Have to agree hence I also haven't voted.
[Albion] Do you think Potter tells the team a formation before kick-off?
- Thread starter Whitechapel
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Have to agree hence I also haven't voted.
Can we have a go at guessing each player's favourite Neighbours Hotty though?
HastingsSeagull
Well-known member
Yes but it’s not as simple as a string of numbers. They will learn 2 or 3 ‘formations’ (by which you mean approximate base positions on the field which shift up and down, wider and narrower as the ball moves around the pitch and between possession, transition and defensive phases) in training that also involve complex position specific and even player/role specific instructions. Not only will our RB know where he needs to be when the ball is in different areas of the pitch (and that will change if it’s Gross rather than Lamptey), but neighbouring positions (and opposite i.e. LB) will know what to take into account too. This will all look like 50 different drawings of the ‘positions’ on paper.
You’ll then get specific weekly tweaks like if playing the old wolves when traore is on the RW, if it’s Dan Burn defending him different positons do different things to usual but if it’s Cucurella then stick to our ‘base’ with no shifts or tweaks. You get, if we’re behind before the 30th minute of match change this, if behind at 60 mins change to this as standard elements too just like if we go ahead do this for 5 minutes if it’s in the last 10 of a half type plans at times at some clubs.
Many, many clubs (go back to at least Gus and Chris for us) also have generally asymmetric formations so for example we have a 4-4-2 with fairly traditional lb and lm but then on the right we have an incredibly attacking rb and a right midfielder who’s slower, a converted cm who tucks in more. This works with big man little man front two’s especially well where you want them in different positions depending what type of ball is likely to be delivered in and casual watchers argue one is left and right while another says one is playing ‘off’ the other. Infact they are doing both half the time depending where the ball is so you can’t draw them on a single teamsheet as a formation for those front two as it’s far from a static or consistent thing (it is consistent but not in that way). Neither is it fair to say it shifts from a 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1 half the time as those are just arbitrary numbers in a string and won’t look like other teams versions of the same, or even other versions of the same that those same players play.
So no he doesn’t JUST tell them a formation but does remind them of which of the handful of ‘formations’ for want of a better word that have been planned long and short term for the game they will start in and especially focus on anything out of the ordinary or last minute changes if a player got injured or swapped out late in the week.
The players don’t need to be told when we bring ‘x’ player on you shift from a back 4 or 5 to the other and start doing ‘this’ as it happens and they all know we’ve switched into this ‘plan’. When I coach my under 14s we use the term ‘scheme’ but most of the kids speak more American English than British where-ever in the world they are from although this season it seems to be Malaysia, Israel, Australia plus Saudi so I’m having to focus to stay consistent.
You’ll then get specific weekly tweaks like if playing the old wolves when traore is on the RW, if it’s Dan Burn defending him different positons do different things to usual but if it’s Cucurella then stick to our ‘base’ with no shifts or tweaks. You get, if we’re behind before the 30th minute of match change this, if behind at 60 mins change to this as standard elements too just like if we go ahead do this for 5 minutes if it’s in the last 10 of a half type plans at times at some clubs.
Many, many clubs (go back to at least Gus and Chris for us) also have generally asymmetric formations so for example we have a 4-4-2 with fairly traditional lb and lm but then on the right we have an incredibly attacking rb and a right midfielder who’s slower, a converted cm who tucks in more. This works with big man little man front two’s especially well where you want them in different positions depending what type of ball is likely to be delivered in and casual watchers argue one is left and right while another says one is playing ‘off’ the other. Infact they are doing both half the time depending where the ball is so you can’t draw them on a single teamsheet as a formation for those front two as it’s far from a static or consistent thing (it is consistent but not in that way). Neither is it fair to say it shifts from a 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1 half the time as those are just arbitrary numbers in a string and won’t look like other teams versions of the same, or even other versions of the same that those same players play.
So no he doesn’t JUST tell them a formation but does remind them of which of the handful of ‘formations’ for want of a better word that have been planned long and short term for the game they will start in and especially focus on anything out of the ordinary or last minute changes if a player got injured or swapped out late in the week.
The players don’t need to be told when we bring ‘x’ player on you shift from a back 4 or 5 to the other and start doing ‘this’ as it happens and they all know we’ve switched into this ‘plan’. When I coach my under 14s we use the term ‘scheme’ but most of the kids speak more American English than British where-ever in the world they are from although this season it seems to be Malaysia, Israel, Australia plus Saudi so I’m having to focus to stay consistent.
Last edited:
HastingsSeagull
Well-known member
If I told you my team play 5-2-3 but always have 3.5 players ‘at the back’, 3 central midfielders (whilst maintaining lots of width both the side of the pitch the ball is and the opposite) and 2 up front then I’m being purposely difficult but it’s also all true. The players however think of it as a base 5-2-3. Those who recently asked me why it’s not a 3-4-3 are the ones thinking about it the right way and who understand the answers. The few who don’t it’s part of coaching to keep it simple for and if they’re some of the best players they’re in the team and the scheme is designed ‘around’ them already and if they’re not good they probably aren’t starting. It’s the ones who ask the questions and understand who are the ones who work hard and make the system work as a whole who could be on the bench otherwise but let the best players shine. The Gross, the March, the Burn, the Veltman, the Dale Stephens etc.
Last edited: