Jump to content

Team shape, tactics and personnel


MaVilla

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, sne said:

Yeeeeeaah 'corse.

4231 and playing to the players strengths (Buendia/Bailey etc), as well as playing someone like dendoncker to offer the defensive balance, its like frickin rocket science.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top: Fulham average positions

Bottom: Brentford average positions.

(Yes, it's upside down but so it's easier to compare by attacking in the same direction)

Just look at the difference in CM. The coverage of that area and the support for the central striker is night and day. No wonder we could play some intricate passes between three or four players when attacking today.

You also got loads more width up front to hit early and create chances from wide or on the break.

 

Screenshot_20221023-170350~2.png

Screenshot_20221023-170317~3.png

Edited by May-Z
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted this in the match thread earlier but seems quite apt for here: 

Quote

 

A lot of people look to be putting this down to player effort but that’s well wide of the mark for me, seen these players bust a gut running around like a headless chicken for Gerrard countless times over recent games.

Difference for me is a shape which doesn’t leave us constantly exposed due to our full-backs having to provide ALL the width so Mcginn and Ramsey, who aren’t great defensive players to begin with, getting pulled all over the place and gaping holes are left when they aren’t in a position to defend like in transition.

Buendia as a 10 has been a master stroke and he’s been excellent, roaming all over the pitch constantly offering an option and allowing Luiz and Dendonker an option at all times allowing them to retain shape. He is also tenacious off the ball, certainly not the stereotypical “luxury player” a player of his skill in a 10 role may be associated with.

We are attacking with tempo when we win the ball and not allowing the opponent to settle in shape which is allowing Watkins and Bailey to get in behind with pace, again reducing the burden on the full-backs to constantly overlap.

Such simple tweaks really but it’s all the more infuriating Gerrard was persisting with what clearly wasn’t working. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what a wan***, didnt even consider the fact that the lineup and tactics were almost entirely different, a few important changes in the first 11, which is at least part of the reason we did better.....

 

 

Edited by MaVilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

what a wan***, didnt even consider the fact that the lineup and tactics were almost entirely different, a few important changes in the first 11, which is at least part of the reason we did better.....

 

 

**** who? 😂 oh look, two seasons at blues

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, May-Z said:

Top: Fulham average positions

Bottom: Brentford average positions.

(Yes, it's upside down but so it's easier to compare by attacking in the same direction)

Just look at the difference in CM. The coverage of that area and the support for the central striker is night and day. No wonder we could play some intricate passes between three or four players when attacking today.

You also got loads more width up front to hit early and create chances from wide or on the break.

 

Screenshot_20221023-170350~2.png

Screenshot_20221023-170317~3.png

blimey, did Luiz really play as the most advanced centrally?, with Ings playing almost like a CM.....Emi looks about right.

Interesting.

to be honest, it doesnt look all that different in terms of width (on paper), but its clear our midfield was much more packed allowing us control of the centre of the pitch easier.

clear to see Dendoncker (32) shielding the defenders allowing the other like Luiz to move forward and press/tackle higher etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

blimey, did Luiz really play as the most advanced centrally?, with Ings playing almost like a CM

No, the numbers are upside down. Dougie was more advanced than Dendoncker though, yeah.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, May-Z said:

Top: Fulham average positions

Bottom: Brentford average positions.

(Yes, it's upside down but so it's easier to compare by attacking in the same direction)

Just look at the difference in CM. The coverage of that area and the support for the central striker is night and day. No wonder we could play some intricate passes between three or four players when attacking today.

You also got loads more width up front to hit early and create chances from wide or on the break.

 

Screenshot_20221023-170350~2.png

Screenshot_20221023-170317~3.png

Back line looks about the same...

Front line is maybe a tiny bit wider, but not as much as I would have thought. I have to say that I never thought of playing Watkins on the right instead of the left or centre, but it worked.

The big difference, and surprise, to me is midfield...it actually looks narrower. But that's because we weren't dependent on advancing the ball down the wings and used the centre for once.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TomC said:

Back line looks about the same...

Front line is maybe a tiny bit wider, but not as much as I would have thought. I have to say that I never thought of playing Watkins on the right instead of the left or centre, but it worked.

The big difference, and surprise, to me is midfield...it actually looks narrower. But that's because we weren't dependent on advancing the ball down the wings and used the centre for once.

 

I don’t think the Fulham one was really the one to compare, there was that bizarre one once where the fullbacks were on the corner flags and McGinn hanging out by the dugout.

I think more importantly what you don’t see from average position is the players were just where they needed to be when they needed to be - it was all so much more natural and played to the players strengths. 

Edited by a m ole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TomC said:

Back line looks about the same...

Front line is maybe a tiny bit wider, but not as much as I would have thought. I have to say that I never thought of playing Watkins on the right instead of the left or centre, but it worked.

The big difference, and surprise, to me is midfield...it actually looks narrower. But that's because we weren't dependent on advancing the ball down the wings and used the centre for once.

 

The width is unlocked by the positions of the wingers being in front of the central attacker rather than tucked in behind. 

If you think of the average positions as the starting positions, you can see how much easier it is to use width behind full backs earlier. As opposed to the wide players being fed with the ball dropped back to them. With chance for defenders to close up. 

What you say about switching flanks also worked well as it meant the ball could be used earlier when crossing rather than it having to be checked back first. 

It's the type of stuff Gerrard just refused -or didn't know how to - tweak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MaVilla said:

what a wan***, didnt even consider the fact that the lineup and tactics were almost entirely different, a few important changes in the first 11, which is at least part of the reason we did better.....

 

 

I watched this earlier. Completely clueless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-danks-purslow-manager-25336933

 

Quote

“The formation we played today with two wide wingers stretched their backline. Emi (Buendia) had a lot more room to turn and to play through his passes. It was enjoyable for us. Everybody felt comfortable, playing with freedom and making quality passes.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is so exciting about Emery is he has adapted his formations and style of play at each club he's been at. He has focussed on a double pivot in various formations primarily the 4 2 3 1 and 4 4 2. I like his 4 4 2 at Villareal where it becomes a diamond in attack with the wide midfielders moving a bit narrow and one 6 moving into 10 role (I think Luiz will be superb in this system beside Kamara). He also uses his full backs in attack, but interestingly they join the attack when they are prolonged attacks, not as the primary width in a slow build up (ala Gerrard). Emery's teams have always employed counter attacking and pressing which I think is key for this squad and a team in our desired position of a consistently top 10 side. 

The fact he is a cup specialist, he can set up teams specifically to maximise chances of progression by coming up with specific game plans for the opposition. We can hope to win a domestic cup under him. My gut tells me Emery will start out with the 4 2 3 1 and then adapt to his 4 4 2 as an option and we might see a 3 at the back formation in time but not regularly. I like that he gets 3 games before the World Cup, twice against United and once away to Brighton. I hope there is a big new manager bounce / continuation of Danks ball to get us to that break with some positivity. 

The fact we have such a large talented squad lends itself to high energetic pressing game with use of all 5 subs as players tire. 

Edited by CVByrne
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â