Tactics

[darrenm]

I can't think of any formation being as effective as MON's 442 with e.g.

                  Friedel

Young  Collins  Dunne  Warnock

NRC     Petrov   Barry      Young

           Gabby  Carew

The players may be slightly anachronistic but I remember that it would essentially be a flat back 4 with Young/Makeshift RB and Warnock/Bouma overlapping slightly, Petrov sitting deep and dictating play, Barry and NRC as a 2 man midfield, then Ashley Young as a floating winger who would drift left or right and swing cross after cross onto Carew's or Gabby's head.

I still think that having a spare winger pumping crosses into the box is remarkably effective even now. People would complain about the poor viewing pleasure but when you can actually score goals, the pretty play can come afterwards on its own e.g.

[One For The Road]

5 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I can't think of any formation being as effective as MON's 442 with e.g.

                  Friedel

Young  Collins  Dunne  Warnock

NRC     Petrov   Barry      Young

           Gabby  Carew

The players may be slightly anachronistic but I remember that it would essentially be a flat back 4 with Young/Makeshift RB and Warnock/Bouma overlapping slightly, Petrov sitting deep and dictating play, Barry and NRC as a 2 man midfield, then Ashley Young as a floating winger who would drift left or right and swing cross after cross onto Carew's or Gabby's head.

I still think that having a spare winger pumping crosses into the box is remarkably effective even now. People would complain about the poor viewing pleasure but when you can actually score goals, the pretty play can come afterwards on its own e.g.

I cant tell you how sad that makes me feel. How close we were to the Champions League under MON and playing football like that. Now we are in the Championship and losing to Sheffield Wednesday. ;(

Edited August 8, 2016 by One For The Road

[darrenm]

It's the off the ball movement that's the major difference between then and now I think. If you watch, everyone is running into the right space for someone to find them. Barry's run makes the goal pretty much, we never have anyone bothered enough to run now because they don't believe anyone will find them.

[dounavilla]

7 minutes ago, One For The Road said:

I cant tell you how sad that makes me feel. How close we were to the Champions League under MON and playing football like that. Now we are in the Championship and losing to Sheffield Wednesday. ;(

Randy says "yo" 

[terrytini]

16 minutes ago, darrenm said:

It's the off the ball movement that's the major difference between then and now I think. If you watch, everyone is running into the right space for someone to find them. Barry's run makes the goal pretty much, we never have anyone bothered enough to run now because they don't believe anyone will find them.

Indeed.

And there is a reason we all remember that goal.

 

We didn't do that very often.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm in the camp that enjoyed a lot of the footy under MON but there was only odd occasions we flowed as well as that !).

IMO movement off the ball tends to come from one thing, confidence.  Confidence in what other players are doing and the confidence to try and fail.

There was a perfect example against Wednesday when they attacked down our left in the Second half and their guy turned a little pass out wide (from the edge of our box) and there was nobody there.  The point was he 'knew' somebody would have made that run 99/100 times, a knowledge which comes from familiarity and having done it X times before.

Had there been someone there it would have opened us up and looked terrific.

That's why overall I'm less concerned (but not unconcerned) with specific tactics and much more concerned with the repetition of whatever system (or ideally 3 systems) (or none if you are Roy Hodgson at the Euros) that the Manager decides upon.

Its also why I've been baffled by some of the more damning comments from some fans, they are a Team who know each other inside out, we are new players with new coaches, it is bound to take time, whether we like it or not.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

3 hours ago, useless said:

4-2-3-1 differs from 4-4-2. Because in 4-2-3-1 the two in midfielders tend to be a double pivot, allowing the full-backs to add the width, the three behind the striker don't really play as wingers. Whereas in 4-4-2 of the two in midfield one is usually quite attacking whilst the other holds and it's the wingers who add width.

Which is how we set up yesterday, yet under pressure in the first half they necessarily reverted to a flat 4-4-2. 

I guess my point, poorly made, is that intention is one thing, the in game reality is quite different and when you play with a 2 man midfield, unless they're absolutely brilliant, your 'inside forward' needs to be able to track back and defend also. 

I've no issue with 4-2-3-1 being the denotation for an attacking 4-4-2 with a double pivot in midfield, I understand that. I only say that when we put together our dream line ups we need to consider that for 50% of the game on average we're not going to have the ball. 

[Zatman]

I still think 3 at the back will offer us more protection especially if going forward with Hutton and Cissokho in next few games. Okore or heaven forbid Richards are decent on the ball they could even go as a sweeper

alternatively Bannan was dropping into defence yesterday when their full backs bombed forward, maybe something to consider as well

[dont_do_it_doug.]

39 minutes ago, Zatman said:

I still think 3 at the back will offer us more protection especially if going forward with Hutton and Cissokho in next few games. Okore or heaven forbid Richards are decent on the ball they could even go as a sweeper

alternatively Bannan was dropping into defence yesterday when their full backs bombed forward, maybe something to consider as well

I'm a fan of the 3-5-2, but not when Hutton and Cissokho are the wing backs. We rely on them for width far too much as it is. 

[Zatman]

Just now, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I'm a fan of the 3-5-2, but not when Hutton and Cissokho are the wing backs. We rely on them for width far too much as it is. 

hypothetical would be Amavi at left wing back and then maybe Lyden right wing back or Bacuna.

Or in what in an attacking sense could work but will obviously never happen but would be more dangerous going forward playing traore as right wing back as he would have a lot more space to run into with the ball

[macandally]

1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Which is how we set up yesterday, yet under pressure in the first half they necessarily reverted to a flat 4-4-2. 

I guess my point, poorly made, is that intention is one thing, the in game reality is quite different and when you play with a 2 man midfield, unless they're absolutely brilliant, your 'inside forward' needs to be able to track back and defend also. 

I've no issue with 4-2-3-1 being the denotation for an attacking 4-4-2 with a double pivot in midfield, I understand that. I only say that when we put together our dream line ups we need to consider that for 50% of the game on average we're not going to have the ball. 

That is how a 4-2-3-1 reverts when the ball is lost, to a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1.  What we struggled with was the transition from attack to defence in the first half as there was no press.  In the second half, the forward players pressed higher which enables the defensive transition and forced Wednesday deeper.

[StanBalaban]

2 hours ago, One For The Road said:

I cant tell you how sad that makes me feel. How close we were to the Champions League under MON and playing football like that. Now we are in the Championship and losing to Sheffield Wednesday. ;(

Could be worse. Look who we were playing and where they are now.

[kurtsimonw]

On 8/8/2016 at 22:03, Zatman said:

hypothetical would be Amavi at left wing back and then maybe Lyden right wing back or Bacuna.

Or in what in an attacking sense could work but will obviously never happen but would be more dangerous going forward playing traore as right wing back as he would have a lot more space to run into with the ball

Issue is that we only have 2 centre backs - unless you start Toner there.

[pacbuddies]

Had to pop into this thread just to see if I could find a definition for the title. A strange and alien word being used in relation to AVFC.

[Grasshopper]

As we are I would prefer 3 CB's Chester Elphick & Baker (very balanced)

If we must play Bacuna at RB/RWB I'd prefer him operating more in Wide right midfield & Attack.

Amavi's match fitness lends me to the same on the Left (3 CB's offering more cover)

With Jedinak & Tshibola I think the middle is strong MJ covering, Tshibola carrying.

Having McGoal & Ayew/Grealish as link players from Midfield to CF, we have plenty of bodies in the middle of play who can also support Gestede up front.

When on the front foot we'll have Gestede + 1 from Mc JA/JG as front line with 1 of them buzzing around the box supported by Tshibola, Bacuna & Amavi pushing up on the flanks.

When under pressure we could effectively have a backline of 5 with a bank of 4 in front.

(Gestede would have to improve his hold up play)

Would love it if we could get a RB and a more all round CF

[mikeyp102]

With tish and Gestede out injured id be tempted to go for a back three on Saturday 

 

                     Gollini

         Elphick Baker Chester

De Laet.                             Amavi

            Jedinak Westwood

                     Grealish

                Ayew McCormack 

[nnock1984]

Why would you change the formation? We've got the best defence in the division do far and have created the most chances!

[Grasshopper]

13 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

With tish and Gestede out injured id be tempted to go for a back three on Saturday 

 

                     Gollini

         Elphick Baker Chester

De Laet.                             Amavi

            Jedinak Westwood

                     Grealish

                Ayew McCormack 

Chester for Baker

Baker for Chester

Elphick for Chester

Chester for Elphick

Bacuna for Westwood

then I'm with you

Edited August 25, 2016 by Grasshopper

[dpt666]

1 hour ago, mikeyp102 said:

With tish and Gestede out injured id be tempted to go for a back three on Saturday 

 

                     Gollini

         Elphick Baker Chester

De Laet.                             Amavi

            Jedinak Westwood

                     Grealish

                Ayew McCormack 

Now your talking pal I'd like to see this the front 3 could tear Bristol city a new one 

[Mjvilla]

23 minutes ago, dpt666 said:

Now your talking pal I'd like to see this the front 3 could tear Bristol city a new one 

The issue I have is how Bristol city set up... If they set up with 1 up top then our 3 central defenders are marking 1 man. I will be honest and say I don't know if city will play 1 or 2 up top. I just think we can't say play 3 at the back Willy nilly because we need to know how the opposition will set up. 

[dpt666]

4 hours ago, Mjvilla said:

The issue I have is how Bristol city set up... If they set up with 1 up top then our 3 central defenders are marking 1 man. I will be honest and say I don't know if city will play 1 or 2 up top. I just think we can't say play 3 at the back Willy nilly because we need to know how the opposition will set up. 

I agree you have to be watchful of the opposition but I feel if we were to impose ourselves on them in a balanced attacking ( and during periods where the opposition have a bit of control the wing backs make a 5 ) we will win ..imo ..let them worry about us infact let's make the rest of league worry bout us 

We have gone 5 years of mediocre line ups not scoring goals conceding goals shit attitudes we have now assembled imo a quality championship 11 which on paper should be winning away at Bristol city  I'd add we have the best 11 in this league 

Obviously it's up to bobby  but with jedinak n tish guarding a back 3 of Chester elphick baker( these 3 up for corners awsell)...DeLeat n Amavi bombing either wing  jack in the cam role slotting in ayew n McCormack   to me I'd go for it  Especially in home matches 

 

UTV