Here's a good article on different formations. Think about which one fits our personnel, fitness level, etc. We did well with the 4-4-2 w/flat back four, but maybe something else might fit better. Something to think about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(football)
Logo
The official team logo
4 comments:
4-4-2 is very pedestrian, however, it will obviously depend on what kind of players we recruit. At present, we are looking as though we are going to have more midfielders than any other position...therefore I'm in favour of the 3-5-2, with 3 flat defenders, 2 defensive mids, 2 mids on the wings and one offensive mid support the strikers (which we are short on).
Do we have a confirmed roster count yet?
Also, the link is not complete, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(football) is the full link, the ")" isn't hyperlinked in the original message.
Here are Dil's thoughts as technical issues prevent his posting as himself:
Personally I like the way we ended the season with 4-4-2, but here are a few thoughts anyway: The problem I see with the 5-3-2 is that it requires extreme stamina from the outside midfielders. Since we only have 3 at the back, the outside mids have to track all the way back into the corners on defence. However they are still expected to provide width on attack and be whacking crosses over from the endline. This end-to-end responsibility is a tall order for a 20-year old, so it is not going happen for very long with a bunch of 40 year olds! This very situation was clearly exposed in the early part of our spring season when we played with a sweeper. The sweeper made the center of the field more secure, but it also squeezed the full backs in, and forced the outside midfielders to track further back on defence. This put an unfair burden on the outside mids and they could not be expected to be effective like this for the whole game. Time and again we played very well for 45 minutes, and then lost shape after the outside midfielders ran out of steam. Before you know it the defenders have no outlet, the strikers are stranded 60 yards down field and every ball gets hoofed long. I think the idea of an extra midfielder is good possibilty, but maybe we can get him from the front rather than the back. Our forwards are very good at running at people. The down side of this is that most of our offensive success seemed to come from through-balls rather than square or crossed balls. If we drop one of the strikers back deeper to collect the ball, this may open up more combination plays with his strike partner and play shorter balls for overlapping midfielders to exploit the outside more. So we would look more like a 4-4-1-1 without having Peter Bloody Crouch anywhere on the pitch! So there's my plug for 4-4-2 / 4-4-1-1. Any ideas? Dilwyn
I prefer to play a 4-5-1, with the two outside mids pushing way up in attack, but keeping up with their defensive responsibilities. Outside backs can then overlap and there are three inside mids to cover the gaps if necessary. This formation also lends itself to a possession game, which we've all talked about playing and which we are quite capable of playing. In my view, this formation plays to our strengths. Our flat four in the back worked very well the last two games of the season, and I'd like to build on that, but add the midfield player.
It's quite possible that the outside wings ran out of steam because we didn't any many (or any) substitutes....the key to having a successful season is to bulk up the roster (I know I keep saying this sorry) so we can regularly carry 3-4 subs per game (whatever formation we chose)
Post a Comment