lappinitup 629 Posted July 13, 2014 Much is made on here of various formations when discussing line-ups/match reports etc, but do we read too much into them? For me, all these different formations revolve around 4-4-2 with minor adjustments. For example........4-4-1-1 = 4-4-2 with one striker playing slightly deeper than the other.4-5-1 = same as 4-4-1-1 = same as 4-4-2.The diamond = exactly the same as 4-4-2 but with one AM and one DM.4-2-3-1 = 4-4-2 again, wide players pushed a bit more forward.4-3-3 = 4-4-2 but with wide player pushing forward when attacking (which they would do in a 4-4-2 anyway).There''s loads more but I think you get my drift. To me, football is a simple game and today''s fans try to complicate it with all these fancy formations, tactics and "the technical side of things" when in reality, it''s just 22 guys chasing a bag of wind round on a bit of grass with the manager on the touchline shouting "get forward" or "get back".Thoughts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisr1606 4 Posted July 13, 2014 It''s how formations and tactics have evolved through the years to reflect the current trend, back from when you would have 2 flat banks of 4 with wingers whipping in crosses to a target man in the box. It goes back further than that but I think that was when a ''basic'' 4-4-2 was popular. It''s probably better or maybe more accurate to talk about it as a ''mechanism'' to either attack or defend so you''re looking at it in more depth and what each player is doing but that''s not as easy as just saying 4-2-3-1. It gets even more complicated as it starts to clouds players'' position - if you start calling the deeper ''1'' behind the striker in a 4-4-1-1 another striker in a 4-4-2 does that make someone like Hoolahan a striker or an attacking midfielder?Jonathon Willson''s book ''Inverting the Pyramid'' is a good read if anyone wanted to read a bit more about it, and explains it a lot better than I ever could! Although he did predict the 4-6-0 to be the next big formation and evolution in the process where it seems currently there are more teams opting for going back to playing a back 3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salopian 1 Posted July 13, 2014 The formation chosen should be that for a particular match, and the personnel likewise. This is because what may be ideal for some opponents is not the ideal for all. The formation and team selection must take account of the opposing team they face, and should seek to nullify any strengths they possess and exploit any weaknesses which are evident.This all presupposes both careful thought and planning beforehand and quick adjustment during an actual game. In this respect I think that Adams should be an improvement on Hughton. It also requires training to enable players to adapt their game slightly to accommodate the different shapes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0 Posted July 16, 2014 I think we''re going to alternate between the diamond and 4-2-3-1. RuddyE. Bennett Martin Turner Olsson Tettey Surman Redmond Hoolahan Howson Hooper This teams would be class. I''m quite excited at the prospect of Surman next to Tettey. I think this could be an excellent partnership. Also Elliott Bennett working with Redmond down the right, excites greatly too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr D 0 Posted July 16, 2014 I agree with this to an extent. But, players need to be completely comfortable playing each formation there team is thinking of using. So, changing formation for each team may be more of a hindrance than help. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,531 Posted July 16, 2014 The formation in a football team is simple. When you have the ball you adapt an attacking formation, when you haven''t got the ball you adopt a formation designed to get the ball back. That means having adaptable players who are happy in both situations. I like the idea of a back three with two adaptable wing backs who are equally adept at defending or going forward. Elliot Bennett on one side and Olsson on the other, for us is a good plan, with three defenders in Martin, Turner and Redmond. That three can easily become a back four or a back five in a match - and its up to the players to recognise when to do it. So 343 easily becomes a 433 or even a 442 if a forward needs to drops back as well, to cover midfield. All these variations need to happen during a match - to the extent that labelling a set formatiuon to use becomes impossible.The best label to use when talking about "what formation should we set up in" imo is simply "a flexible formation". Set formations mean very little - and as much as we see two banks of four as a simple idea and people talk about it in those terms, in reality, most of the time it isn''t necessary to be so set. Too rigid a formation and you stifle the team - as we saw in the last two seasons when the manager failed to get the players to be organised and be able to express themselves well enough. A flexible formation with players that have the ability and desire to do both roles of attack and defend is the simplest way I can think to put it. Getting bogged down with 442,452,433,4132 or whatever just makes it harder to have the flexibility needed to adapt to any situation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yelloow Since 72 54 Posted July 16, 2014 I agree with this, in that formations are mainly a matter of emphasis and naturally changing to a more defensive shape when the ball is lost. It''s good to see Surman slotting in effectively on the left side of the diamond. He''s like another signing this year and has good football intelligence. It''s beginning to look like Adams is going to use both the diamond and a 4-4-2, which could also allow for some natural rotation of players (ie. Wes and Surman playing in the diamond, but not in the 4-4-2). the choice of strikers would probably also change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted July 16, 2014 mostly a pile of old bollox to over excite the ''happy clappies'' who dribble over such other aburdities as ''assists'' and how many throw ins have been conceded by the away team in the first half on their left side ............... which supposedly explain the gameit is football, not netballthe game is extremely fluid, that is it''s attraction and players will move around the pitch mostly in response the the oppositions movements and use of the bal;l, and visa versainvariably it is just the new buzzword gibberish that is the must say word of the momentplayers no longer mark the opposition they pressthey don''t attack they counter attackstrikers no longer play up front .... they are up topI expect that if the game is a bit beyond you then this sort of stuff helps, and so serves a purpose Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted July 16, 2014 Lincoln, funny you put that lineup down as I could quite easily see none of them players starting the first game versus Wolves! Yes it looks good, agreed, but the front 6 I see are:Bennett, Johnson, Fer, MurphyLafferty, RvW Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0 Posted July 16, 2014 [quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Lincoln, funny you put that lineup down as I could quite easily see none of them players starting the first game versus Wolves! Yes it looks good, agreed, but the front 6 I see are:Bennett, Johnson, Fer, MurphyLafferty, RvW[/quote]I hope mine is closer than yours! I think mine line up is much stronger. Bar maybe Lafferty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lappinitup 629 Posted July 16, 2014 [quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Lincoln, funny you put that lineup down as I could quite easily see none of them players starting the first game versus Wolves! Yes it looks good, agreed, but the front 6 I see are:Bennett, Johnson, Fer, MurphyLafferty, RvW[/quote]I hope mine is closer than yours! I think mine line up is much stronger. Bar maybe Lafferty.[/quote]If you two read my opening post again you will see it is NOTHING to do with individual players but asks if we overstate the importance of formations.For example, if a team line up in a 4-4-2 with two central midfielders but one is more attack minded than the other who prefers to stay back, isn''t this exactly the same as the diamond? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted July 16, 2014 but how they play will be just as determined as by how the opposition playsit is merely something for the ''happy clappies'' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
STAN 29 Posted July 16, 2014 Are you on a wind up? In modern day football formations are key.. A flat 442 is extremely different to a diamond 442, if you can''t recognise that then well, I don''t know what to say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yelloow Since 72 54 Posted July 16, 2014 I''d forgotten how well Surman plays in the diamond, especially with Wes at the point. It''s a bit like getting two new players. Howson was also good on the right side of the diamond and Johnson played the anchor well. Good signs, but we need to see it against stronger opposition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted July 16, 2014 [quote user="STAN"]Are you on a wind up? In modern day football formations are key.. A flat 442 is extremely different to a diamond 442, if you can''t recognise that then well, I don''t know what to say.[/quote]oh dearmaybe you should watch a few gamesand also ask someone to expalin to you the various methods of play that have been used over the decadesanyone who thinks that players stick rigidly to these absurd idiocies have little knowledge of the game Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horse Renoir 1 Posted July 16, 2014 It depends. The formation was extremely relevant for us last year because we were so, sooo rigid and glued to our positions so the players position within that formation would have had a huge bearing on how we played.This year under Adams if he implements a more fluid system it would be mostly irreverent and how many attacking players vs holding players we deploy would be more important as it was under Lambert Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horse Renoir 1 Posted July 16, 2014 *irrelevantDamned auto correct changes that to irreverent :@Also 567898654567890987654345678th request for an edit button! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted July 16, 2014 it was NOT the formationit was the approach, determined by Hughton''s belief that you could stop the opposition by occupying spacethat space moved and at no time did you see players following these idiocies ie how many times did you see RVW back defending ....... quite oftenthe sad thing is that a huge number of the newbies cannot grasp what is going on and so require a cliche to sum it up for them Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lappinitup 629 Posted July 16, 2014 [quote user="STAN"]Are you on a wind up? In modern day football formations are key.. A flat 442 is extremely different to a diamond 442, if you can''t recognise that then well, I don''t know what to say.[/quote]You''ve summed it up nicely when you say "modern day football" Stan. Younger fans are brought up with TV pundits, slow motion replays and so on but the game itself hasn''t really changed that much over the years. It''s still twenty two guys chasing a ball around, it''s just the FANS perception of the game that has changed, not by what they see but by what they''re told.Explain to me how a flat 4-4-2 is extremely different to a diamond 4-4-2 apart from the wingers coming in a bit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
STAN 29 Posted July 16, 2014 Ok City1st, I give you the season we were promoted to the PL..Fox at the base, Wes at the tip, these 2 weren''t playing in a formation no? get real haha! Every single team has a base, tactics dictate what the players do in their given roles. You''re clearly the one with little knowledge of the game.. formations are key. I can''t remember the exact scenario, but I remember us reverting to 3 at back under Lambert in an attempt at chasing a result.. but of course as you say we weren''t really playing with 3 at the back because formations don''t meant anything... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
STAN 29 Posted July 16, 2014 It''s not just a fans perception though..Try telling Jose Mourihno or even any manager that tactics/formations aren''t key.. both change games. Formations are why managers sign players to fit in their desired systems. Hoolahan is a very different type of central midfielder to say Bradley Johnson.. would you fancy BJ playing at the the tip of the diamond and Wes playing at the base? Of course if their''s no such thing as a formation it shouldn''t really matter should it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lappinitup 629 Posted July 16, 2014 [quote user="STAN"]Hoolahan is a very different type of central midfielder to say Bradley Johnson.. would you fancy BJ playing at the the tip of the diamond and Wes playing at the base?[/quote]To go back to my OP I said......"The diamond = exactly the same as 4-4-2 but with one AM and one DM."So with Bradley and Wes in Central midfield plus two wide players would you call it 4-4-2 or the diamond? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
STAN 29 Posted July 16, 2014 If a manager decided to set up like that then it''d be 442. But not once have I seen Wes in the same role as say Tettey or Johnson. Have you? Howson claims his favourite position is playing "in the hole". But apparently "in the hole" doesn''t even exist? Could you see David Silva performing Yaya Toures role for Man City? Or Obi Mikel performing Oscars role for Chelsea? Or Abou Diaby performing Ozils role for Arsenal? Some players players are versatile, but some players are only suited to a certain role, without formations their wouldn''t be a "role" in the first players. Sorry but formations are key. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0 Posted July 16, 2014 [quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="Jimmy Smith"]Lincoln, funny you put that lineup down as I could quite easily see none of them players starting the first game versus Wolves! Yes it looks good, agreed, but the front 6 I see are:Bennett, Johnson, Fer, MurphyLafferty, RvW[/quote]I hope mine is closer than yours! I think mine line up is much stronger. Bar maybe Lafferty.