Leeds to play 3-3-1-3

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

I love those Tifo videos. Also I watch tactical analysis of games on various YouTube channels and also read zonalmarking.net that do some games. Shows how important tactics are.

I understand that formations are just a basic way of explaining a way of playing. But they do matter.

Our 4411 compared to our 4141 were very different last season imo.

[TBW]

5 hours ago, TETBURY MASSIVE said:

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

Duncan Ferguson.

[And Its Smith]

I would expect Leeds to line up like this but guess we will wait and see

             Casilla 
Dallas White Cooper Douglas
               Phillips
Costa. Klich Hernandez Harrison
            Bamford

[Chappers]

All too complicated, bring back 2-3-5, I understood that!

[swampy]

who gives a sh*t as long as we win which we won't ... to be honest, the average player's IQ isn't that good as long as there are a few '000k pounds in there .

[MarcusX]

On 29/07/2019 at 22:51, Robbored said:

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

You’d struggle to move just one player and make an effective 442 become an equally effective 343. You could move 2-3 players to almost seamlessly switch style, but you’re point about everything being one player change away from a 442 is too simplistic 

[Robbored]

6 hours ago, MarcusX said:

You’d struggle to move just one player and make an effective 442 become an equally effective 343. You could move 2-3 players to almost seamlessly switch style, but you’re point about everything being one player change away from a 442 is too simplistic 

It’s a simple game Marcus........

4-4-2  is a very flexible framework. A baseline if you like and many teams often line up using it. 

Formations change throughout matches and on Sunday I’ll try to remember how many times both teams change shape.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

It’s a simple game Marcus........

4-4-2  is a very flexible framework. A baseline if you like and many teams often line up using it. 

Formations change throughout matches and on Sunday I’ll try to remember how many times both teams change shape.

In some cases agreed.

Simple game? In theory yes, but are false 9s, inverted wingers, and a newer trend of inverted full backs to name 3 still reflective of this? @Cowshed is always interesting when it comes to the evolution of the game tactically speaking, would be interested to see that posters thoughts.

Certain players are more suited to shape shifting in game than others, tbh.

[Robbored]

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In some cases agreed.

Simple game? In theory yes, but are false 9s, inverted wingers, and a newer trend of inverted full backs to name 3 still reflective of this? @Cowshed is always interesting when it comes to the evolution of the game tactically speaking, would be interested to see that posters thoughts.

Certain players are more suited to shape shifting in game than others, tbh.

There are numerous descriptions of player positions invented by various coaches/managers. What these descriptions do is make the beautiful game seem far more complicated than it actually is.

’false 9’ .......’inverted wingers’.......Is it really necessary to label players in this fashion?

Im not sure it is.

[Cowshed]

39 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In some cases agreed.

Simple game? In theory yes, but are false 9s, inverted wingers, and a newer trend of inverted full backs to name 3 still reflective of this? @Cowshed is always interesting when it comes to the evolution of the game tactically speaking, would be interested to see that posters thoughts.

Certain players are more suited to shape shifting in game than others, tbh.

 

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

It’s a simple game Marcus........

4-4-2  is a very flexible framework. A baseline if you like and many teams often line up using it. 

Formations change throughout matches and on Sunday I’ll try to remember how many times both teams change shape.

 

16 minutes ago, Robbored said:

There are numerous descriptions of player positions invented by various coaches/managers. What these descriptions do is make the beautiful game seem far more complicated than it actually is.

’false 9’ .......’inverted wingers’.......Is it really necessary to label players in this fashion?

Im not sure it is.

I will give it a go. 

4-4-2 is not a particularly flexible formation v 4-3-3. It was the base line for British and others football but not much of Europe who use 4-3-3 through their football from its roots up.

4-4-2 tends to be more rigid as teams play in lines. With 4-3-3 the maths of that means players have to be used in angles to cover the pitch = It isn't really 4-3-3 in its variants. 4-3-3 is both attack minded and defensive and easily creates numerical superiority in the centre of the field. Its angles create greater passing lanes v 4-4-2.

In regards to complicated Robbo it isn't players in 4-3-3 frequently have easier systems to play in due to its flexibility. Simply moving CB's up and FB up vertically the formation becomes 3-5-2 dropping the widemen its 4-5-1 and a pivot its 4-1-4-1 this is as simple gets as players are not switching with horizontal movements. This is mathematical and geometrical reason why 4-3-3 is so prevalent through world football. 

Using 4-3-3 from early ages encourages players to occupy more than one position and increases skill and problem solving. 4-4-2 frequently sees players doing the opposite.

False nine, inverted is not complex. Its simply a description of a role e.g a left winger playing on the right hand side.  

[Davefevs]

 

[elhombrecito]

The way people go on about Bielsa, you would think he was the only manager to scout opposition teams and change tactics accordingly. 

If he was that good he wouldn't be managing Leeds FFS. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, elhombrecito said:

The way people go on about Bielsa, you would think he was the only manager to scout opposition teams and change tactics accordingly. 

If he was that good he wouldn't be managaing Leeds FFS. 

He's somewhat of a maverick which can count against him with bigger jobs, one aspect of it.

He walked out of Lazio after 2 days, he quit Marseille at the start of his 2nd season after one game- there's been a variety of wacky antics through his career which perhaps don't help.

[ExiledAjax]

6 hours ago, Cowshed said:

False nine, inverted is not complex. Its simply a description of a role e.g a left winger playing on the right hand side.  

Exactly, it's a short-hand way of describing a subtle change in the use of a player. A "false 9" being a player who would usually play as a number 9...but he drops a bit deeper than a traditional number 9 would. Rather than explain that every single time you just say "false 9".

Nice explanation of 4-3-3 v 4-4-2 btw. Thanks for that.

[Pheasant plucker]

7 hours ago, Robbored said:

There are numerous descriptions of player positions invented by various coaches/managers. What these descriptions do is make the beautiful game seem far more complicated than it actually is.

’false 9’ .......’inverted wingers’.......Is it really necessary to label players in this fashion?

Im not sure it is.

Really can't agree with your opinion.

If football was so simple the team with the best players/biggest budget would win their respective leagues each season.

Managers make a difference because there is a plethora of ways to attack, defend and control a game - and game passages.

Just like chess, football has simple rules, but mastering it is another matter!

[ExiledAjax]

15 minutes ago, Pheasant plucker said:

Just like chess, football has simple rules, but mastering it is another matter!

And, in my opinion, the beauty of modern football is that you can choose how to enjoy it, even match to match. Myself when I attend away games with City I shout, I drink, I enjoy the moments and the goals. At AG I prefer to take a seat on the halfway line (the press positions in the upper Lansdown are the best) and try to understand the tactics and the systems being played. I'm still learning about how formations and systems are used and how certain types of player might fit within them. Other posters in this thread have greater knowledge than me but I find it interesting to have the discussion, especially at our level where you're naturally trying to use imperfect players to play the way you want.

It's different ways of enjoying the same game.

[22A]

Other side of the hill; here's what Leeds are saying; 

 

[ExiledAjax]

18 minutes ago, 22A said:

Other side of the hill; here's what Leeds are saying; 

 

I like how he's recorded it in his toilet and then green-screened the stadium behind him.

I think he is making a mistake saying that 3 at the back can easily combat our 4-2-3-1. He claims that 3 at the back can easily counter 1 up top - except that it isn't really one up top - it's 4 or 5 in attack of which one is the nominal "striker". Unless someone drops back to turn that Leeds back 3 into a 4 when we attack I think we'll be able to pull those 3 around and create some gaps to exploit.

Personally I'm expecting some end-to-end stuff on Sunday.

[Red Skin]

I can see this being a really interesting challenge for LJ tactically.   We could well see an untypical City formation to counter Leeds.   May be extremely cagey for 60 minutes.

On the discussion of formations I wonder whether 4-4-2 requires a larger pool of players in the squad as each position is more specialist?   The other formations requires more flexible players (and better students) but maybe a player could more easily cover another role?

Seems Kemar Roofe is quite key.  Would love a more fluid front line at City.   I think we have the midfielders and maybe Weimann could do it, but not Diedhiou.   Bobby Reid would be excellent in that role. Given what we've taken in on fees (assuming Webster goes) I'd offer Cardiff their money back to get him.