Iran vs. UAE Game [merged]

[yashar_fasihnia]

Now that Iran won I guess everythign will be pushed under the rug. That is who we are, if we loose, make the fire squad ready, and if we win, everythign must be ok. No wonder the so called sons and daughters of Koroush and Dariush, were for 8 years in war with a country of 17 millions and toward the end we had to drink the so called "cup of poison".
Regardless best of luck to the TM (Mr. Daie and players). These posts between Amin and Yashar reminds me of my long long posts during the WC with Yashar and amazingly today we are even in worst shape than then.
Yashar jaan, Doctor and many others tried to tell you, nobody is saying 4-2-3-1 is bad. God forbid, if anyone has such a claim. All people are trying to say is the following two points:
4-2-3-1 if both of our mids are in in top form isn't helping us.
Furthermore, none of our forwards are good enough to be able to play alone upfront. You saw on Saturday, having Rezai given free reign to move left and right and add from wings helped us quite a bit.
It seems your passion and hearth felt for the past events in the TM prevents you to see what people are saying and you focusing on merits of 4-2-3-1.
Football isnt' like Basketball that coach can call timeout and have such a direct influence on the team performance during the game. These systems are more like a guideline and theoric discussion about merits or demerits of each is more suited toward coaching classes and contraversy in the newspapers after the game to analyze the coach.
Remember Angola or T&T what system did they play in the WC. Angola tied the same mighty Portugal 0-0 and lost to Mexico 1-0 if I am not mistaken. Did they play 4-2-3-1? It comes to a lot of other thing (physical conditioning, pschological readyness, team chemistry and one of those elements can be team formation). So I suggest we dont' get hooked up on team formation only.

yadesh bekheyr ali chicago, ta hala ketab chap kardebudima

ali jan, i understand their point. but here is my argument:
if u have a vulnerable defense with a shaky GK, uncoordinated slow line and ur 2 DMs are not on top form, how on earth do u think its better to remove 1 DM?

ali jan, my view is contrary to urs and anyone who claims if we have 2 top form DMs, we should play 2 DMs. i say its when our defense is vulnerable and our DMs are not on top form that we need 2 DMs, simply because the burden on them and on the defense has to be reduced because they are not on top form and obviously are more prone to crumbling. akhe when javad nekounam himself says ando and me complete each other when asked about his opinion of the 2 DM combo, man in vasat aslan barge choghondaram. in dige harfaye khode bazikonast, dige harfe man nist ke. harfe morabiyaye lajbazo nemidunam 3rd rated ke nist dige. harfe bazikoniye ke hamejurasho to meydun khodesh bazi karde va tajrobe karde. dige bala tar az in??

some people talked about transition from offense to defense and vice versa.
in football, the maximum transition from offense to defense and vice versa is dont through the DM. now u tell me, which will work better, if we have 1 not on top form DM or 2 not on top form DM for transition? remember, this DM also has to do the interception and the destruction of the opponents attack as well. so can 1 not on top form DM do all this by himself?? this is the question i want an answer for! dont u think its better to put another DM next to him to reduce the load on him specially since he is not on top form and for sure cant handle everything properly all by himself??

again ali, i didnt say 4-2-3-1 is the best neither did i even think doctor doom or amin said 4-2-3-1 is bad. infact, i said its not even my own personal preferred formation, BUT I WOULD UNDERSTAND THE NECESSITY OF PLAYING THIS FORMATION GIVEN THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES IN TM! thats all!

the only reason this discussion is taking so long is because, amin and doctor doom claim 4-2-3-1 has failed with TM. so i have provided examples of perspolis, sepahan and TM, all of whom have won and got results against opponents of different strenghts, formations, strategies and coaches using the same formation with many common players who play in these clubs and in TM.

i provided all those matches which i think TM played 4-2-3-1 under our previous coach, u can see them urself in a few posts back. can u please tell me, how does that record prove 4-2-3-1 has failed with TM???

thats all i wanna know, how can people make claims
1)without enough suporting arguments?
2)without enough examples?
3)when u can provide counter examples and arguments as i did but ur still accused of being biased, of having ur eyes shut on facts and of not having any case at all?

i am not stuck to the formation, u saw that poll i made in the football forum about TMs problems which u and doctor doom refused to vote in. my first post, i clearly mentioned formation isnt even a major problem that is affecting our team in my opinion.

so its not me who is stuck on this formation issue. all i ever said was, if TM plays 4-2-3-1, i think i can see why. now if someone else cant see why, that doesnt mean I HAVE MY EYES SHUT ON CERTAIN FACTS, OR I DONT HAVE A CASE does it? im sorry but u cant force me to look at things the way someone else does jsut because he or they think 4-2-3-1 has failed in TM. i dont see any reason why i should be accused of having my eyes shut on facts just because i see football from a different perspective. if u do, kindly explain it to me.

[Doctor DOOM]

well, if we have DIFFERING OBJECTIVES for TM, then it's natural we'd have differing approaches and means to reach them.

if ur objective is to make sure B grade asian teams dont get to score against us, then by all means lets have this formation which has 7 defensive players in it.
then, I guess mission accomplished

but if your objective is to ADVANCE from a group or from a knock out tourney or do well at the WC or some asian cup or ... , which means we have to gain MORE POINTS and WINS to get those objectives, then this formation has indeed failed us.

coz to get the points necessary, we must win games
and to win games, we must score goals
and we all know we have been a failure in this department.

now we can twist things as much as we want. that objective and fact will not change.
you still need to score goals to win to get points to advance.
and 0-0 draws will never get you anywhere
simple

[yashar_fasihnia]

well, if we have DIFFERING OBJECTIVES for TM, then it's natural we'd have differing approaches and means to reach them.

if ur objective is to make sure B grade asian teams dont get to score against us, then by all means lets have this formation which has 7 defensive players in it.
then, I guess mission accomplished

but if your objective is to ADVANCE from a group or from a knock out tourney or do well at the WC or some asian cup or ... , which means we have to gain MORE POINTS and WINS to get those objectives, then this formation has indeed failed us.

coz to get the points necessary, we must win games
and to win games, we must score goals
and we all know we have been a failure in this department.

now we can twist things as much as we want. that objective and fact will not change.
you still need to score goals to win to get points to advance.
and 0-0 draws will never get you anywhere
simple

i have provided enough examples that teams with 2 DMs and 1 forwards (4-2-3-1) inside iran itself have scored enough goals and got enough results against both B and A grade asian teams.

even TM has scored enough goals and got results with 4-2-3-1 formation.

just because u play with 1 striker and 2 DMs doesnt mean u cant score enough goals or the game will end 0-0. the point is, u cant just attack while leaving ur vulnerable defence exposed like some coaches did. winning comes with scoring goals and not conceding goals, not just scoring goals at any cost.

u can twist and play with words all u want, but the results and examples are all there which i posted throughout this thread.

simple. i rest my thread.

bekhoda ghasam im not continuing with this discussion! ay khoda esteghlal bazi bargashot bebare az pegah va be ACL soo'ood kone, man dige varede in thread ham nemisham!

[yashar_fasihnia]

Aghayeh yashar Khaneh all-knowing prophet,
Please allow me, a person who doesn't know anything to jump in again, ba ejazeh:
1) I guess as the person who's made that shookhi post, I know better than you whether it was a particularely meant as a joke or whether it was serious (it wouldn't surprise me if you claimed you did know even this better than me though ).
I even said that Panama had a player playing in the English league and that Libya drew Egypt 2 decades ago...once again, these were no facts and all was said as a joke/ice breaker about our "mighty" victories about these world class teams.
Of course some of it was to somehow show that these wins don't mean much except for adding to Branko's "impressive" stats...same as the QPR friendly which didn't mean much in reality either, neither as our match with Qn against Mexico etc...I specifically used QPR because I'd made that joke about "Panama having a player in England", so that I could use the "But QPR even has 23 men in England"- joke after that.

i never claimed i know more than u. read my post carefully agian, i said that post u made wasnt an ice breaker. ice breakers are not supportive of 1 party and against another party.

thats all i said. now if ur intention was only to joke and to break the ice, then im sorry but thats now the way u do it, atleast not the way i have been taught to do so.

so maybe instead of putting words into my mouth and saying i know better than u, u might wanna read my posts more carefully.
i never said i know more than u, i said that post of urs was not an icebreaker and i wasnt born yesterday for u to tell me that was an icebreaker and expect me to accept it.

also, i never claimed u dont know anything, again ur making sarcastic posts and playing with words. i said the examples u gave were not related to the discussion, so u either didnt know wat the discussion was about or the info u provided was wrong but u thought it was right cos we never played 4-2-3-1 against panama or QPR!

hala if u interpret it some other way, then...i guess i dunno wat to say. jorat nemikonam harfamo bezanam chun ta chizi begam, zud to yejur dige bardasht mikonio... ruzi no, ruzi az no!

2) Please, as someone who's made the longest post in this thread and has been following all the discussions, you don't need to tell me what the discussion is about.
Even if my joke was irrelevant to the subject, still, so what?! It wasn't a serious post anyway. If you want to see the difference between my serious posts and jokes, perhaps you should look at the long post again, and I'm sure even you than can see the difference...
If you still don't see the difference between my serious posts and that one, then perhaps you really should check whether you really "az poshte kooh nayoumadi"
I don't even remember which 11 started in the match against QPR, or Panama, so how can I make a serious post about those games?! Again, I also mentioned Panama having a player in England and that Libya drew Egypt, both are things I made up, and are no facts at all, but it was all in the sense of the shookhi post/ice breaker, so how can you even suggest that my post was serious?!?!
If I was about to make a serious post about it, I'd made sure I knew every detail about it, which means I would research first what formation and players we used in all those games I mentioned etc. and if it was meant to be serious I wouldn't say things as Panama had a player in England and Libya drew Egypt without having checked some reliable sources first!!

u made a serious post saying 4-2-3-1 has failed. i asked u how has it failed, u didnt give me any reply. i provided the info about the games we played 4-2-3-1 (sorry, but we never played 4-2-3-1 under branko before teymourian started playing for TM.) and i showed we got good results with it. in reply to my post that 4-2-3-1 has got results, doctor doom said, even if it did, it was against poor teams like libya, etc. and then u made that sarcastic ice breaker post of urs which now u say was partly correct and conveying a message but wasnt serious and examples were not relevant! so, im sorry but we start off with a serious post, in the middle, u suddenly decide to post a funny ice breaker post with irrelevant examples? is this how u support ur claim of 4-2-3-1 having failed with TM?

all this wouldnt have happened if u had just replied to me and provided examples and results that 4-2-3-1 had indeed failed with TM like u claimed. but u didnt, all u did was this ice breaker sarcastic post of urs which u thought was funny!

now i as a reader, how should i interpret this?? u tell me!

3) Actually we did play 4-2-3-1 few times (not all the time though) when Alavi and Golmo played there! 4-2-3-1 wasn't introduced to TM after Ando's presence! And still, even if it wasn't 4-2-3-1, still my point is that playing with 2 DM's in general at home against weak opposition is not right imo!

we never played 4-2-3-1 before teymourian under branko. like i said, we might have played with more than 1 DM, but we never played with 1 striker!

and the whole argument in this thread was why play with 1 striker upfront, not why play with 2 DMs! the 2 DMs thingy is because daei decided to play a DM instead of a striker. had we played 4-1-4-1 also, the same discussion would continue because, the main discussion was about having 1 forward upfront and how khalili/enayati becomes ineffective upfront all alone among 4 defenders.

