Playing players in correct positions- the conundrum

[PistolPete]

It's always amazed me how managers pick teams with players playing out of postition. Tottenham and England seem to have done this for years.

Right now it seems we have a great squad for the league, yet not enough players who can play a system harmoniously. So, I'm going to try to work out what positions we have and see what fits. Do I have it right?

Blackman : He's an inside forward to be played on the right as part of a front 3

Vydra: A fox in the box to be played with a workhorse striker, like Deeny.

Sa: Striker to play with a partner. Not particularly a workhorse, nor plays on the shoulder of the last man.

Liburd: A striker who wins his battles, leads the line, works hard and scores with head and feet. Unproven at this level.

McCleary: A right winger who will sometimes do his defensive duties

Piazon: Plays on the left or centre of an attacking midfield 3 (behind a striker), nothing else it seems!

John: Left side of an attacking midfield three or winger with limited defensive duties

Robson Kanu: An inside forward on the left as part of a three or a fairly hard working winger. Not as hard working as S Hunt for example, but more than John. Probably

Hurtado: Alledgedly plays wide right or left, in a front 3 or midfield 4. Ridiculous that we still don't know.

Williams: Best with the freedom to break forwards. A poor mans Toure, needs a very defensive mid with him,
Or, ideally two. Not the passer Piazon is though.

Quinn: Versatile, left central
Midfielder, capable of many roles.

Norwood: A playmaker with reasonable defensive qualities. With Quinn, our most versatile midfielder.

Fernadez: Similar to Quinn and Norwood, excellent passer but not such a tackler.

Tshibola: Hard working, ball winning defense minded central midfielder. Can play in a two or three.

Kuhl: A deep lying playmaker. Sits in a 3, or with a very hardworking other.

Hector: Has played with good effect, the 'anchorman' role. Leaves us light in central defence though!


So. What do we know?

Vydra and Blackman can't play together if we are to play players in their best positions...

To play Blackman you need to play a front 3, which means you can't play Vydra. In fact, unless you start Liburd, you can't play Vydra without Sa. If you play Blackman, you can't play McCleary. Strangely, for some kind of symmetry, which is usual, Either HRK or Piazon must play on the other flank, neither of whom are particularly reliable.

Blackman has become a problem we don't dare do without!

Ideally, I'd say with all fit, we ought to set up

4-2-3-1:

Sa
HRK- Piazon-Blackman
Norwood-Tshibola
Defence

Or:

4-3-3

HRK-Sa-Blackman
Quinn-Norwood-Williams
Defence

Or finally, 4-4-2:

Sa-Vydra
HRK-Quinn-Norwood-McCleary
Defence

So, thoughts?

[TBM]

I'm really struggling to see the point of Vydra

Piazon was far more effective when he came on at half time. All Vydra seems to do is run around a lot...

Not saying he's a bad player, just not suited to us

[John Smith]

Vydra was pony at Preston

[Winston Smith]

I am amazed that there is anyone left in the world that thinks in terms of fixed 4-4-2's or 4-5-1's etc no matter how hard Sky Sports try to push the idea.

Every formation is adaptable and changeable depending on such a vast amount of factors - the passage of play, the opponent as a team, the opponent as individuals, how the game has gone so far with success or failure on certain moves etc. Formations are little more than a way telly programmes can try to guess who is playing where. They see a team sheet and guess at who will roughly be where, which is in itself misleading but also completely misses the point of how the natural ebb and flow of a game means the trained instructions that players have practiced all week/month come into play and demand that they react in a certain way which a fixed formation doesn't support.

[SCIAG]

I think Vydra's still our best option on the left of a front three.

I also wonder how he would have done on Sunday once Piazon came on and started making space for him. I think they could have a productive partnership with Vydra stretching play and Piazon dropping into the hole. Bit lightweight, so probably not as good as playing one with Sa.

[Ian Royal]

Piazon should be nowhere near normal midfield. He's a central attacking midfielder behind a striker or an inside left forward

John's just a winger.

You can't have such ridiculous lightweight flair players in a 3 man midfield.

Vydra is a support striker... too much pace, running and skill to be a fox in the box.

[Royal Ginger]

Seems like we have all the pieces just not to the same jigsaw.

[DaddyKuhl]

I am amazed that there is anyone left in the world that thinks in terms of fixed 4-4-2's or 4-5-1's etc no matter how hard Sky Sports try to push the idea.

Every formation is adaptable and changeable depending on such a vast amount of factors - the passage of play, the opponent as a team, the opponent as individuals, how the game has gone so far with success or failure on certain moves etc. Formations are little more than a way telly programmes can try to guess who is playing where. They see a team sheet and guess at who will roughly be where, which is in itself misleading but also completely misses the point of how the natural ebb and flow of a game means the trained instructions that players have practiced all week/month come into play and demand that they react in a certain way which a fixed formation doesn't support.

Could not disagree more! I think formations are fundamentally part of the game. It gives the team structure and helps build passages of play and helps counter the opposition. I totally understand the game is fluid but these things are worked but you do try and have a game plan and implement it. Just watch how the team settles back into the formation when there is a lull in the play eg if playing 4-4-2 you will see the two banks of four when, say, a goal kick is being taken.

[Winston Smith]

I am amazed that there is anyone left in the world that thinks in terms of fixed 4-4-2's or 4-5-1's etc no matter how hard Sky Sports try to push the idea.

Every formation is adaptable and changeable depending on such a vast amount of factors - the passage of play, the opponent as a team, the opponent as individuals, how the game has gone so far with success or failure on certain moves etc. Formations are little more than a way telly programmes can try to guess who is playing where. They see a team sheet and guess at who will roughly be where, which is in itself misleading but also completely misses the point of how the natural ebb and flow of a game means the trained instructions that players have practiced all week/month come into play and demand that they react in a certain way which a fixed formation doesn't support.

