I am not sure its a winger most of us blues want, it is more someone with pace who is direct. That was the one thing that was lacking last year from our play. Sometimes you end up passing for passing sake and if teams camp out on the edge of their box, it is hard to slip passes through. Most of the times we played through teams last year but there were times against West Brom and Sunderland when someone with some pace would have given us a different option. Navas for Spain is a prime example. We have Yaya who can barge his way through but a different option would have been handy at times.
Possession Football Tactics are King
- Thread starter rcoobc
- Start date
I am not sure its a winger most of us blues want, it is more someone with pace who is direct. That was the one thing that was lacking last year from our play. Sometimes you end up passing for passing sake and if teams camp out on the edge of their box, it is hard to slip passes through. Most of the times we played through teams last year but there were times against West Brom and Sunderland when someone with some pace would have given us a different option. Navas for Spain is a prime example. We have Yaya who can barge his way through but a different option would have been handy at times.
Wingers can actually be a liability sometimes, especially against teams that keep good possession. Their main function is to stay wide & take on opposition defenders. But to do that they need the ball (obviously). Starved of the ball they become somewhat redundant, which consequently gives the team not playing with any wingers a major advantage.
If you've got a couple of decent full-backs, then they can provide the width, plus the fact they're harder to pick up if they make a late run.
If you've got a couple of decent full-backs, then they can provide the width, plus the fact they're harder to pick up if they make a late run.
It is not about possession tactics but rather the team's identity and the roles of their players. England and us are still stuck to the conventional 4-4-2 which is already obsolete in modern football.
The thing about the 4-4-2 we play is that it is we play it with players who are specialists in their positions, rather than players who are modern and has a universal skill set. If you look at us from last season, tactically, I think we are pretty similar to us from the early twenties when we had a deep-lying forward (Rooney/Scholes) behind a striker (RVN/Welbeck/Hernandez), a winger that hugs the touchline (Becks/Valencia/Nani) and a winger that cuts in (Giggs/Park/Young) on the flanks. I think this really speaks about how much we have changed or stagnated over the years. 07/08 was the only exception and we had a great year. Throughout the season, we played mostly with Scholes and Carrick in a two-man midfield but still managed defeat many top teams. How we managed to do it was that we had a very loose front three of Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo who were very fluid and highly versatile, apart from that they also know their defensive responsibilities very well and that gives us balance too. We also had Giggs and Park whom while playing on the flanks can come in to support the midfield while the three are at it.
The thing about the 4-4-2 we play is that it is we play it with players who are specialists in their positions, rather than players who are modern and has a universal skill set. If you look at us from last season, tactically, I think we are pretty similar to us from the early twenties when we had a deep-lying forward (Rooney/Scholes) behind a striker (RVN/Welbeck/Hernandez), a winger that hugs the touchline (Becks/Valencia/Nani) and a winger that cuts in (Giggs/Park/Young) on the flanks. I think this really speaks about how much we have changed or stagnated over the years. 07/08 was the only exception and we had a great year. Throughout the season, we played mostly with Scholes and Carrick in a two-man midfield but still managed defeat many top teams. How we managed to do it was that we had a very loose front three of Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo who were very fluid and highly versatile, apart from that they also know their defensive responsibilities very well and that gives us balance too. We also had Giggs and Park whom while playing on the flanks can come in to support the midfield while the three are at it.
You can use wide options like we do against strong possession teams, in fact I think that's how you beat these sorts of teams. Portugal showed that against Spain, particularly in the first half, defend well as a unit and then utilise the space out wide. The failed to take their chances though and thats the big thing. Our problem though is as ever the middle. We don't have the players with the tactical know-how to play that role at a high level which puts pressure on us. Playing in a 442/4411 already puts us under pressure in the middle because we're outnumbered, but having weak links in the middle exposes us further.
