The main current problem, players or formation ?

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

We just don't have the wing backs to play 343. We dont have the CMs to only go with 2 in CM.

Play to your strengths. Go 433/4231.

4--3-3/4-2-3-1 had not been in our strength for about 3 years. That is why a radical change agent like Amorim was brought in in the first place.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Our biggest disease is a very poorly profiled squad. That is why our selection is inherently imbalanced, with surplus of talent in certain areas brought down by utter paucity in others. Making it very had for any manager to succeed. Especially with the none committal and shortermism approach our board still insist on taking during rebuilds.

 

[NoLogo]

I love the logic. Our midfield is shite. Thus, we need to switch to a formation that relies even more heavily on midfield players. The lack of quality in midfield will bite us even more in the behind if we play 433. Adding more turds in the center won't make us look less like a turd.

 

[NZT-One]

conflating the two is ridiculous. its convenient as it is easy to see with the eye and makes the short water cooler work place chatter easy and short. amorim has been tactically very flexible, with his style changing almost totally since he arrived from quite patient to very direct now.

amorim himself said it over and over again - the system and principles he uses isn't much to do with a formation. his principles wont change but in many ways he is tactically flexible. he says all this and nobody listened, probably because neville, hardly an expert, keeps confusing the matter.

I think the only part of peoples frustration that makes any sense is, when we are chasing a game, we often keep 3 centre back personnel on the pitch, and the view is this limits how effective we can be at breaking teams down as a centre back isn't going to be very good on the ball and will have different instincts.

Agree with what you say. Just to make it clear, you'd be also in favor of "formation follows approach" then, right?

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I love the logic. Our midfield is shite. Thus, we need to switch to a formation that relies even more heavily on midfield players. The lack of quality in midfield will bite us even more in the behind if we play 433. Adding more turds in the center won't make us look less like a turd.

Bingo

 

[NZT-One]

On the contrary, Amorim, no matter what he said (and he said many foolish things), was the one who seemed hellbent that the system follows the formation.

Thats interestingly not how I understood it. He understood him in a way, that the formation doesn't matter since the players have areas of responsibility and tasks and roles to fulfill. If you look at the heat maps and average positioning of our players in the matches that have been hailed as "finally he plays 4atb" you'll see that the plays mostly sticked to the areas they played in before. A little more skewed maybe but still mostly the same.

Our biggest disease is a very poorly profiled squad. That is why our selection is inherently imbalanced, with surplus of talent in certain areas brought down by utter paucity in others. Making it very had for any manager to succeed. Especially with the none committal and shortermism approach our board still insist on taking during rebuilds.

I fully agree with the bolded part. I missed to tag you in my post that bumped that thread. I asked a question there and I'd like to hear your opinion on it - what do you agree more with -

"formation follows system" or "system follows formation"?

(more context in my post that revived this thread)

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

@NZT-One

Thanks for the heads up. For me I'm of the school of thought "system follows formation."

I believe in coaching a system consisting of playing principles is first built on a foundational shape (formation). Then once understanding of that shape is mastered and married to the princples of play. New shapes and formation combinations can be added to increase the potency of the system.

Best example I can give of this is Pep's first Barcelona. He actually built in on the base shape of Cruyff's "dream team' 3-4-3 diamond structure. Then installed in then his postional play princioles for his system.
It . Consisted of the keeper Valdes.
Puyol Pigue Abidal as a 3. Busquets/Yaya ahead, Xavi tilted right Inesta tilted left. henry/pedro wide left, Alves pushed up wide right, allowing E'to'o to drift in from the right centrally whilst, Messi operated as a false 9, able to attack the box but as a hidden 4th midfielder at 'the tip of the midfield spear".

To most lay people it appeared a basic 4-3 - 3 with a false 9. Yet it regularly cycled between 3-4-3, 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 diamond with split strikers in match situations.

At Barcelona he could do this because understanding was already there of the basics through out his player selection.

If he had moved to a United post Fergie. Sans a supportive board, able to recruit well, married to Long term thinking and able to resist the pressures of shaky results hard resets tend to yield. He'd never have been to replicate what he did at Manchester City or Bayern for example, with us.

It's a big reason why this attempted rebuild with Amorim end up so doomed to failure. He was never going to evolve the system quickly enough to over come the short term thinking of the board and their reaction to the shaky results a hard reset must incur. He was always going to be eventually viewed as too stuck in his ways and unwilling to adapt in such circumstance.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

I'm not arguing that. There's no point discussing what Amorim said because what he said and what he did in the end were two different things. He said that the formation isn't above the system, in practice not to downplay the importance of a starting formation, but to validate his unwillingness to tinker with it.

This is the shape against Newcastle (at least, until he changed back): https://ibb.co/jktzJbzH. This was the shape against Wolves: https://ibb.co/LdSMR3CC. I don't know what people say, but i can see why the former worked a bit, while we looked crap with the latter.

My gripe with him is that he could see all those problems: How his wide centre-halves struggled to defend in wide ares and deal with 1v1 duels (Yoro must be traumatized this season). How his man-to-man front pressing left his two midfielders with acres of space to cover. How the overloads depended highly on players like Dalot (football intelligence of a unicellular organism) and Amad (too inexperienced and a natural attacking player) to operate as defenders in the first third, midfielders in the middle third and attackers in the final third. And from day one, all he talked about was suffering and the need to buy a whole new squad. If we're going to talk about the profiles of the players and the general direction of the team, we can spend days counting all the mistakes we've done and continue to be doing. But Amorim offered nothing toward remedying any of that.

 

[Adnan]

I think, the question of the thread has been one of the most divisive during Amorims tenure. And it may very well continue since since some iterations of it, were part of the discussions since forever, very much so though with ETH and Ole.

During those discussions, I feel what happens a lot is mixing up terms like approach = system = formation. I don't think those are interchangable because they stand for different things. @Adnan @sullydnl @MadDogg you are knowledgabe when it comes to tactics but I'd be happy to hear other peoples thoughts as well about a somewhat abstract topic - what comes first?

(edit: lets quickly define what I understand of the terms -
formation - the 3-4-3, 4-2-3-1 numbers thing, that gives a rough impression where players are expected to play,
approach - the "tone" of the game plan, aggressive, defensive, containing, pressing - so the style used to prevent the opponent to score, win the ball and create own chances to score,
system - a wide term that is for me the most highlevel idea when it comes to tactics for a specific match, covers formation, approach and lineup)

1) system follows formation

or

2) formation follows system

My understanding from reading and consuming content about football tactics is that the formation follows the approach. You decide how you want to play (pressing, containing, high block deep block mid block, look for space out wide, look for early crosses etc) then you look at what the opponent looks like and what his most likely game plan will be, then you look at the available players (your own and our opponents) and then you make a plan which player should cover which areas of the pitch to do x and y and which player of the opponents has to be taken care of and which of your own players is to be supported in case A or case B. The actual real formation in that specific game is something, that peels "itself" out of all those ideas (and to a degree also the ideas of the opponent) and from where each player is expected to start in phases on or off the ball.

It seems though, that many seem to think, that the formation comes first and then players get picked based on "what the formation requires". Can both be true depending on the manager?! Or is it either one or the other?

My opinion is that the idea or approach comes first. The formation then follows that after evaluating the tools you have at your disposal. So whatever the approach is to the game, one thing that cannot be compromised is your ability as a team to stay compact. So whether you're setup to play a low block, mid block or a high defensive block, as a team you cannot compromise on staying compact within the approach. It's a fundamental requirement to be a compact team.

What we've shown in the last 10 years or so is that we can be a very good team at times in a low to mid block where compactness is maintained. Because when defending in a more conservative setup in a lower block, it's easier to maintain compactness because in that situation you're defending small spaces and playing somewhat passive. The problem that has plagued us for years which still plagues us is that we can't maintain compactness in a higher defensive block. Because in a higher defensive block, the requirement is to manage larger spaces rather than the smaller spaces in a lower block.

Erik ten Hag did attempt to get this going and some said it was suicide tactics . But what he was trying get the backline to do was to step up and close the space to squeeze the pitch. But with Maguire and especially Lindelof, their tendency was to back pedal which would leave a massive whole in the middle of the pitch. The problem wasn't the tactics but rather not having suitable profiles to execute a strategy which required the first two lines to manage larger space in 1v1s.

 

[NZT-One]

@NZT-One

Thanks for the heads up. For me I'm of the school of thought "system follows formation."

I believe in coaching a system consisting of playing principles is first built on a foundational shape (formation). Then once understanding of that shape is mastered and married to the princples of play. New shapes and formation combinations can be added to increase the potency of the system.

Ok, but what do you mean with "understanding of a shape is mastered", if you say that it comes first isn't it just personal preference or experience or "what suits the eye" the most? If the shape comes first, what determines, what a manager uses?

Best example I can give of this is Pep's first Barcelona. He actually built in on the base shape of Cruyff's "dream team' 3-4-3 diamond structure. Then installed in then his postional play princioles for his system.
It . Consisted of the keeper Valdes.
Puyol Pigue Abidal as a 3. Busquets/Yaya ahead, Xavi tilted right Inesta tilted left. henry/pedro wide left, Alves pushed up wide right, allowing E'to'o to drift in from the right centrally whilst, Messi operated as a false 9, able to attack the box but as a hidden 4th midfielder at 'the tip of the midfield spear".

To most lay people it appeared a basic 4-3 - 3 with a false 9. Yet it regularly cycled between 3-4-3, 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 diamond with split strikers in match situations.

At Barcelona he could do this because understanding was already there of the basics through out his player selection.

I understand. Yeah, the Pep case with Barcelona is an interesting one. A bit like with Ajax, those clubs are very embosed(?) by certain ideas and have it deeply ingrained in their ideas. Maybe I'll try to figure out how Cruyff came up with his blue print, I always was thinking that it was in connection with this "Total Foetbol" idea where every player on the pitch is capable of playing every position to be as unpredictable as possible. But I'll be honest, I never really read into that, not even sure whether Cruyff and Total Foetbol are connected or from different eras.

Interesting food for thought.

If he had moved to a United post Fergie. Sans a supportive board, able to recruit well, married to Long term thinking and able to resist the pressures of shaky results hard resets tend to yield. He'd never have been to replicate what he did at Manchester City or Bayern for example, with us.

I agree. And I guess, this will always be a bit of an asterisk for Pep, that no matter how successful he was, after Barcelona he always did it with the indisputed "chipleader" of the respective league.

It's a big reason why this attempted rebuild with Amorim end up so doomed to failure. He was never going to evolve the system quickly enough to over come the short term thinking of the board and their reaction to the shaky results a hard reset must incur. He was always going to be eventually viewed as too stuck in his ways and unwilling to adapt in such circumstance.

A grim look into the future. I mean, hopefully you are not correct, because if the board is incapable of being patient, I don't really see us breaking out of the trot anytime soon. I personally think, that Amorims formation was just some sort of "lightening rod" - something, that people always used and went back to when asking questions. Might have been why he grew more and more tired of the questions since in his understanding, his ideas have been wider than just picking a formation.

Thanks for the thourough answer.

 

[NZT-One]

I'm not arguing that. There's no point discussing what Amorim said because what he said and what he did in the end were two different things. He said that the formation isn't above the system, in practice not to downplay the importance of a starting formation, but to validate his unwillingness to tinker with it.

I don't see a contradiction there. In my understanding, the system or the approach are wider and cover more areas than just the formation. I think, for Amorim, it was important to have a defensive unit that mostly consisted of his 3 CBs plus his double pivot while the rest supports when required. A 5-man "defensive unit" is a very common thing these days. Often the two CBs of a 4atb formation plus one of the FBs plus two midfielders or one midfielder with the other FB tucking in.

This is the shape against Newcastle (at least, until he changed back): https://ibb.co/jktzJbzH. This was the shape against Wolves: https://ibb.co/LdSMR3CC. I don't know what people say, but i can see why the former worked a bit, while we looked crap with the latter.

Is this based on heatmaps or average positioning. Your conclusion looking at the graphics is plausible of course. But depending on how such a graphic is created, it might also be influenced by how much of the ball you have, how fluid your opponent is and what the overall shape of the opponent is like, because we have to react on the opponent as much as he has react to us.

My gripe with him is that he could see all those problems: How his wide centre-halves struggled to defend in wide ares and deal with 1v1 duels (Yoro must be traumatized this season).

He is a young player, he might have had a similarly traumatizing time in a different formation as well. And I think, he did rather well last year in the same formation. The factor that changed from last year to this year is the directness.

How his man-to-man front pressing left his two midfielders with acres of space to cover.

And unsynchronized press is a killer in every formation though.

How the overloads depended highly on players like Dalot (football intelligence of a unicellular organism) and Amad (too inexperienced and a natural attacking player) to operate as defenders in the first third, midfielders in the middle third and attackers in the final third.

Agreed. The WB position is a very challenging one. Especially for fullbacks who aren't great in traditional wingplay and attacking wide players who aren't used to that much defensive responsibility. A difficult thing to overcome but yes, a little more improvement over time should have been expected.

And from day one, all he talked about was suffering and the need to buy a whole new squad. If we're going to talk about the profiles of the players and the general direction of the team, we can spend days counting all the mistakes we've done and continue to be doing. But Amorim offered nothing toward remedying any of that.

I think, that is a little harsh. I think, his comments were in line with what RR said. Both (surely ETH as well he just encrypted it my with his progress) knew that it would take quite a bit to achieve the lofty ambitions. But is it really something, that wouldn't apply to other managers with different formations as well? I mean, defending large spaces is bread and butter for CBs of teams who play a higher line to suffocate and dominate the opponent. Pressing will have to be better synched up to not run into traps and render it more hurtful to yourself (I thought, when we did it, our press looked fairly good), Dalot will still be thinking slow and none of the Fullbacks we have was ever considered a great fullback. Add the midfield issues and the striker issues and we are looking at quite a construction site - I'd say almost irrelevant in which we go from here.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Ok, but what do you mean with "understanding of a shape is mastered", if you say that it comes first isn't it just personal preference or experience or "what suits the eye" the most? If the shape comes first, what determines, what a manager uses?

First. The personal preference is the foundational shape a given coach chooses to build his identity as a coach. Not the fact a base formation should exist. I do not believe any coach worth his salt builds his principles of a system on to ANY foundation shape. They always have they singular one or 2 they prefer. Some rare coaches have none and are mostly principles based and hence can use ANY shape.

Second, the principles determine how the players you have can execute the foundation shape your prefer. That is why almost every interpretation of a base formation is unique to the coach using it and the players at his disposal. Which comes off to an every day fans as the 'coach/playing style/philosophy'. Thats why even a Pep has significantly changed the execution of his principles as per the players at his disposal. Altering his bass formation slightly with every iteration of squad he has built due to players at hand.

SAF was another great example. His base shape remained. But his execution of it changed as per players at hand. Into which he installed his principles. So none of his teams built played the shake like each other.
The only places where a Pep and a SAF differ is a Pep style coach is dogmatic with their execution of play. They want execution first and expression second. Whilst an SAF type uses principles that champion expression being built over the principles of play.

That is why for example n Ancelotti who is Fergie like in approach works for a Real Madrid or Manchester United type club. Whilst a Pep or Cruyff type works best in those with long institutional memory like Ajax, Barca or Bayern. Or a hard reset friendly place with resources like PSG or Manchester City. In my opinion I should add as a caveat.

A grim look into the future. I mean, hopefully you are not correct, because if the board is incapable of being patient, I don't really see us breaking out of the trot anytime soon.

Its possible to be still be impatient and go for an easier path than a hard reset. But that has ti mean being absolutely perfect in recruitment. From squad build and profiling. To coaches. Mistakes have be utterly minimal and the strategic plan must be so specific, ala a Brighton or City before Pep, head coaches are recruited towards a singular model in plug and play fashion. No wild deviations like ETH to Amorim



I personally think, that Amorims formation was just some sort of "lightening rod" - something, that people always used and went back to when asking questions. Might have been why he grew more and more tired of the questions since in his understanding, his ideas have been wider than just picking a formation. [/QUOTE]

Thanks for the thourough answer.

You're welcome

 

[NZT-One]

My opinion is that the idea or approach comes first. The formation then follows that after evaluating the tools you have at your disposal. So whatever the approach is to the game, one thing that cannot be compromised is your ability as a team to stay compact. So whether you're setup to play a low block, mid block or a high defensive block, as a team you cannot compromise on staying compact within the approach. It's a fundamental requirement to be a compact team.

Ok, that aligns with my perspective on it. Have you read or heard professionals talk about that, do you think they all run under that paradigma or are there others as well? @Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber brought up the example of Cruyff and that it seemed as if he had his formation in mind first and figured out the stuff around in a later step.

What we've shown in the last 10 years or so is that we can be a very good team at times in a low to mid block where compactness is maintained. Because when defending in a more conservative setup in a lower block, it's easier to maintain compactness because in that situation you're defending small spaces and playing somewhat passive. The problem that has plagued us for years which still plagues us is that we can't maintain compactness in a higher defensive block. Because in a higher defensive block, the requirement is to manage larger spaces rather than the smaller spaces in a lower block.