ur own posts here show that u were arguing about having 1 forward all alone upfront! but now, u say ur argument was about 2 DMs and not 1 striker upfront??!! this looks contradictory to me, doesnt it to u too?

now u claim u have followed the whole discussion but i wonder why u didnt realize this which was the main point of the whole discussion in the first place

4) Even if I was ridiculing the wins over mighty Panama and Lybia, which only added to Branko's stats, still I'd have a point, as these were not impressive at all. Same as the loss against QPR, even though we lost heavily, still it was our B team and the loss didn't mean much. Same as the loss with our B team in Mexico under Qn, same as...
The draw against Croatia was impressive and the sysytem worked there against a tougher opponent; I give credit where its due and criticize where I think it's justified!
Please refer to # 2, I've had enough of repeating the same sh!t all over again!

this discussion wasnt even about branko's stats. it was about 4-2-3-1 and whether it has failed or not. results show it hasnt failed which makes me wonder based on wat info did u reach to the conclusion that 4-2-3-1 has failed with TM?

as for branko adding up to his stats, i have my own arguments regarding this discussion but i dont wanna mention it cos this thread will be a mess then. maybe some other time in some other thread.

5) This goes back to the discussion of being flexible and it has everything to do with the formation that is always used, no matter who our opponents are! It doens't have anything to do with your preferences! When I give the Brazil/Portugal vs. Libanon/UAE-Libya... as examples, it's to point out that playing against much weaker opposition, specially at home, who're playing with only 1 offensively minded player, is a totally other story than playing against Portugal/Mexico or Brazil!
Again, even if my intention was to ridicule some of the victories (which perhaps was for a little part of my post, even though it was mostly just meant as a joke/ice breaker), it's because many use to brag about these insignificant victories over those crappy teams and people like to add these to Branko's stats and call it "impressive", yet at the same time many "forget" to mention the losses and forget to mention how crappy most of these teams were, and act as if teams like QPR are world class Again, I give credit where its due, like against Croatia, but I'll criticize where I think it's necessary at the same time!

i totally agree with ur point about brazil/portugal and lebanon/UAE. but, there are many more factors at that given point of time that we should take into consideration rather than just the "name" of the opponent while choosing a formation.

like i said, formation is only a tool for a coach to execute his ideas. so thats the first factor in choosing a formation.
playing UAE today in worldcup qualifiers with a new team has a different situation than playing UAE in a friendly after 1 year the team and coach have worked together.
and many more factors, but i dont wanna write them cos as usual, u would find them nothing but boring long posts and then somehow come to the conclusion that im saying, amin doesnt know anything and yashar know everything.

I've had enough of this discussion, please write another page full and whatever it is you're going to write, you are right ok?
Sincerely yours,
The nothing-knowing-binamak-who-likes-to-jump-into-discussions-without-having-read-any-posts-and-without-knowing-what-the-whole-discussion-is-all-about.

PS: As a matter of fact, I take my apologies back, since it seems you are "forgiving" me for the wrong things, since I did not jump into the discussion without having read any of the posts and I did know what the discussion was all about!

if u can write long posts about how ur right and im biased, i dont see why i cant reply with my long posts and provide my side of the arguments (interpreted by u as me claiming amin knows nothing, yashar knows everything) ?

anywayz, im glad this discussion is finally over. oh yea, btw, holland who is a world top team played 4-2-3-1 as well today and beat italy 3-0.

P.S. i still think u should work on ur sense of humour, it has too much of sarcasm in it which doesnt make it look funny,,, seriously!

[Amin_]

hehehe I'm glad you made this last post of yours, cause it explains a lot and shows why you thought that "I just jumped inbetween with a sarcastic post without having answered/replied to that post of yours" (that you've mentioned in your 2nd paragraph above).

It's 3 am here and I really gotta go to bed cause I gotta get up early tomorrow, but I'll get back at it first thing tomorrow when I got some free time. I just hope you don't edit your above post

[Doctor DOOM]

talk about denying the obvious !

so we are supposed to believe the suffering our strikers go through and the resultant impotency of our forwards and general inability to score goals is actually a pre-planned and pre-meditated strategy.

yes, ppl. the truth is we CAN score goals at whim. and the reason we are not scoring goals is becoz we shd NOT do so ( ) and all of you who think we are unable, think again. we can, but we only choose NOT TO.

how? it was apparently "proven".





ed: and somehow this not-scoring-goals is going to ultimately get us the points ( through a convoluted system that at the end of group stage, they REVERSE points lost to points gained. so all those teams that have draws , meaning lost 2 points, actually GAIN those 2 points ! )

so we unnecessarily blame the strikers for lack of scoring. they are actually sticking to the tactics.

OR VH, khatibi, daei, enayati, khalili, samereh, meydavoodi, .... were scoring goals galore but they scored them so fast we couldnt see them !!!


ok.

[zzgloo]

hmm,, bahram jan,,,its great to hear that kinda unity or brotherhood or watever u wanna call it is there in u towards esteghlalis, im sure its there in many people and most fans here, but there must be some kinda disagreements between u and other esteghlali fans as well,
im guessing its some kind of subconcious bias created in us when we discuss matters?
for example, a good way of testing urself to actually see if there is any subconcious partiality which even u dont realize is something like this: imagine if u didnt know, me or amin or ali_chicago or some other taji is discussing a certain issue with some non taji, would u still have the same opinion about the 2 peoples arguments after u found out one of them is taji?
its difficult to say now, cos now u know who is esteghlali and who isnt, but it would be interesting to see the outcome of such an experiment if it ever happens spotaneously
meanwhile, we stand united makhsoosan after todays loss in rasht!
we got 90 minutes to take a U-turn and go to ACL, unless talebloo saves us in penalties again
again, great to hear we have u on our side when it comes to discussions against non-esteghlalis...

Very seldum people say thier faivorit team.....................

I have noticed, PP fans are mostly people who want to be in majority....
and , SS fans are people who love under-dogs............

[Amin_]

i never claimed i know more than u. read my post carefully agian, i said that post u made wasnt an ice breaker. ice breakers are not supportive of 1 party and against another party.
thats all i said. now if ur intention was only to joke and to break the ice, then im sorry but thats now the way u do it, atleast not the way i have been taught to do so.
so maybe instead of putting words into my mouth and saying i know better than u, u might wanna read my posts more carefully.
i never said i know more than u, i said that post of urs was not an icebreaker and i wasnt born yesterday for u to tell me that was an icebreaker and expect me to accept it.
also, i never claimed u dont know anything, again ur making sarcastic posts and playing with words. i said the examples u gave were not related to the discussion, so u either didnt know wat the discussion was about or the info u provided was wrong but u thought it was right cos we never played 4-2-3-1 against panama or QPR!
hala if u interpret it some other way, then...i guess i dunno wat to say. jorat nemikonam harfamo bezanam chun ta chizi begam, zud to yejur dige bardasht mikonio... ruzi no, ruzi az no!

I didn't say that you'd said you know more than me, you

u made a serious post saying 4-2-3-1 has failed. i asked u how has it failed, u didnt give me any reply. i provided the info about the games we played 4-2-3-1 (sorry, but we never played 4-2-3-1 under branko before teymourian started playing for TM.) and i showed we got good results with it. in reply to my post that 4-2-3-1 has got results, doctor doom said, even if it did, it was against poor teams like libya, etc. and then u made that sarcastic ice breaker post of urs which now u say was partly correct and conveying a message but wasnt serious and examples were not relevant! so, im sorry but we start off with a serious post, in the middle, u suddenly decide to post a funny ice breaker post with irrelevant examples? is this how u support ur claim of 4-2-3-1 having failed with TM?
all this wouldnt have happened if u had just replied to me and provided examples and results that 4-2-3-1 had indeed failed with TM like u claimed. but u didnt, all u did was this ice breaker sarcastic post of urs which u thought was funny!now i as a reader, how should i interpret this?? u tell me!

