Overall, let me say that I am totally happy with a point against France. Before the game I would have taken a draw, and after it I was content to have done so. Nor do I believe the idea (as posited by the charming Patrice Evra) that England should have been embarrassed by the way they played, or that, in his words, England did to France what Chelsea did to Barcelona. Bullshit. We were defensive, yes, but it wasn't the anti-football that Chelsea played in Europe this season.
In the first twenty or so minutes against France, we had a lot of reasons to be cheerful. Milner had burst through on goal only to shank horribly wide from the acute angle, Oxlade-Chamberlain had pressed well and the attacking impetus was with England. This more or less ended with our goal (a well-taken cushioned header is always nice to see). From that point on we were on the back foot, but we still looked threatening when we had the ball on the break.
Quite quickly, Nasri equalised (his celebration to the 'French media' showing that he is not in any way self-obsessed). From then on, how much did France really create? Hart dealt with a decent Diarra header from a corner with an excellent reflex save, and the rest were shots from outside the box. The line being peddled (again, largely by Evra-types) that we were lucky to survive is nonsense.
That said, we did allow them to dominate possession in a way that made everybody quite uncomfortable. From my position, what seemed largely to be the problem was the gap between Scott Parker and the defence- there wasn't one. He is supposed to be the line of defence after the midfield, not a third centre back. As Nasri et al had more and more possession outside our box, the defence dropped deeper and deeper, and Parker got sucked in with them. What should have happened is that the defence should have kept a slightly higher line, trusting in their ability to intercept through balls through the packed box, and Parker should have stayed higher up, pressuring the person with the ball, rather than dropping to allow them time and space to shoot. The problem, one suspects, is that he is afraid of getting beaten, and decides to take the seemingly safer option. Of course, he should trust in his own ability to make challenges or at least not allow the attacking player time to make a decision.
It seems strange to criticise Parker, who I actually thought played an important role in breaking up their attacks before they could really start, which of course is his job. But it was notable how many times he seemed to be playing alongside the defence, rather than ahead of them.
Overall, it's fair to say that we ceded possession to the technically superior French, and it paid off. They couldn't break us down. If we had had Rooney, Wilshere, and, erm... our other technically gifted midfielders/forwards, I might be annoyed at the way we had played. But we don't, and we won't have a technically talented team for many years, if ever. So Hodgson, rightly, is making do with what we do have, and I have to say I'm more than happy to see it.
What will be interesting is how we line up, and how we take on the matches against Ukraine and Sweden. Unlike France, they are not replete with gifted players, and are certainly seen as slightly more beatable. It will be up to Hodgson whether we stick with the difficult to break down side that we have seen against Norway, Belgium, and France, or if we twist with an adventurous outlook. We can't change the line-up that much (look at our bench on Monday for an example of why), but we can go out with a slightly more positive outlook. Whether we will, remains to be seen, and whether we should is worthy of debate.
In the first twenty or so minutes against France, we had a lot of reasons to be cheerful. Milner had burst through on goal only to shank horribly wide from the acute angle, Oxlade-Chamberlain had pressed well and the attacking impetus was with England. This more or less ended with our goal (a well-taken cushioned header is always nice to see). From that point on we were on the back foot, but we still looked threatening when we had the ball on the break.
Quite quickly, Nasri equalised (his celebration to the 'French media' showing that he is not in any way self-obsessed). From then on, how much did France really create? Hart dealt with a decent Diarra header from a corner with an excellent reflex save, and the rest were shots from outside the box. The line being peddled (again, largely by Evra-types) that we were lucky to survive is nonsense.
That said, we did allow them to dominate possession in a way that made everybody quite uncomfortable. From my position, what seemed largely to be the problem was the gap between Scott Parker and the defence- there wasn't one. He is supposed to be the line of defence after the midfield, not a third centre back. As Nasri et al had more and more possession outside our box, the defence dropped deeper and deeper, and Parker got sucked in with them. What should have happened is that the defence should have kept a slightly higher line, trusting in their ability to intercept through balls through the packed box, and Parker should have stayed higher up, pressuring the person with the ball, rather than dropping to allow them time and space to shoot. The problem, one suspects, is that he is afraid of getting beaten, and decides to take the seemingly safer option. Of course, he should trust in his own ability to make challenges or at least not allow the attacking player time to make a decision.
It seems strange to criticise Parker, who I actually thought played an important role in breaking up their attacks before they could really start, which of course is his job. But it was notable how many times he seemed to be playing alongside the defence, rather than ahead of them.
Overall, it's fair to say that we ceded possession to the technically superior French, and it paid off. They couldn't break us down. If we had had Rooney, Wilshere, and, erm... our other technically gifted midfielders/forwards, I might be annoyed at the way we had played. But we don't, and we won't have a technically talented team for many years, if ever. So Hodgson, rightly, is making do with what we do have, and I have to say I'm more than happy to see it.
What will be interesting is how we line up, and how we take on the matches against Ukraine and Sweden. Unlike France, they are not replete with gifted players, and are certainly seen as slightly more beatable. It will be up to Hodgson whether we stick with the difficult to break down side that we have seen against Norway, Belgium, and France, or if we twist with an adventurous outlook. We can't change the line-up that much (look at our bench on Monday for an example of why), but we can go out with a slightly more positive outlook. Whether we will, remains to be seen, and whether we should is worthy of debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment