Peerless Pirlo helps send England packing

If there is to be one enduring image of England's last throws in Euro 2012 then it would surely be that of the magnificent Andrea Pirlo brilliantly chipping home from 12 yards. This penalty helped to switch the momentum of the shoot out and the rest as we know is history...(and those who read my previous article will see I actually predicted a penalty win for the Italians, I hope you all cashed in like I did)

It was fitting that Pirlo was to have such a wonderful individual moment after his exceptional display helped ruthlessly expose the functional and rigid midfield which was set out by England.  Those who watched the game will know that Scott Parker was so knackered that he had to be substituted and whilst his partner in crime Steven Gerrard was suffering with cramp after playing only for 70 minutes.  In the meantime, 78 year old Pirlo (slight exaggeration I know) was trotting around the pitch for a full 2 hours with all the energy and gusto of a 16 year old who had just had his first shag.  Embarrassing for England?  Ever so slightly.

Italy deserved to win in my view, no doubt about it. Aside from an early 15 minute spell where England should have taken the lead (and also a couple of blatant penalty shouts) the Italians dominated from start to finish with enough chances to have finished the game off well before the final shoot out.

What was probably the most galling for England fans was the way in which Pirlo bossed the whole game in its entirerity.  In this well known average Italian side, everyone knew before kick off that by stifling him and denying him time and space, England would have had a great chance of winning the game.

However, the 4-4-2 which had served England so well so far proved to be a complete mismatch. But Italy also play 4-4-2 I hear you cry.  The difference is that over the years, when playing 4-4-2 the English players do not have the flexibility or fluidity to work this in their favour.

The Italians used a rather obvious tactic but one which worked for the whole game pretty much unopposed. With Pirlo dropping deep to win the ball (often with no one within 20 yards of him), the 2 wide Italian players would tuck in slightly, drawing in Milner (& Young with them).  With these 2 options nullified, Pirlo would simply get his head up and spray it wide to the wide full backs and the play would build from there. Simples.

With possession surrendered so easily, it was no wonder that English players were chasing shadows for the whole game.  Anyone who has played the game will know that once you have chased the ball for so long, by the time you have got it back, you are too knackered to be able to do anything with it.

If anyone dare look back at the full match then you can probably count on one hand the amount of times that Buffon kicked the ball long, whereas Hart seemed to be clobbering the ball forward at every opportunity (even before the Gypsy was on the pitch).  Is this not just basic football sense?

England's ball retention has been poor for what seems an eternity now but throughout this tournament have we ever seen them put together a concerted amount of possession football together?  No, me neither.

So where do England go from here?  To be fair to Roy, I think he did probably the best he could do in this tournament. When you know you only have Henderson on the bench as back up, you know you have problems within the squad.  As all good managers do , he concentrated on making England hard to beat, and the defence has been fairly solid.  England also won the group which was probably beyond expectations of most people.

So what does Roy need to do?  The problem of England technical ability in possession is something that wont be addressed for years to come.  Roys tactics will be interesting going forward.  As a WBA fan, I have a better knowledge than most.

To put it simply, Roy prefers 4-4-2, no one in their right mind cannot deny that. However,although WBA eventually secured a comfortable mid-table finish, there were a lot of angry fans earlier on in the season (me included). All fans knew at the time that our players were best suited to a fluid 4-5-1 formation but Roy insisted on forcing players into his favoured 4-4-2 which led to a massive shortage of goals and one of the worst home records in the Premiership.

However, as things looked bleak, a shift to 4-5-1 in our away game at Wolves resulted in a 5-1 spanking over those utter, utter c*nts.  From then on, the rest was history as we comfortably strolled to mid-table safety having reverted to the formation the fans all wanted to see.

So perhaps there is promise that Roy may perhaps become more flexible depending what players he has at his disposal. With most team in world football tending to flood the midfield this is something which would need to be experimented with sooner rather than later (a bit like Capello tried in his last few games).

Roy's also general way of thinking is that his teams rarely play on the front foot and take the initiative. In one game at home against Swansea last year we conceded 80% of possession!  Over the course of a season, Roy's pragmatism will generally pay off but will this approach suit tournament football and knockout competitions. Will he have the cojones to really go for it when it comes to crunch? That will have to remain to be seen.

I suppose fundamentally we have to ask, do England really have the players to challenge at the highest level . The current squad members would suggest not, with a transition period set to be on the horizon.  One player who continues to mystify is Wayne Rooney. Once the golden boy for England he has continued to disappoint. Whilst he continues to fire regularly for Man Utd, has he really shown enough to convince fans he can lead England to former glories?  He looked woefully out of touch in the Euros and his goal record at Man Utd has been a series of gluts and famines. Does he really have the consistency and quality to be classed a truly great player at international level?  The jury is well and truly out.

One positive thing people may argue is that the players had heart and courage throughout this tournament but that is something which slightly annoys me.  How do we measure heart and courage in football?  Is it simply running around, closing down the opposition , making goal-line clearances?  Should it not be a given that all teams try and do these things? Is courage and heart just another way of saying that a team are not very good with the ball? If thats the case, then England have it in abundance.

Or is courage having the nerve to accept the ball in tight situations, to try and beat a man, to demand possession when no else wants it,  or look the opposition in the eye, take a chipped penalty and say "I am going to dominate you in this game and whether you like it or not "(alas Pirlo). If its the latter, then England have a long, long way to go.

Sunil