Can someone explain to me why any manager thinks 3-4-2-1 is a good system, no manager with any pedigree plays it, it is so restrictive to the team, if it was any good everyone would be playing it, 4-3-3 seems to be the chosen favorite at the time or 4-2-3-1, 3-4-2-1 is a terrible system for any manager trying to play any type of attacking football, it beggars belief why anyone thinks it is good.
Formation
- Topic starter Lanzo-Ad
- Start date
Jim_Cannon
Member
- Location
- Dulwich
- Country
England
Yet we won 3 trophies. Go figure?
Mainly because if you play it well it can get you success as most teams aren't set up to stop it (as you said most teams play other formations) but over time I'd say it's effectiveness reduces as the opposition figures out how to counter act it (but I think the same could be said of most tactics).
If coached well it can catch other teams out and provide success. Recent successful examples Lens, Leverkusen, Inter, Atalanta and little old Palace... who all achieved more than what was probably expected of the club. But it definitely is an underdog tactic and one rarely employed by the elite clubs. Unfortunately I think Forest may very well benefit from it next season!
Like with everything there are nuances and different ways to play certain formations. Dont kill the formation because of how Glasner used it.
Glansner's version of this formation was incredibly ridged and narrow. A great cup team but almost anti football at time. At its worst when we are trying to break down a low block.
I'm not tactically trained to know all the pro's and cons, but from my observations and stuff that is written:
- The 2 'wide' forwards are instructed to stay very narrow, they congest the midfield and rarely go much wider than the penalty box. This is great for Sarr, to be in goalscoring positions, but potentially has hampered others as they are not often in much space. It also means that we dont have wingers crossing, or overlaps out wide.
- As a result of the above, all of the width has to be delivered by the wing backs. Clearly Danny is better at this. Net result is that we dont really put many crosses in. And we are asking Mitchell to lots of our attacking heavy lifting
- CMs are very rigid. Neither get forward very much, or press to hard. Their job is to sit in, block passing lanes and then try to release the ball quickly. As a result they dont often get in shooting positions. We also dont have them arriving into the box to get on the end of stuff.
- 3 CBs, clearly offers greater protection. Its why Cyne and Lerma (and maybe Canvot and Riad) have been able to step in so easily. Allows us to be more agressive in pressing, one CB can push and try to win the ball early, knowing there are still 2 CBs behind them.
- Low blocks are hard for everyone, but particularly difficult for us. All of our creativity is narrow, and we dont stretch the pitch. Munoz and T can cross, but they cant beat a man. When your oppo is sat in there is no space behind them. We for some reason stick with 3 CBs who aren't needed, but also slow things down by passing between them vs cutting the middle one out to switch play quickly.
Personally I wouldn't change a huge amount. One of the differences I'd like to see is with the 10's, tuck in narrow when defending, but I'd love to see them wider when we have the ball, adding some width, allowing the overloads and sticking some crossing in. This will be particularly important if Mateta goes. JSL is great in the air and we'll need to serve him.
What I dont know tactically, is the implications of that. I'd suspect that the midfield 2 will need to push up more otherwise JSL will get isolated. This may get more goals from midfield, but will make us more vulnerable. So Munoz and Mitchell may need to be a tad more reserved to make sure they can cover. AS well as on of the CBs being more proactive in stepping into midfield when needed.
I agree a lot of what you say in your summing up, the problem for me is the lack of attacking players on the pitch, it one of the No10s go wide it only leaves probably 2 players in attacking positions, maybe sometimes the other "wing back" joins in, no goals come from the CM players, lets hope like you say Sage is a bit more flexible, i see the definite need for a new LWB if we are going to make it anything other than a counter attacking set up, the old adages of the opposition cant score it the ball is in there half, and the more times the ball gets in there bow the more goals you score are still true, i enjoyed the Coppell style of play more than the counter attacking, and i have no doubt that a more direct style would work well, the long throw was bought out of hibernation for about 15 years, know it is a staple of most teams, the ball in the box adage being reborn, COYP
And that is completely fair. The CMs get slammed for their lack of goals, but thats an issue with the system, not them.
