|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Aug 28, 2013 15:13:32 GMT
I was enjoying the new style until this lot started. Shall we go back to 9- 1 and parking the bus? Is anyone actually complaining at whatever formation we feel is being deployed? No. Are we allowed to debate which formation we think is being deployed? Yes Stop trying to find a negative when there isn't one. Sorry for laughing at all the twaddle. Not sure how you find time to enjoy the game. Lighten up  NB we have played two games, both enjoyable in different ways but hardly material for a thesis. |
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Aug 28, 2013 15:16:39 GMT
Is anyone actually complaining at whatever formation we feel is being deployed? No. Are we allowed to debate which formation we think is being deployed? Yes Stop trying to find a negative when there isn't one. Sorry for laughing at all the twaddle. Not sure how you find time to enjoy the game. Lighten up Ok I am lost, a few people have held a discussion on our new, exciting, rarely seen down the Brit, formation and you knock us, however we should lighten up  |
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Aug 28, 2013 15:23:36 GMT
Sorry for laughing at all the twaddle. Not sure how you find time to enjoy the game. Lighten up Ok I am lost, a few people have held a discussion on our new, exciting, rarely seen down the Brit, formation and you knock us, however we should lighten up No intention of knocking you down in the slightest mate, but read again what you wrote on a thread giving an explanation for "dummies" and tell me it isn't humorous I quote No Swansea, what he is saying is it looks less obvious when you have immobile players in the wider roles which are meant for fast, mobile players. This makes the formation look more like a 4-5-1. However the majority of balls played by the central midfielders in the last 2 games were diagonal. Last season there were almost level. Basically, the 4-3-3 is used but we don't have the personnel to deploy it correctly, YET in short we are using a 4-3-3 but not yet, which is where I got completely lost and started laughing. Not intended to rain on your parade or be offensive. |
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on Aug 28, 2013 15:28:27 GMT
Ok I am lost, a few people have held a discussion on our new, exciting, rarely seen down the Brit, formation and you knock us, however we should lighten up No intention of knocking you down in the slightest mate, but read again what you wrote on a thread giving an explanation for "dummies" and tell me it isn't humorous I quote No Swansea, what he is saying is it looks less obvious when you have immobile players in the wider roles which are meant for fast, mobile players. This makes the formation look more like a 4-5-1. However the majority of balls played by the central midfielders in the last 2 games were diagonal. Last season there were almost level. Basically, the 4-3-3 is used but we don't have the personnel to deploy it correctly, YET in short we are using a 4-3-3 but not yet, which is where I got completely lost and started laughing. Not intended to rain on your parade or be offensive. I think that is a misinterpretation issue on your part to be fair mate. The fact we don't yet have the personnel to make the 4-3-3 be an effective formation, doesn't mean it isn't being used. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 15:31:29 GMT
He was either drunk or, more likely, being disingenuous when he said that. Do you think Clough just sent his team out with a licence to play how they fancied? Of course he didn't. He did however leave us that quote, which folk who don't know their arse from their elbow can handily use whenever they want to lazily discredit the opinions of others. Maybe you are right( except of the arse and the elbow thing  ), but Redknapp is a manager from recent times that have said something similar: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/sunsport_columnists/3092130/Tactics-dont-win-matches-says-Harry-Redknapp.htmlBTW, Clough also left us with this quote about how to defend: " What I tell my players about defending a lead is this: If YOU have the ball and you are in their half...They can not score!" Simple, but brilliant.  Redknapp says one thing and will happily contradict that the next week if he thinks he can gain an advantage/avoid blame for it. He knows a lot more than he lets on. His "the chairman deals with that" stuff is cut from the same cloth. |
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 28, 2013 15:35:19 GMT
Redknapp says one thing and will happily contradict that the next week if he thinks he can gain an advantage/avoid blame for it. He knows a lot more than he lets on. His "the chairman deals with that" stuff is cut from the same cloth. Oh come on rob....you're crediting him with far more nouse than he actually has surely? The man can't even read or send a text.   |
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Aug 28, 2013 15:35:43 GMT
No intention of knocking you down in the slightest mate, but read again what you wrote on a thread giving an explanation for "dummies" and tell me it isn't humorous I quote No Swansea, what he is saying is it looks less obvious when you have immobile players in the wider roles which are meant for fast, mobile players. This makes the formation look more like a 4-5-1. However the majority of balls played by the central midfielders in the last 2 games were diagonal. Last season there were almost level. Basically, the 4-3-3 is used but we don't have the personnel to deploy it correctly, YET in short we are using a 4-3-3 but not yet, which is where I got completely lost and started laughing. Not intended to rain on your parade or be offensive. I think that is a misinterpretation issue on your part to be fair mate. The fact we don't yet have the personnel to make the 4-3-3 be an effective formation, doesn't mean it isn't being used. From my perspective with me as Baldrick General Melchett: [to Baldrick] Ah, tally-ho, yippety-dip and zing zang spillip! Looking forward to bullying off for the final chukka? Captain Blackadder: Permission to speak. [Baldrick is silent] Captain Blackadder: Answer the General, Baldrick! Private Baldrick: [whispers] I can't answer him, sir, I don't know what he's talking about. I'm laughing because I am lost  |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 28, 2013 15:44:14 GMT
