Wellens to Brum

[Micky]

That's because that's how our only successful international performance was played. It was revolutionary back in 1966, no one had seen a style and a system like that before and no one one knew how to play it. But the English game hasn't evolved from then, it's stuck in Alf Ramsey's style. Still living off it.

It has nothing to do with foreign/domestic managers. Bobby Robson lucked his way through to a semi-final thanks to two-dives against a mediocre Cameroon side and a semi-wondergoal against a mediocre Belgium side, but other than that no English manager has done any better than Sven or Capello. Besides, Fabio Capello playing a patient, non-direct approach, are you joking?! Have you ever watched any of his sides play?!

It's the type of players we producing that is at the crux of the problem. We put strength and pace above technical ability and intelligence. We're obsessed with producing certain type of players (i.e. the short pacey players, the playmakers and the big strong players who are good in the air). No matter how quick or strong the type of players we produce are, we come up against modern, technical teams like Germany and Spain and they pass us off the park. We can barely get the ball off them. They teach us footballing lessons and we don't learn from them. We continue breeding players based on one or two moulds and certain attributes. A team of technically gifted and intelligent players will beat us any day of the week. Everyone knows it, it's been commented on so many times before, but nothing ever gets done about it.

But yes, there is still a distrust of tactics in English football and a feeling that there's a certain way we should play (4-4-****ing-2 - Mike Bassett) and I think that Clough quote is partly down to it (Clough and his deification really has had a horrible influence on English football overall). Yeah, that was 40 years a go mate, why do you think that applies to the modern game? The sophisticated tactical computer programmes and tactical developments with the game since, mean that tactics are needing to be more thorough and detailed than ever.

I wouldn't describe Mourinho's tactics as sophisticated. I would say that Wenger is a sophisiticated tactician but this very often gets his teams exposed at the very highest level. The reason that Inter beat Bayern in the final was because they played percentages and also played a rigid formation that gave very little space to Barca in their own half (perhaps this is what you mean by sophisticated tactics?). I agree with the majority of your comments but I still think that their are managers out their that get a great deal of success with simplicity.

 

[Hazzman]

Interesting PR. I quote Klinsmann in saying England's problem is the rejection of their footballing culture when playing internationally. He reckons that if you've only been taught one way, don't resist it. When he became German manager, he believed he didn't have the players to play tiki-taka. So he kept it simple and played a 'dated formation' as it fitted Ballack and Klose fully aware that they were learning their youngsters in the correct manner, Low has just added the next turn in evolution.

That said I still believe international football is 85% team spirit.

By the way, Belgium weren't mediocre in 1990. One of most technically gifted teams there alongside Yugoslavia.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

I wouldn't describe Mourinho's tactics as sophisticated. I would say that Wenger is a sophisiticated tactician but this very often gets his teams exposed at the very highest level. The reason that Inter beat Bayern in the final was because they played percentages and also played a rigid formation that gave very little space to Barca in their own half (perhaps this is what you mean by sophisticated tactics?). I agree with the majority of your comments but I still think that their are managers out their that get a great deal of success with simplicity.

Mourinho's tactics are definitely sophisticated, they may not be free-flowing like Guardiola's, but they're thoroughly researched and analysed and certainly based around more modern systems (who played the 4-3-3, standing off, counter-attacking style in England before Mourinho brought it in). Anyway, Mourinho is a genius at brining players in and moulding them to his style of play, that is not something that can be done in international management. I would be very interested to see how Mourinho would get on in international management myself.

Interesting PR. I quote Klinsmann in saying England's problem is the rejection of their footballing culture when playing internationally. He reckons that if you've only been taught one way, don't resist it. When he became German manager, he believed he didn't have the players to play tiki-taka. So he kept it simple and played a 'dated formation' as it fitted Ballack and Klose fully aware that they were learning their youngsters in the correct manner, Low has just added the next turn in evolution.

That said I still believe international football is 85% team spirit.

By the way, Belgium weren't mediocre in 1990. One of most technically gifted teams there alongside Yugoslavia.

I remember seeing that interview with Klinsmann and I agree with him that a country needs to adopt to a certain culture to succeed and I agree that the way Germany are slowly turning their youth system into more modern players is the way to go (Spain, or Barcelona rather (who essentially make up the majority of the Spanish first team), did a similar thing when Cruyff was hired, and Barca have been Europe's most successful side since the Cruyff-era) and I think that England's footballing culture is outdated and that it needs changing in the way Germany/Spain have/are in the process of doing. However, although Klinsmann played a certain way as he didn't have the players that Loew is now getting I still feel that it was never really successful playing that style (lets face it, they were poor under Klinsmann outside WC2002 and even though they got to the final then they never really looked particularly good and had just about the most piss-easy run in in WC history), but he did do an excellent job in that he started the transitional process of the culture in much the same way Cruyff did.

I don't think England has ever rejected its culture, which was my point, I just don't think the footballing culture that England has atm is effective. Like I said I believe we are still producing the types of players to fit Alf Ramsey's system, whereas the game has moved on from that. It's well documented that players at youth level in England get turned away for being too slow or not strong enough (Kevin Keegan even did for being too short originally iirc), but I think that technical and intelligent players will win out against players built around strength and speed any day of the week and the Barca model implemented by Cruyff should be the blueprint and I think a radical change in the type of players we produce is needed (I think this is partly down to fan culture too).


Re: The Belgium side. Fair enough, I was not old enough, but were Belgium not supposed to have completely outplayed us in that game? I certainly get the impression that even the most ardent England supporter will claim that the Italia90 side were never actually that good on their road to the semis and rode their luck.


Anyways, interesting discussion, but I'm off to bed. Will pick it up tomorrow if it continues.

 

[Ike O'Noclassed]

...the Italia90 side were never actually that good on their road to the semis and rode their luck.

Almost uniquely for a national side going to a major tournament, the team at Italia '90 was not crushed by the "England Expects Brigade" - having scraped in on qualifying after bombing at Euro88. There were also very few indicators as to our chances of winning - as we'd been banned from European club competitions for five years after Heysel.

It wasn't just the emergence of Gazza, you had Paul Parker, Mark Wright and above all Des Walker suddenly looked world-class - add the likes of Platt, Waddle, Beardsley at last starting to perform in an England shirt, and in a tournament dominated by negativity, we actually looked quite exciting.

The tactical masterstroke - whether devised by Robson or a dressing room coup, was to switch to 3-5-2 with Mark Wright as a sweeper. The team learned as it went along, and for once we watched a tournament where England improved - strange days indeed.

I think tactics work where you have the players willing and able to implement them - chicken and egg really.

 

[Macky]

I think tactics work where you have the players willing and able to implement them - chicken and egg really.

How so?


*edit* eggs came before chickens btw

 

[DesertFox]

How so?


*edit* eggs came before chickens btw

Chickens evolved from other, previous species, which laid eggs.

Case solved. :icon_bigg

 

[Brown Nose]

What an incomprehensibly ludicrous suggestion. Maybe you should go to a few games

The rumblings about King are precisely because of the formation we're currently playing and King's role in that.

He is an excellent central midfielder. His timing of runs to support attacks is exceptional.

So why on earth are we playing him as a second striker? He's playing in that Beardsley/Sheringham position in front of the midfield but behind the central striker and he's like a lost sheep.

He's totally unsuitable for this role and his recent performances have proved this. However, if he withdrew into a three man central midfield we'd see much more of him and we'd play much more to his strengths.

The problem with this would be that it would isolate the central striker too much. Hence the problem with this formation. The sooner we work out a way of playing 4-4-2, the better.

 

[Blue Maniac]

He's totally unsuitable for this role and his recent performances have proved this. However, if he withdrew into a three man central midfield we'd see much more of him and we'd play much more to his strengths.

The problem with this would be that it would isolate the central striker too much. Hence the problem with this formation. The sooner we work out a way of playing 4-4-2, the better.

This tactical 'analysis' is exactly the sort of thing that PR is talking about. No disrespect, but it's nonsense.

 

[homer]

He's totally unsuitable for this role and his recent performances have proved this.

What utter, utter garbage - he is the perfect player for playing an advanced midfield role in the way that we are

He is not playing as a second striker at all, and never has done. Do you even watch the games

The sooner we work out a way of playing 4-4-2, the better.

