01cravend
Well-Known Member
Fundamentally there was an issue with England creating any chances from open play, probably stemming from no midfield creatively.
No attacking player is going to thrive in a system that starves its attack, this isnt due to one player not performing, the tactics were wrong and Sterling playing like Messi wouldnt have changed it
I mean Messi absolutely would have changed it as he is a playmaker, Sterling is not(not a criticism). Southgate's initial tactic was playing Sterling at second striker but then we had no link between midfield and attack so then he played Kane there instead and we lumped the ball up to him in the hope that Sterling would get on the end of his flicks. Why Southgate didn't try something different in either of the Belgium games shows how 1 dimensional and generally clueless he is, but he's a nice bloke. Sterling was a sacrificial lamb for pointless ball retention, if we'd played to our attackers strengths we'd seen a better world cup from all of them and we'd have been a better team for it.