England World Cup XI...

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would want anything but a 4-3-3 for England. Of all the players who will represent the 3 Lions, how many of their club teams play a 3-5-2 or a 3-4-3? Perhaps Cahill's team and that's it. The 3 most exciting teams in England play a 4-3-3 with a high press and all have a good core of English players. So England should play the same way.

----------------------Pickford----------------------
Walker-------Stones--------Jones---------Rose/Young
-----------------------Dier-------------------------
----------Alli------------------Wlishire/Ox---------
Sterling------------Kane---------------Rashford/Llalana
 
I like the 352. I also like the style of play we have been implementing and hope that even if we have a poor tournament we persist with it.

Supposedly all the youth teams are now playing with the same style of play. That can only be a good thing and a way to seamlessly slot in players when they come of age.
 
P-Nut0712 said:
I like the 352. I also like the style of play we have been implementing and hope that even if we have a poor tournament we persist with it.

Supposedly all the youth teams are now playing with the same style of play. That can only be a good thing and a way to seamlessly slot in players when they come of age.
Click to expand...

I absolutely hate it. It's too defensive. People may call it a 3-5-2 but it's actually a 5-3-2. Besides, when you look at the players in the England squad, how many of their teams play that formation? Liverpool, Tottenham and City are the most exciting teams in the league and they all play a 4-3-3 with a high press. England should be doing the same...
 
Its a 5-3-2 without the ball. 3-4-2-1 when Englad have it.

I like what i see vs Holland. I think they need to improve the counters when take back the ball and the offensive play.
 
SadlerMUFC said:
I absolutely hate it. It's too defensive. People may call it a 3-5-2 but it's actually a 5-3-2. Besides, when you look at the players in the England squad, how many of their teams play that formation? Liverpool, Tottenham and City are the most exciting teams in the league and they all play a 4-3-3 with a high press. England should be doing the same...
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the most exciting teams in the league play. Last season's champions played a 343 should we have worked all year on that and as soon as city took over as the best team switched to a 433 again?

As a national team we need a style of play that can be easily identified and worked on throughout all the age groups. I'm not too fussed on the formation, however the style of play is a massive step forward.

We retain the ball much better, and are more fluid in attack. We have a solid base by having the extra defender and lots of pace if we need to play on the counter. It's a step in the right direction from the direct style we previously deployed, which when coming up against more cultured and tactically savvy sides saw us dumped on our arse time after time.

I'm happy to finally have a manager to implement a plan and pick players based on whether they suit that or not. By no means do I think we are very far down the road of developing it, however it can only have a positive impact moving forward from here.
 
SadlerMUFC said:
I absolutely hate it. It's too defensive. People may call it a 3-5-2 but it's actually a 5-3-2. Besides, when you look at the players in the England squad, how many of their teams play that formation? Liverpool, Tottenham and City are the most exciting teams in the league and they all play a 4-3-3 with a high press. England should be doing the same...
Click to expand...

Tottenham played 3 at the back until Alderweireld got injured and they are the most heavily represented (Kane Alli Dier Trippier Rose)

I think it suits a lot of our players and masks a lot of deficiencies. Sterling looks our most threatening player and he gets to play more centrally and almost make a central midfield 4 where we are clearly weak. 3 CB’s also helps where we are clearly weak.
 
P-Nut0712 said:
It doesn't matter what the most exciting teams in the league play. Last season's champions played a 343 should we have worked all year on that and as soon as city took over as the best team switched to a 433 again?

As a national team we need a style of play that can be easily identified and worked on throughout all the age groups. I'm not too fussed on the formation, however the style of play is a massive step forward.

We retain the ball much better, and are more fluid in attack. We have a solid base by having the extra defender and lots of pace if we need to play on the counter. It's a step in the right direction from the direct style we previously deployed, which when coming up against more cultured and tactically savvy sides saw us dumped on our arse time after time.

I'm happy to finally have a manager to implement a plan and pick players based on whether they suit that or not. By no means do I think we are very far down the road of developing it, however it can only have a positive impact moving forward from here.
Click to expand...

The reason why you play that formation is because that's the formation that most of the players on the team are playing. Chelsea may have played a 3-4-3 last year but how many Chelsea players are on the England team? Gary Cahill? The majority are from teams that play a 4-3-3. I don't understand the point of playing a formation that is for a country when the players who are joining are all having success playing with a 4-3-3 with a high press. It's the formation that makes the most sense with this England team. And no, we don't have a manager who will pick players who suit that formation. The last two games he has played Kyle Walker, England's best right back as a right sided central defender with Trippier playing as a wing back. And the worst part is that it didnt' backfire on him so now he's going to think that's the right formation to play...
 
Steven Seagull said:
Tottenham played 3 at the back until Alderweireld got injured and they are the most heavily represented (Kane Alli Dier Trippier Rose)

I think it suits a lot of our players and masks a lot of deficiencies. Sterling looks our most threatening player and he gets to play more centrally and almost make a central midfield 4 where we are clearly weak. 3 CB’s also helps where we are clearly weak.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I completely disagree that it suits a lot of our players. Tottenham have played a 3-4-3 before, but they mostly play a 4-3-3. Liverpool and City always play a 4-3-3. Name me one top club or country that plays with a 3-4-3 or a 3-5-2. You won't be able to. It's a formation that got a little trendy for a while because of Conte but for the most part big clubs have abandoned it. In fact, many seem to be going back to a 4-4-2...
 
SadlerMUFC said:
Sorry, but I completely disagree that it suits a lot of our players. Tottenham have played a 3-4-3 before, but they mostly play a 4-3-3. Liverpool and City always play a 4-3-3. Name me one top club or country that plays with a 3-4-3 or a 3-5-2. You won't be able to. It's a formation that got a little trendy for a while because of Conte but for the most part big clubs have abandoned it. In fact, many seem to be going back to a 4-4-2...
Click to expand...

Who cares? All the worlds top teams have the luxury of having fantastic playmakers in midfield to dictate the tempo and keep them on the front foot. We have Henderson and Dier. The main point is we now appear to have a game plan at least. We can drop into a back 5 when needed and look to counter attack against decent sides
 
I don't see a problem, with the 352, in fact I actually like it. We lack a bit of cutting edge without Kane, but think it allows us to be a bit more solid than in a 433. We can very easily switch to that shape too if things are going wrong anyway without even needing to make a change (if Dier is at CB) or just make 1 change.
 
Steven Seagull said:
Who cares? All the worlds top teams have the luxury of having fantastic playmakers in midfield to dictate the tempo and keep them on the front foot. We have Henderson and Dier. The main point is we now appear to have a game plan at least. We can drop into a back 5 when needed and look to counter attack against decent sides
Click to expand...

What we have is English players who we tend to underrate. Dier is a fantastic player. Mind you, he's the DM so he's not there to be a play maker. However, England does have players like Alli, Llalana and Wilshire in the midfield who can definitely be play makers.
 
SadlerMUFC said:
The reason why you play that formation is because that's the formation that most of the players on the team are playing. Chelsea may have played a 3-4-3 last year but how many Chelsea players are on the England team? Gary Cahill? The majority are from teams that play a 4-3-3. I don't understand the point of playing a formation that is for a country when the players who are joining are all having success playing with a 4-3-3 with a high press.
Click to expand...
Although City and Liverpool use 4-3-3, their attacking units bear little recognition to the forward line England will put out. Using a formation that gets the best out of Salah, Mane, Firmino, De Bruyne and Silva is not particularly relevant given England possess nobody of their ilk. You have to be careful not to try and replicate a Guardiola model that is founded upon having 70% possession and incredible attacking and ball-retaining talent. Same rationale for Klopp's system which is geared more towards overloads and counter-attacking, but suits the qualities of that midfield and attack perfectly. In terms of familiarity, it's not as if this is the land of solely 4-3-3 and players will be bamboozled with anything else. It was clear that Southgate was using the Spurs 3-4-2-1 model at the time with a core of their players. Even though Spurs are now using the back four more regularly, they still had good success with that set-up. And finally @Steven Seagull makes the important point that the back three allows cover in areas where England lack quality, which is basically what Brazil did in 2002 and gave them a solid platform despite possessing some fairly average CBs (Lucio apart), rather than expose them with a more attack-minded 4-2-2-2 model as they did in 1998.
 
Lingard will be in the team. He has been amongst England's best players against very decent sides like Holland and Italy. Sterling also seems to work best with him rather.
 
Lingard deserves his place in the England side. He is best at ghosting into scoring positions than others .
 
KM said:
Lingard will be in the team. He has been amongst England's best players against very decent sides like Holland and Italy. Sterling also seems to work best with him rather.
Click to expand...

Both of them are livewires in terms of movement off the ball. Shame Kane hasn't been fit, as it would be useful to see how he complements them or if he prefers Alli.
 
SadlerMUFC said:
What we have is English players who we tend to underrate. Dier is a fantastic player. Mind you, he's the DM so he's not there to be a play maker. However, England does have players like Alli, Llalana and Wilshire in the midfield who can definitely be play makers.
Click to expand...

Alli is not really an out and out playmaker.. he can be creative, but he doesn't have the mobility and continued influence on a game like a Eriksen who he relies heavily upon at Spurs. When Alli is completely in the mood, he can actually sometimes run a game and has done so even vs Germany in a friendly, but generally he doesn't consistently control games.

Lallana has been utterly shite this season for Liverpool, granted it is because of injury but he looks so far off the pace and looks a third of the player he was pre-injury and I can't see how he will recover that sharpness in time for the world cup.

Wilshere is the best natural playmaker england have IMO and I'd be doing anything I can to ensure he stays fit, because he's the only player capable of going toe to toe against the best midfields and have the composure to retain the ball but also move it around with some purpose. Him and Dier would be a great pairing.
 
Raees said:
Both of them are livewires in terms of movement off the ball. Shame Kane hasn't been fit, as it would be useful to see how he complements them or if he prefers Alli.
Click to expand...

Playing with Alli week in week out he would probably prefer to play with him, but Southgate will pick the player who has shown the best form and could feed more from Kane. I think Lingard would pounce on everything that Kane drops in his path.
 
Bestietom said:
Lingard deserves his place in the England side. He is best at ghosting into scoring positions than others .
Click to expand...
Yes agreed, other than Kane he is a best positional attacker we have. Senses a team weakness, gaps etc. very well, his quick free kick is just one of many examples.
 
Don't really care how England do but I'd sacrifice Dele Alli for the good of the team, would like to see how Wilshere does in that Ox/Lingard role but I can see him fading away and getting frustrated with the lack of possession against better teams. To be fair to Southgate he's actually got a plan unlike the entire 4 years of Hodgson.
 
Gio said:
Although City and Liverpool use 4-3-3, their attacking units bear little recognition to the forward line England will put out. Using a formation that gets the best out of Salah, Mane, Firmino, De Bruyne and Silva is not particularly relevant given England possess nobody of their ilk. You have to be careful not to try and replicate a Guardiola model that is founded upon having 70% possession and incredible attacking and ball-retaining talent. Same rationale for Klopp's system which is geared more towards overloads and counter-attacking, but suits the qualities of that midfield and attack perfectly. In terms of familiarity, it's not as if this is the land of solely 4-3-3 and players will be bamboozled with anything else. It was clear that Southgate was using the Spurs 3-4-2-1 model at the time with a core of their players. Even though Spurs are now using the back four more regularly, they still had good success with that set-up. And finally @Steven Seagull makes the important point that the back three allows cover in areas where England lack quality, which is basically what Brazil did in 2002 and gave them a solid platform despite possessing some fairly average CBs (Lucio apart), rather than expose them with a more attack-minded 4-2-2-2 model as they did in 1998.
Click to expand...

I disagree about the back 3 giving more cover. On paper it seems like it should but what you end up with is one player covering the middle. With England that one players appears to be Stones (gulp). With a back 4 it is 2 players covering the middle so where a player like Stones can be great for bringing the ball out from the back, Jones can be there with him to do the dirty work in the middle defensively.
 
SadlerMUFC said:
The reason why you play that formation is because that's the formation that most of the players on the team are playing. Chelsea may have played a 3-4-3 last year but how many Chelsea players are on the England team? Gary Cahill? The majority are from teams that play a 4-3-3. I don't understand the point of playing a formation that is for a country when the players who are joining are all having success playing with a 4-3-3 with a high press. It's the formation that makes the most sense with this England team. And no, we don't have a manager who will pick players who suit that formation. The last two games he has played Kyle Walker, England's best right back as a right sided central defender with Trippier playing as a wing back. And the worst part is that it didnt' backfire on him so now he's going to think that's the right formation to play...
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in the post you quoted, last season the top team was Chelsea who played a 343 should we have used that for the last 12 months and only changed to 433 when City became the best side?

Also Walker at RCB actually makes a lot of sense. He has been playing in peps possession orientated style and will be useful at playing out from the back. It's a shame it takes away from our threat down that side, but it increases the likelihood of us retaining possession, which has been a major problem for England for years.
 
P-Nut0712 said:
As I mentioned in the post you quoted, last season the top team was Chelsea who played a 343 should we have used that for the last 12 months and only changed to 433 when City became the best side?

Also Walker at RCB actually makes a lot of sense. He has been playing in peps possession orientated style and will be useful at playing out from the back. It's a shame it takes away from our threat down that side, but it increases the likelihood of us retaining possession, which has been a major problem for England for years.
Click to expand...

I didn't say we should play a 4-3-3 because City does and they're the best side. I said we should play that formation because that's the formation that most of the players on the team play. And no, we shouldn't have played a 3-4-3 because Chelsea played it last year. How many Chelsea players are on England? We should play a system that the players are most familiar with. And seeing as the team is loaded with City, Liverpool and Tottenham players, we should play a 4-3-3 just like their clubs do...
 
SadlerMUFC said:
I didn't say we should play a 4-3-3 because City does and they're the best side. I said we should play that formation because that's the formation that most of the players on the team play. And no, we shouldn't have played a 3-4-3 because Chelsea played it last year. How many Chelsea players are on England? We should play a system that the players are most familiar with. And seeing as the team is loaded with City, Liverpool and Tottenham players, we should play a 4-3-3 just like their clubs do...
Click to expand...

But you're missing the point here. Teams change their formations all the time, as a nation do we just keep changing when the teams do?

Also, what happens if half the players usually play 433 and the other half usually play 4231. What do we do then, pot luck?
 
P-Nut0712 said:
But you're missing the point here. Teams change their formations all the time, as a nation do we just keep changing when the teams do?

Also, what happens if half the players usually play 433 and the other half usually play 4231. What do we do then, pot luck?
Click to expand...

I think you play a formation that best suits the players you have based on what they are used to playing. If the team was full of players who played a 3-4-3 then I would be all for it. As for a 4-3-3 vs a 4-2-3-1 there isn't really a big change in the playing style of those formations. However there is a big different between 3-4-3 and 4-3-3. England is loaded with players who are used to pressing. In a 3-4-3 it's more about defending and counter attacking. I'm not saying it can't work, but when I see the success that players at Liverpool, City and Tottenham are having with a 4-3-3 high press it makes me think that England should stick to that style of play rather than using a formation that most of the players aren't familiar with...
 
