I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but Newcastle took a page from Sampson's book and played a 3-6-1 in the Champions League against Juve last night... Worked about as well as Sampson's 3-6-1 too (they lost 2-0) But what I find interesting is that, while we all have ridiculed Sampson for creating a 3-6-1, we've got no less than Sir Bobby Robson putting it to use for a Champions League game.
Just when I was feeling well again... Please don't ever mention Sampson, 3-6-1 and losing on these boards again! '98 wasn't that long ago. Your cooperation is appreciated amigo.
nah... take another look. Whenever stupid English guys tell you how "tactically naive" we are (and use the 3-6-1 as an example), just let 'em know: "But Sir Bobby did it with Newcastle..."
The funny thing is that in the England Robson's Newcastle are seen as tactically naive. Sure they play quick, direct ,spirited football, but tactics were never Robson's strong point.
how was it 3-6-1? (I didn't see the match) but the lineup was Given Griffin O'Brien Dabizas Aaron Hughes Solano Speed Jenas Dyer Robert Shearer Who was the extra mid?
OK a 3-1-4-1-1 where two midfielders played as wingbacks... whatever... I have no doubt that it was supposed to be pretty fluid to allow for attacking when the opportunity presented itself... still one of the guys on ITV called it a 3-6-1 and I didn't see anything to disagree...
Yeah, as a Barcelona fan, I know something about Sir Bobby's tactics (generally they involve incomprehensible halftime speeches, from what I gather). But I thought it was interesting that some thought had actually been put into this system and this is what Robson came up with (clearly only 3 in the back, but only one true forward); and honestly, it might have worked with a little bit more luck and the right decision on a blown offside call.
Anyone else see the FIFA technical report? Under systems it describes Brazil as having played 3-4-2-1. Would Sampson have been a better coach if these were his players? .............................Ronaldo .............Rivaldo....................Ronaldinho Carlos.......Juninho..........Gilberto Silva........Cafu ........Roque Junior....Edmilson......Lucio I kind of laughed a little about this during the world cup, wondering why nobody was giving Sampson the credit he deserved. I know, looks like 3-4-3, but that is the way these systems of play are, they morph into whatever shape is necessary, and the coach simply picks one to call as his starting point.
BECAUSE SAMPSON'S FORMATION NEVER MORPHED INTO AN ATTACKING SHAPE! How many times was Wegerle trying to deal with 2 German defenders all by himself? Germany only kept two at the back because nobody else was pressing forward. You cannot compare Brazil or Argentina to Sampson's formation. Venables used a 4-3-2-1 (Christmas tree) for England with Shearer as the lone striker. The idea is the same as 3-6-1. Shearer obviously was not up there by himself, he had help from the 2 withdrawn players.
Guess what big guy, Wegerle only played the final 27 minutes, which is when the U.S. looked the most dangerous (don't take the word "dangerous" to serious). Wynalda started the game and was the one "isolated" up top. Actually the U.S. formation looked more like a 3-5-2, than a 3-4-3 at the beginning of the match. Stewart pushed forward more then he played midfield (see Ronaldihno). When Ramos came on for Deering, and Hejduk for Burns, the U.S. "attack" did play like a 3-4-2-1, or 3-4-3. Here is how the FIFA technical report showed the U.S. playing vs. Germany in 1998... ------------------Wynalda -------Reyna-------------------Stewart Jones----Maisonneuve-----Deering--------Burns ------Pope--------Dooley--------Regis ------------------Keller Funny how it looks like the Brazil formation.
Big deal. The point is that Waldo was all alone up there. I understand a single striker role and how he is supposed to get help, but whether it was the tactic or just the US not getting into the flow, it wasn't happening. Put Stewart in the hole (never pushed too far forward though), Reyna deeper in the midfield with Maisonneuve, and Deering deeper and it starts to resemble the actual tactic. Don't forget this was a tactic the US hadn't used until the friendly against Austria. I think Sampson panicked and threw it together. It just wasn't a great formation, and it didn't utilize alot of the players properly.
So who the hell headed it into Kahn's arms in the beginning of the game? I thought it was that guy who also surfs. BTW, Dooley, good defense on that Klinsmann goal. Way to not bother him at all. Cello would've prevented that goal
It is a big deal. You're basing the failure of a system on a player being stranded when he wasn't the player. You are reaching and your facts don't back it up. Now if you used the following in your original post, your arguement would have been a little better... This is more accurate as to why the formation didn't work. Any formation will work, as long as a club has time to work with it. It doesn't matter if it is 3-6-1, 3-4-3, 3-5-2, 4-2-2, 4-3-3, 4-5-1, etc. Because Wynalda was stranded on an island wasn't the problem. The problem was none of the players were comfortable in the system. Changing the system of play wasn't a symptom of Sampson panicing. It was more of him saying we have a bunch of midfielders, one forward, and some defenders, lets play 3-6-1. Hejduk came on in the 2nd half. He didn't play at the beginning of the game.
Waldo was isolated because of Reyna... "Originally posted by McGinty Big deal. The point is that Waldo was all alone up there. I understand a single striker role and how he is supposed to get help, but whether it was the tactic or just the US not getting into the flow, it wasn't happening." I guess you guys have to trust me on this but this past summer I spoke to both Wynalda and Sampson about the 3-6-1 and the consensus from both of them (one of the few things they agreed upon) was it was flawed because Claudio Reyna wasn't tough enough to link with Waldo after Jermies hammered him. Waldo said he screamed at Reyna several times to snap out of it and give him some support, but he never did. Just played lateral balls with no invention like he typically does.
We are missing the boot! I don't know about you but I sure do miss the Adidas Campaign. It was called Football Fever. The one were you log for World Cup of 2002. I liked painting the globe with decals and juggling the ball with shoe in room. It was a past time waiting for enterence into room of control. You could only score a hundred. It went fastest; when you positioned the ball at top by ceiling. Hey wait. I might save this for a topic in The Bueatiful Game.
The reason Sampson failed wasn't the alignment numbers -- 3-6-1 or 3-4-2-1 or whatever. It was because he used players out of position or didn't give players enough time to learn the position or just plain had the wrong players for the formation. There was absolutely no cohesion or chemistry with the '98 squad. Sampson was to blame but not because he used a 3-6-1.
Argentina played a 3-6-1. When Crespo and Batigol where alone up top no one said anything either. People said that Ortega and Lopez were forwards. Please. That was a 3-6-1. Lobbing balls into the box to one player surrounded by 3 or 4 defenders counts as such.
I don't know whether Wor Bobby used the Sampson formation against Juve last night, but the Toon did defeat those divers of Turin.