da fazobetai： The 4-4-2 formation is to England what bread is to the French: engrained in national culture, inseparable from national identity and bringing with it a righteous sense of ownership. It’s ours. Euro 2012 has seen the effective, if unspectacular return of two wingers, two frontmen and two little terriers tearing about the middle of the park for England.
da marjack bet： Much like chinos or flannel shirts, England continue to believe that something once fashionable still holds some form of relevance as all others evolve around them. Unlike chinos or flannel shirts, it still works.
Lapses in concentration aside, England have been predominantly astute in stifling some of Europe’s most potent attacking threats. Benzema, Ribery, Ibrahimovic and, ahem, Shevchenko, all kept at bay. The classic two banks of four, defending as a unit and breaking quickly method championed on a thousand Sunday league pitches each week is paying dividends for the national side so far. Sterner prospects await, however. Is it possible for England to garner success with such a system?
On the basis of the tournament’s progress so far, certainly so. Despite a developing trend at the beginning of the tournament revolving around the absence of a true frontman, more traditional systems have prevailed with the realisation that football is best played in it’s simple form. The re-introduction of Fernando Torres to the Spain line-up was reinvigorating after a mediocre opening against the Italians. Holland have suffered inexplicably as Robin Van Persie lacks the accompanying guile and industry to compliment his technical ability. And quite frankly, Andy Carroll tore Sweden to pieces until they resembled a shredded Yellow Pages.
The utilisation of a powerful and threatening forward is essential in the successful implementation of a 4-4-2 system. Though tied by absentees, Roy Hodgson’s decision to start with both Andy Carroll and Danny Welbeck against Sweden was highly effective. Regardless of the perfectly executed header, Carroll brought the valuable aspect of vivaciousness to England’s play, enacting the role of menacing No.9 with authority and hostility in perfect balance. Against Ukraine, however, there was a missing presence, a lack of jeopardy which left England devoid of attacking potency.
Though perhaps the most technically intuitive England pairing since Shearer and Sheringham, the corresponding attributes of Rooney and Welbeck render the partnership of secondary effectiveness to either working around Andy Carroll. Though better sense suggests that club familiarity would make the Manchester United couple automatic starters against Italy, in reality the sacrifice of one is necessary to accommodate everyone’s favourite £35million man. Implausibly, Andy Carroll should be the first name on Hodgson’s team sheet come Sunday eve, if not for his own ability then for his encompassing potential to allow the more technically astute to roam unencumbered.
A familiar sight against Ukraine was an alarming void around the host’s centre-back pairing as both England frontmen ventured deeper in search of the ball. Though merely playing their natural game, it left England with four in centre midfield at times and limited outlets for Young and Milner to search for. As such, we saw Ukraine accumulate seven attempts on goal to England’s zero come thirty minutes in. Likewise, we also saw neither Rooney or Welbeck showcase the full spectrum of their talents, thwarted by an overcrowded middle and unable to pick off space from one another, whilst the accuracy of Young and Milner was redundant with no viable target. England were perhaps too clever on Tuesday night. They chose to try and talk their enemy out of conflict when what was really needed was a mighty clout round the earhole.
Worryingly, a touch of fortune at both ends was the differentiating factor between the sides, fortune which is unlikely to extend any further into the tournament. By no means are whole scale changes required to England’s system, merely some minor re-wiring.
Intriguingly, Italy found Ireland’s inflexible and compressed 4-4-2 a strenuous task, only ensuring progress with goals from set-pieces. Against Spain and their elastic arrangement, greater space was afforded to an Italian frontline deprived of genuine malice yet ultimately capable of causing damage when needed. Though much in line with a traditionally stringent defensive approach, Italy’s back line is susceptible to breaches and were notably distressed by Croatia and Ireland’s physical passages of play. When Richard Dunne is the greatest threat to a clean sheet, there is fragility waiting to be exposed.
Though by no means a popular option, the inclusion of Andy Carroll in a traditional 4-4-2 is a necessary evil on Sunday. Dropping Danny Welbeck after an unimpeachable set of performances in the group stage will be tough but mandatory, with Rooney’s bursting sense of injustice having missed the opening two games combined with match-altering ability making him the preferred choice. Milner’s propensity to deliver accuracy should marginally outweigh an indifferent couple of starts, though Theo Walcott’s explosive contribution deserves consideration.
Either way, England should stick to the simple stuff. Wingers. Big man up front. Defensively tight. It may not pleasure the senses, but it remains the most viable option given the lessons observed in the group stage. As Spain found to their detriment, charming Italy into submission does not work. Instead, England will find greater reward in applying a more forward approach to take the old lady home early.
How do you think England should approach Sunday’s encounter with Italy? Tweet me @acherrie1
[ad_pod id=’dfp-mpu’ align=’right’]