mbillington10The necessary, but unlikely changes that should be made for tonight's under-21 group game.
The defence has been superb all tournament, not just in defending capably but the attacking threat of Walker and Smalling in particular has greatly added to England's attacking phases.
Michael Mancienne is a good player, but he is a defender primarily, as evidenced by the comments of the Hamburg coach who has just signed him. There is no need to play him as a holding midfielder when the team already has a good player in Muamba who has two full years of premier league experience.
Rodwell is another player with great potential, but he has been short for form and to make the impact he was trying for against Ukraine. The inclusion of Cleverly again makes sense given that he has played regular football for Wigan this season, whereas Rodwell has been injured for large parts of the season.
The front three has not been effective in either of the two games the U21's have played so far, and the 1-1 draw with Spain masked huge deficiencies in the attacking play. I would play Sturridge in a false 9 role, allowing him to drift from the defensive marking and into the attacking midfield area or the right wing, which would allow him to turn and run at the defence before cutting inside onto his left foot. Lansbury is the most creative player in the U21 team, and his unpredictability has been a huge asset in his substitute appearances, so I have preferred him to the more functional Rose, who is again being played in a position his club manager disagrees with. The harderst choice was between Welbeck and Sinclair, both good players, but based on club form it has to be Sinclair. He has scored 27 goals for Swansea this season including a hattrick in the playoff final, and although playing in a better quality league, Welbeck's appearances for Sunderland have been interrupted by inuries.
The formation is essentially a copy of Barcelona's, and while I do see the merit in having two holding midfield players, particularly in difficult games (e.g. against Spain), in games where only a win will be sufficient, it is better to sacrifice a holding midfield player for a more advanced midfielder who can keep possession and contribute to the attacking phase.
19.06.2011
nvrThey shouldn't have taken players from the PL to the squad. It kind of defies the purpose of giving up and coming players a chance to shine.
19.06.2011
ars4nalPlayers from the pl can still be up and coming. Every other country takes most of its players from its top divison
19.06.2011
mbillington10I can see your point with regard to Premier League players. Some Championship and Lower League players play every week for their clubs, yet find themselves overlooked in favour of players who sit on the bench at Premier League clubs, which can seem unfair.
Although, Italy, Netherlands, France and Portugal all failed to even qualify for this tournament, which highlights the quality at this level, so I can see why Premier League players are selected, particularly if they are being groomed for the England first team.
19.06.2011
david1993the back 5 are perfect i agree wit rodwell hasnt played well. i wud put sturridge out wer lansbury is and put conor wickham through the midle of the 2 front men and sinclair deserves a game but thats my opinion u picked great team
19.06.2011
mbillington10Very interesting for you to mention Wickham, I have to admit I haven't seen him play. I chose my front three on the basis of fluidity, and ability to interchange positions. If the team needed a focal point, no doubt from what I've read about Conor Wickham he would be a great inclusion.
Here's the actual line-up for tonight's game.
Fielding - Walker, Smalling, Jones(c), Bertrand - Muamba, Henderson, Cleverley, Sinclair - Sturridge, Welbeck.
Lets hope for a good performance.
19.06.2011
nvrWell, my point is, we don't need success in this tournement. Can you tell who won without Google? I can't. I'd rather give new talent a chance than to players who already had that.
19.06.2011
mbillington10True, player development is much more important than winning trophies at this level. We don't need success in this trophy to be successful at full international level, and giving other players a chance is a convincing point when the regulars are underperforming.
However, if you look at the 2009 final between England and Germany, nine out of the eleven Germany starting players are now regular first team internationals, in comparison to England's four. And of the Holland team that won in 2007, I struggle to find even one current first team regular.
You make a good point, player development is more important than winning the trophy, Germany have shown that you can have both, but their footballing culture is ahead of ours in terms of player development, as we saw at the World Cup.
19.06.2011
nvrIt was terrible yesterday, wasn't it? No creativity whatsoever and we looked all over the place at the business end of the game. Well, to much for our +£20M starlets, I suppose.
20.06.2011
mbillington10Perfectly summed up, it was terrible. You wonder how many more times our deficiencies need to be highlighted before a change occurs in youth football. Stuart Pearce is not a competent youth coach, and has very little tactical knowledge. But in his defence, his players are accustomed to playing an English style of football, which involves making 5 or 6 short passes between the centre backs, then hitting a long diagonal ball. (it was clear from the start of the tournament that Pearce's tactic was to remain defensively solid and organised, and nick a goal on the break with skilful front players).
