4-2-3-1 Formation

[tttcowan]

I think the fact people still aren't sure what formation we were playing after watching the game shows how irrelevant the concept of a formation really is if you play football the way it's supposed to be played... Like we do.

I guess if you had to pin it down, we had 3 midfielders, one striker and two in free roles pretty much doing whatever they fancied... It was still less static than that however.

 

[THOWIG]

Amen tttcowan

Formations don't exist.

 

[tototoner]

Amen tttcowan

Formations don't exist.

when we have the ball I agree, Harry said that Bale and Van Der Vaart both have licence to do and play where they want - a fluid formation much like Man City.

However when defending they then have to fit into a system to support the defence, especially against the top sides.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

At all times we were playing:

Sandro
Modric Parker
van der Vaart Adebayor Bale​

with them all moving around and swapping positions (except Sandro). It was a joy.

corrected :razz:

We played a fairly standard 433 last night, very fluid. No 4231 in site though, Modric was very much dead centre and receiving the ball back in our own third just as much as playing it in their final third.

 

[Matrix]

Same. Adebayor does have a habit of ending up hugging the LW touchline :lol:

Ah I remember, a bit similar to Mido! Thank god Ade puts in a shift every game!

 

[Marty]

Amen tttcowan

Formations don't exist.

A formation for me is a defensive setup, the shape the team will take when not in possession. When in possession roaming and inter-changing amongst the attacking players should mean that the idea of a formation goes out of the window.

 

[whitelightwhiteheat]

Harry said to Bale, Rafa and Modric "Go play where you like" and they interchanged positions and caused a threat to the opposition.

Wenger said the samw to Fabregas and Nasri. So they went to Barca and City.

 

[JimmyG2]

Harry said to Bale, Rafa and Modric "Go play where you like" and they interchanged positions and caused a threat to the opposition.

Wenger said the samw to Fabregas and Nasri. So they went to Barca and City.

You mean the tactical masterplan was Harry's favourite:
' Just go on and run about a bit'.
You need good instinctive players to make that work
but we certainly have several of those.
I think that I was as tactically confused as Norwich last night.
It won't work against against stronger attacking teams
as you need more discipline in midfield and defence.

Shouldn't there be a poll on this thread?
What formation did we play last night.
With a 'none of the above' box.

 

[sloth]

corrected :razz:

We played a fairly standard 433 last night, very fluid. No 4231 in site though, Modric was very much dead centre and receiving the ball back in our own third just as much as playing it in their final third.

I think there's a bit of an issue with calling it 4-3-3, but in retrospect I agree it wasn't really a 4-2-3-1 - though I don't think it was a million miles away from it either.

Anyway, for people who don't believe formations make a difference can I suggest visiting this excellent site: http://www.zonalmarking.net/ and maybe educating yourselves a bit :up:

For the rest of us, back to the conversation in question. The reason it could have been 4-2-3-1 is that that formation typically describes two robust, energetic CMs behind three AMs and a striker.

DM DM
AM AM AM
St​

Against Norwich that could have been Parker and Sandro (and probably was sometimes), and ahead you had a fluid three with Modric nominally central with VdV and Bale to his right and left. Of course in this formation all the players will drop deep from time to time and all will swap although the central AM will generally stay more central. For this reason, your comments BBLG, about Modric playing central and fetching the ball from deep would not preclude a 4-2-3-1 as you suggest it might.[/pendantry]

However, as I said, in retrospect I agree with you that it wasn't really a 4-2-3-1. You might want to describe it as 4-3-3 or even 4-5-1 and both would be accurate as far as it goes, but only convey the gist of what we played and not the detail (in fact 4-2-3-1 is also variation of 4-5-1).

Whoscored, who are generally pretty good on this kind of thing (http://www.whoscored.com/Teams/30) called it as a 4-1-4-1 and that's closer to the mark.

For me though it was a 4-1-2-3

DM
CM CM
F F F​

or even a 4-1-2-2-1

DM
CM CM
AM AM
St​

Whichever way you look at it we played a narrow, but fluid formation against a team which goes for width and we snuffed them out. The key was to have Sandro playing a disciplined role just in front of the back four that gave the extra insurance not only for the FBs to advance, but also for Modric and Parker to perform as an effective CM duo as sometimes they haven't away from home.

For it to work however, VdV and Bale really did need to play with freedom, which they did.

Wonderful stuff.

 

[mil1lion]

I always look at a formation as the base formation. It's really the formation you start off with and as the game progresses the shape of the team adapts and changes as necessary. You have to have a set formation and a 'go to' position for players to have when you don't have the ball and need to reorganise. Without a formation you lack shape and discipline.

This game was quiet unique in that the game was very open from the start and never really seemed to tighten a great deal. It lead to more freedom for the 3 to roam more, Modric was able to drop deep and pick up the ball, VDV was able to come infield and Bale could roam free. It also allowed Parker more license to push forward too.

Not every game will be as open as this however and for that reason I think we'll see a less expansive version of this formation. Whichever the formation you wish to call, the balance we have now with Parker and Sandro has really given that added protection for when the fullbacks push forward.

The use of the fullbacks is actually the key to allowing the wide players more freedom to roam and pick up pockets of space. I think we're more vulnarable when we only have 1 of Parker or Sandro due to the attacking nature of the fullbacks.

 

[DJS]

Still think Lennon needs to be in there for right-side balance when he's fit again.

It's good to have a flexible system but at the end of the day it's also good to have a formation / balance to go back to if needed.

Lennon also has the ability to play as one of the three interchangable players if needed.

 

[talkshowhost86]

You're all wrong.

We were clearly playing a 4.5-1.7-2.3-1.4-1.1 formation.

 

[mpickard2087]

Still think Lennon needs to be in there for right-side balance when he's fit again.

It's good to have a flexible system but at the end of the day it's also good to have a formation / balance to go back to if needed.

Lennon also has the ability to play as one of the three interchangable players if needed.

This, I'm not going to get carried away with the one performance as looking back, although there were some good interchanges put together, Norwich made it too easy for us at times as they didnt close down and we were able to cut through them centrally which a lot of teams wont get done by. We will need Lennon back to stretch the play a bit and offer width. Whilst others say Sandro and Parker are needed to win the midfield I really am not convinced they are both needed against the vast majority of teams where we can boss possession.

 

[Mr Pink]

This, I'm not going to get carried away with the one performance as looking back, although there were some good interchanges put together, Norwich made it too easy for us at times as they didnt close down and we were able to cut through them centrally which a lot of teams wont get done by. We will need Lennon back to stretch the play a bit and offer width. Whilst others say Sandro and Parker are needed to win the midfield I really am not convinced they are both needed against the vast majority of teams where we can boss possession.

We made it easy for ourselves as we out numbered them in midfield, just like Chelsea did second half against us.

I do agree though, its great to have options and different systems for varying conditions and circumstances.

 

[mil1lion]

When playing teams with lattacking left backs I can certainly see the need for Lennon on the right. He offers much better protection tracking back than VDV or Modric. This was highly evident in the 2nd half against Newcastle, and whenever Ashley Cole got forward for Chelsea.

Whether we play him at the expense of Sandro or Parker though really depends on the strength of the opposition midfield. We've certianly performed great with that midfield as well this season. Although I think the system would remain much the same but with Modric sitting a little deeper, getting forward at any given opportunity, with either Sandro or Parker holding their positon more.

 

[sloth]

When playing teams with lattacking left backs I can certainly see the need for Lennon on the right. He offers much better protection tracking back than VDV or Modric. This was highly evident in the 2nd half against Newcastle, and whenever Ashley Cole got forward for Chelsea.

Whether we play him at the expense of Sandro or Parker though really depends on the strength of the opposition midfield. We've certianly performed great with that midfield as well this season. Although I think the system would remain much the same but with Modric sitting a little deeper, getting forward at any given opportunity, with either Sandro or Parker holding their positon more.

Not getting at you, because over all I think there's a lot of sense in your post, but it does also kind of highlight what I mean when I say people are all a bit First World War when they consider formations.

