Bailey Posted 31 January, 2009 Share Posted 31 January, 2009 I've seen there's a bit of debate on the post-match thread about how we lined up tactically today. IMO, it was as follows . . . ------------------ Davis -------------------- James ----- Saeijs ----- Perry ----- Molyneux ---------------- Wotton -------------------- -------- Gillett ----------- Surman ---------- ----------------- Lallana -------------------- -------- Saganowski -- McGoldrick ----------- So this isn't your conventional 4-4-2 system, but more of a 4-1-2-1-2 formation. To be honest, it worked well today too. Wotton protected the back 4 superbly and broke up the majority of Swansea's attacks. Gillett added a bit of bite in the middle and Surman is always a threat with his forward runs. In theory, this should enable Lallana to have a free role and move about the park as he wishes, having a real impact on the game in the process. As it happened though, Lallana was very quiet and didn't see much of the ball at all today. One problem with this system however, is that it exposes the full-backs. Playing in this way means we're very narrow when attacking and defending, and Swansea were getting alot of joy doubling up and making overlapping runs at both James and Molyneux. It means Gillett and Surman had to act as right and left midfielders when we didn't have possession and that's asking them to cover alot of ground. Still, for the large part of it, we dealt with Swansea's attacking threat quite well, and Wotte has shown that tactically he's quite astute and isn't afraid to make changes. I thought he got his subs spot on too so credit to him for that. I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on the system played today . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ypbl Posted 31 January, 2009 Share Posted 31 January, 2009 Yes, that was my take on the formation too (except the strikers played the other way round?). The subsitutions were all well timed and appropriate too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 31 January, 2009 Share Posted 31 January, 2009 What i've seen of Wotte and his tactics so far has been promising. His team selection against Norwich was a little suspect, but we put out a very strong team today I thought, and we did well to get the point after going 2-1 down with 10 men. I think this guy can keep us up. As for the formation, I think it worked quite well. There's not much width there, but if we concentrate our play through the middle of the park then the lack of width would not matter. My only qualm with the formation is that if teams like Swansea who play a wide game played against that team, they would have a field day, because it would pull the shape of our midfield and defence apart as players would have to constantly move out of position to close down wingers. However, it's only a minor qualm, and I think the future looks (relatively) bright for Saints under Wotte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 31 January, 2009 Share Posted 31 January, 2009 People get too fixated on overly exact descriptions of formations , the midfield '4' in a 4-4-2 may have one player sitting back covering the back 4 and others getting forward at every opportunity to support the front '2' for example - to invent complicated 4-1-2-1-2 etc titles to describe these relatively common arrangements seems to me an unnecessarily complexity that adds very little to our understanding of the game . The simple truth is today we had 4 defenders at the back and 2 strikers at the front - leaving the other 4 somewhere in the middle ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 31 January, 2009 Share Posted 31 January, 2009 People get too fixated on overly exact descriptions of formations , the midfield '4' in a 4-4-2 may have one player sitting back covering the back 4 and others getting forward at every opportunity to support the front '2' for example - to invent complicated 4-1-2-1-2 etc titles to describe these relatively common arrangements seems to me an unnecessarily complexity that adds very little to our understanding of the game . The simple truth is today we had 4 defenders at the back and 2 strikers at the front - leaving the other 4 somewhere in the middle ! true -very few 4-4-2 have a flat four, without anyone holding further back not anyone pushing on, nor two forwards side by side. That's why I think the criticism of the team should have been aimed more at the players and the preparation of them rather than saying we lost cos we didn't play 4-4-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 31 January, 2009 Share Posted 31 January, 2009 imo gillet and surman were alot wider, particulary 1st half, with wotton and AL in central positions, kind of a 442 diamond formation, with wotton sat back and AL pushing forward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 31 January, 2009 Share Posted 31 January, 2009 I've seen there's a bit of debate on the post-match thread about how we lined up tactically today. IMO, it was as follows . . . ------------------ Davis -------------------- James ----- Saeijs ----- Perry ----- Molyneux ---------------- Wotton -------------------- -------- Gillett ----------- Surman ---------- ----------------- Lallana -------------------- -------- Saganowski -- McGoldrick ----------- So this isn't your conventional 4-4-2 system, but more of a 4-1-2-1-2 formation. To be honest, it worked well today too. Wotton protected the back 4 superbly and broke up the majority of Swansea's attacks. Gillett added a bit of bite in the middle and Surman is always a threat with his forward runs. In theory, this should enable Lallana to have a free role and move about the park as he wishes, having a real impact on the game in the process. As it happened though, Lallana was very quiet and didn't see much of the ball at all today. One problem with this system however, is that it exposes the full-backs. Playing in this way means we're very narrow when attacking and defending, and Swansea were getting alot of joy doubling up and making overlapping runs at both James and Molyneux. It means Gillett and Surman had to act as right and left midfielders when we didn't have possession and that's asking them to cover alot of ground. Still, for the large part of it, we dealt with Swansea's attacking threat quite well, and Wotte has shown that tactically he's quite astute and isn't afraid to make changes. I thought he got his subs spot on too so credit to him for that. I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on the system played today . . . That was the line up and positions. I was told the formation before the game and told Derry who posts on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 31 January, 2009 Share Posted 31 January, 2009 imo gillet and surman were alot wider, particulary 1st half, with wotton and AL in central positions, kind of a 442 diamond formation, with wotton sat back and AL pushing forward particularly Gillet in first half -more a traditional right midfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 31 January, 2009 Share Posted 31 January, 2009 (edited) for me it was 4-1-3-2 with Surman and Gillett having to cover both central and wide positions. I disagree that Lallana was in the hole, he played CM. ------------------ Davis -------------------- James ----- Saeijs ----- Perry ----- Molyneux ---------------- Wotton -------------------- -------- Gillett -----Lallana ------ Surman ---------- -------- Saganowski -- McGoldrick ----------- In the end it doesn't matter what formation it was it was all about the effectiveness and whilst we were sharp and lively it worked a treat, as we got more tired and then with ten men it was less so. Edited 31 January, 2009 by Chez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 31 January, 2009 Share Posted 31 January, 2009 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanh Posted 1 February, 2009 Share Posted 1 February, 2009 for me it was 4-1-3-2 with Surman and Gillett having to cover both central and wide positions. I disagree that Lallana was in the hole, he played CM. ------------------ Davis -------------------- James ----- Saeijs ----- Perry ----- Molyneux ---------------- Wotton -------------------- -------- Gillett -----Lallana ------ Surman ---------- -------- Saganowski -- McGoldrick ----------- In the end it doesn't matter what formation it was it was all about the effectiveness and whilst we were sharp and lively it worked a treat, as we got more tired and then with ten men it was less so. I'd agree with that. The most important things werre that we had two strikers, no wingers and unfortunately that Lallana had a rubbish game. not sure whether it's confidence of because he's returning form injury, but he offered nothing today. Separately, Swansea showed how to play 4-2-3-1 today with Jason Scotland being a brilliant lone stiker and their wingers being a threat all game. I didn't think their players were that much more accomplished than ours, but they are obviously more experienced and more confident and it showed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 1 February, 2009 Share Posted 1 February, 2009 (edited) I'd agree with that. The most important things werre that we had two strikers, no wingers and unfortunately that Lallana had a rubbish game. not sure whether it's confidence of because he's returning form injury, but he offered nothing today. Separately, Swansea showed how to play 4-2-3-1 today with Jason Scotland being a brilliant lone stiker and their wingers being a threat all game. I didn't think their players were that much more accomplished than ours, but they are obviously more experienced and more confident and it showed. I actually thought they missed a trick by not exposing our weakness (poor fullbacks and no wide midfielders) by supplying their wide men more. When they did they took us peices. Scotland was terrific, strong, pacey and a genuine threat. Seijs had a tremendous game to keep him quiet. Edited 1 February, 2009 by Chez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 1 February, 2009 Share Posted 1 February, 2009 I thought the mid-field was poor in terms of tactics today. There are players that are either not understanding how it works or just not good enough to adapt...namely McGoaldrought and Lallana. Both of these guys need to sort themselves out, but I really think the formation does not help the team one bit. The nearer we seem to get to a standard 4-4-2 the better the team plays IMO. How long before this is seen by Wotte? Perhaps even he has his orders from the Director of Football to play that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 1 February, 2009 Share Posted 1 February, 2009 Obviously I wasn't there, but iinteresting that both the Mail http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article5627846.ece and the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/feb/01/southampton-swansea-championship Comment that we showed a lot more bite & aggression and the latter printed the comment "But they made it difficult for us. No-one coming to St Mary's is going to find it easy now." In other words other teams thought we were push-overs at home before as well as us fans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulstersaint Posted 1 February, 2009 Share Posted 1 February, 2009 What i've seen of Wotte and his tactics so far has been promising. His team selection against Norwich was a little suspect, but we put out a very strong team today I thought, and we did well to get the point after going 2-1 down with 10 men. I think this guy can keep us up. As for the formation, I think it worked quite well. There's not much width there, but if we concentrate our play through the middle of the park then the lack of width would not matter. My only qualm with the formation is that if teams like Swansea who play a wide game played against that team, they would have a field day, because it would pull the shape of our midfield and defence apart as players would have to constantly move out of position to close down wingers. However, it's only a minor qualm, and I think the future looks (relatively) bright for Saints under Wotte. As for the formation, I think it worked quite well. There's not much width there, Agreed. What we need is a pacy winger who can play left and right, attack the FB and go to the touchline and gets crosses in. Someone like Nathan Dyer ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 1 February, 2009 Share Posted 1 February, 2009 I'm just glad we played like a Championship team yesterday. Was brilliant to see a midfield who wanted to tackle and actually won the ball back, better than all the fancy ****e we've been playing and losing with all season. Someone needs to tell Gillett to calm down a bit with his passing, he tries too often to pick out a killer pass and losses possession, if he just played a simple ball left or right he'd be a really good player for us. His work rate and team ethic is top notch, probably his best game for us yesterday I was really impressed. Wotton and Gillett > Schneiderlin and Surman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 1 February, 2009 Share Posted 1 February, 2009 As for the formation, I think it worked quite well. There's not much width there, Agreed. What we need is a pacy winger who can play left and right, attack the FB and go to the touchline and gets crosses in. Someone like Nathan Dyer ..... Kayne McLaggon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanh Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 I actually thought they missed a trick by not exposing our weakness (poor fullbacks and no wide midfielders) by supplying their wide men more. When they did they took us peices. Scotland was terrific, strong, pacey and a genuine threat. Seijs had a tremendous game to keep him quiet. It seemed to me that they were using the wingers - especially their right winger - throughout the first half and then during the second half when we had our backs to the wall tey were switching play across the field all the time. Their full backs were ball players, just like JP wanted Skacel and James to be, they just seemes that bit more experienced and confident in the system. I guess they used it last season to win promotion. If JP had still been there and we played the same formation it would have been interesting to see how we would have coped as I don't remember us playing anyone else who used that formation. Agreed on Seijs. For me he was MOM thanks to his second half performance keeping Scotland at bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now