England tactics (split thread)

[love and mercy]

Perhaps he could tell us where McClaren went wrong

 

[coachingbee]

Perhaps he could tell us where McClaren went wrong

He will probably say that you should never, ever play 4-5-1 at home!!!

 

[golferbee]

Perhaps he could tell us where McClaren went wrong

Its a simple answer really,

THE PLAYERS NEED MORE TIME TO GEL

 

[GP200]

Its a simple answer really,

THE PLAYERS NEED MORE TIME TO GEL

........the players need more hair to gel.....................

 

[coachingbee]

........the players need more hair to gel.....................

Bring back Chris Hargreaves - he had great hair!

 

[GP200]

Bring back Chris Hargreaves - he had great hair!

............and Pinamonte...................

 

[beeeehive]

Butcher did have a clue about McClaren :yes:

 

[cheekybee74]

Interesting article hear from Toshack, re British coaches and our limitations on the game and our adherence to 4-4-2 ....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7108754.stm

Question/controversial thought - Is Butcher actually too advanced for Brentford and the English game in his tactics and strategy by looking at the 4-1-4-1 or 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 options? :shrug:

 

[shouldbee]

Interesting article hear from Toshack, re British coaches and our limitations on the game and our adherence to 4-4-2 ....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7108754.stm

Question/controversial thought - Is Butcher actually too advanced for Brentford and the English game in his tactics and strategy by looking at the 4-1-4-1 or 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 options? :shrug:

I think Mr Butcher is far too good for a small club like Brentford, I suggest he and Andy Scott apply for the position of kit man and assistant kit man for the England team, on second thoughts Terry's not brilliant at putting the right players in the right shirts is he ?

 

[beeeehive]

Both McClaren and Butcher took bloody ages to throw 2 strikers on once their teams went 2-0 down. Better managers make the changes straight away.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

Both McClaren and Butcher took bloody ages to throw 2 strikers on once their teams went 2-0 down. Better managers make the changes straight away.

Did you notice how well Defoe and Bent played though? Defoe was crap and didn't get anywhere near the goal the entire second half. If you haven't got anything better on the bench, it's not really worth making the change and that would apply to both England and Brentford at the moment.

 

[NorthamptonBee]

Did you notice how well Defoe and Bent played though? Defoe was crap and didn't get anywhere near the goal the entire second half. If you haven't got anything better on the bench, it's not really worth making the change and that would apply to both England and Brentford at the moment.

I'll go with this but it was waste of a half of doing nothing but keeping a 2-0 defecit. On Wednesday I would have taken Bridge off early (he was having one of those mares that players don't come out of) and put Barry at LB put Hargreaves in the middle and told Lampard and Gerrard to pull their fingers out and fecking attack rather than waste 30 minutes. I have seen the same story with us this year where we have wasted time and only started going for it when the game is up. When you are losing by a few with a long time left surely you take off the players who are not doing it and replace them with anyone who is fit and on your bench.

 

[beeeehive]

Did you notice how well Defoe and Bent played though? Defoe was crap and didn't get anywhere near the goal the entire second half. If you haven't got anything better on the bench, it's not really worth making the change and that would apply to both England and Brentford at the moment.

Bent played well when he came on, won flick ons that went into the penalty box, out muscled a defender to get a very good shot in on goal, he wasn't on that long to have a huge impact. We went 2-0 down with 14 minutes gone and kept one man upfront until half bloody time. Bent has scored 15-20 odd goals for a few seasons in an average Charlton team and many at U21 level, he's not exactly been given a chance with England so I don't know ho he can be branded not good enough for England already. How you can say leaving Connell on the bench and just having Thorpe upfront when you're 2 nil down i the better option just amazes me. We played far far far far better once we had 2 up top for the last 20 minutes. England scored 2 goals with 2 players upfront, Brentford created a lot of chances in the second half, I know when both teams looked much better going forwards :shrug:

I just don't understand your argument in the slightest, sorry. Bent and Defoe have scored goals in the Premiership against defenders better then the ones Croatia had on the pitch.

 

[shouldbee]

Both McClaren and Butcher took bloody ages to throw 2 strikers on once their teams went 2-0 down. Better managers make the changes straight away.

Although I never thought McClaren was the right man for the England job I think to compare him to Butcher is a massive insult to McClaren, he did have success with Middlesboro and was Ferguson's assistant. Butcher has managed 4 clubs and has been sacked from 3 of them. The real question is what possessed Dyke to give him a job, and a promotion budget that he has pissedaway ,surely a massive error of judgement ?

