Liverpool FC Forum

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:12 am**

There are several members within our ranks who know there way around a footy pitch well enough to be able to comment knowledgeably on most, if not all things related to the beautiful game - comprehensively. A game which remains full of idiosyncrasies and nuances way beyond the ultimate simple aim and end result of sticking the ball in the net (conversely, the art of preventing it) - in order to win a Football match.

Now, the majority of us are OK; that reads: 'f a i r l y' well versed in the doctrines of a basic set-up. eg, your 4-4-2; a 4-5-1; the Wingback system, the outmoded Sweeper role; an attack minded 4-3-3; or even one or two of the slightly more exotic formations, often seen employed on the world stage..... We all watch World cups, UEFA Champions league et al. Enough coverage is out there, should you choose to sit through it all. Virtually every week there is any number of matches taking place..either through attending the game itself or watching them on the box, football IS everywhere. It remains one of the most popular of sports to enjoy participating in (most likely it always will).

However, being able to fully understand and implement its many 'ins and outs', quirks, permutations, tactics and outright sheer depth beyond the obvious, takes some doing (although damn near ALL of us attempt to) with fluctuating degrees of competence.

Each configuration, undoubtedly has its pro's and con's in execution. Relative of course to both the personnel deployed and the oppositions own method of setting up on the park. Amongst other factors.

Hypothetically here, you are given the licence of identifying the individual positions out on a footy pitch. (solely for the purpose of enlightenment - and the point of the existence of a thread such as this one) combined with their related merits with the appointed system they fall under.

Taking into account the 'supposed' role each of the 11 positions occupies on the park. (as broadly as possible) given the countless variations upon the theme. As an example, what are the key elements that a DM has to have in his locker over a CM etc. Similarly, an out and out Striker as opposed to a plain old fashioned Centre Forward. Along with the reasons 'why' there are differences. Perhaps more accurately, What exactly are the principal differences between the formations? What does a 3-5-2 have as an edge, over a flat Defensive 4... I suppose this kind of debate is largely irrelevant up to a point nowadays, with the few considered strategies that ARE actually used in relation to our own league for instance. But it would be worthwhile perhaps, for some of you to point them out with better clarity. (over complicating things?) Maybe it is....but i dont think its totally unreasonable to extol their virtues in a football forum; despite modern day trends.

How would you best describe each different tactical set-up and the active/reactive input that is to be found through the sum of its parts, making an effective whole. In plain terms, what exactly does each component 'do' to directly balance a 'team' within its selected line-up. Basically if you like, a brief summary of the primary formations and the advantages/disadvantages of each is required.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:51 am**

I think the game really is as simple as Shankly said.

This holding midfielder is a new phenomenom I think - I always think back to past (successful) Liverpool teams and I dont recall our centre mids ever being in the "holding" role.

For example, Steve McMahon was a great defensive midfielder, but he never played a holding role.
We got by mighty fine then.
I dont subscribe to this "yea, but the game today..." b0llocks.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:22 am**

Naturally as the coaching of team play becomes more and more complex, the systems needed to overcome those systems follows suit and each coach vies with the other to get the upper hand. Shankly and Clough were right when they said football is a simple game, but the reality in the modern World is that unless you get the set-up right you'll end up in a situation where the players come off at half-time knackered and with quizzical looks on their faces, "we can't get near 'em boss, it's like chasing shadows out there".

Tactical planning is like a game of scissors, rocks and handkerchiefs or whatever the feck it's called. Every system and thought process has a counterbalance and a way to play against it if the clever coach can spot it and work it out. Defend too deep against a target man and you'll be pinned back all game with the ball raining down on your penalty spot. Defend too high up against pace and you give the passer too much margin for error as he feeds it through to the pigeon catcher. Play 3-5-2 and you'll outnumber their front two and and as long as the two full-backs are fit as feck, like as not you'll outnumber their midfield as well. Well Ok, We'll ping it into the channels all day and pin your full-backs right back, your 3-5-2 just became 5-3-2 and you're in for a hard day at the office.

Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Was it Einstein, or Socrates or Archimedes or some other exotic sounding brainbox who said it I don't know. They weren't talking about football but they might as well have been because the rule applies perfectly.

Holding midfileder? It's just natural evolution and the most basic laws of engineering at play. The strongest structure is the triangle, sit two blokes side by side in front of and in line with the back four and they can pass it through you from just about everywhere. Sit a holder in front of the back four, in between the centre-halves and they'ge got to pass it round him to slip somebody in. If that holder has good intelligence and can read it well, he may even be able to perform the role of screener as well.

Screener? The fella who gets himself in between the ball carrier and the oppositions star man at all times. Thierry Henri in his pomp? Sit a screener ten yards in front of him, stop the ball from getting to him in the first place. The reaction which is equal? He fecks off and stands on the left-wing all the time, making it impossible to screen him and leaving you with a redundant bloke sitting in front of the back four. Do it to Rooney? He just drops deeper, in front of the screener and hurts you from there.

It's a simple game, but often there are things going on which many fans wouldn't see. Some see more than others but none of us see anywhere near all of it. If you had nothing else to do other than watch football all day long you'd get nearly all of it but still not all. It's the way modern football is, simple but very complex.

It's what Mourinho means when he talks about pressing the ball hard in the centre of the pitch and inviting teams to play it out wider. With headers of the quality of Carvalho and particularly Terry you'd want teams to fire crosses at you if you had the choice. It's what Rafa means when he talks about getting the detail right. It's what I mean when I'm an advocate of Sissoko. Put up with the occasional miscontrol, poor pass or dodgy free-kick conceded. Wind him up and let him go because you know that a couple of times a game he will win the ball deep in the oppositions territory where nobody can legislate for the damage it may do. There's not that many counter reactions which are equal to that.

A great thread this Red, but my suspicion is it will get very few replies as most people simply aren't that bothered with such stuff. Should they be? not really, I should think you could pay such things little or no attention and still love the game to death.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:31 am**

Exemplary reply. And exactly the type of response id have anticipated from you. Highly informative, evocative and above all else.....very readable.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:36 am**

I like 433 when attacking, switching to 451 when defending, so the wingers can fall back.

Assuming appropriate and talented players are available.

Overall though, I think tactics matter more than formations. Players knowing what they need to do in every situation. Of course, that means you have to actually get into the heads of those rich primadonnas and spoiled bastardos.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:10 am**

FFS id need a dictionary to read that!

FFS red post for the common man...its like reading a struggling students last impression on a teacher before the term ends!

Man ....dear!

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:21 am**

red37 wrote:Exemplary reply. And exactly the type of response id have anticipated from you. Highly informative, evocative and above all else.....very readable.

FFS Red lad we are talking about LFC here..not quantam physics or nuclear science!

I know ya can get deep but less of the Shakespere melarcy mate?

You can say what ya wanna say without using fancy words and talking like Bamber Gascgoine on his lunch hour with lords on the green watching tennis and sipping pims and white...No need for that mate!

Talk dont 'preach' You are good at talking!

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:23 am**

OK then is it fair to say that the 'Formation' is simply another way of describing a specific 'framework' within which the different stategical/tactical 'actions' are performed? Not so much influential to the team ethic, as supportive and fluid, allowing a flexibility within its assumed boundaries which to operate most of the planned things that will take place during a Football match.

or put another way using this analogy:

Formation = The Bones

Tactics = The Meat

The efficient counter-action of all this in terms of the 'unexpected'. Obviously lies well within the grasp of an astute Coach, one who is both adaptable and fastidious enough to recognise the pitfalls should/if/when the theory fail.

But my point is this: Should the tactics indeed prove in-effective during the course of a game. At which point in the process does the overall 'bones' of it, (not the tactics)come under enough consideration as to warrant change? Before that happens? After it...with the benefit of hindsight and the experience learnt?

Or, as a Coach/Manager is it absolutely critical, to have within your remit Several options in formation, already in situ (ie trained and drilled in all squad members) should the individual game specifics dictate the need for versatility above function.

Im talking directly about the kind of Manager Rafa Benitez is: In other words one who settles on the set-up for each and every game, as if it were a matter of course that the players asked to operate within it - Know exactly what each is doing. Regardless of time spent outside the comfort of rote.

Thats a heck of a lot of permutation to compute and take on board for the average footballer. There are many walks of life you can relate that to; far too many to list here at this hour. But ultimately a master tactician (as Benitez is often vaunted) must equally have a great deal of respect shoved his way because of this flexible approach. As of course he continues to earn. Largely.

An example of the above claptrap is, the anticipation of many on this board, that Rafa might at some point in the future; adopt two 'capable' Wingbacks... in other words, how many set-ups can you realistically operate within the limitations of 22+ men - well enough and with due clarity for them to understand without weakening their ultimate input. i digress anyway. Enough waffle.

Keep contributing peeps.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:25 am**

Fair enough Baz. Fair enough.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:36 am**

red37 wrote:Fair enough Baz. Fair enough.

Its Ok saying all that mate..but in reality football is football!!

Be better than them and win?Im all for Raffa trying acts of tactical genius but thats ok in Europe!It works he is good at that...I suggest though we ask more about why LFC look spineless and inadequate against teams like Villa and Boro!

Its not a question of tactical genius then its down to man motivation in the nine to five job..why do we lack it then?

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:14 am**

BarryBelfast wrote:Talk dont 'preach'

is that how i come across? i didnt mean to im sorry.
i'll stfu now on. Close the daft thread mods.

What must i have been thinking of... :no

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:02 am**

red37 wrote:
BarryBelfast wrote:Talk dont 'preach'

is that how i come across? i didnt mean to im sorry.
i'll stfu now on. Close the daft thread mods.

What must i have been thinking of...

I thought it was a good thread opener Red37, a good read, with a thought provoking reply from Bigmick as an added bonus.

I see tactics as a way of negating your own weaknesses while exploiting any weaknesses your opponent may have.

On its simplest level If your team is not as talented as the opposition you can perhaps stop them exploiting their talent by pressing them, challenging them for every ball and giving them no time to display their superior talent.

The more talented team can respond to this by quick accurate passing in the hope that the pressing team will either tire or their players will be unable to regain position in time, exploiting the gaps as players are bypassed.

Formations today are much more fluid than in the past with more versatile players and less specialists. Its not enough today to be just a great defender or a great striker ala Ron Yeats or Jimmy Greaves, defenders also have to step up into midfield to make the extra man, attackers have to drop deep to drag defenders out of position.

Get your tactics and formation right and you will get the best out of your players while reducing the threat of the opposition. Get them wrong and players get isolated, bypassed or exposed.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:44 am**

A good thread Red (and one that should have a lot of legs) but i fear it might not get the replies it deserves. Barry's reply was a bit harsh but i think he is right in that your writing style might lose you the attention of some posters who might get lost in the vocab. I'm not sure how many on here know the meaning of the word "fastidious" but i have a feeling it might be less than 50%!

Perhaps another way to get people talking about tactics/formations (not that we talk about much else!) is to take a formation and ask posters to give their thoughts on it.

So let's start with 3-5-2 (a formation that often gets called for on here)

What are the merits of this formation?
Where does it come unstuck?
Do we have the personnel to play it?
Is it the answer to our central-midfield 4 into 2 problem?
Should it be used only on special occasions as a shock tactic?
How do you play 3-5-2 effectively (and this one's difficult) against a team playing with just one up front?

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:11 pm**

Ah, don't you just love the talk of formations

352/343 has genaerally been our best fomation away from home in the prem this season.

---------------------------Reina---------------------------

---------Carragher--------Hyypia--------Agger-------------

Finnan------------Alonso--------Sissoko---------Riise/Aurelio

-------------------------Gerrard----------------------------

------------------Bellamy-------Crouch---------------------

or 4231 the tried and tested formation that helped us gain crucial results away from home in the 2005 CL triumph

--------------------------Reina----------------------------

Finnan---------Carragher------Agger/Hyypia----Aurelio/Riise

-----------------Alonso---------Sissoko--------------------

Pennant/Gerrard---------Kuyt/Gerrard----------Gonzalez/Riise

-------------------------Crouch----------------------------

or traditional 4-4-2.

--------------------------Reina-----------------------------

Finnan------------carragher-----Agger----------------Aurelio

Gerrard-----------Alonso-------Sissoko-------------Gonzalez

------------------bellamy------Kuyt------------------------

Now the way I look at it, top players should be capable of adapting to different systems, sometimes within the same game. We generally play 4-4-2 at home, despite the fact we rarely play with two out and out wingers. It's become somewhat of a national stereotype that we should play 4-4-2 because it's "the English way". Everyone in the past played a conventional 4-4-2 and that's they got their success.

In the past few years Chelsea have obviously changed this notion by winning two leagues back to back with a 4-3-3 formation. It suited the players they had and put more emphasis on the goals to come from Lumpard and paricularly the wide players.

We've had relative success playing three at the back away from home this season. It's a formation that I like because it enables us to play three central midfielders in the same side with a minimum of fuss and stops some fans whinging about Gerrard's position again.

I still see Rafa moving towards a 4-2-3-1 next season though, provided he can get the quality of wide players in that he wants. This formation would certainly get the best out of Luis Garcia anyway.

Posted: **Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:43 pm**

Fuckin ell boys don't let Militia Rusher see this thread... he'll have a field day.

Liverpool FC Forum

Formations: - Player roles

Formations: - Player roles