For some reason this post cracked me up, not usually keen on expletives, but sometimes there is a time and a place....this seemed to be it imo.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
What does Hughton mean by expansive?
- Thread starter Machiavelli
- Start date
For some reason this post cracked me up, not usually keen on expletives, but sometimes there is a time and a place....this seemed to be it imo.
We're the Stripes
Well-known member
"Worringly"? Hughton's said our football will probably a little "less expansive" under him.
I've always understood it to mean making the pitch as big as possible, using the full width with the intention of dragging your opponents about with possession play and eventually creating space in order to pick your way through and create clear-cut chances. For instance a feature of our play under Gus was having the two CBs stood miles apart, with the full-backs more advanced and hugging the touchline, and Bridcutt deployed as the single (or at least deepest) pivot in DM. The risk of course being that you can be left very, very open if dispossessed in your own half - an example being when Liam gave the ball away at home to West Ham and Kevin Nolan nipped in to score with essentially the freedom of our third of the pitch.
Sami played an expansive game with a far greater element of risk and we could all see the obvious flaws. Oscar's 4-3-3 had a much better balance to it.
Guardiola, Van Gaal, Rodgers etc.. are all proponents of expansive football, though the following clip of Marcelo Bielsa's Chile side, using an experimental 3-4-3 formation, is a great example of an expansive game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWd0t0dvFCk
severnside gull
Well-known member
symyjym
Banned
There are twelve players in that team
Is that what expansive means?
Yep, I uploaded it because it isn't really that helpful.
Who is our false number 9?
The history of the English game is associated with physicality, classically demonstrated in a rigid 4-4-2 formation that assigns each player a certain role to play in the game. Defenders would traditionally consist of full backs and centre backs, midfielders would consist of wingers, holding midfielders, creative midfielders and so forth. The game has moved on from specialised positional roles and formed a sport based around the ability to adapt to certain situations with players being able to contribute to all aspects of play, be that in an attacking or defensive sense.
The perfect example of this evolution in football tactics is the dominant force in club football right now, Barcelona. They are the pioneers of the perfect model of a 4-3-3 formation defined by passing and positional play.
Comment: why I was not really in favour of Houghton or any British manager of the eighties percentage play old style football of the dull 4-4-2 and rigid 4-2-3-1. Our saviour maybe a younger assistant
I am not really that modern, as I prefer the classic 4-3-3 of the late seventies. If you need a point away to a top team, play two banks of four (4-4-2) and it is up to the opposition to break your defence down.
I value ACUMEN which only comes with EXPERIENCE. Experience is the tired old ways. The average age of a Manager in the Championship was recently about 49 and that included Big Sam.
PS: Diagram is the daft diamond system (sort of). Players like it cause they do not have to think too hard.
The history of the English game is associated with physicality, classically demonstrated in a rigid 4-4-2 formation that assigns each player a certain role to play in the game. Defenders would traditionally consist of full backs and centre backs, midfielders would consist of wingers, holding midfielders, creative midfielders and so forth. The game has moved on from specialised positional roles and formed a sport based around the ability to adapt to certain situations with players being able to contribute to all aspects of play, be that in an attacking or defensive sense.
The perfect example of this evolution in football tactics is the dominant force in club football right now, Barcelona. They are the pioneers of the perfect model of a 4-3-3 formation defined by passing and positional play.
Comment: why I was not really in favour of Houghton or any British manager of the eighties percentage play old style football of the dull 4-4-2 and rigid 4-2-3-1. Our saviour maybe a younger assistant
I am not really that modern, as I prefer the classic 4-3-3 of the late seventies. If you need a point away to a top team, play two banks of four (4-4-2) and it is up to the opposition to break your defence down.
I value ACUMEN which only comes with EXPERIENCE. Experience is the tired old ways. The average age of a Manager in the Championship was recently about 49 and that included Big Sam.
PS: Diagram is the daft diamond system (sort of). Players like it cause they do not have to think too hard.
Last edited:
Very good.
Just the one central holding midfielder has the disadvantage that the opposition can pass away around him as he cannot possibly cover the width of the pitch as demonstrated when we beat QPR at the Amex. Joey Barton was hopelessly immobile and we simply missed him out by passing to parts of pitch (into space) which he could not cover.
Any mathematicians out there? 4-4-2 covers the pitch in the most efficient way, but does not seem to form the triangles for breaking through the opposition.
All systems have their disadvantages though.
symyjym
Banned
Comment: why I was not really in favour of Houghton or any British manager of the eighties percentage play old style football of the dull 4-4-2 and rigid 4-2-3-1. Our saviour maybe a younger assistant
I am not really that modern, as I prefer the classic 4-3-3 of the late seventies. If you need a point away to a top team, play two banks of four (4-4-2) and it is up to the opposition to break your defence down.
Just needs the right balance. I think the formation should be fluid and able to change at any moment to suit the game.
4-3-3 and 4-4-2 interchangeable, by bringing the wide player to bolster the midfield is standard. This is ideal if the wide player can play as a winger when needed and help out defence as required. This means Elliott Bennett! This is more effective than Buckley hugging the touchline as the winger gets more involved in the game. It does allow the opposing left back more freedom to come forward though.
This was seen very much so in Sunderland v Man United when Buckley was causing trouble for Man United. Buckley was taken off (replaced by Bridcutt) and Ashley Young was allowed forward and nearly pinched a goal.
We're going to play like Barcelona?
That link does highlight the deficiencies of 442 quite well.
Agree about the 442 comment. We really do need to get shot of this rigid and technically stifling approach to football. It's been holding back English footballers for decades now.
GT49er
Well-known member
OK, as we're talking formations, can I ask a question to see if my more knowledgeable NSC colleagues can enlighten me? When Sir Alf Ramsey's team won the World Cup in 1966, they were known as the 'Wingless Wonders', playing a revolutionary (to us in England anyway - for all I know the South Americans might have been doing it for years) 4-3-3 system rather than the conventional (at the time) 4-2-4/4-4-2 formation that most teams played around then. One thing's always puzzled me about this.
Which one of Alan Ball and Martin Peters was the third forward, and which one was the third midfielder?
Which one of Alan Ball and Martin Peters was the third forward, and which one was the third midfielder?
Tony Meolas Loan Spell
Slut Faced Whores
Genuine LOL!
4-2-4 was the modern system then with two wingers. I think that Alf Ramsay just dispensed with the two wingers and put them in midfield. Martin Peters seem to get forward better than Alan Ball. In this way a less talented team won the World Cup.
He means he will expand the back four to a back nine, with one up front and play super cautious football which will make Garcia's tenure seem positively thrilling.
They'll be question marks over his ability to motivate/team selections and substitutions from day 1 and the in/out camp will be split down the middle in a year from now.
On the plus side he's a jolly nice fellow.
They'll be question marks over his ability to motivate/team selections and substitutions from day 1 and the in/out camp will be split down the middle in a year from now.
On the plus side he's a jolly nice fellow.
dejavuatbtn
Well-known member
As long as it doesn't mean "more of the same" I don't really care.
I don't think it is 4-4-2 that is the fault but the % game. Analysis shows that most goals arise from mistakes, so the concept was to get the ball forward and instead of being creative getting goals, just put mounting pressure on the opposition and take advantage of their mistakes. This means possession is not so important.
I never held that view from the moment, veering on the side, if the team has possession that other side cannot score and we were more likely to score. The percentage game has the possession game as purely a defensive tactic. The Spanish put a kybosh on that. They showed with players of sufficient quality the possession game can be effective at attacking as well.
The first time we played possession football was when Clough joined the Albion. He thought it was a crime to give the ball away.
Barry Lloyd to me had some success playing unattractive percentage football.
pottert
New member
433 or 451 are basically the same depending on who is in possession.
It is not rocket science but surely if you don't conceed you done lose.So if you can score a few goals without conceeding then you will do ok.
It is not rocket science but surely if you don't conceed you done lose.So if you can score a few goals without conceeding then you will do ok.
OzMike
Well-known member
It could be his favourite word, mine's 'splendid' at the moment.
rcf0712
Out Here In The Perimeter
Basically, it means we still won't be hoofing it up the middle, nice......