World Football Thread XII

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=SpencerH]
Kudos to France and Zidane. I was hoping that that team would turn up to beat the pants off of Brazil and, as we now know, they did.[/q]

It seems France has Brazil's number. Brazil wasn't playing that well, but it did seem they were getting better. France just knows how to play Brazil it seems. They know how to shut them down defensively. Great performance tactically and in execution.

[Thedrin]

France's turn around seems to have been Zidane's turn around. The team is built to play around him yet he just wasn't performing in the first two games. They put in a good game against Togo without Zidane and there was a very real possibility that he wouldn't be picked for the next game. I put France's excellent performances in the knock out stages down to Zidane realising that he need to get his ass in gear.

Incidentally, the point that France are built to play around Zidane is important regarding those who say Henry doesn't play as well as he should for France. Henry puts in great displays for Arsenal because Wenger has designed the club team to play around Thierry - the team plays to Henry's strengths. The French team is designed to play to Zidane's strengths so Henry will never be seen to play as consistently or as well for France as he does for Arsenal (unless Wenger becomes the next manager of France).

Beckham:

1) Ever since he left for Real Madrid, it's like he is public enemy #1

At no time since the grief over his '98 red card (which was very short lived) have I ever heard of Beckham recieving negative press from the English media based on his footballing ability.

2) The times Lennon was on the pitch the only goal came from, you guessed it, a Beckham cross.

Lennon's strength is not in his crossing (which really needs improving) but in his pace and dribbling. After he came on against T&T he pulled their defence one way and another creating space for other players. Beckham's cross to Crouch was not technically difficult. It was a straight, uncurled, chip to an empty part of the box. Fair play to him for putting it in but it's hardly evidence of his magnificence.

3) The only reason the midfield functioned at all as an attacking unit is because Beckham was putting in nice crosses.

The vast majority of Beckham's crosses come from corners and free kicks. With the exception of T&T who let England come at them, he very rarely put in any crosses over all of the rest of their games. I cannot think of a single cross from open play (excluding T&T again) that met an English player in the box.

4) Lampard was a disgrace and Gerrard did play decently, though it was HIM who was doing the defensive work, NOT Lampard. Gerrard was the one who was told to stay back to cover for Lampard's offensive runs, not the other way around (unfortunately for England).

Lampard was awful yesterday, as I've agreed. Gerard was arguably England's best player yesterday. Certainly, almost as good as Hargreaves. Gerard came in to the tournament unfit and it took him a while to find himself. In part this is because he was initially being asked to play out of position. The introduction of Carrick and Harhgreaves as holding midfielders gave him more potence in the last three games.

Gerard did make on exceptional first half tackle on the right hand side yesterday, however for the most part it was Lampard who was tracking back on the right yesterday. Gerard has done more tracking back since the original English (for want of a better word) plan was to have him doing the tracking back. However, yesterday Lampard did plenty as well - far more than he had done in previous games - and while he was offensively bad he did his defensive duties well.

5)Without Beckham, the team would have struggled to get out of group stages, even with Lennon's speed on the outside.

If you look purely at the statistics that is an obvious assertion. My point is that England would have a better functioning midfield without Beckham which would in turn create more goal scoring opportunities.

Aside from the statistics that Beckham has accrued over the tournament he has done very little and has much to back up the following;
He is a bad tackler.
Is very slow (wasn't always the case).
Doesn't operate well under pressure from the opposition (important for someone who has a reputation for being a good crosser).
Has no vision (important again).
Doesn't look to move into good positions (this could make up for being slow).

Consequently, he is virtually useless as anything other than a dead ball specialist. If, like in what my understanding of American Football tells me, you could bring on players just for set pieces, he would be a vital part of the English team. As it is his deficiencies are too great for him to play just so you can get his set pieces.

6)I know there is this irrational hatred of Beckham in England

This perplexes me. I have never heard of it. I would of said it was almost the opposite.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Thedrin]My point is that England would have a better functioning midfield without Beckham which would in turn create more goal scoring opportunities.[/q]

I just don't see it. You have Lennon who likes to run, but really, when he was on the pitch at the WC, did he particularly do anything except make a good run once or twice? He would have brought more pace, but I don't see the goal scoring oppertunities coming.

As for him pulling T&T's defenders one way, it was more like T&T's players were exhausted and thus couldn't defend as they had earlier in the match.

He is a bad tackler.
Is very slow (wasn't always the case).
Doesn't operate well under pressure from the opposition (important for someone who has a reputation for being a good crosser).
Has no vision (important again).
Doesn't look to move into good positions (this could make up for being slow).

Consequently, he is virtually useless as anything other than a dead ball specialist. If, like in what my understanding of American Football tells me, you could bring on players just for set pieces, he would be a vital part of the English team. As it is his deficiencies are too great for him to play just so you can get his set pieces.

That dead ball speciality and crossing ability was what resulted in 4 out of 6 England goals. I don't think, there is a chance in Hell that Lennon creates 4 goals. Hell, I think there is a question if he can even produce 2 goals.

Beckham does have his failings, but there was a reason why he led La Liga in assists this past season and was considered to be, arguably, the best midfielder in Madrid. And I don't think it is because La Liga is crap.

This perplexes me. I have never heard of it. I would of said it was almost the opposite.

Not at all, Beckham gets the blame for everything under the sun. His detractors are rabid. He is perhaps the most loathed man in English football, yes, even beating Sven Goran Eriksson.

[Thedrin]

I'm not claiming that Lennon should be a starter. I would claim that the English team looked far more dangerous when Lennon was playing on the right instead of Beckham and were creating and missing more chances, but Gerard would have been my first choice to replace him.

The T&T defence didn't look all that tired. They had being playing a narrow defence throughout the game (easier to defend against). Bringing on Lennon (and I think Downing as well) forced the T&T defenders to play wider creating more gaps in the center.

Producing goals is about having a good finisher on the end of a chance. Ranking Beckham and Lennon on this is deceptive. You should be ranking them on the number of good chances they created.

Prior to this World Cup, far and away the most loathed man in the England set up was Owen Hargreaves. Beckham may get negative press for his private life. As I said, I can't think of any negative reaction he gets for his footballing ability and he has been very popular with the English fans for a long time (though not the most popular). The negative press for Ericsson before this World Cup was limited.

Edit: Put the press reaction in a more significant way - I've never heard calls for Beckham to be dropped made by the English media prior to this World Cup.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd rather see Beckham take over for Lampard in the 3 man central midfield (well, with Hargreaves or Carrick dropping back to a DM spot), and have Lennon on the right. Gerrard is more dangerous on the left (where Joe Cole resides) and I'm not sure I'd put him on the right.

And T&T was utterly drained! Didn't look all that tired? Did you watch the same game as I did? By the 70th minute they were gone.

And fans have been calling for Beckham's ouster since 98 if not before then. Lennon was the first guy who was called on to replace Beckham after all. Until he went to Chelsea there was a sizable portion of the fanbase who wanted Shawn Wright-Phillips as England's right wing in place of Beckham. People calling for Beckham to be benched has been around for quite a while, not just recently. Becks has been popular with some English fans, but loathed by far, far more.

[Winston]

I thought England were out now, along with 27 other teams.

[Thedrin]

It's a football thread - not a World Cup thread, I thought.

I believe people wanted Shaun Wright Philips to play on the left hand side since its been a problem area for years. Joe Cole only recently made the spot his own and that's more because there aren't any better alternatives (assuming Gerard stays in the center).

I do not believe that Beckham has the ability to play in the center. I've listed his footballing inadequacies above which should explain why I think that.

Lampard suffered from a lack of confidence - he scored plenty at the last tournament. Without any convincing alternatives (assuming you want Gerard on the wing) the best bet would have been to keep him in midfield and hope his luck would change.

Incidentally, what's this 3 man central midfield tactic of yours. If you're playing with only one striker - congratulations; you, like Ericsson, would be wasting the talents of Rooney.

No point arguing the T&T game. I saw an extremely fit team which only seemed to give in after the first goal went in and they realised they wouldn't get an equaliser - hence the ease of England's second. I dind't see tiredness, I only saw resignation. Before Crouch scored they continued to chase down every England attack. It was a few weeks ago so I doubt I'll convince you of that.

And fans have been calling for Beckham's ouster since 98 if not before then.

This is nonsense.

Edit: Expanding on the nonsense claim. Beckham was a hero after the 5-1 victory over Germany in 2001. The following week Liverpool, which comprised much of the England team suffered a bad defeat to Aston Villa (I followed Villa back then and quite enjoyed lording it over the prominent Liverpool supporters in my area). The quote that appeared from one Villa fan in the paper the next day: "That Liverpool side is no good without David Beckham".

While the English fans went through the usual 'we'll win the World Cup' in the lead up to the 2002 tournament expectations took a massive blow when it was believed that Beckham wouldn't be able to take part - media coverage of his metatarsle was at a similar level to the coverage given to Rooney's this year.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe people wanted Shaun Wright Philips to play on the left hand side since its been a problem area for years. Joe Cole only recently made the spot his own and that's more because there aren't any better alternatives (assuming Gerard stays in the center).

I fear you are making up your own history. SWP was tagged as a replacement for Beckham... not the left side. If anyone, Stewart Downing was talked about as the left wing of the present & future for England.

I do not believe that Beckham has the ability to play in the center. I've listed his footballing inadequacies above which should explain why I think that.

You don't think he can play wing or center. It's a good thing he doesn't play either for one of the biggest teams in Europe... oh wait! He does! And does it well.

Incidentally, what's this 3 man central midfield tactic of yours.

When Owen is hurt in Game 3 and Rooney is coming back and not fully fit, Crouch is your only fully healthy striker, and Walcott is your other option, of course you have to play with 5 MF.

No point arguing the T&T game. I saw an extremely fit team which only seemed to give in after the first goal went in and they realised they wouldn't get an equaliser - hence the ease of England's second.

You're nuts. T&T was gone physically not mentally. To claim they were so demoralized from the first goal that they basically gave up and that's why the 2nd went in is utter ridiculous.

The quote that appeared from one Villa fan in the paper the next day: "That Liverpool side is no good without David Beckham".

Wow... one quote from a Villa fan in the paper

I guess in response, I'll point your to Bigsoccer.com, where a good half of the English were agitating for Beckham's removal for years.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I thought you were a dirty irish thedrin, but you turned out alright


this world cup has been kinda **** - underperforming teams, too many yellows and reds, not enough goals, no one taking risks, too many defensive formations.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

you think beckham handed in his captaincy because he didnt wanna be stripped of it by the next coach? go out on his own terms. "you can't fire me, I quit!"

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia

Yeah, a 4-5-1. You aren't silly enough to believe that a 4-2-3-1 is a totally different formation, are you?

Just because England doesn't play a smart 4-5-1 (Beckham should have taken over for Lampard) doesn't mean France doesn't as well.

yeah its totally different. with two holding midfielders, your attacking middles can take more risk

england doesnt have the players/type of players to play a 4-5-1. which is why sven is an idiot. and thats why england plays a 4-5-1 poorly. beckham shouldnt even be on the field.

france also plays 4-2-3-1 poorly, but zidane seems to have rolled back the clock to 98 for at least the a few matchs.

Can't you just call it a defensive-minded 4-2-4? 3 attacking midfielders, basically playing as defensive forwards...

[Frozzy]

I guess in response, I'll point your to Bigsoccer.com, where a good half of the English were agitating for Beckham's removal for years.

In response, I'll point you to my years in England where I heard nothing but bad things after 98, hero status after 2000, despair after he left for Madrid and only recently disillusionment.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You don't think he can play wing or center. It's a good thing he doesn't play either for one of the biggest teams in Europe... oh wait! He does! And does it well.

And what exactly have Real Madrid won in the last 3-4 years?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
england doesnt have the players/type of players to play a 4-5-1.

You could play Becks as a holding midfield, that plus Carrick, Hargraves and Lampard could also be holding midfields. Then you can have Joe Cole on the left, Lennon on the right, and Gerrad floating. You could also play Rooney as a fall back forward. That's more like 4-4-1-1, though.

Sven is an idiot, no doubt about it. I had no idea why he would take out Joe Cole for Crouch when they desperately needed attacking power. Could have taken out Lampard instead.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

you need lampard to take penalties tho. he was englands best until recently.