Principles of Defending.

[SFraser]

Defending can be quite a complicated business when you get down to the details of each individual team and each individual game but there are a few basic principles to defending in football that are always true and will always help you improve your defending when you keep them in mind and look to improve your team's capability at them.

Origins of Football

This sounds pretentious but bare with me. I personally found as a Football fan that trying to understand the tactics behind the game of Rugby was a huge eye opener to the tactics of football games as whole. American Football, Rugby and Football all share the same root and each of them tend to be on our T.V screens alot these days, but they all took different paths of development from the same basic game. These different paths of development have produced all the different styles of play and different specific tactical details to each game, but what is fascinating is how the tactical principles from one game to another are identical once you take the different details and rules into account. If you couldn't pass forward in Football and American Football then both games would be very similar to Rugby in tactics. If you could use your hands in modern Football then you would probably be playing American Football. If the try line was reduced to the size of a football goal in Rugby and American Football then you would be playing Aussie rules or Irish football.

Rugby especially is nothing more than Football where you can use your hands, cannot pass forward, the goal is the width of the pitch and you must be touching the ball when you score.

All of these games stem from exactly the same root, but each has it's own particular rules and laws. Understand these laws and rules and understand the tactics behind the teams in these games and you understand everything you need to know about every variation of these ball games.

Early Football differs from Rugby in several key details. You cannot use your hands unless you are the Goalkeeper (last-back), you can pass forward, and the goal is a small area in the centre of the pitch rather than the width of the pitch. This is why Rugby Wingers are the equivelant of C. Ronaldo, Messi, Owen, the old Ronaldo etc. American Football is similar. While everyone else is fighting in the centre of the pitch, the wide receivers and the quarter backs and the guy launching the ball from deep are the celebrity players. Wide men in all of these games are much loved by fans, managers and the media and in all honesty it is because they are all playing subtle variations of the same game.

Early Football differs from Modern Football in one key respect, and that key respect is what has changed Football from 2-3-5 of the 1930's World Cup to the 4-3-2-1 of the 2006 World Cup. That key respect is the change of the Off-Side rule. The offside rule in the 1930's was that there had to be 3 opponent players between pass target and goal to be onside. The Offside rule today requires only 2. The irony is that the change was intended to increase the attacking play of teams but over time it has "inverted the pyramid" so that the 2-3-5 formation of the 1930's has now become the 4-3-2-1 of the modern era.

While early Football was different to Rugby in that you could not use your hands, you could pass forward, and the goals were only a small part of the pitch at each end, the tactics were similar. The 2-3-5 formation of Football at the time was not all that different from Rugby formations in principle. The change to the off-side rule in football intended to produce more attacking play completely changed the tactics of the game.

Principles of Football

The fundamental principles of Football are exactly the same as the fundamental principles of Rugby or of American Football. The difference is the rules. Because of the identical principles and the different rules a Rugby team formation will line up with players in all the key attacking zones and a football team will line up with players in all the key defensive zones. The attacking triangles of Rugby formations and the defensive triangles of modern Football teams are almost exactly the same, because this central triangle zone is the key zone in every single team ball game on the planet.

It doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to see an aggressive Centreback Stopper (9,10,12,13), and two attacking fullbacks (6,7,11,14) in the Rugby formation.

This comparison between Rugby and Football formations shows the true key aspect of play in both games. Both sides are attacking and defending the same key areas in principle, but because of the specific rules of each game they are attacking and defending those areas in different ways. The two major differences in both formations is how valuable it is to attack wide areas of the pitch due to the positioning of the "goals", and how important it is to bring up players in support of attack or leave players back in support of defence due to passing and offside rules.

These key areas of attack and defence are nigh on identical despite rules in both games being quite different. These key areas of attack and defence once individual rules are ignored essentially turn out to be the areas contained within a pitch sized triangle. This pitch sized triangle not only represents attacking threat and attack success but defensive threat and defensive success. This pitch sized triangle explains precisely where the key elements of the game exist both in an attacking and defensive context, and you do not ignore them.

The reason why the triangle is so important in Football is because of the positioning of the goals. That is the absolute and fundamental reason. Scoring goals from wide positions becomes exponentially more unlikely the further wide and the deeper a players shoots towards goals, likewise attacking moves themselves become ever less effective the more they are forced wide.

While reduced distance to goal increases the danger of attacking moves, the position of the goal means that angle becomes an ever increasing barrier to attacking play. Wide players might be able to exploit particular weaknesses of a defence from wide but they are only exploiting defensive weaknesses, they are not impoving their position and theoretical threat on goal.

Forcing players wide is a huge benefit to a defensive system and another huge benefit to defensive systems against a Football playing team is to defend the area infront of goal. The very position of the goal is what has produced the benefit of defending in depth infront of goal. This is what has lead to the increase in value of understanding the triangle.

This is a rough approximation of the defensive triangle. The closer to goal the opponent gets the smaller this triangle gets, but the more vital the defence of the central area becomes. Many modern World Class Teams employ two Centrebacks supported by a DMC and that is the smallest version of a rock solid defence of that triangle you will get outside of a single Centreback around the penality spot.

They key principle here is to combine defence of width and defence of depth. The Centrebacks defend against attacks from wide and defend against passes through the Centre by forcing opponents wide or Sweeping up passes that have bisected the DM and Centreback.

Becuase you are defending a centrally positioned goal wide attacks lose their direct effectiveness when forced wide, but because you are defending a deep lying goal all attacks increase in effectiveness the further down the pitch players become. The centrally positioned goal in football is what produces the triangle of threat and defence.

Rather than save and forget this post I will unleash it on these forums and follow it up on a later date.

[grimness]

Food for thought as always. You just gave me idea to try something new.

[lam]

Interesting....... as always.

I guess this is why now you see so many wingers cutting in and the introduction of the 3 man attack (FC, AML, AMR). The two wingers are far back enough to allow them time and space to actualy cut in.

Guess I need to re address my thoughts on always using a ML/MR combination

[SCIAG]

Rugby especially is nothing more than Football where you can use your hands, cannot pass forward, the goal is the width of the pitch and you must be touching the ball when you score.

So, nothing like football?

Capitalism is nothing more than communism, where instead of everything being fed back to the Government...

I think you've made several sweeping statements. There's nothing wrong with being forced wide if you've got two wingers who can dribble and cross, two full backs who can cross, and two strikers who are good in the air. Similarly, you say that centre backs will try and force attacks to the wings. It's more commonly the other way around, full backs forcing attacks inside where there are more numbers rather than let the winger simply take them on. I cite, in particular, "Left Foot in the Grave?".

[RT--]

American Football is similar. While everyone else is fighting in the centre of the pitch, the wide receivers and the quarter backs and the guy launching the ball from deep are the celebrity players

The quarterbacks and the guy launching the ball from deep are the same person.

Anyway, while a team or player is obviously less likely to score directly from a wider position, that doesn't mean to say that encouraging them to move the ball out wide is necessarily a good idea. Especially, as SCIAG points out, if they have a skilful crosser and one or two strikers waiting in the center who are taller than your defenders. It would be like a chess player (and I apologise in advance if this exposes my lack of chess knowledge, and makes no sense!) desperately trying to avoid being in check, only to put themselves in a weaker position two or three moves on.

I'll be interested to see where you go with this thread, but my feeling is that football (and rugby union to an extent) are more difficult to analyse than situational games like American Football, because they're far more fluid.

[SFraser]

My apologies for leaving this thread unfinished, not to mention letting that last post get a bit ragged towards the end. I'll continue and recap the final points being made in the last post.

The Defensive Triangle

In Football the goal is a small target in a central position at each end of the field. The most basic aspect of football of getting the ball between the posts and the crossbar in that central area has a massive impact on the particular tactical considerations for the game of football. The true direct threat of scoring a goal is confined to a relatively small area of the pitch infront of the goal and that direct threat decreases with distance from goal and with increasing angles to goal. It is this small area of the pitch roughly encompassing the 18 yard box where the game is won and lost and goals are scored. Successfully defending or attacking this area of the pitch is the most fundamental and basic principle of football.

If we ignore the complexities of team tactics versus team tactics and look specifically at the basic principles brought about by the rules of the game and the shape and style of the pitch then we can see that the area of most threat is the area directly infront of the goal, and this area of threat will decrease the further we get from goal and as the angle to goal increases. This is a trait shared by games like Rugby or American Football or Aussie Rules or Gaelic Football. The further away a player is from goal the less of a direct threat he is to the goal, or touchline as the case may be. Football and Gaelic Football and Rugby Conversion also share the same trait of angle to goal being a factor in increased or decreased direct threat. Conversion kicks in Rugby taken from wide angles are considered to be more difficult than kicks taken from directly infront of the goal, but ofcourse this depends on the kicker and his technical quality and his preferred foot.

In Football the area of maximum direct threat is patrolled by the Goalkeeper, the only individual that may use his hands, and this unique feature of Football is absolutely huge in a tactical context. The Goalkeeper is essentially the apex of the key defensive triangle football, and that triangle is made up by the goalkeepers body and the two goalposts. Another triangle goalkeepers must be aware of is the distance they leave behind themselves for a player to potentially kick the ball over the goalkeepers head and into the net. Catching crosses into the box and saving shots inside the box are all key elements to the Goalkeepers game, but the most fundamentally important element in his game is to learn how to "narrow the angles" open for a shot into the goal by positioning his body.

Everyone will know these basic rules and points of goalkeeping and football, but it is vital to explain in detail how the positioning and size of the goal in Football is so completely key to the tactics of the game. The Goalkeeper is the best example because he is the purest defensive player in the game and because his own playstyle involves controlling the area of maximum threat with his hands and using his body in conjuction the goalposts to make the target of the goal incredibly difficult or even impossible to reach with the ball without the goalkeeper saving the shot. Nothing is more important in football than the distance to the goal and the angle towards the goal, and the Goalkeeper position with his ability to use his hands and his complete dedication to controlling angles and moving according to the position of the goalposts and the position of the threat is the prime example of all defensive football tactical principles in a nut shell.

The defensive Triangle the goalkeeper makes with his body and the goalposts and crossbar is not a tactical option, it is a tactical fact of the game. It is a tactical certainty. This position designed to control the key areas of threat and manage the key defensive triangle simply exists in every single football game. It is not a choice, not an option, not a cunning ploy, it is a law and rule of the game.

If we leave the Goalkeeper behind and look towards the first or perhaps second-last line of defence, depending on how you look at the situation, then modern football shows us a set of players designed to provide maximum coverage and defensive control of the expanding triangle of threat but the reducing potency of direct threat. Understanding this triangle and understanding why and where it exists is key to defending properly. The area of greatest threat exists somewhere around the penalty spot because of the Goalkeeper, as this is the position where the Goalkeeper is encouraged to advance forward allowing players to pass around him or sidestep him or win an aerial pass before he reaches it. If we take the penalty spot as the area of biggest threat and expand it outwards away from the goal taking into account diminishing returns for distance and angle we end up with an area of threat something like the following:

This is a rough approximation of how angle and distance to goal combine to determine the direct threat to the goal posed by opponent players. Obviously there is very little direct threat from the centre circle but like all deep and wide positions a quick run into space will produce significantly more threat, and also there is the fact that because of the angle, the region directly infront of the goal is closer to goal than a position either side of the goal the same distance from the by-line.

This rough approximation also shows the areas where a single quality pass of the ball is most effective at creating a single quality chance.

All in all this rough approximation of threat to goal produces an almost perfect triangle with distance from the penalty spot to either side of the goal being roughly equal to the distance directly ahead of the goal. This triangle of threat is not simply the threat from a single shot, but also the threat provided by a good single pass or a good attacking move. This triangle defines the key defensive areas for any team. This is the zone where an opponent with the ball can directly threaten your team with a goal scoring opportunity. This is the area you must defend in Football.

Now although we have expanded our area of direct threat using distance from goal and angle to goal as our basis, the outlying areas are areas of diminishing returns. The positions further from goal do not offer the same level of direct threat as the areas closest to goal. This is why we rarely see teams lining up in that particular formation, but we do see teams lining up in formations quite similar to that particular formation. Keep in mind that what is an area of threat for you is also an area of threat for the opponent, and so Football formations do not line-up purely focused on absolute defence, but also to take advantage of the opponent and attempt to score goals.

Because of this we tend to see teams playing with much smaller literal defensive triangles, and the one most commonly seen in Football today, especially in particularly attacking sides in the top competitions in the world, is a simple defensive Triangle of 2 Centrebacks and 1 Defensive Midfielder. The following is an example of the key defensive triangle used by many teams combined to a team wide formation also used by many teams.

The three man triangle in the first image is intended simply to provide bodies and win the ball in the key attacking areas, and to force opponents wide where their angle towards goal increases and their ability to directly score decreases. This trio is intended to win the ball in the areas of the pitch where the threat of a goal scored is at it's greatest. If players are forced wide and cross the ball into the centre, the defenders are expected to win the ball in the air.

This trio is defending reduced to it's most simple. These players are expected to hold positions in the triangle area that poses the most direct threat at goal. They are expected to force players into positions where goalscoring threat is at it's lowest, and they are expected to defend and win every ball that goes into a goal scoring area. Their job is not to hunt down, close down, man mark, sprint forward, run wide. Their job is to do nothing more than place themselves in the key positions of the triangle area that poses the greatest threat to the goal and win the ball or block shots.

The second image shows a formation regularly used in the Champions League, especially by very attacking or particularly dangerous defensively strong counter-attacking teams. As the quality of player in the opponent team increases so does the number of players occupying the defensive triangle and so does the width and the depth of the triangle that is being resolutely defended. Fullbacks attempt to block wingers, wide central midfielders attempt to block shots and passes from opponent wide midfielders, and the Centre Forward patrols the area around the Centre Circle.

What you can also see is how a defending team is set up to direct an attacking team into wide areas. As distance to goal gets smaller the attacking threat increases, but as angle to goal increases the threat decreases. You don't want to be channeling dangerous attacking players into a central position, so by simply occupying the key defensive zones you automatically attempt to channel opponents into the least dangerous attacking zones.

The following is an example of the same defensive formation in it's attacking style:

This is a basic example of the principles of how teams that setup defensively might attack in the Champions League. The arrows on the two players represent how they are supposed to judge and time runs between midfield and attack positions as the play dictates.

What you see here is simply a team that has won the ball, advanced upfield and are now setup to try and attack the opponent. The fullbacks have advanced into attacking positions and the two wider central midfielders combine their defensive and attack duties in an attempt to create space.

The team in this image is exploiting the space left on the flanks by a team defending the centre to keep the ball and construct attacks. What is critical in this image is how the two wider Central midfielders link up with the wide men and the forwards in an attempt to exploit the defensive triangle of the opponent by using extra numbers in key areas of the pitch and clever runs between midfield and attack. This attacking variation of the defensive triangle tactic is trying to create problems for the 2 Centrebacks and 1 DMC of the opponent by using 4 against 3 and clever runs in an attempt to pull one of the players out of position and create a goalscoring space in the most dangerous position on the pitch. However good marking by the opponent teams midfielders will simply add even more numbers to defence as the opponent marks and tracks the runs, maintaining the key Central Trio in their key Central Positions to win the ball.

You will also notice how the attacking team maintains it's own defensive trio even when advancing high up the pitch. They may no longer have the goal itself only 10 yards behind them and the opponent may have half a pitch to pass into to create a direct threat on the counter-attack, but with the Off-Side rule and Pacey Fullbacks protecting the attacking team, the attacking triangle of direct threat barely changes and the key areas to defend on the counter-attack remain almost the same.

So far this thread has been pretty theoretical/principle oriented but I intend to go into specific details in my next posts. My plan for the next post is to deal with either systems of defending the key threat area against specific attacks, how to defend against key threats of the opponent all over the pitch, the theory behind defending high up the pitch, defensive systems of the midfield and attacking areas of the pitch, or how to defend successfully when attacking. I am sure there other issues that will spring to mind at a later date but if you have any particular preference for my next post let me know and I will get onto it.

[SFraser]

So, nothing like football?

Capitalism is nothing more than communism, where instead of everything being fed back to the Government...

I think you've made several sweeping statements. There's nothing wrong with being forced wide if you've got two wingers who can dribble and cross, two full backs who can cross, and two strikers who are good in the air. Similarly, you say that centre backs will try and force attacks to the wings. It's more commonly the other way around, full backs forcing attacks inside where there are more numbers rather than let the winger simply take them on. I cite, in particular, "Left Foot in the Grave?".

If you wish to add your points to this thread I don't see anyone stopping you, but you are going to have to contribute more than stating specific counters to generic defensive principles. What you say is not entireally wrong, ofcourse it is no penalty to be forced wide if six players in your team are devoted to crossing the ball and winning headers in the box, untill ofcourse I buy one single bigger, braver and more aggressive Centreback to win those crosses first.

I don't wish to appear rude but we are dealing with the principles of defence in this thread, and you don't seem to understand them. Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough.

Anyway, while a team or player is obviously less likely to score directly from a wider position, that doesn't mean to say that encouraging them to move the ball out wide is necessarily a good idea. Especially, as SCIAG points out, if they have a skilful crosser and one or two strikers waiting in the center who are taller than your defenders. It would be like a chess player (and I apologise in advance if this exposes my lack of chess knowledge, and makes no sense!) desperately trying to avoid being in check, only to put themselves in a weaker position two or three moves on.

That is a sensible analogy but it does imply that you can lose the game in the wide areas or deep central areas even if you have complete control of the defensive central area, which is obviously false. In Football complete control of the defensive central area means opponents are only going to score goals and win games by once in a million shots, much like the old way of playing sacrificial Chess in the late 1900's.

When I read 2 posts thanking me for the "food for thought" and another 2 posts stating that wide attacks are as dangerous as central attacks, I begin to think that half the Football Manager Community doesn't actually understand how absolutely vital the Central Defensive area is in Football.

Roberto Carlos has retired from Football so you can forget about assuming that wide and deep areas are as vital to defend as Central areas inside the box. No one is going to regularly score from the corner flag, nor from the centre circle. Players only score regularly from inside or just outside the box.

This is not an interesting statistic, this is an absolutely fundamental key issue that you must comprehend if you want to defend successfully.

Now while you can use widemen to create deeply punishing attacking moves, that has absolutely no bearing on where the key areas of direct threat are. You can build the most amazing pass-and-move attacking system ever seen in Football using every inch of the pitch but if I set up my ten outfield players in a tight triangle with it's centre around the penalty spot you better cross your fingers and hope your midfielders have their shooting boots on or you get some kind deflections.

It must be a critique of my writing style that I am making this stuff so hard to understand.

[phnompenhandy]

Brilliant - back on form SFraser. I'll digest this over the course of the day. What is it that SAF keeps saying about Rooney and how wafting out from the centre to the flanks in ineffectual whereas cutting in from the flanks to the centre is deadly?

[suikoden]

Self-indulgent crap from SAF which everyone seems to quote these days. To put it so simply is doing a disservice to the rest of the team. Henry was plenty dangerous drifting out as is David Villa, Eto and many others. It depends on the team. You can have wingers cut inside with the ball and be dangerous or you can have other players move the ball into channels and hold up the ball and have his teammates overload the defence. Either situation is dangerous with the right players.

Not to mention there are also dangerous players who are wide and stay wide (Lennon of late anyone?) and players who cut right through the middle consistently.

[lam]

How do you know when SFraser is posting again.............. A) you get no work done or B) you get no sleep.

Had damn formations and tactics running inside my head all night after reading this before going to bed!

LAM

[SCIAG]

If you wish to add your points to this thread I don't see anyone stopping you, but you are going to have to contribute more than stating specific counters to generic defensive principles. What you say is not entireally wrong, ofcourse it is no penalty to be forced wide if six players in your team are devoted to crossing the ball and winning headers in the box, untill ofcourse I buy one single bigger, braver and more aggressive Centreback to win those crosses first.

I don't wish to appear rude but we are dealing with the principles of defence in this thread, and you don't seem to understand them. Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough.

"Ofcourse" is two words. I wouldn't have pulled you up on it, but you did it twice.

Firstly, it is far easier to attack a cross than defend one. If a winger gets behind the defence and puts a ball in, the defence will be running back at their own goal and risk putting the ball in their own net. Secondly, and similarly, it is far simpler to score one of these chances than score from a pass threaded through. Think how many times a through ball is played in a match, think how many are successful. Think how many crosses a good winger can put in, think how many are successful. Who gets more assists for Aston Villa, Ashley Young or the central midfield combined?

If you are of the opinion that a big centre back is enough to stop such a game working, then I urge you to watch from 0:48 to 0:54. Glen Little is a traditional winger, great crosser of the ball. Once he beats Cole, he crosses the ball, it eludes big, brave, aggressive Terry, and little Leroy Lita gets a head to it.

FWIW Little got 18 out of Reading's 70 assists when they scored 99 goals in 05/06, Bobby Convey, the starting left winger, got 14. 32/70 from those two players. If we include their frequent substitutes, Stephen Hunt (who played 19% of the season in Convey's place) and John Oster (29% in for Little), the wingers got 44/70 assists. The midfield partnership of Sidwell and Harper? Two assists. The regular full backs? 14. So, that's 58/70 assists from the wide players, and two from the central players. Even if we average it out, we've looking at just under 10 assists per wide player, and 1 per central midfielder.

That is a sensible analogy but it does imply that you can lose the game in the wide areas or deep central areas even if you have complete control of the defensive central area, which is obviously false. In Football complete control of the defensive central area means opponents are only going to score goals and win games by once in a million shots, much like the old way of playing sacrificial Chess in the late 1900's.

Complete control of the defensive central area does not exist. Therefore, you theory is inherently flawed.

