|
I see little point in adding to the public opprobrium aimed at England's "finest" and their manager at half-time last night. The Ginger Muppet is a lame duck, struggling for ideas, lacking in inspiration, fatally wounded by a lack of support from the nation and - it seems - slowly but surely losing the dressing room.
Steven Gerrard has a habit of winning games on his own. Quite what today's newspapers would look like if Gerrard had not been able to significantly raise his game in the second-half and drag his reluctant team mates with him, who knows.
The strange thing is, I am not sure if he has done any of us any favours (unless, of course, he has unwittingly protected us from an undesired approach from Barwick and his cronies for Martin O'Neill.) I found myself willing Andorra to hold on in the second half...
Let's start with some positives. Whilst Lennon and Downing are not the right players to start on England's flanks, at least Lennon is right-footed and Downing left-footed - so we began with a side which showed a degree of balance. Hallelujah. Until they both started drifting all over the place, at least.
On another positive note, it is reported today that Frank Lampard was in fact dropped to allow Gerrard to play the attacking central midfield role - not left out due to his injured wrist, as we thought earlier.
The right move, although it may have been more courageous to make it publicly. Gerrard and Hargreaves are my central midfield: Stevie G is to my mind the best all-round midfielder in the world, and Owen Hargreaves has been England's best player for a year now. Unfussy, committed, professional, reliable and much more mobile than Carrick.
So why aren't they the best players to start wide? There isn't too much rocket-science here, I'm afraid. Downing isn't good enough and Lennon isn't experienced enough. Oh, and neither can keep possession or, er, cross a ball. Reasonably telling shortcomings for wingers, you might think.
Yesterday, the ability of both to pass and cross a ball accurately at international level against Conference-standard opposition was found sorely wanting.
In the first half, before Gerrard made the game his own, England's problems were all made for themselves on the flanks. You cannot fault Hargreaves and Gerrard - or even Cole and Richards - for getting the ball wide to England's wingers.
Every move was channelled down the flanks - and that was a valid and effective tactic ... I'll tell you why it failed so disastrously: moves broke down time and time again because either a) Downing and Lennon lost the ball; b) Downing and Lennon crossed poorly or c) Downing and Lennon passed the ball ineffectively or inaccurately.
I have the feeling that quality has been sacrificed by McClaren on the sacred altar of pace. Lennon and Downing are quicker than Beckham and Barry. But are they better players? I would argue that the two B's may lack the pace of the youngsters, but are far better at a) keeping the ball; b) passing the ball incisively and c) crossing the ball.
I would argue further that a midfield with Beckham restored to its right and Barry promoted to its left would offer much greater penetration and far better service to quick, intelligent strikers than Downing and Lennon did or ever will.
Pace isn't everything - Gabby proves that to us week in, week out - for heaven's sake. Hence my conclusion: that Barry should play left midfield for England at least until Joe Cole returns (and in my view beyond), and that David Beckham should return to the fold (that should provoke some reaction...)
To the Doc's mind, there isn't a lot left to summarise: sort the flanks out and you address almost all England's issues. My midfield is Beckham-Hargreaves-Gerrard-Barry, set up in a classic diamond. Of course it won't happen - so the far more likely option after all is Planet McDonut.
Barry for England. McClaren to outer space.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
