I fancy that team for the later stages of the EL. Away. And that is with a big leap of faith for Lamela.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
YOU are the manager
- Thread starter Papercut
- Start date
I fancy that team for the later stages of the EL. Away. And that is with a big leap of faith for Lamela.
At home, abso-fecking-lutely. If nothing else it keeps all four of our strikers in the loop.
Away I would always have 2 strikers on the bench but I would play 4-5-1 in most games.
Last edited:
milo
Jack L. Jones
What would you say in answer to the argument that our squad is not set up for 4-4-2?
Can you point me to another team currently playing the kind of formation that you would like to see at home?
Milo, how about YOU are the manager instead of you are the policeman interviewing a suspect?
For me, AVB is doing and has done a hell of a lot right in his time so far at the club. As has been mentioned much already, he has made us a lot more stubborn to break down and as a result, we don't generally concede 2's and 3's and that has been carried into this season and improved upon. I personally feel that he has made us as a supporter base, believe that a greater plan is a play, with a proper structure that we can believe in. That is something that we never really had under Redknapp for all the headlines and entertainment.
The one area that I feel AVB has to improve on is his flexibility across the board. I think that he has a system in mind that he wants us to play regardless of who our opponents are and that to me is main cause of our lack of entertainment and goals so far in the league. I think it is quite apparent that 12/13 teams in this league are going to come to White Hart Lane and look to frustrate us, get the fans on the team's back and then maybe nick a goal on the break or from a set piece. Playing one man up top against that is not going to work. He is going to be crowded out pretty quickly, the "wide" players are normally too far from the main forward to affect the play directly in tandem with him and inevitably it all becomes a bit crowded and pedestrian with the ball. I think he needs to take each game individually and set us up according to what we can do against that team. Trying to be difficult to break down against Manchester United is understandable but being cautious and difficult to break down at the expense of our attacking ability at home to West Ham/Hull is not.
I can understand the way he sets up for most away games and for certain home games like Chelsea/Arsenal where you know those teams will face you up and try to use their perceived better players to beat you but against teams who don't compete against you in a like for like way, you have to try and use a different formation/tactic to then get the best from what players we have. I almost feel that against teams like West Ham/Hull, we should worry less about what they might do and concern ourselves more with what we are going to do to them because generally, save for a set piece or being caught on the counter, these are teams that with our quality we should be comfortable playing against and creating against without fear of conceding.
Against these such teams I would play a formation that allows us to use two forwards and by that I mean preferably Soldado and Adebayor. Sometimes that might mean playing 4-4-2 or maybe even playing 3-5-2 and using the wingbacks for width. People will say why play 3 at the back when the team you are playing has 1 forward or maybe none at all. My answer would be that the spare defender all the time of the 3 would always be Vertonghen who is wonderful at bringing the ball out from the back and whilst in possession, would operate almost as an extra midfielder and what better player to have on the ball maybe more often than anyone in the midfield or at the back?
My reasoning for using a formation that provides two out and out forwards against specific teams at home is that it allows both forwards to get fairly close to eachother, to interchange and feed off eachother, it allows the wide players (when playing a 4-4-2) to face up their direct number one v one almost all the time so that once you have beaten your opponent, you a generally in a position to freely get you shot/cross off. Currently, when Townsend/Lennon beat a player in a wide position, a spare defender gets across if they aren't already doubling up to close down the chance and the reason for that is because they only have one centre half occupied by our one forward so they always have someone spare. As it stands, Soldado is playing virtually the whole time with his back to goal, with no prospect of getting in behind because he has no one close enough to him to play off. This formation and style will take time which is why from time to time playing with two forwards will help him and have a player in his vicinity that he can work off with a flick round the corner and getting in behind.
The system we currently play is also very difficult for the wide players (as is 4-3-3) as it becomes a multi discipline position in an instant. As soon as you lose the ball you have to be back in to pack the midfield and as soon as you win it back you have find space instantly in order to make the formation work. If you haven't played it before it does take a long time to get accustomed to what is required of you as a wide player by comparison to your duties in a 4-4-2.
As I have said, I think that the formation AVB is persisting with is ideal for games like Sunday when we are away from home and in fact for the majority of away games. I also think it is a good one for home games against sides that will hurt you because of the overall quality of their side so basically the other teams in the top 6 at home. But for me, We have to start getting the ball moving more quickly and in the right areas to get the best from our forwards as they are spending 95% of the game being marked and with their back to goal and no one is getting close enough to them in the right areas to help affect the play and for me, the best way to do that against most of the teams we come up against at home is to play with two forwards.
The one area that I feel AVB has to improve on is his flexibility across the board. I think that he has a system in mind that he wants us to play regardless of who our opponents are and that to me is main cause of our lack of entertainment and goals so far in the league. I think it is quite apparent that 12/13 teams in this league are going to come to White Hart Lane and look to frustrate us, get the fans on the team's back and then maybe nick a goal on the break or from a set piece. Playing one man up top against that is not going to work. He is going to be crowded out pretty quickly, the "wide" players are normally too far from the main forward to affect the play directly in tandem with him and inevitably it all becomes a bit crowded and pedestrian with the ball. I think he needs to take each game individually and set us up according to what we can do against that team. Trying to be difficult to break down against Manchester United is understandable but being cautious and difficult to break down at the expense of our attacking ability at home to West Ham/Hull is not.
I can understand the way he sets up for most away games and for certain home games like Chelsea/Arsenal where you know those teams will face you up and try to use their perceived better players to beat you but against teams who don't compete against you in a like for like way, you have to try and use a different formation/tactic to then get the best from what players we have. I almost feel that against teams like West Ham/Hull, we should worry less about what they might do and concern ourselves more with what we are going to do to them because generally, save for a set piece or being caught on the counter, these are teams that with our quality we should be comfortable playing against and creating against without fear of conceding.
Against these such teams I would play a formation that allows us to use two forwards and by that I mean preferably Soldado and Adebayor. Sometimes that might mean playing 4-4-2 or maybe even playing 3-5-2 and using the wingbacks for width. People will say why play 3 at the back when the team you are playing has 1 forward or maybe none at all. My answer would be that the spare defender all the time of the 3 would always be Vertonghen who is wonderful at bringing the ball out from the back and whilst in possession, would operate almost as an extra midfielder and what better player to have on the ball maybe more often than anyone in the midfield or at the back?
My reasoning for using a formation that provides two out and out forwards against specific teams at home is that it allows both forwards to get fairly close to eachother, to interchange and feed off eachother, it allows the wide players (when playing a 4-4-2) to face up their direct number one v one almost all the time so that once you have beaten your opponent, you a generally in a position to freely get you shot/cross off. Currently, when Townsend/Lennon beat a player in a wide position, a spare defender gets across if they aren't already doubling up to close down the chance and the reason for that is because they only have one centre half occupied by our one forward so they always have someone spare. As it stands, Soldado is playing virtually the whole time with his back to goal, with no prospect of getting in behind because he has no one close enough to him to play off. This formation and style will take time which is why from time to time playing with two forwards will help him and have a player in his vicinity that he can work off with a flick round the corner and getting in behind.
The system we currently play is also very difficult for the wide players (as is 4-3-3) as it becomes a multi discipline position in an instant. As soon as you lose the ball you have to be back in to pack the midfield and as soon as you win it back you have find space instantly in order to make the formation work. If you haven't played it before it does take a long time to get accustomed to what is required of you as a wide player by comparison to your duties in a 4-4-2.
As I have said, I think that the formation AVB is persisting with is ideal for games like Sunday when we are away from home and in fact for the majority of away games. I also think it is a good one for home games against sides that will hurt you because of the overall quality of their side so basically the other teams in the top 6 at home. But for me, We have to start getting the ball moving more quickly and in the right areas to get the best from our forwards as they are spending 95% of the game being marked and with their back to goal and no one is getting close enough to them in the right areas to help affect the play and for me, the best way to do that against most of the teams we come up against at home is to play with two forwards.
Last edited:
Long post, one word FLEXIBILITY!
milo
Jack L. Jones
Shame. I thought that they were relevant questions, politely asked to your repeated calls to us changing formations. I think that moving to 4-4-2 would be a backward step and would hinder the integration of our new signings but I am interested in hearing arguments against this.
Milo, you are always asking questions.
I mean ALWAYS.
The thread title is YOU are the manager. Just take a step back and imagine yourself as the manager. Then make a post as to what YOU would do.
Last edited:
Jurgen the German
Tommy Harmer
Because the league is the most important competition. AVB said he is struggling but how do we know unless he actually gives him a chance?
DHSF
Les Ferdinand
You guys are all focussing on the wrong causes for our ineptness in front of goal.
Its simple (as far as IM concerned)
AVB has them in shackles as far, time to loosen those shackles up and allow the players to play football in a manner that they would enjoy and use their full potential.
There is a cause, a root cause, and it isnt to do with 451, 442, 433 formations, its us being rigid, formulaic and damn right predictable. We have good players, excellent players and they need to be allowed to realise the potential they have.
Its simple (as far as IM concerned)
AVB has them in shackles as far, time to loosen those shackles up and allow the players to play football in a manner that they would enjoy and use their full potential.
There is a cause, a root cause, and it isnt to do with 451, 442, 433 formations, its us being rigid, formulaic and damn right predictable. We have good players, excellent players and they need to be allowed to realise the potential they have.
It is a longer post.......I hadn't finished but it posted anyway.
