Robbored Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Most top class teams usually base their formation on 4-4-2.Arsenal and Man Utd to name just two. With two banks of four more cover is available when you don't have the ball and it also provides width and numbers when you are attacking. 4-3-3 doesn't give you those options.With 3 across midfield there will be space down both wings when you lose the ball in the opposition half as well as leaving your 3 strikers isolated. No doubt that 4-3-3 is an attacking formation but its a gamble when you lose the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyderman Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I am more concerned about the defense- mainly right-back. When Carey left everyone said 'oh well, we're playing a back three so we won't need him anyway', but now we could be stretched there. Also, if there is someone in the hole behind the front three there will be a lack of space and the player in the hole may be crowded out by the central striker. And this formation leaves you open on the counter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I personally wouldnt like to see my team starting a game that attacking(see reasons above) but by all means practice it once or twice pre season so you players are more familiar in that formation and you are able to switch to it when needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheOne Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Well I think 4-3-3 is a good idea, their are quite a few teams in this league that won't realy threaten us, I think the home games will be mostly played 4-3-3 ( if he decides to go with this formation ) but I don't think Tinman has it in mind to play 4-3-3 away to the likes of Sheff Weds & co, this is what pre-season matches are all about, to try and mix and match and see what comes out best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heathy33 Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 4-4-3 would be fine at home, but we need another style for when we're away, with the extra striker in the back pocket if we need him. Hard to beleive a man who hates kevin keegan as much as i do is publicly endorsing his style of play! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I am more concerned about the defense- mainly right-back. When Carey left everyone said 'oh well, we're playing a back three so we won't need him anyway', but now we could be stretched there. Also, if there is someone in the hole behind the front three there will be a lack of space and the player in the hole may be crowded out by the central striker. And this formation leaves you open on the counter. ← Surely this depends how big your hole is! But seriously with a 352 the weakness defensively is the space thats left behind the wingbacks for the opposition to attack, this is largely negated by a back 4 and the 433 that was employed by some teams in the euro very quickly became a 451 in a defensive situation. (Also England won the world cup playing 433). Some observers would suggest that 442 is more attacking because of the space thats left up front to attack into! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted July 21, 2004 Author Share Posted July 21, 2004 (Also England won the world cup playing 433). Some observers would suggest that 442 is more attacking because of the space thats left up front to attack into! ← In 1966 the system was innovative and teams didn't know how to combat it.Its very different now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 In 1966 the system was innovative and teams didn't know how to combat it.Its very different now. ← It certainly is different now, back then it was overlapping fullbacks, jumpers for goalposts, russian linesmen, Ron................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AngelofAvonmouth Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I think 4-3-3 will let us down in the long-run. 4-4-2 maybe boring but it's tried and tested and they don't use jumpers for goalposts anymore..... (sound of knitting needles clicking......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bow_Legged_Chicken Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Most top class teams usually base their formation on 4-4-2.Arsenal and Man Utd to name just two. With two banks of four more cover is available when you don't have the ball and it also provides width and numbers when you are attacking. 4-3-3 doesn't give you those options.With 3 across midfield there will be space down both wings when you lose the ball in the opposition half as well as leaving your 3 strikers isolated.n theory we could run the No doubt that 4-3-3 is an attacking formation but its a gamble when you lose the ball. ← Yes but the thing is we are not man U or Arsenal, no where near it. We are a Div 2 club playing Div 2 teams. Its not really a full on 4-3-3 as we seem to play a player just behind the front two more as an attacking midfielder. With Doc in the middle i think it would work well with us. Its not the best formation generally there are a few flaws but those flaws only really come into play when your playing top class teams from the premiership. I just think its saying weere going for it this time no messing about not only will it inspire us as supporters and the team, but it will scare the poo out of our opposition, expecially as we are already favourites as it is!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Surely the crucial issue is that we play to our strengths. There has been loads of comment over the last week or so that we have the strongest squad in the division ( and may have last season as well) We didn't get promotion last time mainly because Danny Wilson stuck fairly rigidly to a defensive approach, but one that didn't necessarily get the best out of the team. At this stage we have to trust Tinnion's judgement. He must know the players strengths pretty well by now and if he feels that 4-3-3 suits our style best, then let's go with it. Let the opposition worry about us, not the other way around! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hairyshamrock Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Not a problem, the best way is the way Sven played it in one of his much criticised friendlies. You almost play a 4-5-1. If we play Heff, Gillespie or Miller (or Armstrong, should he stay) in the middle, then the 2 wide forwards act as wingers when we defend. Murray, Roberts, Lita or Goodfellow (unless he's got homework) should fit the bill nicely as those stlye players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zookeeper Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 4-4-3 would be fine at home, but we need another style for when we're away, with the extra striker in the back pocket if we need him. ← I like this formation the best! Surely the crucial issue is that we play to our strengths. ← Last season our strength was defensively. We have now brought in strikers and not relaced the defensive players we have lost. Do you think we have succesfully changed our whole focus in the pruchases we have made? Ah, but the players need to have brains to understand it. If Englands players struggle with the concept.... ← Personally I think 433 is the easiest formation to play. A lot of coaches advocate it as a great formation for kids. Though I think what Tinman is wanting to play is an adapted version. The flat back four know their roles. 2 central midfielders, 1 free person. 2 wide forwards who track back and 1 main striker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tinman's Cider Army Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I think 4 3 3 will work if he plays 3 midfielders instead of an attacking midfielder like Doherty, Tinnion/wilkshire (when back from olympics) and Orr. This will give a lot more cover against good division 1 teams. But we do need to attck more at home and 3 strikers would cause problems for any team in this division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Humble Realist Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 3 out of the four semi-finalists at Euro 2004 played 433 so it cant be THAT bad. Did they. Greece only played one upfront Charisteas i think. Czechs played Milan Baros and jan Koller- 2 Portugal only played 1- i think it was Pauleta Holland only played one upfront in Ruud Van Nistlerooy. 4-3-3 will be too attacking over a whole season and we havnt got a good enough right back(as yet) to play this formation. I am intriegued but quite pleased to see Tinnion play some of the younger players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twin City with En Avant Guingamp Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 right back, are we all forgetting amankwaah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dez_gimred Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 one game springs to mind.. it was a cold night, as i turn on the radio my heart is warmed as port vale lead swindle 3-0.. however, a quick change to 4-3-3 and its 3-3!!! if it works for them, away from home.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zider_head Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 3 out of the four semi-finalists at Euro 2004 played 433 so it cant be THAT bad. Excuse my ignorance but the 4 semi finalists were Greece Portugal Czechs Holland correct ? did greece really play 4-3-3 ? i dont think they did Holland played with one up front in the shapr on Rudd Portugal never had 3 forwards really ? you cant class ronaldo as a forward Who were the 3 czech forwards ? baros and tall bloke and whom ? 4-3-3 is ok to chase a game or against lesser opostion at home bu i much prefer a 3-5-2 with are players and the style of football i hope we will be playing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Ah, but the players need to have brains to understand it. ← With the academies preaching the gospel of versatility and flexibility to their scholars (thanks to a school of thought that can be traced back to the Dutch "total football" of the 70s) it would be foolish not to take advantage of these qualities once the lads come through to the senior teams. My heart sinks every time someone says we must play this or that formation like it was some kind of sacred item in the club's constitution. A formation is but a tactic and as such can be changed even during the course of a match - I've never understood what advantage there is in 1) being so predictable as to let the opposition know exactly how you'll be playing in advance of every match, and 2) wanting players to be so thick and/or otherwise limited that they can only play in one formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zookeeper Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 With the academies preaching the gospel of versatility and flexibility to their scholars (thanks to a school of thought that can be traced back to the Dutch "total football" of the 70s) it would be foolish not to take advantage of these qualities once the lads come through to the senior teams. My heart sinks every time someone says we must play this or that formation like it was some kind of sacred item in the club's constitution. A formation is but a tactic and as such can be changed even during the course of a match - I've never understood what advantage there is in 1) being so predictable as to let the opposition know exactly how you'll be playing in advance of every match, and 2) wanting players to be so thick and/or otherwise limited that they can only play in one formation. ← I'm glad someone said this. I thought that Ajax used to play with this system but was not certain. I agree with what you are saying about the academy. This point really sticks out. We have had lots of players come through whose role in the team was uncertain. Look at Marvin, we never knew his best role and I think a lot of that is down to the manager. If you want to play a very rigid game then you require players to fill a very definate position. I think Tinman will want more interchanging of roles, with everyone being comfortable on the ball. Hopefully this will allow players to show their talents and not be bogged down with position. I still remember the Joe Jordan days when everyone had such a rigid role in the game and had to follow it to the word. Do you remember Tinman and Junior being told to stay off the pitch to attack the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 No one seems to have mentioned the 'WM' system yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyderman Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 (Also England won the world cup playing 433). Some observers would suggest that 442 is more attacking because of the space thats left up front to attack into! ← England won the World cup playing 4-4-2, hence 'the wingless wonders'. That is why english teams have played 4-4-2 for so long, whilst continental teams tend to play 3-5-2. ------------------Banks--------------------- Cohen------Moore--------Charlton------Wilson Stiles-----Charlton------Peters--------Ball ------------Hurst---------Hunt------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 England won the World cup playing 4-4-2, hence 'the wingless wonders'. That is why english teams have played 4-4-2 for so long, whilst continental teams tend to play 3-5-2. ------------------Banks--------------------- Cohen------Moore--------Charlton------Wilson Stiles-----Charlton------Peters--------Ball ------------Hurst---------Hunt------------- ← Sorry, have to disagree, if they had played 442, in your team Stiles and Ball would have been the 'wingers'. The width was provided by the overlapping fullbacks, hence wingless wonders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.