By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
All this debate about formations does my head in. Football is a fluid game and simply about passing and movement. Watch the South American teams play and they always have 2 or 3 passing options for the ball carrier as they keep close and make an angle for the pass. Don't know about anyone else but I played as a centre midfield and had a good engine so I would be helping out in every position during a match.
Two touch passing and fluid movement. Not rocket science.
Look I'm sh1t at all this formation bllx but I recon the BEST EVER formation has to be whatever Leicester did last year. What was it 4 4 2 ? Or was it 3 5 2.? I dunno but whatever it was , every player bust a gut to cover his team mates like they did . Thats why they won the league. They aint gonna win this year , everyone knows that but last year whatever thay had , it was perfect.. Yeah I dont think it's about formations..
Well, a case for the defence, because, clearly, based on past posts, and with all due respects, o strongly disagree.
Football is a team sport. Team sports are based around a simple mantra that applied to teams outside of work. "Know your job and do it well."
If everyone did that, the team would function well and you'd maximise the capability of the team.
However, the reason you have a manager is to ensure every individual knows their roles and that they're employed in roles which best suit their ability and skill set. The coaches/manager should then work to improve them.
So, in football, your "formation" is absolutely crucial in getting the best of your team. If it doesn't suit the players' skill sets or they don't understand it well, they will not "know their roles or do their roles well".
I think the issue you're raising is more one of "pass and move".
This is unrelated to formations. Pass and move is vital in football. You're right, football is fluid. As Pommy helpfully illustrated, footballers aren't on a wooden pole stuck in a position.
In football the role you're asked to play can be fluid. Remember Adel and what Warnock asked of him? His role was to find space, get the ball and the run at teams, score and set up others. It looked fluid because he could go anywhere to receive the ball.
If everyone does this though, their team mates will not instinctively know where their fellow players are every time they get the ball. In football knowing what you'll do with the ball before you receive it is crucial. It helps your team play quicker and is harder to defend. If everyone was "fluid", your players in possession would constantly have to take longer to properly look up and look around to know where their colleagues were to pass to them. This gives the oppo time to press the man on the ball and get tight to the men off it.
Playing a formation doesn't mean being rigid. Players still have to pass and move to find space, but they're broadly doing so in certain areas of the pitch that, should, mean their colleagues know where there'll be. Equally formations don't mean players can't make runs out of their position. Of course they can. Midfielders, say, we'll be expected to make runs beyond a forward. Nothing wrong with that.
But, for when their team's next move starts, they should be back in their position.
And, of course, all the above doesn't even get on to the obvious merits of formations and players having positions/roles they understand for when you DON'T have the ball. Having "SHAPE" and being able to rely on your colleagues being the right place and doing their job properly is vital to not getting hammered. Go along to Hackney Marshes how not having positional discipline off the ball makes football for the opposition so so much easier.
The problem for us at the minute, in my view, is that weMre playing a shape that doesn't suit many on our squad. They don't clearly understand their role and the role doesn't suit them brilliantly. Equally I still think we're attacking like a bad play it by ear jazz piece. They don't instinctively know where their team mates will/should be, so we have to play slower as they stop, look up, then pass. I bang on about width because having a wide player hug the touch line between the oppo's full back and winger does two things. 1) it gives an out ball to our player when in possession on the side of the pitch. 2) it draws the full back up the pitch creating a channel for a centre forward, no. 10 or box to box midfielder to break into. I really think we'd look more natural as a side with some width.
So, yeah, formations are crucial. There are no "right" formations; it's about using one that's right for your squad and helps get the best out of them. I do not think weMre getting the best out of this set of players. We have seen far more limited groups of players do better in the second tier than us now. We've seen QPR sides that don't work any harder do better. Ergo, it's the way we're set up.
I'm no expert, but my it's my impression, that it makes the most sense to talk about formation, when defending and that going forward often will be more dynamic and based on how the oppo positions them selves. And that the hardest part is teaching the players to make the right decisions, when the formation is not the answer (?)
Don't apologise Hunter I find YOUR posts informative and should not be compared to other certain posters, you keep to the topic and provide insightful information.
