4-3-3 long term ?

[Cronky]

I think it can definitely work. Chelsea made it work for a couple of seasons until Abramovich started intervening whilst Barca have made theirs work for a few years as well so I don't see the need for the rigid 4-4-2 especially when it seems that many of our players complement each other in this attack-minded 4-3-3. I really hope he sticks with this because if the players are this comfortable with it after 2-3 games then surely there's more to come.

 

So why didn't it work when Sam tried to play 4-3-3 with our players?

 

Because he was playing 4-5-1? And that's just scratching the surface.

 

It's a completely different formation with completely different team selections to what Allardyce was playing. Not to mention all of the other stuff like motivation, psychology, etc.

 

Ah right! I thought he tried playing 4-3-3 then a few times, my mistake.

 

I think a real problem was that Sam kept chopping and changing between 4-3-3 and 4-4-2, often within a game. He didn't think Owen could play in a 4-3-3, and when he came back from injury, he changed things to accommodate him. In the end, Sam lacked the courage of his convictions, and it began to filter into the team's performances.

 

I feel very positive about the formation, and it certainly brings out the best in our midfield players. I'm not convinced yet though that we've got the players who can use it to its maximum, and I'd like to see us get another option for the more withdrawn positions - a Bellamy or a Beardsley. Is that Arshavin bloke still on the market?

[Guest Knightrider]

It won't be a permanent system, it will be one of a number we'll use.

 

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently.

 

Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis.

 

Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions.

 

The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick.

 

My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442  for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective.

 

 

 

In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically.

 

Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish.

 

 

[Guest Stephen927]

I love the 4-3-3 formation, perfect blend between attacking and defending.

 

We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the summer.

[madras]

I love the 4-3-3 formation, perfect blend between attacking and defending.

 

We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the summer.

the problem with our 4-3-3 is that it is kind of rigid (the midfield very rarely-if ever gets beyond the forwards and the forwards aren't exactly workhorses) compared to man utd who pull you all over. ie midfielders pushing on and forwrds dropping deep,dragging defenders away creating gaps for others.

[Cronky]

I love the 4-3-3 formation, perfect blend between attacking and defending.

 

We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the summer.

the problem with our 4-3-3 is that it is kind of rigid (the midfield very rarely-if ever gets beyond the forwards and the forwards aren't exactly workhorses) compared to man utd who pull you all over. ie midfielders pushing on and forwrds dropping deep,dragging defenders away creating gaps for others.

 

We don't set out to play the formation in a rigid way. Man U have simply got better players.

[madras]

I love the 4-3-3 formation, perfect blend between attacking and defending.

 

We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the summer.

the problem with our 4-3-3 is that it is kind of rigid (the midfield very rarely-if ever gets beyond the forwards and the forwards aren't exactly workhorses) compared to man utd who pull you all over. ie midfielders pushing on and forwrds dropping deep,dragging defenders away creating gaps for others.

 

We don't set out to play the formation in a rigid way. Man U have simply got better players.

more fluid players........for now

[Cronky]

I love the 4-3-3 formation, perfect blend between attacking and defending.

 

We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the summer.

the problem with our 4-3-3 is that it is kind of rigid (the midfield very rarely-if ever gets beyond the forwards and the forwards aren't exactly workhorses) compared to man utd who pull you all over. ie midfielders pushing on and forwrds dropping deep,dragging defenders away creating gaps for others.

 

We don't set out to play the formation in a rigid way. Man U have simply got better players.

more fluid players........for now

 

I do love a bit of optimism.

[madras]

I love the 4-3-3 formation, perfect blend between attacking and defending.

 

We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the summer.

the problem with our 4-3-3 is that it is kind of rigid (the midfield very rarely-if ever gets beyond the forwards and the forwards aren't exactly workhorses) compared to man utd who pull you all over. ie midfielders pushing on and forwrds dropping deep,dragging defenders away creating gaps for others.

