The answer is Gallagher. Until Mainoo is ready to take the mantle, which I kinda think he is already but I understand taking a more measured approach with him, then if Southgate must have a player in there who can match Henderson's work rate and intensity, then Gallagher is the answer.
England Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
The answer is Gallagher. Until Mainoo is ready to take the mantle, which I kinda think he is already but I understand taking a more measured approach with him, then if Southgate must have a player in there who can match Henderson's work rate and intensity, then Gallagher is the answer.
The number isn't just about intensity though. It's about understand how to protect that space infront of center backs. Positioning in and out of position for passing angles in build up and breaking up of moves when defending. Patrolling the area of half spaces that most creative players thrive in.
Gallagher does not have it. He is more of mobile ball winner with a degree of creative e flair. Same can be said of Curtis Jones & James-Ward Prowse who are better suited to being the second deep lying partner for a main 6.
Honestly Outside Rice, in the Entire England set up only Phillips, Henderson because of sheer experience and playing it a decent amount at club level, Garner from the under 21s and untested at all international levels Mainoo, have the game under standing for it. That is why Henderson won't be getting dropped from this England squad any time soon.
Last edited:
That the issue. You keep conflating the tactical understanding of the individual player, with the set up. At City he is surrounded be people drilled in playing that way with players like him. With England the defence and keeper don't know. Neither will the attack and most of his midfield partners bar Rice. It 100% isn't the same thing. This is "Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes will form a great and balanced midfield because they are great players " type thinking all over again!
Your arguments are all over the place.
Kane and Saka’s scoring apparently has no relevance because it’s at club level? So we should rely on Bellingham instead because of what he’s doing this season… at club level?
The same Kane that has 62 goals and 19 assists in an England shirt. That Kane?
City played 4-3-3 for years. Was it fluid? Yes. That doesn’t Silva / Fernandinho / de Bruyne weren’t a midfield trio. Or are we saying that Xavi / Busquets / Iniesta wasn’t a midfield trio because Alves was constantly overlapping and would drop between his split CBs?
The key to winning things at international football is you must have a defensive triangle that is uncomplicated and utterly reliable in keeping out opponents. Then you play all your best combos of attacking players to slay opponents. That is ALL England need. This nonsense of wanting to play swash buckling, tactical champaygne football will get y'all no where!
For the Euros all y'all need is a compatible reliable starting cb pair. Rice and another deep lying robust player who can pass next to him. Then the rest of the side is any combination of your elite attackers to slay the opponents. It's that simple. If you can keep them all out and outscore them?Just like at the recent under 21 Championships. You will inevitable triumph. You DON'T need to be gloriously entertained for that to happen. You don't need to be whipping everyone 3-4 nil with 18 plus shots on goal for that neither. You just need a month of your defensive triangle keeping people out and your offensive men outscoring them.
For the Euros all y'all need is a compatible reliable starting cb pair. Rice and another deep lying robust player who can pass next to him. Then the rest of the side is any combination of your elite attackers to slay the opponents. It's that simple. If you can keep them all out and outscore them?Just like at the recent under 21 Championships. You will inevitable triumph. You DON'T need to be gloriously entertained for that to happen. You don't need to be whipping everyone 3-4 nil with 18 plus shots on goal for that neither. You just need a month of your defensive triangle keeping people out and your offensive men outscoring them.
Harvey elliot or mainoo should be ahead of Henderson, we will get dominated with Henderson in our midfield, he was a let down in the last world cup let alone 2years on and playing in 2nd rate leagues
Kane has a history of failure with England. Bellingham and Saka don't yet. Point is Bellingham is England's best player and sacrificing your best player's effectiveness is not something a sane manager should do unless they have no other choice
The same Kane that blew the 2-0 against Croatia and missed the penalty against France. That Kane
They never were and I don't know why you insist on this. Fernandinho played in a double pivot, with either Delph or Zinchenko next to him most of the time. The others played in attack. Silva floated a bit between roles but in general at most you call that a 2-1(or 2-2) midfield configuration
Technically speaking depends on season, but they were at least a trio most of the time, even when part of a diamond. Busquets splitting the CBs was only done in Guardiola's final season, most of which was him experimenting with things. Dani Alves was a winger for them, he didn't move into midfield
This is pretty reductive. Obviously there is less scope to get across complex tactics at international level but I would say the style of recent tournament winners has varied quite a bit. For example the Italy team that won the euros played in quite a different way to the Argentina team.
England's problem in many a tournament has been an inability to retain possession under pressure so mot their 'defensive triangle' or playing their best attackers
The frustrating thing with Southgate is he has seemingly made little effort to rectify the issues we have seen
England's problem in many a tournament has been an inability to retain possession under pressure so mot their 'defensive triangle' or playing their best attackers
The frustrating thing with Southgate is he has seemingly made little effort to rectify the issues we have seen
This is false. Arteta hasn't frequently used the inverted fullback tactic since January
Come on, don't be foolish. Gerrard- Lampard - Scholes is way less balanced than Foden - Bellingham - Rice, even though I don't think that midfield is perfect anyway. But still; if I was Southgate, I would probably play a 442. Feel it's the system that best suits the England team and Kane.
Rice as the destroyer, Mainoo as the deep lying playmaker and metronome and Bellingham as the main man.
That could be a dream trio for England even already. Mainoo can certainly do a sort of De Jong role if Southgate builds around him… even at 18.
If you are going to place Foden in midfield he has to be in a 4 man. He doesn’t remotely fit in a 3. Too lightweight and likes to get forward.
England though I just don’t see dominating the ball with Southgate but they could by crowding the midfield for sure. They should really control the game against any side on the planet with those 4 players in the middle.
That could be a dream trio for England even already. Mainoo can certainly do a sort of De Jong role if Southgate builds around him… even at 18.
If you are going to place Foden in midfield he has to be in a 4 man. He doesn’t remotely fit in a 3. Too lightweight and likes to get forward.
England though I just don’t see dominating the ball with Southgate but they could by crowding the midfield for sure. They should really control the game against any side on the planet with those 4 players in the middle.
I’m not conflating tactical understanding with the way the team set up. I’m saying if you select players with a high level of tactical understanding they quite likely to be able to handle the team set up. Particularly when they’ve been playing in that system for their entire career. Particularly Bellingham, he’s literally only been playing this high up the pitch for six months. He wouldn’t have to adapt to playing central midfield - he’s a central midfielder. Southgate could pick:
Grealish - Kane - Saka
CITY - BAYERN - ARSENAL
Foden - Rice - Bellingham
CITY - ARSENAL - MADRID
Chilwell - Tomori - Stones - Walker
CHELSEA - MILAN - CITY - CITY
Where Foden would be surrounded by players who are very comfortable in a fluid 4-3-3 having been coached by Guardiola, Tuchel, Arteta, Ancelotti, Pochettino and Pioli. Hell, he’d have three teammates from his club side.
Real are reliant on Bellingham for his productivity. England are not. He is top of list for most goals contributions for Real this season. For England he is not (he’s not second, either).
We didn’t lose against Italy in the final because we didn’t have enough goal threats. We lost because we didn’t have enough players with the supreme confidence to demand the ball and then find a teammate when it mattered most. What I’ve found most impressive about Bellingham this season isn’t the ridiculous number of winners he’s scored (though that is impressive - obviously). It’s that fact that he’s walked into the biggest club in the world at 20 and his teammates trust him with the ball when it matters the most.
Last edited:
Yeah, the profiles of Foden - Rice - Bellingham are nothing like Gerrard - Lampard - Scholes.
Also, Gerrard - Lampard - Scholes could have worked if Gerrard didn’t feel the need to be Roy of the Rovers in every match. If he had 10% of Rice’s positional discipline (when played as a 6) England may very well have won something.
You have to remember in the world cup, Bellingham played a bit deeper in the first two group games alongside Mount and Rice. Henderson came in for Mount and the balance was better, with Bellingham having more freedom and playing better.
Not a fan of Henderson, like many others but he's a good profile of midfielder to have and one that is generally lacking, unlike in forward positions.
Not a fan of Henderson, like many others but he's a good profile of midfielder to have and one that is generally lacking, unlike in forward positions.
You are literally proving my point. You have literally conflated the fact these players have been coached in the system with who they have played it with.
Foden , Bellingham and Rice would NOT be playing infront of a center defence that knows intimately how to play behind a midfield like them. Nor behind a front 3 that can collective press infront of midfield like them.
On paper it all looks great! In reality the team would not have the collective solidity, nor defensive balance and will be murdered in transition against any side with a decent to high end attacking threat at international level. The kinda horror show England faced on a bad day vs Hungary in Euro league not so long ago, is exactly what that line up would end up on the wrong end of against an organized international side that sat deep and had teeth on the counter.
You think it "foolish" because you ALSO are just not seeing the picture clearly.
Busquets -Xavi and Iniesta were a better trio than Rice, Bellingham and Foden together. Spain still added Xabi Alonso to Busquets and pushed Xavi to 10 and Iniesta to wide Forward for the self same reasons I pointed out. The defence they waa to play behind
them and the attack ahead of them were NOTHING like what they had at Barca! The collective would NEVER have the same collective defensive solidity and coherence. In and out of possession. Even though the talent availbls was arguably better in most cases bar Messi....
The Gerrard-Lampard-Scholes analogy is simply to highlight what looks great on paper rarely is in reality.
...
In my view. Trent Alexander Arnold is the only player who shoulc be first choice to partner Rice in deep midfield. He has the passing and creative chops and he can actually defend as good/better than most 8s.
No. He was using it before Timber got injured. He was using it before Zinchenko lost his place to Kwior. His still using it now. Just in different ways.
Maybe Spain selecting Alonso had more to do with him being a world class player and less to do with Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets being unable to operate as trio outside of Barca.
That is because the players have just not been there. England fans keep acting like they have a huge collection of deep lying possesion controllers that Southgate is wantonly over looking in selection. Madder still they want him to "solve that" by playing attacking midfield playmakers or box to box creators that much deeper. In a role that simply doesn't bring out the best in them for England. Bellingham was a prime example. He was OK for England deeper and brilliant further ahead.
Last edited:
We’re actually not really using it at the moment. Kiwior is a pretty standard LB. White has inverted a little more since Zinchenko has been out, but he’s mainly underlapping into the right half space. This has freed up both Saka (who was constantly getting doubled up on) and Odegaard (who can now drop deeper than he used to).
Jorginho has come in for some games. At first he played LCM with Rice holding. Then they swapped around and Rice went on a little scoring spree. Havertz went from 8 to 10 (rotating with Trossard) to False 9 to pretty much a traditional CF.
Funnily enough, of all of the tactical tweaks we used in 2024, the one thing that’s fallen by the wayside is our use of inverted full backs.
Last edited:
That excuse doesn't fly because firstly the entire Spain squad was packed with world class players. Whilst second, no midfield trio on earth could touch prime Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta, so Xabi Alonso merely being world class wouldn't have been good enough reason to add him. They'd simply have played three of the world class attacking players they had ahead of them instead.
Well at least he won't be coming to us.
White current inverts though. The difference is he inverts into attacking midfeld, with Jorginho being the one partnering Rice in the middle out of possession.
Anyway the main point of inversion is to have a double pivot infront of the defence and inverting in general isn't something easily grasped from a few international training session.
The only way for example for England to possibly make the kinda dream midfield you desire to work is to push Stones into midfield and literally use the fullbacks as center backs. But I don't believe you would want fullbacks who don't join the attack and just act like cbs neither. That is why personally I'm unconvinced by that ideal midfield trio and your ideal England XI.
France and Germany for example won the world cup with an entire back of natural cbs. Even if a number of them could actually attack well. With the staunchest of midfields allowing the attackers freedom to win it for them. I can't understand why England fans in general seem averse to such an approach at the up coming Euros. It's like y'all can only be happy with a Netherlands 74/Brazil 70 approach to a triumph. Which is a once in a generation type occurance.
Last edited:
I feel like we have a core of players who just force their way into the team. And to accommodate that I’d move Rice into centre back:
———— Kane
—- Foden—Bellingham
———-Mainoo
—— Rice —— Stones
Inverting Trent to support Mainoo in midfield
———— Kane
—- Foden—Bellingham
———-Mainoo
—— Rice —— Stones
Inverting Trent to support Mainoo in midfield
It’s not an excuse, you don’t have to come up with excuses for why a national team coach would select Alonso - that absurd.
Spain is probably the worst team to choose to try and prove your point. Over their four years of domination they had Puyol, Pique and Alba in the defence and Pedro, Villa and Fabregas in attack. We know that Alonso’s selection wasn’t due to Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets being unable to function without their Barca teammates because:
A) That’s an insane idea to begin with
B) They had a bunch of their Barca teammates in the Spain team
For me if England went out like this based on this seasons form:
Pickford
Walker
Dunk/Maguire
Stones
Tomori/Gomez
TAA
Rice
Saka
Bellingham
Foden
Kane
With the collective fire power on the bench
I'd back them to win the Euros.
Pickford
Walker
Dunk/Maguire
Stones
Tomori/Gomez
TAA
Rice
Saka
Bellingham
Foden
Kane
With the collective fire power on the bench
I'd back them to win the Euros.
