Talking Tactics

To me, the role of the manager is about motivation, and allowing his staff to perform.

The crap spouted here about tactics and formations is symptomatic of how we over-complicate our national game.

How many so-called good coaches achieve little? Mourinho and Ferguson were good managers (motivators) above all. Davey was a well-qualified coach.

 

We're in agreement that a 4-5-1 doesn't suit Winnall and a flat 4-4-2 doesn't suit Hourihane. The alternative would be a diamond or a 3-5-2. You've said above you're not a fan of a 3-5-2 against one up front and that you want to try a diamond. But you've also said they're effectively the same formation? Therefore I don't understand your argument?

Unless of course, you're saying our 3-5-2 never turns into a diamond, which unfortunately it never does. The 3-5-2 we've seen has been very rigid. We've consistently had a flat 3 at the back, even against one up front. If one of the centre halves has the confidence to step up out of defence then it could become a much more effective formation for us.

The way I see it is you have the choice of playing either Mawson or Pearson as that third centre half/deep lying midfielder. I think Mawson is much more capable of stepping out of defence than Pearson would be dropping into it. However, that's not to say I'd drop Pearson. I think he's capable of playing much further up the pitch and that in turn, it would allow us to accommodate Hourihane more effectively. I would like to see Pearson play alongside Scowen rather than behind him and receive the ball further up the pitch. Those two give us plenty of energy and ability which would allow us to play one 'luxury' player ahead of them and yet still play two strikers.

I'd like to see:

--------------ST--------ST------------
--------------Hourihane------------
LWB---Pearson---Scowen---RWB
--Nyatanga--Mawson--Roberts--

which could easily become:

--------------ST-------ST------------
--------------Hourihane------------
----------Pearson---Scowen------
---------------Mawson--------------
LWB--Nyatanga--Roberts--RWB

depending on whether we need 3 centre halves at the time which would change depending on the formation the opposition adopts and the current state of the game. It would be useful having 3 centre halves on the pitch for attacking and defending set pieces, at goal kicks, and to give us that additional height in midfield which currently we severely lack.

 

So a psychologist would do a better job than a tactically proficient manager? Mourinho and Ferguson were tactically brilliant. When you watch the game you probably don't notice it but they plan every single play meticulously, Mourinho in particular. Yes they're good motivators but they're much more than that.

 

I did read Inverting the Pyramid but it was some time ago now. As I recall, it was a very interesting read, as you say.

I am fascinated by the tactics of football and would love to learn more from someone who really knows. There is so much to consider if you are to cover all the angles and take everything into consideration. But I also love to solve logic puzzles, and football at the highest level is very much a logic puzzle because the performances of the individual players is predictable. It is not quite like that at our level, but nevertheless, when things are not quite going how they should be on a Saturday afternoon, it is at least some solace if you can work out why not.

As I keep saying, football is a game of opinions, and there is no better occupation when the team is not playing than comparing and contrasting those opinions. I always hope that I will learn something new from the exercise.

As this thread proves, this process is not everyone's cup of tea, but it is good when you find someone with similar interests to your own. Some people enjoy football for the emotion alone, and I would be the last to decry them for that. Indeed, in the rare periods when the team has consistently played well, it is wonderful to just kick back and enjoy it. But it is a long time since we had a period when it was possible to do this, and analysis and debate are the next best things.

 

Both those formations leave Crowley out. While we've got him I think we have to use him. That contradicts my thoughts earlier on Pearson but Crowley is an exceptional talent who'll only get better by playing.

 

It's an interesting discussion, however watching you lot on Saturday it appeared Johnson picked the team he thought should be out there after Everton without giving enough consideration if they were the right ones for the system.

It's worth bearing in mind that we played one natural midfielder in Allen...

 

I have two problems with your diamond/wing back system. The first is in the way that midfield works when defending. It is a midfield players job to cut down the space and time afforded to the opposition midfield players. In this way, they hope to cut out through balls, or at least rush the passer so that he either mis-directs his pass or at least hits it at the wrong pace. Because of this I do not see a way for the diamond to become 3-5-2. Whether Mawson should play at the defensive point of the diamond is a different question, and there may well be merit in that.

My second point relates to Hourihane. I do not see him at the attacking point of the diamond. I know that it is a commonly held belief that because he scores goals from midfield that he is an attacking midfield player, but I have seen him only once in this role and it was clear to me that he did not like to receive the ball with his back to goal and turn. Although he has power in his left foot, I believe that this is better used from deeper. I guess that there is no proof in me saying this and the only resolution would be to try him there again. Unless, that is, LJ has already set his mind against.

 

Crowley drives me absolutely batty. Although there is undoubtedly talent in the lad, he currently has little appreciation of when to release the ball. Consequently, he always seeks to beat one man too many, or make one pass to many. He is young, and this is what coaching is meant to rectify. However, at the moment we are playing too many matches and the period in between games is about recovery rather than coaching. I think that he should be rested until we have more time to coach him.

 

Pseud's Corner!

 

As I get older, the tactics employed in football increasingly interest me also, especially when related to our club. As I get older my emotional attachment to the club also increases day by day.
I will look forward to reading the whole of this thread when I have the time, but for the minute I just want to make comment on one thing.
Square pegs. Round holes.
Roberts at centre forward!!!!!!!!!!!
Your logic defies belief. I've said before your posts are thought provoking. That one certainly is a top thought provoker!
Laters.

 

Looks like you have applied for membership. You just can't stop yourself from coming back, no matter how hard you try.

 

Despite the thought provoking posts Red Rain, sometimes your arguments are flawed.
Why can't Hourihane and Winnall play together? Didn't they do that successfully at the start of last season? I've said before that professional footballers should be capable of playing in more positions than the one and that they should be able to play alongside each other. I never believed that Lamoard and Gerard couldn't play in the same team. They were just never given the extended opportunity to prove people wrong. Same goes for Sammy and Conor.
The diamond might be the answer but as I've said before, playing Roberts as a target man contradicts you square pegs round holes argument.....and why play Townsend?

 

Touché that man!

 

That's a great response and I agree. I still believe that 352 / 3412 / 3232 is the way fwd and that we have the players to play it

 

The only times that both Winnall and Hourihane have played well at the same time was in the diamond, when both were in their comfort zones. That is Winnall was playing with a second forward (Devante Cole), and Hourihane was playing on the left side of a diamond consisting of James Bailey (defensive point), Luke Berry (right side), Conor Hourihane (left side) and Ryan Williams (attacking point). Luke Berry was not comfortable in that position and James Bailey was not mobile enough, and the two full backs were not suited by having to play as wing backs but those are different stories and different square pegs in different round holes.

Both Winnall and Hourihane have the potential to be important to the club if we can get them playing well at the same time and it is therefore important that we play them in positions where they are in their comfort zones. With practically the whole of the BBS calling for a target man, it is interesting to note that Winnalls most productive spell came when he played with a player with pace, rather than height. This reflects on the fact that a balance can be achieved in more than one way, provided midfield can gain control of the game. The ball can be passed over or through an opposition defence. However, Lee Johnson makes an important point when he says that the team is generally quite a small one that could struggle at set pieces without at least three tall players in the team. Nyatanga is struggling at left back and I have assumed that he be moved back to the centre of defence. That much at least is obvious.

The question becomes how you include the three tall players in our team and many have suggested the wing back system. I do not like the system for reasons stated above, but it has worked in the past. Danny Wilson got us promoted with the system, but it all fell apart in the Premier League. David Flitcroft used the system when he rescued us from certain relegation after taking over from Keith Hill, but was forced to abandon it when John Stones left and Scott Golbourne was injured. Neither manager played three out and out ball winning centre backs in the centre of defence. Wilson had Arjan De Zeuew with Appleby and Moses beside him, both smaller pacey readers rather than tall ball winners. Flitcroft had to use more players because of injury, but the back three consisted of three out of Martin Cranie, Steve Foster, Scott Wiseman and Tom Kennedy with Scott Wiseman being a constant starter.

The one consistent feature though, and here you will see me contradict myself again, is that when the back three system was successful we were blessed with outstanding wing backs. Nicky Eaden and Neil Thompson were outstanding as were John Stones and Scott Golbourne. Since the diamond also uses wing backs, I have successfully argued myself into a corner unless you believe that Bree and Smith can be outstanding wing backs. I certainly do not believe that Wabara and Nyatanga could ever fulfil that role.

 

Who'd have thought it!

 

What game was it where Hourihane & Bailey played together in the centre of a 4-4-2 & Winnall player up front?

I always worried about us playing 4-4-2 with Hourihane in the centre of midfield but we were exceptional that day. It could've been Preston at home, I can't really remember but Scowen & Pearson were injured