Not gambling with your World Cup line-up when the Lionesses are in a sweet spot has its upsides. When the stakes are this high, it could soon be called into question, writes Jessy Parker Humphreys. <\/p>\n
There isnt anything quite like a Sarina Wiegman tournament line-up. Because once you are in, you tend to stay in. That is why who started against Haiti was of such high interest. Does Alessia Russo being given the nod ahead of Rachel Daly mean she will start up top for the rest of the World Cup? Is Lauren James destined to play the super sub role for the tournament? Will we continue to see Alex Greenwood used at full-back rather than centre-back? <\/p>\n
The answer to all of these questions is: probably, yes. Everyone knows that Wiegman likes to stick to one starting XI, with complementary substitutes to create a finishing XI. And there is plenty of logic behind it tactical, temporal and psychological. <\/p>\n
Tactically, Wiegman predominantly uses a fairly strict positional way of building up in possession. She likes to use her full-backs in combination with the more advanced midfielders to get balls out to the wingers who in turn look to get crosses into the box. The centre-backs will also look to bypass any press by playing long balls out wide, as we saw Millie Bright do repeatedly against Haiti. <\/p>\n
The focus on using specific plays would ostensibly make it easier to switch in between different players in the starting XI, but Wiegman is not religiously committed to her build-up patterns. She also wants to prioritise relationships between those who are on the pitch. <\/p>\n
International players get incredibly limited amounts of time to train together, both throughout the year and at tournaments. This is why international management is such a different beast to club. Consequently, clarity is key and that is a concept central to Wiegmans management. Simple build-up plays are augmented by the relationships built quickly on the field in order to give players a certain amount of freedom that makes them unpredictable to the opposition. <\/p>\n
At a tournament, the short turnaround between matches heightens the importance of focusing on your own game plan. Coaches often talk about wanting to impose their own plan on the opposition but the reality of that depends on who you are as team and who you are up against. A case in point would be the demands for New Zealand of playing a Norway (where they were expected to need to defend a lot) vs a Philippines (where they had much more of the ball but struggled to do a lot with it). That is different if you are England, where you will always be expected to go out and play, regardless of opposition, but you are even more limited in preparation time. <\/p>\n
Whereas in league football you might have up to a week to prepare for the opposition, once you are out of a group stage, you will only have a couple of days. The possibility of tailoring a (complex) game plan to the opposition is unrealistic so it makes even more sense to focus on how you want to play. <\/p>\n
There is one further reason to stick with the same starting XI. The ability to create an environment that promotes positive psychological states with the players is a key part of management. It is not easy to keep 23 professional athletes happy just ask Hege Riise. <\/p>\n
In naming a starting XI and sticking to it, Wiegman might upset some players within her squad but there is no doubt that they know exactly where they stand. It provides the players selected with a confidence and faith in their ability that, as long as you dont allow it to breed complacency, can boost performances as a tournament goes on. <\/p>\n
But what happens if you get that initial starting line-up wrong? Or if there just simply are games where some players are better suited than others? James against Haiti feels like the perfect example of this. The Chelsea forwards ability to drive with the ball, coupled with her physicality and press-resistance was clear to see when she came on for the last half an hour. Surely this was a game where it would have been perfect to start her? <\/p>\n
Wiegman would argue that the upsides of sticking with the same starting XI outweigh James attributes that might slightly advantage her in the game of this kind, with the scoreline and underlying numbers in support of this. But her decision over whether she does stick or twist gets to the heart of some of the most contentious questions in coaching philosophy. <\/p>\n
England are almost in a sweet spot right now where it is hard to say that any one or two players in the squad are significantly better than the rest. If you were going to be extreme, you could argue that the quality means that whoever starts should do well, if Wiegman has prepared the squad enough for it. But the risk with this approach is that if it does go wrong, and if performances do not improve, that initial starting XI will be called into question. Wiegman is standing at the roulette wheel, and shes put all her chips on black. <\/p>\n
Follow Jessy on Twitter@jessyjph <\/p>\n
Our journalism is supported byFoudysas part of its commitment to backing female and non-binary football writers. <\/p>\n
You can listen to our latest The Offside Rule World Cup Daily podcast with Sky Sports here! <\/p>\n
Like Loading... <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read more: <\/p>\n
England boss Wiegman's standing at the roulette wheel about to go ... - The Offside Rule<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Not gambling with your World Cup line-up when the Lionesses are in a sweet spot has its upsides. When the stakes are this high, it could soon be called into question, writes Jessy Parker Humphreys Continue reading