What was wrong with Roy’s 3-5-2

[Neil Young]

Yes that's the only one I could think of. Perhaps a bit harsh but I'm not entirely unsympathetic to enema's point of view on him.

[Bob]

Yes that's the only one I could think of. Perhaps a bit harsh but I'm not entirely unsympathetic to enema's point of view on him.

Me neither. I'll always thank him for that goal against Celtic in the dying seconds of the UEFA cup clash.

Oh, how i danced and sung that night!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBVUQ-YvW8

[Red_Polo]

First of all, No football match was ever decided by any teams formation - ALL football matches are won and lost on the execution of the basic techniques: shooting, heading, tackling passing etc... EVERYONE should realise once and for all that formation is of LIMITED (not ZERO) importance.

Formation = positioning = the cornerstone of any tactics. You can be the best in the world at tackling, but if you're not in a good position to tackle, what's the point?

With rubbish players, great tactics can only carry you so far. Likewise, with rubbish tactics, great players can only carry you so far. Everyone recognises the need for both elements to be woven together in a suitable way. That's why the most discussed things on football forums are whether a certain player is good enough, and whether a certain system is really the best for the players. I don't think there is too much emphasis on one or the other.

[Bob]

Formation = positioning = the cornerstone of any tactics. You can be the best in the world at tackling, but if you're not in a good position to tackle, what's the point?

With rubbish players, great tactics can only carry you so far. Likewise, with rubbish tactics, great players can only carry you so far. Everyone recognises the need for both elements to be woven together in a suitable way. That's why the most discussed things on football forums are whether a certain player is good enough, and whether a certain system is really the best for the players. I don't think there is too much emphasis on one or the other.

Err... what he said.

[Ryan_Derrick]

For me we should play 4-2-3-1
----------Reina----------
Finnan-Carra-Agger-Riise
-------Xabi-Momo-------
-Gerrard-Garcia-Gonzales-
----------Kuyt----------

[enema of the state]

Good post by the way bud. Even if i don't agree with most of it




A good formation, players that know their responsibilities, and a good team ethic can overcome a much superior technical team. I would take an organised team over a skillful one any day - Greece in the Euros recently is a fine example. Organisation over formation is key for me - I have actually been speechless (through shouting) after coming off a match before, because my right midfielder keeps going walkies through a game, or my center back thinks he's a winger!

This all takes me back to when i was a kid, and i first realised the importance of organisation. My mate Chris, and I were asked to play for a team when i was about 16, in a one off game, to make up their numbers (and because they kept getting horsed i.e. they were off a 10-0 league drubbing). They were up against my home team (in a cup game), who were the best in the division by some way - so it was a way of evening up the game a bit...

Their coach (a woman) went through all the cliques before the game - remember it's only a game/the most important thing is to enjoy yourself (they got beat 10-0 in their last game FFS). All i wanted to know is where i was playing (mainly cause i hated the left - one footed!), she wouldn't answer me! When we went out on the pitch me and my mate went 'look we need to know where we're playing', to which she said and i quote, "just go in the center and spread yourselves out!" I couldn't believe what i was hearing, me and Chris stared blankly at each other - we were staring a cricket score in the face and this didn't help.

My mate Chris took 6 players and went into midfield, and i took central defence! With a little bit of cajoling, and a stupid amount of shouting we actually managed to get them into extra time 0-0. Certainly one of the most enjoyable games i've ever played in, and the flack we got off our own buddies, on the team we were playing was fierce. But from five minutes into the game we knew we could get something from it, and somehow it didn't care to me for those 90 minutes that i could be knocking my own team out of the cup. Oh, our new team lost 2-0 after 120, but my real team won the final 5-0

It's a fallacy to say formation doesn't help - without it a team is beaten before they start, games change on tactics all the time, and more importantly when players carry out their responsibilities (organisation) - more now than they've ever done.




Two teams synonymous with good defenses and efficient players. If anyone could pull off that formation it was them, the sweepers Sammer, in particular, was outstanding! Telling they don't play it anymore though. Italy showed in the last world cup that two solid lines of four could be as sufficient!

I think the last paragraph proves my main point

[enema of the state]

Formation = positioning = the cornerstone of any tactics. You can be the best in the world at tackling, but if you're not in a good position to tackle, what's the point?

With rubbish players, great tactics can only carry you so far. Likewise, with rubbish tactics, great players can only carry you so far. Everyone recognises the need for both elements to be woven together in a suitable way. That's why the most discussed things on football forums are whether a certain player is good enough, and whether a certain system is really the best for the players. I don't think there is too much emphasis on one or the other.

true but not the point

point is that both 4-4-2, 3-5-2, 4-5-1 and a shed load of other formations are "good" tactically whilst 0-0-10 would be rubbish.

hence theres nothing wrong with 3-5-2, 4-4-2 or any of the mainstream formations. They all put somebody in the central defence area, for instance, but the team wins or loses on how well that and other players tackle etc...

[Red_Polo]

true but not the point

point is that both 4-4-2, 3-5-2, 4-5-1 and a shed load of other formations are "good" tactically whilst 0-0-10 would be rubbish.

hence theres nothing wrong with 3-5-2, 4-4-2 or any of the mainstream formations. They all put somebody in the central defence area, for instance, but the team wins or loses on how well that and other players tackle etc...

