Trapattoni - who would you replace him with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixer82

Football has changed since then.
Very few international teams seem married to 4-4-2 any more. Plus we had Roy in the middle of the park commanding play and winning ball better than any irish midfielder has done since

---

All very fair points Fixer - i did allude earlier to the fact that we had alot of very good players in their pomp back then.

I always loved the Keane/kinsella partnership back in those days.

Football has changed and I guess this co-incides with Stutts earlier point in that can Mick adapt to deal with that.

On a seperate note : We are down one place to 60th in the rankings with Scortland now 25 places above us in 35th
http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/ran...module_ranking

Yeah, but those rankings are so volatile...

Wouldn't it be great if Noel King's legacy was what he appealed for here?

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-29667677.html

This is the first time in years proper rational debate has been encouraged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duggie

im in the john giles school of thinking, formations arent that important IMO. 4-5-1, 4-4-2, 4-3-2-1 or whatever. it still amount to 11 v 11. you play it as you see it and if your good enough you will get your rewards. now every game is different and if you need to dig in you dig in but im with gilsey on the formation thing. football is a simple game, dont overthink it.

---

I'm in between.

Formation isn't so much where players are on the pitch, it's what type of players are picked.

Let's take 4231 as an example.

The back 4 needs no explanation, although the role of the full backs is variable. Ideally they'll be getting forward.
The 2 refers to the fact that you've picked 2 midfielders who do their best work in deeper positions.
The 3 ought to mean that you have picked a predominantly central player who does his best work in the opponent's half: a Reid, Ireland, Hoolahan.
The other 2 in the 3 can either be orthodox wide players, or forwards playing wide-ish but not as wingers.
The 1 is most likely to be your best goalscorer, someone who does his best work in an around the penalty box.

So, that means you are not instructing players to hold positions, but if these players play to their strengths the team will have a certain type of balance to it. Most attacking will come from a diamond of the front 4, but good teams will also have one of the deeper two getting forward and also the full backs.

This type of balance would be different to 451. In 451 I interpret that as being a flatter midfield 3 and very definitely two wide players. This will naturally lead to a different type of play. It's more of a nuance but I think most people see 4231 as more fluid than 451, 451 being more dependent on using the full width of the pitch.

In a 442 you are playing with a central midfield pair, and either out-and-out wingers or wide midfielders (I always think of Robert Pires as an example of the latter).
The central midfield pair are likely to be one "ball winner" and one "ball user". The two are likely to have complementary attributes.
You'll have an orthodox front two and even if one was to drop deep to add an extra body in midfield this will bring a very different dynamic the play than having an Andy Reid "advanced playmaker" occupying the same part of the pitch.

Given how the game is played these days I think picking a 442, even if numerically it's 451 at times, means it's harder to make good use of the ball. No matter what "formation" is picked most teams have bodies behind the ball when the opposition has the ball and most teams these days will try to put pressure on the ball quickly. You then have the transition phase from being without the ball to having the ball. 4231 means you probably have better ball players and you can work the ball forward better. 442 lends itself more to having to play a longer pass to the front two.

So, in a nutshell, formation refers to the make-up of the team rather than a player occupying a certain place on the pitch by dictat.

Discuss...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I'm in between.

Formation isn't so much where players are on the pitch, it's what type of players are picked.

Let's take 4231 as an example.

The back 4 needs no explanation, although the role of the full backs is variable. Ideally they'll be getting forward.
The 2 refers to the fact that you've picked 2 midfielders who do their best work in deeper positions.
The 3 ought to mean that you have picked a predominantly central player who does his best work in the opponent's half: a Reid, Ireland, Hoolahan.
The other 2 in the 3 can either be orthodox wide players, or forwards playing wide-ish but not as wingers.
The 1 is most likely to be your best goalscorer, someone who does his best work in an around the penalty box.

So, that means you are not instructing players to hold positions, but if these players play to their strengths the team will have a certain type of balance to it. Most attacking will come from a diamond of the front 4, but good teams will also have one of the deeper two getting forward and also the full backs.

This type of balance would be different to 451. In 451 I interpret that as being a flatter midfield 3 and very definitely two wide players. This will naturally lead to a different type of play. It's more of a nuance but I think most people see 4231 as more fluid than 451, 451 being more dependent on using the full width of the pitch.

