Watch: England spectacularly beat Spain in U-17 World Cup final
- by Mike Woitalla @MikeWoitalla, Oct 29, 2017
12 comments about "Watch: England spectacularly beat Spain in U-17 World Cup final".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
A well-balanced team with some defensive flaws but the amazing part is how the midfield and srikers won most of their 1v1 battles. Their pressure is effective and the team as a whole has chemistry. Great talents and England should be very proud!
Chemistry and efficacy got the job done for England. Brits showcased some terrific individual talent.
England has improved their youth program, as to how much is credited to this specific generation of talent or how much to their developmental program that is tough to measure. But what I can say is that this generation has been influenced by the Wiel Coerver skill methods, that's for sure. Notice in the game, the English wing attack basically won the games for them, especially more so from the the right side, via Foder or whatever his name. This is why the US youth development need seriously begin to emphasize wing play development, which we don't have. WE NEED WINGERS, who can drive defenders nuts and thereby spreading out the defense in the back. Just look at the great players in soccer today or in the past 15 years are wingers or were wingers. NOTE, look at all the goals in this game ,they were all crosses from either flank. And NOTE two aspects , one,see how close near the endline the crosses were made and two, the crosses from the right side were made with right foot and from the left with the left( I call that proper foot crosses) There was only one exception a goal, a direct kick by the English on the leftside employing the right foot. Because today, the trend is for the right wing to be left footed and vice versa, making the wings cutting inwards, thus never going down the endline to cross which was not the case with this game. When you go down the endline for a cross, you force the opponents to run back all the way towards their own goal, making it difficult to mark their man in two ways; one, the defenders will be in an offbalance position ,bodywise, thus giving space for their attackers to shoot or head and two, it forces the defenders to either look at the ball or their immediate attacker but are unable to see both at the same time. This type of wing attack,proper foot, has the advantage over a winger who cuts inside becuase the opponents defenders are unable to see the ball and his immediate attacker. In all,the attack with the proper foot makes the crosses come closer the goal and place the defenders in an awkward position and force the defense further back making it also difficult for the goalie with so many players in front of him; and the likelyhood of a ball deflecting is also greater and last with the defenders all running backwards to their own goal making it more difficult for the transistion for a counterattack which will take longer....
All well and good Frank S.; it's all about execution with any formation, PERIOD.
Iw, Execution, that is a nice nebulous term for a perfect world, but soccer is a game of errors and mistakes and the one who makes the most mistakes usually loses. Only the greats have less problem with execution for they are able to handle themselves better than most when they are under pressure
IW what you said is somewhat correct. Execution of a bad game plan doesn't make the plan better.
In any formation the modern game depends on winning the battle to dominate the flanks, because teams clog the middle with central players. Wingers, winghalves or wing backs, regardless of system the modern game is the same. Wing play creates space in the center. A winger who cannot cross is not a threat.
Now why,I ask, does every team with wingers today make wingers cut in. It is trendy, and coaching are like monkeys, monkey see, monkey do, they only follow what everybody else does for their is no rational explanation why you want wingers to cut in for the resultant effect makes it easier for the opponents to not only follow the ball and their man but it is also allows the defenders too clog up the middle making it more difficult for the attack. To cut inwards is ok only in order to change your attack at times.
Note , like I've stated before so many defenders out number the attackers when scored against. This is unreal,but because of the flatback system , square defense, and all run back during ball loss,real defense is not played and all you see is a ton of defenders in front of the goal not guarding anyone and giving tons of space away , get scored upon. Look at the first goal, I count 6 defenders vs 3 attackers ( not even counting the goalie), with the goal being scored 5defenders vs 2 attackers. Second goal, 6v2; third goal 4v2; Fourth goal 7v3 ending with goal scored 3v1; Fifth goal 5v3; Sixth goal 9v4. There is an old saying the more defenders the easier it is to score the other defenders think the other guy is picking him up. It drives me nuts to see so many defenders underemployed, not able to stop an outnumbered attacker 3 or 4v1.
I prefer man to man defense but this zonal defense is rediculous, it is not real defense but positonal defense which does nothing in stopping an attacker, at best a blocking a passing lane.
Just like zonal defense on corners, whereby attackers have the advantage of running and outjumping the stationary zonal defenders is also ,to me , inexplicable way playing defense.
Angain Frank S.; Keeping passing channels well guarded is more important than man-to-man marking...a skilled player is more effective 1v1 than against a properly spaced defense. And eexcution always wins out.
IW , that sounds all nice on paper and in a class room setting but on the field it is a different story. I wish it was that simple. Blocking passing channels is just one part of defense not the whole ball of wax, there are a lot of factors involved in defense. For example you can't block a passing channel when the ball can go over your head to the opponent ...what then. . The point is to stop a man with a ball defensively from scoring takes a total different approach then preventing a pass to a man by blocking a passing lane. Zonal defense does not stop a player from passing a ball like a cross...Only man to man has a better chance. Just like when you pressure opponents high up field, you don't do it by playing by zonal but man to man for that is more effective in stopping a build up from the back , and making it difficult to make a good pass
IW I have played many different defensive systems over the years. Regardless of how you are organized protecting the passing lanes is always a priority, even in man to man coverage. Man marking doesn't mean that someone is not covering passing lanes.
There are moments for zone and man marking...but it all boils down to the efficacy of players and their defensive execution.
Actually the most common systems are a third type: modified zones--a mix of man marking and zone.
If you are saying that coaches don't win games--players do, I will agree with you.