|
Post by Trouserdog on Aug 27, 2013 14:15:57 GMT
I've seen a few posts from people confidently exclaiming that Stoke are not playing 4-3-3 this season. I don't know whether their expectation of a 4-3-3 is three centre-forwards hanging around the middle like Gary Lineker, all waiting for crosses from non-existent wingers, but chances are that we are all talking about the same system. This is 100% the formation that we have adopted and is the same one Chelsea used to use under Mourinho:
...............GK................
RB......CB...........CB.........LB
..............DM..................
........CM...........CM...........
RW...............................LW
...............CF.................
The wingers do drop back when we're not in possession, but equally they have licence to move inside and support the centre forward. 4-5-1/4-3-3, call it what you will. I think it's more the latter as in a proper 4-5-1, the wide men are much deeper.
However, there it is.
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Aug 27, 2013 14:21:05 GMT
Don't you go trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, Trousers. That's clearly a 4321,or a 4123, or maybe a 41221......
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Aug 27, 2013 14:21:17 GMT
4-5-1 then
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Aug 27, 2013 14:23:14 GMT
It's definitely been a 4-3-3 but the lack of pacey, attack minded players and the fact we had to defend more at Anfield has meant it looked more 4-5-1.
I think it will become more evident once all our new recruits arrive.
|
|
|
Post by vahl on Aug 27, 2013 14:25:42 GMT
4-3-3, 4-5-1, 4-2-4. They're all the same and, played in a single 90 minutes quite often by most top league teams around the entire world, including us now.
The emphasis on tactical awareness in England makes us quite unique when deploying these systems in an actual match, though. Attention to detail and all that.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 27, 2013 14:25:45 GMT
4-3-3 with the ball turns into a 4-5-1 without it.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Aug 27, 2013 14:27:33 GMT
Will we ever go back to the early days of Nogger and play 2.3.5 again?
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Aug 27, 2013 14:30:40 GMT
4-3-3, 4-5-1, 4-2-4. They're all the same and, played in a single 90 minutes quite often by most top league teams around the entire world, including us now. The emphasis on tactical awareness in England makes us quite unique when deploying these systems in an actual match, though. Attention to detail and all that. Most teams now play 4-2-3-1, which is quite different from our formation. ..............GK............. RB.......CB.......CB.......LB .......CM........CM.......... RW..........AM.............LW ............CF.............. Sometimes the RW and LW are tucked in a lot more as attacking midfielders rather than wide men.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Aug 27, 2013 14:31:42 GMT
I always liked the Christmas Pudding formation, perhaps have Charlie Adam as the sixpence.
Maybe look at signing Benson & Hedges.
|
|
|
Post by stockportstokie on Aug 27, 2013 14:34:16 GMT
Some of you really need to open your eyes and not just presume we must be playing 4-3-3 now we're not playing Pulisball.
|
|
|
Post by vahl on Aug 27, 2013 14:34:30 GMT
4-3-3, 4-5-1, 4-2-4. They're all the same and, played in a single 90 minutes quite often by most top league teams around the entire world, including us now. The emphasis on tactical awareness in England makes us quite unique when deploying these systems in an actual match, though. Attention to detail and all that. Most teams now play 4-2-3-1, which is quite different from our formation. ..............GK............. RB.......CB.......CB.......LB .......CM........CM.......... RW..........AM.............LW ............CF.............. Sometimes the RW and LW are tucked in a lot more as attacking midfielders rather than wide men. 4-2-3-1 is just a variant of 4-2-4 though, really. Unless you're an elite team in your respective league, chances are your team is playing (in order) 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 provided you're in the top leagues. 4-4-2 is obviously still a hit in the lower leagues. I understand your point though.
|
|
|
Post by kingstokie on Aug 27, 2013 14:34:32 GMT
I always liked the Christmas Pudding formation, perhaps have Charlie Adam as the sixpence. Maybe look at signing Benson & Hedges. One of them's forty six!
|
|
|
Post by stockportstokie on Aug 27, 2013 14:37:12 GMT
4-3-3 with the ball turns into a 4-5-1 without it. At what point have we kept 4 at the back when we've been attacking?
|
|
|
Post by mattythestokie on Aug 27, 2013 14:40:53 GMT
The problem with signing Assaidi, I feel, is that it could unbalance the team. If we have Walters or Etherington on the other wing, we know they're going to bust their guts to get back and help out the fullback. Where as on the other wing, Assaidi doesn't strike me as someone who will do the dirty work and help out defensively.
Then again, I don't know too much about him, so I could be wrong about him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2013 14:41:22 GMT
it's 2-3-2-2-1 actually
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Aug 27, 2013 14:41:40 GMT
Some of you really need to open your eyes and not just presume we must be playing 4-3-3 now we're not playing Pulisball. I've got my eyes open and I know that once we have the correct personnel in place and we aren't defending like at Anfield it will become more obvious. We are playing three central midfielders who are interchangeable and playing two players either side of the main striker. You don't honestly think it's still 4-4-1-1 do you? Look at the full backs and how they are encouraged to run into the space created by not having out and out wide midfielders in a rigid 4 man unit. Once Jon is replaced by our Assaidi and we get a new mobile forward it will click into place but the system won't have changed in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 27, 2013 14:43:49 GMT
I've seen a few posts from people confidently exclaiming that Stoke are not playing 4-3-3 this season. I don't know whether their expectation of a 4-3-3 is three centre-forwards hanging around the middle like Gary Lineker, all waiting for crosses from non-existent wingers, but chances are that we are all talking about the same system. This is 100% the formation that we have adopted and is the same one Chelsea used to use under Mourinho: ...............GK................ RB......CB...........CB.........LB ..............DM.................. ........CM...........CM........... RW...............................LW ...............CF................. The wingers do drop back when we're not in possession, but equally they have licence to move inside and support the centre forward. 4-5-1/4-3-3, call it what you will. I think it's more the latter as in a proper 4-5-1, the wide men are much deeper. However, there it is. Why have you included a goalkeeper in your diagram, a completely pointless point to make in regard to the point you are making? Also the holding midfielder and the man leading the line, do not start more towards the right hand side of the pitch either, when playing 4-3-3. If you can't get these fundamental points correct, then how do you expect us to believe that you know what your taking about when it comes to the rest of it?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 27, 2013 14:44:21 GMT
4-3-3 with the ball turns into a 4-5-1 without it. At what point have we kept 4 at the back when we've been attacking? We haven't but Barcelona play 4-3-3 (a widely accepted fact) and nor do they, there's turns into 3-4-3. We set out as a 4-3-3 and within it that we have variations, that's how these formations work. The basic formation is a 4-3-3.
|
|
|
Post by stockportstokie on Aug 27, 2013 14:45:50 GMT
Some of you really need to open your eyes and not just presume we must be playing 4-3-3 now we're not playing Pulisball. I've got my eyes open and I know that once we have the correct personnel in place and we aren't defending like at Anfield it will become more obvious. We are playing three central midfielders who are interchangeable and playing two players either side of the main striker. You don't honestly think it's still 4-4-1-1 do you? Look at the full backs and how they are encouraged to run into the space created by not having out and out wide midfielders in a rigid 4 man unit. Once Jon is replaced by our Assaidi and we get a new mobile forward it will click into place but the system won't have changed in my opinion. I've not said it's 4-4-1-1. Without the ball it's 4-1-4-1 (watch how Wilson occupies the space between the defence & midfield) and with the ball it's 2-3-2-3. Neither of which constitutes 4-3-3.
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Aug 27, 2013 14:48:16 GMT
4-3-3 with the ball turns into a 4-5-1 without it. I understand the concept, just don't think we have any box to box midfielders, or any nippy wingers who can get forward and support the central striker. I think most talk of formations is bollox, the set up changes of course as you go forward and when you defend. Hopefully the new lad from Liverpool will enable us to attack with more pace whatever the formation.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 27, 2013 14:50:17 GMT
4-3-3 with the ball turns into a 4-5-1 without it. I understand the concept, just don't think we have any box to box midfielders, or any nippy wingers who can get forward and support the central striker. I think most talk of formations is bollox, the set up changes of course as you go forward and when you defend. Hopefully the new lad from Liverpool will enable us to attack with more pace whatever the formation. We haven't got those but it doesn't mean that it's not what he's been trying to do. We set up with a back 4, 3 central midfielders, 2 wide players and a striker.
|
|
|
Post by vahl on Aug 27, 2013 14:50:35 GMT
At what point have we kept 4 at the back when we've been attacking? We haven't but Barcelona play 4-3-3 (a widely accepted fact) and nor do they, there's turns into 3-4-3. We set out as a 4-3-3 and within it that we have variations, that's how these formations work. The basic formation is a 4-3-3. That's basically what I was trying to say in my earlier post. We play 4-3-3 but, in reality, it's up to 3 different formations (maybe more even?) in a single 90 minutes. There's a reason managers often say "we've prepared for this match for weeks" and it's because, especially in England more than any other place, we're extremely anal about details like this. Pulis wasn't a bad tactician at times, in actual fact. He just seemed to over-think his entire game plan and forgot he needed to attack teams.
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Aug 27, 2013 14:58:36 GMT
I understand the concept, just don't think we have any box to box midfielders, or any nippy wingers who can get forward and support the central striker. I think most talk of formations is bollox, the set up changes of course as you go forward and when you defend. Hopefully the new lad from Liverpool will enable us to attack with more pace whatever the formation. We haven't got those but it doesn't mean that it's not what he's been trying to do. We set up with a back 4, 3 central midfielders, 2 wide players and a striker. Yes you're right, and maybe with a few additions we'll be able to apply it better.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 27, 2013 14:59:34 GMT
4-3-3 with the ball turns into a 4-5-1 without it. I understand the concept, just don't think we have any box to box midfielders, or any nippy wingers who can get forward and support the central striker. I think most talk of formations is bollox, the set up changes of course as you go forward and when you defend. Hopefully the new lad from Liverpool will enable us to attack with more pace whatever the formation. We haven't had the nippy wingers so far this season. But, when fit, Shea has pace and supports the striker and the new Moroccan winger has tremendous pace and is a right footer who plays on the left - to support the striker, presumably. And Agudelo who arrives in January looks tailor made as a wide man in a 433. He can play the central striker role as well (and does in the MLS) but, possibly, would need to add some bulk to do it in the Prem.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 27, 2013 14:59:45 GMT
We haven't got those but it doesn't mean that it's not what he's been trying to do. We set up with a back 4, 3 central midfielders, 2 wide players and a striker. Yes you're right, and maybe with a few additions we'll be able to apply it better. That's the hope and Assaidi fits the bill, I just hope he can find some end product with us.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 27, 2013 15:00:42 GMT
I've got my eyes open and I know that once we have the correct personnel in place and we aren't defending like at Anfield it will become more obvious. We are playing three central midfielders who are interchangeable and playing two players either side of the main striker. You don't honestly think it's still 4-4-1-1 do you? Look at the full backs and how they are encouraged to run into the space created by not having out and out wide midfielders in a rigid 4 man unit. Once Jon is replaced by our Assaidi and we get a new mobile forward it will click into place but the system won't have changed in my opinion. I've not said it's 4-4-1-1. Without the ball it's 4-1-4-1 (watch how Wilson occupies the space between the defence & midfield) and with the ball it's 2-3-2-3. Neither of which constitutes 4-3-3. I think you're right and wrong Swansea. We do set up using the two formations that you've suggested depending on whether we are in possession of the ball or not but 4-3-3 is certainly a legitimate term to describe the formation that a team uses which encompasses both of the those formations (and more). 4-3-3 is such a fluid formation that it would be easy to give examples of any team that employs it not actually using it specifically at any point in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Aug 27, 2013 15:01:03 GMT
I've got my eyes open and I know that once we have the correct personnel in place and we aren't defending like at Anfield it will become more obvious. We are playing three central midfielders who are interchangeable and playing two players either side of the main striker. You don't honestly think it's still 4-4-1-1 do you? Look at the full backs and how they are encouraged to run into the space created by not having out and out wide midfielders in a rigid 4 man unit. Once Jon is replaced by our Assaidi and we get a new mobile forward it will click into place but the system won't have changed in my opinion. I've not said it's 4-4-1-1. Without the ball it's 4-1-4-1 (watch how Wilson occupies the space between the defence & midfield) and with the ball it's 2-3-2-3. Neither of which constitutes 4-3-3. Doesn't every 4-3-3 have a deep lying midfielder though? These systems get overcomplicated for the benefit of the Sky generation in my opinion. We play three narrow midfielders who will cover the wide areas when needed and who interchange. We have (or will have) two wide players either side of the main striker. The space created by the narrow three in midfield allows the full backs to push on. To me that is 4-3-3 and always will be.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Aug 27, 2013 15:17:06 GMT
The significance of formations is somewhat overrated.
