The End of Forward Thinking? Credit for the above article to: Jonathan Wilson is guardian.co.uk's east European football correspondent. He also writes regularly for the Independent, the Independent on Sunday, FourFourTwo magazine and anybody else who waves money in his direction. He has written two books - Behind the Curtain: Travels in Eastern European Football and Inverting the Pyramid, a book on football tactics.
Yet the modern day example of no strikers (Manchester United) has already changed their approach by buying Berbatov.
But, Berbatov doesn't just poach in the box. He can be more like a #10 and has a tendency to drift wide like the rest of Utd's "forwards".
You could almost say that soccer is drifting towards the way of the 4-2-4 again. Most teams use a 4 man back line. Most teams also use two attackers (Target striker-support striker, striker-AM, or striker-striker) while also using their two wide players as mainly attacking players. Meanwhile, center midfielders are seen as ball-winners and distributors. While obviously the mentality isn't a straight-line 4-2-4, one could argue, that often times this is what it turns out to be. Some of the biggest teams have this turn into their formation, including Liverpool and Manchester United.
Is Evra a winger or a fullback? He spends more time attacking than defending, the way I see it. A load of hogwash from some tactical novice. Next, we might just see Henry being described as a "left wing-striker" than a simple "striker".
If Carlos Alberto Parreira did not have Romario in the 1994 WC then would not have won that WC. If he did not get Romario late in the qualifiers for that WC they would not even made it into the WC.
"Five years ago, at the coaching conference he hosts in Rio de Janeiro, Carlos Alberto Parreira made a prediction that left the room stunned. Discussing how tactics might evolve, the coach who had led Brazil to victory in the 1994 World Cup, suggested that the formation of the future might be 4-6-0. " If that team of the future had play a 4-6-0 the best record they could expect would also be 0-4-6
If a player could finish a chance or a half chase he would not be a mid or a back he would be a striker. If your team had no strikers that means to me that team had no finishers. A team with no finishers have losses and draws and not many wins .
Yes you named the stars that can finish. They are the exception to the rule. They are not the rule. So now go on for days and prove me wrong. As you name the players hpw many goals have they scored last season? Also mention the teams they played for so if we can see if it is a rule or the exceptions to the rule/
A rule that has that many exceptions isn't really a rule is it? Again, you didn't really read the article - did you?
Yes, I read it. At what level would you be happy playing no strikers? Just pro level or below? I can safely say most of the guys you mentioned as mids in the pros now, played strikers for most of their playing life and were moved to the midfield later. Play with that system at the youth level. You will go nowhere. It would be a real team game with no selfish players. Selfish players are needed at the right times to finish a chance and score goals. What I mean by that is there is a time to pass and a time to take on players and shoot. Put everyone in the midfield they won't be taking shots with the confidence of scoring goals.. Even in training strikers train also after the team trains with servers and against defenders. Would they being doing that if they were mids? Some people just don't get it. Parreira is no soccer genius in my oppionion. He was great as the coach of the Metrostars wasn't he?
You didn't read the GD article. It's not about Parreira. It's not about "midfielders". It's not about youth training. You. Didn't. Read. The. Article.
You can say your team system is 460 but you put any 10 decent players on the pitch and someone will be playing the forward roles. The role may shift from player to player as the game flows, but someone will be in that role. You cannot have proper team shape without depth and width on attack and defense. Good players will be in that shape regardless of what the coach says is the team system. Coaches and fans put too much emphasis on the "formation."
I'm really disappointed with the inability of anyone to catch on that the title and purpose of the article was to be ironic. Is it really that hard to read something just for its content rather than argue with a obviously/purposely flawed premise? Wake up!
from the article..."That said, 4-6-0 is no panacea, as the former Scotland coach Andy Roxburgh, who is now Uefa's technical director, explained. 'The six players in midfield all could rotate, attack and defend,' he said. 'But you'd need to have six Decos in midfield - he doesn't just attack, he runs, tackles and covers all over the pitch.' Deco is a classic example of a universal player, something he combines with high levels of physical fitness.'" from wiki..."Total Football is the label for an influential theory of tactical association football in which any player can take over the role of any other player in the team. It was pioneered by Dutch football club Ajax Amsterdam. In Total Football, a player who moves out of his position is replaced by another from his team, thus retaining the team's intended organizational structure. In this fluid system, no player is fixed in his nominal role; anyone can be successively an attacker, a midfielder and a defender. Total Football's tactical success depends largely on the adaptability of each footballer within the team, in particular their ability to quickly change positions depending on the situation. The theory requires players to be comfortable in multiple positions, hence it puts high technical and physical demands on them." Isn't the concept of a 4-6-0 just a variation of "Total Football"? It seems like the only difference is that the defense isn't involved in changing/rotation of positions in a 4-6-0. I'm sure players would gravitate toward roles in such a system in particular games to exploit advantages or cover weaknesses in the matchup with their opponent. Success would rely on the players ability to read the game and adjust in a coordinated manner. Multiple players would have to see the same opportunites and threats and react accordingly. Isn't that already being done in a more limited manner when players move around the field during a game?
Definitely. And, the defense stays in place because of the threat of the quick counter. Even Rinus Michels talked about using a "defensive block" that stayed behind the ball (or quickly organized behind the ball when possession was lost) in order to defend properly. Manchester Utd is the clearest example of how players who might be called forwards, attacking mids, wingers, or standard midfielders could interchange quickly and efficiently to break down defenses - especially on the counter.
I love the concept of giving the players the responsibility of reading the game and the freedom to adapt. Of course, I frequently find that I'm an idealist and that reality doesn't always agree with how I would like the world to be. I coach recreational soccer for U-10 boys and U-8 girls. With both teams, the defense is fixed (all the players get their chance at defense though) and the midfield (U-8's don't have a midfield) and the offense is free to move around. In other words, I don't assign "lanes" or put too many restrictions on where they can go. I do encourage them to support other players via where they choose to go. I want them to learn to read the game and adapt. Very few get the concept though. I'm not worried about the U-8's. They just aren't mentally ready for too much, especially in a rec league. I want them to just have fun. With the U-10's, there seems to be a mix of readiness. Some are near the same maturity level of the older U-8's and some are much more mature (especially those with older siblings). Because I don't have a team full of Deco's, the concept of "reading" the game doesn't really work and our success (wins) depends more upon the success of a few players. I don't think the parents get the idea that the players need to be able to see an opportunity on their own. If given the choice (which they aren't because of the rules of the rec program), I'm sure some of the parents would choose to have their kids placed with the other coach who is more organized (ie...little Johnny, you play here, stay in your lane, and pass the ball to the bigger/faster kid as fast as you can). What I find is that we're more competitive early in the season and that the wins are harder to come by as the players on the other teams learn their positions (which they never rotate out of). Am I too much of an idealist to ask these recreational players to try to learn a system of play that is difficult for the best teams in the world to implement? If not, what can I do to help the players understand how I want them to play (or will that come as they get older)?
No. The reason that some pros can't do it is because they were told to "stand here, do this, stay in your lane" as well.