dannyrhinos89
OMG socks and sandals lol!
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2013
- Messages
- 14,466
A midfield 3 of Bellingham- rice - mainoo is a very tasty prospect, can’t wait till Southgate fecks off so we can actually see it.
It's a tactical impossibility. It's like some of you refused to accept just how complicated playing with inverted fullbacks, over attacking cms whilst playing pressing football is.Bellingham (as you well know) is a complete midfielder. He’s playing further forward for Madrid because that’s where’s he’s been most needed. There isn’t the same need for England (Kane 37 goals + 12 assists / Saka 16 goals and 15 assists… that doesn’t even include whoever we decide to play LW).
I don’t think Maddison is much more of a tempo-setter than Foden, they both seem very similar in terms of being most comfortable in final phase but technically secure enough to contribute in the buildup if required.
Guardiola has played with a midfield trio for the majority of his time in England. Foden has grown up in a 4-3-3 with him playing in midfield on many occasions. If Rice can be the anchor behind players as attacking as Odegaard and Havertz in a trio, he can definitely do so for Foden and Bellingham. It’s not 1995, English players can work out how to play in a 3.
I doubt Southgate will do it, but that’s because he’s overly conservative, not because it’s some tactical impossibility.
The answer is Gallagher. Until Mainoo is ready to take the mantle, which I kinda think he is already but I understand taking a more measured approach with him, then if Southgate must have a player in there who can match Henderson's work rate and intensity, then Gallagher is the answer.My exact thoughts. Right now all you have for the role is Rice, Phillips (out of commison wity dreadful form), Henderson as a fill in and unproven Mainoo and at a stretch under 21 champion James Garner IMO its slim pickings.
The number isn't just about intensity though. It's about understand how to protect that space infront of center backs. Positioning in and out of position for passing angles in build up and breaking up of moves when defending. Patrolling the area of half spaces that most creative players thrive in.The answer is Gallagher. Until Mainoo is ready to take the mantle, which I kinda think he is already but I understand taking a more measured approach with him, then if Southgate must have a player in there who can match Henderson's work rate and intensity, then Gallagher is the answer.
That the issue. You keep conflating the tactical understanding of the individual player, with the set up. At City he is surrounded be people drilled in playing that way with players like him. With England the defence and keeper don't know. Neither will the attack and most of his midfield partners bar Rice. It 100% isn't the same thing. This is "Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes will form a great and balanced midfield because they are great players " type thinking all over again!Foden has played in a midfield trio at City on many occasions. He’s been coached his entire career by Pep Guardiola, I’m sure he can handle some very basic tactical instruction.
A midfield three of Foden / Rice / Bellingham would be absolutely fine. Whether that’s better than using Foden and Saka on the wings (which would also be very dangerous) is another matter.
Your arguments are all over the place.England having guys who've been scoring at club level doesn't mean they won't need Bellingham to be a game winner. And if they want him to be that, he needs to play in attack.
Even deeper though he's just not an organizer, either. You don't want him getting 80 touches in midfield, that's not what he excels at
He is. Foden isn't that player at all. For all the thinking of Foden as a midfielder, he's actually closer to a forward. Maddison at least is more of a midfielder, and he has taken on the role of organizer at times for Leicester and now Spurs, though he's not really that type of player either
That's all well and good in theory except City have NEVER played a 4-3-3. It's always been this 3-2-5/442 hybrid, with some variations here and there. And again, Foden mostly plays as either wide forward, inside forward or false nine for them. He is only a midfielder in the sense that he needs to play looking at the goal.
Odegaard is an organizer though. More importantly, that's club football. Rice had 2 months of training camp plus a whole season training to do that. That doesn't happen for England. Who still don't have an Odegaard. Nor a Saliba or a Zinchenko, for that matter.
