It clearly has it's limitations as we can see. If you're watching England it doesn't work there either, and that's with better players.
You can see how the full backs are left horribly exposed, it looks better when the CDM really sits on top of the back 4.
it looks better when you dont have the midfield full of dm's and a defender. all the talent we have and once again roy the bore goes all defencive against better teams
here comes townsend to save roy again
Hopefully
get in townsend. how roy doesnt start him i dont know
much better second half when walker berkley and townsend came on. who would have thought that you look better when you bring on actuall midfielders in midfield who can run with the ball
Just to throw it out there, isn't Italy's system essentially a variation on the diamond? The only difference is that what would be one of the base or tip of the diamond - is sitting in a defensive three, allowing the full backs - which become wing backs - more freedom to get forward and provide width.
The point being, is the diamond the vocal point of the system? Or just the idea of having three central midfielders and two strikers?
Quote from: FPT on March 31, 2015, 10:06:19 PM
Just to throw it out there, isn't Italy's system essentially a variation on the diamond? The only difference is that what would be one of the base or tip of the diamond - is sitting in a defensive three, allowing the full backs - which become wing backs - more freedom to get forward and provide width.
The point being, is the diamond the vocal point of the system? Or just the idea of having three central midfielders and two strikers?
italy didnt have two dm's and a center back in their midfield though
Quote from: fulhamben on March 31, 2015, 10:13:20 PM
Quote from: FPT on March 31, 2015, 10:06:19 PM
Just to throw it out there, isn't Italy's system essentially a variation on the diamond? The only difference is that what would be one of the base or tip of the diamond - is sitting in a defensive three, allowing the full backs - which become wing backs - more freedom to get forward and provide width.
The point being, is the diamond the vocal point of the system? Or just the idea of having three central midfielders and two strikers?
italy didnt have two dm's and a center back in their midfield though
It was more towards the initial post towards the limitations.
Anyway, would you really call Fabian Delph and Jordan Henderson defensive midfielders...?
Quote from: FPT on March 31, 2015, 10:15:01 PM
Quote from: fulhamben on March 31, 2015, 10:13:20 PM
Quote from: FPT on March 31, 2015, 10:06:19 PM
Just to throw it out there, isn't Italy's system essentially a variation on the diamond? The only difference is that what would be one of the base or tip of the diamond - is sitting in a defensive three, allowing the full backs - which become wing backs - more freedom to get forward and provide width.
The point being, is the diamond the vocal point of the system? Or just the idea of having three central midfielders and two strikers?
italy didnt have two dm's and a center back in their midfield though
It was more towards the initial post towards the limitations.
Anyway, would you really call Fabian Delph and Jordan Henderson defensive midfielders...?
yes i would. thats the role they always seem to be doing for their clubs when i see them. plus if roy hasnt got them in the team for defencive duties, then why are they in it? neither can attack or get the ball forwards with any meaning. by all means play one as a dm, but both and a cb, it didnt work and never will unless we are playing some crap team.
Quote from: fulhamben on March 31, 2015, 09:04:25 PM
it looks better when you dont have the midfield full of dm's and a defender. all the talent we have and once again roy the bore goes all defencive against better teams
Yes he is a bore, when Roy has better players to handle , he doesn't know how to create a team with good onagers out wide and in attack. He is more comfortable with smaller teams who are not expected to win a coconut, like Finland and Fulham, he is good organising the underdog. But when it comes to flare, he is out of his depth. He tries to create a team in his own image, Dull Defensive and Dour like he is.
Although I thought England had a far far better second half, and should have won the game.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on April 01, 2015, 01:26:44 AM
Quote from: fulhamben on March 31, 2015, 09:04:25 PM
it looks better when you dont have the midfield full of dm's and a defender. all the talent we have and once again roy the bore goes all defencive against better teams
Yes he is a bore, when Roy has better players to handle , he doesn't know how to create a team with good onagers out wide and in attack. He is more comfortable with smaller teams who are not expected to win a coconut, like Finland and Fulham, he is good organising the underdog. But when it comes to flare, he is out of his depth. He tries to create a team in his own image, Dull Defensive and Dour like he is.
Although I thought England had a far far better second half, and should have won the game.
yes but surely the second half was due to the better players coming on that should of started. im sick of watching england and fulham to an extent, brining on players to rescue games that should be starting to try and win games. especially when you look at england. i personally think we are in our golden generation now, ok back in the becks owen scholes era, they were probably better man for man against todays lot, but we have way more depth now. take midfield for example, we now have berkley townsend oxlaid walcott sterling lallana who can all play the attacking role, and you would be happy with any combination. up top when fit of course, we now have rooney sterling kane welbeck austin ings and lambert. which in my mind is up there with shearer owen cole and ferdinand for depth. i just dont see roy as the man to get the most out of this exciting bunch that we now have
