England are secretly good - how do they become great?

English fans have a tendency to make rash judgements on small things. I myself am no different - I was irritated to not see Deeney or Carroll go, and I thought Drinkwater would have been a good midfield option. However, despite the meandering performances we've seen, England are secretly one of the better sides at the Euros.

It's easy to look at the results - a draw against Russia and Slovakia aren't exactly exciting - but over three games anything can happen. Players miss chances, and some put in chances that they normally wouldn't (Gareth Bale), so it's easier to look at the chances, and the quality of said chances, in order to look at the level of performance.

Roy Hodgson has taken a lot of stick for being cautious - wrongly, in my view. England play a hyper-offensive possession system that sacrifices directness for control of the ball. The issue people have is that watching this possession system can be quite dull, and it's true; but like Spain, we use possession as a defensive tool as much as we do an offensive one.

This is why, over three games, England have conceded pretty much no good chances. Bale's goal came from a 35-yard free kick, Russia's from an immaculate header and Slovakia had one half chance when Chris Smalling made an error, that led to nothing.

Big thanks to Michael Caley, @MC_of_A, for the use of these charts.

If you're wondering what this picture means, squares equal shots and where they were taken. The bigger the square, the more likely the chance is to be converted according to the expected goals model. Essentially, what this picture shows, is that England have been truly dominant. From the chances England have created, you'd expect them to score around five times in the three games, which whilst not exactly rampant, is pretty solid. Especially when we haven't conceded any decent chances. 

Even against Slovakia, where the general consensus was that England were toothless and abject, that simply isn't true. England created a decent number of good chances, eight shots within 12 yards of the goal. For some reason, conversion drives narrative, when really it should be performance. England were good against Slovakia, especially for the first 60 minutes.

Whilst there are a decent number of low xG efforts coming late on (potentially due to a lack of secondary option), the cluster of shots we've had from close range should and on another day would lead to goals.

So we can see from this that England are actually good, and play a similar style to Spain if without the mesmerising ability of Andres Iniesta. The style involves keeping the ball in order to try and create high quality chances and to stop the other team from having any meaningful possession. So how do England become as good as Spain?

There are legitimate concerns over England, but the media and public narrative appears to not address most of them. Jordan Henderson appeared to be the subject of much ire yesterday, despite creating some very good chances and combining with Clyne superbly down the right flank, whilst Rooney escaped criticism for his sterilisation of the England attack over all three games.

Wayne Rooney is as much a concern now as he was pre-tournament. He's now a midfielder, despite appearing to lack the composure to play deep under pressure. Just look at what happens when he gets pressed deep against Wales - he loses the ball, gives away a free kick and lo and behold, we are one goal behind. When he's not on the pitch, England are no worse a side and I think there's an argument that they are a better team without him. Most concerning of all was his need to spray long balls out to the flank, without ever offering any penetration. Rooney sterilised the England attack against Russia and Wales by playing these slow, long balls to feet and somehow got more praise for it than Henderson did for playing the ball in behind.

England were dominant and creative without Rooney on the pitch against Slovakia. All of the decent chances created came before Rooney was on the pitch (and also usually involved Lallana). I'm not a Jack Wilshere fan but he at least attempted to split defensive lines with his passing and combined well with the England interiors at times. 

I think England's best midfield might be Eric Dier, Jordan Henderson and Dele Alli. Eric Dier has been absolutely superb, and has somehow transformed into an elite level defensive midfielder in one season. Henderson offered penetration and balance to a disjointed midfield and Dele Alli is an incredible talent.

Alli's form is cause for concern, however. He hasn't performed to the level we've come to expect, but is still managing to do good attacking things. He set up Daniel Sturridge's winner against Wales with an audacious flick in a tight space. He hasn't been great despite that, though, but he is legitimately brilliant.

Dele Alli is better going forward now, than Wilshere was six years ago (via @MC_of_A) pic.twitter.com/1eOZDsxujH

— Elliott Griffiths (@ElliottBCFC) June 11, 2016

 If the system isn't getting the best out of Dele Alli, I'm not sure Alli is the problem. I think if he played with Henderson, he may perform better than with Wayne Rooney, but unfortunately we haven't been able to see that.

Another interesting name on that list is Raheem Sterling, who has also garnered a lot of bad press. In 2013/14 he was electrifying, a fast, smart attacker who beat defenders for fun and moved into space. However, since then, he hasn't played in anything like a similar system. I wanted Sterling in the side as with the amount of Spurs and Liverpool players in the team I thought we would play a heavy-pressing attacking side, in which Sterling flourished at Liverpool. Instead, we're playing a possession based game with Rooney who can't press, which is working, so there is no reason to play Sterling. Writing him off as 'rubbish' is a bit silly though, as two seasons ago he was the hottest talent in the world, and still has time to come good.

England have probably the best set of strikers at the Euros, and they are somehow managing not to use them well. Harry Kane is a fantastic striker, a player who scores once every 180 minutes, presses efficiently from the front and can drop deep to link play. Jamie Vardy is a completely different but equally dangerous threat. We all know what he can do, but we're not seeing enough of it from either player. Sturridge has been playing wide and has been decent enough, but still isn't doing what we need from him.

I've criticised and doubted a lot of players here, and yet they are still doing well. We've qualified, created chances and found a decent enough attacking unit and a good system to stop chances being created against them. There are concerns once England play a team who press and attack them, but that might suit the pace we have on the counter. In conclusion, I'm cautiously optimistic about England and think with the right team selection, there's no reason England can't keep going in this tournament.

A Vision for England

England succumbed to a 2-0 loss in what, surprisingly, was a fairly encouraging performance against a new look Spain side. Spain dominated the ball and looked the better side - but we expected nothing less. What was encouraging was how we set up to play and win the game; yes, it didn't come off, but the game was changed by a wonder strike from the one player who English fans may not have been worried about, Mario Gaspar.

Roy Hodgson has his critics, and I'll admit I wasn't overjoyed by his appointment, but he does seem to recognise that England have to play without the ball for large portions of the game. Since Barcelona and Spain's assault on world football through their heavy possession system, there has been a shift towards counter attacking and transitional play, headed by Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund, both of whom became European giants.

This shift has meant that teams like Crystal Palace and West Ham have been able to upset the odds a bit, by sitting in, keeping their shape and exploiting the space left as teams try to break down the stubborn defence. Dominant, powerful defenders tend to flourish under this system, but sometimes these defenders need to be calm under pressure, especially with the ball.

England have to adopt this style in order to have any chance of doing anything, it seems. They have plenty of pace to hit teams on the counter, fit, energetic midfielders and two of the best young defenders in Europe, in Smalling and Stones. Defensively, England can certainly adopt this style, though there are question marks over the holding midfield position. My personal choice would be Jack Cork, but Eric Dier has proven himself a very good player in that role and his physical size would be handy with Stones' slightly less imposing figure. Smalling has blossomed into a commanding and strong defender who can organise people. Two years ago, it would seem absurd to say Smalling could captain England, but now I think he'd make a good choice, in a few years.

In Clyne and Bertrand, England have full backs who can defend - which is often regarded as a rarity in the modern game - who have bags of pace to join the attack should they get a chance. Clyne has proven himself very good going forward and capable of scoring and creating with semi-regularity. Luke Shaw will hopefully come back from his injury and re-find his form, which would give the England manager some headaches over that position. Shaw offers a wonderful attacking outlet from deep but I think Bertrand is more solid defensively - both are very solid picks. 

Out wide, we have Raheem Sterling, a talented but frustrating player who is yet to make his mark in international football. Given space, however, he can be destructive, and this system would look to create space for him to roam into. He's a very intelligent player as well, so should be able to take good positions to transition from defence to attack very quickly. Intelligence is such an important attribute for an attacking midfielder/wide forward and Sterling should suit this style for that reason.

The right hand side is tricky. Walcott has electric pace, but cannot be a mainstay in the side due to his injury record, whilst Oxlade-Chamberlain's inconsistencies and lack of game time mean he isn't a reliable choice. Chamberlain would make a great choice on the right side too, as he is fervent in defence and carries the ball at frightening speed. England have a few options to play on that side - Sturridge could work cutting in on his left foot, which would also mean that Harry Kane could play, but if you have an inverted wide forward on the left, you usually want more of a traditional winger on the other side to keep the width and stretch the pitch; think Bolasie - Zaha or Lanzini - Moses.However, Sturridge moving in from the right would suit Kane's style, as he could drop deeper and leave that space for Sturridge to move in to. Kane loves to play as a hybrid 9 and 10, a 9 and a half if you will, so he can come deep and allow Sturridge to make runs into the right half-space beyond him.

Should Walcott be injured for Euro 2016, or looking forward, the World Cup in 2018, England could do worse than look at Nathan Redmond, a skilful winger with a great right foot who looks to be maturing into a very decent player, if they opt to go for a right footer on that side. Redmond could turn out to be a lethal player as he shows flashes of great finishing and powerful shooting. Jesse Lingard has just received a call up, and he can play on either flank and could be a handy player to have around the squad because of it. He can fill in for Sterling and is probably a more natural goalscorer from the left, or he can play down the right and offer some width and a threat from the other side.

Central midfield is often a problem area for England. It used to be we had too many good central midfielders, but now it's finding that balance. Ross Barkley has bags of ability and will likely be the best choice to play as the playmaker, but one should not rule out Adam Lallana, who could shine in a counter attacking system. Lallana is often used as a secondary playmaker, shunted out wide or alongside another attacking midfielder, but his deft touch and quick turns could be utilised to turn defence into attack with immediacy. Collecting a pass from a defender on the half turn is something that few England players have been able to do since Paul Scholes, but Lallana has the ability to quickly transition and this can be extremely effective when teams come to attack.

Barkley can do it too, and I think he'll be the player who gets the chance, but I've always liked Lallana as a player and think he needs to find a role that suits his skillset. Barkley has the added bonus of physicality - he's quick, strong and fitter than Lallana and given that responsibility he could definitely be one of the shining players at the Euros and World Cup.

Alongside him, Henderson seems the obvious choice, as he is able to be disciplined and sit in but also has an eye for a pass and can harry opposition attackers all day. When you don't have the ball for the majority of the game, you have to be fit and able to press in the 88th minute as well as the 8th. Henderson will give you that, which makes him the obvious choice. Ryan Mason is a similar player who could act as a good back-up, and Shelvey would be a better player if we are looking to dominate, due to his passing range and ability to control the tempo.

Up top is an interesting dilemma. I would personally plump for Harry Kane, due to his defensive benefits as well as his ability to link the play. Under pressure, he need to be able to play it direct to him sometimes, and he can bring the ball down and find a team mate. He's not slow either, and can certainly run in behind some of the less athletic defences. He won't be beating Varane for pace, but he isn't slow by any means. Sturridge offers a more direct option, and on the counter his pace and skill would be priceless, but his link up play can be a bit lacking at times and with his injury record there is no guarantee that he will be fit to play at any point.

Wayne Rooney is an issue at the moment, and it's plain for all to see. His touch isn't there, he looks slow, ponderous and a shadow of the player he was five years ago. For the good of the side, and the development of Harry Kane in this side, leaving Rooney out of the first team would be beneficial. Even if you keep him around for his presence and leadership, I would not start him unless he suddenly halts this decline that, statistically, has been happening for quite a few years now.

That's my vision for England in the next 2-3 years. We have some very good young talent and we should look to blood as many of them as possible. Players like Alli and Shelvey should get chances to impress and though I wouldn't start them in 2016/18 on what I've seen so far, there's a chance that they could become regulars. James Ward-Prowse will likely be in the squad by 2018, and some of the talent in the Championship too might be good enough - the highly-rated Demarai Gray, Lewis Cook or Will Hughes could be close to the team by then.

We have to invest in the youth and try and create a team, rather than always picking the best players. Use Germany as a model, who created a team from young players and stuck with them - and they came out alright.

