Tim Sherwood…gone \o/

[Daisuk]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Out of interest, why 2 forwards?

If 2 is automatically more exciting than 1, why not 9 strikers? That would be really exciting, right?

The first question is relevant, the other two - why do you even bother? Do you get off from trying to make people look stupid?

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I think we all get booted down in formations and systems....

Play the winning one for the game. The teams that adapt and do that generally win things

Arsenal haven't win anything for a long time as they have an element of predictability around their system. The reason they look better this season is they have had a large perchance of their team right at the top of their game and they haven't changed their team much at all.

United regularly went 4-4-2 but with variations in the systems and also played 4-5-1 at times

Just play a team to win the game and make sure you have players who can adapt to that

Our 4-2-3-1 under AVB was so predictable that a hard working side could snuff us out with ease. 4-4-2 has positives and negatives as does 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 but there's a time and a place for each system if you have the players with the flexibility to suit it

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

The first question is relevant, the other two - why do you even bother? Do you get off from trying to make people look stupid?

I'm not trying to make anyone look stupid. I'm merely trying to point out that the number of strikers is entirely irrelevant to how attacking a team is.

Asking about 9 or even 10 strikers is simply taking the "2 strikers good, 1 bad" argument to its logical extent.

 

[the dza]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

The number of forwards doesn't really alter how attacking a team is. 1 centre forward in an attack minded 4-3-3 can be more attacking than a '2 banks of four' 4-4-2.

However, Sherwood's team has been more attacking than AVB's team was. No doubt about it.

 

[Daisuk]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I'm not trying to make anyone look stupid. I'm merely trying to point out that the number of strikers is entirely irrelevant to how attacking a team is.

Asking about 9 or even 10 strikers is simply taking the "2 strikers good, 1 bad" argument to its logical extent.

Yeah, I get that from the questions you're asking, and I agree with you as well, but the way you worded the questions makes it seem like the guy you're asking is a complete knob who wouldn't know up or down on his own t-shirt. The first question would suffice to get a decent answer. But by all means, I'm not British, maybe I don't get the banter.

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

Yeah, I get that from the questions you're asking, and I agree with you as well, but the way you worded the questions makes it seem like the guy you're asking is a complete knob who wouldn't know up or down on his own t-shirt. The first question would suffice to get a decent answer. But by all means, I'm not British, maybe I don't get the banter.

It's probably more likely laziness on my part when phrasing the question.

 

[thfcsteff]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

The poster said he fears Sherwood is Harry mk.II, so my post is relevant, no?

Speaking as a forum contributor, and not a mod, personally no, not really, unless you're trying to score some points somehow? Just being honest...

 

[tm1210]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I personally like what his done so far. His 442 isn't you typical wingers with chalk on their boots so your not necessarily gonna get over run in midfield.

Against Woolwich our 2 strikers just weren't at the races. A goal might have changed the game.

I don't think he's a strticktly 442 manager. For example agasinsty city I doubt he'd play with them 2 up front.

 

[Jordinho]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

What was annoying for me as someone who paid the £63 to go was the actual casual nature of our play... Our passing stats must have been poor as we gave the ball away to their defence a lot and that's got nothing to do with the system, it was purely poor technique and arguable tiredness after the frequency if games we have had.

We had more possession and a better pass success rate than them, but we were poor in the final third.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I'm not trying to make anyone look stupid. I'm merely trying to point out that the number of strikers is entirely irrelevant to how attacking a team is.

Asking about 9 or even 10 strikers is simply taking the "2 strikers good, 1 bad" argument to its logical extent.

You originally quoted me with your response, so I'll respond.

I don't think anyone, or at least not me is saying the 2 strikers = good, 1 striker = bad. Every system has it's pros and cons. As a manager you set your team up to play a system which best suits the players at your disposal. TS obviously feels that the players we have currently are more suited to 442 than anything else. This is fine. As I have stated before, there is no such thing as 442 will lose against 451 or 4231 because what matters is how that manager has set up the players to play in his chosen system. If the sum of all parts (all over the pitch not just in CM) equals more than the sum of all the oppositions parts, then more often than not you win the game.

Managers do have systems that they prefer, it's human nature. If, in the earlier days, Wenger changed his formation/system in each game depending on the opposition, do you think he would have been able to successfully impliment the footballing philosophy which now runs through that club from bottom to top?

You are not taking the arguement to it's logical extend because (as you well know) it would be completely illogical to play 10 stirkers in a game.

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

You originally quoted me with your response, so I'll respond.

I think I quoted Indianspur

I don't think anyone, or at least not me is saying the 2 strikers = good, 1 striker = bad.

You're not, no. The person I quoted did.

Every system has it's pros and cons. As a manager you set your team up to play a system which best suits the players at your disposal. TS obviously feels that the players we have currently are more suited to 442 than anything else. This is fine. As I have stated before, there is no such thing as 442 will lose against 451 or 4231 because what matters is how that manager has set up the players to play in his chosen system. If the sum of all parts (all over the pitch not just in CM) equals more than the sum of all the oppositions parts, then more often than not you win the game.

Many people (I include myself in this list) think that 4-4-2 is the least flexible formation to train for and to become fluid in a match. The roles are very different to those in the more modern 4-3-3/4-5-1/4-2-3-1 variations.

If we are to start using 4-4-2 or some variation of it as a system throughout the club, then we need to implement it at all levels so that players can slip into roles where required. If we had endless money so that we could have a top class replacement available for every role then we could enforce whatever formation we want but we're not in that position.

Managers do have systems that they prefer, it's human nature. If, in the earlier days, Wenger changed his formation/system in each game depending on the opposition, do you think he would have been able to successfully impliment the footballing philosophy which now runs through that club from bottom to top?

I agree that we need to find our formation(s) and stick to it(them). If we pick something a little more relevant to current football then making adjustments to fit requirements (like Wenger playing a quick winger as a striker against our slow defence) will be easier to do.

You are not taking the arguement to it's logical extend because (as you well know) it would be completely illogical to play 10 stirkers in a game.

No more illogical than suggesting 2 strikers good, 1 bad which was the whole point of the post.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I think I quoted Indianspur.

You're right you did. Apologies, the first line of his post was very similar to the first line of my most recent post. Must learn to read better.

You're not, no. The person I quoted did..

I suppose it's about what way you read into things. To me he's saying he likes to see two up front rather than 2=good, 1=bad. But I can see how it could be interpreted that way. So fair enough.

Many people (I include myself in this list) think that 4-4-2 is the least flexible formation to train for and to become fluid in a match. The roles are very different to those in the more modern 4-3-3/4-5-1/4-2-3-1 variations.

If we are to start using 4-4-2 or some variation of it as a system throughout the club, then we need to implement it at all levels so that players can slip into roles where required. If we had endless money so that we could have a top class replacement available for every role then we could enforce whatever formation we want but we're not in that position.

I'd be interested in hearing why you think 442 is less flexible.

I agree that we need to find our formation(s) and stick to it(them). If we pick something a little more relevant to current football then making adjustments to fit requirements (like Wenger playing a quick winger as a striker against our slow defence) will be easier to do.

Again, I'd be interested in hearing why you think 442 is no longer relevant in modern football. Just becuase not so many teams play it now, doesn't mean it can't work. In fact, if you can make it work, the fact that few teams are used to playing against it could work to your advantage.

edit: I do agree that we need a system that is implemented throughout the entire club. But until we find a manager that we (read Daniel Levy) is happy to go with long term, then there is little chance of that happening.

No more illogical than suggesting 2 strikers good, 1 bad which was the whole point of the post.

As above, I didn't read the post that way but can see why people could. So I'm going to step off that one and allow you two to talk it over.

 

[scaramanga]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I'd be interested in hearing why you think 442 is less flexible.

Again, I'd be interested in hearing why you think 442 is no longer relevant in modern football. Just becuase not so many teams play it now, doesn't mean it can't work. In fact, if you can make it work, the fact that few teams are used to playing against it could work to your advantage.

edit: I do agree that we need a system that is implemented throughout the entire club. But until we find a manager that we (read Daniel Levy) is happy to go with long term, then there is little chance of that happening.

My thoughts are pretty well summed up in this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson
(sorry to infect your browser with communism by going to that site )

Especially the bit at the end about midfield flexibility. The 4-3-3/4-2-3-1/4-5-1 can become so many other formations with an individual's role changing very little and with very few adjustments to allow that. I don't believe the same can be said about 4-4-2 - mainly because of the way the midfield is set out. A player like Ade can drop deep to make a 4-5-1 or a 4-4-1-1 but that's not the same as the Eriksen/Siggy type that would normally inhabit that role. The 'wonky' goes some way to solving that problem - it allows you to play a creator-type without using one of your midfield two roles for it. Problem is, if that creator is tucked into the midfield to make up numbers then they're not where they can do the most danger in transition from defence to attack. One of your strikers is also likely to be out very wide to cover the width that your creator has left when tucking in to make up numbers.

