The main problem in all Englands games was the employment of a rigid 4-4-2 without genuine wingers and full back support. Consequently we were overrun in midfield. Combine this with woy being happy to let the opposition have the ball in first two thirds of the pitch and the outcome was obvious. Gerrard and parker were knackered because whenever they got the ball they had three round them and no outlet ball. Rooney was isolated and when the odd ball reached him there was no support. If nothing else comes out of this it must be that 4-4-2 is dead
I dunno if a formation ever really dies other than the old ones from deep in the wayback machine with 6 forwards. Piss poor tactics given your personnel though. It's not like you had Giggs Becks Scholes and Keane.
It cannot work when employed the way it was . You never see a 4-4-2 in the champions league anymore and no winning national team has used it for years
Abate Bonnucci Barzagli Balzaretti Marchisio De Rossi Pirlo Montolivo Balotelli Cassano That's 4 defenders, 4 midfielders, and 2 forwards...
Most sides use a variation of 4-4-2 or 4-3-3, England used a variation of 4-4-2 throughout the tournament, I wouldn't really have called it rigid.
You're being pedantic there! It may have been a side with 4 defenders, 4 midfielders and 2 strikers, but it wasn't anything like the conventional flat 'two banks of four' 4-4-2 that the poster clearly had in mind. I'm not a fan of the flat 4-4-2 shape, and have created threads explaining why in great detail. However, it could have worked as a good defensive shape for England, with the 2 strikers picking up the opposition's deepest midfielder(s) without the ball. Clearly, Hodgson had instructed Rooney and Welbeck to pick up Pirlo without the ball last night - which they did for about 30 minutes. Then they slacked off, especially Rooney (whose defensive workrate is pretty poor these days) and Pirlo was allowed to get goal side and become the game's free man. If the strikers had have done their defensive jobs properly, England could have come away with a result against a team with much more technical ability than them, using a conventional 4-4-2 shape.
Italy played 4-4-2 with a diamond in the middle. Look, football players can play footbal, right? I absolutely have had enough of the over analysis on tactics in the modern game. What do spain play then? Basically a 3-7, correct?
I don't know why it's the formation that's copping it. I find it highly unlikely that the same players would have been any more successful than they were had they played any formation other than 4-4-2. Why? Because they are unable to retain the ball or string more than two passes together when they have it. Until that changes, quarter-finals is about as good as it gets no matter what formation they are deployed in.
Pirlo's role was key, in addition to being able to dictate the play from deep, he was also screening the back four as well. I like the diamond (4-1-2-1-2) formation, I think United should adopt it.
It's an oversimplification to say that if England had played a different formation the result would have been the same due to their technical deficencies. They may not have the seemingly limitless supply of quality midfielders that Spain have, but they have enough to string a three man midfield together. The main problem with the two banks of four (4-4-1-1/4-4-2) is that it reduces the available manpower in central midfield, the most important area in top level football. Expecting two players to cover between three and five other players is a recipe for disaster; it's physically impossible, and it's exhausting to even attempt it. Sticking Carrick, for example, in there immediately gives an extra body who would have either been picking up Montolivo, or covering the space that de Rossi and Marchisio ran into so effectively. Either way, Pirlo wouldn't have been swanning around unmarked all game, and, as we saw a couple of years ago, if he's closed down or marked properly, his effectiveness can be limited. That's not to say a 4-4-2 can't be successful, England were a couple of kicks away from going through after all, but it would difficult to begrudge Italy their victory. With a bit of pace on the wings it could have been different though; if you're going to concentrate on being difficult to break down, it's prudent to at least offer a threat in those limited occasions when you have possession. Walcott/Lennon/Young all offer pace at least, and that would have given a more useful out ball against Italy than lumping it up to Carroll. Most concerning about last night's game though, for someone who is a Utd fan anyway, was exactly how lazy Rooney was. He'd clearly been tasked with marking Pirlo and looked like he couldn't be arsed, which didn't really help with England being outnumbered.
Our mistake was the selection. Parker is a destroyer and that's it, he breaks up play and gives it to the guy next to him, at Spurs it's usually Sandro or Modric (who can keep the ball), with England it was Gerrard, an attacking midfielder and he doesn't even play in a midfield 2 for Liverpool anymore either. How the hell they were expected to keep hold of possession, I don't know. It just seemed to be Parker winning the ball to give to Gerrard who would then lose it, then repeat. No wonder they were knackered, there was no one in there that could put their foot on the ball confidently and dictate tempo. Nothing against Parker or Gerrard because they performed their roles as best they could, it's just that their roles don't compliment each other well enough at this level. This is where we needed a player like Scholes or Carrick or even Barry, so Parker had someone to give it to after he won the ball, who could then look up and pick the right pass to someone like Gerrard who could then link with the forwards. If you play a player like Parker you need to have him ideally in a midfield 3 or at least next to someone who will hold onto the ball otherwise all his effort is ultimately for nothing. It's like a bucket with a hole in it.
