Team vs. Arsenal(H)

[alex3]

Friedel
Walker Kaboul King Assou-Ekotto
Sandro Parker
modric vdv Bale
Adebayor

 

[Manwhore]

I think with what Harry has been saying today with regards to Van Der Vaart and his hamstrings and Defoe coming back from injury on Thursday.

I think Harry might go for the jugular from the off and try and finish it early.

With A*****l weaker down the flanks this season, I see Harry going 4-4-2 from the start, hopefully doing what we did against Liverpool, with this team........


-----------Friedel---------------


Walker---King---Kaboul---Benoit


VDV(Drifting)- Parker- Modric-Bale


-------Ade-----Defoe-----------


Admitted we could be exposed a bit down the right, but with the pace of walker you always stand a chance of nullifying their threat down the left, besides they will be too busy trying to contain us.

We are the home side and the onus is on us to attack, I don't get why people are saying we should be playing a defensive 4-2-3-1 formation or similar formation basically with Sandro and Parker sitting in front of the defence, if this was their invincibles side then yes I could understand it, but this is their weakest side in years you have to attack them.

COYS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sloth]

We are the home side and the onus is on us to attack, I don't get why people are saying we should be playing a defensive 4-2-3-1 formation or similar formation basically with Sandro and Parker sitting in front of the defence, if this was their invincibles side then yes I could understand it, but this is their weakest side in years you have to attack them.

COYS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because it's not defensive, it is more likely to get us goals than the 4-4-2 you advocate. In other words 4-2-3-1 is more attacking, more offensive, offers more goal threat etc etc than the 4-4-2 you propose.

 

[Huddlestone22]

Agreed
​

:lol:

 

[AW?]

friedel
walker kaboul king benny
rafa parker luka bale
defoe ade

This.

 

[jondesouza]

It is almost a straight choice between Sandro and Defoe isn't it? Not an easy one to call given the nature of the game. Personally, I'd go Defoe just because I think it will give the Arsenal back line something different to think about. I can totally understand why people would go with the other option though.

 

[lifeof...]

Yes it's attacking, but significantly less attacking than the 4-2-3-1 formations suggested elsewhere in this thread.

So not only is your line-up likely to yield fewer goals, it would also be more likely to concede them. That's a rubbish equation in anyone's books


The formation most likely to achieve victory is the one which offers the greatest chance of us scoring (4-2-3-1, imo) and the least chance of conceding (again 4-2-3-1).

Firstly i said more attacking selection, meaning the players selected are of a more attack minded than defensive minded..in all the 4-2-3-1 it 4 or 5 attack minded player (walker counted as attack minded) where as mine has 6..

An to be fair several of us do not agree that it is a rubbish equation...the 4-2-3-1 that some of you advocate, i agree potentially looks less likely to concede, i said as much. But it is little bit of a fantasy to suggest any formation that is more defensive minded, is also at the same time more attack minded.

whilst on paper 4-2-3-1 looks pretty, It is a little naive, thinking that is how we would play with the players we have. VDV will roam....it's his nature. when we haven't got the ball, and the opposition are on the up, it tend to become 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1 VDV (roaming) The 3 chosen in the formation are Bale VDV and Modric.. All 3 of these players are more on the creating / assist type than they are out and out goal scorers....For me this gives a lower potential threat, that 2 striker playing. With 3/4 creative players to...well create

I think advocating playing a system we have never really played, in a nth london derby, is a rubbish equation :razz:

having said all that i think H, will start with 4-5-1 (VDV nominally on the right, and roaming) (or if you prefer 4-4-1-1)With Walker trying to supply on the right and Bale on the left...Modirc and 1 of parker / sandro..plus VDV trying to support Ade. So i agree that your players selected is more likely, Just it wont be the formation you want.

And for me playing with 1 up front rather than 2, playing 2 more defensively minded MF's Is a more defensive team, and a less attacking one, which is potentially more likely to concede less and score less.......

still any victory, is a good one. I just want a crushing one :beer:

 

[lifeof...]

-------ade--defoe------
modric-parker-sandro-rafa
bale---king-kaboul-corluka
----------brad----------

If it was Walker in for Corluka....I actually think this is the best formation with the best starting 11 for it. (oh and Gallas in For Kaboul)

 

[Glenn_Purvey]

Defoe---adebayor

Bale---Parker----sandro----modric

Benny----king----kaboul-----walker

-------friedel-------

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

4231 is a more attacking formation than 442 because it enables the side to defend higher up the pitch. So therefore start attacks closer to the oppositions box.

 

[stevenqoz]

Depends on the players you are using

 

[sparx100]

Freidel

Walker - King - Kaboul - BAE

Sandro - Parker

VDV - Modric - Bale

Adebayor​

This. I think Defoe can come on for Sandro or Parker if the game is not going our way.

 

[antti19]

That.

Freidel

Walker - King - Kaboul - BAE

Sandro - Parker

VDV - Modric - Bale

Adebayor​

This. I think Defoe can come on for Sandro or Parker if the game is not going our way.

