POLL on 4-2-3-1 formation

[peyz]

Poll Question:
HAS USING 4-2-3-1 FORMATION PAID DIVIDEND FOR IRAN'S TM IN GAMES WE WANTED TO WIN ?

simple enough question.
it is not "what SHOULD be in theory,
or what we HOPE FOR,
or what it is in some magazine or manual
or what it is done in some european team,
or ..."
it is about & restricted to OUR TM performances only.

and it is about games we wanted to WIN, not those we want to draw or keep from conceding.
ONLY those we wanted or shd have won.

those who vote, plz drop a few lines on what made them decide whether this formation has worked for us or not.

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

now, I hope everyone is MAN ENOUGH to put away childish attitude sometimes seen in some ppl who merely "persist on an issue just so they dont look bad" and those who dont have the guts to accept reality "coz that would mean looking bad or going over their previous words"

This is seen on ppl from BOTH sides. so I hope for once we all can show maturity and accept reality and show that we're man enough.

 

[westwienmaskulin]

Iran - Japan 2-1

once Daei got out and we switched to 4-2-3-1 we won easily.

Actually..whole WCQ2006

 

[peyz]

^
LOL
and the fact that we have to go back to more than 3.5 years to find a couple of examples in its support, doesnt bother you ?

and arent you discounting the QUALITY of performances too?
a win is NOT a win.
this is about the effectiveness of the formation for our nat'l team

 

[ghilich]

I know we have played 4-2-3-1 for these reasons:
- we have lots of good midfielders
- complete lack of decent forwards
- 4-2-3-1 gives u a better defensive formation theoritically

however when we have played with that formation, many times we have seen:

- even MORE of a lack of firepower up front
- conservative "NOT TO LOSE" play

I LOVE Afshin Ghotbi's "total football" inspired statement: we need to attack with 11 men when we have the ball (OK, let's make it ten afshin..) and defend with 11 men when we lose the ball. OK, that is great, but what formation WILL lend itself to more of us winning the ball and being effective in attack while being sturdy in defense?

I would say:
4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 with the 1 being Karimi or if he is not available Shojaie playing behind the striker. I prefer the 4-4-2 if our two forwards could justify being on the field... both these formations still allow for plenty of midfielders, a diamond midfield formation if needed (1 defensive midfielder) and are MORE offensive than the 4-2-3-1. Hashemian needs either a striker next to him or another forward right behind him to feed him and play yek-do with him. He is lost in the 4-2-3-1 as for whatever reason that formation leads to confusion up front and less balls fed to him.

 

[Bache Tehroon]

I can't believe you guys are even discussing this.

Please watch TM's games and tell me, other than at the very start of the game when the ball is kicked off and players run to their positions, when else have our players actually obeyed the laws of any system (not just 4-2-3-1)?

We are far from engaging in debates about the actual system of play. We lack the most basic requirements for a system to be chosen and implemented.

We have played TOKHMI football with somewhat individually talented players for 50 years. These days we don't even have those talented players and we continue to play TOKHMI, deymi, ali-asghari football.

Give me a break...

 

[ghilich]

What do u suggest Hamshahri then? Should the coach just roll the ball onto the field and tell the TM players, go for it? We are not saying the formation is the ONLY reason or even the PRIME reason TM has been poor, but you do need a system no matter how well or poorly it is implemented, right?

 

[westwienmaskulin]

^
LOL
and the fact that we have to go back to more than 3.5 years to find a couple of examples in its support, doesnt bother you ?

and arent you discounting the QUALITY of performances too?
a win is NOT a win.
this is about the effectiveness of the formation for our nat'l team

No, it doesn't bother me, because I have to go back 3,5 years to find a decent example to support Iranian football.
It's not that we have done better with TM by playing 3-5-2 under GN, 4-4-2 under Daei a couple games or any other system.
It's not that our team can play 4-3-3 or that we have half decent defenders who can live without 2 defensive midfielders. And it's not that we have so much firepower that we absolutely MUST play with 2 or 3 real forwards. So 4-2-3-1 for various reasons, because the only position we find half decent players(midfield), because it protects the defense the best way, because it's played right a pretty versatile and flexible system and because most of our players abroad either play that system at their clubs or have played it(Nekounam, Shojaei, Mahdavikia, Hashemian have played or play 4-2-3-1 with their clubs), it's the one system I think is best for our team.
I really don't understand the obsession with a system btw. Valencia also play 4-2-3-1, just like Liverpool, and apart of Barca, they have played some of the best football I have seen this year. So in theory and in practice and everything else, 4-2-3-1 is a very good system, specially if we play as an example Nekounam as one of the 2s or if Ando as an example would find more courage to go after second balls and pop up in the box.
Besides, there's no other system in the world that our team could play that would be any better. 3-5-2 is for various reasons a useless system because of the "mohrechini" on the field and the fact that since most teams only play with 1 target forward, 1 defender of ours will always be sitting on his ass. So right now 4 in the back with 2 or 1 offensive fullback is a must. Then we go to the next part....if we play 2 forwards, we give a way midfield and we only have half decent midfielders, so thank you again, case closed, 4-2-3-1.
The fact that our team plays rubbish is not because of the system, but because of the players lack of quality.

 

[Foo]

exactly, the starting system shouldn't be made so important. It's what the players do that's important. What do they do in possession? Do they turn into a 4-3-3 or do the att. midfielders stay where they are? Do the att. midfielders switch position constantly with eachother or is there a clear right, centre en left? Are the def. midfielders real def. midfielders who only stay back, or do they come up? What do the wing backs do? The truth is, football's developing more and more out of solid systems. There's much more movement and position switching, and systems are just not that important anymore. In the CL final Barca started with Messi on the right and Eto'o in the centre. But in practice Eto'o was found on the right way more often and Messi became the striker, who fell back to midfield at times (great tactical plan by Guardiola to control the midfield as well). So did they play a 4-3-3, 4-4-2..? Sorry I kinda steered the discussion away from Iran, but like Westi I don't think there should be so much obsession with systems .

 

[Bauvafa]

NO!

How can we have only one natural forward against a much lesser opponent at home when we absolutely have to get a win??

4-1-3-2

 

[jspworld]

No, we need 2-3 strikers!

 

[Farsi Zaban]

I really like this system but most of our players are too stupid to take advantage of it.