Season 26 week 3 processing...

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Trending is the in phrase at the moment across social media and I guess we can nick it and apply it to CF if we want to...

From my point of view it is good to see a tactical system emerge to challenge the status quo of the last ten or so years, whereas the go to system has always been FAS for teams that had a top class target man, it is good to see some of you moving over to ISF if you have a top class centre forward, and as with opponents that use FAS teams will need to adopt to cope with opponents that use ISF.

Positionally an AM interacts directly with a TM and a CC interacts directly with a CF so take from that what you will.

Thanks for this Paul. Am I correct in saying therefore that a CF will be unmarked if a team plays CL and CR? Does one of the CB's not pick up the CF - IRL tends to be one might look to mark and the other sweeps behind to pick up others?

true Ben, but with ISF you also have to mark the ST and the S2 so the CF tends to be unmarked some of the time.

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Trending is the in phrase at the moment across social media and I guess we can nick it and apply it to CF if we want to...

From my point of view it is good to see a tactical system emerge to challenge the status quo of the last ten or so years, whereas the go to system has always been FAS for teams that had a top class target man, it is good to see some of you moving over to ISF if you have a top class centre forward, and as with opponents that use FAS teams will need to adopt to cope with opponents that use ISF.

Positionally an AM interacts directly with a TM and a CC interacts directly with a CF so take from that what you will.

Thanks for this Paul. Am I correct in saying therefore that a CF will be unmarked if a team plays CL and CR? Does one of the CB's not pick up the CF - IRL tends to be one might look to mark and the other sweeps behind to pick up others?

true Ben, but with ISF you also have to mark the ST and the S2 so the CF tends to be unmarked some of the time.

Thanks

Presuming the same is against any tactic purely playing with a CF? That would suggest you must play 3CBs if you want someone to tackle the CF, or MM using one of the CL or CR...

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Trending is the in phrase at the moment across social media and I guess we can nick it and apply it to CF if we want to...

From my point of view it is good to see a tactical system emerge to challenge the status quo of the last ten or so years, whereas the go to system has always been FAS for teams that had a top class target man, it is good to see some of you moving over to ISF if you have a top class centre forward, and as with opponents that use FAS teams will need to adopt to cope with opponents that use ISF.

Positionally an AM interacts directly with a TM and a CC interacts directly with a CF so take from that what you will.

Thanks for this Paul. Am I correct in saying therefore that a CF will be unmarked if a team plays CL and CR? Does one of the CB's not pick up the CF - IRL tends to be one might look to mark and the other sweeps behind to pick up others?

true Ben, but with ISF you also have to mark the ST and the S2 so the CF tends to be unmarked some of the time.

Thanks

Presuming the same is against any tactic purely playing with a CF? That would suggest you must play 3CBs if you want someone to tackle the CF, or MM using one of the CL or CR...

no, if the opponent plays a ST and a CF then your CL and CR will cope with them well enough, its only when they get outnumbered that you get problems and need an extra man.

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Trending is the in phrase at the moment across social media and I guess we can nick it and apply it to CF if we want to...

From my point of view it is good to see a tactical system emerge to challenge the status quo of the last ten or so years, whereas the go to system has always been FAS for teams that had a top class target man, it is good to see some of you moving over to ISF if you have a top class centre forward, and as with opponents that use FAS teams will need to adopt to cope with opponents that use ISF.

Positionally an AM interacts directly with a TM and a CC interacts directly with a CF so take from that what you will.

Thanks for this Paul. Am I correct in saying therefore that a CF will be unmarked if a team plays CL and CR? Does one of the CB's not pick up the CF - IRL tends to be one might look to mark and the other sweeps behind to pick up others?

true Ben, but with ISF you also have to mark the ST and the S2 so the CF tends to be unmarked some of the time.

Thanks

Presuming the same is against any tactic purely playing with a CF? That would suggest you must play 3CBs if you want someone to tackle the CF, or MM using one of the CL or CR...

no, if the opponent plays a ST and a CF then your CL and CR will cope with them well enough, its only when they get outnumbered that you get problems and need an extra man.

What about using an AM to mtmm a loose CF?

Andy@Schalke wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Trending is the in phrase at the moment across social media and I guess we can nick it and apply it to CF if we want to...

From my point of view it is good to see a tactical system emerge to challenge the status quo of the last ten or so years, whereas the go to system has always been FAS for teams that had a top class target man, it is good to see some of you moving over to ISF if you have a top class centre forward, and as with opponents that use FAS teams will need to adopt to cope with opponents that use ISF.

Positionally an AM interacts directly with a TM and a CC interacts directly with a CF so take from that what you will.

Thanks for this Paul. Am I correct in saying therefore that a CF will be unmarked if a team plays CL and CR? Does one of the CB's not pick up the CF - IRL tends to be one might look to mark and the other sweeps behind to pick up others?

true Ben, but with ISF you also have to mark the ST and the S2 so the CF tends to be unmarked some of the time.

Thanks

Presuming the same is against any tactic purely playing with a CF? That would suggest you must play 3CBs if you want someone to tackle the CF, or MM using one of the CL or CR...

no, if the opponent plays a ST and a CF then your CL and CR will cope with them well enough, its only when they get outnumbered that you get problems and need an extra man.

What about using an AM to mtmm a loose CF?

that would work the same way as normal man-marking

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Andy@Schalke wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Trending is the in phrase at the moment across social media and I guess we can nick it and apply it to CF if we want to...

From my point of view it is good to see a tactical system emerge to challenge the status quo of the last ten or so years, whereas the go to system has always been FAS for teams that had a top class target man, it is good to see some of you moving over to ISF if you have a top class centre forward, and as with opponents that use FAS teams will need to adopt to cope with opponents that use ISF.

Positionally an AM interacts directly with a TM and a CC interacts directly with a CF so take from that what you will.

Thanks for this Paul. Am I correct in saying therefore that a CF will be unmarked if a team plays CL and CR? Does one of the CB's not pick up the CF - IRL tends to be one might look to mark and the other sweeps behind to pick up others?

true Ben, but with ISF you also have to mark the ST and the S2 so the CF tends to be unmarked some of the time.

Thanks

Presuming the same is against any tactic purely playing with a CF? That would suggest you must play 3CBs if you want someone to tackle the CF, or MM using one of the CL or CR...

no, if the opponent plays a ST and a CF then your CL and CR will cope with them well enough, its only when they get outnumbered that you get problems and need an extra man.

What about using an AM to mtmm a loose CF?

that would work the same way as normal man-marking

Ah yes BUT, would the area of the pitch that the CF roams be, mostly, not somewhere that the AM would be, therefore rendering the mtmm ineffectual?

Andy@Schalke wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Andy@Schalke wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Trending is the in phrase at the moment across social media and I guess we can nick it and apply it to CF if we want to...

From my point of view it is good to see a tactical system emerge to challenge the status quo of the last ten or so years, whereas the go to system has always been FAS for teams that had a top class target man, it is good to see some of you moving over to ISF if you have a top class centre forward, and as with opponents that use FAS teams will need to adopt to cope with opponents that use ISF.

Positionally an AM interacts directly with a TM and a CC interacts directly with a CF so take from that what you will.

Thanks for this Paul. Am I correct in saying therefore that a CF will be unmarked if a team plays CL and CR? Does one of the CB's not pick up the CF - IRL tends to be one might look to mark and the other sweeps behind to pick up others?

true Ben, but with ISF you also have to mark the ST and the S2 so the CF tends to be unmarked some of the time.

Thanks

Presuming the same is against any tactic purely playing with a CF? That would suggest you must play 3CBs if you want someone to tackle the CF, or MM using one of the CL or CR...

no, if the opponent plays a ST and a CF then your CL and CR will cope with them well enough, its only when they get outnumbered that you get problems and need an extra man.

What about using an AM to mtmm a loose CF?

that would work the same way as normal man-marking

Ah yes BUT, would the area of the pitch that the CF roams be, mostly, not somewhere that the AM would be, therefore rendering the mtmm ineffectual?

Surely the AM if he was mtmm would get drawn out of position leaving a big gap for midfielders to shoot from the edge of the box.

Andy@Schalke wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Andy@Schalke wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Trending is the in phrase at the moment across social media and I guess we can nick it and apply it to CF if we want to...

From my point of view it is good to see a tactical system emerge to challenge the status quo of the last ten or so years, whereas the go to system has always been FAS for teams that had a top class target man, it is good to see some of you moving over to ISF if you have a top class centre forward, and as with opponents that use FAS teams will need to adopt to cope with opponents that use ISF.

Positionally an AM interacts directly with a TM and a CC interacts directly with a CF so take from that what you will.

Thanks for this Paul. Am I correct in saying therefore that a CF will be unmarked if a team plays CL and CR? Does one of the CB's not pick up the CF - IRL tends to be one might look to mark and the other sweeps behind to pick up others?

true Ben, but with ISF you also have to mark the ST and the S2 so the CF tends to be unmarked some of the time.

Thanks

Presuming the same is against any tactic purely playing with a CF? That would suggest you must play 3CBs if you want someone to tackle the CF, or MM using one of the CL or CR...

no, if the opponent plays a ST and a CF then your CL and CR will cope with them well enough, its only when they get outnumbered that you get problems and need an extra man.

What about using an AM to mtmm a loose CF?

that would work the same way as normal man-marking

Ah yes BUT, would the area of the pitch that the CF roams be, mostly, not somewhere that the AM would be, therefore rendering the mtmm ineffectual?

no, a player assigned to a man-marking role follows the marked player wherever he goes, so the AM would follow the CF around and not be available any more as an AM

I wonder how many quotes we can nest like this...no breaking the forums...

Rob is right AM would no longer be an AM in terms of where he plays, he would become a man marker and get pulled out of position.

So then why doesn't a top TM run the show against a team playing ISF but with three DYs and no AM??

Or to be more exact, create a single sausage?

to STURRIDGE who side foots it to WALCOTT who plays it short to
 COUTINHO who avoids a tackle by PAULINHO, then dribbles out of midfield into attack, then on the
 edge of the box, is all alone, then dribbles into the box, then at the centre of the attack, is
 shoulder charged off the ball by

 RICHARDS who runs out of defence, then runs out of deep midfield, then in the centre of midfield, is
 unluckily tackled in a instant by

Coutinho is all alone in this extract from the city-charlton game but instead of creating a chance for one of his strikers he tries to dribble into the box, and because charlton dont play widemen city's fullbacks could step inside to help with the defending against coutinho, had coutinho passed then richards wouldnt have got the chance to tackle him. putting sup on coutinho would help in this sort of case. or you could have played fas with wingbacks which would have meant richards staying outside to mark his wingback and not being able to make that tackle, you should be thinking about ways to create space for your target man if he is a dribbler, or space for the strikers if he is a passer

if city had played an am in your game then their fullbacks would have been wasted marking nobody, better to have them come inside when danger presented itself, but riskier for when coutinho passes, which he didnt do much in that game.

Geoff is very clever tactically there and he's out thought you really, had he played an am it would have been a straight battle between his am and coutinho, but he saw coutinho likes to dribble instead of passing esp when the 2 strikers were marked by his centrebacks, saw you had no wide players and took the chance that with his 2 fullbacks coming inside to defend he could outnumber you, and thats what happened. 

mind you this tactic is not recommended cos coutinho's dribbling is not exactly poor and it could quite easily have been a disaster. also you could have chosen to put sup on coutinho which would have meant no time for the fullbacks to step inside and make a tackle.

Paul Hemmings wrote:

Geoff is very clever tactically there and he's out thought you really, had he played an am it would have been a straight battle between his am and coutinho, but he saw coutinho likes to dribble instead of passing esp when the 2 strikers were marked by his centrebacks, saw you had no wide players and took the chance that with his 2 fullbacks coming inside to defend he could outnumber you, and thats what happened.

Jesus, I struggle to get my turn done in time, let alone look into that detail.
Geoff has too much time on his hands.

How does he know Coutinho likes to dribble?

also he uses 3 dynamos very well, taking gerrard off after 60 minutes to ensure he doesnt tire, all 3 have excellent defensive skills and aptitude and they rarely play twice in one week, so always at 100% stamina.

Hats off to Geoff, can see why he gave me a good hiding in last seasons euro final!

2 good wins tho, with Barca getting their first league win of the season. When he's not suspended muller keeps going at Flamengo!

email turns all sent out, doing the printing now.

Hi Paul, Begovic has been given a new contract when it was Gomes who should've been given it?

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the turn and another week of CF action.

I have just read Plymouth's game and noticed that Fernandinho's position wasn't changed to BW - he played at AM. I don't know whether this made any difference but always play a BW against anyone playing wide so I have an additional man to chase the wide threat.

Might have also meant Diarra (who has BW as a position) rather than Mangala came on which I think could have made a difference?

Might you please be able to look into this for me?

Have also PM'd you about a separate issue

Thanks

Ben

Also, I tried to loan Dmitri Payet to an English side but got the response that he has never played in Britain.  He is currently tearing it up for West Ham.

Bet you hate this part of the week?

My turn is totally fine apart from the fact Villa can't f*@&ing score.  That could be down to the manager though.

Just got back from more family issues ( friday night ) so I will look at all the issues tomorrow.

Rob@Inter wrote:

My turn is totally fine apart from the fact Villa can't f*@&ing score.  That could be down to the manager though.

After careful consideration ..... It's all the managers fault.

Rich@Birmingham wrote:

Hi Paul, Begovic has been given a new contract when it was Gomes who should've been given it?

give gomes D834 was the order, but D834 is begovic, contract moved over to gomes and begovic restored.

Ben@Plymouth wrote:

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the turn and another week of CF action.

I have just read Plymouth's game and noticed that Fernandinho's position wasn't changed to BW - he played at AM. I don't know whether this made any difference but always play a BW against anyone playing wide so I have an additional man to chase the wide threat.

Might have also meant Diarra (who has BW as a position) rather than Mangala came on which I think could have made a difference?

Might you please be able to look into this for me?

Have also PM'd you about a separate issue

Thanks

Ben

This was my fault I missed the AM to BW change, and seeing as you having a qualifying order sheet ( nice and neat, changes in red ) I replayed the game with the correct formation. It ended 1-0 to Leicester, so i'm going to let the original result stand ( is easier for me ) but I will send you the replayed match report so you can see what happened and make sure everything was as you wanted.

edit: email sent

Tom@Charlton wrote:

Also, I tried to loan Dmitri Payet to an English side but got the response that he has never played in Britain.  He is currently tearing it up for West Ham.

I've reviewed Payet for you and put through the loan deal. his squad number is 12.