Jesus Christ this discussion is getting beyond parody now. A formation using numbers is intended to give a *rough* idea of what area of the pitch the players operate in during play. That's it. It does not change to account for every little movement of each individual on the bloody pitch. The fact that our full backs push forward when we have the ball does not mean we're suddenly playing two at the back! By that understanding every team would suddenly switch to a 2-1-7 'formation' every time they got a corner. We have four bloody defenders. Two of them go forward sometimes. We have three central midfielders. We have two wide men. They attack the penalty area but must also track back. We have one central striker. In other words, it's a 4-3-3.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 15:47:18 GMT
Jesus Christ this discussion is getting beyond parody now. A formation using numbers is intended to give a *rough* idea of what area of the pitch the players operate in during play. That's it. It does not change to account for every little movement of each individual on the bloody pitch. The fact that our full backs push forward when we have the ball does not mean we're suddenly playing two at the back! By that understanding every team would suddenly switch to a 2-1-7 'formation' every time they got a corner. We have four bloody defenders. Two of them go forward sometimes. We have three central midfielders. We have two wide men. They attack the penalty area but must also track back. We have one central striker. In other words, it's a 4-3-3. Spot on. The idea that we're supposed to have a formation for every single passage of play is the worst kind of football hipsterism. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Aug 28, 2013 15:53:31 GMT
It makes me laugh that just because we don't play 2 rigid banks of 4 people think we've gone to a 433.
Neither of our 2 games so far have been 433.
We play with 5 in midfield it's just that they are not as caged as they were. Hughes always plays it this way.
The 5 in midfield consist of a deep holding midfielder who covers for when the fullbacks get forward (turns into 3 at the back ). We have 2 wide midfielders who push up when we have possession and we have 2 central midfielders who interchange when we get forward and who also support the attack.
Crouch has been way too isolated to say we've been playing with inside forwards. How you can say we play 433 but don't have the players to do it just completely shoots down the argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 28, 2013 15:57:06 GMT
It makes me laugh that just because we don't play 2 rigid banks of 4 people think we've gone to a 433. Neither of our 2 games so far have been 433. We play with 5 in midfield it's just that they are not as caged as they were. Hughes always plays it this way. The 5 in midfield consist of a deep holding midfielder who covers for when the fullbacks get forward (turns into 3 at the back ). We have 2 wide midfielders who push up when we have possession and we have 2 central midfielders who interchange when we get forward and who also support the attack. Crouch has been way too isolated to say we've been playing with inside forwards. How you can say we play 433 but don't have the players to do it just completely shoots down the argument. The fact that we can't even agree on what formation we are playing (and we've all been watching it) says it all. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 15:57:38 GMT
We're trying to play 4-3-3. We don't have two banks of four, Ethers and Walters are further forward than they were under TP. We don't have the kind of wide players yet who can naturally and instinctively cut inside and focus on posing a goal threat. Ethers for example kept trying to cross into a heavily marked Crouch from the byline. Pound to a penny says Assaidi won't play like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 15:58:54 GMT
It makes me laugh that just because we don't play 2 rigid banks of 4 people think we've gone to a 433. Neither of our 2 games so far have been 433. We play with 5 in midfield it's just that they are not as caged as they were. Hughes always plays it this way. The 5 in midfield consist of a deep holding midfielder who covers for when the fullbacks get forward (turns into 3 at the back ). We have 2 wide midfielders who push up when we have possession and we have 2 central midfielders who interchange when we get forward and who also support the attack. Crouch has been way too isolated to say we've been playing with inside forwards. How you can say we play 433 but don't have the players to do it just completely shoots down the argument. The fact that we can't even agree on what formation we are playing (and we've all been watching it) says it all. There were people this time last year claiming Pulis was playing a mythical new formation when it was the usual 4-4-1-1. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 28, 2013 16:01:44 GMT
The fact that we can't even agree on what formation we are playing (and we've all been watching it) says it all. There were people this time last year claiming Pulis was playing a mythical new formation when it was the usual 4-4-1-1. ;D Yes, an intriguing psychological phenomenon known as 'The Adam Effect'. It hit us bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Aug 28, 2013 16:05:54 GMT
For the majority part of the Liverpool game for example Nzonzi played higher up the pitch than Ethers and Walters so how on earth is that set up as 433.
