Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Canary On The Wire

Formations: What Really Grinds My Gears

Recommended Posts

A small point to make and something that crops up far too often among posters on this forum is the decrying of the 4-2-3-1 for being too negative for having one up front, or of 4-4-2 for being too narrow and surrendering the midfield, or of 4-3-3 for being too narrow and requiring too much work from the full backs. I could go on.The fact is while you can give a basic layout of the areas in which your players are expected to operate with a formation, they really are nothing more than neutral notations of space. Every week I hear ''that bloody Hootun''s played one up top again'' or ''finally two strikers, now we might score some goals'' I despair, I really do.I''m sure there are plenty of fans on here who understand this, but let me make it clear.When you read the Norwich City starting line up, you can have no real idea at all about our strategic approach for the game. Formations do not give that away. I''m not expecting those of you who do this to believe or agree with me, but it really is the height of stupidity to suggest a team is negative or positive from the simple notation of occupied space on a few square metres of grass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Point taken, but what we can conclude from a starting line up is effectively what the mentality is for that game.

If Hoolahan is playing, for instance, the chances are that he will be looking to go forward; likewise Redmond, Murphy etc because these are not defensively minded players. If we are playing 5 midfielders, the chances are we will be looking to contain.

Formations might not give it away, but players do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well said COTW , formations, schmormations. they are perhaps the most over discussed,least understood, element of footy.

Very glad someone said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most important factor in any formation is the intelligence (in footballing terms) of the personnel being asked to fulfil roles within that shape.

As a basic example, the fluidity of players when adapting to different shapes when we do and do not have the ball is hugely important. A midfield 5 when you don''t have the ball needs to able to morph into an attacking three linking with the striker when you do have possession. So really a 4-5-1 formations is nothing of the sort - as long as the players are flexible is should be a 4-2-3-1, or a 4-5-1 or a 4-1-4-1 or even (god forbid) 4-4-2 as long as you have a midfielder capable of playing in a more advanced role...

So while I agree that hearing moaners near me in the Barclay whinging on about ''2 up top'' can be annoying, for me a better question to ask of CH is do we deploy the right players for each phase of play in the shape they are being asked to play?

Generally I think he does, although this season for me it has been the transition into attacking shape where we fall down...not enough players able to join the attack quickly enough in dangerous areas for me - which is where Wes made such a difference I thought on Saturday...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As much as I think Whittaker is very talented and Martin''s contributions for us are exemplary and not to be underestimated I feel part of the reason our attacking game falls down is we are very one sided when it comes to creating overloads. Olsson and Redmond are quick enough to get away with it and that''s why Redmond gets a lot of joy down his wing (albeit with questionable end product) but if you ask me Martin/Whitts and Snodgrass combined are just not quick enough to get us to the byline and track back effectively if hit on the break. I know that''s why Snoddy cuts inside, but if he had a quicker FB running on when he does that, we''d have great success with the reverse pass in behind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm so some upstart has superior wisdom that negates one of the most basic principles of football from its very origin through to the game we watch today.

In my ignorance, like many managers across the world i have wasted time pondering the best formation to suit the style we want to play,that suits our team, our individuals, injuries, the opposition, and then to change how the game is going depending on several variables. When all along it didn''t matter.

I wish you''d told me before I wasted the last 40 odd years. I feel so stupid now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The gut"]I''m quite worried about how many do understand that a formation is only "neutral notations of space"[/quote]The term "formation" is connected to how the manager has told individuals within his team to play and the individuals selected. For instance starting a game with Leroy Fer on the left wing when he shows no interest in putting in a cross resulted in a very narrow midfield against Swansea and an unbalanced midfield. It also restricts him from performing his natural passing game.The other side of the coin to this is Wes Hoolahan who you can tell to play in the centre, left or right of midfield or up front and he''ll basically just do whatever the hell he wants for 90 minutes.I don''t see the 4-4-2 / 4-5-1 discussion as being that relevant compared to the fact that Elmander, Howson or Hoolahan are playing with the main striker. They''re opposing styles cause Norwich to play a different style even if the formation is fundamentally the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CH himself has said many times about the fact that it''s not about formations, but the way players shape and reshape according to possession. The modern game is about that fluidity, pushing forward when you have he ball, dropping back to defend when you don''t. Lambert used to say that the modern game is about pace. Pace is important, but only if it''s used intelligently. For Villa under Lambert, that means counter-attacking once the ball is won. It can be effective, but it can also be very limited. Redmond has pace and trickery, but too often it''s his decision making that lets him down. Working the ball into the penalty area where the probability of scoring is greatest is at the heart of the modern game, but it is most effective when it can be done quickly, and that is where City need to improve. Not formations, but fluidity, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone considered reinventing the wheel. I know it has evolved, and revolved but with new ways of thinking it can be resolved without grinding any gears. Notionally it can be spun in neutral and not even required in space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Chris Hughton does not believe it is about formation I wonder who is setting up the team because every game he has managed for us he has deployed a formation. Some over thinking maths students might be sneaking into football forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yelloow Since 72"]CH himself has said many times about the fact that it''s not about formations, but the way players shape and reshape according to possession. The modern game is about that fluidity, pushing forward when you have he ball, dropping back to defend when you don''t. Lambert used to say that the modern game is about pace. Pace is important, but only if it''s used intelligently. For Villa under Lambert, that means counter-attacking once the ball is won. It can be effective, but it can also be very limited. Redmond has pace and trickery, but too often it''s his decision making that lets him down. Working the ball into the penalty area where the probability of scoring is greatest is at the heart of the modern game, but it is most effective when it can be done quickly, and that is where City need to improve. Not formations, but fluidity, IMO.[/quote]

This is the crux of the matter and this is what Hughton has been trying to get this into the players since day one.   We''ve seen how effective it can be when it works, but the problems arise when confidence is low or players aren''t up to sustaining the levels for a whole match.   This season was supposed to be better as we get players in and improve the quality.   But its a slow process, particularly when you get injuries - and at the same time other teams have upgraded also.   So although there is impatience and doubt amongst some - and none of us likes it when the team don''t perform well - the upshot is that if Hughton is given enough time to develop things, the overall standard will improve.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Formations may matter less than whether the players are right for the way the team is trying to play. Two wingers and no natural target man won''t work whether you call it 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2. Likewise, playing one (or even two) strikers of the kind who like to play on the last defenders shoulder and run onto through balls and then not playing a creative midfielder in the old fashioned "number 10" mould, won''t work whether it''s 4-4-2 or 4-5-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We play as 4 attackers and 7 defenders, we always have at least 6 players behind the ball, which leaves a big gap between attack and defense that leads to teams exploiting the space and running at our defense. It''s a lot better to attack as a team and defend as a team, we also only close down from the front and only 3 or 4 players press which also leaves space, if your going to press everyone needs to do it or nothing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am delighted to have sparked conversations about fluidity and approach which is exactly how football should be discussed.I apologise for the philistines who believe their knowledge of football should correlate with the years spent watching it.Either way, happy new year to all, and here''s to CH finding the right APPROACH to park the midfield high enough to dominate lesser teams and to contain the big boys in 2014 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Happy new year COTW and congratulations on your new wheel.

Fluidity and approach is a wonderful thing, and so important in the modern game as another poster also pointed out, I don''t think any could disagree.

For clarity could someone please tell me what era is "the modern game"?

I''m just a little miffed that fluidity and approach has replaced formations. If Chris for example sends the boys out today without a formation how does he show them where they need to be fluid and approach? How will match of the day show our runny line up? Can we still use the term line up?

I''m trying to buy into this concept, I really am, it''s a new year, a new dawn. Out with the old in with the new! Knowledge has sweet FA to do with experience. I want to feel young again, I want to be part of this new concept, I want to be a front runner in the new way of playing. Can we still have front runners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure about all this fluidity stuff, but what is obvious is that we don''t see enough movement off the ball when in possession, it limits passing oppertunity and pressurises us into making long or misplaced passes, it also results in opposition defenders being given an easy time by being able to remain static.

Why this is I don''t know?

I could be due to instruction from the manager to try and keep a shape, could also be due to lack of confidence and fitness by the players, neither of which I think is the full story, but I do wish we didn''t look so static at times in possession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Yelloow Since 72"]CH himself has said many times about the fact that it''s not about formations, but the way players shape and reshape according to possession. The modern game is about that fluidity, pushing forward when you have he ball, dropping back to defend when you don''t. Lambert used to say that the modern game is about pace. Pace is important, but only if it''s used intelligently. For Villa under Lambert, that means counter-attacking once the ball is won. It can be effective, but it can also be very limited. Redmond has pace and trickery, but too often it''s his decision making that lets him down. Working the ball into the penalty area where the probability of scoring is greatest is at the heart of the modern game, but it is most effective when it can be done quickly, and that is where City need to improve. Not formations, but fluidity, IMO.[/quote]

This is the crux of the matter and this is what Hughton has been trying to get this into the players since day one.   We''ve seen how effective it can be when it works, but the problems arise when confidence is low or players aren''t up to sustaining the levels for a whole match.   This season was supposed to be better as we get players in and improve the quality.   But its a slow process, particularly when you get injuries - and at the same time other teams have upgraded also.   So although there is impatience and doubt amongst some - and none of us likes it when the team don''t perform well - the upshot is that if Hughton is given enough time to develop things, the overall standard will improve.  

[/quote]Goalscoring has been a massive problem for us since Hughton took the reins. we are scoring even less goals this season than last season.Against WBA and Swansea we looked much more dangerous than previously on the counter attack.  But as soon as Snodgrass was back in the side, that threat disappeared.As for players shaping and re-shaping... we must have one of the most inflexible sides in the division.  The central midfield play like they are wearing concrete shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Man Utd beat us last weekend deploying simple ''fluidity and shape''.

Most times Norwich had possession of the ball, the Reds swung like a pendulum to cover most of our potential passing options - for them, it worked like a dream! Even with top players like Rooney & RVP missing it proves when players are familiar with an effective system, points can still be won.

Premiership sides faced with the prospect of ''unlocking'' the opposition who play this way need a very special player to do the job. As an example; Arsene Wenger invested £46m in Ozil specifically for this purpose.

I agree, our current ability to re-shape without the ball is poor. Very poor. If CH is recognised as a top coach - something doesn''t quite add up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary On The Wire"]As much as I think Whittaker is very talented and Martin''s contributions for us are exemplary and not to be underestimated I feel part of the reason our attacking game falls down is we are very one sided when it comes to creating overloads. Olsson and Redmond are quick enough to get away with it and that''s why Redmond gets a lot of joy down his wing (albeit with questionable end product) but if you ask me Martin/Whitts and Snodgrass combined are just not quick enough to get us to the byline and track back effectively if hit on the break. I know that''s why Snoddy cuts inside, but if he had a quicker FB running on when he does that, we''d have great success with the reverse pass in behind[/quote]

See for me Snoddy isn''t a winger or a wide midfielder...I watch him playing for Scotland where Strachan has very quickly moved him into a supporting forward role just behind the main striker...

He hasn''t th necessary pace or crossing ability for me to be an out and out winger...I thnk the issues down the right hand side (and I agree with you we are much too slow in attacking down that flank unless Russ goes past Snoddy) are more caused by that than either full-back we play there.

For me he is more like a good old-fashioned inside forward, but how the hell we could fit THAT position into the formation/shape/fluid setup we currently use I do not know!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, let''s have another go at this fluidity thing. There is always a formation, but it isn''t always the same. When City had the ball against United, they moved forward in a 4-3-3 shape with Hooper in the centre and Redmond and Snodgrass on the flanks. When the ball was lost the formation changed to a 4-4-1-1 as Redmond and Snodgrass tracked back to defend in two ranks of 4, with Hoolahan and Hooper further forward. When City won the ball, it reverted to a 4-3-3 as Redmond and Snodgrass moved forward to support Hooper as Hoolahan, Fer and Johnson formed the middle 3 supporting the attack. I''m hoping this is what will happen against Palace again today with the same movement in the forward positions making it difficult for the opposition defence. If it was effective against the skilled players of United, it will be even more so against Palace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''d actually say the formation we set out with is very important to how we play because we''re so rigid and play a strange zonal system. For teams like Arsenal/Swansea etc formation isn''t important because the players roam and switch positions so much, it''s just a case of 4 defenders 3 midfield players 3 forwards for example for them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s not a case of fluidity / approach REPLACING formations. They are necessary, because they denote the basic layout of a side (but nothing more) it is on this formation foundation that we lay our strategy, our approach, and how fluid we expect to be within that notation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does vary hugely depending on the level you play at- the higher the level, the better the players and better players are capeable of playing more fluid football. If you look at us in League 1 Lambert designed a formation that negated our lack of decent wingers, allowed our most intelligent players more freedom (Wes, C Martin and Holt) and made the most out of our limited players (Darrel Russell, Michael Nelson etc).Currently we feel a bit rigid in our play- we look best going forward when we allow a bit more freedom to players like Howson and Fer but often it appears they are instructed to hold their shape rather than support attacks (although this is most likely directly linked to the loss of Tettey). We do also seem to slow the game down too often and let teams get their shape back which means we then end up having a lot of sterile possession around the halfway line. I agree with the poster that mentioned Snoddy as playing more centrally- while he is not the quickest he is an excellent dribbler and tricky for defenders to deal with. Ideally I''d like to see Pilkington and Redmond starting when fit and swapping wings as the game goes on as this will allow us to stretch the game a bit more and use the whole of the pitch, allowing a bit more space centrally for Hooper/RVW and one of Howson, Fer or Snodgrass to support him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...