I usually look for the system at the kick off. Every team has a formation or system when in possession and when out of possession. For example 4-4-2 switches to 4-2-4 in attacking play, or 5-3-2 to 3-5-2. Most teams tend to line up in their system at the kick off. The BBC football page is very good. In the line ups for each game, they lay out the formation and adjust it if necessary.
To pick a system look for the defensive line. If the Right Centre Back has one other Centre Back to his left, it's a flat back four. If he has two to his left, it's a three man central defence. When out of possession, the two full backs drop in a line alongside the centre backs. In the 5-3-2 to 3-5-2 system they will push forward quickly as Wing Backs.
The characteristic of each system is governed by the style and ability of each individual in that system That will also determine whether a club uses a different system, like 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 which are more constant. So look to see if there are 2 Central Midfielders in front of the Centre Backs or just the one. Then decide whether there is one Centre forward, two strikers, or a Centre Forward with a number 10 playing just in behind him.
Every team should have a pattern of play that fits the system. For example, a short passing game through midfield, or an "up, back and through" style of play, into the Centre Forward to set up.the through ball.
When out of possession, most teams will either drop off to defend the 18 yard line, in a compact formation or push up as a team to defend high up the pitch and press the ball to suffocate the opposition and win the ball high up the pitch.
There are plenty of websites on systems, covering the 4-4-2 Diamond, 4-3-3, 4-4-1-1, 4-1-4-1, 3-4-3, Just put the system into google.
Tutt Tutt, you might disagree, but I posted on another thread, that I don’t think players at our level are good enough to play 4-2-3-1s and other modern formations that have crept in over the years.
Take Saturday. DJ and Kirk apparently too wide and not offering enough cover for the full backs. Watson and Morgan hopelessly overrun in the middle. Stockley, marooned up top. I’m not saying it won’t work, but I think it’s reserved for better players. It’s no disrespect to players at League One level, but I feel the most effective teams at this level just do 4-4-2 really well.
We had our diamond under Bowyer, but 3 of our midfielders that season were Cullen who had the energy and skill level to play in the middle 2 and cover the wing, break up the play, keep it simple. Bielik was a unit and Aribo class, all 3 of them capable of playing for decent championship teams imo, Aribo probably Prem. I look at our midfielders now, and probably only Arter has the pedigree to play in a formation of this type, although I’m pretty sure Bournemouth were 4-4-2. Even Burnley. They’re in the Premier League. It’s not attractive football, but I think Dyche knows he can’t faff about with anything other than 4-4-2, because of the players he has at his disposal. How the likes of Adkins and the Karl Robinson’s of this world think they can get away with 4-2-31/4-3-3 etc I’ll never know.
@Tutt-Tutt, are you still coaching ? and at what level ? Last two seasons I have watched lots of Step 4 and 5. Young guys on the way up but have left academies but still hoping to be spotted and Ex pros some still only mid 20's earning a part time wage. Plus guys who are all ages and step 4 and 5 are their level.
At games on Saturday at Valley, FA vase in Essex Sunday, FA youth Cup tonight at Tolworth watching a talented group of Youngsters from a foundation representing Corinthians Casuals in the second qualifying round and tonight I just admired the talent on show in a one sided match and picked out kids who will get another opportunity in the tough world of attempting to get a pro contract. Like all good sides they interchange positions so much that the full backs were available so often for a pass from an overlap. Excellent pitch at the Corinthians.
I always look at ours and the opposition tactical line up. The clever managers often switch the formation during the game if things aren't going well. Having said that, you need to have the type of player who can adapt. If we had the right players last weekend then I would have packed out the midfield with a 352....but for that formation you really need wing backs and importantly wingers who naturally track back to cover.....its effective with the right players.
Currently we have a right mish mash of players that have been brought in to go 4231....wouldnt be so bad if that was combined to a 433 but we don't seem to have the nous to adapt play in and out of possession.
2 in midfield against a strong well organised 3 and sometimes 5 midfield Cheltenham side was suicide....it was so obvious, I was screaming at the tv...change it up you numpties.
We aren't comfortable playing out from the back. There is no movement in a midfield two so we end up playing into dead ends and nobody is making or moving into space......so lots of sideways and passing back and across the centre backs.
We were so bad at times it looked like Cheltenham had two extra players on the pitch. (I guess they did as Kirk and DJ were anonymous).
The other thing that struck me was how often we were caught ball watching, allowing Cheltenham to look like we were playing Brazil.
On paper the squad doesn't look too bad, its the tactics and discipline that needs to be sorted out....also I have to say after watching a fluid looking Charlton side against Crawley, Im a bit miffed that both Davison and Elerewe were omitted from the squad....anyone who watched the Crawley game would agree that Pearce at the moment is a waste of a subs space....how many mentors do we really need in the squad? Not exactly doing us much good at the moment.