 

[NorthamptonBee]

Although I never thought McClaren was the right man for the England job I think to compare him to Butcher is a massive insult to McClaren, he did have success with Middlesboro and was Ferguson's assistant. Butcher has managed 4 clubs and has been sacked from 3 of them. The real question is what possessed Dyke to give him a job, and a promotion budget that he has pissedaway ,surely a massive error of judgement ?

You'll be accused of being me.

We're stuck with him so we might as well make the best of it.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

Bent played well when he came on, won flick ons that went into the penalty box, out muscled a defender to get a very good shot in on goal, he wasn't on that long to have a huge impact. We went 2-0 down with 14 minutes gone and kept one man upfront until half bloody time. Bent has scored 15-20 odd goals for a few seasons in an average Charlton team and many at U21 level, he's not exactly been given a chance with England so I don't know ho he can be branded not good enough for England already. How you can say leaving Connell on the bench and just having Thorpe upfront when you're 2 nil down i the better option just amazes me. We played far far far far better once we had 2 up top for the last 20 minutes. England scored 2 goals with 2 players upfront, Brentford created a lot of chances in the second half, I know when both teams looked much better going forwards :shrug:

I just don't understand your argument in the slightest, sorry. Bent and Defoe have scored goals in the Premiership against defenders better then the ones Croatia had on the pitch.

The first thing I should say is that I've always thought, particularly with the Bees, that 442 suits best. However, I don't agree that 451 is a defensive line up if played properly. Both Butcher and McLaren, I suspect, would have told Ide / Shakes and Gerrard / Lampard to get close to and beyond the target man. As they're attack minded players, I think it would have been a reasonable expectation that both would've done so and probably both managers were doing there nut that it wasn't happening.

To me, Connell is an enigma in that he is clearly a very good player but I'm not sure where - he doesn't have the pace to get beyond Thorpe in the way that Shakes / Ide should be able to do.

As for Bent / Defoe, my opinion is that England stand more chance of scoring with Lampard / Gerrard attacking than they do with Bent / Defoe based on their respective international records.

 

[VTG]

Did you notice how well Defoe and Bent played though? Defoe was crap and didn't get anywhere near the goal the entire second half. If you haven't got anything better on the bench, it's not really worth making the change and that would apply to both England and Brentford at the moment.

I'm very surprised he took SWP off. I'd have taken that useless tit Lampard off as him and Gerrard can't play on the same pitch successfully. I just want England to offer Butcher the job, then we won't have to pay him to go away.

 

[beeeehive]

The first thing I should say is that I've always thought, particularly with the Bees, that 442 suits best. However, I don't agree that 451 is a defensive line up if played properly. Both Butcher and McLaren, I suspect, would have told Ide / Shakes and Gerrard / Lampard to get close to and beyond the target man. As they're attack minded players, I think it would have been a reasonable expectation that both would've done so and probably both managers were doing there nut that it wasn't happening.

To me, Connell is an enigma in that he is clearly a very good player but I'm not sure where - he doesn't have the pace to get beyond Thorpe in the way that Shakes / Ide should be able to do.

As for Bent / Defoe, my opinion is that England stand more chance of scoring with Lampard / Gerrard attacking than they do with Bent / Defoe based on their respective international records.

At 2-0 down I just don't think there is any excuse to stay with one striker no matter what. Defoe and Bent may not have set the world alight at international level but because Defoe was making runs in the box we won the penalty. The first thing Bilic said after was England made it easy only playing one man upfront. Being a defender I'm sure he knows if you don't ocupy the defenders properly it means there's no space for the midfielders to attack. If 2 strikers are upfront keeping the defenders busy there's more chance of mistakes and space for others. If a decent chance falls to Defoe or Bent in the box there is a good chance of them scoring. Bent has probably scored the same or more league goals then Crouch in a poorer team.

Don't get me started on Lampard and Gerrard, these 2 over paid wasters couldn't even form a pass let alone attack on wednesday, they got completely out played in the middle. It clearly wasn't working at 2-0 down yet we wasted 30 minutes hoping it would start to work. Then he takes off the best midfielder in Cole, joke.

Both Butcher and McClaren were so slow to react in both circumstances, McClaren even dropped Defoe into a deep postion once we got to 2-2, plain stupid.

I didn't see McClaren doing his nut either, just standing there holding a f**king umbrella and watching us go out. An Umbrella for fook sake, I would have thought he'd be more worried about the game then getting wet.

We're probably not going to agree on this, as you can see I'm very pissed off with the whole England situation! Staines last night put them well and truely to shame, that's what footballers can do when they play for the shirt and fans.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

At 2-0 down I just don't think there is any excuse to stay with one striker no matter what.

