What TM has in common with Croetia,and Czec republic !!

[Hajagha]

... He believes Daei and Hashemian are outstanding players and both must play when fit and therefore adapts his system to that...

Thanks god he doesn't believe Enayati, Majidi and Samerh are outstanding, otherwise we would play with 5 center forwards against Portugal.

Well, that's the core problem, he is wrong in his belief, that's why your calculations of 2*2 doesn't become 4. It's not you, it's him.

He needs to have a 4-2 for the defense (D and DM), meaning he ends up with 4 players to create scoring opportunity and goal scorer, he must be crazy to put 2 goal getters for 2 play makers. Besides, we both know Zandi is not a DM, neither Kia and it would be stupid to put Karimi as DM too, then he has no choice to play 3 in attacking midfielder. Now we end up to one position in center forward, either Daei or Hashemian.

Another choice would be a 4-1 for D and DM, meaning giving up a defensive mid for letting a goal getter (in your words, otherwise I don't agree) play against a team we barely go to get a goal.

It's simple my friend, Branko is wrong.

[Hajagha]

Human explained that well in his interview with PFDC (it's still in spotlight on frontpage).

I listened to your advice and read again the interview, look what I found:

For our current squad, I prefer 4-2-3-1 because a team playing in that formation, has excellent coverage of the field both in attack and in defence. It provides better opportunity to play through the wings, which nowadays is where most goals come from.

Hashemian had played 4-2-3-1 in Bochum and at first, Branko used him in the same position. Although he played well in that position, he did not bring any extra edge to the team.

In today's football, it is not important to play with 4 strikers or 1. The transition is the most important issue which creates superiority in numbers.

Form a technical point of view, we have some areas to work on, both on and off the ball. For me, the most important aspects are the changeover from attack to defence and vice versa, and also the ball movement from the back toward the front while the team is under pressure.

So, according to Human, we need to work on transition and ball movement under pressure, now tell me who can do these stuffs better, a DM or a centerforward?

Now, you can conclude for your own.

[zzgloo]

The only ones that matter to us are the teams in group D....
and according to this formation chart and subsequent article, Angola and Portugal have essentialy same style which is 4-2-3-1 with 4 defenders on defence,two halfbacks before the middle of the field line,and three forwards,and one point stricker in the front,which is a defensive sheem, but with Mexico is a little different,which is 3-4-1-2,which would have a stronger middle,as they wish to control the center of the field,with three defenders,and 4 halfbacks on the center....
and finaly,if we go with this magazine analysis of Iranian formation...4-1-3-2,the formation is rather offensive in design,as our halfbacks have more offensive duties than defensive..although,we have seen,by changing personel and bringing in alavi as halfback,we would take a defensive posture,the formation would go back to 4-2-3-1,which branko stated on his interview,as his wish to have a secound back-halfback.
We have noticed,that Branko,on stronger opponants,choses a more offensive posture,which was the case,in our friendly game with Germany,and our games in Asian Cup,as well as the first half with Costa-rica....which leads me to believe,his game plan with mexico will be an offensive one, ( at least on the first half )...and that perhaps, will be as this magazine suggested................4-1-3-2...which,in a graphic form will actualy be like.......4-1-2-1-2 with karimi,a step back behind hashemian-daei, but a step in front of zandi-mahdavikia.

[BehzadB]

In today's football, it is not important to play with 4 strikers or 1. The transition is the most important issue which creates superiority in numbers.

that's what it is all about. If anyone is looking for a one sentence definition of football, that's it. Perfectly said by Human jan.

Imagine we have to give up an on-form player like Teymourian or Jabari or Mobali for an in-form striker like Daei against a team like Portugal with players like Figo, Ronaldo and Deco.

And that has been at the heart of my opposition of giving Ali Daie the starting role.

yes Ali Daie has been better than a lot of players on Set plays (although he can not jump anymore). but in Transitional situations we are at a disadvantage at the heart of our midfield. I don't know the numbers, but I would guess teams spend almost 99% of the time in transitinal football.

the whole problem with Branko's team runing on a flat tire in the midfield starts with Daie's leggs.

I , like Human jan, think that 4.2.3.1 is the best option. But not with Daie. With VH and a FREE Karimi. consider this,

Nosrati - Gol - Rezaie - Zareh
-------Nekou ----- "whomever"
Kia -- Karimi -- Zandi
--- --- VH ---

We don't really need the one striker to score, but We need him to run A LOT in this "Transitional football" that we must play. The formation requires "that" from the Striker. For us it starts from there. We have NO other iranian player, that can be as good a classical Striker and still run as fast and as powerful as VH does. But we put Daie in front and push VH back, and the whole thing shifts out of place. I don't undrestand that logic by Branko. Eveyone knows how it didnot work, but that's what Branko is going to do if Daie plays. He has to. He isnot going to play with two strikers. He will just push VH back.

I guess we just have to wonder what it could have been.

[Martin-Reza]

I listened to your advice and read again the interview, look what I found:

So, according to Human, we need to work on transition and ball movement under pressure, now tell me who can do these stuffs better, a DM or a centerforward?
Now, you can conclude for your own.

Unfortunately you cut out the important part of the quote, as a whole it says:

But after Hashemian's return, Branko thought about playing with 2 strikers upfront. Hashemian had played 4-2-3-1 in Bochum and at first, Branko used him in the same position. Although he played well in that position, he did not bring any extra edge to the team. That was why we changed to 4-4-2 against Japan in Tehran, and you saw how suddenly Hashemian added an extra class to the team with his performance.

Which means although 4-2-3-1 might be preferred by human (and maybe by Branko), he had to adjust his system to the available best players (sth certain 'fans' always accuse Branko of not doing). This was my point in my last reply.

[zzgloo]

On our game with Germany in the last world cup in france....we totaly had given up the " AIR ",that is " TOOPHAYE HAVAEE "....and the tall german players just owned all the balls on the air.......and that was not only emmbaressing,but also a major handicap...........
with smaller size mexican defense....daei is an asset.

[Hajagha]

Unfortunately you cut out the important part of the quote, as a whole it says:

That was why we changed to 4-4-2 against Japan in Tehran, and you saw how suddenly Hashemian added an extra class to the team with his performance.

Well, I cut out the rest bcz I thought it's not important and also it's not true and Human is only a diplomat here with the false quote, Daei only played 30 minutes due to injury. Actually we played much better after Daei departure. I was there in stadium.

Otherwise, we have seen many other games after Japan match with both Daei and Hashemian with no "extra edge". The extra edge compare with the time before Hashemian was due to Hashemian performance himself in the right place and not correct formation of 4-4-2.

Anyway, you changed the whole direction of the discussion. Don't you see the conflict of "4-2-3-1 formation" both Human and Branko think is the best for us against better teams like Portugal and Mexico and "Daei-Hashemian" both up front?

Cheers

[Martin-Reza]

Well, I cut out the rest bcz I thought it's not important and also it's not true and Human is only a diplomat here with the false quote, Daei only played 30 minutes due to injury. Actually we played much better after Daei departure. I was there in stadium.
Otherwise, we have seen many other games after Japan match with both Daei and Hashemian with no "extra edge". The extra edge compare with the time before Hashemian was due to Hashemian performance himself in the right place and not correct formation of 4-4-2.
Anyway, you changed the whole direction of the discussion. Don't you see the conflict of "4-2-3-1 formation" both Human and Branko think is the best for us against better teams like Portugal and Mexico and "Daei-Hashemian" both up front?
Cheers

Well, Daei played 42 minutes to be precise and with him we 'won' 1-0, without him we drew 1-1 - and he won the freekick which lead to the goal and despite not being in the stadium I don't share your view of playing better. "Good" and "better" are such subjective expressions, they can be too widely defined to really use them in a discussion.

As for Hashemian, true he did better in center than on leftwing, but also because he had a second striker with him (first Daei, then Karimi, because Branko didn't change the system). There's a difference between centerforward in a two-striker system or as lone striker. I think the 4-2-3-1 with Hashemian as lone striker (like performed in South Korea) is not so effective as the 4-4-2 with Daei and Hashemian. Same goes for 4-2-3-1 with only Daei - again 4-4-2 stronger.

But to your question, I don't see a conflict. Coaches prefer certain formations, such as we prefer different meals or clothes, but that doesn't make one formation objectively better. As a national team coach, you need to adapt your system to the available players (sth Branko is falsely accused of not doing) and that is what he does.

But coaches also, at least sometimes, have to adapt the system to the opposition. So you might have named a big dilemma here. Could be that player-wise a 4-1-2-1-2 is the 'perfect' system, but that the opposition would recommend a 4-2-3-1. Could be that there is no perfect solution for that problem, each decision has it's advantages and disadvantages. I would definitely use my best team regardless of the opposition, but I'm not a coach.

The main 'problem' here, however, is not the question you brought up, but the fact that for you (and many more) the 4-2-3-1 without Daei is the best lineup anyway - so there is no question for you that the 4-4-2 diamond is not ideal. Just please accept that Ivankovic appears to see that differently.