nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
He wanted a wigan like 343
-
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
thfcsteff
George Hunt
The interesting thing is that I think whether you like this formation or not rests upon whether you think BAE/Walker should be in the side.
Spursalot
Jimmy McCormick
It worked results wise, but performance wise they should have conceded far more then they did.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Wigan? Absolutely, it was desperate stuff that came off for them.
We switch effectively to 343 when attacking, which I like, but back to 451 defending which I also like. See no reason to change it
We switch effectively to 343 when attacking, which I like, but back to 451 defending which I also like. See no reason to change it
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Indeed.
Dempsey is less of an issue - any two from three of him, Bale and Lennon will do, although it's better balance with Dempsey on one side as an inside forward.
But there's definitely Moutinho and Leandro shape holes in our squad (the missing pieces in AVB's jigsaw). I've never seen Dempsey play as a #9, and I hope we don't end up in the position where we need to find out (please Togo don't qualify for the ACN). Lose Dembele though and we've got to hope either Hudd is an awful lot fitter and sharper than he currently looks, or Carroll can man-up very quickly.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Defending 4-3-3
--------Lloris
Walker-Kaboul-Verts-BAE
-Sig---Sandro--Dembele
-Dempsey--Ade--Bale
Attacking 3-4-3
--------Lloris
Kaboul--Sandro--Verts
Walker-Sig-Dembele-BAE
-Dempsey-Ade--Bale
Dempsey and Bale maybe on the opposite sides.
Interesting...
--------Lloris
Walker-Kaboul-Verts-BAE
-Sig---Sandro--Dembele
-Dempsey--Ade--Bale
Attacking 3-4-3
--------Lloris
Kaboul--Sandro--Verts
Walker-Sig-Dembele-BAE
-Dempsey-Ade--Bale
Dempsey and Bale maybe on the opposite sides.
Interesting...
africanspurs
Justin Edinburgh
did something similar under jol and harry (before VDVs arrival)
hardly revolutionary
hardly revolutionary
par_18
Stephen Kelly
I like this theory. Makes so much sense. Simple.
Fhtagn
Radek Cerny
No, revolutionary would be to actually rotate and try to use the full depth of the squad.
africanspurs
Justin Edinburgh
i see what you mean, i think i prefer the more arcaic style of playing your strongest team when ever possible and to , you know...actually keep winning games..going on long streaks..challenging for the league..you know...stuff like that.
Old school style baby, if it aint broke..what are you fixing.
Spursalot
Jimmy McCormick
Wait, so when SAF rotates his squad he's doing it wrong?
I guess he'd appreciate the memo.
Rotating is a necessity, but it must be done right. If you have a system where everybody knows their role it shouldn't matter if you play a couple of second choices. If someone is struggling you can give them a few weeks rest.
It should even be possible to plan out the physical condition of each player for the whole season. Through constant measuring of their physical attributes you can keep the squad in top shape by resting when necessary and even putting them through individual mini preseasons to improve them and avoid burnout at the end of the season.
It should even be possible to plan out the physical condition of each player for the whole season. Through constant measuring of their physical attributes you can keep the squad in top shape by resting when necessary and even putting them through individual mini preseasons to improve them and avoid burnout at the end of the season.
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
Yup, I worry that missing out on Moutinho is going to have the same catastrophic effect on our side as losing Carrick did - he was that one player that made us tick in Jol's system and it took us nearly the whole season to figure out how to play without him. Then the next season started and we couldn't even do that any more. I prey that AVB can get us results, ingrain us with a system, but doesn't especially need someone like Moutinho to do it. I mean, he got results with Academica and they simply cannot have had all perfect players exactly suited to how he needs to play, so he must be able to do it here.
I really hope that it clicks for our players, or that AVB has simply been waiting to see who is in his squad before going all the way with his system implementation. Because we weren't pressing against Norwich. We weren't keeping possession and waiting for the right opportunities either. I hope that if he decides upon a system that uses Dembele for example, that we now pick up form. I also hope that we can maintain form if a key cog like Dembele gets injured. Maybe someone like Carroll can come in and perform a similar job. Or if Carroll is deemed not ready, I hope the squad are able to get results even if we have to play Sandro and Livermore in midfield together again.