The thing is, the managers put out a side that they thought had the best chance of winning the game. I'm not sure why, after two defensive errors, he should change the attacking system that he thought was good enough to score goals - there's something slightly illogical about that. You and I might think that 451 was too defensive but if Butcher / McLaren think that 451 becomes 433 when we're attacking, why should they change that because we lose two goals?

As far as England goes, I wouldn't have put either Bent or Defoe next to Crouch at the start of the game or when we were 2-0 down because I think Gerrard and Lampard are better players. If Owen or Rooney were available, of course I would've played two up front.

The first thing Bilic said after was England made it easy only playing one man upfront.

Are you sure? I know Penney said that but I'm not sure Bilic did.

 

[beeeehive]

I'd change it for the very reason that my team had not scored and they had scored 2!

I could understand if he moved Cole to CM and put Gerrard upfront next to Crouch, but everytime SWP or Cole got into wide attacking positions only Crouch was in there. At 2-0 down I'd expect at least 2 or maybe even 3 in the box once a cross came in. They didn't change the shape at all for ages which to me is terrible when you've gone 2-0 down, especially in a game where you MUST at least draw.

Anyway he's gone now and I hope a few big names lose their position in the squad to give them a big wake up call.

 

[beeeehive]

Are you sure? I know Penney said that but I'm not sure Bilic did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXuqvfD-Q

1:57 and 2:40 something.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXuqvfD-Q

1:57 and 2:40 something.

 

[West Ealing Bee]

Butcher has managed 4 clubs and has been sacked from 3 of them.

For all the things that get said about football and football managers this is one of the ones that makes absolutely no sense to me.

There is a very, very small list of managers working in football who have not been sacked.

Even at the very top of the Premiership people like Erikksson, Wenger (at Monaco I believe), Benitez, Mourinho have all been sacked.

Are you saying you wouldn't take those as managers :scratch:

 

[davido_i]

For all the things that get said about football and football managers this is one of the ones that makes absolutely no sense to me.

There is a very, very small list of managers working in football who have not been sacked.

Even at the very top of the Premiership people like Erikksson, Wenger (at Monaco I believe), Benitez, Mourinho have all been sacked.

Are you saying you wouldn't take those as managers :scratch:

It makes sense enough if you can read the sentence & understand it!

The point being made concerns the proportion of jobs from which Terence has been sacked, which casts doubt on his track-record as a manager.

Are you suggesting that Messrs Erikkson, Wenger et al have comparable managerial track records to Terry Butcher:scratch: :scratch:

 

[Alan D]

Slightly off thread, but does anyone have any idea of how many players England used in the 12 match qualifying campaign.

I only asked as I was reading a Czech newspaper today and it appears that they used a total of 29 players in their campaign. Owing to injuries, suspensions etc., these 29 actually started matches. This was made up of 3 goalkeepers, 10 defenders, 10 midfielders and 6 strikers.

Truthfully I was absolutely amazed that they had 29 who could be considered good enough for international football.

 

[West Ealing Bee]

Are you suggesting that Messrs Erikkson, Wenger et al have comparable managerial track records to Terry Butcher:scratch: :scratch:

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying

It makes sense enough if you can read the sentence & understand it!

The point being made concerns the proportion of jobs from which Terence has been sacked, which casts doubt on his track-record as a manager.

I'm perfectly able to read and understand what was written, and presumably you can too.

Almost everyone working in the game has been sacked, most have been repeatedly sacked.

A lot of the names mentioned by supporters for the Brentford job in the past, people like Stan Ternant, have been sacked many times over.

If you want a manager who hasn't been sacked you get someone untried or you pay a lot of money to buy someone out of an existing contract.

Anyone has a right to criticise what they watch on a Saturday but to blame someone for being sacked elsewhere when just about anyone who would come into the job would have a similar record, some better as a percentage some worse, is a bit strange :shrug:

 

[beeeehive]

Until a manager comes in and picks the English players to suit his system rather then then system to suit the 'chosen' players we're always going to struggle IMO.

 

[West Ealing Bee]

Until a manager comes in and picks the English players to suit his system rather then then system to suit the 'chosen' players we're always going to struggle IMO.

I think we also have to have a manager and players comfortable in playing more than one way.

We change to 4-5-1 on Wednesday or 5-3-2 in Croatia and it is headline news, why?

Footballers should be comfortable doing anything and managers should be able to change systems regularly.

That's not the case in this country

 

[Edmundo]

Good point WEB. Why is it that players from every other country are comfortable playing a variety of tactical systems, but even the best English players go into a cold sweat when asked to do anything other than 442?

 

[beeeehive]

Good point WEB. Why is it that players from every other country are comfortable playing a variety of tactical systems, but even the best English players go into a cold sweat when asked to do anything other than 442?

Other countries make use of their squad and trust the 'lesser' players to an extent I reakon. We have the likes of Walcott, Agbonlahor, Lennon and even Young who can all be fairly flexible, especially Walcott and Agbonlahor (who is playing well this season as well as last). We just don't think outside the box as such because of the glamour players who like the others should have to earn their England place based on previous international performances. We don't introduce the young players correctly to give them a chance, instead we throw 6 on all at once in friendlies and rely on the 'stars' for the big games.

I'd love to see what Guus could do with all the pacey attacking wide\central players we have in this country.

 

[beeeehive]

We change to 4-5-1 on Wednesday or 5-3-2 in Croatia and it is headline news, why?

Because we lost both but have been winning the other games without conceding goals in a 442. Also because we give a CB his debut at left back in Russia.

 

[West Ealing Bee]

Because we lost both but have been winning the other games without conceding goals in a 442. Also because we give a CB his debut at left back in Russia.

The system and personnel was headline news for both these games before kick off :shrug:

 

[beeeehive]

The system and personnel was headline news for both these games before kick off :shrug:

More to do with selling papers then caring how England get on.

 

[West Ealing Bee]

More to do with selling papers then caring how England get on.

Yet it reflects the mood of the nation doesn't it :shrug:

No-one buys newspapers they fundamentally, continually disagree with, do they :scratch:

Listening to 5Live on the way back from Wembley on Wednesday dozens ofd people called to say we should be playing 4-4-2 and that's their opinion but it was the "We're England, we play 4-4-2" comments I just couldn't agree with.

A lack of technical and mental adaptability has had as much to do with failure internationall as anything IMHO. If it doesn't work immediately we ditch it.

 

[davido_i]

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying

A lot of the names mentioned by supporters for the Brentford job in the past, people like Stan Ternant, have been sacked many times over.

So if you had 5 unnamed CV's on your desk (Butcher, Wenger, Eriksson, Benitez & Mourinho) you'd struggle to pick Terrys' out?!

I think the original questioning of TB's track record is a fair one. To take your example, Stan Ternants has a trackrecord that is balanced by some notable successes, Bury & Burnley spring to mind.

TB is more in the sphere of Bryan Robson, a guy who as a player has done it all, with bells on. I think it is fair to say it is his persona which gets him jobs, not his managerial track-record & the wisdom of such appointments is open to question. After all Wenger & Bobby Moore demonstrate that a great footballer doesn't make a great coach & vice-versa

As to England, we can talk about systems until we are blue in the face, but for me it is more fundamental than that, we need to change our footballing philosophy, towards valuing possession, keeping the ball on the floor & using quick interpassing & movement as a means to unlocking defences. And that can be the philosophy regardless of what shape we play. We have at times succeeded under Robson, Hoddle & Venables in playing a good "international brand" of football.

 

[beeeehive]

Hidden in the papers you always find good articles but I can understand the one striker upfront issue, it can be looked as being quite negative depending on who the wide players are. Although I don't agree with 442 is England and how we play.

I'd probably prefer to see winger\strikers out wide then Cole and SWP who have both always been just wide players. I'd be interested to see the system played with Walcott, Rooney and Agbonlahor leading the forward line having the freedom to go all over the final third of the pitch. The formations we play should change as the game goes on, when you need to attack send more forward, when you need to defend send more back, it should be more of a team effort then seperated into positions, the players should have the knowledge of when numbers are needed back or forwards regardless of the starting formation.

You've hit the nail on the head with the if it doesn't work immediately we drop it, a strong quality manager would not do this under pressure and would keep the players on side, that's what we're probably lacking.

 

[West Ealing Bee]

So if you had 5 unnamed CV's on your desk (Butcher, Wenger, Eriksson, Benitez & Mourinho) you'd struggle to pick Terrys' out?!

Again, I didn't even get close to suggesting that.

My point was that everyone in football gets sacked, it's part of the job and if you are to discredit people for being sacked, which seemed to be the point being made, then you'll have a very short list to deal with.

I think the original questioning of TB's track record is a fair one. To take your example, Stan Ternants has a trackrecord that is balanced by some notable successes, Bury & Burnley spring to mind.

But, if we are just comparing him to Butcher, more failures, not getting Blackpool up when spending a lot of money, taking Hull City to the brink of relegation before getting sacked and also taking Gillingham down.

Anyway, this isn't really going anywhere is it :shrug: