English playmakers and the lack of them

Southgate had the players he needed, but he went with the players he wanted.

To play a back 3 with two defensive midfielders against Italy while tethering Sancho and Grealish on the bench was ridiculous. By all means play a back 3 if you have to shit your pants, but then let go of one of either Rice or Phillips for Sancho or Grealish to create chances on the counter.

Once we all saw Southgate's starting XI, was there anyone here who did not feel a sense of dread of things to come?
 
Adisa said:
The funny thing. We are fawning over Italy's ball retention ability in midfield. Against Spain, they couldn't get a kick. They were chasing shadows. Humbles you when you realise how far we are behind Spain in this area.
Click to expand...
You simply adopted possession, we (Spain) were born in it, moulded by it.
 
lex talionis said:
Southgate had the players he needed, but he went with the players he wanted.

To play a back 3 with two defensive midfielders against Italy while tethering Sancho and Grealish on the bench was ridiculous. By all means play a back 3 if you have to shit your pants, but then let go of one of either Rice or Phillips for Sancho or Grealish to create chances on the counter.

Once we all saw Southgate's starting XI, was there anyone here who did not feel a sense of dread of things to come?
Click to expand...
I don't think he had the players at all.
 
Fortitude said:
It's got nothing at all to do with dismissing him; Scholes was the dominant force in that team. It's not just about passing, it's movement, it's making life easier for team-mates by being available at all times; it's about being press resistant, which was a massive flaw of Carrick's; it's about controlling the game's sway and having it ebb and flow as he dictated; it's about killing the fervour of the opposition in the initial 20-30minutes of the game and forcing them to back off and 'let' your midfield play because they have no choice - like what Spain did to Italy the other night. And so on.

Carrick was under-appreciated during his time as Scholes shone so brightly, but over time, Scholes' influence is being reduced whilst Carrick's is getting to the point of being overstated. It'd be like saying Barca's midfield was Busquets and not Xavi's.
Click to expand...

Scholes started 8 games during that season FFS. He wasn't the main midfielder anymore. Carrick was that player for us during our last championship season. I can't believe I still have to do this in 2021. You weren't talking about being press resistant in your previous post. You were talking about the ability to retain possession and controlling the game via the player's passing, which Carrick was quite clearly able to do. Claiming, he wasn't available at all times to make life easier for the other players is farcical, specifically for that season. He also was quite modern in his ability to constantly break the lines of the oppostion with his passing. Just because he couldn't live with one of the best midfields of all time, doesn't change how good he was. I wonder what you think he actually was good at, because he wasn't a goalscoring midfielder, he wasn't one to provide loads of assists, he wasn't a ball-winner like Kante or one to carry the ball forward like Modric. At no point did I dismiss how good Scholes was either, he definitely was better than Carrick. That doesn't change that Carrick had that metronome-like ability to control games.

This is completely dismissing Busquets' ability there, too. You realise, it's possible for a midfield to have more than one midfielder capable of controlling the game via possession, right? For that Barcelona midfield, it wasn't just Xavi, it was Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets. Recently it's been Modric and Kroos for Madrid. Xavi was the best passer of those 3, but Busquets contribution to their possession football shouldn't be understated. There is a reason a young Busquets completely replaced one of the EPL's best midfielders in Yaya Toure. He wasn't just one to shield the defence like Rice, which is the point of this thread.

littleman said:
I think Carrick passes well and can orchestrate play and calmness.

The problem with Carrick where he doesn't come close to the others is that he's not press resistant unlike e.g. Scholes. Because of that and JUST because of that he falls short of the tier above him which are the CMs you mentioned. He's not in that company.

I think if Carrick were press-resistant with all his ball playing abilities, he'd be a legit PL great and remembered. And I'm not even saying he needs to be mobile, just a Riquelme.
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about that tier there though. We were talking about the ability to control games via the player's passing, which he could do. Put him in last season's Chelsea team or Italy's instead of Jorginho and he wouldn't look out of place at all. People keep bringing up that he wasn't press-resistant, when it mostly comes down to the fact that he couldn't cope with Barcelona's press from that time, which contributed heavily to their possession football and they were probably the best team in Europe in terms of pressing. Its also worth pointing out that pressing the opposition as a team as high up the pitch as Barcelona did, only became a thing then. So, when people bring up press-resistance, it also needs to be said that Scholes didn't need to be as press-resistant as players nowadays.
 
bucky said:
Scholes started 8 games during that season FFS. He wasn't the main midfielder anymore. Carrick was that player for us during our last championship season. I can't believe I still have to do this in 2021. You weren't talking about being press resistant in your previous post. You were talking about the ability to retain possession and controlling the game via the player's passing, which Carrick was quite clearly able to do. Claiming, he wasn't available at all times to make life easier for the other players is farcical, specifically for that season. He also was quite modern in his ability to constantly break the lines of the oppostion with his passing. Just because he couldn't live with one of the best midfields of all time, doesn't change how good he was. I wonder what you think he actually was good at, because he wasn't a goalscoring midfielder, he wasn't one to provide loads of assists, he wasn't a ball-winner like Kante or one to carry the ball forward like Modric. At no point did I dismiss how good Scholes was either, he definitely was better than Carrick. That doesn't change that Carrick had that metronome-like ability to control games.

This is completely dismissing Busquets' ability there, too. You realise, it's possible for a midfield to have more than one midfielder capable of controlling the game via possession, right? For that Barcelona midfield, it wasn't just Xavi, it was Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets. Recently it's been Modric and Kroos for Madrid. Xavi was the best passer of those 3, but Busquets contribution to their possession football shouldn't be understated. There is a reason a young Busquets completely replaced one of the EPL's best midfielders in Yaya Toure. He wasn't just one to shield the defence like Rice, which is the point of this thread.



We weren't talking about that tier there though. We were talking about the ability to control games via the player's passing, which he could do. Put him in last season's Chelsea team or Italy's instead of Jorginho and he wouldn't look out of place at all. People keep bringing up that he wasn't press-resistant, when it mostly comes down to the fact that he couldn't cope with Barcelona's press from that time, which contributed heavily to their possession football and they were probably the best team in Europe in terms of pressing. Its also worth pointing out that pressing the opposition as a team as high up the pitch as Barcelona did, only became a thing then. So, when people bring up press-resistance, it also needs to be said that Scholes didn't need to be as press-resistant as players nowadays.
Click to expand...
I think Carrick is the best player United has had for that role for those strengths.
 
Some people have always disliked Carrick and dismiss him no matter what despite him being absolutely integral to our success under Ferguson from 2006-2013. Iconic player and precisely the player missing for club and country at the moment. Guardiola himself said Carrick is one of the best holding midfielders he's ever seen.
 
bucky said:
Scholes started 8 games during that season FFS. He wasn't the main midfielder anymore. Carrick was that player for us during our last championship season. I can't believe I still have to do this in 2021. You weren't talking about being press resistant in your previous post. You were talking about the ability to retain possession and controlling the game via the player's passing, which Carrick was quite clearly able to do. Claiming, he wasn't available at all times to make life easier for the other players is farcical, specifically for that season. He also was quite modern in his ability to constantly break the lines of the oppostion with his passing. Just because he couldn't live with one of the best midfields of all time, doesn't change how good he was. I wonder what you think he actually was good at, because he wasn't a goalscoring midfielder, he wasn't one to provide loads of assists, he wasn't a ball-winner like Kante or one to carry the ball forward like Modric. At no point did I dismiss how good Scholes was either, he definitely was better than Carrick. That doesn't change that Carrick had that metronome-like ability to control games.

This is completely dismissing Busquets' ability there, too. You realise, it's possible for a midfield to have more than one midfielder capable of controlling the game via possession, right? For that Barcelona midfield, it wasn't just Xavi, it was Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets. Recently it's been Modric and Kroos for Madrid. Xavi was the best passer of those 3, but Busquets contribution to their possession football shouldn't be understated. There is a reason a young Busquets completely replaced one of the EPL's best midfielders in Yaya Toure. He wasn't just one to shield the defence like Rice, which is the point of this thread.



We weren't talking about that tier there though. We were talking about the ability to control games via the player's passing, which he could do. Put him in last season's Chelsea team or Italy's instead of Jorginho and he wouldn't look out of place at all. People keep bringing up that he wasn't press-resistant, when it mostly comes down to the fact that he couldn't cope with Barcelona's press from that time, which contributed heavily to their possession football and they were probably the best team in Europe in terms of pressing. Its also worth pointing out that pressing the opposition as a team as high up the pitch as Barcelona did, only became a thing then. So, when people bring up press-resistance, it also needs to be said that Scholes didn't need to be as press-resistant as players nowadays.
Click to expand...
Great post, crazy that people didn’t/don’t appreciate Carrick.
 
bucky said:
We weren't talking about that tier there though. We were talking about the ability to control games via the player's passing, which he could do. Put him in last season's Chelsea team or Italy's instead of Jorginho and he wouldn't look out of place at all. People keep bringing up that he wasn't press-resistant, when it mostly comes down to the fact that he couldn't cope with Barcelona's press from that time, which contributed heavily to their possession football and they were probably the best team in Europe in terms of pressing. Its also worth pointing out that pressing the opposition as a team as high up the pitch as Barcelona did, only became a thing then. So, when people bring up press-resistance, it also needs to be said that Scholes didn't need to be as press-resistant as players nowadays.
Click to expand...

This is all true and no disagreement with you.

P.S. Anytime Scholes was pressed he shrugged it off fairly easy, both in PL and CL. Carrick didn't as much... I do think we'd love to have a Carrick now
 
lex talionis said:
I'm open to being corrected. Please expand on your thinking.
Click to expand...
I understand the focus on our attacking players that we didn't use, but the core fundamentals of our game is not good enough. As is the theme of this thread, ball retention and a playmaker to dictate our play are just too far behind.

Whatever lineup we use we are going to be playing defensive, there is no way around the fact that we are not going to have the ball much.

The only real difference you can make is how much risk you want to take to try and score goals. We went very conservative and for the most part it worked, neither side created much, we went to pens. A more attacking lineup would give both sides a bigger chance to score, but we would still be defensive playing counter attacking football.

We defended really well though.
 
At 9 players defending, I think there should be a different standard about what "defending well" means
 
bucky said:
Scholes started 8 games during that season FFS. He wasn't the main midfielder anymore. Carrick was that player for us during our last championship season. I can't believe I still have to do this in 2021. You weren't talking about being press resistant in your previous post. You were talking about the ability to retain possession and controlling the game via the player's passing, which Carrick was quite clearly able to do. Claiming, he wasn't available at all times to make life easier for the other players is farcical, specifically for that season. He also was quite modern in his ability to constantly break the lines of the oppostion with his passing. Just because he couldn't live with one of the best midfields of all time, doesn't change how good he was. I wonder what you think he actually was good at, because he wasn't a goalscoring midfielder, he wasn't one to provide loads of assists, he wasn't a ball-winner like Kante or one to carry the ball forward like Modric. At no point did I dismiss how good Scholes was either, he definitely was better than Carrick. That doesn't change that Carrick had that metronome-like ability to control games.

This is completely dismissing Busquets' ability there, too. You realise, it's possible for a midfield to have more than one midfielder capable of controlling the game via possession, right? For that Barcelona midfield, it wasn't just Xavi, it was Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets. Recently it's been Modric and Kroos for Madrid. Xavi was the best passer of those 3, but Busquets contribution to their possession football shouldn't be understated. There is a reason a young Busquets completely replaced one of the EPL's best midfielders in Yaya Toure. He wasn't just one to shield the defence like Rice, which is the point of this thread.



We weren't talking about that tier there though. We were talking about the ability to control games via the player's passing, which he could do. Put him in last season's Chelsea team or Italy's instead of Jorginho and he wouldn't look out of place at all. People keep bringing up that he wasn't press-resistant, when it mostly comes down to the fact that he couldn't cope with Barcelona's press from that time, which contributed heavily to their possession football and they were probably the best team in Europe in terms of pressing. Its also worth pointing out that pressing the opposition as a team as high up the pitch as Barcelona did, only became a thing then. So, when people bring up press-resistance, it also needs to be said that Scholes didn't need to be as press-resistant as players nowadays.
Click to expand...
The problem with your posts is you perceive anything where Carrick is not stated as top dog as a slight on him, also for him to be the second in command to Scholes to be a knock, which clearly it is not, beings as Scholes is one of the true great midfielders there's been in England particularly of the type he returned to the team as.

Carrick's passing, off both feet was exceptional, Busquets passing is also exceptional, but the role that's being referred to is not what Carrick did in the team - he was not relaying infinite balls between himself and anyone around him. He had a role, which he played exceptionally well in tandem with Scholes. We played a different style of football without Scholes - more haphazard and risky; with him, we were a calmer, much more controlled team. I'll state once again that what you perceive as slights - you also believe I'm knocking Busquets for not being Xavi - are anything but, as these retainers need men who can relay the ball as well as both these players did behind them. At no point am I knocking either player.

The role is not just about passing and there is an archetype to it, which all the players listed highlighted - they passed to an exceptionally high level, then they moved, received, passed, moved ceaselessly, metronomically. Carrick did not have the agility or mobility to do what Scholes did, and he was not press-resistant, which is essential to play the role. Like I said, it's the rarest in the game, as far as I am concerned, and when teams don't have that retainer, they find another way to play, which is what we did when Scholes wasn't on the pitch. Carrick didn't just assume that role; he played his own, which was just as vital.
 
Fortitude said:
The problem with your posts is you perceive anything where Carrick is not stated as top dog as a slight on him, also for him to be the second in command to Scholes to be a knock, which clearly it is not, beings as Scholes is one of the true great midfielders there's been in England particularly of the type he returned to the team as.

Carrick's passing, off both feet was exceptional, Busquets passing is also exceptional, but the role that's being referred to is not what Carrick did in the team - he was not relaying infinite balls between himself and anyone around him. He had a role, which he played exceptionally well in tandem with Scholes. We played a different style of football without Scholes - more haphazard and risky; with him, we were a calmer, much more controlled team. I'll state once again that what you perceive as slights - you also believe I'm knocking Busquets for not being Xavi - are anything but, as these retainers need men who can relay the ball as well as both these players did behind them. At no point am I knocking either player.

The role is not just about passing and there is an archetype to it, which all the players listed highlighted - they passed to an exceptionally high level, then they moved, received, passed, moved ceaselessly, metronomically. Carrick did not have the agility or mobility to do what Scholes did, and he was not press-resistant, which is essential to play the role. Like I said, it's the rarest in the game, as far as I am concerned, and when teams don't have that retainer, they find another way to play, which is what we did when Scholes wasn't on the pitch. Carrick didn't just assume that role; he played his own, which was just as vital.
Click to expand...
Carrick was not like Busquets. Carrick was the central hub who controlled our games, more than Scholes did. Scholes was more press resistant, mobile, and better offensively, but he didn't run games like Carrick.
 
Hammondo said:
Carrick was not like Busquets. Carrick was the central hub who controlled our games, more than Scholes did. Scholes was more press resistant, mobile, and better offensively, but he didn't run games like Carrick.
Click to expand...
Egads!

I'm at a loss for words, which is not common for me on here!
 
British managers (and Ole) loves donkeys in midfield. Which is why the likes of McT, Rice and the English Pirlo are rated so much.
 
devilish said:
British managers (and Ole) loves donkeys in midfield. Which is why the likes of McT, Rice and the English Pirlo are rated so much.
Click to expand...
English Pirlo?

I think Ole might have the same mentality as Southgate. He's pragmatic, doesn't think we have the players to play with possession well enough, so goes for practical.

Liverpool has done similar at times but with very different coaching.
 
Hammondo said:
English Pirlo?

I think Ole might have the same mentality as Southgate. He's pragmatic, doesn't think we have the players to play with possession well enough, so goes for practical.

Liverpool has done similar at times but with very different coaching.
Click to expand...

Yorkshire Pirlo. Look him up. Its like calling Gattuso the Italian Messi.

Its a mentality thing unfortunately. English managers (and Ole) love their CM to run and tackle. Any CM that doesn't do that is seen as a luxury player. Which is why the likes of Hoddle, Scholes and Carrick has never received the respect they deserved with the national team and its also why Grealish is struggling to find his place with England despite being comfortably their best attacking player.
 
England have good attacking playmakers - Grealish and Sancho - and Sterling and Saka have similar talents. As you said, they have no playmaker in midfield, not even someone who is creative, but someone who can distribute, progress play, change the tempo with passing.

I think the solution to that is the 2014 World Cup Final, when, in a very functional midfield and with star forwards, Mascherano played the game of his life. Excellent pressing, tackling, interceptions, and when he got the ball, quick release.
Rice was similar in the 1st half. When he faded, the answer should have been Grealish/Rashford/Sancho to scare their back line, because otherwise Italy would just squeeze till they found a goal.

e - Portugal had similar problems despite having Moutinho and Neves.
 
When you have a defensive midfielder like Rice who plays as an extra defender, you could definitely play Grealish and either Bellingham or Mount ahead of him in a 4-1-4-1 instead of another bang average midfielder like Kelvin Philipps. It’s not the lack of talent, it’s extreme risk aversion.
 
just realised this has become a trend in tournament finals -

2008: senna+xavi+iniesta+silva beat frings+hitzelsperger+ballack

2010: busquets, alonso, xavi, iniesta beat de jong + van bommel + sneijder

2014: schweinsteiger, kroos, ozil beat mascherano + 2 runners

All ended 1-0.

In the other finals, where creative midfields went head-to-head:
2012: busquets, alonso, xavi, iniesta, fabregas, silva beat pirlo, de rossi, motolivo, marchisio 4-0

2018: kante, pogba, greizmann, matuidi beat modric, rakitic, brozovic 4-2

Basically, the superior team winning in a goal-fest.


The only exception to this is Portugal in 2016, where the functional midfield overcame the creative one.
 
devilish said:
Yorkshire Pirlo. Look him up. Its like calling Gattuso the Italian Messi.

Its a mentality thing unfortunately. English managers (and Ole) love their CM to run and tackle. Any CM that doesn't do that is seen as a luxury player. Which is why the likes of Hoddle, Scholes and Carrick has never received the respect they deserved with the national team and its also why Grealish is struggling to find his place with England despite being comfortably their best attacking player.
Click to expand...
Oh I see, Kalvin Philips. What an odd comparison.
 
devilish said:
Yorkshire Pirlo. Look him up. Its like calling Gattuso the Italian Messi.

Its a mentality thing unfortunately. English managers (and Ole) love their CM to run and tackle. Any CM that doesn't do that is seen as a luxury player. Which is why the likes of Hoddle, Scholes and Carrick has never received the respect they deserved with the national team and its also why Grealish is struggling to find his place with England despite being comfortably their best attacking player.
Click to expand...
You think if Ole had Scholes and Carrick at his disposal, he wouldn't play them?:smirk:
 
Eternitiy said:


Speaks of Shaw's brilliance, but indeed also Southgate's tactics and safety first approach.
Click to expand...

We need to get a Mourinho meme similar to the blurry Souness one for Pogba.
 
Wilshere's still only 29.....

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to feel about that actually. But isn't Bellingham supposed to be what the OP's asking for?
 
Zen said:
Wilshere's still only 29.....

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to feel about that actually. But isn't Bellingham supposed to be what the OP's asking for?
Click to expand...
How the feck is Wilshere not 30 yet? :lol: He's been around forever.
 
Hammondo said:
I understand the focus on our attacking players that we didn't use, but the core fundamentals of our game is not good enough. As is the theme of this thread, ball retention and a playmaker to dictate our play are just too far behind.

Whatever lineup we use we are going to be playing defensive, there is no way around the fact that we are not going to have the ball much.

The only real difference you can make is how much risk you want to take to try and score goals. We went very conservative and for the most part it worked, neither side created much, we went to pens. A more attacking lineup would give both sides a bigger chance to score, but we would still be defensive playing counter attacking football.

We defended really well though.
Click to expand...

I'm tempted to fully agree, but I'm not quite there. This is what I understand England's 26 man consisted of:

England’s 26-man squad for Euro 2020
Goalkeepers: Dean Henderson (Manchester United), Sam Johnstone (West Bromwich Albion), Jordan Pickford (Everton)

Defenders: Ben Chilwell (Chelsea), Conor Coady (Wolves), Reece James (Chelsea), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Tyrone Mings (Aston Villa), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Atletico Madrid), Kyle Walker (Manchester City), Ben White (Brighton & Hove Albion)

Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Leeds), Declan Rice (West Ham)

Forwards: Dominic Calvert-Lewin (Everton), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Aston Villa), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Marcus Rashford (Manchester United), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Jadon Sancho (Borussia Dortmund), Raheem Sterling (Manchester City)

Unfortunate that Greenwood and Alexander-Arnold were unavailable, but I'm sure every NT had one or two players out for whatever reason.

Focusing just on the final v Italy, the choice Southgate made was to go with a very defensive setup, back 3 and 2 defensive mids, as you rightly note. He had the players to pull that off and he almost got away with it. What I'm suggesting is that Southgate had the wrong idea altogether by being so defensive. He had the players to play a more balanced offensive/defensive game. Something like this:

Pickford
Walker Stones Maguire Shaw
Rice Grealish
Sancho Mount Sterling
Kane

(Mount was poor in the Euros IMHO but Southgate trusted him...fine)

Rice was a workhorse who could have shielded the back line, but in truth Stones and Maguire were fantastic and didn't need more than Rice for holding duties. Phillips didn't offer much of anything going forward and wasn't really needed sitting with Rice. Grealish isn't a defensive specialist but he's competent enough in his defensive duties. We know what Grealish is capable of in attack.

We also know what Sancho is capable of in attack. As great as the Italy back line may have been, they lost their starting LB and were there for the taking by a capable RW such as Sancho. Instead, we saw England crawl into a shell and leave it up to pk's to sort it out.
 
My feeling is the English fans grew to respect such midfielders since the Xavi/Iniesta/Busquets and Modric/Kroos dominances but they love their box to box midfielders. Flying tackles, hollywood passes, long shots etc. Ineffective stuff that has been significantly reduced in modern systems but humans are a nostalgic bunch. And especially the managers and the FA at least to me seem to be living in the past a bit.

That being said, I think the last tournament was already progression. Phillips and Rice is a much more functional midfield than Lampard, Gerrard and the likes.
 
devilish said:
He does have Pogba and VDB. He still play McFred though
Click to expand...

Oh the old Donny chestnut, that somehow he's demonstrated through quite incredible contributions that he was worth a place over everyone else.

He finished the season well which gives me hope that he can make an impact next season but lets not kid ourselves that he was nothing other than disappointing
 
lex talionis said:
I'm tempted to fully agree, but I'm not quite there. This is what I understand England's 26 man consisted of:

England’s 26-man squad for Euro 2020
Goalkeepers: Dean Henderson (Manchester United), Sam Johnstone (West Bromwich Albion), Jordan Pickford (Everton)

Defenders: Ben Chilwell (Chelsea), Conor Coady (Wolves), Reece James (Chelsea), Harry Maguire (Manchester United), Tyrone Mings (Aston Villa), Luke Shaw (Manchester United), John Stones (Manchester City), Kieran Trippier (Atletico Madrid), Kyle Walker (Manchester City), Ben White (Brighton & Hove Albion)

Midfielders: Jude Bellingham (Borussia Dortmund), Jordan Henderson (Liverpool), Mason Mount (Chelsea), Kalvin Phillips (Leeds), Declan Rice (West Ham)

Forwards: Dominic Calvert-Lewin (Everton), Phil Foden (Manchester City), Jack Grealish (Aston Villa), Harry Kane (Tottenham), Marcus Rashford (Manchester United), Bukayo Saka (Arsenal), Jadon Sancho (Borussia Dortmund), Raheem Sterling (Manchester City)

Unfortunate that Greenwood and Alexander-Arnold were unavailable, but I'm sure every NT had one or two players out for whatever reason.

Focusing just on the final v Italy, the choice Southgate made was to go with a very defensive setup, back 3 and 2 defensive mids, as you rightly note. He had the players to pull that off and he almost got away with it. What I'm suggesting is that Southgate had the wrong idea altogether by being so defensive. He had the players to play a more balanced offensive/defensive game. Something like this:

Pickford
Walker Stones Maguire Shaw
Rice Grealish
Sancho Mount Sterling
Kane

(Mount was poor in the Euros IMHO but Southgate trusted him...fine)

Rice was a workhorse who could have shielded the back line, but in truth Stones and Maguire were fantastic and didn't need more than Rice for holding duties. Phillips didn't offer much of anything going forward and wasn't really needed sitting with Rice. Grealish isn't a defensive specialist but he's competent enough in his defensive duties. We know what Grealish is capable of in attack.

We also know what Sancho is capable of in attack. As great as the Italy back line may have been, they lost their starting LB and were there for the taking by a capable RW such as Sancho. Instead, we saw England crawl into a shell and leave it up to pk's to sort it out.
Click to expand...
I think we would have the same possession % with that lineup and Rice would be considerably overworked.
 
I'll not say Rice and Phillips are as good as Veratti and Gorginho in passing and ball retention, but I believe they are competent enough to do so, Southgate's tactics in the final where all about using the width, quick transition/fast attacks, England's first goal started from Shaw on the left, who passed to a deep dropping Kane, who switced it quickly to an advanced Trippier on the right, Rice was also running with the ball when he got the chance to do so, the team didn't even try to retain possession, pass through the lines and so on, another manager could've gotten the same starting 11 to control the possession or at least contest it, England players just stood off them and allowed Italy to pass the ball with little to no pressing.

Of course England do not have the players in the mould of Kroos, Modric and the like, but the manager should at least get the team to contest possession against the likes of teams that try to control possession, you can't just stand off and let them have it, especially when you have CMs who can't create chances or or setup quick counter such Rice and Phillips.
 
RedStarUnited said:
Why does England struggle to produce these type of players? In my adult years, England have had 2 and were both criminally under used (Scholes/Carrick). In England, we have 2 types of midfielders. The first type can run a lot and make tackles. The second type have the tackling part but are also able to score/make goals. We don't have any player like Kroos, Verrati/Jorginho, Busquets etc. Defensively and positionally aware players who help set the tempo for the team and help keep the ball.

Yesterday in extra time, Bonuci and Chielini were on yellow cards, tired and are slow anyway. But because Italy have much better ball players in midfield, the Italians CBs actually played a high line . They would never have dared to do that against Spain last week. Ironically, Spains issues are Englands strength. Give Spain the forward talents we have and they would have won these Euros.

In 2018, a lack of ability to keep the ball cost us against Croatia and we went out. Why was the emphasis then not put on making sure we go in to future tournaments with midfielders who can help keep the ball?

I can almost guarantee that we will have the same in issues in Qatar 2022. Foden is a great player but doesn't set tempo, I haven't seen enough of Jude Bellingham either but I don't see him in that mould.
Click to expand...
I think Foden/Mount although used out wide are not wide players and will ultimately become more central for clubs eg iniesta/De Bruyn type positions, but then whether they ever play central for England is another matter.
 
England need a new Scholes/Carrick-type player. And hopefully this time, actually use them properly.
 
He basically plays with 7 defence minded players and leaves the 3 further forward isolated. Mount was totally invisible yesterday because the ball kept getting launched over him. Because there was no one there to come deep and get on the ball and play it out.

Grealish and Foden are both capable of holding the ball and getting it moving to create chances, no reason why either one couldn't be employed as part of a three in there to drop in receive the ball and get it moving.

I think even if he had a midfielder that could play from deep, he probably wouldn't have used him, he's just too bloody negative in his approach. He had plenty of other capable attacking players and he just chose not to use them either.
 
I don't agree with this premise. The reason England are playing over defensive midfielders....is because of Gareth Southgate.

The only team he has managed before the England squad was Middlesbrough, in which he oversaw them to relegation....is this really the best England can find???

Despite the injury this year, I still think James Maddison remains one of the best attacking midfielders in the Premier League. His playmaking was the driving force behind Jamie Vardy winning the golden boot in 2019/20.

He also scored more goals than Mason Mount and Jack Grealish this year, despite playing less games than Mount, being benched for injury...but Southgate chose to leave him off the squad.

He also played Mason Mount in a deeper number 8 position or put him on the wing.

With CDM talent like Declan Rice and Bellingham your telling me you can't put out two playmakers in midfield?

England has a generational talent of forwards right now, and that doesn't come along very often, and you have a manager who sets his team up like Crystal Palace....it's so FRUSTRATING to watch!
 
RedStarUnited said:
Why does England struggle to produce these type of players? In my adult years, England have had 2 and were both criminally under used (Scholes/Carrick). In England, we have 2 types of midfielders. The first type can run a lot and make tackles. The second type have the tackling part but are also able to score/make goals. We don't have any player like Kroos, Verrati/Jorginho, Busquets etc. Defensively and positionally aware players who help set the tempo for the team and help keep the ball.

Yesterday in extra time, Bonuci and Chielini were on yellow cards, tired and are slow anyway. But because Italy have much better ball players in midfield, the Italians CBs actually played a high line . They would never have dared to do that against Spain last week. Ironically, Spains issues are Englands strength. Give Spain the forward talents we have and they would have won these Euros.

In 2018, a lack of ability to keep the ball cost us against Croatia and we went out. Why was the emphasis then not put on making sure we go in to future tournaments with midfielders who can help keep the ball?

I can almost guarantee that we will have the same in issues in Qatar 2022. Foden is a great player but doesn't set tempo, I haven't seen enough of Jude Bellingham either but I don't see him in that mould.
Click to expand...
Kane is your play maker. He drops deep to create chance. He is playing the false 9 role. Given Kane's status he will start as CF, so the coach needs to figure out a runner like "Son" to compliment Kane. It is just the way Kane plays nowadays. Sterling is not that person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.