egg

Clubs pay analysts to understand how opponents play and coaches to coach them to deal with how opponents play, but what's the basis of your claim that clubs pay people to develop new tactics? I find it hard to accept that any top flight clubs would do that. Barca aren't, they're threatening to sack Koeman if he doesn't stop trying to be innovative!

The problem is you don't seem to understand how 442 can be played going forward. If 2 men in the middle stay deep, and 1 of the front 2 drops off, the team advance in a 4231. I get the impression that if you read a Michael Roux cookbook you'd be convinced that you're a Michelin star chef.

Dunno, but it was a shocker. I remember being at Wembley watching us play it against Norway (I think). 0-0 and the players had no idea what they were supposed to be doing.

Yep, agreed.

Your Salah point in a 442 discussion is pointless. He doesn't play as a winger, and Liverpool don't play 442. They play, usually, a 433 so Salah plays as wide forward in a 3 up top. Indeed, you've said above that TAA essentially plays as the right winger in that formation so make your mind up. As for your modern inside forward point. I'll stick on the Liverpool from the 80's point as you seem to focus on the current Liverpool. Watch back how they played. When Craig Johnston was one of the wide men in a midfield 4 he always came inside. Ditto Paul Walsh. Ditto others. 442 is not all the Burnley way, and never has been.

You're confusing yourself now mate. You said: "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". That's wrong on all levels. You perception of 442 seems to be a rigid concept of two full backs sitting deep. Two wingers staying wide. And 2 men up top waiting for the ball to be pumped up to them. It's more sophisticated than that in pub football, and has been much more variable than that for donkeys years. Re the "10". If one of the top 2 drop off they essentially play as a 10, ie not with their back to goal as per a 9. I've given you the Sheringham example as to how that has been happening for years. In our 2 up top in recent times, one player would always play short. You've said that there's no "double pivot" in a 442. I've given you quoted text from an article that explains that the double pivot is nothing revolutionary, and merely 2 defensive midfielders with a hipster name. I've explained that Saints played with that at times in the 80's in a 424/442. You've said that teams don't play with attacking full backs in a 442. They do and have since before you started following the game. You challenged me to name a full back with more assists than TAA (I'm not sure what that has to do with your 442 point as TAA doesn't play that formation). Regardless, and to get back to your point that full backs don't attack in a 442, I've taken you back 35 years when Mel Sterland was smashing in goals in a 442. Other full backs have been doing it and assisting - I won't do all your research for you, but if you show me a TAA assist I'll raise you 6 goals in the first 6 games of the 87/88 season from Liverpool's then right back, including a hat trick...all in a 442. I'll leave the discussion here, it's a bit pointless.

It's their job to help the country when needed in whatever capacity required. They ain't at war, so use them where there is need. The government are fecking incompetent though, and the driver situation is a complete shambles.

You've convinced yourself that you know more than you do. Here's a quote from thefootballanalysis re the double 6/pivot: "The 'double-six' is pretty simple and nothing revolutionary. It involves two defensive midfielders breaking up the play and distributing the ball well to the attackers. They have to be composed, often being in tight situations and being forced to turn and play" As above, its not revolutionary. Cockerell and Case did it in the 80's allowing our wingers and full backs to get forward. Other teams too. Notable that you mention TAA with his dead ball assists but ignore my reference to Mel Sterland. He scored 8 goals in a 38 game season in 1985-86. I watched that Sheffield Weds team lots, and the deep lying midfielders allowed him to get forward. Wiki refers to "his surges down the right flank and deliveries into the box often created goals for his teammates...". How was that possible before Pep came along eh?!

People filming stuff they should be enjoying rather than just enjoying the moment.

Here's the thing, you're set on your beliefs. Some teams have played with a striker long and another dropping off for years. In your time as a fan, think Sheringham dropping deep and playing with his face rather than back to goal. Spurs played 442 and he was one of the 2, albeit in a different role. In a 442, teams have played with 2 deep midfielders hundreds of times. You're wrong to say otherwise. In a 442 teams have been playing with attacking full backs since God was a boy. Liverpool's full backs did it in the 80's. Mel Sterland playing RB often popped up at left inside forward and scoring more goals than I suspect Adams will this season. That happened as midfielders covered. The same thing happens today. You think the evolution we see now is radical and new. It really isn't.

Thanks, good post and hard to disagree with much of it. The key part for me is that there's been evolution on the tactics, nothing radical, but getting hung up terms adds nothing to any debate for me. I read your post after I'd typed and posted what I did on sports science and physicality. We're on the same page.

The main changes, revolutionary stuff to an extent, is sports science not tactics. Fitness levels these days are unreal. Players are like rugby backs from 20 years ago. Diet and nutrition on another level. I've heard of corners being taken in darkness to improve perception. It's amazing. Players are just better, bigger, etc. That's meant a bigger need to press, and better ability to press. For me, that's the main are of change but largely caused by and necessitated by the physicality of players.

