PDA

View Full Version : tactical formations



big colin
24-03-2013, 01:06
to me recent games today included , it seems to be 4-1-4-1, surely that is disgraceful , its notlike we are playing real madrid , in this league we should be playing 3-4-1-2, giving the players a chance to express themselves .

suramericaranger
24-03-2013, 01:07
He had 5 at the back for most of the game.

And one up front for all of it.

He is completely clueless.

ThatsWhyWeirChamps
24-03-2013, 02:16
With everybody fit;


Alexander

Hegarty Emilson Wallace

MacLeod Black

Little Templeton McKay

McCulloch Sandaza


Or;


Alexander

Hegarty Emilson Wallace

McKay Macleod Black Templeton

Little McCulloch Sandaza



We are woefully short up front, but we're also abominably bad at RB. Let's just not play one.

Allow Wallace to still get forward as often as he likes. That's defensive and attacking enough.

I like the 4-2-3-1 formation, but we don't have the players to play it properly yet.

Bertie Bear
24-03-2013, 02:25
Tactical formation what is that ? We just stick one man up and lump long balls to him

Brigton9
24-03-2013, 03:21
In Ally's playing days, we played much better teams than Stirling (can't believe Im mentioning them in the same sentence) with AT LEAST TWO strikers. Unbelieveable incompetence in picking a team with ONE ****in' striker!!!

permatan
24-03-2013, 03:58
He is obsessed with the 4-3-2-1 - a formation that only works when you have the likes of Messi and Ronaldo playing off of a lone striker. Stirling got everyone behind the ball and we looked clueless. They could have played for another 90 mins and coped with our aimless punts up the park.

No set play preparation. Every man back for corners. Its a disgrace

tazzabear
24-03-2013, 07:46
Tactical formation what is that ? We just stick one man up and lump long balls to him

You at yesterday's game Bertie?
If so, stop telling lies.

tazzabear
24-03-2013, 07:53
He is obsessed with the 4-3-2-1 - a formation that only works when you have the likes of Messi and Ronaldo playing off of a lone striker. Stirling got everyone behind the ball and we looked clueless. They could have played for another 90 mins and coped with our aimless punts up the park.

No set play preparation. Every man back for corners. Its a disgrace

It was worse(?) than everyone behind the ball.
I pointed out to my brother yesterday, on about a dozen occasions, that Stirling had seven and eight players in an area about the size of a big living room.
I don't know how to combat this, leave that to the experts on here, but it's usually with width and none of our wide players could get behind the defence yesterday.
Or an over the top pass which would be useless this season as teams are defending very deep.

super coop
24-03-2013, 08:13
Young Crawford was moved position four times yesterday. Too much is being asked of these boys. Ally should have played a formation that suited the players he had available, continuing to play players out of position is not doing anyone any good.

strider
24-03-2013, 09:35
Why do people think a back 3 makes you more attacking?

When you play that, it's 3 central defenders and wing backs. A back 4 is much more effective as you push the full backs on anyway, and have that extra player in a more advanced area.

A back 3 is rarely used by good sides for a very good reason.

However, all the talk of tactics and shape is largely irrelevant - our players are sh*te in the main and can't do even the simple jobs when asked.

Leo_Ger
24-03-2013, 09:45
It's practically a back 5 we were playing yesterday. Faure was constantly on top of the centre halves.

Problem is, we dont have a scooby about how to go about pressing the oppposition in their own half. It's why rubbish teams get so much time on the ball against us.

jjbrfc
24-03-2013, 10:04
Playing Faure in a deep holding role is baffling when we should be looking to dominate in the attacking third. When bringing Naismith on yesterday why not withdraw Faure to give us more options going forward. Instead it was McKay off and continue with five defensive outfield players at home to Stirling Albion while chasing a goal. If we were playing a creative player in the holding role to get attacks started I could understand to some extent but Faure is a centre half and offers nothing in terms of building attacks.

rosybear
24-03-2013, 10:43
There is too much think about formations from McCoist. We are playing at a level where you have to win the battle first and then the football side will come IMO. We have to match up like for like, 2 up front and it will get better.
Make things simple for the young players. We don't have a football philosophy where all the teams from the 10's right up to 1st team all play the same formation and style.
That has to change and quickly.

RFC_Champions
24-03-2013, 11:07
Formations don't really matter as its 11 against 11 regardless.

What does matter is how a manager tells his players to go about their job. Yes defend when we've not got the ball but full-backs and midfielders must attack the final third of the park we we do have the ball! Not just hoof it up the park to alone striker and not backing him up.

kirkieger
24-03-2013, 11:11
Better players will always prevail against lower league teams if they all play to their potential.

Our players are not committed.