Ando and Clev have the energy and the right ideas more or less but both are guilty of being defensively suspect. They work hard but they often get drawn to the ball and sometimes let their man get away from them as a result. We've not seen enough of Clev at united but Ando is also guilty of giving possession away a lot through sloppy passes.
Scholes and Giggs simply lack the legs, scholes in particular. Becuase of that they need extra protection and can be exposed by teams who commit men from the middle. Scholes in particular, although he's brilliant in some games, in others because he has to play so deep, and because his partner, usually Carrick, is forced to play deep as the defensive player, we can end up with a big gap between the midfielders and the strikers which allows other teams to push up high on us. This means our strikers have to come towards our goal as opposed to our midfielders being able to push up towards the oppositions goal.
A lot of the time people talk about the possession of Barca and Spain but don't acknowledge the defensive tactical skills their players have. Barca outside of their experiment last season almost always play with Busquets and Xavi. Great possession players but also great defensive players, particularly Busquets. They might not tackle hard etc but they get in the right positions, know how and when to press etc. For spain they include Alonso as well, another player who is defensively sound.
That's one of the problems Arsenal have had over the years in the middle. They have the technical players but outside of Song most of them are pretty useless defensively. That's why Wilshere is a real prospect as he has the technical ability but also the defensive awareness. It's not just about the ability to retain possession. Silva, nasri, mata, iniesta, sneijder etc are all great possession players but I don't think anyone would seriously put them in a 2 together. Even now people are talking about kagawa being turned into a centre mid, and maybe he'll play there, but I don't think it will make us more stable, particularly in tough games, it's that balance between ability, mentality and tactical knowledge.
Like I said I personally think our style is the way to beat possession teams outside of the gritty/ pretty damn luck chelsea way. Theres always space on the flanks and if you have the quality there and take your chances you can succeed. I don't even think we're far away. We need another player in the middle. Whether thats clev/ando developing the aspects of their game that need improving, or signing someone who can do that, remains to be seen, but in terms of the other players needed I think we've got enough when everyone is fit. People shouldn't get so hung up on the european games last season. The majority of the time we really weren't playing with our best teams not to mention there was a lot of experimenting. I mean in one game didn't we have Jones and Giggs as the midfield pairing? The games against Basel that knocked us out, didn't we have Jones as the holding player because both Carrick and Fletcher were unavailable? I wouldn't pay much attention to that, we certainly made some mistakes in those games but we also had a lot of injuries.
Ando and Clev have the energy and the right ideas more or less but both are guilty of being defensively suspect. They work hard but they often get drawn to the ball and sometimes let their man get away from them as a result. We've not seen enough of Clev at united but Ando is also guilty of giving possession away a lot through sloppy passes.
Scholes and Giggs simply lack the legs, scholes in particular. Becuase of that they need extra protection and can be exposed by teams who commit men from the middle. Scholes in particular, although he's brilliant in some games, in others because he has to play so deep, and because his partner, usually Carrick, is forced to play deep as the defensive player, we can end up with a big gap between the midfielders and the strikers which allows other teams to push up high on us. This means our strikers have to come towards our goal as opposed to our midfielders being able to push up towards the oppositions goal.
A lot of the time people talk about the possession of Barca and Spain but don't acknowledge the defensive tactical skills their players have. Barca outside of their experiment last season almost always play with Busquets and Xavi. Great possession players but also great defensive players, particularly Busquets. They might not tackle hard etc but they get in the right positions, know how and when to press etc. For spain they include Alonso as well, another player who is defensively sound.
That's one of the problems Arsenal have had over the years in the middle. They have the technical players but outside of Song most of them are pretty useless defensively. That's why Wilshere is a real prospect as he has the technical ability but also the defensive awareness. It's not just about the ability to retain possession. Silva, nasri, mata, iniesta, sneijder etc are all great possession players but I don't think anyone would seriously put them in a 2 together. Even now people are talking about kagawa being turned into a centre mid, and maybe he'll play there, but I don't think it will make us more stable, particularly in tough games, it's that balance between ability, mentality and tactical knowledge.
Like I said I personally think our style is the way to beat possession teams outside of the gritty/ pretty damn luck chelsea way. Theres always space on the flanks and if you have the quality there and take your chances you can succeed. I don't even think we're far away. We need another player in the middle. Whether thats clev/ando developing the aspects of their game that need improving, or signing someone who can do that, remains to be seen, but in terms of the other players needed I think we've got enough when everyone is fit. People shouldn't get so hung up on the european games last season. The majority of the time we really weren't playing with our best teams not to mention there was a lot of experimenting. I mean in one game didn't we have Jones and Giggs as the midfield pairing? The games against Basel that knocked us out, didn't we have Jones as the holding player because both Carrick and Fletcher were unavailable? I wouldn't pay much attention to that, we certainly made some mistakes in those games but we also had a lot of injuries.
^ You got that spot on. Apart from that, our transitions are painfully slow for a team that plays a direct, counter-attacking football. We need a midfielder in the mould of Wilshere or Modric who possesses quick feet and can spread the play quickly.
There's no way we can keep possession as well as the likes of Barcelona. It's never going to be our strength. I know people on here try to pretend the Chelsea victory didn't happen last season, but despite the element of luck, they played to their strengths. Our strengths have been our defense, and our wingers. We just need a midfield that can link up and release the ball quickly to our wingers.
Are you suggesting no wingers?
It's not as absurd as people are making out because it has happened before and will happen again. Cycles and all that. It's not even that long ago that wingers went out of fashion either. When 352 became popular wingbacks were obviously used instead of wingers, and even then plenty of teams that were playing with a back four had attacking midfielders rather than wingers. Some teams still played wingers because there'll never be a point where everyone adopts the same tactics, but then I don't think rcoobc is saying that should/will happen here either. Just that there's a trend towards teams preferring those attacking midfielder-type people out wide rather than proper wingers.
Brazil decade after decade have played without conventional wingers and managed to play sexy, successful football. Of course, their greatest teams had Garrincha and Jairzinho in it and that in itself shows how valuable wingers can be, but they've shown before that wingers aren't an essential part of the game. Width is, wingers aren't.
The Brazil thing is interesting, obviously I am not old enough to have watched much of their 4-2-2-2 in its prime, but anecodtally they are known for their wingbacks. Even in more recent times Roberto Carlos played brilliantly there.
Rafael and Fabio would be fantastic as wingbacks in my opinion.
Rafael and Fabio would be fantastic as wingbacks in my opinion.
They haven't played a winger regularly in a World Cup since 1974. Leonardo in 1994 and Eder in 1982 are the only possible exceptions but even then it's generally acknowledged they played a 4222, Eder played as a striker and Leonardo as an attacking midfielder. Germany are hardly famed for their wingers either. That says it all really.
I think you are being pedantic with regards to termanology
Width will always be needed. Whether it is us using wingers or Brazil using wing backs.
Width will always be needed. Whether it is us using wingers or Brazil using wing backs.
Of course width will always be needed, if rcoobc was saying otherwise then I think he's a fool. I don't think that's what he was saying though. He said wingers are liabilities - I don't agree but it's been said before manys a time. The one thing I strongly disagree with is the idea that this is a permanent thing, I don't know if rcoobc thinks this but it certainly seems thepolice123 does...it's completely missing the point, for me.
Not really (with regards to terminology). We play with 4 players on the wing; two full backs and two wingers. This is fantastic in the Premier League when the majority of teams will set up with two lines of defenders sitting in front of their box and ask us to break them down.
But teams are moving towards only having 2 players on the wing; the wing backs. They can do the job of the wingers when attacking, or the job of the full back when defending. They are harder to mark then a winger, but obviously they don't cant overlap top take on more players.
If anything having two winger/fullback pairs of having two single wingbacks is the biggest difference in two formations that you see, and exactly why Hectic thinks it's pretty mental.
But teams are moving towards only having 2 players on the wing; the wing backs. They can do the job of the wingers when attacking, or the job of the full back when defending. They are harder to mark then a winger, but obviously they don't cant overlap top take on more players.
If anything having two winger/fullback pairs of having two single wingbacks is the biggest difference in two formations that you see, and exactly why Hectic thinks it's pretty mental.
I'm not sure if its a permanent thing, certainly everything does go in cycles. Total football, possession football, wingers, wingbacks, 4-3-3, 4-4-2. It's all been done before over and over again.
However I completley agree with Sir Alex when he says that the ball-winning midfielder is dead. We saw that in 2009 when Fletcher got sent off for a fantastic challenge. He slid in from behind/from the side, got the ball and nipped it away. Red card and so tackling dies.
So the best defence is a good possession. Barcelona, Spain and Italy barely have a shot to save against anyone. Even against Chelsea, Chelsea had about 3 shots over the two games, they just happened to score them. Did England even have a shot against Italy, did Italy have a shot against Spain (in the final)?
All that doesn't instantly mean that wingers are dead, but it means keeping possession is much more important than it should be. And wingers aren't known for keeping the ball.
1 striker, 2 wingbacks, 2 ball playing defenders, 5 midfielders seems to be the way to go. It's not the United way though.
The referee was just a spastic that game.
What do we do against teams that will have the ball more?
What do we do against teams that will have the ball more?
Lose
Though not necessarily a box to box CM at all, he is a midfielder. (Kagawa) Meaning, he'll provide ideas through the center of the pitch, which United have been lacking. I don't know what formation will be used, but I do think that Kagawa is key to the plans in regards to providing chances through the middle. Which, subsequently will give even more space to the wingers.
No system is perfect. It it were, everyone would use it. Over time, football evolves and so do 'formations'. Take Barca / Spain for example. They've had a great run with an immense amount of talent. I'm not saying that run has come to an end - but teams will have figured out by now the best way to beat it. That in itself isn't easy, but being the best is a moving target which is why football, whether it's international or club level, is a constant adaptation towards countering what the other top teams / nations are doing.
But that's my point, the way he influences through the middle right now is as an attacking midfielder/number 10, however you want to call it. He has a relatively free role that releases his defensive duties. Most players in his style, silva, mata, nasri, iniesta, play like this.
All of them have the talent to play deeper, but in doing so not only are you giving yourself defensive problems you are also changing how they can be involved in the attack. Both iniesta and xavi are special players but their not the same. Iniesta is a major force in the attacking third because of his combination of dribbling ability and passing. Xavi is a major force in a deeper area because of his skill set.
I agree Kagawa will give us something we lack, but I think we need that in an attacking mid role, not in a deeper area. The fact is because when we play Rooney and Welbeck/Hernandez, although Rooney might come deeper at times he doesn't seem to do it enough. A lot of the time there is a large gap between the midfield and the attack. Kagawa though seems more inclined to come deeper. Additionally imo, Rooney's build up play in that free role hasn't been brilliant in recent seasons, to me I think he should be played as the main striker, in contrast Kagawa in germany and judging from this friendly seems much more comfortable in that role. If you push him back and go with Rooney and Welbeck or even RVP if we get him then I think he'll be seriously inhibited. He'll have more of a tactical burden, being required to only stray so far, won't be able to carry the ball as freely because he'll have more bodies around him and it will be tougher to execute that final ball. I keep seeing people compare him to scholes but I don't see it. I haven't seen him execute any of the sort of passes scholes does from deeper areas.
If we weren't in an area where teams are looking to make the middle as compact as they are, and not playing as many 451/433 systems then kagawa could probably be excellent in a two man midfield as long as he's willing to get stuck in. But that extra player that most teams have puts more defensive burden on a two man midfield and it makes it harder to be as involved in the attack as teams can press you, cover your partner and still have a spare man.
