EPTOn September 10 2014 14:32 GTR wrote:
so true, they'd be like belgium 2.0 (xhaka, shaqiri and januzaj)
so true, they'd be like belgium 2.0 (xhaka, shaqiri and januzaj)
There's also Shkrodan Mustafi, Valon Behrami, etc. the list goes on...
2014 - 2015 Football Thread - Page 191
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
There's also Shkrodan Mustafi, Valon Behrami, etc. the list goes on... | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On September 10 2014 20:58 SatedSC2 wrote: Barkley/Sterling/Wilshere all ideally play the AM role. I wouldn't want to place any of them in the middle of the diamond, and certainly not at the base of the diamond (although I guess Barkley could get away with playing in the middle of the diamond). The industry of Henderson and Delph in the middle of the diamond was critical if that formation was to succeed and out of the squad we had I'd only trust Colback and Milner in the middle over either of those two players. At the base of the diamond we absolutely have to consider someone other than Wilshere. He had an awful game and it doesn't seem to have been picked up on by the press. He rarely showed for the ball, forcing the centre-backs to play it directly into the middle of the park or out to the full-backs far too often. He was just too immobile, allowing himself to be marked out of the game by the opposition centre-forward! Ideally I'd play Carrick or maybe Barry there since they're both very good at bringing the ball out from deep and creating space in that area of the field, but they're both out of favour and aren't exactly ones for the future... EDIT: I think it's more important to have a system and then pick players for that system than to do it the other way around. If you have a constant system then everyone coming into the squad knows the system and should know what is expected of them. These players don't get to play together that often, so if you're constantly chopping and changing the system then it can lead to inconsistency. The best national teams have a philosophy/formation set-out before picking the squad, we need to do the same thing. If that means that some of the best players get left out then so be it, the team will be better off for it IMO. Yeah the formation cannot be played with the players we have lol. Our best player would thrive in a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 not anything else. Yet it looks like old man Roy has his mind set on 4-4-2 diamond >.< | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
4-4-2 diamond is just not a formation that works anymore. Well unless you have a Suarez in your team (see Liverpool) HOWEVER they still failed to win anything whilst playing that formation, just finished 2nd in the league (which for them might be considered a trophy  )But a 4-5-1 to sure up the midfield and play a Rooney off a Sturridge seems more than fine to me. Defensively its a 4-5-1 with Rooney dropping deep to help pick up the ball and win it back etc. Then you break with the likes of Sterling and Walcott. Also means you can play Barkley and Rooney together. However 4-2-3-1 still seems the best for me; Hart RB - Cahill - Jones - LB Wilshere/Henderson - Barkley Walcott - Rooney - Sterling Sturridge If you do that then you get Barkely to play the Fabregas role, he still has to work hard to win the ball when needed BUT he gets the ball ALL the time and is still able to make runs etc as he has cover all around him. Overloading the midfield at international level for me is a COMPLETE MUST to get anywhere. Also with this formation you get Walcott and Sterling for breaks which is where they are both at their biggest potential. Also during the game they have space to work with. Thats my opinion though and you have yours. But how do you fit Barkely Rooney Sterling Walcott (on form) Sturridge in a team? If you play Diamond, its impossible. Oh i also forget about Banana man (Lallana) Your points are good in the edits, the Wilshere points are valid. Im to that opinion though he still does provide us with some nice passing and moving (every now and again  ) but your point is valid, if he isn't in form he shouldn't be playing. However Delp is not an England player at all in terms of Quality. England first 11 should be players who would get into top 6 sides and well he is not. Good player, but not world class imo.Also don't forget that formation DOES NOT work or does not WIN you things at the highest level. There record vs the better teams showed it. Also that time when Aston Villa went to Anfield and blew them off the park in the first 45minutes due to them playing 4-4-2 diamond xD | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6343 Posts
United reported a record annual revenue of €538.4 million to June 30 2014, an increase of 19 per cent, and also revealed profits of €29.6m for the year. http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2014/09/10/5095761/manchester-united-chief-woodward-heralds-new-era-as-club?ICID=HP_BN_2 They should use some of that money to buy defenders imo | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Barkely LCM and who RCM? Doesn't make sense, plus that formation gets over run in midfield pretty easily and outwide the fullbacks are the main source of width and that will leave big holes England won't be able to cover as those midfielders aren't the quickest. Reason i always with England opt to throw in more midfield to help counter the other teams who are superior to us in the technical aspect of the game ie passing the ball We have an easy ass group, we need to trial more than 4-4-2 diamond for the next 2 years before we play in the EUROs due to imo if we went into a game with 4-4-2 diamond vs Italy/Spain/France/Belgium we would get bowled over pretty easily. Just like when Chelsea reserves shut up shop against Liverpool and beat them 2-0. | ||
