Cybereagles

Look at the positioning statistics for Alonso and Khedeira. It was not 4-2-3-1, Alonso was the main holder and Khedeira was ahead of him. Both Spaniards failed to account for the man in the hole's lateral movement. Nor did they compensate for the two base midfielders reinforcing their opponent's central core. Tactically, both were inept and suffered as a consequence.

Coach wrote:Look at the positioning statistics for Alonso and Khedeira. It was not 4-2-3-1, Alonso was the main holder and Khedeira was ahead of him. Both Spaniards failed to account for the man in the hole's lateral movement. Nor did they compensate for the two base midfielders reinforcing their opponent's central core. Tactically, both were inept and suffered as a consequence.

Thats how Madrid play, STARTING with a base 4-2-3-1, but with Khedira ahead of Xabi to facilitate the pressing game.

While Goetze played well, the decisive and most influential role actually came from the deeper positions, via Gundogan. If anything, Goetze's movements were more wide than central which made it difficult for Alonso to track him, and in turn allowed Lewandoski and Reus to repeatedly drop into that zone.

But suprisngly, Madrid kept its formation. You could see the fear in the CDs not pushing up to cover for Alonso when dragged wide, and Khedira stranded upfield as Dortmund played around him...

The biggest tactical flaw/weakness for Madrid is the inability of the trio behind the lone striker to contribute in te non-possession phase, as compared to Dortmund's trio.

They truly outfoxed Madrid.

Bayern got the most headlines, but tactically, I think Dortmund's was the more decisive performance...

BTW, I expect Barca to sign Lewandowski, which would mean the end for Alexis or Villa; more likely Alexis IMO...

Haven't heard much about Big Bob to Barca. There is no point signing him they intend to stick out wide and not through the middle. They have to evolve.

Coach wrote:Haven't heard much about Big Bob to Barca. There is no point signing him they intend to stick out wide and not through the middle. They have to evolve.

His mobility and technique make him a highly versatile player and a fit, able to go wide, or run the channels...which in turn will give Barca a new dimension to the passing game...

Not again. Versatile maybe, his best position is where he should be played. Barca need to evolve.

Will assume you saw Coutinho more centrally today.

Yes I did. I have also seen him start out wide for Inter and drift to the center with the same devastating effect...

Newcastle were shambolic...

Another sterling performance for the centralised Coutinho. Interesting to see Rodgers start with a back three, didn't quite work out as there wasn't enough going on ahead of it, but definitely worth considering next season.



That said, Wigan aside, the workings of the back three in the Premiership, when used, leaves alot to be desired. In '96, El Tel had Pearce and Neville confidently defending laterally and Ince dropping. Fats forward the best part of two decades, almost and the ability of the centrebacks to drift wide has regressed, horribly. Liverpool's display yesterday was worrisome . Fullback by trade Wisdom, positionally pathetic, the less said of the rest the better. Why was Sasha Richter sp, allowed to grow towards such prominence? Why is it that the back three, in England, remains so vulnerable down the flanks unless the wingbacks are forced back? Where is the lateral movement and anchorman dropping in of '96?

The young Wisdom, a centerback by trade (not fullback) was not used to the formation...

The problem I thought was more in central MF than in the wingback role, even though Downing is a poor excuse for a LWB.

I think they need to upgrade in Downing and Henderson's positions

Definitely. Even Lucas hasn't been as impressive since returning from injury.

Both wide midfielders, which is what they should be in such a system, leave alot to be desired. One would think the role would suit Downing, further forward, allowed to hold width, with space being created by the movement of the forward players. As hot and cold as he blows, Sturridge, with optimal concentration, is a decent forward, terrific pace, good feet, his decision making lets him down. Coutinho is superb, will go on record as saying technically, he is one of the best in the league, vision, range of passes, balance...Where was the rest of the world when Rodgers snapped him up? The midfield behind the frontline and ahead of the defence were poor yesterday and put pain to what should've been a refreshing look at where Liverpool may go next.

...Would like to see a full strength Liverpool line-up in this shape.

Coach wrote:Definitely. Even Lucas hasn't been as impressive since returning from injury.

Both wide midfielders, which is what they should be in such a system, leave alot to be desired. One would think the role would suit Downing, further forward, allowed to hold width, with space being created by the movement of the forward players. As hot and cold as he blows, Sturridge, with optimal concentration, is a decent forward, terrific pace, good feet, his decision making lets him down. Coutinho is superb, will go on record as saying technically, he is one of the best in the league, vision, range of passes, balance...Where was the rest of the world when Rodgers snapped him up? The midfield behind the frontline and ahead of the defence were poor yesterday and put pain to what should've been a refreshing look at where Liverpool may go next.

...Would like to see a full strength Liverpool line-up in this shape.

They might have played this way vs Wigan...very impressive. Think it was a 3-4-3...

Lucas has struggled, but I suspect a proper preseason will do him good...

Team needs to upgrade esp on Downing...Wish Maxi did not choose to leave...

They are very keen on Tello but he doesn't want to leave Barca...

Maxi Rodriguez? Surely, he was on his last legs.

Do you watch much Brazilian football? Must admit, starting to get into after a lull. Used to come on early hours, channel 5. The tactical innovation is brilliant, wingers are very much alien, the three-manned defence holds court and wingbacks fly forward. Which leads on to the question(s)...

How important is defensive width by default as opposed to in-play movement? Does the era of the wide forwards mandate the fielding of fullbacks, or can the chore of picking them up be reliably left with outside centrehalves and tracking midfielders?

txj wrote:

Coach wrote:Look at the positioning statistics for Alonso and Khedeira. It was not 4-2-3-1, Alonso was the main holder and Khedeira was ahead of him. Both Spaniards failed to account for the man in the hole's lateral movement. Nor did they compensate for the two base midfielders reinforcing their opponent's central core. Tactically, both were inept and suffered as a consequence.

Thats how Madrid play, STARTING with a base 4-2-3-1, but with Khedira ahead of Xabi to facilitate the pressing game.

While Goetze played well, the decisive and most influential role actually came from the deeper positions, via Gundogan. If anything, Goetze's movements were more wide than central which made it difficult for Alonso to track him, and in turn allowed Lewandoski and Reus to repeatedly drop into that zone.

But suprisngly, Madrid kept its formation. You could see the fear in the CDs not pushing up to cover for Alonso when dragged wide, and Khedira stranded upfield as Dortmund played around him...

The biggest tactical flaw/weakness for Madrid is the inability of the trio behind the lone striker to contribute in te non-possession phase, as compared to Dortmund's trio.

They truly outfoxed Madrid.

Bayern got the most headlines, but tactically, I think Dortmund's was the more decisive performance...

So basically the three AMs for Dortmund work harder and are better team players than Real's three AMs.

PS Dortmund was not the more decisive performance. Bayern's was.

Real were tactically useless. Mourinho failed in that regard. Have never understood the fascination with the 4-2-3-1 and in theory, it has an obvious counter. If the holding men can be occupied and the fullbacks stood up, then its threat is lessened. Real didn't need to play counterattacking football, they could've quite easily stationed their wingers further up the field, made more of their midfield and forced Dortmund to defend with a back six.

Cristao II wrote:

txj wrote:

Coach wrote:Look at the positioning statistics for Alonso and Khedeira. It was not 4-2-3-1, Alonso was the main holder and Khedeira was ahead of him. Both Spaniards failed to account for the man in the hole's lateral movement. Nor did they compensate for the two base midfielders reinforcing their opponent's central core. Tactically, both were inept and suffered as a consequence.

Thats how Madrid play, STARTING with a base 4-2-3-1, but with Khedira ahead of Xabi to facilitate the pressing game.

While Goetze played well, the decisive and most influential role actually came from the deeper positions, via Gundogan. If anything, Goetze's movements were more wide than central which made it difficult for Alonso to track him, and in turn allowed Lewandoski and Reus to repeatedly drop into that zone.

But suprisngly, Madrid kept its formation. You could see the fear in the CDs not pushing up to cover for Alonso when dragged wide, and Khedira stranded upfield as Dortmund played around him...

The biggest tactical flaw/weakness for Madrid is the inability of the trio behind the lone striker to contribute in te non-possession phase, as compared to Dortmund's trio.

They truly outfoxed Madrid.

Bayern got the most headlines, but tactically, I think Dortmund's was the more decisive performance...

So basically the three AMs for Dortmund work harder and are better team players than Real's three AMs.

PS Dortmund was not the more decisive performance. Bayern's was.

In technical/tactical terms, Dortmund was the more decisive. Bayern were so superior physically, almost nothing else mattered...

@BeniTx

Coach wrote:Maxi Rodriguez? Surely, he was on his last legs.

Do you watch much Brazilian football? Must admit, starting to get into after a lull. Used to come on early hours, channel 5. The tactical innovation is brilliant, wingers are very much alien, the three-manned defence holds court and wingbacks fly forward. Which leads on to the question(s)...

How important is defensive width by default as opposed to in-play movement? Does the era of the wide forwards mandate the fielding of fullbacks, or can the chore of picking them up be reliably left with outside centrehalves and tracking midfielders?

Coach wrote:@BeniTx

Coach wrote:Maxi Rodriguez? Surely, he was on his last legs.

Do you watch much Brazilian football? Must admit, starting to get into after a lull. Used to come on early hours, channel 5. The tactical innovation is brilliant, wingers are very much alien, the three-manned defence holds court and wingbacks fly forward. Which leads on to the question(s)...

How important is defensive width by default as opposed to in-play movement? Does the era of the wide forwards mandate the fielding of fullbacks, or can the chore of picking them up be reliably left with outside centrehalves and tracking midfielders?

The difference maker in the CL semi-final games was the defensive efforts of the wide players, Ribery an Robben for Munchen, and Blazy Reus for BVB as compared to CR7, Di Maria/Ozil, Pedro and Alexis (to a lesser extent)

As the center of the defensive area is reinforced, its the space outwide that becomes increasingly crucial.The wide players, be they MFs or WBs ar crucial in the NP phase.

But I do not believe that u necessarily need to press high. The energy demands of this approach and the -ive impact on freshness in April/May are telling. I've now seen two teams collapse massively from the effects of this, Bilbao and Barca.

I think that the full course high press is unnecessary in football. IMO pressing is about timing and the ability to understand the when and where..which is a function of superior reading of the game.

On this basis, in-play movement, in both phases of the game, takes precedence for me...

Interesting. Granted there have been some fantastic fullback displays this season, but one remains of the opinion that this is not a mandatory component of a defensive unit. In fact one would argue, a back three, irrespective of the oppositions shape, would allow greater variability in the rest of the formation to exploit the weakness of the back four. All too often people talk about vulnerability down the flanks, surely, the zonal division depends on the number of players within that line (ie, 3 defenders, therefore the defensive third is split into three zones). Has the average player lost the intelligence of old? The positional movement of centrehalves today, in the defensive phase, is ridiculous. Chelsea vs Basel for example. The back four drops deep to the 18 yard box, nobody presses the man with the ball, all marking space in their zone, no one actually marking the man.

...vs Ajax, Mancini's use of the back three was comical, the players had no clue, which poses questions of the curriculum they were given. Centrehalves afraid to move laterally, yet, given their zonal marking, such lateral movement would be within their zone. Its f*ck ups like this that scare many away from what should be staple strategy.

Watched highlights of a Scandinavian game the other week (as a friend works out there) in which a team utilised a 3-3-3-1, a central defensive core of 6 players, over lines (3-3) and a front four over two lines, using wingers who stayed high up the pitch and only dropped back to the halfway line, no deeper. Very refreshing. As much as one adores the rough and tumble of the Premiership, its light years behind the world outside the window as far as tactic and innovation be concerned.

I have always favored the 3-4-3 over the 3-5-2, but the key is the internal movement.

The dimensions of the field are fixed. So is the key defensive area- the penalty box an the zone just in front of it. With most employing te lone striker, the modern attacking game is then a function of movement- the arrivals.

IMO the problem is that defensive systems have not evolved and typically revolve around the idea of man in a fixed space, tackling, chasing, kicking, heading or pulling! In each case reactive.

I think football defensive systems need to adapt from Floyd Mayweather. Control of the defensive unit is not exclusively a function of man occupying a fixed space (or zone)

txj wrote:IMO the problem is that defensive systems have not evolved and typically revolve around the idea of man in a fixed space, tackling, chasing, kicking, heading or pulling! In each case reactive.

I think football defensive systems need to adapt from Floyd Mayweather. Control of the defensive unit is not exclusively a function of man occupying a fixed space (or zone)

Go on...

The quest to control space and everything in it, mean that defensive systems are reactive. Coaches and pundits talk about the efficiency of defensive systems in terms of 'maintaining shape'; 'discipline', etc

What if we change this dynamic?

How about we manipulate space; manipulate shape, like a Floyd Mayweather constantly adjusting his angles and manipulating the opponent in terms of his choices- the jab, the body or the hook; affecting his timing....

Re: IMO the problem is that defensive systems have not evolved and typically revolve around the idea of man in a fixed space, tackling, chasing, kicking, heading or pulling! - Txj

Nail on its head!

The offensive side of play has evolved, the defensive side lags behind. Has always been like so, one leads the other. The 3-5-2 can in response to the use of two strikers and apparently died when clubs switched to one/three. The question is, why? In as much as one shares the belief that the 3-5-2 is dead, its death came at the hands of the wrong assailant. The 4-5-1/4-3-3 shouldn't have killed the 3-5-2.



Granted the wide strikers will often be goal side of the wingback, but the advent of the 3-5-2 came with the promise of lessened defensive responsibility for the wingback, who in turn could fly down the flanks. The changing shape of the frontline, from a 2 to a 3, should've brought about renewed emphasis on the lateral movement of the outer centrehalves. The question posed by overloads is lessened if the wingbacks play to the instructions of old, hold width further up the pitch.

Obviously the movement of a centrehalf into the channel leaves the medial aspect of their zone unmarked, but is it inconceivable that the defensive unit merely shifts across, centre of the three now becomes the drc, left centre becomes the dc? Secondly, the midfield should include, by design, atleast one defensive midfielder, he should be able to drop into the backline, if not in the dc position allowing the left centre to stay put, then in at left centre as the unit moves across.

With three in advanced positions centrally, the 3-5-2, overloads the opposing defence, thus forcing a midfielder to stay put (herein lies the benefit of the 4-2-3-1).

By and large, the so called weaknesses of the 3-5-2 as a system in the modern era become more a consequence of the limitations of the modern player than the formation itself. Atleast in the contest of the 4-3-3. The 4-2-3-1 poses a different problem.

One's own argument against the 3-5-2 is that it doesn't create enough overloads in wide areas and is seldom played as above (Venables Euro '96). Pastdated it may be, the blood shouldn't be on the hands of the 4-3-3.