There is zero 'insane' in about it.
Firstly, No midfield trio on the planet at the time was better than Barca's magic triangle. They didn't need to split it to add Xabi Alonso for ANY reason outside of tactical consideration because the attackers on the squad were also world class, as were the defenders so the added strength in midfield would never have been neccessary.
Secondly, given Barca were literally the best club side on the planet. All they has to do was literally use Barca's starting 11, with the world class members of the Spain squad filling in for the missing Barca stars. Yet even that they did not do!
You simply don't want to consider that reality because you don't like what it implies for your ideal England line up
White isn’t really inverting. He makes runs into the right half space, but he doesn’t stay there. It’s not like Kiwior and White are playing FB in particularly groundbreaking ways - they’re just doing it at a consistently high level at the moment.
You’ve actually mentioned what my preference would be. Of all the option, I think given Stones the freedom to step out of the back line into midfield is the optimum. We can even label him a midfielder and avoid labelling it as a 4-3-3 to keep you and @giorno happy : )
Grealish Kane Saka
Foden Bellingham
Rice Stones
Shaw Tomori Walker
Pickford
Both Shaw and Walker have played LCB / RCB in a three before. And Stones is brilliant playing CB/DM.
What are you arguing here? I’ve lost the plot of what you’re saying.
I’m saying Spain picked Alonso because he’s a brilliant player who was born in Spain. So they decided to play a double-pivot of Alonso and Busquets with Xavi a little further ahead and Iniesta coming in off the wing (a role he frequently played at Barca). That system fit all of Spain’s brilliant midfielders on the pitch in positions that they were all comfortable in.
That doesn’t mean Iniesta, Xavi and Busquets couldn’t function without their Barca teammates. That’s a wild conclusion to jump to.
Spain had a bumper crop of midfielders and they played to their strengths. This culminated in them playing SIX midfielders in a 4-6-0 formation in 2010.
Using your logic, the addition of Fabregas and Silva means that Alonso, Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta “needed the added strength in midfield”?
Or maybe, just maybe, that European and World Champion quartet were perfectly functional and the selection of Fabregas and Silva was due to them being world class players who the coach wanted in the team.
The main reason why England lost the previous Euro final to Italy (apart from the penalties. Besides that, Italy controlled the game) is because they simply not have a deeplying playmaker.
Southgate may tinker with playing Stones or TAA in the anchorman role, but neither of them are playmakers.
Mainoo looks too dynamic to be a deeplying playmaker. He'll thrive as a classic number 8.
A player who is now thriving at Brighton, Billy Gilmour, would walk into that England midfield. He's not flashy or glamorous or sexy but he's able to dictate and control the tempo of a match in a way that no English midfielder can.
Too bad he's Scottish. Yay!
Southgate may tinker with playing Stones or TAA in the anchorman role, but neither of them are playmakers.
Mainoo looks too dynamic to be a deeplying playmaker. He'll thrive as a classic number 8.
A player who is now thriving at Brighton, Billy Gilmour, would walk into that England midfield. He's not flashy or glamorous or sexy but he's able to dictate and control the tempo of a match in a way that no English midfielder can.
Too bad he's Scottish. Yay!
There is some revisionism going on here.
Del Bosques Spain is divided into two eras really, the 2008 to 2010 era and the 2010 and beyond era. In 2008 and 2010 the Spain team played their attack around two of the best forwards in world football at the time, David Villa and Fernando Torres, though by 2010 Torres had already begun to decline significantly.
The difference is, in Barcelona, Messi was drifting all over the pitch and Eto’o and Henry were consistently interchanging in 2009. In 2010 Ibrahimovic was leading the line and this actually caused problems for Barca style of play. In 2010 onwards, Messi became a false nine dropping into midfield giving Pedro and Villa the license to drop into channels and make runs behind the forward line from deep. Messi roaming essentially drew defenders out of position for the wide forwards Pedro and Villa, and Eto’o and Henry seasons earlier to exploit gaps that were left and also created gaps for Iniesta as the primary midfielder ball carrier to drive forward. This also meant that Xavi on his own was enough of a deep lying playmaker to distribute the play forward with the aid of busquets doing most of the recycling work.
Spain did not have a luxury of an incredibly mobile forward leading the line who could drop deep and pull defenders out of position into midfield. Torres role was to lead the line and Villa often did that role for Spain too, but neither of them could drop deep like Messi could. This meant midfield coherency in Defense with the opposition was easier and passing channels were more easily intercepted. Pedro’s role was not really changed but you can see the difference in effectiveness with him in club vs country.
Messi drifting also opened up a bombing Alves to add another layer of threat, something which didn’t really exist with Arbeloa or Capdevilla, even without a player disrupting the defense to give the right back space. What this meant was that ball carriers had to get the ball further up the pitch, as they no longer had the luxury of having space to drive forward to in a congested midfield. It made perfect sense why in this context Iniesta was moved to the wide of a front 3, rather than put Villa there and Torres up top and another inside forward in Pedro. They sort of did this in 2008 and although they won, there were glaring problems in their attack. With this context, it made sense to load the midfield with playmakers who can pass from deep to the ball carriers and creators up top.
2010 was Villa leading the line, Iniesta the main creator, Pedro finding space in the channels. Xavi never played as a number 10. He drove forward and carried more than he would have done at Barca but that’s because Iniesta was out wide. It made no sense for Iniesta to play down the middle around this time when there wasn’t enough space generated by a mobile all over the pitch forward. It’s why Spain was a lot more backwards passing and boring compared to Barca. The channels weren’t as open, midfield was far more congested because there wasn’t a Messi opening everything up both in midfield and the defensive line.
fast forward to 2012 and there simply wasnt even a forward anymore in that team. Del bosque went even harder and decided to go full false 9 in Fàbregas, this is where you see Iniesta went back down the middle, Spain kind of had a Xmas tree formation going. Fabregas constantly dropping deep gave Iniesta space to drive forward into gaps in the midfield channels and Silva to do the same. This also gave Alba and Arbeloa to consistently be a threat down the wings. Iniesta got motm in the final in the same role he was utilized in at Barca.
tldr: Spain lacking a drifting false 9 in their tactical setup meant that Iniesta wasnt best used in the middle, hence it made more sense for Alonso to be there instead. When fabregas got that role, Iniesta moved back to the middle. Alonsos presence was more to do with the lack of a lynchman mobile forward that Barca had (Messi mainly) which also meant the Spanish wide forwards that Barca had (Villa, Pedro) were less effective. Spain compensated by having their ball carriers out wide instead (Silva, Iniesta) and putting Xabi Alonso down the middle. It wasn’t really a defensive adjustment.
What is going on about Spanish team in the Southgate/England thread
I'm saying Spain had the best midfield 3 on the planet. Plus a collection of world class attackers. The ideal scemario was start that mdfield magic triangle and surround them with others. Footballing wise they really did not need to include Xabi Alonso. It was ENTIRELY down to tactical considerations. Because the knew they didn't have a Messi in attack they simply made themselves overwhelmingly strong centrally instead of sticking to ideals.
Of course "its wild" because that's not what I said. I said instead Spain would have been a much weaker team employing just Barca's midfield 3 than what they had with Xabi Alonso added. With the reason for the weakness being without the exact profile of players they had at Barca around them, the overal team coherence would never have been as good as what they had at Barca. Which is the ENTIRE gist of my argument. The ideal can never trump the practical.
Rather by my logic Spain simply chose the formation that gave them the best chance of winning. Because replicating Barca was NEVER going to make them a winning outfit. If they had gone the ideal route they
would simply have played their collection of world class attackers instead! Remember that 2010 side had prime Torres, Villa & Llorente, Pedro, and David Silva before he was converted to midfield full time by City, plus Juan Mata . They could have easily stuck to the 4-3-3. Yet I'm quite certain if they had they wouldn't have gone on to utterly dominate international ball as they did.
Because there are similarities in potential. England are teeming with the kinda potential Spain had before 2010 world cup. Although their greatest potential lies in attacking midfield and attack whilst Spain's lay in midfield. We are debating what would be the best way for England to harness it. Go ideal or pragmatic....
Last edited:
The main reason why England lost the previous Euro final to Italy (apart from the penalties. Besides that, Italy controlled the game) is because they simply not have a deeplying playmaker.
Southgate may tinker with playing Stones or TAA in the anchorman role, but neither of them are playmakers.
Mainoo looks too dynamic to be a deeplying playmaker. He'll thrive as a classic number 8.
A player who is now thriving at Brighton, Billy Gilmour, would walk into that England midfield. He's not flashy or glamorous or sexy but he's able to dictate and control the tempo of a match in a way that no English midfielder can.
Too bad he's Scottish. Yay!
Hate to sound so defensive / condescending but Kobbie Mainoo is already better as a deep-lying playmaker OR an '8' than Billy Gilmour will ever be.
I'm not trying to put Gilmour down, I simply think people underestimate the talent Mainoo has. We're talking about a player here who could be one of the best in the World. I think he's the best 18yo CM I have ever seen.
Well no its obviously not just about personnel, it's also about tactics ans ability to change games mid game both of which Southgate isn't the best at
Yup. That said, you don't see the kind of complex tactical systems and structures at international level that you see regularly with clubs. As for Italy, Mancini asked for and managed to obtain special "stages", outside the normal international calendar, to work with the players, meaning compared to other managers he actually had more time to work with his players and create a tactical framework. He also had a fairly settled squad from the beginning and stuck with that throughout. Italy improved under him with every IT break, leading up to the Euros
Argentina on the other hand relied on the same framework that had worked best during the Messi era: compact, solid defence, slow paced possession, midfielders that could reliably get the ball to Messi, an high level playmaker to offer a secondary threat and prevent opponents to focus entirely on stopping Messi, and Messi. Make no mistake: for all of Scaloni's brilliance in creating and leading this group, for all that this younger generation didn't suffer from the weight of expectations like the older ones and didn't wilt under the WC/Copa lights, the true difference between Argentina losing 3 finals in a row and winning 2 in row is Di Maria played in the last 2.
Yup, and they don't really have players good at this either. The best at it, outside the complex structure of City, are Graelish and, well. Jordan Henderson.
Well, if you have a bunch of players who are fantastic in fast paced, transition heavy football, and lack high level ball retaining/ball moving midfielders/defenders, it makes sense you would rather focus on your strenghts...
Yeah, because he's been using 2 "pure" CMs instead. Guardiola has also largely stopped using inverted FBs. They both still rely on a midfield double pivot as their standard tactical framework
If you ask them to play the same role as at club level, and if you aren't carrying players who don't have that understanding or experience, or if you're not carrying players who are simply not capable of playing the role you need from them...
I would argue that he's not anymore. Doesn't matter though. Bellingham can play in midfield. You just lose most of the things that make him so special. Might as well, play somebody else with a skillset better suited to the rest of the team
Please play that against Spain. There 2 ways it could go: Your front 5 manages to press them into submission, and your physical superiority in individual duels gets you the goals you need. It's ugly, it's a choatic mess, but you are perfectly suited to win those contests.
Or B) Spain presses you into submission and it's the Croatia/Italy game all over again.
That team does not have the ability to move the ball from defence to attack consistently against any good team that can press. Unless you plan on asking your front 5 to drop deep in your half for the buildup, and and then try to hit teams in behind quickly. Which still means there's little point to Foden
Your lineup still doesn't make sense then. If that's the way you want to go, there's better options than Bellingham for it. Rice-Phillips-Foden/Bellingham would still be better, on paper, than Rice-Foden-Bellingham. More balanced. Of course, need Phillips to get fit and find some form. If he does, pretty sure that's gonna be England's midfield
Bellingham doesn't touch the ball a lot outside the final third for Real Madrid though. He's barely involved in the first phase of build up, and most of his touches in the defensive third come when the team is defending deep, as quick transition outlet. You want him to revert to Dortmund's version. That's a great player. It's also not the one that wins you games
They are: in both cases you are reducing a terrifying attacking player's role by saddling him with defensive work. Or you sacrifice 2 of them for it. Either way, suboptimal
They played together for 1 tournament, and England lost to Portugal on penalties with a goal ruled out for -reasons- after losing Rooney to injury afaik? Either way, England's struggles in that game were essentially the same the midfield you propose would face in the same scenario: how the feck do they move the ball out of their half consistently?
Not really, @AfonsoAlves did a good job explaining Spain's setup. It came down to "they didn't have Messi" and later on became "they don't have strikers". Less about collective solidity or coherence, more about lacking firepower
Comes down to what you think England should focus on. Either approach would be imperfect, as is often the case with national teams. Personally I think Southgate's approach at the last WC - alternating high press and deep block and generally try to play fast, hyper vertical football, is what works best for this England team. That said, the last WC was an outlier tactically because it was played in the middle of the season - with much much fitter players. Things were possible that might not be in Germany next June
How's that back 6 getting the ball to the front 5?
You say that but do you really want Mainoo rushed into the England setup now?
I'm not a Southgate fan but he's doing Mainoo (and Man United) a massive favour by not calling him up yet.