sallian wrote:JonnyOwen...I don't think a formation can be outdated, you can have a formation that is less efficient though in particular situations and some that by their nature are deficient in some respects continuously. If you have two strikers...you have more zonal coverage in the most dangerous area and there are enough varied options for the remaining positions. Don't forget, if you play two strikers, the defenders and defensive midfield has to adjust. How many times today was the lone striker stranded today? And how many times does this happen? How many chances are Walsall creating? The answer is very few.
Another point here is lone striker makes more sense if two conditions hold true:-
1) Your midfield supports like lightning at every break
2) Your lone striker is very fast and/or is excellent at mainatining possession
These two conditions are not really being met sufficiently
The other important element is of course that the lone striker needs to be a clinical finisher, or someone who can create his own chances by skill. If this is lacking...there will be a big shortage of goals. If you have two strikers on the other hand, one often makes up for the other's shortcomings.
one striker versus 3 defenders often fails as they have a big advantage on him...even if he does well and beats two he can still end up failing.
Another problem with lone striker is that most players (due to bad training philosophy) tend to be pretty one sided....this means a struggle when the half chances that need to be taken quickly fall on the 'wrong side' This happens less with two strikers.
Just because something becomes fashionable it doesn't mean it is the best thing to do. In fact the ability to change a formation a few times during a match can create chaos for the opposition.
Walsall often find themselves in a situation of three or four people on the wing trying to cross the ball to only one or two men...the problem with that is self evident. It doesn't take four men to deliver a ball into dangerous space...and you have more chance of scoring if more men are active in the danger area in the first place.
Not trying to disregard your points, I can see where you are coming from. However there are some problems with your arguments.
The rigid 4-4-2 is dead now, it is just far to easy to gain an edge over it. I'm sure some half decent managers can get it to work in one way or another, but in my opinion it has been worked out, and isn't flexible enough in today's game.
If you look at the players we have played in the wide positions over the past 2 seasons, it is anything but playing the lone striker, it is almost like playing 3 strikers, and then we would usually have one floating player in behind them too. Giving you 4 totally attacking players. You have two holding midfielders, so the need for the wide players to track back is still there, but not as much as a traditional wide player in a 4-4-2. I think this is where some of our problems came from when we had Flo in the side last season, we just couldn't afford that luxury with the other attacking players we had in the team.
4-5-1/4-3-3 In which ever variation you play it, is meant to give you more fluidity, the front 4 have license to roam, then you have two holding midfielders, one of which may work on more of a box to box basis (mantom) but will still keep the shape when we don't have the ball. The balance we found last season with this it worked perfectly. We are still trying to fit some round pegs in to square holes somewhat at the moment, but we are getting there.
Having said that, you are right, that the central striker is key. Grigg was so good the second half of last season, he virtually occupied the two center backs all by himself. Leaving the other 3 attacking players free to do some real damage. He may not have scored that many goals from open play, but he did a damn fine job. Jury is still out if Hewitt can be this man, there is hope. One thing is for sure, Westcarr isn't the right man for that particular job.
As for the sending off, it says more about how pathetic football has become than anything else. They want to take hard tackles out of the modern game, when it was always a fantastic part of the game. If you get the ball first, then that should be enough. It is fairly obvious when someone is trying to cause damage, bit of common sense should be used. Sadly refs aren't allowed to do this, and are forced down the red card route by strict laws that make no sense.