Attack, Attack, Attack?

[craig 5,199]

The 2 in a 4-2-3-1 would usually both be considered pivots. A pivot does suggest one singular point. However, you can have two pivots. I felt we had something similar back in the day when we had Gascoigne & McCall - McCall was the ball-winning pivot whilst Gascoigne would be the ball-playing pivot, but also given license to burst forward too - obviously back then we played a 4-4-2 so it was difficult to have 2 pivots unless playing the middle 4 as 2 deep lying midfielders and 2 wide players playing higher up the pitch but offering width. But hopefully you get the gist of the 2 pivots by imagining Gascoigne & McCall having those roles. Both would collect from the back 4 and McCall would win it and give it to Gascoigne to "do his thing".

 

Rousseau, regarding the final paragraph....

 

Plan B will always be to do plan A better. Warburton will always want to see his teams dominate the football with a possession-based, attacking style. But that doesn't mean he can't, or won't, change. At Brentford, despite continuing with the attacking style, he demonstrated that he can change the framework, or shape, within which this style is executed. By shifting to a 4-2-3-1, he added defensive stability to a attacking style for his first campaign in the English Championship. Rangers' signings thus far (Barton, Rossiter, Crooks and Windass) hint at the possibility of this change happening again. Attacking aggressively when you can dominate, but adding that defensive stability when it is required.

 

I think that we make a little too much of the "Plan B is to do Plan A better". I think that far too many of us (not you) take it in its literal sense to mean we will always deploy a 4-3-3 and nothing will change from that and this is both Plan A and Plan B. However, I see it differently. I believe that when MW says "Plan B is to do Plan A better" he actually is not talking about the formation but rather is talking about the style of play, both of which are very different. I think what he actually means is that Plan A AND Plan B are to dominate possession of the ball, continually changing the point of attack, moving the ball quickly and having good movement. This can be accomplished with ANY formation you like so long as you have footballers who are comfortable with the ball at their feet. Dominating possession can be done in a 4-4-2, a 4-2-3-1, a 4-3-3-, a 4-5-1 or any other combination of a team. That's what I think Warburton means with his "Plan B is doing Plan A better" - we saw that he was pragmatic when he brought Ball in for the bigger games to sit in front of the defence to offer proper cover.

 

Excellent analysis as per usual.

[Rousseau 9,448]

Rousseau, regarding the final paragraph....

 

I think that we make a little too much of the "Plan B is to do Plan A better". I think that far too many of us (not you) take it in its literal sense to mean we will always deploy a 4-3-3 and nothing will change from that and this is both Plan A and Plan B. However, I see it differently. I believe that when MW says "Plan B is to do Plan A better" he actually is not talking about the formation but rather is talking about the style of play, both of which are very different. I think what he actually means is that Plan A AND Plan B are to dominate possession of the ball, continually changing the point of attack, moving the ball quickly and having good movement. This can be accomplished with ANY formation you like so long as you have footballers who are comfortable with the ball at their feet. Dominating possession can be done in a 4-4-2, a 4-2-3-1, a 4-3-3-, a 4-5-1 or any other combination of a team. That's what I think Warburton means with his "Plan B is doing Plan A better" - we saw that he was pragmatic when he brought Ball in for the bigger games to sit in front of the defence to offer proper cover.

 

Yes, absolutely. I tried to convey that message. The philosophy and style of play ("to dominate possession of the ball, continually changing the point of attack, moving the ball quickly and having good movement") remains the same, but the framework (formation) can change.

 

However, I would say that some formations are more conducive to a possession-based game than others. I don't think you can replicate a possession-based game in a 4-4-2 to the same extent -- you can, but I think it'll be less effective without the triangles. A 4-4-2 is quite linear in the build-up, with players working in pairs (RB - RM; RCM - LCM; RF - LF), so one wouldn't be able to replicate the same fluidity that the triangles (RW - RB - RCM; LCM - RCM - DM etc.) in a 4-3-3 allows. You can replicate it, but some formations are more conducive than others.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Rousseau

[Blinkyman 0]

Have to admit that I thought I was watching the auld 2-3-5 and even 2 -1-7 in some games last season when the bus was parked

[compo 6,205]

More formations there than the Peggy Spencer formation dance team .

