The Problem with Scholes, Gerrard & Lampard
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 янв 2022
- Try The Athletic for FREE for 30 days: www.theathletic.com/tifoirl
England’s so-called Golden Generation never lived up to its billing, partially because no manager managed to get a midfield, including three of the greatest talents the country had ever produced, working together.
Alex Stewart sits down with Seb Stafford-Bloor and JJ Bull to explain why.
Follow Tifo Football:
Twitter: / tifofootball_
Facebook: / tifofootball
Instagram: / tifofootball_
Listen to the Tifo Football podcast:
Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/TifoFootPod
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/06QIGhq...
About Tifo Football:
Tifo loves football. We create In-depth tactical, historical and geopolitical breakdowns of the beautiful game.
We know there’s an appetite for thoughtful, intelligent content. For stuff that makes the complicated simple.
We provide analysis on the Premier League, Champions League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, World Cup and more.
Our podcasts interview some of the game’s leading figures. And our editorial covers football with depth and insight.
Founded in 2017 and became a part of The Athletic in 2020. For business inquiries, reach out to tifo@theathletic.com.
Music sourced from epidemicsound.com
Additional footage sourced from freestockfootagearchive.com
#England 
Спорт
As much as I love Joe hosting these talks, I thought Alex worked really well as a double pivot here, shuffling the conversation around the table, creating space for JJ and Seb.
@MrWooster I see what you saw!
Lmao
He dove-tailed quite nicely with each person. Dropping in sensible remarks here and there.
Underrated Tweet
Single pivot
Alex' version of absolutely thrilled is equivalent to mildy disinterested in any real human
mild shock:
:|
ecstacy:
:|
depressed:
:|
😂😂😂😂😂
Alex, extatic as always.
JJ looking goofy as ever.
Seb's knowledge as well rounded as his head.
love your work
"As well rounded as his head" 😂
Alex is the classic meme of the person who everyone wants to hug but who does not ever want to be hugged
Some people really don't want to be hugged. It makes me feel really anxious when people hug me unless specifically requested
He's a panda
Tsundere
I am in this comment and I don't like it
@@kieronparr3403 get a grip
I remember Heskey being called a donkey SO MUCH when he played. The argument was that he didn't score many goals. That was obviously never his purpose, which blew the general fans mind at that point.
Midlands Pelé
Some of best hold up play, great in the air, and an extremely underrated playmaker. Heskey the player deserves a lot better than Heskey the meme. But I was 14 once, I used to think Heskey jokes were funny like every kid.
I really liked Heskey, even as a United fan when he was at Liverpool. So Under appreciated.
@@delirious13440 I'm surprised there were even memes. He was the perfect fit in that classic target striker to small striker mould that was popular then. I'm not sure if a player like him would work now with the general 4-3-3 sort of formations we have
@@Bobby_sprinkles Firmino? I haven’t checked statistically but there could be an argument made that he performs much the same role - making opportunities for his more celebrated teammates
Problem is, those 3 were essentially the same player. Their midfield partners up to this point of their careers (2004) were, Keane, Petit/Makelele, Hamman. Is not only that they didn't have an understanding, but that they never needed to have an understanding because SLG were the ones bombing forward with their partners mopping behind them. Reality is, they probably needed to drop 2 of these and replace with them Hargreaves and Cole. In Euro 2004, teams were either midfield 3 (Greece, Sweden, Italy) or a midfield two with pairing such as Viera/Makelele, Maniche and Costinha, Albelda and Baraja, Cocu and Davids. These guys have reputation as great tacklers, the English trio did not. England had to be playing with Hargreaves and Butt to emulate that. Also at this point, all 3 of Scholes, Lampard and Gerard haven't been that versatile yet, Scholes was not yet a deep lying midfielder, and Gerard haven't really ventured into more attacking roles, they were firmly "8s". This midfield was never going to work, is as ludicrous as playing 3 left backs.
The other problem is that none of these guys were ever dribblers either. Zidane played wider than usual but he is Zidane. Del Piero shunted to the left too, but he is a dribbler too. The midfield 4 of England aren't known to progress with the ball, they either kick it forward, or at best do a "powerful" run down the middle when there is space. Looking bad, this formation was just weird, like you realistically could only fit 2 of those 4 in a balanced midfield, or push one of them up. They were really reliant on magic from Rooney to disrupt the defense despite the attacking talent, and were toothless without him, which makes you wonder what was the point of the midfield.
Sven had less leeway than most as well, he was the first foreign manager to manage the English National team, and the players famously hated each other due to club rivalries. The formation wasn't really the issue, the players picked was something else.
I think all of what you said is true about Lampard and Gerrard, especially at that point in time, but I'm not sure it fully applies to Scholes. He was an 8, sure, but that's becasue of the role he played at club level; I'm certain he was more than capable of playing in a deep lying position and his transition to that position was very fluid when it happened, and always adapted to what United needed in terms of personel. I think playing Scholes in the middle in a more defensive role would've solved a lot of the issue of this team, but that would've meant dropping Lampard or Gerrard, since none of them were versatile enough to play on the side, and we all know that couldn't have happened back then.
If you had to shoehorn those players in, it would have made more sense to shunt Lampard, Gerrard out instead of Scholes. And a possible soln wud have been a 4-4-2 diamond, with scholes at the base, Gerrard at the tip, Beckham as a RM, he doesn't attack much anyway and could play CM a bit and Lampard as the LCM making the late runs. And to provide cover at the back, Neville plays as more of a RCB allowing Cole to overlap, and Beckham providing width n crossing from the right, much like Italy the recent euro 2020
@@WhereIsTheIntruder Perhaps, but I disagreed that it will necessarily solve the issue. His transition was seamless but the issue remains
When Scholes was playing deep, he was playing with the likes of Carrick or Fletcher; he was the creator with a very disciplined anchor. Someone similar like Pirlo, had at least 2 of Marchiso, Vidal and Pogba. Xavi had Busquets to cover him at his latter years. Scholes won't be enough defensively to be the cover for Lampard or Gerrard.
I would had personally dropped both Lampard and Gerrard for Hargreaves and J Cole, mainly Scholes was the most "continental" of the trio, and can work well with Hargreaves in controlling the midfield.
@@michael7darkknight Diamond could work, and Ashley Cole is perhaps the best in the world at the time for that. But Lampard still isn't a natural fit to be a LCM as he won't provide adequate cover for Cole, and will give Beckham a lot to do in his positioning, if we are trying to balance it with Neville not bombing forward as much. And there is very little width with the two strikers primarily operating centrally, and nor are they great aerial threat to compensate. The issue remains, a narrow team that still relies on Rooney doing a lot of the heavy lifting.
There are some parallels to Italy, but the issue is Veratti is a lot more deep lying, which enabled Spinzzola/Emerson to go forward. Again, if we are play Lampard, why not just play Hargreaves or Butt who is simply better at that role. And Italy used a front 3 to alleviate the problem of width, which helped when Chiesa was a beast. Rooney can fill that role, but Owen isn't a lone striker. And 4-3-3 is still relatively foreign for English players in 2004.
@@eddo8762 I agree we re talking about a diff era in English football, but I started my comment with "if we have to shoehorn...." Cos I doubt in that particular era- we could afford to drop even 1 of them, mind 2 of them. But my point being Scholesy being the only pure CM amongst that 3, it defied all logic to play him on the left and expect the CAMs to not only play deep but defend as well. And about Beckham, the 4-4-2 of Utd worked cos he hardly ventured down the wings to the bylines, or get into the box much. He was more of a wide midfielder whipping in crosses from any distance and would often drop into mid to help out Scholes n Keane/Butt. So he would adapt very well, and he and Neville already has the understanding at club level to make it work. I agree it's still not an ideal scenario to take on the Portugal, Holland, France, Italy of that era, but you have a better chance with scholes in the middle than either Lampard/Gerrard.
For all the "golden generation" stuff, the squad lacked in a lot of areas. E.g. no good pacey wingers, no midfielders who could dribble etc. 352 with Beckham and Ashley Cole wide, and Hargreaves in for one of the 3 CMs was probably the best bet, but still not ideal as Hargreaves wasn't on the level of Makelele etc, Owen wasn't the same after his injury, and we lacked dribblers. Throw in the toxic press environment, and the fact that the players were frankly a set of knobheads and it's not surprising they never won anything
Joe Cole could dribble but yeah
Players like Vassel had lots of pace
But if you have good Talents at specific position, they can, technically develop tactics around it. Look at Croatia using their talented midfielders to the maximum.
It's like how Italy tried to shoe horn Del Piero and Totti into the same time...and then stopped trying...and then 2006 happened
Good point
Maybe they stopped because Luca Toni became almost Undroppable and not because of some tactical masterstroke
@@otto_jk Toni was shite at that World Cup. Someone like Trezeguet - who was sitting on France's bench - would have made a killing with the chances Italy were creating.
As for del Piero and Totti, Italy's performances were actually very good when they played together. As with Inzaghi and Vieri. But their peak coincided with Trapattoni's 4 years in charge and he was quite a cowardly coach.
Torto underperformed for Italy. But if the team was made around him, Del Piero could have shifted to the wing.
It's their defence masterclass
Really enjoyed that. Seb was brilliant at bringing in the "context" of English football back in the 90s and 00s. Certain players "couldn't be dropped". Also keeping the ball was not in the Premier League nearly as much as it was now. The league was all pace and power. Arsenal were probably the only possession heavy team then and even they could "mix it" in that era with Campbell, Keown, Viera and Gilberto.
During lockdown the BBC showed a lot of old euros games and I decided to rematch the England v Croatia game. What surprised me was how well Gerrard and Scholes played. Scholes started on the left. His movement inside to create space for Ashley Cole and create overloads were brilliant. Gerrard dropped into the 6 role better than my memory had remembered and Rooney was at his utter best, playing the 10 role with maturity and cuteness that is barely believable for a player of his age at the time. Add to that his pace, power and directness at times, it made him the biggest weapon at that tournament. Lampard did look a little bit lost in truth but he wasn't the biggest issue (in that particular game anyway). He managed a goal with a typical midfield run and finish.
The huge problem was David Beckham. I was stunned by how poor he was. I'm a big fan of Beckham and he is often underrated because of his celebrity but in this system it was he who was the problem. Scholes and Gerrard knitted play together effectively but Beckham hit countless long booming passes towards Owen that often hit him at throat height when he was marked by multiple defenders or Beckham would just play for territory. It was the sort of display that Neville and Carragher would rip apart on modern day Monday Night Football because the amount of passes that were misplaced etc. Once Rooney had emerged England were a 4-2-3-1 and not a 4-4-2 because Rooney always dropped deeper. Beckham needed the 4-4-2 when he was on the right so his crossing was useful and he could hit long vertical passes and a Shearer or Heskey could hold it up.
I agree with the lads that a Hargreaves and then in 06 and beyond, a Carrick was a must but 3 midfielders in the title did well. Maybe a Joe Cole for Beckham might have helped at that time ??
Well said, excellent points, I agree with the Beckham issue and I definitely feel him leaving England and playing in a Spanish system with arguably more quality teammates essentially made him unusable for England. A 5-3-2 wingback system would have worked so much better, with Carragher or Campbell in between Terry and Rio, in place of Becksie
Great analysis. These games were so long ago that my only recollection is based on stereotypes of these players. Good to get some actual analysis
@@diulikadikaday thanks. Appreciate that
Yeah but there’s no way the marketing men or fa or ores would have allowed Beckham to be dropped
@Val O'Connell more like a 4 3 3 but that wasn’t fashionable in the media at the time plus didn’t they narrowly lose rather than getting slapped
Love the commitment from that JJ fella to have a haircut straight out of the mid 2000s for this vid
Lol so this seems to say, in order to make this work, you’d need Crouchy or Heskey up front with Rooney, and keep only 1 of Scholes, Gerrard or Lampard in the midfield next to a Carrick, Hargreaves or Butt. Impossible with the press culture around England at the time!
Aye but is it any coincidence that United won the league and champions league with a midfield 3 of Carrick, Hargreaves and Scholes?
Still is, with the arrogance of most football fans. Just look at ManU for example
@@Stegibbon you're talking about a different time entirely, Scholes had retired from international football at that point, and those 3 weren't really playing together at the same time
@@bri1085 they were all available for selection and playing great at the time they specify.
