PDA

View Full Version : Tactical consistency, vol. 2, no. 1



jloome
04-13-2009, 01:46 PM
...to revisit a thread title from last week, I have to ask why no one writing about the team seems to have mentioned yet that the two most successful teams in the league right now, Seattle and Chivas, both play the most simple brand of footie: 4-4-2, conservative positioning, spread the field, , slow down the play in the offensive end, work it around for an opening.

Both seem so fluid compared to much of the rest of the league (Chicago and RSL being two probable exceptions); maybe the biggest problem with the MLS is the quality of coaching right now.

It's the same style most of the Mexican league seems to play, too, and when they're on their game, New England. I have to wonder why teams that have struggled for successive years for cohesion (Us, the Shite Bulls, LA) haven't simplified their play somewhat.

We're a very good example of this, as is New York. Both teams seem built on short interplay that relies on the nearest players moving into support positions for the man on the ball, but end up being dump-and-chase, because so much of the time their opponents are playing direct, and all that over-relief pulls too many guys out of position.

I was reminded of this in our game against seattle. There's a moment early in the game when, seeing nothing going, Nate Jaqua strokes the ball from the top left corner fo the box all the way back to his central defenders at the halfway line, to set up an offense again. It was like watching a basketball coach tactically pick apart his opposition.

Carter
04-13-2009, 01:47 PM
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/tactical_facepalm.jpg

Wooster_TFC
04-13-2009, 02:25 PM
I find that when in formation properly, TFC appears to attempt to play the same type of game, but I find that what happens too often is that you have either a large hole between the defense and the midfield, or a large hole between either Robbo or Cronin coming back to provide the outlet, and the other midfielders.

I think this is a situation of both DeRo and Guevara requiring free roles to be effective, which causes them to push up too much. It also is difficult when Wynne and Brennan are both either really far up, or totally too far back.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing a lineup akin to what Barcelona plays, and have Cronin and Robbo both as DM/CM types that allow for multiple outlets from the D, and then linking up with a front end midfield of Guevara/DeRo/Other winger.

napoli73
04-13-2009, 02:38 PM
...to revisit a thread title from last week, I have to ask why no one writing about the team seems to have mentioned yet that the two most successful teams in the league right now, Seattle and Chivas, both play the most simple brand of footie: 4-4-2, conservative positioning, spread the field, , slow down the play in the offensive end, work it around for an opening.

That would be to simple for Mr. Carver. I have no idea why we can not play possession soccer. Passing the ball back or across the pitch trying to open up the other team. Its almost seems like out defensive mids are unable to handle that task, I love Robo, but he hates having the ball at his feet and it seems he's the first to launch it up field as a safe play...and its not only him...it the entire back...this causes your attacking mids to be less effective and your strikers chasing down useless balls...very ugly tactics.

FluSH
04-13-2009, 02:51 PM
This reminds me of a hilarious blog I came accross the other day... Pistola FC

http://www.pistolasfc.com/2009_02_01_archive.html#1502299591530277959

scroll down and look at the international gameplans...

jloome
04-15-2009, 12:01 AM
That would be to simple for Mr. Carver. I have no idea why we can not play possession soccer. Passing the ball back or across the pitch trying to open up the other team. Its almost seems like out defensive mids are unable to handle that task, I love Robo, but he hates having the ball at his feet and it seems he's the first to launch it up field as a safe play...and its not only him...it the entire back...this causes your attacking mids to be less effective and your strikers chasing down useless balls...very ugly tactics.

It's funny, because when it works, Carver's attempt to create "flow" via controlled short passing DOES work, and we look good offensively. That stretch of six games without a loss last year and good chunks of the KC game are both good examples.

But it seems too much for these guys to remain focussed on. I think they need the good ol' fashioned 442 with some overlapping, something simple. Hard-nosed central mids and forwards who can get behind the backline. Watching us dink eight passes around just outside the box without opening up a shot, because it's all interplay and no play, drives me nuts.

BRed
04-15-2009, 08:42 AM
^^ agreed.

trane
04-15-2009, 10:10 AM
^ Agreed. Start with a basic simple game. KISS. The only adjustment if any, that can be made is wether the two Strikers play side by side or one plays behind, but that should not complicate things. But keep it simple. Keep discipline make sure people are were they are supposed to be, and were their teamates expect them to be. Enforce discipline.

olegunnar
04-15-2009, 10:40 AM
But keep it simple. Keep discipline make sure people are were they are supposed to be, and were their teamates expect them to be. Enforce discipline.


That drove me nuts last game.

At some points it looked like a kids game where the whole team was clustered in the centre circle.

There is no width in the attack and we got burned on the flanks.

You can have any fancy shmancy formation you'd like, but if they're all congregated in the middle of the field and ball chasing it won't matter.

trane
04-15-2009, 11:07 AM
^ Agreed. I have had this converstaion so often. Why can we just not get simple things like holding your shape down? This is a major reason for my frustration. Fundamentals elude us.

LucaGol
04-15-2009, 11:37 AM
...to revisit a thread title from last week, I have to ask why no one writing about the team seems to have mentioned yet that the two most successful teams in the league right now, Seattle and Chivas, both play the most simple brand of footie: 4-4-2, conservative positioning, spread the field, , slow down the play in the offensive end, work it around for an opening.

Both seem so fluid compared to much of the rest of the league (Chicago and RSL being two probable exceptions); maybe the biggest problem with the MLS is the quality of coaching right now.

It's the same style most of the Mexican league seems to play, too, and when they're on their game, New England. I have to wonder why teams that have struggled for successive years for cohesion (Us, the Shite Bulls, LA) haven't simplified their play somewhat.

We're a very good example of this, as is New York. Both teams seem built on short interplay that relies on the nearest players moving into support positions for the man on the ball, but end up being dump-and-chase, because so much of the time their opponents are playing direct, and all that over-relief pulls too many guys out of position.

I was reminded of this in our game against seattle. There's a moment early in the game when, seeing nothing going, Nate Jaqua strokes the ball from the top left corner fo the box all the way back to his central defenders at the halfway line, to set up an offense again. It was like watching a basketball coach tactically pick apart his opposition.

I don't think they play traditional 4-4-2 ... they play more modern variations of it.

The graphic before the Chivas v. Galaxy showed them lining up traditional 4-4-2 with Kljestan out wide but that's not usually what they do on the field. Kljestan usually comes in behind the two strikers. Similar to what Le Toux does in Seattle.

But anyways, I agree on all other points.

I would also like to add that the more fluid teams in the league are more adept at making runs that are difficult for opposing defenses to pick up. I.e. diagonal runs, 1-2s, overlapping as well as underlapping. Creating this space gives the ball carrier several options .... as I've stated numerous times in other threads. The game becomes much simpler when the whole team is working as a unit.

But I think that people are finally coming to the realization that tactical preparation is extremely extremely vital to a team's success.

Just look at Dwayne de Rosario in the last few games ... he's basically a fish out of water or an unguided missle. The components are there, but there's no direction.

scooter
04-15-2009, 11:38 AM
yes i was thinking that they are getting to fancy and need to just give it a go
you guys are right maybe back to basics and keep hammering at the keeper
yes use some width especially at the back ---the lt back was wide open on dallas all the time last game --- he didnt do much with the space but it will be interesting to see if the dallas coach picked up on it and try to capitolize on that area on sunday

rocker
04-15-2009, 01:30 PM
i don't know a lot about tactics, but I talked to an old german coach (my father) and he gets peeved at the overemphasis fans have on the formation or the tactics.
as a coach, he employed tactics of course, but felt that in the end it's up to the players on the field to find a rhythm and chemistry, and of course execute what they've practiced.
changing formation and tactics isn't the #1 thing, in his opinion.

If Chad Barrett scores a goal the other day, we probably aren't having this conversation.

ExiledRed
04-15-2009, 01:51 PM
If Chad Barrett scores a goal the other day, we probably aren't having this conversation.

You're right, and furthermore if we'd won 5-0 we'd all be happy as pigs in shit.

But we didn't and we're not.

By the way if that Dallas ball that hit the crossbar went in, the mood on this board would be worse.

jloome
04-15-2009, 01:52 PM
i don't know a lot about tactics, but I talked to an old german coach (my father) and he gets peeved at the overemphasis fans have on the formation or the tactics.
as a coach, he employed tactics of course, but felt that in the end it's up to the players on the field to find a rhythm and chemistry, and of course execute what they've practiced.
changing formation and tactics isn't the #1 thing, in his opinion.

If Chad Barrett scores a goal the other day, we probably aren't having this conversation.

That was kind of my point: an overemphasis on complicated onfield movement. It's like they're badly choreographed players in an electric football game sometimes.

And Luca, I agree.....but how old are you, dude? No one has played a flat 442 since I was a child in the 70s. I'm talking formationally standard, not in terms of lanes and movement. You still need unpredictable off the ball movement (which is why they're so high on Vitti, as he and DeRo are the only two players finding space without losing shape right now).

But you can't have so much support movement that the team constantly loses shape, which seems to be our issue.

sully
04-15-2009, 02:39 PM
[quote=rocker;472010]in the end it's up to the players on the field to find a rhythm and chemistry, and of course execute what they've practiced.
changing formation and tactics isn't the #1 thing, in his opinion.
quote]

I agree with that...I often get frustrated with the players, we don't seem to consistently have players that show us they are willing to put in 100% effort...the weak link is in different parts of the field every game..
I remember watching my home-town team Cork City FC play (semi-pro) and it was always clear that these guys really wanted to win..always tackling hard, running always and never giving up...even if they haven't have the talent they wished they had. These Cork City FC players played in a league probably akin to USL. I remember a Montreal fan called TFC a team of prima donnas last year...I actually thought he probably had a slight point. I guess where this is taking me is, what point do TFC players have to prove to anyone....anyway my random thoughts..

jloome
04-15-2009, 03:06 PM
My fear is that maybe Carver is a player's coach, as in far too nice and respectful. Maybe when he rips them, there's no fear of God. Ferguson didn't just lose his temper when he threw that shoe at Beckham. He needed a man worth a fortune to fear him, so he threw "crazy violent" out there as a potential outcome.

The biggest problem TFC has always had, to me, hasn't been tactical and it hasn't been technical. It's been focus and intensity. We've got a bunch of guys with million-dollar right feet and 10-cent heads, which is why most of them have bounced around, despite their obvious skills.

Think about it: who on this team has ever stuck with a team as a starter for three straight seasons (outside of with us, of course?). Answer: Guevara, and DeRo (just: he was a supersub his first two years at San Jose).

If we acknowledge the individual skill, what we have to also acknowledge is that none of them have been long-term starters anywhere for another reason: they lack focus and they lack passion through 90.

trane
04-15-2009, 03:07 PM
i don't know a lot about tactics, but I talked to an old german coach (my father) and he gets peeved at the overemphasis fans have on the formation or the tactics.
as a coach, he employed tactics of course, but felt that in the end it's up to the players on the field to find a rhythm and chemistry, and of course execute what they've practiced.
changing formation and tactics isn't the #1 thing, in his opinion.

If Chad Barrett scores a goal the other day, we probably aren't having this conversation.

This is a chicken or the egg argument, a good coach uses the tactics which allow his players to use the skills they have to the fullest of their abilites. If you put together formation which relies on the long ball, and your Striker is 5-9 and you generaly can not knock those passes down you lose. If you put together a game plan which relies on the attack on the wings, and your wingers have no speed and no crossing ability you lose. If your best players are defensive mids, and backs, but you use a very offensive system you likely lose. So it is not wether tactics or individual tallent is more importatn then the over. This is a team game, you need to organize your team in a system which utilizes their individual skills the best.

[ by the way there are many examples were less tallented teams were able to win using superior tactics that Greece 2002 is a prime example]

Therefore, when you have a team like ours, who cannot keep a solid formation, and has not shown a great footy IQ, you simplfy to put the players in the best position to win. Jloome is right.

ACSertL
04-15-2009, 03:12 PM
This is a chicken or the egg argument, a good coach uses the tactics which allow his players to use the skills they have to the fullest of their abilites. If you put together formation which relies on the long ball, and your Striker is 5-9 and you generaly can not knock those passes down you lose. If you put together a game plan which relies on the attack on the wings, and your wingers have no speed and no crossing ability you lose. If your best players are defensive mids, and backs, but you use a very offensive system you likely lose. So it is not wether tactics or individual tallent is more importatn then the over. This is a team game, you need to organize your team in a system which utilizes their individual skills the best.

[ by the way there are many examples were less tallented teams were able to win using superior tactics that Greece 2002 is a prime example]

Therefore, when you have a team like ours, who cannot keep a solid formation, and has not shown a great footy IQ, you simplfy to put the players in the best position to win. Jloome is right.

Great post and I agree with you....except it was Greece in 2000 :)

trane
04-15-2009, 03:20 PM
^ Yes, sorry. Thanks.

sully
04-15-2009, 03:22 PM
My fear is that maybe Carver is a player's coach, as in far too nice and respectful. Maybe when he rips them, there's no fear of God. Ferguson didn't just lose his temper when he threw that shoe at Beckham. He needed a man worth a fortune to fear him, so he threw "crazy violent" out there as a potential outcome.

The biggest problem TFC has always had, to me, hasn't been tactical and it hasn't been technical. It's been focus and intensity. We've got a bunch of guys with million-dollar right feet and 10-cent heads, which is why most of them have bounced around, despite their obvious skills.

Think about it: who on this team has ever stuck with a team as a starter for three straight seasons (outside of with us, of course?). Answer: Guevara, and DeRo (just: he was a supersub his first two years at San Jose).

If we acknowledge the individual skill, what we have to also acknowledge is that none of them have been long-term starters anywhere for another reason: they lack focus and they lack passion through 90.

well put.

ExiledRed
04-15-2009, 04:35 PM
i don't know a lot about tactics.

Thanks for clearing this up by the way.

trane
04-15-2009, 04:37 PM
^ Exiled you have been killing me this week.

Dirk Diggler
04-15-2009, 07:23 PM
Great post and I agree with you....except it was Greece in 2000 :)

Wrong. It was Greece in 2004. They didn't even qualify for the 2000 tournament.

But in respect to the topic at hand, I do believe simplifying the game plan would help a great deal. However, I strongly agree with what someone else has already stated in this thread. A lot of our problems arise from the fact that our offence never gets off on the right foot due to our defence and the back of our midfield. With all due respect to Carl Robinson, I think he gets a bit too much love for very little reason. Yes, he is a rock defensively but his distribution is absolutely non-existant. I'm not asking him to set up goals but he needs to be able to find our offensive players in better positions. To be honest, I've been more impressed with Sam Cronin as his distribution and passes seem a great deal better than Robinson's. With a little more experience and improvement on his defence, he'll make Carl expendable in no time. I'm not a Mo lover by any stretch but he has definitely hit a grandslam with the likes of Frei and Cronin (and hopefully O'Brien White once he recovers fully).

trane
04-15-2009, 07:24 PM
^ Frei and Cronin have realy impressed me as well.

druid
04-15-2009, 08:12 PM
A lot of our problems arise from the fact that our offence never gets off on the right foot due to our defence and the back of our midfield. With all due respect to Carl Robinson, I think he gets a bit too much love for very little reason. Yes, he is a rock defensively but his distribution is absolutely non-existant. I'm not asking him to set up goals but he needs to be able to find our offensive players in better positions. To be honest, I've been more impressed with Sam Cronin as his distribution and passes seem a great deal better than Robinson's. With a little more experience and improvement on his defence, he'll make Carl expendable in no time. I'm not a Mo lover by any stretch but he has definitely hit a grandslam with the likes of Frei and Cronin (and hopefully O'Brien White once he recovers fully).

I'm going to disagree with this.

Robinson is an ok defensive mid. Probably as good as we can expect to attract. People often expect him to perform the role of defensive mid and holding mid. Very few players in the world are capable of doing this and we can't afford any of them.

I think people also expect too little from Amado. While he may be our most technically gifted player its not really practical for the forward mid of a 4-4-2 diamond to abandon defensive duties to the degree that he does. For the formation to work well the forward mid has to hustle as much on defense as offense. If he doesn't we leave a During the first half of the Seattle game Guevara was a total passenger. It left us very soft through the middle.

Of course in the end Amado can only do what he can do and not seeing his limitations is Carvers fault.

To me, while I like the 4-4-2, I don't think it utilizes our players at their best and leaves us defensively frail.

A modified 4-5-1. Something like a 4-2-3-1. Especially since we didn't by another CB. Let Robo win the ball, Cronin distribute (he seems to have an eye for the pass), and stick three attack minded mids in front of that. Pick the striker that sucks less on the day.

Realistically I don't think we can hope for much this season without a DP striker, another good center back, and a new manager.

jloome
04-16-2009, 10:20 AM
Re-watched most of the Seattle game against us last night.

Seattle's strength all game was their incremental buildup. Every time the ball got to one of their mids or forwards, instead of looking solely to advance up field, they played their buildup very cautiously, usually looking for one quick option, then passing back to a supporting player behind them as the team advanced slowly and as a unit. Like a QB checking off a receiver, then going to the safety valve.

Very, very tactically smart play. Not flash or technique reliant, just simple buildup, with everyone moving as a unit.

There are other signs of how well-coached they are; the best coach I ever had as a kid in England used to coach his kids to at least stay on a trot when off the ball and never walk. Always felt it took energy and intensity out of a game, and he was right. Watch Seattle players off the ball. It's only the backline that ever walks, and even then, it wasn't too common.

No mistake, that team has assignments, nota loose "let the players use their skills and support each other".

Druid has a point here that Carver, I think, was trying to make, which is that Guevara doesn't track back. That screws up our team shape and leads to people having to cover for each other too much. Jimmy B is guilty of this sometimes, too. Marvell Wynne was last year, but has been better at staying back this year.

jloome
04-16-2009, 10:27 AM
I'm going to disagree with this.

Robinson is an ok defensive mid. Probably as good as we can expect to attract. People often expect him to perform the role of defensive mid and holding mid. Very few players in the world are capable of doing this and we can't afford any of them.

I think people also expect too little from Amado. While he may be our most technically gifted player its not really practical for the forward mid of a 4-4-2 diamond to abandon defensive duties to the degree that he does. For the formation to work well the forward mid has to hustle as much on defense as offense. If he doesn't we leave a During the first half of the Seattle game Guevara was a total passenger. It left us very soft through the middle.

Of course in the end Amado can only do what he can do and not seeing his limitations is Carvers fault.

To me, while I like the 4-4-2, I don't think it utilizes our players at their best and leaves us defensively frail.

A modified 4-5-1. Something like a 4-2-3-1. Especially since we didn't by another CB. Let Robo win the ball, Cronin distribute (he seems to have an eye for the pass), and stick three attack minded mids in front of that. Pick the striker that sucks less on the day.

Realistically I don't think we can hope for much this season without a DP striker, another good center back, and a new manager.

So something like
------------Frei-------------
Wynne--Velez--Serioux--Brennan
------Robbo-------Cronin--------
----DeRo----Vitti-----Guevara----
---------Barrett/Dichio-----------

?

ACSertL
04-16-2009, 10:29 AM
Wrong. It was Greece in 2004. They didn't even qualify for the 2000 tournament.

But in respect to the topic at hand, I do believe simplifying the game plan would help a great deal. However, I strongly agree with what someone else has already stated in this thread. A lot of our problems arise from the fact that our offence never gets off on the right foot due to our defence and the back of our midfield. With all due respect to Carl Robinson, I think he gets a bit too much love for very little reason. Yes, he is a rock defensively but his distribution is absolutely non-existant. I'm not asking him to set up goals but he needs to be able to find our offensive players in better positions. To be honest, I've been more impressed with Sam Cronin as his distribution and passes seem a great deal better than Robinson's. With a little more experience and improvement on his defence, he'll make Carl expendable in no time. I'm not a Mo lover by any stretch but he has definitely hit a grandslam with the likes of Frei and Cronin (and hopefully O'Brien White once he recovers fully).

D'OH! :)

I don't have fond memories of either of those tournaments as I am a Germany supporter. :lol:

ACSertL
04-16-2009, 10:36 AM
You're spot on about Seattle jloome; I can't really add much more other than they actually played the ball on the pitch as opposed to hoofing the ball up to the strikers, which was probably due to their excellent team play. Even when they did hit a long ball Jacqua was there to vacuum in up and hold the ball for the support to arrive, which is to say nothing of his mobility!

