Ridiculous from the linesman. Luckily Slivca's chance didn't go in. Hart could've done better but he was probably so shocked somebody that far offside wasn't flagged at international level when it would've been at Sunday league level. Really don't like watching Stones and Hart dick around with it at the back. Hardly Hummels and Neuer.
why you guys(whoscored team) dont put international matches on first page?
instead you have some crap games in us and argentine leagues,are you yelling at us or what?
No reason to play a 3-4-3/3-4-2-1 here. It worked well at disrupting Germany but we really need to develop a system to play against lesser opposition. I think 4-3-3 is that system. You'd assume Hart & Walker will start, we'll only play 1 DM and Sterling will be ready, in which case I would go with: Hart, Walker, Smalling, Cahill (c), Bertrand, Lallana, Dier, Alli, Ward-Prowse, Vardy, Sterling. There is a temptation to use Lallana and Alli as the 2 wingers but Lallana has been good for Liverpool playing RCM and Alli is one of those players who can fit in anywhere within the front 6 barring DM & the 9. I would like W-P to get a start to see what he can do. His crossing should suit Vardy. Sterling has delivered more end product this season so if he's fit, he should start. If not, then Barkley hopefully. Another player who's end product has been excellent this season, almost exclusively down to Koeman's rollocking. Can't predict until we see the team. Who believes we should have 2 systems?
@SteveHyland I would like to see England stick to their same 3 back formation, but they should change Keane to Stones. lol I correctly predicted this formation against Germany. I agree that this formation might not always be the best against lesser opposition, but it could be beneficial to get more practice with it. There are teams like Chelsea and Juventus that have no trouble beating weaker teams with a 3 back. Your formation probably would do well against LIthuania, but I disagree about Alli being able to play anywhere. I don't think he should be in a role where he has defensive responsibilities. He seems to be at his best as a #10 when he has the freedom to link with other players and run into the box. This is why Pochettino switched to the 3-4-2-1 that allows him to play Eriksen and Alli in their natural positions. I think either Lallana or Sterling can play the Eriksen role in this formation. I prefer teams to have main system and have a backup system when they're desperate.
@mkunited- It would've been good to see a back 3 with entirely different personnel just to see how viable a formation it is, or if it is only a formation we can play when Dele and 1 of Lallana or Sterling are available. My issue with Dele is his lack of creativity. Being that far up the pitch, if he doesn't score he will need to create. It's optimistic to believe he will transfer his club goals ratio of 1 every other game to international when world class #9s struggle to do so. In lieu of goals AND key passes, does he do enough to warrant a position in the front 3 when you factor in what you lose by playing him and not a pacey dribbler who creates chances there? I believe Dele's defensive skills are underrated and underused by playing so far up. His pressing and ball winning are top drawer and would lend itself to a CM position in a 4-3-3 imo. His passing would probably improve too and he would still have the freedom to get forward since the DM would stay put and everybody would shift.
@SteveHyland Cahill and Smalling are out. There is no reason not to change personnel a lot, and formation, depending on the opponent in club and international football. I really have no idea why more teams don't do it. Football, and team sports, are about the team. Pick the best team for the opponent. My team for Germany was incredibly different from what I'd play against Lithuania. I'd play 4-3-3 of Hart, Walker, Gibson, Keane, Bertrand, Dier, Barkley, Lallana, Ward-Prowse, Defoe and Alli. Alli is definitely at his best as a left inside forward (Spurs in a 3421 he's really dangerous there). Barkley and Lallana offer the best threat and end product from CM. Ward-Prowse's set piece delivery and crossing from the right is as close to Eriken as England are going to get to Alli. He also provides service for Defoe. Plus Ward-Prowse is a versatile team man and will cover whoever plays RCM if they bomb forward. There is no way I'm starting Stones for England.
@Ideas- If Barkley is given the freedom to run past Dele and get into the positions where he can create chances then I'll be fine with that against Lithuania. As I said above, I have questions over Dele's worth to the team in a front 3 if his scoring is nullified. Eriksen is the creator of the 2 and he the scorer but international football can be slow, stodgy affairs intentionally caused by poor opposition wanting to get a draw and nothing more. He doesn't face that in the prem for the most part. Time will tell. I'm also not too sure whether a back 3 isn't just a quick fix novelty used by different managers for different reasons which after a summer transfer window will be consigned to the history books. If that does happen and Southgate has pinned his hopes on variations of a 3-4 formation, we'll suddenly end up with a formation not a single team uses. I'm also curious to see how oppositions counter Chelsea and Spurs next season if they do continue with a 3-4-(3/2-1).
@mkunited What I would go is what I posted. It wasn't a prediction. A back three is negative at home against a team like Lithuania. It's generally a defensive system, unless played with a huge overload at the top (and extremely high line with the middle CB deeper than the wide CB's) like Barcelona against PSG (which is incredibly rare to see) . You've got an extra centre back. England playing 3 at the back would use it for defensive solidarity, not for attacking reasons.
@Ideas - Formations that are in use nowadays are not inherently positive or negative. Take the 3-4-2-1 for example. You say a back three is negative, but with that system, you can press very well and still cover the back end horizontally, which allows the other players to stay high up.
Plus, it allows the wingbacks to get forward and not care very much about defending, because there's cover behind them, which allows the wingers to go inside and create from an inside forward position, which is much more dangerous.
@andrew7taylor- A 3 CB system is almost always inherently defensive because of the reason(s) behind employing it in the first place. Conte switched to a back 3/5 with Chelsea because they were getting battered with just the 2 CBs, he also did so for Juventus and Italy primarily to make them defensively impenetrable- not because of the attacking benefits. Pochettino switched to a 3 CB system because Alderweireld was out and neither Dier or Wimmer on their own could cover the loss. There are offensive benefits to playing 3 at the back but when you have 3 CBs, 2 WBs and 2 DMs, it's impossible to see that as an 'attacking' system. It's a defensive system which has offensive upsides, as all useable formations do.
@andrew7taylor Lithuania will play one up top probably. England having 2 centre backs means 2 vs 1 at the back. As opposed to the 3 vs 1 you are suggesting. Do England really need 3 spare men at the back against a side like Lithuania at home? 2 seems enough to me. Dier can anchor deeper in the midfield when required. Walker and Bertrand can play like wing backs even in a back four. I don't see a need for a back 3 personally.
Who is this Stones?)
Not good enough by england they should have smashed lithuania 4-0 or 5-0
Rashford has completed more (7) dribbles in 30 mins than anyone else managed on the pitch in the whole game.
@Aereze- More key passes too (7), although some of the shots were speculative efforts.
Rashford completed more (6) dribbles in 30 mins than anyone else managed on the pitch in the whole game.
haha just realised not 1 person has commented on germany vs ajerbaijan match poor germany no one in england cares if they are playing.
@RemyLebeu Why would anybody care if England cares about a match of Germany ??
@RemyLebeu Azerbaijan vs. Germany is basically a no brainer. Lithuania has a much tougher opponent.
@BeautifulLoser "Lithuania has a much tougher opponent" haha, was that a subtle dig at England's football ability? ;P
Ridiculous from the linesman. Luckily Slivca's chance didn't go in. Hart could've done better but he was probably so shocked somebody that far offside wasn't flagged at international level when it would've been at Sunday league level. Really don't like watching Stones and Hart dick around with it at the back. Hardly Hummels and Neuer.
Vardy to score and 4-0
Defoe to score
4 0
why you guys(whoscored team) dont put international matches on first page? instead you have some crap games in us and argentine leagues,are you yelling at us or what?
COME ON. ENGLAND.
No reason to play a 3-4-3/3-4-2-1 here. It worked well at disrupting Germany but we really need to develop a system to play against lesser opposition. I think 4-3-3 is that system. You'd assume Hart & Walker will start, we'll only play 1 DM and Sterling will be ready, in which case I would go with: Hart, Walker, Smalling, Cahill (c), Bertrand, Lallana, Dier, Alli, Ward-Prowse, Vardy, Sterling. There is a temptation to use Lallana and Alli as the 2 wingers but Lallana has been good for Liverpool playing RCM and Alli is one of those players who can fit in anywhere within the front 6 barring DM & the 9. I would like W-P to get a start to see what he can do. His crossing should suit Vardy. Sterling has delivered more end product this season so if he's fit, he should start. If not, then Barkley hopefully. Another player who's end product has been excellent this season, almost exclusively down to Koeman's rollocking. Can't predict until we see the team. Who believes we should have 2 systems?
@SteveHyland I would like to see England stick to their same 3 back formation, but they should change Keane to Stones. lol I correctly predicted this formation against Germany. I agree that this formation might not always be the best against lesser opposition, but it could be beneficial to get more practice with it. There are teams like Chelsea and Juventus that have no trouble beating weaker teams with a 3 back. Your formation probably would do well against LIthuania, but I disagree about Alli being able to play anywhere. I don't think he should be in a role where he has defensive responsibilities. He seems to be at his best as a #10 when he has the freedom to link with other players and run into the box. This is why Pochettino switched to the 3-4-2-1 that allows him to play Eriksen and Alli in their natural positions. I think either Lallana or Sterling can play the Eriksen role in this formation. I prefer teams to have main system and have a backup system when they're desperate.
@mkunited- It would've been good to see a back 3 with entirely different personnel just to see how viable a formation it is, or if it is only a formation we can play when Dele and 1 of Lallana or Sterling are available. My issue with Dele is his lack of creativity. Being that far up the pitch, if he doesn't score he will need to create. It's optimistic to believe he will transfer his club goals ratio of 1 every other game to international when world class #9s struggle to do so. In lieu of goals AND key passes, does he do enough to warrant a position in the front 3 when you factor in what you lose by playing him and not a pacey dribbler who creates chances there? I believe Dele's defensive skills are underrated and underused by playing so far up. His pressing and ball winning are top drawer and would lend itself to a CM position in a 4-3-3 imo. His passing would probably improve too and he would still have the freedom to get forward since the DM would stay put and everybody would shift.
@SteveHyland going to get for Alli*
@SteveHyland Cahill and Smalling are out. There is no reason not to change personnel a lot, and formation, depending on the opponent in club and international football. I really have no idea why more teams don't do it. Football, and team sports, are about the team. Pick the best team for the opponent. My team for Germany was incredibly different from what I'd play against Lithuania. I'd play 4-3-3 of Hart, Walker, Gibson, Keane, Bertrand, Dier, Barkley, Lallana, Ward-Prowse, Defoe and Alli. Alli is definitely at his best as a left inside forward (Spurs in a 3421 he's really dangerous there). Barkley and Lallana offer the best threat and end product from CM. Ward-Prowse's set piece delivery and crossing from the right is as close to Eriken as England are going to get to Alli. He also provides service for Defoe. Plus Ward-Prowse is a versatile team man and will cover whoever plays RCM if they bomb forward. There is no way I'm starting Stones for England.
@Ideas- If Barkley is given the freedom to run past Dele and get into the positions where he can create chances then I'll be fine with that against Lithuania. As I said above, I have questions over Dele's worth to the team in a front 3 if his scoring is nullified. Eriksen is the creator of the 2 and he the scorer but international football can be slow, stodgy affairs intentionally caused by poor opposition wanting to get a draw and nothing more. He doesn't face that in the prem for the most part. Time will tell. I'm also not too sure whether a back 3 isn't just a quick fix novelty used by different managers for different reasons which after a summer transfer window will be consigned to the history books. If that does happen and Southgate has pinned his hopes on variations of a 3-4 formation, we'll suddenly end up with a formation not a single team uses. I'm also curious to see how oppositions counter Chelsea and Spurs next season if they do continue with a 3-4-(3/2-1).
@Ideas With them out, a back 3 wouldn't be a good idea even though I want to see England use it again. I don't see W-P being picked over Sterling.
@mkunited What I would go is what I posted. It wasn't a prediction. A back three is negative at home against a team like Lithuania. It's generally a defensive system, unless played with a huge overload at the top (and extremely high line with the middle CB deeper than the wide CB's) like Barcelona against PSG (which is incredibly rare to see) . You've got an extra centre back. England playing 3 at the back would use it for defensive solidarity, not for attacking reasons.
@Ideas - Formations that are in use nowadays are not inherently positive or negative. Take the 3-4-2-1 for example. You say a back three is negative, but with that system, you can press very well and still cover the back end horizontally, which allows the other players to stay high up. Plus, it allows the wingbacks to get forward and not care very much about defending, because there's cover behind them, which allows the wingers to go inside and create from an inside forward position, which is much more dangerous.
@andrew7taylor- A 3 CB system is almost always inherently defensive because of the reason(s) behind employing it in the first place. Conte switched to a back 3/5 with Chelsea because they were getting battered with just the 2 CBs, he also did so for Juventus and Italy primarily to make them defensively impenetrable- not because of the attacking benefits. Pochettino switched to a 3 CB system because Alderweireld was out and neither Dier or Wimmer on their own could cover the loss. There are offensive benefits to playing 3 at the back but when you have 3 CBs, 2 WBs and 2 DMs, it's impossible to see that as an 'attacking' system. It's a defensive system which has offensive upsides, as all useable formations do.
@andrew7taylor Lithuania will play one up top probably. England having 2 centre backs means 2 vs 1 at the back. As opposed to the 3 vs 1 you are suggesting. Do England really need 3 spare men at the back against a side like Lithuania at home? 2 seems enough to me. Dier can anchor deeper in the midfield when required. Walker and Bertrand can play like wing backs even in a back four. I don't see a need for a back 3 personally.