ENGLAND WILL start this evening’s game knowing who awaits them — win, lose or draw — in the last 16.
Great, isn’t it? You can pick your opponents these days. I’m sure Sven-Göran Eriksson’s players will have no thoughts in their heads other than winning the game and playing well, though. Don’t start trying to work out who you might face in the quarter-finals or semi-finals; it might never happen.
Eriksson has made some changes in the team, resting Steven Gerrard and starting with Wayne Rooney. Good decisions. Gerrard has played for a full year now without a break and a small rest will benefit him.
In an ideal scenario, it would have been good to give World Cup match experience to a few others in the squad, but I understand the head coach’s viewpoint in feeling his best chance of victory is by utilising the majority of his star players.
So Rooney partners Michael Owen up front and in central midfield Frank Lampard has a new partner in Owen Hargreaves. The moment Rooney reported no after-effects from the Trinidad & Tobago game, he was always going to start. Peter Crouch, ironically, has become the “problem” for England.
Advertisement
A month ago he was considered a fringe player to be called upon with 20 minutes to go when perhaps the team, chasing the game, would look for a more direct alternative. The reason that I say Crouch causes a “problem”, despite some very positive contributions, is the way England have occasionally played too long, too early, stretching the game so that the gap between the attack and the midfield has become too great. This in turn has affected Michael Owen’s game.
A fully fit and energetic Owen, playing at the top of his game, can come to the rescue but this has not been the case so far. Crouch and Owen can possibly develop a partnership but not in the time available at this World Cup. Rooney, on the other hand, can play with either of them. He will help England to develop the play and consequently their game will automatically become more fluid.
His introduction to the Trinidad game not only did this but led to an upsurge in tempo, energy and dynamism that eventually forced the winning goals. He is essential to England’s chances of winning the World Cup. I believe he makes all those very good players around him play close to their true ability and the raging arguments about whether Horace can play with James or Harry can play with Tom abate somewhat when Rooney is in action. He may not yet have reached the Maradona stage, but England are miles better when he’s in the team, as it should be with any truly world-class player, and tonight he plays with Owen up front.
I don’t go along with this argument that Lampard and Gerrard cannot play together. Their game might be more in sync if they had a defensive holding midfield player, such as Lampard’s team-mate at Chelsea, Claude Makelele. That would free both Lampard and Gerrard to play their natural attacking games without looking sideways at each other to see who might hold if his partner wants to take an advanced position.
Both would automatically get back when the ball is lost but with the added security of knowing that play can be held up long enough for them to regain their defensive ground.
Advertisement
Lampard’s game at Chelsea is based on complete confidence; that confidence stems from having an end-product to his game. I don’t know the young man well but I’m sure one of the most pleasurable aspects of his game is scoring goals from midfield, especially vital ones.
However, he also starts moves at Chelsea, from deep, with either a long through ball to Didier Drogba or Hernán Crespo or a diagonal ball to wingers such as Arjen Robben or Damien Duff running inside the full backs. Lampard times his runs better if he is in control of the play, but he also gets early touches in club games and has a major say in free kicks and corner kicks.
He is as good as anyone in the Barclays Premiership at delivering from set-pieces but that responsibility is taken away from him by Beckham, so he is now less in control and therefore has to time his runs a little better, with an eye on defensive duties if moves break down.
Without a Makelele figure sitting there, he may get caught in two minds, if not in no-man’s land. I’m not sure he is as completely at ease in the England set-up, positionally, as he is in Chelsea’s, but he has proved himself a quality player in the last couple of seasons at Stamford Bridge and there is no reason whatsoever for him not to take charge of affairs. I might be a million miles out — he’ll probably totally disagree with me — but it’s my view.
England, albeit they have not yet shown it, do have an array of attacking talent, as good as most teams in the World Cup, especially with Rooney now back in action. As they take tonight’s opportunity to introduce a natural holding player, Hargreaves probably gets the vote ahead of Michael Carrick because the manager feels a less forward-thinking player is called for.
Advertisement
Although I’m not sure that Hargreaves has been completely convincing in that role, you need someone to win the ball and play it simple. Let players of the calibre of Rooney, Beckham, Lampard and Joe Cole build the play.