Because a squad of our ambitions simply won't achieve our goals if we are reliant on one or two players for the whole team to function.
BrainOfLevy
Michael Carrick
Here's question simply in the interest of debate - what is the point of having a system? Is it worth it?
I say this because on the one hand, there are obvious supposed benefits. There is a style deeply ingrained in the club, which young players are trained to play towards and which should theoretically mean their path into the first team is smoother and we have less expensive back ups on big wages. It should allow us consistency, because even if we are in bad form and lacking confidence, we know what we are supposed to be doing and can always fall back on it. And it should be easier to identify transfer targets - cheaper options that we may not usually consider as 'better' than the players we have but because they have the exact requirements to play the system, we pick up a bargain.
On the other hand, is it not better to manage the way Harry does? If the kids are good enough then they are old enough, and can be thrown in when an opportunity arises. Players play to their strengths, and each one is told to do what they feel comfortable doing. This can smooth a transition for a new signing as they don't have to learn a system, and they can feel comfortable quicker. It smooths a transition for a new manager as he won't be making radical changes, and the players are happy that they play to their strengths. It also means there is a focus on signing proven quality and while this may be more costly, there can still be intelligent signings to be found and you can still identify certain qualities you may think you need. There is a focus on getting results in the here and now, and not theorising that in 5 years we will be ready to play with the big boys. This ensures that the long term future of the club takes care of itself. If it is successful, good and better players will want to join, and the success should continue.
There is also the example of someone like Arsenal. They have an ingrained system and it works for them. They can integrate young players and they can sign players cheaply. But they have shown they are just as much likely to drop points to a lack of confidence and form as a team playing with more individual freedom for their players. So what's the point of the system overall? Does it make them overachieve? The system they have doesn't allow them to compete realistically with the teams with much more money, and by hovering around 3rd and 4th for the last few years with the players they have, they are pretty much at the level they should be.
So what's the point of a system? Is it all too much hassle for not much actual benefit? Is it worth potentially writing off a season while the players get used to a radical new way of coaching and playing the game, or are the benefits of being able to smooth a path for young players into the team worth it, especially because it can save money for the club? To be a sustainable club should you have a system of play ingrained throughout or can you do it by giving players individual freedom?
What do you all think?
I say this because on the one hand, there are obvious supposed benefits. There is a style deeply ingrained in the club, which young players are trained to play towards and which should theoretically mean their path into the first team is smoother and we have less expensive back ups on big wages. It should allow us consistency, because even if we are in bad form and lacking confidence, we know what we are supposed to be doing and can always fall back on it. And it should be easier to identify transfer targets - cheaper options that we may not usually consider as 'better' than the players we have but because they have the exact requirements to play the system, we pick up a bargain.
On the other hand, is it not better to manage the way Harry does? If the kids are good enough then they are old enough, and can be thrown in when an opportunity arises. Players play to their strengths, and each one is told to do what they feel comfortable doing. This can smooth a transition for a new signing as they don't have to learn a system, and they can feel comfortable quicker. It smooths a transition for a new manager as he won't be making radical changes, and the players are happy that they play to their strengths. It also means there is a focus on signing proven quality and while this may be more costly, there can still be intelligent signings to be found and you can still identify certain qualities you may think you need. There is a focus on getting results in the here and now, and not theorising that in 5 years we will be ready to play with the big boys. This ensures that the long term future of the club takes care of itself. If it is successful, good and better players will want to join, and the success should continue.
There is also the example of someone like Arsenal. They have an ingrained system and it works for them. They can integrate young players and they can sign players cheaply. But they have shown they are just as much likely to drop points to a lack of confidence and form as a team playing with more individual freedom for their players. So what's the point of the system overall? Does it make them overachieve? The system they have doesn't allow them to compete realistically with the teams with much more money, and by hovering around 3rd and 4th for the last few years with the players they have, they are pretty much at the level they should be.
So what's the point of a system? Is it all too much hassle for not much actual benefit? Is it worth potentially writing off a season while the players get used to a radical new way of coaching and playing the game, or are the benefits of being able to smooth a path for young players into the team worth it, especially because it can save money for the club? To be a sustainable club should you have a system of play ingrained throughout or can you do it by giving players individual freedom?
What do you all think?
Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
Re: Hugo Lloris
I wanted to go three CBs at the back to get rid of our worst players this season imo (Livermore, Walker and your favourite BAE)
Play two cms Parker/Sandro and Dembele
Two wingbacks Lennon and Bale
Two inside forwards Dempsey and Sig
One Target man -Ade
Whilst I still believe this formation and team has considerable merits, I have since been persuaded to the view that it would be too radical to keep changing formations and that we should stick with 433 and fit the players to that system.
I wanted to go three CBs at the back to get rid of our worst players this season imo (Livermore, Walker and your favourite BAE)
Play two cms Parker/Sandro and Dembele
Two wingbacks Lennon and Bale
Two inside forwards Dempsey and Sig
One Target man -Ade
Whilst I still believe this formation and team has considerable merits, I have since been persuaded to the view that it would be too radical to keep changing formations and that we should stick with 433 and fit the players to that system.
Defensively it shouldn't take too long to get the basics right, but attacking patterns might require more work. One benefit of a system is that you are less dependant on certain individuals playing, as whoever fills in will perform the same role. If you look at someone like Hodgson, Liverpool aside, his system brings a defensive solidity to his teams quite quickly and then you'll see improvements in the all round play gradually. I'm expecting some improvement over the next month, but getting that first win and the confidence in the system is vital, if some of the players have doubts it makes everything so much harder.
PochettinoPochettinoPochettino
Serge Aurier
Let AVB do his thing. and fudge everyone off. the Media are cnuts and are vicious fudgers. he has no chance at all with them. I believe in him
Spursalot
Jimmy McCormick
Not gonna quote the lot because it would be messy.
I think the idea of a club based system is good, however the system must be constant. Everyone must be trained for the system and even managers must be chosen for their ability to utilise the system, small tactical changes are alright but massive changes should not occur so often.
There are two examples of this that i can think of. Barcelona and Swansea. Barca are tricky, because they could play either way. Swansea on the other hand have so far been a perfect example of team brilliance. They have their system, they pass extremely well, they buy players for the system and they have even bought managers for the system. For mid-lower level teams who can't afford the 'wonder players', and who's best players might vanish at any given moment because they catch the eye of a bigger team the system is pretty much the be all and end all. It minimises the impact of selling a player.
To go for pretty much the direct opposite, you have us. All of our play went through Modric, he was one of our best players, we relied on his individual talents to spot passes and make things happen. When he was not in our team, it was obvious we were missing something. So when he was sold, it was obvious that we had to either buy players with that inventive spark (who are notoriously expensive) or change to incorporate a system.
The comparative. We lost our vital cog, the way we play has had to be changed entirely. Swansea lost their vital cog (Allen), yet they are still playing exactly the same football and currently achieving the same kind of results.
(Time will tell on that though)
That's ignoring the fact that if you have your youth training focusing on training in the system and playing it in competitive matches, the time it comes to them stepping up into the first team they will already know exactly what to expect. I.e Barca.
I do disagree that you have to wait for players to get used to playing your system, the time it takes for them to become integrated into your system should be minimal as you should be looking to buy players that fit into the system you already have. If you have a passing system you should buy players who can pass. A pressing system buy players who are athletic and already know how to press. etc.
In short, i am very much pro-system, systems can be relied upon far more then the creative talents of individuals. Individuals can have bad days, they can be out of form, in a system you can just put somebody else in there with minimal problems.
Last edited: