Some pundits said that England had nothing to lose going into the Euro 2014 tournaments.
With their manager (Roy Hodgson) appointed just weeks before the tournament began, and with injuries ruling key players such as Lampard, Wilshere, Barry and Walker out (including a 2-game suspension for Wayne Rooney), most people had little expectations for the 3 Lions. This point was also emphasized by the lack of travelling support for England fans (the lowest turnout by England fans at a major tournament in recent years) and their incredible odds of 16:1 to win the tournament outright(the highest ever odds for England at the beginning of a major tournament).
In a Group that included France, Sweden and co-hosts Ukraine, many would have considered qualifying for the Quarter Finals a success, and I have to agree.
However, after miraculously finishing top of their group with wins against Sweden (3-2) and Ukraine (1-0), and a hard earned 1-1 draw with France, expectations began to increase. Whatever happened from here, Hogdson had done his nation proud.
Where did it all go wrong?
Many years from now, journalists and media pundits will talk about “how close” England got to reach the Semi-Finals of Euro 2014 after a penalty shoot-out against Italy. However, while we were certainly unlucky to go out in the Quarter Finals in 1996, 2004 and 2006, we cannot forget the one-sidedness of the game in Kiev last night.
Bar the first 30 minutes, it was men against boys, 4-time World Cup champions Italy vs. England.
England’s lack of technical ability on the ball, predictable 4-4-2 formation, tired legs and lack of world-class talent, meant that for the final hour or so of the game they were clutching their straws. 39 shots to England’s 14, 68% possession to England’s 32%, we were completely ran sack in midfield.
We can’t be too harsh on our boys since we couldn’t ask for more workmen like performance (especially from John Terry and Glen Johnson), however from an objective point of view we were always bound to lose against Italy.
I honestly believe that for the first time England finished where they deserved – in the top eight. We are definitely one of the top eight teams in Europe, and we are definitely not one of the top four teams. Spain, Germany and Italy are a whole level above us in the technical department and squad depth, not to mention have a much more progressive tactical awareness of the game.
Consider England’s 4-4-2 formation for instance. While this can work against smaller teams, it has become completely indefensible in International tournaments against the top teams like Germany and Italy.
What makes 4-4-2 so bad?
To begin with, 4-4-2 is a very defensive formation for an International team. Not only have you got four defenders holding the back line, but you’re also got two central midfielders sitting deep on the penalty area during free kicks and corners, combined with two wingers protecting the full backs. While this is good for parking the bus, it fails to create an outlet for players once you win back possession. This creates isolated centre forwards like Wellbeck and Caroll (who inevitably fail to hold the ball up against world-class defenders like Abate who can afford to man-mark them), a lack of movement for counter-attacking football, and it encourages England to play in front, rather than behind, the opposition midfield. This is why you see so many backwards and sideways passes from England’s midfield as opposed to the quick, instinctive forward passing movement of Spain and Germany. Too many times against Sweden, Gerrard and Parker were both trapped in the middle of the pitch with no one to pass to, while there was a lack of movement further up the pitch once it went out to the wings.
Secondly, 4-4-2 is the antithesis of the modern possession game or “total football”. It’s hard to explain in words, but essentially total football is when any player on the pitch can take over the role of any other player in the team. So your defenders can move into midfield, your strikers can drop back to defend, your defenders can slot into midfield and attack etc… Essentially it gives more fluidity and flexibility to a team, while moving away from the zonal football that England still play. Total football is also more spatially efficient on the pitch (you don’t have defenders pointless hanging back where they aren’t needed). While Johan Cruyff is the most well-known exponent of total football, it can be easily seen at Barcelona and Spain, where midfielders and defenders regularly move into attacking positions on the ball (e.g. Pique, Alves, Iniesta, Fabregas) and then attackers drop back into midfield when they lose the ball (e.g. Messi, Villa, Pedro).
Total football is good for possession because it allows teams to play in triangles and create the extra man. This means more passes, more options, and more possession up the field. The risks are that it can leave gaps at the back and allow a quick counter-attack to hurt you. The perfect example of this was when Mourinho’s Real Madrid and Ronaldo taught Barcelona a lesson at the Nou Camp in the 2011/12 La Liga season.
Thirdly, 4-4-2 is very predictable and ordinary. When you play against a team utilizing this formation it makes it very easy to man-mark key players (such as Rooney) since they are no longer playing between the lines. Essentially once England had the ball, Johnson and Cole should have moved into midfield while Gerrard should have moved into a more forward position (creating a 2-4-3-1 formation out from a 4-4-2 like Italy did against England last night). Instead of defending on the line, Gerrard, Milner and Rooney should also have made themselves outlets for a count-attack rather then just booting it 40 yards up to Wellbeck every time.
We Can’t Just Blame 4-4-2 However…
Thankfully for Hodgson, it wasn’t just his tactical system which was the problem. England probably had the poorest ever squad going into this tournament. The lack of cover for Gerrard and Parker in midfield, combined with the injuries to Lampard and Barry, and the lack of a playmaker, meant that England were always going to go into this tournament with a predictable formation that lacked quality in key areas on the pitch and bench. While England had world-class players in every outfield position at the 2006 World Cup (Neville, Ferdinand, Terry, A.Cole, J.Cole, Gerrard, Lampard, Hargreaves, Beckham, Rooney, Owen), in Euro 2014 they realistically only had 3 world class players (Hart, Terry and Gerrard). Rooney is also arguably world-class; however he missed the first two games, lacked match fitness for the next two, and can be pretty inconsistent in general.
The biggest disappointment of the tournament had to be our main two threats down the wings – Milner and Young. While the former consistently but in a good shift supporting Glen Johnson defensively, Young failed to produce anything meaningful upfront, gave away the ball more than any other player on the team, and didn’t produce much off the ball. Overall, I felt that England had no chance if they had to carry passengers like Young and Milner throughout their games. They had a chance if everyone was performing at 7/10, but you can’t afford to carry passengers at this level.
In conclusion, I think we headed into Euro 2014 as a top eight team with a number of key players missing and a hurried managerial change-up, and we exited Euro 2014 as a top eight team that desperately needs to learn how to keep the ball better and win a penalty shoot-out. A good experience and tournament outing for our younger players (e.g. Oxlade-Chamberlain, Walcott, Carrol, Henderson, Hart), but nothing gained.
