|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 28, 2013 16:56:57 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........................ That's it then 2 - 2 - 1 - 4 - 1 it is. This could have been wrapped up hours ago.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 17:00:01 GMT
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. Well, you did seem to suggest it but I can see what you're driving at, in fact it makes sense actually. Rob, my point was this: in any successful side any player will have an "optimum" or "most effective" position, according to the manager's clear instruction or vision within any passage of play (unless of course you get to a playing/trust standard and a maturity where you have the free reign, a Messi for instance, or you're sides down to 10 men etc). How many times do we hear "they're a well drilled side" - it's actually a veiled compliment and funnily enough I always hated us playing Gillingham for precisely that reason. Player scripts will include who stands where on the penalty box, who runs in to clear up etc. All these fella's will know where exactly where they should be be at any given time according to the particular mode-setup for any passage of play. That set-piece corner from Whelan last season with the clockwork timing that led to the Walters goal (the one with Gary Neville in awe) was the 1812 Overture of this type of thinking. After god knows how many years of watching 4-4-1-1 with frozen toes, bloodshot eyes and icicles on my chin, the talk of formation at this point in the season just doesn't register with me as of any importance. Not until we know where we are with the starting XI. Of course, that doesn't mean to say that it might not be for someone else. Formation does seem to generate an awful lot of interest and as i've not yet been to a game this season all I can say for sure is that we still have four at the back!
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Aug 28, 2013 17:03:55 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........................ Our interpretation of the formation only differs with the wide men, who get up and down depending on whether we're attacking or defending (much more than they did under TP). Catch us without the ball and that's the shape you'll probably see. Catch us on the attack and I think it looks far more like the formation in the OP. This is the whole point of the thread- we're all talking about pretty much the same thing, but people start nit-picking about whether it's 4-3-3 or 4-5-1, when in truth it can be described as either.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 17:06:15 GMT
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. You should have just called it "Formation for Thick Stokie Bastards" mate. Less offence would have been taken . Getting all tongue in cheek and ironic never did me any good in a Stoke Kebab house context.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Aug 28, 2013 17:14:05 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........................ Our interpretation of the formation only differs with the wide men, who get up and down depending on whether we're attacking or defending (much more than they did under TP). Catch us without the ball and that's the shape you'll probably see. Catch us on the attack and I think it looks far more like the formation in the OP. This is the whole point of the thread- we're all talking about pretty much the same thing, but people start nit-picking about whether it's 4-3-3 or 4-5-1, when in truth it can be described as either. Can we both agree on 41231 then? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by The Stubborn Optimist on Aug 28, 2013 17:20:49 GMT
It was obviously meant as a harmless and tongue-in-cheek reference to the 'xxxxxx...for dummies' books. You should have just called it "Formation for Thick Stokie Bastards" mate. Less offence would have been taken . Getting all tongue in cheek and ironic never did me any good in a Stoke Kebab house context. I rest my case m'lud.
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Aug 28, 2013 17:41:08 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. Spotty dog.
|
|