Is Roberto Martinez tactically more gifted than Pep?

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2012/05/16/wigan-stay-up-after-a-switch-to-3-4-3/




Sorry for the troll title just wanted attention lol

Credit to Roberto he's really underrated imo.

Just because you play 343 doesn't necessarily imply tactical superiority

Maybe because Wigan have the players that suit that system a lot better than Barca's do?

Just a thought

You guys missed the point completly :vagi:

Ignore the title I'm using it for hits, just read the article.

Zealous wrote:You guys missed the point completly :vagi:

Ignore the title I'm using it for hits, just read the article.

Already read the article yesterday

Pardew :vagi:

Zealous using goal.com tactics

Apparently Zealous does the same thing even on Youtube :vagi:

Pardiola got destroyed tactically. I bet he still has nightmares from that butt rapage :vagi:

Tactics had nothing to do with why Wigan won that match..... they won because of individual errors from us combined with the fact they took thier chances.....

We did'nt have no problem creating 6 or 7 clear cut chances in the 2nd half... and 2 or 3 chances in the first half.

Wigan took thier chances and we did'nt, simple.

But Tactics was the reason why we lost to Everton and City, i hope Pardew learns next season that 4-4-2 is shit.

Mole didn't read the article :vagi:

Oh and BTW Al-Goatsi the true playmaker goalkeeper.

Zealous wrote:Mole didn't read the article :vagi:

I dont need to, i watched the game i saw what happened......

1st goal: Moses out jumped Williamson

2nd goal: Coloccini slipping letting Moses in

3rd goal: Simpson being shit as usual

4th goal: world class hit from Di Santo

It had nothing to do with tactics, if that was the case we wouldnt have created more chances than Wigan.....

As i said it was to do with the fact we made individual errors, wigan took thier chances and we didnt.

Also that we bottled it and was'nt prepared mentally..... Pardew admitted this and took the blame for it and made sure we were mentally up for the following game against Chelsea which we won 2-0.

Dude just read the article, it doesn't break down the goals just how both teams tried to set up and react.

I have long since said I have always like varients of 3 at the back, because if you have the right players who are flexible it can become 3 at the back, 4 at the back or 5 at the back within the same game.

I also like it because often, it encourages offensive football which we need more and more.

The Franchise wrote:I have long since said I have always like varients of 3 at the back, because if you have the right players who are flexible it can become 3 at the back, 4 at the back or 5 at the back within the same game.

I also like it because often, it encourages offensive football which we need more and more.

I like the idea of a 3 man backline, but I can't justify using it against odd-man attacks, and seeing as how seemingly everyone seems to play those now I wouldn't want my team using it, I don't think

The Franchise wrote:I have long since said I have always like varients of 3 at the back, because if you have the right players who are flexible it can become 3 at the back, 4 at the back or 5 at the back within the same game.

I also like it because often, it encourages offensive football which we need more and more.

Fully agree, it's more flexible than a power yoga instructor.

It being unpressable when playing a 4-3-3 is also very impressive imo. Roberto says he expects the 3 man backline to become popular inEngland soon. Do you think he is on to something?

Press? we hardly ever press

Also i'd say we did pretty well as far as creating chances for a team that was so out-done tactically after all Cisse should have had a hattrick by himself

And Wigans goals didnt come from a tactical decision they came from individual errors as i said....

Also we didnt change to 3-4-3..... we changed to 3-5-2.... mainly to get Ben Arfa into the game alot more and it worked to a degree as he could have had about 4 assists in the second half if the chances were taken lol and a couple of goals himself during the game.

Far too much being looked into this.... as i already mentioned many times the system wasnt the problem..... Individual mistakes, not being prepared mentally and not taking the chances we had were the problem.

But against Everton and City the system was the problem and i have blasted Pardew for that and i hope he learns from it.

BB.

Well yeah, I agree. Most teams play 1 up front, so having 3 at the back is generally pointless.

But I like it in tournament football (NT) because from game to game you can change.

Mexico, Chile both did that very well...Mexico especially, in the same game.


Zeal..im not sure tbh, I doubt it. Aslong as teams continue to play 1 up front, most wont go 3 at the back. We are seeing it more and more generally but im still not convinced we will see it that much more.

Guardiola almost signed for Wigan in 2005

BhritanniaBhlue wrote:

The Franchise wrote:I have long since said I have always like varients of 3 at the back, because if you have the right players who are flexible it can become 3 at the back, 4 at the back or 5 at the back within the same game.

I also like it because often, it encourages offensive football which we need more and more.

I like the idea of a 3 man backline, but I can't justify using it against odd-man attacks, and seeing as how seemingly everyone seems to play those now I wouldn't want my team using it, I don't think

It allows you to attack with 7 players though, sure it can be risky but if you have faith in your attacking players to finish their chances it's worth it imo.

Ofcourse you should also know when to sit back and it's really easy to switch to a 4-3-3 when you need to likeWigan did at Anfield.

Zealous wrote:

The Franchise wrote:I have long since said I have always like varients of 3 at the back, because if you have the right players who are flexible it can become 3 at the back, 4 at the back or 5 at the back within the same game.

I also like it because often, it encourages offensive football which we need more and more.

Fully agree, it's more flexible than a power yoga instructor.

It being unpressable when playing a 4-3-3 is also very impressive imo. Roberto says he expects the 3 man backline to become popular inEngland soon. Do you think he is on to something?

I truly think a lot of team's fans would rebel if their team would switch to a 3 man backline...I saw first hand how Inter's switch to a 3 man back-line under Gasperini immediately led to EVERY. SINGLE. GOAL. being blamed on the fact that there was one less player in the defensive line...And thats in Italy, which doesn't have a football history so ingrained in one formation like England, where the 442/4411 is King.

For Martinez it worked (so far...we'll see how it foes when teams are prepared for it) but if a manager uses it and it doesn't work, the fans and media will eat that person alive, trust me.

Its stupid and brutish to assume that having one less player in the backline means that it is automatically a weaker defense, but that is EXACTLY the faulty logic that is used by fans/media everywhere when it doesn't work.

BhritanniaBhlue wrote:

Zealous wrote:

The Franchise wrote:I have long since said I have always like varients of 3 at the back, because if you have the right players who are flexible it can become 3 at the back, 4 at the back or 5 at the back within the same game.

I also like it because often, it encourages offensive football which we need more and more.

Fully agree, it's more flexible than a power yoga instructor.

It being unpressable when playing a 4-3-3 is also very impressive imo. Roberto says he expects the 3 man backline to become popular inEngland soon. Do you think he is on to something?

I truly think a lot of team's fans would rebel if their team would switch to a 3 man backline...I saw first hand how Inter's switch to a 3 man back-line under Gasperini immediately led to EVERY. SINGLE. GOAL. being blamed on the fact that there was one less player in the defensive line...And thats in Italy, which doesn't have a football history so ingrained in one formation like England, where the 442/4411 is King.

For Martinez it worked (so far...we'll see how it foes when teams are prepared for it) but if a manager uses it and it doesn't work, the fans and media will eat that person alive, trust me.

Its stupid and brutish to assume that having one less player in the backline means that it is automatically a weaker defense, but that is EXACTLY the faulty logic that is used by fans/media everywhere when it doesn't work.

Very true about the fans, same at Barca...ever error was 343..when actually, it was just bad defending very often. Fans hate it, for various reasons.

We actually let in less goals with 3 at the back, than 4, but nobody cares about that.

Funny enough, I felt our attack was worse off with 343, not the defence.

The Franchise wrote:


Zeal..im not sure tbh, I doubt it. Aslong as teams continue to play 1 up front, most wont go 3 at the back. We are seeing it more and more generally but im still not convinced we will see it that much more.

True but if you have the right players this system gives smaller teams a chance against bigger ones. They can still park the bus if they want to. I think that's an attractive prospect.

Zealous wrote:

The Franchise wrote:


Zeal..im not sure tbh, I doubt it. Aslong as teams continue to play 1 up front, most wont go 3 at the back. We are seeing it more and more generally but im still not convinced we will see it that much more.

True but if you have the right players this system gives smaller teams a chance against bigger ones. They can still park the bus if they want to. I think that's an attractive prospect.

True, but I would also add..finding the players for the formation is increasing difficult so it seems.

I mean, the flank players have to have offensive and defensive skill to play. Some get around this by having 1 generally offensive and 1 generally defensive..but even to find that, is difficult.