It's not impossible, just suboptimal in so many ways that he's better off not doing it
Kane has a history of failure with England. Bellingham and Saka don't yet. Point is Bellingham is England's best player and sacrificing your best player's effectiveness is not something a sane manager should do unless they have no other choiceKane and Saka’s scoring apparently has no relevance because it’s at club level? So we should rely on Bellingham instead because of what he’s doing this season… at club level?
The same Kane that blew the 2-0 against Croatia and missed the penalty against France. That KaneThe same Kane that has 62 goals and 19 assists in an England shirt. That Kane?
They never were and I don't know why you insist on this. Fernandinho played in a double pivot, with either Delph or Zinchenko next to him most of the time. The others played in attack. Silva floated a bit between roles but in general at most you call that a 2-1(or 2-2) midfield configurationCity played 4-3-3 for years. Was it fluid? Yes. That doesn’t Silva / Fernandinho / de Bruyne weren’t a midfield trio.
Technically speaking depends on season, but they were at least a trio most of the time, even when part of a diamond. Busquets splitting the CBs was only done in Guardiola's final season, most of which was him experimenting with things. Dani Alves was a winger for them, he didn't move into midfieldOr are we saying that Xavi / Busquets / Iniesta wasn’t a midfield trio because Alves was constantly overlapping and would drop between his split CBs?
The key to winning things at international football is you must have a defensive triangle that is uncomplicated and utterly reliable in keeping out opponents. Then you play all your best combos of attacking players to slay opponents. That is ALL England need. This nonsense of wanting to play swash buckling, tactical champaygne football will get y'all no where!
For the Euros all y'all need is a compatible reliable starting cb pair. Rice and another deep lying robust player who can pass next to him. Then the rest of the side is any combination of your elite attackers to slay the opponents. It's that simple. If you can keep them all out and outscore them?Just like at the recent under 21 Championships. You will inevitable triumph. You DON'T need to be gloriously entertained for that to happen. You don't need to be whipping everyone 3-4 nil with 18 plus shots on goal for that neither. You just need a month of your defensive triangle keeping people out and your offensive men outscoring them.
I like the home one, the away one is just France's kit.Actually a decent kit
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is false. Arteta hasn't frequently used the inverted fullback tactic since JanuaryIt's a tactical impossibility. It's like some of you refused to accept just how complicated playing with inverted fullbacks, over attacking cms whilst playing pressing football is.
At club level not only does a Rice having a none changing completely compatible pair of cbs behind him. He is aided by inverted fullbacks and the fact his team spends months on end training the system every day!
In international football the training ground time isn't there, neither are the partnerships. You are more likely to be punished severely in transition for the short falls in application.
It's why for example Spain at their brilliant best STILL added Xabi Alonso to Busquets in the middle. Pushed Xavi to 10 and played Iniesta as a wide forward rather than full scale replicate their magic triangle from Barca. For the also knew full well because the defence personnel was different, plus the combination of attackers ahead of them, they'd not be able to replicate it as effectively.
Come on, don't be foolish. Gerrard- Lampard - Scholes is way less balanced than Foden - Bellingham - Rice, even though I don't think that midfield is perfect anyway. But still; if I was Southgate, I would probably play a 442. Feel it's the system that best suits the England team and Kane.That the issue. You keep conflating the tactical understanding of the individual player, with the set up. At City he is surrounded be people drilled in playing that way with players like him. With England the defence and keeper don't know. Neither will the attack and most of his midfield partners bar Rice. It 100% isn't the same thing. This is "Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes will form a great and balanced midfield because they are great players " type thinking all over again!
I’m not conflating tactical understanding with the way the team set up. I’m saying if you select players with a high level of tactical understanding they quite likely to be able to handle the team set up. Particularly when they’ve been playing in that system for their entire career. Particularly Bellingham, he’s literally only been playing this high up the pitch for six months. He wouldn’t have to adapt to playing central midfield - he’s a central midfielder. Southgate could pick:That the issue. You keep conflating the tactical understanding of the individual player, with the set up. At City he is surrounded be people drilled in playing that way with players like him. With England the defence and keeper don't know. Neither will the attack and most of his midfield partners bar Rice. It 100% isn't the same thing. This is "Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes will form a great and balanced midfield because they are great players " type thinking all over again!