This explains a lot now! First of all, for someone who keeps telling others to "read carefully" all the time, it's ironic that he himself has not read through the thread carefully! If you had, you wouldn't have made the above claims which I have bolded! FYI I did answer your post but it seems you've totally missed it! I was waiting for you to reply to that post, but you didn't, because, obviously, you haven't seen it

So I did not "just jump inbetween", I had answered your last post (here it is, post #88 http://www.persianfootball.com/forum...7&postcount=88) and then, as I was waiting for you to reply, I decided to make that joke, simply because I had already made a serious reply to your last post towards me!.

Ironic isn't it...

we never played 4-2-3-1 before teymourian under branko. like i said, we might have played with more than 1 DM, but we never played with 1 striker!
and the whole argument in this thread was why play with 1 striker upfront, not why play with 2 DMs! the 2 DMs thingy is because daei decided to play a DM instead of a striker. had we played 4-1-4-1 also, the same discussion would continue because, the main discussion was about having 1 forward upfront and how khalili/enayati becomes ineffective upfront all alone among 4 defenders.
ur own posts here show that u were arguing about having 1 forward all alone upfront! but now, u say ur argument was about 2 DMs and not 1 striker upfront??!! this looks contradictory to me, doesnt it to u too?
now u claim u have followed the whole discussion but i wonder why u didnt realize this which was the main point of the whole discussion in the first place

lol are you kidding me?! In this issue, the fact that we've been playing with 2 DM's has everything to do with the 1 forward we were forced to field up! They both have to do with eachother! So when I have an arguement about the 2 DM's, in TM's case (which is what we're having the discussion about) it automatically involves the fact that we have to field up only 1 striker as well!
So when I was complaining about the ineffictiveness of playing with 1 striker, it had everything to do with the fact that we are fielding up 2 DM's!

If we'd been playing 4-1-4-1, then it was a whole other iscussion for me (and I bet DD as well), simply because instead of having 2 DM's, we'd have 1 extra man (who's not a DM) in midfield, and perhaps that would've helped the offense out much more and wouldn't the striker be this ineffective as he have been in the 4-2-3-1 system!

So it's not having an argument about only "one striker" or "2 DM's", simply because these 2 have everything to do with eachother and they are not loose from one another! In TM's case, one can not discuss one matter (lone striker) without mentioning the other (2 DM's). So excuse you, it was no contradictory at all!

this discussion wasnt even about branko's stats. it was about 4-2-3-1 and whether it has failed or not. results show it hasnt failed which makes me wonder based on wat info did u reach to the conclusion that 4-2-3-1 has failed with TM?
as for branko adding up to his stats, i have my own arguments regarding this discussion but i dont wanna mention it cos this thread will be a mess then. maybe some other time in some other thread.

I've wasted a total of like 3 pages now trying to explain you this. Please refer to all these posts (also the one you seem to have missed, I've been explaining it there as well namely).

i totally agree with ur point about brazil/portugal and lebanon/UAE. but, there are many more factors at that given point of time that we should take into consideration rather than just the "name" of the opponent while choosing a formation.
like i said, formation is only a tool for a coach to execute his ideas. so thats the first factor in choosing a formation.
playing UAE today in worldcup qualifiers with a new team has a different situation than playing UAE in a friendly after 1 year the team and coach have worked together.
and many more factors, but i dont wanna write them cos as usual, u would find them nothing but boring long posts and then somehow come to the conclusion that im saying, amin doesnt know anything and yashar know everything.

Again, I've explained this in one of my first posts (I think the very long one) and I really don't feel like repeating it all again (most of this discussion has only been repetition anyway), and the 2nd half of Sweden vs. Greece has just started, so I direct you to one of those long posts.

if u can write long posts about how ur right and im biased, i dont see why i cant reply with my long posts and provide my side of the arguments (interpreted by u as me claiming amin knows nothing, yashar knows everything) ?
anywayz, im glad this discussion is finally over. oh yea, btw, holland who is a world top team played 4-2-3-1 as well today and beat italy 3-0.
P.S. i still think u should work on ur sense of humour, it has too much of sarcasm in it which doesnt make it look funny,,, seriously!

I second that, I'm glad this whole discussion is getting over as well, cause as I said, most of it was turning into repetition anyway.

PS: The fact that you mention Holland (!) and 4-2-3-1 in the same line trying to prove something shows that you haven't been understanding any of my posts where I pointed out so many times that it is not the 4-2-3-1 system in general which is bad, it's only that it does not work with TM and its group of players, in my opinionway too many good feedback about my sense of humor to change it simply because you (as one of the very few) don't find it funny. Perhaps it says something about your sense of humor, not mine!

[Doctor DOOM]

amin jan, I think we may have to pick each and every position in 4-2-3-1 formations of holland and compare them to the abilities of iranians.
maybe then our friends would finally understand what we are talking about.

does our forward ( could be anyone of enayati or khalili or even VH ) play like VNR ?
does our right winger like kuyt
what about the left wingers ( niki, madanchi, even zandi ) play like sneijder ?
compare the playmakers or the def mids or LB's or ..... !
it's ridiculous .

[Ali Chicago]

yadesh bekheyr ali chicago, ta hala ketab chap kardebudima
ali jan, i understand their point. but here is my argument:
......

Yashar roo tanha gheer oovordeem, hesabi gang up koneem roosh. On those days, you had wing support by Smanhoobi and that bad dahan Italian supporter (in LA) remember Yashar.

Kidding aside you are in middle of long debate and I don't want to distract your focus. So I keep it short

Three things:

You said:

if u have a vulnerable defense with a shaky GK, uncoordinated slow line and ur 2 DMs are not on top form, how on earth do u think its better to remove 1 DM?

For the sake of argument we say you are totally right and our defense against UAE (mind you UAE, not Mexico or Portugal) is so weak. If in Tehran at home against the UAE !!! we have to have 6 defenders 4 defender and 2 DM plus Rahmati in order to defend against one UAE player Ismail Matar. Do you think our team will have a chance against better teams?

Daie himself in UAE didnt' play 4-2-3-1 although he had Sadeghi that he could use for DM. What does that suggest?

You then said:

some people talked about transition from offense to defense and vice versa.
in football, the maximum transition from offense to defense and vice versa is dont through the DM. now u tell me, which will work better, if we have 1 not on top form DM or 2 not on top form DM for transition?

Yashar jaan it is n't that simple. When we have 2 DMs that they don't join the attack, our second wave for the rebound balls (toope sevoom) as they say in Iran, isn't there to sustaian attack. Not playing with 2 DMs will allow us to play with a OM rigth behind our forward or use two forwards the way Gholamreza Rezai was used in the return leg match.

And finally you added:

i provided all those matches which i think TM played 4-2-3-1 under our previous coach, u can see them urself in a few posts back. can u please tell me, how does that record prove 4-2-3-1 has failed with TM???

It all depends on the point of veiw and defining what is success and what is a failuer. I am very honest and say since the game against Korea in WC 2004, I don't recall a good game from TM. In AFC 2007 there were 10-15 minutes of good football here and there, but overall I haven't seen the so called football Naab Irooni. Yashar Jaan, do me a favor. Please go and watch the Iran's peroformance against Serbia and Germnay in WC98. We used to play like that against really good teams too. So to me this kind of playing is a failure. I admit success is a subjective thing. I see our performance in WC was a failure (while I can understand if you don't share that point of view). So when people talk about failure maybe that is what they are talking about and nto about the specific results of this or that game.

[yashar_fasihnia]

in 1 line, let me just say that, i have addressed to these last arguments by doctor doom (about comparing iranian players with holland), the arguemnts by amin, and the arguments by ali_chicago earlier in my previous posts.

if anyone including themselves are interested, im sorry, there is no other option but to read through the whole thread again.