Greg Dyke's Misplaced Faith.

Greg Dyke has suggested stricter laws on home grown players, to try and bring more English players through. As it stands, around a third of players in the Premier League are from the country of the league, which is the lowest percentage in the top 5 European leagues. The FA clearly believe that this is why we are perceived to be doing badly at international level, which on the surface makes sense. However, dig a little deeper and there are numerous problems.

1. We are not underachieving.

Why do us English football fans always think we should be winning competitions, or even making semi finals? Compared to Brazil, France, Germany, the Netherlands and nearly every top nation in football are much bigger, and importantly have more top coaches than we do. Germany are the prime example of a top football nation and have a population that far, far eclipses ours so will inevitably produce more top players - that being said, there are plenty of smaller nations who produce plenty of quality footballers. Belgium have a squad of players that was the third most expensive at the World Cup, and yet they are no bigger than England. A large part of this is down to a coaching problem. It costs around £5000 to do your coaching badges in England, but about a tenth of that in continental Europe. Belgium also had a practical plan to coach youngsters, rather than just 'more players playing'.

2. Correlation does not equal causation.

Yes, it is true that many top countries have more of their own players playing in the top leagues, so there is a link between the quality of the national team and the amount of their players in their league. However, that does not mean that the amount of players in the league makes the national team better - in fact, it means quite the opposite. Because our players aren't very good, we don't have a majority of players in the top league. If the England national team isn't great, then why would one of the top leagues feature a majority of English players?

The idea that playing more English players would improve them is so far wrong. The more foreign coaches and players we have in England the more they will learn new techniques, new methods and new tactical ideas. Also, playing average English players every week won't turn them into World Cup winners - otherwise Burnley would be top of the league. We don't need more English players; quality beats quantity.

So what is the solution?

It's hard to find a solution to a problem which is dubious, but if we really do want to become a better nation, restricting the foreign input is not the way to do it - in fact, we need more foreign coaches. We also need to lower the prices of coaching courses to get more coaches, increasing the quality of the training that our young players receive and hopefully the quality of the national team. We should also set out a plan for coaching similar to how Belgium did - pick a style, an identity, and stick to it. Whether it's creating counter attacking players in the mould of Germany, or technical players like Spain, or defensive minded players like Italy, we need a style and a plan.

I'm not suggesting that these changes will make us World Cup winners, or even make a significant difference, but it's more likely to than reducing the quality of our top league by playing more average English players.

The Importance of Full-Backs

I had the pleasure of watching the dampest of squibs at the Stadium of Light last week, as Pulis' anti-football earned them a 0-0 draw. As soon as the teams were announced it looked as if it would be a dull game, for a few reasons, but one stood out to me.

None of the full-backs were playing in the right place.

Anthony Reveillere was playing on the left, which forced him to come inside onto his favoured right foot, clogging up the midfield. Santiago Vergini's lack of attacking attributes were exposed at right-back. Chris Brunt played at left-back for West Brom, which was the most attacking choice, but Craig Dawson played right back for the Baggies.

The lack of chances and subsequently goals had a lot to do with this, as both teams clogged the middle and never had enough players going forward to really do anything, proving just how important full-backs are to the modern game, offensively. Defensively, they are important, as Dawson provided valuable cover of the defence which helped West Brom's defensive solidity which maybe an out-and-out full back might not have done.

In the last 10-15 years the role has evolved from one of the least to one of the most important roles in football. Your choice of fullback has a large effect on how you play the game and often are an embodiment of the style of the team. Barcelona have attacking, technically gifted full-backs which allow them to control games and create overloads, whereas Chelsea have Ivanovic, who is physical and primarily defensive, but often scores scrappy, important goals. Chelsea's defensive full-backs means they tend to and are set-up to be solid at the back first, whereas Barca attack first and foremost.

It seems counter-intuitive to suggest that if you want to become a better attacking team you should start with your defence, but attack minded full-backs can turn an good team into a great one. Leighton Baines for years has provided goals and assists from left-back which have allowed the side to be more compact and defensive in midfield. In fact, without Baines and Coleman last year, it could be argued that Everton would be near where they are this season.