The alternative is to give up the midfield battle, but that's not for me. Firstly it means you'll almost certainly lose to a good team, but secondly (and most importantly) I want to see my team passing the ball around and playing football, not chasing around whilst the opposition plays football.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

My thoughts are pretty well summed up in this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson
(sorry to infect your browser with communism by going to that site )

Especially the bit at the end about midfield flexibility. The 4-3-3/4-2-3-1/4-5-1 can become so many other formations with an individual's role changing very little and with very few adjustments to allow that. I don't believe the same can be said about 4-4-2 - mainly because of the way the midfield is set out. A player like Ade can drop deep to make a 4-5-1 or a 4-4-1-1 but that's not the same as the Eriksen/Siggy type that would normally inhabit that role. The 'wonky' goes some way to solving that problem - it allows you to play a creator-type without using one of your midfield two roles for it. Problem is, if that creator is tucked into the midfield to make up numbers then they're not where they can do the most danger in transition from defence to attack. One of your strikers is also likely to be out very wide to cover the width that your creator has left when tucking in to make up numbers.

The alternative is to give up the midfield battle, but that's not for me. Firstly it means you'll almost certainly lose to a good team, but secondly (and most importantly) I want to see my team passing the ball around and playing football, not chasing around whilst the opposition plays football.

The problem with any system still comes own to the players available and the roles there asked to do.

The reason why we have gone to 4-4-2 is that we needed goals... our midfield would do well to score 10 goals between them I'm afraid.

At least having Ade and Soldado we are likely to score more than 1 a game.

to go to 4-3-3 the attacking 3 would have to score 90% of the goal like they do at Arsenal for instance (i know they play 4-2-3-1) but the onus sits firmly on their shoulders.

we have signed some foreign players who have good spring records and once they settle properly they may be able to replicate that here and we can move to that system but at the moment we have Lammela, Chadli and Eriksen all with 15 plus goal records with an accumulative 2 goals in the league...

Dembele has amassed a goal and so has Sandro and we have Lennons goal last week which IIRC is his only one, plus Townsends and Holtbys solitary goals too

Siggy has a few but offers very little else IMO.. so again where do the goals come from in playing a different system to what we are?

We needed the team to start scoring first and foremost and that has been addressed by the change to 4-4-2. I dont disagree that over time we need to add nuances and flexibility to the formation to make us compose in certain games 9like Saturday just gone) but were not in that position player wise just yet.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

My thoughts are pretty well summed up in this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson
(sorry to infect your browser with communism by going to that site )

Especially the bit at the end about midfield flexibility. The 4-3-3/4-2-3-1/4-5-1 can become so many other formations with an individual's role changing very little and with very few adjustments to allow that. I don't believe the same can be said about 4-4-2 - mainly because of the way the midfield is set out. A player like Ade can drop deep to make a 4-5-1 or a 4-4-1-1 but that's not the same as the Eriksen/Siggy type that would normally inhabit that role. The 'wonky' goes some way to solving that problem - it allows you to play a creator-type without using one of your midfield two roles for it. Problem is, if that creator is tucked into the midfield to make up numbers then they're not where they can do the most danger in transition from defence to attack. One of your strikers is also likely to be out very wide to cover the width that your creator has left when tucking in to make up numbers.

The alternative is to give up the midfield battle, but that's not for me. Firstly it means you'll almost certainly lose to a good team, but secondly (and most importantly) I want to see my team passing the ball around and playing football, not chasing around whilst the opposition plays football.

I'll have a read at the article when I'm not in work and let you know my thoughts.

 

[spasm]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

all these numbers are giving me a headache...

 

[Raziel]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

The problem with any system still comes own to the players available and the roles there asked to do.

The reason why we have gone to 4-4-2 is that we needed goals... our midfield would do well to score 10 goals between them I'm afraid.

At least having Ade and Soldado we are likely to score more than 1 a game.

to go to 4-3-3 the attacking 3 would have to score 90% of the goal like they do at Arsenal for instance (i know they play 4-2-3-1) but the onus sits firmly on their shoulders.

we have signed some foreign players who have good spring records and once they settle properly they may be able to replicate that here and we can move to that system but at the moment we have Lammela, Chadli and Eriksen all with 15 plus goal records with an accumulative 2 goals in the league...

Dembele has amassed a goal and so has Sandro and we have Lennons goal last week which IIRC is his only one, plus Townsends and Holtbys solitary goals too

Siggy has a few but offers very little else IMO.. so again where do the goals come from in playing a different system to what we are?

We needed the team to start scoring first and foremost and that has been addressed by the change to 4-4-2. I dont disagree that over time we need to add nuances and flexibility to the formation to make us compose in certain games 9like Saturday just gone) but were not in that position player wise just yet.