Agreed. And to drive that point home - I think that is a statement that applies universally and to basically every team out there. If you defend closer to your own goal and with more players (deep block) most teams will find it easier to defend because the spaces for the attackers get tighter and it is easier for team mates to step in.

Erik ten Hag did attempt to get this going and some said it was suicide tactics . But what he was trying get the backline to do was to step up and close the space to squeeze the pitch. But with Maguire and especially Lindelof, their tendency was to back pedal which would leave a massive whole in the middle of the pitch. The problem wasn't the tactics but rather not having suitable profiles to execute a strategy which required the first two lines to manage larger space in 1v1s.

Agree. We've seen bits of it under Amorim as well. I think, particularly the Aston Villa game has seen us press very well and it looked quite organized too. Who knows whether it was born out of necessity or where it came from since that tactic made a lot of sense given we had to start both of our young CBs plus Ugarte and Mount and Bruno.

I hope, we'll continue down that route, at least to a degree to lay a bit of the groundwork for the coming future.

Thanks for the thourough answer!

 

[NZT-One]

First. The personal preference is the foundational shape a given coach chooses to build his identity as a coach. Not the fact a base formation should exist. I do not believe any coach worth his salt builds his principles of a system on to ANY foundation shape. They always have they singular one or 2 they prefer. Some rare coaches have none and are mostly principles based and hence can use ANY shape.

This is something I heard Nagelsmann was attributed with. Not many others.

Second, the principles determine how the players you have can execute the foundation shape your prefer. That is why almost every interpretation of a base formation is unique to the coach using it and the players at his disposal. Which comes off to an every day fans as the 'coach/playing style/philosophy'. Thats why even a Pep has significantly changed the execution of his principles as per the players at his disposal. Altering his bass formation slightly with every iteration of squad he has built due to players at hand.

I see. And do you think, the players at disposal are the only factors or the biggest factors? Because I'd say that the way rivals play also influences things. Like when Dortmund and Bayern were at their highs (the latest) and played a CL final against each other, after they showcased how much of the principles of the rival were taken on for themselves as well.

SAF was another great example. His base shape remained. But his execution of it changed as per players at hand. Into which he installed his principles. So none of his teams built played the shake like each other.
The only places where a Pep and a SAF differ is a Pep style coach is dogmatic with their execution of play. They want execution first and expression second. Whilst an SAF type uses principles that champion expression being built over the principles of play.

That is why for example n Ancelotti who is Fergie like in approach works for a Real Madrid or Manchester United type club. Whilst a Pep or Cruyff type works best in those with long institutional memory like Ajax, Barca or Bayern. Or a hard reset friendly place with resources like PSG or Manchester City. In my opinion I should add as a caveat.

Agreed.

Its possible to be still be impatient and go for an easier path than a hard reset. But that has ti mean being absolutely perfect in recruitment. From squad build and profiling. To coaches. Mistakes have be utterly minimal and the strategic plan must be so specific, ala a Brighton or City before Pep, head coaches are recruited towards a singular model in plug and play fashion. No wild deviations like ETH to Amorim.

I'd consider such a smooth run as fairly unlikely, don't you think?

 

[Adnan]

Ok, that aligns with my perspective on it. Have you read or heard professionals talk about that, do you think they all run under that paradigma or are there others as well? @Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber brought up the example of Cruyff and that it seemed as if he had his formation in mind first and figured out the stuff around in a later step.

Agreed. And to drive that point home - I think that is a statement that applies universally and to basically every team out there. If you defend closer to your own goal and with more players (deep block) most teams will find it easier to defend because the spaces for the attackers get tighter and it is easier for team mates to step in.

Agree. We've seen bits of it under Amorim as well. I think, particularly the Aston Villa game has seen us press very well and it looked quite organized too. Who knows whether it was born out of necessity or where it came from since that tactic made a lot of sense given we had to start both of our young CBs plus Ugarte and Mount and Bruno.

I hope, we'll continue down that route, at least to a degree to lay a bit of the groundwork for the coming future.

Thanks for the thourough answer!

The Rinus Michels/Cruyff principles were built on the idea first and then everything else. Michels is even on record as saying that the formation whether that be a 433 or 343 was mainly utilised due to the favourable positions it created for rondos (triangles) and the ability to dominate the ball and hence create numerical superiorities on the pitch. The idea was king and the formation was just a means of better applying the concepts of positional play.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I see. And do you think, the players at disposal are the only factors or the biggest factors?

IMHO The biggest, no matter your style is the players available determine how your style can survive battle contact with various opponents. It's why less dogmatic managers like SAF at times tend to thrive better than dogmatic ones in knock outs. Because they are willing to even seemingly abandon what are considered their core principles in the pursuit of victory. They are more likely to cede the battle for style and win the war. Whilst the other type never want to lose the battle for style. Which can cost them a war. Especially when they make first contact with a rival system that can inherrently cause problems to their own. (i.e cruyffian possesion vs Kloppian gegen pressing, cruffian possesion vs sacchi high press , pep's Bayern vs peak atletico simeone, Pep's Bayern vs Ancelotti"s BBC Real Madrid e.t.c)

I was infact impressed to see Peo recentky evolved into the ability to abandon a core principle to excute his 'war" to rebuild City. Half a decade ago he'd rather have been sacked than hire a goal keeper like Donarunmma to be his number one whilst unable to be superb at playing out with his feet.

I'd consider such a smooth run as fairly unlikely, don't you think?

only in the sense that I don't trust INEOS yet to install the best minimum mistake people in the front office in the recruitment, sporting director, loans and technical director departments.

 

[sammyhol]

This is something I heard Nagelsmann was attributed with. Not many others.

I see. And do you think, the players at disposal are the only factors or the biggest factors? Because I'd say that the way rivals play also influences things. Like when Dortmund and Bayern were at their highs (the latest) and played a CL final against each other, after they showcased how much of the principles of the rival were taken on for themselves as well.

Agreed.

I'd consider such a smooth run as fairly unlikely, don't you think?

I always love reading your thoughts on this.

Your knowledge is significantly more in depth than mine, and I don't doubt that the data, stats etc back up a lot of your opinions on formation itself being a factor of minimal importance when compared all these other key strategic considerations and data points.

However, you and I have gone back and forth on this so much over the last few months, and it looks like there is a strong possibility we are going to see a pretty traditional 4231 setup for the second half of this season. A la Ole ball. A la ETH season 1. Which is something my less educated brain is excited for.

Ultimately it is my belief that a lot of modern day coaching has drank its own Kool Aid, and a relatively simple game is being over analysed and complicated to a point that it is actually detracting from the quality of the output. This for me is a big reason for the inconsistent mediocrity currently being seen across the majority of the league. And I honestly believe a square pegs, square holes, shape based set up with less rigid patterns of play and more freedom given to the players to express themselves in familiar roles will ultimately result in a higher quality, more consistent output.

So all that being said, I guess my question would be, what kind of run of form would you need to see in an alternative formation that would bring you to the conclusion that formation itself can be critical to improved performance?

 

[AkaAkuma]

I don't see a contradiction there. In my understanding, the system or the approach are wider and cover more areas than just the formation. I think, for Amorim, it was important to have a defensive unit that mostly consisted of his 3 CBs plus his double pivot while the rest supports when required. A 5-man "defensive unit" is a very common thing these days. Often the two CBs of a 4atb formation plus one of the FBs plus two midfielders or one midfielder with the other FB tucking in.

Is this based on heatmaps or average positioning. Your conclusion looking at the graphics is plausible of course. But depending on how such a graphic is created, it might also be influenced by how much of the ball you have, how fluid your opponent is and what the overall shape of the opponent is like, because we have to react on the opponent as much as he has react to us.

He is a young player, he might have had a similarly traumatizing time in a different formation as well. And I think, he did rather well last year in the same formation. The factor that changed from last year to this year is the directness.

And unsynchronized press is a killer in every formation though.

Agreed. The WB position is a very challenging one. Especially for fullbacks who aren't great in traditional wingplay and attacking wide players who aren't used to that much defensive responsibility. A difficult thing to overcome but yes, a little more improvement over time should have been expected.

I think, that is a little harsh. I think, his comments were in line with what RR said. Both (surely ETH as well he just encrypted it my with his progress) knew that it would take quite a bit to achieve the lofty ambitions. But is it really something, that wouldn't apply to other managers with different formations as well? I mean, defending large spaces is bread and butter for CBs of teams who play a higher line to suffocate and dominate the opponent. Pressing will have to be better synched up to not run into traps and render it more hurtful to yourself (I thought, when we did it, our press looked fairly good), Dalot will still be thinking slow and none of the Fullbacks we have was ever considered a great fullback. Add the midfield issues and the striker issues and we are looking at quite a construction site - I'd say almost irrelevant in which we go from here.

You make good points.
Issues will remain even after changing formations, it will just show limitations in the squad in different areas.

I believe Amorim helped us progress as a squad and team, but ultimately wasnt flexible or adaptive enough to solidify our position in the top six.

Some problems changing to 3 man midfield:
Amad, Mbeumo becomes competition = frustration
Bruno, Cunha becomes competition = frustration
Lack of adequate midfield depth for 6 and 8 roles.
Spotlight on fullbacks and lack of overlap.

 

[NZT-One]

IMHO The biggest, no matter your style is the players available determine how your style can survive battle contact with various opponents. It's why less dogmatic managers like SAF at times tend to thrive better than dogmatic ones in knock outs. Because they are willing to even seemingly abandon what are considered their core principles in the pursuit of victory. They are more likely to cede the battle for style and win the war. Whilst the other type never want to lose the battle for style. Which can cost them a war. Especially when they make first contact with a rival system that can inherrently cause problems to their own. (i.e cruyffian possesion vs Kloppian gegen pressing, cruffian possesion vs sacchi high press , pep's Bayern vs peak atletico simeone, Pep's Bayern vs Ancelotti"s BBC Real Madrid e.t.c)

Yeah, I agree with that observation. My shallow (if you will) takeaway has been for a while that for off games, you are better off the more adaptable (and dogmatic) you are, for longer campaigns, you fare better the more organised you are. But thats certainly not set in stone.

I was infact impressed to see Peo recentky evolved into the ability to abandon a core principle to excute his 'war" to rebuild City. Half a decade ago he'd rather have been sacked than hire a goal keeper like Donarunmma to be his number one whilst unable to be superb at playing out with his feet.

True. I think, it is very interesting to see what he does. My feeling is that we are about to see another iteration of a great City side considering that he is stacking fantastic dribbling ability throughout the team. I guess, to make sure, that pressing will be less and less of an issue for that side. If he manages to create a unit that can stand having players like Doku and Cherki in it, then there isn't much stopping him. Especially as long as Haaland doesn't get into bad form, anything more than bad shouldn't be much of an issue.

Some problems changing to 3 man midfield:
Amad, Mbeumo becomes competition = frustration
Bruno, Cunha becomes competition = frustration
Lack of adequate midfield depth for 6 and 8 roles.
Spotlight on fullbacks and lack of overlap.

Good summary, haven't even thought about the competition part but yes, good thinking.

 

[DutchSerb]

Some problems changing to 3 man midfield:
Amad, Mbeumo becomes competition = frustration
Bruno, Cunha becomes competition = frustration
Lack of adequate midfield depth for 6 and 8 roles.
Spotlight on fullbacks and lack of overlap.

Arsenal and City can field 2 elite starting XI's. If these guys are pissed with a little competition, they shouldn't be playing at a club that has the ambitions to become a top team again.

 

[NZT-One]

I always love reading your thoughts on this.

