i dont understand why England need a midfield anchor anyway... sure, when we play against Argentina and Brazil we have to change our tactics to counter the playmaking midfielders, but i dont see why that necesarilly means using a defensive midfielder.
With the quality of Terry, Ferdinand, Gary Neville/Luke Young and Ashley Cole as back four, all we have to do is push the line up slightly and hold it well, then keep the midfield centre 2 more disciplined and get back to cover the back line, close the space for the playmaker to work in... but by no means play the offside trap, thats asking for trouble... just use the high line to close the work space in the final third.
if we put King or Ferdinand in midfield we're losing a significant poisition to defensive over-compensation. Gerrard and Lampard just need to learn to cover each other and work as a team better... both are decent tacklers and experienced enough to hustle opponents attacking lynchpins.
I feel that Gerrard should be the one who takes responsibility as the defensive midfielder, not breaking forward as much as this could lead to the backs being exposed. As good as they are every back line likes cover to give them an extra second to organise themselves.
Sven should see if Gerrard is up to the challenge and if he is able to discipline himself. Eriksson is payed enough money to know if needs to play someone who plays that position regularly. I feel that neither Rio Ferdinand nor Ledley King are the best choice for this position as they are neither fast enough nor do they have the required amount of stamina to deal with the physical demand of playing a game every 2-3 days in a position they are unfamiliar with.
This leaves me with the feeling that if need be for a defensive midfielder Scott Parker is the rightful choice as he is a tireless worker and has pace, strength and a damn good gut. Hiss effort is unmistakable and he has the discipline to play at the highest level.
It's just a shame that England have an over payed, tacticless coach in Sven Goran Eriksson.
Carrick > Scott Parker.
Carrick is such a rock for any team, he has a massive range of pin-point accuracy passing, while also breaking up play and tackling reasonably well.
He'd, imo, be perfect against teams like Argentina and Brazil, because although he wouldnt be capable of tackling the likes of Ronaldinho and Riquelme, he would slow their build-up play enough to allow Beckham, Cole and Lampard time to come back into position and the back line will be given enough time to scout the situation rather than just being caught on the break with no midfield protection.
Also, if he does break up play and get the ball, he has the passing skill that King and Ferdinand don't have to supply the forwards and/or wingers without giving the other team time to sort themselves out.
ofcourse Gerrard is exactly the same, but he doesnt hold back as well as Carrick and is often drawn forward and out to the wings
could be, haven't seen games from Real in a while, but last I saw of him he wasn't that productive.
but don't you think playing with Beckham, Lampard, Gerrard and ??? dunno who could pose a problem?
Now personally I think it should work cause they all have enough individual class but it's a little on orthodox I think.
ok, away from England...
Tottenham vs Fulham today:
SINGLE
WORST
GAME
EVER
BROADCAST
i can't beleive i spent £7 to watch that in premplus. both teams were absolutely abysmal.
Rasiak... well, what can i say, how can you lose a header without anyone challenging you for it? absolutely the single worst player to ever play in tottenham colours, a disgrace.... Defoe must be crying at how he's being pushed to the bench by this guy.
Fulham stole the win, but in the second half the only bright spots were Huddlestone who i think played to the equal of Carrick, outstanding. and Lennon, always a threat.