It is that long because it addresses the invariable questions that will come as to why I have said what i have said. Hopefully it makes sense even if people disagree with the sentiment.
Nigeyman
Chris Armstrong
He is bang on for me.....one criticism of AVB (and yes im sure it surprises some) is that he is fixated on a system (porto style) and that style is not always the most effective against certain opposition.....he can and should alternate 4-4-1-1 and 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1.
Against the likes of hull I would like to see 4-4-2 with perhaps a support striker Kane a.k.a shezza mk2 behind soldado...against the better teams play the 2 holding but we should start in a more adventurous fashion against the so called cannon fodder........manu roo & perse man c at home aguero and Negredo.
so yes I would rate avb's time here as an 8.5 out of 10....I am very happy with him but perhaps being a little more flexible now and again and keeping the squad guessing slightly will keep them happy and teams will have to work out how we will set-up. stability is good but if the lads are told to play a certain formation and its not working and the crowd gets on their back then that's not a good thing.
We have to get the better players integrated and hopefully avb doesn't think that his set-up presently is the ALL-CONQUERING-FORMATION. we have a big and Talented squad to play different ways and keep the opposition and our own players guessing.....we have players suited to all the systems employed by the most successful teams in Europe.
Bottom line I trust AVB....he will make mistakes as everyone does but no manager has ever had us looking so solid.....might seem boring but its a good place to start to build a successful side. The slow way is often the best way.....'short cuts make for long delays' he is seeing Lamela & Eriksson if they were ready he would have played them more by now. im sure of that.
work on set pieces and work on two-touch training........attach klaxons to Dembele's & Townsend's heads so if they don't pass the ball after 6 seconds they go off....or just jab them with a stick.....Soldado needs to stop his teapot impression even if he looks shexy when he does it. under no circumstances should Lennon play on the left....never again.
AVB still has a lot to learn......as do we fans.......just because we are defensivly solid doesn't mean we have morphed into Pulis's Stoke side....lets at least give him time to get the little beggars settled and happy and then we can all keep guessing what his fave 11 is.
Viva la spurs.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Strange. It seems that everyone else is asking questions and discussing each others suggestions.
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
In the spirit of this FINE thread, and to further build on some answers I have thinking from the AVB perspective, here is what I would do if I were the manager with the current squad!
Lloris
Kaboul Chriches Verts
Sandro
Walker Paulinho Sigurdsson Townsend
Eriksen
Soldado
subs: Gomes, Lamela, Lennon, Chadli , Defoe, Capoue, Daws
I love the idea of a 3-5-2…again, let's be honest, basically this formation flips and reverts to a 3-4-3 when necessary…but I genuinely believe that with the skill we have in defence we should be looking to play 3 at the back at home, let Sandro patrol, and rely on Walker and Townsend to perform like proper 100% wing-backs. A MASSIVE gamble with Townsend, but given my current squad I'd have him there over Rose as I think he's actually a little tougher and more driven PLUS he offers more on the attack. Of course, allow me to buy Leighton Baines in january and he goes right in!
Paulinho shares workhorse detail with Sandro whilst also having some license, which thus leaves Eriksen and Sig to work their magic with Soldado. As mentioned in other threads I would absolutely love to see Lamela in there at some point behind Soldado/where Sig would be playing, as I think once he's ready he will be a massive, massive creative influence.
My bench has flexibility for sure.
My skipper is Sandro.
Incidentally I find it amazing that NO-ONE has gone for 3 at the back. I think deep down, the swashbucklers out there might be a little afraid of our solidity being potentially compromised!!!!! I believe that as long as your wing-backs are prepared to work, it is a system which (with our squad personnel) could suffocate some sides in the right way!
Lloris
Kaboul Chriches Verts
Sandro
Walker Paulinho Sigurdsson Townsend
Eriksen
Soldado
subs: Gomes, Lamela, Lennon, Chadli , Defoe, Capoue, Daws
I love the idea of a 3-5-2…again, let's be honest, basically this formation flips and reverts to a 3-4-3 when necessary…but I genuinely believe that with the skill we have in defence we should be looking to play 3 at the back at home, let Sandro patrol, and rely on Walker and Townsend to perform like proper 100% wing-backs. A MASSIVE gamble with Townsend, but given my current squad I'd have him there over Rose as I think he's actually a little tougher and more driven PLUS he offers more on the attack. Of course, allow me to buy Leighton Baines in january and he goes right in!
Paulinho shares workhorse detail with Sandro whilst also having some license, which thus leaves Eriksen and Sig to work their magic with Soldado. As mentioned in other threads I would absolutely love to see Lamela in there at some point behind Soldado/where Sig would be playing, as I think once he's ready he will be a massive, massive creative influence.
My bench has flexibility for sure.
My skipper is Sandro.
Incidentally I find it amazing that NO-ONE has gone for 3 at the back. I think deep down, the swashbucklers out there might be a little afraid of our solidity being potentially compromised!!!!! I believe that as long as your wing-backs are prepared to work, it is a system which (with our squad personnel) could suffocate some sides in the right way!
Mulletperm
Mauricio Taricco
I posted something similar in another thread Steff
------------------------------Lloris-------------------------------
---------Kaboul----------Chiriches------------Vert--------------
------------------Sandro-----------Paulinho/Capoue-----------
Lennon------------------Eriksen----------------------Townsend
-------------Soldado----------------Adebayor-----------------
------------------------------Lloris-------------------------------
---------Kaboul----------Chiriches------------Vert--------------
------------------Sandro-----------Paulinho/Capoue-----------
Lennon------------------Eriksen----------------------Townsend
-------------Soldado----------------Adebayor-----------------
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
I went 3-4-1-2 earlier in this thread, so not exactly NO ONE. No need for Sandro patrollin' when you have Kaboul closing down ahead of the two retreating centre-backs.
---------------------Lloris-------------------------
--------Daws---------Kaboul--------Verts---------
Walker--------Paulinho--------Dembele-------Townsend
-----------------------Eriksen--------------------
--------------Soldado----------Ade---------------
---------------------Lloris-------------------------
--------Daws---------Kaboul--------Verts---------
Walker--------Paulinho--------Dembele-------Townsend
-----------------------Eriksen--------------------
--------------Soldado----------Ade---------------
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
There's ALWAYS a need for Sandro!!
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
Apologies for not seeing that…ditto Mulletperm…weird no-one else picked up on it.
You would absolutely need (and want) Sandro IMO. You need a leader. In your line-up you have Daws, so I can see why you would say that, but for me it's all about having footballers everywhere, and as much as I love Daws spirit, eventually he will be upgraded IMV.
I think Sandro is very important though…if either wing-back gets caught out/doesn't track back, you can immediately be assured that someone is dropping in to offer cover and go 4 at the back in defensive situations easily. Plus he's a leader AND (perhaps most importantly) he offers a quick 'out' ball to swiftly bring on transitions…
One thing I've noticed about my line-up is that I have absent-mindedly found no room in the 18 for Moussa…unbelievable…he would have to be on the bench… at the expense of Chadli.
Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
I like this formation and concept, especially at home. It basically allows 6 attackers rather than 4 under the current system. This should help us get plenty of men in the box while still keeping enough width, two of our current failings at home IMO. The three at the back, with a sweeper keeper behind and Sandro in front should be more than enough to maintain our defensive integrity.
Bullet
Luka Modric
Libero made some good points - at present Soldado has 2 men marking just him, and the wide men like Townsend also have 2 men to beat by the time we get the ball to him.
It is all so congested and seems like whichever way we turn each man has 2 men to beat; dammit!
The point for me is that we need more bodies in the box, which could be the free role (Holtby / Eriksen) or someone from deeper (Paulinho) or the other wide man (Sigg for example) or it could be Defoe/Adebayor/Kane as others like OnlyMe are saying... but we do need to get more men in the box, no argument. And sacrifice a little defensiveness.
I can see why some say 3 at the back, that does seem logical, and brings up dreams of Beckenbauer, Hoddle etc. but I seen it as a messy formation. No-one is quite sure who is picking up who. Do you push out and engage the man in possession, or mark your man, or follow the runners from deep? A split second of indecision and you're screwed.
They did a good section on this on MotD the other night when Liverpool played 3 at the back against the Gooners. They weren't sure who to mark, someone (Sissoko?) came out to challenge and runners went in behind him so the centre backs came across and they were all over the shop, swapping over, confused, panicking. Whereas 4 at the back means your 2 centre backs can just stay in the centre and not get pulled all over the pitch, out to the byline etc.
It is all so congested and seems like whichever way we turn each man has 2 men to beat; dammit!
The point for me is that we need more bodies in the box, which could be the free role (Holtby / Eriksen) or someone from deeper (Paulinho) or the other wide man (Sigg for example) or it could be Defoe/Adebayor/Kane as others like OnlyMe are saying... but we do need to get more men in the box, no argument. And sacrifice a little defensiveness.
I can see why some say 3 at the back, that does seem logical, and brings up dreams of Beckenbauer, Hoddle etc. but I seen it as a messy formation. No-one is quite sure who is picking up who. Do you push out and engage the man in possession, or mark your man, or follow the runners from deep? A split second of indecision and you're screwed.
They did a good section on this on MotD the other night when Liverpool played 3 at the back against the Gooners. They weren't sure who to mark, someone (Sissoko?) came out to challenge and runners went in behind him so the centre backs came across and they were all over the shop, swapping over, confused, panicking. Whereas 4 at the back means your 2 centre backs can just stay in the centre and not get pulled all over the pitch, out to the byline etc.