Oscar Bobb

[Woolly Mammoth]

Double pivot, deep lying playmaker. Whatever happened to jumpers for goal posts?

You need to ask Ron Manager

[SerbianLad]

No sign of him that I could see in the recent Motspur Parklife vid, so seems like not even back in training.

There were instances in the past where the same thing happened but the player not only returned to training, but actually started the match, so it's not a definitive factor. However, it is a bit worrying. I guess we have to wait for Marco's press conference tomorrow, for an update on both him and TC.

[hopper]

Double pivot, deep lying playmaker. Whatever happened to jumpers for goal posts?

I think just way more media, podcasts etc mean you've had this massive expansion of people using what were quite niche teams before.

[Neutral Zone Ultra]

We rarely give the ball away in central midfield yet it needs major surgery. It's a double pivot for a reason, and not designed to score goals.

Reed was good yesterday but he capitalized on terrible midfielder awareness, while also terribly chasing shadows on the goal we conceded.

I think we are missing Lukic quite a lot actually. Not just in his aggression but his ability to find a pass and break lines through his dribbling.

Please explain to an 85 year old dinosaur what a "pivot" and a "double pivot" are (in football of course) and what these positions used to be called.

I'm 26 and I haven't got a clue what "pivot" means, in my mind it's defensive/holding midfielders, attacking midfielders and maybe box-to-box midfielders.

Yes correct. The internet tacticos have really brought it more into the limelight so to speak. I try to focus relative to the system that I believe our manager plays - and always acknowledging that he doesn't play "stock" formation -> tactics , so analysis has to be done within the match context a lot of the time.

Adding on to what Wooly said is that yes it's an "axis" of the team - that sits in front of the defensive line. A 4-1-4-1 formation is a direct way of looking at it, where the first "1" in that is the defensive midfielder, or commonly known as the 6 - which is the single pivot. I believe in the past a "wing-half" or "half-back" can be referenced, but I haven't heard it called that in a long time. I actually reached out to one of my coaching mentors to answer this question.


Single Pivot or Pivot in a 4-1-4-1 formation

With Marco's system we have a 4-2-3-1, or a 4-3-3 with the assumption of a 4-2-3-1 in most build-up stages and pyramid/triangle passing positions. The double pivot are the two defensive midfielders playing as a "6", so Lukic and Berge, but what changes about them is their job/role. Without being privvy to Marco's notebook, I'd assume that Sander Berge is your deep-lying playmaker, or "Regista", who is focused primarily in setting the tempo and distribution, so a lot of one-and-two touch backfoot receiving to keep the flow of the passing movement.

From there, the second 6 is Lukic - which is what makes the system now a double pivot. This is where I think our identity in the double pivot is a bit of a struggle to understand. The common role should be the destroyer, someone who is mainly focused on winning the ball, breaking up sequences, etc, but while he tries his best at being that player - Lukic is also someone who has a freedom to roam quite a bit. He is a bit of what is called an Anchor Man, someone who usually stays in front of the defensive line, and connects with the playmaker in Berge. In Marco's system though, Lukic has so much freedom in the build up and deeper attacks he transitions to more of an 8. It's actually what is missing so badly from our team right now that range of ability to be a 6 and an 8. Iwobi is getting better, but he's 90% an 8 and 10% a 6. Marco had him on the left midfield with freedom on that side to tuck or get wide for quite a bit - so the sooner Lukic can return, the better in my opinion.


Double Pivot in a 4-2-3-1 formation

I know it's not relevant to the question, but this is why last season I was convinced we were playing two 8's with Pereira in the center midfield and ESR in the left midfielder position. So when we would move into our build up in the middle-to-attacking third, we'd leave our 6 as a single pivot, and those two players in Pereira and ESR would become the two 8's. I believe Marco used this approach when Iwobi was playing left midfield more, but it depended on what he would do with the left wingback in Jedi or Sess.

The way Marco's system is designed is one that has so much fluctuation throughout a match. The "stock" look is that 4-2-3-1 with the double pivot, but with the roaming freedom he gives the second 6, whether that be Lukic or Iwobi, can change the entire look in different parts of the pitch.

I hope that helps and doesn't come off as a know-it-all or condescending - I just wanted to answer the question a bit better. I apologize for not being more clear in my previous posts. Sometimes I type too fast for my own good and get too excited to talk Fulham footy.

No that's all really helpful and clears things up for me, many thanks.

[SerbianLad]

There were instances in the past where the same thing happened but the player not only returned to training, but actually started the match, so it's not a definitive factor. However, it is a bit worrying. I guess we have to wait for Marco's press conference tomorrow, for an update on both him and TC.

