Andy_Petterson wrote:sallian wrote:Andy_Petterson wrote:...
In general, the reasons you give about rebounds, missed chances being good reasons to play two up front are no longer valid. The game has developed
so defenses don't let you get away with that anymore.
No sir, these reasons will apply even if we are living in the year 3076...unless the laws of physics change.
How did we score against Chelsea? That's right a rebound....because they happen even against the most expensive teams on the planet....a ball can and will always be miss-hit, or hits the cross bar or post, or rebounds from a keeper's save....But to remind you of the factors which DO NOT change with time, these points apply whoever and whenever you play, no matter what their tactics are and no matter what their formation is:-
1) Two men have a wider circle of coverage....that means more of an area for the midfield or wingers to pass to
2) The above point applies to rebounds...a greater rebound area to pick up and shoot
3) Two strikers have more chance of dispossessing the defenders, which means more goal opportunities in vital areas
4) Two strikers create space by diversion runs...drawing away defenders
5) Two strikers means not being screwed by an injury to your single striker
6) Two strikers means two men are used to shooting for goal...rather than bench warmers who forget how to hit the ball and where the goal is.....like all sports these things are tuned by repetition
7) Two strikers causes confusion among central defenders
8) A second striker can pass the ball to his better placed partner
9) Two strikers have more chance of holding the ball up than one alone who is surrounded...so that midfield can join attack
10) Goalkeepers and defenders have two styles and separate sets of capabilities to deal with rather than just one....If they succeed against your isolated guy, it can mean a goal drought....Having a double success (in closing out a dual attack) is much more difficult.
I don't stick to this issue of 2 strikers dogmatically.....if we were scoring freely regardless, then it wouldn't matter so much but we are not... And its advantages are undeniable.
There are games we win 1-0 that perhaps should be 3-0 (this can cost us)
There are games we score 1 or none and we should've won.
Another advantage is that is unleashes more of our attacking talent rather than keeping it all pointlessly in the refrigerator all season.....like we did with Grimes and Baxendale last season.
Sweet Lord, it's like England getting their backsides handed on a plate in international tournaments for the last 50 never happened.
1) if you are outnumbered in midfield you don't have the ball to get to your forwards in the first place. I've no idea why you think two up front limits the range of passing options. Did you not see us spread the ball out to the wing yesterday?
2) And what proportion of goals over the course of a season are scored from rebounds nowadays. If you are relying on rebounds to score you are not going to have a very successful season.
3) Said defenders would pass to full backs or midfield where they outnumber the side with two strikers.. Two strikers are then just bystanders as other side retain possession for the rest of the game
4)Space is then covered by the defensive midfielder. You are out of touch by about 30 years.
5) really? I would have thought you'd be more screwed as you would need four players who can play that role rather than two. I can see you haven't thought this through.
6)The whole team should be capable of shooting. You've obviously never encountered the concept of universality.
7)Defenders are better than that these days. I can see how you get easily confused though.
8 - Are the rest of the team not allowed to pass and get into good positions or something?
9)See point 1). They don't get the ball in the first place as they are outnumbered in midfield
10) Again you only looking at the advantages of two up front, completely ignoring any disadvantages.
Just as a final thought. Why does every team we play against these days just have 1 up front. Are all these managers wrong?
Anything is hard to find, when you will not open your mind.
Only an argumentative person could have argued with those hard rational facts!
"1) if you are outnumbered in midfield you don't have the ball to get to your forwards in the first place...." Outnumbered by a grand total of ONE.... And the strikers can't run back to support can they, it is prohibited, and the other players can't move around either can they! Thirdly....guess what....midfielders also have to be drawn back into defence when you have two central strikers....as they need to defend before it reaches the final gate....So think again!!!
2) And what proportion of goals over the course of a season are scored from rebounds nowadays. If you are relying on rebounds to score you are not going to have a very successful season.Well you don't score many if you have NO-ONE there to score them! Secondly...I didn't say we need to rely on rebounds! Be straight and sensible, I said it is an advantage.... The ball hits the post, defenders legs, weak clearances, cross bar, goal keeper saves.....there are a whole range of pathways to a loose ball in opposition territory....and 2 strikers CLEARLY is an advantage is such situations which occur SEVERAL TIMES in EVERY MATCH....Football at any level does not consist of pin ball, ping-ping precision passing you know! I think you will find quite a few of our goals are scrappy goals with rebounds etc too....and those scored against us.
Have you ever noticed crosses to Bradshaw either being too short, too long or ahead or behind him? 4 ways to get it wrong....a second striker clearly helps pick up some of those inaccuracies.
"3) Said defenders would pass to full backs or midfield where they outnumber the side with two strikers.. Two strikers are then just bystanders as other side retain possession for the rest of the game" And there is no option for our wingers or wing backs to try and dispossess them when they do that right? Nor anyway our strikers can stray wide to anticipate it?!!! Nor does it mean that we are forcing the opposition to pass out onto the wings when they don't want to, to our own advantage!!! COme on you are not thinking through to the next step in all of these scenarios.
"4)Space is then covered by the defensive midfielder. You are out of touch by about 30 years."You really do say some silly things...this one is not even worthy of response, although I sort of did
"5) really? I would have thought you'd be more screwed as you would need four players who can play that role rather than two. I can see you haven't thought this through." We have enough players who can fill in for that, and obviously if injuries hinder you...you can change the system....so don't be silly.... If we only play one way with one key component then we are really stuck....at least in the case of two strikers you will have two guys with playing attacking time, even if they are left alone by injury. Dual striker role is less demanding than a single striker role....probably
6)The whole team should be capable of shooting. You've obviously never encountered the concept of universality. Indeed I agree there, you are not as dumb as you sound maybe :lol: But still, there is difference having to run 30 yards and shoot or shoot from 30yards and being in a better advanced position dedicated to finding shooting space...
"7)Defenders are better than that these days. I can see how you get easily confused though."You really are in cuckoo land about the advance of football in our time....Guess what defenders make mistakes all day long, or even if not making mistakes...they fail due to speed or being tricked etc...They do indeed get confused by all sorts of on-ball and off ball activity....please watch the defensive holes and mistakes in the weekly goals shows at all levels. You always hear the managers say "Shocking defending" etc... Please realize we are not living in some utopian age of perfect football....people are just over-hyped and overpaid.
"Again you only looking at the advantages of two up front, completely ignoring any disadvantages."No, I know there are disadvantages and things that will lack somewhere, but it needs to be an option especially when not scoring many....and I think many managers are actually overlooking its advantages, what will you do if teams start switching back? And by the way, many do play with two strikers and they regularly change formations...even Dean Smith does it but not enough.
Its better not to follow fads and fashions but that which makes most sense and which is most effective, keeping opposition guessing is good...but keeping them occupied and struggling for cover is even better.
There are also lots of variations on two strikers, one advanced...free revolving, wider, narrower, alternating sides etc. Can cause a wad-load of problems for defences. As a general rule...two strikers is better in my view than single striker
And by the way, single striker is not some new thing....Teams were doing it even in the 1980's and decades before, even Walsall did it some matches in the 80's and 90's.... And even the old wartime W-M formation can be regarded as a type of one striker system...or it can be regarded as a 3 or 5 striker system...different ways of viewing it and playing it... But don't be daft thinking that Barcelona invented it and now football has moved on....VERY SILLY FUTURIST UTOPIANISM