I see where you're coming from but I disagree about 3-5-2. There is something fundamentally wrong with it in that it requires the wingbacks to occupy two zones of the pitch at once, whilst leaving the central areas excessively covered. I know there are inventive ways of more evenly distributing the players but that's the state of play with a classic 3-5-2. 4 at the back provides the best zonal coverage, and it is the cornerstone of almost every good contemporary team's tactics for that reason.

[enema of the state]

. There is something fundamentally wrong with it in that it requires the wingbacks to occupy two zones of the pitch at once.

again this proves my point.

It DOESNT require that at all. It presumes that there will frequently be space in the "fullback" areas - mainly when the side playing the formation has possession. It also presumes that ther wing backs have to run back into this space when required.

The advantages are an extra man in the key central defense areas who can pick-up second balls and sees deep runners coming, as well as 3 or more people in the central midfield zone.

your point about fullbacks is actually way off since all the best sides that play 4-4-2 have EXACTLY that same problem with the fullbacks constantly getting into advanced positions and having to track back just like your traditional german wingbacks. I give you messrs cafu, carlos, cole, zambrotta, aurelio et. al.... even chisel chin and barney rubble did it in lfc's glory years.

back onto the thread title...Roys sides NEVER struggled with people getting in behind us in wide areas behind the wing back..NEVER EVER. it suffered from mistakes in the central (esp set pieces) and goalkeeping areas..ie the exectution of the basic techniques.

[Red_Polo]

It's the nature of the modern game - a quick lateral counter-attack puts paid to the idea that the wingback will just 'run back into the space' in time - which is basically paraphrasing exactly what I said, operate in two zones at once.

About fullbacks in a 4-4-2: teams do/will get caught out in different positions, it's not always the fault of the formation. In the case of 4-4-2 the fullback can overlap if they wish to, but that's a judgement call not a formation problem. In a 3-5-2 the onus is on the wingback to provide width.

In a 4-4-2 there should be a line of four at the back at all times. It is a rigid system whereby everyone can work as a clear unit. A 3-5-2 inherently has defensive instability as anything from 3 to 5 players may be in the back line depending on the circumstance. This is a formation problem rather than individual judgement problem because it is the formation that puts the onus on the wingback to get forward.

As to Uncle Roy's side, I never said we had a problem with people getting in behind, nor did I suggest that playing 3-5-2 was part of our problem back then. My first post on the thread was replying to posts about the prospect of us playing a 3-5-2 now, and said that 3 at the back is virtually redundant now and for good reason. I stand by that.

[Redspin]

I don't think Finnan has the legs or footballing ability to make it at RWB. He IS an excellent RB though.

Hasn't he played there - on the right of midfeild - for the Irish Republic a number of times?

[Rich]

Hasn't he played there - on the right of midfeild - for the Irish Republic a number of times?

He's played at Right Midfield yes, but as a Wing back, you have to cover both zones, which requires a player with an amazing engine (if you ask me.)

I haven't seen Finnan show that kind of game - he's an excellent RB, and can perform a holding job on the right of midfield - but to ask him for 90mins of bombing forward and getting back into position is too much to ask.

[Rich]

It's the nature of the modern game - a quick lateral counter-attack puts paid to the idea that the wingback will just 'run back into the space' in time - which is basically paraphrasing exactly what I said, operate in two zones at once.

About fullbacks in a 4-4-2: teams do/will get caught out in different positions, it's not always the fault of the formation. In the case of 4-4-2 the fullback can overlap if they wish to, but that's a judgement call not a formation problem. In a 3-5-2 the onus is on the wingback to provide width.

In a 4-4-2 there should be a line of four at the back at all times. It is a rigid system whereby everyone can work as a clear unit. A 3-5-2 inherently has defensive instability as anything from 3 to 5 players may be in the back line depending on the circumstance. This is a formation problem rather than individual judgement problem because it is the formation that puts the onus on the wingback to get forward.

As to Uncle Roy's side, I never said we had a problem with people getting in behind, nor did I suggest that playing 3-5-2 was part of our problem back then. My first post on the thread was replying to posts about the prospect of us playing a 3-5-2 now, and said that 3 at the back is virtually redundant now and for good reason. I stand by that.

Which is why McLaren looks like he's using that formation on Saturday!

[enema of the state]

It's the nature of the modern game - a quick lateral counter-attack puts paid to the idea that the wingback will just 'run back into the space' in time - which is basically paraphrasing exactly what I said, operate in two zones at once.

About fullbacks in a 4-4-2: teams do/will get caught out in different positions, it's not always the fault of the formation. In the case of 4-4-2 the fullback can overlap if they wish to, but that's a judgement call not a formation problem. In a 3-5-2 the onus is on the wingback to provide width.

In a 4-4-2 there should be a line of four at the back at all times. It is a rigid system whereby everyone can work as a clear unit. A 3-5-2 inherently has defensive instability as anything from 3 to 5 players may be in the back line depending on the circumstance. This is a formation problem rather than individual judgement problem because it is the formation that puts the onus on the wingback to get forward.

As to Uncle Roy's side, I never said we had a problem with people getting in behind, nor did I suggest that playing 3-5-2 was part of our problem back then. My first post on the thread was replying to posts about the prospect of us playing a 3-5-2 now, and said that 3 at the back is virtually redundant now and for good reason. I stand by that.

youre entitled to that view

i think its far from redundant...at worst its simply unfashionable

[Red_Polo]

Fair dues mate it's all about opinions after all