Tactics and Formations (Split)

[TWar]

45 minutes ago, Turkish said:

It's a bit like being told how to drive by someone who has never been in a car in their life. Hope that helps. 

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?

Edited 24 September, 2021 by TWar

[sadoldgit]

31 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

I remember Tim Sherwood as a pundit bemoaning others opinions because they hadn't played the game, he's punditry ended up like his managerial career, washed up because he sounded like a twat.

Ray Houghton was another one who used the point that he had “played the game” to intimate that his point was more important. Gotta love those egos! There are plenty of people who have “played the game” who are clueless and plenty of people who haven’t (to that level) who have valid points to make. To coin a well know phrase, opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. Not sure why some people feel they have a right to one when others don’t, but as we all know, a certain poster on here is the only one who’s opinion matters 😏

[Lord Duckhunter]

There was different terminology for some things in my old mans era compared to mine, the difference is hipsters nowadays think they’ve invented something new. It’s the same old simple game it’s always been. Some of us don’t need a computer game or pony stats to form our opinions. 

[Turkish]

27 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There was different terminology for some things in my old mans era compared to mine, the difference is hipsters nowadays think they’ve invented something new. It’s the same old simple game it’s always been. Some of us don’t need a computer game or pony stats to form our opinions. 

Exactly. The new lot thing with their silly names they’ve invented something new. It’s all just reinvention with fashionable names for everything that’s gone before.  Imagine the excitement when a sweeper becomes fashionable again and gets renamed as something trendy, a false 5 playing in a deep lying against the ball channel or some other bollocks. Yet they all think these modern ideas are something special and they are superior to anyone that played the actual frigging game at a decent level

[TWar]

40 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There was different terminology for some things in my old mans era compared to mine, the difference is hipsters nowadays think they’ve invented something new. It’s the same old simple game it’s always been. Some of us don’t need a computer game or pony stats to form our opinions. 

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?

Edited 24 September, 2021 by TWar

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, TWar said:

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?

Load of old pony.

Pitches, rule changes & balls are more responsible for tactical changes than the modern  tactical genius, they’re bluffers most of them. 
 

Pep, fuck me, holland were playing that way 50 years ago. I presume you’ve heard of Johan Cruyff and his influence on Pep.

 

Difference nowadays is managers stand on the touch line ( or technical area lol) and tell people where to stand, where to run and who to pick up. In past years the players sorted most of it out themselves. If the full back was struggling the midfield would shift over, if they were getting over run in midfield a striker would drop in. The didn’t give it fancy names or try to pretend they’d re invented the wheel. There’s not a formation or tactic that’s anything new, it’s all just a slight twist on the way it’s been done  for years. 
 

Edited 24 September, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[TWar]

6 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Load of old pony.

Pitches, rule changes & balls are more responsible for tactical changes than the modern  tactical genius, they’re bluffers most of them. 
 

Pep, fuck me, holland were playing that way 50 years ago. I presume you’ve heard of Johan Cruyff and his influence on Pep.

 

Difference nowadays is managers stand on the touch line ( or technical area lol) and tell people where to stand, where to run and who to pick up. In past years the players sorted most of it out themselves. If the full back was struggling the midfield would shift over, if they were getting over run in midfield a striker would drop in. The didn’t give it fancy names or try to pretend they’d re invented the wheel. There’s not a formation or tactic that’s anything new, it’s all just a slight twist on the way it’s been done  for years. 
 

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.

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Load of old pony.

Pitches, rule changes & balls are more responsible for tactical changes than the modern  tactical genius, they’re bluffers most of them. 
 

Pep, fuck me, holland were playing that way 50 years ago. I presume you’ve heard of Johan Cruyff and his influence on Pep.

 

Difference nowadays is managers stand on the touch line ( or technical area lol) and tell people where to stand, where to run and who to pick up. In past years the players sorted most of it out themselves. If the full back was struggling the midfield would shift over, if they were getting over run in midfield a striker would drop in. The didn’t give it fancy names or try to pretend they’d re invented the wheel. There’s not a formation or tactic that’s anything new, it’s all just a slight twist on the way it’s been done  for years. 
 

Like most things these days, these silly games have given geeks a voice and they think they’re experts. Push and run,  the W formation, inside forwards, wingless wonders, total football, even the big man up top in a 4-4-2 were once consider the work of tactical geniuses. I remember in 1986 or so when Sheffield Wednesday beat us 3-0 at the Dell after they got promoted with their direct football everyone saying they’d never seen anything like it. There is nothing new just a copy or variation of stuff that’s gone before with a rebranding. The difference is now every little drip with an internet connection is an expert because they did alright on FM19

[Patrick Bateman]

"Pep" 🙄

[TWar]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Like most things these days, these silly games have given geeks a voice and they think they’re experts. Push and run,  the W formation, inside forwards, wingless wonders, total football, even the big man up top in a 4-4-2 were once consider the work of tactical geniuses. I remember in 1986 or so when Sheffield Wednesday beat us 3-0 at the Dell after they got promoted with their direct football everyone saying they’d never seen anything like it. There is nothing new just a copy or variation of stuff that’s gone before with a rebranding. The difference is now every little drip with an internet connection is an expert because they did alright on FM19

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.

[Turkish]

Just now, TWar said:

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.

Embarrassing post. The xG concept is pretty simple. As is the fact that football like most things is cyclinical unfortunately it’s you that hilarious if you really believe that these wonder tacticians are completely reinventing the wheel when they come up with a new system that’s never even been seen before in 100 odd years of professional football

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

"Pep" 🙄

Clowns mate

[TWar]

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Embarrassing post. The xG concept is pretty simple. As is the fact that football like most things is cyclinical unfortunately it’s you that hilarious if you really believe that these wonder tacticians are completely reinventing the wheel when they come up with a new system that’s never even been seen before in 100 odd years of professional football

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. 

[egg]

25 minutes ago, TWar said:

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.

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. 

 

 

 

 

[wooley7]

31 minutes ago, TWar said:

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.

I don’t know why you bother engaging, I don’t blame you but it’s like trying to reason with cheese.

I think we have a case of ignorance being bliss.  Clearly you are not debating the brightest of people. 

These sweeping generalisations about people who play computer games are this, people who have played football to a good level are that, people who use modern language are something else. That in itself shows a complete lack of intelligence.  It’s not just on this thread either it appears on every thread.

The FA coaching manual uses these terms, all mangers in interviews use these terms, analysts on Sky (pundits for those who need it) use these terms. Wow betide anyone should use them on here!!

Football tactics haven’t evolved at all?!? Seriously? That just has to be a wind up.

For the record, I played to a decent standard as a youngster, my dad, who played youth/pro football with Watford and Gillingham as a teenager in the 60’s, took me to my first game when I was six. 

I both understand and use modern football parlance and I do play FM and I used to play loads of FIFA at university, as did pretty much every other person who played football.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, wooley7 said:

I don’t know why you bother engaging, I don’t blame you but it’s like trying to reason with cheese.

I think we have a case of ignorance being bliss.  Clearly you are not debating the brightest of people. 

These sweeping generalisations about people who play computer games are this, people who have played football to a good level are that, people who use modern language are something else. That in itself shows a complete lack of intelligence.  It’s not just on this thread either it appears on every thread.

The FA coaching manual uses these terms, all mangers in interviews use these terms, analysts on Sky (pundits for those who need it) use these terms. Wow betide anyone should use them on here!!

Football tactics haven’t evolved at all?!? Seriously? That just has to be a wind up.

For the record, I played to a decent standard as a youngster, my dad, who played youth/pro football with Watford and Gillingham as a teenager in the 60’s, took me to my first game when I was six. 

I both understand and use modern football parlance and I do play FM and I used to play loads of FIFA at university, as did pretty much every other person who played football.

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. 

[TWar]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

[Turkish]

12 minutes ago, TWar said:

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. 

Okay mate you carry on believing that every new variation of a formation or tactic is some groundbreaking new discovery taking football to a level Never seem before. LOL

 

Edited 24 September, 2021 by Turkish

[TWar]

15 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

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. 

[TWar]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Okay mate you carry on believing that every new variation of a formation or tactic is some groundbreaking new discovery taking football to a level Never seem before. LOL

 

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

[egg]

18 minutes ago, TWar said:

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. 

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. 

Edited 24 September, 2021 by egg

[wooley7]

17 minutes ago, egg said:

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. 

I agree. I’m not talking in absolutes here. The things that the terms refer to are just the same now as at anytime.

When I was young there was little coverage or analysis so these terms weren’t used. Players still passed, made ‘key’ passes, tackled, intercepted the ball, won headers and pressed, etc. just that no one was recording it.  

These terms ‘new’ have been applied to modern analysis, personally I think it is interesting, not the be all and end all but there is some great information about players and teams now which I think can help give a better understanding of the game. 

if people don’t like it, that is fine but to constantly lambast others and make lazy genralisations about those that do is the problems here. A few individuals dominating every thread, arguing with anything outside of their understanding.

Football, like most other things evolves, like most sports a large part of that is down to modern science, training and athlete lifestyle. I think suggesting tactics have not also changed since the advent of mass coverage, better pitches and modern analysis is just wrong.

 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, TWar said:

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

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. 

[wooley7]

I should add when I say tactics that doesn’t mean formation. Two different things in my mind.

Also, the pass back rule had a big effect on tactics.

[TWar]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

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 Al 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 of you like a manual. 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. 

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. 

Edited 24 September, 2021 by TWar

[egg]

5 minutes ago, wooley7 said:

I agree. I’m not talking in absolutes here. The things that the terms refer to are just the same now as at anytime.

When I was young there was little coverage or analysis so these terms weren’t used. Players still passed, made ‘key’ passes, tackled, intercepted the ball, won headers and pressed, etc. just that no one was recording it.  

These terms ‘new’ have been applied to modern analysis, personally I think it is interesting, not the be all and end all but there is some great information about players and teams now which I think can help give a better understanding of the game. 

if people don’t like it, that is fine but to constantly lambast others and make lazy genralisations about those that do is the problems here. A few individuals dominating every thread, arguing with anything outside of their understanding.

Football, like most other things evolves, like most sports a large part of that is down to modern science, training and athlete lifestyle. I think suggesting tactics have not also changed since the advent of mass coverage, better pitches and modern analysis is just wrong.

 

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. 

[TWar]

5 minutes ago, wooley7 said:

I should add when I say tactics that doesn’t mean formation. Two different things in my mind.

Also, the pass back rule had a big effect on tactics.

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. 

[notnowcato]

Has this got a little off topic??

[egg]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

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, 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. 

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. 

[TWar]

1 minute ago, egg said:

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. 

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. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, TWar said:

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. 

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?! 

[TWar]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

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?! 

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?

Edited 25 September, 2021 by TWar

[egg]

5 hours ago, TWar said:

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?

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. 

[Toadhall Saint]

7 hours ago, notnowcato said:

Has this got a little off topic??

Just a tad.

[Turkish]

7 hours ago, TWar said:

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. 

What about in a 4-4-2 with diamond shape midfield? You have what is called a number 10 then. 

 

Am I a genius who has just invented a way of playing a 4-4-2 with a number 10

or is it b, it has been around for decades. 

[CB Fry]

What's the hipster name for the Terry Venables Christmas Tree formation?

[Matthew Le God]

[Wade Garrett]

What an absolute load of bollocks.  Any of you weirdos ever actually played the game?

[wooley7]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

What about in a 4-4-2 with diamond shape midfield? You have what is called a number 10 then. 

 

Am I a genius who has just invented a way of playing a 4-4-2 with a number 10

or is it b, it has been around for decades. 

This one is easy, you are definitely not a genius!

[TWar]

2 hours ago, egg said:

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. 

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.

[TWar]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

What about in a 4-4-2 with diamond shape midfield? You have what is called a number 10 then. 

 

Am I a genius who has just invented a way of playing a 4-4-2 with a number 10

or is it b, it has been around for decades. 

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.

Edited 25 September, 2021 by TWar

[Toadhall Saint]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

What's the hipster name for the Terry Venables Christmas Tree formation?

Triangle?

[egg]

13 minutes ago, TWar said:

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.

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. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Interesting discussion that should be split and have its own thread 

[egg]

14 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Interesting discussion that should be split and have its own thread 

Yep, agreed. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, egg said:

 

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. 

Correct 4-4-2 was the formation when sides were defending (or “against the ball lol”). Going forward there were many many different variations. From England’s 66 winning team, where Bally & Martin Peters weren’t traditional wingers, to Graham Taylor’s Watford that had 2 wingers. 
 

Pressing is another one. It’s not modern. Big Jacks Ireland used to squeeze the pitch & press years ago, the difference is they knocked it into channels to get up the pitch. Once up there they squeezed & pressed sides. 
 

Malcolm Allison was talking about every player playing in every position and circulating the ball, passing the opposition to death when Pep wasn’t even in his dads ball bag. Difference was you couldn’t really knock it about on the Baseball ground mud, or with Chopper Harris kicking you up in the air. As I said earlier, rule changes changed the game more than modern coaches ever did. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

What's the hipster name for the Terry Venables Christmas Tree formation?

Happy holidays tree

[egg]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

What's the hipster name for the Terry Venables Christmas Tree formation?

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. 

[Totton Saint]

Why don't you all e mail each other instead of cluttering up the forum with this stuff

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, Totton Saint said:

Why don't you all e mail each other instead of cluttering up the forum with this stuff

Email? Bless