4-1-4-1 and Canada

[Sam]

Canada has recently been playing a 4-1-4-1 as we all know. The formation looks a bit like a 4-5-1 or 4-3-3 hybrid, and because of this its received a lot of bashing from Canadian fans, and the Voyageurs in particular. I know a lot of people including my self dislike the 4-5-1, because it leaves a central forward or striker, and unless they are a target man it becomes very difficult to get any flowing football our of a 4-5-1. It is because of this one striker mentality that we lost the South Africa game. Hume is too short to be a target man and benefits from having the ball at his feet and not the ball being lumped up the pitch for him to try and win a header and play as a hold-up man. So obviously the 4-5-1/4-1-4-1 that we used in the South Africa game doesn't work.

The formation we used that game looked like this:

---------------Hirshfeld--------------

-Stalteri-Mckenna-Hastings-Klukowski--

---------------Bernier----------------

-Simpson-De Guzman-Hutchinson-Radzinski-

----------------Hume-----------------

We later brought on De Jong, Occean, Johnson and Nakijima-Ferrin, but we didn't change our shape too much.

The point of playing a 4-1-4-1 is to try and play the ball through the Defensive Midfielder who in our case is Bernier so we can counter quicker. We were in the position several times during the Gold Cup where our back four was passing the ball around and couldn't find a way to progress the ball forward and speed up our attack. So the Defensive Midfield role acts as someone who who our back four can dump the ball too and start up our attack. From the point where the "Beriner type" player gets the ball the ball should be immediately sent outside to a player with speed. Typically this playing will be someone like DeRo or Hume who we sometimes use in wide positions. This is how the 4-1-4-1 is used to advance the ball and start up an attack. Canada has got this going a couple times but this is where the 4-1-4-1 killed us in the South Africa match.

The ball now has to be played to a target man. This player should be Rob Friend for Canada, he can hold up the ball and keep a flowing attack going. The other thing that should happen is the outside midfielder on the other side should make an attacking run into a supporting striker or forward role. This is why Hume would be very effective on the wing, he is used to play a forward role. De Rosario is also used to playing in a more attacking position. This leaves usually three central midfielders which in Canada's case usually means Bernier, De Guzman and Hutchinson unless one of them received a ball going forward from Bernier. Now the formation looks more like a 4-3-3, but because of Bernier's designation as a Defensive Midfielder De Guzman and Hutchinson can play more forward than usually. And when De Guzman is in a position at the top of the box we all saw what happened twice in the Costa Rica game during the Gold Cup.

If Bernier stays in the proper position and De Ro and Hume are moving forward it gives our fullbacks more license to move forward. We know both Stalteri and Brennan, who are most likely going to be our starting fullbacks for WCQ, have expirience as outside midfielders. This means thay can make overlapping runs so even if De Ro and/or Hume are in a bad position or cannot get into a position quick enough where they can support Friend our fullbacks are a second option.

All of these things hinge on staying within a flexible 4-1-4-1, and not morphing it into the 4-5-1 that it turned into during the South Africa match. If Canada can do all of the aforementioned things I think the 4-1-4-1 is the right formation for Canada. A perfect example of this formation working perfectly for Canada was during the counter that brought the goal against Costa Rica at BMO.

Here is the video if you want to see what I'm talking about

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p9o3t3LtxWM

Anyways love to here if you guys think that the 4-1-4-1 is right for us or not, because I think it is by far our best formation for covering our week spots like advancing the ball quickly from the back four.

[jpg75]

The 4-1-4-1 can be very useful at times, but we can't get married to it. A successful team will adapt quickly and we need to stay flexible. We should also us the 4-2-3-1 when more defensive needs have to be met, and also the 4-4-2 - and it's derivatives (4-1-3-2 and 4-2-2-2) when the attacking game needs to be emphasized.

Can we keep the 4-1-4-1 as our "home" formation? Sure. But let's not let it limit us.

[JamesW]

quote:Originally posted by jpg75

Can we keep the 4-1-4-1 as our "home" formation? Sure. But let's not let it limit us.

Sums up my feelings.

I also think that Hume should never, ever, be played as a target man. So player selection should play a large part into what formation we play, and what formation we use should have a large say on who we play.

[Sam]

I understand the need to occasionally play a formation that suits the match whether for offensive purposes, defensive purposes or just to counter who we are playing. But I think we need a base formation, too much switching makes a very disorganized squad.

[BearcatSA]

quote:Originally posted by jpg75

The 4-1-4-1 can be very useful at times, but we can't get married to it. A successful team will adapt quickly and we need to stay flexible. We should also us the 4-2-3-1 when more defensive needs have to be met, and also the 4-4-2 - and it's derivatives (4-1-3-2 and 4-2-2-2) when the attacking game needs to be emphasized.

Can we keep the 4-1-4-1 as our "home" formation? Sure. But let's not let it limit us.

Agreed. Flexibility is very important in any team and I believe we have some key midfield personnel who can make the adjustments depending upon their reading of the match. For instance, at times De Guzman may have to come back deeper to play in a double holding role with Bernier but then switch up to support the attack more like he did in the GC vs CR.

I'd have to re-watch the SA match again but I recall thinking that we didn't adjust our tactics as well as we could have to start the second half. Two goals down, I thought at the time we should have put Occean on for Simpson, put him upfront with Hume, then rejig with four men in midfield (Radz, DeGuzman, Bernier, with Hutch moving to a flank). However, I was surprised that we made a like for like sub (Nakajima-Farran for Simpson) then stuck with the same tactical dimension. Sadly, we seemed to regress in the second half and didn't have a resurgence until about the last 20+ minutes after Occean replaced Hume.

[SthMelbRed]

I disagree that we should be going with a 4-1-4-1 formation. I think we should play a basic 4-2-3-1, as it best suits the players we have. I also think that that formation can be adapted for the various situations we may find ourselves in. It can be attacking, defensive, counter-attack style, depending on the situation and the opposition. It also allows us to get our best six midfield/forward players on the pitch in positions that emphasise their strengths.

---------------Hirschfield---------------

Stalteri----Hastings---McKenna----Brennan

----------Hutchinson---DeGuzman----------

-----Hume-----Radzinski----DeRosario-----

-----------------Friend------------------

With this formation, we have fullbacks who are comfortable with the ball at their feet. Both are converted midfielders who should be comfortable getting forward on the wings when required. Having two strong defensive midfielders shielding the back four will make us difficult to break down, yet both are also very good with the ball on the ground and will be able to effectively transition us from defense to attack with their good distribution. The attacking trifecta behind the lone target man allows us flexibility in attack, with one, two, or three of those players pushing up or dropping back, needs must. They are all also capable of pushing forward as a second striker, if required. Most importantly, all three are dynamic and won't rigidly stay to either wing or central. Perfectly fluid movement of those three working behind the big, strong striker will make us very difficult to defend.

Play that formation and Bob's your uncle, South Africa here we come.

[Sam]

I think that a 4-2-3-1 would lower the offensive value of De Guzman. With him playing in a deeper role I think we are restricting his offensive presence which has been very effective espcially during both Costa Rica games.

[BrennanFan]

the whole point of the 4-1-4-1 is to showcase our two gems in central midfield, deguz and hutch. the formation is perfect for them, as it allows them the flexibility to move forward when the opportunity arises, as well as come back to play the ball forward- the ball doesnt get played up through the defensive mid, its usually one of hutch or deguz who comes back for it and starts things. friend is never really a lone target man, as someone, whether its one of the wingers or one of deguz or hutch is always right there with him. much harder to defend against this system than it would be if we had hume playing off friend with a classic 4 man mid behind them.

of course, when the situation calls for it, we can always go to 442 or 433 with one sub or two.

[Lomonty]

I'd like to see Atiba play closer to front. I've been able to watch some Kobenhaven games and he's the key cog in their counter Attack. Does very well holding up the ball, attacking the wing and spraying the ball around. The south Africa game was just so frustrating to watch Bernier, Deguzman and Hutch were bunch together every time they won a ball and just swarned by the South African attackers.

[Soju]

Do we need a holding midfielder or is our 5th midfielder someone like Hume in the hole behind the lone forward? Ponder.

[jpg75]

quote:Originally posted by Soju

Do we need a holding midfielder or is our 5th midfielder someone like Hume in the hole behind the lone forward? Ponder.

That would end being a 4-4-1-1, and if the situation calls for it then it's easy to pull the trigger on it. With an easy swap of the holding mid for an attacking mid/forward, we change the strength of formation slightly towards the attack.

I would say the home formation should have a holding mid since we're already out of balance with 4 attacking mids. Julian has shown he's probably better used as an attacker for us, so we better have someone to break up plays behind he and Hutch. And as leafdolfan and brennanfan said (as was evident in the Guatemala game) DeGuz is better served playing as an attacking mid and the formation allows him to alter his game based on what the opponent is doing. So even though a 4-2-3-1 seems defensive, in light of a bunker defence being played against us we can get our mids dropping back to receive the ball and turn in space.

[ekaram]

quote:Originally posted by leafdolfan

All of these things hinge on staying within a flexible 4-1-4-1, and not morphing it into the 4-5-1 that it turned into during the South Africa match. If Canada can do all of the aforementioned things I think the 4-1-4-1 is the right formation for Canada. A perfect example of this formation working perfectly for Canada was during the counter that brought the goal against Costa Rica at BMO.

Here is the video if you want to see what I'm talking about

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p9o3t3LtxWM

Do you have links to any more videos of that game?

I want to hear more of the atmosphere.

[Lomonty]

quote:Do you have links to any more videos of that game?

I want to hear more of the atmosphere

The atmospere in the South stand was greatin nuts, Most were drunk, fun lovin, and enthusiatic. I drank a boot mickey on the Go Train, snuck another into BMO, the end result of this being me tangled like pretzel jumping for Hirshfeld's jersey at the end. The rest of the stadium was underfilled an too sparce to really get into it, most just got off work and stressed from traffic.

[BearcatSA]

quote:Originally posted by BrennanFan

the whole point of the 4-1-4-1 is to showcase our two gems in central midfield, deguz and hutch. the formation is perfect for them, as it allows them the flexibility to move forward when the opportunity arises, as well as come back to play the ball forward- the ball doesnt get played up through the defensive mid, its usually one of hutch or deguz who comes back for it and starts things.

Interesting, because I prefer it more when the holding mid/defensive mid is the initiator of the distribution after receiving service from the back four, rather than having to draw back either of the other two on a regular basis. I liked Bernier's CR match in that role because he not only moved the ball quickly with a pass but he also was able to make a quick feint/turn and carry the ball out of danger on occasion when the two CR strikers were anticipating his square/diagonal distribution to our full backs (too bad about the second half performance vs SA). In previous posts I felt that with the formation we use, Bernier would stay in front of the back four, De Guzman would be the box to box player (dropping back as needed), and Hutch would be given more license to take up an advanced attacking midfield role, in support of Friend.

The big issue for me is how we can effectively deal with the close midfield marking encountered by SA and in the start of each half vs the US in the GC.

[Toronto MB]

I see a couple options if we have everyone available

1 (Essentially a 4-4-1-1):

-------------Hirschfeld-------------

Stalteri--McKenna---Nsaliwa---Brennan

---------DeGuzman---Hutchinson------

Radzinski---------------------DeRosario

------------Hume---------------------

--------------------Friend-----------

Keys:

- I know some will question Nsaliwa at CB - but he offers a strong defensive presence on the ball, as well as the speed and distribution abilities to be partnered with the big Kev

- This will allow Hume to dip back into midfield to collect the ball and also to launch some long range strikes while Friend is the target man up-front

- This style would work better against a European/US style opponent with the build up coming on the ground and through the middle

2 (Essentially a 4-5-1):

------------Hirschfeld----------------

Stalteri--McKenna---Hainault---Brennan

---------DeGuzman---Nsaliwa----------

Radzinski------Hutchinson-----DeRosario

----------------Friend----------------

Keys:

- This will allow Hutchinson to move forward more often, similar to his offensive club role

- This formation requires more play on the flanks from DeRo and Radz - sending the high balls into Friend in the air

- This could work well against some of the slower/less physical CONCACAF sides who like to clog the middle of the pitch

[Sam]

The problem with both of those formations is that they limit the offensive presence of De Guzman, which has been shown to be vital to Canada throughout the gold cup and the CR friendly.

[BearcatSA]

quote:Originally posted by Toronto MB

I see a couple options if we have everyone available . . .

I know some will question Nsaliwa at CB - but he offers a strong defensive presence on the ball, as well as the speed and distribution abilities to be partnered with the big Kev

Thoughtful points, MB, but as much as I'd like to see Nsaliwa in the fold (especially in your second formation with him in the holding role), I just get the feeling that his situation isn't going to be resolved in time for WCQ.

[SthMelbRed]

quote:Originally posted by leafdolfan

The problem with both of those formations is that they limit the offensive presence of De Guzman, which has been shown to be vital to Canada throughout the gold cup and the CR friendly.

I don't think we are best served by using JDG in a primarily attacking role. He is probably our most rounded footballer and we should be utilising every tool he has in his box. As one of two shielding central midfielders he gets to do everything. His defensive positioning will take a great deal of strain off our backline, his distribution will benefit our wide players, and his attacking prowess won't necessarily be negated. As the late-arriving midfielder in the opposition box, he won't get the same level of defensive scrutiny as he would as the more forward central midfielder. He will get lots of chances to make runs into the box, as well as finding enough space in the 18-25 yards from goal range to unleash some long shots. All of these things can be applied to Hutch, as well. In tandem, they would provide the balance that the team needs.

[Sam]

quote:Originally posted by SthMelbRed

I don't think we are best served by using JDG in a primarily attacking role. He is probably our most rounded footballer and we should be utilising every tool he has in his box. As one of two shielding central midfielders he gets to do everything. His defensive positioning will take a great deal of strain off our backline, his distribution will benefit our wide players, and his attacking prowess won't necessarily be negated. As the late-arriving midfielder in the opposition box, he won't get the same level of defensive scrutiny as he would as the more forward central midfielder. He will get lots of chances to make runs into the box, as well as finding enough space in the 18-25 yards from goal range to unleash some long shots. All of these things can be applied to Hutch, as well. In tandem, they would provide the balance that the team needs.

I understand what you're saying, but across the world I don't know of too many midfielders used like this effectively. If you've seen Julian play for Depor you'll know he has very little offensive presence. I'm sure the situation would be different for Canada, but I can't see too much of a change in his productivity if he played a similar role for Canada.

[SthMelbRed]

quote:Originally posted by leafdolfan

I understand what you're saying, but across the world I don't know of too many midfielders used like this effectively. If you've seen Julian play for Depor you'll know he has very little offensive presence. I'm sure the situation would be different for Canada, but I can't see too much of a change in his productivity if he played a similar role for Canada.

Obviously he's not at that level of skill or the caliber of players surrounding him, but in the 4-2-3-1 formation I've described, JDG could play a role similar to Andrea Pirlo with AC Milan. Pirlo is nominally the holding midfielder in Milan's system, as often Xabi Alonso is for Liverpool. Both still manage to get involved in plenty of attacking play. JDG, to be fair, would have more freedom to venture forward in the formation I'm suggesting, because he'd be part of a two-man defensive midfield axis. When JDG moved forward, Hutch would hold back a bit more, and vice versa.

[BearcatSA]

quote:Originally posted by SthMelbRed

JDG, to be fair, would have more freedom to venture forward in the formation I'm suggesting, because he'd be part of a two-man defensive midfield axis. When JDG moved forward, Hutch would hold back a bit more, and vice versa.

I agree with your points regarding these two players and we'll probably see this happen in some sort of form (sort of like the Haiti match from the GC). However, I would like to see a player with a bit more defensive emphasis ("grit," if you will) within the central midfield set up. Not only do I think our central defence will benefit from that kind of positional shield in front of them (helping against counterattacks) but also I believe it will allow JDG and Hutch to be more "box to box" oriented as opposed to, for example, having Hutch thinking "I see an opportunity to ghost into space on the attack but I better not because Julian's already really advanced up the field."

Good discussion, by the way

[Sam]

quote:Originally posted by BearcatSA

I agree with your points regarding these two players and we'll probably see this happen in some sort of form (sort of like the Haiti match from the GC). However, I would like to see a player with a bit more defensive emphasis ("grit," if you will) within the central midfield set up. Not only do I think our central defence will benefit from that kind of positional shield in front of them (helping against counterattacks) but also I believe it will allow JDG and Hutch to be more "box to box" oriented as opposed to, for example, having Hutch thinking "I see an opportunity to ghost into space on the attack but I better not because Julian's already really advanced up the field."

Good discussion, by the way

An extra defensive midfielder that allows JDG and Hutch to be box to box midfielders as you guys are describing it is important to our fullbacks as well. I'm a big fan of fullbacks attacking and thats why I really want to see Brennan in the left fullback position. If we have a defensive midfielder who allows JDG and Hutch to get forward it will also provide opportunities for Brennan and Stalteri to get forward without exposing our back line.

[Kusch to the Corner]

Haven't really seen Imhoff's name mentioned too much. He is starting regularily now in a top league in Europe in the exact

defensive midfield spot that's being talked about.

[BrennanFan]

quote:Originally posted by Kusch to the Corner

Haven't really seen Imhoff's name mentioned too much. He is starting regularily now in a top league in Europe in the exact

defensive midfield spot that's being talked about.

i never liked imhof, but i'd be confident with him in our starting lineup. bernier might have a better understanding with the rest of our midfield though, and i'd take nsaliwa over both of them easily.

[BearcatSA]

At this point, I'm not holding my breath over Nsaliwa's being in the squad so to me it's Bernier and Imhoff competing against an MLSer like Serioux who, from reports out of Dallas at the end of last year, was playing effectively as one of two d-mids for the Hoops during the last part of the season, so I think it's not unrealistic to put him in the mix as well (just have to watch the discipline issues).