4-4-2

[NWND]

I think if you look at the last two seasons we've lost alot more games at WHL that we had done previously, its no coincidence that it's partly due to the formation. Under AVB we played one upfront and then under Poch we are now doing the same, the players behind the 9 downt seem to get close enough. We bearly scored many under AVB at WHL and we're not scoring many under Poch who both play a slow build up style, whereas in previous seasons we would often have the game won early on under 'arry playing a more traditional 4-4-2, sometimes 4-4-1-1 with Rafa behind Crouch and playing quick and incisively.

On thursday night Harry Kane played very close to Ade and the system seemed to work much better. On sunday it was Eriksen and Lamela trying to support Ade and i dont think it worked so well. We should have kept Kane in the side and i think we would have scored the goals in the first half to put the game to bed.

This was defo a mistake from Poch.

Poch favours anything but a slow build up play. His Southampton and Espanyol teams were built on the direct counter.

The problem is this isn't Poch's team yet he has inherited a group of players largely bought for AVB and for playing AVB's way. He's trying to get them to play a different way but he's clearly not happy and I can imagine a bit of a cull next summer if some don't buck up their ideas or are just unable to adapt even without want of trying

 

[milo]

That's something I I can't dance with more

Defences now are arguably the worse I've ever seen in the league. The lack of organisation and the need for defenders to have an attacking role has lead to some really bad players getting high profile roles

Go back just 10 years and there were some outstanding centre backs and full backs... Now there are very few and teams have to be more organised and arguably negative to compensate

All formations work if the players are right for them and their used in the right way

I'm a massive 3-5-2 fan and I could see that working for us if the players actually worked hard enough on the pitch

Likewise the 4-4-2 wonky that Affy keeps on advocating for me now would be the best way to get a balance with the players we have

Lennon/Lamella or anyone half decent. Mason. Capoue or Stambouli. Eriksen


Kane

Soldado

The argument against using older data was not about defences being better or worse way back when but that the teams would have been up against opposition playing different formations so it is not a direct comparison.

I agree that a manager needs select a formation that best suits the players that they have available but it also needs to consider where the spaces the opposition will leave are and how best to exploit them. The reason that 4-4-2 (and indeed 3-5-2) have fallen out of favour is because they leave you with too few players where you need them and not enough where you do. I have linked to this article before but it is an interesting read

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson

I am also not convinced that a wonky 4-4-2 does make the best use of our squad or that it would be likely to create more chances or result in more goals than 4-2-3-1.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

My comment was about GBs comment around defences now being better and more organised

This season we have created more as a 4-2-3-1 but I'm still far from convinced we have the players to play it

Our forwards despite playing this system previously do not look comfortably as a lone striker
We only have 3 players who can play in the tracking 3 and they spend too much time with their backs to the goal waiting to receive the ball and then wasting passes

I would go so far as to say we have created more in spite of the system....

The reason I favour the wonky is that the striker actually gets some support with him Rather than being 20 yards back. I'd advocate the current formation if we could solve that issue but I don't think we can with the players we have and were trying to force square pegs in round holes. And I know they all played similar systems in the last but that was in lesser leagues where they were at the dominant side (by them I mean Chadli, eriksen and Lamella)

 

[Rorschach]

A flaw in the way we are playing as I see it is the way we are using Chadli, and to a lesser extent Lamela. Chadli is getting forward frequently, which is good, but out of possession it exposes our left flank to the counter and draws the left CM out to cover creating an overload for our sole remaining CM. If the CM does not come out then Rose is frequently left two on one if they have a good fullback, which happened at least a dozen times against City. Against victims Bentaleb went out left to compensate and Capoue was overrun through the center. Lamela on the other side also plays narrow but not as high up the pitch, and so he does help out the fullback on his side, sometimes with disastrous results but at least he is there.

The 3 AM's we play are the key here from a defensive point of view. If we get this wrong, as we have been doing IMO, then we're in scramble mode behind.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

People who say that 4-4-2 doesn't work really need to look at who has won the league the last three season.

City and United both play with two strikers for the majority of their games

victims did last season too

The key is the number 10 has to be creative as well as a scorer, like Rooney or aguero or Suarez

And the number 9 has to be an out and out scorer minimum like dzeko or RVP or Sturridge

It leads to exciting attacking football

 

[milo]

People who say that 4-4-2 doesn't work really need to look at who has won the league the last three season.

City and hinted both play with two strikers for the majority of their games

victims did last season too

The key is the number 10 has to be creative as well as a scorer, like Rooney or aguero or Suarez

And the number 9 has to be an out and out scorer minimum like dzeko or RVP or Sturridge

It leads to exciting attacking football

Neither Emirates Marketing Project or victims played with conventional wingers last season though. When you wide players tuck in and play high, how different from 4-2-3-1 or 4-2-2-2 is it really?

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Emirates Marketing Project played with silva or the ex gooner French lad on one side and navas or Milner on the other
In the middle was Toure and Fernadinho

To me that's a wonky every day of the week

A wide player who cuts in, in silva and a Lacey winger to get balls in, in Navas

Similarly victims had sterling on one side and. Coutinho on the other... It's incredibly similar

There is little difference apart from having more striking power on the pitch. And in a 4-4-2 I think the wide players are recognised to have more defensive responsibility where as in a 4-2-3-1 the middle 3 can cruise with minimal defensive input potentially

 

[Pirate55]

People who say that 4-4-2 doesn't work really need to look at who has won the league the last three season.

City and United both play with two strikers for the majority of their games

victims did last season too

The key is the number 10 has to be creative as well as a scorer, like Rooney or aguero or Suarez

And the number 9 has to be an out and out scorer minimum like dzeko or RVP or Sturridge

It leads to exciting attacking football

Well said sir. The way to go is with two strikers. At least at home against dross.

BTW, 442 does not necessarily mean two wide players who stay wide. It can be a wonky or morph into 4222 or 41212 depending on the personnel, opponents, stage and status of the game.

The one common denominator is that there are TWO strikers working in tandem. This relieves pressure on the defence and provides a meaningful threat at all times.

 

[SpurSF]

Any half competent side would run that team ragged.

Sure it would, that's why I wouldn't be a proponent of it, but I don't think we'd use it against anybody who wasn't playing ridiculously deep or some **** side in the Europa League.

I just think it's the only 4-4-2 side we could realistically play, b/c when you play Mason and Capoue centrally, you are only going to get incisive creativity from the wings, which means either dropping Lamela or Eriksen or playing both of those guys on the wing, which would totally defeat the point.

 

[Pirate55]

Sure it would, that's why I wouldn't be a proponent of it, but I don't think we'd use it against anybody who wasn't playing ridiculously deep or some **** side in the Europa League.

I just think it's the only 4-4-2 side we could realistically play, b/c when you play Mason and Capoue centrally, you are only going to get incisive creativity from the wings, which means either dropping Lamela or Eriksen or playing both of those guys on the wing, which would totally defeat the point.

Not necessarily. Modric started life on the left side and Eriksen did his best work for us in the second half of last year coming in from the left.

 

[supie]

I think we have the players to play a 4-3-3 and we have a coach who, it would seem, doesn't fancy that formation.

Where we have a majority of options is in the middle of the park and where we can introduce some much needed solidity and protect a noticeably weak defensive line is via a midfield 3. It would also enable; Chadli and Soldado to play much closer to the goal where, it is clear, they are at their best.

Capoue, who is our only true defensive pivot, could in this system also be instructed to sit deep and not get exposed to runners from midfield, or from between the lines, which, lets face it, is where the guy struggles to cope.

I'd go with a midfield 3 of; Capoue sitting deep flanked by Mason and Eriksen slightly advanced and a front 3 of Lamella on the right, Soldado in the middle and Chadli on the left.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[milo]

Well said sir. The way to go is with two strikers. At least at home against dross.

BTW, 442 does not necessarily mean two wide players who stay wide. It can be a wonky or morph into 4222 or 41212 depending on the personnel, opponents, stage and status of the game.

The one common denominator is that there are TWO strikers working in tandem. This relieves pressure on the defence and provides a meaningful threat at all times.

So what is the advantage of this over playing a withdrawn striker at #10 in a 4-2-3-1?

 

[milo]

Emirates Marketing Project played with silva or the ex gooner French lad on one side and navas or Milner on the other
In the middle was Toure and Fernadinho

To me that's a wonky every day of the week

A wide player who cuts in, in silva and a Lacey winger to get balls in, in Navas

Similarly victims had sterling on one side and. Coutinho on the other... It's incredibly similar

There is little difference apart from having more striking power on the pitch. And in a 4-4-2 I think the wide players are recognised to have more defensive responsibility where as in a 4-2-3-1 the middle 3 can cruise with minimal defensive input potentially

I'd be interested in seeing some heat maps for Navas, Silva, Coutinho and Sterling and comparing them to ones for Chadli and Lamela. My suspicion is that there would not be a lot of difference in the positions that they take up in most games.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I'd be interested in seeing some heat maps for Navas, Silva, Coutinho and Sterling and comparing them to ones for Chadli and Lamela. My suspicion is that there would not be a lot of difference in the positions that they take up in most games.

I can't comment too much on victims and would say they are more a fit for what your describing look g at coutinho and sterling however city very much had navas out wide whenever possible stretching play and leaving room for silva to come in..... Pretty much how we played with Modric on the left

 

[milo]

I'd be interested in what immediate benefits we could expect to see if we switched to 4-4-2?

 

[Gutter Boy]

I'd be interested in what immediate benefits we could expect to see if we switched to 4-4-2?

Probably higher-scoring games. Our midfield would be overrun, so we'd concede loads. But teams would also over-commit themselves, meaning we'd get opportunities for Lennon and Townsend to hit them on the break.

So basically we'd be losing 5-3 or 4-2 a lot.

 

[King of Norway]

I'd be interested in what immediate benefits we could expect to see if we switched to 4-4-2?

More players in the box, which is where most goals are scored? if we play two out of Adebayor/Kane/Soldado/Chadli centrally, we have an extra man in there who wants to get into the box to score. Playing 4-4-2 isn't a problem as long as one of the strikers drop back when you are not in possession so that you are not outnumbered in midfield. Then I suppose you can argue it's not a 4-4-2 but a 4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1, though. These formations are only marginally different.

But most importantly I think that in home games against teams who sit back and defend deep, you need to get players into the box. We tend to pass the ball around sideways at 30 yards a lot, but we don't score goals like that. We should play a bit simpler. Play with a higher tempo, be a bit more direct, get balls into the box and don't try to force everything through the center of the park. You can do that if you have the best and most creative players in the world, but we don't have those players. You can say a lot of things about Tim Sherwood, but I am pretty sure we scored more goals, and won more points, at home under him than we did under AVB. And the signs are looking similar as under AVB so far with Poch.

 

[milo]

More players in the box, which is where most goals are scored? if we play two out of Adebayor/Kane/Soldado/Chadli centrally, we have an extra man in there who wants to get into the box to score. Playing 4-4-2 isn't a problem as long as one of the strikers drop back when you are not in possession so that you are not outnumbered in midfield. Then I suppose you can argue it's not a 4-4-2 but a 4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1, though. These formations are only marginally different.

But most importantly I think that in home games against teams who sit back and defend deep, you need to get players into the box. We tend to pass the ball around sideways at 30 yards a lot, but we don't score goals like that. We should play a bit simpler. Play with a higher tempo, be a bit more direct, get balls into the box and don't try to force everything through the center of the park. You can do that if you have the best and most creative players in the world, but we don't have those players. You can say a lot of things about Tim Sherwood, but I am pretty sure we scored more goals, and won more points, at home under him than we did under AVB. And the signs are looking similar as under AVB so far with Poch.

So what we are really looking for is getting support for the #9.

 

[King of Norway]

So what we are really looking for is getting support for the #9.

Yes, you can say that. I feel like we have a lot of players who wants to receive the ball 25 yards out, and try to create something. But how many wants to get into the box and finish off the moves? Not even our striker (Adebayor) seems to be very keen on that most of the time.

 

[milo]

Yes, you can say that. I feel like we have a lot of players who wants to receive the ball 25 yards out, and try to create something. But how many wants to get into the box and finish off the moves? Not even our striker (Adebayor) seems to be very keen on that most of the time.

I agree that we need to get more support to the striker but remain unconvinced that switching to 4-4-2 is the best way to do this.

Obviously, it is not a formation that Poch favours and is not compatible with his preferred pressing game. I also think that if we switched to 4-4-2 we would have to drop two of Lamela, Chadli and Eriksen to bring in either Lennon or Townsend and frankly this feels like bringing in inferior players to suit a formation.