Lots of very poor individual performances, but perhaps this was down to a lack of tactical sophistication, mainly, a player only ever had one pass available at any time.
Credit must be given for the players reaching the tournament and almost qualifying (especially drawing with Spain), but with a better coach and a clear tactical system, there was no reason why that group of players couldn't have reached the final. But given the performances against Ukraine and Czech Republic, England won't be missed.
20.06.2011
NorfLondenThere must be some sort of nepotism going on with Stuart Pearce in the FA. What are his managerial credentials to warrant a job as U21 coach? There are few academies who produce talent pretty consistently in this country. Can't we get someone with relevant experience from them?
20.06.2011
mbillington10I think you have hit the nail on the head there NorfLonden. It does seem irrational to trust the future development of our footballers in the hands of a manager who himself admitted he is still learning the managerial ropes. As you highlighted, there exists fantastic coaching at the academies of Arsenal and Manchester United, and a appointing one of the coaches from these academies would surely make more sense.
I think one problem is, who would want to take the U21 job? You only get to work with the players once every three of four months, you wouldn't get paid enough to have it as your sole job so you would have to take a duel role with a club. And many managers feel that by the age of 21, the players are already to stuck in their ways to make significant development alterations, and that you need to be coaching between the ages of 11 and 15 to make a significant change to a players potential ability.
20.06.2011
NorfLondenI don't know, maybe someone who is close to retiring from an academy. He would appreciate the smaller work load and have plenty of experience at the same time.
20.06.2011
mbillington10Yes, good point well made. It is clear that an appointment from a successful academy would be more rational than a young, unproven manager.
I think Pearce has tried exceptionally hard to be successful with the U21s. He's not inept, his idea of playing Mancienne in the hole was similar to Mourinho's use of Pepe alongside a passer (in this case Henderson), and his team was set up to counter down the wings with Sturridge and Rose (similar to Mourinho's use of Duff and Robben). But his failure to adjust when things were clearly not working was as depressing as his postmatch excuses. To blame tiredness, and then 'lack of doggedness' highlights the cultural problem with English football. No humility to accept that we haven't been successful in major tournaments for over 40 years, our technique and creativity is behind other established nations, and our coaching system is outdated and produces very few good young coaches in comparison to Germany and Spain.
A simple admission of England's failings would have been honourable, and would have given hope that these could be addressed in the future. But a refusal to admit that England's failure to succeed could be down to anything other than an irregularity (tiredness, doggedness) doesn't fill me with confidence for Pearce's new two year contract.
20.06.2011
nvrI think our expectations are far too high. Italy 90 for one was a fantastic tournement for England, we should have built up on that and what have we done? Scrap everything and go back to drawing board.
Our one and only "success" come at a tournement in 1966 and at home turf. It is a one off to me rather than the standard. Maybe we can start with doing away the "in it to win it" mantality for a bit.
20.06.2011
mbillington10Yes, exactly. I can see how it is difficult for a lot of fans to accept, but the truth is England haven't seriously competed at a major since 1966 bar one semi final appearance, yet we are brought up to think that England is this great footballing nation that should be winning the world cup.
Yet, given the strength of the Premier League, and if you examine the quality of the individuals in the last two world cups, we should really be competing much more. Perhaps the style of English football is not suited to international level.
20.06.2011
nvrMedia have a huge responsibility when it comes to managing public's expectations. I am yet to see tournement before which the media didn't claim that we can win it.
21.06.2011
mbillington10You're too right. If I never see Adrian Chiles again it will be too soon. It is clear that the media manipulates its coverage of international competitions to boost its viewer ratings, hence why England are always touted as potential winners and expectations are built ludicrously high.
In other countries, such as Spain and Germany, the pundits on the football shows are very often successful managers, coaching staff, and players training for their badges. And match analysis tends to be extensive, using chalkboards and discussion of formation and movement. Whereas in England, the preference is to create a 'banter' style environment, with the likes of Strachan and Shearer and Desailly (with the exception of Southgate). The match analysis in infantile in comparison to coverage in other countries.
21.06.2011
