Reading through several threads on here at the moment there is a lot of discussion about formations. Listening to talksport commentary on Watford v Liverpool yesterday Stan Collymore made a good point (it does happen sometimes). Referring to the unexpectedly successful clubs this season he pointed out how their method of play (I deliberately choose not to say formation) has completely by passed the two DMs either by pace and width or by longer balls over the top of the midfield. It seems to me that most teams operating with a rigid 2 holding players are regarded as underachieving this season, not just us but Man Utd too. Even Tottenham are not winning as many games as they should expect. When playing with low confidence 4231 becomes a very staid, negative formation. When playing with high confidence the reverse is true. I think 4231 was sussed last year and may no longer be the best way for us to get out of our slump, especially having no replacement for Morgan who has the ability to adapt his game to counter whatever he was presented with.
How different is our outdated 4-2-3-1 from the newsexy 4-3-3 anyway? The "1" (Pelle) and two of the "3" (Tadic and Mane) are functioning as attackers. Which leaves three midfielders. Of those three, Wanyama functions as an anchor, and Davis plays an attacking role. The other one is sort of in between. So you could easily call our formation a 4-3-3 with one holding mid and two in front, or a 4-2-3-1 with two holding mids and one in front (and the wingers classified as midfielders even though in Koeman's system they clearly aren't.)
Does the formation matter at all? When I see Leicester I see a great togetherness, team ethic, organisation, constant pressing and a couple of match winners thrown in for good measure. They simply seem more up for it than the opposition.
There's a lot of tactical nouse in how they play, but fundamentally, togetherness and confidence is a big part.
Agreed. I think most teams need to have a playing philosophy or system or tactic or whathaveyou. I don't believe you can have a pure Total Football kind of thing where players run where they want and everyone can play any position at any time. It's just that formation is a lousy way to describe tactics. You could have two systems technically classified as 4-3-3 and they could be far more different than someone else's formation that they call a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-2-1. No one runs up and down the field in clearly delineated horizontal lines anyway. Strategies do change over time as the game develops. If the argument were something along the lines of "Teams are now exploiting systems that carry two holding midfielders" then perhaps there might be a debate there. But IMO, we've never had two dedicated anchors. We have-- and even this is only generally speaking-- three attackers, three midfielders and a back four. So we could be a 4-5-1, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-1-2-3, 4-3-2-1, etc. Leicester have great spirit right now. But they also have talented players who work well together. And a system where players know their roles and that matches their individual strengths. When we drew with them and everyone was upset about how we supposedly threw the game away, I said we were not giving them nearly enough credit. They gave up two horrendous goals but were otherwise fantastic. I'm not surprised to see them doing well. Whether they have the depth to last all season is up for debate but that side right now is legitimately as good as or better than any in the PL. Their record is no joke and it's not just because of their togetherness/will.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the 4-2-3-1 formation, in general, but it would be "nice" if the 1 was a little bit quicker and more mobile. But are we 4-2-3-1 or are we 4-2-1-3?
Although not a formation we do also hold in our locker the "all out lump it to pelle for 90 minutes" which has reared itself in our 2 big cup matches this season; Mitjylland away and Liverpool at home.
My opinion is that we haven't played with two DMs this season and the result is we are shipping goals as our defenders are being exposed. Would love to go back to 4-2-3-1 as we might not concede so many goals Play two from Victor, Romeo or Reed...please!
If we play with the two DMs it is imperative that the full backs join in the attack, but I'm not seeing that often enough, in all games, which leaves us too light up front. For me, if the FBs are getting forward, on the flanks, then Mane and Tadic need to be more inside forwards than wingers.
As flt said it's all semantics. Not really relevant outside the realm of Fifa and Pro Evo. Classie and Wanyama might be playing in central midfield, but they are both readers of the game and know when to sit and support the defence, and when to push up and support the attack. Under Poch they used to split and fill in at full back when needed. Don't see that so much lately.
Arsenal, Man City and Spurs are all playing very similar formations to us. Arsenal are playing a similar system and also use a target man. No sensible system is dead. Variations of formations like 4-4-2, 4-5-1/4-3-3 and 3-5-2, 3-4-3 can all be a great success in any major league, or at international level, if you have the personel. The players of course must perform well individually and as a team and execute the system correctly. I think 4-4-2 and 4-2-3-1 can both be successful with the players we have at the club. I don't like 3 at the back for our squad. If we forget tactics, formations and team selection the biggest thing to avoid for any team is stupid individual errors leading to goals conceded. You are just shooting yourself in the foot and we keep doing it.
TinTin this is a great post; the last paragraph especially. Now if I summarise, you are saying the biggest issue this season has been individual errors. I know you won't be reading this, but with a post like that, I wonder why you keep battering Koeman. He can't control the individual errors.
Lot of teams including ourselves who do not create enough from wide areas without overcommitting the fullbacks (problem with 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3). Leicester et al have worked out that you only need to defend and/or press the central area of the pitch from the halfway line to the edge of your own 18 yard area, wait for the opponent to walk into their defensive wall by passing or cutting inside, and then break quickly with one pass getting them into many 3v3 situations. Additional width from fullbacks might cause a small number of problems at one end, but likely makes it 2v2 the other end when you lose possession. Innovation usually comes from smaller companies in a position of need. It then gets bought, or copied latently if it works.
I like the analogy to innovation in business. Likewise I'll use one: Most top business leaders, particularly entrepreneurs/innovators use a huge amount of gut instinct over research.* *for research read 'statistics'
Often what is called 'gut instinct' is really a good brain working quickly with previous knowledge. Just like you can know you don't like someone within minutes....not gut instinct, but reading of clues based on prior experience. Businessmen see patterns even if they are not aware on a conscious level....which is why, if challenged, they can come up with valid reasons for their decisions.
