Team v QPR (H)

cwhite02 said:

Where's any width? The team is not balanced. Everything is going through the middle. QPR have a couple of full backs who we can attack and get round, that formation everything would go down the middle. Our only options would be our fullbacks trying to get down when they could.

You really think `Arry will ever even try a team set out like that?

Click to expand...

We have probably the 2 best over lapping fullbacks in the league.

Barcelona played the same system last year,I haven't had a chance to watch them yet this year, but as far as I know,they are the best team in the world.

VDV plays the Messi role.

We are not trying to guess Harry's team.

Well you are just giving all the positives to it and not mentioning the negatives and right now its just a theory, why should we change right now to a theory, when we are successful with this current team, so its a pointless discussion.

Phil_2.0 said:

Well you are just giving all the positives to it and not mentioning the negatives and right now its just a theory, why should we change right now to a theory, when we are successful with this current team, so its a pointless discussion.

Click to expand...

"If Spurs don't adapt to new challenges, they will wither and die."

- Charles Darwin, circa 1997

Phil_2.0 said:

Well you are just giving all the positives to it and not mentioning the negatives and right now its just a theory, why should we change right now to a theory, when we are successful with this current team, so its a pointless discussion.

Click to expand...

Is it that successful though, or should I phrase that, can we gain more success through a change of formation?

Think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one - yes in essence it's theoretical but it's based on sound logic and I'm not the only one who shares this view.

kendoddsdadsdogsdead said:

I think this whole 4-2-3-1 formation is the latest fad and because a few people think Man City play it, it should be the way everyone goes and that if you play it it cures all your woes, you score more, concede less, have more of the ball. Actually if you look at there game against United it was more a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3.

Click to expand...

No one thinks it's a universal panacea, against Newcastle the other day it wasn't working and Harry rightly changed it. But some on here seem to act as if it's somehow exotic or outrageous to think it could work for us (See Phil below). In fact Man City, Man Utd and Arsenal play 4-2-3-1 in the Premier League, Chelsea play a variant with their 4-3-3. Swansea also employ 4-2-3-1. In Spain, Mourinho's Real Madrid play 4-2-3-1, as did his Inter Milan team most of the time. It's not exotic, it's not outlandish, it's just not 4-4-2.

As I said in my post you don't play it if you haven't the personnel, but if you have and they also happen to be your best players playing in their best positions, then it is clearly the set-up which offers the best balance of attack and defence thereby promising the greatest chance of scoring goals without conceding and thus winning football matches.

kendoddsdadsdogsdead said:

So in this 4-2-3-1 formation that you envisage how does it work without the ball? do the front four get into any sort of shape, like the wider players dropping into midfield, making a four or do the two central midfielders get isolated defending, dragged out wide leaving big gapes in the centre. If the the wider players in the 3 drop back in, isn't this in essence a 4-4-2 or a 4-4-1-1? With the ball say our full back gets it looking to play a little ball into midfield who comes to give him options? is it one of the two central midfielders? who are not great at receiving the ball with there back to goal and turning to face the opposition or do one or two of the front three drop into one of the wide positions to give him option making it in essence again a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3. The bottom line for me is one formation evolves into another throughout the game anyway.

Click to expand...

As you rightly point out formations aren't rigid, they alter depending on whether you're in possession or not for instance, or on the players you have in each position. But it's also not meaningless to talk of formations, they serve to describe the kinds of roles players have in the team, the functions they perform and the kinds of areas they patrol and the number of each kind of player you have - for instance a 4-4-2 will typically have two out and out strikers and two wide men, 4-2-3-1 will have two holders screening the defence, 4-4-2 won't etc.

SpurSince57 said:

Well, as I suggested in the VdV thread, he could start with something like this:

Adebayor----VdV

Bale/Modric----Sandro/Modric----Parker----Lennon

BAE----King----Kaboul----Walker​

And then change to something like this:

Adebayor

Bale/Modric----VdV----Lennon

Sandro/Modric----Parker

BAE----King----Kaboul----Walker​

Harry simply yells out: "Rafa! Drop back! Luka (Gareth) and Aaron, push up alongside him!"

Alternatively (and I believe preferably), the switch could be signalled by Joe Jordan's starting to run up and down the touchline brandishing an outsize cockerel banner and screaming, "Tora! Tora! Tora!"

Simples.

Click to expand...

But in your each formation you only play two of Bale, Sandro and Modric, meaning you sacrifice one of our top players to accommodate Lennon and depending on your choice you either hamper Modric with extra defensive responsibility or (assuming Modric always plays) you leave one of the world games best game-changers, Bale, on the bench.

And in your suggested variation of 4-2-3-1 you play Modric very deep where he influences the game less.

Look, it's not that you always have to play one way, it's depends on the personnel you have available and which formation allows you to play more of your best players in their best positions, which achieves the greatest balance between winning the ball and using it effectively when you have it and which gives you the greatest opportunity to change the pattern of the game should you need to later in the game.

Phil_2.0 said:

This 4-2-3-1 is the biggest shit i've ever seen, never seen so many wasted word on nothing

We have casually been playing VDV in behind the striker with two wingers for the last 50 games ffs :grin:

Click to expand...

Phil_2.0 said:

Well first of all you play Modric where hes made himself one of the best in the world and thats central midfield, you certainly do not think about moving him out on the right or in behind a striker. Then play Parker or Sandro alongside him, whoever is more in form at the time.

You play a right winger on the right and a left winger on the left.

Click to expand...

It seems you think that the way Mourinho, SAF and Wenger (plus plenty of others), three of the best coaches in the game set their teams out is outlandish and "shit".

There's nothing wrong with 4-4-2 - if for instance Adebayor was injured I'd probably argue that it is the way we should play given the qualities our other strikers possess, it's also right if you need to change something, introduce a degree of extra randomness - but you seem to think that it is the only possible way to play and that any suggestion otherwise is fantasy land stuff.

Which of course it isn't.

You write so much and quite a lot of rubbish in my opinion, your diagnosis is incredibly wrong, United play a 4-4-1-1,we play a 4-4-1-1 most of the time, this stupid talk as if there is any difference between a 4-2-3-1 and a 4-4-1-1 is barmy.

Formations are irrelevant anyway, basically it comes down to whether you want two defensive midfielders in the team instead of one. Sometimes the answer will be yes but most of the time its a no and Tottenham will need to get as many aggressive players on the pitch as possible and Modric being able to hold his own in central midfield is a massive plus because it allows us to get an extra attacker on the pitch.

sloth said:

But in your each formation you only play two of Bale, Sandro and Modric, meaning you sacrifice one of our top players to accommodate Lennon and depending on your choice you either hamper Modric with extra defensive responsibility or (assuming Modric always plays) you leave one of the world games best game-changers, Bale, on the bench.

And in your suggested variation of 4-2-3-1 you play Modric very deep where he influences the game less.

Look, it's not that you always have to play one way, it's depends on the personnel you have available and which formation allows you to play more of your best players in their best positions, which achieves the greatest balance between winning the ball and using it effectively when you have it and which gives you the greatest opportunity to change the pattern of the game should you need to later in the game.

Click to expand...

Well, I could have permed it to leave out Lennon and play Bale right or left. I should have thought the point was pretty obvious—that a change of formation is (or should be) very straightforward to bring about, especially when you know that substitutes are going to be used anyway, and that it is no more difficult for a manager to influence things with a 4-4-2 than it is with a 4-2-3-1 or anything else.

We know that virtually every team will line up with four men at the back; the only question there is how the FBs are employed. We also know that one at least of the FBs will be used in an attacking role. You've got six men to sort out, and your permutations are not only limited but overlap; 4-4-1-1 can as easily be a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1, depending on how far forward or how far back your withdrawn forward plays.

Sometimes I wonder if real managers actually think of formations, which are at best notional; during the 2006 World Cup Martin 'Tactically Naive' Jol spoke absorbingly and lucidly about attacking and defending blocks, with the emphasis on flexibility.

It's football, FFS, not Austerlitz.

people can say whatever they like about sandro, but through all of his qualities and all of his faults, the man still stands and no one, but no one, can deny that Sandro, unquestionably, wears that white shirt, and cock on his chest with immeasurable pride. we love you sandro, all hail the pancake.

So let's hope those who are singing his praises now don't turn on him in a year or two.

I think we should pick 11 players and tell them to play as a team.

Play the team that won at Blackburn.

Sandro should be brought back only when 100% fit and then should fight for his place again. i am sure it will not take him long to regain a starting berth.

He is still young and needs to maintain the focus to train hard and fight for his position, even if he is looking like a great player.

R.

lennon's gotten worse since he lost the speed stripes, i hope he doesn't start on sunday.

hazzaaa said:

lennon's gotten worse since he lost the speed stripes, i hope he doesn't start on sunday.

Click to expand...

Last season he created as many scoring chances as VdV and Modders. It wasn't his fault that only a couple were converted.

Let's just write him off, shall we?

Agree. Lennon is nowehere near in as deep a shit period of form as some on here will have you believe.

no, i'm not writing him off, i just don't think he should start on sunday. by all means bring him on and get him involved. i'm a big fan of the guy.

some spammer twat ruined him when he was on top of the world, was it that stroppy italian that did him? azza's been nowhere since that injury, so sad to see. beep beep.

This, I'm afraid, is what gets me about the Sandro love. As soon as some of those who are raving about him now see signs of fallibility, they'll turn on him. Huge potential, but he's appeared in barely 20 games and people would prefer him to Parker? Stroll on. He's got a lot to learn.

You simply couldn't imagine the attacks on Defoe we get now a few seasons ago (and one has to ask, why did it take so many people so long to realise he was a good but not outstanding striker?). Same with Lennon.

Also, the way I'm turning on Bale now.... the lazy sod.

SpurSince57 said:

This, I'm afraid, is what gets me about the Sandro love. As soon as some of those who are raving about him now see signs of fallibility, they'll turn on him. Huge potential, but he's appeared in barely 20 games and people would prefer him to Parker? Stroll on. He's got a lot to learn.

You simply couldn't imagine the attacks on Defoe we get now a few seasons ago (and one has to ask, why did it take so many people so long to realise he was a good but not outstanding striker?). Same with Lennon.

Click to expand...

I have to admit some of the Sandro praise is very reminiscent of the Palacios love when he first came on the scene.

What I would say is that with Palacios back then, and Sandro now, is that the praise was/is perfectly justified. Sandro has played superbly and does look like he has all the attributes to be a brilliant footballer.

As you say SS57, the concern is when he has his off days, and suddenly gets turned on by some sections of the Spurs faithful. It does seem unlikely though, given his obvious natural ability, but it's always a possibility. However the big difference between him and Palacios is whilst Sandro has a mixture of aggression, tenacity and skill, Palacios was primarily about drive...and once that drive was dampened, a huge chunk of his game vanished. In other words, I think the fans can sometimes jump the gun on a player, but with Sandro I think the praise and expectation is justified...even if I was surprised by how quickly some turned against Wilson.

Couple of quick points though SS57...when some are picking Sandro ahead of Parker it's not just the immediate game that is being considered, but the likelihood of maintaining players with (as you say) huge potential, such as Sandro. If some of the itk rumours are to be believed, and big European clubs were interested in his services, it's understandable that some Spurs fans would want us to be playing him, rather than making any decision to leave much easier for him due to being benched.

It's probably the same concern that crops up with VDV. Are we really in a position to bench players like that? It might be better for the team in the short term, but is there a chance that those players will get frustrated and simply swap life on the occasional bench at Spurs, for life on the occasional bench at a club that pays bigger wages? If Sandro is the future of our midfield (at least in theory) you can surely see why people would opt for him over Parker. Personally I'm just glad I don't have to make a choice between them, as I think they are both fantastic players.

The other point was about Defoe. I know where you are coming from, but a big difference between the criticism from last season, and the praise from a few seasons ago, is the level of talented players at the club. Defoe's star faded a little more every time we improved the calibre of player being signed. Compared to the other players from a few years ago, Defoe really was worth the praise...but as our team improved, our expectations did too. Now he's seen as someone that offers nothing more than an occasional goal threat (much like Darren Bent, who I always felt was hugely under-appreciated).

Anyway, in conclusion...Sandro is worth the faith being shown in him at the moment, and at his best I'd say he's better than Parker at his best. The big difference being that Parker won't be getting any big money offers any time soon, whereas Sandro clearly will.

If he's fit, play Sandro.

From the point Sandro started getting more games, we didn't actually win many games at all. I'm not saying that's his fault, but we still leaked plenty of goals and there was no noticable improvement in the side with him in it.