Time Ricki Herbert loosened the Phoenix's shackles

73 replies · 4,836 views

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(association_football)

Here's an interesting article for us

(you will have to add the close bracket in the link, it never works for some reason)

I would say from looking at this we are not playing the 'classic' 4-3-3 as seen there, but the 4-2-3-1...

Daniel and Ifill are not playing as out and out wingers or strikers at the moment which is why I don't believe it's a 4-3-3 really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

No, I asked for a TEAM that plays your classic 4-3-3 . Teams don't line up in 3 distinct lines any more (defense, midfield, attack). Most teams like to play someone in between the lines, so line up in 4 or even 5 lines. So you simplify it to 4-3-3, but no-one plays like that with three midfielders and then three out and out forwardsjames dean2009-09-23 21:34:23

Normo's coming home

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

james dean wrote:

No, I asked for a TEAM that plays your classic 4-3-3

The Steve-O Fantasy 11 that gets smoked every week

Founder

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Quoting wiki = credibility fail

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Stefan wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/2891898/Time-Ricki-Herbert-loosened-the-Phoenixs-shackles

They believed the early goal from Bertos was enough for the win and, after halftime, they became increasingly aimless and tentative. They wanted to limp to victory with a clean sheet and deep defensive pattern and were undone by a late goal.

Certainly something went wrong in the second half but that first comment is b&lll&cks.

"Phoenix till they lose"

Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion.

Genuine opinion: FTFFA

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Hello there. Don't get bogged down with 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 talk.

The game is so fluid we are all making big generalisations about what people do on the pitch, and where, when in real life football can vary so much from diagrams on paper.

Stick to basics: Do the Phoenix generally have enough players in and around the box to capitalise when goalscoring openings present?

If you think they do, chances are you think Ricki has got it right with his attacking formation.

If the answer is no, chances are you think the current strategic approach in terms of how they line up is not working.

Thompson and Stevo think the Phoenix are a bit light, and need to be a bit more adventurous. Hard et al are happy the way things are.

Personally I'd like to see an old-fashioned twin striker approach toyed with at least once this season. Just so we had a practical reference point for future comparison.

But Hard, please don't blow a fuse on my account... I'm certainly not gonna die in a ditch over it.

And it's not like they're going to end up in the Central League as a result.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/nzsportsprogrammes

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Bruce, good post cutting through the crap.

Sunday is a big game for this core group and style of play. Probably best to leave this little discussion until after the match. I'm out for a few days.

Normo's coming home

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Bruce Holloway wrote:

But Hard, please don't blow a fuse on my account... I'm certainly not gonna die in a ditch over it.[/QUOTE]

Keep arguing with me you might, remember I know where you live.

[QUOTE=james dean]Sunday is a big game for this core group and style of play. Probably best to leave this little discussion until after the match. I'm out for a few days.

Without Ifill and Daniel I suspect it will prove inconclusive.

Hard News2009-09-23 21:59:17

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Should stick with 4-4-2, with the full backs pushing on and one of the cenner midfielders gettin forward to create the extra man in the box, forget the 4-3-3 nonsense, no-one plays with 3 out and out strikers.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Greenacre isnt as mobile as Smeltz. and hasn't come into his own up front yet. been doing a lot of donkey work.

i dont think he could be part of a fluid front 3 with Leo and Disco Troy or Costa the way Smeltz was. But still might be worth trying. Feel Costa has been hard done by...but maybe he's in the worst form of his life. we wouldnt know.

Im still waiting to see some exciting New Zealand talent and combinations ie Lochead Smeltz or Leo, Smeltz Costa...Leo's freekick was awesome...but want more...

we've got talent and pace. I want to see some counterattacks.

martinb2009-09-23 22:20:17

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Bruce Holloway wrote:

Hello there. Don't get bogged down with 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 talk.

The game is so fluid we are all making big generalisations about what people do on the pitch, and where, when in real life football can vary so much from diagrams on paper.

Stick to basics: Do the Phoenix generally have enough players in and around the box to capitalise when goalscoring openings present?

If you think they do, chances are you think Ricki has got it right with his attacking formation.

If the answer is no, chances are you think the current strategic approach in terms of how they line up is not working.

Thompson and Stevo think the Phoenix are a bit light, and need to be a bit more adventurous. Hard et al are happy the way things are.

Personally I'd like to see an old-fashioned twin striker approach toyed with at least once this season. Just so we had a practical reference point for future comparison.

But Hard, please don't blow a fuse on my account... I'm certainly not gonna die in a ditch over it.

And it's not like they're going to end up in the Central League as a result.

You say not to get bogged down on formation,and to concentrate instead on whether or not we have enough players on the pitch that can finish the chances we're creating.

this is a statement i totally agree with,and i think everyone seems to have come to an agreement on this (its a miracle!)

But then you're confusingly contradictory by coming back to formation again? Id be very happy to keep formation but change a player or 2 to ones who can finish chances if need be. But yeah,i think you need to clarify what exactly you meant in that post? because it started off promising and ended up confusing. Maybe thats just me though..

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

james dean wrote:

Barcelona?

It was Ricki who said we are playing 3 out and out forwards, not me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Tegal wrote:

Quoting wiki = credibility fail

These days, considering it is quite well referenced and looked after to avoid too much rubbish being taken as 'gospel', not really.

Also, on this particular article I'm not sure how you can come up with more credible evidence - all it does is show various formations and that's it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Steve-O wrote:

james dean wrote:

Barcelona?

