a dismal england performance - cost me my sleep

disclaimer: if you're not a soccer fan then dont read this post, you won't find it interesting.

ok i just read soccernet's criticism of england and their manager and i just had to expound on what's wrong with the england team at the moment. so i may not have watched the games against paraguay and t&t, but their performance against sweden was just a total waste of my effort trying to stay up and watch it.

first off, i'll just say that it was actually an entertaining game. why? because it was so fun (as much as i am an england fan) to see sweden whoop england's a**. joe cole's goal was the only positive thing from england, and a big big plus at that. as in +++. but their overall play, and organisation, almost rendered that goal useless.

the thing is, england actually don't play that badly at 0-0. once someone scores, however, no matter which side, they just seem to automatically play a 9-1-0 formation. as in 9 defenders and 1 striker. no wonder rooney is always nowhere to be found when england are defending a set-piece.

which brings me to my next point. england defending set-pieces. they actually have 2 very solid centre-backs (okay so maybe rio is sometimes shaky but you can bring on campbell any time), who are very good defenders. the ABC channel commentator was saying that rio gets into good positions to block off attacks, while terry (& campbell) don't mind getting into a few tackles. coupled with gerrard/hargreaves, they should have no problem defending free kicks, corners, throw-ins, whatever. but the thing is, they always get everyone, from robinson to rooney, to defend.

and therein lies the problem. when you get so many people to defend, you create confusion among players, because everyone assumes someone else will get to it. which explains why sweden scored from a long throw-in. that's right, a throw-in. when campbell missed it, hargreaves thought robinson would get to it, robinson thought campbell would clear it, and ashley cole thought someone else would have cleared it. in the end? larsson stuck in one of the easiest goals of the tournament. confusion arising in the england squad.

having read "sven the sedative" (soccernet commentary), i can't help but agree. i mean, look at joe cole. in the first half he was tormenting the swedish defence so much that in the second half, two men were marking him all the time. even then he was able to dribble past the defenders. something about sven's half-time speech must have gave him the insane idea that england should sit back and hit on the break. well, no wonder sweden equalised, and with a corner. ironically only rooney wasn't in the box, and they still couldnt prevent the goal.

the next big problem can be summed up with one word - beckham. now, i know that he remains one of the best passers of the ball. his cross for crouch against t&t will testify for that. but, but, but, apart from the occasional good cross, he seriously doesn't bring much to the england team. while lampard tries long shots, joe cole dribbles, rooney muscles his way through, gerrard passes and shoots excellently, and even hargreaves tackles decently, beckham remained largely anonymous throughout the sweden game. the few times there was an england set-piece, i was looking for beckham to bend the ball. on those occasions the ball was either too low or too high or curved too much. and at 31, he can't run like before and cross. before, he could run a bit and cross. now, he can only cross. competently. i didn't say terrifically. if i were sven i'd drop him, but i'm not, so he won't be dropped. lennon, even though inexperienced at international level, at least can run with the ball well. something beckham has lost the ability to.

i'm really surprised england managed to top their group. then again, it was mainly because of t&t's shock draw with sweden that allowed this. when gerrard scored the second goal i was thinking "surely sweden wouldnt equalise" but england capitulated in just less than 5 minutes to concede another. i suppose england's relatively easy group has only helped them, though i still think they were lucky against paraguay, as the south americans obviously gave the "superstars" of england too much respect.

when england defend a corner, free kick, throw in, or even counter attack, only two words come to mind. kampung football. they just like to win the ball back by any means necesary then just pump it up the field. to win the world cup, you really can't be doing that. i'd venture so far to say that england were lucky to draw against sweden, they could have lost by at least 2 goals.

in some ways england are quite similar to brazil, at least in the group stages. both teams have players famous around the world, and they both haven't been playing well, yet have got through to the last 16. they also have individual players who can turn entire games around. but while brazil have ronaldinho, kaka, and even ronaldo (or should i say robinho), england only has rooney. against brazil, you put 3 players on ronaldinho, there are still 3 members of the "magic quartet" free, plus robinho on the subs bench. against england, you contain rooney, you hold england down. crouch isn't a prolific striker, even though he's already very good in terms of skill for his height. owen has not looked like himself ever since he left for real madrid, i guess there's still some rust somewhere within him. why defoe, or even bent for that matter, haven't been selected remains, till today, a mystery. as for england's next great hope, what walcott?

england struggling against sweden was a hint of things to come against better teams. and we all know that, in the round of 16, most teams will be playing at at least sweden's difficulty level, or, for the worst teams, at paraguay's level. it'll be interesting to see if eriksson is bold enough to ring in the changes. or not.

i'm predicting a quarter-final knockout by portugal/mexico/holland/argentina. or maybe, even possibly agains ecuador in the round of 16. i just dont see them even getting to the semis. win the world cup? my foot.