Fans Comment
Chris Marks

The Numbers Game
1 December 2005

I decided to write this piece having read Lyndon’s well-written article ‘So where does the blame lie?’ I agreed with the vast majority of what he said, but thought I would add my own opinion to the melting pot…

First let me say that I am firmly in the IMWT camp, although that does not mean I think the man is above criticism. Far from it... but I feel he’s been misunderstood in the 4-5-1/4-1-4-1 formation debate.

First of all, it is important to analyse the formations themselves. It is over-simplifying the issue to describe all these as 4-5-1. There is a plethora of different systems that get blanketed with this name, the key ones being 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3. The way to analyse them is to look at the makeup of the midfield. 4-2-3-1 was popularised by the successful Valencia team of Hector Cuper and later, ahem, Rafa Benitez, and also the Deportivo team of Javier Irureta. Here, the midfield was made up of two anchor men, or protectors (Ruben Baraja and David Albeda for Valencia, Mauro Silva and Sergio for Depor). The wide players hug the touchline, to supply crosses for the target man, and also to provide a goal threat. (Rufete and Vicente for Valencia, Victor and Fran for Depor). The key man in this formation is the creative midfielder, what the Italians would call the ‘fantasista’. Playing behind the striker, he creates things, sets the tempo, and attempts to provide goals. This for Valencia was/is Pablo Aimar, and for Depor it is Juan Carlos Valeron. This formation is now used (in this country) by Chelsea, who have two ‘anchors’ in Makelele and Essien, with Lampard the main man further forward.

The other incarnation is 4-3-3. This is far simpler to explain, as it is very popular at the moment, particularly at Barcelona, where the midfield set-up is slightly different. Here, a lone anchor (Rafael Marquez) protects the back four, with two others (Xavi and Deco) given licence to get further forward. Up front, the target man Eto’o is supported by two wide men (Giuly/Messi and Ronaldinho), who score goals, create, and generally cause mayhem in the opposition’s defence. They are neither midfielders nor out-and-out strikers. You can tell this by whether either wide man is suitable to play up-front alone (no). You can argue that Chelsea in full flow switch to this line-up, with Robben and Duff causing the havoc from wide. Both are by trade wingers, but cover the whole of their respective flanks and get into the box.

I do think that Moyes went on too long with the lone central striker, but I feel he’s been overly criticised on this front. Last season, we effectively played a 4-1-4-1, the key element in this being Carsley, who played as an anchor or shield for the back four, to protect the lack of pace in the Stubbs/Weir combo. In front of Cars was essentially a flat four, namely Osman, Cahill, Gravesen/Arteta and Kilbane. Bent was then the lone front man, often isolated owing to the lack of pace in midfield, aside of the bursts from deep by Tiny Tim.

After Chelsea won the Premiership, their style of play became de rigueur for most of the chasing pack. Man United tried it with Cristiano Ronaldo and Rooney supporting Van Nistelrooy, but have had only intermittent success. Moyes began constructing his team to play an attacking 4-3-3, Phil Neville to be the anchor, with Cahill and Arteta allowed more room to play. Beattie was to be the lone striker, with Davies on the right and Van der Meyde on the left. Alternatively, Van der Meyde would play in his preferred position (where he played a lot for Ajax) of wide right, and McFadden would play on the left (not as a winger, but as an old-fashioned inside forward, capable of both scoring and creating).

Unfortunately, we were hit by a series of pre-season injuries. This meant that Kilbane and Davies or Osman would fill the wide roles. Kilbane and Osman lack pace, and Kilbane rarely provides a goal threat. An honest pro he is, but limited at the kind of level Moyes wants Everton to play at. This meant the team was limited in its attacking options, lacking pace and a goal threat from wide, and with only the goal-shy Bent or the ageing Ferguson as a striker. On top of this were the other problems Lyndon mentioned (an inability to pass the ball from the back, an over-reliance on Ferguson’s height etc). By the time the important parts of this structure were available (Beattie, Van der Meyde and to some extent the now fit Davies), we had won only once and scored but one goal in the league.

Moyes’s concern at playing 4-4-2 was that using one fewer midfielder was inviting trouble onto his pace-less back four. However, with Yobo on top form of late, and Hibbert a sound defensive (if not attacking) option, Weir’s age has been less noticeable. Once Krøldrup is playing alongside the Nigerian, the theory is that there will be enough pace AND passing ability to make our defence a viable Premiership option. This would mean a midfield four of Van der Meyde, Arteta, Cahill and Neville shouldn’t have to spend so much time worrying about what’s going on behind them, and might actually be able to string two passes together.

On paper, those four offer plenty of creativity AND a goal threat — particularly when allied to a strikeforce of Beattie and McFadden (the best option as a partner I’ve seen so far this season). If the Scot can play more consistently, and Beattie can string three games together, that should see us all right until a striker can be brought in. Personally, I’m for a Beattie/Robbie Keane combo, backed up by McFadden and Vaughan. We’ll see if that’s good enough to score us more than one goal every three games. Hmmmm.

Chris Marks

"Fans Comment" articles are submitted by outside contributors to ToffeeWeb. The views contained therein may not correspond with those of the site owners. Editorial policy

©2005 ToffeeWeb