4-4-2 at home is the way forward for Spurs

[prawnsandwich]

I really don't get this almost religious anti-4-4-2 hysteria. It's an option used very effectively by many top teams.

 

[spurs9]

Ok-so Jimmy Greaves was not a striker?

No, he played inside forward with John White.

 

[RJ1882]

Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, Chelsea, Arsenal, the German national side.

What do all these teams have in common?

They all play with one centre forward in a 4-5-1/4-3-3 formation!

That was Harry Redknapp's second win of the season!!!!

Seriously do bore off!

As I have said already, people make out that having more strikers on the pitch makes you a better or more attacking team. Clearly it is absolute rubbish.

Messi Neymar and Suarez is playing with one striker? Good one

 

[SpursDave88]

Messi Neymar and Suarez is playing with one striker? Good one

Neither Neymar nor Messi are Centre forwards, some people no literally nothing about football...

What formation did Brazil play in the last world cup? Where did Neymar play? who was the central striker?

 

[Black]

you play a formation that suits the players you have and 4-2-3-1 does not seems to be working for us.

 

[RJ1882]

Neither Neymar nor Messi are Centre forwards, some people no literally nothing about football...

What formation did Brazil play in the last world cup? Where did Neymar play? who was the central striker?

I havent mentioned playing two centre forwards, or 3. I've mentioned playing an additional striker. Neymar, Messi and Suarez are strikers. Are any of the 3 a centre forward? No. So your point is invalid.

Neither Neymar nor Messi are Centre forwards, some people no literally nothing about football...

What formation did Brazil play in the last world cup? Where did Neymar play? who was the central striker?

never mentioned centre forwards. All 3 are strikers though. Play right up top all be it dropping deep as and when required.
We play with one apparent centre forward in Adebayir who spend half the time on the left wing. We need to play an additional striker or a proper centre forward. Shearer or Drogba Esq. Perhaps Bony or Benteke are attainable targets.

 

[SpursDave88]

I havent mentioned playing two centre forwards, or 3. I've mentioned playing an additional striker. Neymar, Messi and Suarez are strikers. Are any of the 3 a centre forward? No. So your point is invalid.

never mentioned centre forwards. All 3 are strikers though. Play right up top all be it dropping deep as and when required.
We play with one apparent centre forward in Adebayir who spend half the time on the left wing. We need to play an additional striker or a proper centre forward. Shearer or Drogba Esq. Perhaps Bony or Benteke are attainable targets.

Which is a different point...my point was that it is not the formation that is an issue, nor do I think that playing Harry Kane or Soldado ahead of Chadli for example makes us more likely to score goals or win games. Controversial, but I actually think the reason the current system isn't working is that we miss Kyle Walker, or another RB that can provide attacking width. Also, Mason and Capoue are not doing their jobs since in the system we play it is the deeper midfielders that are supposed to protect the full back, or drop into the fullback position when they go forward. They are not doing this...

 

[Shea]

you play a formation that suits the players you have and 4-2-3-1 does not seems to be working for us.

This is absolutely the problem

Our players don't suit our system at all

We're over run in midfield and exposed at the back as a result

Weak and impotent up front and have very little attacking width as our WF's always cut in and very little is provided from the full backs (when they do we're even more exposed at the back)

We've clearly bought a bunch of players who while indivdually talented do not complimenet each other nor the managers system

Add to that we've had 4 managers in a short period of time all with different ideas and tactics and we couldn't really be more disjointed

I think for now the system needs to be adapted to suit the players then the manager can implement his system once he's bought and sold players that make our playing staff more suitable to playing his formation and tactics

What is clear is things are not working, weak at the back, weak in midfield and blunt upfront - the only area we're sorted is the keeper who's just an indivdually outstanding player

 

[RJ1882]

Which is a different point...my point was that it is not the formation that is an issue, nor do I think that playing Harry Kane or Soldado ahead of Chadli for example makes us more likely to score goals or win games. Controversial, but I actually think the reason the current system isn't working is that we miss Kyle Walker, or another RB that can provide attacking width. Also, Mason and Capoue are not doing their jobs since in the system we play it is the deeper midfielders that are supposed to protect the full back, or drop into the fullback position when they go forward. They are not doing this...

