4.4.2 outdated, who would you play in a 4.2.3.1 system

[Charlie Darwin]

I think they did certain things poorly. Spain put a lot of pressure on them at times but there were a lot of unforced errors and their set-pieces were poor. Probably just tiredness but I think they were over-awed too.

[geysir]

Which, of course, is rubbish as Spain played the same formation and weren't chasing the game, did have the ball, and certianly dind't have their arse kicked

Not really Dodge, you are missing the point, (as Stu more or less confirmed) that Germany were inferior to Spain therefore the gameplan Germany used ensured they were chasing shadows, whereas Spain were playing an inferior team, their gameplan ensured they had plenty of possession and had the confidence that they would be successfull in getting that all important strike.

The German goalkeeper admitted they had little courage. I´d say their gameplan contributed in some way to that. The Germans obviously don´t come close to the ability of the Spaniards but they have other strenghts with which they could have exploited more to put the jitters on that Spanish defense.
And thats how I read mypost´s post.
You have to have the ability in the team to make a plan work.

[pineapple stu]

Not really Dodge, you are missing the point, (as Stu more or less confirmed)

I agree with Dodge, by the way. Mypost's talking rubbish as per usual.

[Dodge]

And thats how I read mypost´s post.
You have to have the ability in the team to make a plan work.

No, he doesn't think any team should ever play with one up front. I'm actually arguing the same point as you, that players are the important thing

[geysir]

Maybe so , I have not read his posts elsewhere, I am reading that post in isolation, which doesn´t deny that a team like Spain with ability in abundance cannot make one up front work against inferior teams.

[mypost]

But that's the case with any formation. If you force any formation on players who aren't comfortable with the roles they're being asked to play, they'll be exposed. 4-2-3-1 no more so than any other formation.

That's what 4-2-3-1 is. Forwards and wingers playing in each other's positions. Midfielders "supporting" forwards by playing behind them, instead of playing in midfield where they can do most damage. A total mess.

Forwards specialise as forwards, wingers as wingers, and so on through the rest of a team. You can ask them to play in other positions, but they're not as good in them, and not as effective. Band Aid stuff.

I've seen the formation all season with Liverpool, and we know the results of it last year. It depends on one player to make it work, and when it doesn't work (as it usually didn't) you pay the consequences. It hasn't really worked for Spain in this World Cup either. Torres hasn't had a great tournament, so much so that he was dropped for the semi-final. While they have reached the final, they've lost one game and have been unconvincing in most others, only winning one game by more than one goal. So far, they've done just enough to get by. But it's just a matter of time before they don't.

[Charlie Darwin]

Now you're just talking complete nonsense. Some players are adaptable, some aren't. To reduce it all to "forwards are forwards" is just plain wrong.

[Junior]

That's what 4-2-3-1 is. Forwards and wingers playing in each other's positions. Midfielders "supporting" forwards by playing behind them, instead of playing in midfield where they can do most damage. A total mess.

Forwards specialise as forwards, wingers as wingers, and so on through the rest of a team. You can ask them to play in other positions, but they're not as good in them, and not as effective. Band Aid stuff.

Perhaps, or 'Total Football' as Rinus Michels liked to call it........

[geysir]

The final nail was firmly driven into the remnants of that total football team, at a wind swept Lansdowne 1980.

[Supreme feet]

There's a huge difference between a flat 4-5-1 and a 4-2-3-1, and as has been mentioned, it depends on the players to make that distinction. Against Croatia in 1999, we played 4-5-1 with Gary Kelly on the wing, an unfit Duff on the left, and McLoughlin, Kinsella and Carsley in the midfield, none of whom pushed forward at all. Unsurprisingly, we lost and didn't create a single chance, as the lone striker was completely isolated. That's the kind of situation mypost is on about, which often happened with Liverpool last year. However, to give an Irish example, against Slovakia in 2007, with Keane suspended, we played with Doyle up front on his own, with McGeady, the bald one and Duff behind him, and it worked a treat. 4-2-3-1 is a viable formation if players are good enough, and understand the need for flexibility. There were games in the last campaign where I would have liked Keane to drop even deeper, particularly Bulgaria home and away, when we were outnumbered in midfield.

[mypost]

There's a huge difference between a flat 4-5-1 and a 4-2-3-1, and as has been mentioned, it depends on the players to make that distinction. Against Croatia in 1999, we played 4-5-1 with Gary Kelly on the wing, an unfit Duff on the left, and McLoughlin, Kinsella and Carsley in the midfield, none of whom pushed forward at all. Unsurprisingly, we lost and didn't create a single chance, as the lone striker was completely isolated. That's the kind of situation mypost is on about, which often happened with Liverpool last year.

In the Croatia game, we set out to look for a point away from home, so you could understand playing 5 in midfield.

2+3 still = 5, so while the formation looks different, it's essentially the same. Germany barely created a chance against Spain with the system, it was set up to contain instead of commit. It failed. When you play one man upfront, it'll fail eventually. It's an emergency formation, not something to be relied upon all game every game.

[Supreme feet]

I don't think it's as simple - a flat midfield 5 - a formation that's almost guaranteed to lose games - is completely different to a 'two defensive, three attacking' setup. Look at Chelsea under Mourinho. Generally considered a 4-3-3, with Robben and Duff supporting Drogba, but also a 4-5-1 when not in possession. Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal played a variant of that for most - if not all - of last season, to much better effect than Liverpool. Sometimes there is a fine line between 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 and 4-5-1, depending on how effective the advanced midfielder is and how involved the wingers are on the defensive side. The most important player in the 4-2-3-1 is the central attacking midfielder, and if he is off form (i.e. Gerrard this year, Ozil the other night), then the whole team malfunctions. Likewise, in a 4-4-2, if both strikers are static (i.e. Ireland vs. Bulgaria), the team will be depending on balls lumped up to them, which is why most teams have dispensed with the idea of playing two out-and-out strikers, except for in weaker leagues, where genuine goalscoring midfielders are harder to come by.

4-2-3-1 definitely works, regardless of the result in a one-off game - but it depends on the attacking ability of the midfielders. In fact, most teams play with one striker nowadays because when they play 4-4-2, they get outnumbered in midfield. No matter who the strikers are, you're not going to score many goals if you don't have the ball.

Granted, the formation may sometimes be a concession to caution - When Man Utd and Arsenal played each other at Old Trafford last year, both went 4-2-3-1 and played out a dreadful game, settled by an own goal. I wrote off the formation at that point, making the point to a friend that 4-3-2-1's ubiquity was 'neutralising' games at the highest level. But then, Milan and Man Utd both played the same formation in their CL game, and produced a good, open, attacking game with plenty of goals. So it does have its merits. It's worth keeping in mind that Barcelona have played with a lone striker for at least the last ten years - going back to when Kluivert was supported by a trio of Figo, Rivaldo and Overmars.

[SilkCut]

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.

I apologise in advance for going off topic, but I would be very interested to know what makes a great midfielder in a traditional sense?
Back on topic - Formations only seem to matter to the lesser of the two teams on the pitch, you dont have to take on the oppositions formation when you are the underdog but most sides will alter their formation to try to nulify a superior opponent. 4-4-2 seems to be the most commonly used by average teams for reasons already mentioned - its easy to follow - why would you want to confuse average players? The post about Gazza summed it up, he had all the talent in the world but not a brain cell in his head, was a superstar in England and just above average in Italy because of the tactical nature of the game. Players from the larger more successful footballing nations are brought up with tactics and technique, look at the Dutch for example always there or thereabouts and their own league is very technical which is why players like Afonso Alves and Ryan Babel are nowhere near as good in the hustle and bustle of the english game and Dirk Kuyt has had to change his game completely, he was signed as a goalscorer remember (I am aware Van Nistlerooy was the exception). Until Irish and U.K. sides start bringing kids through properly we will always be average joe 4-4-2 merchants. England are kidding themselves if they think they will win anything playing the way they do, they have some great players and don't play to their strengths because they don't know how.

[Stuttgart88]

To answer the question, I'd say a great midfielder "in the traditional sense" is a player who can orchestrate play by continuously bringing his teammates into the game, and who doesn't concede possession carelessly. He has time on the ball, which I referred to in my Schweinsteiger description. I don't think either Lampard or Gerrard really does that, though they have other merits. As you yourself allude to, they're suited to the hustle and bustle, but less well suited to more tactical situations. I think both have got good technique - especially their ball striking. I didn't think it was that contentious an observation.

[SilkCut]

Not contentious at all Stuttgart, was genuinely wondering, wanted to see where you were coming from. Gerrard gets a lot of stick but for me he is one of maybe 5 CM's who tick all the boxes, tackles well, heads well, passes well, has huge presence, good at set pieces, tactically aware, can beat players, has pace and both links and runs the play well. I am surprised everytime I see him being called anything less than brilliant, Lampard I can understand but Gerrard is the only English player who I feel would be brilliant in any league. I just wondered were you being taken in by all the media guff surrounding players and formations at the minute.

[Stuttgart88]

No, I really rate a lot of what Gerrard does, but I'd categorise him as a unique, unorthodox player. I'm not sure he's tactically great and his passing is a bit too showy for me, but I mainly agree on the other points. I'm not sure he really runs play, not by himself anyway, though he certainly influences it with his direct, all action approach. Alonso, for example, is more in the "traditional" mould, for want of a better term, and in my opinion better able to run the play, as you put it.

Anyway, off on hols now so unable to continue this one! It's nearly 30 degrees here in London and very sunny. I believe it's 13 degrees and wet in Bantry. C'est la vie.

[Charlie Darwin]

I definitely don't think he runs play. He is world class around the box, but we saw in all four World Cup games that he is just not set up to initiate moves from deep. Gareth Barry's performance in the later matches only goes to show how insane Rafa's quest to force out Alonso in favour of him was.

[Junior]

Off Topic I know, however,

The final nail was firmly driven into the remnants of that total football team, at a wind swept Lansdowne 1980.

Is this the game you are on about geysir?

10 September 1980
Republic of Ireland 2–1 Netherlands Lansdowne Road, Dublin, Ireland
Daly 78'
Lawrenson 85'

Tahamata 57'

World Cup Qualifier
Attendance: 25,000
Referee: Lund-Sørensen (Denmark)


G Peyton
D Langan
D D.O'Leary
D P.O'Leary
D Hughton
D Lawrenson
D Grealish
M Daly
M Brady (c)
F Stapleton
F Givens

Coach: Hand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G Hiele
D Wijnstekers
D van de Korput (-46′)
D Spelbos
D Brandts ♦
M Schoenaker (-75′)
M Peters (c)
M Thijssen
M van Deinsen
F van Mierlo
F Tahamata ♦

D Metgod (+46′)
M W.van de Kerkhof (+75′)

Coach: Zwartkruis


A few of the bigger names missing there for the Dutch - Did Ireland really put Total Football to the sword? Id be interested to hear all about that

[pineapple stu]

Interesting to see a novel 6-2-2 formation triumph for us there. Mypost's head probably just exploded.

[Stuttgart88]

I remember the game but don't recall Lawrenson's winner being so late.

1st Sept 2001: We beat Holland and Germany got spanked at home 5-1. A lot has changed since then.