Both of them are back in training, it will probably be too soon for one of them, according to Marco.

[LittleErn]

A pivot is
A central defensive midfielder who acts as the "axis" of the team, sitting just in front of the defenders to control the game's tempo, break up play, and connect defence with attack.

Thanks Woolly.

[LittleErn]

We rarely give the ball away in central midfield yet it needs major surgery. It's a double pivot for a reason, and not designed to score goals.

Reed was good yesterday but he capitalized on terrible midfielder awareness, while also terribly chasing shadows on the goal we conceded.

I think we are missing Lukic quite a lot actually. Not just in his aggression but his ability to find a pass and break lines through his dribbling.

Please explain to an 85 year old dinosaur what a "pivot" and a "double pivot" are (in football of course) and what these positions used to be called.

I'm 26 and I haven't got a clue what "pivot" means, in my mind it's defensive/holding midfielders, attacking midfielders and maybe box-to-box midfielders.

Yes correct. The internet tacticos have really brought it more into the limelight so to speak. I try to focus relative to the system that I believe our manager plays - and always acknowledging that he doesn't play "stock" formation -> tactics , so analysis has to be done within the match context a lot of the time.

Adding on to what Wooly said is that yes it's an "axis" of the team - that sits in front of the defensive line. A 4-1-4-1 formation is a direct way of looking at it, where the first "1" in that is the defensive midfielder, or commonly known as the 6 - which is the single pivot. I believe in the past a "wing-half" or "half-back" can be referenced, but I haven't heard it called that in a long time. I actually reached out to one of my coaching mentors to answer this question.


Single Pivot or Pivot in a 4-1-4-1 formation

With Marco's system we have a 4-2-3-1, or a 4-3-3 with the assumption of a 4-2-3-1 in most build-up stages and pyramid/triangle passing positions. The double pivot are the two defensive midfielders playing as a "6", so Lukic and Berge, but what changes about them is their job/role. Without being privvy to Marco's notebook, I'd assume that Sander Berge is your deep-lying playmaker, or "Regista", who is focused primarily in setting the tempo and distribution, so a lot of one-and-two touch backfoot receiving to keep the flow of the passing movement.

From there, the second 6 is Lukic - which is what makes the system now a double pivot. This is where I think our identity in the double pivot is a bit of a struggle to understand. The common role should be the destroyer, someone who is mainly focused on winning the ball, breaking up sequences, etc, but while he tries his best at being that player - Lukic is also someone who has a freedom to roam quite a bit. He is a bit of what is called an Anchor Man, someone who usually stays in front of the defensive line, and connects with the playmaker in Berge. In Marco's system though, Lukic has so much freedom in the build up and deeper attacks he transitions to more of an 8. It's actually what is missing so badly from our team right now that range of ability to be a 6 and an 8. Iwobi is getting better, but he's 90% an 8 and 10% a 6. Marco had him on the left midfield with freedom on that side to tuck or get wide for quite a bit - so the sooner Lukic can return, the better in my opinion.


Double Pivot in a 4-2-3-1 formation

I know it's not relevant to the question, but this is why last season I was convinced we were playing two 8's with Pereira in the center midfield and ESR in the left midfielder position. So when we would move into our build up in the middle-to-attacking third, we'd leave our 6 as a single pivot, and those two players in Pereira and ESR would become the two 8's. I believe Marco used this approach when Iwobi was playing left midfield more, but it depended on what he would do with the left wingback in Jedi or Sess.

The way Marco's system is designed is one that has so much fluctuation throughout a match. The "stock" look is that 4-2-3-1 with the double pivot, but with the roaming freedom he gives the second 6, whether that be Lukic or Iwobi, can change the entire look in different parts of the pitch.

I hope that helps and doesn't come off as a know-it-all or condescending - I just wanted to answer the question a bit better. I apologize for not being more clear in my previous posts. Sometimes I type too fast for my own good and get too excited to talk Fulham footy.

Thank you so much for this. I promise never to use "half-back" again!😇

[Twig]

We rarely give the ball away in central midfield yet it needs major surgery. It's a double pivot for a reason, and not designed to score goals.

Reed was good yesterday but he capitalized on terrible midfielder awareness, while also terribly chasing shadows on the goal we conceded.

I think we are missing Lukic quite a lot actually. Not just in his aggression but his ability to find a pass and break lines through his dribbling.

Please explain to an 85 year old dinosaur what a "pivot" and a "double pivot" are (in football of course) and what these positions used to be called.

I'm 26 and I haven't got a clue what "pivot" means, in my mind it's defensive/holding midfielders, attacking midfielders and maybe box-to-box midfielders.

Yes correct. The internet tacticos have really brought it more into the limelight so to speak. I try to focus relative to the system that I believe our manager plays - and always acknowledging that he doesn't play "stock" formation -> tactics , so analysis has to be done within the match context a lot of the time.

Adding on to what Wooly said is that yes it's an "axis" of the team - that sits in front of the defensive line. A 4-1-4-1 formation is a direct way of looking at it, where the first "1" in that is the defensive midfielder, or commonly known as the 6 - which is the single pivot. I believe in the past a "wing-half" or "half-back" can be referenced, but I haven't heard it called that in a long time. I actually reached out to one of my coaching mentors to answer this question.


Single Pivot or Pivot in a 4-1-4-1 formation

With Marco's system we have a 4-2-3-1, or a 4-3-3 with the assumption of a 4-2-3-1 in most build-up stages and pyramid/triangle passing positions. The double pivot are the two defensive midfielders playing as a "6", so Lukic and Berge, but what changes about them is their job/role. Without being privvy to Marco's notebook, I'd assume that Sander Berge is your deep-lying playmaker, or "Regista", who is focused primarily in setting the tempo and distribution, so a lot of one-and-two touch backfoot receiving to keep the flow of the passing movement.

From there, the second 6 is Lukic - which is what makes the system now a double pivot. This is where I think our identity in the double pivot is a bit of a struggle to understand. The common role should be the destroyer, someone who is mainly focused on winning the ball, breaking up sequences, etc, but while he tries his best at being that player - Lukic is also someone who has a freedom to roam quite a bit. He is a bit of what is called an Anchor Man, someone who usually stays in front of the defensive line, and connects with the playmaker in Berge. In Marco's system though, Lukic has so much freedom in the build up and deeper attacks he transitions to more of an 8. It's actually what is missing so badly from our team right now that range of ability to be a 6 and an 8. Iwobi is getting better, but he's 90% an 8 and 10% a 6. Marco had him on the left midfield with freedom on that side to tuck or get wide for quite a bit - so the sooner Lukic can return, the better in my opinion.


Double Pivot in a 4-2-3-1 formation

I know it's not relevant to the question, but this is why last season I was convinced we were playing two 8's with Pereira in the center midfield and ESR in the left midfielder position. So when we would move into our build up in the middle-to-attacking third, we'd leave our 6 as a single pivot, and those two players in Pereira and ESR would become the two 8's. I believe Marco used this approach when Iwobi was playing left midfield more, but it depended on what he would do with the left wingback in Jedi or Sess.

The way Marco's system is designed is one that has so much fluctuation throughout a match. The "stock" look is that 4-2-3-1 with the double pivot, but with the roaming freedom he gives the second 6, whether that be Lukic or Iwobi, can change the entire look in different parts of the pitch.

I hope that helps and doesn't come off as a know-it-all or condescending - I just wanted to answer the question a bit better. I apologize for not being more clear in my previous posts. Sometimes I type too fast for my own good and get too excited to talk Fulham footy.

Thank you so much for this. I promise never to use "half-back" again!😇

I used to play right half (badly) and it still makes sense to me even in the modern game.

[Andrew]

We rarely give the ball away in central midfield yet it needs major surgery. It's a double pivot for a reason, and not designed to score goals.

Reed was good yesterday but he capitalized on terrible midfielder awareness, while also terribly chasing shadows on the goal we conceded.

I think we are missing Lukic quite a lot actually. Not just in his aggression but his ability to find a pass and break lines through his dribbling.

Please explain to an 85 year old dinosaur what a "pivot" and a "double pivot" are (in football of course) and what these positions used to be called.

I'm 26 and I haven't got a clue what "pivot" means, in my mind it's defensive/holding midfielders, attacking midfielders and maybe box-to-box midfielders.


I have reached 70 and can say so much of the jargon used in football is ridiculous.
Among my favourite pointless terms are
Third man running
Second ball
Number 10
Number 8
False number 9
High block
Low block

And at my age i feel sure i have missed a few

I never heard of a pivot or double pivot and feel sure it's  meaningless jargon.

I suspect this comes from pundits and wannabe managers/consultants trying to dress up an intrinsically simple game to make it appear to be more complicated than it really is.

The beautiful game is beautifull because it is simple and easy to understand.

The jargon is managment bks

[Bassey the warrior]

We rarely give the ball away in central midfield yet it needs major surgery. It's a double pivot for a reason, and not designed to score goals.

Reed was good yesterday but he capitalized on terrible midfielder awareness, while also terribly chasing shadows on the goal we conceded.

I think we are missing Lukic quite a lot actually. Not just in his aggression but his ability to find a pass and break lines through his dribbling.

Please explain to an 85 year old dinosaur what a "pivot" and a "double pivot" are (in football of course) and what these positions used to be called.

I'm 26 and I haven't got a clue what "pivot" means, in my mind it's defensive/holding midfielders, attacking midfielders and maybe box-to-box midfielders.

Yes correct. The internet tacticos have really brought it more into the limelight so to speak. I try to focus relative to the system that I believe our manager plays - and always acknowledging that he doesn't play "stock" formation -> tactics , so analysis has to be done within the match context a lot of the time.

Adding on to what Wooly said is that yes it's an "axis" of the team - that sits in front of the defensive line. A 4-1-4-1 formation is a direct way of looking at it, where the first "1" in that is the defensive midfielder, or commonly known as the 6 - which is the single pivot. I believe in the past a "wing-half" or "half-back" can be referenced, but I haven't heard it called that in a long time. I actually reached out to one of my coaching mentors to answer this question.


Single Pivot or Pivot in a 4-1-4-1 formation

With Marco's system we have a 4-2-3-1, or a 4-3-3 with the assumption of a 4-2-3-1 in most build-up stages and pyramid/triangle passing positions. The double pivot are the two defensive midfielders playing as a "6", so Lukic and Berge, but what changes about them is their job/role. Without being privvy to Marco's notebook, I'd assume that Sander Berge is your deep-lying playmaker, or "Regista", who is focused primarily in setting the tempo and distribution, so a lot of one-and-two touch backfoot receiving to keep the flow of the passing movement.

From there, the second 6 is Lukic - which is what makes the system now a double pivot. This is where I think our identity in the double pivot is a bit of a struggle to understand. The common role should be the destroyer, someone who is mainly focused on winning the ball, breaking up sequences, etc, but while he tries his best at being that player - Lukic is also someone who has a freedom to roam quite a bit. He is a bit of what is called an Anchor Man, someone who usually stays in front of the defensive line, and connects with the playmaker in Berge. In Marco's system though, Lukic has so much freedom in the build up and deeper attacks he transitions to more of an 8. It's actually what is missing so badly from our team right now that range of ability to be a 6 and an 8. Iwobi is getting better, but he's 90% an 8 and 10% a 6. Marco had him on the left midfield with freedom on that side to tuck or get wide for quite a bit - so the sooner Lukic can return, the better in my opinion.


Double Pivot in a 4-2-3-1 formation

I know it's not relevant to the question, but this is why last season I was convinced we were playing two 8's with Pereira in the center midfield and ESR in the left midfielder position. So when we would move into our build up in the middle-to-attacking third, we'd leave our 6 as a single pivot, and those two players in Pereira and ESR would become the two 8's. I believe Marco used this approach when Iwobi was playing left midfield more, but it depended on what he would do with the left wingback in Jedi or Sess.

The way Marco's system is designed is one that has so much fluctuation throughout a match. The "stock" look is that 4-2-3-1 with the double pivot, but with the roaming freedom he gives the second 6, whether that be Lukic or Iwobi, can change the entire look in different parts of the pitch.

I hope that helps and doesn't come off as a know-it-all or condescending - I just wanted to answer the question a bit better. I apologize for not being more clear in my previous posts. Sometimes I type too fast for my own good and get too excited to talk Fulham footy.

Thanks, Matt, I always enjoy your insightful tactical analysis.

Speaking from my nearly 30 years years of experience in football management*, I would say Lukic's role more often resembles a ball-winning midfielder on support option as opposed to defend, although he does drop into an anchorman-like role at times. I say this because Berge is usually the deepest midfielder, while Lukic has the licence to roam both defensively and in attack, and he presses the ball far more aggressively than Berge.

One thing he doesn't really do, and something we could use a bit more of from him and Iwobi, is rotating with Wilson by drifting right into crossing positions, allowing Wilson to move centrally. Both Reed and Pereira did this effectively in that role, and it would give us a bit more natural width.

*I am, of course, referring to Football Manager. I started playing in the late 90s (Championship Manager) when matches consisted of nothing but text and numbers. I have mostly managed to wean myself off the addiction now.

