PDA

View Full Version : Tactical Review of 2010/2011


Funko
07-06-2011, 13:17:21
good stuff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/jun/07/tactical-review-of-2010-11-season

Fistandantilus
07-06-2011, 16:23:54
Wilson is always quality.

Walrus Feeder
07-06-2011, 23:30:48
Yeah. good article. Thanks for posting it. A couple of years ago i read a book by Jonathan Wilson called 'Inverting The Pyramid - A History of Football Tactics' which i really enjoyed. It discusses the origins and merits of sweeper systems, the Italian 'Catenaccio' style, wing backs and variations of the 4-4-2 etc.

Crazy to think teams used to pay 2-3-5 and a little sad that now tactics can be quite defensive with just a 'lone striker.' Last year's World Cup where 4-2-3-1 seemed the norm doesn't bode well for the future. Compare that to 10-20 years ago when most teams played with 2 strikers which often forming lethal partnerships (Sutton and Shearer, Cole and Yorke or big man and little man: Dublin and Huckerby, Niall Quinn and Kevin Phillips) we now have what a lot of the time appears to be a lone striker supported from midfield so goals sometimes look harder to come by. That's alright if you have a Drogba type 'old fashioned center-forward' who is strong, can hold the ball up and is good in the air or a striker who is striker who is very quick on the counter attack but i've noticed it means the other types of strikers like Michael Owen, Jermaine Defoe, what i've of City's Eden Dzecko and to some extent Wayne Rooney being totally unsuitable in a 4-3-3 formation as the main striker. With 4-3-3 i've also noticed Arsenal struggle to break down teams and create chances against teams that pack the defence and defend deep. Sunderland and Blackburn both did this against Arsenal at the Emirates in recent months and both games finished 0-0. The likes of Van Persie, who is a great attacker, often appear to drift wide and they don't never seem to have a predatory centre forward in the box to get on the end of crosses.

What i've always liked about Manchester United though is that whenever they've done well Ferguson has always opted for 2 strikers which seems to best cater for the different types of strikers Utd have had over the years: Rooney and Sheringham as a 'second striker,' and Hernandez, Van Nistelrooy and Andy Cole who are great at finding space in the box and finishing. Makes you wonder if Fernando Torres was given a great striker partner he would find this beneficial and his game would improve and you would get the best out of him.

Lazarus and the Gimp
10-06-2011, 17:09:21
A few years ago Switzerland were playing 9-1-0, the bastards.

Fistandantilus
10-06-2011, 17:40:48
They have more talent now so they can afford a couple of goals on set pieces and bossing the ball for the rest of time.

Funko
30-06-2011, 15:13:55
It's a shame we get so little decent tactical insight on our TV coverage:

http://www.thesportcollective.com/the-problem-with-football-punditry/2011/05/

Colon
19-07-2011, 01:26:00
Yeah. good article. Thanks for posting it. A couple of years ago i read a book by Jonathan Wilson called 'Inverting The Pyramid - A History of Football Tactics' which i really enjoyed. It discusses the origins and merits of sweeper systems, the Italian 'Catenaccio' style, wing backs and variations of the 4-4-2 etc.

Crazy to think teams used to pay 2-3-5 and a little sad that now tactics can be quite defensive with just a 'lone striker.' Last year's World Cup where 4-2-3-1 seemed the norm doesn't bode well for the future. Compare that to 10-20 years ago when most teams played with 2 strikers which often forming lethal partnerships (Sutton and Shearer, Cole and Yorke or big man and little man: Dublin and Huckerby, Niall Quinn and Kevin Phillips) we now have what a lot of the time appears to be a lone striker supported from midfield so goals sometimes look harder to come by. That's alright if you have a Drogba type 'old fashioned center-forward' who is strong, can hold the ball up and is good in the air or a striker who is striker who is very quick on the counter attack but i've noticed it means the other types of strikers like Michael Owen, Jermaine Defoe, what i've of City's Eden Dzecko and to some extent Wayne Rooney being totally unsuitable in a 4-3-3 formation as the main striker. With 4-3-3 i've also noticed Arsenal struggle to break down teams and create chances against teams that pack the defence and defend deep. Sunderland and Blackburn both did this against Arsenal at the Emirates in recent months and both games finished 0-0. The likes of Van Persie, who is a great attacker, often appear to drift wide and they don't never seem to have a predatory centre forward in the box to get on the end of crosses.

What i've always liked about Manchester United though is that whenever they've done well Ferguson has always opted for 2 strikers which seems to best cater for the different types of strikers Utd have had over the years: Rooney and Sheringham as a 'second striker,' and Hernandez, Van Nistelrooy and Andy Cole who are great at finding space in the box and finishing. Makes you wonder if Fernando Torres was given a great striker partner he would find this beneficial and his game would improve and you would get the best out of him.

Rooney dropping deep, wingers pushing upwards... what you get isn't all that dissimilar to a 4-2-3-1. I take you haven't read Jonathan Wilson's Inverting The Pyramid? In it he makes the claim that Ferguson and Wenger were forefathers of the 4-2-3-1 because they utilise(d) a striker that dropped behind the other striker (Cantona, Bergkamp) while the wingers played rather higher than the central midfielders.
It's all just numbers in the end. The 2-3-5 of old would often have 2 'inside forwards' that dropped deep to connect with the midfield while one of the 3 midfielders also stayed back to provide cover for the defense (as stated in Wilson's book). Look at the Barcelona's 4-3-3 today: 2 fullbacks pushing high up, only 2 central centerbacks and a defensive midfielder focusing on defense and it again isn't all that dissimilar to a 2-3-5.
To take another leaf from Wilson's book: the beauty of the 4-2-3-1 is that allows for 2 old-fashioned attacking wingers (as opposed to the more balanced side midfielders of the 4-4-2) and a creative number 10. And add to that perhaps two attacking fullbacks and a central midfielder with a license to go forward and the package you get is pretty offensive.

Point being: don't be too quick to judge formations based on how they're numbered. It really depends on the type of players and the instructions they have.

Funko
19-07-2011, 07:36:06
Yeah. good article. Thanks for posting it. A couple of years ago i read a book by Jonathan Wilson called 'Inverting The Pyramid - A History of Football Tactics'



I take you haven't read Jonathan Wilson's Inverting The Pyramid?

:clueless:

Fistandantilus
19-07-2011, 13:23:39
I knew Walrus was lying!!!

Colon
20-07-2011, 20:58:09
Woops.:o

I do have to say that I don't think his statements after the first pharagraph really connect with what's written in the book (as I've outlined). I recall he'd nuance the differences in formations from time to time as well as how they're denoted. Wilson also has a piece on the site of the Guardian in which he compares Barcelona's 4-3-3 with the W-W tactic of Pozzo (which was a modified 2-3-5).

I'd even argue that the 2-3-5 is itself a bit of a lone striker tactic (one centre forward, with 2 inside forwards wingers and 2 outside forwards) and a 4-2-3-1 has shades of the 4-2-4 in it (one out-and-out striker, one deep-lying forward and two wingers).
Point again being that how offensive a team plays really depends on what the coach tells the players to do rather than the nominal formation.

Colon
20-07-2011, 21:16:04
BTW, tactics porn site here: http://www.zonalmarking.net/