Are variable tactics underused?

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

What struck me most about Paul Lambert when we first came up to the Prem, was that he tried different approaches. When we outgrew the diamond, Lambo would frequently alter the starting tactics (not always effectively), but it could be said that the opposition would never know how we would line up. The good thing being that Lambo was quick to recognise when something wasnt working and revert to a more familiar formation (Im thinking Chelsea at Stamford bridge, Liverpool at Anfield). This bold approach to try to utilize tactics was something we liked.

On the whole however, it would seem most teams have a settled formation and way of playing, and very rarely do you see any manager in England changing the formation either before a game or during to respond to or to play to opponents weaknesses. I cant think of many examples where Iv seen a manager turn things around (though definitely Cardiff were better after Malky''s changes at half-time)

Can anyone cite some good examples where tactical changes form the norm has paid off? I wonder if footballers (certianly English ones) are just too rigid in the way they play and cant adapt to new systems very well, which means overall teams do better with settled tactics? Look how bad Man City were when Mancini tried to change the system

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Glad you raised this GMD, as I''ve been banging on about this for some time, albeit individual point within slightly non-related threads.

I''m really quite stunned that people seem hung up about formations/tactics. There was a thread yesteday that ran to several pages where people were arguing as to whether we play just a 433, 442, 451 etc. Isn''t that rather simplistic inn this day and age.

I ''d find it worrying if people who are supposed to be Prem Lge coaches/players can only play one formation over the course of a few games, or even within one game.

Surely, it''s not beyond the realms of possibilty that we could vary it around a lot, to suit individual players, opponents and circumstances ?

Which, I guess is what you are asking too ?

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

I remember reading something about how the Dutch learn football, and how they train the youngsters a Barcelona. Players are trained in all outfield positions, so right wingers learn how to play CB etc, so they have a more broad approach to the game. Read that in England the opposite is true. Players are defined by their position, are only ever played/trained in one position, and indeed young players only want to play one position (Im a striker etc). Consequently it was stated that English players are very unadaptable, and if they dont play the way they want to, throw their toys out of the pram or undermine the management or engineer moves, whereas the Dutch etc are far more adaptable because of the way they''ve been schooled.

 

I wonder if this rigidity in both players and managers means most footballers are very unadaptable, dont want a system that plays them a way they dont want to play to be successful (so ensure it isnt so they can get what they want) and ultimately, that is why we dont see a great variety of systems. Very rarely do teams line up with a tactical surprise to try to capitalise on a percieved opponents weakness. It seems to be ''we play 4-5-1'' regardless of who we''re playing. i think if footballers were more adaptable, you might see different formations on regular bases.

 

i think changing the tactics rarely bears fruit as the players undermine the system, so managers try to keep the team playing in a way their familiar with

[Tetteys Jig 830]

One of my favourite Lambert things were his subs, every match, i''d be thinking of what we should do and he''d either do that or come up with something better than i''d thought. Hughton isn''t the worst i''ve seen regarding this but Lambert really stood out with them hence all the late goals we used to score.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

What you''re basically asking is the whole reactive/proactive debate, right? Is it better to be a manager who reacts to the opponents and the way the match is going or to focus on the strengths of your team and try to ''stick it out'' for longer periods. If you''re asking that, then comparing anyone to Lambert is incredibly harsh. Lambert is, quite possibly, the most reactive manager in the premier league, I can only think of Moyes who reaches a similar level. Lambert was the exception, rather than the rule, when it came to his varied use of tactics and formations. Most managers only apply slight tactical changes to their overall game-plan. An example would be when you identify an opposition winger as their most dangerous player. You might double mark him in order to limit his influence. Your formation may stay the same, your overall game plan may stay the same, but that slight tactical change is what most managers are comfortable with. Lambert was unusual in that he was willing to change an ENTIRE team in order to counter-act his opponents. He''d change formations and overall tactics rapidly, taking out players who had performed well and replacing them with less talented players because they fit the necessary tactical plan. Moyes is much the same, he purposely used Phil Jones in midfield, as his mobility was far more suited to the two high-energy midfielders of Fulham when compared to Fellaini. I find it strange hows some people bemoan the lack of formation switching and tactics that was common under Lambert, when many of them complained that Lambert didn''t know his ''best first eleven'' or was ''thinking too hard''. You could argue that Hughton is actually amongst the more tactically flexible managers in the league, if you were so inclined. You could point to his use of the high-press against Southampton and contrast it to his strict defensive shape employed against Chelsea, you could point at the possession football of Cardiff and compare it to the more direct game played against Stoke. You could argue that Hughton is also far more willing to switch formation than some manager, having played 4-2-3-1, 4-1-4-1, 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1 and 4-3-3 at some point so far this season. 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--- Phillip J Fry: You could argue that Hughton is actually among the more tactically flexible managers in the league, if you were so inclined.

Not even close... we all know who is getting picked for every game and that the tactics will be defensive based. He still seems incapable of creating a side which can score enough goals.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Phillip J Fry"]What you''re basically asking is the whole reactive/proactive debate, right? Is it better to be a manager who reacts to the opponents and the way the match is going or to focus on the strengths of your team and try to ''stick it out'' for longer periods. If you''re asking that, then comparing anyone to Lambert is incredibly harsh. Lambert is, quite possibly, the most reactive manager in the premier league, I can only think of Moyes who reaches a similar level. Lambert was the exception, rather than the rule, when it came to his varied use of tactics and formations. Most managers only apply slight tactical changes to their overall game-plan. An example would be when you identify an opposition winger as their most dangerous player. You might double mark him in order to limit his influence. Your formation may stay the same, your overall game plan may stay the same, but that slight tactical change is what most managers are comfortable with. Lambert was unusual in that he was willing to change an ENTIRE team in order to counter-act his opponents. He''d change formations and overall tactics rapidly, taking out players who had performed well and replacing them with less talented players because they fit the necessary tactical plan. Moyes is much the same, he purposely used Phil Jones in midfield, as his mobility was far more suited to the two high-energy midfielders of Fulham when compared to Fellaini. I find it strange hows some people bemoan the lack of formation switching and tactics that was common under Lambert, when many of them complained that Lambert didn''t know his ''best first eleven'' or was ''thinking too hard''. You could argue that Hughton is actually amongst the more tactically flexible managers in the league, if you were so inclined. You could point to his use of the high-press against Southampton and contrast it to his strict defensive shape employed against Chelsea, you could point at the possession football of Cardiff and compare it to the more direct game played against Stoke. You could argue that Hughton is also far more willing to switch formation than some manager, having played 4-2-3-1, 4-1-4-1, 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1 and 4-3-3 at some point so far this season. [/quote]And that is the difference between someone who understands football, and someone who just thinks they do[Y]

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- Phillip J Fry: You could argue that Hughton is actually among the more tactically flexible managers in the league, if you were so inclined.

Not even close... we all know who is getting picked for every game and that the tactics will be defensive based. He still seems incapable of creating a side which can score enough goals.[/quote]

Just because tactics are ineffective doesn''t mean they haven''t been used. I said you COULD argue that Hughton is among the more flexible. I even offered evidence. The pressing against Southampton, The defensive shape against Everton. The possession football against Cardiff, the wing-play against Southampton... the change in tactical variation between these games is to great to be down to chance. Of course there are always overriding themes in a mangers teams, Wenger''s side always try to keep posession, Klopp''s side always try to press etc. But Hughton has shown that he is willing to entertain other tactical concepts within his overall stratergy (which is, I will give you, focused on defence first). His tactics may have been ineffective, but the fact that he is willing to even contemplate these ideas show a degree of tactical flexibility, especially compared to a fundamentalist like, say, Bielsa. 

[chicken 0]

To be honest I think there was more to it than tinkering with tactics with Lambert.

I think he knew the limitations of the squad and that some players were simply not ever going to be able to put out the sort of high level performances week in week out without rest or feeling like they could sit back on their laurels.

He used a fair bit of rotation - as he quite often did in the championship. And was more hell for leather forward thinking.

It''s really not rocket science. Our defence wasn''t able to sustain any real length of pressure. It lacked pace, apart from Martin and Tierney to some degree. But just wasn''t anywhere close to premiership class. Players dived in too much, gave away pens and free kicks that cost us.

To keep forward players fresh and baying for pitch time you need to have them fully energized and raring to go.

Some people may see his changing things as a good thing - I don''t always. Sometimes he would change things on the back of a decent performance and cost us points. We also didn''t outgrow the diamond, we often got shot down in tatters by it.

Especially when Lambert played it against teams with decent wide players who just lapped up the space and time they were getting. Like when we played Spurs and Bale just had acres to do with as he liked.

In my mind, Lambert set us up wrong in quite a few games and changed it when it was glaringly obvious as to what needed to be done due to being so horrifically set up in the first place.

In my mind if you are going to tinker with formations to see if it can work you have pre-season and towards the end of games for ten, fifteen or twenty minute periods.

I think the main issue with Hughton''s approach is that the way we were playing the 4-4-1-1 system wasn''t really that flexible.

In my mind if you have a tall chap like Elmander up there you simply have to switch over the wide players so that they can deliver crosses etc. I know people keep banging on about there being some sort of fashion at the moment with teams doing that but look at the top end of the table.

How many teams are doing it up there? We congest the middle by coming inside and make it easy to defend.

The 4-1-4-1 system change has seen better displays simply because it is more tactically flexible. In games we have seen Pilkington drift forward, then Howson, and occasionally others.

Also, and what worries me the most, is that our confidence appears to be shot to pieces.

That''s what is my main concern. I think Hughton has got a real fight on his hands to get it back, they need results and they need them quick because unless it picks up it will need a new face to get them going again.

Right tactics or not.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Yes, I think Lambert used squad rotation and variation of tactics as a way of overcoming the weakness of our squad, and I doubt if it would have worked for a second season (and I think he felt the same way which is part of the reason he left).

 

It was almost expected under Lamber that we''d fall behind, especially in away games, and he''d re-jig the system and bring on a couple of subs at 60 minutes to try to get back into the game (with much success).  E.g. I remember us taking the lead at Villa through a Holt goal and someone saying "we don''t have a plan for how to play when we''re in front" which was half-joking but actually quite true.

 

I don''t think our problems are tactical.  I think our team were producing good performances, but defeats against Chelsea, Arsenal and then Man U have sapped morale so that a couple of early goals at Man C led to Saturday''s collapse.  The question is whether CH can motivate the squad well enough to beat West Ham.

[Salopian 1]

I have come to think that CH lacks imagination or good advice. He does change - the more attacking attitude a few games ago, after the long complaints of ultra caution, willingness to pick Josh Murphy in the cup. He doesn''t seem to change  his mind quickly in a game, or to regard substitutes as anything but last minute changes - I exaggerate, and he may be getting better recently.

 

When we played Stoke, we were at them, in their face, and prevented them from playing the game they wanted. That was a good tactic. I wish that that he would use it and other strategies to overcome teams. Otherwise we seem exactly the same every game, particularly in the way we start - hanging back and not trying to force the issue. We must be the only side who seem to have a policy of not seeking to score first. Other teams know our methods, relying heavily on Snoddy, and last year on dead ball goals. We must be one of the easier opponents for the teams we play because we are so predictable.

[chicken 0]

Sorry but utter cack in regards to ''ultra defensive''.

Ultra defensive to me is Stoke under Pulis playing four centrebacks as the back four and another couple of defenders in midfield with one true winger and one or two strikers to get on the end of something. That is ''ultra defensive''.

What Hughton does is set the team up much like a lot of teams in the champions league do when they play against the likes of Arsenal, Man Utd, Barcelona, R.Madrid.

It''s nice to be able to push up on teams like Stoke with little or no pace and few players that can pass their way out of trouble and have limited ability strikers. But you do that against teams with pace, with players that can pass and then you get shafted, often quite quickly.

So what you do is you sit deeper, draw a line and say, let them have it from that point up the pitch, but as soon as they come over that line, give em hell. And then you try to break them down when you win it back.

That is a normal tactic for most teams in this league when playing the top 4-6 teams.

It''s also not that we are not trying to score first, it''s that we are not trying to score at all costs. However it is right that when we go behind, this strategy has to be loosened somewhat to allow more chances of us scoring.

Somewhere in between may be ideal against most teams, as we have seen. But against the likes of Chelsea, Man U, Man C and Arsenal you can rarely afford to give so much space in behind your own defence for them to put a ball for one of their pacey players to find.

[FenwayFrank 2,457]

I remember reading something about how the Dutch learn football, and how they train the youngsters a Barcelona. Players are trained in all outfield positions, so right wingers learn how to play CB etc, so they have a more broad approach to the game. Read that in England the opposite is true

 

I used to do this when I coached a team of 12 year olds. They didn''t like it ( but I persevered anyway and explained why I was doing it ), the parents were the problem though, most of them thought their kid would be the next Rooney and only wanted them to play up front. 

[basil brush 0]

I enjoyed Lambert''s variations a lot and I cannot think of a single player who was unhappy as nobody got frozen out - he was always bringing players back in the squad and used substitutes often. When a player was eventually moved on by the club, they only had good words to say about him, not this has with CH.

One thing I''ve noticed is how we tire as a team yet we used to be good at getting late goals in games. The fitness levels have gone down for sure under Hughton and even worse this season - Lamberts use of all the squad probably meant they were less tired and we benefitted from that.

I''m just sick to the guts of Hughton''s negative tactics and I can''t wait for the club to get rid of him. I don''t want Lambert back, but the approach we had under him. Just got to find who...

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

[quote user="chicken"]Sorry but utter cack in regards to ''ultra defensive''.

Ultra defensive to me is Stoke under Pulis playing four centrebacks as the back four and another couple of defenders in midfield with one true winger and one or two strikers to get on the end of something. That is ''ultra defensive''.

What Hughton does is set the team up much like a lot of teams in the champions league do when they play against the likes of Arsenal, Man Utd, Barcelona, R.Madrid.

It''s nice to be able to push up on teams like Stoke with little or no pace and few players that can pass their way out of trouble and have limited ability strikers. But you do that against teams with pace, with players that can pass and then you get shafted, often quite quickly.

So what you do is you sit deeper, draw a line and say, let them have it from that point up the pitch, but as soon as they come over that line, give em hell. And then you try to break them down when you win it back.

That is a normal tactic for most teams in this league when playing the top 4-6 teams.

It''s also not that we are not trying to score first, it''s that we are not trying to score at all costs. However it is right that when we go behind, this strategy has to be loosened somewhat to allow more chances of us scoring.

Somewhere in between may be ideal against most teams, as we have seen. But against the likes of Chelsea, Man U, Man C and Arsenal you can rarely afford to give so much space in behind your own defence for them to put a ball for one of their pacey players to find.[/quote]

 

Totally get what you''re saying here chicken, but its not like what we do instead pays dividends. Its hard to imagine us getting any more shafted than we did at Man City. I think 7-0 flattered us to be honest, lets not forget Ruddy made some good saves. Following the tactic you describe allowed Man City time and space to casually stick the ball in our net almost when they felt like it, under very little pressure from us. I know what youre saying, and if playing that way prevented a 7-0 whooping I would understand it. But it didnt, in fact it invited it. i cant imagine us being shafted any more than we were last week by playing a pressing game

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

[quote user="basil brush"]I enjoyed Lambert''s variations a lot and I cannot think of a single player who was unhappy as nobody got frozen out - he was always bringing players back in the squad and used substitutes often. When a player was eventually moved on by the club, they only had good words to say about him, not this has with CH.

One thing I''ve noticed is how we tire as a team yet we used to be good at getting late goals in games. The fitness levels have gone down for sure under Hughton and even worse this season - Lamberts use of all the squad probably meant they were less tired and we benefitted from that.

I''m just sick to the guts of Hughton''s negative tactics and I can''t wait for the club to get rid of him. I don''t want Lambert back, but the approach we had under him. Just got to find who...[/quote]

 

Indeed. Lambert used to use the word ''unplayable''. Unfortunately I think Hughton has made certain players in his squad unplayable now due to how far off match fitness they must be. We saw it last season with Tierney and Fox, and this season Becchio. Theyre just growing mould at the back of the garage and are practically unusable in their current form

[chicken 0]

True, but last season the likes of Tierney were so much shorter in quality than the competition they had in their position that it made it hard to pick them without making the team weaker.

These season I think we have more strength in depth but as others have said, injuries have also played a part. Hooper, Wolfswinkel, Bennett, Snodgrass, Redmond, Tettey, Bassong, Garrido, Olsson and Pilkington have all been injured at some point or working their way back from injury.