|
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 28, 2013 16:05:57 GMT
The fact that we can't even agree on what formation we are playing (and we've all been watching it) says it all. There were people this time last year claiming Pulis was playing a mythical new formation when it was the usual 4-4-1-1. ;D Like I said, we can't even agree on what we are watching. Of course we're playing 4 - 3 - 3 but it sometimes doesn't look that way. Just like when Adam was playing much closer to Crouch than Walters did, but of course, some disagree. POINTLESS DEBATE. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 16:10:41 GMT
Jesus Christ this discussion is getting beyond parody now. A formation using numbers is intended to give a *rough* idea of what area of the pitch the players operate in during play. That's it. It does not change to account for every little movement of each individual on the bloody pitch. The fact that our full backs push forward when we have the ball does not mean we're suddenly playing two at the back! By that understanding every team would suddenly switch to a 2-1-7 'formation' every time they got a corner. We have four bloody defenders. Two of them go forward sometimes. We have three central midfielders. We have two wide men. They attack the penalty area but must also track back. We have one central striker. In other words, it's a 4-3-3. Spot on. The idea that we're supposed to have a formation for every single passage of play is the worst kind of football hipsterism. Of course we are supposed to have a general plan for every passage of play! Otherwise what's the point in having tactics and a manager? Anyone remember the school playground? That's what no plan of action is like...kick and rush. But i'm also sort of in agreement with Rob and the Log though, in that when I watch a game of football I can only ever tell if there's 3 or 4 at the back and either 1 or 2 up front. If I try to figure out what's in the middle I tend to go cross eyed and lose the plot a bit, early Bovril. MOTD displayed a 4-5-1 line-up for Stoke. What do they know? If i'm listening to the Radio Stoke commentary at the game pundits always get it wrong too. Talking about formations is the short-cut to an early grave. Leave it to the managers and coaches. Over and out. |
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Aug 28, 2013 16:11:38 GMT
For the majority part of the Liverpool game for example Nzonzi played higher up the pitch than Ethers and Walters so how on earth is that set up as 433. What about Palace? Were the two wide men not positioned exactly how I've portrayed in the opening post? |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 28, 2013 16:15:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 16:16:59 GMT
For the majority part of the Liverpool game for example Nzonzi played higher up the pitch than Ethers and Walters so how on earth is that set up as 433. Because he's still in midfield isn't he? He's the one given licence to push on in attack but broadly speaking he's part of a three man midfield. You don't have a formation for every passage of play or you'd have about 15 per game. |
|
|
|
Post by The Stubborn Optimist on Aug 28, 2013 16:17:05 GMT
Where, in any of his quote, does he say that tactics don't play a part? He's simply commenting on how people over-stress tactics and systems when, the truth is, poor player quality (or performance) is often the deciding factor. Clough was a tactician for sure but I think his comment is correct. I also think he's correct that the rest of us debate tactics to death like mega-brained football know-it-alls to the point of comedy. Why are people know-it-alls if they make observations on tactics? To answer your question- the first line somewhat gives it away. In answer to your question, it's possibly because the people who enjoy discussing tactics think that they are know-alls and the rest of us are thick. Hence the title of this thread, Tactics for Dummies.. 4-3-3 Explained. In other words 4-3-3 is too difficult for the rest of us dummies to understand so the know alls have very helpfully taken time out to explain it to us. Thank you so much. (There's one or two contenders for Private Eye's Psued's Corner on this thread (assuming Private Eye still has such a corner?)). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 16:18:42 GMT
