Re:
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:00 am
A very good point."slappy" wrote:Seems a bit simplistic to just say Which is Right?
Surely it depends on the players available, the opposition, the width of the pitch and surface quality.
Page 2 of 2
Re:
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:03 am
Son of Denis"ty cobb" wrote:So who was the creative one from David Smith and Martin Gray?"GodalmingYellow" wrote:I kind of agree about Atkins. His 5-3-2 was in effect a flat back 5, rather than the wing back system that 5-3-2 was supposed to bring."Kernow Yellow" wrote: I was thinking about this recently. Atkins' full backs were of the Robinson/Stockley mould. That formation with Batt and Davis as 'wingbacks' would be a different proposition altogether. But then there wouldn't be much room for the Potters/Halls of this world.
***
I don't like the 4-3-3 we played last year with three centre forwards, as there's no real width and two of them are out of position. And for home games I wouldn't like a Beano-Potter-Hall type combination up front, as it leaves a shortage of target men in the box when the nippy players do get out wide and put crosses in. Though I think that kind of set-up has its merits away from home when we're not expected to make all the running and break down stubborn defensive opposition (as the last couple of games appear to have vindicated).
Of course, if we're going to continue to score Barcelona-esque goals with deft flicks and chips all over the park, then it will all be fine. But I have a feeling that might not work against eg Accrington's parked bus, and I'd rather see players like Potter and Hall given two strikers to aim at in the box. But that seems to be a very old-fashioned way of approaching things these days, so what do I know?
Denis Smith knew how to produce decent 4-4-2 systems. The key is in not allowing both your wide men to push on too far at the same time, and having one defensive and one creative in central midfield.
Wilders 4-3-3 is only a short hop away from a Smith 4-4-2. play Potter and Payne wide, bring the 2 remaining strikers together, and hey presto. Well almost. Not sure Payne could be converted into a wide man, but it's not that far apart.
Re:
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:17 am
Never an easy game trying to see in to the mind and intentions of the author. If you want the world to be a more judgemental place based on keyboard utterings, then that's your opinion and you are entitled to it and praise the Lord or summat. And I don't mind if you want to be cantankerous really."Ancient Colin" wrote:Ah, better rise to the bait, then
Rather intemperate? You read far too much into far too few words and extrapolate a long way beyond a rational conclusion as a result.Let the world judge! Anyway, always good to have some cantankerous outbursts.Far too many inherent and inaccurate assertions in that blog post ... All nonsense and if I could be bothered to read it in detail I could spend pages ...
For me, most of this is about the ability of players to react to particular formations. In principle, I think that 4-3-3 does give more attacking options provided that they can think in attacking combinations and are fit enough ... as I understand it, the principle is that if the fullback pushes right on, then his wide midfield player should come behind him to provide an outlet (and a defensive back up for when he shanks the ball to the nearest defender), the centre backs shift across to close the loop and, critically, the far side front player drops back and in slightly too. It should also allow you to press further up the field. I am not sure that rotation really works if you are employing a holding defensive midfielder - which really goes back to the diamond midfield - which is no criticism of McLaren. Or if your newly arrived right back has the speed of a sleepy sloth.
Looking at the premiership formations at the weekend, seemed like many of the leading sides were playing 4-2-3-1?
As Sloppy said, this debate is all subjective, rather than right or wrong, although obviously I am right as always!!
I think you are right about the theory of 4-3-3, but in practice it doesn't work. When the full back pushes on and joins the strike forces, what is left is a large gaping hole at the back, which is then easy meat for a fast counter attack. I would again point out that in theory this has provided an additional attacking option, but with the forwards so spread apart, the option is self limiting.
With 4-4-2, most of the wing play comes from the wide midfielders, rather than the full backs, so in attack mode, the defence remains strong, and the forwards playing closer together can make more of the attacking options. Even when the full back overlaps, the defensive midfielder simply steps back to cover. In 4-3-3 this cover is not available without leaving the midfield exposed.
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:30 am
I'm sorry GY but 4-4-3 doesn't work? Have you ever seen Barcelona play?
They are the best team I have ever seen play and they play 4-3-3. Now clearly we're not Barca, and Beano isn't Messi, but to say it doesn't work is just plain wrong. It is also the formation that got us promoted.
It does cause us worries from a defensive perspecitve, but when the full backs push on we have effectivly 7 in midfield which overuns team, which we do at times and which Barca do all the time.
It works when you want to take the game to a team, it doesn't work when you want to sit back and defend, like when we play at home, first half we take the game to the team get a lead, second half we sit back and invite the oppo onto us, if we go a goal up we need to keep attacking otherwise the formation doesn't work very well.
They are the best team I have ever seen play and they play 4-3-3. Now clearly we're not Barca, and Beano isn't Messi, but to say it doesn't work is just plain wrong. It is also the formation that got us promoted.
It does cause us worries from a defensive perspecitve, but when the full backs push on we have effectivly 7 in midfield which overuns team, which we do at times and which Barca do all the time.
It works when you want to take the game to a team, it doesn't work when you want to sit back and defend, like when we play at home, first half we take the game to the team get a lead, second half we sit back and invite the oppo onto us, if we go a goal up we need to keep attacking otherwise the formation doesn't work very well.
Re:
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:57 am
I absolutely guarantee that 4-4-3 can never work."ty cobb" wrote:I'm sorry GY but 4-4-3 doesn't work? Have you ever seen Barcelona play?
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:27 pm
It can if the referee choses what side he's on!
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 1:08 pm
It's players that win games. Not formations. Can't for the life of me remember who said that..
Clearly 4-3-3 has started to work more consistently with two very quick full backs and two nippy ball playing flank forwards. As opposed to centre forwards being shunted off to the wings a la Midson.
Supported by a sitting midfielder. Who's now fit... if a little slow. No matter, McLaren knows his limitations.
I don't hold with the view that Potter was playing off Beano at D and R and Barnet. Hall was just as far forward.
I'm pleased Wilder has got a right winger in on loan as well. Means the tactical changes can be rung mid game. We can now easily go 4-4-2 if situation merits it.
The main reason why we seem to do be doing better?
I'd say, forget 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-5-1, 4-3-2-1.
Concentrate instead on the immense Duberry and the fast improving Clarke. Our keeper has been excellent recently.
Clearly 4-3-3 has started to work more consistently with two very quick full backs and two nippy ball playing flank forwards. As opposed to centre forwards being shunted off to the wings a la Midson.
Supported by a sitting midfielder. Who's now fit... if a little slow. No matter, McLaren knows his limitations.
I don't hold with the view that Potter was playing off Beano at D and R and Barnet. Hall was just as far forward.
I'm pleased Wilder has got a right winger in on loan as well. Means the tactical changes can be rung mid game. We can now easily go 4-4-2 if situation merits it.
The main reason why we seem to do be doing better?
I'd say, forget 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-5-1, 4-3-2-1.
Concentrate instead on the immense Duberry and the fast improving Clarke. Our keeper has been excellent recently.
Re:
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:25 pm
A European cup and La Liga win would suggest otherwise. I suggest you watch the dismantling of Real Madrid on a number of occassion last season to see how 4-3-3 works."GodalmingYellow" wrote:I absolutely guarantee that 4-4-3 can never work."ty cobb" wrote:I'm sorry GY but 4-4-3 doesn't work? Have you ever seen Barcelona play?
Re:
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:16 pm
I'll bet it wouldn't!!"ty cobb" wrote:A European cup and La Liga win would suggest otherwise."GodalmingYellow" wrote:I absolutely guarantee that 4-4-3 can never work."ty cobb" wrote:I'm sorry GY but 4-4-3 doesn't work? Have you ever seen Barcelona play?
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:29 pm
I'm not very good on formations, but ...
If we are not going to play 4-4-2 why did we have Midson, Constable and Green last year who are all centre forwards best suited to the middle of a 4-3-3?
And this year Constable and Smalley? When it is already apparent that we won't play them in a 4-4-2 and so only one can be on the pitch at a time.
If we are not going to play 4-4-2 why did we have Midson, Constable and Green last year who are all centre forwards best suited to the middle of a 4-3-3?
And this year Constable and Smalley? When it is already apparent that we won't play them in a 4-4-2 and so only one can be on the pitch at a time.
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:48 pm
4-4-3 worked for Carlisle a few years ago when their goalie scored to keep them in the football league.
Sorry GY, you lose the argument!
Sorry GY, you lose the argument!
Re:
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:56 pm
You've got me there!"Boogie" wrote:4-4-3 worked for Carlisle a few years ago when their goalie scored to keep them in the football league.
Sorry GY, you lose the argument!
Re:
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:51 pm
That's great. If you do find the time just PM me or email me about it (tbfuth@hotmail.co.uk), always happy to post as wide a variety of opinions as possible."GodalmingYellow" wrote:Getting back to the matter in hand, I'll ry to put a few lucid thoughts together BFUTH if I get a chance to read the whole blog. That's if grumpy sensitive Colin doesn't mind of course...