Formations

I’ve seen that there has been a lot of discussion about different formations or tactics to give us another option. This seems to generally be centered around throwing on a big/target man and going for hit and hope. Personally I think this was a viable option when we had decent big/target men like Niall Quinn and Tony Cascarino and the team’s style of play was more suited to this game. We now however don’t have big/target men of their quality and the closest we have are the unproven/injury prone Alan Lee, Johnathon Macken who has yet to convince and Gary Doherty – who speaks for himself.

What are our other options if 4-4-2 isn’t working and we need to try something else?

4-3-2-1 (ala Chelsea)

Seems to work at the current runaway leaders of the Premier League, but it seems to be based on a solid defence, strong midfielders and interchangeable wingers behind a goal poacher that can link the play. Sounds like we might be able to do that. In goals, Shay is a given (sorry!), the back four almost picks itself (given that Carr is out and let’s stick with O’Brien at the moment). So that makes Finnan at right back, Cunningham and O’Brien at centre half and O’Shea at left back. Once again Keane is a given as the midfield general and completing the midfield trio is Kevin Kilbane and Matt Holland. This certainly solves the problem of who to leave out now that they are both fit and playing well for their clubs. Now for the two interchangeable wingers, we can have Andy Reid playing the Robben role and surprise surprise, Damien Duff can play the…Damien Duff role! Which leaves Robbie Keane to get onto the end of the endless supply of chances Duff and Reid should create. If Keane is off his game, we can bring on Elliott who is a poacher and Morrison who has improved no end.

Personally, I think this option is viable.

3-5-2

We could play O’Brien and Dunne either side of Cunningham. Finann would be perfect for right wing back role as would Kilbane for left hand side. Roy Keane would once again marshall the midfield with Andy Reid and Duff playing either side of him. Up front we could have Morrison and Keane.

Not sure that this might work. Might be a bit too attacking. But it is another option.

Any other ideas (other than me getting back to work?)?

I like your chelsea type formation, however I dont think the 2 5 2 would work. What i like about Brian Kerr is that he does think about such things as changing formations etc. I think we will start nearly every game with 4 4 2 but I do like the 4 3 2 1 with Duff and Reid playing behind the front man. Kilbane Keane and Holland woud be a very solid base to work from too. This could be used in Israel maybe. Not sure if its the right one to play at home but i maybe proven wrong.

For me the Chelsea formation would work with the obvious back five, Keane in the Makelele role, Kilbane in the Tiago role and Reid in the Lampard role, someone who can set up the play and score goals without overly worrying about the defence. Duff and McGeady as the wingers, if McGeady continues to impress, and Keane up front. The major problem is dropping a very in form Clinton Morrison which atm I wouldn't want to do.

All the talk of changing the formation is very good but harder to implement. Chelsea's system of play works well for them for a number of reasons - none more so than having 6 days a week to work on it and having the personnel to do it. It should be noted also that Chelsea actually only moved to this formation after the introduction of Robben into the team in October/November - for the first 3 months of the season they played with a more standard 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 (which is generally how we play with R.Keane usually playing off the front man).

Defensively, I doubt if the chelsea formation could be successful for us. The exposure that our defence would have particulary in wide positions could cause us problems against the best in the world. We cannot rely on players of the quality of Bridge, Gallas or Ferriera in our left and right back slots in my opinion. Keane's position of sitting in front of the back four is in effect a position he already plays within the 4-4-1-1 structure and wouldn't really offer any extra protection than he already does and with playing 3 midfielders tight accross the park it would leave us very vulnerable in wide positions.

I believe the 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 gives us a better defensive formation when we don't have the ball and minimises the risks to our two wide defenders. It's a formation that is tried and tested and gives a 50-50 split between attacking and defensive options. This coupled with the time it would take to fully intergrate the players into the new system (see England's Christmas Tree experiment as an example) leads me to believe that the best foot forward at present for us is to be the solid 4-4-1-1 system we have seen so far away in France and Switzerland and hope for some magic at the other end from duff, robbie or clinton. maybe in games against lower ranked nations when we could be confident of nullifying the attacking threat of the opposition, the above mentioned formation could be used to give us more attacking options. I just feel at present we don't have the time or the personnel to make that change

I disagree that the Chelsea formation would leave us too exposed. Watching Chelsea, Duff does all the tracking back and putting players under pressure while Robben would stay more forward. Duff would be great protection for O'Shea and McGeady does a lot of work off the ball for Celtic too. I don't see how it would leave us more exposed than a 4-4-2. We played the Chelsea formation against Croatia with Kilbane, Kav and Miller in the middle and Duff and Elliott playing off Keane. It didn't really leave us exposed then and we were playing very thin.

I agree with Slash/Ed, I'd have Reid in the Lampard role and I believe he would do very well in that position. The players have already got used to playing in the 4-4-2 and Kerr has shown now against Croatia that he is willing to experiment and get them used to other formations. I think 4-4-2 is our main one but if we ever need to change around during a game we'll have to get used to other formations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

I disagree that the Chelsea formation would leave us too exposed. Watching Chelsea, Duff does all the tracking back and putting players under pressure while Robben would stay more forward. Duff would be great protection for O'Shea and McGeady does a lot of work off the ball for Celtic too. I don't see how it would leave us more exposed than a 4-4-2. We played the Chelsea formation against Croatia with Kilbane, Kav and Miller in the middle and Duff and Elliott playing off Keane. It didn't really leave us exposed then and we were playing very thin.

I agree with Slash/Ed, I'd have Reid in the Lampard role and I believe he would do very well in that position. The players have already got used to playing in the 4-4-2 and Kerr has shown now against Croatia that he is willing to experiment and get them used to other formations. I think 4-4-2 is our main one but if we ever need to change around during a game we'll have to get used to other formations.

---

Do you think Reid would cover as much ground as Lampard does in a game and cover as effectively defensively as Frank does? Not being smart, just wondering. I personally don't believe that Andy Reid can offer us the type of all round game in the position that Fank Lampard plays and having Reid, Kilbane, R.Keane i believe leaves us far more exposed than the defensive chelsea midfield of Lampard, Makellele, Tiago. Chelsea's defence I believe is also more equipped than ours to deal with this (not to mention the fact that Jose Mourniho reverts back to a more solid 4-5-1 when his team get a lead and want to hold out the result)

4-4-2 does leave you less exposed as it maintains a 4-4 block accross defence and midfield whereas the 3 in midfield need to try and spread out to cover a vaster area. It's easy to suggest that Duff will just drop back and cover and he does do this well at chelsea but not all the time. It's impossible to get into that position if it's Duff who loses the ball upfield with the other two attackers in tandem leaving two central midfielders to deal with the attack of the opposition.

It's not esy to describe this without a diagram but basically if we are playing in a 4-4-2 and Duff loses the ball high up the field as a left winger, it leaves three midfielders to deal with the attacking team as opposed to two in the previous example. The less defensive cover the more the midfield have to compress to close the ball leaving larger spaces for the opposition usually out wide and I believe in competitive games against the likes of France, Brazil, Germany, Holland etc we would be severly punished.

That's just my view and open to contradiction :D

Karlos, you mustn't read boards.ie as if you did you'll see that I think Lampard is vastly overrated. :) Did you see the Spurs match? Scored a penalty and an open goal, he played a few passes and didn't put in more than 1 tackle. He gets MOM. I sware to God that I forgot he was on the pitch for the first half hour. He's basically like Matt Holland except an awful lot better on the ball. Fantastic on the ball but nowhere to be seen when he hasn't got the ball. So I feel Reid would offer us more defensive cover than Lampard.

Ha ha don't read boards.ie but I'll take your word for it! :D

Don't want to turn it into a Lampard debate but I think he's one of the most improved midfielders considering his early performances when he first signed for Chelsea. He was arguably Englands best midfielder in Euro 2004 scoring against France and did exceptionally well for Chelsea in Europe scoring and performing magnificantly against Arsenal in the quarter final. I think he has more than proven himself at the top level at least in his ability to contribute in big games. Until Mr. reid (and here's hoping he does) contibutes and performs significantly in the premiership, european competition & major tournaments, I'd have to go for Big fat Frank all the time! :D

I'll always praise Lampard for his scoring record but you said you feel Reid wouldn't cover as much defensively than Lampard. Honestly, other than scoring a good few goals at Euro 2004, did you actually see him on the pitch other than that? He does very, very little off the ball.

Yeah to be honest what I have seen of Reid (all his Ireland games and a few Forrest games on Sky), I haven't been overly impressed with his contribution defensively, going forward he's excellent. I think Lampard covers an awful lot of ground to be in positions to score goals and while he's no Vieria, Keane or Makelelle he does challenge for balls and gets back to cover defensive positions. I've often feel looking at Reid that he can be a bit lazy at times, there's no doubting his skill but I just don't see the work rate and overall play that Lampard has. I think if he had it, he wouldn't be at forest as it's pittance they are looking for him if he is in the Lampard mould. As I said, would love to be wrong in this case! :D

OMG, please study Lampard's performance the next time Chelsea are on. I've seen Chelsea play about 15 times this season and a lot more last season, using the word work rate for Lampard is an embarrassment to the likes of Terry or Duff. Anyway, I just remember Reid getting sent off for Forest this season for being the last man back, he was all over the pitch that day.

Dont know if this matters but Ray Houghton was very impressed with Lampard on Sat and esp mentioned his work rate. THe main criticism that i woudl have of him and Gerard and this was proved in Euro 2004 and on Sat is to control a game with simple passing and break up play i.e. Roy Keane. Was makes Keane stand out from any other player of his type in Europe is his abilty to control the pace of a game esp in Europe. If England had Keane fully fit during Euro 2004 they woudl have come really close to winning it, which is a scary thought but they dont appear to have such a player coming up so we can rest easy.

I don't see how we'll be left exposed in fact compare Tiago to Kilbane, who I have in his position. Kilbane covers far far more ground, works alot harder and gets in more tackles. It's a formation that really suits our players atm but as I said the real difficulty I have with it is dropping a striker like Clinton Morrison who is bang on form for us and Birmingham, though I suppose having in form striker cover on the bench is a huge advantage. The main thing I like about it is how we use Reid, it really plays to his strenghts and he would be absolutley superb in that role imo, and would get a lot of goals too.

This formation covers defence better than 4-4-2, if you've attacking players who work as hard as Duff and McGeady. With 4-4-2 it would be those players plus Keane and Kilbane, here you have those two, Keane Kilbane and Andy Reid all covering when we lose the ball, it's a brilliantly effective formation if you have the right attacking duo playing off the striker. Chelsea do, and that's why they're so good. One of those players happens to play for us so obviously if McGeady can fit in, we have the players for the key positions too.

Not disagree-ing that it's a good formation and might work with time to work on it but I feel it does leave you exposed. If it didn't Mourniho would have no need to alter the system when he's winning. If it's working well as it obviously is at Chelsea, why would a manager change a system when the team has profited from the play and be likely to score more. The reason is that it does leave you open to allowing the opposition space and if you don't capitalise the opposition might - hence Mourniho closing all that space and leaving one up front and ensuring that opposition need to get past 10 players to score as opposed to 8. It's great management and effective but I've yet to see Chelsea or anyone else stick it out for a full 90 minutes without altering it (unless they are losing).

A valid point is made with Duff and McGeady and it might work but it must be done for the whole game (and in modern football if Duff loses the ball deep in an opposition half with McGeady flying into the box with Keane - the ability to work hard mightn't help against a team as quick as France on the counter attack). To play in that formation requires work on the training field (something which Chelsea have the luxury of and some might have noticed they actually work on it during their warmup also).

I believe you can't just change formations overnight and expect results and you can't expect unproven players like McGeady to be able to adapt to a new system for one game every two months - 99% of footballers on the other hand have grown up on the 4-4-2 and it requires very little positioning work to be done by an international coach to international players. I could see Kerr however using a more defensive 4-5-1 using McGeady and Duff.

I personnally wouldn't be prepared to go into the big game with a system you only get to work on for 4 days and would see it as a massive gamble considering the effectiveness of the 4-4-1-1 in both Switzerland and France. Using it in a friendly is a different thing but I'd be very surprised to see Kerr use anything other than the 4-4-1-1 when France come to town.

Sure football's a game of opinions and we're all right at the end of the day! ;)

Great thread by the way - nice to have a technical talk instead of the ususual stuff! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlosIRL

Not disagree-ing that it's a good formation and might work with time to work on it but I feel it does leave you exposed. If it didn't Mourniho would have no need to alter the system when he's winning. If it's working well as it obviously is at Chelsea, why would a manager change a system when the team has profited from the play and be likely to score more. The reason is that it does leave you open to allowing the opposition space and if you don't capitalise the opposition might - hence Mourniho closing all that space and leaving one up front and ensuring that opposition need to get past 10 players to score as opposed to 8. It's great management and effective but I've yet to see Chelsea or anyone else stick it out for a full 90 minutes without altering it (unless they are losing)

---

Chelsea rarely ever concede goals no matter what their formation is, if that formation left them exposed they wouldn't have the superb defencive record they do. He changes the formation as the game goes on to go even more defencive when winning, understandable even if it did cost him against Bolton, but Chelseas defencive record with that formation is superb.

Quote:

---

A valid point is made with Duff and McGeady and it might work but it must be done for the whole game and to play in that formation requires work on the training field (something which Chelsea have the luxury of and some might have noticed they actually work on it during their warmup also). I believe you can't just change formations overnight and expect results and you can't expect unproven players like McGeady to be able to adapt to a new system for one game every two months - 99% of footballers on the other hand have grown up on the 4-4-2 and it requires very little positioning work to be done by an international coach to international players.

---

A very valid point but Kerr has been willing to experiment before and tried a similar formation v Croatia (Bafflingly with Elliot as one of the attacking mid fielders mind you). That's what friendlys are for, I think it suits the players and really there isn't a world of adaptation. Obviously, Duff plays it every week, McGeady could adapt without even thinking and look at the other mid field players. Keane simply plays the holding role while Kilbane does the running, no change there, and Reid is given a central mid field role with less defencive duties than a regular 4-4-2 central mid fielder which would suit him. Don't forget, he debuted in central mid field and was given man of the match. The back four play exactly the same as they do now, the main adjustment would come from Robbie Keane and McGeady and I think they could adapt without much pratice, Keane has played in mid field and McGeady plays a similar role. Obviously, it will take time for the players to fully become co-herient in the new system but we do have one friendly and a good few training sessions between now and the next competitive game and tried a similar formation in the last friendly and in the past with Kerr.

Quote:

---

I personnally wouldn't be prepared to go into the big game with a system you only get to work on for 4 days and would see it as a massive gamble considering the effectiveness of the 4-4-1-1 in both Switzerland and France. Using it in a friendly is a different thing but I'd be very surprised to see Kerr use anything other than the 4-4-1-1 when France come to town.

---

Again, I see your point but if we play the formation in friendlys and in the smaller competitive games like Cyprus and Faroes and it really clicks I think we could go into the bigger games useing it or, at least, have it as an option we can switch to mid match.

Quote:

---

Sure football's a game of opinions and we're all right at the end of the day! ;)

Great thread by the way - nice to have a technical talk instead of the ususual stuff! :D

---

Agreed :D

The idea of applying the Chelsea formation certainly favours our playing resources at the minute. Obviously weather it would work in practise remains to be seen. I'm always a bit aprehensive when it comes to applying 'Flavour' of the the month formations at international level. Roy Evans 3 5 2 was a popular formation back in the nineties and was disasterous when applied to us.

Given that we have an abundance of industrious midfielders, a lack of 'out and out' front men as well as a number of tricky players emerging it would make sense to have a formation such as this as standard. To minimise impact to team when players are absent due to injury or suspension and to harness properly the talents of players like Duff, McGeady and hopefully Flood.

But as already pointed out international players don't have the exposure to each other that players at club level get so imposing the formation on the players may prove difficult. It deserves a shot in a couple of the friendlies or maybe for 1 half against the Faroes.

And regards the Reid for Lampard role I feel that would be a huge mistake. Reid doesn't like it when the game gets rough, and found the tenacity of the Swiss players hard to deal with. Not an asset that would stand well to one of the three 'working' midfielders employed in 'The Chelsea' formation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr_peepee

And regards the Reid for Lampard role I feel that would be a huge mistake. Reid doesn't like it when the game gets rough, and found the tenacity of the Swiss players hard to deal with. Not an asset that would stand well to one of the three 'working' midfielders employed in 'The Chelsea' formation.

---

Have to disagree, to judge him on one performance is stupid imo. If he didn't like it rough he'd be a failure in division one, instead he's easily the best player. He was excellent when he came on against France too, he has no problem dealing with the rough side of the game, that's what lower league football in England is all about.

Im glad somebody started this thread because I've been thinking a lot about the 4-3-3 system lately and its potential for Ireland. I agree with those of you who believe that it would be too risky to experiment in a friendly. I also take into account the view that this system might leave our defence exposed. However, this system would really suit our current playing staff. Duffer is playing very well at Chelsea, using this system. Andy Reid would also enjoy such a role, as would Aiden McGeady. Ive even noticed that Alex Ferguson is currently deploying a similar system at ManU, with Keane in the centre and Fletcher and Scholes either side. In addition, this system would also be really suited to both Kevin Kilbane and Matt Holland, who both have flaws in their game.
Brian Kerr is rare in an Irish sense in that he is a real student of the game. He loves using different formations and experimenting with playing systems. However, he would be too cautious to try a new system without testing in friendly games, especially after the disastrous midfield diamond used in the home game against Albania in June 2003.
Im pretty sure that Brian has this formation on his mind and I think we will see it used in a friendly game before the year is out.
I agree with Slash/ED that it would be hard to drop an in-form Clinton Morrison, especially at a time when he is establishing himself as an regular in the Irish team. However, when we play with both him and Robbie, it leaves us with very little to come off the bench. What would be wrong with having a good substitute striker. That is what we have always wanted.
I think this system would also suit Robbie, although he is not an out and out centre-forward. Robbie links very well with both Duffer and Andy Reid. Reid's vision and eye for a pass, allied to Robbie's runs behind opposing defences could prove profitable. Also, with Duff and Reid providing the amunition, maybe Robbie will remain in a more central role and spend more time in the box, where he is at his best.
As for the team being exposed, I think the three holding misfielders will provide lots of protection. Reid and Duff will provide extra cover and with five men in the middle of the park, we are less likely to get over-run.
My ideal team for this formation would be:

1 Shay Given

2 Stephen Carr 4 Richard Dunne 5 Kenny Cunningham 3 John O'Shea

7 Matt Holland 6 Roy Keane 8 Kevin Kilbane

10 Damien Duff 11 Andy Reid
9 Robbie Keane

I'd have Kav in if it was a choice between him and Holland but I'd still prefer Reid on the Lampard role and McGeady doing what he does best. Keane and Kilbane are definitely enough cover.

BTW, Milan's last 3 European matches they've used 1 up front and done well while usually playing with the 2 in the league. They aren't playing week in week out with that formation but could still beat Shaktaar 4-0. Another point, so many of the best teams in the world atm are playing one up front on a regular basis, Barca, Chelsea, Arsenal, Milan (if you include them), etc. and think of the players they have to leave on the bench. So, I agree, we're not obliged to play Morrison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

Another point, so many of the best teams in the world atm are playing one up front on a regular basis, Barca, Chelsea, Arsenal, Milan (if you include them), etc. and think of the players they have to leave on the bench. So, I agree, we're not obliged to play Morrison.

---

You've somehow left Shels off your list there Eirebhoy ;)