We know from international and previous clubs that Kamada can score if played high enough. Just needs the shackles loosened.
Wharton has never really scored, but is technically good enough to.
Personally I think it would be safer to evolve what we currently have, and to my mind that could be keeping the same formation but tweaking a few bits to make us less rigid. Obviously has a trade off though.
Palacesince64
Member
- Location
- Edinburgh
- Country
Scotland
An excellent summary despite your tactical modesty. It worked for us last season in cup games despite Mitchell not being a natural attacking full back. Out back three were solid and our DMs and 10s knew their respective roles and did them well. However it does rely on the front three getting goals and as we saw when Mateta went cold we struggled badly and were it not for Sarr our season could have been very different. It’s also very much a counterattacking formation and worked better away from Selhurst or against the big boys when teams came at us.
Glasner’s problem was his lack of flexibility, refusing to change the system against a low block or indeed when injuries meant the only way to play 3 at the back was to use square pegs in round holes. To be fair he tried a back 4 on a couple of occasions but convinced himself it didn’t work and quickly reverted to a back three. We got away with it in cup competitions but underperformed in the league. Hopefully Sage is less wedded to the system and prepared to be more flexible in his formation.
TheBigToePunt
Member
- Country
-
England
I don't think the formation matters as much as the general method, i.e do we press high or drop back into a deep block, do we try and retain possession or attack on the counter, and so on. The same formation may yield very different results under different coaches who use it differently.
Then there is the personnel. The 343 we are used to seeing has generally involved five defenders and two holding midfielders all the time. A different coach might play a winger or two in the wingback roles. The same formation then suddenly looks very attack minded.
Regardless of formation, Palace have almost entirety played conservatively since promotion. Experiments with more positive approaches have generally been short lived. I think that remains appropriate. Being in the conference league highlighted the shortcomings of our approach when we have to take the initiative, but that was a one off. I don't imagine we will be noticeably more positive or bold next season even if we changed formation. We aren't big enough fish for that.
Where I think a formation does become important is that it can be part of giving players a job to do that they are best suited to. Sticking Olise, for example, wide right and telling him to stay out there and cross it, only allowing him to get in the box if meeting a cross from the left, would not suit him. However, we probably all hope that asking Johnson to play that way will get a tune out of him. In that instance, switching to a 4231 or whatever might help, though even then I'm not sure it's essential.
Ultimately, I am always far more in favour of picking the formation and system that best suits your players than starting with a formation and system you prefer and then trying to populate it. That tends to lead to round pegs in square holes.
In other words, don't worry about it too much Lanzo!
Then there is the personnel. The 343 we are used to seeing has generally involved five defenders and two holding midfielders all the time. A different coach might play a winger or two in the wingback roles. The same formation then suddenly looks very attack minded.
Regardless of formation, Palace have almost entirety played conservatively since promotion. Experiments with more positive approaches have generally been short lived. I think that remains appropriate. Being in the conference league highlighted the shortcomings of our approach when we have to take the initiative, but that was a one off. I don't imagine we will be noticeably more positive or bold next season even if we changed formation. We aren't big enough fish for that.
Where I think a formation does become important is that it can be part of giving players a job to do that they are best suited to. Sticking Olise, for example, wide right and telling him to stay out there and cross it, only allowing him to get in the box if meeting a cross from the left, would not suit him. However, we probably all hope that asking Johnson to play that way will get a tune out of him. In that instance, switching to a 4231 or whatever might help, though even then I'm not sure it's essential.
Ultimately, I am always far more in favour of picking the formation and system that best suits your players than starting with a formation and system you prefer and then trying to populate it. That tends to lead to round pegs in square holes.
In other words, don't worry about it too much Lanzo!
BromleyMonkey
Member
- Country
-
England
My opinion is that when you’ve got two good inform wing backs it’s a great attacking formation, but when it’s not going so well and you can’t get them forward it does just look like five at the back
I suppose you need players who can tilt and switch to 4-3-3 if needed, which I know is not easy because then you can be criticised for looking disjointed and having no identity
I know it was a dig at Glasner Lanzo, but I think back to that season when we tore everyone apart in our last few games and we looked superb, all be it against jaded teams who had long European seasons, but it can look very good
Its not a dig at Glasner, its the formation i dislike, i hope Sage is a bit more flexible in his outlook, 😊, yes, the last few games with Olise and Eze together was outstanding, Can we have them back please.
