Is Roberto Martinez tactically more gifted than Pep?

I am not argueing the 3-4-3 is a universal fail lol.... just that 5 games at the end of a season is'nt the best measuring stick to decide whether this can be a long term success plan for Wigan.

Zealous wrote:I agree with Surag we'll have to wait whether Liverpool can succeed using this system.

In any case I think anyone who actually watched Wigan can see the merits of the system it self but like Roberto said the system can never win you a game, only the players can. The merits of this style of play are clear and proven, consistency is not an issue because there are too many variables that can affect preformances. The system itself is not only sound, it kept Wigan up (i.e. it succeeded meaning nameless's it can never succeed theory is totally wrong lol).

what I meant was it can work as a tactics, but never as a strategy.

I hope Liverpool dont go after him..Rather bring Rafa.

The Franchise wrote:

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Actually Dani it gave them a good 5 games...... he has switched from 3-5-2,4-3-3 and 3-4-3 in last few games.... and as i already said they had 22 points with 9 games to play.

As i already pointed out Wigan's success is more down to style of play change and having forwards hitting form.... not really a system that out does all before them.

Right, but bottom line, they have made the formation work...so its not clearly not the unworkable mess everyone seems to think 3 men at the back is.

Okay, it wasnt a hugely long period of time...but how can anyone argue Napoli's success? Udineses in the recent past...Chile...Mexico..?

Roma's Scudetto winning year, Brazil '02, Germany '90

Real Madrid 2000

BhritanniaBhlue wrote:

The Franchise wrote:

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Actually Dani it gave them a good 5 games...... he has switched from 3-5-2,4-3-3 and 3-4-3 in last few games.... and as i already said they had 22 points with 9 games to play.

As i already pointed out Wigan's success is more down to style of play change and having forwards hitting form.... not really a system that out does all before them.

Right, but bottom line, they have made the formation work...so its not clearly not the unworkable mess everyone seems to think 3 men at the back is.

Okay, it wasnt a hugely long period of time...but how can anyone argue Napoli's success? Udineses in the recent past...Chile...Mexico..?

Roma's Scudetto winning year, Brazil '02, Germany '90

Wanted to keep it recent, but yeah...others too.

Madrid of VDB for example, Greece of the Euros, Egypt teams that won ACON 3 times.

I did'nt say 3-4-3 is a monumental universal fail and is a matter of time till Wigan are found out tbf

Spoiler:

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:I did'nt say 3-4-3 is a monumental universal fail and is a matter of time till Wigan are found out tbf

Spoiler:

Indeed you didnt, but nameless did.

No I didint. You misunderstood me

You said its a temp soluation and " playing it 3 defenders is never good Idea. No matter the system or style".

That's not a 343 is a 541.
Same as Napoli never plays with 3 at the back, as many have claimed. They play with 3 CB and 2 FB or WB.
Most of the teams argued in this thread didn't play with 3 at the back either, like VDB Madrid, it was 5 at the back. (since when are Roberto Carlos and Salgado midfielders?).

A 343 means you have 4 midfielder, and a midfielder, by definition, doens't constantly go back into the defensive line when defending.

Pep's was more of a 3313 cat, not a 343.

A 343 utilizes two wide midfielders, like how Wigan does.

Pep used 3 defenders, 1 DM, 2 CMs and 1 AM and then 3 attackers upfront.

Roberto and Michel weren't midfielders but they pushed up the pitch and provided width, they did some defending and some attacking.

We played a 3-5-2. Our two strikers were mostly central.

Wigan play a 3-4-3 and really stretch the pitch.

Zealous wrote:Roberto and Michel weren't midfielders but they pushed up the pitch and provided width, they did some defending and some attacking.

We played a 3-5-2. Our two strikers were mostly central.

Wigan play a 3-4-3 and really stretch the pitch.

Nope, wing backs are not midfielders. Are defenders. Madrid played a 532 and Wigan a 541.

The same way, when Alves and Adriano play for Barça it's not a 253, but a 433.

You're too rigid in how you see players.

If a player spends his time up the pitch like Carlos and Salgado did in 2000 then they are not part of the defence exclusively.

I find that an excuse to make a team that plays with 5 defenders pass like a super attacking team that plays with only 3 defenders.

free_cat wrote:I find that an excuse to make a team that plays with 5 defenders pass like a super attacking team that plays with only 3 defenders.

I never said that they never defended with 5 when they had to, because they did. Defending with 5 at the back was very useful for Madrid because it meant every defender had someone covering him.

Let's not pretend that they never pushed forward and supported the attack because they did, a lot. They were in charge of providing width, Helguera would push up when Madrid had to ball, allowing Raul who played in midfield to push up as a striker.

How about...in attack it was 352..and in defence 532......

I think its silly to say a team plays formation X and thats it. No team really does.

The Franchise wrote:How about...in attack it was 352..and in defence 532......

I think its silly to say a team plays formation X and thats it. No team really does.

That's what I was trying to say in a much more convoluted way lol

But seeing as how the 3-5-2 has come up I think it's interesting to compare it to Martinez's version of the 3-4-3.

Like I said before in the 3-5-2 the width is provided by the wing backs. But in the 3-4-3 there are already two wide attacking players who get supported by the wing backs pushing up. It's much harder to stop imo.

You're arguing semantics and player mentality here.

In practice, a 3-4-3 transitions between being a 3-4-3 and a 5-2-3 (even a 5-4-1 when the wingers drop a little deeper). The determining factors seem to be in the players selected (are they traditionally wide midfielders or fullbacks) and the amount of possession a team has (the more possession, the higher the average position of the wingbacks).

I'm going to use Juve as an example, as I am more familiar with them. It's not a 4-3-4, but for this argument the key point of wingers vs. wingbacks remains intact. They lined up with (for arguments sake, I'm laying it out as a 3-5-2):
------------------Vucinic - Matri
Giaccherini - Marchisio - Pirlo - Vidal - Lichtensteiner
-------------Chiellini - Bonucci - Barzagli
-----------------------Buffon

Giaccherini and Lichtensteiner are the two key players here. Giaccherini is typically a wide midfielder or even a wide forward (sometimes playing as the LW in a front three for Juve). Lichtensteiner is a right full-back (albeit a very attacking minded fullback). Essentially, Conte was using a combination of the approaches that have been described. However, in practice it wasn’t drastically different from the right side to the left. Lichtensteiner and Giaccherini pushed forward equally, or dropped deep when necessary (granted Giaccherini is a bit lacking in defense, resulting in Chiellini being busier than Barzagli). When chasing a game or pushing for a goal/win, They averaged a higher position, becoming part of the midfield. When defending a lead, they sat deeper, getting into advanced positions more sparingly. It’s not the formation that designated how the team played, but the role the wing-backs were playing at the time.

Effectively, there is no difference between a three-back system and a five-back. A pundit is going to describe it one way or another depending on their view of the teams tactics as being positive or negative. (If they see a team as sitting back, soaking up pressure, it’s a 5-2-3. If they are attacking, it’s a 3-4-3.)The beauty of the three-at-the-back system is that with the right personnel it’s fluid and dynamic, allowing a team to overload areas of the pitch to achieve a desired result.

Zealous wrote:

The Franchise wrote:How about...in attack it was 352..and in defence 532......

I think its silly to say a team plays formation X and thats it. No team really does.

That's what I was trying to say in a much more convoluted way lol

But seeing as how the 3-5-2 has come up I think it's interesting to compare it to Martinez's version of the 3-4-3.

Like I said before in the 3-5-2 the width is provided by the wing backs. But in the 3-4-3 there are already two wide attacking players who get supported by the wing backs pushing up. It's much harder to stop imo.

On this point, a 3-4-3 is usually played with two more central forwards supporting a more advanced striker(Moses and Maloney supporting Di Santo). Though Moses would tend to drift wide for Wigan, Maloney tended more towards the center. Because of this, the fullbacks are still required to provide width up to and in the final third. Few teams play with wingbacks and wingers, as it ends up crowing the wide areas if they control the possession.

donttreadonred wrote:

Zealous wrote:

The Franchise wrote:How about...in attack it was 352..and in defence 532......

I think its silly to say a team plays formation X and thats it. No team really does.

That's what I was trying to say in a much more convoluted way lol

But seeing as how the 3-5-2 has come up I think it's interesting to compare it to Martinez's version of the 3-4-3.

Like I said before in the 3-5-2 the width is provided by the wing backs. But in the 3-4-3 there are already two wide attacking players who get supported by the wing backs pushing up. It's much harder to stop imo.

On this point, a 3-4-3 is usually played with two more central forwards supporting a more advanced striker(Moses and Maloney supporting Di Santo). Though Moses would tend to drift wide for Wigan, Maloney tended more towards the center. Because of this, the fullbacks are still required to provide width up to and in the final third. Few teams play with wingbacks and wingers, as it ends up crowing the wide areas if they control the possession.

Well obviously a balance needs to be set, you don't want players running into each other.

But it still allows for a wingback to overlap a wide player when needed which in a 3-4-3 is quite unique imo.

free_cat wrote:That's not a 343 is a 541.
Same as Napoli never plays with 3 at the back, as many have claimed. They play with 3 CB and 2 FB or WB.
Most of the teams argued in this thread didn't play with 3 at the back either, like VDB Madrid, it was 5 at the back. (since when are Roberto Carlos and Salgado midfielders?).

A 343 means you have 4 midfielder, and a midfielder, by definition, doens't constantly go back into the defensive line when defending.

"A midfielder, by definition, doesn't constantly go back into the defensive line when defending"

Its a two way street, though:

A defender - by definition - doesn't constantly go forward to join the forwards when attacking...

So then are they neither defenders nor midfielders, or do the rules only apply to midfielders?

Try actually reading through the thread, or should I add a hash tag to get your attention?

Khaled wrote:

Martinez>>>>>titos,potatos,tatoos etc