Jump to content

Adblock Detected

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Check Out The "link" For Team Formations For Dfc.


Gedee

Recommended Posts

........And after you have done it can you please put (in very simple terms) to me,  what does it all mean please ?

Recently there has been many comments about PH playing a narrow formation, which it appears does not include wingers.

Being of the "old school" and knowing very little about all the new systems/formations, required to play, what used to be a simple gemme o' fitba, I did some heavy, internet, research on these formations. And to be honest, I have learned a bit more.

I think, as a young lad, most teams played (generally) what was called the "pyramid formation" ....... 2 - 3 - 5.

Which to be honest was pretty straight forward and easy to understand.       

Even at Primary Scholl level, this was how we were taught to play.

I think I understand why a formation cannot remain static and any team have got to make full use of their strenghts and cover their weaknesses ....... as well as being able to understand/counteract the same in the opposition.

But is it possible this can go too far ?        And the players get to the stage they do not know what they are doing ?

The link I have included in this post below shows how complex (imo) this can be , if taken too far.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=best+website+team+formations+in+football&biw=1600&bih=738&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=GyDaVPPlDMb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adblock Detected

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
  • Replies 9
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought I would have another look at that "link" ..........

After showing about a million images (I understood aboot five o' them) it then said at the end of it         "click here for more images"  

I purposely used that link, because I thought it showed clearly, how ridiculous, it can become.  

There are some good sites on the internet that shows and explains, in reasonably, simple terms, what are the main basic formations, and what various formations might achieve.

However, going back to that link. can you imagine Paul Hartley, distributing copies o' awe that stuff tae each o' the players in his squad, after Saturday's game, and telling them, to make theirselves familiar with the systems shown. On Monday we will discuss them and try them out in training.

I wonder how many of his players wid be showing up that day :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

........And after you have done it can you please put (in very simple terms) to me,  what does it all mean please ?

Recently there has been many comments about PH playing a narrow formation, which it appears does not include wingers.

Being of the "old school" and knowing very little about all the new systems/formations, required to play, what used to be a simple gemme o' fitba, I did some heavy, internet, research on these formations. And to be honest, I have learned a bit more.

I think, as a young lad, most teams played (generally) what was called the "pyramid formation" ....... 2 - 3 - 5.

Which to be honest was pretty straight forward and easy to understand.       

Even at Primary Scholl level, this was how we were taught to play.

I think I understand why a formation cannot remain static and any team have got to make full use of their strenghts and cover their weaknesses ....... as well as being able to understand/counteract the same in the opposition.

But is it possible this can go too far ?        And the players get to the stage they do not know what they are doing ?

The link I have included in this post below shows how complex (imo) this can be , if taken too far.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=best+website+team+formations+in+football&biw=1600&bih=738&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=GyDaVPPlDMb

Bring back the 2-3-5.  I look forward to the day when we all line up like that again. Defences on top or what?   Having said that, PH tried something similar in the last 20 minutes away at Partick a few weeks back and scrambled a point out of it..

By narrow formation, I've always assumed this meant 4-2-3-1, which we start out with a lot.  But to complicate things, I think we have a fairly fluid line up, depending how the game is going and if we are pressing or defending.  I get the impression that PH likes players that can adapt from a 4-2-3-1 to a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 or whatever.  Even seen 4-3-3 on occasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attilio thank you for your response.

I remember on another forum about two years ago, opening up a topic which asked, quite genuinely ....."What do other posters think might happen, if two teams played each other, one playing the more modern formations, and the other playing the pyramid formation" ....... (basically five forwards) ......... as described in opening post.

I started this topic following a range of posts which mentioned (not in any great detail) the best formations DFC should adopt,

If my recollection is correct, I did not get any responses. Which suggested to me some posters maybe did not know what they were talking about, or of course "older formations" were of no interest in modern football.

Either way, I never got an answer ...... and so was no wiser.

Maybe I will be luckier this time ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in my fifties but I honestly can't remember how teams used to play when they set up 2-3-5. I would imagine,as in these days, it wouldn't have been a rigid formation and it would adapt to suit the game conditions at the time. I suppose that fans in those days weren't hung up on what formation there team was playing. It would be interesting to find out when our obsession with 4-4-2 or whatever, started.

In response to your question though, I haven't got a scooby tbh but surely the better defensive set up would win. If you don't concede goals you don't get beat. 21st ce21scentury beats 20th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attilio thank you for your response.

I remember on another forum about two years ago, opening up a topic which asked, quite genuinely ....."What do other posters think might happen, if two teams played each other, one playing the more modern formations, and the other playing the pyramid formation" ....... (basically five forwards) ......... as described in opening post.

I started this topic following a range of posts which mentioned (not in any great detail) the best formations DFC should adopt,

If my recollection is correct, I did not get any responses. Which suggested to me some posters maybe did not know what they were talking about, or of course "older formations" were of no interest in modern football.

Either way, I never got an answer ...... and so was no wiser.

Maybe I will be luckier this time ?

Jimmy Calderwood at Dunfermline is probably the closest you'll get to the old formation in the modern Scottish game.He wouldn't set out with that formation but more often than not,when behind,he'd lob on the forwards and at least finish the game with something like a 2-3-5 formation.Dont remember him being so gung-ho at Aberdeen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4-4-2 please.. And every derivative of it to match the requirement in most situations.

Shape can be altered to please..

If we get it right, we'll win more games in Scotland with it than we lose.

We need to move away from this lone frontman style and get our forward players turned to face goal, running at defenders, interlinking, swapping positions and baffling defences with their movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players can either play or they can't, formations are often used as an excuse for lack of talent and poor form.

Our current crop of players have such limited skills I wonder how they ever got picked up for the professional game.

I was more of a rugger b****r but I've had several conversations with guys I've worked with over the years who were at school with professional players and the vast majority have said the pro player wasn't the best technical player at the school but they were the ones who did all the training and running etc. Maybe they just wanted it more. Can't say this is the case for all of them obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adblock Detected

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Adblock Detected

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.


×
×
  • Create New...