Tony Minoldo wrote:Spacey,
I disagree: Italy didn't play 4-4-2 in the last world cup (4-2-3-1 0r 4-5-1 most of the time, neither did France (4-2-3-1 in both 1998 and 2000).
At WSPL we don't play 4-4-2, but you're right, we might be the exception...
Captain Jack Sparrow wrote:I think that sometumes coaches try to put round pegs into square holes with formations because that's what they know. I do believe that players should be adaptable and I try to teach kids generic football skills that apply to all positions, but............why not play to your strengths within a team. If you've got an awesome sweeper, use him!! If you've got someone that can genuinly play as an attacking midfielder and not just a lazy rat that wants to be a luxury player then use them in that role.
Play a formation that uses the strengths of the players you've got and try to hide the weaknesses.
Big Sus wrote:I sometimes wonder whether too much is made of formations. Obviously you need some form of structure but the honest truth of it all is that PLAYERS WIN FOOTBALL MATCHES NOT FORMATIONS
Captain Jack Sparrow wrote:Although I appreciate what you're saying about the players on the pitch actually winning the game, if the tactics aren't correct for the players and the opposition you will undoubtably lose. Tactics play a major part football. Look at what Rafa Benitez can do against some of the top sides. In a one-off game I'd have him as my manager over anyone else in the world.
Tactics can also motivate and demotivate players depending on whether or not they like/agree with the formation or job thay have been given. Tactics are more improtant than many people think. It is very important to be flexible with your tactics and be able to change throughout a season/game to adapt to your environment.
So in conclusion I agree that to a certain extent the players win matches but if they don't know their jobs within the team you may as well have any old idiot playing for you.