It was Ricki who said we are playing 3 out and out forwards, not me.

he said they were 3 strikers,but again not in the sense that its drawn pretty on a piece of paper. Ifill and daniel certainly seem to be attacking players with a free creative licence of sorts. in attacking situations i would regard them as 'strikers' to be honest.

If you want it drawn prettily...

4-2-1-2-1 or i guess broken down to 4-2-3-1

or simplified to 4-3-3/4-5-1

There are many ways to draw dots on a paper.

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

At one point Greenacre was so far up the paddock from the nearest other Phoenix player, he had to play it a 150 metres back to the "midfield""

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Tegal wrote:

Steve-O wrote:

james dean wrote:

Barcelona?

It was Ricki who said we are playing 3 out and out forwards, not me.

If you want it drawn prettily...

4-2-1-2-1 or i guess broken down to 4-2-3-1

or simplified to 4-3-3/4-5-1

There are many ways to draw dots on a paper.

In attacking situations they are up there supporting, but most of the time it's either Ifill or Daniel creating the chance so they are not up there to be on the end of it which is why I wouldn't deem them strikers.

It's just a difference in terminology really and I agree more with the 4-2-1-2-1 you mention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

So you agree we're playing 4-3-3 now

because thats the short-hand of what a 4-2-1-2-1 is

It all comes down to how close those 2 attacking players are to the striker. I believe on the most part they are close,but obviously when we're under a but of pressure this isnt always the case,and would be no matter what 'formation'. But one thing you cant say is that its rickis tactic to be defensive. For all you know his instruction to those 2 is to "stick tight to greenacre no matter what" in which case its the players making an error. You just dont know. You could be right,and so could i. But one thing i do know is i wouldnt want to risk changing the formation,which in my opinion is working.

I still fail to see how it has anything to do with improving our finishing ability though. But you have succeeded in making me join the 'give Costa a go on the bench' crowd though

so your rants arent in vain haha

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Tegal wrote:

So you agree we're playing 4-3-3 now

because thats the short-hand of what a 4-2-1-2-1 is

I still fail to see how it has anything to do with improving our finishing ability though. But you have succeeded in making me join the 'give Costa a go on the bench' crowd though

so your rants arent in vain haha

Basically I don't think Greenacre is going to get much of a look in unless someone is alongside him, end of story IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Steve-O wrote:

james dean wrote:

Barcelona?

It was Ricki who said we are playing 3 out and out forwards, not me.

Exactly, the "forwards" in the 4-3-3 are the guys who drift between midfield and attack. Christiano Ronald at United, he's clearly a forward, not a midfielder.

There is a very similar debate currently going on in Australia about the socceroos. Media says he's playing one striker, he says he's playing three. In the modern game it's not as simple as who has the numbers 9 and 10 on his back.

You're right about barcelona, but the only reason they can get away with it is that they defend so high up the pitch and their strikers work incredibly hard defensively. Messi and Henry commit more fouls than their fullbacks, it's a unique situaion, not something that we'd be able to replicate.

Normo's coming home

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

If the formation, pattern, team instructions whatever you want to call it was for the players to get forward to support Greenacre then I think they worked a treat in the first half and with better finishing we could have had a better lead.

But for me something changed in the second half and the support Greenacre was getting was much reduced (often non-existent). I am loathe to give any credit to Fury that they have lifted their performance because they are a pretty limited team that rely on compressing the game. So either RH set his stall out to sit deeper in the second half or the players decided for themselves to abandon the RH attacking formula?

With a one nil lead against a weak Fury team we should have been pressing harder and that means Daniels and Bertos and Hearfield when he came on getting closer to Greenacre.

Whilst I think the Thompson article is too generalised I am open minded enough to see some valid observations within it that are worthy of consideration and it is much more than simply not converting chances, that seems like too convenient an excuse.

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Hard News wrote:

So from the stands you know more about the tactic that Ricki Herbert - the man defining the tactics and asking his players to play to the tactics - is playing and telling ihis players to play ?Please, everyone (not just you Steve-O), sit down, have a think and pop back in an hour before I go postal at all you f**kers and shut this place down.

Postal 2... very good game. Stress release to the max, banned in NZ and everywhere else except England, I'll hook you up?

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

That's why I have Football Manager.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Which formation you playing in football manager? Is it working?

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

4-4-2 - Ifil and Greenacre up front

Normo's coming home

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I'm about to start with FM 2010 (in test) up until now I've been playing Bromley in League 1 (FM 2009) so not overly relevant. Hard News2009-09-23 23:27:50

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Should send them a certain goalkick chant to put into the game too.

Allegedly

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Steve-O wrote:

I truly find it worrying that Ricki Herbert thinks we are currently playing 3 up front.

I truly find it worrying that winter is so cold and lasts so long in Wellington; I guess we all have our own concerns ...

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

james dean wrote:

4-4-2 - Ifil and Greenacre up front

Too soon Hard News??

Normo's coming home

Permalink

over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

wilso wrote:

Ard Righ wrote:

We need a tall person like a Reinaldo

Hi Boss, I can't make it in today because my head just exploded, cheers Wilso

I get it that you and News have a personal dislike for the guy, but I don't see you arguing the point that we need height up front?

Whether it's a Reinaldo, a Peter Crouch, or a Didier Drogba, you can't argue that someone that is 5'11" (Greenacre) is going to compete in the air against someone 6'2" (Nigel Boogard).

We'd have a better shot if Ifill was in the box, and Greenacre was feeding the ball to Ifill, but the other way around 9/10 Greenacre won't have much chance in the air.

Even your favourite Judas to love/hate was 6'1"Ard Righ2009-09-24 12:18:08

Permalink