Intro said:
I like the fact that McClaren wanted to show "tactical flexibility" by switching formation to 3-5-2.
Firstly, I can't think of any important club or national team which has played that formation successfully for some time. But secondly switching from a rigid 4-4-2 to a 3-5-2 using the same full-backs instigated by an overload of central defenders is not a show of tactical flexibility.
Such a change is more infrastructrual and does more damage than good. It's primary change is in the defensive configuration - an area England are already strong in. It does not alter the attacking options in the final third or how a team attacks - at least not how McClaren changed the team.
To do that England doesn't need to use three centre-backs but instead fluidity in midfield and attack. Those can be gained with 4-4-2(diamond), 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or even a 4-5-1. So many permutations but those unknown to English coaches and supporters - what Jeeks is referring to in the mentality of English football followers.
Slaven Bilic was partly correct after the match in saying that "systems are dead in football". Whilst strictly not true days of setting out rigid formations such as McClaren did today and expecting them to expose teams doesn't work. Players need to be flexible and show technical skills and intelligence - something England lacks.
The only player who is capable of this has missed all of McClaren's matches in charge. No not Rooney - but Joe Cole. Even under Eriksson and the most rigid 4-4-2 he managed to give England that dynamism Bilic is talking about - a player that makes the difference not the position.
Rooney tonight and his antics at the WC proved to me despite his skill levels (in my opinion less than Joe Cole) is as English as all of his peers. His reluctance to adapt his role (i.e. the link striker) makes him one of the least flexible fowards in Europe. As shown in the WC he was frustrated (ultimately led to his dismissal against Portugal) when forced to play a role which most skillful strikers revel in - yet when playing with Crouch who needs that player to use their pace ahead Rooney could not move away from his comfort zone.
The comfort zone is where all England players are - too scared too change what they appear good at doing, just getting by with fantastic moments to cover their weaknesses. From Beckham to long-balls, crosses, free-kicks. Lampard and his goals but no-performances from midfield. Michael Owen with his goal scoring average and nothing else. Now Rooney with his one-sided skillset.
Fantastic...WC winners again in 2066?
Firstly, I can't think of any important club or national team which has played that formation successfully for some time. But secondly switching from a rigid 4-4-2 to a 3-5-2 using the same full-backs instigated by an overload of central defenders is not a show of tactical flexibility.
Such a change is more infrastructrual and does more damage than good. It's primary change is in the defensive configuration - an area England are already strong in. It does not alter the attacking options in the final third or how a team attacks - at least not how McClaren changed the team.
To do that England doesn't need to use three centre-backs but instead fluidity in midfield and attack. Those can be gained with 4-4-2(diamond), 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or even a 4-5-1. So many permutations but those unknown to English coaches and supporters - what Jeeks is referring to in the mentality of English football followers.
Slaven Bilic was partly correct after the match in saying that "systems are dead in football". Whilst strictly not true days of setting out rigid formations such as McClaren did today and expecting them to expose teams doesn't work. Players need to be flexible and show technical skills and intelligence - something England lacks.
The only player who is capable of this has missed all of McClaren's matches in charge. No not Rooney - but Joe Cole. Even under Eriksson and the most rigid 4-4-2 he managed to give England that dynamism Bilic is talking about - a player that makes the difference not the position.
Rooney tonight and his antics at the WC proved to me despite his skill levels (in my opinion less than Joe Cole) is as English as all of his peers. His reluctance to adapt his role (i.e. the link striker) makes him one of the least flexible fowards in Europe. As shown in the WC he was frustrated (ultimately led to his dismissal against Portugal) when forced to play a role which most skillful strikers revel in - yet when playing with Crouch who needs that player to use their pace ahead Rooney could not move away from his comfort zone.
The comfort zone is where all England players are - too scared too change what they appear good at doing, just getting by with fantastic moments to cover their weaknesses. From Beckham to long-balls, crosses, free-kicks. Lampard and his goals but no-performances from midfield. Michael Owen with his goal scoring average and nothing else. Now Rooney with his one-sided skillset.
Fantastic...WC winners again in 2066?
although abt the 3-5-2 formation.I remember the last successful team that played that Germany in 2002 under 2002. I remember Lippi played it for a while as well as Capello with the Romans