Already above your post we've seen a couple of people using the word 'balance' when meaning symmetry.

I agree with everyone when they talk about wanting to utilise Lennon to get behind defences in games. 442 is a very effective formation and I hope we see it many times this year, but it is not effective because its symmetrical, it is effective for whatever specific reason it is effective against the opponents it is effective against.

Norwich play 442, they utilise wingers and get crosses into their two strikers and this strategy has worked, they've only failed to score in two matches this year and only lost twice at home prior to facing us. By the logic of the "First World War" and your post above we should have been matching their strengths and weaknesses and relied on our superior players to win the day.

Instead - as Chelsea did against us the previous game - we went asymmetrical, deciding to over-load the centre where they were weak, making their wingers redundant by forcing them to come inside to help their CMs and conversely creating time and space on the flanks for our FBs to exploit. So by doing the opposite of what is suggested by many as balance we dominated that game from start to finish.

For an interesting report from a tactical perspective on the Chelsea game - in which some of these issues are gone into - go to: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/12/22/tottenham-1-1-chelsea-both-goals-from-left-wing/

 

[bananafish]

Musings over our 4-3-3

Actually, Norwich played a diamond without wingers:

This is an interesting one. Quite a few people have suggested that a major problem in our approach to this game was a lack of width. Lambert went into the game with the same shape he’s played the last three – the diamond. Tierney and Naughton were replaced by Drury and De Laet, but the rest of the team remained and played a 4-1-2-1-2. Spurs played a five man midfield, with Van der Vaart nominally off Adebayor up front. It was an interesting setup, and had its pro’s and con’s. The main negative is the supposed lack of width, rectified late in the game when Bennett and Pilkington came on. However, faced with a busy midfield that could have run the game, Lambert seems to have settled on the idea that he would match it. By playing a diamond, he could get close to players like Parker, Sando and Modric rather than letting then pass around us. This would leave us potentially exposed on the flanks, but make us more competitive in the middle.

It wasn’t quite how it worked out, though. For about half an hour of the first half we were just as in it, useful in the middle and playing some decent stuff. Tottenham began to dominate at this state however, and the sheer ability of their midfield made it nearly impossible to match them. At this stage we began to pull wide to try and find space, and the result is the passing heatmap you see above. By the end we had surrendered the middle of the pitch to Spurs and their world class midfielders and were looking to go wide and find space out there. The addition of wingers helped, but they only completed 5 of 21 crosses, so it’s hard to argue this tactic would have paid dividends if implemented from the start.

From Holtamania's match report (great read, very complimentary to us)

From one of the commenters:

I have to say I was one expecting us to go back to a 5 man midfield today, to counter Spur’s wide threats – coupled with the knowledge that Naughton was out, and then the news that Tierney also wouldn’t be playing – I was pretty worried we’d be in for a tough one. As you say though, it was interesting that they didn’t actually get a whole lot of joy from wide positions – only completing 1 cross; that’s compared to 5 against Chelsea, and 6 against Sunderland in their last two games. So credit to the backup fullbacks. As you rightly point out, Drury was especially competent, continually preventing Walker from beating him on the outside, forcing him to check back, and either cross unsuccessfully from deep, or lay a pass to someone else into the congested midfield.

They never tried to play wingers who subsequently were drawn to the center.
They never tried to play wingers in the first place. They started out trying to match our CMs, purposely conceding width - but lost the battle in the center because of our sheer quality.

Why give up that width? Did we exploit this advantage? I actually agree with the comments that we were not that successful attacking-wise from wide areas. Even though BAE and Walker had plenty of space in front of them, they often made poor decisions with the final ball and sloppy crosses.

This was also partly because BAE/Walker's runs start from deeper positions, and Norwich's defense (esp their FBs) were quick to rush back to crowd the box, making their crosses rather ineffective.

We found joy through the center, as you'd expect with our most lethal and creative players there. I do think, however, that it was crowded and that was partly why crosses were useless, so it was no surprise we had to drag them into our half for Bale's run to goal.

---

I was pleased to see this team selection and STRONGLY advocate the Parker-Sandro CM in away games, but I don't believe we should take this as a standard performance that justifies the 4-3-3 by itself.

First of all, the diamond formation is relatively unusual. I believe we will face more of reckoning when we meet true wingers, because Walker's defending has never been his strong suit - and now both of our flanks are unprotected, with both Bale and VdV drifting off elsewhere (not that they were ever famous for their defending).

WBA is rather enlightening in this regard - even with Sandro and Parker in our center, Bale and Lennon were so static defensively that they came down our flanks over and over again, and Defoe was missing first 45 min so we couldn't retain possession in the center.

Like WBA, teams may try to target our exposed flanks and pin us back, completely bypassing the center of the park. In fact, we've been successful with this tactic before against stronger teams - playing deep and narrow and conceding midfield to release Bale against a high line - most notably against Chelsea H 09/10 and City H 10/11.

With this in mind, we have to be careful with our line. The central 3 will have to be quick to press their CMs *before* they release passes inbetween the CB and FB, and Sandro & Parker's mobility will be critical in allowing them to support the FB. If Modric also presses, we can "pincer" wingers cutting inside; if they go beyond our FB, there's Sandro/Parker to collect the cross/cutback. But WBA still provides a warning of what may happen if our wide midfielders aren't pulling their defensive weight, even with Sandro and Parker.

----

Side-note: It's also worth realizing that a vulnerability is not always a completely bad thing.

I have no doubt that every manager is looking at that right flank patrolled by naive young Walker alone and gleefully thinking "aha!"

But funnily enough, that "aha!" is drawing teams out of their shells - and right into our hands. I've seen few buses this year - lots of good pressing, but also plenty of willingness to attack. And that is affording us a surprising amount of space to exploit.

Note how many of our chances come directly after opposition attacks. We are blessed with pace in a way few are, and that allows us not only to strike speedily in transition but defend deeper than most of the big teams. We certainly let in too many crosses, and concede the most from headers, but we don't actually concede as many as you'd expect given the amount of crosses we allow, and we are quick to use the failed cross to launch our attack.

Compare this to Liverpool, who spend the most time in the opposition half and are extremely defensively organized (best defense in PL so far). Everyone knows you can grab a 0-0 draw against them, but Liverpool have few defensive vulnerabilities so a win is unlikely.

So teams are content to just sit back and play for the draw, and Liverpool find themselves with no space to play in - hence why so many of their chances are headers from crosses/set pieces, and shots from extreme angles. Numerous but low quality chances.

That's why I'm generally a fan of asymmetricality - because the other team may get sucked into targeting one point, but the space we have to defend is now smaller, and the space we can attack is now larger thanks to the way they were drawn in to our weak point. By encouraging the other team to get forward and defending well, we can convert their chances into good ones for us.

Of course this is really risky since we're allowing so many chances, and I *highly* doubt we are doing this on purpose. Personally I believe we've yet to strike the ideal balance; I am convinced that with more team work ethic in defense, better movement off the ball, and smarter decision-making in the final third, we will both create more and better and concede less. But it's not as easy as saying, "oh, we've got a leak here, plug it and it's all good" - only to find that by doing so you've sprung a whole new leak. Remember all those 0-0s against Hull and Wolves and Blackpool at home?

---

I mentioned this to make a point about possession, because I've seen the control midfield come up as the biggest reason for why we need Parker/Mod/Sandro. More possession = more dominance = more goals.

But I don't believe that dominating possession will necessarily create more chances and win you games, as the adage goes. It's more that better teams are both more likely to dominate the ball and score more. (Where I think possession is useful is in defense.)

I think high-quality chances are more contingent upon movement and space. I fear we are thinking too un-contextually when we assume the 4-2-3-1's Sandro-Parker platform will automatically free the attacking trident + Ade to create at will, therefore the 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 is actually both more attacking and more defensive - that is, the Holy Grail.

But I don't believe that life is ever that ideal. I'm convinced that teams will respond to our change, and we will end up facing new challenges. To overcome them, we can't think just in terms of formation and the exchange of one player (Sandro for Lennon) - we have to work on the entire team's movement, both on and off the ball, and our decision-making.

Move the ball quickly and cleanly. Make passes easy for each other, not just stand there watching one teammate try to win the ball. And we must be willing to make tactical rotations in advance, not just keep playing the same team until Injuries or Hey It's Not Working Anymore.

I am a big fan of a Parker-Sandro CM, but I think that both Lennon and Huddlestone can play key roles for us. One of the biggest reasons you'd rather have Modric/VdV than Lennon is because they can contribute so much more to possession, but I believe Lennon can adapt to get on the ball more often. From the left, he could act as an inverted playmaker or even wing forward. (One worry with Modric is that we only have three goalscorers, since his shooting is pap.) I would hate playing Lennon and Bale as 442 wingers, but I think both are adapting their games this season.

(Hudd is interesting to me because we could, theoretically, use him to emulate Benitez's all-conquering 4-2-3-1, now that Bale can play as a WF and Modric could take Riera/Benayoun's wide playmaker role. Unfortunately, Bale doesn't do the donkey work Kuyt does, and Hudd is no Xabi Alonso )

---

Finally, I really do think it's worth keeping in mind the quality of our opposition. Norwich are still a promoted team, and one that has been defensively deep but neither desperate nor organized against the top teams like City or Arse. By that I mean they haven't been "brave", in either defense or attack. And you can't beat a top 6 side that way.

I thought their pressing was poor compared to other sides we've faced like Fulham, so I went on their forums and confirmed how crap/lazy they thought Croft and Morrison were. Sure we made them look bad, but they were never that great in the first place. Croft in particular has been out of form.

I'd like to see this team over the next few games, especially against a high-pressing side determined to get at our throats. (A real shame we played Pav against Chelsea!)

I think a more solid CM will work better than playing both Bale and Lennon and we will gain more control, but like I've mentioned it could also have some consequences for the chances we get, unless we really gel.

Interesting times at Tottenham

(N.B. I apologize for the length. Conciseness is not among my virtues.)

 

[walworthyid]

Actually, Norwich played a diamond without wingers:



From Holtamania's match report (great read, very complimentary to us)

From one of the commenters:



They never tried to play wingers who subsequently were drawn to the center.
They never tried to play wingers in the first place. They started out trying to match our CMs, purposely conceding width - but lost the battle in the center because of our sheer quality.

Why give up that width? Did we exploit this advantage? I actually agree with the comments that we were not that successful attacking-wise from wide areas. Even though BAE and Walker had plenty of space in front of them, they often made poor decisions with the final ball and sloppy crosses.

This was also partly because BAE/Walker's runs start from deeper positions, and Norwich's defense (esp their FBs) were quick to rush back to crowd the box, making their crosses rather ineffective.

We found joy through the center, as you'd expect with our most lethal and creative players there. I do think, however, that it was crowded and that was partly why crosses were useless, so it was no surprise we had to drag them into our half for Bale's run to goal.

---

I was pleased to see this team selection and STRONGLY advocate the Parker-Sandro CM in away games, but I don't believe we should take this as a standard performance that justifies the 4-3-3 by itself.

First of all, the diamond formation is relatively unusual. I believe we will face more of reckoning when we meet true wingers, because Walker's defending has never been his strong suit - and now both of our flanks are unprotected, with both Bale and VdV drifting off elsewhere (not that they were ever famous for their defending).

WBA is rather enlightening in this regard - even with Sandro and Parker in our center, Bale and Lennon were so static defensively that they came down our flanks over and over again, and Defoe was missing first 45 min so we couldn't retain possession in the center.

Like WBA, teams may try to target our exposed flanks and pin us back, completely bypassing the center of the park. In fact, we've been successful with this tactic before against stronger teams - playing deep and narrow and conceding midfield to release Bale against a high line - most notably against Chelsea H 09/10 and City H 10/11.

With this in mind, we have to be careful with our line. The central 3 will have to be quick to press their CMs *before* they release passes inbetween the CB and FB, and Sandro & Parker's mobility will be critical in allowing them to support the FB. If Modric also presses, we can "pincer" wingers cutting inside; if they go beyond our FB, there's Sandro/Parker to collect the cross/cutback. But WBA still provides a warning of what may happen if our wide midfielders aren't pulling their defensive weight, even with Sandro and Parker.

----

Side-note: It's also worth realizing that a vulnerability is not always a completely bad thing.

I have no doubt that every manager is looking at that right flank patrolled by naive young Walker alone and gleefully thinking "aha!"

But funnily enough, that "aha!" is drawing teams out of their shells - and right into our hands. I've seen few buses this year - lots of good pressing, but also plenty of willingness to attack. And that is affording us a surprising amount of space to exploit.

Note how many of our chances come directly after opposition attacks. We are blessed with pace in a way few are, and that allows us not only to strike speedily in transition but defend deeper than most of the big teams. We certainly let in too many crosses, and concede the most from headers, but we don't actually concede as many as you'd expect given the amount of crosses we allow, and we are quick to use the failed cross to launch our attack.

Compare this to Liverpool, who spend the most time in the opposition half and are extremely defensively organized (best defense in PL so far). Everyone knows you can grab a 0-0 draw against them, but Liverpool have few defensive vulnerabilities so a win is unlikely.

So teams are content to just sit back and play for the draw, and Liverpool find themselves with no space to play in - hence why so many of their chances are headers from crosses/set pieces, and shots from extreme angles. Numerous but low quality chances.

That's why I'm generally a fan of asymmetricality - because the other team may get sucked into targeting one point, but the space we have to defend is now smaller, and the space we can attack is now larger thanks to the way they were drawn in to our weak point. By encouraging the other team to get forward and defending well, we can convert their chances into good ones for us.

Of course this is really risky since we're allowing so many chances, and I *highly* doubt we are doing this on purpose. Personally I believe we've yet to strike the ideal balance; I am convinced that with more team work ethic in defense, better movement off the ball, and smarter decision-making in the final third, we will both create more and better and concede less. But it's not as easy as saying, "oh, we've got a leak here, plug it and it's all good" - only to find that by doing so you've sprung a whole new leak. Remember all those 0-0s against Hull and Wolves and Blackpool at home?

---

I mentioned this to make a point about possession, because I've seen the control midfield come up as the biggest reason for why we need Parker/Mod/Sandro. More possession = more dominance = more goals.

But I don't believe that dominating possession will necessarily create more chances and win you games, as the adage goes. It's more that better teams are both more likely to dominate the ball and score more. (Where I think possession is useful is in defense.)

I think high-quality chances are more contingent upon movement and space. I fear we are thinking too un-contextually when we assume the 4-2-3-1's Sandro-Parker platform will automatically free the attacking trident + Ade to create at will, therefore the 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 is actually both more attacking and more defensive - that is, the Holy Grail.

But I don't believe that life is ever that ideal. I'm convinced that teams will respond to our change, and we will end up facing new challenges. To overcome them, we can't think just in terms of formation and the exchange of one player (Sandro for Lennon) - we have to work on the entire team's movement, both on and off the ball, and our decision-making.

Move the ball quickly and cleanly. Make passes easy for each other, not just stand there watching one teammate try to win the ball. And we must be willing to make tactical rotations in advance, not just keep playing the same team until Injuries or Hey It's Not Working Anymore.

I am a big fan of a Parker-Sandro CM, but I think that both Lennon and Huddlestone can play key roles for us. One of the biggest reasons you'd rather have Modric/VdV than Lennon is because they can contribute so much more to possession, but I believe Lennon can adapt to get on the ball more often. From the left, he could act as an inverted playmaker or even wing forward. (One worry with Modric is that we only have three goalscorers, since his shooting is pap.) I would hate playing Lennon and Bale as 442 wingers, but I think both are adapting their games this season.

(Hudd is interesting to me because we could, theoretically, use him to emulate Benitez's all-conquering 4-2-3-1, now that Bale can play as a WF and Modric could take Riera/Benayoun's wide playmaker role. Unfortunately, Bale doesn't do the donkey work Kuyt does, and Hudd is no Xabi Alonso )

---

Finally, I really do think it's worth keeping in mind the quality of our opposition. Norwich are still a promoted team, and one that has been defensively deep but neither desperate nor organized against the top teams like City or Arse. By that I mean they haven't been "brave", in either defense or attack. And you can't beat a top 6 side that way.

I thought their pressing was poor compared to other sides we've faced like Fulham, so I went on their forums and confirmed how crap/lazy they thought Croft and Morrison were. Sure we made them look bad, but they were never that great in the first place. Croft in particular has been out of form.

I'd like to see this team over the next few games, especially against a high-pressing side determined to get at our throats. (A real shame we played Pav against Chelsea!)

I think a more solid CM will work better than playing both Bale and Lennon and we will gain more control, but like I've mentioned it could also have some consequences for the chances we get, unless we really gel.

Interesting times at Tottenham

(N.B. I apologize for the length. Conciseness is not among my virtues.)

Excellent analysis!

 

[sloth]

Actually, Norwich played a diamond without wingers:



From Holtamania's match report (great read, very complimentary to us)

From one of the commenters:



They never tried to play wingers who subsequently were drawn to the center.
They never tried to play wingers in the first place. They started out trying to match our CMs, purposely conceding width - but lost the battle in the center because of our sheer quality.

Why give up that width? Did we exploit this advantage? I actually agree with the comments that we were not that successful attacking-wise from wide areas. Even though BAE and Walker had plenty of space in front of them, they often made poor decisions with the final ball and sloppy crosses.

This was also partly because BAE/Walker's runs start from deeper positions, and Norwich's defense (esp their FBs) were quick to rush back to crowd the box, making their crosses rather ineffective.

We found joy through the center, as you'd expect with our most lethal and creative players there. I do think, however, that it was crowded and that was partly why crosses were useless, so it was no surprise we had to drag them into our half for Bale's run to goal.

---

I was pleased to see this team selection and STRONGLY advocate the Parker-Sandro CM in away games, but I don't believe we should take this as a standard performance that justifies the 4-3-3 by itself.

First of all, the diamond formation is relatively unusual. I believe we will face more of reckoning when we meet true wingers, because Walker's defending has never been his strong suit - and now both of our flanks are unprotected, with both Bale and VdV drifting off elsewhere (not that they were ever famous for their defending).

WBA is rather enlightening in this regard - even with Sandro and Parker in our center, Bale and Lennon were so static defensively that they came down our flanks over and over again, and Defoe was missing first 45 min so we couldn't retain possession in the center.

Like WBA, teams may try to target our exposed flanks and pin us back, completely bypassing the center of the park. In fact, we've been successful with this tactic before against stronger teams - playing deep and narrow and conceding midfield to release Bale against a high line - most notably against Chelsea H 09/10 and City H 10/11.

With this in mind, we have to be careful with our line. The central 3 will have to be quick to press their CMs *before* they release passes inbetween the CB and FB, and Sandro & Parker's mobility will be critical in allowing them to support the FB. If Modric also presses, we can "pincer" wingers cutting inside; if they go beyond our FB, there's Sandro/Parker to collect the cross/cutback. But WBA still provides a warning of what may happen if our wide midfielders aren't pulling their defensive weight, even with Sandro and Parker.

----

Side-note: It's also worth realizing that a vulnerability is not always a completely bad thing.

I have no doubt that every manager is looking at that right flank patrolled by naive young Walker alone and gleefully thinking "aha!"

But funnily enough, that "aha!" is drawing teams out of their shells - and right into our hands. I've seen few buses this year - lots of good pressing, but also plenty of willingness to attack. And that is affording us a surprising amount of space to exploit.

Note how many of our chances come directly after opposition attacks. We are blessed with pace in a way few are, and that allows us not only to strike speedily in transition but defend deeper than most of the big teams. We certainly let in too many crosses, and concede the most from headers, but we don't actually concede as many as you'd expect given the amount of crosses we allow, and we are quick to use the failed cross to launch our attack.

Compare this to Liverpool, who spend the most time in the opposition half and are extremely defensively organized (best defense in PL so far). Everyone knows you can grab a 0-0 draw against them, but Liverpool have few defensive vulnerabilities so a win is unlikely.

So teams are content to just sit back and play for the draw, and Liverpool find themselves with no space to play in - hence why so many of their chances are headers from crosses/set pieces, and shots from extreme angles. Numerous but low quality chances.

That's why I'm generally a fan of asymmetricality - because the other team may get sucked into targeting one point, but the space we have to defend is now smaller, and the space we can attack is now larger thanks to the way they were drawn in to our weak point. By encouraging the other team to get forward and defending well, we can convert their chances into good ones for us.

Of course this is really risky since we're allowing so many chances, and I *highly* doubt we are doing this on purpose. Personally I believe we've yet to strike the ideal balance; I am convinced that with more team work ethic in defense, better movement off the ball, and smarter decision-making in the final third, we will both create more and better and concede less. But it's not as easy as saying, "oh, we've got a leak here, plug it and it's all good" - only to find that by doing so you've sprung a whole new leak. Remember all those 0-0s against Hull and Wolves and Blackpool at home?

---

I mentioned this to make a point about possession, because I've seen the control midfield come up as the biggest reason for why we need Parker/Mod/Sandro. More possession = more dominance = more goals.

But I don't believe that dominating possession will necessarily create more chances and win you games, as the adage goes. It's more that better teams are both more likely to dominate the ball and score more. (Where I think possession is useful is in defense.)

I think high-quality chances are more contingent upon movement and space. I fear we are thinking too un-contextually when we assume the 4-2-3-1's Sandro-Parker platform will automatically free the attacking trident + Ade to create at will, therefore the 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 is actually both more attacking and more defensive - that is, the Holy Grail.

But I don't believe that life is ever that ideal. I'm convinced that teams will respond to our change, and we will end up facing new challenges. To overcome them, we can't think just in terms of formation and the exchange of one player (Sandro for Lennon) - we have to work on the entire team's movement, both on and off the ball, and our decision-making.

Move the ball quickly and cleanly. Make passes easy for each other, not just stand there watching one teammate try to win the ball. And we must be willing to make tactical rotations in advance, not just keep playing the same team until Injuries or Hey It's Not Working Anymore.

I am a big fan of a Parker-Sandro CM, but I think that both Lennon and Huddlestone can play key roles for us. One of the biggest reasons you'd rather have Modric/VdV than Lennon is because they can contribute so much more to possession, but I believe Lennon can adapt to get on the ball more often. From the left, he could act as an inverted playmaker or even wing forward. (One worry with Modric is that we only have three goalscorers, since his shooting is pap.) I would hate playing Lennon and Bale as 442 wingers, but I think both are adapting their games this season.

(Hudd is interesting to me because we could, theoretically, use him to emulate Benitez's all-conquering 4-2-3-1, now that Bale can play as a WF and Modric could take Riera/Benayoun's wide playmaker role. Unfortunately, Bale doesn't do the donkey work Kuyt does, and Hudd is no Xabi Alonso )

---

Finally, I really do think it's worth keeping in mind the quality of our opposition. Norwich are still a promoted team, and one that has been defensively deep but neither desperate nor organized against the top teams like City or Arse. By that I mean they haven't been "brave", in either defense or attack. And you can't beat a top 6 side that way.

I thought their pressing was poor compared to other sides we've faced like Fulham, so I went on their forums and confirmed how crap/lazy they thought Croft and Morrison were. Sure we made them look bad, but they were never that great in the first place. Croft in particular has been out of form.

I'd like to see this team over the next few games, especially against a high-pressing side determined to get at our throats. (A real shame we played Pav against Chelsea!)

I think a more solid CM will work better than playing both Bale and Lennon and we will gain more control, but like I've mentioned it could also have some consequences for the chances we get, unless we really gel.

Interesting times at Tottenham

(N.B. I apologize for the length. Conciseness is not among my virtues.)

Good stuff!