Your knowledge is significantly more in depth than mine, and I don't doubt that the data, stats etc back up a lot of your opinions on formation itself being a factor of minimal importance when compared all these other key strategic considerations and data points.

However, you and I have gone back and forth on this so much over the last few months, and it looks like there is a strong possibility we are going to see a pretty traditional 4231 setup for the second half of this season. A la Ole ball. A la ETH season 1. Which is something my less educated brain is excited for.

The formation doesn't necessarily mean Ole ball and I can see the excitement and do not look down on it. I can see how it will lift the mood which then might improve a few things here and there. My concern is less the immediate future but the journey overall. And for the record, even if my posts may sound different from time to time: I don't think any manager or coach will really make any damage. And I'd even say that about the managers in the past. The cost some of their decisions have is always time. Time well or not so well spent.

Ultimately it is my belief that a lot of modern day coaching has drank its own Kool Aid, and a relatively simple game is being over analysed and complicated to a point that it is actually detracting from the quality of the output. This for me is a big reason for the inconsistent mediocrity currently being seen across the majority of the league. And I honestly believe a square pegs, square holes, shape based set up with less rigid patterns of play and more freedom given to the players to express themselves in familiar roles will ultimately result in a higher quality, more consistent output.

Fair point. I am sure with tactics details it is like with most other fields as well - there is a happy medium and the dose makes the poison. There is definitely more to it than just having a good plan. It has no effect for example, if you have the greatest plan but you don't manage to bring it across so players can understand it. More even - commit to it. I personally think, the level of the league is more connected with quite a lot of teams dealing with some sort of European competition, less so with teams overcomplicating things. But that might be subjective. What you describe makes sense, synergies will emerge naturally just from playing together, growing together as a team. The better the individual players are, the faster that may work and the more functional those synergies are. Thats how things worked for quite some time where the focus may wasn't as detail oriented (and partly overanalysed) as it is today. But thats simply not the only way to create synergies of some sort, you can also accelerate or even force it (to a degree) by instructions. And the more elaborate the instructions are, the more we get into the region of system talk. And no matter how you choose to manage that, the opposition largely seems to make use of these things so there comes a point in time (maybe thats already happened) where not making use of it is not only a missed opportunity but an actual disadvantage.

And for what its worth, I don't think, our struggles are connected with our players being overburdened with crazy stuff. As I've written a couple of times - we often get outrun, outfought and outsmarted. That shouldn't all be placed at the manager.

So all that being said, I guess my question would be, what kind of run of form would you need to see in an alternative formation that would bring you to the conclusion that formation itself can be critical to improved performance?

Good question. What I can tell you is that results probably don't matter to me as much as performances (right now, since I feel they are better indicator of progress). For example if we win the next 5 games but only create 3 chances on average (2 from set pieces) then you won't convince me, that the formation we switched into has done much. To be honest, I don't really see us overcoming some of the obstacles we have as a team - if we somehow transform into a dominating free flowing team then I'll be somewhat amazed but also shocked what actually stopped the players to do that earlier. But as I said - I don't see the formation as a key factor for our struggles. So it'll be difficult for me to see it as some kind of "missing piece".

Counter question: imagine the matches stay somewhat dull, no great performances, same issues. But we manage to continue to score again (with Amad, Mbeumo and Bruno coming back, thats a fairly easy bet) - will you attribute that then to the switch of formation?

 

[sammyhol]

The formation doesn't necessarily mean Ole ball and I can see the excitement and do not look down on it. I can see how it will lift the mood which then might improve a few things here and there. My concern is less the immediate future but the journey overall. And for the record, even if my posts may sound different from time to time: I don't think any manager or coach will really make any damage. And I'd even say that about the managers in the past. The cost some of their decisions have is always time. Time well or not so well spent.

Fair point. I am sure with tactics details it is like with most other fields as well - there is a happy medium and the dose makes the poison. There is definitely more to it than just having a good plan. It has no effect for example, if you have the greatest plan but you don't manage to bring it across so players can understand it. More even - commit to it. I personally think, the level of the league is more connected with quite a lot of teams dealing with some sort of European competition, less so with teams overcomplicating things. But that might be subjective. What you describe makes sense, synergies will emerge naturally just from playing together, growing together as a team. The better the individual players are, the faster that may work and the more functional those synergies are. Thats how things worked for quite some time where the focus may wasn't as detail oriented (and partly overanalysed) as it is today. But thats simply not the only way to create synergies of some sort, you can also accelerate or even force it (to a degree) by instructions. And the more elaborate the instructions are, the more we get into the region of system talk. And no matter how you choose to manage that, the opposition largely seems to make use of these things so there comes a point in time (maybe thats already happened) where not making use of it is not only a missed opportunity but an actual disadvantage.

And for what its worth, I don't think, our struggles are connected with our players being overburdened with crazy stuff. As I've written a couple of times - we often get outrun, outfought and outsmarted. That shouldn't all be placed at the manager.

Good question. What I can tell you is that results probably don't matter to me as much as performances (right now, since I feel they are better indicator of progress). For example if we win the next 5 games but only create 3 chances on average (2 from set pieces) then you won't convince me, that the formation we switched into has done much. To be honest, I don't really see us overcoming some of the obstacles we have as a team - if we somehow transform into a dominating free flowing team then I'll be somewhat amazed but also shocked what actually stopped the players to do that earlier. But as I said - I don't see the formation as a key factor for our struggles. So it'll be difficult for me to see it as some kind of "missing piece".

Counter question: imagine the matches stay somewhat dull, no great performances, same issues. But we manage to continue to score again (with Amad, Mbeumo and Bruno coming back, thats a fairly easy bet) - will you attribute that then to the switch of formation?

Yeh agree with a lot of that!!!

But to answer your question. It will come down to a few factors for me.

Points per game over a sustain period. If we have the same personnel, but the change in shape moves us from a 1.3 points per game average to closer to a 2 points per game average, I will probably attribute a lot of that to the change in shape.

Individual performance level. I expect Shaw with have more good games as a LB that in any Amorim role. I expect Dalot will have more good games as a RB that in any Amorim role. I expect most of our CBs to look more comfortable in a traditional CB pairing than in a back 3. Bruno at 10, Amad RW, Mainoo in a 3 man midfield, etc etc etc.. square pegs, square holes

Eye test. Are we simply looking better. Is our football more fluid. Are we more entertaining?

My (potentially naive) expectation is we will see a marked improvement on all of those metrics. If we don't, it'll be me eating humble pie and tearing down my shine to 4231! Haha

 

[RealRedRunner]

Too many Center Backs and diminutive No 10's.
No top quality in the 6 or 9 position.
We need a proper goalscorer and legs to win the midfield battle. Then we'll start to see some wins and clean sheets.
The executive levels need to up their game and buy footballers and not assets for the balance sheet.
Then we have the owners...still a carbunkle on the face of the club.

 

[AkaAkuma]

Arsenal and City can field 2 elite starting XI's. If these guys are pissed with a little competition, they shouldn't be playing at a club that has the ambitions to become a top team again.

I expected this comment.
The issue is where we are in terms of progressing as a team.
Right now we are neither Arsenal or City.
We are a team trying to win back to back games.
We need a settled team pulling in the same direction.
What we dont need is hurt feelings (like mainoo) derailing things. Either of Amad, Cunha or Bruno being butt hurt would significantly disrupt our season.

Only once we are consistent does ‘depth’ truely become something players buy into.
Example : ‘why the feck am i on the bench for an 8th place team when i could be at a CL team’.
Amad near this point would be catastrophic.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

......
True. I think, it is very interesting to see what he does. My feeling is that we are about to see another iteration of a great City side considering that he is stacking fantastic dribbling ability throughout the team. I guess, to make sure, that pressing will be less and less of an issue for that side. If he manages to create a unit that can stand having players like Doku and Cherki in it, then there isn't much stopping him. Especially as long as Haaland doesn't get into bad form, anything more than bad shouldn't be much of an issue.


.....

My one issue with his current rebuild is having attacking midfielders at fullback. For me till he installaanatural fullbacks like Ait-Nouri or Lewis there instead. Or perhaks finds attacking midfielder who have solid defensive nous. I feel He will always have serious problems in transitions. Unless he can recruit 4 Khusanov speed cbs with exceptionally defensive high IQ

 

[Glorio]

This may be the most polite thread on here! Possibly because we're talking about processes rather than individuals and so the personal element is missing.

 

[FrenchRed]

Formation. I just watched the following video and midfield aside, it really reinforced that our squad is really not bad at all, and def capable of getting in the CL. YES PLEASE to a 442 diamond that Ole often used to play:

 

[NZT-One]

Yeh agree with a lot of that!!!

But to answer your question. It will come down to a few factors for me.

Points per game over a sustain period. If we have the same personnel, but the change in shape moves us from a 1.3 points per game average to closer to a 2 points per game average, I will probably attribute a lot of that to the change in shape.

Results are based on a lot of things, refs, good or bad luck, injuries, injuries of rivals players. But see your point, if the points average gets better, then it is quite difficult to say that it didn't have anything to do with Amorim.

Individual performance level. I expect Shaw with have more good games as a LB that in any Amorim role. I expect Dalot will have more good games as a RB that in any Amorim role. I expect most of our CBs to look more comfortable in a traditional CB pairing than in a back 3. Bruno at 10, Amad RW, Mainoo in a 3 man midfield, etc etc etc.. square pegs, square holes

Yes, thats fair. Although more or less the same applies as with the point above.

Eye test. Are we simply looking better. Is our football more fluid. Are we more entertaining?

Thats highly subjective though, isn't it? I mean, I enjoy a the display of a well executed game plan, you might enjoy a ravaging comeback. The next person doesn't care and only looks at the result. The "last time we were entertaining line" is one of the classics in the Ole discussions and has never been a good one for me.

My (potentially naive) expectation is we will see a marked improvement on all of those metrics. If we don't, it'll be me eating humble pie and tearing down my shine to 4231! Haha

^^ Yes we'll see. Two things: we don't live in a vaccuum, the opponents we face will have an influence on the perception as well. We play Burnley today, a team we are expected to win and to make most of the match. This has been the scenario that didn't suit us at all in the past. But still, I don't think, it will require a stellar performance to get a good result. The matches after are Brighton, City and Arsenal. Our bogey team and two really good sides. I'd say a nice convincing win against Brighton would be more "fulfilling" than a narrow loss or a stale draw against Arsenal.
2nd thing: there won't be humble pie for you because even if we continue to be suboptimal in a different formation, then this won't mean that the formation is bad.

Lets see how it goes.

 

[NZT-One]

Formation. I just watched the following video and midfield aside, it really reinforced that our squad is really not bad at all, and def capable of getting in the CL. YES PLEASE to a 442 diamond that Ole often used to play:

I think this is a terrible source but I am not suprised that you are excited after watching it. That channel is all about fan service and will 9.5 times out of 10 present things that are popular with the majority of fans - with accordingly selected information that support those notions and usually blending out the rest.

If you go back a year, you'll find videos like that about the 3-4-3 there as well. Most likely more than one.

 

[kikks]

A lot of you probably know much more than me, but I'll give my two cents anyway.

I've said elsewhere, I thought yesterdays game was a huge improvement. But we still need a lot of things. We need a manager with a set of principles and a formation to match that. How to press in all situations, defensive organization, how to build up, movement etc. They still need to show the effort and intensity required to play in the Premier League at all. I think we still need to get rid of 3-4 players and add 3-5 new ones over time.

I think we're best suited for 4-2-3-1, with the obvious caveat that there is good defensive organization, well-established pressing patterns and the right mix of creative freedom and discipline. Which is easier said than done.

GK: Lammens, Vitek backup when back from loan?, Heaton 3rd
DC: De Ligt / Maquire (if he stays) on one side, Heaven/Yoro/Martinez on the other. De Ligt / Martinez starting. Rotation as required and in cups / Europe if we get it.
DR: Maz starting, new right back rotation / backup. Dalot may move on. Need a more offensively minded RB to overlap, since both potential RWs are inverted.
DL: Dorgu starting, Amass / Leon long term, Shaw back-up / rotation for another year I guess. Depending on the progress of the first three, maybe a new player if they don't work out.
6: 1-2 new signings. Ugarte and Casemiro for now, but both should hopefully move on in the summer. Collyer / Kone to be worked into cup games etc over time?
8: Mainoo / new signing.
10: Bruno / Cunha / Mount. Cunha to take over from Bruno when he moves on, Mount backing up / rotating. Bit of a logjam here I suppose.
RW: Mbuemo / Amad. Lacey worked in to cup games etc?
LW: ?? Don't like Cunha or Mount here, unless they are wide 10's. But then we need Dorgu or whoever else to overlap to keep width. Mbuemo/Amad can work, but then they are no longer inverted.
ST: Sesko, perhaps new signing of Zirkzee moves on. Chido / others rotating in cup games.

We still need a lot of work, under a good manager and to make good signings, but for me there is a path forward that did not exist under Amorim.

 

[Silas]

Arsenal and City can field 2 elite starting XI's. If these guys are pissed with a little competition, they shouldn't be playing at a club that has the ambitions to become a top team again.

Competition in a top side is fine. If we continue where we are, rotation is probably a harder sell to a good player.

 

[cyril C]

I love the logic. Our midfield is shite. Thus, we need to switch to a formation that relies even more heavily on midfield players. The lack of quality in midfield will bite us even more in the behind if we play 433. Adding more turds in the center won't make us look less like a turd.

Even with our current shitty MF, we can still come good in 433. There are players good in front, Bruno, Mount, Minoo. There are players better at behind, Casemiro, Ugarte. Shame that we sold McTom. We just need to be pragmatic and flexible with the players available and tactics required, not that stubborn 343 that stuck to the same formation and tactics regardless.

 

[NoLogo]

Even with our current shitty MF, we can still come good in 433. There are players good in front, Bruno, Mount, Minoo. There are players better at behind, Casemiro, Ugarte. Shame that we sold McTom. We just need to be pragmatic and flexible with the players available and tactics required, not that stubborn 343 that stuck to the same formation and tactics regardless.

Formations in the modern game aren't as static as the majority of people on here seem to believe. They change half a dozen times during a game and always depend on the phase of play. The problem was Amorim's defensive team selection. He played one of our best attackers too deep and too often played two defenders in the wide areas who'd offer almost nothing going forward. The problem now is that we have sold all our right-footed wingers and need to play players in that position that aren't used to it, again. The major problem in our team is a severe imbalance, mainly in the midfield, and trying to fit too many square pegs into round holes, and we'll suffer from these problems for the foreseeable future because we halfway abandoned playing wingbacks instead of wingers in the wide areas of the pitch. A formation change won't fix us. Getting quality midfielders that complement each other. Making up our mind about what type of wide players we want to employ in the future. Then adapting our transfer strategy accordingly actually might give us a fighting chance.

 

[robthered89]

I think we need to get away from talking purely about formation.

That changes about 100 times a game (for all but the most rigid teams e.g. wolves 5/6 games ago).

It's more about the principles of how to play the game e.g. are you direct, do you keep possession, how high do you press, where does your back line stand etc.

Every action is a compromise tactically.

With a full strength team we can play all sorts of stuff but with a lack of pure pace in the defence we pretty much have to do a mid block or we are giving up lots of chances. So that dictates how high we can press, in my opinion.

But with the ball we can play what we see and need a coach to encourage that (which ole always did, despite his latter failings against low blocks).

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I think we need to get away from talking purely about formation.

That changes about 100 times a game (for all but the most rigid teams e.g. wolves 5/6 games ago).

It's more about the principles of how to play the game e.g. are you direct, do you keep possession, how high do you press, where does your back line stand etc.

Every action is a compromise tactically.

With a full strength team we can play all sorts of stuff but with a lack of pure pace in the defence we pretty much have to do a mid block or we are giving up lots of chances. So that dictates how high we can press, in my opinion.

But with the ball we can play what we see and need a coach to encourage that (which ole always did, despite his latter failings against low blocks).

To be fair Our problem with high press high line ball is know how and lack of personnel in midfield. Barcelona last season did not have searing pace across the whole back 4. Yet they played a suicide high line all season to great effect, thanks to know how and a wonderful midfield selection.

 

[Denis' cuff]

OP: or the magic wand that is Football Director, coaching staff, medical staff, 5,000 canteen staff, hangers on that have been around since Gary Birtles, manager, owners that are in touch or even care, players ditto? We have become the duplicate England unsolvable curse. Half the problem is the hysteria/noise… just fecking dampen it and the tension around the whole fecking circus dies down. Either that, or feck em and get Diego in from Atletico and make Joey Barton coach and club ambassador.

 

[Hammondo]

I wonder how long until more people realise it's the players, by far.

 

[Jund]

I wonder how long until more people realise it's the players, by far.

Nah man. Been saying this for a year now. Only get ridiculed by the people who think a “formation” can hinder top league players to lose to Grimsby.

 

[Skills]

Neither. I think we were just unlucky tbh. Though I thought the summer was poorly planned out.

 

[Bobby_2024]

Good players can excel in any formation, In the end they are executing their jobs properly.

so its players guys, but with a proper manager he could change a bit but not much.