I was going to say just this, though the CF can make space for a no 10 to run into channels also.
The biggest problem is composure in the box and the no 10 making runs/playing 1-2's and it's mostly due to the players available.

I hope Ange experiments with his strikerless system he played at Victory

Agree the result is of no importance but it would IMO develope the players better by condensing the game. Also would be great to play the same game over and over in different ways to teach the kids different ways to play against the same team. My team are truly talented kids almost the whole team will make the accadomey I am sure of it.but I think too many coaches and parents are accepting mediocrity rather than aiming for perfection. In Europe the kids aim for perfection in all thier skills I think the kids here are capable of much better they just need to be asked.

Edited by krones3: 23/10/2014 07:26:06 PM

Look I've been coaching a teenage rep team, using some sophisticated theories. One of the assistant coaches desperately wanted to give a match speech to the team. He emphasised trying to get to the ball first. So simple, I hadn't considered it, as I'd dismissed it as being emphasised in players' development years before.

Yet it made sense. And it improved performance.

There was another case where a parent, a former state league player, suggested to me in the dugout, that in one corner/set piece, some of our players were not goal side. To my horror, I realised he was right. I'd missed it! Sometime even teenagers forget the simple things! I'd just assumed this was standard protocol from years of decent coaching. I was watching something else at the corner/set piece, like having a player on each post, the next four carrying out zonal marking and the rest of the team picking loose opponents up.



At under 9 level I wouldn't worry about sophisticated tactics. It is better for kids to play the game and results determined by skill.

In fact a mate of mine, who has coached for 35 years, thinks it is most important that they enjoy the game, and hopefully play for 30 years is of paramount importance at any junior or youth age . Half of them forget about results the moment the game is over.

Edited by Decentric: 23/10/2014 06:00:27 PM

Off topic but a good question
About 3 months ago my u9 played a carnival and came runners up. The game we lost the team were good but there style was long , physical and fast. The prevailing thought from people around the game was that our team should be taught to get to the ball first not be intimidated and be more physical. Today the game was running over and over in my head and I thought what if we did the opposite what If we condensed the play with three players near our own box drawing thier players in until more space is created in the midfield and right wing. Short sharp passing was not thier strength but it is ours and moving the opponent is something my team are good at.
Any thoughts decentric

Edited by krones3: 22/10/2014 10:21:06 PM

Muscat is very committed to playing technical football.

His last professional development visits to Europe took place at three renowned clubs currently committed to playing technical football - Barcelona, Liverpool and Ajax.

As I've said elsewhere on 442, the training practices on the pitch at the three aforementioned prestigious European powerhouses, Melbourne Victory, and down to FFA youth rep teams (as they existed last year) is basically the same. What they do in Europe and Victory is at a much higher level, but the practice is essentially the same.

If Muscat's Victory has a run of defeats, he is still good coach. He was a technical player, who suffered from white line fever and was a thug on the pitch.

The night he led the discussion with Melbourne Victory in a workshop with Tasmanian football coaches, he was charming and displayed significant intelligence.

Edited by Decentric: 22/10/2014 10:09:46 PM

The number 10, or Attacking Mid, when moving up closer to the central striker in the Ball Possession phase of play, creates the 4-2-4 for a short period of time. it i alike having g a second forward.

Also, with the wingers on left and right sides of the pitch, the opposition winger often goes to the far post, creating the second striker.

Sometimes the shadow striker, or number 10 , can move up closer to the central striker in a 1-4-3-3 with the defensive midfield triangle.. This can be also be termed a 4-2-4 at this instant of play, but it is only temporary.

Milligan and Jedinak, usually Milligan, push up, as do both full backs at times.

The 1-4-3-3 can also manifest as a 2-4-4 when the full backs push up in a similar line to the DMs and the number 10 moves close to the central striker or number 9.

A high defensive line is when the back four play a long way up the pitch. Usually, close to the halfway line. The keeper also comes to the edge of the penalty box, or even further.

The opposite to a high defensive line is defending deep. That is, where a team probably has its back four close to the penalty box.

I can't work out the point you are making.

I'm not sure what you mean by properly positioned midfielders.

Just in relation to Muscat (i was going to ask this on the main forum), but what do you think of him as a coach. I must admit, i thought he would have been a guy who coached all defence and long ball stuff, and i have always just assumed he was just riding Ange's coattails with the Melbourne team. But, to be honest, i really like the way he has got that team playing (or at least i would if i actually liked victory). Do you think he is a good coach and/or capable of replicating this success at other clubs?

