Is the diamond too narrow for the Championship?

[First Wazzock 902]

Shyster first mentioned the cracked diamond, is he right?

Although I like the formation I can''t help but worry that anyone playing 2 good wingers will rip us to bits. Playing this we are so narrow, the other night you could have driven a double decker bus up either wing and not hit anyone!

So, will this system get found out this season?

[26mjw 0]

Check poster. If shyster = ignore.

[Morisons Prozac 0]

Why don''t we wait and see.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

It''s an interesting point Wazzy. But if we give the opposition enough to worry about then they won''t have time to drive those busses down the flanks. Hopefully we will soon have other teams coaches working out ways to stop us playing. It''s as much about strength, both mental and physical, and taking control of the game ourselves.

 

[26mjw 0]

Talk of formations is too simplistic and it always has been - its the players that make them work. Chelsea did pretty good with a diamond last year, and they didn''t find it too narrow. Football tactics have always been, and always will be, about space - creating it, taking advantage of gaps, minimizing it when off the ball and maximising it when on. The diamond potentially exposes us on the flanks unless, as someone pointed out in a thread earlier in the week, you have hard working midfielders and good fullbacks. It also takes advantage of a potential 2 man advantage in the middle of the pitch, and so benefits there. It all comes down to the players. If we switch from the diamond, it wont be because the formation doesn''t work - formations really are just numbers. It''ll be because the players fit a better system that uses space better.

[First Wazzock 902]

Good point, but do you think the players could slip effortlessly into a 4-4-2?

[26mjw 0]

No - and the fascination with 442 should die as well. It''s a system that doesn''t take advantage of possession and is built around the idea that the point of football is to get the ball from back to front as soon as possible. Direct. Football games are won and lost on taking advantage of possession, and if you have more, you''ll do better. Formations which facilitate this will prosper.

[First Wazzock 902]

That''s why I think 4-5-1 is such a good one. It allows you to attack or defend whatever you want.

[26mjw 0]

It does provide the extra man for cover, and can actually be used as a very attacking formation as it frees central midfielders to go forward, or to play advanced wingers. Hence, man utd last season, Chelsea under Mourinho... look at Barcelona, they play practically a 4-2-4 at times but they compress space by playing so, so far up the pitch and pressing from the front that the other team just has no room to play. Then they dominate possession. Now, it''d be a dreamworld for us and I''m not comparing - all I''m saying is the formation is largely just numbers - its who uses it, and how they use space, that determine whether it works. The diamond has, so far, proven to be very effective, but its a bit untested with our new players. If they can dominate midfield like last year, and if the full backs can work extra hard, it''ll work again.

[Brendo 0]

I do honestly think we would be better off with a conventional 442 or 451. If that means get rid of Hoolahan, then hey, get a winger in! Or play Macnamee. [:)]RuddyMartin Ward Nelson DrurySmith Crofts Fox MacNameeHolt Martinor                 RuddyMartin Ward Nelson Drury                 Smith           Crofts    FoxMacNamee               Martin                   Holt?

[ref89 0]

What a load of old nonsense.  Of course formations matter.  So you are saying good players make any formation work?  How about England circa world cup 2010 then? chelsea do well with a diamond EVERY year, because it suites the team they have built to play that way."formations really are just numbers".Really?  Read that back to yourself and tell yourself its not rubbish.

[quote user="thirdlion v2"]Talk of formations is too simplistic and it always has been - its the players that make them work. Chelsea did pretty good with a diamond last year, and they didn''t find it too narrow. Football tactics have always been, and always will be, about space - creating it, taking advantage of gaps, minimizing it when off the ball and maximising it when on. The diamond potentially exposes us on the flanks unless, as someone pointed out in a thread earlier in the week, you have hard working midfielders and good fullbacks. It also takes advantage of a potential 2 man advantage in the middle of the pitch, and so benefits there. It all comes down to the players. If we switch from the diamond, it wont be because the formation doesn''t work - formations really are just numbers. It''ll be because the players fit a better system that uses space better.[/quote]

[ref89 0]

And for a person who reckons formations are simplistic, you then spend three posts telling the world how different formations work in detail. So perhaps your initial line that formations are simplistic was wrong then?

[quote user="thirdlion v2"]Talk of formations is too simplistic and it always has been - its the players that make them work. Chelsea did pretty good with a diamond last year, and they didn''t find it too narrow. Football tactics have always been, and always will be, about space - creating it, taking advantage of gaps, minimizing it when off the ball and maximising it when on. The diamond potentially exposes us on the flanks unless, as someone pointed out in a thread earlier in the week, you have hard working midfielders and good fullbacks. It also takes advantage of a potential 2 man advantage in the middle of the pitch, and so benefits there. It all comes down to the players. If we switch from the diamond, it wont be because the formation doesn''t work - formations really are just numbers. It''ll be because the players fit a better system that uses space better.[/quote]

[mighty yellow 0]

[quote user="thirdlion v2"]It does provide the extra man for cover, and can actually be used as a very attacking formation as it frees central midfielders to go forward, or to play advanced wingers. Hence, man utd last season, Chelsea under Mourinho... look at Barcelona, they play practically a 4-2-4 at times but they compress space by playing so, so far up the pitch and pressing from the front that the other team just has no room to play. Then they dominate possession. Now, it''d be a dreamworld for us and I''m not comparing - all I''m saying is the formation is largely just numbers - its who uses it, and how they use space, that determine whether it works. The diamond has, so far, proven to be very effective, but its a bit untested with our new players. If they can dominate midfield like last year, and if the full backs can work extra hard, it''ll work again. [/quote]There''s more than one shyster, it seems... [;)]

[26mjw 0]

[quote user="ref89"]And for a person who reckons formations are simplistic, you then spend three posts telling the world how different formations work in detail. So perhaps your initial line that formations are simplistic was wrong then?[/quote]If you read me again, I said talk of formations on their own is simplistic - to say a formation such as the diamond won''t work at this level ignores the fact that other teams do make it work - it comes down to the players.

[26mjw 0]

[quote user="ref89"]What a load of old nonsense.  Of course formations matter.  So you are saying good players make any formation work?  How about England circa world cup 2010 then? [/quote]Really? A 4-4-2 with a central midfielder on the left wing, itching to come inside and leaving acres of space and an exposed fullback? Or a ''defensive midfielder'' who''s job it is to nullify threats in front of the back four leaves yet more space for Germany''s most dangerous player to cause havok in that exact area? You don''t think that actually proves my point? What I''m saying is that players need to fit the system - England had a system that it''s player''s didn''t fit, and they got undone. It may well be the case that our new midfielders don''t fit the diamond, or the fullbacks don''t do enough to compensate for the space on the wings - but that''s to do with the players, not the formation itself. If that''s the case, they''ll change.