[Scott7 5,223]

I knew you were old, Compo, but jings crivvens

[Yorkshire Bear 0]

The good old days compo,Iremember them well.

[craig 5,199]

Yes, absolutely. I tried to convey that message. The philosophy and style of play ("to dominate possession of the ball, continually changing the point of attack, moving the ball quickly and having good movement") remains the same, but the framework (formation) can change.

 

However, I would say that some formations are more conducive to a possession-based game than others. I don't think you can replicate a possession-based game in a 4-4-2 to the same extent -- you can, but I think it'll be less effective without the triangles. A 4-4-2 is quite linear in the build-up, with players working in pairs (RB - RM; RCM - LCM; RF - LF), so one wouldn't be able to replicate the same fluidity that the triangles (RW - RB - RCM; LCM - RCM - DM etc.) in a 4-3-3 allows. You can replicate it, but some formations are more conducive than others.

 

I disagree on the 4-4-2 - triangles are always available even in a 4-4-2 - you have a triangle between RB-RM and RCM and likewise the same on the left. You also have a triangle between RM-RCM and RST and likewise the same on the left. In my own opinion the thing which allows the proper use of triangles isn't so much the formation but is more about the movement of the players. And that is what is so engaging about MW's team - the movement is usually excellent. You can play a 4-3-3 all day long but if you have the triangle of RB-RM-RCM but the RCM never offers an angle but rather stays very linear then he immediately cuts off one leg of the triangle. I would contend the movement makes the triangle more than the formation.

 

Though I would agree that SOME formations are more conducive to others - for example..... playing a 5-4-1 and trying to use triangles would be a train wreck because all of your triangles are defensive. No thanks....

[Rousseau 9,448]

I disagree on the 4-4-2 - triangles are always available even in a 4-4-2 - you have a triangle between RB-RM and RCM and likewise the same on the left. You also have a triangle between RM-RCM and RST and likewise the same on the left. In my own opinion the thing which allows the proper use of triangles isn't so much the formation but is more about the movement of the players. And that is what is so engaging about MW's team - the movement is usually excellent. You can play a 4-3-3 all day long but if you have the triangle of RB-RM-RCM but the RCM never offers an angle but rather stays very linear then he immediately cuts off one leg of the triangle. I would contend the movement makes the triangle more than the formation.

 

Though I would agree that SOME formations are more conducive to others - for example..... playing a 5-4-1 and trying to use triangles would be a train wreck because all of your triangles are defensive. No thanks....

 

I can get on board with that. Triangles, although available, are not as natural to a 4-4-2. And, if one does play triangles in a 4-4-2, there is not the same level of support. But, yes, I agree that it does depend on the way a manager wants to play and the players execution of that plan.

[craig 5,199]

I can get on board with that. Triangles, although available, are not as natural to a 4-4-2. And, if one does play triangles in a 4-4-2, there is not the same level of support. But, yes, I agree that it does depend on the way a manager wants to play and the players execution of that plan.

 

One of the first things I used to teach my kids when I was coaching was the use of triangles. "Pass and move" but move into a space which creates a triangle with the ball carrier and one other player - it should see ball retention the vast majority of the time because an opposition will rarely commit 3 players against that single triangle. I used to stop a session when one of my kids (either U8 or U10) would call for the ball but the ball carrier had no line of contact with the player looking for the ball other than to play it through an opponent.

 

My teams lost a lot of games but I always felt that I inherited them from a poor coach and had to re-coach them - and felt that by the time they moved to the next coach they had developed to where they needed to be - but then, I am clearly biased

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

We're pretty abysmal defensively which is a massive concern given he's had a whole season to get it right. It's a good job we're not in Europe next season. Celtic will be a much better side under Rodgers too.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Ser Barristan Selmy