liquid_football
Jamie Redknapp
Mourinho's Inter had 3 pure strikers in the 2010 season lining up in most matches - Eto'o,Milito and Pandev
-
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
AVB & Spurs Tactics and Formations discussion thread
- Thread starter BAE
- Start date
Armchair Expert
Vedran Corluka
Whenever I saw Chelsea play at the Lane I seem to remember Duff, Robben and Drogba more or less glued on the half way. Every time Fat Frank got the ball he looked to launch it over the top. I'd say Mourinho's 4-3-3 was a fairly rigid formation and the fact he had three constantly on the half way line in attack tied up opposition players meaning they didn't have to drop back and defend.
Surely seven players is enough to be solid, especially the way Chelsea defended; pretty deep to allow the space between the forwards and midfield to mximise the effect of the long ball; ie isolate defenders against Robben then have Drogba there to score goals.
africanspurs
Justin Edinburgh
LOL, its not annoying at all. i agree , in a more broad spectrum and not looking into intricate detail and player instructions / positioning / player types occupying which positions....433 and 451 and 4231 and 4141 are all practically the same thing. This being defined by a single PIVOT / nexus point up front ....i.e ONe striker
how do you feel about the old school idea of a 424?
and then compare that to the 442 employed now........can you see a difference in that? or do you think that both are the same thing
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I think the instruction defines HOW you perform the formation, rather than what specific formation it is. Like I said, wide or narrow? Deep or high lines of defence?...
Im not overly familiar with the 424 if Im honest - but I would imagine it would switch very quickly to a 442 in defensive scenarios. So is it just a 442 with adventurous wingers?
africanspurs
Justin Edinburgh
well 424 existed. categorically documented but like you i've only ever read about it being used seen classic games highlights...so i dont know much about it either . what i am getting at is that back then there was a 424 and a 442 and both were considered different formations and methods of aproach to the game......even though i personally dont know the difference...there was one
its interesting what you said....that defensively it would soon revert to a 442 defensively so its probably the same as a 442 but just with adventurous wingers.......almost indicated a criteria , a base one, for how you determine what formation a team is playing
so how do you in particular determine what formation is played? is it the defensive shape or the offensive shape? or is it something else?
africanspurs
Justin Edinburgh
agree with this. though i dont think nayim is arguing that both are the same...just that you can have a front man drop deep and still have a 442...
...but in our case i think it was far removed from a 442
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I absolutely believe it existed, Im just not knowledgable enough to argue its case either way to be honest mate. I can only argue what I imagine it to be, in which case Ive nothing to talk about with confidence!
Honestly Im really not sure they are categorically different formations, rather variations on either. Perhaps one a more defensive stance, the other offensive?
How do I determine a formation?
Firstly a formation is IMO only a base position, a starting point for the team shape. It simply cannot be a rigid set of rules, rather a foundation for performance. Also, a defensive formation and offensive formation are generally completely different.
A 442 very quickly becomes a 244 when attacking, when wingers push up/in to support strikers, when full backs push up to the space the wingers leave....
I generally define a teams formation by what shape they take in neutral/early possession, and how often I see a shape through watching games.
When REALLY defending its often all men behind the ball. When REALLY attacking its often all men up the other end. When you are in early possession you are nearest that base foundation IMO - see where the striker positions, the midfielders, the defence (fullbacks particularly). If the CB or DM has the ball you will learn a lot more than if the striker does IMO.
jts1882
Dean Richards
I think how we played 4-4-2 under 'Arry was often close to a 4-2-4 when we had both Bale and Lennon playing. When Modric first switched to the centre at the end of 2009-10 it was exciting stuff. [Edit for Nayim's last post: ... but Bale and Lennon certainly helped the defence and it was still clearly a 4-4-2 in neutral shape]
Some people argue over whether the Brasilians ever actually played 4-2-4. Their formation was always part of a transition from 3-3-4 to 4-3-3, with one player not quite in a four, whether it was a defender (Bellini) still partly a midfielder or a winger (Zagallo) dropping into midfield.
On a related note, does anyone know when we first played with a back four? The double team was definitely three at the back, but there was a trend for one of the centre halves to drop into defence. I've read that Mackay only became a centre back when Clough took him to Derby but I wonder if this is true as it would mean we continue playing Mackay (and Beal) in midfield well after the Ramsey's world cup victory.
Some people argue over whether the Brasilians ever actually played 4-2-4. Their formation was always part of a transition from 3-3-4 to 4-3-3, with one player not quite in a four, whether it was a defender (Bellini) still partly a midfielder or a winger (Zagallo) dropping into midfield.
On a related note, does anyone know when we first played with a back four? The double team was definitely three at the back, but there was a trend for one of the centre halves to drop into defence. I've read that Mackay only became a centre back when Clough took him to Derby but I wonder if this is true as it would mean we continue playing Mackay (and Beal) in midfield well after the Ramsey's world cup victory.
Last edited:
africanspurs
Justin Edinburgh
@nayim..changed to a PM
uksb
Jamie Redknapp
Bale and Lennon wouldn't see much of the ball, VdV or Sig would have to drop deep leaving the striker isolated.
Far less creative side, also Parker is more the destroyer mold, vs. posession/passing game. It was noticeable at end of last season that Modric/Sandro/VDV created a great passing/posession game together.
If we lose Modric, we need someone who may not have to be the same, but comfort in posession and ability to quickly/accurately pass the ball required.
Spursalot
Jimmy McCormick
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Between the Parker/Sandro positions we would need someone able to supply Bale/Lennon/VDV(Sig) for them to be effective. Able to keep the ball moving and find players in space.
Neither of those are suited to that role. Thats the thing that Modric provides, the ability to knit the components of the side together.
metalgear
Luka Modric
i believe that we don't have to find a like for like replacement if modric goes. if vdv is the fulcrum he could instead of running with the ball, dally on it l a little before releasing it bale/lennon/ade, and then join in the attack. the reason why we don't see him do the modric thing is because modric is there to do it. plus harry had this peculiar thing for VDV tracking back to defend (which means we never did deliberately play 4-4-1-1).
liquid_football
Jamie Redknapp
VdV doesn't have the time to dally on the ball in the positions where he receives them normally,if he drops deep then there is not enough people forward and if he plays as CM then we get overrun in midfield.
jts1882
Dean Richards
I suppose if RvdV was to drop back to play the Modric role as suggested, then Sigurdsson could take the RvdV position. Or would Sigurdsson be better suited to the Modric position than RvdV? (I really didn't see enough of Sigurdsson to know what his best position is).
Last edited:
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
And what about the first half of the season?
Parker gets such a raw deal on this forum. It's his simple give and go, and sticking close to his team mates with the ball that completed our possession passing game last season.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
And what about the second half of the season (i mean where did Parker's impact on our possession game go then)?