Why do we need to play with two DMs in a must win game in Tehran?

[Doctor DOOM]

dont want to do your usual "yek o do", .. but "all kinds of opponents means a huge majority of them against pisspoor opponents, like lybia, panama, singapore, guam, tajikistan, ... etc etc etc !
against decent teams like saudi, japan, korea, ... ?
at best, maybe a handful in the past 5-6 years.
heh!

[Martin-Reza]

^ Is it the 4-2-3-1's fault we mainly play such teams? We had great games against better sides as well. So yes, there were numerous occassions this system worked, especially against teams we are failing to obtain results now.

So it is actually working, also for Iran. What else have you got?

[Doctor DOOM]

^ typical !!


read it again, MAYBE you'll get it.

[Martin-Reza]

There's nothing to get about your post. It's not like it has any deep meaning one couldn't understand.

You're coming up with excuses to distract from the point that our current problems in WCQ have NOTHING to do with the system.

What has playing Lybia got to do with the 4-2-3-1 system's success? NOTHING.

But as said often before, you can prefer a 4-4-2, but UNDERSTAND, that compared to the lineup we saw against UAE, this means a second striker instead of Ali Karimi mainly.

The utter joke of your signature lineup is NOT an alternative, even if you try to express you want a more offensively capeable second central-defensive midfielder by putting an OM in there.

[Doctor DOOM]

in the past week, surfing about 4-5 sports paper for experts' comments on TM I must say there isnt even one day that I dont come across at least 2-3 experts ( meaning coaches and football personalities. not journalists, mind you) who dont advocate the use of 2 forwards for TM or criticize the use of 4-2-3-1.

personalities such as Mr.'s Hajrezaei, namjoo motlagh , cheraghpoor, zad-mehr, ..., even some EX TM players (many upcoming young coaches) .... etc etc etc whose words carry a ton of weight compared to many ppl not with a fraction of such credentials.

[faraz]

I'm an advocate of the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' train of thought...but MR jan, let's not kid ourselves - it's broke, and it needs to be fixed.

finishing 4th in a group where we should have the expectation (not by any stretch unreasonable) to be at least 3rd means something is wrong.

these are facts...

now, it may be the system, it may our players, it may be just this bland generation of footballers, i don't know what. but poor performance after poor performance playing this formation has got to mean something, no? i'm just stating the facts here...

and you speak about different era's where the 4-2-3-1 worked (asian games, WCQ years back - and if you do remember, i was quite a vocal advocate of that system then), but then is not now. we are under performing currently and something (at the coaches discretion) needs to be changed.

now going through the various items...

is it players? let's be honest here - we've seen a lot of new faces in all kinds of different positions in this same system. Have we witnessed an improvement? I'd say no. What would you say?

is it coaches? doesn't seem to be - different coaches, same crappy results. even the 1-0 win over UAE was a weak win at best.

is it the system? who knows, but i do think it is worth testing out something else if all other factors have been changed with little to no success...now unfortunately, this change is more difficult to make at a time like this and something tells me Ghotbi will stick to his guns on this one and keep the same system.

I may have overlooked some factors, but really, those are the main ones. the 11 that make the field, plus the 1 that directs them. it really is that simple, no?

[Martin-Reza]

^ You are very right. But the coach must analyze all those issues and pinpoint shortcomings before adressing them. Just changing "anything" because it could possibly be part of failure is surely not a good strategy.

I assume, by the wide usage of the system and the repeated usage of this system by several TM coaches, that the system is not regarded as a problem.

And Dr. Doom, it's perfectly alright to demand 2 strikers. But understand the consequences of it. It either means no Karimi or no Mahdavikia/Heydari/any other classic side midfielder.

I must say I personally would tend to use a 4-4-2 diamond in Korea, but I would never claim the coach is a dumbass for doing something else and that since we played 4-2-3-1 but failed to obtain good results in some matches, the sole conclusion would be that the system is a failure.

[Ali Chicago]

I am sorry to see this thread has become a place to discuss merits or dismerits of 4-2-3-1 and how we played South Korea back in AFC 2007. With all the due respect, can we stay on topic?

The question was simple, in your opinion, in a do or die game against a depleted team of UAE which is at the bottom of the standing and a loss and tie won't make a differnce why do we need to play with 2 DM and 1 forward?


The more general question is how timid our team, coaching staff and players become really?

For the love of god look at WC 98 team. So many coaching changes, 1/100 of todays facilites (no charter flights and long term camps campared to todays tm) and our boys played football. Why/when we became so gutless. All this talk of 4-2-3-1 and this and that, are just framework and guide lines. While no one can deny the role of experience, coaching, facilities at the end it is about how much desire and motiviation players have.

Please watch Egypt vs. Brazil today, Egypt goes down 3-1 and play with so much pride. I wish the followers of we are inferior (who made so much bah bah and chah chag about how mighty Mexicans are currently might not even make the WC in the CONCAFF group) we don't have grass filed, IRI is corrupt, can see that Eqypt ain't S. Korea or Japan (as corrupt as IRI and shir to shir) yet their players play with pride and play a respectable game in front of the whole world.


Thank you Egypt for playing the Joga Bonita. Wish our coaching staff and players learn from them.

[Martin-Reza]

Thanks to boss' post in main forum, we know the likely lineup Ghotbi will use is a 4-3-3 with the following players:

---------------madanchi--------------
-----shojaei--------------karimi------
----nouri-------neko------ando-------
--nosrati---aghili--hosseini---kaebi--
---------------rahmati-----------------

And that is how a proper 4-3-3 is implemented tactically. Now is there anyone thinking this system with 3 strikers now is more offensive than the 4-2-3-1, in which you would have Kia instead of Nouri for example?

[BehzadB]

^^ I guess he has taken the midfield as his battle ground.

no matter our formation, we have to win a game in a place we have never ever won. Korea having already advanced may give us the edge, but ultimately, it will come down to all 11 players giving 110% and hoping that we get a little luck going our way.

Good luck to them.

[Mr.Good]

Thanks to boss' post in main forum, we know the likely lineup Ghotbi will use is a 4-3-3 with the following players:

---------------madanchi--------------
-----shojaei--------------karimi------
----nouri-------neko------ando-------
--nosrati---aghili--hosseini---kaebi--
---------------rahmati-----------------

And that is how a proper 4-3-3 is implemented tactically. Now is there anyone thinking this system with 3 strikers now is more offensive than the 4-2-3-1, in which you would have Kia instead of Nouri for example?

I think Ghotbi is right in taking out Hashemian and Kia, they don't have the legs anymore.
now if you think about it, without hashemian, we don't have the striker for 4-2-3-1, not that the top three above are ideal for 4-3-3
in particular, I'm not sure if karimi has the stamina for that position, in 4-2-3-1, karimi would have two DM behind him that can cover for him and he does not have to track back as much. in this formation, Ando and Kaebi has to work really hard to cover for Karimi.

[yashar_fasihnia]

i dont like the idea of not continuously benching khalatbari..

[Doctor DOOM]

^
on khalatbari: I assume ghotbi may bring him for a tired karimi in the 2nd half.
which would work well too as a right side, more free-roaming striker

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

I dont know how reliable the sources are, but if it is indeed this formation, then I must say I'd like to see a little change up front for the following reasons:

in the following line up;

---------------madanchi--------------
-----shojaei--------------karimi------
----nouri-------neko------ando-------
--nosrati---aghili--hosseini---kaebi--
---------------rahmati-----------------

we dont have a recognized striker and we are using midfield players as strikers.
given shojaei's style and game and that we cant rely on HIM to score goals, coz he just isnt a reliable goal scorer with even half-decent frequency, and his lack of pace , our left side would be quite impotent in our offense.

which allows the koreans to gather most of their forces towards our right side and crowd up karimi and kaabi and ... .


but with a single change: throw shojaei out, bring madanchi to the left and include a recognized striker, borhani (erratic as he may be) means:
1- adding pace and incisiveness to the left, thus not allowing the koreans to rest easy and they'll have to spread their defense to BOTH flanks ( instead of concentrating on one side )

2- you still have someone who CAN score goals on the left ( madanchi ), therefore ALL THE FRONT 3 PLAYERS ARE SCORERS.
thus increasing our chances of scoring.

3- and I'm pretty sure madanchi's defending is far better than our shojaei who thinks fouling opponents ( and getting yellow cards ) is the only way to defend!!


this is the most important change I'd advocate.


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

but if we want to fine tune things, I'd do:

1)
ando just cant do much on that side and has to play as the fighter in the middle to win balls and intercept and clash with opponent's midfield and playmakers.
pushing him to a side just doesnt help us nor him.

his forward moves arent even decent and we'd lag on his side.

on the other side nouri is just as energetic a fighter as ando, but has better forward passing ability, which may balance things out between right & left.

2)
knowing nosrati's strength in the middle and aghili's susceptibility, I'd say bring nosrati to the middle and use nouri as LB.

If I were ghotbi and wanted 3 fighters in the middle to cover for the more attacking front 3, I'd put:

---neku --------- ando --------- kazemi ---

with ando in the center running the challenges.



---------------borhani-------------

-----madanchi-----------karimi-----

----neku-------ando-----kazemi ---

--nouri --nosrati--hosseini---kaebi--

---------------rahmati-------------


this way, you can have TWO shooters from right and left ( kazemi & nekunam ) taking long rangers against korean defense as well.... to make use of another route to score goals.

but frankly with the above formation, you shd see at least 6-7 shots per half from kazemi, nekunam, madanchi, karimi, ... .
but will we ?

[Ali Chicago]

Thanks to boss' post in main forum, we know the likely lineup Ghotbi will use is a 4-3-3 with the following players:

---------------madanchi--------------
-----shojaei--------------karimi------
----nouri-------neko------ando-------
--nosrati---aghili--hosseini---kaebi--
---------------rahmati-----------------

And that is how a proper 4-3-3 is implemented tactically. Now is there anyone thinking this system with 3 strikers now is more offensive than the 4-2-3-1, in which you would have Kia instead of Nouri for example?

Hope this helps with more presense upfront and in the offensive third of the S.Korea. I am for some reason really worried. Hope I am wrong.

To me, it is about mental hunger and desire of the player, who would have thought Khalatbari will be a lot more effective than Kia? With this line up, does Madanchi play as center forward? That to me won't make any sense. Madanchi een kareh nist? He is a ok winger but not a center forward. Borhani as Erratic as he is still is a forward compared to Madanchi.