Jump to content
IGNORED

Changing formations


barneyrubble

Recommended Posts

Cannot believe how many different formations we attempt to play. It's no surprise we lack consistency and have square pegs in round holes as lj quoted. 

It's almost like today's managers have to justify their existence by coming up with new formations. Just pick one drill the players so they know their role and then train and motivate them. 

Formations don't win matches the quality of your players do. 

Liverpool and Man City don't mess with formations too much they pretty much play the same way and rely on quality to win. If you haven't got the quality develop it through coaching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coxy27 said:

If only it were that simple...

If you read his third sentence and consider how many teams are promoted from this division without playing multiple systems … The poster has a point. 

It is questionable how deep understanding and learning will be when change is frequent.

The great bald one in Manchester feels it takes a player six months to gain understanding of one system of play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coxy27 said:

If only it were that simple...

I posted several times that all formations stem from the 4-4-2 template. Move one player and you have pretty much every other formation...........:cool2:


Against Charlton or Wigan I remember looking at our formation throughout the match and it varied in every way.  We were 4-4-2 then three and the back, then five across midfield. It changed so often that I los interest.

Sticking to any rigid formation is  extremely Inadvisable. Formations have to be flexible, hence a basic 4-4-2 so that City can match or counter whatever the opposition are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

If you read his third sentence and consider how many teams are promoted from this division without playing multiple systems … The poster has a point. 

It is questionable how deep understanding and learning will be when change is frequent.

The great bald one in Manchester feels it takes a player six months to gain understanding of one system of play. 

Pep has a deep knowledge of styles of play. He clearly learnt those skills at Barca as a player and as manager. Imv what makes Pep so remarkable is his coaching ability and in no way does LJ or his assistants have that level of knowledge - yet. 
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I posted several times that all formations stem from the 4-4-2 template. Move one player and you have pretty much every other formation...........:cool2:


Against Charlton or Wigan I remember looking at our formation throughout the match and it varied in every way.  We were 4-4-2 then three and the back, then five across midfield. It changed so often that I los interest.

Sticking to any rigid formation is  extremely Inadvisable. Formations have to be flexible, hence a basic 4-4-2 so that City can match or counter whatever the opposition are doing.

That is incorrect.

The reason why national FA's including England's advise or insist (Belgium and Spain) their academies and development models use 4-3-3 is because of its flexibility v other formations. 

12 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Pep has a deep knowledge of styles of play. 

 

 

But effectively uses one with little change.

12 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Pep has a deep knowledge of styles of play. He clearly learnt those skills at Barca as a player and as manager. Imv what makes Pep so remarkable is his coaching ability and in no way does LJ or his assistants have that level of knowledge - yet. 
 

 

 

That in no way invalidates the point made. Teams being promoted from this division very frequently do not play multiple systems.

The principles behind having a consistent playing style/solid philosophy defining a approach are relevant at all levels. 

A big one is that humans learn more and more deeply from consistency and repetition than they do from "frequent" change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

That is incorrect.

The reason why national FA's including England's advise or insist (Belgium and Spain) their academies and development models use 4-3-3 is because of its flexibility 

Kind supports my point. 4-3-3 is one player different to the 4-4-2 template.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Kind supports my point. 4-3-3 is one player different to the 4-4-2 template.

Incorrect. 

4-3-3 and 4-4-2 are very different systems, with about 5 positional changes. Wide CM's next to a deeper lying CDM allowing wide forwards to play further up the pitch and support a central striker. Very different to using wide midfielders to provide support to the fullbacks in transition. 

 

(In a traditional 4-3-3 compared to a 4-4-2 with a flat midfield 4)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who say formations don't matter- and in some respects this has merit.

Overall though, for those who say this, ask yourselves why:

  1. Man City, Barcelona (mostly), Bayern (at times), plus a myriad of national and club sides all play 4-3-3. It's not for fun!
  2. Closer to home, why do so few sides- and especially more commonplace the higher you get in this League and has been the case for a few years now, play 4-4-2? Certainly nothing like the traditional style.
  3. Not saying all play 4-3-3, or all must play 4-3-3, but 3 in CM by which I mean actual CM's, not Paterson or now Palmer in a 4-2-3-1/4-1-4-1 hybrid...why is it in whatever shape so popular at this level? Answer, because it works. Or some version of 3 actual central midfielders!
  4. We are therefore swimming against the tide at times with LJ's reluctance to go there- now injuries are a mitigating factor for sure, but he seemed to shun it even when we had the numbers, and yes the players.

Further- if it's all neutral, can some coaches or would be coaches explain to me how 4-4-2 overcomes a central 3 if we want to go on the front foot? It isn't compatible, it hasn't been compatible for some time! If we want to go 4-4-2, or even in some respects, 4-1-4-1/4-2-3-1- Palmer or before him, Paterson as part of the centre of that will cause problems defensively- it just doesn't work!! If we are counterattacking then that is different, but it still can put a huge strain because of point 4.

Brownhill as the central one in the '3', with say Pack and Walsh or Pack with Brownhill and Walsh central- this would've been interesting- would have given us more control.

Sticking to the formation, but making Tweaks within the blueprint seems a way to go though! Sheffield United did similar and still do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think formations matter hugely. Seems a bit of an English mentality that they don't matter that much. 

Sheffield united actually changed to 4 at the back quite a lot in games last season. There's many different reasons a team may change system, or may not. Norwich were superb with their 4231, I guess no point in changing.

We are not superb no matter what system we play. But we also have many different players like Eliasson or Palmer, Weimann or Diedhiou or Afobe. They're good at different things. Different tactics needed depending on who plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I think formations matter hugely. Seems a bit of an English mentality that they don't matter that much. 

Sheffield united actually changed to 4 at the back quite a lot in games last season. There's many different reasons a team may change system, or may not. Norwich were superb with their 4231, I guess no point in changing.

We are not superb no matter what system we play. But we also have many different players like Eliasson or Palmer, Weimann or Diedhiou or Afobe. They're good at different things. Different tactics needed depending on who plays.

Sheff Utd's formation of 3 or 5 at the back (depending on attacking or defending) was one of their key elements to success last season.

Sticking with the 3 CB's and wingbacks this season is also proving very successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

Sheff Utd's formation of 3 or 5 at the back (depending on attacking or defending) was one of their key elements to success last season.

Sticking with the 3 CB's and wingbacks this season is also proving very successful.

Yes it was and still is. But there were times where they switched to a back 4 last season in games. So even the best systems might not always work and need changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LJ definitely likes to adapt but I think the sheer number of changes this season is more down to the number of injuries to key players and the quality of the understudies. If people want to compare us to the likes of man city looks at the number of players they have and the quality of each understudy. 

If everyone was fit LJ woukd definitely adapt for some opposition but not to this seasons level and he does actually settle for periods when things click. This season we have been picking up points despite not playing that well and we've had the odd player cone back from injury followed by gaining new injuries. Let's see what happens when the majority of players are back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

LJ definitely likes to adapt but I think the sheer number of changes this season is more down to the number of injuries to key players and the quality of the understudies. If people want to compare us to the likes of man city looks at the number of players they have and the quality of each understudy. 

If everyone was fit LJ woukd definitely adapt for some opposition but not to this seasons level and he does actually settle for periods when things click. This season we have been picking up points despite not playing that well and we've had the odd player cone back from injury followed by gaining new injuries. Let's see what happens when the majority of players are back. 

The opening post could have been written seasons ago. It can be a point beyond formation. It can be intent. A consistent in Lee Johnsons football is it changing intent. From short passing busy bees to knocking it long and to wingers and high lines, medium blocks ..  

If you wish to look at Man City then Bristol City the underling factor is that Lee Johnsons intent changes through seasons and from season to season. Fundamentally Man City and many other teams of differing levels do not alter significantly what they do season to season. It not a question of quality, or wealth its about having a defining approach as a starting point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m one of the posters who doesnt think Formations are the be all and end all, it’s about the players. But in saying that it’s a combination of both. You can’t just pick your best eleven players and guarantee success in the same way as you can’t pick a system and expect that it will win either.

I do expect our head coach to be able to pick the best players for his preferred system and work out:

1. The advantages of ours versus theirs and how to maximise those advantages 

2. the disadvantages and minimise them

It shouldn’t need a system / player overhaul every (Other) game. A little tweak here or there, and a player coming in knows exactly what is expected of him in that game.

Of course theory can go out the window on the pitch, but I’m not sure there is enough belief by our head coach that all the prep he did pre-game will win through over 90 minutes. Hence the big changes made with subs. In most cases the subs are a totally different skill set / position to the ones replaced. E.g. unless you sub Eliasson on for another winger (COD?) you have to introduce a new system.

Recruitment has improved massively, but we still have too many different players,...clubs in the bag. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

Sheff Utd's formation of 3 or 5 at the back (depending on attacking or defending) was one of their key elements to success last season.

Sticking with the 3 CB's and wingbacks this season is also proving very successful.

If only we kept Cotts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

If you wish to look at Man City then Bristol City the underling factor is that Lee Johnsons intent changes through seasons and from season to season. Fundamentally Man City and many other teams of differing levels do not alter significantly what they do season to season. It not a question of quality, or wealth its about having a defining approach as a starting point. 

I don't desagree, but if you are man city and for some reason a key player leaves you buy a replacement whatever they cost. Like it or not we are a selling club and will always have to adapt based on when we have to sell and who we can recruit to replace ace them. Last season we played the ball out from the back brilliantly but we sold our our best ball playing CB and arguably the one most likely to step into his shoes. Moore certainly shows great promise in that area but he is not Webster. Much easier to have season on season consistency when you can constantly recruit at the highest level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BCFC Richard said:

I don't desagree, but if you are man city and for some reason a key player leaves you buy a replacement whatever they cost. Like it or not we are a selling club and will always have to adapt based on when we have to sell and who we can recruit to replace ace them. Last season we played the ball out from the back brilliantly but we sold our our best ball playing CB and arguably the one most likely to step into his shoes. Moore certainly shows great promise in that area but he is not Webster. Much easier to have season on season consistency when you can constantly recruit at the highest level. 

I think you are missing the point, and If you were not I apologise.

Man City have a overriding model of play for their football. It has its supporting methodologies. It has playing principles that do not alter. Using phrases that have been used at Bristol City that model of play is their identity, players with the right dna are developed and purchased for this project. Injuries, players leaving, the identity does not alter.

If Bristol City had a identity and were developing and purchasing players with the right dna for its project there is no need for so much change. Change should be planned for, injuries, players leaving .. Its all predictable. 

Webster left .. So what where was his replacement? If playing out from the back was a principle (identity) of the Manager there should be a footballing (dna) CB in the club ready.

The clubs costliest forward is in and out of the side being replaced by loanees if not suspended. When he is in the team he seems to not fit. Dna for the identity?

 This is not about money. It is a point about approach which has been present for seasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disregarding the money point, quite agree with @Cowshed on the DNA.

From latter day Jackett but most definitively under Martinez, until I'd argue the tail end of Laudrup's reign- and the first few months of Monk's when he still had Laudrup's team to work with, they had a clearly distinguishable philosophy.

Yes they were able to build it in the PL, but late days of Jackett, all of Martinez, Sousa though he had a pragmatic element too- ie high possession, then back on it with Rodgers and Laudrup- and yes a few months of Monk, this DNA, philosophy- for want of a better word, identity ran through the club. This went somewhat IMO with Monk's first full season and certainly thereafter- Potter and Cooper seem to be rebuilding it, but the point is they had a philosophy within a broadly consistent framework and the manager was interchangeable within this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BCFC Richard said:

I don't desagree, but if you are man city and for some reason a key player leaves you buy a replacement whatever they cost. Like it or not we are a selling club and will always have to adapt based on when we have to sell and who we can recruit to replace ace them. Last season we played the ball out from the back brilliantly but we sold our our best ball playing CB and arguably the one most likely to step into his shoes. Moore certainly shows great promise in that area but he is not Webster. Much easier to have season on season consistency when you can constantly recruit at the highest level. 

I'd like to see a Moore and Kalas centreback pairing, from a footballing POV.

Nagy in front, maybe Brownhill and Massengo the central pair in front- 4-3-3/4-1-4-1, doesn't matter in a sense.

This would bring a new dimension IMO and perhaps help to start to make up for the sale of Webster.

What would negate this and risk taking it back to square one in a way is if we played Nagy in the Pack role, then Palmer and Brownhill in front- more dynamic in some ways but Palmer won't drop in to create a '3' unlike my first idea which means a risk of less control and quick turnovers in possession will increase.

Could go asymmetrical with Eliasson on one side, Palmer in a freer but nominally the right side, and Weimann central- Weimann can also switch with Palmer and pull wider.

I digress- need those 3 in CM one way or another, and Kalas and Moore at CB then we can start to build the philosophy I think!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'd like to see a Moore and Kalas centreback pairing, from a footballing POV.

Nagy in front, maybe Brownhill and Massengo the central pair in front- 4-3-3/4-1-4-1, doesn't matter in a sense.

This would bring a new dimension IMO and perhaps help to start to make up for the sale of Webster.

What would negate this and risk taking it back to square one in a way is if we played Nagy in the Pack role, then Palmer and Brownhill in front- more dynamic in some ways but Palmer won't drop in to create a '3' unlike my first idea which means a risk of less control and quick turnovers in possession will increase.

Could go asymmetrical with Eliasson on one side, Palmer in a freer but nominally the right side, and Weimann central- Weimann can also switch with Palmer and pull wider.

I digress- need those 3 in CM one way or another, and Kalas and Moore at CB then we can start to build the philosophy I think!

I would do similar but I'm just not sure on Weimann in the lone role. If it works then great, but I imagine Diedhiou may be needed up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I would do similar but I'm just not sure on Weimann in the lone role. If it works then great, but I imagine Diedhiou may be needed up there.

Think it's can be about movement, not so much physicality.

Lone striker doesn't have to be big, does have to be hard working- yes, decent ball skill, yes and indeed capable of providing goals and assists- yes again.

Alternatively, how about:

Brownhill Nagy Massengo Eliasson

                  Palmer

                  Weimann

Close to our 4-4-1-1 in 2017/18 with Reid and Paterson- granted we're a bit weaker defensively on the left than we were that season but Dasilva-Eliasson could link really well- again, asymmetrical.

Give Palmer license to get close to Weimann, a freer role- and have Brownhill tuck back in during some phases- Pereira at RB would help to solve one or two things tactically as well, though Hunt is justifiably first choice in that position!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we are winning nobody really cares what formation we use or how many times the Manager changes it. In fact they go out of their way to praise him for his flexibility and tactical nous. A few results don't go as expected and he is a tinker man and should stick to one tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

I think you are missing the point, and If you were not I apologise.

Man City have a overriding model of play for their football. It has its supporting methodologies. It has playing principles that do not alter. Using phrases that have been used at Bristol City that model of play is their identity, players with the right dna are developed and purchased for this project. Injuries, players leaving, the identity does not alter.

If Bristol City had a identity and were developing and purchasing players with the right dna for its project there is no need for so much change. Change should be planned for, injuries, players leaving .. Its all predictable. 

Webster left .. So what where was his replacement? If playing out from the back was a principle (identity) of the Manager there should be a footballing (dna) CB in the club ready.

The clubs costliest forward is in and out of the side being replaced by loanees if not suspended. When he is in the team he seems to not fit. Dna for the identity?

 This is not about money. It is a point about approach which has been present for seasons. 

Not missing the point just pointing out its much easy to do that when recruitment and retention are pretty much complely in your control. 

@Mr Popodopolous gives a good example in swansea at being able to do this and I'd say for many years Southampton too, but to do it as a smaller club with a smaller budget relies on recruitment being exceptional at all times and thats very hard to maintain consistently - as both those examples demonstrate.

Imfact if you look at the team @Mr Popodopolous suggests in his next post I'd suggest there is a side that would continue some of last seasons identity, but we have been unlucky with injuries and can't play like that and be as effective as we have been. Which was another part to my point - we don't have the finances to have a player of the same quality in reserve for every position and we don't have the status to have players of that quality to be  happy sitting on the bench biding their time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Think it's can be about movement, not so much physicality.

Lone striker doesn't have to be big, does have to be hard working- yes, decent ball skill, yes and indeed capable of providing goals and assists- yes again.

Alternatively, how about:

Brownhill Nagy Massengo Eliasson

                  Palmer

                  Weimann

Close to our 4-4-1-1 in 2017/18 with Reid and Paterson- granted we're a bit weaker defensively on the left than we were that season but Dasilva-Eliasson could link really well- again, asymmetrical.

Give Palmer license to get close to Weimann, a freer role- and have Brownhill tuck back in during some phases- Pereira at RB would help to solve one or two things tactically as well, though Hunt is justifiably first choice in that position!

I do like that side. I just worry Weimann isn't good enough to do that role. He seems to be at his best when he is running everywhere, but from the central position with a pacy forward like Afobe by him.

Worth a go though! But I can only guess LJ thinks Weimann as the main striker won't work. As otherwise surely he would have tried him and Palmer in behind by now. Considering he has tried Rodri, Semenyo and Watkins. There must be a reason why LJ won't try that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree with a lot of what has been said about formations and styles of play in this thread.

I do however think that it is all over simplified “ideal world” scenario chat.

Comparisons to managers like Pep and others are unrealistic in my opinion - a) we don’t have the resources and b) these managers are in a much better position to plan well in advance and protect their ideal styles/formations in the knowledge they have the squad to back it up.

Classic example being the loss of our two best ball playing CB’s in the close season. Is that the fault of the manager? 

Webster, already mentioned, left pretty late in the window didn’t he, I suspect Mr Johnson was planning for having Webster. On this occasion an immediate replacement wasn’t found (LJ’s fault?) and the next ball playing CB was already in the squad.

So I’m sorry, but surely you have to work around what you have, player wise? Are you continually going to say to Bentley, “play it short to Bakes” and then tell Baker “Go on a charge”, no because 9/10 he’ll probably **** it up. Regardless of how well prepared the players are to do this ideal world thing. One small example. 
 

I also don’t think you can underestimate quite how much a difference losing Webster, and then Afobe and Nagy has been. Those two, especially Afobe allowed us to play the way I’m sure we’d ideally want to. 
 

I guess what I’m trying to say is, I think managing a football club, especially one like ours, is a series of compromises that effect everything you do. Player wise and tactically. I think that is backed up by the fact that, if this ‘identity’ and ‘style of play’ idea that a few suggest is so simple, was so simple, why isn’t every manager doing it, and doing it with great success? Why doesn’t every manager, like Woodgate or Sanchez or Hasenhutl, just do it like Pep or Klopp?? And why can’t you sit here tonight and tell me the identity of every team in this leagues style of football?

I also think identity goes beyond what happens on the pitch and that what goes on off it, greatly effects on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BCFC Richard said:

Not missing the point just pointing out its much easy to do that when recruitment and retention are pretty much complely in your control. 

@Mr Popodopolous gives a good example in swansea at being able to do this and I'd say for many years Southampton too, but to do it as a smaller club with a smaller budget relies on recruitment being exceptional at all times and thats very hard to maintain consistently - as both those examples demonstrate.

Imfact if you look at the team @Mr Popodopolous suggests in his next post I'd suggest there is a side that would continue some of last seasons identity, but we have been unlucky with injuries and can't play like that and be as effective as we have been. Which was another part to my point - we don't have the finances to have a player of the same quality in reserve for every position and we don't have the status to have players of that quality to be  happy sitting on the bench biding their time.

 

Yes the example of Swansea was apt. It highlights a polar opposite to Bristol City. A club that for a extended period of years did not go through the arcs of change in its playing approach Bristol City do. 

Identity - Models of play govern what is out of a clubs control because they simplify the variables. Each element of play has overriding principles e.g. Offense - Principle one the team will be possession based,  sub principle width and depth, sub sub principle immediate support .. There is no I'd suggest there is a side that would continue some of last seasons identity because the principle of the team will be possession based does not change, its sub principles should also help to govern changes. This is the teams path a linear progression to its theoretical future.

I'd suggest there is a side that would continue some of last seasons identity .. Is not an identity. That is a team that at points of time has a style. Teams can morph through styles, and players x formations. That is Lee Johnsons Bristol City. 

Mr Johnson has had forty, fifty, players?  I do not know. He has had tens of millions of pounds to spend. The team has no identity. It is not a question of finances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting debate.

I now benchmark our performance against similar-sized or smaller Clubs, which don't benefit from parachute payments, who have been in the league similar time and have similar business philosophies to us.

So Sheffield Utd, Preston and Brentford for the last couple of seasons were my three to be measured against. The successes of the likes of Swansea’s, Cardiff, Palace, Leicester, Watford, Bournemouth who, historically, have been in the mix with us I’ve written off as being in the period of SL’s ‘learning experience’. 

I’ve always thought if two of those benchmarked clubs got to the ‘promised land’ before us we have major footballing/structural/business plan problems which need to be addressed. Sheffield Utd have done it. That leaves one ‘berth’ left.

As football teams, both Preston and Brentford have identity, physicality and players that know their positions and the team plan. They have 3-4 players who are very good, the rest maybe average, but know their roles to perfection. 

I do worry about us. I know we’ve had injury/suspension issues and that goes some way to explaining our lack of identity, shape and consistency. Maybe bad luck.... but you make your own luck. I liken our transfer strategy - from our much vaunted and celebrated recruitment team - to sticking a tail on a donkey. Do we acquire players that enable us to implement our team plan? 

Our most recent  acquisition  - CoD - can someone explain, why? I’d get that we re-sign in order to get a massive fee in January - but does anyone seriously think that will happen? Maybe so, in which case, fine.  But for me he just epitomises an LJ acquisition. Runs around but achieves, not a great deal (does that remind me of someone?). Is pretty lightweight in the tackle, limited heading and tackling ability, moderate pace. Crossing par and dribbling ok.. but often with limited end-product. The crux of it... he’s been with us what, 2-3 years and I still don’t know what his position is, let alone how he fits in to our team plan. Hopefully, he’s going to be a revelation for the remainder of the season - genuinely hope so. 

In my view, we sign too many small, ‘lightweight’, utility players and don’t invest sufficiently in high energy, physical, experienced midfielders and front-line forwards. Prove me wrong though  LJ, but do it before Preston and Brentford join Sheffield Utd and leave us floundering in the slow lane. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...