I'm not that aware of the tactics, but my son who sits to my right is quite technical and often gives me the low down on formation changes as they occur during the match. I used to pass this information on to the bloke who sits on my left.
The trouble is the bloke on my left has sussed me out. He now by-passes me completely and goes straight to the font of knowledge on my right for his information.
Perhaps I should swap seats with my son so they can have a meaningful conversation?
Sad, I know - but I tend to watch a neutral game from my Company's point of view. First goalscorer, correct score and match odds - and ask myself "is that a good result?".
Ever since I got to about 14/15 and realised I didn't quite have the ability to make football as a career I've been really interested in the tactical side. Even when playing I felt I had a really good ability to read the game, just not the tools to go with it!
In my later teens and early 20's I did quite a lot of coaching including a certain Mr Parker aged 8/9 (he learnt nothing from me ).
It drives my daughters a bit mad as I tend to get a bit carried away in the stand with instructions as if they can hear me or as if they'd take any notice
Footballs changed a lot the last 30 years, back then almost every team would play 442 or a slight variation. However the fundamentals remain the same.
To an extent I'm a firm believer in playing a formation based on your opposition but more importantly based on the ability of your team squad. It's OK if you have world class players and a large squad, you can almost play any formation you like as you'll have those tools at your disposal.
IMHO thats been our downfall a lot of the time the past few years, trying to play a style/formation that we don't have the personnel to do. Whether that's ability or ageing legs.
If I go back to the time I knew the team inside out;
Bolder - you wouldn't have played him and asked him to play out from the back, he struggled to keep it in half the time hoofing it up the pitch to Leaburn! Neither would you have with Balmer and Webbo. Pitcher (RIP) - you wouldn't have asked him to play wing back in a 5 (Minto however you could quite easily) Bumstead in a midfield 3!?! Actually, his knowledge was phenomenal so maybe in his younger years (Nor Gritt, Curbishley, or Pardew) Mendonca as a sole striker???.......
When I look at our squad it cries out for 442, we could comfortably play 451, but 433 is a stretch too far as the top 3 aren't likely to drop back successfully enough, often enough so if you fail with the high press the midfields out and the opposition is already on our defence and probably outnumbered.
I'm not convinced you can play any form of diamond either that includes Watson or Morgan. You probably could with JFC and Arter in there.
Part of management is getting the best from what you have, motivationally of course but also using the tools you have as best you can. We have too often try to bash square pegs into round holes.
Thats why if the owner does at some point remove Adkins I'd go with Jackson, his knowledge and understanding of the game is up there with the best of them. Add in his knowledge of the club, this league etc, he's a high chance of success with the right backing.
What 2 do we have, that are fit and proven, that you could play in the middle of midfield on a 442?
If you say, for example Clare, tucking in from the right and a more attacking winging, say Leko, on the left, then 2 up top, it's no different to a 433 is it?
Charlton have regularly played a proper 442 since midway through the 98/99 season, apart from a brief spell under Luzon.
I have seen suggested that the 451 Curbs used is the solution, that had a "10" were Lee, Morgan and Washington have ment to have played at verious points. It also had 2 wingers, Rommedahl and Thomas. I don't see how, on paper, that's any different to what we play now. Apart from the obvious quality.
IMO what ever formation you throw at the wall the two is the problem. Especially when most teams play 3, Cheltenham actually played 4.
I can't see how 442 is the answer (4231 isn't either BTW).
What are you saying Luzon played? Both Luzon and Peeters rigidly stuck to 4-4-2, though they played it differently with Luzon’s football being quicker and more direct.
Always been interested since reading The JS Story when I was about ten. There’s loads about how he worked out a way of adapting Spurs’ formation to counter the changes to the offside law in the 1920s. This involved the inside forwards playing a little deeper, creating the ‘W’ formation.
Interestingly, when they implemented the new set-up their manager complemented the players after the match, as he was pretty much in the dark. Managers at that time were generally not so involved in tactics, believe it or not. The national team didn’t even have a manager for quite some time; the selectors picked picked the team and let the players get on with it. I’ve occasionally wondered if we wouldn’t be better of trying that at Charlton lol.
These days, beyond noticing the initial set up (442, 352, 3241 etc), I try to just ‘enjoy’ the game. I remembering being stressed at Wembley when we set up with three at the back, because Naby didn’t play so well in that formation, as was shown when he was subbed at half time. In years of playing Sunday league football I don’t think I ever heard our team discussing tactics at all, we just picked the best side we could and got on with it, in a nominal 442 I guess. Simple.
In answer to the question; yes....but sometimes I wish I didn't. Football has become over-burdened with tactics and become less about sheer effort, desire and spontaneous skill. That's the price of over-analysis and over-coaching.