While I agree that putting the two best goal scorers you have (Soldado/Ade) higher up the pitch is more likely to help you score, I'm not sure I agree that it is the only solution.

The fact is, under AVB we had problems scoring (all our players), yes, Siggy, Lennon, Holtby, Eriksen, Paulinho, Chadli, Dembele, even Walker all should be in the 5+ goals per season, some closer to 10.

So the question is what is wrong with our transition from possession, from playing in the oppositions half to that final create the opportunity to score, support it.

I think we are scoring because people are getting into the box, that will happen regardless of if it's 4-4-2 or anything else.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

While I agree that putting the two best goal scorers you have (Soldado/Ade) higher up the pitch is more likely to help you score, I'm not sure I agree that it is the only solution.

The fact is, under AVB we had problems scoring (all our players), yes, Siggy, Lennon, Holtby, Eriksen, Paulinho, Chadli, Dembele, even Walker all should be in the 5+ goals per season, some closer to 10.

So the question is what is wrong with our transition from possession, from playing in the oppositions half to that final create the opportunity to score, support it.

I think we are scoring because people are getting into the box, that will happen regardless of if it's 4-4-2 or anything else.

I agree. We are then back at the debate as to whether 4-4-2 means you are more attacking, which I completely agree with Scara on that it isn't.

Norwich came to us in a 4-4-2 and were defensive as you like. We've gone to places with a 4-2-3-1 and played a really good attacking game, such as Cardiff.

And I totally agree that all of those players should be getting 5 goals minimum, and in the cases of Siggy, Eriksen, Paulinho, Townsend and Lamela should be hitting 10 or above when settled and firing.

I also think that 4-4-2 doesn't have to be too rigid and it is right what Tim says, even if some of the more intelligentsia journos at the moment are barracking him for it. But 4-4-2 isn't in of itself more attacking that a 4-2-3-1, no way.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

I agree. We are then back at the debate as to whether 4-4-2 means you are more attacking, which I completely agree with Scara on that it isn't.

Norwich came to us in a 4-4-2 and were defensive as you like. We've gone to places with a 4-2-3-1 and played a really good attacking game, such as Cardiff.

And I totally agree that all of those players should be getting 5 goals minimum, and in the cases of Siggy, Eriksen, Paulinho, Townsend and Lamela should be hitting 10 or above when settled and firing.

I also think that 4-4-2 doesn't have to be too rigid and it is right what Tim says, even if some of the more intelligentsia journos at the moment are barracking him for it. But 4-4-2 isn't in of itself more attacking that a 4-2-3-1, no way.

All systems can be a mix of attacking and defending. i think the key is "when settled and firing"

my take on it is that we needed a quick fix to get goals and we have that. We will certainly concede too this way but we will score more too. its a similar system to City who are the highest scorers in the league I believe but defensively are always liable to concede...

Given some time and some players settling in we can move to a more rounded system like 4-2-3-1 and be equally as effective going forward but more solid too. We aren't there yet with the group of players we have playing as they currently do but we can be once there settled and firing.

The most defensive side I've seen this year were West Ham at the Lane with Allradyces 4-6-0... thats a packed midfield where the important battles are won IMO, but they still scored 3 goals.

All systems are flawed and some are chosen simply because someone else did it first and it worked. We just have to play a system that gets results now and work on refining it over time.

One blessing from the **** result is the weekend off we get to actually go through some of this as a team

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Re: Tim Sherwood - Head Coach

All systems can be a mix of attacking and defending. i think the key is "when settled and firing"

my take on it is that we needed a quick fix to get goals and we have that. We will certainly concede too this way but we will score more too. its a similar system to City who are the highest scorers in the league I believe but defensively are always liable to concede...

Given some time and some players settling in we can move to a more rounded system like 4-2-3-1 and be equally as effective going forward but more solid too. We aren't there yet with the group of players we have playing as they currently do but we can be once there settled and firing.

The most defensive side I've seen this year were West Ham at the Lane with Allradyces 4-6-0... thats a packed midfield where the important battles are won IMO, but they still scored 3 goals.

All systems are flawed and some are chosen simply because someone else did it first and it worked. We just have to play a system that gets results now and work on refining it over time.

One blessing from the **** result is the weekend off we get to actually go through some of this as a team

I see your point in getting a quick fix by going 4-4-2 and I certainly think that aspect has helped us in the last few weeks, but I'm not sure I agree that it's a useful tool before moving to a 4-2-3-1. I think if we want to go that way, we should stick with it until we get it rather than playing another way in the meantime.