Mason wont do it. Its not his role in the side. He's there to create, attack. One DM should be enough to do this role. we worry too much about what opposition can do rather than doing what we can do - especially in home games.
I'm adamant that at WHL, which is a small pitch, we dont need to load midfield with 5 players and leave a striker isolated on his own. By pairing Kane with Soldado for example, we'll have the number 10 striker droppng deep, playing across the line and getting in the box to support the central striker. Its more Kanes natural game to do this than it is Eriksens for example.
It also lets us have two options up top for the 3 behind that to feed the ball into. Two strikers can pull the CBs apart leaving space for through balls or space for that 3 to run into.
We all think we have teh answers, and we all have our own opinions which are probably more right than wrong. But for me, at WHL, we should be looking to really go at teams like we did under Redknapp. Get the crowd going, rattle the opposition.
4132, 442, 442 diamond, whatever you want to call it, currently suits the squad we have better than playing a lone (lazy) striker. Point being, if we had a genuine top class CF, or een someone just good enough to play the CF role, we'd 'maybe' get away with continuing to play one striker.

 

[SpursDave88]

Mason wont do it. Its not his role in the side. He's there to create, attack. One DM should be enough to do this role. we worry too much about what opposition can do rather than doing what we can do - especially in home games.
I'm adamant that at WHL, which is a small pitch, we dont need to load midfield with 5 players and leave a striker isolated on his own. By pairing Kane with Soldado for example, we'll have the number 10 striker droppng deep, playing across the line and getting in the box to support the central striker. Its more Kanes natural game to do this than it is Eriksens for example.
It also lets us have two options up top for the 3 behind that to feed the ball into. Two strikers can pull the CBs apart leaving space for through balls or space for that 3 to run into.
We all think we have teh answers, and we all have our own opinions which are probably more right than wrong. But for me, at WHL, we should be looking to really go at teams like we did under Redknapp. Get the crowd going, rattle the opposition.
4132, 442, 442 diamond, whatever you want to call it, currently suits the squad we have better than playing a lone (lazy) striker. Point being, if we had a genuine top class CF, or een someone just good enough to play the CF role, we'd 'maybe' get away with continuing to play one striker.

All fair points, perhaps the issue then is that Lamela comes too deep and drops into the 10 position to receive the ball when really he should be ahead of the play or wide looking to either receive the ball in behind or 1 Vs 1 against the full back, instead of constantly standing next to Eriksen.

 

[SpursManChris]

Tactics aren't the problem. This has been pretty evident over the last few seasons. It's the players, they aren't good enough.

I like to think we have a team which should be capable of beating a relegation zoned Newcastle United and West Brom.

 

[SpursManChris]

It's become cool to hate 4-4-2. People who say it are just trying to make themselves look like they know about football. If 4-4-2 is good enough for the Champions then guess what - It's good enough for us too. (in the right games of course)

 

[JohannTHFC]

Diego Simeones Atletico Madrid plays 4-4-2 and they were the best team in Europe last season imo.

 

[Sevens]

I really don't get this almost religious anti-4-4-2 hysteria. It's an option used very effectively by many top teams.

Football Manager has a lot to answer for.

The formation doesn't matter as much as the right players. The problem our current squad has is that it's not really ideally suited to any formation. There are gaps no matter what formation we play. I'm actually leaning more towards us needing to play 4-5-1 Mourinho old style until the January transfer window. It would mean dropping one of Eriksen, Chadli or Lamela though. And we still don't have a striker who is comfortable playing up top on their own.

If we switch to 4-4-2 then we'd need to drop all three of Eriksen, Lamela and Chadli and I can't see Poch doing that.

 

[Sevens]

Diego Simeones Atletico Madrid plays 4-4-2 and they were the best team in Europe last season imo.

Man City played 4-4-2 a lot last season too. And Utd the season before that. 4-4-2 is just out of fashion.

 

[slartibartfast]

I think we can all agree there is a time and a place for 1 upfront.
Nobody (well I hope not) is suggesting going 442 away from home against better teams.
Its when we're at home against shite I find hard to stomach.
Take the next away game to Villa for example. They haven't scored a goal in 4 games I believe and its their worst start to a season in their history.
Now why the f would u feel the need to play one striker and 2 sitting in front of the back 4? Its daft and plays right into their hands.
As has already been said, its worrying about what the opposition is going to do more than trying to impose yourself and make them worry about you.
Playing to not lose instead of to win which as has been said has its place. Just not against teams whove just had their worst start in history.
Bloody guarantee they'll get a goal and a point against us if we play 1 upfront.
No bets please lol.

 

[Kendall]

I'm not a huge fan of 4-4-2 as a rule, but I do think we should be more adaptable to going to 4-4-2 when the scenario calls for it.

 

[eddiebailey]

If we switch to 4-4-2 then we'd need to drop all three of Eriksen, Lamela and Chadli and I can't see Poch doing that.

Tim's lopsided 4-4-2 was intended to accomodate Eriksen, and for all the problems that caused us down the left I suspect it is probably the most effective formation for us right now.

