Steve - I both like and dislike the 4-2-3-1 formation (4-5-1 if you insist). It gives a LOT of protection to the back 4 because the '2' in 4-2-3-1 is made up of 2 defensive midfielders. In our case it was Culina and Valeri but if all players were available you would say Culina and Grella (I LOVE Vinnie Grella).
It also gives much more licence for the wingers (who are two out of the '3') to get forward and not have to worry as much about tracking back (as wingers often don't anyway) but if you recall Emerton is one of those wingers (normally) and he gets up and down magnificently well.
Another benefit is if you have a top class attacking midfielder in the side (the last one in the '3') because you can pretty much say "go out there and do whatever you want Mr Brilliant" and this is the role Steven Gerrard is currently playing in for Liverpool. Can roam all over the place and have a MASSIVE impact, particularly when linking well with a striker. I think Bresciano was playing that role for us last night and he had a much better 2nd half than he did 1st half.
Where I think it falls down is when you get to the '1' because you have a striker up there all on his lonesome essentially relying on a good feed from midfield or a good cross from the wing or byline. Helps a LOT if that guy is good in the air (like Kennedy is) but they also require the ability to be able to hold the ball up and distribute to others who come running through - and that is where Viduka was absolutely great (but that's ALL the fat lazy sack of spuds is good for).
Interestingly, Liverpool play using a 4-2-3-1 formation and their last 3 results are wins by 4-0, 4-1 and 5-0 and those 1st two are against Real Madrid and Man Utd no less - two of the best clubs in the world.
I think we have the '4' and the '2' down pat but we struggle at times with the '3' and '1'. I don't feel we have mastered that final link between attacking midfielder and striker (or wingers and striker) yet and that's possibly letting us down. McDonald can definitely score with his head (does it all the time for Celtic) and we know Kennedy can so really it's just getting that delivery into either of those guys right. I reckon Kewell on the left, Bresciano in the attacking mid and Emerton on the right would be a great '3' and I'm happy with both McDonald and Kennedy swapping between the '1'.
benny the cunt - Impact players have a VERY important role to play but often that role is misused IMO. Traditionally subs would be made at either half-time, around the 60 minute mark, or in the last few minutes.
A lot of the time the coach should make a sub at half-time and NOT wait until the 60-ish minute mark. If someone is playing badly, get them off! If you got your tactics wrong or have been outfoxed by the other manager, change it at half-time! Jose Mourinho is very good at not insisting on waiting till the 60-ish minute mark to make a sub. Alex Ferguson is a shocker for waiting until then.
The situation last night was a good example of when you should make an impact sub. Uzbekistan had played another WC Qualifier only a few days before hand and then had a long flight over here and very little time to acclimatise so fatigue was *always* going to plague them and that definitely showed in the 2nd half. Imagine what their defenders were thinking seeing this giant freak in Josh Kennedy about to sub on and there they are already knackered as bro. They'd have absolutely HATED it and I reckon that was a very smart sub.
Another type of impact sub is someone who has lightning pace. That's another great way of exploiting tired legs in opposition defenders who have already played 2 thirds of the match yet still giving that sub enough time to actually do something and I'm reasonably sure that's why the 60 minute mark seems to be ingrained in managers heads as a good time to make a change.
You did make a reasonable point benny the cunt (scrapbook moment) because a lot of the time the manager IS switching to plan B because plan A just isn't working. I just think they've waited too long on some occasions and are making a reactive change and hoping for the best instead of a proactive change and trying to take control of the match. That's probably one of the standout things that separates good managers from not so good managers. The good ones like Benitez, Mourinho and a few others will have analysed everything down to the nth degree and have already decided on plans B,C and D before the match and have lined their subs and tactics up accordingly.
Here's another great example of knowing exactly what you're doing subs wise. Italy v Australia in Germany 2008. Ignoring that we got completely shafted late in the match, Hiddink hadn't even made a sub! Anyone who knows anything could see that Italy scored (dodgily) against the run of play and fitness wise we were starting to run all over them. You can bet that Hiddink was extremely well aware of this and was planning to use his subs to maximum effect to try and exploit that weakness. If that match went to extra time like it should have who do you think would have come out on top? Could have been VERY different. Hiddink is a genius, no doubt.
I could literally talk forever on this so I reckon I'll leave it there
