Re: GoalLegacy Quintessential Tactical Discussion & Analysis Thread

[Swanhends]

Thing is off the ball 4-4-2 has always been a fantastic system its very solid and leaves very little holes defensively.

I have seen Barca go into a 4-4-2 shape off the ball many many times, its when you have the ball 4-4-2 tends to be a problem.

Reason being usually is because its very rigid and doesn't allow much off the ball movement so its easy to defense against but as far as pressing goes its very effective always has been and always will be.

Partially agree: When defending deep 442 is a good shape without the ball, especially if you stay compact. Two banks of four with little space between the lines is very difficult to break down

However, for teams that actually want to come out and play (and especially those who want to press) 442 is very difficult...With the landscape of todays game in Europe, where 4231 is the dominant formation, 442 struggles to cope with that...If they try to go blow for blow they will always be at a disadvantage against a well drilled side. If they try to press forward they leave a man free between the lines (unless they let a CB charge forward to mark him, which leaves space in behind), or alternatively they could leave one of the deeper midfielders free, but that would sort of defeat the purpose of the pressing system to begin with, as even a DM who is not a prolific passer will be able to find his way when not under pressure

[The Franchise]

So this thread has inspired me to translate Sabella's chat during which he explains how he tackled Barca at the CWC final. It took me a lot longer to do than I'm willing to admit lol.

Anyways:


Make sure to hit CC to see the subtitles

Thanks for sharing, that was superb.

One thing I sort of missed though, what was the purpose of having the wingbacks in front of our wingers?

If I understood correct, its so one of them (mostly the left) could come inside to help in the midfield? Am I getting that right?

[sportsczy]

Depends on personnel imo. You fit the system to the talents of your team and not vice versa.

[Zealous]

The 4-4-2 has always been a great defensive formation, imo it's better than the 4-3-3 in that regard. The only set back it has is that it is susceptible to runs into spaces between lines.

The obvious fix to that would be to make sure your lines are closer and that the two CM's mark zonally tracking whoever might get into space but not too much.

A lot also depends on the front because they'll either have to drop back or press the CB of the other team. If they are a passing side with only two at the back then this could be interesting because in football a 2v2 is always a dangerous situation for defence.

IMO a 4-4-2's biggest weakness is a 3 man defence. Roberto Martinez has figured this out two years ago and yet no one has used it at the top level in England (there are examples of teams with a back three on the continent). When the other team plays 4-4-2 or even 4-3-3 with a three man defence you are always at least level and in the case of the 4-3-3 your team will always have two spare wingbacks on the wing. In a 4-4-2 your CBs will have two spare men at the back to play it out to. This is assuming that one of the strikers in a 4-4-2 drops back to help the midfield from being overrun like in one of Ancellotti's solutions.

Even if they are playing with only one striker your ball playing CB pushes up to help the midfield. (I call this the Figeroua role). Wigan are a great example of how a flexible back three opens so much options for you.

[worms]

;dfqhwelfqksdhlqj this is so f*cking cool, you never see shit like this

I remember back when Mourinho was at Chelsea he explained in a press-conference (I think it was a post game interview) why his 433 was so successful in the EPL and why it gave him a competitive advantage against sides in the league that were still primarily playing a flat 442 at the time; and he made mention of the 3v2 problem in midfield and how Makalele was able to influence the game as the open man between the lines, and that was awesome.

But that pales in comparison to the detail present in this post; reactions to a number of different situations all depending on the position of the ball - brilliant stuff

Its frustrating, I wish other managers would do this kind of thing, especially in games where there is obviously some tactical intrigue, but at the same time I understand a managers need to keep his gameplan largely a mystery to any opposition.

I wish he had done this analysis of how to press with a 442 against a 433 or 4231 though, for the sole reason that such a piece would have wider implications based on how many teams play those two formations vs how many play 352, but still a great read

This write-up would be made especially interesting if Juve were to meet PSG or ManU etc in the Champions League

This is only very basic stuff really.Well for someone who has studied formations and gameplans before on numerous occasions like myself.A 4 - 3 - 3 is the best formation against a 3 - 5 - 2 for obvious reasons.

[Zealous]

No it isn't. In fact I'd actually argue that it's the worst depending on the personnel in a 3-5-2

[worms]

Of course it's the best,they have 3 CB's marking your 1 striker which is a waste of 1 of their players.Your two wingers will force back their wingbacks making them shift to a 5 man defense.Now your fullbacks have lots of space in front of them for them to attack.Thus you will dominate territory and the game.

It's common knowledge in the football world that 4 - 3 - 3 is best against a 3 - 5 - 2.

[Zealous]

This isn't chess mate, players can move around. One of the three can support the wing back next to him pretty easily while still keeping a 2 v 1 against the striker in a 4-3-3

However now your defence has a 2 v 2 situation to deal with if your fullbacks push up and those almost always go the attacking team's way.

Another scenario is if the back 3 stay brave and mark your front 3. Especially if the midfielders in front of them help them out. (Defending 3v3 is easier than defending 2v2) Now BOTH wingbacks are completely free to push forward and create a lot of trouble for you, even more so if the two strikers double up on your fullbacks.

[worms]

Football tactics is chess,obviously both of your fullbacks wouldn't be bombing forward at the same time.One can sit back and make it 3 vs 2 at the back.Whatever way you look at it 4 - 3 - 3 works against a 3 - 5 - 2.

[Zealous]

That's a two way street, both wingbacks won't push up either lol

I just explained to you that there is a scenario where the 3-5-2 can get not one but TWO spare men in wide positions giving 3-5-2 the advantage.

All you're doing is saying the same thing over and over.

I've seen teams using 3-5-2 rip a 4-3-3 apart mate. Like I said arm chair gaffers like to pretend this is chess but it isn't. It's much more dynamic and difficult.

[worms]

I have just explained why 4 - 4 - 3 beats a 3 - 5 - 2.Ignore my reasons if you want.

[Zealous]

You gave your reasons................... and then I countered them.

Seriously lol

[BarrileteCosmico]

Thanks for sharing, that was superb.

One thing I sort of missed though, what was the purpose of having the wingbacks in front of our wingers?

If I understood correct, its so one of them (mostly the left) could come inside to help in the midfield? Am I getting that right?

No. Maybe I should make that more clear. When he's talking about the left coming to help he's explaining the fallacy of the 4-4-2 and how because they only have 2 CMs a winger usually drops in to help. But his point is that now they have one less person on Messi and Messi takes advantage of that.

The way I understand it from the comment made at the 3 minute mark, the two FBs played in front of the wingers so they could push up and minimize Barca's wing-play. I think that was with Dani Alves in mind, but given that Enzo Perez was marking Abidal I'm sure that on the right side Clemente did his fair share of defending against Henry, so that probably holds true for the LB as well.

[BarrileteCosmico]

I have just explained why 4 - 4 - 3 beats a 3 - 5 - 2.Ignore my reasons if you want.

It's because one is playing with one more player

[worms]

You gave your reasons................... and then I countered them.

Seriously lol

You didn't counter them at all.

[Zealous]

Great vid BC. Sabella explains it quite well in the end. The part about tactics only being capable of achieving so much.

Estudnaites (a good team but not elite tbf) held Barca to a very tight game. A 3-5-2 vs a 4-3-3. The formation Worms would have you believe would beat a 3-5-2 simply because he decrees it

[Zealous]

You gave your reasons................... and then I countered them.

Seriously lol

You didn't counter them at all.

Read my posts. It's fairly obvious what the points I'm bringing forward are.

At least watch the video BC posted. It also does a decent job of how a 3-5-2 can nullify a 4-3-3.

EDIT: I'll draw it out for you if you find reading too tedious

--------------------X---------------------
---X-----------X---------X----------X----
--------O----------------------O--------
-O----------------X-----------------O-----
-----------X------O------X----------------
------------O-----------O-----------------
-----X---------------------------X--------
--------------------X--------------------
---------O------------------O------------
------------------O----------------------
-------------------O---------------------


Look where the winbacks are in red. They're doubling up on your fullbacks with on of the front 2. It's still only 3v3 at the back and 2v1 on your flanks. They can even track back when needed (more likely only one will have to)

In the real world if the wingbacks of are of really good quality the wingers in a 4-3-3 will have to track back. Then it'll be 3v1 at the back, if this happens the ball playing CB can push up and help create an advantage in midfield which up until now is a stalemate at 3v3.

[Onyx]

The fullbacks in a 4-3-3 can close down the wingbacks in a 3-5-2, while the RW/CF/LW can close down the 3 CB's.

[Swanhends]

You should always have a man advantage at the back, always

[Onyx]

Thing is you can afford to give the space to one of the wingbacks. It's not possible for the other team to play a super accurate pass imo. One of the fullbacks, depending on what side the opposition is attacking from, will join the CB's.

[Zealous]

You should always have a man advantage at the back, always

I agree with that to an extent. You see in this case neither team has a man advantage and even then both wingbacks won't push forward at the same time. I just put them both up there to illustrate a point.

The point is both wingbacks are spare men in attack if they choose to be.

[Zealous]

The fullbacks in a 4-3-3 can close down the wingbacks in a 3-5-2, while the RW/CF/LW can close down the 3 CB's.

You're forgetting about the ball. If a striker or midfielder has the ball and the wingback is overlapping a fullback is going to have a tough time of it.

[Swanhends]

Thing is you can afford to give the space to one of the wingbacks. It's not possible for the other team to play a super accurate pass imo. One of the fullbacks, depending on what side the opposition is attacking from, will join the CB's.

I think.youre still missing what were saying

You are talking as if the way to switch the ball to the opposite FB is to hit a big switch or a long diagonal...Thats an option, of course, but really thats plan b.

The way you should switch from FB to FB under the pressing conditions laid out here is for the RB to it back to the GK and have the GK swing to the LB

In that scenario there is no need for the Hollywood switch you rightly said is difficult

[Zealous]

Thing is you can afford to give the space to one of the wingbacks. It's not possible for the other team to play a super accurate pass imo. One of the fullbacks, depending on what side the opposition is attacking from, will join the CB's.

Both won't go up at the same time. Like I said I put them both up there to show that they can be spare men in attack if they want to be. They are completely free and if they are dangerous enough the wingers in the 4-3-3 will be forced to track back or risk losing which in turn relieves pressure off the back three.

3-5-2 (or 3-4-3 with two wingbacks and two wingers) is a tactically flexible and fluid formation. It works best if you have players who can play more than one role (ball playing CB, wingers who can play wingback, midfield with stamina) such players exist however. The only problem would be getting your team to apply the tactics correctly because it isn't an easy formation to get used to.

[Zealous]

Thing is you can afford to give the space to one of the wingbacks. It's not possible for the other team to play a super accurate pass imo. One of the fullbacks, depending on what side the opposition is attacking from, will join the CB's.

I think.youre still missing what were saying

You are talking as if the way to switch the ball to the opposite FB is to hit a big switch or a long diagonal...Thats an option, of course, but really thats plan b.

The way you should switch from FB to FB under the pressing conditions laid out here is for the RB to it back to the GK and have the GK swing to the LB

In that scenario there is no need for the Hollywood switch you rightly said is difficult

Wigan use Al-Habsi to play a long ball into a free wingback on the flank (either on a goal kick or through open play) they then build from there. No one is asking anyone to play a long diagonal ball anyway. The midfield three canl help out in terms of passing from flank to flank.

[Onyx]

Thing is you can afford to give the space to one of the wingbacks. It's not possible for the other team to play a super accurate pass imo. One of the fullbacks, depending on what side the opposition is attacking from, will join the CB's.

I think.youre still missing what were saying

You are talking as if the way to switch the ball to the opposite FB is to hit a big switch or a long diagonal...Thats an option, of course, but really thats plan b.

The way you should switch from FB to FB under the pressing conditions laid out here is for the RB to it back to the GK and have the GK swing to the LB

In that scenario there is no need for the Hollywood switch you rightly said is difficult

Passing to the LWB would be risky, especially with all the players pressing high up.

[Sponsored content]