Team v QPR (H)

[bubble07]

So only Vedran Corluka (foot), Niko Kranjcar (thigh), Michael Dawson (Achilles) and Tom Huddlestone (ankle) are definitely out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#

When everyone is fully fit I wouldn't have thought Corluka would even make our bench so really its just Dawson Kranjcar and the Hudd

 

[jushin3]

Slowly mending the players, crucial for that December run of games.

 

[nicdic]

Friedal

Walker Gallas King Assou-Ekotto

Sandro Parker

VDV Modric Bale

Adebayor​

:hump:

 

[SpurSince57]

Sure, you can switch - though the formations describe the qualities of the players in each role as much as the simple position they play on the pitch; to illustrate the point with an extreme example, you could put Friedel in CM and Modric in goal and play 4-2-3-1, but you'd have missed the point of what you're trying to describe - but my argument is that the efficacy of the switch is greater switching one way than the other.

So, it's more efficacious to switch from 4-2-3-1 to 4-4-2, or vice versa? Or do you mean it's easier?

Pure gobbledygook.

So lectures SC's very own paragon of balance and fair-mindedness.

I wasn't lecturing. I was pointing out an easily observable fact.

 

[mpickard2087]

Keep Kaboul and Bassong for this game I reckon. Gallas on the bench if fit and give Ledley one more week to recover.

 

[tommo84]

I'd love to see either Gallas or King starting ahead of Bassong, but if neither are seemingly 100% (or as close to it as those two ever get) then we should stick with Bassong simply to prevent them injuring themselves by coming back too soon.

I think this is more of an issue with Gallas than King, simply because he's been out for so long.

 

[sloth]

That's the thing, Bale is the type of traditional wide player who likes to take on the full back, carries the ball long distances he's not really going to be the one and two touch player in and around the box, so he's naturally going to pick up the ball from a traditional position in a 4-4-2 or whatever you want to call it. Where would you play him? same for Modric for me he's still at his best and the only player really in our team who can receive the ball from the back under pressure and be able to manipulate the ball and get us facing the opposition. How high up the pitch would you play him. In one of the three? I really rate Sandro and Parker and they can both win the ball back very well, but there no where near Modric technically in that respect. For me your 4-2-3-1 is basically 4-4-1-1 with two destructive centre midfielders with one of Modric or VDV playing from the right.

I get what you're saying and probably I basically agree. As Phil pointed out the whole argument mainly hinges on whether playing two destructive CMs increases your attacking potency as well as your defensive one - especially if their also pretty handy in possession too.

But it's also about who you play on the flanks and how wide you instruct and expect the to play. So for me Modric should always play centrally. Bale is obviously going to play on the left-side (from where he's shown himself adept at cutting in and scoring too), which by default means VdV is on the right.

BC and others argue that this is a waste of VdV, but I disagree, this is because VdV will not ever play a touch-line-hugging wing role even if you wanted him to - which you specifically don't want in 4-2-3-1 as opposed to 4-4-2 when you specifically do want width. He is a natural born inside forward. In fact the biggest reason people don't like seeing him on the right-side is because he won't stay there. This is an issue if you play 4-4-2 because you haven't the spare man in CM to come across and cover him, with 4-2-3-1 you have the spare man in either Parker or Sandro who can cover for Walker where VdV often won't.

Of course VdV is no slouch defensively, he's not brilliant, but he gets stuck in, especially in close-quarters, what he won't do is sprint 40 yards to cover the over-lapping FB. With Sandro or Parker willing to shuffle across if needs be you've got that covered.

 

[sloth]

So, it's more efficacious to switch from 4-2-3-1 to 4-4-2, or vice versa? Or do you mean it's easier?

Pure gobbledygook.

Our conversation began when you replied to a post in which I wrote:

"... it allows is for the manager to be influential from the bench.

4-4-2 is not more attacking, but it is more random and sometimes games need shaking up. Against Newcastle the other day, for whatever reason, we'd lost the midfield, the set-up wasn't working and time was running out, we needed to shake it up in some way and Harry had the option of bringing on Defoe and changing the formation which he did. Good decision making from the manager.

How can the manager influence the game if he starts with 4-4-2 though?

First of all imo you increase the likelihood of being scored against without increasing the likelihood of scoring, so you're more likely to go behind if you start 4-4-2, but no more likely to go ahead. If you go behind, how can you change it up?

If the score stays level, how can you change it up? 4-2-3-1 is about pressure and dominance over 90 minutes. Because you have 90 minutes that system works, as the time winds down however you need randomness, there's little point switching to 4-2-3-1 if there's 30 minutes remaining and the scores are level. So how can you change it? How can you knock the opposition out of their stride if you started 4-4-2 and they've held you to a stale-mate to 60 minutes?

What you can do is is go 4-2-3-1 if you've gone a goal up, but even that is not ideal, because even though 4-2-3-1 should properly be considered a balanced formation (equally attacking and defensive), when you switch to it to protect a lead then it is undoubtedly a defensive move and psychologically that's how the players are likely to take it. It may be necessary on occasion to do it - and i wish Redknapp did it more often - but you can understand the reluctance because in that situation you're sending a signal that you want to hang on, instead of pushing forward and dominating."

Which hopefully explains what I'm getting at.

I've also highlighted the questions I'd be interested to hear your answers to...

I wasn't lecturing. I was pointing out an easily observable fact.

...sniffed the indignant pot in a huff.

To pot's dismay kettle just sniggered.