Have to say I'm struggling with Ollie trying to play wing backs where nobody in the squad is 100% suitable, at the expense of playing wingers providing extra width and importantly leaving two of our best players on the bench in Shodipo and Wsozlek.
Having read and listened to Ollie recently he appears to desperately want to get Washington on the pitch and give him plenty of game time in the hope that he comes good, the 3-5-2 formation appeared to be mainly to accommodate two players upfront in the hope this would improve Washingtons goal scoring.
For pity's sake can't we just revert to playing our strongest players in each position, injuries allowing obviously, the times we have looked most dangerous have involved the above two wingers attacking their full backs.
We can't spend the next 25 games trying to improve Washington, Gladwin and Kayati just because they look good in training and may one day make the step up to the Championship,at the moment we don't have time to use league games as practice for players with potential, get the best eleven on the pitch.
My gut feeling is we need to revert to 4-2-3-1 to get some results, it's worked well in the past and gives us more defensive cover, I know Ollies come in and said he wants us to be more attacking, but I just want to get some points on the board and get away from the relegation zone, to be honest we look prime candidates at this moment in time for relegation.
Don't apologise Hunter I find YOUR posts informative and should not be compared to other certain posters, you keep to the topic and provide insightful information.
Have to say I'm struggling with Ollie trying to play wing backs where nobody in the squad is 100% suitable, at the expense of playing wingers providing extra width and importantly leaving two of our best players on the bench in Shodipo and Wsozlek.
Having read and listened to Ollie recently he appears to desperately want to get Washington on the pitch and give him plenty of game time in the hope that he comes good, the 3-5-2 formation appeared to be mainly to accommodate two players upfront in the hope this would improve Washingtons goal scoring.
For pity's sake can't we just revert to playing our strongest players in each position, injuries allowing obviously, the times we have looked most dangerous have involved the above two wingers attacking their full backs.
We can't spend the next 25 games trying to improve Washington, Gladwin and Kayati just because they look good in training and may one day make the step up to the Championship,at the moment we don't have time to use league games as practice for players with potential, get the best eleven on the pitch.
My gut feeling is we need to revert to 4-2-3-1 to get some results, it's worked well in the past and gives us more defensive cover, I know Ollies come in and said he wants us to be more attacking, but I just want to get some points on the board and get away from the relegation zone, to be honest we look prime candidates at this moment in time for relegation.
The bit I don't understand about Ollie is he had a formation that achieved everything he's spoken about, and won the game, in his first match and we haven't used it since!
The bit I don't understand about Ollie is he had a formation that achieved everything he's spoken about, and won the game, in his first match and we haven't used it since!
Agreed but it was Olies first game in charge, the atmosphere in the ground was fantastic and Norwich pressed the self destruct button after 2 minutes approx, we played virtually the whole game against 10 men and in the last fifteen minutes we looked average and let Norwich back in the game, that I seem to remember was more to do with the substitutions.
Against Norwich we had what looked like an 80% fit Robinson who if he could ever get fully fit would be our only potential wing back in the squad. The fact we don't have players who look comfortable at wing back really makes me want to get the 4-2-3-1 back where Shodipo and Wsozlek can be used in the three to give us width.
The bit I don't understand about Ollie is he had a formation that achieved everything he's spoken about, and won the game, in his first match and we haven't used it since!
I believe that formation only lasted about five minutes. Shortly after the sending off, Ned was passed a piece of paper and after he managed to find the time to read it, which took a couple of attempts, Hall was moved into midfield probably so that we could utilise our extra man more efficiently. Seems to have been the same setup ever since i.e. two cbs, two full backs (pushed on) and Hall in midfield. I think it's supposed to be a 433 (with a full back going forward) when attacking and some sort of 451 4411 or 4231 when defending?
I believe that formation only lasted about five minutes. Shortly after the sending off, Ned was passed a piece of paper and after he managed to find the time to read it, which took a couple of attempts, Hall was moved into midfield probably so that we could utilise our extra man more efficiently. Seems to have been the same setup ever since i.e. two cbs, two full backs (pushed on) and Hall in midfield. I think it's supposed to be a 433 (with a full back going forward) when attacking and some sort of 451 4411 or 4231 when defending?
An exact case in point for me post about the problems we have.
