A reflection on England..

Lizo Johnson gives The Football Front his thoughts on England's recent form

A lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon that England have started poorly in their World Cup
qualifying campaign. I think its been alright. Not, in my opinion, anywhere near as bad as the British
media have been making out, but at the same time it’s hardly been an explosive start. The win at
Moldova was an early peak. It promised too much. Raised the expectation of fans, which was
already through the roof, to heights England could never have reached. An early goal set England
up for a demolition that was put into perspective by Ukraine’s 1-1 draw there a couple of weeks
back. This coupled with the friendly win over Italy set England up for the fall. Inconsistency has
been our Achilles heel for a while now, and it came back to haunt us at Wembley with Ukraine the
visitors. Ukraine aren’t a bad side, but especially at home England should be chewing up sides like
them and spitting them out. Instead we witnessed a very average performance and England were
eventually held to a 1-1 draw at home by a side ranked 42nd in the world. Whilst I don’t particularly
agree with many of the rankings (Portugal are currently ranked 3rd) I do feel that it is close to being
representative of the gap in quality between England and Ukraine. It was three points we should’ve
taken but didn’t, yet that point could be vital when it comes to the final reckoning.

Next up were San Marino. Lets be honest, they’re a bit of a joke. I’m genuinely surprised the
players can motivate themselves to go out and play a game of football when they haven’t scored an
international goal since 2008. Since then they’ve lost 10-0 (Poland) 7-0 (Slovakia and Czech Republic)
8-0 (Hungary and Finland) and the standout thrashing, 11-0 (Holland). Had England not beaten
San Marino it would have been an embarrassment of the biggest proportions imaginable but they
still had to go out and get a result, which they did. But then came worst performance of England’s
qualifying so far: a 1-1 draw away to Poland. However, let’s not get it confused, it was a poor almost
chanceless display from Hodgson’s men. But we must take heart from the fact that England got
a point when they didn’t really deserve one. A win for Poland would not have flattered them, yet
England ended up with a point towards their total.

We’re actually a lot better at getting results than we like to think, regardless of the performance.
We’ve won nine out of our last 13 matches, but every post match report seems to be filled with
pessimism. Do journalists not realise what is going on? Its a vicious circle, as Gary Neville eluded to
not so long ago: England players are lacking confidence because they’re scared of how they’ll look
in the public eye if they make a mistake. Players without confidence struggle to play well, its not
rocket science. Yet they are then continually slaughtered in newspapers after average matches. But
then everyone loves to brand England as ‘boring’ and ‘disappointing’, for some reason its infectious.
Everyone puts on a tone of mock surprise when England bring out a top performance. We love to
set the bar a bit higher than England are likely to be able to reach. It’s not that the media don’t want
England to do well, journalists just seem to encourage negative opinions of them too often, and
we wallow in it. Almost enjoy it. It’s almost as if so many journalists have taken the same approach
when writing on England that for the next it’s just easiest to take the same. Our attitude to England
is to always look for and exaggerate the negatives, something that’s only going to put more pressure
on players to succeed, its counterproductive. Players begin to feel like if they’re not on an eight out
of ten they’re going to be slaughtered in the press. This is proven every two years at international
competition; where England never seem to quite reach the expectation of fans. We’ve been there or
there abouts for at least ten years (Euro 2008 aside), but whenever it comes down to the business
end of the competition we fall and end up not seriously competing for the trophy.

This isn’t to say I think people shouldn’t discuss England’s performance if it is genuinely poor, I’m not
saying that they should be invincible from any criticism. But it seems that fans perception of what
constitutes a poor performance is altered once the international break comes around. If Manchester
United play a match against a team like Stoke, play poorly yet still manage to claim a point then they
are heralded champions because of their ability to produce points from unlikely situations. Yet when
you put England in the same position, the same fans have a completely different opinion.

The reality is England are top of their group, which is where they should be, and that’s where they
should finish. They have too much quality in their ranks to not finish there. But at the moment
they’re where they always are, apparently doing just a bit less than what is expected of them.

This article was written by Lizo Johnson. You can follow on Twitter: @LizoJohnson

England's new 4-3-3 system, the platform for English success? Part One - The positives

The last two games have seen England being far more dynamic and more exciting to watch. Perhaps this was something the team lacked in South Africa. But there are potential reasons for England fans to get excited. However, they must take everything with a pinch of salt. The new system is only two games old and there clearly isn’t the cohesion and understanding like the world champions Spain. The new system has given everyone some food for thought.

I am going to post a three part series which takes a little tour on the positives and the negatives of England’s new system. And I will show who I think England should field in their new 4-3-3 system.

Part One - The Positives

The high pressing system England used against Ghana and Wales was impressive. It made England dictate the tempo and become far more assertive on the game. In the Wales game Jack Wilshere and Frank Lampard, the two central midfielders, were far more progressive. This therefore resulted in England penning Wales back into their own half. As the two central midfielders were looking to find space to thread balls through and get into offensive positions.

The progressive nature of Wilshere and Lampard was partly due to the great holding midfield performance of Scott Parker. Parker used the ball well and won a number of crucial challenges to stop Wales’ attacks at the root. In the Ghana game it was the same with Gareth Barry. Barry, protected the defensive line effectively and played simple but important passes. Both players stretched the play as well. This enabled England to attack via the flanks. The two games showed how crucial the holding midfield role is for England. Arguably, in the World Cup when Gareth Barry was overrun by Germany’s Thomas Muller, it meant England could not be as offensive as a team. As Barry needed support to contain Muller and co. But that’s not to say the result was Gareth Barry’s fault. No way, it’s simply a resulting factor which occurs if the other team sets the tempo and imposes themselves on the game, which Germany did fantastically.

It was clear that Wales weren’t expecting England to play with a high pressing system. The Welsh played two holding midfielders, perhaps they did this to stop Lampard, Wilshere and Ronney from supporting Bent. But another reason to play two holding midfielders was that it would give Wales a better chance of keeping the ball and trying to control the tempo. However, the two holding Welsh players gave England more confidence in their pressing game. As Wales’s defensive midfield duo, Andrew Crofts and Joe Ledley were so deep in their own half. This meant Wilshere and Lampard could close the pair down in offensive positions. This resulted in Wales playing even more deeper and England being far more imposing the Welsh half.

The 4-3-3 system allows England to be far more dynamic. The team can mix their strategy styles effectively whilst using the formation. A criticism before and during the World Cup was that England were far too rigid. This meant there was little creativity and the team was too predictable. However, what surprised me in the last two England games was how quickly England could change from playing the ball through the middle and playing with width. The team showed they could easily variate between the two. Against Ghana, especially in the first half, England kept the ball nicely in the middle. But one quick pass out wide and then England were asking serious questions of Ghana. The dynamic strategy used by England shows for the first time in a long time, that England are trying to utilise their pace. For me, England aren’t the most technically gifted team in the world. They can’t pass the ball as fluently as some other international teams. But England have a variety of different players who are fast and can instantly put the opposition on the back foot because of their sheer pace.

This adds another weapon to England’s armour. If England want to predominantly through the middle which they did against Wales. It allows England to have the option to quickly pass the ball out wide to a galloping Glen Johnson or Ashley Cole. Or of course, the wingers. This instantly would give England another offensive strategy to stretch the play. And because of England’s fantastic pace on the wings it makes England far more threatening and dangerous, to cut open the defence.

In both the Ghana and Wales game it was clear England wanted the ball to go through the midfield. This was evident as both holding midfielders, Barry and Parker (in the two separate games) had a lot of the ball. Furthermore, Lampard and Wilshere against Wales were continoulsy on the ball, passing and probing. This meant that England were more progressive on the ball. As it lead to England being able to impose a highline and push Glen Johnson and Ashley Cole higher up the pitch. Furthermore, the fact England were in control of poession it resulted in England passing the ball around warreing Wales down.

However, England’s system used a mixture of passing. Against Wales, England played predominantly short passes, but the team were willing to go long if the option was open. When Wales pushed their defensive line higher and tried to venture in the England half, the likes of Rooney, Wilshere and Lampard attempted long balls to get Bent quickly behind the Welsh line. In fact, the second England goal was a result of a brilliant mixture of passing. Glen Johnson’s great ball over the top to Ashley Young, resulted in an simple tap in for Darren Bent.

In the Ghana game, England started Andy Carroll as the central striker. To England’s praise they didn’t continuously play the ball long to Carroll’s head. This was rather refereshing. As it made England more unpredictable. The team looked to play the ball through the midfield and have Carroll hold the ball up, while the team progresses forward. But when England did play it long, they did it at crucial times. They did it when England had men in and around Carroll thus meaning he could effectively flick the ball to his team mates.

The new system England have adopted has the potential to make England a nightmare to mark and track. The fact England could interchange the striker roles and the midfield roles meant that England have the element of surprise in their game. Upfront England could have every now and then swapped Rooney for Bent in the central striking role, with Bent coming out wide. Or even swapped Young for Rooney, resulting in the two players switching flanks. This has the impact to cause confusion amongst the opposition defence. It also has the consequence to make England more effective in cutting in from the wings as there potentially could be more space for exposure.

Part Two will be released on Wednesday 13th April.