Strike partnerships

Kevster

Are strike partnerships a thing of the past? tactics nowadays seem to focus on one main striker and another (or others) who play off him. Remember the good ol' days of Yorke and Cole at Man. United?

Kevin

leninbenjamin

A player's ability to link up with his team mates is now more important than ever. However, the manner in which this occurs is changing with the evolution of the game. The increased athleticism of players, results in a faster game that makes it more difficult to find space, so players drop deeper in the hope of creating confusion and literally 'creating' space to run into through their surges forward and quick interplay. This is has resulted in attackers not playing as high up the pitch and the erosion of the traditional striker partership.

So in many respects the traditional strike partnership of the past is being replaced by more dynamic and fluid partnerships that don't adhere to the traditional formations.

Have a google for Parreira's 'strikerless formations', the World Cup winning Brazilian manager predicted this happening at the start of the decade.

Kevster

Interesting thoughts/perspective on it - Thanks. I Googled what you said too and started to read snippets from this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/jun/08/euro2008

I can easily see how that's kind of happening in some teams nowadays. There's certainly a greater shift to higher levels of fitness, with players now being able to cover more ground and not just 'sit' in the striker's slot.

Kevin

Glico Man

Getting the ideal strike partnership is the first aim. The the next is to add another dimension to this to create a triangle of quality players. Then the next is to add a fourth player to make the play between the square even more fluid and unpredictable. The more quality and understanding between the players will ultimately bring success.

Real have gone about this the wrong my imo. They have bought too many players at once and as such will struggle to create the ideal partnership. They have the quality players, its just using them to the right effect that has caused them problems, the so called "gelling effect"

Barca use triangles to great effect Xavi, Iniesta and Toure in Midfield. Ibra, Messi, Pedro/Henry up top, and all these players can interchange positions with the other. What has helped Barca is that the players are are brought up with the same system throughout the Youth and U21 teams. And when they have needed to they have added to their quality over the years to supplement what is already there. Rivaldo, Ronnie, Riquelme (for that one season), Ibra to replace Eto'o etc


Partnerships are there but there are more than two players involved.

therecklessone

leninbenjamin wrote: »

A player's ability to link up with his team mates is now more important than ever. However, the manner in which this occurs is changing with the evolution of the game. The increased athleticism of players, results in a faster game that makes it more difficult to find space, so players drop deeper in the hope of creating confusion and literally 'creating' space to run into through their surges forward and quick interplay. This is has resulted in attackers not playing as high up the pitch and the erosion of the traditional striker partership.

Interesting stuff.

At Spurs Robbie Keane would be seen as the player most likely to try and create space by dropping deeper, but with mixed results this season.

Of our 21 league games, Defoe/Crouch have started 8 and we have scored at least once in all 8 games.

Of the remaining 13 games, a combination of Defoe/Keane or Crouch/Keane has seen us fail to score in 6 games.

This leads to:

aaronh007 wrote: »

Partnerships are there but there are more than two players involved.

Which I'd agree with.

The more traditional Defoe/Crouch partnership benefits the team most, and I believe that is down to how they manage to gel with the other attacking players (Lennon, Modric, Kranjcar, Jenas) as much as how they gel together.

Son Of A Vidic

Looking at Man U, the best teams they've had over the years scored goals from everywhere. However with the current squad, it would be nice to have a Van Nistelrooy type striker linking up with Rooney. It certainly would be better than playing that lazy Fcuk - Berbatov!

kippy

I think United a couple of seasons ago played the "triangle" with Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo interchanging positions in it, it worked to great effect.

CR 7

medicman2009 wrote: »

Looking at Man U, the best teams they've had over the years scored goals from everywhere. However with the current squad, it would be nice to have a Van Nistelrooy type striker linking up with Rooney. It certainly would be better than playing that lazy Fcuk - Berbatov!

:rolleyes:


Well done.

leninbenjamin

Interesting that you would raise the topic today, seems to be a lot of people thinking about this lately. Just after reading an article in the Sunday Times on the decline of the traditional striker. Not a huge amount of incite in it but it cites a technical report from UEFA that explores the issue so there's some interesting quotes from the likes of Capello and Lippi.

Edit: found the link. Stupid headline was different :mad:.

TonyD79

kippy wrote: »

I think United a couple of seasons ago played the "triangle" with Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo interchanging positions in it, it worked to great effect.

Not when Rooney was stuck out on the left with Ronaldo through the middle for the majority of the game. It worked great on the counter attack in most games but was dire in certain games ie second half of champions league final versus Chelsea and last years final altough Tevez didnt play until the second half.

Rooney + Diouf could be the anwser?!

Rekop dog

Romario/Stiochkov was the best strike partnership I've ever seen for just knowing each others game inside out and they also proved it didn't have to be a big man/ small man combination.

eZe^

leninbenjamin wrote: »

A player's ability to link up with his team mates is now more important than ever. However, the manner in which this occurs is changing with the evolution of the game. The increased athleticism of players, results in a faster game that makes it more difficult to find space, so players drop deeper in the hope of creating confusion and literally 'creating' space to run into through their surges forward and quick interplay. This is has resulted in attackers not playing as high up the pitch and the erosion of the traditional striker partership.

So in many respects the traditional strike partnership of the past is being replaced by more dynamic and fluid partnerships that don't adhere to the traditional formations.

Have a google for Parreira's 'strikerless formations', the World Cup winning Brazilian manager predicted this happening at the start of the decade.

Excellent post, really sums up how I feel. Although I disagree with that article on how eventually teams will play a 4-6 formation. You need at least one proper goal scoring forward, or else the entire fluidity of the team becomes pointless. The same happens Barca if they try to play Messi up top on his own, the team becomes measurably less effective. I'm sure it's a similar situation if Arsenal tried to play with just Arshavin up front. They are on another level when you have the fluid 4-1-4-1 kind of set up, as the 4 behind the front man can then be as dynamic and creative as they please.

leninbenjamin

eZe^ wrote: »

You need at least one proper goal scoring forward

Going 4-6-0 does not necessarily preclude this. For example, look at C.Ronaldo. He's what I would consider a perfect example of a goal scoring forward, however he operates from the midfield exploiting his pace to get behind the lines. Gerrard, Lampard and Fabregas are all prolific goal scorers by most standards as well, yet do so primarily from midfield.

What's required are 'link men', those attacking players who are happy playing with their back to goals to bring others into play. That's why Messi and Arshavin look poor leading the line, as they always seek to go forward the end up in the position with no one to pass too. Rooney and RVP on the otherhand represent the evolution of the modern forward imo. Unlike the traditional ST who plays right off the defenders shoulder, Rooney and RVP will happily drop deep while remaining the focus of their teams attack. Both players are quite effective leading the lines yet are equally as likely to set up a team mate than score themselves.

8-10

Torres + Villa is the best around at the moment. It's a natural partnership with both able to interchange and both very capable of scoring. Of course Spain also have some of the best creative midfielders in the world supplying them.

Sunderland play with 2 skillful big guys in Jones and Bent. I think their reluctance to break this up was part of their problem yesterday. Without Drogba I think Chelsea were always going to play 5 in midfield with Anelka on his own. Yet they go away to the Bridge and try to play 2 up front with 4 in midfield against the strongest team in the league. And see how many chances Chelsea got? One extra midfielder and I don't think they would have conceded 7 or as many chances at least.

My point being that I think goals are determined these days by the midfield. You can have the best strikers in the world but you need the midfielders supplying them.

I was at a lecture on Dynamic and Functional Technique in Soccer the other day here in Philadelphia on the day we hosted the MLS Superdraft. And the session was taken by the Dynamo Zagreb head coach. He went through statistics from the past on how many touches a midfield player takes on average per occasion in possession. 20 years ago the European average was between 6 and 10 touches per midfielder in possession. 5 years ago it was still between 3 and 4. In a Champions League match last year (he didn't specify but I'd like to think it was Chelsea v Liverpool because of how quick the English game is) the average was 1.8 touches per midfield player in possession throughout the game. That's astonishing. The amount of time midfielders have on the ball today has been greatly reduced, which gives the need, in my opinion, to have either one extra midfielder, or a striker who drops back enough and effectively. Unless, like Spain, you have the talent throughout midfield to be able to be very effective with few touches as we all know Alonso, Cesc, Xavi and Iniesta can be. And even then they decide usually to sacrifice one for Senna so they can play the 2 up front.

eZe^

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Going 4-6-0 does not necessarily preclude this. For example, look at C.Ronaldo. He's what I would consider a perfect example of a goal scoring forward, however he operates from the midfield exploiting his pace to get behind the lines. Gerrard, Lampard and Fabregas are all prolific goal scorers by most standards as well, yet do so primarily from midfield.

What's required are 'link men', those attacking players who are happy playing with their back to goals to bring others into play. That's why Messi and Arshavin look poor leading the line, as they always seek to go forward the end up in the position with no one to pass too. Rooney and RVP on the otherhand represent the evolution of the modern forward imo. Unlike the traditional ST who plays right off the defenders shoulder, Rooney and RVP will happily drop deep while remaining the focus of their teams attack. Both players are quite effective leading the lines yet are equally as likely to set up a team mate than score themselves.