And this is the problem i was alluding to. Most UEFA sides have strikers good enough to walk into the socceroos sides. Australia doesnt. We need the second striker to but the defence in two minds. Otherwise, we become too predictable.

I am not sure that i agree with this. (as stupid as it probably sounds). For a start, if you look at the socceroos, (4231), it isnt what actually occurs. You have two screeners. As i understand, they are intended to drop between the Defence and the attack, so that they can sweep the midfield. Then you have one attacking midfielder who drops back a little from the centre forward so that he can link the two . The problem with this is that when two properly positioned midfielders get the ball, they have 5-10 yards to the Screeners and they are already in front of the Attacking Central midfielder. This gives them time in possession. Particularly when we are dealing with some of the asian sides, who have great skills, but need the time, it is just giving them a free run with the ball. I fail to see how giving the two central midfielders more space is in fact stacking and stabilising the midfield, particularly in defence.


Of course, offensively, it is a bit of a different story, as the formation allows teams to make angles and triangles and play out from the back. And i suppose the 3 forwards mean that theoretically the do allow the side to get plenty of width. In theory, it would work quite well if the two wingers would always come in to the centre and play as a second striker, particularly with the attacking midfielder also lurking dangerously behind, but that rarely seems to happen, and it really seems to work simply as 4 5 1, in most instances.


I really dont understand this high defensive line. Is a high defensive line where the players push out and rely on the offside trap? I also dont understand why sides nowadays often have a free man at the back, but dont seem to use him to sweep. The defences, to me really are so shallow, at least that what they seem like. Almost to the extent where you could probably get away with just three at the back and do the same job defensively. in fact, I do wonder whether it might be worth experimenting with such a move, utilising the extra man as a striker.

Thinking out loud here, but that would see something like
Ryan, Spiranovic (sweeper), Wilkinson, Herd Davidson, Jedinak, Milligan, Franjic Oar, Cahill, Kennedy, Kruse

I would actually not mind such an experimentation, especially against the likes of Qatar.



I feel confident in saying that , in games (orpatches) against the better sides we play, it is usually because we put them on the back foot. I dare say, it is when Milligan and Jedinak push up. This in turn Allows Oar and Leckie to push up and move their opposing midfielders backwards, giving Bresc a bit more space and allowing Cahill to time his runs. In fact, if you look at our shape, imo, it is closer to a 4 4 2 at these times than a 433. It both strengthens the midfield and increases numbers in attack.


I havent seen this data.

I wonder though, if this is because the 4 -3-3 formations means there is only one body in the box and the defenders know exactly where to defend. This takes us back to the reason fro this topic. Surely having a second forward would help fix this?

All this contemporary European based methodology is transferable to any formation.

The HAL coaches ( I'm not sure about Frank F) use it for any formation on the training track.

I attended a Melbourne Victory sessions for coaches a few weeks ago.

Muscat said this is applied at Ajax, Barcelona and Liverpool , where he has done some recent professional development.





Edited by Decentric: 22/10/2014 08:44:08 AM

The 4-4-2 diamond is popular ATM. Often Dutch coaches use it.

The diamond is quite effective against the 1-4-3-3 combinations of attacking and defensive midfield triangles. To negate the 4-4-2 diamond and the outnumbered midfield , the 1-4-3-3 can be changed to a 3-4-3 ( diamond shaped midfield).

This is also known as the 1-4-3-3 with a 3:1 defensive line instead of a flat defensive line.

If 4-4-2 , with a flat midfield is such a useful system/formation, then it would be more commonly utilised by top clubs in UEFA Champs' League.

Two strikers means there is one less body in midfield if a team wants to play possession football.

To make it succeed some teams have had fast CBs. The CBs have played a high defensive line, with the keeper well out from goal too. This enables a team to play a compact shape in Ball Possession Opposition. and Defensive Transition phases of play.

If there is to much distance between the defensive and attacking lines, there is too much space conceded in midfields for opposition teams to pay through . Australia has won a few friendlies against European teams deploying this 4-4-2 formation.

The 4-4-2 is axiomatically renowned as a good formation to play a lot of aerial crosses. Recently, Kate Cohen has released statistical data to show that there is only about 1% probability to score from crosses.

The FFA NC does not prescribe any formation for senior football.

It uses the 1-4-3-3, and its variations after about age 15, as a development formation. This same practice is adopted in Spain, Holland, Belgium, France and Denmark. Germany adopts the 1-4-2-3-1 as its development system.

Firstly you need to do some reading, plenty on here to read, then come back to your question. Its not possible to explain all that should be said by posting on a forum.


Edited by Arthur: 21/10/2014 11:11:40 PM

Something about at least one of the strikers being from a western country and Christian. And both strikers need to go back to basics

I can add a lot to this discussion, but I only have an Ipad ATM.

The NBN isn't working. The new modum has only lasted a few months, and Iprimus only have a facility to send a new one from across the water.](*,)

I dont understand. (all i know about the curriculum) is what Decentric and others post on this site. I am sure i often here the 442 criticised as being archaic and English and not in line with the current curriculum or accepted Dutch methodology which relies on 4 33 or their derivatives.

It is supposed to be revolutionary and leave the old methods in the dust, but i dont think i even understand what it is. It works with any formation. And it also works with any style of play. So what actually is it? Is there a link to where i can read it, or is it just something which is passed down from head coaches or directors or whatever they are called.

I know i have heard some post about body shapes when receiving the ball, or chasing as a team when in BPO. But i would like to know, what are the key elements of the new curriculum. I think that all of these things have their merits, particularly in a proper 442 formation (the reason i started this thread), but now i am getting confused as to what this curriculum actually is. It is starting to sound more and more like it is just fancy words for someone who (to quote the highly criticised Kenny Loewe) is trying to teach good 'football' players.

I am sure that most of the above misunderstanding is due to me being out of the game for so long, so i would be grateful if some of the knowledgeable posters could start explaining to me what the curriculum actually is.

http://www.beyondthepitch.net/podcasts/edition/index.cfm/one-world-sports/2014/08/27/

Good listening

I've been ranting lately about Football Culture and I have never been more sure that this is the problem.

I have read a bit of Tom Byer's comments lately and he said it straight,



And Football Culture is our whole problem, in terms of National Team success.

The Golden Generation came from a background of first generation migrants who brought with them a Football Culture.

While the business side of football today has never seen it better, the recent performances of the Senior mens, U19's and U16's continues to show we are developing technically deficient players from a very shallow pool with far too much wastage.

Few want to acknowledge the long term issue, because to do that they have to acknowledge that the A-League ain't that good and that we haven't yet achieved a whole lot in the last 10 years.

We already play a 433. What point are you making here?

Away from the cacophony of the Australian Football Forum, let me say that Ange is under no illusion about the tawsk at hand.

If you read his comments over the past year on what he hopes to acheive with the National team you will understand that short term results will be sacrificed for long term success.

He will focus on developing young Australian players domestic and overseas, in developing their game at international level so that they can progress at club level.

He understands that we need more players at top level European environments, but without exposure to the National Team they will not progress nor develop.

To develop these players in the National Team they must learn to play the current game Ange is forcing them to play and as is now performed by the best National Teams and Club Teams.

We have had eight years of sacrificing development over results. Thats why we are in the mess we find ourselves in.

Ange needs to go to 433 or 451 and be done with it. We don't have the firepower to play like Barcelona. We don't have a Lionel Messi in our team.

The only time a formation is mentioned, being the 1-4-3-3, is in regards to "Player Development".

At the "Performance Level", being Senior Football it is upto the coach to implement his playing style and philosophy.

It only says "pistols at dawn"

Watching the socceroos play, to me it is blatantly obvious that Australia needs to strikers to be successsful.

We simply dont have anyone good enough to play as a sole striker. Scott Macdonald was found not to be good enough at international level and he was probably better than any of our current strikers are ever likely to be. The advantage of the dual strikers is massive.

Firstly, it puts added pressure on the central defenders and puts them in two minds which creates mistakes and increase opportunity to score. Secondly, it means the lone strike has support and allows them to play off each others mistakes and imperfections, meaning that where one striker is often forced into a simple turn over, with two strikers a similar result often opens up a side. I think that it is a must for Australian sides and we simply dont have the players to play with anything but two strikers.

But this seems to be against everything this new curriculum stands for. My question to some of the experts in the curriculum is how does such a system deal with the fact that we simply dont have a skilful or good enough player to play, with one striker up front.

And why is there such a concentration on using a 4-3-3 or 4 2 3 1 at the expense of the tried and tested 4-4-2 which is frowned upon. Even when a 4 4 2 is used nowadays, it usually that ridiculous diamond formation which to my mind is simply a 4-4-2 without any with and without your two central midfielders being willing to get stuck into the middle and tackle a bit (with one playing back one bludging up front).

Do you think that all the new focus (body shape, killer balls, bpo and all that) would translate equally as good to the 442 formation?