In a 442 you are playing with a central midfield pair, and either out-and-out wingers or wide midfielders (I always think of Robert Pires as an example of the latter).
The central midfield pair are likely to be one "ball winner" and one "ball user". The two are likely to have complementary attributes.
You'll have an orthodox front two and even if one was to drop deep to add an extra body in midfield this will bring a very different dynamic the play than having an Andy Reid "advanced playmaker" occupying the same part of the pitch.

Given how the game is played these days I think picking a 442, even if numerically it's 451 at times, means it's harder to make good use of the ball. No matter what "formation" is picked most teams have bodies behind the ball when the opposition has the ball and most teams these days will try to put pressure on the ball quickly. You then have the transition phase from being without the ball to having the ball. 4231 means you probably have better ball players and you can work the ball forward better. 442 lends itself more to having to play a longer pass to the front two.

So, in a nutshell, formation refers to the make-up of the team rather than a player occupying a certain place on the pitch by dictat.

Discuss...

---

ya ok all good points but at any point in a game when your running around if you froze the pitch and looked at it would any of these formations look like how they do on paper. I suggest not. I understand its not just as simple as saying formations dont matter, its just i think some people seem to think there essential in modern football. Like for example if you have a 4-4-2 and you cant seem to get the ball back, almost naturally your strikers will tend to come back a bit to help out. thats not a science its just instinct. formations are a good talking point before a game but it just all depends on how a game pans out in front of you. get your best players on the pitch first and take it from there i say.

Think we're stating the obvious here people...

Really good work there Stuttgart. Your use of Pires as an example is perfect.

It's why I get annoyed by the cliché that our players play in the premiership. For me it's an irrelevance, as when they play for Ireland they will not be facing the same type of drudgery, physical and lightning quick football, it will be more technical, and tactical.
The new manager whoever he is, will need to decide that he wants to incorporate the best XI players and mould a system around them, or have a system that is best suited to international football and find the players for it. A mixture of the two will not work. And I personally thinks it's going to be a big problem in the immediate future.

I looked at match again yesterday (up to the 84th minute) and while a couple of the assumptions were confirmed, a few of my opinions changed too. Robbie Keane is our greatest goal-scorer. But I don't think that he comes close to being one of our greatest players, and I'll back that up by comparing him to Pippo Inzaghi (minus the ridiculous inability to navigate the offside law). Inzaghi is probably the greatest modern day goal-scorer Italy have had, but added zip-all in open play. Robbie isn't that bad, but I can appreciate both sides of the argument when someone feels he offered nothing but a poacher's instinct. Modern football has tended to weed that out in favour of more rounded forwards, and it's going to be a real conundrum for the next manager. I'll give examples too.
Three times during the game, Ireland had prolonged periods of possession (on two occasions the ball was worked up to the edge of the box, before going back to centre-half and back up to the box) and on all three occasions, the move broke down when Robbie came out to the area Reid would have been occupying to try and get involved. It was as clear as day, and was very frustrating. It wasn't even a case that he was trying a killer pass, twice he was actually struggling to pick and pass and was caught dawdling.

We ironically enough, have quite a few choices to make in the offensive areas of the team. Realistically, Keane, Long, Walters, Stokes, Reid, Hoolihan, McGeady, Brady and Pilkington are the immediate options to take 4 places of the team. That is a welcome conundrum. But I'd prefer to narrow that down. I don't believe that we can consider anything other than 4231 or 4321, and in the former I just don't think Andy Reid is the man to play as the central or advanced player of the 3. He is undoubtedly skillful, and has a wonderful eye for a shot, but I just don't think he is dynamic enough for the role. And that has nothing to do with fitness, it's to do with mobility and pace - what I would call the Totti role. I've always fancied McGeady for that spot, but who I'd really like to see get a run out in the position would be Stokes. Everyone assumed that the change in emphasis came when McGeady was introduced. I think it had as much to do with Stokes going central.

