Minority Report - Talking Tactics (4)

Understanding the game; the reasoning behind Stendel’s version of 4-3-3 (part 1)


As I said last week, these pieces do not relate to any recent game. The Minority Reports immediately after each game cover the games in detail tactically, as I see it. Talking Tactics is intended as a general discussion of things that interest me. It will not always be totally devoted to tactics, but it will be about Barnsley Football club, in one way or another.


The 4-3-3 system has two distinct forms. There is the form that turns into 4-5-1 when the ball is lost, and the form that does not. Before Stendel, on the occasions it was used, Barnsley FC coaches always favoured the form that turned into 4-5-1. Last season, Stendel did not, and he has not used 4-3-3 so far this season. Just why is that?


The reason that 4-3-3 turned into 4-5-1 was the logic that wingers needed to help their full backs cope with overlapping opposition full backs. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you require your wingers to retreat into a defensive formation, you invite the opposition full backs to join in with an attack, but it takes confidence and superior playing staff to break through that prophecy to see another way. In fairness to the much maligned Morais, he tried to make the same change, but the players he had at his disposal did not have the talent or ability to suggest that they could deliver on the latent threat on the counter-attack, and he was pitting his wits in a higher league. As a result, our Championship opponents ignored that threat with disastrous results. In the lower division, against inferior opponents, usually they did not. Because that is what the system is all about. Posing a credible threat on the counter-attack, a threat that whilst they may score if they create an opening, we will. In actual fact, it was that and having more players in attacking positions, positions close enough to the ball when it was lost that was the springboard to the counter-press. Stendel has a temperament that is different. He is aware what the opposition is doing, but much of the time, he chooses to ignore it, even if it is hurting us. He prefers to concentrate on his own game plan. I would tend to react to a potential threat, but he does so less often.


The system worked well in Stendel’s hands in League 1, but can it deliver in the Championship, where the players are more skilful, quicker and better at taking their chances. We shall see, but personally, I have my doubts. If I am right, will the fans stay with him, or will he be cruelly written-off as a flash in the pan, just like Hecky was, and just like his successor Morais. I am drawing these comparisons because 4-3-3 was the system favoured by Gaultier Ganaye, whose insistence upon it was partially the catalyst for the departure of Hecky and which also resulted the sacking of Morais, after he had to accept full culpability for our relegation.


4-3-3 naturally puts more players closer to the ball, and that is one of the key requirements for counter-press to work well. The way that Stendel played 4-3-3, the back 4 remains as it is in 4-4-2. There has been some inconsistency about how the midfield 3 are organised. Last season, after we lost George Moncur and Lloyd Isgrove in the January transfer window and Kenny Dougall through injury, our main 3 midfield starters were Mowatt, McGeehan and Bahre, with Bahre playing the link role to the front 3. This may come as a surprise, but Bahre played the full 90 minutes just 3 times during the whole of last season. It may also surprise readers that Thiam played the full 90 minutes just 6 times. Both players have engines that are unsuited to midfield in English conditions, when grounds become heavy, when they are required to run for 90 minutes without flagging, and more especially when they are asked to work as hard as counter-press requires them to do. I am flabbergasted that Stendel has chosen Bahre as his captain, given his problem with endurance. We had better have plenty of deputies ready to step in.


However, for now, we are not talking about the players. We are talking about systems and if we intend to play 4-3-3, we need Dougall fit or a new experienced head to make things work properly, and personally, that was my choice right up to the closure of the summer transfer window, when we signed no-one as a back-up to Mowatt and McGeehan. The front 3 consist of a central forward and two players supporting him from wide starting positions. They are not really wingers, because they do not stay wide and cross balls. They cut inside and form closer partnerships with the front player, linking up together in the manner of centre forward and two No10s. As a result, unlike true wingers who have their better foot to the outside to allow them to cross accurately, they often have their better foot to the inside, where it can be used for shots on goal. Last season, these linking players were usually Brown and Thiam.


I am a big admirer of Brown, who I believe has loads of potential, but Thiam seems to be no more than a flash in the pan. Of course, Brown is temporarily hors de combat, and I truly doubt whether Thiam is up to it at Championship level for match after match, but fortunately we have already signed Luke Thomas and Mallik Wilks as natural replacements within the same system. However, the central striker is the weakness in the system. I do not think that Woodrow can play there on his own. He is a chance taker, but he does not command a presence that demands the attention of the opposition central defenders with either his pace or his height. So he does not carry a threat that will force the opposition back four deeper, and by doing so, create space for our midfield players to take advantage of. Frankly, his play outside the penalty box and in linking build-up play is not very good. He often goes missing from games for long periods, and you do not see him until suddenly, he has scored again. That is enough for a striker/a No10, but this is a discussion about systems, and his play does not suit the role of the central linking player 4-3-3 system. Without Kieffer Moore, does Woodrow have the ability to link play at Championship level, or is he basically a striker who needs another player to work off?


That last statement will set tongues wagging, but it has to be remembered that football is a team game, and in order to make a team that is better than the sum of its parts, talented individuals sometimes have to be sacrificed. I have watched the reds for over 50 years now, and during that time, there have been many occasions when players with great individual talent have been cut, simply because a player who was technically inferior, was a better fit for the team. The latest example was Adam Hammill, who still had plenty of talent, but whose talent did not coincide with the general strategy. Connor Chaplin and George Miller represent an unknown quantity, even after Saturday, to me at least. Players with pace, but otherwise untested at Championship level. The overall balance of our team looks less well served by 4-3-3 than it does by 4-4-2, but as I said, 4-3-3 better suits the counter press. That is the problem with making players fit a system rather than designing a system that suits the available players.


I wrote the previous paragraph long before Saturday, but it was interesting that we changed to 4-4-2, abandoned the press and kicked the ball long, even though it meant kicking away possession. There could have been many tactical reasons for it, not the least of which was Charlton’s refusal to play along. However, it was interesting that Woodrow was far more effective with another player beside him to play off, at least he was until Chaplin went off.


If you remembering what I said last week about the wide players not covering overlapping full backs in the Stendel version of the 4-4-2 system, you will not be at all surprised when I tell you that wide players in the Stendel version of 4-3-3 system that does not convert to 4-5-1 are not expected to cover overlapping full backs either. In the case of the 4-3-3 system, the logic is far easier to understand. Wide players keep full backs in their defensive positions because of the threat that they carry on the counter. Because wide players are quick, they cannot be covered by centre backs, who are generally regarded as not that quick. Therefore, and speaking with my best broad brush, the front 3 will keep 4 defenders in position. This should give us superior numbers elsewhere, even if that number superiority is in defence, for the very same reason, if the opposition is also playing 4-3-3.

 

Understanding the game; the reasoning behind Stendel’s version of 4-3-3 (part 2)

Taking this logic on to midfield, which is where the battle is fought at its closest quarters, at least we will not be outnumbered there. That does not mean that we will win the battle, but at least it does mean that the battle is not lost because of insufficient numbers, and as I said in my opening remarks, it puts more of our players closer to the ball for the counter-press, if that is considered important. The counter-press has the same potential for success and failure as I described in relation to the 4-4-2 system and there are the same alternatives to the way the system works in relation to drawing of the off-side line. Whatever system you use, the problem is always going to be establishing the triggers that determine when players see the potential for winning the ball back early, because the whole team has to respond to that trigger, whether they are directly involved in the press or not, otherwise the counter-press does not work. Therein lies the problem. Every team member must recognise the chance of the counter-press, and they must all respond as one. It takes a lot of practice to get that right, and personally, I am not sure that it is worth doing, because the danger that it will go wrong disastrously will always be there, especially with a young team, and even more especially, with a young team that has had a lot of changes in personnel. The other danger arises when our opponent’s players are better at converting chances than ours are, because then the numbers game begins to work against us, instead of in our favour as it did last season. It was hard enough in League 1, but the Championship represents a brand new challenge, and a bigger one.


These notes were mostly written before the first match of the season. They are the concerns of someone who saw 4-3-3 work so poorly the last time that we played in the Championship, admittedly in different hands. 4-3-3 without its fall back formation (4-5-1) relies on winning the pre-match psychological battle, because it relies on our opponent believing that our front 3 comprise a very real threat on the break. That is why the system failed in Morais’ hands. The threat of our front 3 was not credible. The question is, “is the threat any more credible in the hands of Daniel Stendel”. Stendel will have earned all his plaudits this season if he can keep us up, especially with 4-3-3 and the counter-press, and I will be the first to applaud.


I have watched the team just twice this season, and we used two very different systems in those games. The system against Fulham was a hybrid between 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 using Bahre to float between the two systems, the counter-press worked slightly differently and the wide players worked back to cover full backs. In the second game against Charlton Athletic, we played 4-4-2, abandoned the press and kicked most balls long. The contrast to last season has been almost complete. I am not sure what our team will look like for our third home game, but one thing that I am sure of, is this. Tactically, it is going to be interesting.

 

Red Rain
you will disagree again I'm sure but as I have pointed out previously, when we are not playing 442, it's 4231.....not 433.
that's what we played last night:

Radlinger
Sibbick Bambo Mads Williams
Mowatt McGeehan
Thomas Bahre Mama
Chaplin

We play two midfielder players who are required to hold and break and pick up the short pass from our CBs.
in front of them we play two wide men who could be described as wingers and we play the number 10 whom is expected to link midfield and the line striker and also make a nuisance of himself around the box. think Beardsley.
Daniels tenden y is to play the 4231. l9be striker with pace and trickery feeding into him.
I'm intrigued to hear from you how those players are instructed to play 433.

433 would be like this:

Keeper
RB CB CB LB
CM CM CM
Striker Striker Striker

That's 433. That's how Liverpool play. our system is not the same as Liverpool's.

interested in you putting BFC players into the 433 formation above.

You are right aboutvthe Charlton game. straight 442. Bahre and Cam as the midfield two with wingers and CC and CW up front.

 

The comments that I have made about 4-3-3 relate to the way that we played last season. The reason that I have addressed the formation that we played last season is simply to say that I do not think that we can play that way against better players or better teams this season, and in fairness to him, Stendel has not tried to play exactly as we did last season. I did not see the game last night and have not commented upon it.

You have described what your understanding is of the 4-3-3 system, and also what your understanding is of the 4-2-3-1 system. Our difference of opinion seems to turn around what we call the two wide front players. Are they forwards in a 4-3-3 system or are they midfield players in a 4-2-3-1 system. You insist that last season they tracked back to cover attacking opposition full backs. I say that most of the time, they did not track back. That most of the time they stayed high to pose a threat on the break and to try to spring the counter-press. I say that they could do that because we had won the psychological pre-match battle for the front foot. Our scoring threat by leaving our wide players up field was greater than the opposition threat using overlapping full backs. Indeed, there were times when cover for an overlapping full back was provided by a central defender or a central midfield player. You say 4-3-3 has 3 central forwards. I say that it does not have to. I say that when Thiam or Brown received the ball, they were in wide positions, but that their natural movement led them to choose the easier option in field of the full back, and that quite naturally, their diagonal movement led them to link up with the central striker, or indeed, one of the supporting midfield players. I almost never saw our wide players try to beat the full back to his outside and cross the ball from the goal line.

Personally, I do not think that we have much of an argument, and I said this when I made my comments about the 4-4-2 system last week. It is merely a discussion on semantics. You call the system one thing and I call it another, but our only real issues are whether the wide players dropped back in coverage, and whether they stayed wide or whether they cut inside to form a cohesive attacking unit (a front 3) with the central striker. I hasten to add that my comments relate only to home games as I do not follow the team away.

I have been reluctant to engage with you for that reason and because I think that the rest is unintentional pedantry on both sides of our discussion. Even though I did not publish Minority Report widely, I wrote it for every home game last season. The system as I have described it, was the system I observed. It may not always have been how they lined up for the kick off, but it is the system that best describes the players' average field positions. Perhaps we are banging heads because we are describing the same thing from differing perspectives, but I do not think that what you have described is a million miles from what I have described.

 

OK. god forbid that I should be regarded as a pedant...whether unintentionally or otherwise.

 

Are you in danger of bringing too much science to a game the outcome of which is determined to a large degree by luck/good fortune/chance.

A team can have the best tactics/formation for a certain game - yet the final result is often due to a player by chance being in a scoring position, a player getting a lucky bounce , a defender making an uncharacteristic mistake, an innocuous challenge being adjudged to be a foul, a bad refereeing decision giving/not giving a freekick/penalty, making a 'wrong' player substitution etc etc.
Are games won by the team with the fittest, most tactically aware team in the best formation or is the winning team the one that had the rub of the green.

 

The modern world in which we live is a direct result of human thought processes. Those thought processes have taken us from being cave dwellers gathered around an open fire to keep warm in the winter, dressing in furs taken from the animals that we killed for food to today's high speed world of computers and modern communications. Now I am sure that we had lucky breaks along the way, but our development was largely thought based. That is of course an analogy, so I will come a little closer to home. When I began watching Barnsley back in 1965, the 4-4-2 system and the involvement of the whole team in attack and defense was a revelation. The first adopters of the system had a distinct advantage over those who stuck to the apology for a system that went before. Soon every team played that way, and what was once revolutionary, was soon mundane. New systems were invented, and these systems were briefly successful because they all had a differential advantage. The system was successful because it was new, and until everyone got used to it, and drew up tactics that exploited a weakness elsewhere in the new system, it too had a differential advantage.

Clever thinkers in the game will continue to refine it, and continue to search for the players that will make their systems work. But you are right. There is more to the game than systems.... a lot more. However, it is watching that process of the refinement of systems, and the redesign of systems to fit the talents and deficiencies of a playing staff that interests me, and I hope that I can kindle an interest in others. There is also the point that I enjoy the analysis of that part of the game that is controllable, and particularly that part of the game that is controllable by the Coach according to some advanced plan. The things that you list are listed because they are not controllable, and if they are not controllable, then there is no point in taking them into account. They are of little interest other than to pay a passing acknowledgement towards in a post match analysis. Where there is no control, there is no plan and where there is no plan, Minority Report is not interested.

 

Without getting in too deep at this time of night I'd hazard that fitness, motivation and confidence are far more important factors through which a manager or head coach can influence performance than systems.

 

I would hazard that you are right that fitness, motivation and confidence are important. I would also hazard that age, time together as a team, pace, height, skill levels etc etc are also very important, but how long could I waffle on about that lot compared to how long I can waffle on about systems and tactics.

But seriously, there is very little between two football teams in any league. The coaches are looking for small edges that might make a difference, and tactic/systems might just give their team that edge. Without the ability to find those edges, just why would a club pay a Coach all that money. We might as well just employ more fitness coaches at a fraction of the cost. Just what does the Chief Coach do these days if it is not to refine match day tactics. After all, he no longer has to scout new players does he. In fact, that sound like another interesting piece for Minority Report, "What does a Chief Coach do all day". I could even use the one that I wrote last season as the template.

 

"seriously, there is very little between two football teams in any league."

.......take a breath and think about what you've said here.
You profess to like debate but never seem to fully engage in debate when other contributors raise points which challenge your opinion.
Orsenkhat's post was challenging your contention that the systems you admit to waffling on about are less important than the things you choose not to waffle on about.
so seriously......"there is very little difference between two football teams in any league". Really?
Premier league last season? Man City? Huddersfield? ....and so on thru every other league.....
you're having a laugh.

 

i agree!@@

 

Thanks Red Rain and 55&counting. I think this tees up some very interesting (to me!) questions which I'll return to later once I've finished my morning chores!

 

I think that you are being just a little bit naughty again aren't you. You are taking one point that I have said too literally, and by doing so you are seeking to ridicule everything I have said. Let us not resort to such tactics. Let us treat each other with respect (see what I did there?).

Manchester City is an outstanding team, and they are an outstanding team partly because they have spent huge amounts of cash and have assembled the best and most talented players from across the world. Their pool of talent is better than the pool of talent that was assembled by Huddersfield Town because they have better financial resources than Huddersfield town, but are their players really fitter, more motivated and more confident as Orsen points out, or do they have more talented footballers. Even though they have spent all of that money to bring together all of that talent, the owners of Manchester City still thought that they needed to go beyond. They still thought that they needed to bring into the club the best Coach in the world. So what does Pep Guardiola do all day. Does he sit on his backside and watch his army of specialist coaches get the players fit. I doubt it. I think that he thinks about the game, thinks about how his next opponents will play, thinks about their strengths and their weaknesses and thinks about what his team must do in order to take advantage of his opponent's weaknesses and nullify their strengths. If it was as simple as just spending £millions and nothing more, City would have employed Joe Bloggs from Manchester.

My point about relative strengths was intended to illustrate that the 24 teams in each league are there because they are roughly the same quality. The league was assembled by bringing together teams of roughly the same quality. Clearly, there are differences, otherwise every team would finish on equal points at the end of each season, but the league is competitive because it is designed to be competitive. The winner of the league is separated from the bottom club though lots and lots of small differential advantages, and each one is important. Clearly, the things listed by Orsen are important, just as the things that I listed beneath his list are important, and just as tactics are important. My point was that once I have said that team A is fitter than team B, that is the end of that discussion. What more is there to say? However, if I say that Coach A got his tactics wrong and Coach B got them right, there is a whole forest of trees waiting to be cut down (metaphorically, in case you are thinking of taking me up on that one as well) to provide the paper to fuel our ongoing discussion. Tactic are interesting. Tactic describe how a battle was won when one army outnumbers another. Good tactics can make the difference, but will not always do so.

 

I look at the team sheet - and then settle to watch the match. I have no interest in formations/tactics.
Did the team that won have the best formation/tactics or the losing team the worst tactics? I think not.

2 important factors -

a) Player character/motivation -
as a Taff can I make the following analogy - the small nation of Wales top of the Rugby World rankings - there because of ability and drive/motivation/commitment - they come off the pitch having given their all - they played as if their lives depended on it.
Can't always say the same about some players.
(my hero Adam Jones 95 times capped 'never took a step back on the field of play')
Apologies for the digression!

b) Luck/Chance -
player gets lucky bounce/'wrong' decisions from ref/innocuous challenge adjudged to be a foul/simple error/ball hits crossbar etc.

RR if the game was as scientific and controlled as much as you say we'd be bored - it's the chance occurrences that are our talking points and it's these (un)lucky events that decide the outcome.

 

Longest thread ever.

 

I think Red-Taff makes valid points.

I have to say that my natural inclination is to recoil from the over-analytical (in my humble opinion) approach which focuses on tactics and systems. Quick pressing, pass and move, tracking back and supporting attacking phases are all helpful contributory factors to success which don't necessarily rely on formations, to my mind. My experience (such as it was) of management during my working life persuaded me the two most important aims were firstly to encourage people (and trust them) to do their best and secondly, to simplify things wherever possible and always avoid over-complicating them. To regale people with detailed policies and procedures (or tactics and systems!) in my experience often spoke to a lack of trust on the part of the manager, and a consequent detriment to the confidence of the individual to do his/her job.

Fitness is of huge importance in the areas of pressing, tracking back and supporting the attack. Although all new head coaches talk about this, Daniel Stendel and his staff do it particularly well, in my view (evidence: Southend away last season and Fulham at home this). Motivation is very important. As opposed to what you say above Red Rain, I think Guardiola gives this aspect more focus than he does formations. He is even to be seen motivating opposition players at the end of games on occasions! This is a work in progress for Stendel's current squad, due in no small part to their newness to each other and the set-up at Oakwell. Confidence also is, I think very important. The confidence to take that player on, make that pass or try that attempt on goal. There was plenty of confidence in evidence in the Fulham game, but it seems to have taken a hit following the Wednesday match, where the early goal proved a big setback. The players have to be reassured that they have been carefully selected for their fit to our squad, and that the coaching staff firmly believe in them. The players should be shown the video of the Fulham game repeatedly as a reminder of what they are capable of.

We have to remember that we are dealing with humans, and no amount of tactics or systems can turn bad players into good ones, in my view. Fitness, motivation and confidence-building can contrastingly help them to achieve their maximum potential, if not occasionally exceed it.

 

Great post. Your previous management experience is of great benefit when transferring the principles into football.
As an ex player of the game I can personally testify to those areas (fitness and motivation and confidence building) are key in affecting performance.
Football is a simple game. Pass and move. Look for space. Tackle hard etc......

 

The points that you make and the points that Tiff-Taff made are valid, but those things do not interest me as much personally as talking about tactics. I can talk tactics until the cows come home, and I can be entertained by the discussion, but I cannot talk about fitness any longer than it takes to say they were fit. In the point that you have made about fitness, you illustrate it by saying referring to the press. In doing so, you have referred to a tactic, because the alternative to the press is to immediately drop back into a defensive formation when you lose the ball. I have spoken at length about that choice within Minority Report, and in our last home game, we played differently in that respect to the first. It is a tactical choice that the Coach has made about how he wants his team to play the game. There are tactical advantages, and tactical disadvantages in each choice and I have explored those choices as far as my limited knowledge of the game allows me to. I personally find these discussions about these tactical choices very interesting, and that is all it is, firstly because my knowledge about tactics needs to be better, and secondly, because there is a lot more to the game than tactics. But that is all Minority Report is. It is an advertisement for those who want to to talk or read tactics. It is not a total solution. It is not the answer to poverty. It does not solve any of the world's problems. I do not hold it up as something that it is not. It is a forum for Talking Tactics.

 

I take your point Red Rain - I suppose as soon as you kick the ball forwards you are employing some sort of tactic. I was talking more about the focus on formations and systems, which for my part I don't find all that interesting. Now the human/motivational side...…………..!