Tweet
But, of McClaren's four immediate predecessors, the two who were more tactically astute - Glenn Hoddle and Terry Venables - both recognised the importance of a five-man midfield in a match where possession is paramount. <DIV class=phinline>
<DIV style="WIDTH: 275px"><DIV class=photocred2>NealSimpson/Empics</DIV><DIV class=photosubtext>Peter Crouch (right) was again England's most dangerous customer but failed to produce</DIV></DIV></DIV>
In contrast, a rigid adherence to 4-4-2, underpinned by an innate conservatism that borders on complacency, has often left England outnumbered in midfield. Indeed, a feature of the World Cup was the number of sides with a fifth man in midfield, either a consequence of tactics or individual players' interpretation of their duties.
( Itook the above from An ESPN Soccernet article discussing the recent game between Macedonia and England.)
If the article talks about getting outnumbered with a 4 man midfield then what would be the indictment of the 3 man midfield some here are still rooting for?
I personally don't get why so manypeople in Jamaican football circles,aswell as some on here, wouldwant to go back to 5-3-2 where we were always woefully outmanned in midfield and although some (eh em... Jawge) claim we played 'Jogo Bonito' under Simoes I beg to differ.
That three man midfield that included Peter Cargill (who was basically another sweeperroaming in front of the defense) was always disjointed because of the lack of passing options. On the other side of the ball our 3central defenders became stars because they had so muchchasing and clearing to do -with four or five men in midfield you can better stifle the opposition way beforethey get into your defensive third - keeping your defenders anonymous and your fans happy.
<DIV style="WIDTH: 275px"><DIV class=photocred2>NealSimpson/Empics</DIV><DIV class=photosubtext>Peter Crouch (right) was again England's most dangerous customer but failed to produce</DIV></DIV></DIV>
In contrast, a rigid adherence to 4-4-2, underpinned by an innate conservatism that borders on complacency, has often left England outnumbered in midfield. Indeed, a feature of the World Cup was the number of sides with a fifth man in midfield, either a consequence of tactics or individual players' interpretation of their duties.
( Itook the above from An ESPN Soccernet article discussing the recent game between Macedonia and England.)
If the article talks about getting outnumbered with a 4 man midfield then what would be the indictment of the 3 man midfield some here are still rooting for?
I personally don't get why so manypeople in Jamaican football circles,aswell as some on here, wouldwant to go back to 5-3-2 where we were always woefully outmanned in midfield and although some (eh em... Jawge) claim we played 'Jogo Bonito' under Simoes I beg to differ.
That three man midfield that included Peter Cargill (who was basically another sweeperroaming in front of the defense) was always disjointed because of the lack of passing options. On the other side of the ball our 3central defenders became stars because they had so muchchasing and clearing to do -with four or five men in midfield you can better stifle the opposition way beforethey get into your defensive third - keeping your defenders anonymous and your fans happy.
Comment