• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Transfer thread

Mr Gogolak said:
That's why most coaches don't really care about formations these days: there's little difference between a 4-4-2 with two attacking players on the flanks and one of the forwards coming in deeper and a 4-2-3-1, for instance. It's all about instructions and patterns of play these days.

Even a 4-3-3 can be very similar to a 3-5-2 if you ask your holding midfielder to drop in defence to allow the full-backs more freedom to move forward (I couldn't watch the whole game but I think PSG did something like that when they played that American team in the Club World Cup the other week).
Click to expand...
Indeed. One of the best articles I saw on this was from Martin Jol way back in 2006 World Cup. To very briefly summarise, he said that formations are very fluid and really don’t matter, what is of real importance is your defensive/offensive split. I.e. how many players have primarily a defensive job and how many have primarily an attacking job. The formation then works in fluid way round that 8-3, 7-4 or 6-5 or whatever split. I remember him specifically talking about Brazil and saying they were different because both full backs (Cafu and Carlos) had a primary attacking and not defensive role, which was different to every other team in the tournament.
 
spurspinter1 said:
And the funeral industry. You try convincing Margaret, an independent funeral arranger in her late 60s in Cornwall that computers are the way forward when faxes get the job done.

I watched the sensible signings for Spurs today, it mentioned that Maddison was our only option as a 10. Can't help but feel they haven't seen Kulu play attacking midfield as the furthest forward in a 3, and Bergvall may come into his own in that position. Then Odobert can play there....I'm not saying we shouldn't sign someone there, but there's definitely options. A proper 6 would be my priority but there's a dedicated thread for that...

It also mentioned the double pivot system Frank favours. Is that just a pretentious way to say a midfield pairing?
Click to expand...

Please don't fall into that trap of defining tactical systems or positions, you will be swamped by technical analysis.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Faxes are used because the timestamp is irrefutable.
Click to expand...

Not that I distrust you, but do you have proof of that? There can’t be many in need of faxes in this day and age, so who produces them? Or are we still using an old one from the 90s? It just sounds a bit unnecessarily archaic to me. I’d love for it to be true though, obviously!
 
spurspinter1 said:
So like in a 4-4-2 where one sits and one knits the play together? So like a CM pairing / 2 in midfield?

AI says it means two 6s, but I don't know who is wrong more often between yourself and AI, tough call ha
Click to expand...
Yeah. It's just different ways of saying more or less the same.

Some people may attach a more specific meaning to terms like that, but that will differ from person to person.
Mr Gogolak said:
That's why most coaches don't really care about formations these days: there's little difference between a 4-4-2 with two attacking players on the flanks and one of the forwards coming in deeper and a 4-2-3-1, for instance. It's all about instructions and patterns of play these days.

Even a 4-3-3 can be very similar to a 3-5-2 if you ask your holding midfielder to drop in defence to allow the full-backs more freedom to move forward (I couldn't watch the whole game but I think PSG did something like that when they played that American team in the Club World Cup the other week).
Click to expand...
I agree. The formations really say very little about how a team plays, with some exceptions. (Lone striker or not, 3 or 2 centre backs).

Mostly formations describe how teams defend when organised more than how they attack. So a back 2 becoming a back 3 as you say and a lot of variations that really aren't even attempted to be described in those formation descriptions.

Some describe attacking "formations" separately, that can kind of make sense. More so for how the deep players set up (often a 3-2-X or 2-3-X).
 
Daisuk said:
Not that I distrust you, but do you have proof of that? There can’t be many in need of faxes in this day and age, so who produces them? Or are we still using an old one from the 90s? It just sounds a bit unnecessarily archaic to me. I’d love for it to be true though, obviously!
Click to expand...
Amstrad have a monopoly. Its the only thing that keeps Sugar in his Bentley
 
Daisuk said:
Not that I distrust you, but do you have proof of that? There can’t be many in need of faxes in this day and age, so who produces them? Or are we still using an old one from the 90s? It just sounds a bit unnecessarily archaic to me. I’d love for it to be true though, obviously!
Click to expand...
www.goal.com

Is a fax machine still used in football transfers? | Goal.com

Do football clubs still use fax machines for transfer? Goal gives you the answer.
www.goal.com

So mostly no. Sometimes still "fax", but the digital version, not a fax machine as in the past.
 
Legohamster said:
I think windows are just dead now full stop

Clubs are maxed out and struggling to move on players and this is stopping them buying players
Click to expand...
*Some clubs.

Interestingly the clubs that tend to win bigger comps are the ones who have done business already Chelsea, Liverpool, City And United). It's the clubs who don't really win who are still sitting on their hands. Might just be a coincidence but something I noticed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back