Celtic records breaking unbeaten run

[seumasbhoy]

Its a fantastic achievement but I feel it masks a wee flaw in the way we currently play and is hidden a wee bit within the Brendan Rodgers hysteria. Our recent results havent been as convincing as the way we have played, total domination of possession and efforts on goals. We have won 11 games by a single goal this season, the vast majority have come in the last two months. Really think this needs looked at, seeing some of the howling misses last night, it looks like our forwards arent focusing enough on finishing.

[AguyIknow]

What formation have ye been playing? I think this 4-2-3-1 may make more half-chances than a 4-4-2 but would have a lower conversion rate. Maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist but give me two up front every time at the fitba.

[Mook1]

What formation have ye been playing? I think this 4-2-3-1 may make more half-chances than a 4-4-2 but would have a lower conversion rate. Maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist but give me two up front every time at the fitba.

Pretty much every top manager disagrees.

When you play 4-4-2, it's more difficult to get bodies into the box & it's a lot less fluid generally. As a formation, it was found out years ago & is a bit of a relic now, along with the 'big man, wee man' front two.

[Mook1]

I've just read this thread back & it appears to be veering dangerously close to Football-related discussion, sincere apologies to any offended parties regarding my involvement.

[JackSnakes]

I'm singing in Southampton Sunday... Hope the crowd are still in a good mood...

[Mook1]

I'm singing in Southampton Sunday... Hope the crowd are still in a good mood...

Me too, can't see them beating Arsenal though.

[AguyIknow]

I've just read this thread back & it appears to be veering dangerously close to Football-related discussion, sincere apologies to any offended parties regarding my involvement.

I know you generally tend to avoid fitba discussion Mook but the discussion on this thread has been football related from he get go.

And the claim that 4-2-3-1 is more fluid than 4-4-2 or any other formation is a bit silly. It's not as though they're a set of Fusball players rigidly held in place. There's lateral and vertical (up and down the pitch) movement and soft and hard formations. Few if any teams any more play strictly in zones of the pitch. You follow the action while maintaining discipline of your position. And even 4-4-2 can mean Diamond 4 or flat 4 and the two strikers don't need to be lateral any more than they need to be big man wee man. It's all fluid. But while you've one recognised spearhead - almost a kickback to the old formations though nowadays up against two or even three centrehalves - the original poster was bemoaning the relatively lower conversion rates. Personally I think some of it can be explained by the withdrawn 3 seen as links to the front

[JackSnakes]

I know you generally tend to avoid fitba discussion Mook but the discussion on this thread has been football related from he get go.

And the claim that 4-2-3-1 is more fluid than 4-4-2 or any other formation is a bit silly. It's not as though they're a set of Fusball players rigidly held in place. There's lateral and vertical (up and down the pitch) movement and soft and hard formations. Few if any teams any more play strictly in zones of the pitch. You follow the action while maintaining discipline of your position. And even 4-4-2 can mean Diamond 4 or flat 4 and the two strikers don't need to be lateral any more than they need to be big man wee man. It's all fluid. But while you've one recognised spearhead - almost a kickback to the old formations though nowadays up against two or even three centrehalves - the original poster was bemoaning the relatively lower conversion rates. Personally I think some of it can be explained by the withdrawn 3 seen as links to the front

I do not think our conversion rate has anything to do with formations really - we get goals from all over the park including the full backs. I think a wee bit more concentration is required in front of goal. It almost seems that the knowledge is that if you don't score this one, another chance will be along in a minute

[Mook1]

I know you generally tend to avoid fitba discussion Mook but the discussion on this thread has been football related from he get go.

And the claim that 4-2-3-1 is more fluid than 4-4-2 or any other formation is a bit silly. It's not as though they're a set of Fusball players rigidly held in place. There's lateral and vertical (up and down the pitch) movement and soft and hard formations. Few if any teams any more play strictly in zones of the pitch. You follow the action while maintaining discipline of your position. And even 4-4-2 can mean Diamond 4 or flat 4 and the two strikers don't need to be lateral any more than they need to be big man wee man. It's all fluid. But while you've one recognised spearhead - almost a kickback to the old formations though nowadays up against two or even three centrehalves - the original poster was bemoaning the relatively lower conversion rates. Personally I think some of it can be explained by the withdrawn 3 seen as links to the front

It's not really a bit silly though is it? Look at the most successful managers in the World over the last few years, Mourinho, Guardiola, Anchelotti, Enrique, Zidane & Simeone, I don't think any of them use 4-4-2 & there's a good reason for that. 4-4-2 is more rigid as you have two out & out strikers on the pitch & it can leave your midfield exposed.

This is part of the reason why Scottish Football has been left behind, half of us still long for the old days of 4-4-2, two pacey wingers, a big man & a wee man up front, clearing your lines as quickly as possible while all over the World, Football is now about keeping the ball, first touch & movement.

[AguyIknow]

It's not really a bit silly though is it? Look at the most successful managers in the World over the last few years, Mourinho, Guardiola, Anchelotti, Enrique, Zidane & Simeone, I don't think any of them use 4-4-2 & there's a good reason for that. 4-4-2 is more rigid as you have two out & out strikers on the pitch & it can leave your midfield exposed.

This is part of the reason why Scottish Football has been left behind, half of us still long for the old days of 4-4-2, two pacey wingers, a big man & a wee man up front, clearing your lines as quickly as possible while all over the World, Football is now about keeping the ball, first touch & movement.

But you say that as though possession fitba is dictated by formation. And that's not necessarily so. If it was then EVERYBODY interested in possession football would be adopting Barcelona's 4-3-3 and sticking rigidly to it. But of course real life football isn't like that. It's not a case of someone standing aside from the ball to allow one of the nominal forwards shoot for goal, or the forward refusing to chase down the full back because he's left the area. Football, like most sports, is fluid. And the better players are the ones who react quickest and best to the set of circumstances unfolding in front of them, irrespective of the number they have on their back or on the nominal position SKY TV in it's "wisdom" think they're allocated.

Jack thinks it's not down to formation though and he sees them first hand so that's fair enough, but I think it would be silly to suggest that formation never has an influence on conversion rates.