TWar

I can, I just choose not to with you. Some people are worth talking to and arguing in good faith and some are not. Sorry bud.

This is literally my point. I'm using liverpools 4231/433 to illustrate how different the roles are in these formations compared to the 442 which you claimed is similar to the 4231 but with a deeper lying second forward.

I could explain the difference between the 10 in a 442 diamond and that in a 4231, point out a 442 diamond is often more like a 433 with a deeper lying false 9. But even this brief snippet has too much terminology you don't know. I'd spend half my time defining things. Thats why fervently refusing to learn new terms holds you back. Would be like trying to teach your dog to do your taxes.

The issue with this conversation, aside from it being way off topic, is that without any evidence it just dissolves into us both giving our views over and over. The ideal situation would be some heatmaps but obviously they are not available from that era. I argue the modern fullback is more attacking and ask you to suggest a classic fullback with as many assists as TAA as counter evidence. I argue the modern inside forward plays a different role to the winger in the 442 and ask you to suggest a winger with as many goals as Salah as counter evidence. I argue that the modern pivot plays a different role to the classic CM and as a modern pivot player who scored as many as Gerrard as counter evidence. I understand you might not want to find this evidence, it is time consuming and not that important but without evidence it's just kind of us telling eachother our points ad nausium. It's the reason why Turkish, LD etc. hate stats so much, it gives people the ability to prove them wrong and then they stop being just another valid, albeit quite obviously wrong, view.

I think you might be getting a bit confused regarding Pep, he doesn't really have fullbacks fly down the flank mostly. His fullbacks often play centrally in attack, dropping into center mid. Normally asymmetrically with one into CM and one supporting the front three but often arriving more centrally as an underlapping option. Regarding Trent he got 32 assists in the last three seasons, that's an average of 11 per season ish and it brought down a little by injury issues last year. Can you find a fullback who puts up the same numbers as that? A single season of scoring 8 goals isn't really comparable, if anything it is less like Trent who plays as a winger who rarely comes central to score goals from open play (save the occasional screamer) I won't argue regarding the role of double pivots as it is less inherently provable than fullbacks changing role. I will set another challenge though, can you find a player who plays in the 2 of a 4231 who gets the same number of open play goals as Gerrard or Lampard did. Also, question I would love to know the answer to. If Football tactics have evolved so little then how come every manager doesn't know them to a similar degree? And if they do why does form change so dramatically when swapping managers and tactics?

I'm not saying one striker doesn't drop deep in a 442, I'm saying the other roles are completely different. Also deep lying midfielders aren't the same thing as a double pivot. As an exercise. I encourage you to find a winger in a 442 who has as many goals per season as Mane/Salah or a fullback who has as many assists per season as Trent. I think that illustrates the point quite well.

Good point here. People often reduce tactics to 442 vs 4231 or whatever. The formations mean not that much compared to the overall tactics. They are easier to understand than how people like pep discuss football with half spaces and passing lanes and the like.

First question, since mid 90s. Second question, not at a high level obviously but a little bit yeah. I tend to find conversations are more valuable if you take arguments to be free standing rather than trying to argue that they are wrong because the arguer is not equipped to make them. In argumental discourse we call that one an ad hominem. As for before, in a 442 you don't have a 10, you don't have a double pivot and you don't have attacking fullbacks. With regards to the role of wide forwards vs wingers in a 442, compare the goal output of popular inside forwards (Mane, Salah, Son, Sterling, Mahrez, Hazard, rashford) during the times when their team were using 4231 (might have to go back a couple of seasons as 433 is more popular now) compared to the goal output of Beckham, Giggs, Joe Cole etc. Its a very different role. As a clue beckham and giggs in their combined 33 seasons in the prem got double figures goals just three times with a max goals of 13 in a season. It just isn't the same job.

And you carry on believing pro managers are employed for millions a year to come up with fancy new ways of putting old ideas and only you are smart enough to have worked it out, not the multi billion pound industry that employs them

Calling them wide midfielders would be grossly inaccurate last season as their average position is actually often narrower than the forwards. Its misleading to call them wide midfielders because they most certainly are not with Stu basically playing in the middle of the pitch most of the time and it's misleading to call them CMs because they are too advanced and interchange with the forwards (and also then what would you call JWP who is more of a CM). This is why we needed a new word and Ralph used a more modern one (although 10 isn't that modern anymore). I massively disagree with the Liverpool comment. Players like Trent would be dreadful as a traditional fullback as basically all his skill is in the attacking third. VvD would be completely wasted in a deep line as his pace and anticipation are his best attributes alongside his massive passing range. Firmino also doesn't score enough and isn't a good enough finisher to be a traditional striker, his main skills are pressing and link up with inside forwards, neither of which he would be used well in a different formation.

4231 is nothing like a 442, in a 442 the wide men play as wingers whereas in a 4231 the outside two in the three play as basically inside forwards to the point that right-footed players often prefer the left side of the three and vice versa. The 10 role is not a deeper sitting forward as much as it is an advanced 8 on the most part. Players who play in that role are a lot more like Gerrard than they are Owen/Crouch sitting back (to use England's 442 as an example). The double pivot is vastly different to the midfield two in a 442 as well with a focus on shielding the back four, and offering passing channels, see how many goals a Gerrard or Lampard bag compared to a Schneiderlin or Wanyama. They also focus on filling in for fullbacks who also have a different role as the primary source of width. Even the front man has a very different role being a loan target man rather than being focused on link up. In essence the only players who play the same role in a 442 and a 4231 are the GK and the CBs. Its a vastly different formation. The 4222 is also quite different to the 424 but I can't be bothered to go through that position by position. LDs point on Cryuff is nonsense, yes Pep was inspired by Cruyff in the same way a scientist builds upon existing theories. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" as Newton once said. But that doesn't mean Pep hasn't brought his own thing to the table. He has loads of excellent groundbreaking ideas like how he utilitises full backs as CMs and also wingers or 10s depending on the need at the moment, or how he uniquely found a way to involve his keeper in build up by having him step into empty quadrants. Even if you don't rate Pep, and I do i think he's a genius, then surely this idea that no one has innivated at all and it's all just new names is nonsense. You can see that through watching klopp and his pressing methods, or bielsa and his unique transitional play. Or Tuchel and his hyper attacking 352/343 hybrid. Saying there has been no tactical innovation in decades is incredibly silly, and mainly portrays that the poster just isn't aware of the innovation. Likely because they can't understand it as they won't learn the modern nomenclature.

