England were, statistically speaking, the best team in the World Cup group stages with seven points and a goal difference of plus seven. Their impressive 3:0 win over Senegal in the first round of the knockout stages solidified their impressive form. Against tough opponent France, the dream of bringing it home this year ended.
In this tactical analysis, in the form of a team scout report, were going to be taking a look at what England was doing well and why a shift from the 4-2-3-1 to the 4-3-3 might be Gareth Southgates best decision as head coach of the Three Lions yet, despite the loss against France.
In their three group-stage matches and in the round of 16, England have scored 12 goals and have only conceded twice. However, as shown in this analysis, it is the way England have been scoring that tells a completely different story to where England were at during the previous World Cup. In fact, in 2018, England scored nine of their 12 goals from set pieces. In this World Cup, England have scored 10 goals from open play with a much quicker attacking style of football that gets them in behind a lot more often.
Tactical change
Lets take a look at whats changed and why a change in tactics has made them a lot more dangerous. Firstly, the stats show us that England like to hold the ball for the majority of the match while their possession is definitely not as high as Spains 77%. England averaged 65% possession (third highest in the competition). While England started the World Cup with a 4-2-3-1 system and an impressive win over Iran in the opening fixture, a lacklustre performance against the USA was deemed too cautious and defensive.
Therefore, a switch to the 4-3-3 formation was made with big differences in how the team would look to move up the pitch. Secondly, the replacement of the Chelsea duo Mason Mount and Raheem Sterling for Phil Foden and Marcus Rashford or Jordan Henderson certainly made England much more dangerous up top. And, the decision to play Borussia Dortmunds Jude Bellingham as a box-to-box midfielder rather than a holding mid allowed England to have a much more threatening and dynamic attacking line.
The big difference between the two systems is the amount of freedom England players have in the centre to rotate. While in a 4-2-3-1, England would often end up having too many players in the same position. Given Mason Mounts starting in a more central position, it meant Tottenhams Harry Kane had less space to drop off the defensive line and act as a false-9. In turn, meaning there was less space up top for Sterling and Arsenals Saka to move inside and subsequently free up space for the fullbacks to push up.
Eventually, this is what seems to have led to Englands lacklustre performance against the USA as the whole team looked locked in place with little movement up top to disrupt the defensive block.
However, since switching to a 4-3-3 formation, England have suddenly unlocked a lot more space to work with. The absence of a playmaker in Mason Mount means Harry Kane has a lot more freedom in the centre. In turn, this means that there is more space for Saka and Rashford and for either Foden or Bellingham to move up on the defensive line.
Build-up play
Having
Subscribe To TFA To Unlock All Posts - Free 7 Day Trial
Try TFA Free For 7 Days
Gain access to all of TFA's premium contents.More than 12,000+ articles.
