The Mail Bag
Moyes – Tactical genius
Comments (31)
So here on ToffeeWeb, for many years people have hammered David Moyes for his 4-5-1 approach.
The media are up in arms that Fabio was too rigid in his 4-4-2 formation and that all the teams are playing ''modern'' formation (4-5-1). Brazil, Spain and Holland all play with one up front and United, Arsenal, Liverpool, and Chelsea all play this way now.
Moysie has been using this system since we came fourth all them years ago. Granted the first year we used the system it was very defensive but more recently it has evolved into us playing some great play and some neat interchanging.
I think Moyesie deserves more credit for his tactics and it would appear that the national press agree with his formation.
Kevy Quinn, Posted 28/06/2010 at 17:31:31
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
There is no universal winning formation or set of tactics, it depends on the players available and the opposing team strength. It's about playing appropiate tactics for appropiate games. Generally speaking Moyes gets it right, but there have been many occasions where he hasn't; most notably when playing average teams at Goodison Park and playing 4-5-1, when in reality at LEAST 2 strikers should be on.
A truly great manager will know when to switch formations even mid-match; sticking to one formation is a piss-poor predictable trick that your opposition will soon pick up on and work out how to beat. There will be games when a manager needs to go for it with two or even three strikers on the park.
Like the above posters say, it's circumstantial, but I certainly prefer a more flexible 4-5-1, which may be a 4-1-4-1. a 4-2-3-1, a 4-1-3-1-1, etc.
Personally, when I want Moyes to go more attacking it shouldn't be into a 4-4-2 system, but a 4-3-3 system (which also falls under the 4-5-1 umbrella), a la most of the top teams around over the last few years.
Personally, when I want Moyes to go more attacking it shouldn't be into a 4-4-2 system, but a 4-3-3 system (which also falls under the 4-5-1 umbrella), a la most of the top teams around over the last few years.
It's clear that this system is the one that works at the minute. Inter won the Champions League with it.
Well England did not play the best formation for the players they had available. If they did, Rooney would have been up front on his own with Gerrard in support.
Well England did not play the best formation for the players they had available. If they did, Rooney would have been up front on his own with Gerrard in support.
As other people have stated, the formation works only if it suits the players. 4-4-2 didn't work for England, but that doesn't make it totally obselete. 4-4-2 works well with other teams — it basically depends on the players that the coach/manager has available.
I would agree with all of the above comments. I don't think you can generalise — and also you have to take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. Personally, I think the best managers are those who can adapt their tactics to suit different situations/opponents.
Moyes' 4-5-1 is a hell of a lot different to Brazil's 4-5-1.
Yeah Brazil have an extra defensive midfielder.
The 4-5-1 and variations of it is in my humble opinion is the best formation.
Moyes is not short of tactical know-how and did indeed play it before many other teams.
Alan you rightly say that Moyes 4-5-1 is diffferent from Brazil's however, looking at the players we now have it would give them a game! Better than the 11 coming home on the plane tomorrow in fact!
I can't wait for the new season to start and feel we are going to shock a few this season. Wins over Man Utd & Chelsea in a week say it all.
Watch this space!
COYB
Moyes is not short of tactical know-how and did indeed play it before many other teams.
Alan you rightly say that Moyes 4-5-1 is diffferent from Brazil's however, looking at the players we now have it would give them a game! Better than the 11 coming home on the plane tomorrow in fact!
I can't wait for the new season to start and feel we are going to shock a few this season. Wins over Man Utd & Chelsea in a week say it all.
Watch this space!
COYB
The teams mentioned do not line up 4-5-1, as that can also leave players isolated when you have the ball, especially if you want to break. The teams highlighted line up broadly as 4-2-3-1, this makes them more compact and makes possession & passing easier.
Also, in this formation, the fullbacks tend to provide the width, whilst the team is less exposed when they do because of the 2 deep midfielders. But, as with anything, the intelligence, concentration and expression of the players underlines the success or otherwise of the formation.
It's all about being smart & having options. If you play a rigid 4-4-2 against a team that plays 4-2-3-1 then it is always going to be difficult for the 2 forwards to find space between 4 defenders & 2 deep midfielders. You also run the risk of being passed around in midfield.