When I read 2 posts thanking me for the "food for thought" and another 2 posts stating that wide attacks are as dangerous as central attacks, I begin to think that half the Football Manager Community doesn't actually understand how absolutely vital the Central Defensive area is in Football.

Well, as I just "proved", wide attacks are ten times more effective than central attacks. So, you're almost right, half the FM Community don't understand the vitality of the "CDA".

Roberto Carlos has retired from Football so you can forget about assuming that wide and deep areas are as vital to defend as Central areas inside the box. No one is going to regularly score from the corner flag, nor from the centre circle. Players only score regularly from inside or just outside the box.

How short sighted. Would you be happy if a country like Sudan developed a nuclear program, surrounded Britain with nuclear warships, and launched bombs at our major cities, because nuclear bombs don't kill anyone until they detonate?

This is not an interesting statistic, this is an absolutely fundamental key issue that you must comprehend if you want to defend your country successfully.

Now while you can use widemen to create deeply punishing attacking moves, that has absolutely no bearing on where the key areas of direct threat are. You can build the most amazing pass-and-move attacking system ever seen in Football using every inch of the pitch but if I set up my ten outfield players in a tight triangle with it's centre around the penalty spot you better cross your fingers and hope your midfielders have their shooting boots on or you get some kind deflections.

If said triangle leaves one player defending each flank, then I'm sure you'll leak goals from crosses from the wide areas, if said team have wingers who can dribble and cross, and strikers who can head the ball.

It must be a critique of my writing style that I am making this stuff so hard to understand.

Well, clearly lam, phnompenhandy and grimness don't understand what you've written. Your frequent grammatical and spelling flaws, rather than occasional typos, do not help. I suggest you type your posts up in Word before posting them, though Microsoft will not be able to help with everything.

[SFraser]

Self-indulgent crap from SAF which everyone seems to quote these days. To put it so simply is doing a disservice to the rest of the team. Henry was plenty dangerous drifting out as is David Villa, Eto and many others. It depends on the team. You can have wingers cut inside with the ball and be dangerous or you can have other players move the ball into channels and hold up the ball and have his teammates overload the defence. Either situation is dangerous with the right players.

Not to mention there are also dangerous players who are wide and stay wide (Lennon of late anyone?) and players who cut right through the middle consistently.

I don't wish to continue the constant arguementation I have a habit of provoking whenever I indulge in a thread like this, but the disservice being done here is yourself to Phnompenhandy.

Thierry Henry was so particularly effective in English Football because he was allowed to attack the space down the flanks granted by English wingers. His key asset was his ability to destroy teams whenever he chose to cut infield from his wide position, where he could score goals at will into the opposite corner of the goal with almost perfect technique or instead use that technique to craft inch perfect throughballs from a wide angle directly into the heart of teams.

Henry was both the best and worst of Centre Forwards, He had all the technical and creative aspects you dream of in a central player and none of the physical qualities to go with it. He had neither the workrate nor strength nor bravery nor aggression nor the tendency to sacrifice his own glory for a team necessity. Henry played lethal through the middle without ever being suited to playing in the middle.

It is no fluke that Henry is playing in the same side as Lionel Messi. It is no fluke that Barcelona play with Henry and Messi in the wide positions rather than Messi behind Henry in central areas. It is no fluke that Ibrahimovic was signed to play ahead of Iniesta and Xavi and inbetween Henry and Messi. It is no fluke that Rooney and Ronaldo played wide on either side of Tevez/Berbatov or Giggs. It is no fluke that Ancelotti plays a midfield diamond and plays Anelka and Drogba wide around Deco from deep, or advances Joe Cole from deep to play on one side of Drogba while Anelka plays the other side.

If the defensive triangle I have spoken at length about means anything, then it means that the space to exploit in attack for World Class teams is either side of the DM. Every World Class Team on the planet has exploited this issue in the recent past, whether it is Ronaldo and Rooney cutting in from wide or Henry and Messi cutting in from wide, or it is Giggs and Berbatov playing behind Rooney or Iniesta and Xavi playing behind Ibrahimovic. It might be Lampard and Gerrard picking a side to run at from deep from the lay off from Drogba or Torres. It might be Arsenal playing with their cutting in winger/strikers and either Fabregas or Diaby sprinting forward either side of Van Persie.

The specific details of how World Class teams line up doesn't matter as much as the fact that they are all trying to exploit and defeat the defensive triangle. Every modern World Class team tries to defend it and every modern World Class team tries to attack it. No modern World Class team regularly tries to attack directly through the centre or attempt crosses into the box from out wide. They all try to attack the goal directly through the centre from wide positions, because that has become the quickest and easiest route to goal when defensive structure is combined to the attributes of quality attacking players.

I am not making this up. It is as clear as day to anyone that watches football with their eyes open.

[SFraser]

Firstly, it is far easier to attack a cross than defend one.

I have no time for this junk.

Consider yourself reported as of now.

[lam]

"Ofcourse" is two words.

Your frequent grammatical and spelling flaws, rather than occasional typos, do not help. I suggest you type your posts up in Word before posting them, though Microsoft will not be able to help with everything.

Interesting.

Just for a few seconds, I'll be as nitpicky and perdantic as you are. The word 'Ofcourse' as you have typed it, is infact one word. The phrase 'Of course' is two words. I would suggest, before you take others up on it, you consider your own writtings. As clearly this is a case of 'the pot and the kettle'.

Now, on for my main reason for posting. You and I have had runs in's before due to your negative comments around others constructive threads. I'll state again, what I stated previously, you rarely post constructive comments, rather chosing to dismiss what others have posted. This wouldn't be so bad in itself if you infact created threads of your own designed to assist others in the understand of football and of the game. However, as I am sure you know where this is going............its not something you do.

What continually amazes me about these forums is peoples inherent needs to rubbish what other people post and in most cases (yours in particular) the style in which they choose to do so. SFraser and I have disagreed on a number of things over the last year or so, however, our comments never quite plumeted to the level that you regulalry show.

Your not a regular tactics poster which is indicative of the volume of posts you have and the lack of threads started by yourself. I don't really know much about the other forums as I spend most of my time here, however, in tactical disussions sarcasm and unconstructive comments are simply not helpfull to anyone and they are certainly not a way to gain support.

If just one person takes something from this thread then who are you to state that its rubbish, what huge amount of tactical knowledge have you ever imparted on these forums for anyone to sit up and take note of your derogative (bad spelling - word not working) comments!

If you don't like whats being said in a thread, then don't post.

LAM

[SCIAG]

I just reset my post for the third time, and I have neither the time nor the energy to respond fully.

I feel my second comment was justified, given SFraser was egoistically praising his own writing style. The first, it irks me when native English speakers misuse our language. SFraser made the same mistake twice in quick succession, and it was not a mere typo (like two of yours in your first main paragraph, and another of mine I had missed- d'oh!).

I create threads when I see the occaision: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=87369

... and I also had a thread on shouts nearly perfected before somebody beat me to it. I intend on creating a thread similar to Cleon's projects, but mirroring Coppell's 4-4-2 rather than creating my own tactic. May I also point out that this forum is not merely about creating threads. Today, I helped a user stuck with his Chelsea tactic over the course of several posts, and I furthered what SFraser had said to somebody wanting to reshape Mikel Arteta (I did not contradict him).

I have contributed constructively in this thread.

