QuoteAs people have said, it was a normal 4-4-2, with Elliot on the right. No big deal.Originally Posted by dr_peepee
I've to work so I couldn't go to the game... Taping it so i can watch it tomorrow.
Have to say I was disapointed with the starting line up... Seems a little naive. A very light midfield. If you're gonna play three up front they should be supported by a grafting midfeild three. Surely Duff'd be better served as one of the attacking three and not the supporting three.
Time will tell I suppose
As people have said, it was a normal 4-4-2, with Elliot on the right. No big deal.
You can't spell failure without FAI
Was it?
Sorry for sounding like a total smartarse but:
Examiner:
Ireland were flexible tactically, shaping up somewhere between 4-5-1 and 4-3-1-2, as Kevin Doyle and Stephen Elliott alternated, and sometimes combined, as the spearhead.
Indo:
The 4-4-2 formation certainly wasn't rigid and its fluidity meant that from the start Robbie Keane often dropped deep with Kevin Doyle working across the line and the two wide men, Stephen Elliot and Duff pushing up on the full-backs.
Irish Times:
New captain Robbie Keane was deployed in behind Doyle while Elliott provided good assistance when cutting in from the right. Indeed, the trio alternated roles to good effect and, with Duff lending his weight too, they at times had the Swedish defence bamboozled.
Mark Lawrenson:
Staunton in his experimental phase went for a 4-3-1-2 formation. Fancy without being smancy as they say and a rebuke perhaps to the perceived conservatism of Brian Kerr. It worked well.
London Independent:
Staunton handed debuts to four players and deployed the most fluid of formations, switching from two strikers to four to three and back again.
London Times:
IRELAND (4-3-1-2):
Guardian:
Staunton, playing to his squad's strengths, set up his team to attack. The formation readily became 4-2-1-3 when they went forward, with Keane dropping into the hole and the wide players, initially Duff and Stephen Elliott, getting into advanced positions to support the debutant striker Kevin Doyle.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 02/03/2006 at 1:22 PM.
A lot of people are talking ****e about the formation, going on the misconceptions that came from there being three recognised strikers on the pitch. Elliot spent most of his time wide right, Duff was almost glued to the touchline, baring one or two runs.
Tell me, exactly how does the Examiner think you change from a 4-5-1 to a 4-3-1-2 and back? Did Robbie Keane actually play in midfield at some point? It's nonsense from hacks who don't give a damn.
You can't spell failure without FAI
I was at the game and it looked like a 4 2 1 3 formation when attacking with Duff and Elliot on the wings and Doyle with Keane just behind. When defending Doyle was left up front on his own.
Also Elliot and Doyle swapped during the game.
I'm glad to say i was wrong... I'll even go as far as to say that if someone posting here had suggested the formation & the tactics that Ireland displayed last night that I'd have argued vehemently against it and questioned their knowledge of the game.
But they were fluid and showed a level tactical flexibillity that I wouldn't have ever thought possible from an international side with our resourses. I'm a firm believer in consistency and while I don't believe simplicity, I do like to avoid over complicating tactics etc..... But last night just crapped all over everything i thought i knew about Ireland and international football ....
A Tip of the cap to Steve Staunton & Co.
Though I could understand if Duff did not want to swap Ostlund with anybody else.
Basically it seems to me that any time the ball was kicked out, by Sweden, the journos noted the position the Irish players were in assumed that was a tactical formation ... hence the multitude of formations quoted.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks