Hey Fran, I'm a bloke its gut instinct. Most of our decisions are based on a feeling from our stomach (Need food, need drink, feeling sick, need to trump, nervous feelings), or they are based on a feeling from an area a little lower than the stomach..... we rarely use anything else
Sticking with the business analogy, it's probably fair to say that many if not most successful business people have had their share of failure on their way to success. The ones I know have anyway.
Yes, they often go by gut feeling or other non-numerical analysis when presented with complex decisions concerning broad policies with little to differentiate them in terms of projected return, or when projections cannot be forecast with accuracy.... AFTER the many experienced researchers they have hired have spent many hours doing quantitative analysis to rule out a myriad of inferior other alternatives. The head honchos make the tough call when it's been narrow it down to a simple 2 or 3 option choice. Just because the guy on top doesn't use numbers, doesn't mean they aren't being used. They leave the number-crunching to those who are far better at it than they are. I would be very surprised if the black box is not spitting out reports after each game for all the players, Reed, and RK, and most of all the paid Black Box data geeks and football analyzers whoever they might be.
I have said all through this little discussion that stats are dangerous when used alone. I'm with you that they are a useful tool, but one part of many tools available for a manager to use. This is the issue with forum posting with some people (not you). If you make a post countering something or someone, it is often assumed that you either don't agree at all with the subject/person. It is often about the large grey areas between black and White, or a combination of points. I agree.
That's because if you use stats exclusively, you're probably looking for the past to explain the future while the outside environment is ever changing. (It only gets you so far). In agreement with everything you've said FLT, I feel the top business leaders have an ability to understand these and/or have the correct teams in place to aid them, but are not afraid to make the big calls that define and differentiate their product/service, or even their entire organisation
Sticking with the 4-2-3-1 or 4-2-1-3 format, and thinking back to the MS years, the reason why it worked for us, IMO, was the versatility of Morgan. Morgan is a superb DM, and also agile and quick enough to get forward and support the forwards, without getting caught out of position when we lost possession. Wanyama, with MS, knew exactly what role he needed to play, which was why he received less criticism then, than he does now. Wanyama now, again IMO, is being made to look out of sorts and out of position (although I don't think he has been as bad as some say) as a direct result of his having to adjust and adapt to different partners, almost on a match by match basis. This is clearly having an adverse affect on the back four, who are not only receiving less cover, but are being drawn out of position, leaving gaps, in order to make tackles in areas that were previously dealt with by the MS/Vic alliance. I am not party to what RK sees, on the training ground, so I might be way off beam, but my proposed solution will possibly cause a few people to think I have started my Christmas celebrations a little too early, but here goes. Given what I have seen, at Saints and Celtic, I think (and I have said this previously, when he first joined us) that VVD could convert into being a very good replacement for Morgan. He's athletic, tall and powerful, has a good engine, can carry the ball 30/40/50 yards, can tackle and can hit some great passes. A 6ft 4in (?) midfielder, arriving at pace, into a penalty area, to get onto the end of a cross being defended by static defenders, could be a potent weapon. Defensively, in front of the back four, he could give us better strength, and with VVD being given licence to join the attack, Vic can get back to doing what he does best - sitting deep, between the two CBs, which in turn would release the full backs in the knowledge that we are still "balanced" at the back. Of course this would mean giving Yoshida his chance alongside Fonte, but I'm okay with that. Dons tin hat and dives for cover.
Sky pundit (can't remember who) suggested that VVD would probably be a better MF than a CB because he tends to get too far forward. He pointed out that Ronald had gone apoplectic about this. Went as far as to suggest he was too adventurous to even be a DM.
He shouldn't be surprised by this though really. Even if you only watched Celtic's goals scored and conceded (and nothing else) from the last season he was there, it was obvious that he loves a wander forward.
In reply to the question posed by the title of this thread - Is 4 2 3 1 dead in the water? - I would say probably yes as if it wasn't drowned by all the bloody water we spray on the pitch it was certainly drenched and as a consequence caught it's death of a cold.
Have no idea about formations....as far as I'm concerned, there is a goalkeeper and 10 other players who run round the pitch.
I don't know about you guys...but for me the 4231 formation just doesn't work with the player's we have got.
And all this time I thought you believed that there was a goal keeper, 9 players to run round the pitch and Jose to look pretty. I must have got that wrong