4-2-3-1 is probably the way to go.

scooter
04-16-2009, 10:47 AM
no kidding all good points
i think we are playing to structured and need to loosen up creatively with little short runs and flics to get in behind the defence but once there no more screwing about get the shot on the net
no long balls we need to develop a possesion short ball control type game and move the ball forward as a complete unit with both patience and intensity
dont get me wrong we still have to keep our basic shape and definitly forwards have to get back and help the defense on the counter but we have to take more shots
oh and one more thing we need to win

trane
04-16-2009, 11:16 AM
So something like
------------Frei-------------
Wynne--Velez--Serioux--Brennan
------Robbo-------Cronin--------
----DeRo----Vitti-----Guevara----
---------Barrett/Dichio-----------

?


I like this because of the two defensive mids, to cover our CB's, and it would seem simple enought to play, but we have been trying it for so long, or variations of it, and we look so inconsistent. The only differnce is that I would put Guevrra in the midle to distripute to DeRo and Vitti. But again all of this seems to complicated for our boys.

druid
04-18-2009, 08:40 AM
But again all of this seems to complicated for our boys.

It's difficult to say from the outside whether that is the case.

It could be too complicated for our boys to understand but its equally possible that its too complicated for our coach to explain.

Whatever the reason, the Seattle game demonstrated that an MLS side can be well organized and tactically prepared to disassemble another teams game plan comprehensively. In the first half our midfielders were completely contained and could barely manage a pass between them.

I can't recall TFC being that well prepared/organized for a game.

trane
04-18-2009, 08:45 AM
^ I agree with this. The oly thing is that for a couple of games last year I though FC was relatiovely well organized, but it was rather fleting, ans in teh last part of the season we looked like we never played together.

K1nG
04-21-2009, 09:21 PM
bump.

JDG
04-21-2009, 09:22 PM
much better.
Feel free to introduce your thoughts from the closed threads.

sidney
04-21-2009, 09:28 PM
ok...i guess

K1nG
04-21-2009, 09:39 PM
There have been a bunch of great posts in this thread. Pretty much all of them adress the fact that TFC should try to page a page out of Chivas' and Seattles book and keep the ball on the ground and hold possesion.. move up as a unit.. structure an attack and keep at it all game. Toronto is not doing this for one of two reasons: they either do not have the talent to do this or JC does not understand this system and how to teach it to his teams. Id vote on the latter of the two.

Am I ever getting sick of dump and chase. Could swear Im watching the Philadelphia Flyers in the days of the Legion of Doom. No wonder Dicchio isnt starting. There is no way he could hold up chasing balls all over town. Now if we played more of a possesion style and got him the ball when he was in striking range.. that could be a different story.

JDG
04-21-2009, 09:42 PM
Agreed.
They played a great passing game in the season opener v KC, and we haven't seen a glimmer of that form since.

sidney
04-21-2009, 09:49 PM
Last season and this season TFC has shown flashes of quality football (beyond just relying on the dump & hope). But to do this more consistently, yes, they need players with technical ability (more this year than last year), confidence (???), and solid and repetitive tactical training (???), and functional training (????).

napoli73
04-21-2009, 09:53 PM
Not sure if he's teaching this but I think it has more to do with a combination of lacking skill, confidence and a sense of panic in the back causing the safe boot upfield. I don't think tfc play a long ball...they just clear the ball long.

Yohan
04-21-2009, 10:04 PM
Last season and this season TFC has shown flashes of quality football (beyond just relying on the dump & hope). But to do this more consistently, yes, they need players with technical ability (more this year than last year), confidence (???), and solid and repetitive tactical training (???), and functional training (????).
the tactical system is in place. the boys can play some beautiful passing game, BUT ONLY WHEN THEY WANT TO

seems something mentality is lacking to keep up the passing play.

kinda like how TFC plays only half a game switched on

sidney
04-21-2009, 10:18 PM
the tactical system is in place. the boys can play some beautiful passing game, BUT ONLY WHEN THEY WANT TO seems something mentality is lacking to keep up the passing play. kinda like how TFC plays only half a game switched on

...agreed Yohan. But when you say "only when they want to" I'm wondering if you agree with me that our boys do want to, but they some how need to keep their brain ("mentality") on the right/same channel. I personally feel that they work hard and have heart but they are inconsitent: mentally and technically and therefore tactically. Therefore; they need to practice this daily and weekly. Good coaches figure out ways to make practices and drills closely replicate the game, and repeat, and repeat and repeat....

Yohan
04-21-2009, 10:34 PM
...agreed Yohan. But when you say "only when they want to" I'm wondering if you agree with me that our boys do want to, but they some how need to keep their brain ("mentality") on the right/same channel. I personally feel that they work hard and have heart but they are inconsitent: mentally and technically and therefore tactically. Therefore; they need to practice this daily and weekly. Good coaches figure out ways to make practices and drills closely replicate the game, and repeat, and repeat and repeat....
Without actually observing what's going on in the locker room and training sessions, no one can really say what's going on inside the player's and Carver's heads.

I will guess that it's something of a collective mental thing and this mental lapse comes after few mins of opposition pressure during games. It's like the team is too oversensitive to the defensive problem, and just retreats into siege mentality which often is more counterproductive than good.

I havent seen much of evidence that the boys are pulling a Chelski to oust Carver, so it's gotta be something else that is messing with their heads.

I'm also a big proponent of leadership in the locker room and field, and something goes off in my radar that Brennan is a decent player, but not so good captain. Esp as a defender and captain in the field, he is the one who has to keep kicking ass to keep the other players playing hard.

Actually, there seems to be generally lack of communication between players. Dont care if you have to scream or use sign language, but freaking talk to each other!

Ossington Mental Youth
04-22-2009, 12:00 AM
I don't think tfc play a long ball...they just clear the ball long.

which to be honest is a step up from the last two seasons when the ball would be passed back abnd forth in front of the net only to have it stolen and a shot on net to occur. That being said i think we can do better

jloome
04-22-2009, 02:32 PM
which to be honest is a step up from the last two seasons when the ball would be passed back abnd forth in front of the net only to have it stolen and a shot on net to occur. That being said i think we can do better

Hell, we've done that a couple of times this year as well, we just haven't been punished for it.

I think napoli might've hit on the real problem: we have good technical players with 10-cent heads.

The KC game we played at a much more measured pace. There wasn't this ongoing fight to move the ball as far upfield to someone with ball skills as quickly as possible. It allowed the team to get into KCs end with people in shape, in the right spots on the field.

AS things are, we play up the field too quickly and are caught short going back. We need to SLOW DOWN.

trane
04-22-2009, 03:44 PM
^ We do like we play in a panic at times moving the ball up. I was going to say more, but I will waite and see what happens tonight.

Ossington Mental Youth
04-22-2009, 10:24 PM
so fucking psyched to watch this game
so glad to see a new formation
oh man
im just sad i heard the score before i watched

sidney
04-22-2009, 10:30 PM
so fucking psyched to watch this game so glad to see a new formation....


...f-in-f-in-ditto!!!

Wooster_TFC
04-23-2009, 07:13 AM
I find that when in formation properly, TFC appears to attempt to play the same type of game, but I find that what happens too often is that you have either a large hole between the defense and the midfield, or a large hole between either Robbo or Cronin coming back to provide the outlet, and the other midfielders.

I think this is a situation of both DeRo and Guevara requiring free roles to be effective, which causes them to push up too much. It also is difficult when Wynne and Brennan are both either really far up, or totally too far back.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing a lineup akin to what Barcelona plays, and have Cronin and Robbo both as DM/CM types that allow for multiple outlets from the D, and then linking up with a front end midfield of Guevara/DeRo/Other winger.

I got it right too, go me! :)

Nice game, I really think the outlets that were available due to having Cronin right beside Robinson tonight were huge. I wouldn't mind seeing this formation continue, only question is, what do you do if/when Dichio is gassed/hurt and needs to be subbed?

druid
04-23-2009, 09:09 AM
Good game, I enjoyed it thoroughly.

But I've got a question for the tactical thread: what formation do you think we were playing?

ACSertL
04-23-2009, 09:18 AM
Good game, I enjoyed it thoroughly.

But I've got a question for the tactical thread: what formation do you think we were playing?

When I saw the team take to the pitch I thought it was a 4-2-3-1, and to be fair with both Robbo and Cronin in the middle it seemed the most logical.

trane
04-23-2009, 09:27 AM
^yeah, depending who deep Guevarra played it was either a 4-2-3-1, or a 4-3-2-1 , depends if Guevarra was supposed to be in beteween the two DMs or between the Barrett and Vitti.

ACSertL
04-23-2009, 09:37 AM
^yeah, depending who deep Guevarra played it was either a 4-2-3-1, or a 4-3-2-1 , depends if Guevarra was supposed to be in beteween the two DMs or between the Barrett and Vitti.

I'm pretty certain Guevara was expected to play the attacking midfielder role right behind Dichio, and it suits him as he doesn't seem to be too fond of tracking back :)

Ossington Mental Youth
04-23-2009, 09:41 AM
Was greatly impressed, i can see us doing tha tformation again with DeRo in Dichios position when DeRo is fit, either way i hope carver stays open to something other than fucking 4-4-2

druid
04-23-2009, 09:54 AM
I'm sure that it was a 4-2-something but I have no idea what we were doing beyond Cronin and Robinson. Logic tells me the most likely answer is a 4-2-3-1.

But sometimes it looked like the magic box with Guevara and Vitti behind Dichio and Barrett.

Sometimes it looked like a 4-2-4.

Sometimes it looked like 4-2-1-3. Is that even a formation?

Candu_88
04-23-2009, 06:10 PM
We were debating this while the game was going on. I was arguing that it looked like a narrow 4-3-3 to me. According to Chris Cummins; Vitti was a forward, Guevara was playing in the hole behind the three forwards and Cronin and Robbo were defensive centre-mids. It was a variation of 4-3-3, druid is right basically a 4-2-1-3 but with the outside forwards not providing the usual width in that formation and thus making it tough to figure out. However, that was the game plan because Chivas has been scoring the majority of their goals up the middle and TFC really stifled that. Great tactical coaching from Carver and Cummins.

When DeRo returns I think TFC has to go to the old school XMAS tree formation 4-3-2-1 with both DeRo and Guevara supporting the lone striker and being the creative force that is the strength of both players.

jloome
04-23-2009, 06:55 PM
By video game standards, it was a 4-2-1-2-1

By real life, it was a 4-3-3.

------------Frei-------------
Wynne--Velez--Serioux--Brennan
--------Cronin----Robbo---------
------------Guevara--------------
---Barrett--------------Vitti------------
-------------Dichio--------------------

This doesn't have to really change. We just swap in Dero for barrett or Dichio.

druid
04-23-2009, 08:57 PM
By video game standards, it was a 4-2-1-2-1

By real life, it was a 4-3-3.

------------Frei-------------
Wynne--Velez--Serioux--Brennan
--------Cronin----Robbo---------
------------Guevara--------------
---Barrett--------------Vitti------------
-------------Dichio--------------------

This doesn't have to really change. We just swap in Dero for barrett or Dichio.

I have to say, it definitely wasn't a 4-3-3. The shape and player selection were totally wrong. If Carver thinks that was a 4-3-3 we're in deeper scheisse than I thought.

ACSertL
04-23-2009, 09:08 PM
By video game standards, it was a 4-2-1-2-1

By real life, it was a 4-3-3.

------------Frei-------------
Wynne--Velez--Serioux--Brennan
--------Cronin----Robbo---------
------------Guevara--------------
---Barrett--------------Vitti------------
-------------Dichio--------------------

This doesn't have to really change. We just swap in Dero for barrett or Dichio.

:lol:

I was going to write 4-2-1-2-1 but I thought it sounded "too FIFA 09".

Wooster_TFC
04-24-2009, 06:56 AM
:lol:

I was going to write 4-2-1-2-1 but I thought it sounded "too FIFA 09".

My understanding was that, outside of video games, no one ever calls those formations. They use three numbers. 1 for defenders, 1 for midfielders, and 1 for forwards. There's really only a half dozen names for formations, but the way they work can be entirely different (different, wide, narrow, offside trap, defenders pushing up, wingbacks vs fullbacks, etc).

4-4-2
4-5-1
4-3-3
5-4-1
5-3-2
3-5-2 (although this is normally the same as the 5-3-2, just the outside backs are considered midfielders instead)

I don't think anyone ever actually plays a 4-2-4, or more than 5 at any one slot, so that's about it.

James Oliphant
04-24-2009, 07:20 AM
Was greatly impressed, i can see us doing tha tformation again with DeRo in Dichios position when DeRo is fit, either way i hope carver stays open to something other than fucking 4-4-2

De Ro is a target man now?

Wooster_TFC
04-24-2009, 07:26 AM
De Ro is a target man now?

Yeah, this has been mentioned a couple times, that when DeRo is back, you can slot him in for one of Barrett or Dichio. The first part is true, while the second part is patently false.

You cannot do the formation we ran out on Wednesday without Dichio. There is no one on this team that can play the CF position in a 4-3-3 other than Dichio.

All that will happen is you will get an attempt to run all 3 strikers behind the defense at the same time. Now, I can see it being possible if the majority of the play was on the ground to Dichio, but let's be honest, most of it was at least waist high.

ACSertL
04-24-2009, 08:35 AM
My understanding was that, outside of video games, no one ever calls those formations. They use three numbers. 1 for defenders, 1 for midfielders, and 1 for forwards. There's really only a half dozen names for formations, but the way they work can be entirely different (different, wide, narrow, offside trap, defenders pushing up, wingbacks vs fullbacks, etc).

4-4-2
4-5-1
4-3-3
5-4-1
5-3-2
3-5-2 (although this is normally the same as the 5-3-2, just the outside backs are considered midfielders instead)

I don't think anyone ever actually plays a 4-2-4, or more than 5 at any one slot, so that's about it.

I know Jloome mentioned that that a 4-2-1-2-1 is a 4-3-3 just by another name and I just agreed with him :).

trane
04-24-2009, 08:42 AM
By video game standards, it was a 4-2-1-2-1

By real life, it was a 4-3-3.

------------Frei-------------
Wynne--Velez--Serioux--Brennan
--------Cronin----Robbo---------
------------Guevara--------------
---Barrett--------------Vitti------------
-------------Dichio--------------------

This doesn't have to really change. We just swap in Dero for barrett or Dichio.

That looks right, Guevara was not playing quite as far forward as Barret and Vitti, but ahead of Cronin and Robbo. Again I hope they stick to this.

Wooster_TFC
04-24-2009, 08:53 AM
I know Jloome mentioned that that a 4-2-1-2-1 is a 4-3-3 just by another name and I just agreed with him :).

Sorry, I just quoted you to agree with you, guess I should have tacked on +1. :)

Was more relating for those folks who have only really played footy in rec leagues and video games, where you need to describe formations based on more complicated systems, since you can't sit down and explain to every player what their role in the system is.

ACSertL
04-24-2009, 09:01 AM
Sorry, I just quoted you to agree with you, guess I should have tacked on +1. :)

Was more relating for those folks who have only really played footy in rec leagues and video games, where you need to describe formations based on more complicated systems, since you can't sit down and explain to every player what their role in the system is.

No apology required. I'm no tactical or formation wizard by any stretch, but these discussions are generally my favourites on the boards :)

Ossington Mental Youth
04-24-2009, 09:02 AM
De Ro is a target man now?

never claimed that, I just dont see why he couldnt play his creative midrole up a bit


Yeah, this has been mentioned a couple times, that when DeRo is back, you can slot him in for one of Barrett or Dichio. The first part is true, while the second part is patently false.

You cannot do the formation we ran out on Wednesday without Dichio. There is no one on this team that can play the CF position in a 4-3-3 other than Dichio.

All that will happen is you will get an attempt to run all 3 strikers behind the defense at the same time. Now, I can see it being possible if the majority of the play was on the ground to Dichio, but let's be honest, most of it was at least waist high.

Definitely interesting analysis, i have to admit I dont know much about the 4-3-3 role outside of the need for more than one DM in the mid in order to cover the defence (well in a traditional 4-3-3 anyways)
.
(im not taking the piss here) But whos to say that DeRo cant set up the balls, i mean he is a playmaker, outside of the height issue (and there are shorter centre forwards), why wouldnt he fit the bill?

Description of a centre forward:


The centre forward is often a tall player, typically known as a target man, who is used to win long balls or receive passes and "hold up" the ball as team-mates advance, to help teammates score by providing a pass ('through ball' into the box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_area_%28football%29)), or to score himself; the latter variation usually requiring quicker pace. Some forwards operate on the wings of the field and work their way goalward.

Ok so DeRo isnt the best for winning long balls but isnt the goal to avoid long balls this season?

Hes good on playmaking (ie through balls etc) and is able to score himself...

once again im looking for guidance on this, not snide comments

Ossington Mental Youth
04-24-2009, 09:04 AM
I guess itd essentially mean that all 3 would come back more, i mean DeRo isnt renowned for insane goal scoring...

trane
04-24-2009, 09:14 AM
Milan use, a similar system , with both taller bigger point strikers, ( Borriello) and smaller faster strikers ( Pato). But I still think that for us a Dichio is the way to go for us. I do not what to sit one of the holding mids, nor am I sure that we could play three at the back, even with two DM's.

Ossington Mental Youth
04-24-2009, 09:22 AM
That would be a problem, the lack of height up front, definitely a good point.
I definitely dont want to looks either one of our DM's either, i do feel they are necessary, especially if we are going to give Guevara free reign....

Does that then mean benching one of our strikers (ie Vitti or Barrett) in favor of DeRo?

ACSertL
04-24-2009, 09:28 AM
That would be a problem, the lack of height up front, definitely a good point.
I definitely dont want to looks either one of our DM's either, i do feel they are necessary, especially if we are going to give Guevara free reign....

Does that then mean benching one of our strikers (ie Vitti or Barrett) in favor of DeRo?

That's the dilemma that the coach faces. Unless he changes up the formation one of the attackers is going to have to be left out of the starting XI.

James Oliphant
04-24-2009, 09:32 AM
Ok so DeRo isnt the best for winning long balls but isnt the goal to avoid long balls this season?

The goal is to vary the attack. Long balls have their uses, as we saw on Wednesday. But to rely on it as our sole method of attack as we had been doing for a good portion of the first two seasons is what we need to get away from. 4-3-3 is a good formation for that.

Besides, not all balls played to a centre-forward are necessarily long balls. Short passes often require the back-to-goal holding role that a CF like Dichio brings the same as long balls do.

And lastly, let's remind ourselves once again that De Ro is NOT a forward by trade. He is a midfielder. Not the goal-scoring machine some (I'm not referring to you here, OMY) seem to think he is. He has always been at his absolute best when he plays behind forwards, and he occasionally likes to take the shots on himself.

I've been saying this for a while now (and I'm not claiming ownership of this idea, obviously)...when De Rosario returns, Barrett needs to sit. Dichio and Vitti have bene momentum-changers in just about every appearance they've had this season. I've been pushing for a 3-5-2 with Velez - Serioux - Wynne in the back (if only because I'm sick of seeing so many midfielders - Brennan and Harmse especially - playing out of position), but would be more than happy with this alternative in the meantime.

Ossington Mental Youth
04-24-2009, 09:42 AM
Yep, im with you on players playing their proper positions, thats why i was advocating DeRo somewhat behind Vitti and Barrett as opposed to Dichio in front of them


sorta like this
------------Frei-------------
Wynne--Velez--Serioux--Brennan
--------Cronin----Robbo---------
------------Guevara--------------
------------DeRo----------------
Barrett--------------Vitti--------

But in hindsight it creates more work for Vitti and Barrett having to go back as well as more work for DeRo and Guevara, the latter of the two is usually reluctant to do so

Ossington Mental Youth
04-24-2009, 09:42 AM
honestly i wouldnt mind seeing how it works (and whether it works HA)

ACSertL
04-24-2009, 09:53 AM
Yep, im with you on players playing their proper positions, thats why i was advocating DeRo somewhat behind Vitti and Barrett as opposed to Dichio in front of them


sorta like this
------------Frei-------------
Wynne--Velez--Serioux--Brennan
--------Cronin----Robbo---------
------------Guevara--------------
------------DeRo----------------
Barrett--------------Vitti--------

But in hindsight it creates more work for Vitti and Barrett having to go back as well as more work for DeRo and Guevara, the latter of the two is usually reluctant to do so

I think it might work like this...