This is particularly so as we have superior options in CM than were available to Tim, and Rose is proving a more forceful presence on the left now he is no longer making his way back from injury,

 

[prawnsandwich]

Tim's lopsided 4-4-2 was intended to accomodate Eriksen, and for all the problems that caused us down the left I suspect it is probably the most effective formation for us right now.

This is particularly so as we have superior options in CM than were available to Tim, and Rose is proving a more forceful presence on the left now he is no longer making his way back from injury,

I agree Eriksen works with 4-4-2 and possibly Chadli but I would prefer Townsend for Chadli.
Lamela should be challenging Eriksen for the slot but currently he is playing like it is a hobby not a living. He is the one that needs dropping, not Ade.
4-4-2 with Ade and Harry worked a treat last Thursday and in the EPL last season. It must be considered against teams that are likely to play defensively.

 

[NeverRed]

Our current system isn't static and at times we are playing 4-5-1, 4-3-3, lop-sided 4-4-2, 3-6-1, etc. The younger sides up to 1sts are all at this same system. Poch is certainly not the only person at the club who's drunk at the philosophical "kool-aid" and he was probably brought in over Frank De Boer because a) he was easier to get; & b) he shared a lot more in common with the clubs existing system and beliefs.

To be explained out, the club's current team formation system is no doubt going to be technically sound / philosophically good, but there are many conceptual ideals in many different disciplines that sound correct but don't translate well in practice, in current conditions or with the tools at ones disposal. They remain ideals that are rarely achieved or take a long time before their realisation.

When following such concepts and encountering difficulties along the way, you can either:

• Persist to ram what you are doing through to completion. Sticking to the path rigidly until achieved. Maybe perhaps for greater good... one day; or
  
• Adapt to those problems encountered, relaxing your approach/belief, to perform better in the immediate... hoping to naturally find a way and perhaps form an even better "proven-to-be-suited-to-you" philosophy as opposed to someone else's ideal that may not ever be obtained.

I personally spent a lot of my life doing the former, believing that I was owed something because I was determined, because I worked so hard, and saw things through to the end, no matter what. One day I had to stop that approach, something happened causing me to make changes to get results quickly as opposed to working towards some far off picture of an ideal future. I started doing what I could with what there was, as well as possible, without seeking perfection and without paying attention what others say is the best way. Soon I was succeeding and getting what my future ideal was hoping to achieve, but much sooner then I had imagined.

That's shown me I believed in a big lie: That hard work, determination and persistence following an ideal path entitles you to success one day. In actuality it is those that face up to and adapt to their circumstances, that take immediate (and often simpler) steps to produce, that are the one's who are getting results... consistently. And in doing that they are not always following their philosophical ideals. Naturally there will be a different set of repercussions in different choices of approach, but when you're making those choices most effective towards getting immediate results, you don't need to worry about what the repercussions are for those choices you make. It all becomes trivial theory that doesn't matter so much because you're too busy doing well. It's stuff you would waste time worrying over while you weren't actually producing.

I do look at what the club are trying to do and think its over-complex for what can ultimately be a lot simpler. Often I see an ineffectual lone striker, for example, and think of Mike Basset saying "4-4-fucking-2", but I don't see such a change happening easily. The club and manager are, rightly or wrongly, too emotionally/mentally tied into their philosophical belief of playing system, preferring persistence and determination to achieve it, at the expense of their agility (ability to adapt) and handling the immediate reality. I'm not advocating players just "fackin raan abaat abit", but Spurs have got too dogmatic in their systemic approach, and they have become ineffectual as a result... not to mention plain painful to watch at times. Always it's a long term plan, or targets for the future, or a certain way - please maybe just philosophise to win the next couple of games in a bloody row!

Typically there's probably going to many ways to stifle ability to produce, a few ways to succeed and no one right way (tm), with some ways achieving a lot faster than others. What ever Spurs are trying to do, rightly or wrongly in their approach, there are things that just should be done regardless of any route taken - plain good practices to follow, if you like. I would say these are:

• Do use players that excelled in a previous match in the most important priority matches that follow. Don't drop them for a following important game.
  
• Do drop players, even if just for a short while, that more than twice/thrice in a row:
  • Show themselves a liability to getting a result due to concentration, accident-proneness, confidence or lacking competitiveness (frequently loosing their individual battles against opponents), influence or effectiveness on play.
    
  • Don't take responsibility for making things happen and rarely any risk (e.g. attackers that rarely shoot, midfielders who always turn backwards or go sideways, or any players who cop out by consistently playing tippy-tappy indirect pointless passing as opposed to seeking direct influential play).
• Don't buy players any more "established" players that aren't obviously ready to play in the team. They take up places that good young players should be filling.

When such basic good practices aren't being done, that's the most disappointing thing of all.