we are playing a 4-2-3-1 at the moment
Do people like this formation?
I acknowledge the attacking intent in it but i dont think its working. CG is a great player at this level but he is not big enough to play upfront by himself and be as effective. Yes he is doing really well holding the ball up etc. but to get the goal scoring best out of him i think we need Iffil up there alongside to bully defenders and create openings. I also think we have seen our wide players becoming isolated and doubled up on, and if our fullbacks do push up to support then we leave massive gaps at the back. (goal conceeded agasint Brisbane springs immediately to mind)
We have great wide players and in Bertos et al and great strike partnership so we need to field a 442 (again seen to work in brisbane). Diego needs to play outwide and roam off a flank, or if sydney is anything to go by then off the bench.
WellingtonPFC2009-09-01 18:26:16
Permalink
Permalink
Yea I agree but also think we should try 4-1-3-2 formation, have just one central midfielder like Ferrante/Brown/Lia. Push McKain back with Sigmund. Then have Bertos and Hearfield out wide with Diego or Caceres running through the middle. Then Ifill and Greenacre up front
Permalink
Permalink
We have two main issues at the moment which I'd like to see change - firstly we need two strikers. Continually playing with just one ends up with them being marked out of the game and doesn't help us at all. Secondly we need players in central midfield that can boss it, carry the ball forward and shoot. Personally I'd like to see Bertos pushed into a central midfield role, give him the freedom to attack from the flanks if he wants but have him central so he can run up the middle and take shots.
Ideally I'd like to see Ifill and Bertos in central midfield in a 4-4-2, with the likes of Diego and Daniel on the wings, still that is a very offensive midfield and leaves questions as to who would play up front with Greenacre. Perhaps McKain or Tim Brown central mid alongside Bertos, to hold up the play, or even Diego so that he's got space and lots of passing options around him.
Ideally I'd like to see Ifill and Bertos in central midfield in a 4-4-2, with the likes of Diego and Daniel on the wings, still that is a very offensive midfield and leaves questions as to who would play up front with Greenacre. Perhaps McKain or Tim Brown central mid alongside Bertos, to hold up the play, or even Diego so that he's got space and lots of passing options around him.
Permalink
Permalink
We need to play Crowther in goal and then Paston sweeping to organise the defence
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
Then two centre backs, and a couple of wing backs so they get forward... and wingers...and one forward... a sort of... 1-2-2-2-2-1....
----O
O------O
---OO
O------O
---OO
----O
I give you the figure 8 formation.
----O
O------O
---OO
O------O
---OO
----O
I give you the figure 8 formation.
Permalink
Permalink
We need to play Crowther in goal and then Paston sweeping to organise the defence
Permalink
Permalink
two centre backs that tackle that dont get into the opposition box. play central midfielders that push up and strikers that can score and spray it around.
8====D
8====D
Permalink
Permalink
I would just stick with a 4-4-2. You're right in saying that Greenacre is getting isolated way too often.
valeo2009-09-01 16:49:01
a.haak
Permalink
Permalink
4-1-3-2
Paston
Muscat Sig Dura Locky
Brown/Mckain/Ferrante
Leo Caeceres/Diego Daniel
Ifill Greenacre
Paston
Muscat Sig Dura Locky
Brown/Mckain/Ferrante
Leo Caeceres/Diego Daniel
Ifill Greenacre
Permalink
Permalink
I think the plan is actually to play to a 4 - 4 - 2 (diamond) shape, but Ifill has bee forced out wide due to the midfielder on the left side, either Gerrante or Diego hasn't been pulling their weight. I'd expect to see a vasat difference when either those two are dropped and Either Daniel or Caceras come in to make the difference.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
We need to play Crowther in goal and then Paston sweeping to organise the defence
Tell you what, at training Paston has got a bloody good powerful shot on him. He can jump high, how about trying him at CF!
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
Then two centre backs, and a couple of wing backs so they get forward... and wingers...and one forward... a sort of... 1-2-2-2-2-1....
----O
O------O
---OO
O------O
---OO
----O
I give you the figure 8 formation.
----O
O------O
---OO
O------O
---OO
----O
I give you the figure 8 formation.
Ahhh crafty, last seen when the Oxford University RaRa's played the Whitechapel Murderers in the 1880 Toffs Vs Scum Cup? Murderers won 7 nil using this formation, all goals being scored by the Captain Ripper.
I like our current formation:
O Greenacre
0 Ifil O Bertos
O Diego
O Mckain
O Ferrante
O Lochy O Durante O Siggy O Muscat
OMadlad
Permalink
Permalink
More like:
----O
O------O
O O O O
Last week
----O
O------O
O O O O
Last week
Permalink
Permalink
Then two centre backs, and a couple of wing backs so they get forward... and wingers...and one forward... a sort of... 1-2-2-2-2-1....