That shows a lack of knowledge. Sure, 442 can be 2 out and out wingers. Those wingers could stay high, or get up and down. They could also stay wide, or tuck in. They could run inside as inside forwards. There's always been variations of a theme. In a 442 the two up top could both play long through the middle. One would pull wide. Or both. One could come short leaving the other long. Some would call that 2 up top, others 1 up with 1 behind. It doesn't matter what it's called. It's all variations of the same. Mixing up the above, a man dropping off the front to sit between the wide men/wingers forms a 3 behind. Double pivot. We played 424 under Nichol. Some called it 442. We had 2 men in the middle who sat deep. A double pivot if you like manual jargon. If one got forward more, guess what, it was still a 424 or 442. If the wingers cut inside more than staying wide, they were still wingers. Honest questions. How long have you been watching football? It's relevant as those that have watched longer can see that what we see now isn't radical Have you coached? It's relevant as you talk coaching manual, but I could recite a cookbook but In truth I'm a shit cook.

Thanks. A good listen. Interesting start re everyone working hard, with his emphasis then shifting to recruitment and money. I wasn't sure if he was annoyed by the work ethic and/or coaching, or whether it was a general point about people having to work hard. Either way, he's saying our academy isn't going to be what it once was.

You and TWar both talk of the terms used. The point others have made, I think, is that using a new term does not make something new. Ralph calls 2 of our players "10's". They're wide midfielders who tuck in, get between the lines, track back and support the front men where they can. He could just call them wide midfielders. What's in a term? I've been watching football for many years. Yep, there's been subtle evolution, but nothing significant. We'll never know, but I'd hazard a guess that the current Liverpool squad playing in the style that Liverpool played in their glory days of the 80's, would do just as well in the current era.

LD is correct. Tactics we see today aren't new. 4231 is essentially a 442 but with a man dropping off the front and the wingers staying a bit higher. 4222 is barely any different than the 424 we played under Nicholls. Calling it something different doesn't make it innovative. Sure, tactics and styles evolve, but for me that's largely been down to the fitness, size and speed of players making a different approach necessary. LD point re Cruyff is bang on. Read what Balague has to say about Koeman's issues at Barca. He's under pressure because he won't commit to the donkeys years old Cruyff 433, and style. Essentially, he's facing the sack partly because he wants to move away from tried and trusted. Pep is brilliant but let's not pretend he's a tactical guru. He was raised in the Cruyff style. He's fused that with some of the Bielsa way. Poch, Klopp, Bielsa, our man, all are doing variations of the theme. Pep has had more success than the others because he's had amazing players to use.

Try harder mate, you're downright rude. I'll respond no more to you on this, you're attitude and lack of self awareness makes it pointless.

Exactly. It's not complicated. Unless you're looking for an argument.

I was responding your comment "Hope you and Egg had a nice spoon last night. xx". Pathetic. You really have taken a simple point way too far. You're not convinced we'd have won with Ings in the team rather than Armstrong. That's fine, I don't give a shit what you think. Normal people can agree to differ. Not you though, you carry on, and on, calling me princess, suggesting I'd "spoon" with Turkish, and generally being a bit of a twat. The irony is that you say "But as you sow, so you shall reap.) xx" Read my posts back. Read your responses too. I've not once been personal, abused you or otherwise been out of line. Even now I'll resist calling you an utter fucking helmet.

The sad reality is that in almost every response to either of us he's been personal, unpleasant or abusive, even throwing a loosely homophobic line. I've posted nothing personal about him. Not one word. Bizarre behaviour.

All this from me having an opinion that Ings would have taken chances that Armstrong hasn't. It wasn't intended to be a discussion as to our overall transfer dealings, just a simple point that imo one player would have taken chances that another didn't. That's led to a pathetic and ott response from you getting all personal and abusive. Wind your neck in.

I think Lyanco was deemed the best at that price point, and the club have taken a punt in him. Like you, I haven't written him off, although getting hauled off with 20 mins to go away to a championship reserve team doesn't inspire confidence. I'd forgotten that about VVD though but it was clear from early doors that he was something special.

Take a breath mate, it's only a football discussion.

Yep, all fair points Del. Armstrong definitely has something. Good touch, pace, aggressive, decent movement. There's a player in there and he looks better than Adams did when he arrived so there's a lot of scope for improvement. In time I'm confident he'll come good, but it's goals this season we need. Our biggest issue for me is the 10's/wide players. If we can get the blend right there I reckon we'll surprise a few this season, but it's been a very promising start.

You clearly struggle with the concept of an OPINION mate.