I think the press culture you identified and the fan culture made this really hard for the managers. Plus English football didn't have the tactical progression that we are now familiar with so inside forwards were not a regular thing meaning most of the time England attempted to play a traditional 4-4-2. I don't think any manager would have had a positive reaction from the press if they balanced the team's shape with less popular players. I think with the vicious press in the back of managers' minds they ended up playing the 'best' 11 out of fear. Imagine if they dropped say Lampard and England drew or lost a game; all the press and fans would be out saying the manager hasn't got a clue what he's doing.
I think these problems plagued England managers all the way till Southgate because Southgate came in at a point where all those 'golden generation' footballers were retired and there wasn't a lot of expectation of the newer generation. Plus there wasn't any enthusiasm about Southgate as a manager either so he had the 'benefit' of being able to work under significantly less pressure and without many star names that the fans are screaming to put into the team. Meanwhile the tactical awareness of football has greatly increased with the influx of foreign coaches with modern ideas so not just the players but also the fans and press were more open to different approaches.
you also didnt mention the dressing room
issue at the time. there are some interviews from rooney saying that the dressing room was toxic because none of the players could leave their club loyalties at the door. cant imagine this would help at all with chemistry on the pitch
We had Carrick and Hargreaves at the time to balance that team out. Sven didn’t have the balls to drop one of them for tactical reasons which is why we failed over and over…
Just play Carrick with Scholes. It was that simple 😭
Like they said, if he was to drop Lampard , Gerrard or Beck's out, when England lost, the press and fans going to burried Sven Ericsson for leaving one of them out
I don’t think that was the reason England failed under Sven: lost to Brazil’s 3 Rs in 02; and twice to Portugal on penalties. The England midfield was a bit samey samey and predictable but the flaws in the team went beyond that.
@@harizbadrulhisham3805 agreed, the press at the time were a nightmare. The Beckham circus didn’t help either, remember their party him and Victoria threw before the world cup with all their celebrity mates and had it broadcast on TV! Can guarantee Italy were preparing properly with none of that rubbish.
@@karlm641 Italy literally started Euro 2020 with a TV game show, mind...
I loved Owen Hargreaves so much. From the United Champions League winning side he was always my favourite. So intelligent, free kick demon and much more technical than he's given credit for. Such a shame he was so injury prone.
He was my favorite player as a child while he was at Bayern. Had the jersey with the white collar and the shield-shaped logo with his name on it. As a kid I never understood why he wasn't seen as one of the world's top players. To me he certainly was
Yes he was very good. Perhaps if not his injuries this talented England team could have been fixed.
Incredible player. My footballing inspirations as a kid were first Keane and then him.
more Alex as host please!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At around 13:20 one of the guys talks about spain being unable to fit all their central midfield players in the one team. Well they were the only team that could, there was times where they played at least 5 possibly 6 central midfield players.
If I remember correctly at times they played Busquets, Xabi, Xavi
Silva, Fabregas, Iniesta
Iniesta was playing off the left which was somewhere he would often find himself for Barcelona anyways but most players wouldn’t be able to make the change.
As far as I know Fabregas never played as a false 9 apart from for Spain but in their Tiki taka era that’s what he had to do to start. Another very difficult change but an intelligent player and a different system making it work.
David silva played on the right wing, I think he may have done this at several points of his career but again, great player great system made it work.
Obviously busquets was the deepest of the midfield 3 beside Xabi and Xavi basically played similarly to how he played at barca as far as I know.
At times David villa would have played and so would Fernando Torres or Pedro at a slightly later stage
I actually remember a match where it looked like Spain were going to play 4,6,0 and the midfielders you named rotated and just kept possession and moved other teams around
It's interesting comparing then to now. Southgate has implemented a far more accomplished midfield in Rice and Phillips, yet the irony with the casual football fan is that England now get criticized for playing '2 DMs.'
Yeah I remember before the Euro's a lot wanted Mount to be one of the pivots Instead of both Rice and Phillips. Has more potential to work though then the 2000s set up as you would have at least one holding midfielder instead of none.
It's not the midfielders themselves but the way they operate. Phillips brings very little to the fold. Rice is asked to sit deep when he's actually good at dribbling and making runs with the ball. The way Southgate is handling him is little short of criminal.
I loved this video - it seemed like you enjoyed making it too!
One idea I’ve not heard elsewhere is a 352 that’s also sort of secretly a 442 that has all three midfielders and it works because of Jamie Carragher.
What I mean is - play a back three with Ferdinand (or Terry or Campbell) flanked by Gary Neville on the right and Jamie Carragher on the left. Carragher famously trained his left foot to force his way into Liverpool’s treble winning team as a left back before Benitez made him a starting centre back in 04. Neville played right of a three for Glen Hoddle. This back 3 with Ashley Cole and David Beckham providing width in midfield gives the flexibility of having a back three, four or five at any given moment - Cole can drop in and Neville becomes the right back, for example.
With this platform, you could play Gerrard and Scholes as a midfield two, with the security of an extra man behind them while they gel as a pair. Lampard has the freedom to exploit space in the final third, and a partnership of Owen/Rooney or Owen/Heskey leads the line. Beckham, Scholes and Gerrard can all distribute long balls, in Carragher and Ferdinand/Terry there’s decent technical ability on the ball in defence, there’s width on the left from Cole, a functioning strike partnership and none of the superstars have been dropped.
I’d love someone to explain why that doesn’t work so I can shut up about it. Any takers?
It doesn't work because this is England mid 2000's. It has to be 442, and Lampard, Gerrard and Schooled háve to play to keep supporters happy. Next to that Beckham has to play too. All players lacking defensive mindset...
It could work for sure, except the wings are defensively weak and your midfield partnerships isn't defensively too strong either. The back 3 can't cover both open wings and open midfield at the same time
Yeah 3 defenders formations back then we’re pretty much only seen as completely defensive, yes it could have worked but I don’t think anyone had the foresight to think it would’ve worked almost 20 years ago.
@@mijn21 Beckham was really good defensively, he usually ran more than anyone on the pitch at this point.
It makes sense to me. Cole and Beckham were the best sources of traditional width. One "fullback" stays deeper than he would normally in the three to provide solidity in case of counters. Beckham had an engine and good work rate, so him dropping into a five of sorts with the usual back four + him as a right "wingback" is solid with a three in front. Scholes could stay just behind a roaming Lampard and Gerrard. The only thing I'd change is having Terry on the left since he was incredibly adept at distributing on his left foot and the centre backs could split wide to avoid the press and then play up to Cole or whoever might be drifting into the half spaces. A bigger centre back could replace Neville if we expected an aerial bombardment, or Neville could even be the outermost right defender if we really needed numbers back, and someone more defensively minded could replace Scholes if we didn't expect to control games (probably rare with that midfield tbh). Rooney could drop to link with the midfield and create a diamond for extra control in the centre of the pitch while the three centre backs covered for Cole and Beckham getting up and down all day long. Owen could stay on the shoulder or Heskey could stay high to offer an outlet and then bring others into play off him. What starts as a 532 morphs into a 3142 or 361 of sorts if aiming for control in the middle.
@@xxballer099gfxxzz3 i mean look at now. Each time southgate plays a back 3 or 5 the whole england fans are crying even though it gets result.
Thank you JJ for noting that Gerrard was at his peak as a second striker behind Torres. That partnership was phenomenal.
And won absolutely nothing, had one tilt at the title and nowt in Europe
Alex did a perfectly good job of hosting yet there was something deeply unsettling about the arrangement like some sort of cosmic unbalance to the situation indicative of an eldrich horror simmering just below the suface of reality. Great video tho.
Fair.
Great vid. Brought back a lot of memories.
Think one thing G Southgate has done that people really underestimate is that he ha managed to establish a dominance over the team which makes it very difficult for people to pressure him.
He may make bad calls, but at least they're his calls.
Tough for players like James Madison though.
As much as I despise this period of English football, I also think it was a very necessary watershed moment that stopped people from thinking the press or the average fan could do a better job picking and running the team.
SGE basically just went with the most popular opinions of who should play and how, and they were absolute garbage. I don't think the British press (toxic as it still may be) would have gotten to the current level of tactical and technical appreciation without this era laying bare their ignorance of the game's deeper levels.
You speak as though the English media is much better now lol.
This England side (like so many!) was crying out for a break from the standard 4-4-2 setup.
4-3-3 would have been brilliant
3-5-2 would also have worked well with the incredible depth of top class CBs we had (imagine if Ledley King could stay fit!)
Not sure if any of them really would've suited the deeper role, and having 3 attacking midfielders would've been complete chaos and not suited to international management. It was an unwinnable situation
@@cameron9385 Gerrard is a better option among those three, but in the big 4-4-2 era, playing 4-3-3 will be a really controversial decision.
@@airynod and you're now just playing a fantastic player out of position where another player would do better so it's sort of pointless, plus media would be just as harsh because you're essentially still not playing Gerrard
@@cameron9385 I agree with the idea of Beckham playing the ‘QB’ role which he famously did at PSG, Milan and LA (though admittedly maybe it was a little early around 2004-8 to say ‘here, David, sit at the base of midfield’) but as they point out in the video, he did always want to be a CM.
But the point overall is that it was a failing to just try to shoe-horn star shaped players into square holes, we learn that doesn’t work at 18 months old with baby toys.
@@cameron9385 That's why it was unsolvable with that mindset at that moment. You can't really drop one of them, none of them were a natural defensive midfielder (and they have similar skillset). I will choose Gerrard over other 2 to be the 6 is he was a better tackler in my mind. He can still bring the ball forward like what he did in Liverpool.
Imo it makes no sense to leave Scholes out and play Gerrard in that deep role. Scholes is the clear metronome out of all 3 and miles beyond the others in a deeper role. And Gerrard is the one man army kinda player who would get fired up and antsy waiting on the bench. Start Scholesy and sub Gerrard on if the team needs a lift, would be a much better plan I think.
At the time Scholes didnt play so deep
Play a 4-2-3-1 with Gerrard and Scholes as a double pivot? Like having Pirlo and Gattuso except they both have excellent passing range
@@joshuaburkinshaw9940 they kind of did that playing 4-4-2, most of the time one of the strikers dropped into the 10 position. That's basically a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1
I wish I could be so productive, fun and informative next to building work. Thanks for another great video about something I always wondered about! Cheers
I never understood the clamour for Lampard when Hargreaves/Butt/Carrick were better for the team. Also, Beckham was such a threat from deep balls and Ashley Cole (who was arguably the best of this XI in an England shirt) on the left, that I never understood the need for Gary Neville to overlap on the right - that 1/3rd could have been ably done by Rooney.
SGE was a WAG in disguise.
Lampard was a goal threat and more daring passer than the other two.
@@007Fusiion But was never in a position to receive the ball to be a threat. Hargreaves/Butt/Carrick would have been the fulcrum England's Golden Generation needed. Talented as Lampard? Maybe not. More important for team integrity? Absolutely.
You can now see why Sven liked players like Heskey and Crouch as you had the big man and then the small nippy player who played off him, Rooney was probably the game changer as he was the one England player who didnt really fit into that system and was probably ahead of his time. I think Capello was the first manager to try something different by playing Barry in midfield as he was the one who would sit deep and allow the likes of Gerrard and Lampard to get forward. Unfortunately he wasnt fit in the 2010 world cup so he was constantly getting caught out especially in the Germany game. After that World cup though he actually started to get a well functioning midfield playing Jack Wheelchair in the pivot role and moving Gerrard to a kind of inside left position which allowed Rooney to float but unfortunately like most England managers he got mired in scandals and they replaced him with Roy Codgerson and we went backwards again
It's also quite hard to win a major tournament... only happens once every two years. If we could take penalties we might've won one!
Do more of these types of videos. I love them!
If Unai Emery was around back then, he would’ve been the perfect manager for this team.
Brilliant content as always
Spot on analysis as always
I think there was a interview with Lampard, Gerrard and Rio Ferdinand where they said that it was down to ego and playing at different competitive clubs (Man Utd/Chelsea/Liverpool) that they didn't had the chemistry required to win matches. Plus, tactical systems.
and Spain can win with Barcelona and Real players?
As Sven admitted on Sky:
"What would the press say if I dropped one of them (Lampard Gerrard)?"
Marketing Suits @ FA/Sponsors + Weak Manager + Press
So who should have been in the starting 11 and what formation should they have played?
3-5-2
GK
DEFENDERS
CAMPBELL-FERDINAND-TERRY
WING BACKS
BECKS-A.COLE
MID
CARRICK-LAMPARD-GERRARD
STRIKERS
ROONEY-HESKEY
Yeah man.. Heskey.. He played a lot for this exact reason. Owen as super sub or against teams with a high line.
i'm not going to lie, i loudly exclaimed "oh, yes!" seeing that you've done this vid. love you guys!
I love the jazz music in the background.
More of these please
I seem to remember Gordon Strachan working as a pundit for the BBC on an England game in this era and saying “Ye cannae play all your best players. Ye cannae.”😄
That soundbite seemed to be full of sense to me at the time.
I also seem to remember Steve McLaren trying to forge ahead without Beckham when he took over, moving Gerrard onto the right for a while. It certainly didn’t solve all the problems.
England have rarely had anything approaching a complete team in all the years I’ve been watching them. A couple of pieces are nearly always missing.
I do think Nicky Butt is an excellent suggestion for that screening player who could watch the backline. Pairing him with Hargreaves would have added a stronger potential for distributing the ball. At this point, a 4-2-3-1 looks like the best shape (or a asymmetrical 4-3-3). Personally, if we're playing that, I wouldn't pick Scholes since he's a better creator than Gerrard or Lampard, and distribution was a key element of his game. Lampard is who you want to spearhead an attack with fewer responsibilities (although people tend to forget he had admirable defensive numbers and clocked a high number of assists, not simply a goal scorer), but then you would have to sacrifice both Owen and Rooney for Heskey or Crouch, and as much as I love the idea of Crouch scoring a 96th minute World Cup Final winning goal (complete with his Robot dance celebration), I don't think it's a reasonable option. Gerrard's a nice medium, played a variety of positions during his career (deeper, out wide, behind the striker) and still guarantees goals. I'm a Chelsea fan, so making that choice is painful for me, but he has a connection to Owen, played with him for a number of years, and their relationship could mirror Gerrard's own with Torres (not identical players, not at all, but there are some similarities).
This way you get defensive solidity, a level of distribution, Gerrard's passing and off-the-ball movement and the pace in behind of Owen. Wingers are, and always have been, another perennial issue for this England team. I agree with Joe Cole off the left, Beckham doesn't suit being a right winger who gets up and down the pitch, but if you look for fouls and make the most of set-pieces (vital in international competition) you can probably compensate for that.
Naturally, dropping Rooney, Lampard and Scholes makes me feel filthy, but I think it's the best solution to the problem.
Tifo has such an all star cast of personalities. Just turn on the cameras and they’re going to create something awesome every time
Hargreaves actually did well for England but if I remember correctly he had a lot of injury problems.
All over planet, coaches were trying to work out why England didn't build a team around Paul Scholes. Gerrard and Lampard were too similar and the point about modern players receiving the ball in tight areas and distributing the ball... Did they not watch him for United in the second half of his career?
Golden age Tifo ❤
3-5-2 with king sweeping, Terry on the left and Ferdinand on the right of the back 3. Terry could be the sweeper, no idea what king was like as a player and if he could play lcb. Beckham right wing back is the compromise but Ferdinand behind him should offer solidity defensively and he will cut inside anyway, not a byline wingback, Ashley Cole suits left wing back well, gerrard and lampard the advancing 8's with scholes slightly deeper. If all 3 occupy the same position basically then there's more chance at least one will hold back time to time. Owen and Rooney as the forward 2, both capable of playmaking and starting from a wider position to assist the wing backs in attack. Rooney as the left sided forward to cut inside
Gerrard for as great a player he was. In this system had the tactical awareness of a plastic bag in the wind.
I've long suspected that England's press is the root of their issues around the national side. Most countries' press corps just support their national side and wish them well, but the English press always seems to be waiting to get self-righteous about some small criticism. It's very petty and makes it impossible to manage the national side.
Press, fans, they all think they are football experts because they were on Millwall U-12s way back when. That's the core of the rot in the English football industrial complex
They currently have a general hate boner for Sterling… even though he was one of Englands best performers
They do the same to Managers like Mourinho
Great, great video - I thought it was a simple fix but this discussion proves how wrong I was
The best solution is a back 3. King 3rd centre back, becks right wing back, Cole left wing back and. You can play with 2 midfielders because the 3rd centre half compensates for 2 attacking midfielders.
"Today I'm absolutely thrilled to be joined...." Yeah, you seem like it.
Great video as always. I’d love to see a preview video/series for AFCON in the same way that you did for the Euros.
Similar happen in Brazil 06; Adriano and Ronaldo have the exactly same player style, but couldnt be sacked, so the team just give up any balance tactic to play them
Very true
england under hoddle played with 3 at the back and wing backs which allowed 3 in midfield. best england played in my lifetime before being knocked out unlickally by the argies. In my opinion a better team and better manager than anything after.
GK Seaman
CB Adams
CB Campbell
CB Southgate / Neville
LWB Le Saux
RWB Anderton / Beckham
DM Ince
CM Beckham / Gazza
AM Scholes
9 Shearer
10 Owen / Sherrignham.
Going back to 442 after this when england had no left sided player was mental, With the most technical players like Gerrard and J Cole being forced out there and even crazilly scholes to fill the void and fit in Lampard.
Realistically Lampard and Gerrard should never have played together. Should have been a central 3 of Scholes plus Gerrard or Lampard plus a ball winning DM. Ashly cole would have been a great wingback and neville could do the job on the right or even becks.
3 5 2 and england would have come much closer to winning tournments.
And Im sorry but Lampard never did anything at international level and thrived at club level as he was the main man in that system scoring his deflected goals coming in late into the box with either makelele or essien behind (seriously world class holding midfielders)
scholes gerrard and lampard should have been in competition with each other as to who is playing best to get in the side.
could have even used gerrard as a second striker at times against the best sides and dropped either own or rooney.
I'm not an England fan, but there are some aspects of luck as well:
1996 - they were fortunate to get pass Spain, ref helped them, but this was probably the last time they received any luck in the major tournaments
1998 - quite bad luck to lose to Argentina with Beckham's send off and Campbell's goal disallowed
2000 - lost to Portugal and Romania when they were leading and just screwed up both games
2002 - solid performance, lost to Brazil which were the better team
2004 - lost in a PK heartbreaker against Portugal, Campbell again had a goal disallowed
2006 - lost in another PK heartbreaker against Portugal, playing with 10 men after Rooney got sent off
2008 - failed to quality by hiring the wrong guy for the job
2010 - we all know what happened against Germany
If they had any luck between 1998-2010, who said the magic trio wouldn't have worked and the golden generation would have ended with no trophies?
Alfie from HITC Sevens referenced this selection in a recent video - he mentioned how Hoddle had tried a back 3 with wing backs and that this could have been used here.
James
Campbell, Ferdinand, Terry
Beckham, Gerrard, Scholars, Lampard, A. Cole
Rooney, Owen
I wonder why no one thought of this sort of solution at the time - Gary Neville misses out but someone has to.
Although that is definitely better, i feel like that still invokes the problem of the ball winning options, plus the fact those 3 central midfielders were very ball dominant. Scholes maybe not as much, which means he could probably lay deeper, but still, i'd put Hargreaves over one of those, anyday.
or even more modern but not really cos alot of italian teams played similar
james
rio terry campbell
becks scholes lampard cole
gerrard j,cole
rooney
The guy with the beard makes Jack Dee look like Graham Norton.....
🤣🤣🤣
Love the show
I remember there being a lot of noise in the early '00s about playing Alan Thompson (ex- of Celtic) on the left side for England. He only got one token cap in the end - how useful would he have been, actually?
I always thought that, when he played, peter crouch actually solved a decent amount of the issues that england had in possession. The problem was in, as always, who didn't play because he was playing.
Crouch has one of England's best goals per minutes played records, it's crazy that he was often not even in contention.
352 England had 4 or 5 top class center backs at the time and G Neville could also be included as a right sided center back. Ferdinand in the center acting as a sweeper in a 3 with G neville to his right and Terry to his left.
Beckham holding the width on the right giving him space to deliver those perfect crosses and cross field passes. Ashley Cole on the left.
Scholes holding and controlling midfield allowing Gerrard and Lampard get forward like they did for there clubs.
Owen on the shoulder of the last man and Rooney running riot like he did when he first burst onto the scene.
Cole's pace could cover Terry's lack of and G Neville being able to defend in wide areas covering Beckhams lesser defensive nous.
Muy bueno pa 🤙
That England should have played a 4 -3- 3 like this:
Bad Goalkeeper
Neville - Ferdinand - Terry - A. Cole
Gerrard or Lampard - Hargreaves or Carrick - Scholes
Beckham + Owen or Rooney + Joe Cole
This way you solve the Gerrard/Lampard problem, you got a balanced team and have 3 good subs for each match. Games are played and won with 14 (nowdays 16) players not only the starting 11.
The bad goalkeeper problem didn't have a solution after Seaman retired until Joe Hart came to the top level.
They could have played a diamond with Carrick at the back, Gerrard and Scholes alongside each other and Lampard as the attacking midfielder for when Beckham couldn't play. When he could, Scholes would play deeper, Becks would tuck in as a central midfielder (he could do that, i.e. 1999 UCL final) alongside Gerrard and then Lampard as the AM.
Yeah, we can see Alex really thrill 😂😂 to host this video
England could have played with a 3-4-2-1 with Rio, JT and Carra/Campbell as the sweeper, Beckham/Neville as RWB, Cole LWB, Scholes and Hargreaves as more holding, Gerrard and Lampard as 10s where Rooney could have also come in and then Owen or Crouch up top.
Never knew J. Cole, before breaking out into the mainstream as a rapper, sat on the England bench. Great come up story
A sideline story, you could say....
You're not old enough to remember these players and they're like superheroes to you. You're making a lot of this up.
I want that electric sabbuteo table for my birthday
I genuinely think this could have worked brilliantly with these players. Assymetrical approach with ashley cole as an attacking wing back, Neville as a full back tucking into a back three in possession, utilising his defensive / positional abilities. Beckham as a true winger for width and crossing / passing threat.
Then scholes deep lying play maker. Gerrard and lampard as box2box / mezzala.
Rooney dropping deep and pulling out cbs for the midfielders to attack the space. Owen stretching the back line.
The way you’ve put Gerrard, Lampard, rooney and Owen in there kinda suggest you did not understand anything they said in this video 😂
@@alfielee2989 haha fair.
I think the key difference is the formation.
4-4-2 with scholes on the left and leaving a giant gap behind Gerrard and lampard when they naturally drift higher up is the issue.
Would work better if scholes played deeper as part of a three, with width coming from cole and beckham. Admittedly, it's not a great defensive screen with those three in cm but you do have three fantastic defenders behind them and you could sub in Hargreaves for more stability as they suggest. I just think the assymetrical system would fit the players so much better and get the most of their talents. But I'm probably just a classic Englishman trying to shoehorn in all the world class talent into a starting 11!
I would just drop Scholes for Stewart Downing to dominate the wing, maybe overload that left side. Then Scholes comes in if either one of Lampard or Gerrard are unavailable.
Scholes was still primarily an attacking player, the tactical framework wasn't there either at the time
Beckham is not a winger though. He is a wide midfielder.
6 world class players (genuinely) - maybe 7 - each arguably the best player in the world in their position - Ferdinand, Cole, Scholes, Gerrard, Beckham, Lampard, Rooney. You could suggest Terry too. People suggest the argument that they underperformed is erroneous, but its not. Compare to the present day England side - where you have perhaps 1 "world class" player - in the form of Kane - and that is even debatable, and yet this side is reaching the finals/semi finals of European Championship/World Cups.
personally I've always thought carrick was the mossing link, even at the time I was saying drop lampard, push gerard to the left, carrick and hargreaves in the middle with scholes ahead of him
A couple of things that are rarely ever addressed in such conversatuons.
The England team has several disadvantages every Euro or WC they play.
1. The PL lasts a month longer then other leagues. All major leagues have a 3 week break in December. Not PL, there they play every 3 days.
Come July, everyone is tired from a long season. England is , no surprise - fatigued.
Consider this example . Croatia beat Englad in the WC semi final...and the game was decided since England team could not keep up mid field pressure. BTW Croatia played 2 full 120min matches prior to this.
Longer season takes its toll.
2. No experience from European leagues.
Apart from Owen, Hargreaves and Beckham...no other player played in Europe.
This is a downside. The PL is super competitive, surely. What might make a difference is having experience against different styles,opponents and systems. Not to mention things like details or tips given to you ( if you need to guard a player) by a teammate that faced him several times.
3. The above results in tactical inflexibility. England could only play a 442 variant that included high pressing and lots of counter attacks that do not seem very dangerous to begin with.
This with a team of really good players,that are tired from a long season.
I think the diamond 4-4-2 formation (i.e Italy '06) would've been the only way to successfully fit all of them in together.
Rooney - Owen
Gerrard - Lamps - Becks
Scholes
Cole - Terry - Rio - Neville
James
The pickles sticker on the laptop is excellent
Poor Alex just has to claim to be thrilled about something to have absolutely everyone laughing at him.
3-5-2 should have been tested against weaker opposition.
RIO CAMPBELL TERRY
BECKHAM GERRARD A.COLE
SCHOLES LAMPARD
ROONEY OWEN
The irony is Venables or Hoddle may have tried this. Sven was a strict 4-4-2 coach during his Lazio days, plus every Premier League side was playing 4-4-2 during this era. Mourinho changed the English game when he joined Chelsea by playing 3 in midfield.
No defensive shield for the 3 CBs unless you're expecting Prime Gerrard to play conservative, which would have been a waste of his ability at the time
And I don't think those CBs are good enough playmakers to be in a Back 3. Walker Stones, Maguire, White, Coady are all great passers for their position
Beckham definitely would have been a RB/RWB of he played in today's game, unfortunately no one was thinking that way 15 years ago
@@BoxOfOranges84 I disagree regarding Terry’s passing range. He had an excellent long ball and could ping diagonals with both feet.
Rio was always praised by how he could step into midfield and was another good ball player. I agree Campbell wouldn’t be on the same level, but those 3 could have been a solid unit.
Plus Terry and Rio were both better passers than all the names you’ve mentioned, Coady being an exception as his passing is quality.
I’d have sacrificed Gerrards game for the good of the team and it would have allowed Scholes and Lampard to get forward. Scholes and Gerrard could rotate in that position also.
We will never know!
Very appropriate point about the lack of credible left sided players.
Always felt that Steve Guppy looked like he had a wand of a left foot when crossing for Leicester but I don’t remember him being given a chance got England.
Eriksson ultimately has to take the majority of the blame for this side’s
failings.
he went to celtic so would never get picked from there
Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard were all box to box midfielders whom like to get forward. They had a anchor man behind them to allow them to roam and play a more creative way. Who's the main play-maker when 3 are playing simultaneously? It's a shame that 3 world-class/ all-star/central midfield group weren't as compatible on the field as it would seem on Paper.
Please do an analysis of why ralf rangnick's football hasnt clicked in man united
Too early for it to work, give it maybe another month until you start to see anything to resembles a decent pressing side nevermind a Rangnick side. Remember it took Klopp about 5 months to get anything out of his Liverpool side
I like how the Spanish team for 2008-2010 was brought up in this context, they had a similar problem as england of having team balance.
Sven played one of the most technically gifted English central midfielders ever on the left wing!!
Scholes ran games for United and could have done the same for England. Sven, however chose to play Gerrard and Lampard in central midfield.
Agree about the lack of balance in the team, and that less talented players could have sit better within the system we were trying to play.
But if Sven didn't have the balls to drop ANY of these players, at the very least he could have switched to a formation that would have better accommodated them.
4-4-2 diamond would have improved things.
Scholes sat dictating behind Beckham and Gerrard, both very hard workers who would get forward and back to support Scholes in defence.
Lampard behind the strikers, who both had decent pace so could have run the channels (Which Rooney did a LOT for United), and then more natural width from Neville and Cole.
3-5-2 would probably be the best formation.
James on Hk
Rio, Terry and neville(ledley king, etc as back up)
A.Cole on the left, Beckham on the right
Hargreaves as dm with Gerrard and scholes in front(because they drift wider than Lampard which can help the flanks)
Rooney and owen are also similar. İ would pick rooney with a target man. When leading the game can replace the TM with owen for counter attacks.
Easy:
GK - JAMES
RB - NEVILLE
CB - RIO
CB - JT
LB - A. COLE
CM - CARRICK
CM - BECKHAM or SCHOLES
RW - (winger) GERRARD
AM - LAMPARD
LW (inside forward) ROONEY or J. COLE
ST - OWEN or ROONEY
The problems were several. 1. A general tactical retardation on the island (that still exists to this day*) 2. The club rivalries that existed at the time (as stated by several players) 3. The extreme pressure from the fans and media 4. Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal and more had "golden generations" as well
And probably even more factors coming in to play than this. So let's look at how to remedy the symptoms of the first problem - namely the 4-4-2 (or 4-4-1-1 with Rooney dropping)
Going back to a popular early 90's tactic - the 3-5-2 - could have easily worked better, and you can flip and turn the mid three in accordance to who you have playing. The problem here might be the general tendency for other teams to play 4-5-1 formations.
Something akin to what Cesare Prandelli did as national coach for Italy with a shifting diamond of Pirlo, De Rossi, Montolivo and Aquilani could have worked but would have been unfamiliar and hard to coach.
I think the 4-3-1-2 would have been the best option. You have a deep-lying playmaker in the middle (Scholes/Gerrard/Carrick/Hargreaves/Butt) flanked by Beckham on the right (who can also play right back (he played both of these roles in this system in his time at Milan) and Lampard/Gerrard/Scholes on the left. With a myriad of options for the role in "the hole".
Beckham could roam to the flank or come in to the middle and balance the team (with Gary stretching the play (great understanding between these two BFFs)). On the left you have the box-box bomber and in the hole you can have another Lampard/Gerrard/Scholes, you can play Rooney and a target man up front, Joe cole can play here (as a central winger drifting to the flanks to create overloads or whatever he feels like doing really (like A. Sanches at Udinese)), you can play a target man striker here to knock balls down to the midfield runners or on to the strikers or you can just flip the front three entirely and have a pretty Ancelotti Christmas tree. All depending on what the match calls for.
Maybe you need more cover for A. Cole's runs on the left so you play Hargreaves-Gerrard-Beckham and you give Becks more freedom to go forward and have Neville behind him and Scholes (not Lampard because you want to take advantage of player relations) in front of him. Put a target man or a rapid fox like Owen in the box and a Rooney on the right side and United will get the ball in the box for a goal.
You have SO many options with such well-rounded players of such extreme quality, yet the rigidness of "Englishness" broke this teams potential.
An adventurous 3-4-3 or another 3/5 backline system (or just that 3-5-2) could surely be conceived to fit 3 of King, Terry and Ferdinand/Campbell/Adams into the starting line. Maybe against teams playing 4-4-2 or other two striker formations (Czech republic etc.)
* At least in the general populace and media (same goes for the Scandinavian countries (Norway in particular)- underlined by the lack of top quality English/British managers. Just have a look at the nationalities represented in this way throughout the top 5 leagues (the PL being the most globalized league perhaps also a factor admittedly)
Imagine that england team with a similar system to spain 2008-2012. Same back 4, midfield 3 hargreaves gerrard Lampard Joe cole right wing Michael Owen left wing and scholes false 9. I know there’s some players unfairly left out but I think that’s a quality line up
Michael Carrick should have been playing behind Gerrard and Lampard after Scholes retired. Rooney up-front on his own. Beckham Wide Right. Joe Cole cutting in from the inside left. Defence as is with Ashley covering the space left by Joe when he cuts in on the left.
They could have tried changing formation. All of them together would never work in 4-4-2 but if you go with 5-3-2 with Rooney behind Owen and 2 wingbacks basically wingers when you have the ball, and it turns into 3-5-2 with Scholes as bit more defensive of the 3 CMs. Thing is in this way you would have to leave Beckham out and replace him with CB/SW. Unless he could have evolved into a Sammer/Matthaus kind of role later in his career. Beckham was super naturally fit/stamina player with great long pass. Could he have played from defense?
352
Neville, Rio, JT
Becks, Scholes (sitting), Lamps, Gerrard, A. Cole
Owen, Rooney
Got me thinking about Henry, Salah, and Suarez as an attacking trio and how fun that would be to watch
Only hope would be a 4-1-4-1. One of Beckham or Owen would have to sit. Scholes quit in 2004. I would have begged for him to come back and built the team around him. He was and still is the best English player I have seen in my time watching football. Immaculate passer and integral to ManU’s ability to play passing, offensive football.
@@cold_servo_pie That’s a ridiculous statement. You know all his ManU mates consider him the best baller they ever played with after Cristiano right? He was an immaculate passer and tactically very astute, always doing best for the team. Gerrard was box to box and dynamic, Lampard a fox in the box, but neither and no one else had Scholes ability to control the pace of a game from mid with passing.
Additionally I think Gerrard and Beckham also overlap. Agree that Gerrard was best in that 10 area but the other position Benetiz used him in successfully was wide right, as he was a great passer and crosser and had legs to get up and down. So when Gerrard looked for spaces other than his usual in the 10 area spaces, he just ended up overlapping with Beckham. Plus with Owen and Rooney who had yet to learn to head, having the ability to cross the ball was totally pointless. Beckham was Captain and that dictated 442, due to him not being good enough to play Central and not fast enough to be a winger. Looking back, Rooney could've played off the left of a 3 and Gerrard could've maybe been right of a 3. With Hargreaves , Scholes, Lampard the midifeld 3 but it is still square pegs in round holes. In a really weird way, Scholes and Danny Murphy could've both been fantastic in a tiki taka style midfield but that was so far removed from the understood style of English football.
Didn't really go very in-depth. Such as this leading to Scholes retiring, SGE trying to fix this by the next world cup 2006 using Hargreaves and Joe Cole on the left with 5 in the midfield. Problems with no left winger (briefly mentioned), even going all the way to using Gerrard on LM at 2010 world cup just to fit him and Lampard together. Also the team formation should be discussed in context to 2002. Scholes was least likely to be dropped. He was also an AM more than a CM. Gerrard was purely a CM, even DM at the time. His best season playing behind Torres happened much later. Lampard was not yet a huge goal scoring threat and still quite new to England team and most likely to have been dropped. Ferdinand also didnt play much in this team due to missing the drug test.
Bad example with Spain, they won the Euros starting Busquets, Alonso, Xavi, Iniesta, Cesc and Silva, Spain definitely did just play all the midfielders
The problem they/Sven had wasn't so much as the players at his disposal. It was the inflexibility of both formation and tactics.
Against France for example - they (unsurprisingly) had fewer shots on goal and France were better across nearly every metric, yet left it until 70min to make any changes from a rigid 442 and Hargreaves and or Butt should have played from the offset.
Where as against Switzerland Sven could have played a more offensive team. And yet whilst they won easily, he made the same substitution at 70 min. Off came Scholes and on went, yep you guessed... Hargreaves.
There's an interview where Scholes himself says it's a myth that he always played on the left for England and that he only started in left mid around 11 or 12 times.
Crouch and Lampard as a partnership maybe ?
Given the fact Lampard played with someone like Drogba who was not necessarily a lethal Goalscorer but a Great Hold up player for him .
Lampard would have been a great option as a second striker tbh
4-4-2 diamond of Hargreaves Scholes Gerrard Beckham in the midfield
Lampard as a second Striker option
Rooney as a sub if you want impact , I completely forgot about him
The easiest fix was to have while as a dlp behind Gerard and Beckham and then have lampard in front of them
4-3-1-2 or 4-3-3.
Neville Ferdinand Terry Coke
Carrick Hargreaves Scholes
Beckham Owen Rooney
Hargreaves and Carrick were instrumental in United’s PL and UCL double winning season in 2007-08 in the middle of the park mopping up through tackles and interceptions while Scholes was the deep lying playmaker.
It was the perfect balance.
Beckham could play as RW or RCM.
Rooney could float as second striker and LW with Owen as the striker.
Obviously Hargreaves should have played as a classic 6.. Clearly you need to rotate between Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes as these are practically all the same types (but it may be a good tactical advantage to always be able to sub in a fresh player of such high quality).. Essentially the formation would change to a 4-1-3-2 or 4-4-2 (midfield diamond) to make best use of the on pitch talent.. You could even have a fluid formation changing into a sort of 4-3-3 on game with an attacking diamond, having Rooney and maybe Scholes moving to gain attacking momentum from the wing half spaces... Anyway, it certainly could and should have worked a lot better than it did