Gabriele Marcotti examines Sven’s continuing inability to get the best out of Steven Gerrard as he strives for midfield balance, and concludes that the Liverpool captain will be forced to adapt for the greater good
It had been one of the main talking points in the weeks leading up to the World Cup, after Wayne Rooney’s metatarsal and Peter Crouch’s robot dance: would England be best served by using a traditional holding midfielder (Michael Carrick or Jamie Carragher, as seen against Hungary) in a 4-1-4-1 scheme or could Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard hold the middle of the park in a traditional 4-4-2?
Conventional wisdom was that, given the weakness of the group (at least in the eyes of the English press), Sven-Goran Eriksson could have played Ann Widdecombe and Peter Andre in midfield and it wouldn’t have mattered, which is why, against Paraguay, the Lampard- Gerrard tandem got the nod: it was a chance to test the pair in a (relatively) non-threatening environment.
Eriksson’s plan was for Gerrard to do most of the sitting, with Lampard allowed more licence to attack, though the latter often did so with caution. Yet it was Gerrard who had the far more difficult task. At club level for Liverpool he has a virtually free role, cutting in from the right hand side as and when he pleases. Yesterday, he was confined to a small square some 10 yards ahead of John Terry and Rio Ferdinand in central defence.
To mercilessly abuse a stereotype, it was like tying a thoroughbred stallion to an apple cart or using a Lamborghini for the school run. Gerrard’s main job was simply to fill space, with the odd long ball or scything tackle mixed in.
To make matters worse the man who should have been helped by his self-sacrifice, Lampard, was struggling, at least at first, to make an impact against his opposite number, veteran hard man Roberto Acuna.
Of course Paraguay’s sterility, particularly in the first half hour, masked some of this deficiency. But it became all too obvious when the South Americans switched to a diamond in midfield, pushing Caros Paredes right up behind the strikers, and tucking the wide men inside. With Paredes free to roam left and right and striker Roque Santa Cruz often tracking back, Gerrard appeared uncomfortable, almost unsure of what to do defensively, clearly lacking the nous and experience that comes from playing that role week in, week out.
It was on those occasions, many of them early in the second half, that Paraguay were at their most dangerous. Lampard and Gerrard were simply stretched by the opposing diamond, which is why, 10 minutes after the break, Eriksson countered by replacing the increasingly ineffective Michael Owen with a left winger, Stewart Downing, and shifting Joe Cole inside to further clog the middle.
That experiment lasted less than half an hour and it’s unlikely to be repeated. England only really regained their shape seven minutes from time when Eriksson brought on Owen Hargreaves, who may be unloved and unappreciated, but at least is a genuine holding midfielder.
The positives for England’s midfield come from the flanks. Beckham showed once again that he is steady, at least defensively and, on set-pieces is a constant threat. And in finely balanced games like these a set-piece is often all you need.
On the left Joe Cole is called upon to – like Gerrard – interpret a role that is quite different what he is used to at club level. While he does not do the things a traditional English winger is supposed to do – skip down the by-line and deliver inch-perfect cross upon inch-perfect cross – he makes himself useful in other ways. His movement is sharp and intelligent and his ability to beat a man at any time often gifts England a man-advantage.
Cole’s natural tendency, though, is to drift inside where he is often most effective. That’s fine, as long as Ashley Cole provides width behind him, something that wasn’t happening yesterday largely due to his enduring lack of conditioning but which, presumably, will improve as the tournament goes on.
Still, if yesterday was supposed to offer England some reassurance that upon Rooney’s return they can simply dump Crouch (or, based on recent form, possibly Owen) and seamlessly stick Gerrard and Lampard at the heart of a 4-4-2, even against a superior calibre of opponent, well … it didn’t.
Against a technically gifted, well-drilled opponent, of the calibre likely to be faced later, Gerrard simply does not offer the kind of defensive guarantees you need. Not to mention the fact that, by having him play the Makelele role, England are robbing themselves of his enormous offensive threat.
The problem is, there are no easy answers. Throwing Hargreaves (or Carrick or Carragher) in front of the back four means sacrificing a striker and it remains to be seen whether Rooney can play up front on his own, particularly this version of Rooney, whose fitness is yet to be tested after his injury. Gerrard could theoretically be moved out wide, but then who gets dropped? Joe Cole, who looks sharp and has the ability to create out of nothing? Or Beckham, the England captain and the man in whose basket Eriksson has staked all his eggs?
Most likely, suspensions and injury permitting, the answer is that Eriksson will do nothing. Rooney will come in for one of the two strikers and that will be it. Gerrard will be called upon once again to sacrifice himself in a position which is not his own and one in which the learning curve is steep.
Two years ago, at Euro 2004, he floundered in that very role (remember the France game?), which is why England fans will be hoping he’s a quick learner.
