As Aldrich sat down at the press conference, he immediately felt the strange atmosphere in the room. Many journalists wore amused expressions, almost as if they were plotting a prank.
When the questions began, Aldrich was caught off guard by one.
"Mr. Hall, in the 67th minute of the second half, when you substituted Gerrard and Heskey for Owen and Beckham, why didn't you return to your seat? Instead, you stood by the sidelines with your hands behind your back."
Aldrich froze.
What sort of question was that?
Did it even matter?
As he noticed many reporters trying to hold in their laughter, it suddenly dawned on him.
So, they'd seen him rubbing his hands during the match.
Aldrich chuckled and placed his hand to his forehead.
Since it had been asked, he had no choice but to tell the truth. After all, he was under the spotlight, and honesty mattered for his reputation.
It was like the scandal involving President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in the U.S. The scandal itself was a moral issue, but when questioned in Congress, Clinton's outright denial turned it into a crisis of trust. Everyone makes mistakes, but sometimes lying is worse than the mistake itself; you can lose people's trust.
Aldrich chuckled and said, "Beckham and Owen, those two troublemakers, were probably a bit unhappy when they came off the field. So, they took their anger out on me. They acted like they were about to throw hands, which made my palms hurt. I had to rub them behind my back—uh, totally normal, right?"
The room burst into laughter.
But a journalist's follow-up question quickly silenced the crowd.
"Mr. Hall, are you saying that Beckham and Owen were angry about your substitutions? Is that right? Owen wanted to score more goals, and Beckham wanted to play the full match. How do you plan to resolve this conflict?"
Aldrich's expression froze. The other reporters stopped laughing and turned to look at the unfamiliar woman. She was probably a new face from a media outlet.
The veteran journalists, who had witnessed the match, knew exactly what had happened. They understood that Aldrich had just been making a joke.
Aldrich's playful banter in interviews was something the journalists loved. It made the atmosphere more relaxed and less intense.
But now, this reporter took him seriously! It left Aldrich with a helpless look, unsure of how to reply.
Others, taken aback, found it unexpectedly amusing. This reporter who didn't understand football had accidentally turned the situation into something quite interesting.
They watched Aldrich with a smirk, wondering how he would respond.
"I substituted them when the score was already 5-0. Why would there be any conflict? There was no issue at all."
"But you just said they were upset with you. Maybe that's true. Owen scored four goals already, and perhaps he wanted to break a record. Maybe Beckham wanted to play the full game."
"Why would you expect Owen to be such a selfish player? We are a team, a collective. He needs to contribute to the team, not just score. We need to give our substitutes a chance to play. The England national team is a squad of over 20 players, and if you don't understand that, don't ask such a ridiculous question! What nonsense!"
Aldrich fired back at the reporter sharply, and the press officer swiftly revoked her right to ask any more questions.
The other reporters watched the exchange, silently confirming that this woman was likely new to the industry. Otherwise, she wouldn't have asked such a self-defeating question.
At this level of the national team, in today's context, how could she imagine Owen would be upset with the coach just because he wanted more goals?
Even if Owen did feel that way, he would never express it—he wouldn't dare. It would ruin his future with the national team. The national team is a stage for the collective, not for one player to chase personal records.
Everyone knew how exhausted Owen had been after a long season. Any other coach might have taken him off after his two goals in the first half, giving him a rest for the record against Albania. But what was the point of that? Did it even matter?
Beckham's substitution was even less controversial. He had started in the previous match and again today. It was 5-0; he came off to rest, enjoy the applause of the fans, and give his teammates a chance to play. Wasn't that better? Why force him to play the full 90 minutes just to please this reporter?
It seemed she was too eager for a headline and perhaps a little nervous. When Aldrich joked about the players being upset, she took it seriously.
The small drama ended, but Aldrich's joy from the big win was somewhat dampened.
The other reporters, however, were quite pleased. They had an unexpected piece of material for their stories.
The second formal question was still about something that had happened during the match.
"In the first half, you went over to the sideline and called Beckham out. Were you dissatisfied with his performance?"
Surprisingly, even in a one-sided match, Aldrich had often been in the spotlight. It seemed that his decision to call a player off the pitch for a temporary break in play would go down in history as a notable moment.
Aldrich's expression became serious, and he replied in a deep voice, "It had nothing to do with him personally. He is an attacking player and the vice-captain on the field, so I needed him to relay my instructions. After the match started, England wasn't performing well. Although it seemed like we had a large advantage, this advantage was actually superficial, which made it harder for us to create more threatening goal-scoring opportunities. Therefore, I needed to make adjustments to the team. It had nothing to do with David's individual performance. David was fine, and the other players were fine too. Once David relayed my instructions, our attack improved, and we scored."
"After England's friendly win against Spain a few days ago, some critics have been saying that England has abandoned its traditional wide-play tactics. Today, England clearly seemed more threatening through the middle. Does this mean you've discarded England's traditional two-wing strategy? I'm not questioning its correctness, I just want to understand your viewpoint."
Aldrich shook his head. "If you judge attacking tactics only by the goals scored, I think that's a very one-sided view, and we won't be able to communicate. If you watched both matches and the 180 minutes of play, you would see that England hasn't reduced its use of wing play. Ashley Cole, Beckham, and Neville are all creating defensive pressure on the wings to help create better scoring chances. You can't just conclude that we've abandoned wing play just because the assists for our goals didn't come from the flanks. In today's match, Beckham made a beautiful pass on the right wing to assist McManaman's goal, and near the end of the match, Neville's cross from the wing was cleared, and Lampard scored with a long shot from outside the box. Does that look like abandoning wing play to you? I'm building a tactical system that takes England's strengths into account and compensates for our weaknesses. When the team's tactics mature, I'm sure no one will say England has given up traditional wing play. If people just conclude that because I didn't start wingers or wide midfielders, then they're being shallow and ignorant."
When answering this question, Aldrich was careful not to refer to "two-wing play" but used the term "wing play" instead.
Because, at this point, it was difficult for England to play with both wings attacking simultaneously unless there was a specific scenario where Ashley Cole and Beckham were both attacking. But in terms of probabilities, this only had a 50% chance of happening.
When Neville pushed forward to assist, Lampard also moved up, but he stuck closer to the middle.
It could be said that Aldrich's tactical system allowed for many attacking variations, which depended on the players' individual characteristics. Once the team had gelled, their attacking play would be unpredictable, and their defense would be solid and impenetrable.
Aldrich didn't care at all about the criticisms that emerged after the Spain game, claiming that England was too conservative and had abandoned traditional wing play.
No one had ever said that a player starting as a defensive midfielder should stay in that position for 90 minutes without moving, and no one had said that wing play required two symmetrical wide players. In fact, many Italian clubs had popularized single-wing attacking tactics for a period of time, and they still achieved victory.
The England players lacked creativity, so Aldrich used tactics to create it. The style of play that Millwall used—pressuring opponents while maintaining a dazzlingly unpredictable offense—relied on players positioned in various areas, suddenly switching places during attacks. This created a powerful disruption to break through the opponent's defense. But now, with the England national team, there were large open spaces in the front line, with positions left vacant during the attack. Players would fill in these spaces and form a push forward. For example, McManaman's range of movement was large, and his position and role were constantly changing. He could insert himself into the box to score or drift wide to support play. Although his starting position was as an attacking midfielder, he often played the role of a shadow striker or a wide midfielder during the attack.
Other players followed the same pattern. Lampard defended as a defensive midfielder but attacked as a central midfielder, while Beckham also played as a defensive midfielder when defending, but as a wide midfielder when attacking.
This design aimed to lock down the center during defense, compressing the space in dangerous areas for the opponent and strengthening the connections between the defensive lines. During attacks, the players' positions rotated, pushing forward at different times to create confusion in the opponent's defense.
Another advantage of this arrangement was that it allowed players to maintain their attacking impact.
If Beckham was always positioned on the right wing, running up and down the field, his total running distance would indeed exceed 10,000 meters—sometimes even 12,000 meters in a game. But how many sprints could he manage in that time?
By rotating and distributing the workload efficiently, whether pushing forward or dropping deeper to defend, players' speed could be better preserved.
Aldrich never planned to end England's traditions and establish a new one with his own mark. Creating a new school of thought was never his pursuit. If 4-4-2 didn't work, it had to change. Staying the same would only lead to failure.
Finally, after the press conference, the journalists congratulated Aldrich on his big win in his first home match as manager, and asked for his thoughts on England's World Cup qualification campaign.
"Direct qualification from the group stage? Of course, I'm confident. If you don't have confidence, you can't do the job. That's my life philosophy. But the games have to be played one by one. We've made a good start, but many tough matches await us. As for Germany in our group, I'm not concerned. This isn't a knockout match. We should focus on ourselves, play to our strengths, and take it one game at a time. When it's time to face Germany, we'll focus on them."
After the press conference, Aldrich turned down the invitation to the FA chairman's cocktail party. Driving home, he couldn't help but feel that the job wasn't as easy as he had thought.
The pressure had lightened a lot, and he was through the worst of the adjustment period.
But he was used to taking it easy at this time of year, a little break to recharge. Now, though, the work didn't stop.
Exhaustion was unavoidable. The national team game had just wrapped up, and now, he had to shift his focus back to the Premier League.
The London derby was on the horizon, and his battle with Wenger was about to kick off again.