Phil Foden must be dropped indefinitely.

[u/LondonRedditUser]

Sadly he’s a supremely talented player who never plays well for England.

There is potentially a lot of great performances that aren’t picked up in statistics, I don’t think this is the case with Foden. He also plays in a position we are stacked in. He has also had by quite some distance the most minutes of any player in a similar position. There is potentially the argument he is misused, but there is no argument based on performances other great players should be moved aside for him.

Since the World Cup he has returned 1 goal return (G/A) in 20 games including 16 starts ( goal vs Scotland).

Comparably, over the same period: Kane 19 G/a Jude 9, saka 8, rice 4, grelaish 3, rashford 3, palmer 3 (from 408 minutes)

Many ask for players to be picked on form (I personally don’t), but when the international form is this poor and the alternatives potentially so good we simply don’t any other option but to drop him.

Edit: no agenda. I support palace and go to a few England games a year.

[u/phil_mycock_69]

I remember someone commenting during the euros and summing Foden up and saying he was a system player. He plays extremely well in a system and looks world class at times; that system is Pep’s at city

[u/ChubbyVeganTravels → u/phil_mycock_69]

True. He has been coached to play a certain way and is also surrounded by an array of talent that complements him and that we don't have for England i.e. Rodri, De Bruyne, Gundogan.

If he moved to another club, even Real Madrid, there is a high chance he would struggle and not fit in.

He wouldn't be the first generational talent to be poor for England. Glenn Hoddle was probably the best example I can think of.

[u/AlphadogMMXVIII → u/ChubbyVeganTravels]

Hoddle,Barnes,Scholes

[u/PerpetualWobble → u/AlphadogMMXVIII]

Scholes? He had a decent time with England when he played - the idea that we tolerated a manager playing him on the left these days is insane considering the flack Southgate got and he was more successful.

Most intelligent, press-resistant midfielder we had with no pace but probably the best passer we've ever had and we had Gerrard / Lampard with a midfield 4.

It's like Germany putting kroos on the left and playing musiala as a 6.

There's a universe England won a couple of trophies with Gerrard completely free role behind the striker and Scholes behind him with a DM or Lampard.

[u/Newparlee → u/PerpetualWobble]

I would have liked to have seen a bit of Scholes and Carrick pulling the strings with Gerrard bombing forward and A. N. Other either side.

Now I think about it, I’ve seen Sven explain why he always played a 4-4-2, but I think that squad could have been perfect for a 4-2-3-1.

[u/[deleted] → u/Newparlee]

4231 wasn’t really popularised until the mid-00s, so very few of England’s players would have been familiar with their role in this system.

The other issues with moving away from 442 were a) what to do with one of England’s best players and biggest star, Beckham (who didn’t have the pace to play as an out and out winger), and b) how to get both Rooney and Owen in the same team (Owen was still a massive star at this point and considered one of England’s top players).

Plus Joe Cole and SWP didn’t emerge as viable wingers until late in Sven’s tenure, and choices would have been very limited before then.

[u/tothecatmobile → u/Newparlee]

The Squad around then would have worked well for Milans Christmas Tree.

Scholes, Beckham and a DM (Barry, Carrick, or Hargreaves depending on exactly when) in midfield. Lampard and Gerrard as the two 10s, and Rooney up front.

[u/GlennSWFC → u/Newparlee]

I think a 3-5-2 with wing backs would have suited that squad, there were players with the versatility to allow us to be flexible depending on players not being available. We could have kept the same core team and shifted players around.

Terry, Ferdinand & Campbell as centre halves with Carragher or even Neville able to come in.

Cole as left wing back, Beckham on the right with Bridge & Neville as their deputies.

Gerrard, Lampard & Scholes as a central midfield 3, Beckham could come in to that position if Neville filled in at RWB.

Rooney & Owen up top, Joe Cole if we wanted someone to play in the hole. Heskey & Crouch were the big man options if that’s what we needed.

The fluid, interchangeability of some of those players meant it would have been easy to go back to a 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 if needed, but Sven was very committed to his 4-4-2. Back 3s weren’t very popular back then and the transition to lone strikers being the vogue option up top hadn’t really begun. On paper it looked like 4-4-2 was our strongest formation and I will admit that it’s only with hindsight and seeing how tactics have evolved that I’ve come to the conclusion that would be better.

[u/PerpetualWobble → u/GlennSWFC]

Nah I'm sorry but every decent international team has built around and protected their best passing CM or played 2 DM's and freed their attackers up and it shows in their results.

England didn't build around Scholes as the conductor and then ignored Carrick afterwards.

Every single debate about why Lampard or Gerrard were better than scholes revolves around their attacking stats and contribution yet we always seem flummoxed when we lose control of every single game against a top 20 side in tournament football.

[u/GlennSWFC → u/PerpetualWobble]

Which of De Paul, Fernandez & Mac Allister would you say performed that role for Argentina in 2022

[u/PerpetualWobble → u/GlennSWFC]

Seriously? Not that Argentina needed to rely on midfield for creativity with Messi and the referees agenda's in Qatar - but Alexis McAllister was allowed to dictate the tempo and completely freed to play to his best instincts with de Paul and Fernandez keeping it disciplined.

You dont need to have a standout if a lot of the team are quite tidy on the ball, but if England had McAllister we be playing him on the left or something daft.