September 25, 2018, 09:42:40 PM

Author Topic: '4-6-0'  (Read 4408 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

September 15, 2010, 07:35:45 PM
Read 4408 times


Just a debate against the negative response to the '4-6-0' formation we played last week. I saw, we better never play that can he play no strikers at negative is that formation etc.

First of all, it isnt 0 up front it is 1 up front with 1 man off the striker, it is just a formation that doesn't have a natural striker in. But what was the problem with it? We had fantastic results with it. Everyone knows, including Moyes it isnt and wasnt a long term solution but it was a formation that was needed at the time and needed on Saturday.

Proven by our results when we have played it;

Man City away- won 2-0
Chelsea home- drew 0-0
Boro away- won 1-0
Sunderland home- won 3-0
Macclesfield away- win 1-0
Liverpool away- drew 1-1
liverpool away- drew 1-1
Arsenal home- drew 1-1
United away- lost 1-0
Liverpool home- Won 1-0
United home- drew 3-3

So in 11 matches using the formation we won 5, drew 5 and lost only 1 when we played Manchester United twice, Liverpool 3 times and arsenal once as well.

I don't get the negativty agains the manager who used an unorthodox formation to make the most of our resources to get the best results possible in some very tough matches at tough times. Surely it should a positive about the manager that he can see ways others cant to make the best out of bad situations?

September 15, 2010, 07:42:02 PM
Reply #1

bloody scally

I don't really understand that last paragraph. Good collection of info at the start though.

September 15, 2010, 07:46:15 PM
Reply #2


Personlly, I don't have a problem with Cahill playing upfront, he's been a forward in all but name for the vast majority of his Everton career, and his style is closer to that of a target man than anything else. His performances have been very good there, he holds the ball up well, puts in the work and can bully and compete with six foot plus centre backs. That's not something I have a problem with, and it certainly isn't negative.

Playing Osman outwide is the thing that really bugs me, it really shouldn't be happening, especially when you've go no pace to balance it out in other areas. He's useless out there, and I'm an Osman fan, he's a good centre midfielder, but the only thing he can occasionly do out there is cut back away from goal, run into a central position and lay the the ball off. It plays against all his strengths, and we gain nothing from having him out there, he doesn't even protect his fullback all that well. It's a waste of time really, and I consider it a 'negative' selection nowadays, and it's a shame for Osman, because he'd be alot more appreaciated if he was used in his natural position.

That's my only problem with the formation and selection of personnel really, I wouldn't be keen on Fellaini playing as a second striker all the time but I can see why Moyes did it during the game. Rodwell off Cahill, for example, could be a very decent partnership in my opinion.

September 15, 2010, 07:46:55 PM
Reply #3


I don't really understand that last paragraph. Good collection of info at the start though.

People have been slagging him off for playing it, I actually think he is a very brave manager to have tried it and proven it is very difficult to play against with the way we set up and players that play in it. It may not get the most out of Cahill or Fellaini but it worked when we needed it to. I see it as a positive point for him as a manager that he made a decision to set up a formation when we had no forwards to lose 1 game in 10 in that period when we had to play Liverpool 3 times, United and Arsenal.

He basically saw Saturday as having no strikers right for the job. 1 very unfit and 1 not ready for the premier league. So moved back to a formation that worked for us when we had no strikers.

September 15, 2010, 07:48:17 PM
Reply #4


NSNO Subscriber
It's essentially the same as when we play 1 up front.

There is a hang up on what the personnel employed are nominally seen as. If people see 2 strikers they think there must be a positive attitude. This disregards the fact that you need to get the ball to those strikers for them to have an influence on the game.

It also ignores the fact that the 4 men in midfield might be defensive or have been instructed to not get ahead of the game etc.

As I've said befor, bascially it's only when people fail to look beyond the theory that strikers = goals and that many people still have a recollection of when teams really did only play 5 in midfield when they were trying to be defensive.

September 15, 2010, 08:16:06 PM
Reply #5


NSNO Subscriber
Im a fan of playing Cahill upfront, but not a fan of playing Felliani behind him. I would like to see Osman playing behind Cahill and bring Coleman in on the right. Despite what many people think on this site I believe Osman can be a top class player when played in the middle and Felliani proved on saturday that he is twice the player when played in a deeper role, this would also allow Heitinga to move into defence for Distin.

September 15, 2010, 08:29:54 PM
Reply #6


With Hibbert or Neville at right back, they can tuck in and form a 3 at the back allowing Baines further license to roam, overlap and cross. Sometimes overloading one side can yield great results, especially against rigid teams ie. 4-4-2 Birmingham and Stoke types.

When it comes to the 4-5-1, very few criticise Chelsea or United for their lack of attacking presence. Anelka more often than not played in the new "Anichebe role", rather than starting upfront with Drogba. Ashley Cole and Evra get forward similarly to Baines, while Ivanovic or Gary Neville?? tend to sit back and cover.

September 15, 2010, 08:56:53 PM
Reply #7


We play 4-4-1-1.

September 15, 2010, 09:00:31 PM
Reply #8


NSNO Subscriber
There are so many aspects to this debate I'm not sure where to start, but at its most basic level people are always going to want their team at home to be "positive". I don't think there is any getting away from that.