When Charlton actually started trying on Saturday, Cheltenham looked all at sea. The starting point for any system, is effort.
Sad, I know - but I tend to watch a neutral game from my Company's point of view. First goalscorer, correct score and match odds - and ask myself "is that a good result?".
How many people backed Ronaldo first scorer on Saturday? That can't have been ideal.
Sad, I know - but I tend to watch a neutral game from my Company's point of view. First goalscorer, correct score and match odds - and ask myself "is that a good result?".
How many people backed Ronaldo first scorer on Saturday? That can't have been ideal.
If you watch the game from high up it's much easier to discern the formation/tactics - much harder to see from pitch level. I tend to focus on a couple of players every game in terms of watching their movement/positioning.
Ever since I got to about 14/15 and realised I didn't quite have the ability to make football as a career I've been really interested in the tactical side. Even when playing I felt I had a really good ability to read the game, just not the tools to go with it!
In my later teens and early 20's I did quite a lot of coaching including a certain Mr Parker aged 8/9 (he learnt nothing from me ).
It drives my daughters a bit mad as I tend to get a bit carried away in the stand with instructions as if they can hear me or as if they'd take any notice
Footballs changed a lot the last 30 years, back then almost every team would play 442 or a slight variation. However the fundamentals remain the same.
To an extent I'm a firm believer in playing a formation based on your opposition but more importantly based on the ability of your team squad. It's OK if you have world class players and a large squad, you can almost play any formation you like as you'll have those tools at your disposal.
IMHO thats been our downfall a lot of the time the past few years, trying to play a style/formation that we don't have the personnel to do. Whether that's ability or ageing legs.
If I go back to the time I knew the team inside out;
Bolder - you wouldn't have played him and asked him to play out from the back, he struggled to keep it in half the time hoofing it up the pitch to Leaburn! Neither would you have with Balmer and Webbo. Pitcher (RIP) - you wouldn't have asked him to play wing back in a 5 (Minto however you could quite easily) Bumstead in a midfield 3!?! Actually, his knowledge was phenomenal so maybe in his younger years (Nor Gritt, Curbishley, or Pardew) Mendonca as a sole striker???.......
When I look at our squad it cries out for 442, we could comfortably play 451, but 433 is a stretch too far as the top 3 aren't likely to drop back successfully enough, often enough so if you fail with the high press the midfields out and the opposition is already on our defence and probably outnumbered.
I'm not convinced you can play any form of diamond either that includes Watson or Morgan. You probably could with JFC and Arter in there.
Part of management is getting the best from what you have, motivationally of course but also using the tools you have as best you can. We have too often try to bash square pegs into round holes.
Thats why if the owner does at some point remove Adkins I'd go with Jackson, his knowledge and understanding of the game is up there with the best of them. Add in his knowledge of the club, this league etc, he's a high chance of success with the right backing.
What 2 do we have, that are fit and proven, that you could play in the middle of midfield on a 442?
If you say, for example Clare, tucking in from the right and a more attacking winging, say Leko, on the left, then 2 up top, it's no different to a 433 is it?
Charlton have regularly played a proper 442 since midway through the 98/99 season, apart from a brief spell under Luzon.
I have seen suggested that the 451 Curbs used is the solution, that had a "10" were Lee, Morgan and Washington have ment to have played at verious points. It also had 2 wingers, Rommedahl and Thomas. I don't see how, on paper, that's any different to what we play now. Apart from the obvious quality.
IMO what ever formation you throw at the wall the two is the problem. Especially when most teams play 3, Cheltenham actually played 4.
I can't see how 442 is the answer (4231 isn't either BTW).
What are you saying Luzon played? Both Luzon and Peeters rigidly stuck to 4-4-2, though they played it differently with Luzon’s football being quicker and more direct.
Opps there was a typo there that changed the whole meaning.
What I meant was we have NOT regularly played a 442, in the way most people describe it, since the late 1990s.
Ever since I got to about 14/15 and realised I didn't quite have the ability to make football as a career I've been really interested in the tactical side. Even when playing I felt I had a really good ability to read the game, just not the tools to go with it!
In my later teens and early 20's I did quite a lot of coaching including a certain Mr Parker aged 8/9 (he learnt nothing from me ).
It drives my daughters a bit mad as I tend to get a bit carried away in the stand with instructions as if they can hear me or as if they'd take any notice
Footballs changed a lot the last 30 years, back then almost every team would play 442 or a slight variation. However the fundamentals remain the same.
To an extent I'm a firm believer in playing a formation based on your opposition but more importantly based on the ability of your team squad. It's OK if you have world class players and a large squad, you can almost play any formation you like as you'll have those tools at your disposal.