[/quote]If you two read my opening post again you will see it is NOTHING to do with individual players but asks if we overstate the importance of formations.For example, if a team line up in a 4-4-2 with two central midfielders but one is more attack minded than the other who prefers to stay back, isn''t this exactly the same as the diamond? [/quote]Jeez, my sincere apologies for going off topic slightly. Still at least it wasn''t offence or disrespectful to another poster, as is often the case when a thread goes off topic and in to a slagging match.Anyway the diamond is much different to a flat 4-4-2 with an attack and defensive minded player. In a diamond the anchor man and the guy at the tip are given different instructions to what they would be in a flat 4-4-2. They have to be very strict and should never overlap positions. The diamond does not incorporate wingers... Which is what is needed in a flat 4-4-2.The main emphasis of a 4-4-2 is to get the ball out wide to pacy wingers, whereas the diamond is better suited to more technical players who can hold on the ball and play through the middle in limited space. They key to the diamond is to keep ball to mitigate the exposure down the flanks. So as such formations are very important... But they must suit the players. So contrary to your view, formations are intrinsically linked to individuals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0 Posted July 16, 2014 [quote user="City1st"][quote user="STAN"]Are you on a wind up? In modern day football formations are key.. A flat 442 is extremely different to a diamond 442, if you can''t recognise that then well, I don''t know what to say.[/quote]oh dearmaybe you should watch a few gamesand also ask someone to expalin to you the various methods of play that have been used over the decadesanyone who thinks that players stick rigidly to these absurd idiocies have little knowledge of the game[/quote]Your wrong. Formations are key. Do you think the Germans work on formations? I do. That''s why they have 1000s of coaches trained to understand formations and tactics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigFish 1,986 Posted July 16, 2014 [quote user="lappinitup"]Explain to me how a flat 4-4-2 is extremely different to a diamond 4-4-2 apart from the wingers coming in a bit. [/quote]The difference is 442 is played in three lines.The reason it dropped out of fashion is that coaches learnt that by playing between these lines you could overload various players of the opposition. The diamond is played in five lines e.g. 41212 - the advantage is that you can go 3v2 against the opposition CBs (if they play 442) and protect your own CBs with a holding midfielder. The disadvantage is the opposition can get at your full backs.You are right though that it depends on 22 blokes chasing a ball though..No wingers with a diamond Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,531 Posted July 16, 2014 [quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="City1st"][quote user="STAN"]Are you on a wind up? In modern day football formations are key.. A flat 442 is extremely different to a diamond 442, if you can''t recognise that then well, I don''t know what to say.[/quote]oh dearmaybe you should watch a few gamesand also ask someone to expalin to you the various methods of play that have been used over the decadesanyone who thinks that players stick rigidly to these absurd idiocies have little knowledge of the game[/quote]Your wrong. Formations are key. Do you think the Germans work on formations? I do. That''s why they have 1000s of coaches trained to understand formations and tactics.[/quote]You''re both right. Coaches work on formations so the players know what to do in different situations and are able to adapt to what is required. There as many formations as you can think of - hundreds - but labelling them in match situations is difficult because a good team/manager will adapt durong matches without being told, so you get a mixture of tactics throughout games. Any team that is too predictable with limited tactics will be found out - as we were last season. Players unable to adapt and/or manager being too restrictive in his approach. So yes, footballers work on and know about formations - and yes - you don''t apply them rigidly but are able to adapt them to circumstances in matches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katie Borkins 1 Posted July 17, 2014 Veteran Pink Un readers should know that there is only one correct formation in any Norwich City game, and that is the formation the manager didn''t use in the match which has just finished. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted July 17, 2014 [quote user="STAN"]Ok City1st, I give you the season we were promoted to the PL..Fox at the base, Wes at the tip, these 2 weren''t playing in a formation no? get real haha! Every single team has a base, tactics dictate what the players do in their given roles. You''re clearly the one with little knowledge of the game.. formations are key. I can''t remember the exact scenario, but I remember us reverting to 3 at back under Lambert in an attempt at chasing a result.. but of course as you say we weren''t really playing with 3 at the back because formations don''t meant anything...[/quote]you ate quite clueless as your contradictory drivel demonstratesnow why no re read your post and see if you can see where you are wrong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites