Silva's preferred formation.

Does anybody have any ideas on his formation preferences?
From what I've gone back and read is that he likes to soak up pressure and hit teams on the break. But very little about how he likes to line up his teams

 

Seemed to like the 4-2-3-1 with Hull


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Gomes / Neto
Janmatt Gibson Prodl friend
Docoure Lamina
Markovic pereyra success
Deeney
Janakopic
Cathcart
Mason
Kaboul
Cleverley
Zarate
Simeone
Excuse spellings but that wouldn't be to bad to start with in August



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Forgot Hughes I'd put him in for Kaboul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

'Ladies and Gentleman, Watford will be playing, Four, Four, ******* Two'

 

He likes 4-2-3-1, as do a lot of managers these days, and it's a formation I'm looking forward to seeing here as it'll get the best out of Pereyra (far and away our most talented best player if played in the correct position) when playing in the middle of the three and requires some proper, attacking wingers.

New GK

Janmaat - Prodl - New CB - New LB

Doucoure - Cleverley/Hughes/New CM

New RW - Pereyra - Success

Deeney/New ST

4/5 good signings and we'll be looking a very good side on paper.

 

Success is not a winger, he can't cross and is awful defensively. Get him running at centre halves and watch them panic

 

He switches things up a lot dependant on the opposition it seems, Hull lined up in a 442,4231,352,433,451 during his 6 months there.

 

B5gger me, just how many players did he have?

 

50 as you can see.

In all seriousness his flexibility tactically is probably what drew Gino to him after Wally and QSF's rigidness to 352 and 442 respectively

 

4231, 4141

 

3-5-2

 

On the left of the three he's not going to be a winger as such, he'd effectively be playing that "inside forward" role where he'd be looking to run at the defence, cut inside and either get a shot away or lay the ball off.

I think he looks far more suited to that role than as an out and out striker, especially a lone striker.

 

2-4-6-8 it's never too late!

 

Not keen with only 2 at the back

 

3-5-7-9 on a double white line?

 

1-2-3-4-5 senses working overtime

 

99 Shwanzig Ballons..... and 2 hairy armpits

 

Mazzarri intended to play the most flexible formation you could wish for. Wally may not have worked out, and sticking to his plan is likely to have been a large part of that, but tactically he wanted to play football the equal, if not superior, of what Conte was playing at Chelski. It is the tactics he is famous for, and was considered to be a pioneer of in Italy, and is one of the reasons Gino wanted Walter after Quique's inflexibility.

That is why for much of the season many of us were saying he was playing 3 at the back, a large proportion of us were saying he was playing 5 at the back, and a considerable number were saying we had changed to four at the back, with a few, including club captain Troy Deeney, saying we were playing a flexible formation, switching from three to four to five at the back.

Fair to say that Walter was not right for the job, and was a stubborn old so and so, but tactically inflexible he wasn't, and if anything, the team was attempting to be more flexible than its players were capable of.

Seems the loudest voices won out again when it comes to opinion.

 

It was ***** football but how can anyone say Mazzarri wasn't flexible tactically?? Clueless.

 

Silva plays a 4-2-3-1 going forward and a 4-1-4-1 defensively, the more defensive minded of thw holding midfielders dropping back infront of the two centre halves whilst the other pushes up in to a central role with the attacking midfielder. Wingers drop back covering full backs runs

 

Was Mazzarri flexible or just unsure of how he wanted to play?

 

http://outsideoftheboot.com/2017/02/16/tactical-philosophy-marco-silva/

 

Yours is the best and most balanced assessment of Mazzari tactical formations. He was certainly more flexible than QSF but besides not having the right players he was cursed because the injuries always got in the way of what he tried to achieve. Not making excuses but I think he was a bit of a Jonah. His biggest failure was in-game tactics, poor communications and with one or two exceptions ill-timed substitutions. Expect Silva to give the team clear tactical plans and make more decisive subs. The future is golden! COYHS.

 

And that is one of the fairest summaries I have seen of Walter.

Things were stacked against him, yes, but, additionally, I think the ultimate issue that saw him off was more to do with his personality; not that it was a personality clash (I don't think that would worry Gino if he had the right man), but more that Walter has passed a critical point in his career development (and possibly his life) that I fear he is not emotionally equipped to manage, which was maybe played out in front of us all.

 

Worth a read if you are genuinely interested in finding out...

https://forzaitalianfootball.com/2012/11/tactics-playing-the-napoli-way-walter-mazzarris-3-5-2/

Explains the transitions and the roles involved his flexible system.

Not an argument that he shouldn't have been pushed. Just a hint at why Gino was so keen on him prior to "the fall".

 

GT once stated (as I recall) that tactics and formations do not win matches, players do - last season was a potent demonstration of that....

 

What we don't know is if Silva will play a 4231 with wingers, or a more solid Mourinho type 4231 with attacking midfielders

If the latter then might we possibly see?:

Deeney
Pereyra Lemina Hughes
Cleverly Doucoure

 

You can't have one without the other

 

In the spirit of the quote, yes, you can have one without the other. If the players don't adhere to, or are unable to execute a coach's tactics, it may be the difference between winning and losing, either way.

To my knowledge, no game has been called off due to the tactics not turning up, which may have cost us dearly over the last few seasons.

 

IMO good players & good tactics are both important. If two sides have good, well-match players, the side that employs the better tactics will probably win

 

4 2 3 1 when defending, moving to 4 3 3 when attacking.

 

The tactics can be perfectly planned, but if the players don't/can't stick to them then you'll have a hard time winning.
If you have good players but ***** tactics then you'll have a hard time winning.

 

Exactly. GT's point nailed.

Yet, crap tactics and decent players who ignore them may, occasionally, get you a win.