In defence of Foden – ‘this is a tactical issue, not a player problem’
The roar of the crowd, the tension in the air, the weight of expectations – these are the elements that define a major international tournament. And as England navigated their way through the Euro 2020 knockout stages, a familiar debate arose – the performance of Phil Foden. While some questioned his contributions, former England defender Micah Richards stood firm in his defense, arguing that Foden’s struggles were not a reflection of his abilities, but rather a consequence of tactical limitations.
Richards, a seasoned pundit for the BBC, recalled a conversation with former Arsenal and Barcelona midfielder Cesc Fabregas during England’s opening game against Serbia. Fabregas, known for his astute observations, expressed skepticism about Richards’ defense of Foden, attributing it to a personal bias. However, Richards vehemently refuted this suggestion, emphasizing that he was simply analyzing the situation objectively. He saw a player, brimming with potential, hindered by a system that did not fully utilize his strengths.
Richards’ point was echoed by the growing chorus of criticism directed at Foden on social media. The calls for his exclusion from England’s semi-final clash against the Netherlands were loud and persistent. But Richards remained steadfast, arguing that Foden’s subpar performances were not a reflection of his talent, but rather a symptom of a tactical disconnect. He acknowledged Foden’s ability to unlock defenses with a deft pass or a decisive finish, highlighting his potential to be a game-changer, but only if given the right platform to showcase his skills.
He also drew a distinction between Foden’s case and that of Harry Kane, another player who faced scrutiny for his performances. While Foden’s struggles stemmed from a lack of tactical support, Kane’s challenges were rooted in the need to adapt his game to a system that didn’t always play to his strengths. However, Richards maintained that both players, despite their recent struggles, deserved to be in the team, emphasizing their immense talent and potential to contribute significantly.
- Phil Foden’s performance scrutiny during Euro 2020 was attributed to tactical limitations, not his abilities.
- Former England defender Micah Richards defended Foden, emphasizing the importance of analyzing the situation objectively.
- Foden’s struggles were seen as a consequence of a system that did not fully utilize his strengths on the field.
- Richards highlighted Foden’s potential as a game-changer if provided with the right platform to showcase his skills.
- The criticism towards Foden on social media was countered by Richards, who believed in the player’s talent and ability to unlock defenses.
- Richards differentiated between Foden’s case and Harry Kane’s challenges, attributing their struggles to tactical disconnects and adaptation requirements, respectively.
New position, old habits
To understand the root of Foden’s struggles, Richards delved into the tactical nuances of his role for England. He pointed out that Foden, typically deployed on the left wing, was often operating in a congested area, far from the penalty box, where he thrived for Manchester City. He explained that Foden’s game at City revolved around quick, incisive passes in the final third and exploiting spaces behind the opposition defense. This style of play was largely absent in England’s setup, where Foden found himself receiving the ball deep in his own half, with limited opportunities to unleash his trademark dribbling and passing range.
Richards further elaborated on Foden’s performance against Switzerland in the quarter-final, where he was deployed in a more central role, alongside Jude Bellingham. He observed that Foden started brightly with the team playing a more expansive style, reminiscent of Manchester City’s approach. However, England reverted to their defensive tendencies, dropping deep into their own half, effectively limiting Foden’s impact. Despite being in a more central position, Foden was still not receiving the ball in the areas where he could truly shine. Richards emphasized that Foden was often judged unfairly, with his struggles being attributed to his own shortcomings, while the tactical limitations were overlooked.
Richards acknowledged that Foden’s situation was further complicated by the presence of Jude Bellingham, another dynamic midfielder who was making his mark in the England squad. He pointed out that Bellingham’s attacking runs, while positive in intent, often created congestion in the final third, making it difficult for Foden to receive the ball in favorable positions. He recognized that this dynamic required time to develop and that judging Foden based on one game in a new role was premature.
However, Richards also acknowledged that Foden was not immune from criticism and that his performance in the warm-up game against Iceland did not inspire confidence. He highlighted that Foden had the opportunity to seize the number 10 role for England, but he failed to deliver. He recalled how Foden had risen to the challenge when Kevin De Bruyne was injured at Manchester City, proving his ability to lead the attack for one of the Premier League’s most dominant teams. He expressed his desire to see Foden replicate that success on the international stage.
The main man for City
Richards’ unwavering support for Foden stemmed from his belief in the player’s potential and his frustration seeing him hampered by tactical constraints. He acknowledged that Foden’s lack of goals and assists did not reflect his true capabilities. He was adamant that Foden needed to be given the opportunity to showcase his skills in a system that allowed him to receive the ball in and around the penalty area. Only then, he argued, could a fair judgment be made about his performance.
Richards also emphasized the need to consider the overall identity of the England team. He acknowledged that if England played a more expansive, attacking style, Foden’s struggles might be more understandable, and calls for his replacement more justified. However, he pointed out that Gareth Southgate’s success had been built on a defensive foundation, and that this approach was unlikely to change.
Richards’ defense of Foden extended beyond simply advocating for his inclusion. He also offered constructive criticism, suggesting that Southgate should be more daring with his in-game substitutions. He believed that introducing fresh attacking options from the bench earlier in games could revitalize the team’s attack and potentially turn the tide of matches. He highlighted the depth of talent within the England squad and called for a more proactive approach to using their bench options.
Be braver with in-game changes
Richards’ analysis of Kane’s situation mirrored his approach to Foden. He acknowledged that Kane’s desire to drop deep and be more involved in the build-up play was at odds with the team’s structure. He highlighted that Kane’s strengths lay in his ability to find space in the penalty area and finish clinically, but that this was not always possible in the current England setup. He suggested that Kane needed to trust his teammates and focus on exploiting his strengths in the final third, rather than trying to be a playmaker. He emphasized that Kane still had the ability to be a prolific goalscorer, even if his role was slightly adjusted.
Richards concluded his argument by acknowledging that the entire England team was still adapting to their roles and that the journey towards finding their rhythm was ongoing. However, he expressed his hope that England would exhibit more bravery in their in-game substitutions, particularly when it came to introducing fresh attacking options. He believed that this could be the key to unlocking their full potential and achieving success. He reminded everyone of the depth of talent in the squad and urged Southgate to utilize it more effectively. He concluded by highlighting that the England players on the bench could be the difference-makers against the Dutch, emphasizing the importance of utilizing the squad’s depth and flexibility.
Micah Richards’ impassioned defense of Foden resonated with many fans who felt that the player was being unfairly judged. He illustrated that Foden’s struggles were not solely his own responsibility, but rather a product of tactical limitations and a lack of opportunity. His plea for Southgate to be more proactive with in-game substitutions and to utilize the depth of the squad highlighted the need for a more dynamic and flexible approach to maximize England’s potential. His insightful analysis offered a fresh perspective on the debate surrounding Foden and Kane, emphasizing the importance of understanding the nuances of tactical decisions and recognizing the limitations of the current England system. Ultimately, Richards’ defense of Foden served as a call for greater understanding and support for a player who, despite his recent struggles, held the potential to be a key contributor for England in their quest for glory.