BromleyMonkey
Member
- Country
-
England
That’s fine, if we’ve got the players who are flexible, I think that’s why Glasner stuck with it and ran the same players into the ground last season, because we all know if we’ve got injuries or out of form or knackered players we can look pretty shite at times
CrazyBadger
Member
- Location
- Ware
- Country
-
England
The 3421 formation works well when you're the defending team, and use the wingbacks to get forward and attack quickly, whilst remaining solid at the back.
When against a low block, you need to stretch the pitch wide, and play further up the pitch as a team.
I thought that our Right hand side of Munoz suited the former, and our left suited the latter.
How many times did we see us break with Mateta picking the ball up, then spreading it wide to a rushing Munoz to drive to goal, and pull back or play in another attacker (or score himself)
Very rarely did this go left to an rushing mitchell, this side seemed to be more utilised when we were building up slower, Mitchell would cross the ball or try to overlap to get to the byline against a reset defence. problem was, that's not his strong point.
I guess my point is that a different system is required based on what is in front of you. Hence the flexibility people have mentioned.
Against a Reset defence, then our No.10's need to be wider to create overloads with the WB's on their side. One of the DM's should pivot further forward and become more of an AM, and be the Lampard late-into-the-box player to support the now lone striker and one of the 3 CBs should step up to defend higher, effectively replacing the CM. So basically a 433 or 451 🤣
.. but if you don't have the personnel to do that, it becomes difficult.
When against a low block, you need to stretch the pitch wide, and play further up the pitch as a team.
I thought that our Right hand side of Munoz suited the former, and our left suited the latter.
How many times did we see us break with Mateta picking the ball up, then spreading it wide to a rushing Munoz to drive to goal, and pull back or play in another attacker (or score himself)
Very rarely did this go left to an rushing mitchell, this side seemed to be more utilised when we were building up slower, Mitchell would cross the ball or try to overlap to get to the byline against a reset defence. problem was, that's not his strong point.
I guess my point is that a different system is required based on what is in front of you. Hence the flexibility people have mentioned.
Against a Reset defence, then our No.10's need to be wider to create overloads with the WB's on their side. One of the DM's should pivot further forward and become more of an AM, and be the Lampard late-into-the-box player to support the now lone striker and one of the 3 CBs should step up to defend higher, effectively replacing the CM. So basically a 433 or 451 🤣
.. but if you don't have the personnel to do that, it becomes difficult.
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
Ireland
Christmas tree was fun.
I like a xmas tree 🎄
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
-
Ireland
I sometimes visit my sister in Oswestry. Have to meet you in the Wilfred Owen or somewhere if I go over.
Not the owen had a major fallout with weatherspoon pubs , the oak is the best pub , give us a shout 👍🏻
ASCPFC
Member
- Location
- Pro-Cathedral/caravan park
- Country
-
Ireland
I think we'd be ok if went 4-2-4 in attack and 4-4-2 in defence. Probably the most exciting we could do. Would need to play quite direct.
Obviously, we could stick to what we're used to for more defensive games.
We could try 4-3-3 with two dms. Using actual wingers as wingers on their correct side would probably catch the whole league out.
Obviously, we could stick to what we're used to for more defensive games.
We could try 4-3-3 with two dms. Using actual wingers as wingers on their correct side would probably catch the whole league out.
TheBigToePunt
Member
- Country
-
England
Only mad people would put a right footed winger on the right and a left footed one on the left. Mad, deranged, mentally ill, attention seeking loon-bags. Or perverts.
If Sage put wingers on their natural sides then before we knew where we were they'd be crossing the ball. Is that what you want? Is it?
People like you won't be happy until we end up with centre forwards heading the ball towards goal.
I for one pay my money to enjoy seeing wide players dribble infield into crowded defences time and time again, waiting with baited breath for the one time a year when one of them gets a decent shot off.
Put the wingers on their proper sides indeed.... What next?..
😉
Last edited: