lynchie
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,068
There's a lot more to tactics than the minutiae of the initial formation.Boring Cnuts said:442 blah blah 433 blah blah 451 blah blah 352 blah
There's a lot more to tactics than the minutiae of the initial formation.Boring Cnuts said:442 blah blah 433 blah blah 451 blah blah 352 blah
True. But formation is a hugely important part of tactics. Hence it is worthy of discussion. In a thread about tactics.blah blah minutiae blah blah
Can't remember the group stages but fair enough, we were still a bit shit away from home last year, the results may have been good but performances were terribleSo you accept this was the only European "away" game where we played 442?
Don't remember us playing 433 in the away games last year, against the Arse it was Hargreaves and Anderson, the same against Liverpool, you maybe correct with us playing 433 against Chelsea but then that is the only one we lostOur away record against the big four, this season (442) compared to last (433), would seem to indicate that a change in formation hasn't made us any more prolific but has caused us all sorts of problems, defensively.
It's quite brilliant that you label people "boring cnuts" for talking tactics, while claiming that actually, they are ignoring a massive degree of the detail. Surely that would be even more boring than our discussion?There's a lot more to tactics than the minutiae of the initial formation.
My point is that you're not really talking about tactics, you're just talking about where the players stand at kick off. It's what they do after kick off that matters.True. But formation is a hugely important part of tactics. Hence it is worthy of discussion. In a thread about tactics.
Obviously, if you find it all sooooooo boring, there's plenty of other threads for you to share your pearls of wisdom![]()
Can't remember the group stages but fair enough, we were still a bit shit away from home last year, the results may have been good but performances were terrible
Don't remember us playing 433 in the away games last year, against the Arse it was Hargreaves and Anderson, the same against Liverpool, you maybe correct with us playing 433 against Chelsea but then that is the only one we lost
But formation is about much more than where players stand at kick-off. Surely you know that?My point is that you're not really talking about tactics, you're just talking about where the players stand at kick off. It's what they do after kick off that matters.
But you could play 442 with 4 central midfielders, pack out the centre and smother the game, or play 442 with 2 good old fashioned wingers flying up and down, or 442 with the full backs sitting back or overlapping, or with both strikers pushing up, or one or both falling back, or for some spastic reason, both deciding to play on the wings. I'd argue all of these things make more difference than a change to 433.But formation is about much more than where players stand at kick-off. Surely you know that?![]()
You could play any formation any way you want.But you could play 442 with 4 central midfielders, pack out the centre and smother the game, or play 442 with 2 good old fashioned wingers flying up and down, or 442 with the full backs sitting back or overlapping, or with both strikers pushing up, or one or both falling back, or for some spastic reason, both deciding to play on the wings. I'd argue all of these things make more difference than a change to 433.
Well it doesn't look like we're playing 4-4-2. Fergie has gone for a similar team to one that hammered Arsenal in the FA cup last year. I'm not a fan of Rooney as a lone forward but he was excellent that day and our midfield looks absolutely awesome with Carrick/Anderson/Fletcher as a central three and Nani and Ronaldo on the wings.
Does it get your seal of approval Pogue?