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.

Where was the hype behind Martinez when he got 22 points in his first 29 games i wonder

If he was such a tactical genius surely it would have taken him less than 30 games to figure it out

Roberto seems convinced it'll become popular because the prospect of being able to keep the ball will be too attractive. I agree faulty logic could prevent that but managers start looking for footballers in the transfer window instead of athletes then it would work imo.

A manager has to stick with his ideas if they are proven. Not to the point of being hard headed about it but you can't let the media decide your formation for you.

Maybe his players took 29 games to figure out what he really wanted from them. It happens you know, players taking a good while to realise what the coach wants. Luckily for him, it came at the right time.

Anyway, the hype is unnecessary but Martinez is obviously a talented coach.

I am a better coach than Roberto Martinez, Another over-rated Spanish coach.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Where was the hype behind Martinez when he got 22 points in his first 29 games i wonder

If he was such a tactical genius surely it would have taken him less than 30 games to figure it out

Didn't have the right players to try it from the outset imo. Signed Bousajour who helped realise it almost immidiately. Like Franchise said it's hard to get the right players for the system. Martinez actually taught he squad how to play that way (aside from the ones who were used to it already)

Plus Wigan players aren't that good it's concievable that Martinez was slowly taking them away from how they were used to playing. That slow introduction is what helped imo.

Nameless wrote:Im surprised Wigan still hasnt been relegated. Martinez win % is less than 30 ..Its 26 infact.

Look at his win percentage after the 3-4-3 was fully realised in Feb/March.

Because he believes it to be a good way of playing once the players understand it properly?

Happens every season Zeal and suddenly for the last 8 or 9 games they suddenly perform..... i think its more due to the fact that the style of football demands the other team to be tired to pull off successfully and at the end of the season teams are more tired than not.

I watched most of the games Zonal Marking mentioned ( which a ridiculous amount of faults in it btw) and most of them was'nt even tactical its more due to the fact that unlike in the first 29 games...

Wigan were able to take thier chances, i think he's getting far too much credit for something that is'nt even tactical....

The difference is Moses and Di Santo and the other players are scoring and they was'nt at the start.

As i said before far too much being looked into this.... this was definitely the case in the Arsenal and Newcastle games anyway....

I don't know what you were watching Mole, Wigan were totally oblitirating you that game. They clearly were superior and the scoreline reflected very well on what I saw that game.

They could have even gotten more goals aswell.

Mole always drinks gallons of haterrade whenever he comments on things I like

Nameless wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Because he believes it to be a good way of playing once the players understand it properly?

Thats were he was wrong, playing it 3 defenders is never good Idea. No matter the system or style.

So how come they are doing well now? lol

Nameless wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Because he believes it to be a good way of playing once the players understand it properly?

Thats were he was wrong, playing it 3 defenders is never good Idea. No matter the system or style.

Switching to three at the back kept Wigan up so Martinez wasn't wrong. You are dead wrong though lol

Se7en wrote:I don't know what you were watching Mole, Wigan were totally oblitirating you that game. They clearly were superior and the scoreline reflected very well on what I saw that game.

They could have even gotten more goals aswell.

Nah not really they took thier chances but that was it really...... we could have scored 3 times in the first half and about 5 or 6 in the second half.....

Cisse hit the bar/post 3 times by himself ffs and had a 1 on 1 saved by Al-Habsi

Also Zeal iam not hating its just pointing obvious flaws in logic on your behalf and zonal marking who made same really bad fails in thier piece....

Seriously this thread is like me w*nking over Pardew after he changed us to 4-2-1-3 which took us to a 7 game winning run and conceding one goal in that stretch its quite frankly rubbish.

Even if Wigan did batter us, which is'nt true on reflecting on chances made it wasnt to do with tactics as i already explained.

Maybe you can wait until next season to really think that his formation(3-4-3 or whatever) is working wonders for his team ?

Its become repetitive to see Wigan always perform at this stage of the season..So people wont be entirely convinced.

I agree with Surag we'll have to wait whether Liverpool can succeed using this system.

In any case I think anyone who actually watched Wigan can see the merits of the system it self but like Roberto said the system can never win you a game, only the players can. The merits of this style of play are clear and proven, consistency is not an issue because there are too many variables that can affect preformances. The system itself is not only sound, it kept Wigan up (i.e. it succeeded meaning nameless's it can never succeed theory is totally wrong lol).

Nameless wrote:

The Franchise wrote:

Nameless wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Because he believes it to be a good way of playing once the players understand it properly?

Thats were he was wrong, playing it 3 defenders is never good Idea. No matter the system or style.

So how come they are doing well now? lol

Lets see long theyll play their beloved 3-4-3 before it all backfires. Playing with 3 defenders is leaving your defensive line too exploitable.

It gave them a good season, it has already justified itself.

Also, look at Napoli...they have played it for seasons now and its been a great line up for them.

Playing 3 at the back doesnt mean the defence is weaker, just because there are 3 there. Thats just stupid.

Actually Dani it gave them a good 5 games...... he has switched from 3-5-2,4-3-3 and 3-4-3 in last few games.... and as i already said they had 22 points with 9 games to play.

As i already pointed out Wigan's success is more down to style of play change and having forwards hitting form.... not really a system that out does all before them.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Actually Dani it gave them a good 5 games...... he has switched from 3-5-2,4-3-3 and 3-4-3 in last few games.... and as i already said they had 22 points with 9 games to play.

As i already pointed out Wigan's success is more down to style of play change and having forwards hitting form.... not really a system that out does all before them.

Right, but bottom line, they have made the formation work...so its not clearly not the unworkable mess everyone seems to think 3 men at the back is.

Okay, it wasnt a hugely long period of time...but how can anyone argue Napoli's success? Udineses in the recent past...Chile...Mexico..?

I am not argueing the 3-4-3 is a universal fail lol.... just that 5 games at the end of a season is'nt the best measuring stick to decide whether this can be a long term success plan for Wigan.