And why, if England go far in this competition, they will owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
11 June 2006
It had been one of the main talking points in the weeks leading up to the World Cup, after Wayne Rooney’s metatarsal and Peter Crouch’s robot dance: would England be best served by using a traditional holding midfielder (Michael Carrick or Jamie Carragher, as seen against Hungary) in a 4-1-4-1 scheme or could Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard hold the middle of the park in a traditional 4-4-2?
Conventional wisdom was that, given the weakness of the group (at least in the eyes of the English press), Sven-Goran Eriksson could have played Ann Widdecombe and Peter Andre in midfield and it wouldn’t have mattered, which is why, against Paraguay, the Lampard- Gerrard tandem got the nod: it was a chance to test the pair in a (relatively) non-threatening environment.
Eriksson’s plan was for Gerrard to do most of the sitting, with Lampard allowed more licence to attack, though the latter often did so with caution. Yet it was Gerrard who had the far more difficult task. At club level for Liverpool he has a virtually free role, cutting in from the right hand side as and when he pleases. Yesterday, he was confined to a small square some 10 yards ahead of John Terry and Rio Ferdinand in central defence.
To mercilessly abuse a stereotype, it was like tying a thoroughbred stallion to an apple cart or using a Lamborghini for the school run. Gerrard’s main job was simply to fill space, with the odd long ball or scything tackle mixed in.
To make matters worse the man who should have been helped by his self-sacrifice, Lampard, was struggling, at least at first, to make an impact against his opposite number, veteran hard man Roberto Acuna.
Of course Paraguay’s sterility, particularly in the first half hour, masked some of this deficiency. But it became all too obvious when the South Americans switched to a diamond in midfield, pushing Caros Paredes right up behind the strikers, and tucking the wide men inside. With Paredes free to roam left and right and striker Roque Santa Cruz often tracking back, Gerrard appeared uncomfortable, almost unsure of what to do defensively, clearly lacking the nous and experience that comes from playing that role week in, week out.
It was on those occasions, many of them early in the second half, that Paraguay were at their most dangerous. Lampard and Gerrard were simply stretched by the opposing diamond, which is why, 10 minutes after the break, Eriksson countered by replacing the increasingly ineffective Michael Owen with a left winger, Stewart Downing, and shifting Joe Cole inside to further clog the middle.
That experiment lasted less than half an hour and it’s unlikely to be repeated. England only really regained their shape seven minutes from time when Eriksson brought on Owen Hargreaves, who may be unloved and unappreciated, but at least is a genuine holding midfielder.
The positives for England’s midfield come from the flanks. Beckham showed once again that he is steady, at least defensively and, on set-pieces is a constant threat. And in finely balanced games like these a set-piece is often all you need.
On the left Joe Cole is called upon to – like Gerrard – interpret a role that is quite different what he is used to at club level. While he does not do the things a traditional English winger is supposed to do – skip down the by-line and deliver inch-perfect cross upon inch-perfect cross – he makes himself useful in other ways. His movement is sharp and intelligent and his ability to beat a man at any time often gifts England a man-advantage.
Cole’s natural tendency, though, is to drift inside where he is often most effective. That’s fine, as long as Ashley Cole provides width behind him, something that wasn’t happening yesterday largely due to his enduring lack of conditioning but which, presumably, will improve as the tournament goes on.
Still, if yesterday was supposed to offer England some reassurance that upon Rooney’s return they can simply dump Crouch (or, based on recent form, possibly Owen) and seamlessly stick Gerrard and Lampard at the heart of a 4-4-2, even against a superior calibre of opponent, well … it didn’t.
Against a technically gifted, well-drilled opponent, of the calibre likely to be faced later, Gerrard simply does not offer the kind of defensive guarantees you need. Not to mention the fact that, by having him play the Makelele role, England are robbing themselves of his enormous offensive threat.
The problem is, there are no easy answers. Throwing Hargreaves (or Carrick or Carragher) in front of the back four means sacrificing a striker and it remains to be seen whether Rooney can play up front on his own, particularly this version of Rooney, whose fitness is yet to be tested after his injury. Gerrard could theoretically be moved out wide, but then who gets dropped? Joe Cole, who looks sharp and has the ability to create out of nothing? Or Beckham, the England captain and the man in whose basket Eriksson has staked all his eggs?
Most likely, suspensions and injury permitting, the answer is that Eriksson will do nothing. Rooney will come in for one of the two strikers and that will be it. Gerrard will be called upon once again to sacrifice himself in a position which is not his own and one in which the learning curve is steep.
Two years ago, at Euro 2004, he floundered in that very role (remember the France game?), which is why England fans will be hoping he’s a quick learner.
And why, if England go far in this competition, they will owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
11 June 2006
