• 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

Wilfried Bony

Status
Not open for further replies.
P.D. said:
Not really, 4231 is looking jaded and out of sync with modern football nowadays. Look at the WC England are playing it and look like they are picking up tactics/formations left behind 4 years ago while the rest of the world has moved on.
Click to expand...

i disagree ... the germans and dutch have shown that you need to play multiple formations in a single game to take advantage of the pace on the rubber ball - forcing close control errors and zipping it quickly downfield. add to that the enlarged role of a striker dropping back switching wings, and attacking midfielders swopping positions taking turns in attack, its also more about on the pitch movement and tactics in the final third that counts.
 
Last edited:
metalgear said:
i disagree ... the germans and dutch have shown that you need to play multiple formations in a single game to take advantage of the pace on the rubber ball - forcing close control errors and zipping it quickly downfield. add to that the enlarged role of a striker dropping back switching wings, and attacking midfielders swopping positions taking turns in attack, its also more about on the pitch movement and tactics in the final third that counts.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People get FAR too worked up about formations these days when generally the shape of a team tends to be quite fluid depending on the situation.

There was a really good interview with Martin Jol in one of the broadsheets during one of the previous two WCs (can't remember if it was Germany or South Africa?) Jol said that formations were not really important and typically only come into play for kick offs and times when the ball goes dead and that when the game was flowing instead of having a formation of 4-4-3 or 4-4-3 or 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-4-1 or whatever, the game was more about a team having an "attacking and defensive block". Jol then explained that this refererd to how many players a team had whose primary job was to attack and how many whose primary job was to defend. Jol explained how 8-3 and 7-4 were the most common defensive/attacking blocks for the nations at that particular World Cup with Brazil having an extremely attacking 6-5 block.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Agreed. People get FAR too worked up about formations these days when generally the shape of a team tends to be quite fluid depending on the situation.

There was a really good interview with Martin Jol in one of the broadsheets during one of the previous two WCs (can't remember if it was Germany or South Africa?) Jol said that formations were not really important and typically only come into play for kick offs and times when the ball goes dead and that when the game was flowing instead of having a formation of 4-4-3 or 4-4-3 or 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-4-1 or whatever, the game was more about a team having an "attacking and defensive block". Jol then explained that this refererd to how many players a team had whose primary job was to attack and how many whose primary job was to defend. Jol explained how 8-3 and 7-4 were the most common defensive/attacking blocks for the nations at that particular World Cup with Brazil having an extremely attacking 6-5 block.
Click to expand...
Hallelujah and Amen brother
 
Not a priority of course, but I'd still like to get this guy in if we can stretch the funds that far. There's is more to game that just a big brute type forward. I don't see Ade being around for longer than another season and this guy fits the bill as his replacement IMO. We may be a bit top heavy this season but it won't be for too long.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Agreed. People get FAR too worked up about formations these days when generally the shape of a team tends to be quite fluid depending on the situation.

There was a really good interview with Martin Jol in one of the broadsheets during one of the previous two WCs (can't remember if it was Germany or South Africa?) Jol said that formations were not really important and typically only come into play for kick offs and times when the ball goes dead and that when the game was flowing instead of having a formation of 4-4-3 or 4-4-3 or 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-4-1 or whatever, the game was more about a team having an "attacking and defensive block". Jol then explained that this refererd to how many players a team had whose primary job was to attack and how many whose primary job was to defend. Jol explained how 8-3 and 7-4 were the most common defensive/attacking blocks for the nations at that particular World Cup with Brazil having an extremely attacking 6-5 block.
Click to expand...

IIRC he also said England were very negative employing an 8/2 block and at times a 9/1 block. Good old Sven
 
Cochise said:
IIRC he also said England were very negative employing an 8/2 block and at times a 9/1 block. Good old Sven
Click to expand...

Yup correct.... It was supposed to be a 9-2 or an 8-3 which was defensive enough, but in the matches it was becoming a 10-1 leaving Crouch completely isolated up front (guess from this it must've been the Germany WC.... jeez time really does fly!)
 
Finney Is Back said:
Yup correct.... It was supposed to be a 9-2 or an 8-3 which was defensive enough, but in the matches it was becoming a 10-1 leaving Crouch completely isolated up front (guess from this it must've been the Germany WC.... jeez time really does fly!)
Click to expand...

I went to that World Cup and don't remember anything, I was drunk from noon to midnight for the full 2 weeks and saw far less of it than every other tournament (when I stayed home)
 
AdamB said:
Cant see that an out and out CF is a priority signing for us. A CM who can pass the ball and a CB to partner Verts are higher on the list
Click to expand...

I suspect we've addressed that with Fazio. Agree with the first bit of that sentence, though.
 
AdamB said:
Cant see that an out and out CF is a priority signing for us. A CM who can pass the ball and a CB to partner Verts are higher on the list
Click to expand...

At the Lane today I noticed a number of occasions when a player had the ball on the flank and there was no centre forward in the middle to cross the ball to, and when there was he was often outnumbered 4:1 in the box. Lamela and Erikson should be able to pass the ball while I make it 5 centre backs in our first team squad.
 
NaijaSpurs said:
Easier said than done considering his wages and the kind of money Levy would ask for
Click to expand...

Well. The point was more that we would be in no worse a situation come the ANC if we sign Bony now compared to if we sign no one. I agree that long term having more than one African striker (or in other positions) could be problematic.
 
braineclipse said:
Well. The point was more that we would be in no worse a situation come the ANC if we sign Bony now compared to if we sign no one. I agree that long term having more than one African striker (or in other positions) could be problematic.
Click to expand...

I actually thought Ade worked hard today but at times he lacks the physical presence to be the focal point. Soldado is nothing like Ade so not really like for like And Kane I like but again isn't quite where we need him to be

Bony is the focal point of Swanseas football and he would be more of a direct threat than Ade for me and hi and Schneiderlain were the two players I've wanted all along... Alas I see him joining arsenal and scoring hatfuls
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back