I don't mind swapping, if Akash is cool too.
The Redcafe Champions League Draft
- Thread starter Theon
- Start date
That would be nice 
I'll probably be working 9-6 Thursday week, but hopefully NM will be around, or I might be able to keep an eye when in work.
I'm fine with swapping too if Isotope is okay with it.
Doesn't matter with me.
Buffon error leads to Dante scoring in the Confederations Cup. Voters take note.
Hello, Jake. xxx
Hello, Jake. xxx
So it seems okay with you two so can we have the swap of games then Theon?
Buffon?
Oh dear.
Oh dear.
So I'm thinking this with Mijatovic as the sub.
Thoughts ?
So I'm thinking this with Mijatovic as the sub.
Thoughts ?
Maybe I'm not remembering well, but the entire defense and midfield (Veron + Van Bommel) just seem very slow. Don't think you can change that now though.
Stam was rapid ?
Exactly my thoughts. The lack of pace in that back 4 is quite obvious there, so if you come across someone with plenty of pace, you'd be at a disadvantage straight away. And then people will come up with videos of Walcott owning Hyypia and things will just get messy.
Was he? I don't remember himas "rapid". Maybe not as slow as the others, but not rapid. He was a beast of a defender though.
Stam was very quick once he got going but at times was a bit slow from a standing start.
So I'm thinking this with Mijatovic as the sub.
Thoughts ?
Just feels very odd with Gerrard used for width when you have Mata and Henry in the team. Either you use Henry on the left side and Mata on the other or you play the following position where every single player is in their favorite position and it works just as well. Totti and Henry are complete strikers and will provide width as well as hold-up/link-up play and runs past the defense.
Okay, gents. Just some ideas I've been contemplating. Any thoughts?
5-3-2
Sub: Abidal
3-5-2
Sub: Juninho
4-4-2
Sub: Abidal
The first one seems very superior. You will need Juninho much more than the extra defensive cover of Abidal as you already have a DM in front of them. The 4-4-2 doesn't highlight the fact of how you would use your wing-backs as well so I think scan-voters will be happier to vote for your 3-5-2 than the 4-4-2.
I must say the 5-3-2 is very impressive.
I must say the 5-3-2 is very impressive.
I was leaning towards that myself, but I'm still not decided. Busquets gives me some great options; his natural game is to protect that back four and keep possession for his team with simple passes through midfield lines. He can also seamlessly slip back into defence when the full-backs go forward and make it a back three, with Lizarazu and Irwin offering width in attack.
As I said, I have options.
The first one looks very nice, I must say. I'm a fan of that sort of idea, and you could hardly get a better player than Busquets to play that role. Lacks a lot of width though imo.
The only thing I can think of to improve it would be to push Raul slightly further up to create the illusion of more width up top for the voters.
I like the first formation nahealai. I actually think you could cause a shock against Gio. He has a better back four but you look very strong in midfield and upfront.
Okay, gents. Just some ideas I've been contemplating. Any thoughts?
5-3-2Sub: Abidal
4-4-2Sub: Abidal
There's no difference between these two man
Of course there is. Lizarazu and Irwin are wing-backs in the 5-3-2 formation with Raúl playing off van Nistelrooy, whereas in the 4-4-2, Lizarazu and Irwin are full-backs and more disciplined, and Raúl is right up top with van Nistelrooy. Might not seem totally different, but they're not the same, either.
Jesus, this is absurd mate IMO
4-5-1 as in two CM's and a DM e.g. Mourinho's Chelsea, what is that formation weak against?
How about the current 4-2-3-1 that most teams have adoped, what is that weak against?
There's no difference IMO mate, all you've done is push the fullbacks slightly further up but offered no extra protection e.g. you haven't added a centreback or extra holding midfielder or anything, so the only difference is visual on the graphic, tactics wise it's the exact same. Or no bigger a change than saying "the fullbacks will bomb forward all game", but that was apparent in the other formation as well.
The second difference in dropping Raul slightly off is what would always happen - that is the type of player Raul is compared with Van Nistelrooy. That partnership will always work with RVN as the number 9 and Raul dropping off.
Both of them are just a diamond, if you were playing 5-3-2 then you would add a centre back, or else play Busquets there.
Did you read what I said after I posted my formation ideas? That's precisely what Busquets will be doing, falling back into centre-back when Lizarazu and Irwin join the attack.
Yes I read it, he is still playing as a defensive midfielder so its a diamond. You've called it a 5-3-2 with only 4 defenders.
My point anyway was that there is no difference between the two formation graphics.
Based on those two formations they are the exact same, one set of fullbacks are slightly further ahead and that's the only real change - but its a purely visual change IMO they aren't going to play any differently unless they get given some more protection which would actually allow them to be more attacking.
The way you try and pigeonhole formations as being stronger/weaker against other formations is indeed absurd, the players make the system and you're just oversimplifying it hugely.
Anyway, what are 4-5-1 and 4-2-3-1 formations weak/strong against?
Are you for real? You can't see the obvious difference? In one of them the wing-backs are expected to be more offensive and Xavi/Ballack are slightly further ahead aka more offensive which means Busquets will have to do bigger defensive job.
You really don't get ANYTHING from those two pictures? For you it is like looking at the exact same picture?
It's a back five in essence as Couto and Marchena will be rigid at the edge of the penalty area, with the other three slightly in front of spread right across the field. I called it a 5-3-2 because, er, that's what it is. It's not necessarily a 2-3-3-2 or whatever you're thinking that it is.
Also, the graphic is there just to show something visually and approximately. Of course the extensive tactics and personal roles each player will have will be outlined in the write-ups for the game thread. Of course the wing-backs will be more attacking when Busquets' role will be outlined, as he'll be dropping back to make it a back three, and fulfilling a role he does so excellently for Spain and Barcelona. It won't be a surprise to anyone when they see the importance of Busquets and his effect on how the team will play.
Calm downI said the formations are the same, which I think they are. They both have two centrebacks and two wingbacks - so a back four.
They both have a DM, two CM's and an AM - so a diamond midfield. Then the two strikers up front, RVN leading the line and Raul dropping off.
It isn't though. What football team plays a back 5 that way?
Look at the old Italy or Germany sides who used to play a back 5, or the Juventus/Bayern teams.
To my knowledge a back 5 was always
-------CB--CB--CB-------
WB--------------------WB
With the one in the middle maybe sweeping up or playing slightly deeper, the way Bonnuci does now for Juve.
Playing with a defensive midfielder isn't a back five, it's just a back four with a holding midfielder in front of it. It's a defensive 'midfielder' for a reason, they play in midfield.
Seriously are you on drugs? The basis of the argument was oversimplifying things by assuming equal skill in all players and that they are all equally fit for their positions.
The 4-2-3-1 will be countered sooner or later by great managers surely not me. That is why "the most popular formation" is constantly changing if you look at things from a historical perspective.
I can't say I have seen enough 4-5-1's of that kind over a long enough period(10-15 year period) to have any conclusions. If I had to make a guess it would be that the "destroyer DM" became less frequent because more teams started playing with a 3 men midfield and the extra ball-playing midfielder was more important than the destroyer.
I am sure someone else here can make better guesses on what counters the 4-1-4-1 better than me.
I said the formations are the same, which I think they are. They both have two centrebacks and two wingbacks - so a back four.
They both have a DM, two CM's and an AM - so a diamond midfield. Then the two strikers up front, RVN leading the line and Raul dropping off.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of a formation. They are meant to give you as much information as possible not just tell you how many midfielders/defenders/strikers a team has.
A 4-4-2 and another 4-4-2 can be widely different without becoming a new formation and you can portray that in a formation. You can put your wing-backs further forward and people will know that they are more offensive, you can put them further back and they are more defensive. You are not stupid enough not to get this you obviously just want to make a fuss about it.
What are you being a dick for? Get a grip and stop being such a tit.
You embarassed yourself when you started making out certain formations were superior to other ones, as if it were that simple and you had figuered it all out.
That is why everyone disagreed with you,