----O
O------O
---OO
O------O
---OO
----O
I give you the figure 8 formation.
----O
O------O
---OO
O------O
---OO
----O
I give you the figure 8 formation.
Ahhh crafty, last seen when the Oxford University RaRa's played the Whitechapel Murderers in the 1880 Toffs Vs Scum Cup? Murderers won 7 nil using this formation, all goals being scored by the Captain Ripper.
I like our current formation:
O Greenacre
0 Ifil O Bertos
O Diego
O Mckain
O Ferrante
O Lochy O Durante O Siggy O Muscat
OMadlad
that looks pretty accurate, two of the four midfielders are playing on the wrong side - namely ferrante and Diego
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
you can never go wrong with the 4-4-2
WE NEED 2 UP FRONT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE NEED 2 UP FRONT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Permalink
Permalink
i dont like the diamond because the wide players get drawn into the centre of the field. the diamond would work with attacking mids but the likes of bertos daniel and hearfield are wingers. i dont see the problem with 4-4-2 with mckain holding with brown or lia and then bertos and hearfield etc. on the wings and iffil upfront with CG. Alot of people think 2 holding centres are negative but if it allows the wingers to get forward and to play 2 up front then it will create alot more chanced than if we have wide players marked out the game and CG isolated.
Permalink
Permalink
perhaps if the diamond is concerning you we could go with a 4 - 2 - 2 - 2 plan, ie two holding mids and two attacking mids, which would give all four mids the opportunity to drift wide if need be.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
I didnt mind the 4213 way we played against Perth?? Think it can work well, and if the two wider strikers do help tracking back then its quite solid
Permalink
Permalink
perhaps if the diamond is concerning you we could go with a 4 - 2 - 2 - 2 plan, ie two holding mids and two attacking mids, which would give all four mids the opportunity to drift wide if need be.
I like............................
-------------------Paston--------------------
Muscat----Dura-----Siggie-------Lock
Diego----McKain
Bertos Caceras
Ifill-------Greenacre
subs
Crowther
Daniel
Hearfield
etc.....
Permalink
Permalink
O O O O
O O O O
O O
This is called the D Cup formation.
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
Looks like the Flying W to me.
a.haak
Permalink
Permalink
I don't think the formation is the issue, rather its the intent of the players at the moment to get forward and attack and hang out wide to create space and not block up the centre.
And that comes down to the coach and what he's telling his players to do largely. We could play with any formation and it wont mean jack unless the players are encouraged to play football.
Also play people in their positions, Diego a central AM, is being played out wide, not his natural position, not surewhat to do etc... and looks very average for someone who is actually very gifted and talented.
Saying that, with the right attitude i'd like a 4 - 4 - 2.
The last season and a bit has told us, when we play with one up front we hardly win anything except for criticism and an increasingly jaded fan base!!
TouchMe2009-09-01 21:11:33
Permalink
Permalink
O O O O
O O O O
O O
This is called the D Cup formation.
That requires us to play two strikers!!!
"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009
Permalink
Permalink
we always play better at 442
" If you only have a hammer you tend to see every problem as a nail" - maslow
Permalink
Permalink
I don't think the formation is the issue, rather its the intent of the players at the moment to get forward and attack and hang out wide to create space and not block up the centre.
And that comes down to the coach and what he's telling his players to do largely. We could play with any formation and it wont mean jack unless the players are encouraged to play football.
Also play people in their positions, Diego a central AM, is being played out wide, not his natural position, not surewhat to do etc... and looks very average for someone who is actually very gifted and talented.
Saying that, with the right attitude i'd like a 4 - 4 - 2.
The last season and a bit has told us, when we play with one up front we hardly win anything except for criticism and an increasingly jaded fan base!!
Even though I don't agree with necessarily your criticisms, I agree that the formation isn't the issue. All this obsession as to whether we line up in 4-2-3-1/4-4-2/4-3-3 rubbish is meaningless (and heavily heavily influenced by people whose only experience of coaching is playing football manager). Basically we need to lineup in a way that gets the best out of the 11 players on the park - ultimately that's far more important than wondering whether we play" 2DMs or on AMC" etc etc
The other issue is that the formation has to match the tactics. Sometimes we're going to go away from home and look for a point like we did Sunday. That to me is actually pretty sensible and therefore naturally we're going to line up more defensively...
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
JD, i broadlhy agree with you re formation, but dont like the lone striker approach (particularly when the midfield is in a mindset to sit deep) because we cant retain any possession and end up constantly under the kosh.
But I wildly disagree with the playing for a point away from home approach. This is not the Premiership, we are not Burnley away to multi gazillion dollar Man United, we are not playing in front of 60,000 frenzied Ulsterman at Ibrox. No team in the A League is much better than any other (the salary cap makes sure of that) and no venue should be considered even remotely intimidating. In the days when a win was only two points, ok, maybe playing for a draw made sense from time to time, but nowadays you are flying directly in the face of the percentages. With a bit of latitude for the composition and set up of the opposition, we should work out what is our best method for achieving 3 points and stick to it home or away. It frustrates the heck out of me when i hear Herbert talking about "taking a more conservative approach away from home", especially when you consider how bad our away record is. If nothing else, it hasnt worked!
Permalink
Permalink
Sammy, when am I going to hear your dulcet tones discuss this on the podcast? Perfect topic for you and Tommo to go head to head on?
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
i agree. I don't mind a defensive formation from time to time, but we have to go out and win. Teams dont come here looking for a draw.
we have the ability to put goals past teams and an offensive mentality is the only way this will consistently happen. Sure we can tighten up our defense, but if the team goes out there just looking to hold the defense, then all we are going to do is take wave after wave of attacks and hope for a lucky counter attack goal.
We have the ability to play, so I think we need to be looking to win.
we have the ability to put goals past teams and an offensive mentality is the only way this will consistently happen. Sure we can tighten up our defense, but if the team goes out there just looking to hold the defense, then all we are going to do is take wave after wave of attacks and hope for a lucky counter attack goal.
We have the ability to play, so I think we need to be looking to win.
Permalink
Permalink
Thommo's singing the praises of Robbie Kruse means he's no longer allowed an opinion... or at least that was the instructions I gave Piney.
Permalink
Permalink
Even though I don't agree with necessarily your criticisms, I agree that the formation isn't the issue. All this obsession as to whether we line up in 4-2-3-1/4-4-2/4-3-3 rubbish is meaningless (and heavily heavily influenced by people whose only experience of coaching is playing football manager). Basically we need to lineup in a way that gets the best out of the 11 players on the park - ultimately that's far more important than wondering whether we play" 2DMs or on AMC" etc etc
The other issue is that the formation has to match the tactics. Sometimes we're going to go away from home and look for a point like we did Sunday. That to me is actually pretty sensible and therefore naturally we're going to line up more defensively...
you say yourself "we need to lineup in a way that gets the best out of the 11 players on the park" but apparently how we lineup is not about formation?! i completly agree its about getting the best out the 11 players, and that best is playing 2 up front. We dont have a hulk upthere so we need to play 2 to get the best out of CG. so how is the formation "4-2-3-1/4-4-2/4-3-3 rubbish" as you put it?
we are playing 4-2-3-1 to accomodate Diego in an effort to be more attacking. i think its working the other way.
Permalink
Permalink
WPFC - my point is thatwe need to adress how we play, not what the number on the page is. If Greenacre needs more support then it doesn't matter what formation we play, what the numbers are, what is important is how we actually go about giving him that support. People are so wound up about whether we play 1 up front or 2 up front, but what I'm saying is it's not about the formation - formations are neutral - it's how you execute it that matters.
For example, people on here constantly draft lineups that have us playing a midfield diamond which is utterly fanciful. Looks ok on paper, might work in Football Manager, but we do not have the technical players necessary to crowd the midfield, keep the ball in small spaces between the lines nor the fullbacks to make that system work.
If we need to give greenacre more support there are loads of different ways that can be achieved - more support from midfield, wingers play tighter, or add another forward. I just think the idea that all problems will be solved by switching to 4-4-2 without any thought as to how that will work beyond 2 strikers = more attacking is a bit simplistic.
For me personally we played our best football in our first season when Felipe played as a genuine no. 10 interacting with Daniel (the home game v Adelaide the night before the Beckham game which we lost but which we absolutely bossed stands out). Felipe had his faults but we've never replaced him with a player who is good enough to play in between the lines. I haven't seen enough of Diego to know if he is good enough, but I'd say that is what Ricki is going for. Agree it might be time to change it up...I also think Durante or Sigmund has to be vulnerable, we're conceding far too many simple goals
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
JD, i broadlhy agree with you re formation, but dont like the lone striker approach (particularly when the midfield is in a mindset to sit deep) because we cant retain any possession and end up constantly under the kosh.
But I wildly disagree with the playing for a point away from home approach. This is not the Premiership, we are not Burnley away to multi gazillion dollar Man United, we are not playing in front of 60,000 frenzied Ulsterman at Ibrox. No team in the A League is much better than any other (the salary cap makes sure of that) and no venue should be considered even remotely intimidating. In the days when a win was only two points, ok, maybe playing for a draw made sense from time to time, but nowadays you are flying directly in the face of the percentages. With a bit of latitude for the composition and set up of the opposition, we should work out what is our best method for achieving 3 points and stick to it home or away. It frustrates the heck out of me when i hear Herbert talking about "taking a more conservative approach away from home", especially when you consider how bad our away record is. If nothing else, it hasnt worked!
agree a lot
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink
Permalink
WPFC - my point is thatwe need to adress how we play, not what the number on the page is. If Greenacre needs more support then it doesn't matter what formation we play, what the numbers are, what is important is how we actually go about giving him that support. People are so wound up about whether we play 1 up front or 2 up front, but what I'm saying is it's not about the formation - formations are neutral - it's how you execute it that matters.
For example, people on here constantly draft lineups that have us playing a midfield diamond which is utterly fanciful. Looks ok on paper, might work in Football Manager, but we do not have the technical players necessary to crowd the midfield, keep the ball in small spaces between the lines nor the fullbacks to make that system work.
If we need to give greenacre more support there are loads of different ways that can be achieved - more support from midfield, wingers play tighter, or add another forward. I just think the idea that all problems will be solved by switching to 4-4-2 without any thought as to how that will work beyond 2 strikers = more attacking is a bit simplistic.
For me personally we played our best football in our first season when Felipe played as a genuine no. 10 interacting with Daniel (the home game v Adelaide the night before the Beckham game which we lost but which we absolutely bossed stands out). Felipe had his faults but we've never replaced him with a player who is good enough to play in between the lines. I haven't seen enough of Diego to know if he is good enough, but I'd say that is what Ricki is going for. Agree it might be time to change it up...I also think Durante or Sigmund has to be vulnerable, we're conceding far too many simple goals
Good post, here is an interesting article on the diamond formation in the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/aug/25/the-question-diamond-tactics-jonathan-wilson
Permalink
Permalink
WPFC - my point is thatwe need to adress how we play, not what the number on the page is. If Greenacre needs more support then it doesn't matter what formation we play, what the numbers are, what is important is how we actually go about giving him that support. People are so wound up about whether we play 1 up front or 2 up front, but what I'm saying is it's not about the formation - formations are neutral - it's how you execute it that matters.
i completely agree with what your saying about the diamond (it doesnt even work for chelsea all the time with their selection of attacking midfielders, let alone a club with limited midfield options)
For example, people on here constantly draft lineups that have us playing a midfield diamond which is utterly fanciful. Looks ok on paper, might work in Football Manager, but we do not have the technical players necessary to crowd the midfield, keep the ball in small spaces between the lines nor the fullbacks to make that system work.
If we need to give greenacre more support there are loads of different ways that can be achieved - more support from midfield, wingers play tighter, or add another forward. I just think the idea that all problems will be solved by switching to 4-4-2 without any thought as to how that will work beyond 2 strikers = more attacking is a bit simplistic.
For me personally we played our best football in our first season when Felipe played as a genuine no. 10 interacting with Daniel (the home game v Adelaide the night before the Beckham game which we lost but which we absolutely bossed stands out). Felipe had his faults but we've never replaced him with a player who is good enough to play in between the lines. I haven't seen enough of Diego to know if he is good enough, but I'd say that is what Ricki is going for. Agree it might be time to change it up...I also think Durante or Sigmund has to be vulnerable, we're conceding far too many simple goals
but i would also point out that i have not at any time fallen into the hysteria about more attacking football that is banded about on this forum. i again completely agree its about mentality and getting the best out of players. This 3 attacking mids we have been playing in my opinion is a blatant attempt to gain attacking football.
My opinion is that to get the best out of our team we must accept our limitations and recognise our strengths. I dont see a 442 as more attacking just more stable and easer for players to be effective in. also we have a strike pairing which can hurt teams and i think CG and PI should have every opportunity to play up front together. Im not living in a wonderland where i think we are going to win every game with one change in formation, i just see strengths and weaknesses in the Phoenix and have an opinion on how these can be best served.
Permalink
Permalink
Agree with that too. And the more our pairing up front can play together, the more effective we can play. Will be very interesting how Ricki plays Chen if he turns out really good?
Any chance of playing all four of our most offensive players at once? Ifill, Greenacre, Chen and Bertos?
I would like to see a 442, or atleast a well rounded midfield
Any chance of playing all four of our most offensive players at once? Ifill, Greenacre, Chen and Bertos?
I would like to see a 442, or atleast a well rounded midfield
Permalink
Permalink
How about....
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o
I call it the Urethra formation.
Permalink
Permalink
Agree with that too. And the more our pairing up front can play together, the more effective we can play. Will be very interesting how Ricki plays Chen if he turns out really good?
Any chance of playing all four of our most offensive players at once? Ifill, Greenacre, Chen and Bertos?
I would like to see a 442, or atleast a well rounded midfield
Any chance of playing all four of our most offensive players at once? Ifill, Greenacre, Chen and Bertos?
I would like to see a 442, or atleast a well rounded midfield
So Hard News in midfield then?
Permalink
Permalink