12/21/24
June 11, 2003
So, it's Euro 2004 qualifier time again. All over Europe, journalists are summing up 90 mins of goalmouth action in brief spurts of text. England vs Slovakia is well covered, Northern Ireland vs Spain isn't. But El Mundo (translation) is giving it quite a go. HUUUUUYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!! (and it's still 0-0!)
posted by Patwallace to soccer at 02:32 PM - 17 comments
He must be jealous...i like Owen. He seems like a likeable chap.
posted by StarFucker at 04:21 PM on June 11, 2003
That was never a dive. He was checked a little in the left leg by the defender, and fell over because of the speed he was carrying. Not sure that every ref would have given a penalty either, but dive it was not.
posted by walrus at 06:06 PM on June 11, 2003
Walrus, since you saw the match, where was Owen in the box when fouled? If not for the foul would he have a decent shot on goal?
posted by billsaysthis at 06:31 PM on June 11, 2003
it possibly looked more dive-y than it was because he stretched his arms out in front of him dramatically. the sassy stretch and slide style of tumbling made it look like he was not offering his 100% best effort to stay on his feet. if he took more of a rolling tumble then i wonder if there would be a debate. he didn't seem to have any shot on goal when he was fouled. he last touch sent the ball ahead but probably too far ahead and the keeper was coming out to meet him. and judging by the better (earlier) chances he had that didn't result in actual shots or goals he would have had to do some superhuman stretch to catch up with the ball and get it on the net. he was fouled as he broke through a few defenders at the top of the box, i think the foul was right around the penalty spot itself. whether or not that foul was a debate the linesman blew one of the worst offside calls i've ever seen bungled (how can you be offside if the furthest back defender is on the goal line?) and cancelled and england goal and they let a more obvious foul go on southgate going to the net off a free kick set piece.
posted by gspm at 01:08 AM on June 12, 2003
Looks like gspm saved me some typing! Only thing you missed is the mazy run, taking on most of the Slovakian defenders on his own before the foul. Excellent stuff, and it turned the team around just as we looked like heading for defeat. To my mind we were seriously lacking tactically last night. The diamond formation won't work without players who can provide some width, and much as I love Stevie G and respect Frank Lampard, they're both central midfielders really. That's why Mills was always up the wrong end of the pitch. I don't really like the idea of attacking fullbacks: it was obvious that he was out of place for most of the first half and the few times he got the ball in an attacking position he snatched at his chances and wasted five minutes of patient build up. Then it was always difficult for him to get back in time and Slovakia created a few good chances, scoring in the end because David James seemed to completely forget to track an incoming free kick and just let it swing into his net. Hargreaves was a good sub just before half time, then when we reverted to a straight 4-4-2 we started to hold it together more. I think it was a shame that Rooney couldn't get into the game, but he'll have plenty of time in other games. Vassell came on to provide a wiser head and a bit more energy around the box, freeing up Owen to cause some damage. All in all a ulucky escape from a naive start. Hope we get off so lightly away against Macedonia and Turkey. We don't look like a team yet.
posted by walrus at 03:05 AM on June 12, 2003
Thanks guys! Wish I could have seen this one, just to get some idea about the diamond formation mentioned and of course my boy scoring two goals.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:56 AM on June 12, 2003
I'm truly disappointed no one has commented on the beauty of the language in the spanish text commentary.. (sniff)
posted by Patwallace at 06:57 PM on June 12, 2003
billsaysthis: ............Owen...Rooney .................Scholes ........Lampard...Gerrard ...............P. Neville A. Cole..Southgate..Upson..Mills Sorry about all the dots: couldn't remember the html for non-breaking spaces.
posted by walrus at 06:42 AM on June 13, 2003
Neville?!
