Republic of Ireland V Switzerland 25th March & Slovakia 29th March 2016 - Friendlies

These quotes from O'Neill and O'Shea suggest this was a "new" diamond:

He [O'Neill] was also pleased that, in the Slovakia draw, he was able to get the players accustomed to a new tactical approach in midfield - Glenn Whelan holding, James McCarthy and O'Kane on the sides and Wes Hoolahan floating.
"The players in that match might have got used to a type of diamond that we hadn't really done before. At least, we have to introduce it out there [at Euro 2016], the players will at least have some sort of [knowledge] of it."
John O'Shea explained some of the thought behind it, as he revealed O'Neill wanted them to be more proactive than in the 1-0 win over Switzerland.
"We wanted to be higher up the pitch in terms of pressing them a lot more than we did to Switzerland and you could see that especially and, obviously, keeping possession of the ball better too. Ultimately, over the two games we have not lost and there is a bit of positivity and momentum kept going."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-34593677.html

Implying that a diamond has been used before; just not allied to a pro-active, pressing style when out of possession. Previously, it's been utilised more conservatively with one of the strikers (Walters) helping to defend the flanks and the full-backs given less licence to advance and provide the width

Hence, a new "type of diamond".

Here's a piece from Brian Kerr on how the previous interpretation of the system was inappropriate at home to Georgia:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/socc...able-1.2343723

Experimental maybe?

Quote:

---

If indeed it did raise eyebrows - which I'm unconvinced of

---

As you can see from the Stutts quote, the formation raised some questions from the press so my perception there was correct.

Again, the formation wasn't experimental, which is the narrative that underpins the piece - with the writer failing to recognise that a diamond shape has been used in the past (as recently as in the Bosnia home game, in which he claims a 4-2-3-1 was fielded).

You're going to great lengths to defend this piece, which is a bit strange, but understandable I guess given that you originally linked to it.

Also, you mentioned the word "revert" in your previous post. It's obvious to me, given the sentence he used it in, that the writer meant to say "resort" but used the wrong word. Not the only error of that nature in a piece that purports to be more authoritative than it really is.

But look, you enjoyed it and that's your prerogative. We should probably leave it there rather than continue to argue in circles.

I didn't link to it. Stuttgart88 did. I just think it was a good analysis of the pros and cons of using a diamond. I didn't even read it as a piece that celebrated a new formation until you made that connection. And I still don't see that as being the focus.

You are resorting now to making up words that the author probably meant as opposed to the words he actually used in order to support your argument. That's a bit silly.

But yes, let's leave it there!

Anyone else read AlanOB's comments in Frasier Crane's voice?

Jesus lads. Have a cold shower or something.

What? We're not allowed to respectfully debate our minor differences of opinion on here now?

No CD just likes cold showers with other men. So he thought that you two would enjoy it also.

I am confused by all of the comments. As I think all of you are without realising. The diamond formation was made up for/of 4 midfielders, Breen demonstrated this well on sellotanta/premier. McClean and Long played off this. We played a 4-4-2, with a diamond, no 1-2-3-2-1 or anything like that. What it would have left us open to was the counter attack - it did - and also balls in over the diamond or through balls, I dont think Slovakia were astute enough or perhaps just not technically good enough to play this game, but they were very fast so used the counter attack well.

I think AlanOb is just trying to promote his own article over the others, but that got lost in his debating posts. And/Or perhaps he doesnt like the author - previous I think CD and SVD call it.

How can you "revert" to an experiment? The only way that would make sense is if he's implying that we've been experimenting since the Scotland game. He's not though, because he clearly didn't realise we've been using the diamond since then. I take Stu's point that discussing the pros and cons of the diamond might still have some value, but he was only observing how it worked out on the night, with no real insight to how it worked previously, which was much more impressive from a defensive point of view. I don't think the writer's lack of understanding in relation to the fact that we've used this system before, regularly, should be viewed as a "minor inaccuracy", I think it's crucial to what he's discussing.

Totally agree with Stu in relation to this discussion generally, it's just a conflict of opinion, that's allowed. I find it interesting actually and although I obviously have an opposing view, Stu and Stutts have made a strong defence of the piece and showed me a different way of looking at it. I still don't really agree but how bad.

Paul, what's your point is saying that the diamond formation is basically a 4-4-2 with a midfield diamond? I presume everybody is aware of that already. One can call that formation a 4-1-2-1-2 if they wish and it wouldn't be inaccurate. Also, whether Alan is trying to promote his own article or not is irrelevant, the topic is there to be discussed and it was Stutts that brought our attention to it anyway.

I actually haven't even tried to defend the piece. I've a completely open mind. But when I read MON and JOS saying it was essentially new I felt it only right to post it.

Yeah, but a new approach maybe, not a new system. That's what I was (trying to) say in my first comment on the subject.

Much ado about nothing!

It's a discussion about an article you linked, obviously the people that have commented think the (alleged) innacurries were worth pointing out. Others felt the article was worth defending or praising. Pretty standard football forum stuff I would have thought.

I did like the way he complemented Long on his first touch for the Germany goal. I've actually read somewhere that it was a clumsy first touch that worked out well for him. I think it was Balls.ie. Nuff said I suppose!

Long's first touch was a brilliant piece of improvisation.

And it's complimented :)

Unless he meant long was getting desert? I think Coleman is our best player on controlling the ball, and i take that from him soloing at speed in Gaelic. He did it again at the weekend. BUt he was brutal for the goal and then tried to blame Stones.

Deloresan - I am not saying there is anything wrong, but people on here were writing about this formation and I fundamentally believe it was wrong. Diamond usually has people thinking its a lone forward and the head of the diamond(technically a diamond has much more than 4 sides, but thats another story :) ) is the extra midfielder/number 10/auxilliary forward. BUt we didnt play that, we played the midfielders all playing in the diamond and "moving/roving" in the shape of a diamond and switching around but keeping the diamond shape. The strikers played off that. So your 1-2-1-2 is the most accurate but I saw previously people mentioning the 5 combination in midfield and its interchangeable numbers - which was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

I did like the way he complemented Long on his first touch for the Germany goal. I've actually read somewhere that it was a clumsy first touch that worked out well for him. I think it was Balls.ie. Nuff said I suppose!

---

As I did in my brilliantly written article that everyone should read and I'm in no way promoting......

....Niles. :D

Bump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Oq9uTmc7pQ