This all pre-supposes that retention of possession and good instinctive passing are a de facto natural skill. Sadly, that is a gross over-assumption for some English players.
On the Lampard/Gerrard/Capello point; this has to count against Capello. None of these players plays 4-4-2 at club, so why play it at the world cup?
When all's said & done picking an England side is almost like picking a club side. It has to have balance & rhythm and operate well as a unit. That means that simply picking the so called best 11 isn't necessarily the answer.
I would have had Jack Rodwell and Jack Wilshire in the team in place of Barry and Lennon/Cole/SWP. That would give us momentum, energy and skill. Jagielka instead of Terry (lost the ability to read a game). I think Moses & Watson at Wigan (both ex-Palace) will both become great little players.
And quite frankly, when I look at the other options we had in midfield (Carrick, Parker, Joe Cole) none of whom shone in the Premier League, I'd even have taken Leon Osman. I bet Ossie's skill, passing, footwork & positional sense would add more than the dullards we had there.
Pity Hoddle isn't up for it because we need a revolution and most English don't like revolution. Make no mistakes, this was the most dismal failure of all. We were shocking from the moment we played Mexico at Wembley. Throw it away & start again.
Also, in this formation, the fullbacks tend to provide the width, whilst the team is less exposed when they do because of the 2 deep midfielders. But, as with anything, the intelligence, concentration and expression of the players underlines the success or otherwise of the formation.
It's all about being smart & having options. If you play a rigid 4-4-2 against a team that plays 4-2-3-1 then it is always going to be difficult for the 2 forwards to find space between 4 defenders & 2 deep midfielders. You also run the risk of being passed around in midfield.
This all pre-supposes that retention of possession and good instinctive passing are a de facto natural skill. Sadly, that is a gross over-assumption for some English players.
On the Lampard/Gerrard/Capello point; this has to count against Capello. None of these players plays 4-4-2 at club, so why play it at the world cup?
When all's said & done picking an England side is almost like picking a club side. It has to have balance & rhythm and operate well as a unit. That means that simply picking the so called best 11 isn't necessarily the answer.
I would have had Jack Rodwell and Jack Wilshire in the team in place of Barry and Lennon/Cole/SWP. That would give us momentum, energy and skill. Jagielka instead of Terry (lost the ability to read a game). I think Moses & Watson at Wigan (both ex-Palace) will both become great little players.
And quite frankly, when I look at the other options we had in midfield (Carrick, Parker, Joe Cole) none of whom shone in the Premier League, I'd even have taken Leon Osman. I bet Ossie's skill, passing, footwork & positional sense would add more than the dullards we had there.
Pity Hoddle isn't up for it because we need a revolution and most English don't like revolution. Make no mistakes, this was the most dismal failure of all. We were shocking from the moment we played Mexico at Wembley. Throw it away & start again.
You need a strong and mobile centre forward and quick wide players for it to work well. I think under Moyes we played our best football 4-5-1 with Yakubu up front. We started 4-4-2 against Hull City away and were hopeless. The tactics aren't as important as the ability to impose them on the opposition.
"Pity Hoddle isn't up for it because we need a revolution and most English don't like revolution"
I wish he'd kept his mouth/keyboard shut. Hoddle was the best England manager of my lifetime, the tactical awareness and set-up, the way we played under him and the new ideas he brought have never been seen before or since. He's still tragically underrated in my opinion. That 0-0 in Italy to win the qualifying group, given the reputations of the two countries at the time (and we even hit the post) was the most intelligent England performance probably of all time.
I wish he'd kept his mouth/keyboard shut. Hoddle was the best England manager of my lifetime, the tactical awareness and set-up, the way we played under him and the new ideas he brought have never been seen before or since. He's still tragically underrated in my opinion. That 0-0 in Italy to win the qualifying group, given the reputations of the two countries at the time (and we even hit the post) was the most intelligent England performance probably of all time.
Kevy, no, sorry, utter and complete bollocks.
Short version ...If 'twere true how do you account for all the DIRE performances we have had to put up with.
451 is only a handy generalisation that gives the gist of your tactical line up. Too many people ( maybe you as well ) get hung up on the whole 433 442 451 etc numbers thing....sighs
I've said it before, so he we go again. Football is a simple game made complicated by bullshitters ( for want of a better word ).
You only have to know a few basic rules...(KISS)
In not particular order...
The 11 best players don't make the best team.
The game is won and lost in the mid-field ( always has been and always will be ).
You can go a little but further on skill than on effort, but you really need both.
Sq pegs in sq. holes, you make a system that fits and makes the best use of the players you have.
Keep the bench happy, well the starting 11 are happy, they're starting, so keep the bench happy. Thats the man management side of coaching sorted.
The other main key to success as a coach, plain and simple...
Better players...shit loads of them ( see keep the bench happy )
Leave the tactics and the tweaking to the other guy, he's the one with the worries, you've got the better players.
Do all that and let the anal number labellers put what ever they like in the program.
Tactics???.....score more than you concede, job done!
Short version ...If 'twere true how do you account for all the DIRE performances we have had to put up with.
451 is only a handy generalisation that gives the gist of your tactical line up. Too many people ( maybe you as well ) get hung up on the whole 433 442 451 etc numbers thing....sighs
I've said it before, so he we go again. Football is a simple game made complicated by bullshitters ( for want of a better word ).
You only have to know a few basic rules...(KISS)
In not particular order...
The 11 best players don't make the best team.
The game is won and lost in the mid-field ( always has been and always will be ).
You can go a little but further on skill than on effort, but you really need both.
Sq pegs in sq. holes, you make a system that fits and makes the best use of the players you have.
Keep the bench happy, well the starting 11 are happy, they're starting, so keep the bench happy. Thats the man management side of coaching sorted.
The other main key to success as a coach, plain and simple...
Better players...shit loads of them ( see keep the bench happy )
Leave the tactics and the tweaking to the other guy, he's the one with the worries, you've got the better players.
Do all that and let the anal number labellers put what ever they like in the program.
Tactics???.....score more than you concede, job done!
Okay then, we'll just buy all the best players in the world and see how that goes.
Oh, wait...
Oh, wait...
Derek, I'm talking complete and utter bollocks?
When you have put down Tesco's finest bottle of vodka and sobered up, re read what you have wrote. I think you will find what you have wrote is the Oxford definition of ''complete and utter bollocks''. You are what can only be described as ToffeeWeb's answer to Adebayor, haven't a clue what you are talking about.
The only point I was making is that Moyes was playing this formation long before all these so called great managers. Maybe he deserves some credit for this and do people agree or disagree? Why you felt the need to give me a lesson in crapology I don't know.
On a side note, the game has not ''always'' been won and lost in midfield. To use the England game as an example again (Sorry) they lost it in defense not midfield. Please see quotes from Lowe and Lahm were they confirm this, if you still don't agree please look at the Germans four goals and see the defense was a shambles.
As you famous name sake DelBoy once said - ''you PLONKER''
When you have put down Tesco's finest bottle of vodka and sobered up, re read what you have wrote. I think you will find what you have wrote is the Oxford definition of ''complete and utter bollocks''. You are what can only be described as ToffeeWeb's answer to Adebayor, haven't a clue what you are talking about.
The only point I was making is that Moyes was playing this formation long before all these so called great managers. Maybe he deserves some credit for this and do people agree or disagree? Why you felt the need to give me a lesson in crapology I don't know.
On a side note, the game has not ''always'' been won and lost in midfield. To use the England game as an example again (Sorry) they lost it in defense not midfield. Please see quotes from Lowe and Lahm were they confirm this, if you still don't agree please look at the Germans four goals and see the defense was a shambles.
As you famous name sake DelBoy once said - ''you PLONKER''
England didn't perform so badly because of tactical formations or bad selections. The reason in my opinion was because the players aren't good enough. Simple as that.
It's the same every major tournament. The media whip the country up into fits of hysteria based on Premier League performances for their clubs, where they happen to be surrounded by gifted overseas players.
When they pull on an England jersey, they cannot retain possession, unless going sideways and are all frightened to death. When do you see an England player beat a man or the goalkeeper throw it out? They play like robots.
It emanates from kids on local parks with dads saying 'get rid' and progresses on the terraces driven by our thirst for end to end games and goalmouth action domestically. The magnificent Magyars of Puskas and Hidegkuti taught us a football lesson all those years back and we are still in the same boat 50 years on.In this country, our players are athletes first and footballers second. F
or anyone who follows Super League, the England team are the same as Great Britain. Sky tell us throughout our domestic season that such and such a player is the best in the world and we all fall for it. We come up against a jet lagged second string Aussie team and they put 40 past us. We never learn.
Very interesting to see the manger of Chile make changes at half time in most games.
Why do most managers insist on giving their systems a further 10-15 mins in the second half, even when everyone can see it is not working on the day.
Why do most managers insist on giving their systems a further 10-15 mins in the second half, even when everyone can see it is not working on the day.
The 451s that Chelsea and the teams in the WC play are attacking in nature, becoming 433, or 4213 when in possession, whereas Moyes' 451s are generally more aimed at containment. The attacking ones generally have a striker (Anelka, Kuyt, Podolski) on one wing and an out and out "winger" on the other (Malouda, Robben, Muller). They also have a playmaker playing behind the central striker where we have Cahill, not what I would call a playmaker, and a solid base which we do have. Apart from playing Anichebe on the wing, I've rarely seen Moyes play a really attacking 451 although I think a 451 suits the players we have and worked quite well with Donovan in the side.
As for people saying tactics don't make any difference; tactics and the lack of tactical awareness of the players, was absolutely the difference between England and Germany. Playing Gerrard on the left wing, leaving Barry and Lampard to mark 3 players in the middle, and John Terry not holding his central position while Upson marked the lone Klose were the 2 key tactical errors. All this sh1te about the players lacking "spirit" and "bottle" and even technique are way off. They were simply hampered by a stubborn coach refusing to play anything other than 442. Playing the dwarfey Defoe up front next to Rooney instead of having a link man in behind actually isolated him.
Along with the notion of playing as a unit tactics also the reason Everton have consistently finished above the so-called experts predictions. Anyone who doesn't directly attribute Everton's "success", and yes that is a whole other debate, to Moyes really is mistaken.
As for people saying tactics don't make any difference; tactics and the lack of tactical awareness of the players, was absolutely the difference between England and Germany. Playing Gerrard on the left wing, leaving Barry and Lampard to mark 3 players in the middle, and John Terry not holding his central position while Upson marked the lone Klose were the 2 key tactical errors. All this sh1te about the players lacking "spirit" and "bottle" and even technique are way off. They were simply hampered by a stubborn coach refusing to play anything other than 442. Playing the dwarfey Defoe up front next to Rooney instead of having a link man in behind actually isolated him.
Along with the notion of playing as a unit tactics also the reason Everton have consistently finished above the so-called experts predictions. Anyone who doesn't directly attribute Everton's "success", and yes that is a whole other debate, to Moyes really is mistaken.
Judging by recent signings and news story (£1m bid for French forward lodged) I think Moysey is going for a 4-1-5 system next year!
Seriously folks, I cannot believe how badly Capello got it wrong. As Paul says above, tactics make a huge difference at this level and tactics are based on team formation. England's team formation was rubbish - I agree with Michael Owen on that. The England team seems to be picked as a collection of individuals. I completely disagree with Craig - I think most of these players are good players. That is one of the reasons they are always talked up pre-tournament. However, strange as it may seem that is not always the best way to pick a team. For example, England needed somebody who was dedicated to the holding midfield role (actually I would have gone for 2). Nobody in the team fulfilled that role. Also, playing Gerrard & Lampard in the same team doesn't make sense to me. At the end of the day, this game is a TEAM game, it is all about the TEAM. I think that is exactly how Moyes plays it ("I would play in any position that the gaffer asked me to play" - Tim Cahill). Until England learn that they are doomed to failure.
