The correct use of wide players

[Chris_R]

Under a 4-4-2, you need your wingers to be on their natural sides. Lefties on the left, right footers on the right. That way they can get to the byeline and get a cross in for the forwards.

 

Under a 4-3-3, you need your wingers to be inverted as they're actually operating as auxillary strikers and neet to cut in to support the main centre forward.

 

I don't doubt that someone can come up with some example from the last 120 years of world football where some player has bucked this trend but really this is fundamental, schoolboy level stuff, yet we seem to consistently fail to field a team set up like this despite all evidence that if you do the above it bloody works. Today Marveaux played on the right of a 4-4-2, and did a massive amount of sod all. Which anyone with half a brain could have told you would happen before the match even kicked off. For all his deficiencies I'd rather have had Obertan out on the right if we were insistent on going 4-4-2.

 

Our best football under a 4-3-3, indeed our only successful implementation of a 4-3-3, was right-footed Ba on the left side, Cisse central and left-footed HBA on the right. Guess what? It worked great. As soon as we started fucking about with that template, it all went to pot.

 

And all our best wingers have been on their orthodox sides* under 4-4-2s, can you imagine Gillespie or Solano on the left? Or Robert on the right? It would be crazy, you'd laugh at the thought. Yet Pardew does this kind of shit all the time and we wonder why our strikers are starved of service and our wingers play like crap. You simply cannot put a decent cross in from the wrong side consistently. The attackers have checked their runs as the wigner checks back onto their strongest foot, the defenders can turn and face away from goal and towards the incomming ball to easier head it clear, the strikers have to look away from goal and over their shoulders to watch the flight of the ball, there's far less space between the goalie and the defence to get the ball into. Everything is against such a cross working on a consistent basis.

 

The same applies to fullbacks, but perhaps to a lesser extent as their duties are less about creating. But it still applies. For all Santon's good play, IMO he'll never be a leftback even if we play him there to the end of his career. A fullback's job when attacking is to overlap his winger and provide extra space and width, and to get crosses in as well. Remember Beresford? Bernard? Beye? Venison? Santon on the left can only ever cut inside and congest play. He simply cannot do what any decent fullback should. I know he's played a few games on the right and looked shaky, but after being drilled in playing on the left for so long it'll take a while to adapt to his correct side, but long term we simply must do it and get a lefty on the left. Dummett or Haidara for example.

 

Not sure on the point of a thread about this as tbh I'm just ranting rather than trying to incite debate. I don't think there is a debate to be had because it's clear as day to anyone with eyes. I'll probably just up this to have a whinge every time we end up with players playing shit on the wrong side. I doubt I'll have to wait long.

 

(*Ginola was an exception as that man was so completely 2 footed I don't think even he knew which was his best foot.)

[Mole_Toonfan]

City use a 4-4-2 with one hugging the touchline and one floating so i'm not sure that rule for 442 is entirely true.

[Interpolic]

Stop letting them shovel so much shit into their fucking faces.

[Guest bimpy474]

Depends on your strikers imo. If you have two threats in the air you go with two out and out crossers of the ball (a system no one uses anymore).  That kind of 4-4-2 as we played it and used to see it is dead imo.

 

It's now about movement in midfield and strikers coming off, interchanging of positions.

[Mole_Toonfan]

Depends on your strikers imo. If you have two threats in the air you go with two out and out crossers of the ball (a system no one uses anymore).  that kind 4-4-2 as we played it and used to see it is dead imo.

 

It's now about movement in midfield and strikers coming off, interchanging of positions.

 

 

 

[Chris_R]

City use a 4-4-2 with one hugging the touchline and one floating so i'm not sure that rule for 442 is entirely true.

 

City have some of the best players in the world.

 

When you have countless billions to spend, you can fuck about with the fundamentals and try some whacky formations. Otherwise you should stick to the basics that have been proven to work over the last century.

[madras]

Depends on your strikers imo. If you have two threats in the air you go with two out and out crossers of the ball (a system no one uses anymore).  that kind 4-4-2 as we played it and used to see it is dead imo.

 

It's now about movement in midfield and strikers coming off, interchanging of positions.

nailed it bimps.

[Chris_R]

Depends on your strikers imo. If you have two threats in the air you go with two out and out crossers of the ball (a system no one uses anymore).  that kind OF 4-4-2 as we played it and used to see it is dead imo.

 

It's now about movement in midfield and strikers coming off, interchanging of positions.

 

Indeed. But those teams play 4-3-3 generally. Or some variant of it.

[Guest bimpy474]

Depends on your strikers imo. If you have two threats in the air you go with two out and out crossers of the ball (a system no one uses anymore).  that kind OF 4-4-2 as we played it and used to see it is dead imo.

 

It's now about movement in midfield and strikers coming off, interchanging of positions.

 

Indeed. But those teams play 4-3-3 generally. Or some variant of it.

 

Aye, which i'd like us to play. Actually any formation that invloves lots of movement would be nice.

[Mole_Toonfan]

City use a 4-4-2 with one hugging the touchline and one floating so i'm not sure that rule for 442 is entirely true.

 

City have some of the best players in the world.

 

When you have countless billions to spend, you can f*** about with the fundamentals and try some whacky formations. Otherwise you should stick to the basics that have been proven to work over the last century.

 

Its not really that whacky

 

Having one winger to hold the width and another floating inside to allow midfield control is hardly whacky, its called balance.

 

Problem is we only have one striker who drop off and interchange with other players to make it work.

 

Oh and we don't have a f*cking winger.

[Belfast Mags]

Depends on your strikers imo. If you have two threats in the air you go with two out and out crossers of the ball (a system no one uses anymore).  that kind OF 4-4-2 as we played it and used to see it is dead imo.

 

It's now about movement in midfield and strikers coming off, interchanging of positions.

 

Indeed. But those teams play 4-3-3 generally. Or some variant of it.

 

Aye, which i'd like us to play. Actually any formation that involves lots any movement would be nice.

 

FYP

[Cronky]

I think you're probably right, Chris. The more a player plays down the centre, the more it's an advantage for your weaker foot to be on the outside, because you'll get more shooting chances than crossing. It's logical enough.

 

I'd certainly agree about Santon. It's not just his difficulty in crossing from the left that's a problem. It's when he has to play a 15-25 yard ball on the deck, down the wing further down the pitch. It's inevitable, if he's hitting it with his right, that it's more inclined to drift out.

[Guest bimpy474]

Depends on your strikers imo. If you have two threats in the air you go with two out and out crossers of the ball (a system no one uses anymore).  that kind OF 4-4-2 as we played it and used to see it is dead imo.

 

It's now about movement in midfield and strikers coming off, interchanging of positions.

 

Indeed. But those teams play 4-3-3 generally. Or some variant of it.

 

Aye, which i'd like us to play. Actually any formation that involves lots any movement would be nice.

 

FYP

 

Ta 

[Chris_R]

I'm yet to see a wide player look consistently effective when played on their unorthodox side under a 4-4-2, with the exception of genuinely world class players at world class teams where they have enough collective talent to make just about anything work.

 

We're nowhere near that level so cannot look at them and go "Well THEY manage it OK". Get the basics right and we might do OK. Otherwise it's a recipe for disaster.

[Guest bimpy474]

Santon at LB, along with Jonas at RW is such a daft selection, one of them must be left sided if you are trying to attack the byline. Just imo like, but we need a left sided wide player to go with Santon's right footedness.

[Wullie]

Agree with the OP. Definitely don't agree that it's all about having aerial threats, a huge amount of goals are scored from low crosses between back four and goalkeeper - not by us of course but they are. Hate this idea that balls from wide areas have to be swung over to Les Ferdinand.

[LucaAltieri]

Too simplistic. Too 90s.

 

It winds me up that everyone seems to think they know more about tactics than Pardew because you can't work out what he's doing.

 

Hint: He does this for a living. If you can't work out his game plan it's because you're falling short in your analysis, not him.

[TRon]

Agree with the OP. Definitely don't agree that it's all about having aerial threats, a huge amount of goals are scored from low crosses between back four and goalkeeper - not by us of course but they are. Hate this idea that balls from wide areas have to be swung over to Les Ferdinand.

 

I also agree with the OP. The top teams might not have old fashioned wingers but they have players who can make use of the full width of the pitch. Why else do passing teams tend to play on bigger pitches while the cloggers try and condense it?

 

 

[Mole_Toonfan]

I'm yet to see a wide player look consistently effective when played on their unorthodox side under a 4-4-2, with the exception of genuinely world class players at world class teams where they have enough collective talent to make just about anything work.

 

We're nowhere near that level so cannot look at them and go "Well THEY manage it OK". Get the basics right and we might do OK. Otherwise it's a recipe for disaster.

 

Nothing to do with world class players, its do with being coached properly its easily done.

 

Your acting like its an alien concept, it really is quite a simple set up but we do need the right forwards and a bloody winger.

 

Besides as long as Hatem is here you will never see the typical natural wingers on both sides set up here.

[Belfast Mags]

Agreed with most points actually, if you're going 442 you want your wingers on their stronger side (when they're hitting the by-line) to get consistent balls in the box but if you're going 433 or some other formation which relies on dynamic movement, then reversing players on their opposite side makes sense as they can cut inside easier and either shoot (if suitable) or play somebody in, with their stronger foot.

[Guest bimpy474]

Too simplistic. Too 90s.

 

It winds me up that everyone seems to think they know more about tactics than Pardew because you can't work out what he's doing.

 

Hint: He does this for a living. If you can't work out his game plan it's because you're falling short in your analysis, not him.

 

Tbf the players cant work it out either.

[Belfast Mags]

Too simplistic. Too 90s.

 

It winds me up that everyone seems to think they know more about tactics than Pardew because you can't work out what he's doing.

 

Hint: He does this for a living. If you can't work out his game plan it's because you're falling short in your analysis, not him.

 

Tbf the players cant work it out either.

 

He can't work it out either clearly ffs 

[Hanshithispantz]

Too simplistic. Too 90s.

 

It winds me up that everyone seems to think they know more about tactics than Pardew because you can't work out what he's doing.

 

Hint: He does this for a living. If you can't work out his game plan it's because you're falling short in your analysis, not him.

 

Tbf the players cant work it out either.

 

 

[Chris_R]

Too simplistic. Too 90s.

 

It winds me up that everyone seems to think they know more about tactics than Pardew because you can't work out what he's doing.

 

Hint: He does this for a living. If you can't work out his game plan it's because you're falling short in your analysis, not him.

 

I have no coherent reponse to this mess of a post. I can only sum up my thoughts with the following combination of emoticons:

 

[Hanshithispantz]

I'm guessing Luca's post was a wind up.