is it 4-4-2 ?

4-5-1 ?

zonal marking , man marking ?

a different structure when we do or do not have possession ?

varies if we are winning , drawing or losing ?

sit back, defend and catch the other team on the break ? ie counter-attacking.

I know Stoke under Pulis had a big reputation for being boring, physical and very conservative. But seemingly there is more attacking pace in palace players and Pulis altered his 'system'.

There certainly seems to be a strong emphasis on working our socks off, closing them down and not giving the opposition any time on the ball. Lazy players and glory hunters need not apply. 'Pretty football' in the style of Arsenal or Barcelona seems certainly to be forbidden.

somebody who knows what they are talking about please explain. How the club with the lowest wage bill in the whole league did so well ?

What is 'the Pulis system' ?

Edited by Palace_denizen (19 May 2014 10.40am)

Laughing at Charlton - Every London Clyub's fourth or fifth most hated team -
[Link]

Pulis seems to be focused on the control of possession. Restricting the loss of possession in key areas, and containing opposition posession to areas where its safe. There is a safety first mentality, and generally the set up is 4-5-1 when defending, switching out to a 4-3-3 when in possession in the opposition half.

Typically attacking players, are a target man, and midfielder, with two wingers with pace who's job is to carry possession into the opposition channels, with the support of an overlapping wingback.

A defensive midfielder is utilised when attacking to provide cover the space left in our channels where the wingback is committed.

Each player has a specific set of instructions for defending and attack, and training is apparently much more intense off the field than usual - Discipline and knowing your role is essential. At set pieces man marking seems to be the norm.

When the opposition attacks, the midfield tends to force them out into the channels where the defensive midfielder will support the winger and the full back - the emphasis is slowing down the play, and forcing the possession back into safe areas, without over committing defenders into the challange.

Pre-match preperation seems to be important, with players being briefed on their 'opposition man' and responsibilities in dealing with them: I'd imagine that players are prepped in advance with DVDs of the likely players they'll be 'responsible' for to familiarise themselves with their strengths, weaknesses, tells and usual tactics.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

4-5-1 with a two deep central midfielders and 1 advanced midfielder (the Chamakh role).

I'd say man marking for the most part.

As soon as we turn over possession use pace and the wide men and advance up the pitch as quickly as possible to get into the final third. Wingers are crucial to his football because without the ball they sit in front of the full backs created a back 6 essentially.

Off the ball, they press high towards the half way line and the front man will press the opposition back four from there, the two deep midfielders will be patience and press and look to intercept any loose pass.

That's my take on 'The Pulis System'

If you listen to TP himself he'll tell you that he doesn't have one system. Rather, he assesses his players and their strengths and then sets the team up around what's available. This is why the long-ball of Stoke has largely been absent at Palace. We have different players with different attributes and TP worked his magic to get the best out of them. If there is a TP system, this is it.

And I see signs of half remembered days, I hear bells that chime in strange familiar ways

this is exactly what Peter Taylor tried, and it was a catastrophe.

Laughing at Charlton - Every London Clyub's fourth or fifth most hated team -
[Link]