Unpacking England's Euros Philosophy

Umir analyses what England's third game of the Euros means more broadly.

England drew 0-0 against Slovenia. Conor Gallagher’s involvement in central midfield the only change, as Trent’s midfield experiment expired.

From the off, England press high and with energy. There’s a generally good shape to their press too. Kane presses the keeper, the opposition 6 in his cover shadow. Jude, Saka and the fullbacks back up the press. Foden springs onto the opposition right back and England pen Slovenia in.

Delving into this a little deeper, the motivations behind the pressure from England early on may reflect and be in response to the criticism from coach and country following the previous game. With a point to prove, England’s press in the opening phases was full of energy if not always co-ordinated appropriately. In fact, on more than one occasion, an over-eagerness to press resulted in England pressing the same player with multiple players, or certain players pressing the wrong player.

Following the regain of possession after the good press from England, and the second duels from the midfielders (particularly Rice) backing up the press, Foden finds himself inside left, Trippier holding the touchline, Jude as a deeper recycling option (although inaccessible angle-wise). This triangle rotates a lot through this game and the optimal rotations/positioning is necessary to elicit.

I think the rise of conversations around relationism have potentially had an influence on this England sides’ makeup. I don’t know if these conversations around philosophy have been deliberate within the camp but a greater positional freedom predicated on relationships and understanding players possesses intra-personally, is a trend we’re seeing more often.

I think the rotations between these three are often suboptimal – there is a lack of speed in there actions, as is the case across the side. There are also the same movements that occur often between Jude and Foden, for example, both running in behind. The key behind good rotational relationships are counter-movements – when one player goes, the other moves to retain balance in the side, to provide an alternative option, to provide additional space. This is something we’ve seen this tournament from Ilkay Gundogan and Kai Havertz.

Anyways, to return to the original point a bit – deep CM, wide left, and inside attacker would be the positional way to structure a trio on one side. To have them then rotate would cause problems.

England’s left rotate, but lack balance. Foden is the best deep CM and wide left in these rotations. He’s probably the best inside left for me too – although Jude does that well. Trippier struggles with all three. When he inverts to play deep CM and cross inswingers, he poses an effective chance creation threat. When Foden plays wide left or underlaps as the inside attacker, his left footed cross is strong as a chance creation tool too. Jude doesn’t provide much in the form of chance creation in one of these three roles. He would be best used attacking the box – with somebody else playing that third role within the rotation.

I would pose Wharton as the deep CM in this case, as demonstrable in his performance against Bosnia.

A great example of the above triple rotations I can remember, by the way, were the ones of Zinchenko, Sterling, Gundogan. Zinchenko capable of playing as the deep reset, overlapping wide or underlapping ahead. Gundogan capable of doing all three and Sterling capable of doing all three, but primarily as wide left or as the inside attacker. If I am mapping England players to that profile, Lewis Hall (LB) would provide the same function as Zinchenko. Curtis Jones is the closest in function to the role Gundogan did in that trio, for the dynamics I’m mentioning (capable deep, wide or inside) and then Sterling is still Sterling, but Gordon could do that role too. Anyways…

One thing that seemed evident in the game against Slovenia was the oneness in their tempo. The passes back to front tended to be slow. At times, Walker quickened up the pace in his vertical passing at a high speed, but these passes were at times poorly executed. Foden at times through the group stages too, but an inability for the receiver to pre-empt a pass of that intensity leads to dispossessions or a reduced flow of the game following additional touches.

When I talk about the tempo of the game, I’m not only talking about the verticality vs horizontal passing, but I mean the actual speed of the passes, the bursts of acceleration, the closing down.

Cole Palmer’s introduction introduced speed in action, as did Anthony Gordon’s. I think the intent behind Palmer’s actions were the reason he has received praise following his cameo, and deservedly.

Wharton here, again solves some of the issues I’ve mentioned prior. His temperament passing-wise is to play forward facing often, with adequate zip on his passing. His left foot on the left side of a double pivot allows for fast, direct passes into the #10. As not to disrupt the flow of the game, a player most able to control these hard passes in the small spaces, a pocket’s player in Foden therefore makes the most sense.

The centre backs – Guehi and Stones, require a mention here. There has been lots made of Guehi’s brilliance through this tournament. From the Slovenia game, I would be slightly more critical. I didn’t think he’d been great in possession – which for England was 73% of the game. In playing in a high line, to combat the ball into the forwards, he was great though and in defensive actions he’s generally been good.

If we talk about the tempo of the game, the centre backs are generally afforded the most time on the field given they play with the game in front of them. It is necessary their first actions inform how the subsequent receivers pass on that message. Maguire’s omission is heavily felt. His direct, sharp line-breaking passing often upped the tempo of games appropriately and took advantage of spaces that opened up upon recycling the ball.

England’s centre backs have been tentative to carry the ball up field. This is part structure, part profile-based. It requires a look at the squad’s build-up.

The build-up against Slovenia wasn’t the best. When it looked like a 3-1-6, it was probably at its best but for large parts of the game it looked like a 4-1-5. With Trippier and Walker often in traditional FB positions in the build up, they tended to block passing lanes into the wingers from the first line. If Trippier was positioned higher and wider on the left, a 3-1-6 structure against the front two of Slovenia would’ve sufficed.

Image courtesy of @TacticsJournal – brill account.

Slovenia’s wide man would’ve been pinned, Foden would’ve been able to stand between FB and CB and Jude would’ve been able to drop in to support the buildup in a 3-2-5 shape. The right foot of Jude dropping deep would’ve facilitated an easy up (from Guehi or Stones to Jude), back (Jude to Rice) and through (Rice to whoever else) to bypass Slovenia’s shape.

Often England’s 4-1-5, was focused on the two centre backs with Rice between them. This removes Stone’s ability to carry the ball. Guehi was apprehensive to do so too, with no cover behind them and Pickford reluctant to be the +1 in build-up.

Without the carrying quality of Stones on show, there is less of a need for Slovenia’s defensive structure to change. Ball carrying CBs draw opposition towards them, disrupting shape and freeing space elsewhere. Stones WCB, would do this. Walker positionally could do this, but he’s less secure in possession and it would be a greater risk.

---

In the second half, at times England held the ball with 3 at the back rather than the 4-1-5 we mentioned. When this occurred alongside a more narrow positioning from the other FB resulting in a 3-3-4 or a 3-Box-3 meant that the wingers were found more easily.

Ultimately, there is a need for carriers from deep. That could be done by having Rice (or Wharton/Mainoo) slot in as the wide-CB in build-up, turning the two, into a three. This requires a second pivot player to sit in the #6 position. 2-2 becoming a 3-1.

Carriers from deep could also be done by encouraging Stones to do so, by playing him right of a back three. You’d have to invert your left back (so perhaps Gomez makes sense here) and play a winger willing to hold width (Gordon, or Foden without the freedom to roam).

There are solutions though, and ultimately England need to get players in zones that 1) suit their best qualities, 2) reduce friction, improve flow and 3) provide balance to the squad.

---

If I was to collate all of the above and propose a starting XI – perhaps I would suggest something like the below in possession:

Pickford,

Stones, Guehi, Gomez

Rice, Wharton

Trent/Walker, Saka/Palmer, Foden, Gordon

Kane.

Out of Possesion, it would look like:

Trent/Walker, Stones, Guehi, Gomez.

Saka/Palmer, Rice, Wharton, Gordon

Kane, Foden.

---

Lots to think about either way. This was fun. We should talk about football deep more often.

– Umir (Professional Football Analyst)

Email: contactthepausa@gmail(dot)com

---

If you want to learn how to learn about tactics, you can buy the pre-sale of my

All-In-One Intro to Tactics Course

at a discounted price. It’s is due to launch early August.

More information: BUY HERE 👈

---