Yeah, the profiles of Foden - Rice - Bellingham are nothing like Gerrard - Lampard - Scholes.Come on, don't be foolish. Gerrard- Lampard - Scholes is way less balanced than Foden - Bellingham - Rice, even though I don't think that midfield is perfect anyway. But still; if I was Southgate, I would probably play a 442. Feel it's the system that best suits the England team and Kane.
You are literally proving my point. You have literally conflated the fact these players have been coached in the system with who they have played it with.I’m not conflating tactical understanding with the way the team set up. I’m saying if you select players with a high level of tactical understanding they quite likely to be able to handle the team set up. Particularly when they’ve been playing in that system for their entire career. Particularly Bellingham, he’s literally only been playing this high up the pitch for six months. He wouldn’t have to adapt to playing central midfield - he’s a central midfielder. Southgate could pick:
Grealish - Kane - Saka
CITY - BAYERN - ARSENAL
Foden - Rice - Bellingham
CITY - ARSENAL - MADRID
Chilwell - Tomori - Stones - Walker
CHELSEA - MILAN - CITY - CITY
Where Foden would be surrounded by players who are very comfortable in a fluid 4-3-3 having been coached by Guardiola, Tuchel, Arteta, Ancelotti, Pochettino and Pioli. Hell, he’d have three teammates from his club side. .......
You think it "foolish" because you ALSO are just not seeing the picture clearly.Come on, don't be foolish. Gerrard- Lampard - Scholes is way less balanced than Foden - Bellingham - Rice, even though I don't think that midfield is perfect anyway.....
In my view. Trent Alexander Arnold is the only player who shoulc be first choice to partner Rice in deep midfield. He has the passing and creative chops and he can actually defend as good/better than most 8s.You have to remember in the world cup, Bellingham played a bit deeper in the first two group games alongside Mount and Rice. Henderson came in for Mount and the balance was better, with Bellingham having more freedom and playing better.
Not a fan of Henderson, like many others but he's a good profile of midfielder to have and one that is generally lacking, unlike in forward positions.
No. He was using it before Timber got injured. He was using it before Zinchenko lost his place to Kwior. His still using it now. Just in different ways.This is false. Arteta hasn't frequently used the inverted fullback tactic since January
Maybe Spain selecting Alonso had more to do with him being a world class player and less to do with Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets being unable to operate as trio outside of Barca.You think it "foolish" because you ALSO are just not seeing the picture clearly.
Busquets -Xavi and Iniesta were a better trio than Rice, Bellingham and Foden together. Spain still added Xabi Alonso to Busquets and pushed Xavi to 10 and Iniesta to wide Forward for the self same reasons I pointed out. The defence they waa to play behind
them and the attack ahead of them were NOTHING like what they had at Barca! The collective would NEVER have the same collective defensive solidity and coherence. In and out of possession. Even though the talent availbls was arguably better in most cases bar Messi....
The Gerrard-Lampard-Scholes analogy is simply to highlight what looks great on paper rarely is in reality.
...
That is because the players have just not been there. England fans keep acting like they have a huge collection of deep lying possesion controllers that Southgate is wantonly over looking in selection. Madder still they want him to "solve that" by playing attacking midfield playmakers or box to box creators that much deeper. In a role that simply doesn't bring out the best in them for England. Bellingham was a prime example. He was OK for England deeper and brilliant further ahead.This is pretty reductive. Obviously there is less scope to get across complex tactics at international level but I would say the style of recent tournament winners has varied quite a bit. For example the Italy team that won the euros played in quite a different way to the Argentina team.