--------------Frei--------------
Wynne--Velez--Serioux--Brennan
--------Cronin--Robbo----------
-----------Guevara-------------
-----De Rosario----Vitti---------
-------------Dichio-------------

I'm with James. Even though I thought Barrett had a rather good game v Chivas I would make him the odd man out for De Rosario. In my opinion Dichio did nothing to lose the starting role. I guess I should have prefaced by saying that this is my ideal formation if De Rosario is healthy...if he's still out, don't change a thing!

Ossington Mental Youth
04-24-2009, 09:57 AM
yep, if i can get with that, Barrett just has to step up his scoring game, also id like to see more from Vitti before automatically placing him on the bench

Wooster_TFC
04-24-2009, 09:58 AM
never claimed that, I just dont see why he couldnt play his creative midrole up a bit



Definitely interesting analysis, i have to admit I dont know much about the 4-3-3 role outside of the need for more than one DM in the mid in order to cover the defence (well in a traditional 4-3-3 anyways)
.
(im not taking the piss here) But whos to say that DeRo cant set up the balls, i mean he is a playmaker, outside of the height issue (and there are shorter centre forwards), why wouldnt he fit the bill?

Description of a centre forward:



Ok so DeRo isnt the best for winning long balls but isnt the goal to avoid long balls this season?

Hes good on playmaking (ie through balls etc) and is able to score himself...

once again im looking for guidance on this, not snide comments

I wasn't saying the DeRo couldn't play the CF role, but looking at the way the game played out on Wednesday, the majority of the balls that were sent to Dichio were in the air, or were short little chip passes that he played on right away.

That's not something that DeRo is suited for, he would probably lose most of the balls in the air, and he plays much better when he has the ball at his feet, rather than having to dish off right away.

IF we could get the ball on the ground to DeRo, then I think he plays fine in that role. But, I'm concerned that the D and DMs won't be able to get the majority of balls played to his feet, but rather there'd be a 50/50 mix at best. That means that at least 25% of the balls to DeRo through the middle would likely be blasted away by a bigger, stronger CBs head. :)

Candu_88
04-24-2009, 11:20 AM
That looks right, Guevara was not playing quite as far forward as Barret and Vitti, but ahead of Cronin and Robbo. Again I hope they stick to this.


Sorry, I disagree.This formation only works against up-the-middle teams like Chivas. Did you not notice the insane amount of space available to the opposition down the flanks? Any team with fast, skilled wingers and competitive hard working central midfielders will dominate TFC in this formation. Every wide pass will result in an instant attack and our attacking midfielders will not consistently recover back fast enough to defend against them. To be honest, TFC doesn't yet have the right balance of players to play 4-4-2 or even true 4-3-3. The coaches are going to have to adapt tactics to every team we play this year to be successful.

trane
04-24-2009, 11:27 AM
^ You have to put together a formation to fit your strengths, adapting to each team, in the manner that you say, would result in great incossitence, and lack of form. If you play in the same formation and you are worried about the flanks, you simply you DMs to cover them as they cross midfield, it is not a great or difficualt adjustment. Trying a differente foramtion and players every week would result in another disatrous year. This is a formation that ensures our top 11 players play, this is what we shuold stick to. We do so, we will win more then lose, some team will exploit it, but most will not be able to .

Candu_88
04-24-2009, 12:57 PM
^ You have to put together a formation to fit your strengths, adapting to each team, in the manner that you say, would result in great incossitence, and lack of form. If you play in the same formation and you are worried about the flanks, you simply you DMs to cover them as they cross midfield, it is not a great or difficualt adjustment. Trying a differente foramtion and players every week would result in another disatrous year. This is a formation that ensures our top 11 players play, this is what we shuold stick to. We do so, we will win more then lose, some team will exploit it, but most will not be able to .

I would greatly prefer to have the same proven formation every game with only minor tweaks to the opposition but I just don't think the current squad permits this. Accommodating DeRo and Guevera is not unlike the England team trying to fit in Gerrard and Lampard. Three world class coaches have not been able to do it. DeRo is not a target striker, winger or wide forward in 4-3-3. He is a pure in the hole attacking midfielder centre just like Guevara.

Does Sir Alex play the same players and formation every game? No, ManU rotate players more than any other EPL squad and I have seen them play almost every common formation at some point this season and it is all around adapting to the opposition. So my conclusion is it isn't ideal but it is TFC only choice right now. We have seen TFC play (442, 433, 352, 4411, 451, 4141) last year and this season so the players are somewhat comfortable with different tactics and roles.

trane
04-24-2009, 02:11 PM
^ We are not Man U, we do not have the depth, nor collective football IQ, as a team. We can not vary formations and looks and expect consistent play. We need to keep it as simple as possible, and change as little as possible. Last year, we played many different formations, and we were never consistern. I never said De Ro is a target man, and personaly I prefer him as an AM or even CM. I fo not have a favoured formation, but I know that whatever formation we need to have two holding mids, and four at the back, as we are not strong enough defensively. Up front we have one big target men striker, who I think should play as much as possible, and two smaller stirker Vitti and barret who I see more as in the hole strikers , I see Vitti used more centraly and Barret more on the wing. Then we have two CM/Am De Ro and Guevarra, two similar players, and two DM Cronin and Robbinson, plus the current back four. The other players are out of form ( Ricketts) or injured (Nana) or simply not that good (Johan Smith) not enough to start. So starting from a 4-2 build any formation that you would like using the best four upfront. However, we do not have two wingers right now that should start, therefore the options are limited, whether you want to play a 4-3-3 a 4-2-3-1, a 4-3-2-1, these are all variations on the same theme, but they are all our best opotions at the moment. 4-4-2 and 4-4-1-1, usualy requires wing play, we do not have quality in that right now. 4-1-4-1 can be played with the same players, and similar formation slight adjustments, but it would not be a wide formation, for the same lack of wingers. 4-5-1, can also be 4-2-1-2-1 or 4-2-3-1 if you like which is prety well what we played. They are all slight variations on the same theme.

jloome
04-24-2009, 05:22 PM
Barrett's strong enough on the ball to play centrally up top. The target forward doesn't have to be monstrously tall, he just has to be able to hold up the ball long enough to bring his teammates in and to dish it afterwards.

Admittedly, that's easier when your target man is tall, but strength and ball control are the two key attributes.

We could play is as
-------Dero-------------Vitti-----------
------------Barrett--------------------

as easily as wth Dichio. He's a sturdy kid, worth trying it when necessary (or when DD can't play.)

trane
04-24-2009, 06:16 PM
^ I thought so too, but early this season, he seemed lost at times. Last year, and in film I saw of him with the national team, I liked what I saw of him receving the ball, head or shoulder heigth, putting down and controlling it. I also so some willigness to shot quick. Which I like in a striker, I do not get down on them for taking lots of shots. Hopefully, he will get back into that form.

rocker
04-24-2009, 07:44 PM
interesting site:

http://www.football-lineups.com/team/Toronto_FC/

LucaGol
04-24-2009, 07:54 PM
My understanding was that, outside of video games, no one ever calls those formations. They use three numbers. 1 for defenders, 1 for midfielders, and 1 for forwards. There's really only a half dozen names for formations, but the way they work can be entirely different (different, wide, narrow, offside trap, defenders pushing up, wingbacks vs fullbacks, etc).

4-4-2
4-5-1
4-3-3
5-4-1
5-3-2
3-5-2 (although this is normally the same as the 5-3-2, just the outside backs are considered midfielders instead)

I don't think anyone ever actually plays a 4-2-4, or more than 5 at any one slot, so that's about it.

That's actually pretty close to the famous Brazil formation, more commonly referred to as 4-2-2-2.

They use four forwards forming the "magic box".

LucaGol
04-24-2009, 08:02 PM
Sorry, I disagree.This formation only works against up-the-middle teams like Chivas. Did you not notice the insane amount of space available to the opposition down the flanks? Any team with fast, skilled wingers and competitive hard working central midfielders will dominate TFC in this formation. Every wide pass will result in an instant attack and our attacking midfielders will not consistently recover back fast enough to defend against them. To be honest, TFC doesn't yet have the right balance of players to play 4-4-2 or even true 4-3-3. The coaches are going to have to adapt tactics to every team we play this year to be successful.

I fundamentally disagree on this point.

Two DM's can cover the necessary ground to repel most attacks.

Realizing that 4-3-3 is an offensive formation, nevertheless, you're definitely not exposed to the point where you will be totally outmatched against teams with pacy wingers.

Candu_88
04-25-2009, 01:39 PM
I fundamentally disagree on this point.

Two DM's can cover the necessary ground to repel most attacks.

Realizing that 4-3-3 is an offensive formation, nevertheless, you're definitely not exposed to the point where you will be totally outmatched against teams with pacy wingers.

4-3-3 is a sound formation that has proven to be effective for Ajax, Barcelona and Chelsea over the years. Dichio is a good target striker needed for this formation to work but are Barret and Vitti true wide forwards that will give the team the needed attacking width and creativity? In 4-3-3 the outside forwards defensive role is to mark and keep the overlapping full-backs back on defensive. This leaves the 3 man midfield stuck trying to win the midfield war against 4 or even 5 midfielders. For this to work you need exceptional speedy, aggressive, skilled players with tremendous work rates and stamina. Teams playing this formation can also tend to get hoofy up to the three forwards. Does TFC have the midfield balance to make this formation work against a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 with quality central midfielders and threatening pacey wingers? I don't think so. 4-3-2-1 might work better for this squad with only one forward and five true midfielders but hard to say for sure.

druid
04-25-2009, 09:26 PM
I find myself in the camp that thinks we need to have one primary formation and fiddle it a little depending on needs.

Chivas and the 4-3-3 was a one off. While I think that a 4-3-3 at home switching to a 4-5-1 on the road is a good plan in theory, we don't really have the players to manage it. No quality out wide, one CF, and only two decent CMs.

Whatever we do, I think Robinson and Cronin need to be our CM pairing, until we get a new CB, and stack whatever attack is most appropriate on top of that. It would shore up the defense and give us a sense of stability at the back.

felipe
04-25-2009, 09:47 PM
Candu, I like the way you think; I think you're spot on in your analysis.

However, If utilsing the previous games formation when DeRo is healthy:

The obvious player to make way for DeRo is Vitti, as he is the most similar in terms of what he brings to the team effort. (except DeRo is much much better)

Vitti doesn't approximate either Barrett's pace strength or work ethic; and he certainly brings something altogether different than Dichio - which in the last match's formation - dichio is irreplaceable for.

TFCREDNWHITE
04-27-2009, 05:35 PM
4-2-3-1
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/4-2-3-1.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4-2-3-1.gif) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:4-2-3-1.gif)
4-2-3-1 Formation





This formation is widely used by Spanish and French sides: it is a defensive formation which is quite flexible, as both the side midfielders and the fullbacks may join the attack, usually on the counter. In defence, this formation is similar to the 4-5-1. It is used to maintain possession of the ball and stopping opponent attacks by controlling the midfield area of the field. The lone striker may be very tall and strong to hold the ball up as his midfielders and fullbacks join him in attack. The striker could also be very fast. In these cases, the opponent's defence will be forced to fall back early, thereby leaving space for the offensive central midfielder. This formation is used especially when a playmaker is to be highlighted.


This formation is also currently used by Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_national_football_team) as an alternative to the 4-2-4 formation of late 50's to 1970. Implemented similarly to how original 4-2-4 was used back then, use of this formation in this manner is very offensive, creating a 6-man attack and a six-man defence tactical layout. The front 4 attackers are composed as wide forwards and playmaker forward in support of a target striker in front.

TFCREDNWHITE
04-27-2009, 05:37 PM
^^ That is that tactical formation we should deploy to take full advantage of the players we have....

jloome
04-27-2009, 08:51 PM
Sorry, I disagree.This formation only works against up-the-middle teams like Chivas. Did you not notice the insane amount of space available to the opposition down the flanks? Any team with fast, skilled wingers and competitive hard working central midfielders will dominate TFC in this formation. Every wide pass will result in an instant attack and our attacking midfielders will not consistently recover back fast enough to defend against them. To be honest, TFC doesn't yet have the right balance of players to play 4-4-2 or even true 4-3-3. The coaches are going to have to adapt tactics to every team we play this year to be successful.

Gotta disagree. YOu can still play the modified 433, you just play a flatter back four and hold back your wingbacks, then also allow one of the two central holding midfielders (cronin or robbo) to drift out occasionally and breakup the support for the attacking winger. Plus, with both he and Cronin on the field, Robbo can step up and challenge the two central mids who are distributing for the team.

It makes positional sense, what you're saying, but the reality is you can use any shape when you're playing zonally as long as you have all of your assignments worked out.

trane
04-28-2009, 09:58 AM
^^ That is that tactical formation we should deploy to take full advantage of the players we have....

What we are playing is very similar to that, when you acctualy seehow they line up on the field.

jloome
04-30-2009, 12:38 AM
Is DeRo back this weekend, and if so, what's the consensus on our formation?

Ossington Mental Youth
04-30-2009, 12:42 AM
id say DeRo in for Barrett (exact same formation) provided DeRo is 100% if not, same as last two games with DeRo as a sub for someone (either Barrett or Guevara) late in the game to get his fitness up

Ossington Mental Youth
04-30-2009, 12:47 AM
Especially as Cummins will want to see where DeRo fits best in that particular formation

Wooster_TFC
04-30-2009, 07:20 AM
Go with the formation that got you here, with DeRo as first sub for any of the forwards. You don't put someone just returning from a hamstring injury back in for 90 right off in my opinion. As my as I think DeRo is a quality player, he has to start on the bench.

trane
04-30-2009, 09:19 AM
I think De Ro for Barret is the most likely scenario, then you sub in Barret for Guevara, moving De Ro back to Guevaras spot . But if De Ro is not 100% maybe you do sub him in the second half.