The Mail Bag
Tactical question: 4-3-2-1
Comments (6)
The tactical side of your football — not my strong point. So I defer to you, the experts... Can someone tell me why we don't play a 4-3-2-1? The 4-5-1 up-front is too defensive, especially against inferior teams. Can you imagine how attacking we would be? Our back line is set...
Then, the 3 (choose 3 from): Bily, Rodwell, Pienaar, Arteta, Fellaini, Osman, Neville...
The 2 (chooose em again): Jo (I think he'd excel at a position like this), Cahill, Fellaini (can play here as well as midfield), Anichebe.
The 1: Saha, Yakubu
Play it very aggressively, a modified 4-3-3... Does anyone think this isn't a good formation with out current players?
Someone give me a lesson on why this is / isn't a good tactical formation. Why is the current 4-5-1 better? Please enlighten.
Jamie Crowley, Posted 22/09/2009 at 00:48:40
Comments
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
While Baines, Bily and Fellaini would be causing the opposition problems on the left, Gosling, Pienaar and Cahill combined just as effectively on the right. I thought that it was a great system and AEK could not handle us.
Although he had said as much, it seems like Moyes have found a way for Cahill and Fellaini to play a similar role, without getting in each other's way. The same six players simply moved up and down the field together, with Rodwell providing the link, from left to right and back to front.
To some extent, Everton did the same thing on Sunday against Blackburn but without the attacking instinct of Gosling at right-back, and with Osman instead of Bily, the trio on the right wasn't as effective.
But in any case, for what he has done wrong (including losing us the game vs Fulham due to poor tactics and substitutions) David Moyes and his team have again looked at the resources available and conjured up something to deliver the results.
COYB!
There must be some on here who find themselves in a state of glazed embuggerance. Ooh, you are awful, but I like you.
Don’t worry too much about it. Ciarán is quite right (yes I did say that). The fluidity of the midfield, given that we have the quality to sustain it, is actually more important than any static idea of position.
OK - when they run out onto the field every player has to know his primary area of responsibility, and restarts bring this more or less back to basics.
But don’t forget that your own question starts with a ’4’ in every line-up. So take Baines - an integral part of the attack. Balance in a team means that the right flank should pivot around to support and then defend any break-out. A 4-5-1 looks negative (and can be should we need it) but it can quickly become 4-3-3 (on either flank) in possession. Beyond that you get into diamonds, and there aren’t too many coaches or players in the world who understand that. Personally, I’m a fan of ETF - Everton Total Football - 4-6-0. Not that I would exclude the likes of the Yak, King Louis or Jo Alves from the team. I just think they are all good enough to play that way.
You may know this stuff already, but a look at the history of tactics from WM via catenaccio and the libero, 4-2-4 and the rest to the present makes an interesting diversion for the long winter evenings. Wikipedia is as good as any place to start.
And Alan - if you’re still awake - you should know that the Thesaurus is never taken with milk - only dry.
Just to prove Ciaran right (that we should not get lost in thankless taxonomy), I think we actually play 4-2-3-1 (with two defensive midfielders) or sometimes 4-1-3-1-1 (with one defensive midfielder). But the game is so fluid this is a big generalisation and what people do on the pitch can vary a lot from the "paper layout".
But the discussion does help pass the time and does lead to a better understanding of what actually happens on the pitch, even if it is a simplification of reality (as all theories and models are).
Although the post is now not on the front page, I certainly hope you read this.
Thank you for the repsonses. Lotta TW "heavyweights" giving the ol 2 cents.
Ciaran - Having read your post and the corroboration from others whom I read here often, I agree. And, as I’ve stated numerous times, I’ve learned a bit via this site. When I do think deeper, the movement and fluidity of the game really does render the actual formation not as important as how the players move and approach their responsibilities on the pitch.
Keith - I will check out that read on the history of formations. I actually have read about it on-line, but really in passing. I need to pay more attention to it. I believe the 4-2-4 was implemented by either Brazil or Argentina (?) against England and it shattered all conventional wisdom at the time regarding field tactics. Either way, if I am incorrect, I will definately check it out.
The main point I think I was trying to make through the formation arguement in this:
I see Everton playing unreal football the last 3 games. Really great. Then I see us play this crap defensive 4-5-1 - which again can morph instantaneously to a 4-3-3 - but never does. It’s park the bus garbage and it drives me nuts. So I was thinking with a 4-3-2-1 bomb the wingers attack we might be better served. Attacking beautiful football win or lose.
Somewhat tactically naive, yet way beyond 99% of my American counterparts...
Thank you guys. Exceedingly helpful and insightful.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
1 Posted 22/09/2009 at 13:34:08
Report abuse
We play all the permutations you listed depending on whether we are being offensive or defensive or what type of players are in the midfield or full back spots...
A team with so many attacking midfielders and no out-and-out wingers is always going to be very dynamic and fluid.
Best not to get tied up in thankless taxonomy...