If he were to play there in the odd game then fine but personally I don't see the point in turning him in to a deeper player. If we had gotten vdv, silva or mata etc I wouldn't want that, same if we got Iniesta. They're special in the area they play in because that free role lets them get in to great positions, it pulls opposition players around etc. Kagawa can do that for us.
You say that yet Mikel was arguably Chelseas best and most important player against Barca and Bayern. Sure they were lucky but it didn't mean he didn't have a good game. Also Fletcher was one of our most important players in those games against Arsenal.
The problem, using England as an example is getting the balance right. You need a combination of hard work and quality. Personally I think Parker lacks that little bit of quality on the ball and Gerrard lacks the discipline both in his positioning and passing. But the other major factor for england is they simply don't have the quality out wide. That's where if you're going to have wingers you need that threat. I agree it's pointless having wingers in the mould of milner because you may as well bring them inside and suffocate the middle as they don't have the threat to damage from wide areas or the quality to make the oppositon think twice about them.
In Nani and Valencia we have that quality. Two hard working wingers with quality to spare. Nani was excellent against spain for the majority of them game. Had Ronaldo been more composed they would likely have gone through and Portugal are similar to us in some regards with their counter attacking play.
As I said we have the wingers, it's the middle where we've gotten it wrong. In the games against Barca, we;ve missed key players and gotten the selection wrong imo. For example I don't think you can play with someone like Hernandez from the start. He's just not good enough on the ball. But Welbeck has the quality if not the composure for the role. Or better yet with Kagawa we can stick Rooney as the main man. We didn't have Clev before but he would be a good partner for Carrick. But personally I think Carrick and a fully fit Fletcher, with Kagawa in front of them, Nani, Rooney and Valencia up top would be an excellent line up. Fletcher and Carrick might lack a bit of quality on the ball but they're still good and bring a superb defensive unit to allow us to keep the middle tight. With Fletcher out we need an alternative, could be ando/clev, personally I think we need to bring someone in for this role, but I think most the pieces are there.
I think that we agree..
He most certainly wasn't.Alba kept him very very quiet
To be fair you could play 4-4-2 as long as your players are comfortable in possession and able to pass accurately.
Being technically good and with a sharp brain is what is important.
Being technically good and with a sharp brain is what is important.
You know, its not really their main function. Its a team game and like all players they have ,multiple functions, not just one. One of the key advantages of wide players is that they drag defenders out to cover them, even just a few meters is enough to open up passing channels and help create more space for other players to operate in when their team is in possession.
The key to the possession football thing is not formations or whether or not a team has wingers or not etc but its ball control under pressure. If players can maintain high quality ball control when under pressure they can then retain possession and move the opposition defenders around with intelligent passing options.
The key to the possession football thing is not formations or whether or not a team has wingers or not etc but its ball control under pressure. If players can maintain high quality ball control when under pressure they can then retain possession and move the opposition defenders around with intelligent passing options.
I agree with you 100%
My only problem with possession football is when a team just parks on the edge of their area. Most of the time good teams will find a way through but every now and again they come up short. Then you need a winger to get in behind from wide, someone to dribble through or someone to barge through.
At the end of the day tactics and formations evolve. I hope we see competitive football rather than defence v attack, as teams try to nullify the tippy tappy football of today
Really? I remember him doing some excellent runs in the first half, one of which where he worked himself in to a great position only for the ref to call it back ridiculously. He faded, as did Portugal eventually but he was easily their best attacker in the first half. Maybe excellent is an overstatement, but he certainly wasn't quiet.
I'l take time to talk about tiki-taka in general and why I admire a team which adhere to it and dislike team/s who want to be like that.
First the teams I admire(don't like them too but for different reasons) which adheres to it, Barcelona.
What I admire is how they stick to their philosophy no matter what, they have achieved near perfection regarding this style and their intentions for the future are also clear...they will keep following their philosophy and keep on teaching it throughout all youth levels.
They won't change it or get influenced by any other team and that is what I admire greatly.Its their style and its their continents style and they are loyal to it.
Now what I don't like is when teams on other continents decide to adopt different styles just because that style is 'in' so as to speak.Possession football isn't the only way to play football--football can be direct, attacking and more full of flair and freedom.Now direct doesn't mean lump it forward and hope for the best, watch the 82 Brazil team.That is what I mean by this sort of football, its also a style that is more native to English teams.Sure teams here have nowhere near achieved the peak of this type of football hence so many are now looking towards possession football but I would admire clubs more if they stick to their philosophy-that is what is so admirable about Ferguson and United.You guys have not achieved the peak of this style but that doesn't mean a team should do away with it just because its not the 'in' style.
Now this doesn't mean that a team doesn't have technical proficiency its just that the mindset of the players are different-which is a very important point.
Its the reason I did not like what Wenger made Arsenal.Arsenal played beautiful football, Arsenal won things playing beautiful football.But Wenger was influenced by a different style and worked towards shifting the whole club's philosophy-credit to him that he almost made it work while achieving profits for the club.
He could have succeeded or failed(which he probably has)that is not what I don't like, what I dislike is that he abandoned the philosophies of his club, the essence of what made Arsenal and chose a different path.
I just hope that clubs in England follow a philosophy, their own defined philosophy and stick with it through thick and thin.
Some very patchy English in their I know but whatever I don't care.(I do brewlio, I do when you say it)
First the teams I admire(don't like them too but for different reasons) which adheres to it, Barcelona.
What I admire is how they stick to their philosophy no matter what, they have achieved near perfection regarding this style and their intentions for the future are also clear...they will keep following their philosophy and keep on teaching it throughout all youth levels.
They won't change it or get influenced by any other team and that is what I admire greatly.Its their style and its their continents style and they are loyal to it.
Now what I don't like is when teams on other continents decide to adopt different styles just because that style is 'in' so as to speak.Possession football isn't the only way to play football--football can be direct, attacking and more full of flair and freedom.Now direct doesn't mean lump it forward and hope for the best, watch the 82 Brazil team.That is what I mean by this sort of football, its also a style that is more native to English teams.Sure teams here have nowhere near achieved the peak of this type of football hence so many are now looking towards possession football but I would admire clubs more if they stick to their philosophy-that is what is so admirable about Ferguson and United.You guys have not achieved the peak of this style but that doesn't mean a team should do away with it just because its not the 'in' style.
Now this doesn't mean that a team doesn't have technical proficiency its just that the mindset of the players are different-which is a very important point.
Its the reason I did not like what Wenger made Arsenal.Arsenal played beautiful football, Arsenal won things playing beautiful football.But Wenger was influenced by a different style and worked towards shifting the whole club's philosophy-credit to him that he almost made it work while achieving profits for the club.
He could have succeeded or failed(which he probably has)that is not what I don't like, what I dislike is that he abandoned the philosophies of his club, the essence of what made Arsenal and chose a different path.
I just hope that clubs in England follow a philosophy, their own defined philosophy and stick with it through thick and thin.
Some very patchy English in their I know but whatever I don't care.(I do brewlio, I do when you say it)
TBF I don't really understand what you mean by permanent. Football is cyclical, that is why every year we see a different Barcelona. The philosophy remains the same but the roles and tactics are ever changing. That is also my main gripe with us because IMO our tactics are backwards and obsolete in today's game. Athletic Bilbao had an inferior team but destroyed us because they are a modern team with all-round movements and versatility from their players while our team played specialists in specific roles that resulted in predictable play.
TBF Good positioning, pressing ability and reading of the game have always been the main components of a good defence as opposed to tackling. Only the English media sees tackling as important because they recognise pluck as a part of the game and want to see something conspicuous. SAF once said that the best defending performance he have ever seen came from Maldini where he did not made a single tackle the whole game.
Okay, I have two questions, maybe someone knows the answer.
If you're trying a possession game, like say England vs. Ukraine, don't you need at least two, hopefully all three midfielders showing for the ball when you're building from the back? England were lucky to get one midfielder to show for the ball, it seemed a bit pointless to me.
Two, considering how relatively poor on the ball the whole England team was and often is, should Hodgson even be trying to play the possession game? It's kinda hard to beat your opponent to the spot when you can't count on the pass coming in accurately. It was quite ugly at times.
If you're trying a possession game, like say England vs. Ukraine, don't you need at least two, hopefully all three midfielders showing for the ball when you're building from the back? England were lucky to get one midfielder to show for the ball, it seemed a bit pointless to me.
Two, considering how relatively poor on the ball the whole England team was and often is, should Hodgson even be trying to play the possession game? It's kinda hard to beat your opponent to the spot when you can't count on the pass coming in accurately. It was quite ugly at times.
IMHO 442 is expensive tactics, these days wingers and 2 strikers are expensive. Specially left footed Winger. While 4-5-1 is easier to deploy for less solid teams, they just need to throw midfielders (which are generally well stocked) to complement the team, 1 star striker, and they're set.
half the england team can't even string 2 concecutive passes without going into long ball and you want them to play possession football?
There are reason why Barca's tiki taka can't be copied, every bloody football manager can analyse their tactic, but it takes more than just knowing how to copy them, you need personel to be able to seamlessly move around the pitch in order to find room.
We can't managed to find anyone to pass to , and our player seems to have been marked with 2 or more people when we are in possession (our last game with Barca), and that's not due to the tactic alone, but also on the personel level.
In short, You need better footballer to be able to play like Barcelona. and imo, i
Even our more comfortable in possession players, like Clev, lack the first touch and spacial awareness of the Spanish. It takes focused training from childhood to attain these attributes, it will be a while until true possession football is effectively deployed by England. I think under Roy going forward we will 'mix it up', playing both a long and short game.
I don't think that our players 'resorted' to the long ball by way of atavist. I think that it was part of Roy's remit for the lads to 'mix it up'.
I don't think that our players 'resorted' to the long ball by way of atavist. I think that it was part of Roy's remit for the lads to 'mix it up'.
Why do you people want English to play bona fide Posession football?
Technically special midfielders are possible without adopting possession style as the sole way one wants to play, take Brazilian midfielders for example.Take your very own Paul Scholes or Jack Wilshere.
I agree youth system in England needs restructuring and importantly direction but to completely change the philosophy is not the answer.
Technically special midfielders are possible without adopting possession style as the sole way one wants to play, take Brazilian midfielders for example.Take your very own Paul Scholes or Jack Wilshere.
I agree youth system in England needs restructuring and importantly direction but to completely change the philosophy is not the answer.
It's still boring to my footballing taste. But I am sure I am in a minority of some sorts regarding that.
Classic wingers are outdated now.
For now, I still can't see United playing without classic wingers though.
The answer? England are shit.
This thread is probably up there with "attacking the space" as one of the most pointless threads in CAF history.
You don't play with classic wingers, nor do you play 442 since about 2005.
We kinda do. Valencia is a classic winger, and Nani isn't simply a 'wide forward' like Pedro for example.
As someone mentioned elsewhere, most of the top teams in England focus on possession and play the ball on the ground from the back: United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs, for the most part at least. They don't have to be Barca, if that's what 'possession football' means then we'd all better just forget about it.
And yes, many of the best players on those teams aren't English, but I think you can make up a team from the available players that could play a pretty good brand of football. Especially with Welbeck, Rooney and Young leading the attack. Lampard manages to keep possession pretty well for Chelsea, Carrick, Cleverley, Wilshere and Parker can all play that sort of football for their club.