SadlerMUFC said:
I think you play a formation that best suits the players you have based on what they are used to playing. If the team was full of players who played a 3-4-3 then I would be all for it. As for a 4-3-3 vs a 4-2-3-1 there isn't really a big change in the playing style of those formations. However there is a big different between 3-4-3 and 4-3-3. England is loaded with players who are used to pressing. In a 3-4-3 it's more about defending and counter attacking. I'm not saying it can't work, but when I see the success that players at Liverpool, City and Tottenham are having with a 4-3-3 high press it makes me think that England should stick to that style of play rather than using a formation that most of the players aren't familiar with...
Click to expand...

We've tried a 433 for years and failed miserably. The teams you are mentioning aren't geared to get the best out of English players, maybe with the exception of spurs. They are all set up to allow foreign players of better quality to shine. Who would be England's De Bruyne, Silva, Eriksen etc? We don't have those types of players to make it work.

What we do have is hard working midfielders and lightning quick attackers. We also have players suited to the wing back role, and now we've started to develop ball playing centre halves.

The one thing I'd say we're really missing for the 343/352 is a playmaker in that midfield that can sit deep and retain possession. Hopefully Lewis Cook can develop over the next couple of years and establish himself in time for the next euros.
 
P-Nut0712 said:
We've tried a 433 for years and failed miserably. The teams you are mentioning aren't geared to get the best out of English players, maybe with the exception of spurs. They are all set up to allow foreign players of better quality to shine. Who would be England's De Bruyne, Silva, Eriksen etc? We don't have those types of players to make it work.

What we do have is hard working midfielders and lightning quick attackers. We also have players suited to the wing back role, and now we've started to develop ball playing centre halves.

The one thing I'd say we're really missing for the 343/352 is a playmaker in that midfield that can sit deep and retain possession. Hopefully Lewis Cook can develop over the next couple of years and establish himself in time for the next euros.
Click to expand...

Those roles can be filled by Alli and Wilshire. You do realize that Alli is Tottenham's leading assist man, not Erikson right? But I get it...they're English so we must underrate them. As for the deep lying midfielder, that's what Dier is, and he's damn good at it...
 
broccoli said:
Can't see England passing group stage with Jess and Sterling as creative outlets. Wilshire and Dier aren't very inspiring either. Hope there's more in the locker for England otherwise it will be like previous competitions.
Click to expand...

Jordan McKenzie said:
He's been sensational this year. Jesse hitting good form at the right time too.
Click to expand...

This. Their both class players and both better than Alli on the wings or even behind the striker, which is Alli’s favourite position. Goes without saying that their not just creative players, but goal threats as well, which is a talent that Jesse has thankfully developed.

Anyway, back on topic, this is my England XI for the World Cup:

Pope
Walker Stones Mee Young
Dier Ox
Sterling Lingard Rashford
Kane
For the matches against Tunisia and Panama.

As for the match against Belgium and the knockout rounds, I would just stick Alli in for Rashford and move to a 4-3-3. Also, Ben Mee is in there as imo he is the best out-and-out defender in England, and Smalling is already out of contention.
 
SadlerMUFC said:
Those roles can be filled by Alli and Wilshire. You do realize that Alli is Tottenham's leading assist man, not Erikson right? But I get it...they're English so we must underrate them. As for the deep lying midfielder, that's what Dier is, and he's damn good at it...
Click to expand...

If you think Alli and Died are playmakers then I see no point in continuing this conversation.
 
P-Nut0712 said:
If you think Alli and Died are playmakers then I see no point in continuing this conversation.
Click to expand...

Alli has more assists than Erikson, but you want to say he isn't a playmaker and Erikson is??? As for Dier, he is a very good DM with good passing range and technical skill. He's not the guy who is going to get a lot of assists, but he is the guy who gets the ball forward to start the attack and often the guy who passes to the guy who gets the assist, much like Carrick used to be...
 
SadlerMUFC said:
Alli has more assists than Erikson, but you want to say he isn't a playmaker and Erikson is??? As for Dier, he is a very good DM with good passing range and technical skill. He's not the guy who is going to get a lot of assists, but he is the guy who gets the ball forward to start the attack and often the guy who passes to the guy who gets the assist, much like Carrick used to be...
Click to expand...

Playmaker is a style of play, it's about the rotation of the ball not solely judged on assists. Can you not see the glaringly obvious differences between the style of play of Alli and Eriksen and which one England would require more between the 2 of them?

I actually rate Dier highly, but wouldn't put him as a DLP. He's more of a defensive midfielder in the Matic mold wouldn't you say? He excels at breaking up play and recycling the ball simply.
 
P-Nut0712 said:
Playmaker is a style of play, it's about the rotation of the ball not solely judged on assists. Can you not see the glaringly obvious differences between the style of play of Alli and Eriksen and which one England would require more between the 2 of them?

I actually rate Dier highly, but wouldn't put him as a DLP. He's more of a defensive midfielder in the Matic mold wouldn't you say? He excels at breaking up play and recycling the ball simply.
Click to expand...

Alli and Erikson are different styles of players but that doesn't mean that Alli isn't a playmaker. He's been among the leaders in assists ever since he leaped into the scene with Tottenham. How many players had 25 EPL assists by the age of 21? My guess is not many. As for Dier, he's a very gifted technical player. He's not the typical "bulldog" DM that we tend to see from English players. A lot of that has to do with his background. He didn't come up through and English team. He came through the ranks at Sporting Lisbon...
 
SadlerMUFC said:
Alli and Erikson are different styles of players but that doesn't mean that Alli isn't a playmaker. He's been among the leaders in assists ever since he leaped into the scene with Tottenham. How many players had 25 EPL assists by the age of 21? My guess is not many. As for Dier, he's a very gifted technical player. He's not the typical "bulldog" DM that we tend to see from English players. A lot of that has to do with his background. He didn't come up through and English team. He came through the ranks at Sporting Lisbon...
Click to expand...

Alli plays as a second striker, of course he's going to get lots of assists, his main body of work comes from inside the box or just on the edge of it.

And I know Dier came up through the sporting Lisbon ranks, however it doesn't mean he's as cultured a passer as the renowned DLP around. Matic who I compared him to previously also isn't the bulldog DM you described.
 
P-Nut0712 said:
Alli plays as a second striker, of course he's going to get lots of assists, his main body of work comes from inside the box or just on the edge of it.

And I know Dier came up through the sporting Lisbon ranks, however it doesn't mean he's as cultured a passer as the renowned DLP around. Matic who I compared him to previously also isn't the bulldog DM you described.
Click to expand...

Yes, Alli plays in the #10 when Tottenham plays a 4-2-3-1. Or he plays in the #8 if they play a 4-3-3. This is the play makers position. I know Alli isn't very likable, but I'm not sure why you don't want to give him his due? He's one hell of a player and very much a play maker. If not, then he wouldn't be playing in that position and he wouldn't have as many assists as he has

As for Dier, I didn't mean that he is a cultured passer because he came through in Portugal, but I can see why it would read that way. I just think he's a better passer than you're giving him credit for. I can see why you are comparing him to Matic. It's his positioning and like Matic he knows how to be at the right place at the right time to break up a play...
 
SadlerMUFC said:
Yes, Alli plays in the #10 when Tottenham plays a 4-2-3-1. Or he plays in the #8 if they play a 4-3-3. This is the play makers position. I know Alli isn't very likable, but I'm not sure why you don't want to give him his due? He's one hell of a player and very much a play maker. If not, then he wouldn't be playing in that position and he wouldn't have as many assists as he has

As for Dier, I didn't mean that he is a cultured passer because he came through in Portugal, but I can see why it would read that way. I just think he's a better passer than you're giving him credit for. I can see why you are comparing him to Matic. It's his positioning and like Matic he knows how to be at the right place at the right time to break up a play...
Click to expand...

I agree Alli is a top player, but I see him as a second striker not a playmaker. Much like Lingard although Alli has had the higher peak so far. Anyways we've taken this thread far enough off topic. Feel free to inbox me to carry this on as I'm sure others are bored of reading us going backwards and forwards.
 
GK Jack Butland

RB Kyle Walker
CB John Stones
CB Chris Smalling
LB Danny Rose

DM Eric Dier
CM Danny Drinkwater
AM Deli Alli

RW Raheem Sterling
CF Harry Kane
LW Demerai Gray

I'd throw Gray in there as a wild card. Definately one of our best young talents.
 
I'm against the three at the back for England.

It's a very tough formation to get right and you need a lot of specialist players and I don't think England have them.

England struggle to have one or two quality centre backs, let alone finding three. They've been playing Walker in the back three, which could be a disaster in the big competition - his strength is going forward not defending. Harry Maguire is another car crash waiting to happen. He's a big guy with a decent touch. But he really could be found out against the top teams in the world cup, especially if played on the left of a back three. Joe Gomez seemed to be one of Southgate's preferences in the back three as he did well in a friendly vs Neymar. I'm a LFC fan, but Joe Gomez is raw & it is a huge ask to think he can deliver at the world cup. He's made a fair few mistakes this season for LFC. He's promising, but he could be really exposed. I just don't see the CBs capable of playing the formation. Phil Jones could play the RCB, as he has a history of being a right back or centre back. But will he be fit? His injury record would make that a risk. Stones could be the central player, but did anyone see his first 20 minutes vs Italy? Eeek!

I'd have thought England were better playing a simple four at the back. Walker can play in his best role and he can get forward at right back. Play the best two CBs (Stones & Jones would be the two I'd go for) and give them less to worry about. As in a back three two of the CBs need to be comfortable out wide. I'd rather simplify it, and tell them to stay central and concentrate on defending. That's another I don't like, how Pickford was praised for his performance, when all he did was same basic passing. The one bit of GKing he needed to do vs Holland he messed up trying to come for a cross and not getting there. He's made a lot of mistakes for Everton this season. So has Butland, yet these two are ahead of Pope in the pecking order - who has had a much better season and didn't get a chance in the friendlies. Seems the GK is picked on how well they kick, rather than how well they are at keeping the ball out of the net.

I don't think three at the back helped England's attacking game either. When they did get the ball wide, it was Trippier or Young (on his weaker foot) or Rose (who was dreadful vs Holland) crossing. As a result, England struggled to create much. I think England would be much better having Rashford & Sterling wide in a front three with Kane. That when they attack Sterling and Rashford are far more likely to offer the threat wide.

I'd go:

-------------------Pope--------------------
Walker----Stones-----Jones-----Bertrand
-------------------Dier --------------------
---------Henderson-----Lallana-----------
Sterling----------Kane-----------Rashford


I do not see why everyone is pining for Jack Wilshere. He doesn't get goals or assists. He's not the best defensively. He doesn't work the hardest as he's often there hands on hips, tongue hanging out due to all the fags he's had. I'd have him in the squad, that's it.

I'd play the best English GK this season.

I'd play the best two full backs this season (maybe Young over Bertrand - not too bothered either way)

I'd play the best DM (Dier)

Energy in CM, Lallana (or Ox) needed to link midfield to attack.

The two biggest threats out wide alongside Kane - Sterling & Rashford

Southgate has always been a three at the back man. When he played for Villa & Boro, he was a CB in a back three. For England in Euro 96, he played in a back three. ITV have had England's other biggest advocate of three at the back in Hoddle commentating - who wanted to play Jamie Redknapp as a sweeper once (FFS). It's like they're trying to brainwash the public that three at the back is the best use of these players.

It really isn't!
 
I think you have to have Kane, Sterling and Lingard as the attacking outlets.

Two world class and one very good players there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.