4-3-1-2 v 4-1-2-1-2

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

@KeiranShikari just raised a great point on another thread that I thought was probably worth a thread in its own right. 

It was pointed out that Smith's team sheet described a 4-3-1-2 formation, but most of the references described it as a midfield diamond; my question to those more informed in the finer nuances of tactics and strategy is, what impact does it have if the middle of the 3 drops slightly back relative to the other two in the row to make it more of a diamond? Is it as important a distinction as all that? 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,865]

Smith apparently was pretty insistent that it was a 4-3-1-2, but ultimately there's very little difference. In a 4-3-1-2, the central player in the three will always play deeper than the two either of side of him, otherwise he'd be getting in the way of the attacking midfielder.

[Mason 47 1,403]

14 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

@KeiranShikari just raised a great point on another thread that I thought was probably worth a thread in its own right. 

It was pointed out that Smith's team sheet described a 4-3-1-2 formation, but most of the references described it as a midfield diamond; my question to those more informed in the finer nuances of tactics and strategy is, what impact does it have if the middle of the 3 drops slightly back relative to the other two in the row to make it more of a diamond? Is it as important a distinction as all that? 

I believe many described it as a diamond as that's part of the 'fan rhetoric' that we are comfortable with. 4-3-1-2 isn't as palatable.

But in terms of the strategic question, in a diamond the '2' in midfield are more pragmatic and relied upon to cover the advancing fullbacks, so less attacking impetus. It favours getting the ball quickly up the pitch (Lambert positive with this in the Prem early days, getting the ball long to Morison + Holt).

When it's more of a 3, the overload in the middle reflects an intention to play through and hold onto the ball more. Players should fan out wider to support the attack with extra bodies meaning more natural cover.

Ultimately everything I've said could all be nonsense as the roles could be a lot more nuanced depending on instruction. Even so, it was disappointing to see Preston so viciously exploit both wandering McLean and right-footed Byram for their first goal, which I think was what Smith was getting at.

[Pyro Pete 1,927]

According to Smith in his post-match interviews, McLean and Nunez pushed forward too much. While Pukki and Sargent played too narrow.

Which basically mucked things up.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

5 minutes ago, Pyro Pete said:

According to Smith in his post-match interviews, McLean and Nunez pushed forward too much. While Pukki and Sargent played too narrow.

Which basically mucked things up.

Really interesting. That reads to me that both Pukki and Sargeant just want to be central. I wonder if that was just poor discipline on their part, a degree of competition, or both, given that they're both more familiar playing a centre forward role?

[LaUnionCanary 86]

The answer has to be 3-5-2 surely. Wingbacks, Aarons and Dimi providing the width and Teemu and Josh both central. Other ways mean Josh is side lined, literally.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

6 minutes ago, LaUnionCanary said:

The answer has to be 3-5-2 surely. Wingbacks, Aarons and Dimi providing the width and Teemu and Josh both central. Other ways mean Josh is side lined, literally.

To be honest, with the way the fixtures are all so crammed, I don't see the need to play both Sargeant and Pukki at the same time anyway. Can't they just be rotated and still both see plenty of action? One way or the other, its sacrificing midfield presence, which seems an area where we can't really afford to lose bodies.