Leeds to play 3-3-1-3

[HiddenGem7]

According to Bristol Post. Any tactical geniuses out there that can tell how this might fare against our likely 4-2-3-1?

To my simple mind it looks like we should be able to force overloads if the our full-backs can get forward.

[Mr Popodopolous]

That's an unusual formation!

Yet one not uncommon in South America and indeed Bielsa has used it in the past.It's a bit.

Wider CBs presumably for 2 of them, wider forwards in the front 3- so they can match up a bit on overloads.

Overloads in the wide areas seems fairly important here to me as there's a fair chance we get overwhelmed in the middle IMO.

Who we select as the central one of the '3' could be quite important from a shape and numerical standpoint. If it's a CM by trade who can slot back in to form a central '3' easily and with O'Dowda able to slot in and Weimann also from wide too that could well give us an advantage. If it's Paterson, that would or could quite easily leave a hole to exploit- a '10' but with his CM weaknesses, let alone defensively I could see us having some problems if he is the '10'.

We can try the aforementioned 2 v 1 overloads but then they can funnel back in and get nice and compact- if well drilled that can be very hard to play through or batter through with wide play, but can pin them back. The numerical advantage centrally and the likelihood of us needing to throw quite a few forward to get through can also make us vulnerable to quick breaks, centrally especially. The wing backs also in the 2nd '3' can combine with the wide forwards either to break out or to help combat the wide overloads. Yet the attacking CBs can of course throw up vulnerabilities.

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

There's too much fixation on systems. It doesn't matter a jot whether Leeds line up in a 3-3-1-3, 4-3-3, 4-4-2 or any other combination. It's 10 outfield players each, the configuration of which will change repeatedly throughout the match. All that is, required is for each player to do the job asked, and shows the intelligence to react to changing circumstances when necessary. 

That said, if LJ continues to show the tendencies of his father he may fixate on the opposition rather than impose our style at home. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

There's too much fixation on systems. It doesn't matter a jot whether Leeds line up in a 3-3-1-3, 4-3-3, 4-4-2 or any other combination. It's 10 outfield players each, the configuration of which will change repeatedly throughout the match. All that is, required is for each player to do the job asked, and shows the intelligence to react to changing circumstances when necessary. 

 That said, if LJ continues to show the tendencies of his father he may fixate on the opposition rather than impose our style at home. 

Unsure I agree but I know what you mean.

Depends on the players too.

Eg is Paterson so good at dropping back into a central 3? Unsure. Johansen at Fulham OTOH as the central in a '3' behind the striker different. Can Eliasson cut inside in the same way as an O'Dowda, can Weimann play effectively out wide in the same way as an Eliasson.

Football is getting more and more system based- it's behind a paywall but saw some interesting predictions for football in a decade or so time on the Times website. Will dig it out later- from the paper of course, will type it up.

Quote

If you think football is already too technical then you ain’t seen nothing yet. Football has been way behind many other professional sports in terms of a scientific approach but in ten years’ time it is probable every Premier League side will have a much bigger team of analysts, sports scientists, data gurus and specialist coaches. Liverpool are one of those leading the way on this, and other clubs are following quickly behind.

Simon Austin, the founder of the Training Ground Guru website, says: “Data science is going to be a massive thing over the next ten years. The clubs are gathering massive amounts of data at the moment — GPS tracking, camera-based data on everything a player does and where he goes, health and fitness data, blood markers. Attention is now turning to how to best use all that data.”

Austin says clubs such as Liverpool and Manchester City are already using computer modelling to determine where players should go to on the pitch in certain situations, and he believes it will be common practice in ten years’ time.

“Liverpool are using analytics to determine where players should move to in order to create space,” he says.

The other big change in tactics which is already becoming established now and will almost certainly be widespread in the next decade is the end of the focus on what is known to tactical researchers as Zone 14: the “golden square” in front of the penalty box, which for years coaches have concentrated on to formulate their attacking plans.

Increasingly, the successful teams in the Premier League, and their playmakers, have been looking elsewhere. For example Kevin De Bruyne at Manchester City and Mohamed Salah at Liverpool rarely stray in to Zone 14.

Zone 14 was considered the “golden square” for creative players

“At Manchester City , Pep Guardiola has been focusing on the “half space” — the channel between the full back and the centre half — and something like 85 per cent of their goals come from there,” Austin adds.

“Other clubs’ coaches and managers know now they have to start to follow this kind of analytical approach. The old Mourinho approach of “transitions” and quick counterattacks has long gone.”

While I don't agree with all of the above, e.g. the lack of counter attacking in the modern game.

PL or not, I'd argue the direction of travel is going one way and one way only. Football has been becoming, is becoming and will continue to become more system based. How many sides at the top end of this League play a traditional 4-4-2 eg?

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

But it's always been about the players.  The best teams have always had players with intelligence and the ability to adapt to match situations. You don't win multiple titles and European Cup competitions by slavishly sticking to a particular system year on year. Whether the players you mention have the intelligence necessary to get us out the championship remains to be seen. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Disagree- would Sheffield United have gone up with a back 4? Not convinced.

Would Norwich have won in swashbuckling style with Pulisball? Nope and I don't think they would have gone up either. Managers can make a big old difference, so too can systems. Leeds with many of the same players looked a lot better under Bielsa's 4-1-4-1/back 3 especially before Christmas- compared to a 4-4-2 under Heckingbottom for 3 months or so.

"All about the players"- Pep sticks and has stuck slavishly to his 4-3-3, or back 3- doesn't deviate. Klopp seems pretty set on 4-3-3 at Liverpool- 4-4-2 with wingers can put you at an immediate handicap these days at this level to take one example.

Computer modelling to determine where players should go on the pitch at certain times is surely pretty groundbreaking no? That gives a whole level of control to the manager/coaching staff/football analytics department.

I understand what you're saying though, players with in-game intelligence to adapt and work through issues on the pitch, by themselves- but to dismiss systems, I can't really agree.

Swift breaks in wider areas especially though could be important here, Sunday if it sets up with these 2 shapes.

[Carey 6]

52 minutes ago, HiddenGem7 said:

According to Bristol Post. Any tactical geniuses out there that can tell how this might fare against our likely 4-2-3-1?

To my simple mind it looks like we should be able to force overloads if the our full-backs can get forward.

 

The Post would've got it from this account on twitter, a decent thread if anyone fancies a read. 

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

8 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

But it's always been about the players.  The best teams have always had players with intelligence and the ability to adapt to match situations. You don't win multiple titles and European Cup competitions by slavishly sticking to a particular system year on year. Whether the players you mention have the intelligence necessary to get us out the championship remains to be seen. 

Some of both isn’t it , ?  

plus application , confidence etc

 

Very good players with zilch organisation and plan won’t succeed

Poor players well drilled , organised in a plan and disciplined will perform above individual expectations but won’t succeed

Average - decent players , organised in a plan and disciplined have a decent chance to succeed   

 

Good  players , organised in a plan and disciplined .........

Arrange the end of season dinner !

[Mr Popodopolous]

I suppose the other thing about systems- which BBSB has already touched upon- is it can mask deficiencies.

It's why I'm an advocate of 4-3-3- or maybe a 4-2-3-1 with a different central player to what we have now- Brownhill, Walsh and Pack say are decent individuals but have their deficiencies- but in a '3' the numerical advantage alone can help to mask these. I come back to my example, Heckingbottom 4-4-2 v Bielsa 4-1-4-1/back 3 hybrid at Leeds the 3-4 month periods were like night and day.

When Smith returns I'd seriously consider Brownhill, Smith and Pack as a 3, perhaps the deepest Smith or Pack but systems in a numerical sense alone can help to mask flaws. 4-2-3-1 though gives Brownhill and Pack a lot to do, then Paterson not being a natural fit to shuttle puts strain on him and can unbalance the side a bit in that configuration.

[Robbored]

Leeds will play with a bog standard 4-4-2. It’s the basic framework for any other formation. By moving one player the 4-4-2 can become any other shape.its extremely flexible.

Formations change throughout every game and for those of you that are particularly interested in shape/formations see how many different shapes we’ll see from both teams on Sunday.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Leeds will play with a bog standard 4-4-2. It’s the basic framework for any other formation. By moving one player the 4-4-2 can become any other shape.its extremely flexible.

Formations change throughout every game and for those of you that are particularly interested in shape/formations see how many different shapes we’ll see from both teams on Sunday.

My challenge to you:

You can move just one player, turn 4 - 4 - 2 to 3 - 3 - 1 - 3. Go

[TETBURY MASSIVE]

2 minutes ago, 29AR said:

My challenge to you:

You can move just one player, turn 4 - 4 - 2 to 3 - 3 - 1 - 3. Go

[Mr Popodopolous]

I struggle to see how a basic old style/traditional 4-4-2 is the basis for all formations but maybe it is?

[TheCulturalBomb]

Sounds like a very dominant formation for possession.

[ExiledAjax]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I struggle to see how a basic old style/traditional 4-4-2 is the basis for all formations but maybe it is?