England's problem in many a tournament has been an inability to retain possession under pressure so mot their 'defensive triangle' or playing their best attackers
The frustrating thing with Southgate is he has seemingly made little effort to rectify the issues we have seen
We’re actually not really using it at the moment. Kiwior is a pretty standard LB. White has inverted a little more since Zinchenko has been out, but he’s mainly underlapping into the right half space. This has freed up both Saka (who was constantly getting doubled up on) and Odegaard (who can now drop deeper than he used to).No. He was using it before Timber got injured. He was using it before Zinchenko lost his place to Kwior. His still using it now. Just in different ways.
That excuse doesn't fly because firstly the entire Spain squad was packed with world class players. Whilst second, no midfield trio on earth could touch prime Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta, so Xabi Alonso merely being world class wouldn't have been good enough reason to add him. They'd simply have played three of the world class attacking players they had ahead of them instead.Maybe Spain selecting Alonso had more to do with him being a world class player and less to do with Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets being unable to operate as trio outside of Barca.
White current inverts though. The difference is he inverts into attacking midfeld, with Jorginho being the one partnering Rice in the middle out of possession.We’re actually not really using it at the moment. Kiwior is a pretty standard LB. White has inverted a little more since Zinchenko has been out, but he’s mainly underlapping into the right half space. This has freed up both Saka (who was constantly getting doubled up on) and Odegaard (who can now drop deeper than he used to).
Jorginho has come in for some games. At first he played LCM with Rice holding. Then the swapped around and Rice went on a little scoring spree. Havertz went from 8 to 10 (rotating with Trossard) to False 9 to pretty much a traditional CF.
Funnily enough, of all of the tactical tweaks we used in 2024, the one thing that’s fallen by the wayside is our use of inverted full backs.
It’s not an excuse, you don’t have to come up with excuses for why a national team coach would select Alonso - that absurd.That excuse doesn't fly because firstly the entire Spain squad was packed with world class players. Whilst second, no midfield trio on earth could touch prime Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta, so Xabi Alonso merely being world class wouldn't have been good enough reason to add him. They'd simply have played three of the world class attacking players they had ahead of them instead.
It’s not an excuse, you don’t have to come up with excuses for why a national team coach would select Alonso - that absurd.
Spain is probably the worst team to choose to try and prove your point. Over their four years of domination they had Puyol, Pique and Alba in the defence and Pedro, Villa and Fabregas in attack. We know that Alonso’s selection wasn’t due to Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets being unable to function without their Barca teammates because:
A) That’s an insane idea to begin with
B) They had a bunch of their Barca teammates in the Spain team
White isn’t really inverting. He makes runs into the right half space, but he doesn’t stay there. It’s not like Kiwior and White are playing FB in particularly groundbreaking ways - they’re just doing it at a consistently high level at the moment.White current inverts though. The difference is he inverts into attacking midfeld, with Jorginho being the one partnering Rice in the middle out of possession.
Anyway the main point of inversion is to have a double pivot infront of the defence and inverting in general isn't something easily grasped from a few international training session.
The only way for example for England to possibly make the kinda dream midfield you desire to work is to push Stones into midfield and literally use the fullbacks as center backs. But I don't believe you would want fullbacks who don't join the attack and just act like cbs neither. That is why personally I'm unconvinced by that ideal midfield trio
France and Germany for example won the world cup with an entire back of natural cbs. Even if a number of them could actually attack well. With the staunchest of midfield slowing the attackers freedom to win it for them. I can't understand why England fans in gener seem averse to such an approach at the up coming Euros. It's like y'all can only be happy with a Netherlands 74/Brazil 70 approach to a triumph. Which is a once in a generatiom type occurance.
What are you arguing here? I’ve lost the plot of what you’re saying.There is zero 'insane' in about it.
Firstly, No midfield trio on the planet at the time was better than Barca's magic triangle. They didn't need to split it to add Xabi Alonso for ANY reason outside of tactical consideration because the attackers on the squad were also world class, as were the defenders so the added strength in midfield would never have been neccessary.
Secondly, given Barca were literally the best club side on the planet. All they has to do was literally use Barca's starting 11, with the world class members of the Spain squad filling in for the missing Barca stars. Yet even that they did not do!
You simply don't want to consider that reality because you don't like what it implies for your ideal England line up
There is some revisionism going on here.There is zero 'insane' in about it.
Firstly, No midfield trio on the planet at the time was better than Barca's magic triangle. They didn't need to split it to add Xabi Alonso for ANY reason outside of tactical consideration because the attackers on the squad were also world class, as were the defenders so the added strength in midfield would never have been neccessary.
Secondly, given Barca were literally the best club side on the planet. All they has to do was literally use Barca's starting 11, with the world class members of the Spain squad filling in for the missing Barca stars. Yet even that they did not do!
You simply don't want to consider that reality because you don't like what it implies for your ideal England line up
I'm saying Spain had the best midfield 3 on the planet. Plus a collection of world class attackers. The ideal scemario was start that mdfield magic triangle and surround them with others. Footballing wise they really did not need to include Xabi Alonso. It was ENTIRELY down to tactical considerations. Because the knew they didn't have a Messi in attack they simply made themselves overwhelmingly strong centrally instead of sticking to ideals.What are you arguing here? I’ve lost the plot of what you’re saying.
I’m saying Spain picked Alonso because he’s a brilliant player who was born in Spain. So they decided to play a double-pivot of Alonso and Busquets with Xavi a little further ahead and Iniesta coming in off the wing (a role he frequently played at Barca). That system fit all of Spain’s brilliant midfielders on the pitch in positions that they were all comfortable in.
Of course "its wild" because that's not what I said. I said instead Spain would have been a much weaker team employing just Barca's midfield 3 than what they had with Xabi Alonso added. With the reason for the weakness being without the exact profile of players they had at Barca around them, the overal team coherence would never have been as good as what they had at Barca. Which is the ENTIRE gist of my argument. The ideal can never trump the practical.What are you arguing here? I’ve lost the plot of what you’re saying.
That doesn’t mean Iniesta, Xavi and Busquets couldn’t function without their Barca teammates. That’s a wild conclusion to jump to.
Rather by my logic Spain simply chose the formation that gave them the best chance of winning. Because replicating Barca was NEVER going to make them a winning outfit. If they had gone the ideal route theySpain had a bumper crop of midfielders and they played to their strengths. This culminated in them playing SIX midfielders in a 4-6-0 formation in 2010.
Using your logic, the addition of Fabregas and Silva means that Alonso, Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta “needed the added strength in midfield”?
Because there are similarities in potential. England are teeming with the kinda potential Spain had before 2010 world cup. Although their greatest potential lies in attacking midfield and attack whilst Spain's lay in midfield. We are debating what would be the best way for England to harness it. Go ideal or pragmatic....What is going on about Spanish team in the Southgate/England thread
Hate to sound so defensive / condescending but Kobbie Mainoo is already better as a deep-lying playmaker OR an '8' than Billy Gilmour will ever be.The main reason why England lost the previous Euro final to Italy (apart from the penalties. Besides that, Italy controlled the game) is because they simply not have a deeplying playmaker.
Southgate may tinker with playing Stones or TAA in the anchorman role, but neither of them are playmakers.
Mainoo looks too dynamic to be a deeplying playmaker. He'll thrive as a classic number 8.
A player who is now thriving at Brighton, Billy Gilmour, would walk into that England midfield. He's not flashy or glamorous or sexy but he's able to dictate and control the tempo of a match in a way that no English midfielder can.
Too bad he's Scottish. Yay!
Well no its obviously not just about personnel, it's also about tactics ans ability to change games mid game both of which Southgate isn't the best atThat is because the players have just not been there. England fans keep acting like they have a huge collection of deep lying possesion controllers that Southgate is wantonly over looking in selection. Madder still they want him to "solve that" by playing attacking midfield playmakers or box to box creators that much deeper. In a role that simply doesn't bring out the best in them for England. Bellingham was a prime example. He was OK for England deeper and brilliant further ahead.