A Promise of Something New

Defeat should not take away from the fact England showed a positive vision for their future

The reaction to the opening defeat has been mixed, although disappointment is rife there is a certain sense of optimism with many fans based on this performance. Italy was to be the hardest test of the group, Uruguay looked poor (although Suarez will no doubt play against England) and one wonders if Costa Rica can conjour that type of performance again against Italy and England. Ultimately qualification from the group is still more than possible. Yet it is not qualifying which is the key but the manner of the performance. Evidently Hodgson has sought to unleash his vision this tournament, a vision which may not bring (relative) success this time yet one which may produce something special in the years to come.

Energy and attacking emphasis has been the norm so far this tournament. It has been exciting, entertaining and positive and Roy Hodgson embraced it with his selection and strategy against Italy. It was brave and ambitious by England's manager who sought to put Italy on the back foot early on with a high tempo attacking game seeking to run at Italy's defence as much as possible. Chances were created yet the strategy backfired as England failed to score. 

Stand out performances from Raheem Sterling and Danny Welbeck whose movement between lines vertically and horizontally caused Italy many problems was as refreshing as it was effective. Italy looked rocked by the speed and movement they had to deal with. Sterling and Henderson put two impressive shots towards Sirigu's goal. Welbeck did some great work to (almost) set up Sturridge for a tap in, only for Barzagli to slide and block the cross, which fortunately for Italy missed the goal. 

For 30 minutes it was high energy, fluid attacking football. And yet after 35 mins England found themselves 1-0 down with a lapse from a short corner worked to Marchisio who had enough time to rifle a shot through a wall of players and find a perfectly arrowed finish. 1-0. Undeserved by Italy really, yet now England were chasing the game. This was what no-one wanted. Yet their reaction was very impressive and extremely necessary. The longer they would chase the more likely Italy would find counter attacks more possible. 

So a mere two minutes after conceding a delightful through from Sterling to Rooney (who made a run behind the defence instead of moving deeper to collect to retain as he had been doing) opened space for a cross and Rooney delivered a great left footed ball to Sturridge at the back post to equalise. It was a great move and deserved for England's first half performance. 

Half time - A time to reflect and strategise

At half time you expected something new or different, a new strategy, a substitution, something which could cause Italy new problems, however it didn’t happen. As the game went on England looked more sluggish, disjointed and more desperate. Prandelli have clearly informed his side to exploit Baines as he was vulnerable to being overloaded time and time again. It was too easy for Italy and after Balotelli scored five minutes into the second half England never really looked like getting back into the game.

Italy’s defence became stronger, more organised and more confident while England’s attack became weaker, in-disciplined and ultimately more desperate. Hopeful crosses rather than precise passes were thrown into the box. Unfortunately England showed their frailties when given possession and posed the question to unlock a defensive block. So what was the problem?

Firstly, Hodgson’s decision to go at Italy with energy early on was admirable yet ultimately flawed. The objective appeared to startle Italy with speed early, grab a goal or two and then for the rest of the game drop off, draw Italy in and seek to counter into the space. A fine plan, yet you must score. Not playing Lambert I felt was a mistake, he is the best goalmouth finisher in the side. Rooney was too deep too often and Strurridge's space centrally which he vacated often, was never really exploited by another. After conceding England ultimately had to play catch up, a dangerous game in the fatiguing heat. 

Holland had conceded the first goal also yet they had provided a blueprint for how to use high energy football in these conditions; soak up pressure in the first half, seek to be ‘in the game’ for the 2^nd half and then press aggressively in midfield to create multiple counter attacking opportunities for your quick forwards. I feel that England went out the traps too early which cost them later on, had their strategy been to go at Italy later on I believe it would have worked more effectively. 

England tired as the game went on yet I thought they showed a real lack of tactical ingenuity in their approach. Although I enjoyed watching Sterling, Welbeck and Sturridge and even Henderson, who all had positive performances, I felt that the strategy became predictable and England showed their tactical limitations. Most obviously with their inability to switch play effectively. 

The amount of times England attacking down a congested right wing while seemingly neglecting a switch to the left was baffling. The idea of switching play is to create and exploit space, to move the opposition and to create 1v1’s and overloads, yet this didn’t happen with the speed and quality necessary. If you take Leighton Baines to the World Cup you are taking a very good attacking wing back, so why not use him? Why not move the Italian defence with quick switches to help get behind the defence? It just started to look more predictable as the game went on.

Italy however were more controlled in their tempo and approach, playing with a sense of confidence in their ability to win the game. Pirlo was magnificent once again, playing with an almost nonchalance of ease. Hodgson said he didn’t have a plan for him and it showed, allowing Italy to control the game for large parts. 

Did the subs help or change the game? The first sub was Barkley for Welbeck who had played extremely well yet now it was an admission that he was exhausted and not the right man to help break down a compact defence. Yes Barkley offers that poise in possession needed when breaking down a block yet one feels that England struggle most when they have the ball. Italy knew this. We are built for counter attack football. 

Jack Wilshere and Adam Lallana contributed little when they came on, failing to provide the killer pass to unlock a strong defence. Italy soaked up the pressure yet as mentioned as the game went on England became more predictable, trying to play through Italy instead of looking to play around them. 

The substitution which puzzled me was not bringing on Ricky Lambert, especially when Sturridge went off. If you feel getting it wide and crossing it is a good plan then why not have your best forward on the pitch who is capable of this? Wilshere and Lallana were not going to offer the threat which would have brought a goal. 

Ultimately Hodgson failed when it came to his in-game management of subs and strategy, the qualities which a top coach excels at. Prandelli on the other hand got it nearly perfect in terms of the tempo of the side, the midfield overload and the constant strategy to expose England’s left side, which is where England’s defensive problems came.

Tactical concerns 

After watching England in the friendlies against Peru, Ecuador and Honduras one could see what Hodgson was seeking to achieve. He wanted to play a more attacking game, using speed and quick combinations to unlock the opposition. It was far removed from the strategy of 2012, this was his vision for England. Yet in watching the games you could see the issue, the team looked vulnerable defensively. 

Hodgson had effectively thrown out the defensive foundation on which he built England’s progression in 2012 and replaced it with a young, attacking brand of football. Why Hodgson had not sought to evolve the side in order to develop a more counter-pressing strategy which embedded the defensive principles he had proven capable of implementing previously I am not sure. England had proved resolute yet rigid in 2012 yet adding these quick transitional players in to make the side a complete counter attacking side. Our players are built for this type of style.

Unfortunately England have an average defensive partnership in Cahill and Jagielka and a wingers at full back whose 1v1 defending and positioning is mediocre at best. Therefore they need more defensive cover and support from their midfield, something which is distinctly lacking. And it was the lax defending which cost England, notably the space allowed for Italy and to expose Leighton Baines in 2v1 situations on multiple occasions. You ended up feeling sorry for the Everton player because he was offered so little protection. And this is where the formation must be assessed. 

In the space of 24 months we have seen the dominance of 4-2-3-1 and the decline of the formation. It has been such a rapid fall in its effectiveness. Football is moving so quickly now that seeking to replicate a formation which succeeded a year before is not conducive for now. 

The return of three at the back formations has been evident in these opening games, with Mexico and Holland showing the benefits of this formation, notably in the freedom afforded to the wing backs. Prandelli’s move to a back three when leading 2-1- showed his tactical flexibility and made it very hard for England to break down. And as well the clear move back to a front two. Gio Dos Santos and Peralta caused significant issues yet it was Van Persie and Robben who really showed what a dynamic partnership can produce. 

These sides and coaches have offered new problems to sides who in some cases have stuck to the rigid formations of recent years. The game has changed. And most notably tactical variations in-game has risen. In this World Cup strategies for each half or even 30 mins strategic ‘block’s’ will be key. Whether it is formational shifts, tempo changes or attacking waves these strategies and use of substitutions will be the key. Coaches and players therefore need to be tactically smarter and adaptable.

Hodgson has seemingly put his faith in a formation which doesn’t work like it did. And he has put players in to these roles which don’t offer what is required. Let’s take Rooney. He is not a left sided forward in a 4-2-3-1 who is capable of tracking, sliding and being in a compact defence. He will ‘do it’ but he won’t execute it. He is better playing up front making movements like he did for the goal. So it's better if he stays up front? Okay, so if you tell Rooney not to track then you are putting demands of your two holding players to cover for him and help the full back. Henderson had the legs to do this role and help Baines. But he didn’t. England were exposed too easily and never found a solution. It was naïve from the players and Hodgson.

Would England moving to a strike partnership and a 4-4-2 diamond help them defensively while bringing out the best in their forwards? Or is the best solution to take Rooney out of the side and replace him with James Milner to offer Baines more support? In order to succeed we need to be better defensively and Hodgson needs to find the solution. 

Our attacking options however are pleasing, Sterling looks to be a real talent with confidence and skill to rival any young player in world football. It is a shame that Chamberlain got injured because I feel he would prove his quality on this stage also. There are positives and it was a pleasing performance because England played with a freedom and confidence which we haven’t seen for a long time. It was fluid, brave and positive. 

The signs for the future are very positive. The public wanted youth, wanted a better style, well they have got it. Will it be enough to progress from the group? Possibly. The foundations of a new generation have been laid in this squad and the hope is it will be nurtured further in the coming years. 

However the game is getting smarter and if we wish to truly compete with the top nations we need to put our talented individuals into intelligent tactical systems which are strategic and which help the side both in and out of possession. This blog likes Roy Hodgson’s character and his trust and belief in youth and a new generation, yet it does question his ability to help England seriously compete. Although it was a defeat it was a positive and promising start, yet a long way to go in England’s quest for success.

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address