• I pointed out weaknesses in SFraser's latest theory, namely how exposed it is down the flanks
  
• I also pointed out that in domineering sides, most goals are scored from the wings. FWIW, I analysed those 99 goals last night (not just the 70 that had a recognised assist-provider), and about 64 were scored as the direct result of a cross, if set pieces are counted.
  
• I gave a good example (I challenge anybody to find a better one) of a winger beating a full back, crossing, a big, brave, aggressive defender failing to deal with the cross, and a small striker heading home. This showed that merely having bigger, braver defenders would not stop vulnerability to attacks.
  
• I said that total control of the central defensive area does not exist, whereas SFraser seemed to be building upon the assumption that it could do. I apologise if you mistook that for destructive criticism, because it isn't, it's constructive. Such a thing categorically does not exist.
  

SFraser, in response, has offered little that wasn't destructive and derogatory towards me. I have discovered, over the course of about two dozen threads, that he does this. He mistakes subjective opinion for objective fact frequently, and passes the former off as the latter. Once, I posted in GD about how good I thought FM07 was, and how it was a shame FM09 seemed to be a regression in certain areas. Previously, I had considered SFraser a good poster who was always willing to help, but he posted aggressively, destructively, and was downright rude. He didn't just disagree with me, he personally attacked me for daring to hold and opinion he did not, as you and he have done in this thread. About a week later, we had a minor disagreement in one of his threads, and I could tell he seemed put off. I sent him this PM to try and ail those misgivings:

I notice that you seem slightly taken aback (for want of better words) with my posting style of late.

We seem to be very similar users in many ways. We both have a broad range of vocabulary, we are both articulate, we both can be very passionate, and we both have strong interests in tactics.

However, we have had a few disagreements. You enjoy 09 much more than I do, and you have a certain fondness for 09's match engine. Recently I have been quite vocal in my critique of 09, which naturally has made us clash. I apologise if I have seemed overly aggressive towards you or any other poster. Please, these are not personal attacks. I will admit that I have perhaps been slightly too outspoken recently, but I have no problem with people who think 09 is a good game (my posts often forget the safety '' when I have a joke with somebody, although fortunately most of the members I joke with have grown accustomed to my manner).

I was also perhaps not clear with my opinions on your "influence" theory. I see it as plausible, but unrealistic if it is true. It is once again moving FM away from real football and towards a simulation of what SI feel football should be like.

I apologise once more,

Tom (better known as SCIAG)

I received no response, and indeed shortly afterward I noticed SFraser attack another of my posts. I stood up for myself, but I felt extremely let down that he had gone against the olive branch I had offered. I lost all faith in him as a user. When I see him post something useful, I praise it if it deserves praise. However, he has been on my ignore list for a while, so I don't read most of his posts, unless one is pointed out to me (like this thread).

Did you not agree with somebody who said Hammer's "agree or get out" attitude was the wrong attitude for a discussion forum? You hypocrite.

As for my contribution in other forums, well, read the location...

[crouchaldinho]

Just for a few seconds, I'll be as nitpicky and perdantic as you are. The word 'Ofcourse' as you have typed it, is infact one word. The phrase 'Of course' is two words. I would suggest, before you take others up on it, you consider your own writtings. As clearly this is a case of 'the pot and the kettle'.

I think SCIAG was clearly quoting SFraser when he typed 'ofcourse', hence the quotation marks.

While we're playing at being the 'grammar and spelling police', I should let you know that the word 'writing' has one 't' in it and I'm personally not keen on it being used in the plural sense either.

you rarely post constructive comments, rather chosing to dismiss what others have posted.

I don't personally see anything wrong with SCIAG's comments. I also cannot see why this has degenerated in the manner that it has.

I think SCIAG makes some good points really and I would imagine that, if anything, his posts show just a little frustration at SFraser's attitude towards his opinions. This is a discussion forum and, unfortunately, nothing is being discussed but SCIAG's posts are being dismissed out of hand.

Regards,

C.

[crouchaldinho]

I don't wish to appear rude but we are dealing with the principles of defence in this thread, and you don't seem to understand them.

I personally feel that this kind of response is unacceptable. Not only is it rude and inconsiderate but it also totally ignores everything that the other person involved has said in favour of insulting them. Why is this necessary? :confused:

C.

[SFraser]

The point about the threat from wide attacks is not entireally wrong but it deals with specific avenues of attacking the key central area of defensive threat, designed for a team with particular strengths and weaknesses against opponents with particular strengths and weaknesses. It is the result of a complete tactical system for one team playing against another team and not only requires vastly more depth than SCIAG is posting to deal with sufficiently, but the points SCIAG is raising are misleading, generalistic and incorrect by lack of depth, and I have only just finished writing about the basic principles of defending brought about by the shape of the pitch, the position of the goal, the laws of the game and the existence of the Goalkeeper.

SCIAG is jumping the gun and posting misleading information that deals with an issue I have yet to post about. As I have said, crosses from wide areas are a tactical attacking system designed for specific teams to defeat other teams. The reasons why teams attack from wide rather than through the centre is not something that can be ignored, the reasons why defending sides are weak against crosses from the flanks is something that merits deep attention in detail rather than simple statements of it's factual truth, and crosses themselves cannot simply be summed up with the statement "Firstly, it is far easier to attack a cross than defend one."

If we are going to deal with crosses, wideplay, and the problems posed to the defence then the issue cannot simply be glossed over and summed up in short phrases or with statements like "plenty goals are scored from crosses, therefore they must be dangerous." Crosses in particular are not simply "easier to attack than defend" because a cross swung into the box from a deep position with the players inside foot reverses the angle and curve of the path of the ball, making the cross easier to deal with by the defence. Likewise the path taken by a ball crossed from the outside foot only has a small deviation in initial angle as the ball leaves the foot compared to a wide angle of finishing positions inside the box, making the position of greatest defensive coverage of crosses right in front of the player, while the area of greatest outcome from a cross is likewise confined to particular areas of the pitch.

Failing to go into sufficient detail not only misses the point of discussing the issue, but imparts false and inaccurate knowledge to the reader. The reader is left with the same knowledge of defending and attacking successfully as he would obtain from looking up Sky Sports match statistics.

Not only is the arguement or points of discussion raised false and counter-productive from the outset, but we can clearly see from subsequent posts how the underlying intention behind the post was a critique of me personally, a character assassination if you will. None of this "contribution" of any type is in any way relevent to this thread, either the shallow tactical points or the ad hominem attacks.

Anyone can see that this thread is a work-in-progress, a "project" so to speak for me to continue expanding and filling out each time I visit this site. If anyone else wishes to contribute I am wholly in favour, if people wish to raise points for discussion I am again wholly in favour, but you can clearly see this thread is not meant for shallow, undetailed statements. This is a thread where discussion of crossing means dissecting crossing with a fine-tooth-comb, where establishing the basic principles of defending from the shape of the pitch, the position of the goals and laws of the game takes up two entire posts. This is a thread meant for nothing other than intense detail of every aspect of the game from a defensive context.

If you cannot contribute to the thread in that manner, by either discussing my posts in relevent detail or contributing other information in sufficient detail, then find something else to do. If you feel like my efforts should be praised then I appreciate your support and the final result, if it ever gets finished, is ultimatly for your enjoyment and interest. If you think they should rediculed or I should be attacked personally then leave now before I am forced to take the details of your shallow contributions combined to your ad hominem attacks up directly with the moderators of this forum.

I would rather come back here and see some discussion of the points I have raised in the first place, and feel inclined to continue with the next couple of posts about team tactics and playing the opponent and not the pitch, rather than have to defend myself against the most shallow of criticisms and the most outrageous of personal attacks. I am quite sure everyone else in this forum would prefer that aswell.

[SFraser]

Well now that interruption is over and done with I can continue where I left off, and in my next few posts I intend to deal with playing the opponent rather than the pitch, but before we can move onto exploring detailed team versus team tactics for the modern game, there is one rather huge aspect of the laws of the game to deal with that has a profound effect on how teams play against each other.

The Offside Rule

The Offside rule is a fundamental feature of all ball games that stem from the same root game as Football and is the key difference between tactics employed in the various ball games. It exists to bring order to chaos and to prevent games from descending into massive contests of physically overloading the top and bottom of the pitch at the expense of play in the centre of the pitch. I am sure many of us here have read the stories of deaths and mutilations in the brutally physical progenitor of modern football. The Off-side rule allows attacks to be defeated higher up the pitch by positioning of players by establishing rules based on the legality of moves involving numbers of opponents and direction of passes, and in doing so it forces attacks to contend with defences prior to attacking the goal rather than forcing defences to physically contend with direct attacks at goal. Off-side rules force teams to attack defences as a prelude to attacking goals and this subtle difference of gameplay principle is huge in the repercussions for teams, tactics and styles of play.

In Rugby the Offside rule prevents forward passes with the hands between teammates and is the primary cause of the tactics of that game employing large numbers of forward players and defence in depth of reducing numbers. Teams on the defensive in Rugby line up like a giant flatback four at the front, with decreasing numbers of multiple sweepers behind. This is a direct result of the punishing Off-side rule in Rugby. There are many other facets of the details of Rugby that seperate it from Football, but it is the differences in Off-side rules that show the greatest impact in the difference between games from a tactical perspective.

Pre-war football enabled players to pass forward unlike Rugby, but it required 3 players between passing player and passing target for a pass to be legal. This made it far easier to defend the goal with fewer players because of the fact that every on-side pass required 3 opponents between target and the goal. Every player receiving a pass had to have the goalkeeper and 2 other opponent players between himself and the goal. Playing a teammate through on goal 1-on-1 with the goalkeeper was not only immensely harder to achieve but immensely easier to defend. Passing moves had to contend with far tougher passing rules, while defending passing moves required far less players controlling multiple areas of the pitch. This tiny, almost minute difference in rules lead to the Golden age of Wingplay where passing moves to create chances were much harder to build so teams defended with less numbers, so the number of defenders to dribble past and defeat with skill was also less.

While in todays football the final yard before scoring a goal involves brilliant movement and excellent delivery of the ball to beat the last man, in Pre-War football the final yard involved beating two men after a pass, and this was the cauldron where players like Stanley Matthews carved their names in stone. The final yard was not a decisive throughball but a brilliant dribble, and in this respect the final yard of pre-war football and modern Rugby are siblings, offspring from the same parent.

Not only were the final yards of goalscoring identical, but the principles and shape of the tactics in offence and defence near identical. The pre-war football formation was roughly the 1-2-3-5 including the goalkeeper and this more than roughly resembles Rugby formations. While Football might allow you to pass forward and Rugby only allows you to pass backwards, a lung bursting run through the defence in pre-war football into a poor position to score a goal also required a backwards pass, a pass that placed 3 players between receiver and goal. The final yard in pre-war Football and Rugby becomes ever more similar from a tactical perspective irrespective of the details of rules. By simply having less players in defence in Pre-war football, the attacking player was faced with either a dribble past atleast one defender or a backwards pass to much deeper players. These details of the pre-war game produced tactical systems where centrally placed small numbers of defenders could defend all manner of passing moves, had to contend with skillfull dribbling players, and forced the key targets of passing moves from dangerous areas much deeper towards midfield.

The small and subtle details caused by the Offside trap in pre-war football produced the much recognised formation of 2 Centrebacks, 3 midfielders, 2 deep Inside Forward, one Centre Forward and 2 Wing Forwards. The Wing Forwards had the greatest space but unlike modern football they could not easilly cross nor pass into the box for the Centre Forward but had to play off Inside Forwards. Likewise the Centreforward did not play the same way as the modern Forward. He could not easilly exploit a single defender, or play through a Striker but was tasked with forcing the opponent defenders deeper to make space for the Inside Forwards who were the Strikers of the day.

When the Offside rule was changed from requiring 3 opponent players between the ball passer and the ball receiver to only 2 opponent players between ball passer and ball receiver, the entire tactical side of the game of Football changed dramatically and it changed forever.

The shock to the system of football was that a pass could now cut out one of the Centrebacks from the game. Attacking players only had to time runs to beat one centreback, and the Wing Forwards could now position themselves to dribble past one Centreback or even cut out the last Centreback completely. The two Inside Forwards between CentreForward and Wing Forward no longer were looking for the passing cutbacks to strike at goal, but could now return passes to attacking players as a Centreback moved to closedown the shot, exposing the last Centreback to overwhelming numbers of attacking options. Modern attacking Football was born and Pre-War defensive systems were destroyed entireally.

This simple change to the Off-side rule completely annihilated the balance of tactics in Pre-War football. The exponential increase in the potency of attacking players was matched only by the exponential decrease in the potency of 2 man defences. This radical change in tactics was likewise only matched by the speed by which managers understood the evolution of football caused by the Off-side rule change and the lack of speed of adaption. I will spare the reader of this post even a short version of the long story of the evolution of football tactics after this change to the Off-side rule.

In modern football the Off-side rule allows for one pass or one dribble to place a player in control of the ball directly in confrontation with the goalkeeper. This has radically changed the tactics of the game from numbers upfront and defence in depth in decreasing numbers to fewer numbers upfront and defence in depth in increasing numbers. Defending and attacking the last defender between attacking player and goal has become a key factor in modern football. So much so that Strikers now play inside the box instead of outside the box, and playing the key pass into the striker to defeat the last defender or open up space to exploit the last defender is now the crux of team play.

The critical issue with the Off-side rule in Football is that while shots from range will never vary as a source of threat to goal, the last defender has become the position where passing moves are legal. Attacking sides now only have to defeat the last defender with passing moves and attacking sides can now employ their skilled dribbling players, skilled strikers, and skilled exploiters of space to exploit the last defender. This has resulted in a game where direct threat to goal has increased expontentially for attacking teams and defending teams have no choice but to defend in numbers and directly contend with the details of individual players in the defensive area of the pitch. While the last defender would cover attacking threats direct at goal and the second last defender employ the offside trap, the last defender is now responsible for both and teams can no longer defend safe in the knowledge that splitting Centrebacks with passes is an illegal move.

The Off-side rule has forced defensive teams to deal with attacking threats directly. Defensive teams can no longer sit back safe in the knowledge that a player must either dribble or shoot their way past 3 players to score a goal, or that passing moves cannot distrub and defeat the key defensive Trio of Goalkeeper and Two Centrebacks. The change to the Offside rule has meant that instead of defending the key attacking areas in the defensive Triangle I spoke about through a combination of game rules and physically able Centrebacks, the entire game has become focused upon defeating the details of one players ability and the entire teams tactical premise with your own tactical premise and the details of your own players. Defending has changed from a principle defeated by geniuses to detail defeated by tactics, right back to principles defeated by geniuses.

In my next post I will detail my own personal views on the defensive issues posed by the exposition of the last centreback and the necessity to defend in depth and in detail in the modern game. I will probably also wax lyrical about the detail of strikers and wingers as, I am sure like most, they are my favourite players in FM.

[Wee Lad]

How does a thread about defense and tactics turn into a debate on grammar and people pointing out spelling errors? Pathetic.

"Grammar correction: The last refuge of the pseudo-intellectual." (and a cheap blow delivered by someone who feels they need to add weight to an otherwise weak argument, normally)

[Wee Lad]

BTW SFraser, thank you for starting an interesting thread. I often base my entire formation around defense and strengthening the middle without exposing the wings, and as someone else stated, this is food for thought. Cheers.

[SFraser]

BTW SFraser, thank you for starting an interesting thread. I often base my entire formation around defense and strengthening the middle without exposing the wings, and as someone else stated, this is food for thought. Cheers.

Thanks for that. I hope my post on the off-side rule was equally interesting, although it does lack the wall-of-text breaking diagrams of the first two.

Glad to see you think I am posting something worth reading. I wouldn't involve myself in these types of threads if I thought otherwise.

[lam]

I do enjoy these forays into the footballing world...... being a rugby man myself!

Its always enlightening to read your threads like this. As previously discussed I am looking to move away from a 442 diamond, despite it working very well for me.

I want to try a solo striker and some wingbacks, which I think will lend its self well to this discussion.

Keep up the good work.

LAM

[Cleon]

I've not seen this thread till just now. I must have been on holiday or something when it was posted:D

This is a great useful thread

[SFraser]

I have been meaning to update it at some point but it got trolled and I got a bit fed up of it. I'll no doubt come up with something more to add at some point in the future though.

[SFraser]

Modern Day Questions of the Defensive Triangle

I have not updated this thread in a while, but there does seem to be a spate of defensive questions for the 10.3 patch similar to the 10.2 and 10.1 versions that prompted this thread in the first place. I think the basic principles in this thread are worth dragging up again, and although I have promised specific detail for tactical solutions of specific problems, I don't think the tactical theory is anywhere near done.

Barcelona and the 4-5-1

Of all the teams that best exemplify the fundamental issues of the defensive triangle of space, angle and distance, none of them are as obvious in their tactics, successful in attacking applause, nor as widely known and watched as Barcelona. No team in the world is as obvious in their tactical principles as Barcelona, nor as widely acclaimed for their attacking prowess and beauty, and few can match their level of success in recent years. This combination of simplicity, applause and success is incredibly rare to find in football. It is a testament not only to the quality of players at Barcelona but also their tactical understanding of how to destroy modern defences.

Barcelona are not the only club to understand tactics in football as they apply to todays teams, but they are in possession of the perfect set of players to do so. This doesn't stop Barcelona struggling against top quality sides that adapt to their angles of attack, but Barcelonas attacking tactics and attacking players are as close to perfect as you are going to find at any point in time for the tactical trends of the day, and when they click boy do they click.

The basic premise, as always, is their tactical efficiency and player quality when it comes to attacking the key triangle of the pitch against todays defences. Not yesterdays or tomorrows defence of the key triangle of the pitch, but todays defence of the key triangle of the pitch.

These three images show the heart and soul of todays Barcelona. The first shows the area of the pitch teams try to defend, the second shows the key area they try to defend and the basic system most opponents try to defend with, and the final image shows the formations that Barcelona have to defeat in the latter stages of the European Cup in recent years. Particulars may vary but the basic principles never change. Numbers in the defensive triangle are always a certainty for Barcelonas opponents.

Barcelonas solution to the organised defence of the vital triangle of threat on the football pitch is to defeat it. As pompous and egotistical as I hope that comes across, the fact remains that they have the players to do so. Indeed they are the only club that has precisely such that perfect arrangement of top quality players. Wenger tries to do so but he does not have those players.

Barcelonas solution is to put players in every single gap in the modern day defensive formations, and put players in those gaps capable of beating the challenges they face. Not only capable, but some of the best in the world in each gap facing each challenge. Barcelonas tactics in attack are simple and efficient, but the players they have in each position are easilly some of the best in the world in exploiting not only the space but exploiting the tactics of the attack and the defence and exploiting each others movement and ability.

Barcelonas formation is not simply full of world class players in attack. It is actively designed to exploit all the spaces left by modern day defence of the key triangle, and exploit those spaces with players that are top quality in defeating the specific defensive challenges and exploiting attacking opportunities they face.

Ibrahimovic is a player with immense intelligence and ball control and high quality movement. He disturbs the two centrebacks with his movement and is capable of finishing difficult chances or creating opportunties and executing highly technical passes for others.

The two wide forwards have great shooting ability with their inside feet and Henry in particular is reknowned for this. They both a cross between winger and striker, capable of running with the ball, linking up with others, and finishing brilliantly from tight positions with world class strikes.

The two attacking playmakers are just about the two best playmakers in the world today. They sit perfectly in the gaps in a central midfield 3, either side of the usual DM and inbetween the DM and supporting midfielders. They are perfectly situated right at the heart of the attacking team, capable of spotting and finding every single outfield player in the side not just through skill but by the tactical arrangement of team mates in attack, but are especially adept at finding the advanced 3 players whose movement and direct threat is unmatched.

The wide players are fast and technically skilled, capable of getting up and down the pitch from defence to attack and capable of shooting, passing or crossing the ball. Their positioning poses immense questions of the opposition fullbacks and wingers and is an integral component in destabilising a flat back four.

The team is designed to exploit 4-5-1 defence of the critical triangle of threat in football. And it does so with some of the best players on the planet around today. It is stunningly effective in attack because of the combination of top quality players and brilliant angles of attack, exploiting the key triangle of threat to the maximum level both through ability in key areas and tactics that arrange players in the perfect positions.

The crucial weakness of the Barcelona side, the weakness so often pointed out by English commentators, is their defence. Their system of defending the crucial triangle of threat is the same system that the Barcelona attack makes a complete mockery of.

The reason why Barcelona is the greatest attacking side on the planet, and not the dominant and unrivaled side on the planet, is precisely because their own defence of the criticial triangle of threat is so weak. Every lesson Barcelona teaches the world in attacking play is a lesson that can be used against Barcelona. Find a way to defeat their peerless attacking system and the lines and angles of principles of attacking the Barcelona goal are obvious and basic and simple.

Barcelonas attacking triangle of tactical arrangement and player ability is the closest we are going to get to perfection this decade. If you start from their resurgance after their huge decline in the early 2000's, then this ten years of Barcelona football in attack is up there with the true legendary sides of the game of football. And there is barely a cross in sight. It is their niavety in defence that is the problem with Barcelona. They know how to exploit defences, they have the best players to exploit defences, but they rely entireally upon exploiting defences.

The simple yet profoundly effective attack of Barcelona is a lesson in defence. If you want to understand defending from its basic theoretical principles to its specific "evolving" tactical questions then todays Barcelona is the textbook to study. In that textbook you will find not only the fundamental issue of attacking the key triangle of threat or the fundamental issue of having the right players in the right positions, but also you will find a detailed investigation into how todays attacking tactics break through todays defensive tactics.

From what I have been reading around these forums recently, it is high time someone pointed out that the single DM was a tactical solution for a problem a decade ago, and that the triangle of threat to the goal is the single most important defensive consideration.

What is important above all else is shape and gaps. Defend the important areas, control the game defining gaps, understand attacking tactics so you can defend against them.

[lam]

*cough cough*

[Da Most I]

Keep the good work up Sfraser you are a legend.

[Tom14]

Just came in to post that I was reading this yesterday. After watching the Inter Milan defensive display last night it was the perfect example of a team trying to defend the most important areas of the pitch whilst giving Barcelona freedom to play 30 yards from goal or to pass the ball to the wings.

[kingmike666]

mmmmm, very interesting thread with plenty of food for thought.

I will skip over the rediculous comparions of Rugby and football formations, as a man bred on rugby I find it frankly laughable and not even remotely accurate. However, to bang on about this would detract from the discussion of this otherwise very intruiging thread.

This key defensive triangle is something I have done a lot of thinking about recently. I have recently spent a great deal of time trying to create a formation (for a very good side) that will sweep aside all opposition with minimal difficulties simply by altering the the strategy and appropriate shouts, as I'm sure most managers aspire to the same. And whilst there have been a great deal of successes in creating wonderful attacking shapes and patterns that score a great many goals, the problem always remains that if that key holding midfield player (the tip of the triangle) is sacrificed in order to do this the central defenders are inevitably exploited and beaten by the simplest of passes, no matter how well they are set up or how defensive their mentality. So I would agree entirely with the main point you are making in the thread.

My most recent attempts to create the extra man in attack have revolved around using 3 CB's and no holding midfielder and trying to create this triangle with the CB's. Sadly I lack your dedication and effort in posts and shall not be adding screenies to my post. Now when I initially set about creating this 3 CB formation, my initial instinct was to go with 2 more aggressive CB's and 1 sweeper in behind. Essentially turning this triangle upside down:

-----CB--------CB------

----------CB-----------

Now I have found this to be very effective against weaker sides and especially at home, as the more aggressive players make more effort to cover the flanks when attacked. So one CB will move out wide to close down the opposition wide player and you are left with a stopped and a cover CB in the middle, as you normally would.

This pattern in itself is effective to an extent and good enough to nulify the threat of the less dangerous teams who look to play on the counter. Where it does however hit a problem is when a team is good enough, and more importantly attacking enough to commit a winger to draw the CB, 2 CF/AM players to draw the 2 CB's left in the middle and then another 2 attacking players to play in front of the 2 remaining CB's and to attack the space, either to the side or even worse between them. This is a total of 5 players commited to the attack before my midfield can get back and cover. And how many player do teams like Barcelona have commited to attack as a minimum? Well there's Messi, Henry and Ibrahimovic (let's not argue over personell) and then those 2 playmakers Xavi and Iniesta. That's the 5 Barca would need to rip this system to shreds.

Now if we look at the other way I could set up these 3 CB's, to create the 'traditional' triangle. This would have 1 more aggressive, stopped type player playing almost as a DMC then 2 covering CB's behind him. This doesn't require too much details, but essentially we could hold our ground in the middle, the aggressive CB would close down 1 playmaker, leaving 1 playmaker and 3 CF/WF's against my 2 remaining CB's, i suspect we wouldn't stand a chance against anyone, let alone Barcelona.

So my point is this. What SFraser has said, in fantastic detail is absolutely correct, if you don't defend this triangle properly, you're going to get taken apart by any team who has enough attacking intent to exploit it. But you can, as Barca do, get away with not doing it properly against teams who won't commit enough players forward to make you pay.

On the flip side of this, it isn't enough to just create the triangle and expect those 3 players to repel all before them. You don't need to be Barcelona to beat it I'm afraid, I suspect Barnsley would exploit it equally well. You still need to have at least 2 more players ready to help out defensively, these players don't have to be as good defensively, and a mistake from them is less likely to be punished, but they do need to be there. Let any team have you flanks unopposed and they will score, I would suggest with relative ease. It is for this reason that teams can throw full backs forward to help out attacks, like Evra, like Bale, like Alves, because they are fast enough to get back and be a number in defense. And that is all they need to be 95% of the time, their sheer presensnce alters the passes that an attacking player will look to make and the space he has to operate in.

[Rupal]

I always think that it is a little suspect to quote Barcelona in almost any tactical discussion. I have the feeling that their players are so much better on average than most of the teams which they come up against that they would win the vast majority of their games with almost any reasonable formation.

A plea for wingers here. With the right players, traditional wingers can be utterly deadly. I know that the modern fashion is to have right footed left wingers and left footed right wingers cutting inside and I am not denying that this can prove very effective. However, a winger who can go to the byline and pull the ball back is providing the most dangerous type of service that there is if there is a forward who is capable in the air. Such a cross will be swinging away from the defender and straight to the forward who is coming in. The modern fashion for drilling inswinging corners into the 6 yard box, again, can be effective, I won't deny but exactly the same reasoning applies - an outswinger takes the ball away from the defenders and towards an incoming attacker and so should, in theory at any rate, be more effective.

Crossing from relatively deep positions as happens so frequently in modern football theoretically should be less effective as the ball is coming in from behind the attacker towards the defender. The latter therefore has a much easier job in dealing with it.

Of course, good wingers don't grow on trees! You need somebody who is fast or tricky or preferably both who can also cross accurately. Players like that are worth their weight in gold.

[SFraser]

I always think that it is a little suspect to quote Barcelona in almost any tactical discussion. I have the feeling that their players are so much better on average than most of the teams which they come up against that they would win the vast majority of their games with almost any reasonable formation.

I dont think it is suspect at all. The game does not revolve around superior players alone and anyone that thinks that way does not understand the game.

Barcelona defend by having an awesome attack force, pushing the opponent back, and employing a very basic defence of the counter-attack. There much lauded "front pressing system" simply plays into this, pressing players high up the pitch to encourage poor forward balls easilly mopped up by a simple triangular setup at the back.

Their offence however is clearly designed to penetrate 4-1-X formations. Their attacking talents are clearly supreme, but the organisation of the attack is the fundamental component in Barcelona FC. Madrid have immense attacking players but are a farce in Europe.

Barcelona are by far one of the best teams to look at when it comes to tactics. Their offensive tactics are top quality, but tend to fail only against some of the best organised defences in the game, and when this occurs it happens spectactularly. Likewise their defence is one minute lauded as genius, and the next destroyed in some of the most simple tactical football around.

Barcelona are a significantly superior tactical side to anything else in Spain at the minute, and almost everything else in Europe. However their tactical battles with the true cream of Europe show that they lack true top class tactical management, and can be defeated by true top class tactical management.

If you watch Barcelona, and are not a Barcelona fan, then when they get to the latter stages of the European Cup you are basically watching a book called "Tactics". Several games with Manchester United, several with Chelsea, and the games against Inter with Mourinho have served up tactical detail without equal in recent years, whether Barcelona are waltzing to victory or having their tactical frailties brutally exposed.

Barcelona are not amongst the best in Europe because they have Messi. Manchester United are not amongst the best in Europe because they had Ronaldo. Inter are not Champions of Europe because they have Milito or Eto'oor Sjneider. Bayern did not lose because Ribery was suspended.

Barcelona themselves may not be the epitome of tactics in 2005 to 2010, but their matches in the latter stages of the European Cup during that time have been the epitome of tactics.