Soccer: USA > England (at least in the latest FIFA world rankings) [Archive]

cartman

07-20-2005, 09:50 AM

Wow, this is pretty impressive. We are now up to 6th in the FIFA World rankings. Hopefully we can keep the good form running though next summer, and make it even farther in the World Cup than last time. I'm still predicting a World Cup championship for us in one of the next 3 competitions.

hxxp://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=337298&cc=5901

Wednesday, July 20, 2005
It's official: USA are better than England
England have been overtaken by the United States in the FIFA Coca-Cola world rankings after dropping one place to eighth.

The USA, still managed by Bruce Arena who guided his country to the quarter-finals of the 2002 World Cup, have reached their highest ever placing with a rise to sixth.

It means a drop of one place to eighth for Sven-Goran Eriksson's England, who were 2-1 winners over Arena's side this summer, one behind France who have also fallen.

Scotland have dropped two places to 85th, displaced by Canada - beaten 3-1 under Berti Vogts - and Panama, who have shot up 15 places on the back of reaching the semi-finals of the ongoing Gold Cup.

Northern Ireland are up two places to 112th, level with Congo and overtaking Lebanon, while Wales have dropped one to 80th, behind Kenya.

The Republic of Ireland are static at 15th, level with Iran.

moriarty

07-20-2005, 09:58 AM

FIFA World Rankings are rather meaningless IMO. Making it to the knockout stages again in 2006 would actually mean something.

Scholes

07-20-2005, 10:10 AM

Didn't England's JV squad just toy with the US? I don't like the FIFA Rankings.

Critch

07-20-2005, 10:12 AM

The problem with the FIFA World Rankings are that it ranks Regional Championships and Regional World Cup Qualifying highly and hardly weighs between the confederations. So if you're in a weak confederation, like CONCACAF, you can rake in the ranking points by beating teams like Panama and the Dominican Republic in World Cup Qualifiers or the Gold Cup. So you end up with rankings like Mexico at 5 and the US at 6 in the world.

It's not bad for a ranking within a confederation, but it falls down for rankings across confederations. Kind of like if the NCAA tried to do a ranking of college teams when there were only inter-conference games every 4 years.

cartman

07-20-2005, 10:23 AM

The problem with the FIFA World Rankings are that it ranks Regional Championships and Regional World Cup Qualifying highly and hardly weighs between the confederations.

That's not entirely true. They do assign weight to the confederations. Otherwise, you'd see Australia continually in the top 10 for their dominance in the Oceana region.

The following explanation is taken from the official FIFA website (www.fifa.com).

The FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking evaluates all matches played by senior national teams, including friendlies. The calculation of a team's points from a certain match is based on the following five criteria:

* winning, drawing and losing
* number of goals
* home or away match
* importance of the match (multiplication factor)
* regional strength (multiplication factor)

To ensure that the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking always reflects the current status, FIFA evaluates primarily matches played in the 12 months prior to the date on which it is issued. Performance over the previous years is also taken into account, however. Basically, the score obtained from the current 12 months is added to that of the immediately preceding seven years with each previous year being devalued continually.

moriarty

07-20-2005, 10:25 AM

Didn't England's JV squad just toy with the US? I don't like the FIFA Rankings.

I wouldn't put too much faith in this (and not sure they 'toyed' w/ the US). The only thing more misleading than the FIFA rankings is friendlies wherer there are mass substitutions, players being tested out of position, partial squads, questionable committment/tackling/etc. by certain players/teams.

Critch

07-20-2005, 10:25 AM

Yeah, they do weight slightly, UEFA is 1.00, CONCACAF is 0.94. Not very much.

Mr. Wednesday

07-20-2005, 10:51 AM

Didn't England's JV squad just toy with the US? I don't like the FIFA Rankings.England's JV squad toyed with the U.S.' JV squad, proving (to few people's surprise) that they are a lot deeper than we are.

Mr. Wednesday

07-20-2005, 10:53 AM

FIFA World Rankings are rather meaningless IMO.As an evaluation of the relative merits of two teams, I think they produce flawed results. They are not meaningless, though -- snapshots of the rankings make up half of the formula used to decide World Cup seeds. Should France or Spain fail to qualify, it appears as though it will basically come down to the rankings from November as to whether the U.S. or the Netherlands gets the last seed.

moriarty

07-20-2005, 11:52 AM

As an evaluation of the relative merits of two teams, I think they produce flawed results. They are not meaningless, though -- snapshots of the rankings make up half of the formula used to decide World Cup seeds. Should France or Spain fail to qualify, it appears as though it will basically come down to the rankings from November as to whether the U.S. or the Netherlands gets the last seed.

Point taken.

fantastic flying froggies

07-20-2005, 04:33 PM

FIFA rankings are a joke.

Crapshoot

07-20-2005, 04:35 PM

Yup. There isn't an American who would make the English 1st team - heck, I don't think there is one who would make the squad (although this is debatable). Now clearly, rankings and talent don't have to co-incide, but FIFA's whacked out weighting cause problems like this.

ISiddiqui

07-20-2005, 04:57 PM

Crapshoot

07-20-2005, 05:05 PM

Well I think Friedal or Keller may be able to beat out Robinson for the English Keeper. And knowing England's habitual problems on the left side, I think Beasley could make the squad as a backup to Downing.

I don't think Beasley is at the level of a Joe Cole or Downing, the 2 left sided candidates (Bridge plays up there as well). And I doubt either Friedel or Keller (who backed up Robinson at Spurs, and left because of it) beats out Robinson/Kirkland and co - but I guess you could see Friedel as the no 2 or no 3 goalie.

ISiddiqui

07-20-2005, 05:11 PM

Crapshoot

07-20-2005, 05:19 PM

Outside of Cech, I consider Friedal to the best keeper in the Prem, so I'd have him as #1 over Robinson. Beasley is young and quick, doing a great job for PSV. I think he be a backup for the English squad on the left.

Meh - maybe 2 years ago, but no longer - today, Robinson is far better than Friedel (who is still a pretty good keeper). Beasley didn't even start for PSV - he's good and a decent prospect, but he's not as good as either Downing or Cole, the two left sided options. Which one of those two does Beasley beat out ?

ISiddiqui

07-20-2005, 05:33 PM

I think Cole is better as an in-the-hole forward. I wouldn't have him on the left side.

And Friedal was just cursed with a horrid defense last year, but played amazingly to keep his squad in it. I know he'd love to have the Yids' defense in front of him.

bhlloy

07-20-2005, 05:39 PM

ISiddiqui

07-20-2005, 05:40 PM

Crapshoot

07-20-2005, 06:52 PM

I'm fairly alone in this, but I think a healthy Jonathon Woodgate is the best defender in England. Of course, that is always the question with Woodgate. Woodgate paired with a slower less mobile but "hard" defender (Terry, who's probably better than Cambell) gives you a central defense that has the best of both worlds. Ashley Cole is probably the best left back in the world, and Neville is solid (if not particularly spectacular) at RB.

moriarty

07-20-2005, 08:47 PM

See if I was Sven, I'd do this (MF and Forwards only)

---- Owen --^-- Defoe
--------- Rooney
Downing - Lampard - Beckham/SWP

I'd have Cole as backup for Rooney, but he'd also have to spell Downing because of a lack of left-side talent.

And leave Gerrard on the bench? :confused:

I'd only use this lineup against a weak team where you needed to run up the goals, and there's no way I'd start Downing ahead of Cole.

Desnudo

07-21-2005, 05:45 AM

As a slightly biased Welsh fan I think Friedel is clearly better than Kirkland for number 2, and it's quite close between him and Robinson. I would have a place on the fringes also for Beasley (Downing being the only out and out left winger) and Eddie Johnson (given England's clear lack of a powerful striker)

Having said that, even that argument shows that the US currently is nowhere near England in terms of talent. The FIFA rankings are a complete pile of garbage useful only for evaluating teams in the same qualifying region.

Fortunately talent doesn't always mean automatic victory. Greece anyone? Unless you're Brazil, of course. FIFA Rankings aren't meant to measure talent, only performance. I would adjust the CONCACAF multiplier downward though.

As for the England squad being vastly more talented than the US squad, I would disagree. I would say England is vastly more talented than Uzbekistan. The difference between England, or any other Euro team, and the US on the field is smaller than most people, especially Euros, tend to think, or want to think.

Depth is great, but you can only play 11.

Desnudo

07-21-2005, 05:48 AM

Meh - maybe 2 years ago, but no longer - today, Robinson is far better than Friedel (who is still a pretty good keeper). Beasley didn't even start for PSV - he's good and a decent prospect, but he's not as good as either Downing or Cole, the two left sided options. Which one of those two does Beasley beat out ?

Beasley was also the third leading scorer on the team even though he missed a month. I would say Cole is the most suspect. He's an interesting player, but I'd like to see how he'd do on a team other than Chelsea.

ColtCrazy

07-21-2005, 07:28 AM

England brought a second team to America, while the US had some starters. It was clear the Americans were trying harder to win, but couldn't. The FIFA rankings are basically meaningless.

I believe the gap has shunk between the US and the more elite teams of the world, but they aren't going to win a World Cup within the next 3 competitions. There are too many other countries in the world that have good teams that want nothing more than to beat the US. Many European countries still think it's a shame to lose to the US. The US made a nice run in the last World Cup, and I expect them to make it through the group stage again, but probably not any farther than that.

moriarty

07-21-2005, 08:03 AM

England brought a second team to America, while the US had some starters. It was clear the Americans were trying harder to win, but couldn't. The FIFA rankings are basically meaningless.

I know England wasn't playing their starters and largely outplayed them in that game, but the US could have won with some halfway decent finishing. Still, I don't think anyone would argue that England has better talent in pretty much every position than the US.

I'm not entirely confident in the US's back line, but the biggest question mark for me is who is going to score there goals at WC2006? We really need a couple of strikers that can put fear in a defense. EJ has that potential, but whom else can we put up front that will get us goals at the WC level? I love McBride, but he's getting older and put some tall CB's with even decent speed and he's pretty much neutralized. Watching the under 19's, I didn't really see anyone who would be rising up in the near future. Who is our long term partner up front with EJ?

PS - what's with all the hating on Joe Cole? Everytime I've seen him put on the England shirt, he's done a great job IMO.

AlexB

07-21-2005, 01:02 PM

See if I was Sven, I'd do this (MF and Forwards only)

---- Owen --^-- Defoe
--------- Rooney
Downing - Lampard - Beckham/SWP

I'd have Cole as backup for Rooney, but he'd also have to spell Downing because of a lack of left-side talent.

Defoe scored an excellent goal last season, but generally has looked as if he is not yey quite up to standard to play on a regular basis. But he's excellent to have on the bench in case we need a goal and it's not working for Owen, as Defoe can be a clinical finisher.

Woodgate is an excellent defender but he hasn't played for over a year and has averaged about 15-20 games a season before that IIRC.

Downing shows a lot of promise, but Joe Cole towards the end of last year was the better player and IMO deserves the starting spot, but it is close.

FWIW I would play Rooney slightly further forward, put Cole in for Downing and Gerrard in midfield instead of Defoe up front.

Defence: Cole, Gary Neville, Ferdinand, Terry/Campbell - still can't decide on that last one.

I'm not 100% convinced by any of our GKs, and it's a fair shout that Friedel might get in ahead of Robinson on current ability. Haven't seen enough of Kirkland to say for sure if he's the real deal, and I really don't rate Robert Green.

Bench (7): Downing, SWP/Beckham, Defoe, Heskey, Terry/Campbell, Bridge, GK: (probably James)

Only really controverial choice is Heskey for the bench, but I still think he gives a mix of pace, power and skilll that can blow a game wide open: he just doesn't believe in himself enough and could do with upping his work rate sometimes. (And, yes, he does fall over a little bit too much)

moriarty

07-21-2005, 01:19 PM

Defoe scored an excellent goal last season, but generally has looked as if he is not yey quite up to standard to play on a regular basis. But he's excellent to have on the bench in case we need a goal and it's not working for Owen, as Defoe can be a clinical finisher.

Woodgate is an excellent defender but he hasn't played for over a year and has averaged about 15-20 games a season before that IIRC.

Downing shows a lot of promise, but Joe Cole towards the end of last year was the better player and IMO deserves the starting spot, but it is close.

FWIW I would play Rooney slightly further forward, put Cole in for Downing and Gerrard in midfield instead of Defoe up front.

Defence: Cole, Gary Neville, Ferdinand, Terry/Campbell - still can't decide on that last one.

I'm not 100% convinced by any of our GKs, and it's a fair shout that Friedel might get in ahead of Robinson on current ability. Haven't seen enough of Kirkland to say for sure if he's the real deal, and I really don't rate Robert Green.

Bench (7): Downing, SWP/Beckham, Defoe, Heskey, Terry/Campbell, Bridge, GK: (probably James)

Only really controverial choice is Heskey for the bench, but I still think he gives a mix of pace, power and skilll that can blow a game wide open: he just doesn't believe in himself enough and could do with upping his work rate sometimes. (And, yes, he does fall over a little bit too much)

Take Terry as your starter and put in Crouch instead of Heskey (b/c I'm a Liverpool fan and I've been down the Heskey route) and I agree with you 100%.

BTW - Kirkland would look great for about 60 minutes and then hurt his back or come up with some other season ending injury, so best to leave him at home and bring up a youngster like Carson to get some training/exposure behind a Friedel (if we're picking him)/Robinson combo.

AlexB

07-21-2005, 01:28 PM

Take Terry as your starter and put in Crouch instead of Heskey (b/c I'm a Liverpool fan and I've been down the Heskey route) and I agree with you 100%.

BTW - Kirkland would look great for about 60 minutes and then hurt his back or come up with some other season ending injury, so best to leave him at home and bring up a youngster like Carson to get some training/exposure behind a Friedel (if we're picking him)/Robinson combo.

I'm a Leicester fan, so have a lot of time for Heskey - when he plays like he did against Argentina at Wembley, and his performance against Germany in the 5-1 show what he is capable of - Steve Bruce seems to be getting him more confident again: when he's on his game he's unstoppable.

ColtCrazy

07-21-2005, 02:40 PM

PS - what's with all the hating on Joe Cole? Everytime I've seen him put on the England shirt, he's done a great job IMO.

Personally, I think it's because he hasn't turned into the all-world player that he was projected to be. Look at that US-England game. He was clearly the best player on the pitch, and played like it. He's a great player, I think, and gets a little overshadowed because he plays for such a talented Chelsea side.

I wonder if his Championship Manager pedigree hurt him, remember when he was the MUST HAVE player in the game about 3-4 years ago?

moriarty

07-21-2005, 02:47 PM

I wonder if his Championship Manager pedigree hurt him, remember when he was the MUST HAVE player in the game about 3-4 years ago?

Yeah, I remember coaching him when I was the coach of England. Won me a world cup or two if I recall...

MIJB#19

07-21-2005, 05:56 PM

Alright, we're 3rd!
And yet nobody cares, 'cause the rankings are not raken serious by anybody except the people who have to enter the numbers to make the rankings roll out.

Did anybody bring up the "play twice as many games as the rest and you're guaranteed a top10 spot" argument yet?

ISiddiqui

07-21-2005, 06:14 PM

And leave Gerrard on the bench? :confused:

I'd only use this lineup against a weak team where you needed to run up the goals, and there's no way I'd start Downing ahead of Cole.
Yeah, I'd put Gerrard on the bench. I'd want to score... perhaps Jari is right and Defoe isn't that great internationally, but I'd rather have Rooney in a withdrawn role and play more of a 4-3-3. In that setup, Gerrard doesn't really have a place (he isn't better than Lampard).

I'd rather put Cole on my bench. He'd spell Rooney (which is also the reason I have Rooney is bit back. I think Cole would be great in that position. And like Jari, I believe it is close between Downing and Cole, but I think Downing is better at crossing the ball.

If you wanted a 4-4-2, with Rooney as a somewhat withdrawn forward, then Gerrard could play next to Lampard, though I'd also make sure England had a defensive stay-at-home center MF, to come in for either Gerrard or Lampard.

Critch

07-21-2005, 06:19 PM

Did anybody bring up the "play twice as many games as the rest and you're guaranteed a top10 spot" argument yet?

Not yet, but I was going to point out that Germany had dropped into the 20's as they don't have any World Cup Qualifiers to play as they're the host. Something wrong with a system that assumes you're getting worse as you've no games.

They were in the Confederations Cup this month, so they jumped up 10 spots.

moriarty

07-21-2005, 07:19 PM

Slightly off-topic, but great finish to the gold cup match tonight (USA vs. Honduras).

I was watching on Spanish television, and Arena got ejected from the game, but I have no idea why (couldn't understand the spanish commentators).

moriarty

07-21-2005, 07:22 PM

Yeah, I'd put Gerrard on the bench. I'd want to score... perhaps Jari is right and Defoe isn't that great internationally, but I'd rather have Rooney in a withdrawn role and play more of a 4-3-3. In that setup, Gerrard doesn't really have a place (he isn't better than Lampard).

I'd rather put Cole on my bench. He'd spell Rooney (which is also the reason I have Rooney is bit back. I think Cole would be great in that position. And like Jari, I believe it is close between Downing and Cole, but I think Downing is better at crossing the ball.

If you wanted a 4-4-2, with Rooney as a somewhat withdrawn forward, then Gerrard could play next to Lampard, though I'd also make sure England had a defensive stay-at-home center MF, to come in for either Gerrard or Lampard.

Dola, well that's why you're not coach of England. If you really wanted to score with that lineup, you'd move Rooney up front and put Gerrard in the slot behind the strikers (and sit Defoe).

Edit: I didn't mean that to sound as condescending as it might have, I just don't think there's any way you leave one of the top 5 midfielders in Europe on the bench. Besides, your top scorer (Owen) needs lots of service to score as he can't create on his own too well, so you need someone up there who can distribute better than Rooney.

Crapshoot

07-21-2005, 08:16 PM

Uh, I like Lampard and think he's a great player, but unlike Gerrard, he doesn't have to protect his defense, while serving as the link, as well as being a goalscorer- he's free to roam and play primarily as an attacking midfielder (or really a withdrawn forward). He does a damn good job in that role, but he's not as good as Gerrard, simply because the latter maintains the same level of class (if not more) with far more responsibility, without a Makelele (probably the most under appreciated player in the Chelsea team- any World 11 out to have him in it).

ISiddiqui

07-21-2005, 09:03 PM

Crapshoot

07-21-2005, 10:13 PM

Veron ? Veron ? Juan Pablo "I make 3 good passes a game" Veron ?

ISiddiqui

07-21-2005, 10:40 PM

Yes that Veron. He was great this season for Inter. He just isn't well suited to the Premiership game.

Though you can substitute Ballack for him if you want :p.

Katon

07-22-2005, 05:50 AM

In a 4-5-1, Gerrard doesn't have to do as much defensive work as you may expect a central MF to do. It's not the much greater amount of work as you insinuated.

I'd pick Lampard over Gerrard any day. Even before Maka was on Chelsea, Lampard showed the promise that would make him such a great midfielder.

Oh, and I really think people are streaching it when they say Gerrard is one of the top 5 MF in Europe... top 10, perhaps... but Top 5? Naaaah. (Lampard maybe doesn't make it.... I'd put Kaka, Nedved, Veron, Ronaldinho, and Essien in there)

Oh, and as for coach of England. I hear the latest ones haven't been too well recieved ;). I think Rooney could be a very fine withdrawn forward who can provide the chances needed (a great example was the World Cup Qualifying match against Wales at Old Trafford). And with Lampard right behind, Owen would get his chances. Defoe is a great young forward. He's only 22, IIRC, can put the ball in the net and bound to get better.

