I think what you've posted is essentially the universal contemporary view of Holland , Spain and the writers of the FFA National Curriculum.

It is interesting to view footage of old games when players could play back to the keeper. According to contemporary football coach education, 80 percent of a modern keeper's touches are with the feet without handling the ball. So skill with the ball on the deck is much more important now for a keeper than it was .

So if the Goalkeeper sits back and doesnt take on the sweeper role, it is a 4-4-2, but if matt Ryan (for example) is in goals, it is a 1-4-4-2?

Also, how is it written up, if the 4 at the back is a traditional back 4 with one sweeper and one stopper.

I can see the logic, the role of the keeper often means a team feels like it has an extra outfield player at times, but I've just always personally thought that the role of the keeper can be so ambiguous that I don't see the point of including them in the formation. I've just thought every formation is 1-x-x-x-x, whether you include the '1' or not, that '1' just plays a different role in different teams but he's always going to be there as a man on the pitch that can get involved in play in some way. Whatever floats your boat though :)

I've never thought of you as ignorant - the complete opposite. Bowden has been pushing his luck though.

The rationale for the keeper being included in the 1-4-3-3 and it's derivatives - 1-4-5-1, 1-4-3-3, 1-4-2-3-1, 1-3-4-3, etc, is that their role as sweeper is considered integral to the success of the team. This is because the formation is considered a passing based one, not a crossing one.

If one looks at Matt Ryan, he is the archetypal product of a keeper who can play the role of sweeper because of superior foot skills developed by goalies to play the 1-4-3-3.

Past keepers have essentially been shot stoppers in Australia.



Edited by decentric: 8/5/2014 04:20:04 AM

This, it's quite simple to see exactly what they meant.

FFS why do you all care whether we put in the GK or not?

Just let people do it and stop having your period over it.

Decentric, sorry if my post (when you read it) seems like an attack on you.

You have said "you obviously don't know why" and that "there is a plausible reason for including the keeper". Are you willing/keen to enlighten us as to what the plausible reason actually is? Or should we take your word that we are untrained and facetious, and dwell in our ignorant ways?

TBF, none of that has anything to do with the fact that Afro still can't count :lol:

Exactly.

I honestly lost all respect for people putting the "1" for the goalkeeper the day I saw Gary van Egmond write it in an article.

This isn't ice hockey, we don't pull our goalie. He'll always be there. Adding the "1" to formations just makes you seem like a pompous so-and-so IMO.

So we don't hurt the feelings of the goalkeepers?

It would be like me insisting on adding "0" before writing numbers. 02 + 02 = 04. The zero is ALWAYS there. It doesn't change. Just like the goalkeeper. It is unnecessary to mention, except for situations where"pro trained coaches" want to make sure everyone believes that they are a "pro trained coach" :lol:

The 1-4-5-1 formation you describe is known as the midfield quintet having the 1:4 shape.

It is known as the 1-4-1-4-1 formation. It can be used as the defensive part of a 1-4-3-3 in attack, with the attacking midfield formation of one screener and two attacking midfielders assuming the midfield shape.

This is known as the 1-4-3-3 with the defensive midfield triangle.

Even though the two screeners and one attacking mid comprise 2 separate lines, it is known as one line within football circles and imparted in contemporary coaching methodology in coach education.

If you talk to Han Berger, or any other of the top brass in FFA, or even any other semi and pro trained coaches by FFA , or KNVB trained coaches, there is a plausible reason for including the keeper in the formation.

You obviously don't know why. By continuing to be facetious you make yourself look like a fool to trained coaches.](*,)

Edited by decentric: 6/5/2014 09:47:44 PM

I cant see it.

I think he will go with the same formation as he did against Ecquador, whi i think is more of a 4 4 1 1, although i suppose it could be described as an attacking 4 2 3 1.

ONe thing i wouldnt be surprised to see happen is for a sweeper to be employed in the last few minutes of a game where we are defending a lead. If this seen as a viable tactic, is Lucas the only experienced sweeper we have, or is Spiranovic or any other contenders experienced in that position.

Incidentally, when Ange took over the Aussie side, he said that he would like to play a style and formation which was a mixture of all the teams he played for. He particularly mentioned in one interview about using the old south Melbourne formation and tactics. does anyone know what this formation was?

wonder if Ange would implement a 4-5-1 purely counter attacking.

-------------Leckie-----------------
Troisi/Oar-------------Halloran
----Rogic----------Sarota-------
---------------Jedi------------------
Davidson-Spira-Good-Franjic
----------------Ryan----------------

Edited by jas88: 6/5/2014 01:26:09 PM

Edited by jas88: 6/5/2014 01:27:03 PM

I want to know more from Decentric about these teams that are seemingly playing without a goalkeeper :lol:

People that believe they are real football coaching brains always insist on including the goalkeeper when they write formations like the above. Similar to how vegans will always find a way to let you know they're vegans ;)

Don't you mean 1-5-3-2? :oops: :lol:

Based on their last friendlies

Brazil: 4-3-3 , 4-2-2-2

Spain: 4-2-3-1

Netherlands: 4-2-1-3

Mexico: 4-3-3

Croatia: 4-2-3-1

Australia: 4-4-2 ?

Cameroon: 4-3-3, experimented in game against Portgual (1-5)

Russia, Costa Rica, South Korea, 1-4-2-3-1.

Algeria, Nigeria, Greece, 1-4-3-3 (attacking midfield triangle).

Belgium, Ivory Coast, 1-4-3-3 ( defensive midfield triangle).

USA, Japan, England,1-4-2-3-1.

Ghana, Switzerland, Ecuador, 1-4-2-3-1.

Portugal, France, 1-4-3-3 (attacking midfield triangle).

Germany, England, 1-4-2-3-1.

Iran, 1-4-2-3-1.

Bosnia, Honduras 4-4-2 (the diagram looks like a bowl shaped midfield, but I suspect a flat midfield line).

Argentina, Chile, 1-4-3-3 (attacking midfield triangle).

Italy, 4-3-1-2.

Uruguay, 4-4-2, (South American box shaped midfield).

Columbia , 4-2-2-2, (striker less, or false nine version of 1-4-3-3 with the defensive midfield triangle).



Apart from Australia, who have I missed?














Edited by Decentric: 3/5/2014 10:54:17 PM

:lol: :lol: :lol:

And according to that thread in WF, 0 = 5 too...

TIL 11=12

Count again.

Why are Cameroon, Croatia and Brazil playing with 12 players?

Mexico 5-3-2.

Cameroon 1-4-3-3. Supposedly they deploy the attacking midfield triangle.

Croatia 1-4-2-3-1.

Brazil 1-4-2-3-1.
I'm surprised, given their ability to play circulation football, I would have thought they've play more attacking versions of
1-4-3-3?

According to the Cup Guide, Spain and Holland are playing 1-4-3-3 as I suggested.

Spain are playing a 1-4-3-3 with the attacking midfield triangle, which I've seen them play before.

The only thing is that Holland will supposedly play the 1-4-3-3 with the attacking midfield triangle. I'm not sure how well the writer knows about formations though? I've only seen Holland play a 1-4-2-3-1, or, pushing the wingers forward, play a 1-4-3-3 with the defensive midfield triangle.

In qualifying games, against some weaker teams, Holland may have deployed the attacking midfield triangle.

I've just bought a WC guide, so I now have info.

I'm not sure which international teams play which formation, but the 1-4-3-3 an its derivatives are currently very popular in the European Champs League.

From what I've seem, many like the 1-4-2-3-1, which is pushing the two wingers further back in the 1-4-3-3 with the defensive midfield triangle.

I'm assuming Spain may play the 1-4-3-3 with the attacking midfield triangle, with two attacking mids and one defensive midfielder. Holland will also play a variation of the 1-4-3-3.

The 4-4-2 with the midfield diamond is popular to try and counter the 1-4-3-3 by having more players in central midfield.

This is in turn countered by playing the 1-3-4-3 with a midfield diamond, to counter the 4-4-2 midfield diamond's overloading of the central midfield.

The 1-3-4-3 is also known as the 1-4-3-3 with the 3:1 defensive line, retaining the 1-4-3-3 defensive midfield triangle.






Edited by Decentric: 1/5/2014 02:28:00 PM