Great question that. I think it's a bit of both. For example, say you're playing a 'standard' 442 and you're on the right wing. The play is building down the left hand side with the left sided midfield player in an advanced position in line with strikers. All that would happen in that 'traditional' 442 is that the other 3 midfield players would shuffle across thus forming a 433 and you as the 'right winger' are now in a more central position. The formations of the more adventurous and well developed sides are only seen in their 'rigid' structure at KO and goal kicks. The rest of the time sides they are constantly changing their shape to adapt to how the play is developing, whether that be from an attacking or a defensive perspective. The problem in getting this right at International level, is the lack of playing time these guys have to hone the relationships needed to be able to 'understand' how their colleagues will react and move in certain circumstances. A great example of that from my club is how Baines and Pienaar formed an almost telepathic relationship after playing together for a number of seasons. You can't create that kind of play at it's finest in the mere weeks that the International side has together.
A standard 442 would still have a forward that drops deep to collect the ball. Very rarely was it two out and out strikers as they got in each others way and rarely formed a partnership. It was usually a little and large approach.
Great points. International teams rarely have the same cohesiveness that clubs do and as a result its often much more boring and frustrating to watch. Baines and Pienaar are a good example as were say Gerrard and Torres. I think that even if you keep a constant back 4 you can still make significant tactical changes to a team so that it differs radically from a flat 4-4-2. Each players positional change can have a butterfly effect on each other player so practicing new formations is very important. Take the 4-3-3 that we employed during BR's first half-season. It was a back 4 (or even 3) with a central midfield of 3 and two wingers feeding a central striker. This was much different from a standard 4-4-2 in that it didn't provide the striker with close midfield support and relied on the wingers to go around defences. Without a 10, it failed as defenders simply crowded the wingers and knew that the midfield was too far back to support the striker. We then could always rely on Suarez dropping back to pick up the ball himself and tiring himself out. As soon as BR switched the triangle in attack from two wide players and one central striker to one 10 and two strikers, (AKA the signing of Coutinho and Sturridge) it provided support and allowed for more clinical finishing. It cut our width in attack (that was useless) and forced the wingbacks to run forward. This exposed our defence this season. All of these radically differ play from 4-4-2 and even if they are variations they are important enough to be considered distinct.
well its interesting as yeah the formation lfc play in possession bears little resemblance to a 4-1-2-1-2 or 4-3-3 its 3 at the back if gerrards not crying about slipping over... 2 wing backs are virtually midfielders left and right, the two central guys are box to box and thenthe fornt 3 really are dependant on who plays and where. wide or two up or one up etc etc. The fluidity is up fornt. the structure is behind.
Yorke always dropped deeper when it was that pairing or Scholes played further forward instead which meant it wasn't a standard 442
I've never seen Gerrard drop back into defence this season. Not once. Okay maybe a few times but still, Lucas does, Gerrard doesn't. That's part of our defensive woes. Also the tactics you defined are exactly how a 4-1-2-1-2 is meant to work with the wingbacks pushing forward as wingers and the 4-(1)-2-1-2 dropping back (the DM). That leaves the CMs to become B2B and support the 10 with his unlocking the defence - allowing the strikers to score. Its also fluid allowing the 10 creativity like you said so the front 3 interchange. The way you described it is actually exactly how a diamond should be playing. IMO it is the best tactic on paper we can play and it works, but we need to move Gerrard up to CM and let Lucas patrol the DM role alone. It also doesn't provide space for Sterling. For me we should rotate Coutinho and Sterling - if Sterling plays its a 4-1-5-1 but if Coutinho plays its a 4-1-2-1-2.
Where? A false 9 requires no real 9 ahead of them but wingers coming into space vacated... France always has a forward and real did too called oh raul I think Oops japery backfire
I'm talking when in possession he plays between split cbs so ergo back 3 In defence it's different Oh and I mentioned Argentina originally and point was most have back 4, not all just most... It's only a question after all
If Hodgson was to tell Gerrard and Henderson to stay completely defensive and let Rooney have the freedom role that would work very well, problem is that everyone has to have a position in Hodgson's tactics. You tell Rooney just to wander because everyone will support him we would him at his best.
No, just the truth. I'd LOVE it for Rooney to have a good game for England. But when has he ever? I don't appreciate our national team committing suicide just to save Man Utd from looking like morons for spending well over £60m on Rooney's new contract. And every ****ing article on #bbcsalford is on Rooney's state of mind FFS rather than actual analysis. "Rooney holds key to success" "Rooney can handle drama" "Number 10 or nothing for Rooney" "Give Rooney central role" #licensefee