IMHO thats been our downfall a lot of the time the past few years, trying to play a style/formation that we don't have the personnel to do. Whether that's ability or ageing legs.
If I go back to the time I knew the team inside out;
Bolder - you wouldn't have played him and asked him to play out from the back, he struggled to keep it in half the time hoofing it up the pitch to Leaburn! Neither would you have with Balmer and Webbo. Pitcher (RIP) - you wouldn't have asked him to play wing back in a 5 (Minto however you could quite easily) Bumstead in a midfield 3!?! Actually, his knowledge was phenomenal so maybe in his younger years (Nor Gritt, Curbishley, or Pardew) Mendonca as a sole striker???.......
When I look at our squad it cries out for 442, we could comfortably play 451, but 433 is a stretch too far as the top 3 aren't likely to drop back successfully enough, often enough so if you fail with the high press the midfields out and the opposition is already on our defence and probably outnumbered.
I'm not convinced you can play any form of diamond either that includes Watson or Morgan. You probably could with JFC and Arter in there.
Part of management is getting the best from what you have, motivationally of course but also using the tools you have as best you can. We have too often try to bash square pegs into round holes.
Thats why if the owner does at some point remove Adkins I'd go with Jackson, his knowledge and understanding of the game is up there with the best of them. Add in his knowledge of the club, this league etc, he's a high chance of success with the right backing.
What 2 do we have, that are fit and proven, that you could play in the middle of midfield on a 442?
If you say, for example Clare, tucking in from the right and a more attacking winging, say Leko, on the left, then 2 up top, it's no different to a 433 is it?
Charlton have regularly played a proper 442 since midway through the 98/99 season, apart from a brief spell under Luzon.
I have seen suggested that the 451 Curbs used is the solution, that had a "10" were Lee, Morgan and Washington have ment to have played at verious points. It also had 2 wingers, Rommedahl and Thomas. I don't see how, on paper, that's any different to what we play now. Apart from the obvious quality.
IMO what ever formation you throw at the wall the two is the problem. Especially when most teams play 3, Cheltenham actually played 4.
I can't see how 442 is the answer (4231 isn't either BTW).
What are you saying Luzon played? Both Luzon and Peeters rigidly stuck to 4-4-2, though they played it differently with Luzon’s football being quicker and more direct.
Opps there was a typo there that changed the whole meaning.
What I meant was we have NOT regularly played a 442, in the way most people describe it, since the late 1990s.
That makes more sense, but I’d include 11/12 under Powell and Peeters time in that as well as Luzon.
Ever since I got to about 14/15 and realised I didn't quite have the ability to make football as a career I've been really interested in the tactical side. Even when playing I felt I had a really good ability to read the game, just not the tools to go with it!
In my later teens and early 20's I did quite a lot of coaching including a certain Mr Parker aged 8/9 (he learnt nothing from me ).
It drives my daughters a bit mad as I tend to get a bit carried away in the stand with instructions as if they can hear me or as if they'd take any notice
Footballs changed a lot the last 30 years, back then almost every team would play 442 or a slight variation. However the fundamentals remain the same.
To an extent I'm a firm believer in playing a formation based on your opposition but more importantly based on the ability of your team squad. It's OK if you have world class players and a large squad, you can almost play any formation you like as you'll have those tools at your disposal.
IMHO thats been our downfall a lot of the time the past few years, trying to play a style/formation that we don't have the personnel to do. Whether that's ability or ageing legs.
If I go back to the time I knew the team inside out;
Bolder - you wouldn't have played him and asked him to play out from the back, he struggled to keep it in half the time hoofing it up the pitch to Leaburn! Neither would you have with Balmer and Webbo. Pitcher (RIP) - you wouldn't have asked him to play wing back in a 5 (Minto however you could quite easily) Bumstead in a midfield 3!?! Actually, his knowledge was phenomenal so maybe in his younger years (Nor Gritt, Curbishley, or Pardew) Mendonca as a sole striker???.......
When I look at our squad it cries out for 442, we could comfortably play 451, but 433 is a stretch too far as the top 3 aren't likely to drop back successfully enough, often enough so if you fail with the high press the midfields out and the opposition is already on our defence and probably outnumbered.
I'm not convinced you can play any form of diamond either that includes Watson or Morgan. You probably could with JFC and Arter in there.
Part of management is getting the best from what you have, motivationally of course but also using the tools you have as best you can. We have too often try to bash square pegs into round holes.
Thats why if the owner does at some point remove Adkins I'd go with Jackson, his knowledge and understanding of the game is up there with the best of them. Add in his knowledge of the club, this league etc, he's a high chance of success with the right backing.
What 2 do we have, that are fit and proven, that you could play in the middle of midfield on a 442?
If you say, for example Clare, tucking in from the right and a more attacking winging, say Leko, on the left, then 2 up top, it's no different to a 433 is it?
Charlton have regularly played a proper 442 since midway through the 98/99 season, apart from a brief spell under Luzon.
I have seen suggested that the 451 Curbs used is the solution, that had a "10" were Lee, Morgan and Washington have ment to have played at verious points. It also had 2 wingers, Rommedahl and Thomas. I don't see how, on paper, that's any different to what we play now. Apart from the obvious quality.
IMO what ever formation you throw at the wall the two is the problem. Especially when most teams play 3, Cheltenham actually played 4.
I can't see how 442 is the answer (4231 isn't either BTW).
What are you saying Luzon played? Both Luzon and Peeters rigidly stuck to 4-4-2, though they played it differently with Luzon’s football being quicker and more direct.
Opps there was a typo there that changed the whole meaning.
What I meant was we have NOT regularly played a 442, in the way most people describe it, since the late 1990s.
That makes more sense, but I’d include 11/12 under Powell and Peeters time in that as well as Luzon.
11/12 and beyond Powell played a lop sided 442, which you could equally call a 433. You could even actually call it a 4231 most of the time.
Luzon's team was more clearly a 1990s style 442 or you could even call it a 424. That's what most people seem to mean when they say 442 now. 2 central midfielders and 2 "wingers".
Not as much as i should do really - i've been manager of many kids and adult sides and would quite often get in the pub later that day and be asked what formation the opposition were playing and didn't have a clue - not saying thatsa good thing but ometimes you can just see whats going on without having to put it into a coaching book phrase - chelsea womens coach seems to have invented (or at least promoted) the use of the high and low block - i presume this will supersed the high press which of course is just pushing up and closing down. The kids lap it up but its mainly a load of regurgitated bollox
What Curbishley did often going to 451 in winter, always worked. I never get why managers insist on 433 or 4231, if you don't have reliable dynamic players. Just make the game difficult. Put all your most reliable players in and pack the midfield, kill the space.
Ok you do need one link player, preferably pacey. But everyone doubles up defensively and no one wanders for most of the first half. We don't even look like drawing at the moment against ok teams.
The fluid diamond we had under Bowyer's first full season, was the best formation/football I've seen at the Valley. Having said that we had a lot of players easily at championship level football intelligence. We've had better teams with better players, but as soon as you surrender space in midfield you need players that are amongst the divisional best. If not progressive tactics are useless with average personnel.
Not as much as i should do really - i've been manager of many kids and adult sides and would quite often get in the pub later that day and be asked what formation the opposition were playing and didn't have a clue - not saying thatsa good thing but ometimes you can just see whats going on without having to put it into a coaching book phrase - chelsea womens coach seems to have invented (or at least promoted) the use of the high and low block - i presume this will supersed the high press which of course is just pushing up and closing down. The kids lap it up but its mainly a load of regurgitated bollox
It wasn't her that invented it but her appearing more on tv over the summer has made it a more common lexicon now
Same as "transition" and "overload" seem to be buzzwords but they aren't really a lot different to terminology previously used
Not as much as i should do really - i've been manager of many kids and adult sides and would quite often get in the pub later that day and be asked what formation the opposition were playing and didn't have a clue - not saying thatsa good thing but ometimes you can just see whats going on without having to put it into a coaching book phrase - chelsea womens coach seems to have invented (or at least promoted) the use of the high and low block - i presume this will supersed the high press which of course is just pushing up and closing down. The kids lap it up but its mainly a load of regurgitated bollox
It wasn't her that invented it but her appearing more on tv over the summer has made it a more common lexicon now
Same as "transition" and "overload" seem to be buzzwords but they aren't really a lot different to terminology previously used
Bring back Big Ron i say - i want to listen to people who have been there, done it and havea bit of personality, not a walking coaching manual
Not as much as i should do really - i've been manager of many kids and adult sides and would quite often get in the pub later that day and be asked what formation the opposition were playing and didn't have a clue - not saying thatsa good thing but ometimes you can just see whats going on without having to put it into a coaching book phrase - chelsea womens coach seems to have invented (or at least promoted) the use of the high and low block - i presume this will supersed the high press which of course is just pushing up and closing down. The kids lap it up but its mainly a load of regurgitated bollox
It wasn't her that invented it but her appearing more on tv over the summer has made it a more common lexicon now
Same as "transition" and "overload" seem to be buzzwords but they aren't really a lot different to terminology previously used
Can’t explain it but that woman does my noggin in. Also are there not any male ex players around these days? Political correctness has done a full 360. Caught a bit of Football Focus on Saturday, two women and one bloke. Woman’s football is different to men’s.
Whatever formation the two teams are using, the main thing that you are looking for (either to achieve or avoid) is imbalance.
If the opposition packs the midfield and/or if their midfield players are better than yours, then you try to bypass that midfield. Long ball to the centre-forward if you want to call it that, or you try to hit the spaces behind the full backs.
If your left-winger is clearly better than his opposing full back, then get the ball repeatedly to that left-winger.
If the opposition (eg Cheltenham) have three big guys at the back, play the ball up to the feet of your forwards ... who turn or play oncoming midfielders into the game ... and run at those big defenders. Take them on. Big, lumbering lumps don't like that.
Imbalance.
Your tactics should be geared to achieving favourable situations for your team, and avoiding those which might hurt you. There are a million such situations of different types. And you need players and coaches who can recognise when things are not in your favour, and who can then do something about it.
It is simple ... but it requires clarity of thought, experience and technical ability. Who would have thought it?
What Curbishley did often going to 451 in winter, always worked. I never get why managers insist on 433 or 4231, if you don't have reliable dynamic players. Just make the game difficult. Put all your most reliable players in and pack the midfield, kill the space.
Ok you do need one link player, preferably pacey. But everyone doubles up defensively and no one wanders for most of the first half. We don't even look like drawing at the moment against ok teams.
The fluid diamond we had under Bowyer's first full season, was the best formation/football I've seen at the Valley. Having said that we had a lot of players easily at championship level football intelligence. We've had better teams with better players, but as soon as you surrender space in midfield you need players that are amongst the divisional best. If not progressive tactics are useless with average personnel.
Can you explain what exactly is the difference between 451, that always worked, and 433 or 4231 actually is?
As far as I can see all 3 formations (going by the interview with Curbs, as well as my own memory) have 2 holding midfielders, a "10", 2 wingers and a center forward.
Ever since I got to about 14/15 and realised I didn't quite have the ability to make football as a career I've been really interested in the tactical side. Even when playing I felt I had a really good ability to read the game, just not the tools to go with it!
In my later teens and early 20's I did quite a lot of coaching including a certain Mr Parker aged 8/9 (he learnt nothing from me ).
It drives my daughters a bit mad as I tend to get a bit carried away in the stand with instructions as if they can hear me or as if they'd take any notice
Footballs changed a lot the last 30 years, back then almost every team would play 442 or a slight variation. However the fundamentals remain the same.
To an extent I'm a firm believer in playing a formation based on your opposition but more importantly based on the ability of your team squad. It's OK if you have world class players and a large squad, you can almost play any formation you like as you'll have those tools at your disposal.
IMHO thats been our downfall a lot of the time the past few years, trying to play a style/formation that we don't have the personnel to do. Whether that's ability or ageing legs.
If I go back to the time I knew the team inside out;
Bolder - you wouldn't have played him and asked him to play out from the back, he struggled to keep it in half the time hoofing it up the pitch to Leaburn! Neither would you have with Balmer and Webbo. Pitcher (RIP) - you wouldn't have asked him to play wing back in a 5 (Minto however you could quite easily) Bumstead in a midfield 3!?! Actually, his knowledge was phenomenal so maybe in his younger years (Nor Gritt, Curbishley, or Pardew) Mendonca as a sole striker???.......
When I look at our squad it cries out for 442, we could comfortably play 451, but 433 is a stretch too far as the top 3 aren't likely to drop back successfully enough, often enough so if you fail with the high press the midfields out and the opposition is already on our defence and probably outnumbered.
I'm not convinced you can play any form of diamond either that includes Watson or Morgan. You probably could with JFC and Arter in there.
Part of management is getting the best from what you have, motivationally of course but also using the tools you have as best you can. We have too often try to bash square pegs into round holes.
Thats why if the owner does at some point remove Adkins I'd go with Jackson, his knowledge and understanding of the game is up there with the best of them. Add in his knowledge of the club, this league etc, he's a high chance of success with the right backing.
What 2 do we have, that are fit and proven, that you could play in the middle of midfield on a 442?
If you say, for example Clare, tucking in from the right and a more attacking winging, say Leko, on the left, then 2 up top, it's no different to a 433 is it?
Charlton have regularly played a proper 442 since midway through the 98/99 season, apart from a brief spell under Luzon.
I have seen suggested that the 451 Curbs used is the solution, that had a "10" were Lee, Morgan and Washington have ment to have played at verious points. It also had 2 wingers, Rommedahl and Thomas. I don't see how, on paper, that's any different to what we play now. Apart from the obvious quality.
IMO what ever formation you throw at the wall the two is the problem. Especially when most teams play 3, Cheltenham actually played 4.
I can't see how 442 is the answer (4231 isn't either BTW).
What are you saying Luzon played? Both Luzon and Peeters rigidly stuck to 4-4-2, though they played it differently with Luzon’s football being quicker and more direct.
