4-5-1

[Professor]

Call Collymore on TalkSport focused recently on formations, with heavy criticism of 4-5-1 being used by some managers, especially away from home. This line-up can be negative, lacking ambition to win the game and some teams that have played it have had a thrashing. The counter argument is that 4-5-1 gives you more control of the midfield and you still have two wide men to support the loan striker as well as a player in the hole to pick up the flicks off. Maybe some managers prefer it, but maybe others use it if they don't have a second reliable striker.

Is there a place for 4-5-1 in some Saints' games, if only for part of the game, starting with 4-5-1 and reverting to 4-4-2 in the second half?

[trousers]

Ask Poortvliet and Wotte...

[St Will]

Ask Mourinho....

[Badger]

Call Collymore on TalkSport .... Maybe some managers prefer it, but maybe others use it if they don't have a second reliable striker.

Is there a place for 4-5-1 in some Saints' games, if only for part of the game, starting with 4-5-1 and reverting to 4-4-2 in the second half?

 

The bold bit might influence our approach.Trouble is,I don't see Lambert as a lone striker as he often seems to come back towards midfield to pick the ball up.See some of his goals for Bristol Rovers,shots from distance well behind where a lone striker would be expected to be.We would also need two good wide players to make it work.

 

Personally I'd ideally like a more attack minded first half,and inrtoducing 4-5-1 to stifle the oppsition later on (when we are 2 or 3 up).

 

As for Collymore,are you sure he wasn't talking about 'dogging' formations ?

[Doctoroncall]

Can also depend on the personnel at the managers' disposal but the main point is to negate an attacking threat from the oppostion.

 

I can recommend Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson. A thoroughly enjoyable read charting the change of tactics using the formation as the basis over the past century from the 2-3-5 to the 4-5-1.

 

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sport/Book-review-Inverting-the-Pyramid.4260423.jp

 

http://www.thepickards.co.uk/index.php/200908/inverting-the-pyramid-a-history-of-football-tactics/

[St. Jason]

Call Collymore on TalkSport focused recently on formations, with heavy criticism of 4-5-1 being used by some managers, especially away from home. This line-up can be negative, lacking ambition to win the game and some teams that have played it have had a thrashing. The counter argument is that 4-5-1 gives you more control of the midfield and you still have two wide men to support the loan striker as well as a player in the hole to pick up the flicks off. Maybe some managers prefer it, but maybe others use it if they don't have a second reliable striker.

Is there a place for 4-5-1 in some Saints' games, if only for part of the game, starting with 4-5-1 and reverting to 4-4-2 in the second half?

 

Of course there is a place for 4-5-1 under Pardew. The big deference between Pards, Portaloo and Wotte is that Pard's has the ability, nouse, experience to change things around when needed. What was our final formation Saturday when he sent Trottman up front, 3-4-1-2????

[Badger]

Can also depend on the personnel at the managers' disposal but the main point is to negate an attacking threat from the oppostion.

 

I can recommend Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson. A thoroughly enjoyable read charting the change of tactics using the formation as the basis over the past century from the 2-3-5 to the 4-5-1.

 

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sport/Book-review-Inverting-the-Pyramid.4260423.jp

 

http://www.thepickards.co.uk/index.php/200908/inverting-the-pyramid-a-history-of-football-tactics/

 

Having looked at the links provided that does potentially look an interesting read.I note the comment regarding the English "distrust of intellectualism" in the game.Remember the reaction to SCW ? Although he did not help himself by his association with a clown like Clifford,and a buffoon called Rupert.

 

It did make me think about Saints formations over the years.Were we not one of the few clubs to play with a sweeper in the early 80's when we had Agboola ?For a couple of seasons we appeared to have mastered this which had been beyond most other clubs here.Although Lawrie won the praise for this in the media I always thought it was probably John Mortimore - with his experience in Europe- who was the real architect of it.

 

Hoddle,like him or not,and lets not reawaken that debate please, also played a sweeper effectively and could change the system around (although not at Tranmere before someone else posts it!).

[Gingeletiss]

Collymore is a self opinionated gobsh1te....I used to love those couple of hours on talksport, but I flip over to 909 now.

[JustinR]

4-5-1 is only 4-5-1 when you dont have the ball. It should naturally become 4-3-3 when attacking.

 

If you play a rigid 4-4-2 then the full backs have to cover alot of ground. 4-5-1 to 4-3-3means they dont have to and the wide players can support the striker.

 

Murty returning might also change things.

[trousers]

Ask Aspel

[Cabrone]

4-5-1 can be effective if you have a good powerful centre forward and 2 good wide men.

 

It allows you to take control of midfield whilst still offering a potent threat up front.

 

We have the front man (Lambert) but we don't have wingers of sufficient quality to play this formation.

 

As a result Lambert is starved of decent opportunities.

 

He needs a partner up there to feed off his flicks and knock ons.

 

4-5-1 has cost us valuable points on the road IMO.

[Scummer]

It's quite funny that the original poster seems to be suggesting 4-5-1 as a new idea for us to try, whereas other people think we've been playing it quite a bit this season already.

[oxfordshire_saint]

Football 365 sum it up in the first bit of today's Mediawatch article:

 

http://www.football365.com/mediawatch/0,17033,8755,00.html

[70's Mike]

Listening to WGS on Sky yesterday

said system depends on the strengths and weaknesses of your players should not try and play system unless your players are right for it

[Doctoroncall]

Having looked at the links provided that does potentially look an interesting read.I note the comment regarding the English "distrust of intellectualism" in the game.Remember the reaction to SCW ? Although he did not help himself by his association with a clown like Clifford,and a buffoon called Rupert.

 

It did make me think about Saints formations over the years.Were we not one of the few clubs to play with a sweeper in the early 80's when we had Agboola ?For a couple of seasons we appeared to have mastered this which had been beyond most other clubs here.Although Lawrie won the praise for this in the media I always thought it was probably John Mortimore - with his experience in Europe- who was the real architect of it.

 

Hoddle,like him or not,and lets not reawaken that debate please, also played a sweeper effectively and could change the system around (although not at Tranmere before someone else posts it!).

 

It seems we (England) could produce some forward thinking coaches but could not use them to change/dictate the way the game was being played. Now it's completely different with foreign coaches over here with little chance of any English coaches progressing.

 

More on the formations and the tactics can be found on video here:

 

http://www.uefa.com/trainingground/index.html#34002/128/519239

 

These are given by European coaches, watch out for the astute Roy Hodgson!

[dune]

4-5-1 is only 4-5-1 when you dont have the ball. It should naturally become 4-3-3 when attacking.

 

Precisely, and we should stick with the system. We're playing well and the wins will come.

[shurlock]

Listening to WGS on Sky yesterday

said system depends on the strengths and weaknesses of your players should not try and play system unless your players are right for it

 

I also found that very interesting (though should be commonsense). I guess that puts AP's challenges, as a new manager, in some sort of perspective- its not just about setting up the system in accordance with a manager's priors, its more importantly about knowing your players inside out which takes time.

[RinNY]

As some have pointed out, it depends on how you play it and what players you have.

 

Ideally the 4-5-1 should mean you have 6 defensive-minded players, and 4 attack minded players. Two of your five midfielders do the defensive, ball winning, link up part of the midfield play. One midfielder plays up the field, off the striker, making runs into the box and such, in the Lampard/Gerrard style. And two wide men support the striker, and should be able to break into the box and score goals themselves.

 

Problem is, not many teams, especially in lower divisions, have the personnel to play 4-5-1 effectively: it tends to become very defensive, packing the midfield and offering little going forward. I reckon outside the Prem, you're definitely better off going with the traditional 4-4-2.

[Clifford Nelson]

Where our team is right now I wouldn't suggest tinkering with any systems. We are only just turning our age old fragilities into a more robust team, but we are far from there yet. There is a little bit too much tinkering going on as it is by keeping moving Lallana and James from position to position to accommodate subs. Those two should equally have firm positions and be subbed like for like.

 

Maybe towards the end of the season if we are reasonably safe but with no chance of promotion AP could look at different ways of doing things, but in my experience the "system", whatever it is, means nothing unless you have the players who can be comfortable in it. We are not within miles of trying new things. I'm all for a bit of boredom at the moment and to eke out a few wins. That would be a welcome novelty.

[Block 5]

Collymore is a self opinionated gobsh1te....I used to love those couple of hours on talksport, but I flip over to 909 now.

 

Collymore should stick to wife beating and dogging.... two areas in which he excelled, allegedly.

[Legod Third Coming]

Collymore should stick to wife beating and dogging.... two areas in which he excelled, allegedly.

 

I don't believe he was ever married to Ulrika. And anyway, doesn't she annoy you??

[Block 5]

I don't believe he was ever married to Ulrika. And anyway, doesn't she annoy you??

 

Spousal abuse is a terrible thing, as a rule.

But of course, every rule has it's exceptions.