Spot on. The idea that we're supposed to have a formation for every single passage of play is the worst kind of football hipsterism. Of course we are supposed to have a general plan for every passage of play! Otherwise what's the point in having tactics and a manager? Anyone remember the school playground? That's what no plan of action is like...kick and rush. But i'm also sort of in agreement with Rob and the Log though, in that when I watch a game of football I can only ever tell if there's 3 or 4 at the back and either 1 or 2 up front. If I try to figure out what's in the middle I tend to go cross eyed and lose the plot a bit, early Bovril. MOTD displayed a 4-5-1 line-up for Stoke. What do they know? If i'm listening to the Radio Stoke commentary at the game pundits always get it wrong too. Talking about formations is the short-cut to an early grave. Leave it to the managers and coaches. Over and out. That wasn't what I said **************. The team will have a plan. It isn't described and transcribed by the media and fans though because that would take forever and get boring and confusing dry quickly. So the standard ones are a sort of shorthand. |
|
|
|
Post by stockportstokie on Aug 28, 2013 16:19:53 GMT
It makes me laugh that just because we don't play 2 rigid banks of 4 people think we've gone to a 433. Neither of our 2 games so far have been 433. We play with 5 in midfield it's just that they are not as caged as they were. Hughes always plays it this way. The 5 in midfield consist of a deep holding midfielder who covers for when the fullbacks get forward (turns into 3 at the back ). We have 2 wide midfielders who push up when we have possession and we have 2 central midfielders who interchange when we get forward and who also support the attack. Crouch has been way too isolated to say we've been playing with inside forwards. How you can say we play 433 but don't have the players to do it just completely shoots down the argument. Thank fuck for that, how others can't see this is absolutely effin bonkers. We've not played 4-3-3 ffs. It's not a matter of opinion, it's not a case of trying to be a tactical hipster or a wannabe Neville, we have simply not played 4-3-3 whatsofuckingever. I'm seriously beginning to think our fan base is made up of remedials. Indeed StokieJoe, I don't know what to do but laugh either. in short we are using a 4-3-3 but not yet, which is where I got completely lost and started laughing. Not intended to rain on your parade or be offensive. |
|
|
|
Post by vahl on Aug 28, 2013 16:20:55 GMT
Why are people know-it-alls if they make observations on tactics? To answer your question- the first line somewhat gives it away. In answer to your question, it's possibly because the people who enjoy discussing tactics think that they are know-alls and the rest of us are thick. Hence the title of this thread, Tactics for Dummies.. 4-3-3 Explained. In other words 4-3-3 is too difficult for the rest of us dummies to understand so the know alls have very helpfully taken time out to explain it to us. Thank you so much. (There's one or two contenders for Private Eye's Psued's Corner on this thread (assuming Private Eye still has such a corner?)). I don't know if that's a wind-up or you're just extremely insecure? Nobody on this thread has bashed anyone for a lack of tactical nous. From what I can read, we've almost all banged on the same drum. |
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Aug 28, 2013 16:22:37 GMT
Why are people know-it-alls if they make observations on tactics? To answer your question- the first line somewhat gives it away. In answer to your question, it's possibly because the people who enjoy discussing tactics think that they are know-alls and the rest of us are thick. Hence the title of this thread, Tactics for Dummies.. 4-3-3 Explained. In other words 4-3-3 is too difficult for the rest of us dummies to understand so the know alls have very helpfully taken time out to explain it to us. Thank you so much. (There's one or two contenders for Private Eye's Psued's Corner on this thread (assuming Private Eye still has such a corner?)). You are not allowed to laugh this is serious, pay attention! |
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Aug 28, 2013 16:26:25 GMT
Why are people know-it-alls if they make observations on tactics? To answer your question- the first line somewhat gives it away. In answer to your question, it's possibly because the people who enjoy discussing tactics think that they are know-alls and the rest of us are thick. Hence the title of this thread, Tactics for Dummies.. 4-3-3 Explained. In other words 4-3-3 is too difficult for the rest of us dummies to understand so the know alls have very helpfully taken time out to explain it to us. Thank you so much. (There's one or two contenders for Private Eye's Psued's Corner on this thread (assuming Private Eye still has such a corner?)). It was obviously meant as a harmless and tongue-in-cheek reference to the 'xxxxxx...for dummies' books. |
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 28, 2013 16:29:26 GMT
