually cross the ball, unlike Lennon who floats them in or SWP who isn't consistent in his crosses.

So kind of saying that traditional 442 (flat one is dead) , if we play a 4231 like Parky said like we did last season , Rooney can easily play as a LWF as he did for us thus leaving a space for someone in middle or can the 3 of England interchange with each other like Utds.

or perhaps a Rhombus 442 like Germany or Bayern plays

------------Hargy-------------Barry--------------

-----------AMC-----------------AMC--------------

------------ST----------------ST-------------

As such that it can turn into a 4231 with one striker dropping deep or both AMC coming in or staying wide (making wingers) or one staying in and the other goes out wide and one DMC does the drive from midfield(like Ballack does for us) or the strikers at times occupying the wings making room for others.

Spankeltoe wrote:

Chinders wrote:

Spankeltoe wrote:You'd still say Carson though, after last night.

Yes. I'd play Cason over an injured, 3rd choice for his club Ben Foster.

I'm not saying he should get as much rope as Robinson, but having been thrown in at the deep end on that pitch I can forgive and have have sympathy for him. Particularly given the saves he made at 1-2.

I said I'd take James for now.

I didn't think the save from the corner was that spectacularly either.

Young also has goal threat. Hasn't shown it too much in the EPL yet, but in his last season in the championship I think he scored 16 goals.

To me - Young isn't lavour of the month, but he can fit in with Rooney & J Cole as part of the attacking midfield 3, they can all work on the left, right or down the centre.

SWP is primarily right-sided, as is Lennon, as is Pennant. Milner & Bentley can work both wings but I doubt they can go down the middle.