All that being said, there are cases when full-backs don't seem to matter that much. Germany's World Cup winning side played, essentially, with four central defenders. As you would expect they were generally very defensively solid, bar the odd game, but they managed to decimate Brazil in the semi-finals. By playing four central defenders, they could invite pressure and counter attack at pace - however, they rarely needed to, but this was more down to Brazil's capitulation. One of Germany's most important players, Philipp Lahm, is a right-back who did spend some time there, but mostly played in the centre of the park.

If full-backs are so important, then why are they generally so cheap? The importance of them as not only a defensive player but as an important attacking outlet has only recently been truly realised (at least in England) and teams have started to recognise the inefficiencies in the market. However, this summer saw Luke Shaw move to Manchester United for a reported £30 million, which shows that top clubs are starting to realise the importance that some have seen for a while.

Southampton's rise up the table has been noticed by many, and so have Nathaniel Clyne's performances at right-back. Clyne is a fantastic player and his defensive and importantly attacking qualities have helped Southampton to become a feared team. Having him as an option coming forward makes Southampton capable of dismantling different defensive structures. A good attacking full-back can make a team more flexible and therefore harder to counter, and that is exactly what Clyne but also importantly Ryan Bertrand has done this season.

West Ham's transformation has been largely down to the attacking talent brought in, but the acquisition of Cresswell has turned out to be one of the best buys of the season. His crossing ability and willingness to attack have helped West Ham to stretch teams and he has also directly contributed to quite a few goals this season. Those few goals can add up to a large amount of points.

Strikers and attacking midfielders will always be the most expensive players and the most revered, but it won't be long before full-backs will consistently be going for 8-figure transfer fees and they will be more recognised as one of the most important pieces of a football team, rather than as Sunderland seem to treat them - an after thought.

Written by Elliott Griffiths (@ElliottBCFC)

50 Shades of Dimmy Gray

• Full Name: Demarai 'Dimmy' Gray
• Club: Birmingham City
• Position: Left Winger, Number 10
• Birthday: 28 June 1996
• Born: Birmingham, England
• Nationality: English
• Height: 178cm (5'10)
• Preferred Foot: Right
• Type of Player: Inside Forward, Direct Winger
• Key Attributes: Pace, Ball Control, Acceleration
• He's like a young: Eden Hazard

 

 Breaking Into The Team:

Lee Clark's tenure at Birmingham City was, for want of a better word, a mess. Loads of players brought in, bombed out, thrown in at the deep end and yanked straight back out again. However, Clark must be praised with bringing some young players through, and Gray is one of those. At just 17 he was brought into the first team, but he struggled to make an impact, struggling with the physicality of the game. There were clear flashes of talent, but his lack of physicality made them infuriatingly infrequent.

Fast forward a year from his first inclusion, and it's a very different picture. Having started a lot more games and given a clear role, Gray has at times looked like a world-beater. Though his goal return is fairly modest (5 in 32 senior appearances) this is not all there is to the young winger's game. When Gray is at the top of his game he is frighteningly good with the ball at his feet, drifting past defenders as though were mere cardboard cut-outs.

Given space to roam on the left wing he can utilise his pace and tight ball control to manufacture chances for himself and others.

Strengths:

Obviously Gray's blistering pace is a huge part of what makes him dangerous. On the counter-attack he can be devastating, but his acceleration from standing make him equally difficult to deal with in a slower build-up. His hat-trick against Reading showed that he has the qualities to cause problems in many different ways. His first showed him cutting inside before placing a delightful strike just inside the post, then quickly following up by beating two defenders from standing and placing low into the net. He completed his hat-trick shortly after from a counter-attacking move.

His tight ball control and flair make him tricky to deal with and difficult to dispossess and means that many teams resort to doubling up on the winger - which shows the respect that Gray demands, even at just 18. With any young winger there are always questions when it comes to end product, but Gray has displayed his ability to finish - he just needs to work on his consistency. The reason he is so sought after is the potential he has. If he can find that consistency, he could reach the top. A player with his ability to run with the ball with end product is worth a fortune; Tottenham bought Lamela for £30m for that exact reason, and he isn't yet consistent.