It makes me laugh that just because we don't play 2 rigid banks of 4 people think we've gone to a 433. Neither of our 2 games so far have been 433. We play with 5 in midfield it's just that they are not as caged as they were. Hughes always plays it this way. The 5 in midfield consist of a deep holding midfielder who covers for when the fullbacks get forward (turns into 3 at the back ). We have 2 wide midfielders who push up when we have possession and we have 2 central midfielders who interchange when we get forward and who also support the attack. Crouch has been way too isolated to say we've been playing with inside forwards. How you can say we play 433 but don't have the players to do it just completely shoots down the argument. Thank fuck for that, how others can't see this is absolutely effin bonkers. We've not played 4-3-3 ffs. It's not a matter of opinion, it's not a case of trying to be a tactical hipster or a wannabe Neville, we have simply not played 4-3-3 whatsofuckingever. I'm seriously beginning to think our fan base is made up of remedials. Indeed StokieJoe, I don't know what to do but laugh either. in short we are using a 4-3-3 but not yet, which is where I got completely lost and started laughing. Not intended to rain on your parade or be offensive.So we've all watched the two games so far ... Some think we're playing 4 - 3 - 3 and other are adamant that we're not. Some saw Adam (early last season) running around doing exactly what Walters had done previously and some thought he was much further forward (in fact much further than he likes) in a slight change of tactics. We couldn't all agree then and we don't all agree now. I have no problem whatsoever with people seeing things differently to me but I do have a big problem with them FOREVER assuming they are right (especially if they then make sarcastic comments just to emphasise how right they were/are). People are just stating their OPINION on how we are playing and we don't all see things the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Aug 28, 2013 16:30:30 GMT
It makes me laugh that just because we don't play 2 rigid banks of 4 people think we've gone to a 433. Neither of our 2 games so far have been 433. We play with 5 in midfield it's just that they are not as caged as they were. Hughes always plays it this way. The 5 in midfield consist of a deep holding midfielder who covers for when the fullbacks get forward (turns into 3 at the back ). We have 2 wide midfielders who push up when we have possession and we have 2 central midfielders who interchange when we get forward and who also support the attack. Crouch has been way too isolated to say we've been playing with inside forwards. How you can say we play 433 but don't have the players to do it just completely shoots down the argument. Thank fuck for that, how others can't see this is absolutely effin bonkers. We've not played 4-3-3 ffs. It's not a matter of opinion, it's not a case of trying to be a tactical hipster or a wannabe Neville, we have simply not played 4-3-3 whatsofuckingever. I'm seriously beginning to think our fan base is made up of remedials. Indeed StokieJoe, I don't know what to do but laugh either. in short we are using a 4-3-3 but not yet, which is where I got completely lost and started laughing. Not intended to rain on your parade or be offensive.Spot on mate. I thought you needed some moral support. Indeed we're playing 433 but only when we sign the players to do it, cuckoooo ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Aug 28, 2013 16:37:19 GMT
Thank fuck for that, how others can't see this is absolutely effin bonkers. We've not played 4-3-3 ffs. It's not a matter of opinion, it's not a case of trying to be a tactical hipster or a wannabe Neville, we have simply not played 4-3-3 whatsofuckingever. I'm seriously beginning to think our fan base is made up of remedials. Indeed StokieJoe, I don't know what to do but laugh either. in short we are using a 4-3-3 but not yet, which is where I got completely lost and started laughing. Not intended to rain on your parade or be offensive.Spot on mate. I thought you needed some moral support. Indeed we're playing 433 but only when we sign the players to do it, cuckoooo ;-) Hackett, I'd like to see you lay out what you think the formation is, in the same way that I've tried to do in the opening post. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Aug 28, 2013 16:52:46 GMT
Ok if you want to be absolutely accurate and talk about average positions...
451
................ CD............ CD...............
RB............................................... LB
..................... HLD MID...................
RW.......... MID.......... MID........... LW
..........................STR........................
Although large spells of the Liverpool game one of the central midfielders played behind the striker but the wingers were still very deep.
|
|
), but Redknapp is a manager from recent times that have said something similar:
