It’s rare in international football for two teams to meet twice in the space of just over two months (unless they’re Ireland and Oman, in which case they seem to be playing each other every week or so), but England’s game in Slovakia offered an immediate chance to compare the brave new world of the Sam Allardyce era with Roy Hodgson’s team.
There were differences of context, of course. Jan Kozak, the Slovakia coach, noted before the game that there was more pressure on England in Sunday’s qualifier than there had been in St Etienne in June given that was the final match of a group from which they had already qualified, something that emboldened Hodgson to make six changes. Which is partially true, and perhaps gives an insight into how England’s sluggish performance that day was perceived elsewhere, but only partially: a draw away in what looks likely to be England’s toughest hurdle in qualifying for Russia would always have been a far more acceptable than a draw that cost England top spot in their group.
Slovakia’s side showed three changes from St Etienne but the shape and the system was essentially the same. There were six differences in the England side - but given five of them were the changes Hodgson had made from the win over Wales, that is less significant than it seems.
What was telling was that the shape appeared essentially the same. For all the talk about Wayne Rooney returning to a number 10 role behind the striker, which presumably meant the shape becoming 4-2-3-1, he ended up playing to the left of three central midfielders, something that is clear from a heat map that shows his focus to the left of the centre just inside the Slovakia half.
Even Allardyce seemed surprised by how Rooney had played, which is baffling and a little troubling, particularly from a manager whose reputation is rooted in his capacity to organise. “We’d like to get him into goalscoring positions more,” he said. “He’s been a goalscorer all his life and I want him to do that again, but he reads a game as he reads it. He read it very well, we won and dominated. I must admit, he did play a little deeper than I thought he’d play. But I was pleased with his performance.”
Rooney, of course, was one of those initially left out in St Etienne. What was striking here, though, was how similar the two games were. England had 64.3% possession in Trnava compared 60.1% in St Etienne. They had 20 shots to 1 in Trnava (5-0 on target) as opposed to 29-4 (5-2) in St Etienne. They had 11 corners to 0 in St Eteinne and 9 to 4 in Trnava. Their pass success rate was 89% in both games. In both games they struggled to break down an obdurate opponent, saved in Trnava by Martin Skrtel’s red card and an error from the goalkeeper Matus Kozacik.
Is Allardyce more of a long-ball manager? That 34 of 624 passes went long in Trnava as against 40 of 639 in St Etienne would not suggest so. There were 35 crosses in St Etienne to 33 in Trnava. Where there is a striking difference is in the number of key passes: Hodgson’s side managed 26 to Allardyce’s 14 but other than that, it’s almost as though the second game had deliberately set out to replicate the first. There is a Jorge Luis Borges story in which an author sets out to copy Don Quixote by living exactly the same life as Cervantes: this perhaps was the football equivalent. England’s players coming from England’s culture playing that Slovakia are perhaps cursed always to hammer ineffectually on the door.
The difference, perhaps, is that Allardyce’s side found a way to get the job done. One game is not enough to judge anything on, but that has been a theme of his career: an indefinable edge that allows him to extract the maximum from a situation.
What did you make of England's performance against Slovakia in Allardyce's first game in charge? Let us know in the comments below
