I think he'll play 4-5-1, our best formation.
Almunia
Sagna Toure Gallas Clichy
Nasri Diaby Denilson Song/Eboue RvP
Bendtner
ROMA THREAD
-
Its Up 4 Grabs Now
- Posts: 4701
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:08 pm
Gus... think either I’ve misunderstood your initial point or vice versa. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote in that last post & I certainly was never in favour of that team with 6 attacking midfielders/strikers - whoever originally posted it - for all the reasons you listed.
My point really was that the fact that it wouldn’t be a good idea to pick a brand new & totally unfamiliar formation for such a big game (a fact that I agree with) is surely evidence that the concept of formations isn’t quite complete nonsense. Otherwise it wouldn’t be such an issue to line-up in that formation in the first place. Ultimately it’s the right players in the right positions doing their job that will make any system work or not - a point I think we’re both in agreement on.
Again on the issue of the fluidity of modern football I agree. But when putting a team down on paper (or in this case on screen) it’s hard to explain that concept so most people I think just revert to the numbers game (4-3-3 / 4-4-2 / etc) to keep it simple.
For e.g. at some point I’d like to see say Arshavin, Nasri & Walcott given more freedom to roam & interchange behind a main striker cos I think we’ve actually lost a lot of our fluidity through our flat movement forcing ourselves to play too many square balls whereas not so long ago we were renowned for those little passing triangles that tore teams apart. If I was to put up a team on here suggesting that I’d probably call it 4-2-3-1 to try & explain what I meant even though essentially I know it’s no different really to say 4-4-2, just maybe implemented slightly differently.
Anyway, apologies for the long-winded shite, onwards & upwards & f*ck the Romans!
My point really was that the fact that it wouldn’t be a good idea to pick a brand new & totally unfamiliar formation for such a big game (a fact that I agree with) is surely evidence that the concept of formations isn’t quite complete nonsense. Otherwise it wouldn’t be such an issue to line-up in that formation in the first place. Ultimately it’s the right players in the right positions doing their job that will make any system work or not - a point I think we’re both in agreement on.
Again on the issue of the fluidity of modern football I agree. But when putting a team down on paper (or in this case on screen) it’s hard to explain that concept so most people I think just revert to the numbers game (4-3-3 / 4-4-2 / etc) to keep it simple.
For e.g. at some point I’d like to see say Arshavin, Nasri & Walcott given more freedom to roam & interchange behind a main striker cos I think we’ve actually lost a lot of our fluidity through our flat movement forcing ourselves to play too many square balls whereas not so long ago we were renowned for those little passing triangles that tore teams apart. If I was to put up a team on here suggesting that I’d probably call it 4-2-3-1 to try & explain what I meant even though essentially I know it’s no different really to say 4-4-2, just maybe implemented slightly differently.
Anyway, apologies for the long-winded shite, onwards & upwards & f*ck the Romans!
-
Highbury1965
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:44 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
-
DERRY GOONER
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:45 am
- Location: CO.DERRY , NORTH IRELAND
-
tinpot lane
- Posts: 2713
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:10 pm
- Location: Islington innit!
-
Captain Fabregas
- Posts: 4444
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:36 pm
- Location: UK
