Και… ο θεός βοηθός (Formations, Selections, Tactics, etc.)

Discussion in 'Greece & Cyprus' started by SF19, Sep 11, 2013.

  1. SF19

    SF19 Member+

    Jun 8, 2013
    #1 SF19, Sep 11, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2013
    [​IMG]
    (Αμφορέας "Amphora" by Exekias, it depicts, from left to right, Ajax and Achilleus playing what has been traditionally interpreted to be the game of Morra. Achilleus claims to be winning four to Ajax's claim of three.)

    A thread dedicated to handsome, intelligent Greek men hidden behind computer screens who think the coach is an idiot for not doing what they think works best. Or, perhaps, like the odds and evens game played by the Greek heroes above suggests, fate and chance are up to the gods to decide and we mere mortals must accept that. Have your say!
     
  2. SF19

    SF19 Member+

    Jun 8, 2013
    #2 SF19, Sep 11, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2013
    Here's how I think we should be playing (key notes bolded):

    3-5-2 (3-4-1-2)

    Karnezis
    Manolas--Kyriakos--Sokratis (C)
    ?--Torosidis--Tachtsidis--Holebas
    Ninis
    Samaras--Mitroglou
    Some notes:
    • It's really a 3-5-2. Ninis would be expected to drop back, as would Samaras, with the two alternating even.
    • We have the quality to play three at the back.
    • Let's play Sokratis at LB out of desperation. Let's turn our weakest point into a channel of defensive strength. I'd make him captain for his troubles.
    • ? and Holebas are actual wingers, so let's use wing players in the wing roles. Mavrias might be the answer to my question mark.
    • Samaras will be more restricted if he's not on the wing and instead played as a LF. If he's given a more restrained role, he will focus his input rather than running around with the ball like he's Rambo. Having Samaras up top also makes sure we always have an aerial threat in the box.
    • Having two forwards will allow Ninis more space centrally because he now has two attackers in front of him occupying defenders, not just one. The wingers, too, when high up the pitch, will take out defenders. So that's potentially four players in front of Ninis instead of three.
    • All attacks must go through Ninis first (notice how the formation funnels through him).
    • Torosidis adds physicality and pace to the midfield. Tachtidis adds size, progressive passing, and technical class. Ninis adds sublime brilliance. Some more pace in the midfield would be better, but these three still balance one another out quite well.
    • Torosidis and Ninis can quickly adapt to one another. Torosidis and Tachtsidis knew each other from their Roma days. Hopefully, that will be enough to develop a cohesive hub in the middle of the park.
    Against superior opposition, I would use this:

    4-5-1 (1-3-4-1)

    Karnezis
    Kyriakos
    Manolas--Moras--Sokratis (C)
    ?--Torosidis--Ninis/Tachtisids--Maniatis--Holebas
    Samaras
    • Take note that I only made two changes. Maniatis and Moras at the expense of Mitroglou and Ninis/Tachtsidis. Mature, defensive minded players for young offensive minded players.
    • Having both Ninis and Tachtsidis on the field would be a luxury. We need to counter-act the opposition because they are superior. Nevertheless, we still need a classy player to give us some imagination when we move forward. I'm more inclined to play Tachtsidis due to his size and due to the fact that he would work better as a central midfielder than Ninis, who plays better in more advanced roles. Ninis, however, is a smarter and technically superb player, and I would consider using him later in the match, once the opposition shift into a lower gear and afford us more offensively.
    • Depending on how strong an opposition we face, especially one that likes to start off strong like Germany, I'd be inclined to have my players drop into deeper defensive rolls as much as necessary if that means wearing off the opposition. So we might look more like a 7-3-1 at times, with Torosidis at right back, Holebas at left back, and the right winger moving in more centrally in the midfield, thus narrowing and then clogging the field, leaving no space behind to exploit.
    • Samaras may not be as effective a finisher as Mitroglou, but he's a human wreaking ball when on his own up top, he's got much better pace, and he can help out better defensively.
    • I'd select Maniatis for his tireless running and supportive play. He will fit nicely alongside Torosidis given how well they've known each other since playing at Olympiakos together and with NT for the past year and so.
    • Moras for his peerless height, wealth of experience, ability to command, and ability the play excellent passes forward.
    • Kyriakos is expected to mainly plug in any defensive gaps, but he is also expected to launch forward on occasion and offer an aerial presence during the run of play, just like Ramos had done for Spain against Brazil in the final of the Confederations Cup. He has loads of energy, he can attack the ball superbly with his head as well, so why let any of that go to waste?!
    • Players can be easily mixed and matched in the this mainly defensive set-up. Samaras, for example, offers more defensively than any of Greece's other attackers. Maniatis, Holebas, and Torosidis started their careers as widebacks. Kyriakos is part attacker, part defender (although, he's mainly the latter) in this eleven. Tachtsidis is great going forward, but generally pulls the strings near or from his own half.
    • This set-up features a tall set of players (Tachtsidis, Samaras, and Moras are between 6'4" to 6'6"). This team threatens enormously from set-pieces and should intimidate any opposition.
     
  3. SF19

    SF19 Member+

    Jun 8, 2013
    My system is not perfect. There are concerns.

    For starters, if the opposition are effective at taking Ninis out of the game, then how does Greece go about attacking?

    It's a very real concern. Consider how Sneijder was outflanked by Kyriakos or how Messi was blocked out by Sokratis. Ninis will certainly meet his match, somewhere, sometime. And every Greek attack, as I mentioned above, would be expected to go through Ninis first.

    Now, technically, that last point isn't entirely true. Tachtisidis could still double in for Ninis' capacity. Samaras,too, could pull a couple of strings, although not as nearly enough to the same effect. However, Ninis essential purpose is to create a lot of something out of a lot of nothing, so if he's not creating at all, there's still a problem. The most practical solution in my system would have to come off the substitutes bench. Besides, if the opposition are marking Ninis out of the game, we might as well take him out and replace him with someone who could work out better. Karagounis, Fetfatzidis, Fortounis (who, perhaps, is the most similar player to Ninis on the team), Kone, Tatos, Fotakis, and even Katsouranis can all function in Ninis' role to various effect.

    If Greece is genuinely struggling to move the ball around and the opposition are effectively shutting Ninis down, Karagounis would be the best option. He would win fouls from nothing challenges and provide from set-pieces. It's a solution that should work, though his cynical style won't win us any admirers.

    Another theoretical solution would be to introduce Fortounis in place of the less imaginative physical play of Samaras, keeping Ninis on the pitch. This will do one of two things. It will either force the opposition to mark Fortounis, which would likely open up the game for Ninis a bit more, or it would allow Fortounis the space needed to create chances as the opposition continues to shut Ninis out. Probably a bit of both would occur. Whatever the case, the latter theory is less practical, yet admirable.

    A second concern has to do with the quality of our defensive depth.

    For most positions this isn't a grave concern. As examples, Mitroglou can be replaced by Gekas, Holebas by Stafylidis, even Ninis by Fortounis, etc. If we lose one of those players, there are good solutions on hand. However, this team is built around an incredible back-line of Manolas, Kyriakos, and Sokratis. Suppose both Sokratis and Kyriakos were to succumb to suspensions or injuries. We might be able to get away with a three man back-line if only one of two go missing, but not both. Would we, then, have to change our shape? After all, we wouldn't be able to play with an extra attacker if it wasn't for that pair of world class defenders. We can afford to play one defender less than most teams precisely because of their quality.

    The answer, in that case, is to turn to my second formation (1-3-5-1), but we would take out Samaras and keep Mitroglou in the event the opposition is inferior. We would play Avraam as a sweeper and Tzavellas at left-back. However, unlike Kyriakos, Avraam would not be considered to join up in attacks. He would strictly be a sweeper. If the opposition is vastly inferior (a minnow country like Luxembourg), we could get away with a three man defense of Manolas, Avraam/Moras/Siovas, and Malezas/Tzavellas, and thus continue with the first formation.

    Players and team chemistry is another concern.

    Would the players selected and the system they would subscribe to be to their liking? How would Sokratis feel about playing as a left-back? How would Samaras feel about being second fiddle to Ninis? How would Torosidis feel about playing as a central midfielder? How would others respond to becoming bit part players? Would any of Katsouranis, Karagounis, Avraam, Maniatis, Gekas, Fetfatzidis, and, against quality opposition, Mitroglou, be content with sitting on the bench?

    A strong coach would be my only answer to those questions. The right coach can get just about any player to do what he wants. But, even then, I'd argue to the players, that you can't make everyone happy.

    If the results follow, then the system is a success and no player, legend, fan, or journalist would be in a position to argue much against it. If the results take time or simply don't happen, then the system would be considered a relative failure, if for no better reason than for lack of team chemistry and/or belief.
     
  4. PANDEMONEUM

    PANDEMONEUM Member

    Aug 30, 2011
    Club:
    Asteras Tripolis
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    IF U SAY SAMARAS AGAIN, I WILL CUT U
    I HATE SAMARAS

    3-5-2
    is a very interesting formation
    with this, u HAVE to have 1 Defensive Mid if not 2
    1 DM, who is a Destroyer, 1 DM who is a great passer/possession guy
    that can b adjusted based on the skills of the lone CB
    if there is no Destroyer, then the 2 DMs have to have a great understanding that when 1 moves up, the other HAS to stay and protect the back line

    i dont like putting players in spots, that they Dont play for their club teams
    having a Starting role for their club team, is very important for the National team
    the 3-5-2 formation is unique
    if the players are not learning or training under such a formation with their club teams, it will be very difficult to install it for the NT
    4-5-1 seems to be more natural for Greece
    the Outside Mids are allowed to bomb up the field when they can
    and the second Striker, is hidden in the midfield. whichever guy has advantage can press forward and even 2 of the CMs can push hard, knowing there is a DM behind them. and being CMs, they most likely will bust as$ to make it back. (not like a F who only runs forward)
     
  5. SF19

    SF19 Member+

    Jun 8, 2013
    #5 SF19, Sep 27, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2013
    The 3-5-2 affords us more numbers and flexibility in offense. It will take some adjusting, but it's the system that suits our strengths.

    The 4-5-1 should only be the case if we play teams who are better than us. It's the system we should use when we know we're not strong enough to go toe-to-toe offensively.

    I agree that players should play to their natural positions, but playing Sokratis at LB and Torosidis more centrally should work though. Besides, we need players of their attributes in those positions and no one can fill those roles half as well as they would.

    Samaras is big, fast player. He gives us a physical dimension that teams will struggle to deal with. He's also nimble and can control defenders. I don't hate him, but he annoys me when he strolls around with the ball like he's Maradona.
     
  6. PANDEMONEUM

    PANDEMONEUM Member

    Aug 30, 2011
    Club:
    Asteras Tripolis
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    yea, this cracked me up

    "If he's given a more restrained role, he will focus his input rather than running around with the ball like he's Rambo."

    i dont see any of his good qualities that you mention
    all i see, is him loosing the ball, or trying to dribble between 2 defenders

    ill meet u half way
    start in a 4-5-1, then 1 of the FBs can advance up the field, pushing that sides Omid, up
    then looking like a 3-5-2
     
  7. SF19

    SF19 Member+

    Jun 8, 2013
    Samaras does have his strong points.

    He controls defenders well. Consider his goal against Germany. His well timed change of pace threw Boateng off, which created that little bit of extra space for Samaras to then slide the ball home. He's also a physically dominating player. Against Ukraine, Tymoschuk was doing an excellent job of man marking anyone with the ball at their feet who dared their way into Ukraine's half, closing them down to the inch of turf, but he was completely mismatched against Samaras, whose size was way too much for the rather pint sized Tymoschuk to cope with. There was nothing Tymoschuk could have done to deny Samaras from making that assist to Salpingidis. Samaras' size, ability to control his marker, vision, and sense of timing allowed that splendid pass to carve Ukraine open on their home soil. Those are his best moments, when he chooses efficiency. After all, why try to beat five defenders dribbling when a 40 yard pass can do the trick? He also possesses good pace.

    Samaras does have his weak points, too.

    Where Samaras struggles is in his decision making. He makes bad decisions quite often. He also thinks of himself as the star player that he flatly isn't. The technique and flair is occasionally there, but he's only fooling himself. It's one of the many reasons fans like yourself rag on him. He keeps thinking he's the reincarnation of Ronaldo. He's more Sisyphean than Herculean, and every dribble is like every uphill roll of Sisyphus' boulder. He's also a bit of a selection conundrum because he lacks the quality to lead the line as a striker (he's not prolific enough) and all the while he doesn't fit script of an orthodox winger, yet he's constantly in limbo between these two roles. He belongs on the pitch because of he possesses some sterling attributes, namely his domineering presence, but where exactly is anyone's guess. I think most coaches agree that it depends on the opposition, if they're stronger, he's a striker, if they're weaker, he's a winger. S for s, w for w.

    I like him, he belongs on our team, but he needs a strong coach and an effectual system to make him become more purposeful.
     
  8. SF19

    SF19 Member+

    Jun 8, 2013
    #8 SF19, Mar 7, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2014
    I might tweak my formation a bit:

    Karnezis/Tzorvas
    Manolas---Kyriakos---Sokratis
    Torosidis---Maniatis---Samaris---Holebas
    Fetfatzidis---Mitroglou---Samaras
    Should we just forget about playing a competent central midfield that can pass the ball around? I think this might suit us best after the World Cup finals, but Samaris' and Fetfatzidis inexperience could be an issue.
     

Share This Page