posted by StarFucker at 08:33 AM on June 13, 2003
Yeah, but he got pushed to right back when they bought Hargreaves on for Mills. It's not where I'd put Neville, but he's done quite well for Utd in the defensive midfield role recently so they decided to give him a try. I think he'll be fighting quite hard to get back there again though. Hargreaves is a natural for the spot in my book: even better than Nicky Butt. But with the England setup you seem to get one chance only, and if you fluff it they won't recall you for a few years. Look at Macca: twenty minutes in the wrong position for Sven and they've decided he's no good for international football, but every time he plays for Real he slots naturally in with some of the best players in the world. Problem with English football is that we want everything too much. Problem for Hargreaves is that he got injured partway into the first half against Argentina and this is the first time he's got back into a competitive game. Let's hope he can stick in there. He's playing for Bayern Munich's first team for feck's sake, and yet even Birmingham City defenders can get into the team ahead of him ;-)
posted by walrus at 09:35 AM on June 13, 2003
Thanks Walrus. Non-breaking spaces are & n b s p; without the spaces I put in to get this to show up on page. I guess my bigger question, beyond who played what places to make the diamond, is what advantage does the formation give over a standard 4-4-2? And does it mean that Neville or Scholes is the primary playmaker?
posted by billsaysthis at 10:30 AM on June 13, 2003
bill: In the diamond formation shown, neither Scholes nor Neville would be the primary playmaker. As evident in the England game, it was Gerrard and Lampard who did the playmaking. Scholes cleaned up behind Rooney and Owen, or provided a short outlet for Lampard and Gerrard. Neville would be clean up man ahead of the defenders, or a quick outlet for the defenders, or a "drop" pass option for Gerrard and Lampard when they're under pressure. Scholes connects the front guys with midfield. Neville connects the defense with midfield. The problem is if the whole feckin' team isn't running up and down to cover holes, this leaves the fullbacks (right and left defenders) exposed. The midfield is very narrow in this case, and there's a lot of pressure on them to cover up and back, as well as left and right.
posted by worldcup2002 at 11:18 AM on June 13, 2003
As for the diamond's advantage over 4-4-2, it's purely theoretical. 4-4-2 is more stable, and for that reason, more conservative in attack. The diamond is supposed to allow the fullbacks to quickly slot into winger positions, leaving the last midfielder as a third defender along with the centre-halves. Now, if the fullbacks are running up from defense to the other side of the pitch, they better damn well have guys to plug the space they left behind. Or, what this really means is: the fullbacks better be ready to run up and down all game. This is where the whole diamond cracks. I think it's fine if your midfield is well in control of the game to engage your defenders this way, but it didn't seem that way in the England match, which is why they switched back to 3-5-2 (the more conservative sister of 4-4-2) to choke midfield and regain control there. If they had Roy Keane in there breaking off all the Slovakian midfielders' legs as soon as they got the ball, then you might be using the diamond (as Man U does).
posted by worldcup2002 at 11:27 AM on June 13, 2003
I thought they switched back to 4-4-2, not 3-5-2, with Phil Neville moving to right back in place of Mills and Hargreaves moving up alongside Scholes in the centre two spots. But that was an excellent analysis of the formations. You're spot on. Apart from Keane, the other reason the diamond works for Utd (and they don't play it all or every game) is that they have such superb width players available who can also come inside, so you don't need so much work out of the full backs. I also personally think that Gary Neville and Mikael Silvestre are better attacking full backs than Danny Mills and Ashley Cole, although your mileage may vary on that one.
posted by walrus at 12:48 PM on June 13, 2003
Thanks WC. More curiosity: has anyone ever one a World Cup using the diamond? My readings have shown that 4-4-2 has not always been used by everyone ;) but I didn't notice diamond used as a name for any of the alternatives either.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:23 PM on June 13, 2003
The Johann Cruyff Holland team of the 1970s might have used it. With their Total Football approach, it might have worked. But I was too young to follow them so I can't really tell. However, there is a nice coaching resource that talks about 4-3-3 and diamond formations in the same breath. Apparently, "(a)t one time this formation was the dominant style of play for teams at all levels." Check that out for each player's responsibility in the formation (includes analysis for 4-4-2 and 3-5-2).
posted by worldcup2002 at 02:34 PM on June 13, 2003
That writer at the Guardian link is a real wanker from what I could read. And I mean actual wanking out in public. Did you see his description of Owen's foul that got the first England goal? Owen rolls the ball past the goalkeeper. He's a cheating little toe-rag. It was an even more blatant dive than the one against Argentina in the World Cup. Owen today made his 50th cap at a younger age than any previous Englander and celebrated by scoring both goals is a little toe-rag yet this Glendenning has no better contribution to make than recording the action? Puh-leeze!