Now as has been said 4-6-0 doesn't necessarily equal a team that isn't willing to attack, or be positive. But while the "positivity of a football team" might be hard to define its really a case of you know it when you see it. And I don't think we were positive on Saturday for large parts of the game. You might say that is unrealistic given the opposition but that kind of logic sometimes goes out of the window for a football fan, especially as just last year we showed we don't need to necessarily approach the game this way.

For me its not the formation but some of the players being employed in certain roles meen we are essentially attacking with the handbrake on. When we play with a CB-DM-DM as the spine of team its realistically hard not to. Then there is the thorn that is the right wing.

Lets not forget we got away with it a bit on Saturday, from the start of the second half up until we made the substitutions (which really just changed the positivity of the team rather than the formation) we were pretty much out of the game. Yak made a big impact, Cahill floated back to his usual role, Coleman gave them a little more to think about on the right with Evra getting subbed off too perhaps because of it (or perhaps just complacency).

September 15, 2010, 09:16:20 PM
Reply #9


Chelsea play 4-3-3 when they are attacking and 4-5-1 when they are defending

that's different to playing 4-5-1 all the time

It could even be argued that when they're going forward Chelsea play 2-5-3 with only Terry and whoever is alongside him staying back, with Essien as the deepest midfielder

Does that bare any kind of resemblance to anything David Moyes has ever employed?

United and Chelsea's sides are both full of pace - are Everton?

we seem to play 4-4-2 when we're attacking, 4-6-0 when we're lining up, and 6-4-0 when we're defending - unless it's a corner when it's 11-0-0
So what your saying is that the formation itself doesn't dictate approach as being attacking or defensive. Neville and Hibbert have been seen getting forward especially in games where teams park the bus, they aren't that effective that end, but the majority of their role is defensive and they do that solidly on the whole.

I've seen us adopt similarly attacking plans in several games, this season we have been on the front foot most of the time in most of the games and got caught out with mistakes or caught on the break when getting bodies forward.

I've seen plenty of teams buy pace without worrying about technical abilities. Its slightly annoying, but unfortunately our players aren't all as good as United's and Chelsea's in every area. Maybe we could have a word with Dwain Chambers.

I'm glad to see that formation changes and we get forward, but defend in numbers when being attacked. Thats the flexibility of the 4-5-1, it can become 7-2-1 or 3-4-3 quite quickly, but we have moved on from sticking 2 players upfront and defending with 2 banks of 4.

We need to put the ball in the back of net more maybe we could loan Rooney or Drogba, then everyone would be delighted how we won, but also controlled the games.

September 15, 2010, 09:18:54 PM
Reply #10


Yakubu is not fit , It is arguable that the best time to bring a semi fit forward into the play is when the opposition are tiring , Louis could not play and Beckford just does not look like a Premier league player - yet - Playing Cahill as a forward instead was not a risk , he caused Vidic and Evans problems all afternoon , they certainly could not ignore him , Ideally a fully fit Yakubu would have given Utd a lot more to think about and as it turned out we certainly weren't overrun by them and Distin's errors were the main difference between the teams . With hindsight Johnny H should have played CB but Distin had played well up until this game and was found out by Berbatov . Incidentally Nani was given too much freedom by Bainsey but his contribution for our last 2 goals have glossed over his errors . The system was not the problem on Saturday .. we had 25 attempts on goal , individual errors caused the problems
Once Everton has touched you nothing will be the same"
Alan Ball

" Notoriously shy and laconic off the field, Dean's quotes are sparse. He is reputed to have said to an over-enthusiastic marker 'I'm going for a pee. You coming?' "

September 15, 2010, 10:23:37 PM
Reply #11


si's spot on here. it's negative. chelsea are more adaptable and they're effective as a result, we're one dimensional when we play with that set of players. It showed agaisnt united. We've ogt a good team, we have a lot of the ball but against top sides you can't be that negative, we brought on the yak and then caused some problems and actually attacked with baiens overlapping. doesn't provide an out ball either for the defece/midfield when under pressure. i don't see why we can't have atleast one striker up to take some pressure off and spearhead the attacks when we have the ball
Everton & Atleti

September 15, 2010, 10:30:12 PM
Reply #12


NSNO Subscriber
Maybe because out of our strikers the Yak isn't considered fit enough, Saha is injured and Beckford has struggled to hold the ball up; an aspect of the game which is vital if you're going to bring the midfield into play.

Were we negative in the 1st half?

Or was the 'negativity' in the second caused by the deflation of lettin in 2 goals in the space of 5 mins?

We were caught on the break a lot as well, it's hard to do that in your own half which is what's surely implied by this negative criticism.

September 15, 2010, 10:32:08 PM
Reply #13


NSNO Subscriber
I'd like to point out that I'd like the Yak to play. We're a much better team when he's firing on all cylinders, but if he's not fully fit, he's nowhere near as effective.

September 15, 2010, 10:47:08 PM
Reply #14


I've watched the game twice and we certainly weren't negative or set out defensively, there where spells in the game where we dominated and had as much of the ball as they did. That's no mean feat when they've got someone like Paul Scholes in midfield, and it shows the quality of our midfield now, certainly in left and central positions.

There was nothing wrong with the performance, it was strange the way the game panned out, granted, but that's football, and we still put three past a top team and had as much, if not more of the ball than they did, which has rarely been the case in these games.

We still lack a little in the final third, but I think that could be corrected with one or two changes, outwide and upfront, once Yak's fit enough to start a game.