R20 Mariners V Nix

[Wombat]

Man City, Man Utd and Liverpool for a start.

 

[style_cafe]

It could be a lot more worse though

Sadly it`s not Bob Marley...it`s Bobby McFerrin

 

[style_cafe]

I had no expectation of a win but was delighted that we lead at halftime.
The reality is ,we lost a shitload of quality players from last season, then we lost Arnie, then Clarkey,then Wee-mac,McBreen & Sainsbury.
On top of that Fitzgerald,Rose & Simon were out.
Seriously, I would have been happy with a draw.
I didn`t see the last 15mins (due to a family crisis) but it wasn`t that bad that so many people left.

I`m glad I missed the booing though.

 

[tsd]

Man City, Man Utd and Liverpool for a start.

Man City are probably the team famous for pioneering the 4231 a few seasons ago, with silva at 10 and tevez/ aguero/ dzeko as sole striker but I will pay that one, because they way they line up it is stretched into more of a 4222

Man United play same formation as us, 4231 with van persie up front and Rooney at 10

Liverpool also play 4231, sturridge up front, Gerard in behind, suares on the wing

All 3 play with 2 DM's

Sorry everyone that it keeps coming back to this and wombat I do respect your opinion and 2 strikers might work great. I just like to deal in facts rather than emotional rants. I guess that makes me one of those eggheads you refer too

 

[tsd]

What leagues do you want?
A few do successfully play 2 strikers
But it's rare

Highest profile would have to be juventus maybe?
But I don't watch that much serie A


I do agree that 2 strikers is outdated...but it can still work...

Juventus, famous for back 3! 352. Play that way because they are usually miles ahead of the other teams in the serie a.

 

[Kareem]

Ok, just a 442
So what leagues can I reference?

I am assuming you might be referring to the big 4?
Or can I pluck out teams from turkey, Egypt etc.?


The biggest team in a top league would have to be atletico madrid then...


I just am debating you because I don't think you can make a blanket statement...

I agree that 1 striker formations have proven to produce better football...

But there is always an exception

 

[MagpieMariner]

That's it. She's not coming to the Bay anymore. Ever.

Neither is my wife.
Fortunately she probably won't want to.

 

[MagpieMariner]

It's all very well to say that these top world clubs play the same formation as us (probably better to say we play the same as them), but their lone strikers have the ability to be a lone striker, and the service they get also makes it work. Even allowing for the lower standard of our league, our lone strikers don't have that ability and even if they did our service to them wouldn't be good enough. As I've opined before Matt Simon is not and never has been a lone striker, he's only been prolific in front of goals when he has someone beside him to split the pressure. Duke may develop into one, but at the moment he's not either. The combination of non-lone strikers and poor service makes it so easy for the defences to put our guys out of business. The only time we've been good attacking this season was against the Scum with Matty & Macca working together (I know Macca was playing 10, but he was up in the box). Under these circumstances, wouldn't it be better to play with 2 up front until we can recruit a genuine lone striker?

 

[Wombat]

Man City are probably the team famous for pioneering the 4231 a few seasons ago, with silva at 10 and tevez/ aguero/ dzeko as sole striker but I will pay that one, because they way they line up it is stretched into more of a 4222

Man United play same formation as us, 4231 with van persie up front and Rooney at 10

Liverpool also play 4231, sturridge up front, Gerard in behind, suares on the wing

All 3 play with 2 DM's

Sorry everyone that it keeps coming back to this and wombat I do respect your opinion and 2 strikers might work great. I just like to deal in facts rather than emotional rants. I guess that makes me one of those eggheads you refer too

Liverpool play 442 and 433. They only played 4231 when Suarez was suspended. Suarez does not play as a winger anymore although he does play wider when they play 433. And who is the second DM in the Liverpool side? Gerard and Henderson play in the middle.

 

[Wombat]

Villa, Hull, Stoke, west brom, Newcastle and Cardiff also all play with two strikers.

 

[tsd]

Ok wombat, I will leave you alone with your devotion to 442 and go back to my corner now
I promise that next time I see one of your 2 striker / no 2 DM rants rather than drag out the merits of the modern 4231 I will hit ignore and move on

And If they ever put any good beer on tap st the stadium I'll shout ya one

 

[tsd]

I just am debating you because I don't think you can make a blanket statement...

I agree that 1 striker formations have proven to produce better football...

But there is always an exception

No debate to be had here, of course there are teams playing with 2 strikers still, always will be, this post was a challenge in response to multiple claims that lone striker is stupid, 2 DM's is stupid, Arnold invented this formation due to lake of quality etc... I'm done with is one

 

[Wombat]

No debate to be had here, of course there are teams playing with 2 strikers still, always will be, this post was a challenge in response to multiple claims that lone striker is stupid, 2 DM's is stupid, Arnold invented this formation due to lake of quality etc... I'm done with is one

Lone striker can work well with the right sort of player...I.e Drogba.

Two DMs can work as long is one is a ball player with a bit of pace that can immediately link up with forward lying players.

Obviously Arnie didn't invent it but we didn't suddenly switch because we had strengthened our squad.

Yeah, I'd buy you a beer too.

 

[sydmariner]

Lone striker can work well with the right sort of player...I.e Drogba.

Two DMs can work as long is one is a ball player with a bit of pace that can immediately link up with forward lying players.

Obviously Arnie didn't invent it but we didn't suddenly switch because we had strengthened our squad.

Yeah, I'd buy you a beer too.

 

[tsd]

Mariners have started every game since the arrival of monty with 2 DMs, so blame him!

 

[Wombat]

I blame Arnie for not having the courage to pick one or the other.

 

[Kareem]

Do You guys realise that there is a pretty decent chance that Arnold recruited a 2nd formation in order to implement a change in structure...

I think 442 was a necessity first season
I also think it made it hard to play against brisbane roar

And I do remember Arnold tryin out a 5 man midfield once or twice in his first season...

IMO monty was recruited to start alongside hutch...that was part of Arnold's master plan!

In fact before month was fit, Arnold played pellegrino next to hutch.
What a boring 0-0 game at parramatta statism!

 

[dibo]

I take it as the default position that we will play a 4-2-3-1, for the simple reason that we've played it since the start of last year, so that's 49 league games, 2 finals, 9 ACL games and I've no idea how many friendlies and pre-season games. It's been our go-to since the start of the last pre-season. It's what the NYL side play, it's effectively the club's official formation at this point, with our entire tactical structure built to support it, and all of our playing routines built around it.

That leads me to a question that needs to be answered before I'm satisfied it's a good idea before it's changed.

How will it help?

This is really a question with many parts:

• How will it improve how we play out?
• How will it improve how we play into the final third?
• How will it improve how we transition to not having the ball?
• How will it improve how we structure our defence?
• How will it improve how we counter-attack?

Of course, it's entirely possible that any formation change we make doesn't affect some of those things, but still be a net improvement on what we're doing now, but even if we are satisfied that *a* change is needed, how do we know that a particular change is *the* change to make?

How do we know that the investment of time and re-education will be worth more to us than improving how we play our current structure?

How do we know that the transition period while we're learning a new shape won't cost us more than improving how we play our current structure?

Because this simple question of 'how will it help' carries so many further questions, I think it's highly likely we'll just tweak what we're doing rather than change shape entirely.

 

[Wombat]

Do You guys realise that there is a pretty decent chance that Arnold recruited a 2nd formation in order to implement a change in structure...

I think 442 was a necessity first season
I also think it made it hard to play against brisbane roar

And I do remember Arnold tryin out a 5 man midfield once or twice in his first season...

IMO monty was recruited to start alongside hutch...that was part of Arnold's master plan!

In fact before month was fit, Arnold played pellegrino next to hutch.
What a boring 0-0 game at parramatta statism!

Not much of a plan then.......try to bore the opposition into defeat?

 

[Wombat]

I take it as the default position that we will play a 4-2-3-1, for the simple reason that we've played it since the start of last year, so that's 49 league games, 2 finals, 9 ACL games and I've no idea how many friendlies and pre-season games. It's been our go-to since the start of the last pre-season. It's what the NYL side play, it's effectively the club's official formation at this point, with our entire tactical structure built to support it, and all of our playing routines built around it.

That leads me to a question that needs to be answered before I'm satisfied it's a good idea before it's changed.

How will it help?

This is really a question with many parts:

• How will it improve how we play out?
• How will it improve how we play into the final third?
• How will it improve how we transition to not having the ball?
• How will it improve how we structure our defence?
• How will it improve how we counter-attack?

Of course, it's entirely possible that any formation change we make doesn't affect some of those things, but still be a net improvement on what we're doing now, but even if we are satisfied that *a* change is needed, how do we know that a particular change is *the* change to make?

How do we know that the investment of time and re-education will be worth more to us than improving how we play our current structure?

How do we know that the transition period while we're learning a new shape won't cost us more than improving how we play our current structure?

Because this simple question of 'how will it help' carries so many further questions, I think it's highly likely we'll just tweak what we're doing rather than change shape entirely.

It sounds like you like the idea of a wooden spoon!


No everything is just great Nero...just great.


No need to change a thing.....I absolutely love us creating maybe one scoring chance every 45 mins.


Oh and it's been working a treat in the NYL as well.

Shame we don't have a women's team to play losing negative Football as well.