Opps there was a typo there that changed the whole meaning.
What I meant was we have NOT regularly played a 442, in the way most people describe it, since the late 1990s.
That makes more sense, but I’d include 11/12 under Powell and Peeters time in that as well as Luzon.
11/12 and beyond Powell played a lop sided 442, which you could equally call a 433. You could even actually call it a 4231 most of the time.
Luzon's team was more clearly a 1990s style 442 or you could even call it a 424. That's what most people seem to mean when they say 442 now. 2 central midfielders and 2 "wingers".
I’d say a lopsided 4-4-2 is still a 4-4-2, it’s just using players in different roles and the team not using two traditional wingers.
I agree with your posts in the post match thread there’s no real difference between 4-5-1, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-1-1, it’s managers/players with a bigger focus on defending or attacking and different styles of play.
You could argue the formation is the defensive shape and there’s less of a defined formation when attacking. Even Watson will get forward at times and he’s not necessarily swapping his role with Morgan.
What Curbishley did often going to 451 in winter, always worked. I never get why managers insist on 433 or 4231, if you don't have reliable dynamic players. Just make the game difficult. Put all your most reliable players in and pack the midfield, kill the space.
Ok you do need one link player, preferably pacey. But everyone doubles up defensively and no one wanders for most of the first half. We don't even look like drawing at the moment against ok teams.
The fluid diamond we had under Bowyer's first full season, was the best formation/football I've seen at the Valley. Having said that we had a lot of players easily at championship level football intelligence. We've had better teams with better players, but as soon as you surrender space in midfield you need players that are amongst the divisional best. If not progressive tactics are useless with average personnel.
Can you explain what exactly is the difference between 451, that always worked, and 433 or 4231 actually is?
As far as I can see all 3 formations (going by the interview with Curbs, as well as my own memory) have 2 holding midfielders, a "10", 2 wingers and a center forward.
There's a lot of tosh spoken with regard to these numbers.
The main difference is about 'emphasis'. A 433 will indicate that the two wide midfield players will have more attacking intent than in a 451.
4231 is showing that your midfield five will have two designated 'holding' players (ie shielding the back four, ready to receive the ball from the defence) whereas a 451 might have a different number ... and a different number of players expected to go wide.
Subtle differences maybe ... and note that the designated roles may not always be filled by the same person. There can be interchange, although you would usually expect Player A to do Job 1, Player B to do Job 2, but that they (and others) may swap temporarily.
It's all about the quality of player that you have.
And, back to my earlier point about imbalance, it's another thing that coaches look for to see how they might exploit a square peg in a round hole, even if that only happens occasionally in a game.
I like to think I watch football tactically, certainly at home games as I've sat at the back of the East Stand near the half way line since 1994, and have a perfect view of the pitch, and how the teams are set up.
For example on Saturday you could see clearly how Cheltenham were overloading down their right on the break, how Kirk wasn't tracking back, and that Gunter and Famewo were struggling to decide who to pick up. You could also see the difference between how we struggled to pass the ball out from the back, and the ease with which they were able to bring the ball out, with players moving into space, and under little pressure from our front players.
It's much harder to do this from behind the goal which is where most away seats and "home ends" tend to be, especially if you're low down
Comments
We had our diamond under Bowyer, but 3 of our midfielders that season were Cullen who had the energy and skill level to play in the middle 2 and cover the wing, break up the play, keep it simple. Bielik was a unit and Aribo class, all 3 of them capable of playing for decent championship teams imo, Aribo probably Prem. I look at our midfielders now, and probably only Arter has the pedigree to play in a formation of this type, although I’m pretty sure Bournemouth were 4-4-2. Even Burnley. They’re in the Premier League. It’s not attractive football, but I think Dyche knows he can’t faff about with anything other than 4-4-2, because of the players he has at his disposal. How the likes of Adkins and the Karl Robinson’s of this world think they can get away with 4-2-31/4-3-3 etc I’ll never know.
and at what level ? Last two seasons I have watched lots of Step 4 and 5. Young guys on the way up but have left academies but still hoping to be spotted and Ex pros some still only mid 20's earning a part time wage.
Plus guys who are all ages and step 4 and 5 are their level.
At games on Saturday at Valley, FA vase in Essex Sunday, FA youth Cup tonight at Tolworth watching a talented group of Youngsters from a foundation representing Corinthians Casuals in the second qualifying round and tonight I just admired the talent on show in a one sided match and picked out kids who will get another opportunity in the tough world of attempting to get a pro contract. Like all good sides they interchange positions so much that the full backs were available so often for a pass from an overlap. Excellent pitch at the Corinthians.
Currently we have a right mish mash of players that have been brought in to go 4231....wouldnt be so bad if that was combined to a 433 but we don't seem to have the nous to adapt play in and out of possession.
2 in midfield against a strong well organised 3 and sometimes 5 midfield Cheltenham side was suicide....it was so obvious, I was screaming at the tv...change it up you numpties.
We aren't comfortable playing out from the back. There is no movement in a midfield two so we end up playing into dead ends and nobody is making or moving into space......so lots of sideways and passing back and across the centre backs.
We were so bad at times it looked like Cheltenham had two extra players on the pitch.
(I guess they did as Kirk and DJ were anonymous).
The other thing that struck me was how often we were caught ball watching, allowing Cheltenham to look like we were playing Brazil.
On paper the squad doesn't look too bad, its the tactics and discipline that needs to be sorted out....also I have to say after watching a fluid looking Charlton side against Crawley, Im a bit miffed that both Davison and Elerewe were omitted from the squad....anyone who watched the Crawley game would agree that Pearce at the moment is a waste of a subs space....how many mentors do we really need in the squad? Not exactly doing us much good at the moment.
The trouble is the bloke on my left has sussed me out. He now by-passes me completely and goes straight to the font of knowledge on my right for his information.
Perhaps I should swap seats with my son so they can have a meaningful conversation?
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/mar/20/newsstory.sport
In years of playing Sunday league football I don’t think I ever heard our team discussing tactics at all, we just picked the best side we could and got on with it, in a nominal 442 I guess. Simple.
When Charlton actually started trying on Saturday, Cheltenham looked all at sea. The starting point for any system, is effort.
What I meant was we have NOT regularly played a 442, in the way most people describe it, since the late 1990s.
Luzon's team was more clearly a 1990s style 442 or you could even call it a 424. That's what most people seem to mean when they say 442 now. 2 central midfielders and 2 "wingers".
Ok you do need one link player, preferably pacey. But everyone doubles up defensively and no one wanders for most of the first half. We don't even look like drawing at the moment against ok teams.
The fluid diamond we had under Bowyer's first full season, was the best formation/football I've seen at the Valley. Having said that we had a lot of players easily at championship level football intelligence. We've had better teams with better players, but as soon as you surrender space in midfield you need players that are amongst the divisional best. If not progressive tactics are useless with average personnel.
Same as "transition" and "overload" seem to be buzzwords but they aren't really a lot different to terminology previously used
If the opposition packs the midfield and/or if their midfield players are better than yours, then you try to bypass that midfield. Long ball to the centre-forward if you want to call it that, or you try to hit the spaces behind the full backs.
If your left-winger is clearly better than his opposing full back, then get the ball repeatedly to that left-winger.
If the opposition (eg Cheltenham) have three big guys at the back, play the ball up to the feet of your forwards ... who turn or play oncoming midfielders into the game ... and run at those big defenders. Take them on. Big, lumbering lumps don't like that.
Imbalance.
Your tactics should be geared to achieving favourable situations for your team, and avoiding those which might hurt you. There are a million such situations of different types. And you need players and coaches who can recognise when things are not in your favour, and who can then do something about it.
It is simple ... but it requires clarity of thought, experience and technical ability. Who would have thought it?
As far as I can see all 3 formations (going by the interview with Curbs, as well as my own memory) have 2 holding midfielders, a "10", 2 wingers and a center forward.
I agree with your posts in the post match thread there’s no real difference between 4-5-1, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-1-1, it’s managers/players with a bigger focus on defending or attacking and different styles of play.
You could argue the formation is the defensive shape and there’s less of a defined formation when attacking. Even Watson will get forward at times and he’s not necessarily swapping his role with Morgan.
The main difference is about 'emphasis'. A 433 will indicate that the two wide midfield players will have more attacking intent than in a 451.
4231 is showing that your midfield five will have two designated 'holding' players (ie shielding the back four, ready to receive the ball from the defence) whereas a 451 might have a different number ... and a different number of players expected to go wide.
Subtle differences maybe ... and note that the designated roles may not always be filled by the same person. There can be interchange, although you would usually expect Player A to do Job 1, Player B to do Job 2, but that they (and others) may swap temporarily.
It's all about the quality of player that you have.
And, back to my earlier point about imbalance, it's another thing that coaches look for to see how they might exploit a square peg in a round hole, even if that only happens occasionally in a game.
For example on Saturday you could see clearly how Cheltenham were overloading down their right on the break, how Kirk wasn't tracking back, and that Gunter and Famewo were struggling to decide who to pick up. You could also see the difference between how we struggled to pass the ball out from the back, and the ease with which they were able to bring the ball out, with players moving into space, and under little pressure from our front players.
It's much harder to do this from behind the goal which is where most away seats and "home ends" tend to be, especially if you're low down