Proof, if ever any were needed, that some 'fans' know the square root of feck all when it comes to football

Our formation is the reason we are playing some very good football. The unit of King, Abe and Wellens is at the heart of everything that we do. Why people cannot see that is beyond me

Whilst we may opt on rare occasions to switch to 4-4-2 late on in a game, if it is ever needed, to do so on a permanent basis would be an absolute disaster

Absolute madness

 

[Babylon]

What an incomprehensibly ludicrous suggestion. Maybe you should go to a few games

I think you had a sense of humour failure there BM

 

[Blue Maniac]

I think you had a sense of humour failure there BM

:icon_redf Oh. I can't remember why that should have been.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

King - second striker?! I must have been watching a different player to me for the past few months, BN, because I haven't seen him play as a second striker once since Sven has been manager.

 

[Granite Fox]

I get that impression that some fans think there are only 6 different types of footballers:

1. A goalkeeper
2. A stopper/hard-man defender
3. A playmaker
4. A pacey winger
5. A short pacey striker
6. A target man

Get a few of them in each play them in 4-4-2 (with no further instructions or tactics needed) and BOOM! Promotion is ours! It's literally that simple.

They all need to run around like headless chickens as well

 

[Blue Maniac]

They all need to run around like headless chickens as well

Bring back DJ!

 

[Cate Fox]

Bring back DJ!

We'll need him for the play offs

 

[okie fox]

Bobby Robson lucked his way through to a semi-final thanks to two-dives against a mediocre Cameroon side and a semi-wondergoal against a mediocre Belgium side

I watched the whole of the 1990 World Cup on TV. As I remember it, Lineker drew the fouls by the goal keeper, he did not dive. Cameroon were a dirty side, they beat Argentina 1-0 in the group stage by hacking down players from behind (they had 2 men sent off).

Also, note that England were the better side against Germany in the semis, but were unlucky. The German goal was a fluky deflection and Waddle hit the bar in extra time.

Argentina gave an abysmal performance in the final so we could have won the World Cup if we had beaten Germany. I think you should give Bobby Robson credit for his 3-5-2 tactics and success.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

I watched the whole of the 1990 World Cup on TV. As I remember it, Lineker drew the fouls by the goal keeper, he did not dive. Cameroon were a dirty side, they beat Argentina 1-0 in the group stage by hacking down players from behind (they had 2 men sent off).

Also, note that England were the better side against Germany in the semis, but were unlucky. The German goal was a fluky deflection and Waddle hit the bar in extra time.

Argentina gave an abysmal performance in the final so we could have won the World Cup if we had beaten Germany. I think you should give Bobby Robson credit for his 3-5-2 tactics and success.

I'm not not giving him credit. My point was that Robson wasn't really any better an England manager than Sven who got knocked out one round earlier by Brazil and Portugal twice on penalties, who you would expect to beat/match England. Whereas Robson scraped by teams you would expect England to beat in the knock-out stages.

 

[okie fox]

I'm not not giving him credit. My point was that Robson wasn't really any better an England manager than Sven who got knocked out one round earlier by Brazil and Portugal twice on penalties, who you would expect to beat/match England. Whereas Robson scraped by teams you would expect England to beat in the knock-out stages.

There are plenty of teams (Italy for example) that start out slow in the World Cup and end up beating the best teams. But I agree that Sven deserves credit too. He was one of the best England managers.

 

[DesertFox]

What utter, utter garbage - he is the perfect player for playing an advanced midfield role in the way that we are

He is not playing as a second striker at all, and never has done. Do you even watch the games

Proof, if ever any were needed, that some 'fans' know the square root of feck all when it comes to football

Our formation is the reason we are playing some very good football. The unit of King, Abe and Wellens is at the heart of everything that we do. Why people cannot see that is beyond me

Whilst we may opt on rare occasions to switch to 4-4-2 late on in a game, if it is ever needed, to do so on a permanent basis would be an absolute disaster

Absolute madness

Spot on Homey

 

[drummindefender]

errrrrrr back on topic kind of, Sven said in his post match interview yesterday that no bid has been made for Wellens. So hopefully this is nothing but paper talk, as if we are going to have any chance of sneaking a play off spot, he needs to be playing week in week out.

Personally I think he would make a much better captain than King too.