England played a conventional 3-man midfield, featuring mostly Eric Dier as the holding player and Wayne Rooney and Dele Alli in front as a 2.
I want to applaud the contribution Eric Dier made to the tournament. Very disciplined in that specialist role, from a defensive view he maintained his position, sniffed out any counter attacks, filled in for the forward thinking full backs when he needed to. His movement off the ball was excellent, always in a position to receive the ball, play on the half turn and play forward. The concern for me was the movement of Wayne Rooney. Placed into the midfield to become our playmaker, using is range of passing as a potential weapon to penetrate teams from the corner of the field. In my opinion Eric Dier has the same passing range, if not a better radar than Rooney, England didn’t need 2 players with the same quality. Rooney continued to drop very deep to collect the ball. Most noticeably to me on the same lateral line as Dier, with the opposing midfield directly in front leaving both Rooney and Dier with potentially only 2 or 3 options forward.
The tactical change that should have been made would be for Rooney and Alli to vacate Dier’s space and continually find pockets of space behind the opposing midfield. This would create a closer distance between the advanced midfield and the striker who was very isolated. Another rare occurrence was midfielders Rooney/Alli running in beyond the striker. Alli attempted it on a few occasions and had some joy. The purpose of running in beyond as a midfielder is to:
- Stretch the defence
- Distract the defenders
- Provide a surprise attack with late movement
- Create shorter distances between midfield and forward players which encourages combination player higher up the pitch
For me, the central midfield area looked unbalanced with far too many players being attracted towards the ball which compacts the central areas and allows a compact opposition midfield the chance to see all the England players in front of them. A change of personnel and tactics are needed in this area if England want to become a team who can:
- Maintain possession higher up the pitch and
- Be a better goal threat from central areas
Roy Hodgson’s decisions not to take any out and out wingers apart from Raheem Sterling was a huge mistake. England experimented with Sterling, Strurridge, Rashford and Vardy in the wide areas during the tournament yet the only effective player was Adam Lallana. Lallana is not a conventional 1v1 wide player, he likes to combine and move with players close enough to him. The issue was that, Hodgson decided to play inverted wide players (players who play on the opposite side to the dominant foot). This tactic was extremely popular 2-3 years ago; teams now find it very comfortable to play against. Showing the wide player inside the pitches forces the attackers to combine and link play, as long as the defender shuts off the possibility of the wide pass the threat is gone. It was apparent during the England games that this was a common occurrence. With players lacking confidence in 1v1 duels, England selected wide players would continually slow down the momentum of the attacks, which would then force them to recycle the ball. Taking an Andros Townsend type of player would have allowed England the opportunity to hold wide positions higher up the pitch, stretch the opposition and allow full backs or midfielders the chance to ‘underlap’ the oppositions lines. Townsend would have armoured England with the ability to carry the ball over 30/40 yards, beat a player and cross the ball on the counter attack. Against compact defences, it’s your individual 1v1 players which make the difference. A Messi, Neymar and Hazard type who thrive on those situations. To summarise the wide positions, players were very comfortable coming towards the ball in central zones, limiting the space England had in this area. The flexibility and unpredictability of the wide players’ movements was not apparent and didn’t pose enough questions to the oppositions defence during the tournament.
Kane, Sturridge, Vardy, Rashford, Rooney, all have had exciting seasons with their respective clubs and most have scored enough goals to warrant their place in the line-up/squad. Playing in a 4-3-3 system only 1 of the above would start. With the personnel around them and the style of England’s play, more possession based rather than penetrate counter attacks, I feel Harry Kane was the best chance to start as his link up play is potentially better than the rest. However, as we know Harry Kane had a poor competition by his own standards. His first touch deserted him, he struggled to link play and offer little goal threat in or outside the box. Was this due to bad service? Perhaps, was he fit? Perhaps not. What I do know is that England were playing against deep compact defences leaving little space behind the defence for a Vardy or Rashford type player, thus England had to rely on playing through or around a defence to create any sort of clear cut chance. To play through a compact defence, the strikers role is pivotal. Their job is to release themselves from the close markers at the correct time with speed, this allows them to turn quickly and shoot or link play off 1 touch. Unfortunately, this was not existent from all of England striking options. Either dropping deep into midfield or playing too close to the centre helped offer no threat to the oppositions back line.
From wide positions (full backs) and the striker’s movement was very poor. Full backs would rely on cut backs into midfield areas. The chances to create space from a cross were there but too slow, there was little imagination with the movement. No clear plan of running the defender to the back post before dynamically driving towards the near post. A lack of sharpness/lack of confidence? Only the strikers and internal staff know the answer. Again the forward players shared little flexibility, rotation, understanding and reactions during their movement phase resulted in England only scoring 2 scrap goals in 4 competitive games. The inclusion of Andy Carroll or Jermaine Defoe would have offered England a plan B approach, both players are different but offer quality in the penalty box against deep defences.
Although a frustrated spectator this summer, it is clear what changes need to be made from a talent and tactical viewpoint. Finding a clear playing style with the correct players in the correct positions is of fundamental importance going forward. Once we find our winning formula and players coming through our system continue to improve on the technique of scanning and movement, I can see a bright future for the national team.