Could not disagree more! I think formations are fundamentally part of the game. It gives the team structure and helps build passages of play and helps counter the opposition. I totally understand the game is fluid but these things are worked but you do try and have a game plan and implement it. Just watch how the team settles back into the formation when there is a lull in the play eg if playing 4-4-2 you will see the two banks of four when, say, a goal kick is being taken.

not disagreeing that when nothing at all is happening that may be roughly where you fall back to. But the modern day game is made up of fairly short passages of play (down to less than 25 seconds was the last I heard) and for each one depending on what is happening, where ball is, where other players are, what has gone before etc each player will have in individual instruction to carry out and that is very often completely at odds with his position in the world of TV fixed formations.

[West Stand Man]

I am amazed that there is anyone left in the world that thinks in terms of fixed 4-4-2's or 4-5-1's etc no matter how hard Sky Sports try to push the idea.

Every formation is adaptable and changeable depending on such a vast amount of factors - the passage of play, the opponent as a team, the opponent as individuals, how the game has gone so far with success or failure on certain moves etc.

Yes, interesting that at the start of this season we were setting up as a rough 442 / 451 in defence and switching to 433 in attack. Injuries etc appear to have stopped Clarke from doing that towards the end of his time.

[Elm Park Kid]

I agree with your overall summary. We have a number of very decent players but it's hard to come up with a system that doesn't leave some of them out.

Personally my team would be

Defence

Central 3 - Williams, Hector/Quinn, Norwood

Inside forwards - HRK/McClearly/Piazon/John

Striker - Blackman

[Extended-Phenotype]

Mad thread

It's not Football Manager '88 on the Amstrad CPC464

Players are flexible as are 'formations'.

Just put your best shooters up front, best crossers on the flanks, your creative in the middle and your workhorses behind him. The rest is tactics.

[PistolPete]

There are two types of critic to this type of post, those who don't believe in formations, and those who believe players can play anywhere 'if they're good enough'

The first point. We now have 'heat maps' (no doubt you dislike those too) which, when checked for an average Position, you'll see 'a formation'. Now sure, they're not always symetrical and they're usually the result of the teams performance and opposition. Nonetheless, managers set their teams out with formations, roles and instructions. Denying that is head in the sand stuff. (As a side note, I enjoyed Thierry Henry talking about how Guardiola subbed him at half time for scoring while straying from his position).

Secondly, the 'if he's good enough he'll play anywhere'. Well sure, I'd take Ronaldo at left back and Pogba up front for Reading- but we're talking about OUR players who are much of a muchness, so let's place them correctly? Please don't tell me Blackman would make a good winger in the mould of Glen Little if that's what was needed of him. Play to your teams strengths, surely?!

[Victor Meldrew]

All of that Pete and our players don't have a clue what to do at throw-ins and invariably just throw the ball to the opposition.
Also our keepers too often put the ball straight into touch.
These two tactics are beyond me.

[CountryRoyal]

What we have no idea about is how the players interact with each other on the training ground. Whilst they may seem suited to one position on paper, it may be a case that with the specific players they are working with, the team is more effective for them to play elsewhere. We just don't really know and it's something that current statistics at our disposal can't accurately explain.

Exiting my role of devils advocate I would tend to agree with you and I like to see players playing where they are supposed to, my biggest gripe with chopping and changing is unless you have players which are good enough to competently play in any position, and they are rare, performances can be inconsistent (naturally) which ultimately lead to inconsistent results.

[CountryRoyal]

All of that Pete and our players don't have a clue what to do at throw-ins and invariably just throw the ball to the opposition.
Also our keepers too often put the ball straight into touch.
These two tactics are beyond me.

It's truly bizarre, and something that has been an issue for ages.

A school u10 side could successfully throw the ball to one of their players. Is it some weird, left-wing, edgy coaching reading have where we try and lul the opposition into a false sense of security?! It's so frustrating watching our throw ins, the person taking it takes so long, there's rarely ever movement, and whenever anyone is free they seemingly do everything in their power to throw it to anyone other than him.

Our corners are pants too.

[melonhead]

All of that Pete and our players don't have a clue what to do at throw-ins and invariably just throw the ball to the opposition.
Also our keepers too often put the ball straight into touch.
These two tactics are beyond me.

the throw in ball up the line is an obvious percentages tactic.
the oppo more often than not heads it out for a throw in further up the pitch, or we get it.
recently however weve forgotten how to do it properly, cos it works less than before

[Forbury Lion]

If players were always played in their correct positions Jordan Obita would still be a left winger (or a central midfielder - his claimed to be favoured position), Graeme Murty would have remained a right winger and so on.

Sometimes you need to play players out of position for the benefit of the team, maybe two players play well together (Karacan and Leigerwood, for example) and the sum of their two parts is greater than their individual strengths.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Nobody is claiming you should stick Blackman in goal, but it is obvious when you look at his attributes, look at our wide options, and look at our striker options, why we play a striker out wide.

It's also crazy to say two players can't play together because of a disingenuously strict definition of positions imagined by a fan.

[Lower West]

I am amazed that there is anyone left in the world that thinks in terms of fixed 4-4-2's or 4-5-1's etc no matter how hard Sky Sports try to push the idea.

Watford play a 4-4-2 formation.

With an extremely hard working front 2. The team is set up to counter attack.

With players of more limited abilities. Little point in trying a formation that doesn't work. As McD proved last time. Use the strengths of the players available to determine the formation (s). Not like Clarke who by using Piazon on the left. Made the left defensively weak and often exposed. More so when Piazon favours a more central position.