[Archived] Formation and Tactics

[Rover_Shaun]

David Dunn said "Our home form has been pretty good, it’s just that the emotional and physical output we put into the Manchester City games showed a little bit and took it out of us against Forest, said Dunn.

Can anyone explain what was emotional about it other than embarrassment?

Physical I can comprehend after all they were like pre-school kids chasing their Dad around the park but emotional? You're having a giraffe.

These are "supposed" atheletes and they can't motivate themselves to play for 3 hours in a week after they virtually do 1 hour a days light training and shag the dog for the rest of the time

[Mike E]

Whilst Neal has taken umbridge with your assertation that Dann is the best defender I would like to point out your laughable use of the term Solid Defence.

You have been concious for the last two matches.........haven't you??

Our defence is about as a solid as a stool deposit after a bad curry.

You mean including the game that Dann missed vs Man City?

We've been 'battered' twice in the league this season. Brighton and Forest. Both away games and both by 3-goal margins.

And didn't we recently have a good run of clean sheets at home? I'm not suggesting we have a great defence, but it's most certainly solid.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

You mean including the game that Dann missed vs Man City?

We've been 'battered' twice in the league this season. Brighton and Forest. Both away games and both by 3-goal margins.

And didn't we recently have a good run of clean sheets at home? I'm not suggesting we have a great defence, but it's most certainly solid.

Given the fact "our defence" consists of six players plus the goalkeeper , it should be.

[Rover_Shaun]

Our defence is solid? Lets ask the guys at the amex, city ground, portman road, etihad, st andrews and even brunton park without mentioning the times we have conceeded two.

whilst we may be a more cohesive unit than last season, even if our points tally is almost identical, to say our defence is solid is nonsensical

[Mike E]

I always assumed footy fans used 'solid' to mean decent. My mistake, I didn't realise it was being used literally in this case. Genuine mistake.

All I'll say on that note is that the defence certainly could be better, but it is also better than much of what we had last season imo.

It's not a 'promotion' defence, but I would hope we start scoring more goals rather than getting too worried about defending at the moment. I'm one of the 'attack is the best form of defence - within reason' camp.

[Rover_Shaun]

I'd use solid to describe a miserly defence. It's a bit like using the word exceptional to describe Lowe when you really mean ponderous.

As for our defence being better than last season it is.......by the amazing tally of 2 goals

(as posted in the Bowyer topic)

Last Season
Pos 12th P26 W9 D9 L8 F36 A34 PTS36

Now
Pos 8th P26 W10 D7 L9 F32 A32 PTS37

[Neal]

It's not a 'promotion' defence

End of really.

[JBiz]

I'd use solid to describe a miserly defence. It's a bit like using the word exceptional to describe Lowe when you really mean ponderous.

As for our defence being better than last season it is.......by the amazing tally of 2 goals

(as posted in the Bowyer topic)

Last Season

Pos 12th P26 W9 D9 L8 F36 A34 PTS36

Now

Pos 8th P26 W10 D7 L9 F32 A32 PTS37

Pretty impressive stats when you consider the squad upheaval- however you ain't considering anything other than the battering we've taken in some games..

What about the two away clean sheets over Xmas? Do they not count in the WUMs agenda?

Solid defence- still learning. What about the statistic that GB is the only manager to sign a left back since Ste Warnock?

[Al]

Leave it mate. He's a WUM and as long as you don't react he'll get bored and go away. They usually do in the end.

[JBiz]

Leave it mate. He's a WUM and as long as you don't react he'll get bored and go away. They usually do in the end.

I need telling sometimes pal- heed taken!

[Neal]

Leave it mate. He's a WUM and as long as you don't react he'll get bored and go away. They usually do in the end.

Not really understanding where he's trying to wind anyone up here... It's an opinion that's different to yours. I think our defence is garbage mainly due to Scott Dann being clown shoes and having a kid at right back who isn't up to the job yet.

To be fair, he's backed up his argument with statistics too... Whats the crack on here? If you can't debate the other persons a WUM?

[Rover_Shaun]

It's water off a ducks back Neal.

I see the whole situation as an 'emperors new clothes' scenario.

[Neal]

It's water off a ducks back Neal.

I see the whole situation as an 'emperors new clothes' scenario.

So it should be. Just making a point is all, as I see it a lot on here. Fair play there are consistent WUM's on here but this is just getting a bit silly.

[thenodrog]

The case for the prosecution of 4-4-2........................

Back man in a 4-4-2 midfield line up (btw usually Lowe in our case) playing against a 4-5-1 system gets the ball and has three main options...

a. Hoof it long....... not good with 2 strikers easily marked by 4 defenders and a cue for groans and catcalls about hoofball when the defenders win.

b. pass to an unmarked midfielder...... is there one? the other 3 midfielders must try to find space amongst 5 opponents. (clue to our midfielders last quarter tiredness here perhaps) and usually results in passing in ever decreasing triangles until possession is lost.... cue for more moans, groans and catcalls.

c. play back to a defender. With 5 teammates in front of you against 10 opponents this is the obvious choice (given the mantra of professional footballers to retain possession whenever posssible) cos there are 3 available defenders and a gk behind. No moans, groans and catcalls because that is reserved for the defender when he either passes back to the keeper or lumps a long alehouse ball in the general direction of a strikers head. Should a passing option be available it will inevitable be a midfielder dropping deep to find space hence the accusations of us for defending too deep currently.


Needless to say not many teams (in fact only the best against very weak opponents ) can make a success of 4-4-2 these days. 4-4-2 is best saved for only using when playing on a quagmire (4-2-4 used to be a normal football line up remember). Now that pitches are in the main flat and true ,more passing and less hoofing is required. Around here we like 4-4-2 cos it's what we grew up with on our tiny cabbage patch pitches. By currently electing for a 4-4-2 I feel Gestede's excellent impact has set Bowyer a big problem and that (dare I say it..... course I bloody well dare) Bowyer is simply finding a place in the starting line up for Jordan Rhodes! I suspect this is to avoid devaluation and is a tactical financial decision rather than a tactical playing one.

cue howls of outrage from the usual sources I guess..........

[Mike E]

The case for the prosecution of 4-4-2........................

Back man in a 4-4-2 midfield line up (btw usually Lowe in our case) playing against a 4-5-1 system gets the ball and has three main options...

a. Hoof it long....... not good with 2 strikers easily marked by 4 defenders and a cue for groans and catcalls about hoofball when the defenders win.

b. pass to an unmarked midfielder...... is there one? the other 3 midfielders must try to find space amongst 5 opponents. (clue to our midfielders last quarter tiredness here perhaps) and usually results in passing in ever decreasing triangles until possession is lost.... cue for more moans, groans and catcalls.

c. play back to a defender. With 5 teammates in front of you against 10 opponents this is the obvious choice (given the mantra of professional footballers to retain possession whenever posssible) cos there are 3 available defenders and a gk behind. No moans, groans and catcalls because that is reserved for the defender when he either passes back to the keeper or lumps a long alehouse ball in the general direction of a strikers head. Should a passing option be available it will inevitable be a midfielder dropping deep to find space hence the accusations of us for defending too deep currently.

Needless to say not many teams (in fact only the best against very weak opponents ) can make a success of 4-4-2 these days. 4-4-2 is best saved for only using when playing on a quagmire (4-2-4 used to be a normal football line up remember). Now that pitches are in the main flat and true ,more passing and less hoofing is required. Around here we like 4-4-2 cos it's what we grew up with on our tiny cabbage patch pitches. By currently electing for a 4-4-2 I feel Gestede's excellent impact has set Bowyer a big problem and that (dare I say it..... course I bloody well dare) Bowyer is simply finding a place in the starting line up for Jordan Rhodes! I suspect this is to avoid devaluation and is a tactical financial decision rather than a tactical playing one.

cue howls of outrage from the usual sources I guess..........

Could also argue he's shoving one or both of Lowe or Williamson in there til Evans gets fit?

[AggyBlue]

(4-2-4 used to be a normal football line up remember).

2 - 3 - 5 when I started

[trueblue]

2 - 3 - 5 when I started

Me too

[rigger]

2-3-5 when I started as well

[thenodrog]

Cub Scout football is well represented on here I see.

[Shabani]

The best teams to make 4-4-2 work were ones with fantastic full backs. Ones who could attack and defend equally well, allowing the 2 strikers to be supported by the wingers and really pin the opposition in their half

Unfortunately our full backs aren't really good enough to play in an attacking 4-4-2 like this

[West Yorks Rover]

The best teams to make 4-4-2 work were ones with fantastic full backs. Ones who could attack and defend equally well, allowing the 2 strikers to be supported by the wingers and really pin the opposition in their half

Unfortunately our full backs aren't really good enough to play in an attacking 4-4-2 like this

Hird and Bailey, those two were pretty good !

[Leonard Venkhater]

End of really.

Or midfield....Attack?

[LDRover]

2-3-5 when I started as well

It won us the Jubilee Shield at Ewood in 1982.

[LDRover]

The case for the prosecution of 4-4-2........................

Back man in a 4-4-2 midfield line up (btw usually Lowe in our case) playing against a 4-5-1 system gets the ball and has three main options...

a. Hoof it long....... not good with 2 strikers easily marked by 4 defenders and a cue for groans and catcalls about hoofball when the defenders win.

b. pass to an unmarked midfielder...... is there one? the other 3 midfielders must try to find space amongst 5 opponents. (clue to our midfielders last quarter tiredness here perhaps) and usually results in passing in ever decreasing triangles until possession is lost.... cue for more moans, groans and catcalls.

c. play back to a defender. With 5 teammates in front of you against 10 opponents this is the obvious choice (given the mantra of professional footballers to retain possession whenever posssible) cos there are 3 available defenders and a gk behind. No moans, groans and catcalls because that is reserved for the defender when he either passes back to the keeper or lumps a long alehouse ball in the general direction of a strikers head. Should a passing option be available it will inevitable be a midfielder dropping deep to find space hence the accusations of us for defending too deep currently.

Needless to say not many teams (in fact only the best against very weak opponents ) can make a success of 4-4-2 these days. 4-4-2 is best saved for only using when playing on a quagmire (4-2-4 used to be a normal football line up remember). Now that pitches are in the main flat and true ,more passing and less hoofing is required. Around here we like 4-4-2 cos it's what we grew up with on our tiny cabbage patch pitches. By currently electing for a 4-4-2 I feel Gestede's excellent impact has set Bowyer a big problem and that (dare I say it..... course I bloody well dare) Bowyer is simply finding a place in the starting line up for Jordan Rhodes! I suspect this is to avoid devaluation and is a tactical financial decision rather than a tactical playing one.

cue howls of outrage from the usual sources I guess..........

Well put post.

My counter to that would be that the 4 defenders for us would be against 1 striker meaning that one could step out with the ball making the extra man in midfield and taking the team higher up the pitch.

What is important then is that the wingers make the pitch wide and the strikers movement is good to create more space for the out ball. Obviously if the wide men have pace as well this forces the opposing full backs to go deeper so there's less space in behind thus creating more space.

I'm also a firm believer in that there should be no such thing as just a defensive or attacking midfielder, it's a cop out. They should be midfielders who can do both, they may be better in either aspect but it shouldn't absolve them from doing both.

[thenodrog]

I'm also a firm believer in that there should be no such thing as just a defensive or attacking midfielder, it's a cop out. They should be midfielders who can do both, they may be better in either aspect but it shouldn't absolve them from doing both.

It'd be nice n' simple wouldn't it? Now consider the qualities of Aaron Mokoena and Eyal Berkovic and your belief falls down somewhat.