Wasn't he saying that players have been played in the wrong positions? If so, doesn't that mean that the personnel are the problem rather than the system? Two different things.
England side to face France
- Thread starter Mike.
- Start date
- Replies 472
- Views 27K
- Status
Wasn't he saying that players have been played in the wrong positions? If so, doesn't that mean that the personnel are the problem rather than the system? Two different things.
The system was that Milner stayed wide and Gerrard cut in. The formation was BUILT AROUND the players, not the other way round. The formation was the problem, not the players. If Gerrard hadn't been played on the left wing, he'd have done better. That is to do with the formation chosen by the manager, not the players. It's not the player's fault they've been played on the left wing, it's the formation's, and by extension the manager. If we don't have the players to play on the wing, don't play a formation with wingers. The players deserved to be picked, it's just that we were playing such an archaic formation that they didn't play well.
This is why I explicitly said we SHOULDN'T play them at their own game. We should develop our own game, based around the players we have. As I said earlier, Xavi is a better player than Huddlestone, yes, but Huddlestone has his own attributes which mean that in a certain system he could fit it better than Xavi, a better player IN THAT FORMATION, if not overall.
Also, since when does having a "poor man's version" of a certain player mean that we can't compete? Huddlestone may be the poor man's version of Xavi, but he's still very good and can be deployed in a way that will make him effective. Just 'cause he isn't as good overall doesn't mean we can't compete.
Last edited:
matthew.thomas
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I don't think we need a 'destroyer', as well as this Reo-coker isn't good enough. We just need someone who can tackle and sit deeper as well as pass. Michael Carrick would be fantastic in this role. Why not try - Hart - Richards - Ferdinand- Jagielka/Terry/ Cole- Johnson - Gerrard - Carrick- Young - Crouch - Carroll , or now Rooney appears to be back fit and firing Rooney alongside Carroll? Inverted wingers are prominent now in the modern game and we have seen how devastating Johnson is cutting in on his left foot. And I criticised the use of players not the system. Are Gerrard and Milner natural wingers? No. Rooney is complimented a big man and Crouch is proven internationally and Carroll looks very promising. If our aim is indeed to be a contender for 2012 and 2014 I don't see how you can consider Reo-Coker, compare him to the likes of Alonso, Cambiasso, De-Rossi etc. Huddlestone is a good player, and would be in my England squad when fit, but you cannot compare him to Xavi.
All right, the Reo-Coker thing fairly controversial. I can see why some would be sceptical.
However, suggesting we don't need a destroyer is madness. Name me a top side that plays without at least one dedicated destroyer. France do, in Toulalan, Diarra or M'Vila. Spain do in Busquets. Uruguay played two. Germany do in Khedira. Italy do in De Rossi.
Orrr... Huddlestone? Both Carrick and Huddlestone need a destroyer alongside them, or they just won't work. It's the same reason Xabi Alonso is deployed with Busquets, or Schweinsteiger with Khedira.
Way too defensively weak. We would be murdered by a team with a decent 9, like say Germany. That link displys my point perfectly. We didn't have a dedicated destroyer, we played a rigid 4-4-2 which left way too much space in between the lines, we got mullered by fantastic performance by Ozil.
So you're saying the players didn't deserve to play? Gerrard should have been dropped? If you're criticising the "use" of players, the "use" of players is dictated by the formation. Therefore, you are criticising the formation, and rightly too.
I'm sorry but James Milner is a natural winger, no matter how you look at it. Yes, his versatility allows him to fill in across midfield, but he is a natural winger.
As I explained earlier, we need a dedicated destroyer. And he's the best we've got, apart from Hargreaves who is perpetually injured. (as well as, may I remind you, not thought very highly of prior to 2004)
Sigh... You can compare anyone to anyone. I will say, AGAIN, that Huddlestone IS NOT AS GOOD AS XAVI. However, in their styles of play, they are similar, and Huddlestone would fill a "Xavi-role" extremely well.
Last edited:
inverted wingers require top class fullbacks to provide the width, which we have only one of, therefore on the hand side you are asking carrick to not only deal with an extra man mid midfield, but also cover for the defensively poor Johnson.
There is only one player who can currently perform that kind of role against top opposition and he is crocked, it requires top class reading of the game, immense stamina, and good physical prowess (ie a box to box mid), the next player like that is rodwell and he isnt ready yet (am looking forward to him in the senior side soon though).
Inverted wingers are also not much use with two big men up front. When you play inverted wingers, part of the aim of the forwards players is to help create space for the wingers to run into. If you want to do this you play rooney and defoe, not crouch and carroll.
I've talked long and hard about the 4-4-2 and i am a fan of it, but we dont really have players to make it work against the top sides, certainly not the squad depth, whereas we do for the 4-2-3-1.
Reo-coker is a option, like Parker, but we need a played of that typ in the squad, if not the first XI.
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Karl Henry for the midfield destroyer? 
Karl Henry for the midfield destroyer?
Calling Karl Henry a "destroyer" is like calling the universe "quite large".
matthew.thomas
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Deary me, THE USE OF PLAYERS NOT THE SYSTEM. The use of Gerrard and Milner outwide not them, although Gerrard has never quite brought his club form to the international stage. I'm beginning to wonder whether you can read or indeed interpret information. THE USE OF PLAYERS. As in where are they deployed in a system. Do I have to spell it out? How is James Milner a natural winger? Martin O'Neill reverted him from a decent right winger to a very good central midfielder. Thus earning him a £25 million move to City. Micah Richards is improving as a full back and possesses incredible physical attributes, a far better option than Johnson, although I concede he isn't world class he would do a decent job supporting a winger. This would not be my team to go into a World Cup, merely a side to experiment with, as I am tired of seeing Barry, Lampard, Walcott more often that not failing to cut the mustard. Aaron Lennon is someone who I rate highly too although has been hit and miss for England. Again you are comparing us to other top sides, and seem to think this is the team I would play on the big stage. You also seem to be fixated on the 2010 World Cup and who played what and where. It was the worst finals in a long time, with no side playing particularly well. Even Spain didn't play to their full potential. The lot of you seem to be like tabloid journalists, taking points / suggestions im making and twisting them. The side I published was experimental and a suggestion for a friendly like the France game. THE USE OF PLAYERS not the system. Yes, Reo-coker is very controversial, fair enough you're a Villa fan but I wasn't aware he was on the international radar let alone the squad. What next? Luke Young at right back? Steve Sidwell alongside Reo-Coker? While we're there let's get Downing on the wing and Heskey out of retirement!
The use of players is the system!
Very little of that sentence made sense. The use of players in a formation is the system, right? And if you don't have the players to fit a system, or formation, you don't use that system or formation. You use a different system/formation. You don't pick the players to fit the system, you pick a system to fit the players, to a point, and a 4-4-2 isn't the formation England is suited to.
James Milner has played most of his career as a winger, and indeed most of this season. MON changed him to a CM when we were short in that area, he had bought a new winger who was now fit, Milner was versatile and in good form, and he did well there. However, he is still a winger.
I agree on Richards, I didn't say anything against him.
I can only assume that's the team you'd play on the big stage, if it's the one you give.
Because that's the closest reference point with England playing full-strength against good sides.
Germany? Uruguay? Portugal?
Because people set out to frustrate them, ala Switzerland and Holland.
I'm answering them point by point to avoid this.
Stupid. Stupid argument. Just because he's an Aston Villa player doesn't mean I'll support him into the England squad. I wouldn't want Sidwell anywhere near the squad, or Luke Young for that matter. As for the last two, evidently you've forgotten they tried to tempt Heskey out of retirement and called up Downing recently...
theblackcat231
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I must concede that portugal had an outstanding world cup, two goalless draws, a win against the mighty north korea and a loss to spain. Great showing LOL
Alright then. New Zealand? Ghana?
matthew.thomas
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2010
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
My comment on other Villa players was an exaggeration deployed to make you realise how silly your point is. Haven't heard about them tempting Heskey out of retirement and Downing isn't a bad alternative as a squad player if we have injuries. Just not a starting player. How is the use of players the system? We believed 4-4-2 was playing to our strengths, therefore Capello selected players to which he thought would play best in this system. Milner CAN play out wide yes but John O'Shea can play centre midfield, doesn't mean he is one. You have a formation and you choose who to play in it, key example being that Spain leave out Fabregas as they don't want to change theirs to include him. If Del Bosque took out Busquets for Fabregas and it didn't work , it wouldn't be the system's fault as it worked prior to the inclusion of Fabregas, but the usage of players as Fabregas isn't a defensive players, just like Gerrard and Milner's best positions aren't wide midfield. Portugal? They beat North Korea 7-0, that's about it, one game against the worst team in the tournament. Uruguay did well, exceeded expectations but only due to the fact other teams underachieved. Germany beat a very poor Australian side and played well against England, in which we played into their hands, as did Argentina and then lost to Spain in a terrible match. No team showed consistent quality throughout the tournament. It's the nearest reference point, yes. But that's like going on about Chelsea and mentioning their last 4 Premier League games, we know England are better than that just like Chelsea are. Very reactionary. It's also very easy to dismiss points as 'failing to make sense' or whatever if you cannot come up with an answer or response to them. I have re-read it several times and it makes perfect sense, unless you are illiterate, which I must concede, is a possibility.
- Status