|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Dec 7, 2023 0:37:49 GMT
We haven't played the 3-4-2-1 formation under Page before the recent Turkiye game. Not all wing back formations are the same! In fact the 3-4-2-1 is very strong in the middle of the park, with Turkiye having very little joy centrally. You also forget how few goals we conceded in the Euro16 campaign on the back of this formation. It's a cautious approach, but that's appropriate away from home. For me this should be the default, but with attacking, 4 at the back, plan B setups, and the 4-1-4-1 fits the bill in that regard. We played it against Croatia and Armenia... Ward Mepham-Rodon-Davies Roberts-JJ-Ampadu-Neco Brooks-Wilson Moore We then did it against Turkey but with different personnel; Ward Rodon-Lockyer-Davies Roberts-JJ-Ampadu-Neco Wilson-Broadhead Brennan |
|
|
|
Post by winsumluzsum on Dec 7, 2023 13:15:42 GMT
We haven't played the 3-4-2-1 formation under Page before the recent Turkiye game. Not all wing back formations are the same! In fact the 3-4-2-1 is very strong in the middle of the park, with Turkiye having very little joy centrally. You also forget how few goals we conceded in the Euro16 campaign on the back of this formation. It's a cautious approach, but that's appropriate away from home. For me this should be the default, but with attacking, 4 at the back, plan B setups, and the 4-1-4-1 fits the bill in that regard. We played it against Croatia and Armenia... Ward Mepham-Rodon-Davies Roberts-JJ-Ampadu-Neco Brooks-Wilson Moore We then did it against Turkey but with different personnel; Ward Rodon-Lockyer-Davies Roberts-JJ-Ampadu-Neco Wilson-Broadhead Brennan It was more of a 3-4-3 against Croatia out of possession, with a line of 3 forwards and the play compressed into the middle third. Tactically Page got it very right. Against Armenia I can assure you, having watched the game twice, it was a very conservative 5-2-3 out of possession, contrasting with Armenia's more adventurous 3-4-3. So, even though we've played with wingbacks in those 3 games, the formations have varied game to game. It worked very well on 2 occasions and badly on the other, where Page overcompensated for being too bold against Armenia at home. 3-4-2-1, correctly implemented strikes a nice balance between defensive solidity, especially in central areas, whilst making it easier to progress the ball through the thirds through shorter passing play than if you play 3-5-2 or 3-4-3. |
|
|
|
Post by winsumluzsum on Dec 7, 2023 14:29:51 GMT
This provides an excellent summary of the pros and cons of the 3-4-2-1 formation : www.soccercoachingpro.com/3-4-2-1-formation/The article stresses the defensive solidity of the formation which we know only to well from Euro 2016 qualifying (4 goals conceded out of 10 qualifiers, none against Belgium nor Israel) and the recent Turkiye match. It also stressed the importance of technically proficient 10s, which we have in the form of Brooks, Ramsey and Wilson. Plus we have a strong attacking wingback on the left, who has a great engine, dribbling, crossing and shot making ability. Roberts is more limited, but has shown he has a good engine and ability to play short passing triangles. The latter seem to have vanished in recent times, but that is at least partly down to a failure for Roberts to build an understanding with Brooks and Wilson, which hopefully will emerge with time. Hopefully in the friendlies leading up to the Euros we can experiment with deploying James and Burns as wing backs. |
|
|
|
Post by welwyn on Dec 8, 2023 14:54:28 GMT
Jay De Silva fits the bill on the left too.
|
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Dec 11, 2023 14:15:16 GMT
We played it against Croatia and Armenia... Ward Mepham-Rodon-Davies Roberts-JJ-Ampadu-Neco Brooks-Wilson Moore We then did it against Turkey but with different personnel; Ward Rodon-Lockyer-Davies Roberts-JJ-Ampadu-Neco Wilson-Broadhead Brennan It was more of a 3-4-3 against Croatia out of possession, with a line of 3 forwards and the play compressed into the middle third. Tactically Page got it very right. Against Armenia I can assure you, having watched the game twice, it was a very conservative 5-2-3 out of possession, contrasting with Armenia's more adventurous 3-4-3. So, even though we've played with wingbacks in those 3 games, the formations have varied game to game. It worked very well on 2 occasions and badly on the other, where Page overcompensated for being too bold against Armenia at home. 3-4-2-1, correctly implemented strikes a nice balance between defensive solidity, especially in central areas, whilst making it easier to progress the ball through the thirds through shorter passing play than if you play 3-5-2 or 3-4-3. But the only difference between an adventurous 3-4-3 and a conservative 5-2-3 is implementation/performance related and partially semantic. Unless you think Page told the players to go out there and concede territory and possession to Armenia? I very much doubt that. He will have wanted us to be pinning them back not the other way around. This is the weakness of the wing back system, if not done well then it results in you getting pinned back too much |
|
|
|
Post by allezlesrouges on Dec 11, 2023 14:22:57 GMT
This provides an excellent summary of the pros and cons of the 3-4-2-1 formation : www.soccercoachingpro.com/3-4-2-1-formation/The article stresses the defensive solidity of the formation which we know only to well from Euro 2016 qualifying (4 goals conceded out of 10 qualifiers, none against Belgium nor Israel) and the recent Turkiye match. It also stressed the importance of technically proficient 10s, which we have in the form of Brooks, Ramsey and Wilson. Plus we have a strong attacking wingback on the left, who has a great engine, dribbling, crossing and shot making ability. Roberts is more limited, but has shown he has a good engine and ability to play short passing triangles. The latter seem to have vanished in recent times, but that is at least partly down to a failure for Roberts to build an understanding with Brooks and Wilson, which hopefully will emerge with time. Hopefully in the friendlies leading up to the Euros we can experiment with deploying James and Burns as wing backs. All I'm saying is that in recent times it's looked solid at home (Turkey/Croatia) but it's looked fragile away (Latvia/Armenia), and that is due to the weakness of the formation being that teams who know what they are doing can pin back the wingbacks which invites pressure When we're on top against Croatia & Turkey it did look really solid, we also have the benefits of being at home. But against Armenia we played that 3-4-2-1 in a textbook way and we got pinned back and it turned into a 5-2-3 and we couldn't get up the pitch - we should have conceded a few goals in that game and got a bit lucky Which is why I wonder whether we should trial 4-2-3-1 away from home in future |
|
