SOME USEFUL lessons can be learnt from England’s recent World Cup qualifiers against Kazakhstan and Belarus: Emile Heskey is a worthy foil for the likes of Wayne Rooney and Theo Walcott; a 4-4-2 formation provides more balance to England’s style of play; Beckham has accepted his new cameo role with much grace as he creeps closer to becoming England’s second most-capped player (yet, whether he really deserves to surpass the sublime Bobby Moore through a series of 5-minute substitute appearances is somewhat questionable); Lampard and Gerrard have proved that they can play on the same team sheet; and, some England supporters are just never satisfied.
Since Sven and the days of tinkering with ways to penetrate diamond formations, stalemate football and the occasional secretary, the media-obsessed question mark over the positions of Lampard and Gerrard has continued to grow with every match. The build-up to the recent World Cup qualifiers has been no different in that respect. Hard to swallow is the typically, lazy red-top response that the pair lack cohesion because of a lack of enthusiasm when playing in the colours of England. They are, however, without doubt two of the best midfielders in the English game and they have both become fine examples of modern professionals demonstrating their dedication to the national team. So, rather than harping on about how they usually perform better for their club teams, it might be time to accept that they can actually play effectively on the same team sheet.
Capello can take much buoyancy from their interplay during the past two games. Indeed, when Gerrard has an off day, as he did against Kazakhstan, Lampard duly takes on the responsibility of orchestrating the midfield. Similarly, when Lampard isn’t as influential, Gerrard straps on his Roy of the Rovers cap and provides decisive support in forward play. He did this with great aplomb against Belarus, scoring a goal and setting up Rooney to secure the 3-1 victory. What has become evident is that for both Lampard and Gerrard to enjoy the freedom they have with their club teams, they need a middleman to negotiate the space behind them. Like two naughty school children, when someone is sat between them they perform significantly better. Gareth Barry did a sterling job alongside Lampard against Croatia and Belarus, and Hargreaves’ past performances have proved he is a strong candidate for the defensive midfield role too. With Barry anchoring deep in the last two games, Lampard and Gerrard were given more licence than ever before to press forward in tandem, especially in a 4-4-2 formation. The 4-3-3 setup that Capello initially used against Kazakhstan, although an honourable experiment, seemed to lack the balance that England’s patient style of football needs; the players, particularly Lampard, Gerrard and Rooney, were too cluttered and the play was very narrow and easy to defend against. However, Capello appears to be the first England manager, for a long time, to have a Plan B. He accepted the failings of the 4-3-3 formation and reverted back to a 4-4-2, with Gerrard operating on the left flank and Walcott the right, more balance was given via wider positioning; more crosses came in and defenders were dragged out wide, allowing more space in the center for the likes of Rooney and Heskey to occupy.
For Lampard and Gerrard to play consistently well on the international stage, under such hyped-up pressure, has become an almost impossible conundrum. But, under Capello they have so far struck a handsome balance and have helped England make their best ever start to a World Cup qualifying campaign. Indeed, in Capello, the national team now has a manager who possesses the strength and discipline to bestow players with the confidence they need to not only grind out results, but win matches comfortably. The two games against Kazakhstan and Belarus have shown that the England players now play with an assurance they actually believe in. If this disciplined form continues, England supporters may be confident that the national side will no longer be a team simply hopeful of qualification – as they have been under the guidance of the last few managers – but a team that can be optimistic about reaching the final stages of a tournament.
The Saints and the Booers
During England’s match against Kazakhstan, Ashley Cole became the latest victim to be hounded by the England ‘boo-boys’. Throughout the match Cole had covered the left-flank tirelessly and, for a solitary and careless mistake, was fiercely chastised. Presumably, the fans who jeered had never been guilty of such a heinous misjudgement.
Over the years, Frank Lampard has also taken the brunt of some England supporters’ frustrations. The only logical reason being that, for the most part, he has failed to replicate his exceptional club form on the international stage - and of course, there was that penalty he missed against Portugal. But, is this enough of a reason to boo one of your own players? And, would these same fans single out an individual in their club team and heckle him to kingdom come?
The booing of Lampard, as with Ashley Cole, has been completely misdirected. In fact, it has been down right foolish. In fact, any purported theory behind booing an individual contains not one single thread of positive reasoning. After all, an under-performing player is far less likely to perform better under the pressure of a heckling crowd.
What is always certain in football is that teams will have bad days and players will make mistakes. The clowns that boo individual players because of a lapse in concentration, or use club-team rivalries as an excuse to jeer their nation’s players, might find it more fun to watch instead some sort of Punch and Judy sketch - at least this way they will give the England team more respect than the cant of a pantomime crowd.