Depends how far back you go I think, and which geographical region you're particularly looking at. In the modern era, and in the lifetime of most on here then 4-4-2 probably is the basis of most formations, and saying that 4-4-2 is your starting point isn't wholly unreasonable - for English clubs at least. Although it should be noted that ultimately the flat 4-4-2 that dominated the 80's and 90's and was favoured by the English and Italians - that was developed out of a 4-3-3.

However, if you go back to the dawn of organised football formations then realistically the founding formation is the basic 2-3-5 (although you could argue for the 1-1-8 used in the 19th century). The older amongst us will remember how the 4-2-4 came to prominence in the 1950s, and was especially used by Brazil - with Garrincha providing the archetypal winger in their 1958 world cup win and allowing them to effectively use a young Mr. Pele. In England the early 19th century formations developed into the WM (3-2-2-3) which was created at Arsenal by Chapman and became the predominant formation in English football up until the 'wingless wonders' (as they ditched the inside-forward position) came about and won us the World cup in '66. Of course there were plenty of other formations that came and went, some being more popular in certain leagues and others dominating others.

"Inverting the Pyramid" by Jonathan Wilson is probably the best book on the history of formations. Naturally given the subject it is a slightly dry read but if you stick with it is very interesting.

It would be interesting (to some, not all) to draw out a "family tree" of formations - I suspect you'd probably be able to place a divergence between those formations based on 4 at the back and those based on 3 (using 5 at the back is essentially a variation of using 3).

[bcfc01]

My head hurts.

[Chivs]

3 hours ago, 29AR said:

My challenge to you:

You can move just one player, turn 4 - 4 - 2 to 3 - 3 - 1 - 3. Go

Pawn to J9. I win!

[ExiledAjax]

 

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

“At Manchester City , Pep Guardiola has been focusing on the “half space” — the channel between the full back and the centre half — and something like 85 per cent of their goals come from there,” Austin adds.

 

Would you agree that we don't play much in that central "Zone 14" either? Naturally the ball passes through it but more often than not Brownhill, Pack, Paterson, or whoever receives it - they look to knock it out into that channel (or even wider to the wings) rather than turn and shoot. This being in contrast to teams of 10-15 years ago where you'd see the like of Scholes, Lampard, Zidane, Xavi and other midfielders looking to smash the ball in or thread a soft through ball through to an attacker.

This is what I saw in Tampa btw. LJ did a session where the team concentrated on winning the ball in this "Zone 14" (although he didn't call it that) and in doing so sucking the opposition in to create space wider out. Then the lads were supposed to be getting the ball out wide with the intention of shooting on target within 7 seconds of winning the ball back. There was a little of this on show in the Palace game, but only a little.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

There's too much fixation on systems. It doesn't matter a jot whether Leeds line up in a 3-3-1-3, 4-3-3, 4-4-2 or any other combination. It's 10 outfield players each, the configuration of which will change repeatedly throughout the match. All that is, required is for each player to do the job asked, and shows the intelligence to react to changing circumstances when necessary. 

That said, if LJ continues to show the tendencies of his father he may fixate on the opposition rather than impose our style at home. 

Many English football fans in general don't see formations as important. But in other countries like Argentina it is all that matters. Imo it is very important, but obviously you need the players first and foremost to play whatever system is picked.

[Robbored]

6 hours ago, 29AR said:

My challenge to you:

You can move just one player, turn 4 - 4 - 2 to 3 - 3 - 1 - 3. Go

No team plays that formation AR. Be sensible.

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I struggle to see how a basic old style/traditional 4-4-2 is the basis for all formations but maybe it is?

Think about it......

[internetjef]

Is the 3-3-1-3 that far away from the 3-4-3 a lot of teams have used in recent seasons in the prem? Spurs and Chelsea have both played it a bit. 

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, internetjef said:

Is the 3-3-1-3 that far away from the 3-4-3 a lot of teams have used in recent seasons in the prem? Spurs and Chelsea have both played it a bit. 

This is a great point to make and looking at the two it doesn't look hugely different I don't think. The most successful recent iteration of the 3-4-3 was Conte's 3-4-3 in the 2016/17 season. This was, like Leed's 3-3-1-3, based on ball playing defenders such as Luiz and Azpilicueta bringing the ball forward before offloading it to an attacking quintet (Hazard, Costa, Pedro, +2 from midfield) that overloaded the opposition's defence. The main difference seems to be that Leeds' system has the two central midfielders arranged vertically rather than horizontally across the pitch.

To speculate somewhat on the differences and reasons for them it looks to me like the Leeds system is slightly more offensive and slightly more rigid than the 3-4-3 used by Conte.  Conte could use Matic and Kante as deep midfielders to cover Alonso or Moses as they committed themselves forward to assist with the overload.  This required huge fitness and workloads from those four mentioned players. The 3-3-1-3 probably needs slightly less fitness overall as you've already got the advanced midfielder, and the second 3 don't all need to get quite as far forward up the pitch, only one needs to advance in any given attack. Perhaps therefore this 3-3-1-3 is better suited to Championship level players?

