Why the change in formation?

[West End Saint]

Am I missing something? I just don't understand why we have changed from 4-3-3 to the 4-4-2 diamond it does not

seem to suite our players, I also do not understand why we have not re-invested in players when we are clearly short

in key areas.

 

You cannot deny that in recent years the club have made excellent decisions and appointments so why change something

that was clearly working and producing results?

 

Maybe there are some singings due in and all will become clear, but right now I cannot see where Austin fits in and

I cannot fathom how we can lose 30 goals a season with Pelle and Mane leaving without replacements arriving.

[Suhari]

Puel's preferred formation.

 

Which is fine...and yet not really in keeping with 'The Southampton Way'. I thought we brought managers in who played the way we do throughout the club.

 

Unless we've changed to diamond throught the age groups?

[West End Saint]

This is one of the reasons I am baffled having established a way of playing through out the club and apparently having our next managerial target identified for continuity the change of system does not make any sense.

[shurlock]

Puel's preferred formation.

 

Which is fine...and yet not really in keeping with 'The Southampton Way'. I thought we brought managers in who played the way we do throughout the club.

 

Unless we've changed to diamond throught the age groups?

 

The lump-it-forward-to-Pelle system worked a treat with the under-9s.

Edited 17 August, 2016 by shurlock

[Bobbyboy]

The lump-it-forward-to-Pelle system worked a trick with the under-9s.

Pelle was playing for the under-9s? No wonder he wanted to leave.

[The9]

Puel's preferred formation.

 

Which is fine...and yet not really in keeping with 'The Southampton Way'. I thought we brought managers in who played the way we do throughout the club.

 

Unless we've changed to diamond throught the age groups?

 

We have changed it through the groups. I still don't know why people think "the Southampton Way" has anything to do with a specific formation. It's about doing things like ensuring the whole club ethos is geared to a particular style or set of styles. Having one formation and only one formation is a ridiculous idea which leads to a team being completely predictable and easier to defend against, whilst having the whole club set up to play the same way is eminently sensible if the goal is to deliver players to the first team, whether on a short/temporary or long term basis, even if that "same way" changes to stay ahead of formation changes throughout the division.

 

One thing Les Reed is very on the ball about is identifying trends in how teams play and planning appropriately, it's been his role for years and he's written books on the subject.

[Chez]

has a diamond formation worked for anyone, ever?

[Le Timmier]

has a diamond formation worked for anyone, ever?

 

I can only think of The Red Arrows

[LGTL]

has a diamond formation worked for anyone, ever?

 

No but we are Southampton, we don't stand still, we lead not follow.

 

Or something.

[shurlock]

has a diamond formation worked for anyone, ever?

 

Juventus? Liverpool used it in the season they almost won the title.

Edited 17 August, 2016 by shurlock

[West End Saint]

I have no issue in having different systems available and changing them to suite our opponents but whilst very early days he seems set on 4_4-2 diamond.

 

Bearing in mind our recent success why? the players we have do not suite the system particularly Austin, I cannot see where our goals are coming from playing this way.

[SuperSAINT]

We were told about a "new direction" quite some time ago.

[St.JonB]

Worked well for England in the summer......

[shurlock]

The most noticeable change -at least on the basis of Saturday's performance- wasnt the diamond but the emphasis on possession. Very rarely did we lump the ball forward as opposed to play from the back. You can see that being something the club would want to instill through the age ranks.

[mrfahaji]

has a diamond formation worked for anyone, ever?

 

I guess the obvious answer is Nice.

[Suhari]

We have changed it through the groups. I still don't know why people think "the Southampton Way" has anything to do with a specific formation. It's about doing things like ensuring the whole club ethos is geared to a particular style or set of styles. Having one formation and only one formation is a ridiculous idea which leads to a team being completely predictable and easier to defend against, whilst having the whole club set up to play the same way is eminently sensible if the goal is to deliver players to the first team, whether on a short/temporary or long term basis, even if that "same way" changes to stay ahead of formation changes throughout the division.

 

One thing Les Reed is very on the ball about is identifying trends in how teams play and planning appropriately, it's been his role for years and he's written books on the subject.

 

Changed throughout the groups? Didn't know that........great though - I find that encouraging.

 

Tactically football is continually evolving, as we all know. So the club has taken a decision to make changes 'ahead of the masses'.....brave move.

 

It does seem most now play 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. That wasn't the case until quite recently. If we don't try new things, then in a few years we'd be moaning about 'still playing to an oldfashioned system'.

 

On a related (nearly) note...I did enjoy the Pep, 'play your fullbacks in midfiled' discussion on MOTD the other night.

[Baird of the land]

I don't necessarily feel the diamond is completely unsuited to our personnel even if it's not my personal preference to how i'd like to see us line up. Koeman didn't stick to Poch's approach anymore than Puel is sticking to Koeman's. We clearly have decided Puel is going to be an important figure so it is worth setting a new preferred formation down the age groups to accomodate him.

 

Personally think Austin is probably better suited to diamond formation than 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 we've previously played.

 

As to personnel we clearly have invested and hopefully will invest more. Austin came in January in advance of Pelle's departure, Redmond, hojberg, Pied and Mccarthy came in this summer.

[Saint_Ash]

Surely professional footballers should be able to adapt to whatever system they are asked to do, this is why they are paid handsomely. I don't get the concern.

[tajjuk]

Don't think our fullbacks are fundamentally good enough to make this formation work.

 

Certainly Bertrand and Cedric seem better defenders than attackers, if we still had Clyne and Shaw I could see it working, both very quick, both very talented going forward.

 

But our two main full backs are more in the mould of Gary Neville than Cafu IMO.

[doddisalegend]

The most noticeable change -at least on the basis of Saturday's performance- wasnt the diamond but the emphasis on possession. Very rarely did we lump the ball forward as opposed to play from the back. You can see that being something the club would want to instill through the age ranks.

 

 

This

 

we apparently had the second highest number of passes after man city in the weekend games. Quite a feat given the first half. The poor first half masked it a bit but there were some very nice passages of passing play in the second half.

[doddisalegend]

Don't think our fullbacks are fundamentally good enough to make this formation work.

 

Certainly Bertrand and Cedric seem better defenders than attackers, if we still had Clyne and Shaw I could see it working, both very quick, both very talented going forward.

 

But our two main full backs are more in the mould of Gary Neville than Cafu IMO.

 

 

Personally I think Cedric is generally better going forward than defending Ryan will have no problem in this formation not so sure about Targett if I'm honest. I assume Pied will have no problem playing in this formation.

[doddisalegend]

has a diamond formation worked for anyone, ever?

 

 

Well I guess it worked for Puel last season. I'm assuming that's,what his last team played and hasn't just hit on this formation over the summer.

[doddisalegend]

Am I missing something? I just don't understand why we have changed from 4-3-3 to the 4-4-2 diamond it does not

 

seem to suite our players, I also do not understand why we have not re-invested in players when we are clearly short

 

in key areas.

 

 

 

You cannot deny that in recent years the club have made excellent decisions and appointments so why change something

 

that was clearly working and producing results?

 

 

 

Maybe there are some singings due in and all will become clear, but right now I cannot see where Austin fits in and

 

I cannot fathom how we can lose 30 goals a season with Pelle and Mane leaving without replacements arriving.

 

 

Have you ever had a new boss? In my experience they always like to turn up and change the way everything is done ( even if it was working well) just to show the know best.....

[tajjuk]

Personally I think Cedric is generally better going forward than defending Ryan will have no problem in this formation not so sure about Targett if I'm honest. I assume Pied will have no problem playing in this formation.

 

I'm not saying they can't do it, just saying it's not their strengths.

 

Also Cedric's defensive contributions both for us last year and for Portugal massively outweighed his attacking contributions. He was rated as one of the top right backs in the league last year by whoscored.com because of his tackling, interceptions and blocking.

 

For this formation you'd want excellent complete full backs who are very quick, can dribble, cross etc., we don't have those, we have very good fullbacks who are good defenders.

 

I don't see the point of changing a formation and forcing players to fit into it, if anything a good manager should find a formation that best suits the players.

 

I mean wasn't that why they said Ranieri was so successful with Leicester last year, he didn't fundamentally change a lot, he realised Pearson had found the best way to get the best out of the players available so just went with that adding little improvements where he could, like fitting Kante to the team.

Edited 17 August, 2016 by tajjuk

[Cartman]

From F365:

 

Southampton’s attacking fluidity

 

In fact, it may be inaccurate to call Redmond a winger now. Claude Puel tried Redmond in a central attacking role in pre-season, and again asked his attackers to interchange positions against Watford.

 

The Frenchman nominally picked a diamond midfield, but Southampton’s average positions told a different story. Both full-backs were indeed asked to play high with Oriol Romeu sitting in front of the defence, but the three attacking players (Redmond, Shane Long and Dusan Tadic) all had an average position almost on top of each other in central areas. Their touch maps (left to right as in the list above) show the same picture.

 

This is a strategy that still needs work, for Long in particular was unable to impact upon the game as often as he would like, but does offer a solution to Southampton’s lack of focal point up front in the absence of Graziano Pelle. With work, it could be both effective and enjoyable to watch.

[Saint Pete]

Never really been a fan of designating one particular preferred formation too rigidly - formation should be picked to get the best out of the players you have available, and should also be able to be adjusted according to opposition strength and tactics.

 

Last year, I thought Koeman did this well by adjusting the formation when certain players were out of form or unfit, which helped turn around our form and start winning games again after a bad run. Bizarrely though, rumours were that some in the club were unhappy about this?

 

Too early to really criticise of course and it may be proved that we will still operate more flexibly, but slightly concerned if we are putting all our eggs in the diamond shaped basket by getting all teams to play that way already.

[Webby]

I think it can work but I really feel that the 2 strikers need to be closer together. Austin is no good out on the wing.

[thefuriousb]

has a diamond formation worked for anyone, ever?

 

Portugal?

[CB Fry]

has a diamond formation worked for anyone, ever?

I can remember several world cups/Euros where the general consensus of the ex pro punditerati was that England should play the diamond, with the protection of the back four and the attacker at the tip of the diamond playing between the lines, being talked about as the great tactical cure-all and why oh why oh why don't we do it.

 

I'm not enough of a geek to remember but there are some big name European managers that have used it. Someone will know.

[the_emu]

We have changed it through the groups. I still don't know why people think "the Southampton Way" has anything to do with a specific formation. It's about doing things like ensuring the whole club ethos is geared to a particular style or set of styles. Having one formation and only one formation is a ridiculous idea which leads to a team being completely predictable and easier to defend against, whilst having the whole club set up to play the same way is eminently sensible if the goal is to deliver players to the first team, whether on a short/temporary or long term basis, even if that "same way" changes to stay ahead of formation changes throughout the division.

 

One thing Les Reed is very on the ball about is identifying trends in how teams play and planning appropriately, it's been his role for years and he's written books on the subject.

 

I find this quite surprising.

 

I've always been led to believe (through I think a Saints promo video with Les) that 433 was the clubs chosen staple formation through the age groups. Not because it matches the first teams favoured formation "of the day", or because it's considered tactically supreme but rather because the end products are more well rounded and versatile players who, once entering senior ranks are more adaptable to play in any given formation.

[SaintRobbie]

Am I missing something? I just don't understand why we have changed from 4-3-3 to the 4-4-2 diamond it does not

seem to suite our players, I also do not understand why we have not re-invested in players when we are clearly short

in key areas.

 

You cannot deny that in recent years the club have made excellent decisions and appointments so why change something

that was clearly working and producing results?

 

Maybe there are some singings due in and all will become clear, but right now I cannot see where Austin fits in and

I cannot fathom how we can lose 30 goals a season with Pelle and Mane leaving without replacements arriving.

 

I fully agree. Puel has one plan and it's not working. Not impressed with him frankly.

 

We have failed to replace Pelle, Wanyama and Mané.

 

We are in a very worrying place, very worrying place.

 

I thought we looked shaky on Saturday. Very shaky.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scotty]

I fully agree. Puel has one plan and it's not working. Not impressed with him frankly.

 

We have failed to replace Pelle, Wanyama and Mané.

 

We are in a very worrying place, very worrying place.

 

I thought we looked shaky on Saturday. Very shaky.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'd go along with this assessment. After all is said and done, the manager should have got it sorted by now. Puel out!!

[Shance]

has a diamond formation worked for anyone, ever?

 

Liverpool's season they finished second but they had two forwards who could play false 9 a create from deep. We don't have anything like that.

[Shance]

I fully agree. Puel has one plan and it's not working. Not impressed with him frankly.

 

We have failed to replace Pelle, Wanyama and Mané.

 

We are in a very worrying place, very worrying place.

 

I thought we looked shaky on Saturday. Very shaky.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How do you know he only has one plan ffs. We've played 1 game!! In the second half we looked decent as well. I agree we need a couple of signings but again, thta's not the managers fault.

 

Some right cry babies on this forum.

[scotty]

How do you know he only has one plan ffs. We've played 1 game!! In the second half we looked decent as well. I agree we need a couple of signings but again, thta's not the managers fault.

 

Some right cry babies on this forum.

 

Have you considered the faint possibility that Saint Robbie just may have been joking?

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Have you considered the faint possibility that Saint Robbie just may have been joking?

 

He is`nt joking he has posted this sort of think several times....

 

 

Its ONE game ffs, get a grip...

[Dangermouth]

I find this quite surprising.

 

I've always been led to believe (through I think a Saints promo video with Les) that 433 was the clubs chosen staple formation through the age groups. Not because it matches the first teams favoured formation "of the day", or because it's considered tactically supreme but rather because the end products are more well rounded and versatile players who, once entering senior ranks are more adaptable to play in any given formation.

 

 

That is exactly correct and has been said to be SFC's 'official' tactic.

 

As many have said, however, this can 'translate' into a 433 reasonably easily and surely what we do require is tactical flexibility - preferably the players would be able to suss out what the opposition team are doing and counter it themselves as they are not playing American Football, but perhaps they do need to have things drilled into them other than the things you think they would need.

[scotty]

He is`nt joking he has posted this sort of think several times....

 

 

Its ONE game ffs, get a grip...

 

Come off it. He's not serious about it, he was clearly making a jokey comment about people writing the manager and board off after one game. I can't believe anyone could have read that comment and taken it seriously, and tbh I found it rather amusing, which is why I replied in the same vein.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Come off it. He's not serious about it, he was clearly making a jokey comment about people writing the manager and board off after one game. I can't believe anyone could have read that comment and taken it seriously, and tbh I found it rather amusing, which is why I replied in the same vein.

 

He repeats his doom and gloom frequently in various forms so i doubt it

[beatlesaint]

If it aint broke dont mend it, 8th, 7th and 6th playing 4-3-3 with players it suited.

 

Now we have this diamond, sorry but with all the best will in the world this system will not get the best out of Charlie Austin or Shane Long IMHO

[Mowgli]

If it aint broke dont mend it, 8th, 7th and 6th playing 4-3-3 with players it suited.

 

Now we have this diamond, sorry but with all the best will in the world this system will not get the best out of Charlie Austin or Shane Long IMHO

 

If it ain't broke, break it. We are constantly introducing new formations in a bid to deal with different oppositions. Gone are the WGS days of 'footballers only really understand 4-4-2". The diamond does not prevent players having a freedom to move. Shane Long did fine in the second half Saturday (pretty decent first half too). I have no idea how or why you should think any formation will not get the best out of them. Shane thrives on through balls. Charlie is more a poacher and both are served well by crosses (an area Claude thought we should have done better Saturday with more width).

[david in sweden]

its not just down to formations....if 4-3-3 were the right answer....we'd have 12 teams tie-ing for the League title every season...

 

Some managers ...(Strachan was such) had one formation that he wouldn't change....last season Koeman tried 3-5-2, and it didn't look bad in those few games .....but when Pelle and Mane got back to form Tadic came into his own.

 

It's about using the skills of the players in the best way, and last season, there was a lot of criticism regarding the choice of Tadic's positioning when Mane was in form...

Once again we have a new look squad and there is no Pelle or Mane (but there was no Pelle and Mane before them)..it was Lambert, Lallana and Jay Rod, you don't always replace like for like. Puel had likened Redmond to Thierry Henry (who apparantly) he converted to a striker from a midfielder)....No more comment needed there.

 

Playing diamond formation may be Puel's no.1 plan, but not even diamonds are forever .(sorry couldn't resist that one), and he's experienced enough to change the start line-up depending on the opposition. Will be interesting to see ....who he uses ...where.... on Friday evening.

 

Formations change....according to necessity and the players you have available. You'd have to be in my generation to understand why 2-3-5 was so exciting to watch.

 

We need to see a run of games in order to judge how well /quickly the new formation will work.

[striker]

Not a fan of the "most completed passes" stat. With our formation Watford was very happy to let us pass the ball back and forth between ourselves. I'd be more interested in a stat like "most attacking passes completed" ( if there is such a thing). I fear we will see more of this all season. Little harmless passes, few threatening shots, and few goals. But hey, the passing stats will look good. Perhaps we could have Hodgson come in and show us how the England team did it so well.

[West End Saint]

It was not my intention to write the manager off after 1 game, however I was at the friendlies at home and we played the same

way. It was a question of why the change when we do not seem to have the players for it Austin being the obvious one.

 

In the 3 games I have seen we have dominated possession without creating many scoring opportunities, we get the ball wide but have nothing to cross too with the strikers split wide there is only ever one in the box and neither are particularly strong headers.

 

Also seems a bit worrying losing one of the holding midfielders we have had two in front of the back four up to now and it made us hard to beat.

 

I will be delighted if CP changes system to suite the opponent or the diamond works out well just baffled at the need for radical change without the players in place to suite.

[Shance]

Have you considered the faint possibility that Saint Robbie just may have been joking?

 

No I hadn't tbf.

 

In my defence, I was at work and it was 03:30am.

[The9]

I find this quite surprising.

 

I've always been led to believe (through I think a Saints promo video with Les) that 433 was the clubs chosen staple formation through the age groups. Not because it matches the first teams favoured formation "of the day", or because it's considered tactically supreme but rather because the end products are more well rounded and versatile players who, once entering senior ranks are more adaptable to play in any given formation.

 

We didn't play 4-3-3 under Pochettino or for large chunks of Koeman's time though.

[Suhari]

So we'e changed the formation throughout the age groups and the first team. And we've employed a manager who has had success with the new formation at previous clubs.

 

Do we know what came first.....the decision to change to a diamond, or the decision to appoint Puel?

[The9]

So we'e changed the formation throughout the age groups and the first team. And we've employed a manager who has had success with the new formation at previous clubs.

 

Do we know what came first.....the decision to change to a diamond, or the decision to appoint Puel?

 

Given that Les Reed is overseeing all this stuff and they weren't hugely bothered about keeping Koeman, I'm guessing it was a desire to play the formation even when Koeman was here, and the serendipity of a coach with good European experience being available to implement it later.

[david in sweden]

It seems the "new formation " is as difficult for fans to watch, as it is for the team to play.

Playing "slightly-built " (OK...short.) midfielders against " opposition muscle boys " showed up in both games so far, and our guys were punching below their weight.

 

Majority % possession stats. are no replacement for the " fear factor " we had with the tall Pelle, or Mane's do-or-die heroics. Shane Long was a good complement to them, but Redmond (for all his skill) doesn't carry the same threat. Also neither Long or Redmond have scoring stats. anywhere those of near the above-mentioned pair.

 

Neither a fit Austin, or a rejuvenated Jay Rod is likely to get a look-in the present set-up which negates the use of " the big man up front ".

Puel's Henry/ Redmond comparison may come about (in some small way), but we can't sacrifice the whole system waiting for it to come to fruition.

I'm not alone in praising Tadic's skill, but he does seem to want to do it all alone and always wants to make one pass too many.

We've had 37 shots in the first two games resulting in one goal and one point. The possession stats. may look good on paper, but prove little else.

 

One solution; Leave Long on the bench until after HT when his speed/guile may work better against tiring defenders, and alternate Austin and Jay Rod until one of them comes good and gets in the goals.

 

I go on record every season that I don't take a serious look at the table until game 6 or 7 ..at this rate we may be looking at the wrong end before glancing at the top six.

Edited 21 August, 2016 by david in sweden

[ratio_decidendi]

It seems the "new formation " is as difficult for fans to watch, as it is for the team to play.

Playing "slightly-built " (OK...short.) midfielders against " opposition muscle boys " showed up in both games so far, and our guys were punching below their weight.

 

Majority % possession stats. are no replacement for the " fear factor " we had with the tall Pelle, or Mane's do-or-die heroics. Shane Long was a good complement to them, but Redmond (for all his skill) doesn't carry the same threat. Also neither Long or Redmond have scoring stats. anywhere those of near the above-mentioned pair.

 

Neither a fit Austin, or a rejuvenated Jay Rod is likely to get a look-in the present set-up which negates the use of " the big man up front ".

Puel's Henry/ Redmond comparison may come about (in some small way), but we can't sacrifice the whole system waiting for it to come to fruition.

I'm not alone in praising Tadic's skill, but he does seem to want to do it all alone and always wants to make one pass too many.

We've had 37 shots in the first two games resulting in one goal and one point. The possession stats. may look good on paper, but prove little else.

 

One solution; Leave Long on the bench until after HT when his speed/guile may work better against tiring defenders, and alternate Austin and Jay Rod until one of them comes good and gets in the goals.

 

I go on record every season that I don't take a serious look at the table until game 6 or 7 ..at this rate we may be looking at the wrong end before glancing at the top six.

 

Good assessment, and kudos for acknowledging that we can't yet form a proper judgment until a few games after the transfer window shuts. Last season we had six points in the first six games. Hardly a bonanza of wins, but we had our best league finish yet.

 

Now, with Swansea and Sunderland at home coming up, we shouldn't be complacent but we certainly have the opportunity to exceed the six point tally. Whether we do or not, it's not going to reveal everything about our season, but we'll be in a much better position then to either praise or chastise Puel's formation change.