World Cup blog for soccer fans of all levels... Update: France sans Zidane

Originally Posted by TheGift23

The WC Video game comes out next week
pimp.gif

whats the difference besides the added teams?
 
Originally Posted by PersiaFly

Originally Posted by shabooyah1124

I'm loving the blog G. I'm a novice when it comes to soccer, but can you go over formations? When I play FIFA my friends always adjust their formations while I just keep mine default.
I might do one later on formations, but real quick:
4-4-2 is the standard you could say, and it refers to 4 defenders, 4 midfielders, and 2 strikers, with a goalie behind them. Of the 4 defenders, 2 play in the center and 2 on the sides of the field. Same with the midfielders usually, 2 in the center (either stacked or side by side), and 2 on the sides of the field.

In FIFA, if you want to go more offensive, you might do 4-3-3, since that takes one of the midfielders up to play as striker. Or more defensive might be 5-3-2, which takes a midfielder from 4-4-2 back to defense.

Some make adjustments based on a specific player or players. For example, if you're playing with Barcelona and you want Messi to play behind your strikers, you might set up a 4-3-1-2, with 4 defenders, 3 midfielders, Messi as the 1 between your midfielders and strikers, and then 2 strikers up front. 


Add to that, 4-4-2 is now a 'standard' formation in world football but 4-3-3 has been very popular with many teams since the sucess of Barcelona and as well as many European teams during last European champion used that 4-3-3 a lot, 4-3-1-2 is an essentially a variation of 4-3-3. Like Persia said, there's a forward playing behind from 2 forwards on the front, you call them 'secondary forward' (or 'second striker', I've heard someone even saying 'shadow forward', thought that was kinda funny). Classic example would be how Italy and Juventus used to use Del Piero. Del Piero could go as one of two forward on the front but often times he would sit back from two forwards and kinda operated the offense.

Man U, for example, used to go for 4-4-2 when that strong midfielder consist of Giggs-Keane-Scholes-Becks were in their prime. Obviously, they now changed it to 4-3-3 with guys like Valencia and Nani on the side (before that, it was Christiano Ronaldo, Tevez and Ji-Sung Park, etc.). It's lot more explosive than 4-4-2 if you have right players and not to mention lot more offensive IMO. ManU's 4-3-3, to me, is still work in progress formation and I should add before I go that Carlos Queiroz (who was assistant coach in ManU and now the skipper for Portuguise Nationals) played the key part for changing ManU from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3.  Although some says, that did not make Roy Keane happy and that was reason why Roy Keane "left" ManU. Oh well.
 
Originally Posted by RetroBaller

Originally Posted by TheGift23

The WC Video game comes out next week
pimp.gif

whats the difference besides the added teams?
I'm a guy who loves playing with countries and qualification mode. My country being in the game (El Salvador) is always a huge plus.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted by TheGift23

Originally Posted by RetroBaller

Originally Posted by TheGift23

The WC Video game comes out next week
pimp.gif

whats the difference besides the added teams?
I'm a guy who loves playing with countries and qualification mode. My country being in the game (El Salvador) is always a huge plus.
smile.gif
Same here, can't wait to make Iran play the way it should have in qualifying. 
laugh.gif
 
frown.gif
 
New series of posts: player profiles.

First one is on Xavi.

Suggest players you'd like to see please! I'll cover the usual suspects, but maybe important players from lesser teams that I might not be so familiar with.

Thanks for reading as always.
pimp.gif
 
The player profile on Xavi was a good read. Best god damn mid in the world
pimp.gif


Really diggin the blog man.

Perhaps you could do a player profile on Stankovic or Hamsik?
 
Originally Posted by Oskar Kokoshka

The player profile on Xavi was a good read. Best god damn mid in the world
pimp.gif


Really diggin the blog man.

Perhaps you could do a player profile on Stankovic or Hamsik?
Yeah, had to start with Xavi, dude is such a perfect player. 
I was thinking of doing one on Vidic, but Stankovic and Hamsik are great choices as well. I read up on Hamsik for the Slovakia profile and a lot of people seem to think he could be the next Nedved. 
 
Originally Posted by shabooyah1124

So what are the drawbacks of running a 4-3-3?
It depends how strong your offense is. If your midfielders are strong, three of them can cover the middle of the field and disrupt opposition attacks from taking shape, while also distributing for the three forwards. If not, the other team can exploit your three men by putting four men in the middle. It comes down to your confidence in being able to keep the ball on the opponent's end of the field, since your team is top-heavy with three forwards. If the game is happening more in the midfield, the three forwards aren't doing much, and you're playing with a man down in the midfield. That's why many play the 4-3-1-2 version of the 4-3-3, so that one of the forwards is sort of between the midfield and the forward position. 
 
Profile for Australia added. If you're not familiar with the work of Guus Hiddink (the Larry Brown of soccer), it might be worth a read.

5000 posts by the way. Been here for almost 10 years, same SN, so bans.
pimp.gif
 
New post on the Barca-Inter game. I can only describe it by its title: The Fall of a Beautiful Giant: a rambling take on Barcelona's loss to Inter, and what it says about soccer
 
We will see a bunch of matches at the WC similar to what we saw yesterday between Barca/Inter. Luckily though, that approach has not been successful at the WC in recent memory...England tried it in 02...Germans tried it in 02 and lost in the finals...England/Portugal tried it in 06 and failed.

When you see a team like Brazil playing a more direct and results-oriented approach then you get the sense that teams are beginning to abandon the philosophy that they need to control matches and dominate possession to win. Its now all about defending in numbers and trying to hit your opponents on the counter-attack or through set pieces. It sucks as a fan and I'm hoping for brighter days in the future where we'll hopefully have teams attacking with reckless abandon like they did prior to the 1990 WC.
 
Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

We will see a bunch of matches at the WC similar to what we saw yesterday between Barca/Inter. Luckily though, that approach has not been successful at the WC in recent memory...England tried it in 02...Germans tried it in 02 and lost in the finals...England/Portugal tried it in 06 and failed.

When you see a team like Brazil playing a more direct and results-oriented approach then you get the sense that teams are beginning to abandon the philosophy that they need to control matches and dominate possession to win. Its now all about defending in numbers and trying to hit your opponents on the counter-attack or through set pieces. It sucks as a fan and I'm hoping for brighter days in the future where we'll hopefully have teams attacking with reckless abandon like they did prior to the 1990 WC.
How much of Brazil's transition, do you think, is due to Dunga's philosophy? That is, do you think it was a natural progression that would have happened no matter who the coach was, or was it a result of Dunga's coaching? 
 
Mark my words, despite all the negative press and struggles leading to the World Cup, Argentina will win it all.
 
My top 5 teams in order for 2010 World Cup are...
1) Spain

2) England

3) Brazil

4) France (When you doubt France, they always seem to show up)

5) Portugal/Germany

If I were to bet on it I couldn't see myself betting against Spain.  The Spanish players have finally caught up to the world class elite and have proved that they are defensively as solid as a team like Germany with a great tactical midfield as well as being lead by two of the best strikers in the world.  Not to mention they play a beautiful game of football. I'm Portuguese so I'm rooting for my country all the way but Ronaldo (this also goes for Messi) must show up this world cup and prove to the world why he earns that pay check.  The Portuguese squad must also learn to play as a team and not individuals although they lack a good common striker. England is close with Spain, there record in the past 2 years is 
eek.gif
, seems like the hiring of Fabio Capello was a great move.  Brazil are up there, not because they look good but because there Brazil and they always seem to find a way to conquer, although there team seems great on paper the New Brazilian team lacks focus and teamwork from what I've seen (Argentina as well, same deal). Germany is up there because they play hard nose defensive football that always carry's them deep in tournaments but never finishes the job. 

Honorable Mention - Italy (they are a great team but they seem to fixated on there older generation rather than there new one) - Argentina (I'm sorry but I don't see the hype, they barely made the World Cup in a continent that one of the easiest to play on but they do have Messi and where there's Messi there may be gold)
 
Originally Posted by CoupeIt88

My top 5 teams in order for 2010 World Cup are...
1) Spain

2) England

3) Brazil

4) France (When you doubt France, they always seem to show up)

5) Portugal/Germany

If I were to bet on it I couldn't see myself betting against Spain.  The Spanish players have finally caught up to the world class elite and have proved that they are defensively as solid as a team like Germany with a great tactical midfield as well as being lead by two of the best strikers in the world.  Not to mention they play a beautiful game of football. I'm Portuguese so I'm rooting for my country all the way but Ronaldo (this also goes for Messi) must show up this world cup and prove to the world why he earns that pay check.  The Portuguese squad must also learn to play as a team and not individuals although they lack a good common striker. England is close with Spain, there record in the past 2 years is 
eek.gif
, seems like the hiring of Fabio Capello was a great move.  Brazil are up there, not because they look good but because there Brazil and they always seem to find a way to conquer, although there team seems great on paper the New Brazilian team lacks focus and teamwork from what I've seen (Argentina as well, same deal). Germany is up there because they play hard nose defensive football that always carry's them deep in tournaments but never finishes the job. 

Honorable Mention - Italy (they are a great team but they seem to fixated on there older generation rather than there new one) - Argentina (I'm sorry but I don't see the hype, they barely made the World Cup in a continent that one of the easiest to play on but they do have Messi and where there's Messi there may be gold)
I don't really know why England is so hyped right now. I guess it's the usual "power of the media" angle, plus the fact that the EPL is the biggest league in the world. Other than that, what have they done to show that they belong in the discussion of World Cup favorites? Does any other team favored to win the Cup have a hole as big as England at GK? If you're gonna hold it against Argentina that they barely advanced, why don't you hold it against England that they didn't advance to Euro 2008? I think Capello has done wonders for the squad, but I don't think they're anywhere near the second best team at this World Cup. 
Also, when did South America become an easy qualification zone? Those away games in places like Bolivia, Chile and Paraguay are some of the toughest games in qualifying anywhere. South America is certainly not Asia or CONCACAF. 

Also don't think there's any reason to put France that high. They played well before when no one expected it, but it was almost wholly due to Zidane. 
 
Back
Top Bottom