 

[sloth]

An to be fair several of us do not agree that it is a rubbish equation...the 4-2-3-1 that some of you advocate, i agree potentially looks less likely to concede, i said as much. But it is little bit of a fantasy to suggest any formation that is more defensive minded, is also at the same time more attack minded.

whilst on paper 4-2-3-1 looks pretty, It is a little naive, thinking that is how we would play with the players we have. VDV will roam....it's his nature. when we haven't got the ball, and the opposition are on the up, it tend to become 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1 VDV (roaming) The 3 chosen in the formation are Bale VDV and Modric.. All 3 of these players are more on the creating / assist type than they are out and out goal scorers....For me this gives a lower potential threat, that 2 striker playing. With 3/4 creative players to...well create

Of course these are only opinions and after considering the arguments you may still reject them, what I've been objecting to is the lazy and I suspect often unthinking assumption that 4-4-2 is more attacking and offers more goal threat than 4-2-3-1 by virtue of the fact it has one less DM and one more attacking type player.

I and others have presented the arguments extensively elsewhere in this thread, but in case you missed them a brief re-cap...

I think all the posts quoted above show a fundamental misunderstanding of the 4-2-3-1 formation.

According to them the 4-2-3-1 is primarily a defensive set-up and therefore should usually be used against tougher opposition, whereas 4-4-2 is more attacking and therefore should be used against weaker opponents where we can afford to simply go for it and score goals.

As I say I think this is a complete misunderstanding.

Attacking football comes on the back of dominating opponents, it is about keeping the ball, preferably in their half, not letting them keep the ball and leaving their morale low and our own high. From that platform all the clever movement, the incisive passing, the chances and the goals flow.

4-3-2-1 is about stifling your opponents creativity so you can unleash your own. For it to work however you need DMs who are also useful on the ball, a striker who cannot only hold the ball up but is lethal in front of goal and an AM three of vision, skill and verve.

4-4-2 on the other hand is a less certain platform, it's for teams who are unable to control games through their skill and ability, it's what you play whe you've got a good punch but a weakish defence. Play it and the other team will always have a sniff. Play it against a better side and sometimes you'll end up dominated, play it against a weaker side and there are liable to sit back, try absorb when you have the ball and take a breather and feel more comfortable when they have the ball. They will also get good opportunities to hit back on the break, just as 4-4-2 lends itself to the better team also scoring on the break.

For me 4-4-2 is a sign of weakness, its what you play we you haven't the players to make a 4-2-3-1 type set-up work. If you want to play really attacking football, if you want the chance to knock up good scores and totally dominate your opponent you play 4-2-3-1.

I think advocating playing a system we have never really played, in a nth london derby, is a rubbish equation :razz:

having said all that i think H, will start with 4-5-1 (VDV nominally on the right, and roaming) (or if you prefer 4-4-1-1)With Walker trying to supply on the right and Bale on the left...Modirc and 1 of parker / sandro..plus VDV trying to support Ade. So i agree that your players selected is more likely, Just it wont be the formation you want.

And for me playing with 1 up front rather than 2, playing 2 more defensively minded MF's Is a more defensive team, and a less attacking one, which is potentially more likely to concede less and score less.......

still any victory, is a good one. I just want a crushing one :beer:

We played 4-2-3-1 against Wigan last week. We also arguably played it against Milan in the first leg CL. I understand that it can be mistaken quite easily for 4-5-1 especially when the ball is lost and the team has a bit of chance to re-organise, because this is invariably the default defensive set-up of 4-2-3-1.

What 4-2-3-1 mainly describes is the set-up when we have the ball and a kind of ace-in-the-hole against the swift counter. It also describes the typical personnel used.

Imo for 4-2-3-1 you need to good tacklers/readers of the game at the base of your midfield, which is what we have in Sandro and Parker.

In front of them you then have liberated three clever AMs, which we have in Bale, Modric and VdV, they have a licence to interchange with each other, with the left and right AMs encouraged to come central as the situation warrants. Because we have Bale and either VdV or Modric to play the left and right sides of the AM we will inevitably be a bit wider on one side and a bit narrower on the other. On the narrow side you want a good over-lapping full-back, which again we have in Walker (our brand of 4-2-3-1 wouldn't work anywhere near so well with Corluka at RB).

Finally, you need a lone striker full of clever movement, he should be swift, be able to hold the ball up and bring the other AMs into play, but he also needs to be lethal in front of goal. All qualities Adebayor has in abundance and the main reason this system can work so much better this year than it was able with the much more limited Peter Crouch last year.

Anyway, as I say it won't be a experiement because we played it last week against Wigan. At the time I mistook it for 4-4-1-1, but was encouraged to watch the match again, did so, and acknowledged my error.

 

[WhiteHart4Ever]

Let me just provide the last and final answer to the whole 4-2-3-1 / 4-4-2 debate: It aint nothing but a number!

First of all: The type of players you put in matters more than the basic formation you have. To give a Spurs-example, whether it's the one formation or the other, playing Bale and Walker as full-back gives a very different team from playing BAE and Corluka; Sandro and tHudd at CM very different from Modric and Parker; VDV up front very different from Defoe, Lennon at RM different from Kranjcar etc. etc.

Second, and closely related: Your strategy will define your game more than your formation: Direct, passing, long balls, whatever; where and how you close down; whether your fullbacks come forward and a CM tuck into defense, or if just one goes forward and the other go more centrally; whether you have two holding midfielders, one box-to-box, on presser; whether you have two proper strikers or a No 10 (and whether he works defensively or just waits for the ball).

Third: Most good teams mix how they play. Look at Manchester United - what formation do they play - 4-4-2? 4-3-3? 4-2-3-1? 4-2-1-3? Or a little bit of everything (yes, that's the answer)?

As for the most attacking debate: For us the two formations differ basically between having Sandro or Defoe play. Go figure which one is the most attacking (not to be confused with most efficient while attacking, obviously).