Fat Tom
16-11-2005, 11:58 AM
Eriksson must bite the bullet on holding role
Martin Samuel
SO there we have it. Play Steven Gerrard in central holding midfield and all of England's prayers are answered. Argentina crumble, England win the World Cup, heroes all. If only it were that simple.
Gerrard the defensive midfield player was Plan A several years ago. For some reason it did not work. Why do you think David Beckham took the job against Wales and Northern Ireland? Why do you think Sven-Goran Eriksson was hopefully refashioning Ledley King? Why do you think Owen Hargreaves and Phil Neville are still hanging around the squad? Just in case?
If Gerrard was the man to sit and protect England's back four, there would be no debate and we could all go back to worrying, ever so slightly, about Joe Cole on the left. If Gerrard is the solution, the question remains: what have we been playing at all this time?
Technical
Pity King. He was widely agreed to have had a poor game against Argentina, yet this was his first test in an unfamiliar, highly technical role against truly world-class opposition. King could grow into the position but he will need time and intensive coaching. Eriksson has little of one and an apparent aversion to the other, which hardly helps.
It would be harsh to judge King on last Saturday's match, though, and particularly unfair to make comparisons with the way the action unfolded when he went off. Juan Roman Riquelme was the problem, arguably the finest exponent of the deep-lying second striker this side of Brazil or Wayne Rooney. Many other countries play split strikers, but in Riquelme, Argentina have one of the best.
Contemplating potential opponents at the World Cup, only Kaka and Ronaldinho, of Brazil, come close and they are often mutually exclusive, so, for King, this was as tough as it gets. He was on the field for 58 minutes, of which only ten were spent with Argentina leading. So, for the majority of King's time, Argentina chased an advantage and Riquelme strutted his stuff.
Five minutes after Argentina's second goal, King was substituted and for the next 26 minutes until Riquelme was withdrawn, the South Americans had the lead and their ambitions were tailored accordingly. In other words, nobody had it as tough as King and there is no guarantee that Gerrard would have coped any better under the pressure of an Argentina team in full flow.
Or have we forgotten the first half of the Champions League final? By popular consent, Gerrard was man of the match that night. The only problem is that there were two matches and patriotic Englishmen tend to remember the second; the one that began after 45 minutes.
Fire-starter
The star of the first match, the forgotten match, was a fire-starter called Kaka who was playing for AC Milan more or less where Riquelme operated on Saturday.
Kaka ran the game. Kaka took Liverpool to the cleaners. Kaka set up a three-goal lead, the eradication of which remains one of sport's greatest mysteries, and in that opening half Gerrard could not get near him. Whether this was a flaw in his reading of the game or a selfish reluctance to sacrifice his own attacking strengths to play a negative but much-needed role has not really been discussed. His swashbuckling performance in the second match was so impressive that his abject display in the first has been disregarded.
Gerrard did not have enough discipline to acknowledge what Kaka was doing to Liverpool and negate it; only when Didier Hamann came on after half-time and occupied Kaka's space did Liverpool's fightback begin.
Had Gerrard played Riquelme from the start the way he did Kaka, Argentina would have caused havoc. Eriksson knows that, which is why the linchpin of England's midfield is yet to be decided.
Creative
If King has been found wanting, Eriksson is back where he started. He has a first-choice midfield of David Beckham, Gerrard, Frank Lampard and Cole - four excellent, creative players, yet not one of them comfortable with the unfulfilling role of guarding the gate.
Beckham and Cole play too wide, Lampard scores too many goals to be negated, which leaves Gerrard, a player so gifted and versatile he has occupied every position in midfield, plus full-back and support striker. He is a fierce tackler, a hard worker and a creative thinker; he ticks every box for a defensive midfield player and then some.
What is there for Eriksson not to like? Perhaps the memory of that first half in Istanbul.
Eriksson is, at heart, a pragmatist, a percentages man. He demands four at the back, a shored-up midfield and, if England go ahead, his first thought is to stuff the team with workmen and hang on for grim death.
In other words, if Gerrard were the sort of player who could do a functional job, he would be the first name on the team-sheet.
Eriksson is no dummy. The reason he is auditioning Beckham and King - and maybe Hargreaves next - for the role is because he believes Gerrard lacks discipline.
Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez appears to suspect it, too. These days, Gerrard is more likely to play forward or wide for Liverpool than deep and central and, if Benitez cannot get an obedient performance from Gerrard, working with him every day of the week, it is too much to ask of Eriksson, whose time is limited to one get-together before the end of the season.
Even if Eriksson wanted to get his hands dirty, maybe the player England need is simply not in there.
What cannot be known is how hard Eriksson has tried with Gerrard.
Alex Ferguson famously said of the England head coach: "He doesn't change anything. He sails along. Nobody falls out with him."
Certainly, there has long been the suggestion that Eriksson's management style is undemanding, which would raise the question of whether Gerrard has ever had England's needs spelt out to him in bottom line terms.
Were Eriksson to tell Gerrard that - because of the personnel that make up England's middle four - the only position available to him would be the holding role and, if he could not knuckle down and do it, he would have to put a lesser player in his place who could, would Gerrard stick to the job for the sake of the team?
Until now, Eriksson has only attempted the compromise, Gerrard and Lampard operating as pistons, the way Patrick Vieira and Emmanuel Petit did for Arsenal at their peak, so if one pushes forward, the other stays back.
Except Vieira and Petit knew how to do it, while the job seems to bring the worst out of the Englishmen.
Personally I think Gerrard is wasted as a defensive player. The Vieira Petit thing could work but the journalist fails to see Lampards indiscipline in going forward too. Gerrard is a far more gifted player than Lampard but Lampard is playing better and is far more effective in the League at present. That is with Essien and Makelele doing the donkey work for him. With England he is exposed in a middle two with Gerrard. Gerrard is suffering due to his versatility. I'd play Parker or Carrick with Becks, Gerrard and Lampard. That stills means Gerrard outta position though.
Martin Samuel
SO there we have it. Play Steven Gerrard in central holding midfield and all of England's prayers are answered. Argentina crumble, England win the World Cup, heroes all. If only it were that simple.
Gerrard the defensive midfield player was Plan A several years ago. For some reason it did not work. Why do you think David Beckham took the job against Wales and Northern Ireland? Why do you think Sven-Goran Eriksson was hopefully refashioning Ledley King? Why do you think Owen Hargreaves and Phil Neville are still hanging around the squad? Just in case?
If Gerrard was the man to sit and protect England's back four, there would be no debate and we could all go back to worrying, ever so slightly, about Joe Cole on the left. If Gerrard is the solution, the question remains: what have we been playing at all this time?
Technical
Pity King. He was widely agreed to have had a poor game against Argentina, yet this was his first test in an unfamiliar, highly technical role against truly world-class opposition. King could grow into the position but he will need time and intensive coaching. Eriksson has little of one and an apparent aversion to the other, which hardly helps.
It would be harsh to judge King on last Saturday's match, though, and particularly unfair to make comparisons with the way the action unfolded when he went off. Juan Roman Riquelme was the problem, arguably the finest exponent of the deep-lying second striker this side of Brazil or Wayne Rooney. Many other countries play split strikers, but in Riquelme, Argentina have one of the best.
Contemplating potential opponents at the World Cup, only Kaka and Ronaldinho, of Brazil, come close and they are often mutually exclusive, so, for King, this was as tough as it gets. He was on the field for 58 minutes, of which only ten were spent with Argentina leading. So, for the majority of King's time, Argentina chased an advantage and Riquelme strutted his stuff.
Five minutes after Argentina's second goal, King was substituted and for the next 26 minutes until Riquelme was withdrawn, the South Americans had the lead and their ambitions were tailored accordingly. In other words, nobody had it as tough as King and there is no guarantee that Gerrard would have coped any better under the pressure of an Argentina team in full flow.
Or have we forgotten the first half of the Champions League final? By popular consent, Gerrard was man of the match that night. The only problem is that there were two matches and patriotic Englishmen tend to remember the second; the one that began after 45 minutes.
Fire-starter
The star of the first match, the forgotten match, was a fire-starter called Kaka who was playing for AC Milan more or less where Riquelme operated on Saturday.
Kaka ran the game. Kaka took Liverpool to the cleaners. Kaka set up a three-goal lead, the eradication of which remains one of sport's greatest mysteries, and in that opening half Gerrard could not get near him. Whether this was a flaw in his reading of the game or a selfish reluctance to sacrifice his own attacking strengths to play a negative but much-needed role has not really been discussed. His swashbuckling performance in the second match was so impressive that his abject display in the first has been disregarded.
Gerrard did not have enough discipline to acknowledge what Kaka was doing to Liverpool and negate it; only when Didier Hamann came on after half-time and occupied Kaka's space did Liverpool's fightback begin.
Had Gerrard played Riquelme from the start the way he did Kaka, Argentina would have caused havoc. Eriksson knows that, which is why the linchpin of England's midfield is yet to be decided.
Creative
If King has been found wanting, Eriksson is back where he started. He has a first-choice midfield of David Beckham, Gerrard, Frank Lampard and Cole - four excellent, creative players, yet not one of them comfortable with the unfulfilling role of guarding the gate.
Beckham and Cole play too wide, Lampard scores too many goals to be negated, which leaves Gerrard, a player so gifted and versatile he has occupied every position in midfield, plus full-back and support striker. He is a fierce tackler, a hard worker and a creative thinker; he ticks every box for a defensive midfield player and then some.
What is there for Eriksson not to like? Perhaps the memory of that first half in Istanbul.
Eriksson is, at heart, a pragmatist, a percentages man. He demands four at the back, a shored-up midfield and, if England go ahead, his first thought is to stuff the team with workmen and hang on for grim death.
In other words, if Gerrard were the sort of player who could do a functional job, he would be the first name on the team-sheet.
Eriksson is no dummy. The reason he is auditioning Beckham and King - and maybe Hargreaves next - for the role is because he believes Gerrard lacks discipline.
Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez appears to suspect it, too. These days, Gerrard is more likely to play forward or wide for Liverpool than deep and central and, if Benitez cannot get an obedient performance from Gerrard, working with him every day of the week, it is too much to ask of Eriksson, whose time is limited to one get-together before the end of the season.
Even if Eriksson wanted to get his hands dirty, maybe the player England need is simply not in there.
What cannot be known is how hard Eriksson has tried with Gerrard.
Alex Ferguson famously said of the England head coach: "He doesn't change anything. He sails along. Nobody falls out with him."
Certainly, there has long been the suggestion that Eriksson's management style is undemanding, which would raise the question of whether Gerrard has ever had England's needs spelt out to him in bottom line terms.
Were Eriksson to tell Gerrard that - because of the personnel that make up England's middle four - the only position available to him would be the holding role and, if he could not knuckle down and do it, he would have to put a lesser player in his place who could, would Gerrard stick to the job for the sake of the team?
Until now, Eriksson has only attempted the compromise, Gerrard and Lampard operating as pistons, the way Patrick Vieira and Emmanuel Petit did for Arsenal at their peak, so if one pushes forward, the other stays back.
Except Vieira and Petit knew how to do it, while the job seems to bring the worst out of the Englishmen.
Personally I think Gerrard is wasted as a defensive player. The Vieira Petit thing could work but the journalist fails to see Lampards indiscipline in going forward too. Gerrard is a far more gifted player than Lampard but Lampard is playing better and is far more effective in the League at present. That is with Essien and Makelele doing the donkey work for him. With England he is exposed in a middle two with Gerrard. Gerrard is suffering due to his versatility. I'd play Parker or Carrick with Becks, Gerrard and Lampard. That stills means Gerrard outta position though.