Formations

[Kevin77]

I’m certainly not advocating dropping the 4-4-2 system that is working fantastically well for us at the moment, merely highlighting another option to possibly try out in friendlies. I have to say I’m sceptical of trying out ‘flavour of the month’ formations, but when you look at the playing staff available to us at the moment, I think the 4-3-2-1 formation stands out as a blatantly obvious alternative to 4-4-2 (alternative – not replacement).

It would be nice to see Kerr try it out against Portugal and if it shows any sign of working, perhaps if Israel (or any other nations) are proving tough to break down, maybe we could give it a go for the last thirty minutes.

We certainly have an abundance of tricky forward/winger type players at the moment (Duff, Reid, McGeady) and it is very difficult to fit them all in a 4-4-2 formation.

Worth a look in my opinion.

[1MickCollins]

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.

If you are going to play with one specialist striker then he needs to be able to hold on to the ball and connect back with oncoming midfielders and he has to have a physical presence - I don't see Robbie excelling in that role, Shevchenko, Henry & Van N are far better suited for such a role. 4-4-1-1 or 4-3-2-1 could be useful for away games but for home games I think 4-4-2 would suit us best.

What those teams you mention have is the ability to counter-attack, 4-3-2-1 is a good counter attacking formation rather than a formation that would suit us at Lansdowne Rd where we will have the bulk of possession and when has Ireland last scored a goal on a counter attack in a competitive game? ( I've no doubt you have a file on this Eireboy) It is something that we don't seem able to do naturally.

[Kevin77]

The fact that we might not have scored many goals on counter attacks has probably got a lot to do with the types of attacking players we've had available to us in the past. We now have some significantly different ingredients to add to the mix. Duffer is relatively young at 25, Andy Reid is only 22 and starting to make a big impression, McGeady is 18. All of these players are the type to create something out of nothing - a quality we sadly lacked in the past.

In the future teams will have to genuinely worry about us 100 % of the time as opposed to just at set pieces and during periods of sustained bombardment.

[Karlos]

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. .

Not arguing that it doesn't work but again they adopted in a game Vs Shaktar after they have already qualified from the group. They certainly didn't use that formation against Barca or Celtic and would be interesting to see if they play that way away at Old Trafford. Take your point though that it can work and if only we have some of Milan's Personnel in the forwards positions I reckon we'd be world champions! In fairness if we had some of the attacking players mentioned in all the teams you mentioned playing the formation, we'd be laughing. As i've said before, would love to be proved wrong. Portugal next month is the place to give it a real go with the full first team

[eirebhoy]

If you are going to play with one specialist striker then he needs to be able to hold on to the ball and connect back with oncoming midfielders and he has to have a physical presence - I don't see Robbie excelling in that role, Shevchenko, Henry & Van N are far better suited for such a role. 4-4-1-1 or 4-3-2-1 could be useful for away games but for home games I think 4-4-2 would suit us best.

Chelsea actually seem to be doing better with Gudjohnson than Drogba and Gudjonson is more of a knock it off type player like Robbie. Robbie is actually always knocking it off to midfielders for Spurs but he never stops using his arms to indicate pass back.

when has Ireland last scored a goal on a counter attack in a competitive game? ( I've no doubt you have a file on this Eireboy) It is something that we don't seem able to do naturally.

Roy's pass for Robbie against the Faroe's? Duff dribbling his way home v Canada? Not sure if they were on the break.

[Slash/ED]

What those teams you mention have is the ability to counter-attack, 4-3-2-1 is a good counter attacking formation rather than a formation that would suit us at Lansdowne Rd where we will have the bulk of possession and when has Ireland last scored a goal on a counter attack in a competitive game? ( I've no doubt you have a file on this Eireboy) It is something that we don't seem able to do naturally.

It seems to suit Chelsea at home even in games where they're expected to toally dominate.

[Karlos]

It seems to suit Chelsea at home even in games where they're expected to toally dominate.

Agreed I don't view it as a counter attacking formation - hence my view on the 'possible' defensive frailties for us in this lineup - and i think we've heard enough about that already!!

[1MickCollins]

It seems to suit Chelsea at home even in games where they're expected to toally dominate.

I thinks it works better in the premership as defenses aren't used to defending against such formations though more clubs are doing that now, playing continental international teams on the other hand at Lansdowne where they get 10 men behind the ball, I'm not sure I see it working unless the fullbacks really try and get wide and in behind the defense then an extra man in the midddle would help. Anyway with players of such quality as Chelsea have formation isn't really the key.

[Stuttgart88]

I’ve been away for a few days but I just noticed this thread, my favourite topic! Apologies if I’m a bit off the pace on this one.

My first point is: why is Mourinho being treated as some kind of tactical genius in the press? 4-3-3 or however you want to present it is hardly revolutionary. Denmark & Portugal use it frequently at international level (with mixed results) as I’ve said on about a dozen posts recently. Denmark wiped the floor with England in the second half at Old Trafford last year, though Portugal struggled to turn great possession into goals in Euro 2004 due to the lack of a quality central striker.

The English media were all saying last Autumn that Duff & Robben couldn’t play together. What rubbish. It just goes to show just how tactically rigid English 4-4-2 football had become. This was noted by Kerr well over a year ago though he’s rarely done anything about it. Anyone who saw Duff in Suwon could see just how versatile he is. However, the fact that Mourinho was almost forced by Drogba’s injury to use this shape doesn’t take away from the fact that he has used it to good effect. Wenger has complained about its popularity: tough titty Arsene, why don’t you alter your own shape to combat it?

Moyes has used a very different 4-5-1 system (4-1-4-1 I suppose) with Carsley dropping back to protect the back 4. Charlton do it too, and Rommedahl is probably used to it from his international experience.

The thing with 4-5-1 is that it can be used in two ways: like Jack did against Italy in New York which was primarily cautious and defensive. Or a 4-3-3 with attacking wide players who drop back when out of possession to add numbers to midfield.

I like the idea of 4-3-3 (or even 3-4-1-2 / 3-5-2 at times) as it gets our best attacking players all on the pitch. With players like Duff, Reid and McGeady flanking Robbie we’d have plenty of pace and trickery to add to a solid midfield (pick any 3 of Keane, Kav, KK, Quinn, Holland, Reid, Delap…). I also like Kevin77’s first 3-5-2 selection. In fact it might just suit O’Shea (is he a full-back, is he a centre-half?). This is not just following a fad – it’s just one way of using our best players.

However, a good point in a post above is: do you drop a very much in form Morrison?

I think the point is that we have options to use these systems and different circumstances call for different ideas. Take last season’s Albania game: Later on, a 3-4-1-2 would have given us much more attacking ammunition than the stale, turgid 4-4-2 which only worked due to a flukey o.g. 3-4-1-2 or 4-3-3 could be called for against a team determined to defend at Lansdowne. Even using 4-4-2, you can pick the midfield 4 with attack or defence in mind. We’ve no shortage of width even from the full backs anyway. So I’d expect 4-4-2 to remain as our starting formation in most games.

The Everton 4-1-4-1 could work in a tough away game. It’s another issue but I think Delap could do the role Carsley does at Everton.

Anyway, I’m glad to see Kerr acknowledges these options though I couldn’t believe he thought Elliott was appropriate for a 4-3-3 against Croatia.

Regardless of formation, pace, tempo, width, discipline, work-rate and ball retention are the keys to success and I think Kerr is on top of this task. Good players like Duff will always add variability anyway.

[NeilMcD]

Very good post. Its post like that make me want to visit the site.

[carnstien]

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

Stephen Carr is a long term injury so Finnan would have to play right back. Just wish we could do a bit better than Holland in midfield, maybe Reid could play there, Keane and Kilbane would surely provide enough steel, with McGeady coming in beside Duff.

[1MickCollins]

Regardless of formation, pace, tempo, width, discipline, work-rate and ball retention are the keys to success and I think Kerr is on top of this task. Good players like Duff will always add variability anyway.

Spot on ole bhoy! attack as one, defend as one.

[Karlos]

I know we have been taking Chelsea as an example of the 4-3-2-1 but just wondering what people made of Newcastle yesterday. Started off in the Chelsea system but got picked off in wide positions twice in the first 3 or 4 minutes from Ameobi and Robert being caught too far up the field. The Flamini chance early on was a great example of how when the play breaks down high up the field, real top quality teams can punish you really quickly and expose those gaps!

Newcastle changed to a more defensive 4-5-1 after been mullered down the left at every opportunity by Reyes and Henry and evetually back to 4-4-2 late in the second half resulting in their only shot on goal from Bowyer.

Just thought overall, it was a good example of how this formation shouldn't be played and how beacuse it is in vogue with one team (who do it marvellously well) it doesn't necessarily work with everyone. The funny thing is i think a forward trio of Bellamy (unlikley now), Shearer and Robert would be perfect for that formation provided they worked at it - however they made a right pigs ear of it yesterday.

[carnstien]

I think Newcastles inability to play that formation is down to an inept midfield 3. Bowyer, Jenas and particularly that overpayed, overrated, piece of crap that is Kieron Dyer were passed off the pitch by Arsenal.

With players like King Roy and Andy Reid in there, I doubt we would suffer the same fate.

[Karlos]

The only problem with that is that Arsenal very rarely broke Newcastle down through the middle. The huge gaps were out wide where the 3 central players couldn't cover effectively due to the defensive lapses of Robert & Ameobi in Attacking positions. It's hard to blame players who are trying to do their job and someone elses as was often the case for the central 3 for Newcastle. Their ineffectiveness stemed from the inability of the wide men to get back when losing the ball high upfield. Even the great Roy Keane couldn't compensate for that in Newcastle's team. it's a formation that requires everyone pulling their weight and Newcastle's front 3 gave a shining example of how it shouldn't be played yesterday and it's just a different view on the vogue chelsea formation.

your right though - I don't particulary think the midfield three are great players.

[Slash/ED]

The only problem with that is that Arsenal very rarely broke Newcastle down through the middle. The huge gaps were out wide where the 3 central players couldn't cover effectively due to the defensive lapses of Robert & Ameobi in Attacking positions. It's hard to blame players who are trying to do their job and someone elses as was often the case for the central 3 for Newcastle. Their ineffectiveness stemed from the inability of the wide men to get back when losing the ball high upfield. Even the great Roy Keane couldn't compensate for that in Newcastle's team. it's a formation that requires everyone pulling their weight and Newcastle's front 3 gave a shining example of how it shouldn't be played yesterday and it's just a different view on the vogue chelsea formation.

your right though - I don't particulary think the midfield three are great players.

Which is why we're lucky that the main wide man for Chelsea for doing all the defencive covering work also plays for us.

[Karlos]

Which is why we're lucky that the main wide man for Chelsea for doing all the defencive covering work also plays for us.

fair point, Duffer was magnificent last night - the best I've seen him play defensively. Thought the Chelsea midfield were fantastic especially Makelelle, Lampard and Duff. With the exception of about 15 minutes when Giigs scored, Utd never really got to grips with them. If we could get Ireland playing like that it would be great but you all know my doubts over that! Materclass in defensive team work from Chelsea last night.