 

We don't set out to play the formation in a rigid way. Man U have simply got better players.

more fluid players........for now

 

I do love a bit of optimism.

am i wearing rose tinted specs in thinking keegan started it in the prem ? cole up front,then lee,sellars,beardo,clarke etc all over and ciovering for each other......the game has got faster and more physical. still think an energised kk will work.

[fredbob]

It won't be a permanent system, it will be one of a number we'll use.

 

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently.

 

Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis.

 

Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions.

 

The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick.

 

My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442  for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective.

 

 

 

In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically.

 

Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish.

 

 

 

I think you're romanticising a bit here.

 

If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players.

 

Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team.

 

To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level.

 

This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game.

 

For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful.

[madras]

It won't be a permanent system, it will be one of a number we'll use.

 

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently.

 

Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis.

 

Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions.

 

The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick.

 

My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442  for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective.

 

 

 

In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically.

 

Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish.

 

 

 

I think you're romanticising a bit here.

 

If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players.

 

Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team.

 

To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level.

 

This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game.

 

For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful.

you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND  have desire.

 

as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level

[fredbob]

It won't be a permanent system, it will be one of a number we'll use.

 

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently.

 

Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis.

 

Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions.

 

The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick.

 

My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442 for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective.

 

 

 

In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically.

 

Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish.

 

 

 

I think you're romanticising a bit here.

 

If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players.

 

Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team.

 

To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level.

 

This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game.

 

For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful.

you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND have desire.

 

as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level

 

The better teams or the more attacking teams?

 

I think you're wrong by saying they have "less instrutions"

 

You look at a team like Man U for example i genuinely do not belive that Rooney's natural game is what it is at the mo - the focal striker, it isn his natual game, but he has been instructed to play that way, he is an absolute example of someone having had the creative licene taken away for them for the good of the team and the stability of the fomration.

 

More specific to my post, look how Chelsea under Mourihno and Benitez amdLiverpool in the CL, they are a well drilled team who only have c ouple of player with creative freedom but still have extremely specific instructions.

[madras]

It won't be a permanent system, it will be one of a number we'll use.

 

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently.

 

Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis.

 

Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions.

 

The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick.

 

My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442  for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective.

 

 

 

In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically.

 

Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish.

 

 

 

I think you're romanticising a bit here.

 

If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players.

 

Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team.

 

To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level.

 

This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game.

 

For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful.

you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND  have desire.

 

as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level

 

The better teams or the more attacking teams?

 

I think you're wrong by saying they have "less instrutions"

 

You look at a team like Man U for example i genuinely do not belive that Rooney's natural game is what it is at the mo - the focal striker, it isn his natual game, but he has been instructed to play that way, he is an absolute example of someone having had the creative licene taken away for them for the good of the team and the stability of the fomration.

 

More specific to my post, look how Chelsea under Mourihno and Benitez amdLiverpool in the CL, they are a well drilled team who only have c ouple of player with creative freedom but still have extremely specific instructions.

man utd is a great example. yes it may not be rooneys natural game but he'll stil drift around more than forwards at oher clubs,does ronaldo stick out wide left ? does giggs regularly come into the middle ? due to their movement who is the "focal striker" rooney or tevez ? how often does scholes pop up alongside the forwards ?

[Cronky]

Any system can be played flexibly or inflexibly, but 4-3-3 is naturally a bit more loose. In a usual 4-4-2, if you look at the midfield and attack, only two positions are really flexible - the more withdrawn striker and the more attacking central midfield player. That's how we played in 96, with Beardsley and Rob Lee. With 4-3-3, there are four floating roles - the two wider / deeper strikers and the two wider / more advanced midfield players.

[fredbob]

It won't be a permanent system, it will be one of a number we'll use.

 

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently.

 

Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis.

 

Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions.

 

The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick.

 

My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442  for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective.

 

 

 

In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically.

 

Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish.

 

 

 

I think you're romanticising a bit here.

 

If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players.

 

Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team.

 

To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level.

 

This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game.

 

For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful.

you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND  have desire.

 

as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level

 

The better teams or the more attacking teams?

 

I think you're wrong by saying they have "less instrutions"

 

You look at a team like Man U for example i genuinely do not belive that Rooney's natural game is what it is at the mo - the focal striker, it isn his natual game, but he has been instructed to play that way, he is an absolute example of someone having had the creative licene taken away for them for the good of the team and the stability of the fomration.

 

More specific to my post, look how Chelsea under Mourihno and Benitez amdLiverpool in the CL, they are a well drilled team who only have c ouple of player with creative freedom but still have extremely specific instructions.

man utd is a great example. yes it may not be rooneys natural game but he'll stil drift around more than forwards at oher clubs,does ronaldo stick out wide left ? does giggs regularly come into the middle ? due to their movement who is the "focal striker" rooney or tevez ? how often does scholes pop up alongside the forwards ?

 

See, we're diversing a little from he essence of my point. My point was that CoachHTT said that Keegan wont stick to one rigid formation, at first i think he meant that we will constantly be chanings the formation week in week out. My post was in direct response to this, and i said that i didnt think Keegan had the skill  as a manager or  coach to implment an interchangeable system.

 

Having re read it i think he means that Keegan wont play a reconginsible rigid system and keep changig that rigid system (to tactically chnge the game) but instead the team will play with a freedom that wont restrict them to that given system. Which is a fair point. And isnt really relevant to my original post.

 

With regard to Man U example, do you think that Fergie hasnt instructed them to come deep, or change wings occasionally? See, in my opinion at this point i think we're diverging in grey areas of the players natural game and managers instructions.

 

See in my opinion, taking Mourihno as an example and what ive read about him, every single player is given a specific role, nothing is left for chance and he ensures that there are no surprises, the managers job is done at this point and it is upto the players to use there natural ability to execture these instructions.

 

I cant see Fergie or Wenger being too different, there footballing styles maybe different but i dont think Fergie names his team and doesnt give them specific instructions and roles, i think there is far more level f preperation and detal than you are given credit for.

[madras]

It won't be a permanent system, it will be one of a number we'll use.

 

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently.

 

Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis.

 

Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions.

 

The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick.

 

My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442  for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective.

 

 

 

In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically.

 

Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish.

 

 

 

I think you're romanticising a bit here.

 

If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players.

 

Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team.

 

To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level.

 

This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game.

 

For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful.

you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND  have desire.

 

as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level

 

The better teams or the more attacking teams?

 

I think you're wrong by saying they have "less instrutions"

 

You look at a team like Man U for example i genuinely do not belive that Rooney's natural game is what it is at the mo - the focal striker, it isn his natual game, but he has been instructed to play that way, he is an absolute example of someone having had the creative licene taken away for them for the good of the team and the stability of the fomration.

 

More specific to my post, look how Chelsea under Mourihno and Benitez amdLiverpool in the CL, they are a well drilled team who only have c ouple of player with creative freedom but still have extremely specific instructions.

man utd is a great example. yes it may not be rooneys natural game but he'll stil drift around more than forwards at oher clubs,does ronaldo stick out wide left ? does giggs regularly come into the middle ? due to their movement who is the "focal striker" rooney or tevez ? how often does scholes pop up alongside the forwards ?

 

See, we're diversing a little from he essence of my point. My point was that CoachHTT said that Keegan wont stick to one rigid formation, at first i think he meant that we will constantly be chanings the formation week in week out. My post was in direct response to this, and i said that i didnt think Keegan had the skill  as a manager or  coach to implment an interchangeable system.

 

Having re read it i think he means that Keegan wont play a reconginsible rigid system and keep changig that rigid system (to tactically chnge the game) but instead the team will play with a freedom that wont restrict them to that given system. Which is a fair point. And isnt really relevant to my original post.

 

With regard to Man U example, do you think that Fergie hasnt instructed them to come deep, or change wings occasionally? See, in my opinion at this point i think we're diverging in grey areas of the players natural game and managers instructions.

 

See in my opinion, taking Mourihno as an example and what ive read about him, every single player is given a specific role, nothing is left for chance and he ensures that there are no surprises, the managers job is done at this point and it is upto the players to use there natural ability to execture these instructions.

 

I cant see Fergie or Wenger being too different, there footballing styles maybe different but i dont think Fergie names his team and doesnt give them specific instructions and roles, i think there is far more level f preperation and detal than you are given credit for.

chelsea and liverpool are a lot more "drilled" than man utd or arsenal. i don't think they are told " go out and do what you want" but when i watch those teams mentioned,fergusons and wengers players always appear to have more freedom to roam.

[fredbob]

It won't be a permanent system, it will be one of a number we'll use.

 

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently.

 

Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis.

 

Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions.

 

The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick.

 

My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442  for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective.

 

 

 

In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically.

 

Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish.

 

 

 

I think you're romanticising a bit here.

 

If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players.

 

Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team.

 

To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level.

 

This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game.

 

For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful.

you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND  have desire.

 

as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level

 

The better teams or the more attacking teams?

 

I think you're wrong by saying they have "less instrutions"

 

You look at a team like Man U for example i genuinely do not belive that Rooney's natural game is what it is at the mo - the focal striker, it isn his natual game, but he has been instructed to play that way, he is an absolute example of someone having had the creative licene taken away for them for the good of the team and the stability of the fomration.

 

More specific to my post, look how Chelsea under Mourihno and Benitez amdLiverpool in the CL, they are a well drilled team who only have c ouple of player with creative freedom but still have extremely specific instructions.

man utd is a great example. yes it may not be rooneys natural game but he'll stil drift around more than forwards at oher clubs,does ronaldo stick out wide left ? does giggs regularly come into the middle ? due to their movement who is the "focal striker" rooney or tevez ? how often does scholes pop up alongside the forwards ?

 

See, we're diversing a little from he essence of my point. My point was that CoachHTT said that Keegan wont stick to one rigid formation, at first i think he meant that we will constantly be chanings the formation week in week out. My post was in direct response to this, and i said that i didnt think Keegan had the skill  as a manager or  coach to implment an interchangeable system.

 

Having re read it i think he means that Keegan wont play a reconginsible rigid system and keep changig that rigid system (to tactically chnge the game) but instead the team will play with a freedom that wont restrict them to that given system. Which is a fair point. And isnt really relevant to my original post.

 

With regard to Man U example, do you think that Fergie hasnt instructed them to come deep, or change wings occasionally? See, in my opinion at this point i think we're diverging in grey areas of the players natural game and managers instructions.

 

See in my opinion, taking Mourihno as an example and what ive read about him, every single player is given a specific role, nothing is left for chance and he ensures that there are no surprises, the managers job is done at this point and it is upto the players to use there natural ability to execture these instructions.

 

I cant see Fergie or Wenger being too different, there footballing styles maybe different but i dont think Fergie names his team and doesnt give them specific instructions and roles, i think there is far more level f preperation and detal than you are given credit for.

chelsea and liverpool are a lot more "drilled" than man utd or arsenal. i don't think they are told " go out and do what you want" but when i watch those teams mentioned,fergusons and wengers players always appear to have more freedom to roam.

 

Which is reflective of the stlye of football that Wenger and Ferguson want to play, as oppsosed to the type of football that Mourihno an Liverpool want to play. Its all down to the managers.

[madras]

It won't be a permanent system, it will be one of a number we'll use.

 

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently.

 

Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis.

 

Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions.

 

The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick.

 

My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442  for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective.

 

 

 

In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically.

 

Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish.

 

 

 

I think you're romanticising a bit here.

 

If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players.

 

Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team.

 

To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level.

 

This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game.

 

For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful.

you watch a different game to me ...in the games i watch the better teams have movement.LESS specific instructions and the manager gives the players more freedom. what the manager does tht is clever is he brings in players that are not only good on the ball but off it AND  have desire.

 

as ever ,but for different reasons,it's the players that really make the difference at the highest level

 

The better teams or the more attacking teams?

 

I think you're wrong by saying they have "less instrutions"

 

You look at a team like Man U for example i genuinely do not belive that Rooney's natural game is what it is at the mo - the focal striker, it isn his natual game, but he has been instructed to play that way, he is an absolute example of someone having had the creative licene taken away for them for the good of the team and the stability of the fomration.

 

More specific to my post, look how Chelsea under Mourihno and Benitez amdLiverpool in the CL, they are a well drilled team who only have c ouple of player with creative freedom but still have extremely specific instructions.

man utd is a great example. yes it may not be rooneys natural game but he'll stil drift around more than forwards at oher clubs,does ronaldo stick out wide left ? does giggs regularly come into the middle ? due to their movement who is the "focal striker" rooney or tevez ? how often does scholes pop up alongside the forwards ?

 

See, we're diversing a little from he essence of my point. My point was that CoachHTT said that Keegan wont stick to one rigid formation, at first i think he meant that we will constantly be chanings the formation week in week out. My post was in direct response to this, and i said that i didnt think Keegan had the skill  as a manager or  coach to implment an interchangeable system.

 

Having re read it i think he means that Keegan wont play a reconginsible rigid system and keep changig that rigid system (to tactically chnge the game) but instead the team will play with a freedom that wont restrict them to that given system. Which is a fair point. And isnt really relevant to my original post.

 

With regard to Man U example, do you think that Fergie hasnt instructed them to come deep, or change wings occasionally? See, in my opinion at this point i think we're diverging in grey areas of the players natural game and managers instructions.

 

See in my opinion, taking Mourihno as an example and what ive read about him, every single player is given a specific role, nothing is left for chance and he ensures that there are no surprises, the managers job is done at this point and it is upto the players to use there natural ability to execture these instructions.

 

I cant see Fergie or Wenger being too different, there footballing styles maybe different but i dont think Fergie names his team and doesnt give them specific instructions and roles, i think there is far more level f preperation and detal than you are given credit for.

chelsea and liverpool are a lot more "drilled" than man utd or arsenal. i don't think they are told " go out and do what you want" but when i watch those teams mentioned,fergusons and wengers players always appear to have more freedom to roam.

 

Which is reflective of the stlye of football that Wenger and Ferguson want to play, as oppsosed to the type of football that Mourihno an Liverpool want to play. Its all down to the managers.

and it's also true of keegan. it would be nice to think our squad next season can be flexable enough to take on many formations and be comfortable in them all.

[Guest sombrero]

im just glad to see the good old times rolling back!

[Guest Knightrider]

It won't be a permanent system, it will be one of a number we'll use.

 

I dont mean to stoke a fire here, or open up another can of worms, but by my reckoning only the very best managers in the present have been able to train there team to be able to adapt to quickly to new formations quickly and efficiently.

 

Its hard to find many teams without world class managers who have had any degree of success by changing there formations alot, they are simply not good enough to coach tere players to adapt to formations on a weekly basis.

 

Is Keegan really skilled enough to a) make sure players are tacticaly aware during formations changes on a weekly basis and b) get the right plyaers in who are adaptabe and equally successful in different positions.

 

The jurys out for me, i cant help but think he'll find a couple of fomrations and stick.

 

My hope is that eventually we will go with the attacing 433 (not 433/451) but i can't see Keegan being able to get the quality of player to make that truly effective,so i can see him reverting back to 442  for the time being which is easier to buy for and familiar with the eventual quality gradually building up to be able to make the 433 truly effective.

 

 

 

In his first spell here as manager we played a number of systems or formations and at Man City he even got some joy with 3-5-2. Now I'm not saying he's a tactical genius but good players in the right frame of mind can play well regardless of what system is being deployed and that's why we have Owen playing well in a deeper role, or had Howey converting from a striker to a centre-back, or Rob Lee a wide player to a central midfielder. Newcastle at our best in the 90s may have set up in 4-4-2 or whatever but the clue is in the detail, we didn't play in straight lines or banks of 4, we played fluent interchanging football not based around a system or a formation, but pass and move, confidence and belief, the philosophies of the manager. If KK lined up those players in 4-4-2 against Reading, withdrawing Martins to the right, it would work just as well providing they were in the right frame of mind, that's what confidence and direction from the dugout can achieve, happy players able to perform regardless. That's why I believe we will not stick to any one formation or system, we'll evolve and our pattern of play during a game will dictate our system or formation rather than the system or formation dictating how the players play. The opposite of Big Sam basically.

 

Back to Owen, is he a midfielder? No he's not, it's madness. But because the team are playing well and he's in the right frame of mind he's able to play there and perform as a player. That is how KK will work it. Again good players in the right frame of mind can play all kinds of ways. This is why the Dutch are so versatile. In their youth they don't really play systems or positions on a field, they line up a certain way as a starting block, but they find their own way on the pitch during the match and by the time they reach a certain age, they've evolved into all-rounders able to play anywhere in any system. Dutch players are arguably the most successful in European football, they have graced every league, all kinds of teams, systems and formations. It's down to their ability and the frame of mind they've been brought up on in an environment that allowed them to be free as possible on the pitch. That's kind of like how KK sees it. Give players some licence, improve their technique, get them in the right frame of mind and watch them flourish, repeat it X 11 and watch that team flourish.

 

 

 

I think you're romanticising a bit here.

 

If you keep changin the formations then you are constantly changing the roles of certain players.

 

Footbal has come along way from the 90's when the level of preperation and detail were no way nar the levels they are now. Players rely on specific instructions and specifics roles within the team.

 

To say that the team maybe set out as a 442 but could end up playing a 433 deending on the "confidence" and "flow" of the team, nowadays is reckless because these things can get exploited to a completely different level.

 

This is why i made my original post, managers like Benitez and Mourhino are world reknowned for being able to a) set up a team formationally aware and b) reknowned for being able to coach there players to quickly adapt there roles to new formations mid game on order to change the game.

 

For me, Keegan doesnt have these skills and that is why i think he may find a couple of formtaions and stick with them if they are successful.

 

I guess what I was trying to say with my original comment is that we will be so fluid (or that will be the aim) we won't be able to pin the players to any one formation or system, regardless of how they line up hence why I said it won't be permanent but one of many ways in which we'll play.

 

I also think good players full of confidence and in the right frame of mind can play in any system or formation and to any kind of situation, not always of course and not every player but I know when KK was here first time round that's something he believed strongly in and tried to create so that his players could play their own game regardless of who they lined up against, what formation the opposition played or tactics and what ever changes KK himself made.

 

This school of thought came from his Liverpool days which as a way of playing is less rigid and therefore less one dimensional than how your Benitez and Mourinhos set their respective stalls out.

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying mind.

[Skirge]

Fkn hell quoteastic lads, took some bastard scrolling through

 

Always seen 4-3-3 as the work of the devil but it seems to be working and if we are not changing a winning team why change a winning system, I doubt KK will be selling any of his starting 11 he has now so, they like this system, he needs to look to be buying players to suit a 4-3-3 formation.

[Unlucky Luque]

Could see Barton replacing Butt in the centre, and we get 2 attacking midfielders on either side for next season.

[Cronky]

A very good article on this subject from Gabriele Marchotti in the Times today -

 

From The TimesApril 7, 2008

 

4-4-2 exits through the evolving door

 

Gabriele Marcotti

 

As footballing creeds go, it is entrenched. It is what most play when they first engage in organised football. It is the first option in most video-games. And there is even a football magazine by that name. But the 4-4-2 formation is in serious danger of going the way of telephone booths, VCRs and shops that repair electric kettles. Obsolescence beckons.

 

Of the eight quarter-finalists in the Champions League, two employ a 4-4-2 formation: Schalke 04 and Arsenal. I am being generous in the case of the North London team: it is the formation that they would have used all season if Robin van Persie had been fit. In fact, with Van Persie out they have often used Emmanuel Adebayor on his own up front.

 

Arsène Wenger, the Arsenal manager, once told me that it was the most “rational” scheme because “it is the most efficient way of covering the greatest percentage of the pitch”. Most of his counterparts evidently do not see it that way. At Barcelona, Frank Rijkaard uses three up front. Chelsea and Liverpool employ a lone striker with two wide men. Zico, the Fenerbahçe coach, uses a variation of the one-striker system, with the support men being more central. AS Roma and Manchester United (even when Carlos Tévez and Wayne Rooney play together down the middle) effectively have no fixed front men, relying on constant movement to attack from different areas of the pitch.

 

However you want to define the varying systems, one thing is clear: the old footballing bread-and-butter of two fully-fledged strikers (usually one big and strong, the other quick and agile) down the middle is getting more difficult to find at the highest level.

 

Obviously, there is no “right” formation in football. It all depends on the players at your disposal, their characteristics and how well they execute and understand the manager’s system. And so it would appear to make sense that part of the reason we no longer see many teams attacking with two strikers is that forwards have changed.

 

Exhibit A seems to be the gradual disappearance of the traditional target man: tall, strong, good in the air and a fixture in the opposition’s penalty area. The “gold standard” today are players such as Didier Drogba, Ruud van Nistelrooy, David Trezeguet and Luca Toni. All of them are 30 or older. With a few exceptions, such as Mario Gomez, of VfB Stuttgart, who is 22, there are no heirs apparent.

 

True, there are still tall, strong strikers, but they are more in the mould of Adebayor or Fernando Torres, players who are also mobile and quick. Because they provide pace and power, they are comfortable playing up front on their own, unlike the players cited above, most of whom (with the exception of Drogba and perhaps Van Nistelrooy) are more productive with a teammate nearby.

 

The genetic development of players is probably what has done most to eradicate the two-striker scheme. As players become bigger and quicker, they fill more of the pitch. Teams defend higher up and as a result the space in which to play shrinks. A side-effect is that it is easier for midfield players to get into the penalty area as pace and stamina improve.

 

It is not a coincidence that players such as Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard and Cristiano Ronaldo are so prolific; they have the physical tools to get into the area far more than their counterparts a generation ago.

 

And so, if your midfield players can effectively double as strikers when you have possession, many managers reckon that there is no point playing two up front. Better to have an extra man in the middle of the park, where games are won and lost. This is especially true when it comes to strikers who are one-dimensional and do not offer much in terms of workrate, movement or creativity (which is, largely, the case of the frontmen cited above). Best to hand a slot to an attacking midfield player instead.

 

All of this heralds a new frontier and, taken to its logical conclusion, it raises the question of why have strikers at all. Why not, rather than three banks of players, employ only two: defence and midfield? Carlos Alberto Parreira, the former Brazil coach, foreshadowed this in a memorable speech some years ago. You could argue that United and Roma are leading the way in that direction. Two strikers are (nearly) dead as a concept. Some are turning their back on even the lone striker. Football continues to evolve. Until the next big idea surfaces

 

[Chris_R]

I don't think I've passed comment on this, and after 3 straight wins and currently at 0-0 at half time against Portsmouth, I'd like to go on record as saying that I don't think 433 is the way to go long term.

 

All Keegan's best sides have thrived on wingers, and I don't think anything will have changed. We need width, we need balls in from wide. Geremi can't do that, Barton can't, and neither can Butt. OK, Beye and Enrique can get forward nicely but fullbacks shouldn't be your primary supply from wide, they should be overlapping the wingers and supplying extra width (Remeber Beresford bombing past Ginola?). I realise the reasons for 433 at the moment as it suits our players, especially with Milner out injured but long term we must revert to 442.

[Guest ObaStar]

I think if we stay with 4-3-3 we need to replace:

Viduka with a better, faster target man.

Butt with a younger, better DM

and Geremi with a faster more creative player.

[Dave]

I think if we stay with 4-3-3 we need to replace:

Viduka with a better, faster target man.

Butt with a younger, better DM

and Geremi with a faster more creative player.

 

We need to do that anyway tbf, whatever formation we want to play.