FML, Champions League 2009/2010 FML (13 Viewers)

[Bjerknes]

Exactly.

Even if all the wingers do is stand on the touchlines, it stretches the opposition and opens up space.

If you were to actually have a good winger or two, capable of beating a man and crossing regularly, you then become very difficult to play against, because it is very tough for a team to prevent a winger getting one on one with the fullback on a regular basis.

Then, if the opposition double marks the winger, there should be a lot of space in the centre.

Juve are incapable of stretching teams just now, which is why they are so easy to defend against.

I would always have at least one pure winger in my team.

But tell that to Manure when they were stifled by the "narrow" AC Milan in the years they were knocked out from the competition by the Italians. The straight 4-4-2 was systematically exposed by the "narrow" 4-3-1-2, which happened because the side had good balance and had the necessary means to keep the ball.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Alen]

Why didn't he ever do that with us then?

He did I believe. Width wasn't something we could complain about in these last seasons. That's one of the reasons why our tall strikers were scoring so much.
His problem with us was that he was really awful on many matches. His final touch (cross, pass) was disastrous. So even if he did everything well (and he did that. He ran well, opened up, saw a lot of the ball) he ruined many chances with his final touch.
But he did offer width and more options during our attacks, compared to this 4-3-1-2.

 

[Red]

But tell that to Manure when they were stifled by the "narrow" AC Milan in the years they were knocked out from the competition by the Italians. The straight 4-4-2 was systematically exposed by the "narrow" 4-3-1-2, which happened because the side had good balance and had the necessary means to keep the ball.

If you have brilliant ball players in midfield and great fullbacks, then you can succeed with a narrow midfield.

However, if you only have good or decent players, narrow systems are pretty much doomed to fail.

It is possible to do well with less quality if you have a good amount of natural width in your team, because it opens up more passing options and creates more space.

 

[Eddy]

Well said Red as that's how I would have answered to.

 

[Alen]

But tell that to Manure when they were stifled by the "narrow" AC Milan in the years they were knocked out from the competition by the Italians. The straight 4-4-2 was systematically exposed by the "narrow" 4-3-1-2, which happened because the side had good balance and had the necessary means to keep the ball.

Yes, yes, but lets talk about Juve. We'll need 5-6 new players of top quality to be able to play a 4-3-1-2 the way Milan played (Milan played 4-3-2-1 though, at least when they played ManU). It's impossible to do it and buy these players.

It's much tougher to create a great team without width than it is when you play with wingers or attackers on the left and the right.
That Milan is a rare example for the non-width theory.

 

[Bjerknes]

When we decided to buy Diego and we knew that Nedved retired, we already knew that we'll probably play 4-3-1-2.
That was one of the reasons, imo, why Ranieri wasn't too happy about buying Diego. I believe that Ranieri knew this team very well and he knew that we need different players.
Our board decided to go with Diego though, even though they were aware that there is a huge chance it won't work because we lack players to complete Diego.

Diego is a jewel and perhaps our best player, but result wise his purchase killed us.
Now that we have him we simply must buy players to complete him. Either buy 1 great attacking winger so we can play 4-2-3-1 or buy 2 fullbacks who can attack well and cross well and players who can pass the ball for the midfield.

No, you misspoke. The Diego purchase was an affront against our beloved straight 4-4-2 system, which wasn't even that great. What really kills us is our dependence on the straight 4-4-2 system that has been instilled over the years since Capello, and the reluctance to tweak the system that everyone thought worked.

I'm a student of the Brian Clough Football University. You have a group of players that you're blessed with, not a set system or ideal. No matter the system you use, whether it the be the straight 4-4-2, the 3-4-3, the whatever, you let the players do the talking on the pitch. If you get class players you will get class football as long as your system doesn't ruin it. And I have to say that the straight 4-4-2 is a ruinous system if you don't have great wingers.

So no, Diego's purchase didn't kill us, the inability to switch systems did, which stems from Capello's years.

 

[Bjerknes]

If you have brilliant ball players in midfield and great fullbacks, then you can succeed with a narrow midfield.

However, if you only have good or decent players, narrow systems are pretty much doomed to fail.

It is possible to do well with less quality if you have a good amount of natural width in your team, because it opens up more passing options and creates more space.

I don't agree, and the reason being is because the straight 4-4-2 is too North/South oriented. It's predictable. You need good wingers to have success with it because they are your primary creators. Thankfully we had Nedved and Camo to create under Capello, but as you saw, it had limitations that ultimately cost us BIG TIME in Europe.

Case in point: Inter didn't really have a world class midfield over the years, but the 4-3-1-2 system still worked out for them in Serie A.

 

[Bjerknes]

Yes, yes, but lets talk about Juve. We'll need 5-6 new players of top quality to be able to play a 4-3-1-2 the way Milan played (Milan played 4-3-2-1 though, at least when they played ManU). It's impossible to do it and buy these players.

It's much tougher to create a great team without width than it is when you play with wingers or attackers on the left and the right.
That Milan is a rare example for the non-width theory.

You mean midfield-non-width theory, because they did fine with their fullbacks.

 

[bianconero]

I don't agree, and the reason being is because the straight 4-4-2 is too North/South oriented. It's predictable. You need good wingers to have success with it because they are your primary creators. Thankfully we had Nedved and Camo to create under Capello, but as you saw, it had limitations that ultimately cost us BIG TIME in Europe.

Case in point: Inter didn't really have a world class midfield over the years, but the 4-3-1-2 system still worked out for them in Serie A.

As did 4-4-2 for Juve in Serie A.

 

[Alen]

Case in point: Inter didn't really have a world class midfield over the years, but the 4-3-1-2 system still worked out for them in Serie A.

Inter could have played a 2-3-5 and they'd have won serie A, simply because they had a much better team than everyone else.
But being narrow in midfield gave them 4 first round eliminations in CL and they were the easiest team to defend against.
Plus, Inter have Maicon who is like a pure winger when Inter attack.

 

[Bjerknes]

As did 4-4-2 for Juve in Serie A.

But we had the best squad in Serie A and perhaps the world, IMO. Certainly the best defensive side in the world.

 

[Bjerknes]

Inter could have played a 2-3-5 and they'd have won serie A, simply because they had a much better team than everyone else.
But being narrow in midfield gave them 4 first round eliminations in CL and they were the easiest team to defend against.
Plus, Inter have Maicon who is like a pure winger when Inter attack.

Other sides like Porto had a narrow side and won the CL.

And I think Inter's European struggles have more to do with their mentality.

 

[bianconero]

But we had the best squad in Serie A and perhaps the world, IMO. Certainly the best defensive side in the world.

Funnily enough, the best squad often wins their respective league.

Not sure what period you are suggesting but I'll presume the team just before demotion, and they either bottled it or were unlucky: both in equal measure, if you were to ask me.

 

[Red]

I don't agree, and the reason being is because the straight 4-4-2 is too North/South oriented. It's predictable. You need good wingers to have success with it because they are your primary creators. Thankfully we had Nedved and Camo to create under Capello, but as you saw, it had limitations that ultimately cost us BIG TIME in Europe.

Case in point: Inter didn't really have a world class midfield over the years, but the 4-3-1-2 system still worked out for them in Serie A.

4-4-2 is only predictable if the coach makes it that way.

If the wingers are good players and allowed the freedom to drift around, there is no reason for it to be particularly predictable.

And you do need good wingers, but it is easier to get hold of good wingers than it is to find really good passers and really good attacking fullbacks, which is what 4-3-1-2 requires.

Inter have a much better squad than everyone else, so they almost certainly would have won regardless of formation.

 

[bianconero]

Other sides like Porto had a narrow side and won the CL.

And I think Inter's European struggles have more to do with their mentality.

They were cheating, disgusting, and extremely lucky winners of the trophy.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

At least Juve gets a greater share of the Italian CL spoils, the quicker the other Italian teams go out, right?

 

[Bjerknes]

4-4-2 is only predictable if the coach makes it that way.

If the wingers are good players and allowed the freedom to drift around, there is no reason for it to be particularly predictable.

And you do need good wingers, but it is easier to get hold of good wingers than it is to find really good passers and really good attacking fullbacks, which is what 4-3-1-2 requires.

Inter have a much better squad than everyone else, so they almost certainly would have won regardless of formation.

Yeah, if the players are good players, being the key here.

And I don't agree with your assessment of finding good wingers. That is a struggle, too.

But we will probably never agree on this matter, so what is the point. All I'll say is that we should buy Ronaldo and, Hazard and Ribery so we can play the straight 4-4-2 to make everyone happy.

 

[Red]

Actually, having been very much in favour of 4-4-2 in the past, I'm generally starting to move towards 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1.

The reason for this is that I still want width, but having a third man in central midfield makes it easier to control the game than it does with just the two in the middle of midfield.

 

[Bjerknes]

The 4-3-3 is my favorite/preferred system. But it takes a skilled and intelligent squad.

 

[Red]

That can be said for any system, though, if it is to succeed at the top level.