I did right choosing him Vs. Valladolid Raul Xabi Marcelo Everyone said he had an average game... what
I posted this in your other teams thread (the last one): --------------------Striker ----------------------------Ronaldo (Higauin) --------------------Kaka(VDV) Drenthe--------------------Lass --------------------Alonso Back 4 Ronaldo would be free to roam as he pleases, and would still provide width on the right. When Ramos goes forward, Lass should be in prime position to cover the space. Drenthe would play as a LM rather than a LW with Marcelo also overlapping on that flank. Alsono sits deep and can become the third CB in some situations. Kaka has done well in the same role for Brazil recently. Striker position can be a combo of any of your forwards (even Ronaldo). I'd imagine Higuain and Benzema would be best, but Raul would obv get the start.
Looking at the roster, I dont think MP has much choice in player selections, with the back four of Ramos + Pepe + Albiol + Marcelo/Arbeloa more or less fixed, Alonso being one of the pivots, and Kaka + CR. That leaves just 3 spots up for grabs: DM, and two attacking positions. One would expect MP to come up with a system that maximizes the abilities of the core trio (Alonso, Kaka, and CR) and then fill in the blank spots as needed. Instead he seems to be trying to force them into a 4-2-2-2 system which is yet to work. If one starts with maximizing the core trio, Alonso should be the CM (with a DM behind him) as he is most effective as a deep playmaker when he operates in the middle third of the pitch (around the center circle). Kaka is most effective playing directly behind the striker(s) and just infront of the box. CR is most effecting coming in from wide positions as a shadow striker. Thus the best formation would be a 4-2-3-1/4-3-3. Anything else would be forcing a square peg into a round hole. In a 4-2-3-1, Alonso should be paired with M. Diarra, Granero or Benzema should operate on the other flank opposite CR (with Granero being the more defensive option and would have a role similar to what ramires had for Brazil at the confed cup), and the lone striker should be Higuain or Ruud.
That's true. Xabi acts like the 3rd CB in almost every match. But shouldn't it be Lass that should be doing that since he is more suited for the destroyer role?
I think the reasoning is that Lass destroys ahead of the defensive line in order to regain possession quickly, and has the speed to get back during a counterattack if required. It's a little like Mascherano against us last year, he was pressing relatively high up the pitch and his early dispossessions led to a few goals at anfield IIRC. Xabi acts as cover near the CB's when the defence has to drop off. If he is caught high up the pitch on a counter I doubt he gets back into position in time to be of any help. He also likes to collect the ball off the CB's to distribute it from our goalkicks etc., and when he does so it is better for Lass to be slightly further up the field to act as a central passing option.
Great article from Jonathan Wilson discussing the deep-lying centreforward and the evolution of the false 9: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/oct/27/the-question-false-nines-jonathan-wilson
Nice article, though I disagree with the comment as regards our loss to barcelona last year. I dont think it was a case of having problems with a false 9, but rather our woeful attempt at playing a high backline and keeping Barcelona offside. The backline was rarely level, and Henry in particular sprung the offside trap at will. Coupled with some disastrous play in midfield, and our demise was assured.
Very good article. I too had wondered why both of the past 2 CL winners have gone out of their way to overspend on a more true #9 after their very successful seasons.
The obvious problem with Xabi dropping into the backline is that he is too far from the opposition half to make any meaningful contributions. We do not need our destroyer pressing high, but rather he should be close to their AMs and closing the gap between the defensive line and the midfield. You do not break up moves in the opponents half, and the job for pressing the opponents' deeper players should be left for our attackers. The ball moves faster than the player, and a single long pass will leave our DM stranded in the opposition half (away from his defensive duties). The risks far outweigh the 'potential' benefit. When we attack, we should have 4 players in our own half of the field (as you cant press any higher). If a FB overlaps, one of the pivots needs to drop back in coverage, and thus does not participate in the attack in the opposition half. Until the ball crosses the center line, we can afford to have Xabi and Lass in parallel, but the moment we move into the opposition half, Lass needs to stay back. Ideally, when building an attack we want Xabi around the edge of the circle with three players/options available to him e.g. left=CR, Mid=Kaka, Right=Benzema (not the limited one or two he seems to be having). His choice, and available space, should dictate which FB makes the run (no point in you exposing our rear if the ball wont come your way).If there is no progress, the attack should be reset with the ball given back to Xabi in a hopefully more advanced position (compressing the opposition defence further). With Lass ahead of Xabi, you end up with a situation where Lass has to do the playmaking (else you need to pass back to Xabi in our own half to change the direction of play, giving too much time for the opposition to reorganize accordingly) and Xabi having to mark a striker or an AM. Lass has the inferior playmaking abilities, while Alonso is inferior as a ball winner (and with his lack of pace will easily be left for dead by a decent attacker). Essentially we have put a gun to our own head. The assignment of responsibility should be done with the players attributes in mind. Against liverpool, Ramos got it wrong, 'cos based on attributes (particularly pace and workrate), Gago should have been placed on Xabi, while Lass man marked Gerrard. Unfortunately, we had the reverse, and saw Gerrard often leaving Gago for dead, taking with him, our chances of a 10th CL.
Xabi would be less effective if he was moved too far up the pitch. If you move him up the pitch he will be marked more tightly, and his long-range passing option is reduced. When he plays deep he is the main distributing option, since he collects the ball and has the time and space to deliver it where he wants. If you move him up the pitch he will have to rely more on through balls and less on his main weapon, those accurate long passes. Playmaking doesn't depend on how far up the pitch you are. The positioning doesn't mean that Xabi can't playmake and Lassana has to do the playmaking instead. Xabi is playing as a sort of enganche, similar to how Redondo or Veron played. They played deeper than their more defensive minded midfielders whilst still being able to dictate the play. If you look at my post in the formations thread, I originally wanted Xabi to be the CM with Lass as the DM. I have changed my mind, I like how the central midfield lines up in theory. It's similar to M Diarra and Gago (under Capello, i think)- Momo roamed the pitch trying to win the ball asap, and Gago dropped off slightly deeper to plug gaps and distribute when we got possession back.
A playmaker is the guy that coordinates and initiates your attack. He is the one that decides the point/focus of the attack by reading the opponents defense and looking for the best area to exploit. Playmaking does depend on how far up the field you play, as you cannot do it from the back line. A playmaker has to advance into the opposition half, else he would result to a lot of long (half pitch length) balls that are more easily intercepted, and lead to counter attacks. In addition, redirecting the attack would take too much time (as the ball would have to be passed all the way back into our own half), and make it more difficult to break down the opposition. A look at successful dual pivots of present and past, makes this obvious (another example being Dunga in the 90s for brazil and Stuttgart). If the attack is not flowing through him, then he is not the playmaker. A playmaker being marked tightly is part of the game, and its Xabi's job to create space for himself (else why dont you withdraw CR and Kaka as well since they will also be marked tightly). Any player that moves into the opposition half of a decent team should expect to be marked. Xabi's long range passing ability is an asset, which allows him to deliver the ball accurately to any part of the pitch. It should not be a liability that hides him in our own half of the field. Xabi should operate from the middle third of the pitch, while short passes and through balls are more suited to the final third. A deep lying playmaker is not the one that is responsible for delivering the final ball into the box, but rather for passing the ball to the AMs and/or wingers. Example, Guti and Xabi are different kinds of playmakers, with Guti needing to be much closer to the box and often delivers the final ball to the strikers. I dont remember Veron or Redondo successfully playing deeper than their DM partners in a dual pivot. Occasions they have done so would be when the opponent is sitting back and you have decided to push an extra man into the attack leaving 3 at the back, or when they were not in a dual pivot. For example, Redondo played alongside Karembeu and Seedorf in a 3 man midfield in 1997/98, while he had helguera as a libro in 1999/2000 season. Even in the current shambolic Argentina NT, Veron plays ahead of Mascherano. The player's position and play should be analyzed in the context of the team formation and tactics. If one watches the Liverpool games of 08/09 (or checks the chalkboards), you will see that Alonso gets a lot of touches on the ball (mostly around the center circle) and rarely passes directly into the box. Mascherano, on the other hand often passes to Alonso from a deeper position and most of his activities are in the liverpool end of the pitch. Shots attempts stats are also higher for Xabi as he is the one closer to goal. In modern day football, you need to have 4 player back in your own half, and none of them can be your playmaker. We can leave Xabi as the last DM, but then the playmaking responsibility must fall on someone else. The fact that the current 'Lass ahead of Xabi' arrangement has failed both in attack and defence is further evidence of its fundamental flaw.
Incorrect. Beckenbauer. A playmaker can easily organise the attack from deeper positions. Again, the Argentine no.5 is traditionally the deepest midfielder and can act as the creative deep-lying midfielder. Carrick did the same job for Manchester for a while. Dunga is not relevant to the discussion. The Brazilian double-pivot relies on the two AM's (the left AM particularly) to be the creative forces, with the DM's covering for the fullbacks. It has never been argued that Dunga was a playmaker. If the playmaker is a traditional 10, then maybe. The creative defensive midfielder is rarely marked tightly, due to his positioning on the pitch. That is because they play against a forward or creative mid, who will rarely spend their time man-marking. Xabi prefers to pass from within his own half, even when at Liverpool. Look at an example using the Guardian's Chalkboards: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/chalkboards/5g0W7E8380C5q0yqm58y His passing is most concentrated near the semi-circle in his own half. Not further up the pitch. So he acted as playmaker from mostly within his own half, as he does for us currently. Nothing prevents him from playing passes from the middle third whilst playing as the deepest midfielder.
Franz, like lothar, was a libero, and his playmaking role requires that he advance up the pitch and into the opposition half. I am not saying that you cannot have the playmaker be the deepest midfielder, only that you dont have it in a dual pivot. Dunga is relevant because he played in a dual pivot and he was the creative of the two (in the NT silva was his partner) and he played ahead. The point wasn't if he was the main playmaker or not. In a dual pivot, one is creative and one is defensive. The creative plays ahead of the defensive. If you have an example of a successful reversal, please share. tight marking does not equate to man marking, but means that a player is not given much space and time on the ball. Same could be achieved with zonal marking. Tevez is an example of a forward player, who with his work rate, helps provide tight marking i.e. harassing for deeper players. I have also stated this earlier, that Xabi would operate in the middle third, but this extends into the opposition half. If you study the chalkboard over several matches you would observe that Xabi makes a huge count of such passes in the opposition half (and even the game you linked to, at least half were in the opposition half). He cannot fall in to the back line, if he is advancing that much upfield. Please note that the less adventurous nature of the liverpool fullback of last season, allowed both Xabi and Mascherano to often advance forward simultaneously.
Mauro Silva today, when he's playing in the garden with his kids, is 10 times the player that Dunga ever was. Brazil isn't a good example to discuss tactical orthodoxy because they are always going to have 4-5 of the best players in the world (in their respective positions), which is something no other NT can say (BTW NTs are a questionable way of generalizing about tactics, because you play with what accidents of birth have given you, not with what you want). The trick is to find a way of getting the best out of those players. IMO it's all very ad-hoc.
I think that is giving to much credit to individual abilities. The Brazil of 2006 showed that tactical balance and good formation are required for success. Nothing is written in stone, and you often would have to find a balance between your tactics, formation and personnel. Still there are some fundamentals that need to berespected. Example, nobody plays a 3 man rear in the top european clubs, as it is perceived (and rightly so) a recipe for disaster.
Fletcher-Carrick, 2007-2008. Mascherano-Alonso, 2008-2009. Look at the Chalkboards, there's no doubt that Mascherano was told to challenge further up the pitch, with Xabi sitting deeper. Almost every match, Mascherano has more challenges in the opponents half than Xabi. Example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/chalkboards/0pbn57RgnENZnX4RO4CP The three man backline is not in itself a recipe for disaster. Its demise came due to the fact that most top teams no longer use a conventional 4-4-2.
Interesting view on Pellegrini's system from some blogger. I don't agree with much of it, but it was well worth reading. http://santapelota.blogspot.com/
Interesting article which (unfortunately) hints again at MP possibly being rigid in trying to force the personnel into his system even though they are not suited. However, I dont think the choice of a formation is as difficult as he makes it out to be. My (repeatedly stated) choice is for the 4-2-3-1 (as opposed to 4-3-3) as it gives us the platform to maximize our weapons and still have a sensible defensive structure ------------Pepe-------Albiol----------------- --Ramos---------------------------Marcelo--- ----------------Lass------------------------------- ------------------------Alonso----------------- ---------------------------------------------------- --Benzema----------Kaka---------------CR9------ ----------------------Higuain-------------------------- This formation maximizes the potential of our 3 key players: Alonso, Kaka, and CR. The key to success will be the adaptability of Benzema to a role on the wings, but if not we have the alternative of Granero. The choice of pipita allows the front four to be rotated at will during the game to give more problems to the opposition. But most importantly, the formation gives a framework under which we can more easily get the AM trio to fall back behind the ball when defending. Defensively, I will be less worried about marcelo with CR ahead of him, and lass holding back to cover.
I would definately switch benzema and higuain. I see benzema as the finisher who can score great goals from various positions. One of higuain's worst skills is one on one finishing, he usually scores nice goals after great runs or shots from distance but usually messes up on the simple shots and simple 1 on 1s with the keeper. I've noticed that so many times last year. If not benzema, then RVN, not higuain, RVN has a specialty, he just stands there and hammers them in. Thats what he said in his interview and its true, not really a dribbler or a sprinter, he just scores a lot and he is the best in the world at doing just that. Like as soon as he gets the ball near the penalty box you know its dangerous, he can turn around and score out of nowhere. I like that you used Kaka in the middle, thats his best position. Good thing there is no granero in your formation, I also think he should not be a starter on the wing. To add one thing, I think we'll be in trouble when it comes to defending. Cr9 doesn't track back, benz and higuain don't, and Kaka does occasionally but he usually ends up fouling, so most of the time we'll have 6-7 players behind the ball defending.
I watch alot of games of Madrid this season and IMO a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1 formation is what best suit you guys. Also, I believe a counter-attacking style of play (similar to Dunga's Brazil) is more suited to your strengths than a possession style game. IMO, it would get the best out of Kaka and Ronaldo as there speed and ability would to be too tough to handle for any opposition to handle on the break. Also, it would not expose your fullbacks so much as you would be sitting deep, packing it in and then break with few passes. Cassilas Ramos --- Pepe --- Albiol --- Arbeloa Lass --- Alonso Ronaldo --- Kaka --- Marcelo Benzema
I've gone on and on about that early this summer and posters thought I was nuts. Well, now they see I'm not, in fact a lot of the shit I was saying was on target if not close. Honestly, he hasn't said anything some of us have been saying from the beginning. Although, his 4-3-1-2 is kind of a new idea and I really like it especially how he made it fit the strengths of the players.
That formation may het the best from Kaka and Ronaldo, but with Benzema and Ronaldo on the wings they will be constantly drifting in giving Alonso no options on the wings. This formation will probably massacre most teams who come to the Bernabau, but stronger teams who retain the ball or who are good at counter attack will be able to get results. Madrid really need to play with at least one winger otherwise your attack will become to predictable.
and that winger would be who? Drenthe? Playing wingers does not make a team less susceptible to counter attacks (ask the ManU team that lost to Madrid in 2000, or most teams that lost to Valencia in that season) or losing the possession battle (ask recent Barca oppositions) The formation is supposed to maximize the resources we have, and not to produce a perfect team.
As you probably know, I am heavily in favor of the 4-2-3-1. However after looking at the formation and insight from the link Umar provided, I think maybe the 4-3-1-2 may be better for us. It of course would rub some players the wrong way, but the right balance in midfield with the right cover for our very attacking FB's, combined with Kaka playing where he is most effective (mediapunta) and Cristiano playing as SS (with freedom to go on either wing or centrally. We'd have a striker of Higuain or Benzema. IMO, when we want to rest Cristiano or Kaka, we could fit other pieces into that system much more easily then it would be to replace in the 4-2-3-1 without losing balance and being too predictable.