4.4.2 outdated, who would you play in a 4.2.3.1 system

[Charlie Darwin]

Germany played with one up front. Didn't do them any harm.

It's more of a 4-3-3 than a 4-5-1. Mueller and Podolski are both strikers by trade and have the pace to alternate between midfield and attack. If we were to do the same we'd need to sacrifice Duffer and Lawrence completely , or else push Damien inside.

[Dodge]

It's more of a 4-3-3 than a 4-5-1. Mueller and Podolski are both strikers by trade and have the pace to alternate between midfield and attack. If we were to do the same we'd need to sacrifice Duffer and Lawrence completely , or else push Damien inside.

Well Germany played a 4-2-3-1, but it doesn't matter. mypost assumes that all formation with 1 upfront are negative, when thats clearly not the case

[mypost]

1 man upfront v 5 at the back. When you send the ball up towards him, he has 20% chance of winning the ball. If that isn't defensive, then what is?

[tetsujin1979]

you could play the same ball to either of the wing forwards? Or keep possession in the middle of the park with the extra man and allow the wingers, or full backs to push up?

[Charlie Darwin]

Well Germany played a 4-2-3-1, but it doesn't matter. mypost assumes that all formation with 1 upfront are negative, when thats clearly not the case

True, but I still think Podolski and Mueller are primarily in the team to score goals and aren't asked to do an awful lot of tracking back compared to most wide midfielders.

1 man upfront v 5 at the back. When you send the ball up towards him, he has 20% chance of winning the ball. If that isn't defensive, then what is?

If you pass the ball to a player he has more than a 20% chance of winning the ball. Not every team is managed by Jack Charlton.

[Dodge]

1 man upfront v 5 at the back. When you send the ball up towards him, he has 20% chance of winning the ball. If that isn't defensive, then what is?

SO not only are you assuming that the opposition is playing 5 at the back, you're also assuming that your team can't play a simple pass to the forwards feet? Why doe he have to "win it"?

[shakermaker1982]

SO not only are you assuming that the opposition is playing 5 at the back, you're also assuming that your team can't play a simple pass to the forwards feet? Why doe he have to "win it"?

+ it's very rare that 5 defenders mark one man!!!

[irishfan86]

you could play the same ball to either of the wing forwards? Or keep possession in the middle of the park with the extra man and allow the wingers, or full backs to push up?

Possession? What's that, Tets?

[tricky_colour]

I'd say with one up front you would need 2 players mark him.
With 2 up you could manage with 3 defenders.
That makes one up front more effective.

Having said that your formation is more often than not forced on you by the opposition.
If you are the weaker team you have to play the oppositions formation, because they have the ball
and you have to mark up!!

[mypost]

With one upfront, you need one marker, with 2 you need 2.

If you play 1 man upfront against a park-the-bus side, it's basically one man against the entire team. It relies on him, and if he doesn't deliver the goods, everyone else suffers.

Wingers are wingers, and midfielders are midfielders, with their own jobs to do. The idea of 2 men upfront is to give the forwards some help against 4-5 defenders, and carries considerably more threat.

[Dodge]

Why do you keep metioning 5 defenders? Nobody bar North Korea has played defenders in years

Teams who play one up front would absolutely LOVE to face a team with 5 defenders as it'd mean they'd have at least a one man advantage (probably 2) in midfield) and would dominate. if two strikesr play up front, defenders know their job. if 2/3 are running a them from midfield defenders aren't so sure. Thats what absolutely destroyed England last weekend

[mypost]

In fairness, the formation didn't beat England. England were crap, and beat themselves.

[pineapple stu]

How can one person be so utterly, consistenly wrong about everything?

England beat themselves? What does that mean? Did they score four own goals and run the line too?

The Germans beat the English, and they did it with an attacking one-up-front formation.

[Dodge]

In fairness, the formation didn't beat England.

Exactly formations mean **** all. glaad you've finally seen sense

[Stuttgart88]

Back to that age old foot.ie debate - the so-called "holding midfielder". I've lost count of the number of experts who describe Germany as a 4-2-3-1 with "two holding midfielders" - so obviously including Schweinsteiger as a holding midfielder. Holy fcuk. The guy is absolutely anything but. When was the last time anyone here saw a "holding midfielder" dance past 3 or 4 defenders in a WC QF and set up a goal on a plate for a teammate, or totally dictate the pace and direction of play at this level? The term is 100% bogus. You have midfielders more creative than defensive, and you have midfielders more defensive than creative. You have playmakers who do their best work in advanced positions and you have playmakers who do their best work in withdrawn positions. The term holding midfielder is straight out of the 21st century management guff bible: blue sky thinking, out of the box, mission critical, holding midfielders - all meaningless b/s that allows so-called experts spoof their way through a career.

[backstothewall]

I can't see that the debate between 442 and 4231 that seems to be ongoing in the English press really applies to us. Robbie must play, and throughout his career doing anything with him apart from playing him with a big physical centre forward he can sit slightly behind (be it Quinner, Berbatov, Vieri, Viduka, Folan etc) has been a waste of his talent, and a mistake made repeatedly by pairing with Defoe, Torres, Alan Smith etc.

And if he has to play in the middle off the striker, whether you call it a 442, or a 4231, or a 451, he's still going to be behind the striker, with Duffer on one side of him, and McGeady/Lawrence on the other. So basically the debate is over what tag to give the same players in the same positions.

As for England, personally I couldn't give a **** about why they went out. It occurs to me that its a bit odd playing a settled system with a big man leading the line for 2 years in qualifying, then changing it once you get to the World Cup, but I haven't thought about it terribly deeply. I don't like them at the best of times, and playing football as bad as they did does nothing to endear them to my heart.

[irishfan86]

Why any manager plays Gerrard as a wide player is beyond me. They should have just stuck Gerrard in behind Rooney and started someone else on the left, probably Joe Cole.

They also lacked a playmaker in the middle -- they were too direct and lacked guile. As poor as Carrick can be, they might have been better off playing him centrally instead of Barry to provide a range of passing.

As you say though backtowalsall, who cares?

[Predator]

I trust Trap...

[Charlie Darwin]

I'm not sure the lack of a playmaker is such a chronic issue. Players like Gerrard and Lampard can unlock space when they're playing at a high tempo and standard of accuracy. They just never really reached the necessary level of intensity.

[Stuttgart88]

But neither of those two has the time on the ball that players like Schweinsteiger or any number of Spanish players has, and both (esp Gerrard) are far too prone to TV friendly speculative passes that are great when they work, but lose possession when they don't - which is too often. You're right to also point out the high tempo, but without a playmaker they can only play at a high tempo. I've long felt that Lampard & Gerrard are great ball strikers with a great sense of when to arrive, but neither is a great midfielder in the traditional sense.