Agreed on just about every count, but I'd actually go further and argue that Lampard has more defensive responsibilities than Gerrard. Looking at their respective clubs' preferred lineups towards the end of last season, Gerrard normally played as the furthest forward a three-man central midfield with Didi Hamann and Xabi Alonso. Lampard also played in a three-man midfield, with Claude Makelele and . . . Eidur Gudjohnsen. Who for all his career up until February had been a striker, and still can't tackle to save his life. If you're setting up parallels between the two midfields, then Hamann corresponds to Makelele, Alonso to Lampard, and Gerrard to Eidur.

bhlloy

07-22-2005, 06:01 AM

Oh, and I really think people are streaching it when they say Gerrard is one of the top 5 MF in Europe... top 10, perhaps... but Top 5? Naaaah. (Lampard maybe doesn't make it.... I'd put Kaka, Nedved, Veron, Ronaldinho, and Essien in there)

Oh, and as for coach of England. I hear the latest ones haven't been too well recieved ;). I think Rooney could be a very fine withdrawn forward who can provide the chances needed (a great example was the World Cup Qualifying match against Wales at Old Trafford). And with Lampard right behind, Owen would get his chances. Defoe is a great young forward. He's only 22, IIRC, can put the ball in the net and bound to get better.

Don't agree sorry, you have to put your best players on the field and no matter how much you think Rooney should be great in that position and Defoe has great potential, a team with Gerrard and Rooney in is way better than a team with Defoe and Rooney. Rooney has played very well up front, and Gerrard has played very well in the hole. For me it's a no brainer.

I'm not convinced about Defoe (very streaky) and he is definitely not the kind of striker that Owen needs to be succesful. However much Heskey is maligned he is still the player that Owen played off the best. I still think England need to take a longer look at Beattie to play together with Owen. Crouch I don't think is the answer

moriarty

07-22-2005, 07:31 AM

I think Rooney could be a very fine withdrawn forward who can provide the chances needed (a great example was the World Cup Qualifying match against Wales at Old Trafford).

You're using a performance against Wales as an indicator? Enough said.

Defoe is a great young forward. He's only 22, IIRC, can put the ball in the net and bound to get better.

Agreed he has loads of potential, but he's not better yet. Are you trying to develop players or win games?

I'm willing to bet Gerrard is a top 5 European midfielder on most people/team's lists (just ask Chelsea and Real if they're interested). But I'll admit I am a bit biased.

Katon

07-22-2005, 08:58 AM

I'm willing to bet Gerrard is a top 5 European midfielder on most people/team's lists (just ask Chelsea and Real if they're interested). But I'll admit I am a bit biased.

Of course they're interested, but all that means is that Gerrard is a very good player who would fit well in their third midfield slot (Chelsea) or that he gets a lot of publicity (Real). Not all of them are really comparable to Gerrard in terms of position, but here's just a few central midfielders who most teams would probably take over him:

Makelele, Lampard, Viera, Kaka, Ronaldinho, Nedved, Ballack, Zidane

Even on his own team, Gerrard isn't necesssarily the best player. Liverpool were hurt much more by Xabi Alonso getting injured last year (in fact, they've done better when Gerrard doesn't play than when he does both of the past two years), and it was Hamann whose introduction sparked the CL comeback.

moriarty

07-22-2005, 09:12 AM

Even on his own team, Gerrard isn't necesssarily the best player. Liverpool were hurt much more by Xabi Alonso getting injured last year (in fact, they've done better when Gerrard doesn't play than when he does both of the past two years), and it was Hamann whose introduction sparked the CL comeback.

Gerrard carried the Liverpool team almost single handedly last year, including the CL when Alonso was out. If you want to argue that Carragher was their MVP last year, you may have a point but there's no way Alonso was the better player last year.

Hamann's introduction sparked the team because they played with an extra midfielder and only 3 at the back (they took of Finnan). The extra midfielder was the key - it allowed Gerrard to make the foward runs. Hamann's play itself didn't exactly spark them (trust me I've watched the finals like 4 times now). Gerrard BTW was the one who scored the crucial goal to get them back in it and spark the run. And when the team was completely exhausted and just trying to hang on at the end ... who showed his versatility by dropping back to right back and making several key tackles to preserve the tie?

Alonso makes some great passes, but Gerrard's forward runs, and defensive tackles make him the much better player IMO. You may not rate him in your top 5, but there's no way Liverpool is a better team without him. Now if Chelsea were to give us 50MM pounds for him ....

Katon

07-22-2005, 10:07 AM

I wasn't being particularly serious about Hamann. Even ignoring the fact that, as you point out, it was the formation shift rather than Hamann in particular that really made the difference, one match is hardly a useful sample size. Alonso, on the other hand, is much closer to Gerrard's level. I'd agree with your comparison of their offensive styles, but Gerrard's defence is overrated. He tackles hard, certainly, but his positional discipline is abominable - the down side of all those attacking runs. Positioning is the single most important defensive skill for midfielders (just look at Makelele, who's made a whole career out of it), and it's the biggest weakness in Gerrard's game.

I don't think Liverpool really are a better team without Gerrard, but it is a fact that they've gotten more points per game without him in the last couple of years than they have with him. No idea what's up with that. I'll try to find the precise figures later.

My position on Gerrard-to-Chelsea, which I haven't posted here yet since I was on a trip without web access when the whole thing blew up:

- Gerrard is a better player in the attacking midfield role than Eidur Gudjohnsen
- The difference between them isn't worth £32M
- After the way he's behaved the last couple of summers, holding Liverpool to ransom and referring to himself in public as the club's best player, I'm just fine not having him him at my club

moriarty

07-22-2005, 10:14 AM

I wasn't being particularly serious about Hamann. Even ignoring the fact that, as you point out, it was the formation shift rather than Hamann in particular that really made the difference, one match is hardly a useful sample size. Alonso, on the other hand, is much closer to Gerrard's level. I'd agree with your comparison of their offensive styles, but Gerrard's defence is overrated. He tackles hard, certainly, but his positional discipline is abominable - the down side of all those attacking runs. Positioning is the single most important defensive skill for midfielders (just look at Makelele, who's made a whole career out of it), and it's the biggest weakness in Gerrard's game.

Fair, but I think it's the coaching strategy that allows him to make his attacking runs. For example, with England he doesn't usually have the strategic freedom to make those runs and thus doesn't score nearly as often.

I don't think Liverpool really are a better team without Gerrard, but it is a fact that they've gotten more points per game without him in the last couple of years than they have with him. No idea what's up with that. I'll try to find the precise figures later.

No need to come up with the precise figures unless you really want. I know their performance has been fairly good without him, but I feel (perhaps blindly) that's more of an anomoly than an actual cause-effect.

Katon

07-22-2005, 10:50 AM

Fair, but I think it's the coaching strategy that allows him to make his attacking runs. For example, with England he doesn't usually have the strategic freedom to make those runs and thus doesn't score nearly as often.

Certainly. That's the reason he's so well suited to the attacking role in a three-man midfield - which is where he would have played for Chelsea, and where he was playing for Liverpool in the second half of the CL Final. In a 4-4-2 he can either stop making those runs (which kills a large part of his game) or be a defensive liability. In fact, that's my best guess at what's going on with the comparative records stat: the with-Gerrard category has the matches where he's in a three-man midfield, where he's definitely Liverpool's best midfielder (don't know about top 5 in the world one way or the other; this is Ronaldinho/Zidane/Nedved territory, so it's TOUGH to make the top 5), but it also has him in a 4-4-2 where he isn't necessarily better than the alternatives.

ISiddiqui

07-22-2005, 09:34 PM

You're using a performance against Wales as an indicator? Enough said.
Indeed I am. It demonstrates how conformatable Rooney was in such a role. IIRC, Sir Alex used him in the hole on a number of occasions last season.

Agreed he has loads of potential, but he's not better yet. Are you trying to develop players or win games?
World Cup 2006 is a year away. By that time the experience will pay off in spades (ie, realize that potential). Qualifying is not just trying to survive (which England WILL do), but trying to see who works.

I'm willing to bet Gerrard is a top 5 European midfielder on most people/team's lists (just ask Chelsea and Real if they're interested). But I'll admit I am a bit biased.
Like said, I'm sure those squads would love to have Ronaldinho, Nedved, Kaka, Ballack, Vieira, etc, over Gerrard. It is just that some of them aren't for sale.

you have to put your best players on the field
As Katon said, it won't matter if you put them in positions where they don't excel. There is a limit. Now if you want a 4-5-1, then there is no question Gerrard deserves to be on the pitch as an attacking MF (Cole/Downing - Lampard - Gerrard - Beckham - SWP). In a 4-4-2, he's going to have to be more defense minded which takes away his greatness (IMO). And with only 1 striker, it's going to be hard to determine which one of Owen or Rooney sits.

And in a 4-4-2, is Gerrard-Beckham better than Beckham-SWP? Because you know Sven isn't taking Beckham out.

Desnudo

07-22-2005, 09:39 PM

Gerrard turns the ball over too much. Give me fat Frank please.

daedalus

07-23-2005, 02:55 AM

Cole/Downing - Lampard - Gerrard - Beckham - SWPWho would be the defensive one? Aren't they all more offensive by nature?

EDIT: The inner midfielders that is.

ISiddiqui

07-23-2005, 03:11 AM

That's the problem. I don't know of a defensive MF star for England. I'd have Lampard play back a little, but he's not for that role. However, you'd just have to hope that with all those MFs, some of them may decide to play a little defense ;).

daedalus

07-23-2005, 08:47 AM

Alan Smith!!! :D

I kid, I kid.

One possibility, given England's depth at centreback and his versatility may be Ledley King, who I have heard is versatile enough to handle the defensive midfield role. The likelihood of him breaking through Ferdinand-Terry-Campbell* is not great, health and, ahem, eligibility-permitting.

*Personally, I think Terry has earned the starting nod over Campbell based on recent performances. But Eriksson is not fond of change and Campbell will probably get a long look again anyway.

ISiddiqui

07-23-2005, 01:28 PM

I've also heard King can be play the defensive midfielder role, but I've also heard that he's far better as a center back. Then, of course, you run into the question of who he's going to replace.

I guess you could do:

------------------Gerrard
Cole/Downing ---- Lampard ----- Beckham/SWP
--------------------King

But then the question of having either Owen or Rooney play is the difficult one (or take out one of the center MF).

daedalus

07-23-2005, 04:43 PM

I'd play Rooney over Owen almost any day of the week.

That or get another manager and go with 3 centrebacks. :D

bhlloy

07-23-2005, 06:35 PM

If you must have somebody to play that spot it's got to be Jermaine Jenas. Way better than converting a big lumbering CB like King to play a completely new position.

Arsenal are after him to replace Viera which says a lot. By the time of the next World Cup he could be in his prime.

Still a big believer in having your formation fit around your best players, not the other way around. For me you can't leave out Gerrard or Lampard. Maybe Rooney can play up front on his own, which will make space for a DM.

ISiddiqui

07-23-2005, 06:38 PM

Jenas?! As a Newcastle fan, I'd say don't bother. He hasn't impressed with his defensive skills... hell, he hasn't really impressed with his offensive skills ;).

For me you can't leave out Gerrard or Lampard. Maybe Rooney can play up front on his own, which will make space for a DM.
I think I'd rather have Owen than Gerrard, personally. I know Owen's been getting somewhat of a bad rap recently, but he's a fantastic player (but yes, I'd pick Rooney over him).

Still a big believer in having your formation fit around your best players
Well then hope for a 3-5-2 ;).

daedalus

07-24-2005, 07:52 AM

I think I'd rather have Owen than Gerrard, personally. I know Owen's been getting somewhat of a bad rap recently, but he's a fantastic player (but yes, I'd pick Rooney over him).Eh, I'd rather have Gerrard in there with him and Lampard running wild (in a 4-5-1) than Owen (in a 4-4-2). I think Rooney, with his ability to control the ball and create, would be fantastic with Gerrard and Lampard and their ability and tendency to surge forward. The biggest question would be who would protect the back four since Beckham isn't the answer there.Well then hope for a 3-5-2 ;).Hey! England has one good fullback. Even if he's a douchebag.

And, hopefully, we'll be cashing out on him for 10-15 before moving into Ashburton Grove.

Unless he apologizes. Really hard. And shows major, mondo, uber commitment.