|
kyllinghest
Norway1607 Posts
On September 10 2014 20:58 SatedSC2 wrote: I think it's more important to have a system and then pick players for that system than to do it the other way around. If you have a constant system then everyone coming into the squad knows the system and should know what is expected of them. These players don't get to play together that often, so if you're constantly chopping and changing the system then it can lead to inconsistency. The best national teams have a philosophy/formation set-out before picking the squad, we need to do the same thing. If that means that some of the best players get left out then so be it, the team will be better off for it IMO. I disagree with you; a formation is a tool to fit in the best players, it doesn´t have much to do with philosophy of play. If you keep the same philosophy over a long period of time its usually no biggie to change up formations based on where your best players thrive. | ||
Twisted
Netherlands13554 Posts
It wouldn't work for England because of well.. Premier League. That's probably why you have to pick the best formation for the players you have. 4-4-2 fucking sucks though, any variation of it. | ||
|
kyllinghest
Norway1607 Posts
On September 10 2014 22:30 Pandemona wrote: Sterling is a winger No he isn´t. Sure he can operate from the wing, but he is lethal centrally. Will probably end up as a striker sooner rather than later. Just because somebody has pace and skill doesn´t mean they are a winger. He is extremely talented though, so ofc he can bully fullbacks aswell. | ||
|
kyllinghest
Norway1607 Posts
On September 10 2014 23:05 Twisted wrote: Nah most countries have a footballing style that's customary for their entire country. From amateur clubs to the top teams in the league to the national team. In the Netherlands every team basically plays 4-3-3 so every player is accustomed to it. Apart from last World Cup, we've always played like that, no matter the players. It wouldn't work for England because of well.. Premier League. That's probably why you have to pick the best formation for the players you have. 4-4-2 fucking sucks though, any variation of it. And then you changed, because of the players. Spain change their formation, but the play style remains the same. Germany changes it up, but the play style always remains the same. Norway change formations, but its still the same fucking shit. Brazil, front runner the last century, are famous for having changed formations extremely often, yet their play style and philosophy have always remained the same (except for a few dark years). Manchester City change it up for almost every game, but they always play the same style. Barcelona switch it up often, but their play style is iconic! I agree that most nations have a footballing style that most teams in that given nation uses, but my point is that style and philosophy is something that sits deep in a team, it doesn´t rely on formation. One is a strategy, the other is a tactic. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On September 10 2014 23:15 kyllinghest wrote: No he isn´t. Sure he can operate from the wing, but he is lethal centrally. Will probably end up as a striker sooner rather than later. Just because somebody has pace and skill doesn´t mean they are a winger. He is extremely talented though, so ofc he can bully fullbacks aswell. For me he isn't. He is a Eden Hazard but without the exceptional ball control and 50x more pace xD. Both aren't good enough finishers to even be considered a striker unless you're playing FIFA with them. Out on the wing he gets the ball and runs 1on1. In the middle of the pitch he won't be able to run 1on1 vs the good teams, hell even the shit teams that /defend Chelsea style he won't get 1on1. If he isn't 1on1 he isn't any use to anyone. Thats why you should have him outwide, get chalk on his boots and run at a fullback and then into the box. He plays inside forward well for Liverpool because no team has sat back and defended vs you yet. Spurs didn't, City didn't and Southampton didn't. Norway did and he played outwide and did something. But due to 4-4-2 he didn't do enough because he was too deep. We shall see though, this season will be a long one. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On September 10 2014 23:49 SatedSC2 wrote: Sterling is most certainly not a winger. Ask any Liverpool fan and they'll tell you that he plays much better behind the strikers. You will have a hard time finding a quote from a knowledgeable ex-pro who thinks that Sterling is better off playing on the wing. Besides, if you're playing a diamond-based system then your "number 10" is free to roam out to the wings if they feel the need, so it isn't as if you don't also get to see Sterling beating people down the outside. He did this on multiple occasions against Switzerland. Tying him down to a touchline will not get the best out of him because it removes so much from his game, especially his excellent link-up play with the forwards, and so would be a massive mistake. Henderson/Delph/Milner. There are others. It's basically whichever one you don't drop into the DM position to replace Wilshere. Barkley is an energetic, dynamic player and - most importantly - he isn't made out of glass like Jack Wilshere. I feel like he has the attributes required to cover the ground needed in CM. Of course, I'd personally prefer to play more cautiously and have Henderson/Delph/Milner in that midfield three (especially against better sides) but if you insist on squeezing in Barkley then I think he can do a job there. We played with Wilshere in DM against Switzerland and we didn't look that fragile; playing Barkley in CM would hardly be a problem defensively. There are actually a tonne of possible options in the CM and DM roles. Lots of young players coming through who deserve a chance. Colback is a good player and deserving of his call-up to the squad and I also think it would be worth looking at Tom Huddlestone for the DM role if he continues his strong form for Hull after last season. Younger than Barry and Carrick and definitely capable of pinging the ball around. He just needs to ensure that his form doesn't drop; although that he had such a hard time breaking through definitely counts against him. I don't even understand the need to try and cram all the best attacking players in a team. Why does Barkley need to start? If his ideal role is as an AM and Sterling is better then Barkley doesn't play. End of story. It's sad for Barkley, but there are only so many attacking positions available. People get so hung-up on cramming in players who are deemed game-changers that they forget the parable of the man who built his house on the sand. No use having Wilshere/Barkley/Sterling/Rooney/Sturridge/Welbeck/Walcott all on the same pitch at the same time. I seriously think we need to stop worrying about what other teams are doing and whether or not they can outplay us. We need to worry about getting the best out of our players and for me that means getting the best out of Rooney, Sturridge and Sterling. 4-4-2 diamond is the formation to do that and I think Liverpool have shown this with the over-achievement they made last year. Of course - as I mentioned earlier - I'd prefer to see Welbeck play instead of Sturridge because I think he and Rooney work better together, but the logic is the same. 4-4-2 diamond gets the best out of those players because all three of those key attacking players are playing in their best role. Oh. A formation is bad because one game happened. You can't win every game based on a formation. Unless what you're saying is that when we come up against 4-5-1 variants we should play 3-4-3 like Wigan did to beat City..? EDIT: When we played against Norway both he and the Ox kept coming inside because they both prefer to play in a central-role. They do not like playing as out-and-out wingers. We only improved against Norway once we switched to a 4-4-2 diamond with Sterling at the top of it! Ok lets just say my Mourinho following has come off too much in my views on this kind of thing. He would play LW if he played for Chelsea and he would still be as good as he is now, if not better defensively under Mourinho. Only time will tell though | ||
|
Twisted
Netherlands13554 Posts
On September 10 2014 23:33 kyllinghest wrote: And then you changed, because of the players. One isolated incident in a tournament where we switched back to 4-3-3 often in the middle of games. | ||
|
GumBa
United Kingdom31935 Posts
| ||
|
Pads
England3228 Posts
On September 10 2014 22:30 Pandemona wrote: Sterling is a winger, he isn't an inside forward nor is he good enough to play a no10 position lol. All he is, is a guy with quick feet and stupidly quick pace and the ability to take people on. He's not 17 anymore lol | ||
|
kyllinghest
Norway1607 Posts
On September 11 2014 00:46 Twisted wrote: One isolated incident in a tournament where we switched back to 4-3-3 often in the middle of games. And that was no problem, because formation is less important than philosophy which is my whole point. I would have thought that citizens of the totaalvoetbal would agree with me on this  .Pande: I am a terrible finisher on Fifa, so that metaphor doesn´t translate in my case! I enjoyed that last post of yours Sated, many clever points! | ||
|
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
| ||
|
Micro_Jackson
Germany2002 Posts
On September 09 2014 19:59 Pandemona wrote: Yeah best players, just need to hope he realizes who are best players are; Best Finisher = Sturridge Best Passer = Barkley Best Dribbler/Winger/whatever you call him = Sterling Then Rooney is just good at lots of things and is a beast to have in terms of determination when he is on "it". Then the back kind of picks itself these days and so does Hart in goal. This pretty much sums up why England is bad in my opinion: They are super one dimensional. Everytime i see England play they are doing the same thing over and over again especially offensively. From the teams that are supposed to be good at the world cup England was by far the easiest to defend because they almost never do any ingame adjustments due to bad coaching and/or because they dont have the players that can fill in multiple roles. If you look at high level teams like Germany or Real there are almost always 9 out of 11 players that can and will play every role on the field. And even the two who are not, which are the CB´s, tend to shift into the defensive midfield where they are comftable because they played it in the past. Hummels, Boateng, Badstuber and Höwedes can at least played 3 positions at a high level and i am not even talking about robots like Lahm or Modric. This ability to change the style and shape of your game in seconds is something i rarely see for England. | ||
| ||