Seriously folks, I cannot believe how badly Capello got it wrong. As Paul says above, tactics make a huge difference at this level and tactics are based on team formation. England's team formation was rubbish - I agree with Michael Owen on that. The England team seems to be picked as a collection of individuals. I completely disagree with Craig - I think most of these players are good players. That is one of the reasons they are always talked up pre-tournament. However, strange as it may seem that is not always the best way to pick a team. For example, England needed somebody who was dedicated to the holding midfield role (actually I would have gone for 2). Nobody in the team fulfilled that role. Also, playing Gerrard & Lampard in the same team doesn't make sense to me. At the end of the day, this game is a TEAM game, it is all about the TEAM. I think that is exactly how Moyes plays it ("I would play in any position that the gaffer asked me to play" - Tim Cahill). Until England learn that they are doomed to failure.
All systems are good if you gave the right players.Most teams play a system which gives them most defensive protection first and foremost. If you have the speedy and skilful players you can break quickly to lend support to the front man or both front men just like Brazil and Argentina along with several other WC teams.England were just too pedestrian as were France.
Craig Walker (#16) - I think you have absolutely nailed it there; I agree with every word. The only thing wrong is that it's on the wrong thread!
Brendan - I was just making the point that Sky promote the Premier League brand and tell us we're world beaters but when it comes down to it, we always choke. They do the same in other sports too.
I don't think it's because we play 1 up front or a holding midfielder or a diamond formation or a Christmas tree or whatever. If you continually give the ball back to the opposition, have no movement or individual flair then you won't beat the likes of Brazil, Argentina or the Germans in this tournament.
This was a Winter World Cup as well. What chance do we have when it's in a Brazil in 4 years time and baking hot?
There's a lot of pundits who are going on about formations and personnel etc. They're the same pundits who said half an hour before the German game that none of their players would get into the England team. I can only think they meant because they're not English, because from the games I've seen, Schweinsteiger, Mueller, Podolski, Oezil, Lahm etc. are far better than Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard, Cole...
I don't think it's because we play 1 up front or a holding midfielder or a diamond formation or a Christmas tree or whatever. If you continually give the ball back to the opposition, have no movement or individual flair then you won't beat the likes of Brazil, Argentina or the Germans in this tournament.
This was a Winter World Cup as well. What chance do we have when it's in a Brazil in 4 years time and baking hot?
There's a lot of pundits who are going on about formations and personnel etc. They're the same pundits who said half an hour before the German game that none of their players would get into the England team. I can only think they meant because they're not English, because from the games I've seen, Schweinsteiger, Mueller, Podolski, Oezil, Lahm etc. are far better than Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard, Cole...
Absolutely Craig - it's a media driven thing. What Sky are promoting is the Premier League, which only has a detrimental effect on the England team as it's stuffed with non-English players.
"The media whip the country up into fits of hysteria based on Premier League performances for their clubs, where they happen to be surrounded by gifted overseas players." That's the crux of it.
Was it not 'Arry Redknapp that said the thing about no German players getting in the England team? I would beg to differ. Only Rooney and maybe Ashley Cole would get in the German team.
"The media whip the country up into fits of hysteria based on Premier League performances for their clubs, where they happen to be surrounded by gifted overseas players." That's the crux of it.
Was it not 'Arry Redknapp that said the thing about no German players getting in the England team? I would beg to differ. Only Rooney and maybe Ashley Cole would get in the German team.
Kevy, Single malt, not vodka and deff not from Tesco.
451, IMHO It's nought but a handy if somewhat vague label, I maintain that with 451 It ain't what you do but the way that you do it.
When you line up to kick off someone calls it 451 so what. It's what you do and how you do it ONCE you kick off that counts....we shall as they say, agree to disagree.
As to Utter and complete bollocks, That was my reaction to, ' Moyes Tactical Genius ' what ever else he is, hand on heart, tactical genius is not it.
Kevin Dillon, You forgot ' Rule No. 1' The 11 best players don't always make the best team.
They don't have to be the best, just better than what you had and as we have seen from Moyes many times, they don't have to cost the earth
451, IMHO It's nought but a handy if somewhat vague label, I maintain that with 451 It ain't what you do but the way that you do it.
When you line up to kick off someone calls it 451 so what. It's what you do and how you do it ONCE you kick off that counts....we shall as they say, agree to disagree.
As to Utter and complete bollocks, That was my reaction to, ' Moyes Tactical Genius ' what ever else he is, hand on heart, tactical genius is not it.
Kevin Dillon, You forgot ' Rule No. 1' The 11 best players don't always make the best team.
They don't have to be the best, just better than what you had and as we have seen from Moyes many times, they don't have to cost the earth
I agree, Derek. David Moyes has many admirable qualities but he is no tactical genius. Formations have been forced on him, in the early days, through lack of quality and more recently through injury. In fact, I believe that circumstances have been lucky for him in that at times he has had no choice. With eight years and a reasonable amount of money to spend, Glenn Hoddle might be a tactical genius.
"Formations have been forced on him...through lack of quality and...through injury"
Good grief. Only on Toffeeweb could someone criticise Moyes for producing the goods in the face of such adversity. I'm not sure what the managerial equivalent is but I'm reminded of the old saying "Yes, the more I practice the luckier I get"
Brendan McL, or..only on ToffeeWeb can you get people who can't see the plain facts in front of them.
Lack of quality; 2004 Marcus Bent and that was it, hence 4-5-1.
Injury; 09-10 No forwards fit hence the 4-6-0 version of 4-5-1, he got lucky and it worked.
All the times Moyes gave teams, and not just the top teams (Stoke ffs!) too much respect, all this from the boss of the best squad we have had for 20-odd years.
Tactical Genius my arse, honest journeyman (salt of the earth, diamond geezer, etc, etc, no doubt...) who gets SOME decent results (no more than the much maligned Gordon Lee) and, let's face it, has presided over some absolute shockers.
Just how many times have you left the ground in the last EIGHT(!!) years and said... "Well, that was worth the money"? More or less than 40%??
Again, from the top...
4-5-1 is not a magic panacea for football's and Everton's ills.
Lack of quality; 2004 Marcus Bent and that was it, hence 4-5-1.
Injury; 09-10 No forwards fit hence the 4-6-0 version of 4-5-1, he got lucky and it worked.
All the times Moyes gave teams, and not just the top teams (Stoke ffs!) too much respect, all this from the boss of the best squad we have had for 20-odd years.
Tactical Genius my arse, honest journeyman (salt of the earth, diamond geezer, etc, etc, no doubt...) who gets SOME decent results (no more than the much maligned Gordon Lee) and, let's face it, has presided over some absolute shockers.
Just how many times have you left the ground in the last EIGHT(!!) years and said... "Well, that was worth the money"? More or less than 40%??
Again, from the top...
4-5-1 is not a magic panacea for football's and Everton's ills.
Radical? I wonder what would happen if we reverted to the old 2-3-5 system? I wonder if teams would be able to counter it or if it would be suicide?
Often wondered that... true, usually after a bottle of Australian white, but ...
This thread would give rainman a semi-on!
Inter Milan beating Barcelona with two banks of 4 sitting in their own half in the Champions League and the replication of this by teams in the World Cup fills me with dread.
Whatever numbers you permutate as your starting line-up, if they sit back all the time, the game is not a spectacle. Perhaps this is the game's future, I've hardly seen a decent game in this world cup because of it, coaching in this manner doesn't constitute genius to me... I can't watch it and I'm sure I'm not alone.
When we are attacking, it is common to see just the two centre-backs in our own half. So in some ways, Christine, we already do, but only for portions of the match.
That was and is my whole point, It's flexible and the numbers, which ever ones you use, don't mean much, so why get fixated about this one or the other being the only way to play.
Big Joe said he was the ' 1 ' in the 1970 version of 4-5-1 and we go from that sublime, to the the Hull Away ridiculous.
It's ALL 4-5-1 and I know which one I want to watch.
It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it... ah Funboy 3 how wise you were, but did you get the credit??
That was and is my whole point, It's flexible and the numbers, which ever ones you use, don't mean much, so why get fixated about this one or the other being the only way to play.
Big Joe said he was the ' 1 ' in the 1970 version of 4-5-1 and we go from that sublime, to the the Hull Away ridiculous.
It's ALL 4-5-1 and I know which one I want to watch.
It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it... ah Funboy 3 how wise you were, but did you get the credit??
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.
© ToffeeWeb
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
1 Posted 28/06/2010 at 19:54:49
Report abuse