Iran - Jordan (Azadi)

[zzgloo]

In regards to 4-2-3-1, or 4-4-2,etc,etc/.....

....................

1- 4-2-3-1 is most widly used in today's football.......and there must be reasons for it.

2-It can easily be turned to defensive and offensive postures.( As I remember clemente used to say,systems must be fluid at all times ).

3-Between, (useing the system that we have appropreate personel for ), (useing personel ,for the system ) is no longer a question for our TM at this stage we are in......, we should use the system we like to grow in ......and if not now, then when ?...this is the time we can afford to do so.

4-TM short comeings is not because of 4-2-3-1 ..

5-If a system is used long enough, right personel will be found sooner or later.

6- At this moment in our football history,.talents we have,are not as important as the system we should use.

[Doctor DOOM]

Based on what I have learnt so far the 4-2-3-1 formation is a defensive formation which is quite flexible and can turn into both offensive or defensive pattern .In offensive pattern the two front side attacking midfielders joint the attack(RAM and LAM)4-3-3
And in defensive pattern they pull back helping defense creating a 4-5-1 formation.
This formation suites teams that play possession and focuses on control of the midfield, stopping attacks at mid filed. Teams playing this formation are likely not to apply too much speed, keeping the game at lower tempo. Passing has to be accurate and shorter to keep possession of the ball.

The lone striker needs to be strong and fast to hold the ball up as his midfielders join him in attack. He has a difficult job as he could often get caught in offside position which is improper use of this position in this formation. The idea is not for him to do a sole counter attack, but to control the ball (dribble if he has too)and wait for wings to arrive.
Due to the fact that this is inherently a possession and control formation, if the two attacking side midfields play more defensively it will result in less goals or results.
I think this is a difficult formation that requires players filling each defensive and attacking midfield, center attacking midfield and the sole striker position properly or there will be very little goals ,a draw or even a loss!

In future games I will focus and see who is selected for these critical 5 mid filed positions and the sole striker. Also if possession is easily lost after 2 or 3 passes, it won’t be prudent for this team to adopt this formation. Long passes from defense all the way to opponent side are also improper in this formation.

Iraj jan, this pretty much explains the "system".
and what martin says about the "system" and all the nitty gritty of it is also more or less correct (judging by the extensive collection of magazines and ... he has)

but here's the kicker:
what we read in some magazine means diddly-poop in the real world (an age old saying of mine).
he is correct to say the system is good for this and that and attacking, and .... . but for example, when in reality NONE of our strikers have been able to perform the tasks, what use is the system then?

when the mids employed, due to the wrong selection, are incapable of providing the least bit of creativity and playmaking for the team's offense, what use is the system that seemingly works for the dutch?

when the wingers employed, do only part of their tasks and arent reliable alternatives for scoring goals (when the single forward is marked or unable to break or score), what use is the system's efficiency on paper?
and so on.
in other words, this system is useless for TM when we are in need of a win or scoring goals.... which was what we needed during the WCQ's, hence all those arguments & debates on this issue.



for example, one of the characteristics (ON PAPER) of the system to work is good passing and creativity. now, when our players fail to string more than 3-4 passes together, which half of them are BACK-PASSES, what are we to understand?
that we're doing ti right?

the same method can be applied to other aspects of offensive (not defensive) needs within the framework of this formation.


- notice every defense of this formation is quoting what is written ON PAPER rather than saying for example, VH proved the single forward formation was successful becoz he scored bucket-full of goals.
or TM's midfield proved the formation was successful becoz they outmaneuvered and out-performed all our opponents (I'm not talking about piss-poor ones) in showing great creativity, incision, efficiency, ... .
or the sheer number of IN-PLAY goals we've had clearly proves we've been successful in implementing the formation
or ... etc.
no. all you'll get is what is written in some 4-4-2 magazine or some theoretical hand-out or ...


------------------

the problem is not the system. it may be god's gift to mankind for all I care.
the problem is that we DONT have the right players (maybe later, with a few more years of clubs using it we'll get some) to use it now.

yashar comes up with sepahan as an example.
but he "forgets" to mention sepahan reached the finals through playing highly defensive games where they either came up with draws or advanced through penalty shoot-outs. their offense was hardly noticeable as formidable against the tougher opponents in quarters, semis and the final.

------------

so yes, go ahead and use it when we're facing some heavy hitters and really strong opponents. fine by me.

but using the same thing against teams AT BEST, on par with us, and mostly weaker ones (which make up about 90% of our match-ups for quite sometime now) makes very little sense.
and this becomes even more ridiculous and pathetic when the game'sbeing held in AZADI !

but hey .... who cares as long as we're winning the mighty giants of football like jordan and uae's youth team and iceland's reserves, eh?

[Martin-Reza]

But which team doesn't need to score goals? We aren't in a special position for needing goals, so that argument is completely invalid.

The point we can argue about is if there is anything special about Iranian football and current available players which makes the 4-2-3-1 unfitting for us.

You claim that we can't play it because our strikers didn't do well in the system. I guess if we want to finally end this seemingly neverending system discussion, we should focus on that.

My opinion is that the reason why our strikers don't do well in the 4-2-3-1 is, that they simply are no good strikers, and therefore simply don't do well on the pitch, regardless of the system.

Is there any evidence for or against this theory we can use to solve this issue?

[Doctor DOOM]

bahram jan, just becoz something is used widely in other parts of the world, does NOT mean we use it properly.

a nice Mont-Blanc fountain pen is used widely throughout the world.
now give that pen to an 8 year old who uses it to scratch on the wall.
would you have the same reasoning too?

however, what you'd do is give this 8 yr old a SIMPLER TOOL (extremely important & key word here): A PENCIL.
let him get used to a simpler tool, and be able to use this one properly ... and then advance him to a pen and ultimately, a fountain pen.

wouldnt you ?

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

on the same context, may I ask when you started driving a car?
was it at the age 4 or 5?

or were you first given a tricycle, and after mastering it, you were advanced to a bicycle and then perhaps to a bike and finally a motorcar (which on average understanding wouldnt have been a formula-1 racer). am I correct?

so wouldnt it make more sense if we employed SIMPLER formations for our football so all our players can understand and deliver the simpler tasks first. and after shwoing enough expertise, skills and professional attitude and capability, move to the next gear.
am I correct?

[Doctor DOOM]

But which team doesn't need to score goals? We aren't in a special position for needing goals, so that argument is completely invalid.

The point we can argue about is if there is anything special about Iranian football and current available players which makes the 4-2-3-1 unfitting for us.

You claim that we can't play it because our strikers didn't do well in the system. I guess if we want to finally end this seemingly neverending system discussion, we should focus on that.

My opinion is that the reason why our strikers don't do well in the 4-2-3-1 is, that they simply are no good strikers, and therefore simply don't do well on the pitch, regardless of the system.

Is there any evidence for or against this theory we can use to solve this issue?

(red)
oh, yeah. I forgot.
you are absolutely correct that we werent in need of scoring goals in the WCQ's.
neither would we be during the actual AC and the subsequent WCQ's and ....

all we'd need to qualify for WC's is 0-0 draws.
scoring goals? ppfft. that's for losers!!
all we'd need to be handed the asian trophy is goal-less draws.
much like how we got the last AC handed to us and how we qualified for this WC by drawing the most number of games.

very true.
I stand corrected

==================
(blue)
as for the striker bit :
while I somewhat agree with the lack of quality strikers, it still doesnt explain why we have to make it EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM by using a formation that doesnt provide:
1- creativity and imagination to feed them enough balls & opportunities
2- good alternatives on wings to relieve some of the burden off the forwards' shoulders
3- no partner who would remove some of the markers who pile up on the SINGLE chap
4- ...

my car isnt running well at all, due to some engine malfunctions. wouldnt I be a daft idiot if inspite of fixing the engine, I ran on flat tyres also?

[leviathan]

Peyman jan,
4-3-3 proved to be scoreful (i made up a word) in our old football.
why did the first half with 4-3-3 formation against Jordan fail?

----------------------Rahmati------------------
Heydari-------Aghili---------Nosrati----Hajsafi
---------------------Nekounam-----------------
-----------Teymourian--------Nouri------------
----Shojaei------------------------Madanchi---
---------------------Ansarifard------------------

Is it because Shojaei should have been khalatbari at first half and nouri and nekounam position should have switched?

or may be nouri should have not played at all?

If 4-3-3 is no good also what formation do you think is not too advanced(Mont-Blanc fountin pen) in the hands of our players?

[yashar_fasihnia]

^

yet esteghlal's 3-5-2 could only manage 2 draws against al jazeera from UAE and a draw and a loss against umm salal from qatar with an offense who had a record number of goals scored on an international scale, second only to a dream team barcelona!!
compare it to the results our teams got with 4-2-3-1 against the same supposedely "2nd rated" asian teams both at clubs or national level!


sepahan that year under luka and with 4-2-3-1 beat al shabab of syria 5-0 (this is the type of scorelines we should get against 2nd rated asian teams right?) and al wahda of UAE 3-1!
not good enough??? isnt this wat we are talking about? so wat do u have to say now? again too defensive and this formation shouldnt be played against teams like syria and UAE?
the 1-0 and penalties that sepahan was winning were against teams from japan, korea and saudi arabia which is something usual and expected! we have got similar or even worse results with different formations like 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 or even 3-5-2 against the same opponents!!! so wat is the whining and "forgetting" all about?

then this year, sepahan played 4-4-2 with rasoul khatibi and emad reza as its 2 strikers and failed to advance with teams from uzbekistan and UAE (2nd rated asian team) and an unknown saudi arabian team who somehow had managed to creep into ACL by coming 4th place in saudi league!


i also mentioned perspolis exmaple which u seemingly "forgot" to mention, and guess wat, they finished as champions with the highest goal difference 21 (second best was sepahan with only 15), and second highest number of goals scored 55 (best was esteghlal ahvaz with 61 who scored the most number of goals - wow, such a nice offensive game but also conceded 51 goals and could only manage to finish 8th!!! so much for its offensive powers!).
and this is a very good example because it shows consistency and balance of the system over a whole season and against every type of opponent (weak, medium, strong) both home and away!


sepahan didnt play the most offensive games in asia, but it played a well balanced and systematic football which got them to world club championships.
esteghlal played the most offensive football against clubs from UAE and qatar and ended up 4th in the group out of 4 teams and got eliminated in the first round itself.


iran beat bosnia 5-2 using the same formation! iran scored 3 goals against costa rica using this same formation and won 3-2! iran managed to score twice against croatia in zagreb using the same formation but apparently, these are not offensive enough! are these teams, or even their B teams, any worse than B grade and C grade asian teams???

either our expectations are too high from our football (given all the crap players we have at our disposal right now), or we are really under estimating the opponents (thinking its still the 80s and 90s), or we are just fantasizing that with other formations we will BOTH HAVE BETTER DISPLAY AND GET BETTER RESULTS AND GO BACK TO THE 90s AND BEAT UAE and JORDAN 3-0 and 4-0 WITH PLAYERS LIKE DAEI,AZIZI, KIA AND BAGHERI AT PEAK!
maybe its also a mixture of all of the above...

[Doctor DOOM]

Peyman jan,
4-3-3 proved to be scoreful (i made up a word) in our old football.
why did the first half with 4-3-3 formation against Jordan fail?

----------------------Rahmati------------------
Heydari-------Aghili---------Nosrati----Hajsafi
---------------------Nekounam-----------------
-----------Teymourian--------Nouri------------
----Shojaei------------------------Madanchi---
---------------------Ansarifard------------------

Is it because Shojaei should have been khalatbari at first half and nouri and nekounam position should have switched?

or may be nouri should have not played at all?

If 4-3-3 is no good also what formation do you think is not too advanced(Mont-Blanc fountin pen) in the hands of our players?

Iraj jan, I feel sometimes we look at "numbers" far more than look at the "TYPE" of the players we use or the PERFORMANCE of these players!

merely using 4-3-3 doesnt mean it's an attacking line up.
not to ramble on, I'll cut it short and direct you to the 3 players used in the middle to point out the defective thinking of ghotbi.

he used three DEFENSIVE MINDED ( no matter where they are used. it's what they are CAPABLE OF) players with hardly (I'm being extremely generous here) any creativity and playmaking imagination:
nouri
nekunam
ando

this meant the 3 players up front wont be supported well in the attacks and the crucial "through-balls" and creative opportunities will be severely limited. and for a tightly packed defensive opponent, you'd need even MORE opportunities to get through and score.


and to prove this point, I remind you all how removing even one defensive player for an offensive player made such a drastic difference. nouri out, khalatbari in and we saw a whole new team.

let alone the fact that for a team like jordan IN AZADI, even one def-mid would be more than enough. let alone 2. but that's besides the point here.


-----------------------

besides, one of the 3 up front is more "name" than "game":
shojaei.
he is getting a free pass purely based on where he plays and NOT his actual performances in the TM. we saw he was clearly the poorest player in the stadium (and I'm counting the reserves bench also). when one of your 3 offensive players is more about dribbling (and subsequently losing) the ball than quick passing, then you allow the opponent's defenders to regroup and re-form their walls.

so now, we have only 2 effective offensive players.
one playing wide, which he did quite well.
and the other, stuck ALONE in a crowd of defenders!
need I say more ?

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

a bit more on shojaei.
his style of football, coupled with his pace (lack of) and lack of defensive abilities make him a unique player that can be used only in specific situations.

personally, I'd say he can come in as a sub only when the team is AHEAD by a goal or two, and we'd need to play possession football or delaying tactics to run down the clock or when we want to keep the ball up-field by dribbling or winning fouls up there, .... and such situations. he needs time to do his stuff and that is when we CAN afford to lose time.

but when we are searching for goals, his delaying game, his over-dribbling, his inability to help in starting the defense from up-field just makes him the wrong option.

I was hoping after joining osasuna, he'd become a more complete and all-round player, learning how to participate in defense properly (much like how karimi learnt his defensive game at bayern). but so far it hasnt happened!! and in modern football, EVERY player needs to participate in defense and not just defenders.

[Martin-Reza]

(red)
oh, yeah. I forgot.
you are absolutely correct that we werent in need of scoring goals in the WCQ's.
neither would we be during the actual AC and the subsequent WCQ's and ....

all we'd need to qualify for WC's is 0-0 draws.
scoring goals? ppfft. that's for losers!!
all we'd need to be handed the asian trophy is goal-less draws.
much like how we got the last AC handed to us and how we qualified for this WC by drawing the most number of games.

very true.
I stand corrected

As you obviously missed the point, let me repeat, why do other teams use the 4-2-3-1? Don't they need goals as urgent as us? Are Serie A, Champions League, World Cup and European Cup titles won with 0-0s? Are WCQ campaigns and ECQ campaigns special in any way so that the participating teams do need goals less urgent than TM?

All teams need goals, and therefore claiming 4-2-3-1 would work for other teams, but not for us, because we need goals is simply INVALID.

==================
(blue)
as for the striker bit :
while I somewhat agree with the lack of quality strikers, it still doesnt explain why we have to make it EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM by using a formation that doesnt provide:
1- creativity and imagination to feed them enough balls & opportunities
2- good alternatives on wings to relieve some of the burden off the forwards' shoulders
3- no partner who would remove some of the markers who pile up on the SINGLE chap
4- ...

my car isnt running well at all, due to some engine malfunctions. wouldnt I be a daft idiot if inspite of fixing the engine, I ran on flat tyres also?

I will come back to that later, because I am a bit in a hurry right now. This is stuff we should discuss, rather than claiming a 4-2-3-1 is only good for teams which don't want to win anyways .

I must say though that most of that are baseless accuasations against a tactical system, which do not correspond with the reality. For example claiming a 4-2-3-1 would not provide the basis for wingplay, is almost ridiculous.

[Doctor DOOM]

As you obviously missed the point, let me repeat, why do other teams use the 4-2-3-1? Don't they need goals as urgent as us? Are Serie A, Champions League, World Cup and European Cup titles won with 0-0s? Are WCQ campaigns and ECQ campaigns special in any way so that the participating teams do need goals less urgent than TM?
All teams need goals, and therefore claiming 4-2-3-1 would work for other teams, but not for us, because we need goals is simply INVALID.
I will come back to that later, because I am a bit in a hurry right now. This is stuff we should discuss, rather than claiming a 4-2-3-1 is only good for teams which don't want to win anyways .
I must say though that most of that are baseless accuasations against a tactical system, which do not correspond with the reality. For example claiming a 4-2-3-1 would not provide the basis for wingplay, is almost ridiculous.

I think this (the red) just proved my point.


and I've said all I had to say in the past 3-4 posts ( not to mention 10 times more, during those final few WCQ's)
I doubt I'd be persuaded to repeat all that again. just a waste of time.

[Martin-Reza]

^ Ok, let me sum up your point before we continue:

1) The 4-2-3-1 is not good for TM when needing goals and when needing to win.
2) The 4-2-3-1 is good for TM if a goalless draw is aimed.
3) The 4-2-3-1 is good for particular other teams even when they need to win and score goals.

Are those 3 points reflecting your beliefs correctly?

[zzgloo]

^ Ok, let me sum up your point before we continue:

1) The 4-2-3-1 is not good for TM when needing goals and when needing to win.
2) The 4-2-3-1 is good for TM if a goalless draw is aimed.
3) The 4-2-3-1 is good for particular other teams even when they need to win and score goals.

Are those 3 points reflecting your beliefs correctly?

I have not read all payman's posts...but if this is what he believes, he needs far more than just his opinion,to support such claims......
I do not believe, all highly experinced European coaches subscribe to payman's assertion........
When our ferdosipour,in 90 program asked " Clemente ", what system he uses!!, he answered " WHEN " ? as in what part of the game ?......
Todays' coaches, would like thier system to be fluide, and be in constant change...that means, they at time play, 4-4-2, or 4-3-3, etc,etc.....they could become very offensive, or very defensive, if situation requires.....
Another point regarding 4-2-3-1, is the fact about its """GEOMETRY !!....
since,players, are set in such way,that they are closer to each other on the length of the field than on the width of the field,and this fact is acceptable since, the width of the field is less than length of the field.......and while players will have as short the passes length wise, as the passes width wise...players would give away a little the edges of the field,and take away more the length of the field.......and the closest distance of two points,is the stright line...thefore, players can travel and transfer the ball faster to the opposining goal, and also get back to defend faster as well.
The field is perfectly divided,in equidistance between all players as well as thier distance to the edges of the field, with the emphasis,on maximom transfering time of the ball to both Goals ,by shortest passes possible., as well as players are in minimon distance to each other,for group set ups, and helping in defense or offensive thrusts.

[Doctor DOOM]

^^
I have said & answered all these things in my earlier posts.
plz read them again

but I'll add only one thing to the 3rd's answer.
"other" teams can do whatever they want. I dont care and dont give a damn.
what matters is what TM does and uses and has in possession. and based on the Iranians players (until we give citizenship to lampard, ronaldo, messi, schneider...) are not capable of delivering those tasks.

================
^
bahram jan, that "when" is one thing. but as you shd know, there is a basic structure for the set of players that a coach lays his plans on. obviously players move all over the field and at each instance the shape and numbers of the line up changes depending on the circumstances.
but the team is laid down by a certain structure, which follows certain goals and methods and tasks.

[Martin-Reza]

^ You've not answered straight. You talking more around such issues in order to avoid making a clear statement. At least that is my impression. It would be good if you summed up your points more precisely sometimes, especially in this regard.

[zzgloo]

^^
I have said & answered all these things in my earlier posts.
plz read them again

but I'll add only one thing to the 3rd's answer.
"other" teams can do whatever they want. I dont care and dont give a damn.
what matters is what TM does and uses and has in possession. and based on the Iranians players (until we give citizenship to lampard, ronaldo, messi, schneider...) are not capable of delivering those tasks.

================
^
bahram jan, that "when" is one thing. but as you shd know, there is a basic structure for the set of players that a coach lays his plans on. obviously players move all over the field and at each instance the shape and numbers of the line up changes depending on the circumstances.
but the team is laid down by a certain structure, which follows certain goals and methods and tasks.

Payman e Aziz.....
What you are saying is very clear and not hard to understand........
Yet, your whole argument is based on, " We do not have the right players for such system "..........
This assumption of yours,assumes, 4-2-3-1 requires a particular talent level for each position, and assumes other systems do not !.....and that is where I disagree with you,and believe, you come short in your reasonings.........
Why do you assume, the ( 1 ) at forward has to be super center forward ?
why do you assume, the other system can be implemented with a lesser talent,but this one can not ?........
If anything, this system is the most player friendly, and helps shortcomeings the most...
this system, maximizes players out put, regardless of the talent level.....it helps by the acounts of :
1- Shorter distance between players, ( easier group playing,and not relying only on individual talents ).
2-Expedites speed of the game.( By again shorter distance among players,and haveing more players in the length rather than in the width ).
3-Extra ability of the system to be fluid,and interchangable.( Again helping coahes to help players )
....
Payman jaan, while you may say, you do not care, if Others do it.....but you fail to say,why do you think they do it with so many different schools of football, with different talent levels ?