[NogoodBoyo]

I miss sweepers or liberos.  Whatever happened to them?
I remember Marius Tresor who played that role for France in the Argentina World Cup in '78 (?).
He would move forward from the back to start so many attacks.  He was a giant, a colossus of a man.  Wonderful ball control and an imperious passer who started so many attacks from the back.
I often thought that is the position Tony Gale should have played.
Nogood "his legs bestrid the ocean, isit"
Boyo

[Andrew]

I miss sweepers or liberos.  Whatever happened to them?
I remember Marius Tresor who played that role for France in the Argentina World Cup in '78 (?).
He would move forward from the back to start so many attacks.  He was a giant, a colossus of a man.  Wonderful ball control and an imperious passer who started so many attacks from the back.
I often thought that is the position Tony Gale should have played.
Nogood "his legs bestrid the ocean, isit"
Boyo

I invented the libero role before anyone else thought of it. It wasn't called that then but I had to do it because my centre backs were so poor and missed so many easy headers I had to drop behind them running between them and pick up the ball and bringing or playing the ball out from the back.

I called it deep lying central midfield who drifted to where I was needed.

Just some proper historic context.

I also occasionally played sweeper, easiest position on the pitch

[NogoodBoyo]

I miss sweepers or liberos.  Whatever happened to them?
I remember Marius Tresor who played that role for France in the Argentina World Cup in '78 (?).
He would move forward from the back to start so many attacks.  He was a giant, a colossus of a man.  Wonderful ball control and an imperious passer who started so many attacks from the back.
I often thought that is the position Tony Gale should have played.
Nogood "his legs bestrid the ocean, isit"
Boyo

I invented the libero role before anyone else thought of it. It wasn't called that then but I had to do it because my centre backs were so poor and missed so many easy headers I had to drop behind them running between them and pick up the ball and bringing or playing the ball out from the back.

I called it deep lying central midfield who drifted to where I was needed.

Just some proper historic context.

I also occasionally played sweeper, easiest position on the pitch

What an invention!  Any idea why the libero/sweeper role seems to have disappeared as quickly as it arrived?

[Andrew]

I miss sweepers or liberos.  Whatever happened to them?
I remember Marius Tresor who played that role for France in the Argentina World Cup in '78 (?).
He would move forward from the back to start so many attacks.  He was a giant, a colossus of a man.  Wonderful ball control and an imperious passer who started so many attacks from the back.
I often thought that is the position Tony Gale should have played.
Nogood "his legs bestrid the ocean, isit"
Boyo

I invented the libero role before anyone else thought of it. It wasn't called that then but I had to do it because my centre backs were so poor and missed so many easy headers I had to drop behind them running between them and pick up the ball and bringing or playing the ball out from the back.

I called it deep lying central midfield who drifted to where I was needed.

Just some proper historic context.

I also occasionally played sweeper, easiest position on the pitch

What an invention!  Any idea why the libero/sweeper role seems to have disappeared as quickly as it arrived?

I really do not know. Perhapsthe game is far more regimented nowadays. If you play and old fashioned 3 5 2 or 5 3 2 then you effectively can use the central defender as a sweeper or push him forward to be a libero, when I got older and had tp pace myself more, that was the role I played. I do think there is a ;ack of imagination with all teams playing very similar tactics.

The game is not quite as much fun as it used to be but the 5 4 against Man city was more reminiscent of years ago with tactics being thrown out of the window.

[Bassey the warrior]

I miss sweepers or liberos.  Whatever happened to them?
I remember Marius Tresor who played that role for France in the Argentina World Cup in '78 (?).
He would move forward from the back to start so many attacks.  He was a giant, a colossus of a man.  Wonderful ball control and an imperious passer who started so many attacks from the back.
I often thought that is the position Tony Gale should have played.
Nogood "his legs bestrid the ocean, isit"
Boyo

I invented the libero role before anyone else thought of it. It wasn't called that then but I had to do it because my centre backs were so poor and missed so many easy headers I had to drop behind them running between them and pick up the ball and bringing or playing the ball out from the back.

I called it deep lying central midfield who drifted to where I was needed.

Just some proper historic context.

I also occasionally played sweeper, easiest position on the pitch

What an invention!  Any idea why the libero/sweeper role seems to have disappeared as quickly as it arrived?

Due to the offside rule presumably?

[Lovely park walk]

I hope that helps and doesn't come off as a know-it-all or condescending - I just wanted to answer the question a bit better. I apologize for not being more clear in my previous posts. Sometimes I type too fast for my own good and get too excited to talk Fulham footy.
[/quote]
Great insights, particularly the double 8 thinking, which i will watch out for.