Systems

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

MBoreman

S10Blade
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
534
Reaction score
461
Obviously in the time Weir was here, and now, there was a lot of talk about systems and which worked best. However many people in football, and on here believe and have said recently in interviews the system is often irrelevant. Many good sides are playing 4-2-3-1 like Weir attempted, a lot of 'footballing' sides are playing 3-5-2 or 5-3-2, while many in lower divisions stick to 4-4-2 whether that be through fear of change or that it actually works best for them is an issue in which I believe the former is true.

Systems only work if the players do the basics right and have talent anyway, the system merely gives maybe an added 10% if implemented correctly. I saw someone suggest a back 3 with Matt Hill to counter the centre backs lack of pace which I liked the idea of as I a feel wing-back position may see Flynn thrive. So what is our best system? Does it even matter?
 

Obviously in the time Weir was here, and now, there was a lot of talk about systems and which worked best. However many people in football, and on here believe and have said recently in interviews the system is often irrelevant. Many good sides are playing 4-2-3-1 like Weir attempted, a lot of 'footballing' sides are playing 3-5-2 or 5-3-2, while many in lower divisions stick to 4-4-2 whether that be through fear of change or that it actually works best for them is an issue in which I believe the former is true.

Systems only work if the players do the basics right and have talent anyway, the system merely gives maybe an added 10% if implemented correctly. I saw someone suggest a back 3 with Matt Hill to counter the centre backs lack of pace which I liked the idea of as I a feel wing-back position may see Flynn thrive. So what is our best system? Does it even matter?

Not really, in my view. Get enough good footballers in your team and they'll find their own formation.
 
Weir seemed to be attempting to play 4 2 3 1. which.. unless you have Didier Drogba as centre forward will never work at this level as the players simply aren't good/fit enough
 
A formation is how you line-up at kick-off and that's about it. Once the game's started, it's more about the type and flexibility of the players than the position they're supposedly playing in.

Arsenal's 4-5-1 for example would hardly be described as defensive.
 
A formation is how you line-up at kick-off and that's about it. Once the game's started, it's more about the type and flexibility of the players than the position they're supposedly playing in.

Arsenal's 4-5-1 for example would hardly be described as defensive.

That's because it could equally be described as a 4-1-5. Fluidity is key but it requires tactical intelligence which some of our players seem to lack.
 
That's because it could equally be described as a 4-1-5. Fluidity is key but it requires tactical intelligence which some of our players seem to lack.

Yes, but it's most common to describe a team's formation based on how they line up with all men behind the ball when the opposition are in possession.

Players' attacking roles are sometimes so complex that the formation can't fully describe them.

I wonder what Morgan would do if Baxter was fully fit and he wanted to start him tonight?
 
A formation is how you line-up at kick-off and that's about it. Once the game's started, it's more about the type and flexibility of the players than the position they're supposedly playing in.

Arsenal's 4-5-1 for example would hardly be described as defensive.

It's a bit more disciplined than that. Players are given detailed instructions for many eventualities and yes, some coaches want 4-5-1 to be defensive others more attacking but there is expectation that those instructions will be followed. Some players get more freedom than others (Berbatov for example) but that will give added responsibility to others (Parker and Sidwell in his case). Formation is the framework on which coaches build. The last time a team went close to your line up then just go out and do it was the Dutch of the 70s and even then it was fluidity of position rather than no positions.
 
Not really, in my view. Get enough good footballers in your team and they'll find their own formation.

Not at professional level they won't. Players that think they know best and want to do their own thing will soon be gone. Believe me the best in the world do what they are told. If Messi decided he could do what Iniesta does but better and did it off his own back he would be gone.
 
It really is a simple game that has become over-complicated in recent times. If your team has the ball, you move into space and make yourself available, making it easy for someone to pass to you. When you don't have the ball you either try and get it back or make sure the opposition aren't in acres of space to receive it. From that point of view, it's meaningless whether you line up 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or whatever.
 
It really is a simple game that has become over-complicated in recent times. If your team has the ball, you move into space and make yourself available, making it easy for someone to pass to you. When you don't have the ball you either try and get it back or make sure the opposition aren't in acres of space to receive it. From that point of view, it's meaningless whether you line up 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or whatever.


Jonathan Wilson's latest article:
For a game we keep on being told is simple, football has proved remarkably resistant to analysis over the past 150 years. As those who scorn the sport are fond of pointing out, it is just 22 men trying to kick a ball between a couple of pairs of sticks and yet, as is acknowledged by Chris Anderson and David Sally, the authors of The Numbers Game, an investigation into the use of data in football, in terms of applying statistical methodology to understanding it, we are now only at the level doctors using leeches were in understanding medicine. Football may be a simple game but understanding it is astonishingly complex.