Not sure what cyclinical means and am not fully sure it's actually a word. I also don't know why you keep saying the words "reinventing the wheel", its not reinventing the wheel, it is steady progress as the result of lots of talented people putting a lot of time into it as funded by major clubs.

It's weird you lot talk about video games so much, they seem to come up in almost every post whereas I don't think myself or any other football literate poster with a basic understanding of statistics ever really bring them up. Also hilarious that you think football hasn't moved and that all modern coaches are just rehashing old ideas, these people who are payed millions to manage and strategise about football vs you. Must think pretty highly of yourself for someone who can't understand the concept of xG.

Being influenced by somebody doesn't mean you haven't come up with something new. Also managers have always given instructions from the sidelines, not sure what you are on about there. Finally, why do you think these people get paid so much money to innovate if they aren't doing it? And I don't just mean managers, I mean teams of analysts and coaches as well.

You don't think football tactics have evolved whatsoever in the last few decades? All the people paid to study and develop them? The dramatically different way people like Pep played than people play in the 80s-90s? The people who make full careers out of football analysis? Isn't it just more likely tactics have developed massively and you haven't kept up with it?

Because the rate at which someone gets injuries isn't uniform across all players and a guy who as had two ACL injuries and hasn't played over 3000 minutes in the league in a season (and has only topped 2000 minutes twice) in the last seven seasons is a big risk. Danny is a big injury risk as he gets injured a lot and is pushing 30. Armstrong is not.

This is what I mean, you assume you have more playing experience than others because otherwise they would both have played as much as you and also know a lot more than you. Something that I imagine is often the case. The "my argument is more valid regardless of how ill-informed it is and how little I know about modern football because I was almost semi-pro in the mid 80s and I baselessly assume you have never kicked a ball in your life" argument is a pretty bad, and also pretty embarrassing one.

The issue is, how do you know those who know modern coaching terminology have less actual football experience than you? Is what I'm getting at. It just feels like you assume it because otherwise they would be both more knowledgeable about the modern game and have more experience than you, and then where would you be? It's like when you assume people who know the stats don't also watch the games? Why would you think that?

Not sure why you think playing football and staying up to date with it's modern terminology are mutually exclusive. Professional footballers and managers seem to be managing to use pretty simple terms ok. Reminds me of those comics you see occasionally where a young person doesn't know how to use a book, desperately "clicking" one it, or "swiping" wondering why the page doesn't turn. Always seemed odd to me as basically all young people know how to operate a book. At one point someone pointed out "older, technologically illiterate people don't know how to use a computer and for the sake of pride pretend it is a two way street and something they do easily like reading a book they claim young people can't do". I think that's it, it is easier to think that since you can't do one thing, someone else must be deficient in something you can do. But it's not the case, normally, some people are just smarter than you. One such comic for context:

Ings being viewed as a little more perfect than he was. Everyone misses chances. I reckon ings won't score more than 5 more goals in the league than Armstrong given his injury risk (putting myself out there a bit!). Next season when ings is 30 and Armstrong is still 25 I back Armstrong to surpass him. Season after that Armstrong will be in his prime and Ings will be close to retirement based on his injury record. We are having a transitional year with a bunch of young lads developing so buying longer term is smart. Swapping ings for Armstrong plus £15m in a years time will be excellent business imo.

This is probably a fair comment, I am not normally this animated or outspoken regarding a player. I guess I was annoyed that I had been complementing the club all summer regarding shrewd sales and even shrewder buys feeling that we were smashing the window saving all that money. Then when the money was needed and instead we got a cheaper, low quality option I will admit it wound me up a bit. I don't want to see money funneled out of the first team, I love this club and want to see it improve. You are probably right though, what's done is done and while, as I have made clear, I do not rate Lyanco as it stands we have a good team and livra, Armstrong and perraud all look inspired signings. Will try to be less irritated in the future.

Seen Leon Bailly has a big injury for them but nothing regarding Ings yet, has anyone seen this reported anywhere yet?

This is why it's arguable as he certainly was at one point rated but when we signed him he was off the back of an unsuccessful loan and his stock was pretty low.

The question you quoted? Hard to miss really, it was the only thing in the post.

He's good at 1v1 defending, winning the ball back, and pressing when needed as well as dribbling and passing, yes. Also good/decent might be an understatement, he is top 2 or 3 in the league for defenders at multiple things, I'd say excellent (or maybe insane 😉) is more apt. "Against the ball" isn't fluff, it's actually a lot quicker to say than listing all the ways he is good at pressing and defending as well as cutting of channels etc. It's a modern term, but it's one our manager uses and club uses so worth learning. Along with things like 10s and 6s, automisms, pressing triggers etc. it'll improve your ability to understand how we play if you can understand the terms our manager uses, as he's the one that sets us up after all.