Formation and Tactics Discussion

[Kieran. 6,317]

I'm a firm believer in that the 4-3-2-1 is the best formation for this team.

------------Cech---------

Ivan--Cahill--Luiz--Cole

-----------Mikel----------

Ramires-----------#8/#11

------Hazard-Mata-------

-----------Torres----------

We simply can't leave Ramires out. He was excellent last year as a winger, but that's because we played a type of game suited for a defensively sound player like Ramires on the wing. He's suboptimal there and he's not what we're looking for in the pivot. We should revert to this because all of our best players can play mostly to their strengths.

[Spike 12,049]

Kick it old school with the 2-2-6 formation.

Mata - Hazard - Sturridge - Torres - Oscar - Marin

Mikel - Essien

Cahill - Terry

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Kick it old school with the 2-2-6 formation.

Mata - Hazard - Sturridge - Torres - Oscar - Marin

Mikel - Essien

Cahill - Terry

Too defensive...I prefer the 0-0-10 formation...we'd solve the problem of lack of width! (It's as likely as any other formation change at this point. RDM wants the 4-2-3-1 and has played every single match like that. We're 3 games, 3 wins this season. It would take a bad couple of months for things to get changed).

Mata - Hazard - Sturridge - Lampard-Essien-Torres - Mikel- Meireles-Oscar - Marin

Cech

[KonohasOrangeFlash 2,607]

Kick it old school with the 2-2-6 formation.

Mata - Hazard - Sturridge - Torres - Oscar - Marin

Mikel - Essien

Cahill - Terry

Are you crazy? Way too many defenders.

[Strike 7,489]

I'm a firm believer in that the 4-3-2-1 is the best formation for this team.

------------Cech---------

Ivan--Cahill--Luiz--Cole

-----------Mikel----------

Ramires-----------#8/#11

------Hazard-Mata-------

-----------Torres----------

We simply can't leave Ramires out. He was excellent last year as a winger, but that's because we played a type of game suited for a defensively sound player like Ramires on the wing. He's suboptimal there and he's not what we're looking for in the pivot. We should revert to this because all of our best players can play mostly to their strengths.

lamps/oscar on the left? or in a narrow position?

[Spike 12,049]

If a player is good at passing he is automatically branded to be 'tiki taka' style player by the masses (the fucking Bleacher Report in other words). It's as if people believe there was no such thing as passing before tiki taka came along. Goddamn buzzwords that ignorant people use to seem imformed.

And other bullshit like 'Suarez is a clinical finisher'. What's so clinical about his finishing? He need about 20 chances a match to score a goal.

[SeB 1,281]

(the fucking Bleacher Report in other words)

There's so much crap on that website, that's sad considering the concept's rather cool with the slideshows and stuff, cool design as well... But the content is just appalling that's incredible

[Guest FullEnglishBreakfast]

I'm comfortably sure that Chelsea can play without a main striker. I believe that Hazard, Oscar and Mata have more than what it takes to get the job done. They could play as a fluid front three, in the manner of totaalvoetball, swapping and interchanging positions. a 4-3-3 formation would suffice.

The midfield would appear as this: one strictly holding midfielder, one box to box and the last a fleet footed dribbler and passer.

The holding fella would obviously just defend and get the ball to either of the other two midfielders. (Mikel, Alonso, Gonalons)

The box to box guy uses energy to play in defence and attack, shuttling up and down everywhere, supplying the ball to the fowards and scoring goals. (Marchisio, Lampard, Vidal)

The dribbler and passer is essentially the deep lying playmaker but is more mobile. They around and look for space to receive the pass and then give it to the fowards in the final phase of an attack. (Wilshere, Moutinho, Cabaye)

[manpe 10,861]

I'm comfortably sure that Chelsea can play without a main striker. I believe that Hazard, Oscar and Mata have more than what it takes to get the job done.

I'm sure it could, but it would need a lot of time to click properly. This forum would go into meltdown after 2 incoherent games with that system, so would Roman and co.

The manager to try that would need to have balls this big:

[Guest FullEnglishBreakfast]

I'm sure it could, but it would need a lot of time to click properly. This forum would go into meltdown after 2 incoherent games with that system, so would Roman and co.

The manager to try that would need to have balls this big:

Gross. But I'm sure if Mourinho is applied manager he'd sort a few things out with Roman and the board first. I really doubt he would take the job if he didn't have as much control as possible.

[English Freak 456]

I'm comfortably sure that Chelsea can play without a main striker. I believe that Hazard, Oscar and Mata have more than what it takes to get the job done. They could play as a fluid front three, in the manner of totaalvoetball, swapping and interchanging positions. a 4-3-3 formation would suffice.

The midfield would appear as this: one strictly holding midfielder, one box to box and the last a fleet footed dribbler and passer.

The holding fella would obviously just defend and get the ball to either of the other two midfielders. (Mikel, Alonso, Gonalons)

The box to box guy uses energy to play in defence and attack, shuttling up and down everywhere, supplying the ball to the fowards and scoring goals. (Marchisio, Lampard, Vidal)

The dribbler and passer is essentially the deep lying playmaker but is more mobile. They around and look for space to receive the pass and then give it to the fowards in the final phase of an attack. (Wilshere, Moutinho, Cabaye)

I've have always supported a 4-3-3...

Cech

Azpi - Luiz - (X) - Cole

Ramires -- (X) -- Oscar/KDB

Hazard -- Mata

Lukaku

[Zinedine Iniesco 172]

.