When we read in a pupil’s report card: “gifted, satisfactory marks, but could do better”, it is almost always because this pupil does not produce the efforts of which he is believed capable. However, if the scores of the English student have fluctuated between 14 and 16 out of 20 in major tournaments since Gareth Southgate has been in class (the zero point in the last Nations League was an accident, not a revealer) , it is certainly not because this England would be resistant to the expenditure of energy on the ground. It is true that she is sometimes prone to fits of apathy which make her supporters despair, but what she lacks then is not the desire to produce an effort. It is a strange mental paralysis, the cause of which remains unknown, which already existed in the time of Eriksson and Capello, a sort of English illness, spleen, which has plagued the selection for half a century.
This England is the one we saw after it opened the scoring against Italy in the Euro final, for example; Where, mutatis mutandisduring this World Cup, in a tense draw against the USA and a soporific first half against Wales.
world Cup
Bale phantom threat, Rashford and Foden opportunists: The highs and lows
11/29/2022 At 10:24 PM
Is it so serious? Unless one considers that only the final victory has a value, the bare facts seem to indicate not. Unbeaten coming out of the group stage, with the best goal difference of any team through to the round of 16, the English managed their first three games with the common sense required to go as far as possible in a World Cup .
The Three Lions tend to doze off
They were able to exploit the psychological explosion of the Iranians – who had their minds on everything except football at the time – at the Khalifa International Stadium, without forcing too much, despite what the magnitude of the score might lead one to believe. Faced with aggressive and talented Americans, they hunkered down, knowing that one point would be enough to get them out of the group. Finally, against Welsh stars whose stars were showing their age, a boost in the second half was enough to secure first place in the group.
And yet, after these three meetings, we don’t know anything else about this team that we didn’t already know before. In other words, it remains frustrating, shrouded in a curious vagueness. It lacks definition, in the sense that a photographer would understand it. We can see who we are dealing with, we recognize faces, but vaguely. What do they intend to show us?
You could call it an absence of ‘style’. Very clever who could describe the ‘English game’ today other than by listing supposed characteristics which, when added together, do not really constitute an identity – such as the Spain… or Senegal have one. What we see is an aggregate of additional, sometimes contradictory, qualities.
An example? Few teams (probably none, in fact) have as many ‘players’ as England: Saka, Foden, Grealish, Rashford, Maddison, Sterling, Mount, Kane, Wilson, Gallagher. Bellingham! But no one would venture to speak of a ‘playful’ England, despite nine goals, some magnificent, scored in the group stage. These Three Lions are ruthless when the prey is at their mercy; when it is not, they tend to doze off.
This, it will be said, is the consequence of the ‘pragmatism’ that characterizes Southgate’s approach, and which nevertheless allowed them to reach the semi-finals of the 2018 World Cup and the final of the FIFA World Cup. Euro 2020. According to Larousse, pragmatism is a “doctrine which takes as its criterion of truth the fact of actually functioning, of practically succeeding”. The proof is in the pudding, so whatever it tastes like, and never mind if it happens to be tasteless.
Southgate’s “pragmatism” is nevertheless of a completely different kind from that of Didier Deschamps or Carlos Alberto Parreira, who found a way to lull us to sleep at the 1994 World Cup with a team in which we found Bebeto, Romario and Rai. .but also Dunga. Six years and two months after taking office, Southgate still hasn’t – yet? – standard formula. What he would like his England to look like in the end, we still don’t know.
Marcus Rashford
Credit: Getty Images
More responsive choices than anything else
This applies first to the choice of attackers associated with Harry Kane. The setup was identical against Iran and the USA, with Bukayo Saka and Raheem Sterling on the flanks and Mason Mount in a seemingly freer role behind the Spurs centre-forward. A model to follow? No, because what had worked so well against Iranians in distress disappointed against the Americans. Also, against the Welsh, all change! Rashford and Foden, hitherto used as substitutes, took the places of Saka and Sterling, while Mount suffered the change from 4-2-3-1 to 4-3-3, in which Jude Bellingham was the element the most advanced in the midfield. Jack Grealish, he retained his role as joker, coming into play in the last third or quarter of the matches to provoke opponents blunted by the efforts made.
On paper – and given the results – this rotation made sense. Preserving the organisms in a tournament which we hope will last five weeks is a necessity. Nevertheless, England’s attacking profile suffers from a certain indeterminacy, and Southgate’s choices seemed more reactive than anything else.
This is not a bad thing in itself, and the wealth of the English in the offensive sector means that, whatever the situation of a match, their manager will not lack solutions to straighten the bar if necessary. But, from the clash against Senegal, the English will have to prove that they have a coherent system in place, and not just a group of exceptional individuals to call upon depending on the face of a match.
Admission of trial and error, more than the expression of certainties
Above all, we will wait to see if Southgate will again listen to his natural caution, which has always pushed him to field a back three or back five when the opponent was stronger, rather than the back four that he set up against Iran, and the USA and Wales during this World Cup. For him, more than a tactical refinement, the transition to a defense of three or five constitutes an all-risk insurance, intended to give himself the best chance of not losing, not to impose himself as the master of the game.
Admittedly, adaptability is a prized asset, and the fact is that most of the players in Southgate’s squad work day-to-day with club coaches who require them to be able to fit into different molds. tactics without their performance suffering; but one can also be polymorphic by hesitation, even by fear; the different forms adopted can remain at the draft stage, the admission of trial and error, more than the expression of certainties.
And what is ‘pragmatism’? During the Euro 2020 final, it would undoubtedly have been more ‘pragmatic’ for the English, who had gained the upper hand in the game and the advantage in the mark, to continue to press Italians who we felt sway. Instead they cowered, and ended up paying the price. The image remains blurry, and we are still waiting to see how the fog that envelops it could dissipate.
world Cup
A stroll and heading to the 8th for the Three Lions
11/29/2022 At 8:57 PM
world Cup
Carried by its generation, united by its symbols: Senegal is finally launched
11/29/2022 At 7:07 PM