 

[SpurSince57]

All very well and theoretical, but even if we line up as a 4-4-2 at kick-off, for how long do we maintain that shape with Adebayor tending not only to drop deep but to shift out wide as well, and VdV also dropping deep? Doesn't the formation simply become irrelevant? It certainly matters far less than the question of whether we play Parker and Sandro, or one of them and Modders.

 

[chinaman]

I would start Bassong and Kaboul; and then replace Bassong with Gallas in the 2nd half or around the hour mark.

Save King for the time being and let him heal properly to play in the more difficult matches.

 

[sloth]

All very well and theoretical, but even if we line up as a 4-4-2 at kick-off, for how long do we maintain that shape with Adebayor tending not only to drop deep but to shift out wide as well, and VdV also dropping deep? Doesn't the formation simply become irrelevant? It certainly matters far less than the question of whether we play Parker and Sandro, or one of them and Modders.

Yes, agreed. As I've said a few times when we use formations to talk about a team we do so because it's a short-hand for describing the kinds of players we want and the kinds of roles they perform.

So you wouldn't typically play Modric and VdV as your -2- in the 4-2-3-1 formation. So inherent in that formation is the use of two deeper lying tough-tackling, aggressive CMs.

If you play two aggressive, in your face CMs at the base of your midfield in the holding/break up play role and only three AMs in front, then those AMs will have the entire width of the pitch to roam and slightly less defensive duties then in a 4-4-2 etc etc...

It's of course fluid, but if it was pointless to talk about formations then coaches wouldn't and every game you'd see teams lining up the same way, with the same kinds of players in the same positions occupying the same kinds of area on the pitch.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Yes, agreed. As I've said a few times when we use formations to talk about a team we do so because it's a short-hand for describing the kinds of players we want and the kinds of roles they perform.

So you wouldn't typically play Modric and VdV as your -2- in the 4-2-3-1 formation. So inherent in that formation is the use of two deeper lying tough-tackling, aggressive CMs.

If you play two aggressive, in your face CMs at the base of your midfield in the holding/break up play role and only three AMs in front, then those AMs will have the entire width of the pitch to roam and slightly less defensive duties then in a 4-4-2 etc etc...

It's of course fluid, but if it was pointless to talk about formations then coaches wouldn't and every game you'd see teams lining up the same way, with the same kinds of players in the same positions occupying the same kinds of area on the pitch.

Serious question sloth, do you honestly think that our biggest focus should be breaking up play' when playing against a team like QPR?

I cant see how when we dealt with Liverpool (with 11 men) so well and played them off the park, we should be contemplating having two holders against a team like QPR?

You are right in your assessment that the 4231 is not necessarily a less attacking formation than the original 442. But against a side that don't even really look at the ball, let alone dominate it like QPR, I don't see the issue at all with starting this one 442.

 

[leffe186]

What about a proper 4-3-3?

Would fit the personnel I reckon as Ade likes to run the channels and it will give VdV licence to roam:

Hellboy​

Walker Kaboul Bassong BAE​

Parker Sandro Modric​

Vdv Defoe Ade​

Dropping Bale is contraversial I know but we could bring him on for VdV after an hour and he could run them ragged!​

You know what, that's kinda tempting.

 

[Yid-ol]

Serious question sloth, do you honestly think that our biggest focus should be breaking up play' when playing against a team like QPR?

I cant see how when we dealt with Liverpool (with 11 men) so well and played them off the park, we should be contemplating having two holders against a team like QPR?

You are right in your assessment that the 4231 is not necessarily a less attacking formation than the original 442. But against a side that don't even really look at the ball, let alone dominate it like QPR, I don't see the issue at all with starting this one 442.

Just like Blackburn where we played 1 player who breaks up play, and we totaly played them off the park didnt we

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Just like Blackburn where we played 1 player who breaks up play, and we totaly played them off the park didnt we

Yeah....playing away from home against an established prem team is the same as entertaining the winners of the Championship.

 

[Graysonti]

Great to have Gallas and Ledders back !

 

[Yid-ol]

Yeah....playing away from home against an established prem team is the same as entertaining the winners of the Championship.

We played blackburn who are bottom of the league and struggled, while QPR are 10th

Blackpool didnt even win the championship the season they came up, and remind me again, how many points did we get of them?! :duh:

 

[Spurs_Bear]

We played blackburn who are bottom of the league and struggled, while QPR are 10th

Blackpool didnt even win the championship the season they came up, and remind me again, how many points did we get of them?! :duh:

What the fuck has that got to do with anything weird windy round head smiley man?

Did you see how many chances we created in that Blackpool game? I mean you're right though, if we'd have had an extra DM I'm sure he would have finished one of the numerous chances. :evil:Eekmg::grin::rofl::beer::shrug::shake:

 

[Yid-ol]

What the fuck has that got to do with anything weird windy round head smiley man?

Did you see how many chances we created in that Blackpool game? I mean you're right though, if we'd have had an extra DM I'm sure he would have finished one of the numerous chances. :evil:Eekmg::grin::rofl::beer::shrug::shake:

so your not answering my question then......

doesnt matter if they are just up from winning the Championship or been in the league for 5, 8, 10 years, blackburn are bottom of the league and we struggled agaisnt them.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

so your not answering my question then......

doesnt matter if they are just up from winning the Championship or been in the league for 5, 8, 10 years, blackburn are bottom of the league and we struggled agaisnt them.

I'm not answering your question and you're specifically ignoring the fact I said 'away from home' against Blackburn and 'entertaining' the winners of the Championship.

Sounds like a perfect friendship.

Played two DMs against Wigan, struggled worse than what we did against Blackburn mate.