Formations

[Robbored]

Interesting to hear Deano say last night that in his opinion too much importance is placed on team formation. He went on to say that he likes to play with fluidity during any game and the training at Failand is designed around that. 

Now we see plenty of threads on here about 4-4-2 v 4-3-3 v 3-5-2 etc etc but in reality the template of 4-4-2 is where it starts. Move just one player and you have pretty much any formation.

I really like what he had to say especially when moving things around during a match can and often does confuse the opposition.

Deano interviews really well.

[Sheltons Army]

The formation , changed by the minute last night

I really liked many aspects of the set up, and we looked really very well disciplined , and well drilled in it which means either the coaches and players have been working hard on it or it’s a evolution from their work to date

The evolution by the second / minute from 4-3-3 to 3-4-3 (With Nagy dropping between Zak and Kalas and full backs squeezing forward) to a 4-1-4-1 for much of the second half with Nagy screening and Antoine and Wells disciplined and doing  a lot of unnoticed tracking into shape to give us the midfield four with Pato and COD likewise tucking in centrally (And both again working very hard) as a genuine midfield central two

Watch the game back if you get the chance , and watch away from the ball , how many players are constantly working and moving to get , and change our shape , truly impressive 

 

[Davefevs]

43 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Interesting to hear Deano say last night that in his opinion too much importance is placed on team formation. He went on to say that he likes to play with fluidity during any game and the training at Failand is designed around that. 

Now we see plenty of threads on here about 4-4-2 v 4-3-3 v 3-5-2 etc etc but in reality the template of 4-4-2 is where it starts. Move just one player and you have pretty much any formation.

I really like what he had to say especially when moving things around during a match can and often does confuse the opposition.

Deano interviews really well.

Hallelujah Brother Dean!!!

I finally got through to Ian on Radio Bristol and Podcast.  Weeks of subliminal messages, disguised as Murray mint wrappers, hand gel and Mark’s wife have finally worked too.

Players win matches, not formations.  Of course they have a part to play, but not the be all and end all.  I want that on my gravestone!!

 

[Robbored]

18 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

The formation , changed by the minute last night

I really liked many aspects of the set up, and we looked really very well disciplined , and well drilled in it which means either the coaches and players have been working hard on it or it’s a evolution from their work to date

The evolution by the second / minute from 4-3-3 to 3-4-3 (With Nagy dropping between Zak and Kalas and full backs squeezing forward) to a 4-1-4-1 for much of the second half with Nagy screening and Antoine and Wells disciplined and doing  a lot of unnoticed tracking into shape to give us the midfield four with Pato and COD likewise tucking in centrally (And both again working very hard) as a genuine midfield central two

Watch the game back if you get the chance , and watch away from the ball , how many players are constantly working and moving to get , and change our shape , truly impressive 

 

Absolutely - the fluidity of shape was a delight to see. 

[Robbored]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Hallelujah Brother Dean!!!

I finally got through to Ian on Radio Bristol and Podcast.  Weeks of subliminal messages, disguised as Murray mint wrappers, hand gel and Mark’s wife have finally worked too.

Players win matches, not formations.  Of course they have a part to play, but not the be all and end all.  I want that on my gravestone!!

I’ve been saying exactly that for years! but we still a lot of guff about formations. I was delighted to hear Deano   saying pretty much the same thing.

[And Its Smith]

It’s fine to discuss formation as there are fundamental differences between some of them. 4-5-1, 3-5-2 and 4-4-2 are very different from each other. It’s most of the other ones that are similar to those three.  
  

[Coxy27]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

In reality the template of 4-4-2 is where it starts. Move just one player and you have pretty much any formation. 

Too much emphasis is probably put on rigidly defining formations by numbers in each set position, agreed. 

However, the bit above is rubbish that you've posted before.

The team that is picked starts with the players at your disposal, and how best to utilise them. It's not 4-4-2 and go from there, or any formation for that matter. Teams used to play 2-3-5 in the early days, you think that evolved from 4-4-2?

You've arbitrarily picked 4-4-2 because it's been the most common formation for the past 30 years. Most top sides however don't play that now, so why would they use that as their default template and move players about.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

It’s fine to discuss formation as there are fundamental differences between some of them. 4-5-1, 3-5-2 and 4-4-2 are very different from each other. It’s most of the other ones that are similar to those three.  
  

Of course it’s fine to discuss....it’s just that a lot of people say things like “if he’d have played 442 today we’d have won” or “one up front is too defensive”.  It’s how the players play in those systems and their opponents that ultimately decide matches.  I think we saw last night that fluidity and the difference of player positions with and without the ball kinda back up the “Football Manager” line-up isn’t the level of detail that influences results.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Coxy27 said:

Too much emphasis is probably put on rigidly defining formations by numbers in each set position, agreed. 

However, the bit above is rubbish that you've posted before.

The team that is picked starts with the players at your disposal, and how best to utilise them. It's not 4-4-2 and go from there, or any formation for that matter. Teams used to play 2-3-5 in the early days, you think that evolved from 4-4-2?

You've arbitrarily picked 4-4-2 because it's been the most common formation for the past 30 years. Most top sides however don't play that now, so why would they use that as their default template and move players about.

Agree, it’s vastly different.  Even 442 is so variable.

[Prinny]

Yet it was Dean Holden so stressed continuity of system and crammed Moore and Rowe into the LCB spot.

What's more important is putting players into positions to succeed.

That is partially formation, or more accurately player positioning.

I use formations as a short hand to show where players are generally on the pitch not a rigid this is exactly where they play example.

[Robbored]

34 minutes ago, Coxy27 said:

Too much emphasis is probably put on rigidly defining formations by numbers in each set position, agreed. 

However, the bit above is rubbish that you've posted before.

The team that is picked starts with the players at your disposal, and how best to utilise them. It's not 4-4-2 and go from there, or any formation for that matter. Teams used to play 2-3-5 in the early days, you think that evolved from 4-4-2?

You've arbitrarily picked 4-4-2 because it's been the most common formation for the past 30 years. Most top sides however don't play that now, so why would they use that as their default template and move players about.

Not arbitrary at all and you’ve answered yourself by saying it’s the most common formation. 

Why is that so?     

 

 

[downendcity]

Shades of Holland’s total football back in the 70s - albeit they had slightly better players than us!

Is one of the problems that today’s footballers are too used to playing a set way in a system that they become almost unable to think for themselves ( a criticism many levelled at LJ for the way he set teams up)? Perhaps DH has encouraged players to see issues on the pitch and react accordingly.perhaps with encouragement for the touchline.

 

[Coxy27]

4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Why is that so?     

 

 

It isn't anymore. 

Also the only question I asked was do you think 2-3-5 evolved from 4-4-2... So I suggest you read posts properly before you reply. 

[The Bard]

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

Interesting to hear Deano say last night that in his opinion too much importance is placed on team formation. He went on to say that he likes to play with fluidity during any game and the training at Failand is designed around that. 

Now we see plenty of threads on here about 4-4-2 v 4-3-3 v 3-5-2 etc etc but in reality the template of 4-4-2 is where it starts. Move just one player and you have pretty much any formation.

I really like what he had to say especially when moving things around during a match can and often does confuse the opposition.

Deano interviews really well.

That is complete rubbish. It's not musical chairs.  Different formations ask completely different things of all the players which is why what looks like a simple change is in reality a change for all the team.

For example, if a side changes from 4 4 2 to 3 5 2 it sounds like taking a defender out and adding a midfielder.  If you're using the same 10 outfield players, you are probably either

1. Dropping a midfielder into the back 3 and pushing the full backs on and narrowing the wide midfielders to make a midfield 3.  THe centre halves are split up.  It also massively impacts the strikers as they will have to drift wider more often as there are no wide midfielders,  whereas with 4 4 2 they're more likely to split with one one dropping off to try to ensure the middle of the pitch isn't overrun.

2. Asking one full back to play in the back 3 whilst the other plays as a wing back.  This also means one wide midfielder becomes a wing back and the other moves inside to make a central 3. Again the strikers will have to work wide more.

Constantly changing this during games could confuse the opposition but it's more likely to confuse your own team (eg Bournemouth away).  As Holden said, players win matches and we won last night due to some excellent defensive performances.

 

[Robbored]

19 minutes ago, The Bard said:

That is complete rubbish. It's not musical chairs.  Different formations ask completely different things of all the players which is why what looks like a simple change is in reality a change for all the team.

For example, if a side changes from 4 4 2 to 3 5 2 it sounds like taking a defender out and adding a midfielder.  If you're using the same 10 outfield players, you are probably either

1. Dropping a midfielder into the back 3 and pushing the full backs on and narrowing the wide midfielders to make a midfield 3.  THe centre halves are split up.  It also massively impacts the strikers as they will have to drift wider more often as there are no wide midfielders,  whereas with 4 4 2 they're more likely to split with one one dropping off to try to ensure the middle of the pitch isn't overrun.

2. Asking one full back to play in the back 3 whilst the other plays as a wing back.  This also means one wide midfielder becomes a wing back and the other moves inside to make a central 3. Again the strikers will have to work wide more.

Constantly changing this during games could confuse the opposition but it's more likely to confuse your own team (eg Bournemouth away).  As Holden said, players win matches and we won last night due to some excellent defensive performances.

 

Deano also said that training at Failand is designed to be able rotate the shape of the team when necessary. The  players become familiar with changes of formation during any match. I don’t think those changes cost us the match at B’muff. The players would have known how to adapt accordingly.

 

[Robbored]

Just now, Robbored said:

Deano also said that training at Failand is designed to be able rotate the shape of the team when necessary. The  players become familiar with changes of formation during any match. I don’t think those changes cost us the match at B’muff. The players would have known how to adapt accordingly.

It’s an appreciation of the Dutch ‘total football’ philosophy - 40 odd years since they introduced it.

 

3 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Error!

 

 

[Kibs]

It’s not the formation that I don’t like (5-3-2).

It’s the playing with 5 defenders and having 3 centre halves not taking any responsibility. 

[robin_unreliant]

I'm not so interested in formation as I am in why our away record is so much better than at AG. 

Is it because we are better not having to be the attacking team. Is it a mental thing. With no crowds and a change of coach and formations it still seems a given that we struggle at AG. 

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

I'm not so interested in formation as I am in why our away record is so much better than at AG. 

Is it because we are better not having to be the attacking team. Is it a mental thing. With no crowds and a change of coach and formations it still seems a given that we struggle at AG. 

But feel is that the emphasis on attack between playing at home and away creates different dynamics.  At home City will typically play a team happy to take the sting out of the first 15-20 mins so City can’t open up the game.  The kind of reverse happens away.  But I don’t think it’s as simple as that....just part of a possible reason.