Clarity of understanding from us, let alone the players, of what shape we're meant to be playing, where everyone should be, and it all being second nature to the players, is all clearly not there. A piece of paper?! They should know everything inside out and be well drilled in it, so it's natural and fully understood.
In the NFL an offense (11 men on the pitch, about 25 available) need to be able to remember about 10 odd different formations they could set up in, and from that up to 300 odd plays they could play. They all need to know exactly what they need to do in each play. A wide receiver will need to be able to run ten yards forward, 3 yards left, turn and the ball will be on his chest.
Football is nowhere near that, obviously, but this idea that you can just send 11 blokes out there and if they're good they'll play well, is baffling and lazy. Coach them, train them to know exactly where to be, where their colleagues will be, what to do, etc. Surely, that will improve them?!
But like anything, it's easier to do that if you set them up in a way which suits their skill set and which they're more naturally familiar with.
There's two broad schools of thought in football:
1) pick your best 11 footballers and shoe horn them into a system 2) pick a system that you thinks fits your squad the best, then select the best player per position in that system.
I am fundamental believer in the latter.
Holloway is erring towards the former. IMO, there lies ruin.
I want him to be successful, get something working, etc, but I'm worried in what I've seen against Wolves, Rotherham and Derby, all of which I went to.
I think chelsea have shown this season that formation is important, haven't they won every game since switching to 3 at the back???
It takes more than just a change in formation though, players knowing their jobs, confidence in both themselves and their teammates, players in their correct positions etc etc are all just as important.
I think chelsea have shown this season that formation is important, haven't they won every game since switching to 3 at the back???
It takes more than just a change in formation though, players knowing their jobs, confidence in both themselves and their teammates, players in their correct positions etc etc are all just as important.
But they're playing 3-4-3 with a wing back and wide forward. Lots of width!
An exact case in point for me post about the problems we have.
Clarity of understanding from us, let alone the players, of what shape we're meant to be playing, where everyone should be, and it all being second nature to the players, is all clearly not there. A piece of paper?! They should know everything inside out and be well drilled in it, so it's natural and fully understood.
In the NFL an offense (11 men on the pitch, about 25 available) need to be able to remember about 10 odd different formations they could set up in, and from that up to 300 odd plays they could play. They all need to know exactly what they need to do in each play. A wide receiver will need to be able to run ten yards forward, 3 yards left, turn and the ball will be on his chest.
Football is nowhere near that, obviously, but this idea that you can just send 11 blokes out there and if they're good they'll play well, is baffling and lazy. Coach them, train them to know exactly where to be, where their colleagues will be, what to do, etc. Surely, that will improve them?!
But like anything, it's easier to do that if you set them up in a way which suits their skill set and which they're more naturally familiar with.
There's two broad schools of thought in football:
1) pick your best 11 footballers and shoe horn them into a system 2) pick a system that you thinks fits your squad the best, then select the best player per position in that system.
I am fundamental believer in the latter.
Holloway is erring towards the former. IMO, there lies ruin.
I want him to be successful, get something working, etc, but I'm worried in what I've seen against Wolves, Rotherham and Derby, all of which I went to.
Agreed it does appear Ollies is erring towards shoehorning his best players into certain positions but it's just not working, it's at the expense of leaving our best two wingers on the bench.
We first and foremost need to get some results, Ollie saying he wants to play more attacking is all fine and dandy at the start of the season BUT we now need points on the board as we are a couple of games away from the bottom three.
Still think he should change back to 4-2-3-1 and give at least one of Shodipo or Wszolek a start, they have looked our most dangerous players when attacking, both of them could play in the three either side of Cherry with Sylla up top as he's looked the most competent so far. Two players sitting in front of the back four from Luongo, Cousins and Borysiuk and I actually think that would give us a platform from where to attack. Too many games we have got cut open far too easily down the middle but if we start with some width it will change the whole shape of our game.
Don't know really just don't want relegation and am starting to worry that we are pandering to the likes of Washington and bringing Gladwin on is just pure desperation.
Went to find and copy this clip to suggest this was the sort of thing Hooparoo had in mind , but then thought it might also be seen as an example of a formation working well...
Went to find and copy this clip to suggest this was the sort of thing Hooparoo had in mind , but then thought it might also be seen as an example of a formation working well...
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
