My Conclusions From Today's Game

[Acker79]

I don't get what everyone's beef is with 451!?
The tactics are not negative yet alot of people bang on about it bringing draws and it not being the way to play!?
WHY

Sorry but I just do not see it.

Because it's ingrained in the English psyche that 4-4-2 is the only formation to play in football. If a team loses when playing anything else, it is the formation's fault, not simply a better quality opponent, poor performing individuals, poor performing team, freak result, or horrible miscarriage of justice, it's because the team wasn't playing 4-4-2.

 

[Perkino]

Because it's ingrained in the English psyche that 4-4-2 is the only formation to play in football. If a team loses when playing anything else, it is the formation's fault, not simply a better quality opponent, poor performing individuals, poor performing team, freak result, or horrible miscarriage of justice, it's because the team wasn't playing 4-4-2.

I think it is more to do with the way the premiership is played.

Historically teams have played 4-4-2 for 20 years but when a new team is promoted to the premiership and they go to a big side they play a 4-5-1 formation hoping to keep things tight and sneak a goal on the break.

The 4-5-1 is associated with protecting the goal rather than pushing forward. It works well as a counter attacking formation but if a team is hoping for the title they tend to set up with a 4-4-2 more often and 4-5-1 is a safer way to play to not lose the game.

It could be considered an attacking formation as a 4-3-3 but that depends on the players used. We have Bennett and LuaLua who are definately wingers rather than strikers leaving just Murray up front on his own so its a 4-5-1 for us

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Because it's ingrained in the English psyche that 4-4-2 is the only formation to play in football. If a team loses when playing anything else, it is the formation's fault, not simply a better quality opponent, poor performing individuals, poor performing team, freak result, or horrible miscarriage of justice, it's because the team wasn't playing 4-4-2.

I dunno. I think most people in this country like to see attacking football (we do not really appreciate defensive football, like say Italians). If 4-5-1 is played well - it is attacking - but that part of it seems to be the first to break-down (because players are either unable to hold the ball up or are not getting up to support the forward). Whereas two up front always comes over as more attacking.

I love the Attack - Attack, Attack-Attack-Attack chant - and so I suspect do a lot of people.

Personally I do not mind 4-5-1 - but it is more difficult to play - let alone play well. And it looks like from Monday that if we have our first XI playing - we are ok. But we do not have the depth of squad. But this is all stuff that Poyet needs to look at.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I don't get what everyone's beef is with 451!?
The tactics are not negative yet alot of people bang on about it bringing draws and it not being the way to play!?
WHY

Sorry but I just do not see it.

It wasn't the formation that failed, it was that we had differen't players on the pitch.

We missed Croft's workrate in the middle and we missed Murray who has the ability to cause problems on his own up front.

A bad day at the office all round, roll on next week.

 

[Acker79]

The problem? 4-4-2. Not the fact that we play it, but the fact that it is so natural to us that reliance thereupon is never coached out of our youngsters. 4-4-2 is the England way, but it’s also the English disease. That’s not to say it is worse than any other formation currently in popular use but, for the English, rigidly sticking to what we think is our best strategy has become the enemy of flexibility. That flexibility is the very thing our opponents are becoming better and better at.

Read more: Style Over Stamina: Why its time British children had a ball at their feet

As soon as a boy shows any interest in football, he is given a shirt, put into an 11-a-side game and told that he is a goal-keeper, a full-back, a centre-half, a central midfielder, a winger or a centre forward. And he will play that position all his life, because the 4-4-2 formation always prevails. And it prevails to such a ridiculous extent that when an England manager dares to experiment with his formation, we hear stories about groups of senior players lobbying him to change his mind. A top player should be able to adapt to a change in formation.

Read more: The problem with English football The Beautiful Game

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Acker79 - which was the World Cup (Italia 90 ?) where the players lobbyed Robson not to play 4-4-2 - they wanted to play with Mark Wright as sweeper.

 

[Acker79]

Acker79 - which was the World Cup (Italia 90 ?) where the players lobbyed Robson not to play 4-4-2 - they wanted to play with Mark Wright as sweeper.

I was ten/11 that year. But doesn't it strike you that you have to go back 20 years (pre-premier league) to find an example?

I perhaps should make it clear I'm regurgitating a point that I think has merit (albeit perhaps overstated in some quarters). I know it's a point Martin Samuel brought up a couple of times, and argued well, but that was while he was with the Times and I couldn't find those articles with a quick google search (am at work, so flit on here).

 

[Perkino]

It is the way you play the formations that makes them attacking or not!
And anyway Manchester United and Chelsea seem to play 451 a lot so I don't know where your statement about the Premiership comes from.
541 can be very attacking if you want it to be.
Its tactics that make a team defensive or attacking NOT the formation.

My statement was about the Premiership over the last 20 years and agreed it is the way the formation is played. Chelsea under Mourinho played the 4-5-1 as an attacking formation and had Robben and Cole/Wright-Philips cutting inside when attacking and they scored alot of goals in support of Drogba.
Bennett and LuaLua, mostly, push wide and cross the ball for Murray to score thus making our formation a defensive 4-5-1 as we lack the goal threat and have midfielders who fill spaces in case the opposition get the ball and try to break.

This Season Man Utd have played 4-5-1 alot away from home as, like us, they have 2 wide midfielders who will run forward and try to set up their striker. However when fit, Man Utd have played Berbatov and Rooney together in a 4-4-2 formation at home against most sides outside the 'top four'. The idea being that at home they will have more possesion and need an extra body to poach a goal while the other team park the bus and play for a draw.

 

[Perkino]

Those articles are spot on.
Kids should probably be deliberately played in their weaker positions too as that will help them develop into an all round good player, not just a good player in one position but a player who can understand other tactics and positions and play them too.

This is partly why I admire players who can do this (ElAbd, Bennet and Virgo from our current squad) and they are hugely important players, possibly the best ones. They may not be the single best in one given position but their ability to play more than one gives them the understanding to be more tactically aware.

I would question that idea of playing people out of position. If you think about world class footballers there are not many who can play in more than one position.

Versatile players such as, P.Neville, Flectcher, Ivanovic, Lescott, Brown, seem to struggle to hold down regular places and are possibly inhibited by their versatility.

In the current England squad how many of these players can play more than 1 position effectively. Footballer seem to thrive mastering 1 position

 

[Rookie]

I would question that idea of playing people out of position. If you think about world class footballers there are not many who can play in more than one position.

Versatile players such as, P.Neville, Flectcher, Ivanovic, Lescott, Brown, seem to struggle to hold down regular places and are possibly inhibited by their versatility.

In the current England squad how many of these players can play more than 1 position effectively. Footballer seem to thrive mastering 1 position

Not strictly true, look at Ajax youth or Barcelona youth. Players have the strongest position but only after trying out other positions to see how good they are in that position and also to learn about other roles.

 

[Southwick_Seagull]

Anyone notice on the front of the programme yesterday it said League 2 under the title. Whoops.