Formations- What is Blues Best Formation?

[Steven Dalley]

W-M formation is from the 1920s.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, that's a little before my time:winking: What does it stand for? Was it common for teams to play with only 2 defenders, at that point?

 

[MK Shrimper]

W-M formation is from the 1920s.

Thanks, that's a little before my time:winking: What does it stand for? Was it common for teams to play with only 2 defenders, at that point?

If it was just 2 defenders, I'm thinking Whoa Mary!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

W-M formation is from the 1920s.

Thanks, that's a little before my time:winking: What does it stand for? Was it common for teams to play with only 2 defenders, at that point?

It's what it looks like (imagine the dots on a tactics board), rather than standing for anything.

I think it was Herbert Morrison's Arsenal that introduced or perfected it. The revolutionary thing wasn't the two defenders but in pulling more players back to defend!

If you're interested in this sort of thing Jonathan Wilson's Inverting the Pyramid is supposedly worth a read. Must get round to it yet myself.

 

[Steven Dalley]

It's what it looks like (imagine the dots on a tactics board), rather than standing for anything.

I think it was Herbert Morrison's Arsenal that introduced or perfected it. The revolutionary thing wasn't the two defenders but in pulling more players back to defend!

If you're interested in this sort of thing Jonathan Wilson's Inverting the Pyramid is supposedly worth a read. Must get round to it yet myself.

Thanks for the info, that is very much appreciated.

Every day is a school day :smile:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Thanks for the info, that is very much appreciated.

Every day is a school day :smile:

You're welcome!

Hopefully someone will be along soon to explain it better than I have.

 

[EastStandBlue]

It's what it looks like (imagine the dots on a tactics board), rather than standing for anything.

I think it was Herbert Morrison's Arsenal that introduced or perfected it. The revolutionary thing wasn't the two defenders but in pulling more players back to defend!

If you're interested in this sort of thing Jonathan Wilson's Inverting the Pyramid is supposedly worth a read. Must get round to it yet myself.

I wouldn't. It's, much like quite a bit of Wilson's work, extraordinarily tedious. He has this incredible knack of making dry subject material even drier.

For me formations are rarely the root cause of any perceived weakness at the back or going forward, more what the players are instructed to do or which mindset the team is encouraged to take. For instance playing three strikers isn't inherently offensive if two of them are given instructions to work either channel while the other drops deep, and five at the back isn't all hands on deck defensive if three of those five are Mascherano, Alves and Alba.

With the players at our disposal a 4-2-3-1 with three of Weston, Hurst, Worrall and Payne feeding off Corr, with Leonard and Timlin/Clifford pressing quite high, looks handy on paper, however the emphasis has to be on instructing that bank of three to run ahead of Corr or the formation breaks down.

 

[tallboyblue]

I like it but bring back Kevin Baron Roy Hollis and Errol Crossan.

 

[Napster]

I wouldn't. It's, much like quite a bit of Wilson's work, extraordinarily tedious. He has this incredible knack of making dry subject material even drier.

I must admit I read it and have completely forgotten anything in it.

 

[EastStandBlue]

I must admit I read it and have completely forgotten anything in it.

I finished it thinking that he must really hate football if that's what he essentially reduces it to. Proper enemy of football territory. David Winner's Brilliant Orange touches on tactical systems (albeit limited to those developed by Michels/Cruyff, obviously) much more enjoyably.