4-2-1-2-1

[chivvy1664]

Will Portvliet ever change his formation if things arent going to plan? Personally i dont think he will. This concerns me as we might need to change formation to get back into a game. Is 442 is the way to get out of this division?

[NickG]

think its more having system and players performing

[Alucard]

Will Portvliet ever change his formation if things arent going to plan? Personally i dont think he will. This concerns me as we might need to change formation to get back into a game. Is 442 is the way to get out of this division?

 

Why does everybody have this preoccupation about changinging formation. We never changed our formation last season when things were going wrong. Think back to last Burnley at home last season. 1-0 down at half time to a team playing 1 up front in Akinbiyi. We played 44 ****in 2 to the bitter end. Four at the back against 1 attacker. Same against Coventry 0-0 playing into their hands we made 1 change after 70 minutes bringing on BWP for Pericard and carried on playing 442. We never even brought Hammil or Surman of the bench in order to try and win it. Pearson never had a plan B why is everybody slagging off JP for not changing his tactics.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

This formation creates alot of posession which will, I believe, transfer into more wins than losses, very impressed with the football being played under JP, silly mistakes caused us to narrowly lose against 2 teams which will be around the automatic promotion places at the end of the season, see no reason for change just yet

[1965onwards]

Talk of playing formations is nonsense.A complete red herring.

 

Do teams keep rigidly to these formations during the game without moving ? No.

 

During the ebb and flow of a game a team will end up in all kinds of formations by accident and design,as players move around in response to what their players do and what the opposition players do.

[chivvy1664]

Why does everybody have this preoccupation about changinging formation. We never changed our formation last season when things were going wrong. Think back to last Burnley at home last season. 1-0 down at half time to a team playing 1 up front in Akinbiyi. We played 44 ****in 2 to the bitter end. Four at the back against 1 attacker. Same against Coventry 0-0 playing into their hands we made 1 change after 70 minutes bringing on BWP for Pericard and carried on playing 442. We never even brought Hammil or Surman of the bench in order to try and win it. Pearson never had a plan B why is everybody slagging off JP for not changing his tactics.

 

 

Im not saying change the formation. Im asking would he change it if we are a goal down with 15 minutes to go? I wasnt slagging potrvliet either!

[Alanh]

Think of the system as 4-3-3 with the infinite varieties that it offers. There is loads more flexibility that 4-4-2 because you are not reliant on two strikers working as a partnership to create goals. You have more input from the wingers and the attacking midfielders in creating chances. You also have two defensive midfielders who break up the oppositions attacks and start things off for our attackers. Chelsea, Liverpool and Man Utd all play this system which must say something about what it offers.

 

I think we'd all accept that there will be occasions when we won't have the upper hand in games, and that's when JP's tactical abilities will come into play and we'll find out whether he can adapt the system to a particular situation.

[positivepete]

He does change it. In both games Svensson has gone up front at the end and we have attempted to get the ball forward more directly.

[Ian the Red]

The formation on saturday was spot on... Brum did not know how to play us in the first half and all said and done we should have had more goals. Ok Brum should have scored 1 but a 3-1 scoreline at half time would have reflected the play/chances created. The formation did not cost us on Saturday, mistakes by the two centre halves for the first and the holding midfielders not covering well enough and the full back for the second. The football is fantastic and bearing in mind we have played two teams that will be in the top 6 we have done extremely well.

4-2-1-2-1 formation is far more flexible than a rigid 4-4-2, gives more outlets when in possession but needs discipline when defending, ie midfield needs to get back to cover, space needs to be closed down quickly; something we did not do as well in the second half, although had the SJ header gone in in the 47th minute who knows what could have happen.

JP desevres credit for producing a team that can play that way so quickly. There is no doubt that Saints will win many games playing this way. Get behind the team, the manager and have faith and come to watch........... we need the money!!!

[Doctoroncall]

Talk of playing formations is nonsense.A complete red herring.

 

Do teams keep rigidly to these formations during the game without moving ? No.

 

During the ebb and flow of a game a team will end up in all kinds of formations by accident and design,as players move around in response to what their players do and what the opposition players do.

 

I think you'll find that's what happen at the start of the football era more than a hundred years ago before formations came into effect when winning games were more important than performance and scoring goals.

 

The introduction of league football changed the development of team tactics and where teams played 1-3-5. Why do you think Chapman introduced the WM formation if players were only moving with the flow and his team became incredible successful with it?

 

Any system needs to have the right combination of players than understand the role and are good enough to play that role. This is where JP will earn his wage by deciding whether he has the right group of players and developing them into the roles to play in the team.

[1965onwards]

So Doctoroncall,you are saying that when we have a corner against us,we are still maintaining a 4-2-1-2-1 formation? and not a 9-1 formation in response to the current situation on the pitch.

[Ash]

Will Portvliet ever change his formation if things arent going to plan? Personally i dont think he will.

What makes you think that he won't change things? Have you noticed something in his three competitive games which suggests he only has one plan or have you looked at his record at previous clubs?

[St Paul]

Whether it was the formation or not, we still just let the game slip tamely by on Saturday. There was no big push in the final 10 mins. Had GB not put a forward on the bench, he would have been getting loads of abuse on here, and rightly so. Just because we're a team of youngsters should not make the Manager immune from stick.

[Doctoroncall]

So Doctoroncall,you are saying that when we have a corner against us,we are still maintaining a 4-2-1-2-1 formation? and not a 9-1 formation in response to the current situation on the pitch.

 

You are basing your argument of formation doesn't matter on corners, so that accounts for what, about 5 minutes play?

 

Perhaps you maybe on to something and coaches know nothing and formations haven't changed over the course of history!

[Polaroid Saint]

You are basing your argument of formation doesn't matter on corners, so that accounts for what, about 5 minutes play?

 

Perhaps you maybe on to something and coaches know nothing and formations haven't changed over the course of history!

 

1965 is right Doc! He is a modern-football thinker, you, it seems, are less so!

 

'Formations' are the preserve of the media and fans who like to think they know what they are talking about. Formations are fluid in a 90 minute game of football and players have long been able to adjust accordingly. 442, 433, whatever, is merely short-hand for saying how many 'recognised' strikers/midfielders/defenders are on the pitch. Man Utd may well be playing a 4411 now instead of the 46 they used last season, but, really, Fergie is not bothered what YOU call it. HE calls it tactics, NOT formation.

 

Sure it's a subtle difference; but "Change The Formation" is a completely redundant call to improve a struglling side - change the tactics, attitude, approach, etc maybe, but 'formation' is just a label old-school managers, the media particulaly and many fans fall back on when they cant see ways to improve the play of the squad through decent coaching etc.

 

Styles of play have changed of course, but 'formations' have little use other than as a small part of in-game tactics. Although talking about their various merits make good copy and pub banter, it rarely effects the play of the team.

 

Any famous 'formations' through the years are based in propaganda as much as any supposed effect on the team....

 

...expect posts about 'wingless wonders' etc...

[Saint Without a Halo]

The formation on saturday was spot on... Brum did not know how to play us in the first half and all said and done we should have had more goals. Ok Brum should have scored 1 but a 3-1 scoreline at half time would have reflected the play/chances created. The formation did not cost us on Saturday, mistakes by the two centre halves for the first and the holding midfielders not covering well enough and the full back for the second. The football is fantastic and bearing in mind we have played two teams that will be in the top 6 we have done extremely well.

4-2-1-2-1 formation is far more flexible than a rigid 4-4-2, gives more outlets when in possession but needs discipline when defending, ie midfield needs to get back to cover, space needs to be closed down quickly; something we did not do as well in the second half, although had the SJ header gone in in the 47th minute who knows what could have happen.

JP desevres credit for producing a team that can play that way so quickly. There is no doubt that Saints will win many games playing this way. Get behind the team, the manager and have faith and come to watch........... we need the money!!!

 

 

 

A good sensible post amongst a lot of early season as yet unjustified panic!

[Doctoroncall]

1965 is right Doc! He is a modern-football thinker, you, it seems, are less so!

 

'Formations' are the preserve of the media and fans who like to think they know what they are talking about. Formations are fluid in a 90 minute game of football and players have long been able to adjust accordingly. 442, 433, whatever, is merely short-hand for saying how many 'recognised' strikers/midfielders/defenders are on the pitch. Man Utd may well be playing a 4411 now instead of the 46 they used last season, but, really, Fergie is not bothered what YOU call it. HE calls it tactics, NOT formation.

 

Sure it's a subtle difference; but "Change The Formation" is a completely redundant call to improve a struglling side - change the tactics, attitude, approach, etc maybe, but 'formation' is just a label old-school managers, the media particulaly and many fans fall back on when they cant see ways to improve the play of the squad through decent coaching etc.

 

Styles of play have changed of course, but 'formations' have little use other than as a small part of in-game tactics. Although talking about their various merits make good copy and pub banter, it rarely effects the play of the team.

 

Any famous 'formations' through the years are based in propaganda as much as any supposed effect on the team....

 

...expect posts about 'wingless wonders' etc...

 

Like I said "Any system needs to have the right combination of players that understand the role and are good enough to play that role. "

 

Formation is used and will continue to be used to describe positions on the pitch based on pre-match tactics and part of the role taken on by the player. The role of each position is different but they have been defined overtime so you cannot talk about formation alone. To take the example of the WM formation:

 

Chapman moved the centre half from a position in midfield to the centre of the defence. With what were called the inside forwards at the time (part of the 5 front line) brought back to the midfield to cover for the absence of the centre half and link up with the forwards. This changed the usual formation of a 2–3–5 to 3–4–3, or a 'WM', so called after the shape it formed on the pitch. The consequence of this was to push the full backs out to cover the wings and the sole centre half controlled the off-site trap while the spare full-back now helped the centre back if there was an attack down the opposite wing.

 

But if you see it as a points scoring contest, I'll leave you to it!

[Whitey Grandad]

Whether it was the formation or not, we still just let the game slip tamely by on Saturday. There was no big push in the final 10 mins. Had GB not put a forward on the bench, he would have been getting loads of abuse on here, and rightly so. Just because we're a team of youngsters should not make the Manager immune from stick.

 

That's what depressed me so much during the seconds half last Saturday. For the first time ever, at no time after 60 mins did I feel that we could get a goal back. When the board went up showing 3 mins all I felt was a deeper gloom. As for the formation, the gap between Surman and Holmes was far too big and we were resorting to long balls down the channel, which our players handled quite well to start with but as the game wore on there were big holes in the left and right midfield.

[Polaroid Saint]

Like I said "Any system needs to have the right combination of players that understand the role and are good enough to play that role. "

 

Formation is used and will continue to be used to describe positions on the pitch based on pre-match tactics and part of the role taken on by the player. The role of each position is different but they have been defined overtime so you cannot talk about formation alone. To take the example of the WM formation:

 

Chapman moved the centre half from a position in midfield to the centre of the defence. With what were called the inside forwards at the time (part of the 5 front line) brought back to the midfield to cover for the absence of the centre half and link up with the forwards. This changed the usual formation of a 2–3–5 to 3–4–3, or a 'WM', so called after the shape it formed on the pitch. The consequence of this was to push the full backs out to cover the wings and the sole centre half controlled the off-site trap while the spare full-back now helped the centre back if there was an attack down the opposite wing.

 

But if you see it as a points scoring contest, I'll leave you to it!

 

No no no, not points scoring. Just tired of the old 'change the formation solves all problems' gambit, so tend to react strongly, sorry! ;-) English footballs tendency to dwell on the myth of magic formulas has been/is still one of its big big problems.

 

You clearly understand how teams adapt during the course of the game and your example is great illustration of exactly that - A free flowing system that is well adapted to the laws of the game. The fact someone wanted to name a formation WM (or christmas tree or what-have-you), is all well and good and if it helps with tactics and mental approach to the game for the team (players and manager) then I'm all for it.

 

It's probably unfair on Chapman as a manager though, to say his successes were purely down to a formation choice. (Brilliantly) it was not the fabled WM formation that was succesful, but the manager and players themselves that implemented it.

 

The key point is that 42121, the title of the thread, is media/fan short hand for all number of possible formations Poortvliet wants his team to play in during the course of the game. People will continue to use a managers percieved choice of formation as a stick to beat him with when things ain't going smoothly (and hail his genius when all is sweet).

[1965onwards]

Talk of formations is pointless.Players are the important thing.

 

Players end up all over the place in the course of the match,if they did not it would mean that they have stuck rigidly to a "formation",and would spend most of the match as spectators.

 

Players move to where they think they should be or where they think they ought or need to be as play developes,in the process ALL formations are destroyed and become completely meaningless.

 

A football match is an ever-changing dynamic,not a game of chess where players can only move within a narrow field of activity.

 

Talk of formations is for people to try and sound like they know what they are talking about.

[Doctoroncall]

To be fair, formations are a piece of the puzzle and provides a starting point. Arguing what formation is best is nonsense.

 

I'm sure Chapman didn't have the best players available but still managed to win by applying what was required of the roles, especially in the early days when the opposition favoured the 2-3-5 and the weaknesses exploited.

 

Perhaps these days you could say the better the players available to the team the more likely they are to win. However, I don't think it was always the case, as you could have a fantastic player but either doesn't fit into the system or the system had a weakness to great to overcome (Veron's role at Man Utd comes to mind).

[funkymojo44]

4-4-2 varying to 4-3-3 (get a goal) or 4-5-1 (hold a lead) is all you need if the players are good enough.

 

Most forwards are versatile making the 4-3-3 an option even with 2 strikers on the pitch, so one can go out wide.

[Rasiak-9-]

In fairness one of the things that stuck out for me in the 2nd half against Birmingham was the lack of structure we had compared to Brum's far more solid 4-4-2. Our midfield became a bit of a mish-mash and McGoldrick who is an out and out striker clearly wasn't sure whether to go forward or not because he was unsure just how much defensive duties were placed on him.

 

One very simple change that I think would make a lot of difference attacking-wise would be to simply change the shape of the midfield triangle.

 

Lallana - Thomson

 

Schneiderlin

 

when we're trying for a goal with the original

 

Lallana

 

Schneiderlin - Gillett

 

to defend our lead.

 

Oh and btw, they're pronounced Jillette and Shnyderlan, not Gillitt and Shnyderlinne stupid stadium announcer - that was a ****ing embarrassment on Sat that we can't even pronounce our own players names.