Good. We should look to play two strikers, especially at home. It's been too long.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Not sure they ever started? And we never set up as a 4-4-2.
I don't think, we should exactly look to play two strikers per se. For me, having a set system, we play the majority of the time is important.
However, having the option to a larger degree than last season, both with Janssen and a hopefully fully fit and integreted Clinton, will be a huge bonus. Both changing it up to two strikers via subs, but also starting in our standard with 4-2-3-1 with any two of Kane, Janssen, and Clinton playing, with one up top and one in the three behind. If we can make it work, so that we can change several times in-game between that standard and a 4-2-2-2 hybrid of sorts to overload, we could become unplayable
L
I'm pretty sure they said Kuyt had a "face like a horse"
I think the philosophy and ideas are far more important than the formation. In this setting I don't think playing 4-4-2 is any different than 4-2-3-1. Janseen or Kane would simply drop back when out of possession, making it effectively the same formation, at least when defending.
If we can master a different system and utilize it in the middle of the game, the defense won't know what is coming to them. Nothing but great things.
4-1-3-2 with Dier in front of the back 4? Anyway, we have options.I don't think, we should exactly look to play two strikers per se. For me, having a set system, we play the majority of the time is important.
However, having the option to a larger degree than last season, both with Janssen and a hopefully fully fit and integreted Clinton, will be a huge bonus. Both changing it up to two strikers via subs, but also starting in our standard with 4-2-3-1 with any two of Kane, Janssen, and Clinton playing, with one up top and one in the three behind. If we can make it work, so that we can change several times in-game between that standard and a 4-2-2-2 hybrid of sorts to overload, we could become unplayable
Semantics, because it's basically what you're saying, but if one drops back defensively, we would actually, not just effectively, be playing 4-2-3-1, not 4-4-2.
I get what you're saying though, and I agree. A big part of our game is already people dropping off and others filling the vacated space, overloading etc, so another striker would just mean slightly different patterns in the same set-up. Hence why I called it hybrid. I still maintain that the basic formation, we're working with is important. Even if we're good enough to fluidly move into a 4-4-2, 4-2-2-2 or whatever during the match, then the basic formation is still the base that we're working from. If you're not working from a common base point, it's just tactical anarchy.
The long and short of it is that's it's just numbers, like
Jayc1
touched upon. However it's damn near impossible to actually play a 4-1-3-2. The vast majority of teams play three CM's in some shape, so even against teams, where we're likely to dominate, it would be suicide to play that. You'd essentially have to have the AMC drop back into MC quite often to avoid Dier being overrun, and then one of the strikers needing to drop deeper. And then you're back to square one with a 4-2-3-1. The option is to play an AM in MC and a striker in AMC or wide, which would give a better basis to attack fluidly and change into 4-4-2, 4-2-2-2 or yes 4-1-3-2, but the basis would be what we've always had under Poch, or we'd be overrun imho.The long and short of it is that's it's just numbers, like
Well that's a bit pat imo. Why would Dier be overrun with 5 players in front of him? Anyway I'm not advocating any particular formation as football is more fluid than that. I'd just like to see Kane and Janssen together at some stage.
There's a fair amount of humour in the whole shift from "we can't expect to get away with not signing a reserve striker again, we must sign a striker" to "we have 2 strikers, we should play them both!"
If we were, in fact, going to utilise Kane and Janssen together regularly then don't we need to sign at least 1 more striker? But, fuck me, then we could play 3 strikers!
If we were, in fact, going to utilise Kane and Janssen together regularly then don't we need to sign at least 1 more striker? But, fuck me, then we could play 3 strikers!
Yeah, I know. It's just that Poch has said he'd like to play 2. Without that I doubt if many would be talking about it.There's a fair amount of humour in the whole shift from "we can't expect to get away with not signing a reserve striker again, we must sign a striker" to "we have 2 strikers, we should play them both!"
If we were, in fact, going to utilise Kane and Janssen together regularly then don't we need to sign at least 1 more striker? But, fuck me, then we could play 3 strikers!
Just found it funny, really. I do think it's a good option, but probably will be most seen later in games we need a goal in. Can't see it being a regular feature, or we'd all be back here moaning in a couple of months about how we never sign strikers.
How many is in front of a player is inconsequential. Taking that the extreme, you could play however few you'd like in defence and midfield and claim they won't get overrun because there's people in front of them.
In essence, as I see modern tactics, the numbers are just average positions. If you're placing two players - on average - in a striker position, three in AM/wing and only one in CM, where the opponent have two, maybe three, then if the opponent is smart about it, that one CM will face loads of counter spots, where he's outnumbered and being overrun. The five in front will get caught in front of the ball as a unit, and the opponents will too easily be able to overload.
I'm thinking and really struggling to find any modern top league team, who's played with one CM and the above is imho the reason.
Legs like a horse? As long as his Johnson is like a horse... He will hop along happily. Vinny the tripod
I read Klopp sometimes played it at Dortmund. It's a valid formation, but the CM needs to be very good. We're always talking about Dier protecting the back 4 aren't we? You go 4-4-1-1 without the ball. Anyway, not really my bag. Football isn't chess.
Edit: I'm off to bed so if I don't reply to a further post it's not out of rudeness. Speak later.
Last edited:
He must be a relative of Levy's because he asks the most awkward of questions at the wrong times and often repeats them!
