Dr. Pepper
Chairman of Selectors
In the end the 2-1 scoreline hardly gave justice to the gulf between the two sides. England showed 20 minutes of feasable football, following 70 minutes of being simply awful. The French on the other hand glossed their performance with fancy short passing and wonderfully fluid movement by their attacking quadrant.
England sit uncharacteristically deep
Fabio Capello is very much known to engrave the idea of pressing into his teams. They press high up the pitch and force the opposition into long balls which can be picked up. In a 4-2-3-1, pressing is absolutely crucial. Barring a few exceptions (Inter's semi final versus Barcelona comes to mind), you must press in a 4-2-3-1; lateral "banks" should never be used. What this does, is negate the potential dominance in key areas and lose the zones in which teams are most prominent.
Despite all this, England sat very deep and effectively became a 4-5-1 in the defensive phase, sitting very deep and allowing pressure. This system is not necessarily wrong; it can work to great effect; England have some very quick attackers who could be brilliant on a counter attack. The problem is, you need to be disciplined postionally and this is where the French tore England apart. Players like Phil Jagielka and Jordan Henderson were made to look awful when they were easily pulled out of position by the movement of the likes of Benzema and Malouda.
In many ways, this system played exactly into the hands of France. They sat very deep and allowed plenty of French bodies to get forward, but were very postionally indisciplined and the fluid movement of France made them look woeful.
France lack focal point in attack?
Laurent Blanc's side played some very aesthetically pleasing football; the movement was excellent - especially from Benzema and Malouda; the passing was short and crisp and there was generally a better "feel" to this side in comparison with that of the Domenech regime.
The attacking quadrant of Benzema-Malouda-Valbuena-Nasri showed brilliant understanding. Gourcuff played a much more reserved game, mainly as a link player. This was probably due to his dip in form this season. Promising youngster, Yann M'Vila played in the "holding" role but at times looked out of his depth. Perhaps this was because of the generally attacking nature of all the other players around him.
Despite possessing all these incredibly talented attackers, France often lacked a focal point in attack. Benzema's natural game is to drop deep and go into wide areas creating space for others; Malouda goes central and becames another playmaker; as do Nasri and Gourcuff; and Valbuena is more of a classic attacking midfielder. France often got into great attacking areas but there was nobody to aim for in the box. This is where either Loic Remy or Guillaume Hoarau come in. When Remy came on for France against Romania, they looked so much more threatening as they had a more natural forward to aim for in the box and gave them an extra dimension in their attacks.
Predictability in England's attacks
England were completely one dimensional in their attacks. Long balls were played from their own third to the target man - Andy Carrol and despite his best efforts, England were woeful. There was no patience with the ball and every player looked out of his depth when they were pressed. There were no links between defence and midfield and attack. This was one of the consequences of sitting so deep, and Carrol was left isolated up front.
England press in second half, but press poorly
The second half showed some spark from England but still very little. The most notable difference was that they stopped sitting so deep and pressed the French. The pressing however, was very poor.
Pressing only works effectively if it's done by the whole team. Everybody needs to press and box off all possible options for the man on the ball, and force them into ineffectual areas. What England did was only press the man on the ball and the players around weren't pressed at all. What this meant was that massive gaps were left which the French exploited with simple movement.
Conclusion
As the second half progressed, England improved slightly, but they really couldn't have got worse. The higher pressing meant there was less of a gap between the midfield and attack leading to better passing into better areas. France had played a pressing game so in the last 20 minutes, tiredness would've kicked in which would've led to England having an opportunity to gain a foothold in the game.
France showed hugely promising signs for the Blanc reign. The movement and understanding was excellent, and the side showed great gelling - which has been lacking for quite some time. The potential problem of lacking a focal point is not necessarily that big. With the likes of Remy and Hoaraou they have different options to turn to if needed.
England, on the other hand, gave a very "typical" performance. They lacked variation in attack and looked very poor when they were pressed. Their performance in the last 20 minutes showed some potential though. A high pressing team using a loose 4-2-3-1 is probably the way forward, but it's a long road ahead for them.
Article by Mani
If you read it all, thanks for taking the time to do so. This is my first proper article and I was more interested in the actual information rather than the fancyness of the article. I used FM for the diagrams and edited them on paint. Any comments would be appreciated.
England sit uncharacteristically deep
Fabio Capello is very much known to engrave the idea of pressing into his teams. They press high up the pitch and force the opposition into long balls which can be picked up. In a 4-2-3-1, pressing is absolutely crucial. Barring a few exceptions (Inter's semi final versus Barcelona comes to mind), you must press in a 4-2-3-1; lateral "banks" should never be used. What this does, is negate the potential dominance in key areas and lose the zones in which teams are most prominent.
Despite all this, England sat very deep and effectively became a 4-5-1 in the defensive phase, sitting very deep and allowing pressure. This system is not necessarily wrong; it can work to great effect; England have some very quick attackers who could be brilliant on a counter attack. The problem is, you need to be disciplined postionally and this is where the French tore England apart. Players like Phil Jagielka and Jordan Henderson were made to look awful when they were easily pulled out of position by the movement of the likes of Benzema and Malouda.
In many ways, this system played exactly into the hands of France. They sat very deep and allowed plenty of French bodies to get forward, but were very postionally indisciplined and the fluid movement of France made them look woeful.
France lack focal point in attack?
Laurent Blanc's side played some very aesthetically pleasing football; the movement was excellent - especially from Benzema and Malouda; the passing was short and crisp and there was generally a better "feel" to this side in comparison with that of the Domenech regime.
The attacking quadrant of Benzema-Malouda-Valbuena-Nasri showed brilliant understanding. Gourcuff played a much more reserved game, mainly as a link player. This was probably due to his dip in form this season. Promising youngster, Yann M'Vila played in the "holding" role but at times looked out of his depth. Perhaps this was because of the generally attacking nature of all the other players around him.
Despite possessing all these incredibly talented attackers, France often lacked a focal point in attack. Benzema's natural game is to drop deep and go into wide areas creating space for others; Malouda goes central and becames another playmaker; as do Nasri and Gourcuff; and Valbuena is more of a classic attacking midfielder. France often got into great attacking areas but there was nobody to aim for in the box. This is where either Loic Remy or Guillaume Hoarau come in. When Remy came on for France against Romania, they looked so much more threatening as they had a more natural forward to aim for in the box and gave them an extra dimension in their attacks.
Predictability in England's attacks
England were completely one dimensional in their attacks. Long balls were played from their own third to the target man - Andy Carrol and despite his best efforts, England were woeful. There was no patience with the ball and every player looked out of his depth when they were pressed. There were no links between defence and midfield and attack. This was one of the consequences of sitting so deep, and Carrol was left isolated up front.
England press in second half, but press poorly
The second half showed some spark from England but still very little. The most notable difference was that they stopped sitting so deep and pressed the French. The pressing however, was very poor.
Pressing only works effectively if it's done by the whole team. Everybody needs to press and box off all possible options for the man on the ball, and force them into ineffectual areas. What England did was only press the man on the ball and the players around weren't pressed at all. What this meant was that massive gaps were left which the French exploited with simple movement.
Conclusion
As the second half progressed, England improved slightly, but they really couldn't have got worse. The higher pressing meant there was less of a gap between the midfield and attack leading to better passing into better areas. France had played a pressing game so in the last 20 minutes, tiredness would've kicked in which would've led to England having an opportunity to gain a foothold in the game.
France showed hugely promising signs for the Blanc reign. The movement and understanding was excellent, and the side showed great gelling - which has been lacking for quite some time. The potential problem of lacking a focal point is not necessarily that big. With the likes of Remy and Hoaraou they have different options to turn to if needed.
England, on the other hand, gave a very "typical" performance. They lacked variation in attack and looked very poor when they were pressed. Their performance in the last 20 minutes showed some potential though. A high pressing team using a loose 4-2-3-1 is probably the way forward, but it's a long road ahead for them.
Article by Mani
If you read it all, thanks for taking the time to do so. This is my first proper article and I was more interested in the actual information rather than the fancyness of the article. I used FM for the diagrams and edited them on paint. Any comments would be appreciated.
As for Scholes, he's going to pack in club football any season now (I hope I'm wrong), let alone coming back for England.