[Davefevs]

FWIW I'm not a systems-man, so more inclined to @RoystonFoote'snephew view than @Mr Popodopolous‘s.

But I would qualify that by saying my view is usually in response to someone saying something like:

• we gotta play 2 strikers if we wanna score goals
• if we’d have gone 442 today we’d have won
• we should’ve matched them up today

i.e. that formations are the be-all and end-all, which I massively disagree with.

Those kinda comments bring nothing about the players who would fill those roles and how they are asked to play.  

Some of the best football over the past few years was in a 442 (or 451/460 depending on how you perceive Reid and Paterson), but it wasn’t just a bog standard 442, it was 4 out and out defenders at the back...4 CBs if you like (Wright, Flint, Baker and Magnússon), a midfield 4 with a CM playing right side (Brownhill) and a LB on the left side (Bryan).  A bit Sir Alf wingless wonders in some ways.  Reid and Pato fluid and unconstrained when we had the ball, but naturally as a pair, coming short to keep the distances short for short passing (and small pressing distances when we lost it), but Reid willing to spin in behind.  Coming short and spinning usually meant bigger spaces in behind the FBs and CBs to chip passes without worrying about going straight through to keeper.

For me, the players made that work, morevthan the formation, but taking on @BobBobSuperBob‘s point, they were well-drilled.  Even Man City didn’t have their own way with their 433!

[Red7]

3 hours ago, Chivs said:

Pawn to J9. I win!

You sunk my battleship.

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

FWIW I'm not a systems-man, so more inclined to @RoystonFoote'snephew view than @Mr Popodopolous‘s.

But I would qualify that by saying my view is usually in response to someone saying something like:

• we gotta play 2 strikers if we wanna score goals
• if we’d have gone 442 today we’d have won
• we should’ve matched them up today

i.e. that formations are the be-all and end-all, which I massively disagree with.

Those kinda comments bring nothing about the players who would fill those roles and how they are asked to play.  

Some of the best football over the past few years was in a 442 (or 451/460 depending on how you perceive Reid and Paterson), but it wasn’t just a bog standard 442, it was 4 out and out defenders at the back...4 CBs if you like (Wright, Flint, Baker and Magnússon), a midfield 4 with a CM playing right side (Brownhill) and a LB on the left side (Bryan).  A bit Sir Alf wingless wonders in some ways.  Reid and Pato fluid and unconstrained when we had the ball, but naturally as a pair, coming short to keep the distances short for short passing (and small pressing distances when we lost it), but Reid willing to spin in behind.  Coming short and spinning usually meant bigger spaces in behind the FBs and CBs to chip passes without worrying about going straight through to keeper.

For me, the players made that work, morevthan the formation, but taking on @BobBobSuperBob‘s point, they were well-drilled.  Even Man City didn’t have their own way with their 433!

Everything you say is true. You can have the best system in the world but if you've not got the players to match it then you're never going to succeed. I've been trying today to see if I can fit our players into that 3-3-1-3 or 3-4-3 and I just don't think that Dasilva and Hunt have attributes for the Alonso/Moses roles in the 3-4-3. Likewise I am not sure we have enough CMs to fill out the second 3 of  the 3-3-1-3. This is the closest I can think of and I really don't like having Dasilva where I have him...put Joe Bryan there and maybe, just maybe you'd have it.

[TBW]

It's basically a 343.

[Robbored]

4 hours ago, TBW said:

It's basically a 343.

Yep.....move one player and you have 4-4-2.

[TETBURY MASSIVE]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Yep.....move one player and you have 4-4-2.

Surly you have to move 2 players...... unless you move a striker to full back.......

[Mr Popodopolous]

While the video over eggs things a bit, a decent watch nonetheless.

Starts about the 3-3-1-3/4-1-4-1 and the importance tactics can have on a side.

What would be interesting is comparing their first 15 games say under Bielsa to their 15 under Heckingbottom- who started etc. The dismissal of tactics/formations etc misplaced IMO.

[Robbored]

18 minutes ago, TETBURY MASSIVE said:

Surly you have to move 2 players...... unless you move a striker to full back.......

Move one player........from front to back if necessary.

We have to remember that many players are versatile and can adapt to different playing positions. Many teams  are selected with that flexibility in mind.

Against the Baggies LJ played Webbauer as a defensive midfielder allowing Pack to play further up and City were 3 up by half time and Pack dispossessed a defender that led to the first goal.