The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Post 107 http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?39554-Wigan-Build-Up&p=1453283#post1453283 God knows where the9 got it from. Top shelf stuff for statos. Cheers for that. Just highlights that Schneiderlin actually played slightly further forward than Ward-Prowse and MLG was talking ill-informed nonsense. Also shows what a defensive job Puncheon did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itchen_block4 Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Forward thinking here: Lambert is 30 and won't play for us forever. Take him out of the equation, add 2 or 3 quality players and the prospect of playing 433 looks much more attractive. We're not far off getting the system to work for us. We'll be far more formidable as a team when we get it to work and harsh as it seems on Lambert, he'll just have to adapt or get dropped. Take Andy Carroll. He's a good player, but Liverpool play a 433 with a central striker on the shoulder. Carroll is a target man and running off the shoulder and poaching the early balls aren't his better qualities and thus he's been crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Cheers for that. Just highlights that Schneiderlin actually played slightly further forward than Ward-Prowse and MLG was talking ill-informed nonsense. No it doesn't, as that shows us with and without the ball combined. I was talking about the formation whilst Man City were in possession. Once Saints were in possession they could break forward and a formation whilst attacking is less rigid and less defined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 No it doesn't, as that shows us with and without the ball combined. I was talking about the formation whilst Man City were in possession. Once Saints were in possession they could break forward. Ha ha ha. You hate being wrong so much, its hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Ha ha ha. You hate being wrong so much, its hilarious. I wasn't wrong, you twisted what I was saying to fit your view and even cut a bit out of the last quote. Now that is hilarious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 I wasn't wrong, you twisted what I was saying to fit your view and even cut a bit out of the last quote. Now that is hilarious... What are you on about now?! I didn't touch your quote!! Did you edit it straight after you posted it, perchance?! You mention that you apparently meant that is our formation when we don't have the ball. What is our formation when we do have the ball? Because, as I mentioned earlier, against Wigan we had the ball more than not, so I'm wondering what we were doing then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Read post #53 in its entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 No it doesn't, as that shows us with and without the ball combined. I was talking about the formation whilst Man City were in possession. Once Saints were in possession they could break forward and a formation whilst attacking is less rigid and less defined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Read post #53 in its entirety. Can you promise you won't change it again before I respond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Same applies to Mr Turkish. Have you actually read post #53? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Read post #53 in its entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Can you promise you won't change it again before I respond? Teams tend to have far more rigid formations whilst without the ball, when they have the ball they can break forward and positions are less defined if given some freedom of movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 No it doesn't, as that shows us with and without the ball combined. I was talking about the formation whilst Man City were in possession. Once Saints were in possession they could break forward and a formation whilst attacking is less rigid and less defined. OK read it. So my question stands; what formation do we have when going forwards? Or when in posession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Same applies to Mr Turkish. Have you actually read post #53? Yep. I'm going to buy you one of these for christmas. http://teesbox.com/mr-wrong-funny-tshirt.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 OK read it. So my question stands; what formation do we have when going forwards? Or when in posession? If you read it you clearly haven't understood it if you think your question still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 If you read it you clearly haven't understood it if you think your question still stands. Perhaps you could clarify for us that dont understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 If you read it you clearly haven't understood it if you think your question still stands. Lets go along with your assessment I haven't understood it. So explain it to me. What formation do we play when we are attacking, or when we are in posession? You've been good enough to explain how it works when we aren't in posession, so how does it work in reverse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Perhaps you could clarify for us that dont understand. I don't think I can dilute down any simpler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 No it doesn't, as that shows us with and without the ball combined. I was talking about the formation whilst Man City were in possession. Once Saints were in possession they could break forward and a formation whilst attacking is less rigid and less defined. Mate, you're flailing. Its no disgrace. When have formations ever just been about when a team's not in possession - a totally arbitrary distinction, stitched up to serve a point. Even if you want to twist the argument in this way, its worth remembering that City had the lionshare of possesion -at one point they had 89% of possession, though overall it was 60%+. So arguably, the graphic is more influenced by our nonpossession average positions than the other way around. As such, even on your own convoluted terms, you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 I don't think I can dilute down any simpler. Try. Because it's not just me that isn't getting it. I think you need to. You dont want to be stuck with this tag do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 (edited) Lets go along with your assessment I haven't understood it. So explain it to me. What formation do we play when we are attacking, or when we are in posession? You've been good enough to explain how it works when we aren't in posession, so how does it work in reverse? Post #53 says... "a formation whilst attacking is less rigid and less defined" A formation whilst defending is generally more rigid and defined as you are getting men behind the ball and working to a system. When you attack you can do so in a number of different ways and is harder to label it with a specific formation, especially in the case of Nigel Adkins who like fluidity of movement whilst attacking. He even said recently "when attacking everyone is an attacker, when defending everyone is a defender". It is easier to see formations laid out for a defending team, rather than one breaking forward with runs from numerous players. Data like those graphs can be manipulated to show numerous things, doesn't mean they show a true reflection of what you are claiming they show. Edited 27 August, 2012 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Mate, you're flailing. Its no disgrace. When have formations ever just been about when a team's not in possession - a totally arbitrary distinction, stitched up to serve a point. Even if you want to twist the argument in this way, its worth remembering that City had the lionshare of possesion -at one point they had 89% of possession, though overall it was 60%+. So arguably, the graphic is more influenced by our nonpossession average positions than the other way around. As such, even on your own convoluted terms, you're wrong. Agreed. Fighting the notion is silly, really. Even in a backs-to-the-wall game, with a setup determined by not having the ball, JWP was (ever so slightly) more defensive than Schneiderlin. Most would agree they played a very similar role, and Schneiderlin's two shots on goal (of a team total of nine) would suggest he got forward very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 So do we all agree tha MLG is wrong then? It seems so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Post #53 says... "a formation whilst attacking is less rigid and less defined" A formation whilst defending is generally more rigid and defined as you are getting men behind the ball and working to a system. When you attack you can do so in a number of different ways and is harder to label it with a specific formation, especially in the case of Nigel Adkins who like fluidity of movement whilst attacking. He even said recently "when attacking everyone is an attacker, when defending everyone is a defender". It is easier to see formations laid out for a defending team, rather than one breaking forward with runs from numerous players. You didn't answer my question. Nonetheless, will you perhaps respond to shurlock's point though? I believe it's quite valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 So do we all agree tha MLG is wrong then? It seems so. Bored of you now. Have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Bored of you now. Have fun. Once again runs away having failed to answer questions or make points. Goodbye Mr Wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 You didn't answer my question. Nonetheless, will you perhaps respond to shurlock's point though? I believe it's quite valid. Yes I did! I said whilst attacking it is hard to label a team with a formation and then explained why that is the case and compared it to labelling a defensive formation. That is an answer to your question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Yes I did! I said whilst attacking it is hard to label a team with a formation. That is an answer to your question! So we don't have a formation when we're in posession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 I give up. Good night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 I give up. Good night. Don't give up. Explain it. And also shurlock's point too, it was a good one. You say we have a very definite formation when defending. OK. Why do we not have a very definite formation when attacking? Its not as if deefnders suddenly think "f*ck it, I could score here, I'm off upfield". They're disciplined to know their positions and their role in it. You think our formation is different when we have the ball, and when we attack. I just want to know what the difference is to our defensive formation. Apart from the fact that its difficult for you to give a lable to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 I think you should go a bit more MLG. You're definitely winning them round - you're nearly there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 I think you should go a bit more MLG. You're definitely winning them round - you're nearly there! What's with talking normally Bear? New leaf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Yes I did! I said whilst attacking it is hard to label a team with a formation and then explained why that is the case and compared it to labelling a defensive formation. That is an answer to your question! But we did significantly more defending than attacking in that game - for long periods, it was backs to the wall stuff as kraken puts it. Just look at the possession stats. As such, the graphic says alot about how we lined up when we were out of possession - the very aspect you've fixated on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 (edited) But we did significantly more defending than attacking in that game - for long periods, it was backs to the wall stuff as kraken puts it. Just look at the possession stats. As such, the graphic says alot about how we lined up when we were out of possession - the very aspect you've fixated on. Even though Man City dominated possession when we had the ball that then skews the positions of the players whilst not in possession. A player with a more defensive role without the ball may be given more license to break forward when Saints are attacking and vice versus, again skewing the graphic and what you can take from it. Lallana for example wasn't anywhere near Guly Do Prado when we didn't have the ball, yet the graphic shows he was very close to him. Often Guly Do Prado was isolated for long periods as Lallana was doing a defensive role as part of a central midfield three, each taking it in turns to press although largely with Schneiderlin behind Lallana and Ward-Prowse when not in possession. The way some of you are reading the graphic is giving a very distorted view of the game. Edited 27 August, 2012 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 What's with talking normally Bear? New leaf? Nuts I thought i was on one of other logins! I'm team MLG. What me and MLG are saying is when we're defending we're setting up with Morgan as the deepest holding midfielder, but when we attack we're sending Morgan rampaging forward cos of his goal threat and leaving JWP sitting very deep as the midfield enforcer. This is why you're devious combined match stats are completely not relevant and should be ignored. You and Turkish are complete A child could understand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 (edited) Even though Man City dominated possession when we had the ball that then skews the positions of the players whilst not in possession. A player with a more defensive role without the ball may be given more license to break forward when Saints are attacking and vice versus, again skewing the graphic and what you can take from it. Lallana for example wasn't anywhere near Guly Do Prado when we didn't have the ball, yet the graphic shows he was very close to him. Often Guly Do Prado was isolated for long periods as Lallana was doing a defensive role as part of a central midfield three, each taking it in turns to press although largely with Schneiderlin behind Lallana and Ward-Prowse when not in possession. The way some of you are reading the graphic is giving a very distorted view of the game. No it isn't. It is a representation of the average of how we lined up, in defence and attack. JWP and Morgan pretty much alongside each other; one sometimes breaking forward while the other one holds, but interchangeable so they both can do it. And Lallana is, predominantly, a more advanced role than the two of them, who played a very similar role to each other. Edited 27 August, 2012 by The Kraken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Nuts I thought i was on one of other logins! I'm team MLG. What me and MLG are saying is when we're defending we're setting up with Morgan as the deepest holding midfielder, but when we attack we're sending Morgan rampaging forward cos of his goal threat and leaving JWP sitting very deep as the midfield enforcer. This is why you're devious combined match stats are completely not relevant and should be ignored. You and Turkish are complete A child could understand! Bear, I humbly bow to your greater knowlege and apologise for my insolence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Dont do it again or me and MLG will hurt you bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 27 August, 2012 Share Posted 27 August, 2012 Dont do it again or me and MLG will hurt you bad Your harsh words have cut me to the quick. Lesson learnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now