Weaknesses:

As of yet, Gray still struggles physically. He is not weak, but he's not Wilfried Bony either, and of course he is still young and will grow to deal with the more physical defenders. I seem to remember a certain Cristiano Ronaldo was also quite lightweight at 18; not to suggest they are as good, but there are comparisons to be drawn.

As mentioned his consistency is not there just yet, but you wouldn't expect it to be. The one area I think he needs to improve is his creativity in the final third. He is very good at manipulating defenders and he can use the space he creates to bring other players in. Currently though, he is not being asked to do this and maybe he will be trained to be a very direct player rather than a wide creator a la Eden Hazard.

Conclusion and Scout Report:

The development of Gray depends vastly on the role he is required to fill. Currently it seems he will be deployed as a forward, attacking the box and being asked to score goals. The inherent risk here is that he becomes one-dimensional, always cutting inside and shooting. This can work if you are Arjen Robben or Cristiano Ronaldo and everyone knows what you're going to do, but are unable to stop it. Dimmy may be good, but he isn't world class and he may also need to become more versatile in the future, allowing him to influence from deeper positions. However, for now, Gray should be allowed to continue to play in his natural style, which is exciting and enjoyable to watch.

Gray would be a good signing for any lower half Premier League team, but Birmingham manager Rowett has warned Gray to wait for a top team to come in. Clearly, he is not the only one who believes Gray is destined for the top. Sporting Lisbon, famous for nurturing young talent and selling them to top teams, have reportedly been sniffing around the winger. With bids of £5m turned down in January from Championship high-fliers Bournemouth, Gray needs to plot his next move carefully. Currently it seems playing games is the best thing for him, and maybe his home club is the one to do that. At a reported fee of at the very least £7m, it's a big gamble for any team outside the top 6, who will be watching the youngster with intent. Unless something goes very wrong, you can expect to see the name Demarai Gray a lot more often in the near future.

Andrew Shinnie - The Scottish Iniesta

Andrew Shinnie, known as Shinniesta by the Birmingham fans, is making some waves in the Midlands. Originally he was brought in by Lee Clark, but severely misused, left out on the wing or forced to play up-front. Shinnie looked disinterested and much poorer than he really is.

Fast forward a year and a half, and the hiring of Gary Rowett, whose sense of style is only bettered by his tactical nous, has caused the rebirth of Shinniesta at Birmingham. Playing in his favoured role, the number 10 role, Shinnie has been able to display the artistry and skill that gained him the nickname.

Where most number 10's are becoming more physical-orientated, be it quick or strong or a combination of both, Shinnie is neither. In fact, it's his pace which is his main weakness. Fortunately, his intelligence, spatial awareness and skill allow him to overcome these issues. Shinnie is a style of player which seemed to fade away 10/15 years ago - rather than Iniesta, he plays more like Riquelme.

What has been really striking is his ability to make defenders look completely and utterly stupid. Whilst he is most dangerous facing the opponents goal, his innovation is matched by his ability to pull off some very clever turns that leave defenders helpless. For a perfect example, check out the second goal in Birmingham's most recent game:

(Skip to 0:58)

Shinnie's turn took two defenders out of the game, his shot hitting the post leaving an easy chance for front man Donaldson.

His movement and intelligence are a big part of how he plays, and it has to be. Slower players have to know how and where to move to find space, and Shinnie is very clever at finding pockets of space. He has no qualms about moving wide to find space if the middle becomes too congested, which leaves oceans of space for inside-forward Demarai Gray to exploit. His movement not only creates space for him, but the players around him.

Shinnie has a deadly strike on him too, capable of scoring from range if given the chance. His scoring record is far from impressive at Birmingham, as he has been misused and even now is more of a creator than a finisher, but at Inverness he had an extremely impressive record.

So far, I've made Shinnie sound like Zidane, so it must be noted he does have his flaws. He struggles with tight man marking sometimes, though this can also backfire if the wingers move infield. His vision is not always matched by his passing ability and occasionally his low percentage passes don't come off and attacks break down. Shinnie works hard but his defensive capabilities aren't that of an Oscar or Rooney, but he does a job defensively.

Overall, Shinniesta has become an important player for the new look Birmingham, a counter-attacking side in the mould of Dortmund, Shinnie being the Enganche which the front 3 revolve around. He is a player who is not known very well, but he could quite easily become a hipster cult hero. Not just for his style, but his beard.

The Shinniesta revolution is here and Scotland have their own Riquelme - Andrew Shinnie.

The Rowett Tactical Revolution

Us football fans are prone to hyperbole. Every young Argentinian is the 'new Messi', every 30 yarder is goal of the season and every retiring player is a legend. That's why when Birmingham fans refer to Gary Rowett as 'Bromsgrove Mourinho' it's taken as a joke.

But is there a bit more to it that that?

Whilst I'm not claiming that he's anywhere as good, stylistically there is more than a few similarities. When Rowett took the job, he said pretty early on that he wanted to cut the size of the squad - fair enough, I thought. Clark kept recruiting more and more players then not using them, so a smaller squad seemed a good choice. This allows Rowett to keep a settled side which he chooses to do with his starting eleven. Blues have kept the same starting team in the league as much as possible - something which Mourinho is famous for doing at Chelsea.

I know all that is a stretch but it's just part of the philosophy. Rowett seems to be implementing a style reminiscent of Dortmund and Chelsea's Premier League conquering side. It's the antithesis to Pep Guardiola's possession game. If you've ever read about Mourinho's ideas on football, you'll know that he states:

"The team who commits the fewest mistakes wins the game.

"Whoever has the ball has fear.

"Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake"

Mourinho is one of the most successful coach in English football in recent times, so it makes sense to emulate him. The mistakes part of his philosophy was abundantly clear in last year's game against Liverpool - the most obvious example, but in general it doesn't mean big mistakes. Small mistakes. A defender putting the ball out for a throw-in instead of a simple pass, a midfielder overhitting a pass out to a full back. The team who makes more mistakes generally loses.

That is why counter-attacking can be so devastating. You pounce on a mistake. Blues pounced on 6 different mistakes at home to Reading. Rowett obviously uses the same or similar points for his own philosophy, as Blues don't ever attempt to control possession. We sit deep, keep our shape then if we win the ball, we attack with pace. Demarai Gray is key to this, as his pace helps to stretch teams and push them deeper so we can start to play our football. We pick on their mistakes whilst trying to reduce the amount we make.

Early on, we retreat deep and play long ball up to Clayton Donaldson, our Didier Drogba. Though Donaldson doesn't have the raw strength of a Drogba, he wins a surprising amount in the air - 44% of his aerial duels. It's more about pushing the opponent back, though. It forces them to drop deeper to deal with the long ball and the physicality of Donaldson, which gives Gleeson the space to find the passes to start our attacks later on. Donaldson's pace and work rate creates space for those around him too, as it makes the defence drop deeper to remove the space behind them.

Donaldson is a game-planning nightmare. If you drop deep to counter his pace, it allows the ball to be played into feet so he can hold it up and leaves more space for Andrew Shinnie. If you mark him tightly and compress the space, he can spin in behind using his pace. Speaking of Shinnie, his revival has been down to the space created for him. He's always been an intelligent footballer, but the speed of the game and lack of space made him useless. Now, under Rowett, he's being afforded space as the opposition drop deeper. When we're not playing quite so direct, Shinnie is instrumental in creating chances and finding space. Not only that, but he is involved defensively, closing down and shutting off passing lanes, which is quite rare for an attacking midfielder.

Unless you're Mourinho or Rowett.

The system Blues are implementing is similar to that of Chelsea's all conquering side. The Rowett Revolution is more than just new manager bounce - it's the implementation of a successful system where there was none before. 

Rowett is more than just lucky. He's creating an identity for a team who before were struggling with form, with style and with quality.

He is the Bromsgrove Mourinho.