From memory Petone had very energetic strikers with lots of lateral movement . I think one played slightly deeper. Their wide midfielders, while ok, didn't look for balls into the corner. Their defence also ok. Petone's strength was their center midfield along with their strikers.
The conditions on Saturday will be wet, muddy, and Nairnville like, which means that it will be tough to turn, running in heavy boots, hard for defence to combat strikers with the ball in 1-0n-1 situations.
Against Marist we changed our formation in the 2nd half to a 5-3-2 to sort centre D issues. I think a similar but more attacking formation might be required this week - something like a 4-1-4-1 or a 4-2-3-1 depending on how attacking we want the wide players to be (and as a result how much responsibility they have to get back to defend).
A 4-1-4-1 would look something like this (us in yellow).
The main talking point is that the spare man is likely the DCM who will be sweeping in front of the defence, intercepting passes to strikers or supporting the central D if the ball gets past him. If a striker drops deeper (a la Messi or Rooney) he picks up the striker and a CB sweeps. The only other thing of note is that the wide midfielders will tend to get forward more often to try and link with the striker.
A 4-2-3-1 is only different in that the wide midfielders become more attack focused - almost like wingers. To compensate two central midfielders play holding roles. The wide defenders play further forward, almost as man-markers on the wide
midfielders. A 4-2-3-1 formation would look something like this.
The advantage of both formations is they provide depth which is important when the ground is heavy and players start getting tired. Also it adds more players into the centre midfield, which is a strength of theirs, while still allowing us to attack through our wide players. Also playing 4 lines deep should result in quick transitions from defence to strikers without needing to hit long balls.
We kind of did something similar to this late in the 2nd half the first time we played them. One of our wide midfielders ended up playing centre midfield. This was due to them having a very strong centre midfield but not so strong wide players. The problem with this is that it reduced our attacking ability with no pressure on the right. One of the above formations should have the same effect defensively but with more attacking potential.
The conditions on Saturday will be wet, muddy, and Nairnville like, which means that it will be tough to turn, running in heavy boots, hard for defence to combat strikers with the ball in 1-0n-1 situations.
Against Marist we changed our formation in the 2nd half to a 5-3-2 to sort centre D issues. I think a similar but more attacking formation might be required this week - something like a 4-1-4-1 or a 4-2-3-1 depending on how attacking we want the wide players to be (and as a result how much responsibility they have to get back to defend).
A 4-1-4-1 would look something like this (us in yellow).
The main talking point is that the spare man is likely the DCM who will be sweeping in front of the defence, intercepting passes to strikers or supporting the central D if the ball gets past him. If a striker drops deeper (a la Messi or Rooney) he picks up the striker and a CB sweeps. The only other thing of note is that the wide midfielders will tend to get forward more often to try and link with the striker.
A 4-2-3-1 is only different in that the wide midfielders become more attack focused - almost like wingers. To compensate two central midfielders play holding roles. The wide defenders play further forward, almost as man-markers on the wide
midfielders. A 4-2-3-1 formation would look something like this.The advantage of both formations is they provide depth which is important when the ground is heavy and players start getting tired. Also it adds more players into the centre midfield, which is a strength of theirs, while still allowing us to attack through our wide players. Also playing 4 lines deep should result in quick transitions from defence to strikers without needing to hit long balls.
We kind of did something similar to this late in the 2nd half the first time we played them. One of our wide midfielders ended up playing centre midfield. This was due to them having a very strong centre midfield but not so strong wide players. The problem with this is that it reduced our attacking ability with no pressure on the right. One of the above formations should have the same effect defensively but with more attacking potential.
10 comments:
Yes I was very busy man-marking at centre back last time. And received no higher a compliment than "well played. For a kiwi."
Like the sound of 4 1 4 1. At least to start. They started much better than us but faded somewhat second half and we were the better side over the last ten or fifteen.
I do remeber that in the second half Gus and i were up front and i started the half basically playing like a defensive striker in front of the midfield, i noticed that there was a need to cut things off in there and we hassled them a bit because of this, during the game Gus and i swapped this role and we ended up with one guy up front basically and not much support out wide as our men where drawn in. The one thing i did notice though is when we put man to man pressure on them they got rattled and didnt like it in the midfield so perhaps we could idntify early who the main man is and just have one person stick to them like glue and take this player out of the game? and we finshed well, i think the 4-1-4-1 would be a good idea to start with though.
Problem with change of formation is that you really need to practise it, and unless I'm missing something, that's one of the reasons people want to play for the Stallions!
Basically we need to man mark their threats up front, and hussle and smash them in the middle. Only played a half last time but remember their defenders not being the quickest.
I think Nairnville 2 might play quite well so dont think the pitch will be a problem, unless it rains overnight and a game is on before hand.
We've played a holding midfielder before. The only difference is that we start with 1 striker as far forward as possible and the other striker having defensive responsibilities in the centre-mid.
Both strikers play pretty central with wide midfielders (or even wide defenders making overlap runs) providing options down the line.
Yea, I've no real problem with the formation. I've emailed Tristin and he'll sit in the hole and I'll play further up front. Just think we need to keep it as simple as possible. Talks of full-backs over-lapping and this, that and the other requires a very good understanding of team pattern and communication. Not saying it shouldn't happen, but going in hard in the middle to win the ball, and shutting down their strikers should be the main objectives.
And if our DCM has to pick up Messi or Rooney then we're fucked regardless ;) Esp if our DCM is going to be Aaron...
I reckon we should just print out this post and show it to Petone. They'll be terrified by our tactical acumen and probably just default...
Screw that, I'll take both those clowns at the same time.
I'll have to take a cheat sheet on to the field. printing those MnM diagrams out now.
Good call Mike, you are that limpy slightly munted yellow M&M about 10 meters behind everyone else (except for when the Magpie chased you away).
Post a Comment