Khalatbari

[Doctor DOOM]

^ Should not??

[Martin-Reza]

I think it might be a good idea to put Khalatbari upfront. Meanwhile even Shojaei is used to that position as well.

Maybe that would make t a 4-3-3 interesting...

Anyway, about the midfield lineup, this finally is a classic and realistic midfield lineup. Of course with Karimi and Shojaei more upfront and not playing as classic side midfielders.

That would pretty much be the 4-4-2 square, which for example Brazil used with Kaka and Ronaldinho on the "sides".

I think their playing style is not so different from Karimi's and Shojaei's.

It's actually a pretty offensive system, as the 2 side midfielders don't participate in defense that much.

[Doctor DOOM]

^ I would call that an "IMBALANCED" line up if the two mids dont participate in defense ... thus, surrendering both the flanks to the opponents !
that's suicide!


a line up needs to be multi-dimensional.
have pace , experience, technique, physicality, aerial and ground players, ... .
pretty much what is in my signature

- Pace comes from haydari , madanchi, borhani, ando ( notice there's pace in all lines of the team this way and not concentrated in one zone )

- experience comes from kia, nekunam, mobaali, karimi, VH ( again, well spread on the pitch )

- technique comes from karimi, borhani, mobaali, kazemian ( needed to make things happen in forward moves. and naturally more seen in players up the pitch than defenders. ... duuh !!! )

- Physicality comes from nekunam ,hosseini, ando, shakouri, VH, and even madanchi ( again well spread among the team lines )

-aerial players ( suppliers and receivers included ) in the form of VH, kia, madanchi, kazemian, nekunam, ashjari, mobaali, shakouri, hosseini, ...

- Ground plays from the likes of borhani, karimi, kia, mobaali, kazemian, ...

- then we have "shooters" like nekunam, mobaali, karimi, madanchi

- freekick specialists - mobaali, nekunam, karimi

- Width comes from kia, kazemian, haydari, ashjari, madanchi,

- depth in central thrusts comes from karimi, mobaali, nekunam, madanchi, ..



.... in other words, a multidimensional team with all the needed criteria and well balanced, with not too much emphasis on any aspects to tip the balance, but covering ALL .



this leaves the options for the coach open to whatever tactics he wants to implement , be it physical or a quick game or ball possession or high aerial attacks or central thrusts on the ground or .... etc.

[Martin-Reza]

^ I would call that an "IMBALANCED" line up if the two mids dont participate in defense ... thus, surrendering both the flanks to the opponents !
that's suicide!

Tell that the Brazilian national team and the multiple other teams successfully using such a lineup for years. And there is a difference between NOT participating or LESS participating. In modern football no player can afford not to help in defense.

The 4-4-2 square is a classic popular lineup. Other than the 4-1-3-2 you propose in your signature .

And Essi's lineup is very balanced. You have width coming from the fullbacks and the non-classic side midfielders, as well as from the forwards. And, other in what you propose, you close down the crucial area in front of the two centerhalves well. You name 5 or 6 players for width and think that the team is imbalanced when 2 of those are not sticking to the sideline all the time, but you want to cover a huge area with only Nekounam. That's what I call imbalanced.

[Martin-Reza]

So Ghotbi started with Ashoubi, Kazemi and Teymourian with a kind of 4-2-3-1 against Indonesia's U23 in Tehran. I doubt he plans to play with only one holding midfielder.

[Hadi]

Khalatbari is just brilliant

[Doctor DOOM]

the problem with relying on ONE player to give you width is when that player is stuck in any part of the pitch, the rest of the pitch along that flank is left OPEN to be exploited by the opponents.

if he's stuck in the back, the middle 1/3 is surrendered to the opponents, that will exert added pressure on the defense.
and if he's stuck up the field ( since a team needs width in its offense also ), there'll be space behind him for lobs in counterattacks !

a team needs BOTH defenders AND mids who can provide this width AT ANY TIME & ANY ZONE on the pitch.

[Martin-Reza]

^ Nope, not in 30% of the usual tactical lineups . What's the opposite of width? Compactness in center I'd say. So in the end it's a tradeoff. You focus on width but forget about compactness almost completely. No width can make up for lack of compactness. You need to be good in both. And systems without classic side midfielders have a certain approach to achieve that, one you don't seem to like, but one that works...with the right players.

[Doctor DOOM]

yes, you go for "compact" if you're playing a stronger and tougher team , but when u'r not playing against that tough opposition and there's a need to attack and score goals, you are RESTRICTING your venues to reach ur target by sacrificing width.
( much the same rationale of using a 2 def-mid line up vs 1 )

[Martin-Reza]

I don't agree with that. You always need both. But width doesn't only come from side midfielders. Look at FC Barcelona for example.

[Doctor DOOM]

we're just going in circles here ... much like the 2 va 1 def mid .

I had a similar argument w another fellow at a pub and he was vociferously defending the use of 2 mid , even against regular and mediocre opposition, saying many things I've heard before.

I ended up asking him: "so what were all these 1000's of teams in the world playing before the introduction of TWO def-mids? Basketball? werent they playing solid football with enough reinforcement defensively? why suddenly this 2 def-mid is touted as the way to become a solid team??"

the guy tried many things but none really mattered after this, but even he knew the battle was lost.
coz nobody can say only after this , football teams became solid teams and defensively secure or .... .


so I said to him what I'm saying here:
it's all a matter of taste. some ppl like defensive football. some like attacking football.
somebody likes barca. some other likes chelsea's style.

but neither one can say I'm gonna make sure I dont concede and reinforce my defense in situations where you NEED TO WIN.
the opponent will not kick the ball into their own goal in frustration just becoz for 90 minutes you made sure you are impenetrable!


so it's situation-specific.

=============================

btw, both henry and messi provide P.L.E.N.T.Y. of width up front.
so it's not only alvez and abidal
I'm afraid u picked the wrong team for ur example !