English Football: On progression through formation

English football is a land of promises. Every new coach brings unspoken promises of success. Every new star is hailed as the Moses who would part the sea, and of course, every generation is a golden generation. But despite all the hullabaloo, if you care to take a look inside FA’s trophy cabinet you will find that they have exactly the same number of major trophies that Swansea have. One.

Why? The answer could be many – that of under performing selfish stars, to bad luck, to inefficient managers. But recently, there has been an emergence of a belief that says all along it was the formation that was responsible. And sure enough, we see Roy Hodgson has discarded the traditional 4-4-2 and adopted the hybrid 4-2-3-1. That is a blunder. Not because I am a traditionalist but mainly due to England’s ability in their traditional system.

In a 4-2-3-1 formation, the team simply lacks enough threat down the wings, with too much pressure on the full-backs. Also, the game hinges very heavily on the two holding players, and if even one of them has a bad day all hell would break loose. Putting Wilshere and Gerrard there against a weak Brazilian midfield is one thing, but putting out the same against, say Germany, Italy or Spain would be suicidal, the decimation by Pirlo and De Rossi during the Euros being a case in point. The fact is that Gerrard is simply not mobile enough and Wilshere, though quick, needs to learn a lot defensively. Even sliding in Carrick to replace either of them does not change the fundamental problem.

In a 4-4-2, with Rooney as the support striker, the midfield duo is better protected. Also, with the wide men playing more as midfielders than wingers, it would be easier to cover up space and patch up mistakes. In the 4-4-2, the team as a whole too would move better up and down the field. A 4-2-3-1, on the other hand, as we saw against Brazil, can lead to deficiency in tracking duties. Very honestly, England do not have the firepower to outscore their opponents. Neither do they have midfielders in the ilk of Iniesta or Schweinsteiger, who can be equally good defending and at going forward. So, the best chance they have is through keeping a strong structure and no formation provides that better than the 4-4-2.

Another advantage the 4-4-2 provides is the additional trouble the two attackers could give defences. With Rooney becoming a master at playing between the opposition lines, he would empty up space for his wide players and the man who would play in front of him, be it Welbeck, Carroll or Defoe. The 4-2-3-1 simply asks too much of the striker and the Three Lions don’t have a man like Ibrahimovic or Van Persie. Also, Walcott on one side, with either Milner or Chamberlain down the other would keep the opposition fullbacks occupied. Add to that the threat of Johnson and Cole marauding forward and one could see a significant change in the impetus of the team.

Lastly, it would suit the team best. It is not in England’s culture to play possession football, neither are they comfortable playing completely on the break, because other than Walcott, they lack any significant pace. They are at their best when they are direct. Gerrard can ping in perfect diagonals and long balls to set of his team and the directness of Wilshere’s running is better than most. Ideally, Carroll should lead the line; if fit and firing, he could literally be the head of the team. Here is what I think the team should look like for the qualifiers and the world cup (if they reach it)-

Hart; Johnson Cahill Dawson Cole; Gerrard/Carrick Wilshere Walcott Milner; Rooney Carroll