Revs' formation: 2 D-mids?

[saabrian]

[I wanted to post this on RevsNet but I couldn't figure out how to create an account]

Hernandez complained that the players are told to bypass the midfield and although to me, whose only watched the ESPN games, it's obvious they are doing just that. Yet, I think the formation that Nicol chooses to uses, which I've never liked, pretty much guarantees just that.


RB CB CB LB

DM DM


RW LW


F F


The use of two defensive midfielders, in the absence of a central midfielder (either holding or attacking), pretty much guarantees that all central play is going to be long ball. That's why most of the Revs' attacking possession comes via the wings. This formation leaves a huge gap between the defensive midfielders and the forwards and seems to really cede the center of the field to the other team. Twellman really thrives on through balls he can run on to, not so much on aerial balls like a McBride. Even if Joe-Max plays as a withdrawn forward behind Twellman, it doesn't really alleviate the problem much.

So I wonder why they don't play with one defensive mid behind one center mid. It could be a holding mid if Nicol wants. That way the formation could remain defensively minded but still provide a more effective link between the back and front.

Any thoughts?

[saabrian]

Sorry, the format kind of screwed the spacing on my diagram but I think you all get the point.

[Jon Martin]

I have never spoken to Nicol, and can't tell you what he thinks. There is a rationale, however for the approach that you describe above. You can read chapters on the topic in Flat Back Four, by another Scot, Andy Gray. The (oversimplified) gist is that four flat mids create the greatest number of combinations and tactical possibilities, and is more efficient defensively. It assumes that both mids are capable of attacking and defending.

I think this is the nub for Nicol. He only wants two-way mids, and if pressed would prefer mids who can defend rather than mids who attack.

[soccertim]

Originally posted by saabrian

So I wonder why they don't play with one defensive mid behind one center mid. It could be a holding mid if Nicol wants. That way the formation could remain defensively minded but still provide a more effective link between the back and front.

Any thoughts?

Nicol's been searching for a more attack-minded midfielder since Nowak retired. Right now, he's employing the best formation for his personnel, always a good thing.

[saabrian]

Originally posted by Jon Martin
I have never spoken to Nicol, and can't tell you what he thinks. There is a rationale, however for the approach that you describe above. You can read chapters on the topic in Flat Back Four, by another Scot, Andy Gray. The (oversimplified) gist is that four flat mids create the greatest number of combinations and tactical possibilities, and is more efficient defensively. It assumes that both mids are capable of attacking and defending.

I think this is the nub for Nicol. He only wants two-way mids, and if pressed would prefer mids who can defend rather than mids who attack.

I understand. But it doesn't seem like they are playing a flat four mid because the central (defensive) mids aren't attacking. Only the wings are. It's more like a V.

With Kamler, Ralston, Heaps and Franchino, you have lots of guys who can attack up the flanks but no one up the middle. I still thinking even putting Hernandez in a central holding mid spot in front of Cullen spreads out the defense a little more.