And that, perhaps, is the secret of the game's popularity: it can be grasped by all and yet nobody fully understands it. Every answer simply leads to another question. Take, for example, Andros Townsend's performance against Montenegro on Friday night. A number of tweeters made the point that, however you analysed the game tactically, he won the game by his willingness to run at the Montenegro defence. To which, the answer is twofold: isn't running part of tactics, and why was he able to run?

This is where we come up against the problem of fundamentalism. There are those who, whatever the situation, will deny the importance of tactics and, equally, there are those who, whatever the situation, will insist upon a tactical explanation. Both are misguided. The idea that how players are distributed on the pitch is irrelevant is ludicrous, but so too is the idea that players are no more than discs on a board. Of course their individual talents matter, and so too do their personality, their mood and their fitness – as well as the players around them and the players they are up against.

Why did Townsend succeed against Montenegro? To a large extent, of course, it was because of his natural ability: he is quick, technically adept and has a powerful shot. He played with a sense of liberation rare for England players, a willingness to take risks, which can be put down to a number of psychological factors: it was his debut and so he isn't as scarred by the neurosis of failure as many more senior players; he is confident after an impressive start to the season; the Wembley crowd, perhaps recognising the significance of the occasion, was unusually supportive; and he seems naturally ebullient.

Immediately, though, it becomes apparent there is a further regress: is that carapace of self-belief itself the result of a difficult beginning, the nine loan clubs and family tragedy? Would he have made such an impressive start to the season if it hadn't been for the sale of Gareth Bale, the indifferent form of Nacer Chadli and an injury to Aaron Lennon? After all, he didn't play against Crystal Palace and came into the Tottenham side only after dazzling away to Dinamo Tbilisi in a Europa League qualifier. What if Darko Glisic, the Dinamo left-back, had had a stormer that night, rather than having to be withdrawn at half-time? And who knows what off-field factors might have influenced Glisic's poor display?

And then there are the tactical issues. The England manager Roy Hodgson said that one of the reasons he selected Townsend was his club link-up with the right-back Kyle Walker (in which case it's fortunate Walker picked up his second caution of the campaign against Montenegro rather than in the previous game, away to Ukraine – and again, you wonder what might have happened had Glen Johnson not been injured).

Had Mirko Vucinic, who naturally pulls wide, been available, or had Stevan Jovetic been anywhere near fully fit, Walker might have had more of a defensive job to do. As it was, faced with just the ponderous Vladimir Volkov, Walker was able to overlap again and again, which caused problems for Milan Jovanovic, the Montenegro left-back.
If he followed Townsend, he risked leaving space for Walker to accelerate into. If he retained his position, though, Townsend was able to cut inside and attack his weaker foot.

Making that even more of a problem was that Branko Brnovic, the Montenegro coach, had opted to switch Elsad Zverotic and the more creative Branko Boskovic. The logic, presumably, was to deploy Zverotic to try to block in Leighton Baines on the England left, while using Boskovic almost as a deep-lying playmaker to the left of Nikola Drincic to help Montenegro retain possession and build from the back.

Boskovic, now 33, has a delicate first touch and is a gifted user of a ball, but his problem since his teenage years at Crvena Zvezda has been his lack of pace. Given he is not a natural defender – something evident in the clumsy foul he committed on Danny Welbeck a couple of minutes before scoring an own goal – he was powerless to stop Townsend's thrusts infield.

All of those factors – and perhaps many others – influenced Townsend's display. Was it his natural ability? Yes. Was it his willingness to run at defenders? Yes. Was it tactical issues? Yes. None of which is necessarily important to Townsend. It may be that he is one of the rare players who considers the bigger picture and works out his best avenues of attack in detail in advance. It may be that Hodgson told him to attack on the inside (although even if he had a sense that Boskovic rather than Zverotic would start in the holding role he can't have been sure he would). It seems more likely, though, that early in the game Townsend found himself in space and getting a run at Jovanovic on the diagonal and just kept doing it.

Anybody who watched it can dissect Townsend's performance according to their own biases. Those who believe in individual talent see a great individual. Those who focus on motivation see a player playing with great confidence. Those who prefer to look at the overall tactical structure can find reasons he had the space in which to express himself. A case can even be made, for those who prefer to explain the hurricane by finding the butterfly that flapped its wings, that England's victory over Montenegro was caused by the development in the 1960s of the electronic calculator by the Japanese company Sharp.
Atvidaberg won the Swedish league in 1972 and 1973, playing a style of football heavily influenced by the Total Football of Ajax. Atvidaberg is a town of only 6800 inhabitants, but its club was funded by Facit, a local company that made mechanical calculators for the global market.

When electronic calculators became widely available it failed to react and, amid financial problems, it cut funding to the football team. Stars such as Ralf Edstrom and Roland Sandberg were sold, and the way was cleared for Bobby Houghton at Malmö and then Hodgson at Halmstad to dominate the Swedish game with their Allen Wade-influenced football, complete with such unfamiliar concepts as an offside trap, zonal marking and long balls to the centre-forward. So was launched Hodgson's career and the beginning of the international reputation that led to him being appointed England manager.

Even Hodgson's most ardent critics must accept that picking Townsend was a decision he got manifestly right – even if there's disagreement over why he picked him or what the major factor in his match-winning performance was. Everything in football is connected and everything in football is relative – and that makes its rainbow deceptively difficult to unravel.
 
It really is a simple game that has become over-complicated in recent times. If your team has the ball, you move into space and make yourself available, making it easy for someone to pass to you. When you don't have the ball you either try and get it back or make sure the opposition aren't in acres of space to receive it. From that point of view, it's meaningless whether you line up 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or whatever.

Chess on a green board with a lot less thinking time, Jim, not tiddlywinks!
 
Interesting article that bergs. It reflects many of my own opinions on the game as well. Tactics are important but people do often focus too much on them and fail to take into account the importance of other factors such as motivation and building confidence. That's why managers like Nigel Adkins and Brendan Rodgers are brilliant because they are good at getting the technical and personal right.

The significance of chains of events is rather evident at our own club. A series of circumstances and decisions has led to where we are and I'm sure will have directly affected the fortunes of many other clubs along our path as well. Football will never be an exact science.
 
Jonathan Wilson's latest article:

Townsend is a winger and his job is to run at the defence and create chances / score goals which he did successfully. Whether he's an old fashioned number 7 on the wing in a 'traditional' 4-4-2 or part of whatever system Hodgson is playing at the moment is irrelevant. As a footballer, Townsend got the ball and did his job and nobody will convince me that he had any thoughts on what the formation was or what his instructions were when he received the ball at his feet going forward.

I think certain of our players did exactly that under Weir, thought too much about what they were doing, 'shit, I can't bomb forward, I need to pass it a few times first', particularly the forward players rather than doing the job they're there for in the first place as per Townsend above.
 
Townsend is a winger and his job is to run at the defence and create chances / score goals which he did successfully. Whether he's an old fashioned number 7 on the wing in a 'traditional' 4-4-2 or part of whatever system Hodgson is playing at the moment is irrelevant. As a footballer, Townsend got the ball and did his job and nobody will convince me that he had any thoughts on what the formation was or what his instructions were when he received the ball at his feet going forward.

I think certain of our players did exactly that under Weir, thought too much about what they were doing, 'shit, I can't bomb forward, I need to pass it a few times first', particularly the forward players rather than doing the job they're there for in the first place as per Townsend above.

If you look at the video below you'll see that Townsend gave away possession numerous times, because he tried difficult things. Often he bombed forward with few teammates with him. A possession oriented manager may have wanted to slow things down and build gradually from the back once the team had won the ball. It was certainly how we did things with Weir, and often with Wilson. Doyle, or whoever, picked up a loose ball, then immediately looked to play it backwards to a defender.

I think immediate running on the ball, like Townsend's, helps stretch the opposition and makes the team unpredictable, even if it doesn't work every time. I hope our new manager will encourage it.

 
If you look at the video below you'll see that Townsend gave away possession numerous times, because he tried difficult things. Often he bombed forward with few teammates with him. A possession oriented manager may have wanted to slow things down and build gradually from the back once the team had won the ball. It was certainly how we did things with Weir, and often with Wilson. Doyle, or whoever, picked up a loose ball, then immediately looked to play it backwards to a defender.

I think immediate running on the ball, like Townsend's, helps stretch the opposition and makes the team unpredictable, even if it doesn't work every time. I hope our new manager will encourage it.



That's exactly my point, it doesn't matter whether it's 4-4-2 or whatever, players should play the way they play, to their strengths. Wingers lose the ball, they always have done but if it comes off 1 in 4 and creates a goal then they've done their job. If you have a player like that in your team, you don't get them to cover and track back unnecessarily, you get the full back to make sure they cover and vice versa. Whether that's in a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 really shouldn't matter.
 

That's exactly my point, it doesn't matter whether it's 4-4-2 or whatever, players should play the way they play, to their strengths. Wingers lose the ball, they always have done but if it comes off 1 in 4 and creates a goal then they've done their job. If you have a player like that in your team, you don't get them to cover and track back unnecessarily, you get the full back to make sure they cover and vice versa. Whether that's in a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 really shouldn't matter.

Watch England in a few months and see if Townsend is so effective. He won't be because coaches will watch how he plays, what he does when and then come up with a formation or tactic to stop him. Good coaches find a way of second guessing this and still getting the best from him. It happens with teams as well, which is why you get second season syndrome.
 
That's exactly my point, it doesn't matter whether it's 4-4-2 or whatever, players should play the way they play, to their strengths. Wingers lose the ball, they always have done but if it comes off 1 in 4 and creates a goal then they've done their job. If you have a player like that in your team, you don't get them to cover and track back unnecessarily, you get the full back to make sure they cover and vice versa. Whether that's in a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 really shouldn't matter.

As I said above I agree that formations often can't describe how a team's set up on the attack.

I primarily wanted to point out that players, won't always 'play the way they play', to their strengths, without good tactical planning for how to make them as effective as possible. The article points out several factors that may have helped to Townsend's good performance. It really isn't as simple as telling players to go out and pass and move. I do not agree that football is a simple game.

I see a number of people say that Brandy lacks an end product. Murphy has been written off now by most. Getting more out of our wingers is a challenge for our next manager. David Weir couldn't do it, despite setting up a formation that relieved them of some of their defensive duties. Different instructions, a different style and tactical tweaks may help.
 
Watch England in a few months and see if Townsend is so effective. He won't be because coaches will watch how he plays, what he does when and then come up with a formation or tactic to stop him. Good coaches find a way of second guessing this and still getting the best from him. It happens with teams as well, which is why you get second season syndrome.

Nowt to do with the coaches, firmly believe it's down to billy big time syndrome.

Wailt till he's got 10 caps and starts strolling around like the other established wankers such as Lampard
 
Nowt to do with the coaches, firmly believe it's down to billy big time syndrome.

Wailt till he's got 10 caps and starts strolling around like the other established wankers such as Lampard

Could be an element of that. If he has anything about him he'll want to develop and improve, but if he does get charlie big spuds about things then it will be like you said.
 
Could be an element of that. If he has anything about him he'll want to develop and improve, but if he does get charlie big spuds about things then it will be like you said.

Might be my perception but the last two games seem to have had more youthful players rather than the so called established stars playing and we have benefitted from it.

Gerrard and Rooney seem to have matched the enthusiasm of the younger players rather than stroll like the old un's do?
 
Last edited:
Might be my perception but the last two games seem to have had more youthful players rather than the so called established stars playing and we have benefitted form it.

Gerrard and Rooney seem to have matched the enthusiasm of the younger players rather than stroll like the old un's do?

Lots of praise to Hodgson, who doesn't get enough credit IMO. Knows the game inside out and has got more than expected from that lot. Hopefully he carries on with it, and a few more New faces in the tournament squad.
 
Lots of praise to Hodgson, who doesn't get enough credit IMO. Knows the game inside out and has got more than expected from that lot. Hopefully he carries on with it, and a few more New faces in the tournament squad.

On another note who'd have thought Jags and Walker [also Cahill] would be first choice England stars?
 
Do you not think football would be boring if every team played the same formation and style?
There are lots of different systems tried and played by managers with contrasting ideas etc.
I think you also need something different though,like a player who is unpredictable and can win a game with a moment of magic eg Steve Kabba and Peter Ndlovu who could do nothing all game and then produce something out of the blue and turn a game.
Players with pace are ideal and are always a handful for defenders,if you have 2 good goalscorers and 2 fast wingers you will always cause problems for the opposition.
My preferred styles are 4-4-2 which is 4-2-4 when attacking,with 2 strikers(1 target man),2 pacy wingers and 2 central midfielders(1 ball winner,1 creative) or 3-5-2 with 2 attacking wing backs(Spackman).
 
It really is a simple game that has become over-complicated in recent times. If your team has the ball, you move into space and make yourself available, making it easy for someone to pass to you. When you don't have the ball you either try and get it back or make sure the opposition aren't in acres of space to receive it. From that point of view, it's meaningless whether you line up 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or whatever.
There's a few things about that I disagree with, the most simple of which is, without a pre-planned formation players will end up in the same spaces and picking up the same opposition players and the spaces for them to pass to.
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom