Team Focus: Hodgson's Archaic Approach at the Root of England's Problems

It was supposed to be so different this time. To some degree it was different, except not in the manner intended. England are now facing up to their first group-stage exit since Euro 2000, and their worst performance at a World Cup since 1958.

Those are the bald facts. The more brutal truth is that the nature of this latest disappointment is so dismally similar. Restrained optimism has given way to eternally recurring opprobrium.

Consider the key flaws: England were out-thought, their main players were outmanoeuvred, their stars failed to perform, and their entire game plan fell apart.

The all-too-typical frenzy of the final 15 minutes summed it up. England were suddenly swept along with the heat of the moment, only for some other team's star to display a cooler head. As Roy Hodgson’s side abandoned their shape, Luis Suarez let fly. There was never any doubt about the destination of the ball once he found himself in position. It was always going into the net.

His 84th-minute winner was a strike of magnificent purity. Not even needing to look up, Suarez just looked a man fully focusing all of his available talent on that moment. The main problem with England right now is that they are not doing that. Their archaic approach is ensuring the squad are not fully applying their ability. In that regard, the primary problem is Hodgson.

Of course, there’s no escaping the wider trends of English football, and the immediate recourse to blame the manager will seem so drearily familiar. At the same time, every individual tournament has its own different issues, and the landscape does change between each one.

England do currently have a core of exciting young talent, many of whom play in fluid systems with their clubs. You only have to look at the way Liverpool - who are not exactly blessed with an abundance of technical ability at the back - split their defence and start moving once they have the ball in possession.

The obvious argument is that the kind of time required for that is beyond international managers like Hodgson, but Cesare Prandelli proves otherwise.

This is hardly the most gifted generation of Italian players but his side display a mobility and unpredictability beyond many club teams. Contrast that with the static nature of England’s play. Whereas Italy’s midfield rotated and interchanged at will, Hodgson’s players stuck to largely fixed lines.

It illustrates that Hodgson is an inherently conservative manager in terms of how he interprets the game. This is not to say that England are a defensive side. The willingness to go forward in both the matches against Italy and Uruguay proves otherwise, but the predictable nature of their attacks and general play indicates that the manager may well be out of step with the potential movement of his players, and the modern top level.

While sides like Italy display a fluidity that almost defies ascribing them a formation, England are so obviously and obdurately 4-2-3-1.

The problem of Steven Gerrard sums all this up. At this stage of his career, the Liverpool captain is someone who no longer has the legs to properly function in a two-man midfield. He needs protection behind and someone to do the running in front. Without that, all of his experience and excellent long-range play becomes so much less effective.

In other words, Gerrard needs the kind of intelligent shape in midfield that disguises his weaknesses but emphasises his strengths, that ensures it is not so obvious he is targeted. Brendan Rodgers’s multi-layered approach facilitates that. Hodgson’s flat formation makes it all a problem.

In that English central two, Gerrard is supposed to be the midfield lynchpin, who provides a certain protection but mostly sets the pace. If it would be an obvious stretch to describe him as the English side’s Andrea Pirlo, the influence is supposed to be similar. The stats reveal the complete opposite. Some of the figures are pretty atrocious for a midfielder in a notionally central role.

Against Uruguay, Gerrard only attempted more passes (41) than anyone in the England team except the four forwards. That was 21 fewer than Jordan Henderson, the central midfielder whose own industry was meant to allow the captain to pick passes. Gerrard’s pass completion (76%), then, was the worst of everyone beyond Danny Welbeck, Wayne Rooney and Daniel Sturridge. He also played the most long balls (10) of every outfielder on the pitch.

Those are not the numbers of the hub of the team. They are the numbers of someone overrun, and that was way before the long ball that resulted in Suarez’s winner. Many of England’s problems spread from this predictably fixed formation. Because the two cannot offer the movement to fully cover out on the flanks, and the wide forwards have other duties on those effective tramlines, both Uruguay and Italy were allowed the time to pick out exquisite crosses from their goals.

The clearly defined nature of the positions similarly cost England any sense of improvisation further forward. It says much that Hodgson's side were only caught offside once, showing how they struggled to get in behind.

Out of all that, the team becomes more susceptible to errors, and those errors become magnified, as was the case with the easy move that led to Suarez’s devastatingly decisive strike.

The frustration is that it could all be so much freer, that there is a foundation of talent there to go further. England certainly have the ability to get out of the group, let alone not lose both of their opening games.

The overwhelming feeling is that a genuinely distinctive group of players have coincided with a conservative coach unwilling to move with more modern trends. The game calls for more sophistication. As a consequence, the call in this World Cup is for a miracle.

How have you rated England's performances at the World Cup so far? Let us know in the comments below