The boy is talented, quick, and skillful, but he doesn't have the winger mentality when he gets to the bye-line. I think Andy Reid might actually be suited to being part of the withdrawn 2, or if we went down the 4321 route, as the withdrawn central player or Pirlo role.
Watching the match back, the number of times that Gibson and McCarthy, and subsequently Whelan and Mac dovetailed with pretty little patterns was impressive, retaining and recycling possession, but when it came to the crucial final ball, a high proportion of the time the pass was cut out or went astray. Coincidently, all of Reid's good work was the slide rule ball, or spreading of the play, but it was too peripheral. I think if he drops back alongside McCarthy or alongside Gibson, then you might just have the ideal solution.
Couple that with Brady and I have to say McGeady on the flanks, and that is a cohesive, footballing collective that will rank alongside all of the other second,third and fourth seed nations. One stat that I collected the other night was that in the first half the ball was lost, or possession conceded 52 times, or approx 6 times in every 5 minute period. That's just when we had the ball. To me that seemed a high total. It got better in the second period, but only marginally, but the type of possession conceded was much better (i.e. blocked crosses leading to corners, rather than misplaced passes). I think withdrawing Reid deeper, would help with this.

A solution needs to be found for left-back asap. I appreciate the calls for Joey O'Brien, but it's no different to Wilson, and for me Wilson doesn't work there. It's not his natural position, and it's not one he's particularly good at. What annoyed me about Tuesday was that the manager thought it was more suitable to have Wilson at centre midfield/left of centre, with Kelly at left back against Germany, but then Wilson back at left back against Germany. I would look at the genuine left-footed left-backs, regardless of what level they are playing and try them out over the next 10 months. Cunningham, is the one I'd like to see a bit of faith put into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Think we're stating the obvious here people...

---

You're stating your obvious and Stutts is stating his :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duggie

ya ok all good points but at any point in a game when your running around if you froze the pitch and looked at it would any of these formations look like how they do on paper. I suggest not. I understand its not just as simple as saying formations dont matter, its just i think some people seem to think there essential in modern football. Like for example if you have a 4-4-2 and you cant seem to get the ball back, almost naturally your strikers will tend to come back a bit to help out. thats not a science its just instinct. formations are a good talking point before a game but it just all depends on how a game pans out in front of you. get your best players on the pitch first and take it from there i say.

---

Well, I'd counter that argument.
Against Germany, we picked a solid back 4, despite Germany not having a centre-forward. Which meant that Delaney and Clark were almost redundant until a ball came into the box despite us being under the cosh severly from the word go.
We all knew Germany were not going to have a centre-forward. That's why when I saw the team announcement I thought he might have done something quite unorthodox and had Delaney as the stopper (so to speak) with Clark and Wilson slightly ahead of him in a convoluted 532, which would have allowed them to push slightly out onto Muller, Ozil and Kroos. This would have really compacted the pitch, which is not what happened despite his narrow 4 in midfield supposed to be doing the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Think we're stating the obvious here people...

---

Not to a lot of people it isn't. That's why I went to the bother. I'm always getting "but positions aren't fixed". The positions might be the same but the roles differ. 4411 with an Andy Reid in the first "1" is miles different to 442 with Robbie Keane dropping deep even if an aerial snapshot shows the same thing. Lots of people don't get that.

King made the point this morning that Germany's 70%+ possession wasn't a big issue. He said they were happy for them to have the ball away from our goal but that our plan was to nick the ball on the 6th or 7th pass and then counter, and King says he felt we did that well.

Whatever about his shortcomings I think most here would agree that he encouraged us to take a small step into the modern era of international football.

Kingdom, what would you think of Clark at left back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duggie

get your best players on the pitch first and take it from there i say.

---

I'd say that if we got our best players on the pitch there's almost no way would they naturally fill the positions that 442 describes. I also think it's too simple to say just get the best players on the pitch. You've got to think of the overall balance of the team. The best team may not necessarily contain all the best players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I'd say that if we got our best players on the pitch there's almost no way would they naturally fill the positions that 442 describes. I also think it's too simple to say just get the best players on the pitch. You've got to think of the overall balance of the team. The best team may not necessarily contain all the best players.

---

Agree to a certain extent, if the best 8 players in the country were all nippy left wingers, I think the overall balance might suffer.

However, a team of Gary Breens, on the other hand...

For me it's another hexagon peg in a roundish hole. He played there against Uruguay and didn't do well, except his distribution was excellent.

Clark for me is a centre-half, but more than that, he's a leader. Does he make mistakes? yes he does. but he's quick, he is an animal in the air, and offers us a passing outlet at the back. If Duffy could make the breakthrough, they'd be potentially an excellent partnership, a tough sob on one side, and a player on the other.

I'd be interested to see McClean there, even if he is a nutjob. In the modern game, ignore England for the moment, the full back has to be a defender first and foremost, and comfortable on both feet, but crucially needs to be composed on the ball and a good distributor. I think you can get away with having a weaker player at full-back if he is intelligent enough and can be coached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingdom

Well, I'd counter that argument.
Against Germany, we picked a solid back 4, despite Germany not having a centre-forward. Which meant that Delaney and Clark were almost redundant until a ball came into the box despite us being under the cosh severly from the word go.
We all knew Germany were not going to have a centre-forward. That's why when I saw the team announcement I thought he might have done something quite unorthodox and had Delaney as the stopper (so to speak) with Clark and Wilson slightly ahead of him in a convoluted 532, which would have allowed them to push slightly out onto Muller, Ozil and Kroos. This would have really compacted the pitch, which is not what happened despite his narrow 4 in midfield supposed to be doing the same thing.

---

You have someone sitting deep like that behind then confusion compounds and playing offside becomes a big problem, it also allows for nifty balls over the top and drags Delaney all over the place, making room elsewhere. That wouldn't work against a team like Germany, I notice sweden scored 3 against them, they really do focus so much on attack. A really compact team sitting very deep with 2 very good wingers and a creative player in the middle can beat Germany, at least thats how i see it, had we something like that we might have scored a couple last week.

I'm begining to think the most important player is a Number 10, a world class number 10. And having seen Ibra in the flesh twice, when he is on it and in form, the outcome of the game is very different.

Kingdom, I'm not sure "McClean" and "intelligent" are hugely compatible terms.

Wasn't a go at you Stutts, but if people don't follow the basic precepts of football tactics, they need to learn them. And with respect, not from us.

Though tbf many 'football people', in my experience, are incapable of explaining succinctly.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/i...040224294.html

I think I agree with pretty much everything in this article

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

You have someone sitting deep like that behind then confusion compounds and playing offside becomes a big problem, it also allows for nifty balls over the top and drags Delaney all over the place, making room elsewhere. That wouldn't work against a team like Germany, I notice sweden scored 3 against them, they really do focus so much on attack. A really compact team sitting very deep with 2 very good wingers and a creative player in the middle can beat Germany, at least thats how i see it, had we something like that we might have scored a couple last week.

I'm begining to think the most important player is a Number 10, a world class number 10. And having seen Ibra in the flesh twice, when he is on it and in form, the outcome of the game is very different.

---

Quick question: when was the last time you saw a team specifically implement the offside law? It doesn't happen anymore, purely because have made it impossible to play properly.

I appreciate what you are saying, and maybe it wouldn't have worked with the personnel chosen, but what we did was this:


Coleman Clark Delaney Kelly
Schurrle
Muller
Ozil Kroos

Whelan Gibson Wilson Doyle
Schweinsteiger khedira
I]Janssen[/I] McCarthy Lahm

Boateng Stokes Mert

Which meant that there was only going to be pressure onto on the midfield, as we sacrificed two centre-backs as we withdrew deeper and deeper and left big gaps to exploit between the lines.

My point was that (using the players he picked) he could have made a difference by either doing a back three of

Kelly Delaney and Clark, and Coleman and Wilson deep wing-backs, which would have allowed Kelly pushing right to double up on Schurrle, Clark pushing left to double cover Lahm, and Delaney to man mark Muller.

If you switch Doyle and Stokes, so that Doyle is the top man, it leaves the middle three of Mac, Whelan and Gibson to effectively deal with Ozil Kroos, Basti and Khedira, with Stokes doing the sitting on Khedira.
We failed to deal with Lahm and Schurrle properly.

You reference the 10 position. It is definitely the main job now. But it's the play maker role, and it's not simply just off the main man now, it can be the Totti role, it can be the Pirlo role, the Schweinsteiger role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razors left peg

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/i...040224294.html

I think I agree with pretty much everything in this article

---

I still think the debate about the 2-2 draw misses the point. We were hanging on by our fingernails at the end, we had no bench to draw on and even though it looked like we'd win for 40-odd minutes there was a spell where it was looking more like we'd lose. We barely touched the ball after their deflected winner. I think Keane was posing a bit afterwards, something he has been inclined to do. He's even admitted a lot of it was an act.

For the first time in a long time, over the last two matches, it was plain to see what our formation was.

Under Trap it was never too clear if we were 4-4-2 because we never had the ball. We just watched our lads chasing the other team and when they got near our goal it was a formation of 9-1 (Conor Sammon hanging around the centre circle)