I disagree, when Ronaldo is at his most prolific, there was/is either Rooney/ Tevez/ Berbatov or Higuain/ Benzema/ Raul leading the line and occupying central defenders. It's the same with Fabregas, Lampard, and Gerard, they are prolific because all those teams usually play with a target man who stays relatively high up the field. That targetman then as you say, link the midfield and bring them into the game (Ibrahimovic and Drogba are perfect examples of this). I've never really noticed RVP dropping deep that much at all, he always seemed to stay relatively forward when I watch him.

That's also the reason why I think United/ England suffer with just Rooney leading the line, he drops deep into midfield too much, and that gives defenders more time to read and act on situations. When you have a Zlatan up front occupying a defensive line, players like Rooney, Messi, Ronaldo, Gerard, and Lampard will all be much much much more effective - in my opinion anyway.

8-10 wrote: »

Torres + Villa is the best around at the moment. It's a natural partnership with both able to interchange and both very capable of scoring. Of course Spain also have some of the best creative midfielders in the world supplying them.

Disagree with this too, Villa and Torres are both better when they play on their own, together they are much less effective, however when you put either in a 4-3-3 with winger like Navas, Silva, and Mata, as well as creative midfielders like Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Alonso, etc then they are absolute scoring machines. When they play together, they are upsetting the balance of a team that should be built to play a 4-3-3, as you are compromising on a winger, or a creative midfielder. That's why I think Spain are better with just Villa up top.

The rest of your post is really interesting though, nice read.

leninbenjamin

eZe^ wrote: »

I disagree, when Ronaldo is at his most prolific, there was/is either Rooney/ Tevez/ Berbatov or Higuain/ Benzema/ Raul leading the line and occupying central defenders. It's the same with Fabregas, Lampard, and Gerard, they are prolific because all those teams usually play with a target man who stays relatively high up the field. That targetman then as you say, link the midfield and bring them into the game (Ibrahimovic and Drogba are perfect examples of this). I've never really noticed RVP dropping deep that much at all, he always seemed to stay relatively forward when I watch him.

That's also the reason why I think United/ England suffer with just Rooney leading the line, he drops deep into midfield too much, and that gives defenders more time to read and act on situations. When you have a Zlatan up front occupying a defensive line, players like Rooney, Messi, Ronaldo, Gerard, and Lampard will all be much much much more effective - in my opinion anyway.

With respect, that's not the point you originally made. You called for a goal scorer, not a target man, to lead the line (or at least that's what it read like). And I never said Ronaldo led the line either, you're reading into my post wrong. As you say, Rooney always did the donkey work in front of Ronaldo. Rooney played higher up the pitch and created the space for Ronaldo to run into. 10-20 years ago the relationship would have been the reverse. A player like Ronaldo would have done the spade work from deep for a player like Rooney to get on the end of. That's my main central point. The game has evolved and the roles aren't as clearly defined.

4-6-0 is a bit of a misnomer anyway, it doesn't literally mean everyone drop deep into midfield, more that the ever evolving roles of the attackers cannot be pigeon holed to playing a particular position on the field. Whether it is 4-3-3, 4-4-2 or 4-6-0, all formations have an attacking line in same sense as it has a defensive line. Regardless of where this line actually is on the pitch, there is always a need for the link man*.

Another term I've heard used is block tactics (actually i think this may have come from football manager lingo, but it's been used outside it too). Instead of thinking of a player in terms of his position on the pitch, think of him in terms of his role. Thus all modern formations boil down to essentially two blocks of players, the defenders and the attackers. This is perhaps a better way of thinking of it, but it's still quite narrow in scope.

As for Zlatan and Drogba, an interesting point was made about them in the times article I linked to above. In terms of their attributes these guys are a mix of the old and the new. They are both incredibly skilled with their back to goal and on the ball, yet as equally capable of being the out and out lead the line goal scorer of old. In time I think we may come to see them as the bridge between the old and new.

*: For the record, I use the term 'link man' here in the same sense you use target man. Target man is an outdated word and causes confusion imo. A target man was originally the guy at the end of a move, these days he's more like to be at the start of one.

Kevster

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Interesting that you would raise the topic today, seems to be a lot of people thinking about this lately. Just after reading an article in the Sunday Times on the decline of the traditional striker. Not a huge amount of incite in it but it cites a technical report from UEFA that explores the issue so there's some interesting quotes from the likes of Capello and Lippi.

Edit: found the link. Stupid headline was different :mad:.

It had been on my mind for quite a while. there just does'nt seem to be anyone out there now who just hangs about at the oppositon goal waiting for the ball to feed to him. The 'striker' is a thing of the past due to the way footballers are being trained. The classic example of the striker is Alan Shearer I think. He was bulky/strong, couldn't run for ****, but was a clinical finisher. Romario was a great striker too, similar to Shearer (with added flair).

Kevin

One Cold Hand

Ah strike partnerships. Brings me back to the days of RAF. And of course SAS.