It's the technical qualities and internal cohesion of the team, an accrued in-game intelligence married to specific instructions on certain phases of play - plus of course the performance of the opposition - that determine exactly which pieces of grass will be occupied and to what effect.
Players do not stand around being a formation, each game is a morass of interlocking detail and capabilities.
Formations simply follow this.
|
|
|
Post by stockportstokie on Aug 27, 2013 15:17:27 GMT
At what point have we kept 4 at the back when we've been attacking? We haven't but Barcelona play 4-3-3 (a widely accepted fact) and nor do they, there's turns into 3-4-3. We set out as a 4-3-3 and within it that we have variations, that's how these formations work. The basic formation is a 4-3-3. Call it 4-3-3 if you want bit it clearly isn't. You said it's 4-3-3 with the ball, you've just accepted it isn't. In fact during the tour to the us I saw you make a point that backs me up when responding to someone who thought we were playing 3 at the back, you explained that the 2 CB's and DM create a triangle. X X X That triangle is mirrored on the otherside the other 2 CM's. X X X Hence the first 1 in a 4-1-4-1.
Wilson has been playing that 1. Which is why in both games so far he's made more tackles, interceptions & clearances than any other player because that's his role.
Cameron & Pieters advance when we haven't got the ball, the 1 is the pivot to their play. ie When we've got the ball get beyond Wilson, when we haven't get behind him.
At no point have we played 4-3-3, especially when we've got the ball. Barcelona are universally recognised as a 4-3-3 side because they play 4-3-3. We haven't so far.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 27, 2013 15:26:08 GMT
We haven't but Barcelona play 4-3-3 (a widely accepted fact) and nor do they, there's turns into 3-4-3. We set out as a 4-3-3 and within it that we have variations, that's how these formations work. The basic formation is a 4-3-3. Call it 4-3-3 if you want bit it clearly isn't. You said it's 4-3-3 with the ball, you've just accepted it isn't. In fact during the tour to the us I saw you make a point that backs me up when responding to someone who thought we were playing 3 at the back, you explained that the 2 CB's and DM create a triangle. X X X That triangle is mirrored on the otherside the other 2 CM's. X X X Hence the first 1 in a 4-1-4-1.
Wilson has been playing that 1. Which is why in both games so far he's made more tackles, interceptions & clearances than any other player because that's his role.
Cameron & Pieters advance when we haven't got the ball, the 1 is the pivot to their play. ie When we've got the ball get beyond Wilson, when we haven't get behind him.
At no point have we played 4-3-3, especially when we've got the ball. Barcelona are universally recognised as a 4-3-3 side because they play 4-3-3. We haven't so far.
I didn't. I said 4-3-3 with the ball turns into 4-5-1 without it, I never mentioned our formation! I think we set up as a 4-3-3 and within that, it varies. And Wilson until the second half against Palace has been completely invisible, with all 3 midfielders not taking up defensive duties. That's been my main worry with the whole thing. There is no one defending in that midfield imo. That's why I don't buy Your assertions. And they do but when they attack both full backs push on and Busquets drops so it varies. The full backs become wingers and Busquets becomes an auxiliary centre back.
|
|