Burnley v Derby County

[Mr Tibbs]

Played our better spell at 4-5-1, changed it to 442 and it killed the game. Another easy last 10 for our opposition.

Poor.

[PistoldPete]

Played our better spell at 4-5-1, changed it to 442 and it killed the game. Another easy last 10 for our opposition.

Poor.

Well we may play very well with 4-5-1 but like i say we wont score enough goals especially when we concede so many soft ones.

[-JW-]

We are to Burnley, like Leeds are to us. Nailed on 3 points.

[DCFCfranco]

When was the last time we beat them. I don't think I've ever seen us beat them.

[Bris Vegas]

It's funny how people slam the 4-5-1 and think that 4-4-2 would automatically produce better results..

It's easy in hindsight to say that it didn't work.. How do we know that had we played 4-4-2 we wouldn't have lost 5-0?

[DCFCfranco]

It's funny how people slam the 4-5-1 and think that 4-4-2 would automatically produce better results..

It's easy in hindsight to say that it didn't work.. How do we know that had we played 4-4-2 we wouldn't have lost 5-0?

True bris, but we normally play better attack more and this year, win whilst playing 4-4-2 whereas 4-5-1 there's barely any attacking intent we play like **** and more often than not lose.

[PistoldPete]

It's funny how people slam the 4-5-1 and think that 4-4-2 would automatically produce better results..

It's easy in hindsight to say that it didn't work.. How do we know that had we played 4-4-2 we wouldn't have lost 5-0?

I dont all I am saying is that playing 4-5-1 every game we will not score enough goals to win promotion. It maybe ok for some away games like this one but hes played it for the last 3 games and weve lost twice.

[alexxxxx]

it was clear on friday that 4-5-1 after 50minutes wasnt going to work. too much of a crowded midfield and sammon couldn't do anything once he got the ball. sounded the same in parts on the radio apart from the fact that we didn't even control the possession like we did then..

[Bris Vegas]

I dont all I am saying is that playing 4-5-1 every game we will not score enough goals to win promotion. It maybe ok for some away games like this one but hes played it for the last 3 games and weve lost twice.

To be fair the games that we've recently lost is not particularly decided on tactics more the fact that we can't defend from set-pieces..

I agree in that we perhaps look less likely to score playing 4-5-1 but that's the fault of the player positions rather than rigid formations.. 4-5-1 can be excellent if you've got players close to the striker.. It can look so flat though if the midfield don't offer the correct support but that's down to the manager to drill it into his midfield to do so..

I think the 4-4-2 4-5-1 debate will go on all season.. I say this only because we don't have the natural players to play in either formation. Every game there will be a debate about which is the correct one and I wouldn't put it past either formation producing mixed results..

It just seems to be the first thing people pick up on after a loss.. Rather than the basics like defending set pieces or more creativity in the final 3rd it seems the results depend entirely on the formation.

[DCFCfranco]

I don't mind if anyone goes near the striker but no one does. Its not 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-2-1, its a flat 4-5-1 and it just doesn't work.

[PistoldPete]

To be fair the games that we've recently lost is not particularly decided on tactics more the fact that we can't defend from set-pieces..

I agree in that we perhaps look less likely to score playing 4-5-1 but that's the fault of the player positions rather than rigid formations.. 4-5-1 can be excellent if you've got players close to the striker.. It can look so flat though if the midfield don't offer the correct support but that's down to the manager to drill it into his midfield to do so..

I think the 4-4-2 4-5-1 debate will go on all season.. I say this only because we don't have the natural players to play in either formation. Every game there will be a debate about which is the correct one and I wouldn't put it past either formation producing mixed results..

It just seems to be the first thing people pick up on after a loss.. Rather than the basics like defending set pieces or more creativity in the final 3rd it seems the results depend entirely on the formation.

Well I agree if we had a 30 goal a season striker or a few 10 goals a year midfielders then 4-5-1 could work . Or if we had a very tight defence which meant the lack of goals wasnt so much of a problem. But playing 4-5 -1 with Bryson less than fully fit looks daft to me.

[networker1884]

Honey, I'm hooommmmeee.

That was ****. Not one player had a good game. Ratings? 5 all around.

Chants of "We pay your wages. we want 4-4-2"? wtf. idiot fans there today. against cloughs tactics from the first THEO chants before kickoff.

4-5-1 doesn't work and it never has. Our midfield isnt capable of supporting Sammon, nevermind scoring the goals needed to win games. Utter w a n k

oh, btw...the pies are delicious! peppered steak!!! WOW!

[Boycie]

Burnley 2 - 0, Austin x2 - And Clough will say "we didnt deserve to lose"

kapow!

2-0.

Austin with both.

shakaknacker!

[Woodys woman]

To be fair the games that we've recently lost is not particularly decided on tactics more the fact that we can't defend from set-pieces..

I agree in that we perhaps look less likely to score playing 4-5-1 but that's the fault of the player positions rather than rigid formations.. 4-5-1 can be excellent if you've got players close to the striker.. It can look so flat though if the midfield don't offer the correct support but that's down to the manager to drill it into his midfield to do so..

I think the 4-4-2 4-5-1 debate will go on all season.. I say this only because we don't have the natural players to play in either formation. Every game there will be a debate about which is the correct one and I wouldn't put it past either formation producing mixed results..

It just seems to be the first thing people pick up on after a loss.. Rather than the basics like defending set pieces or more creativity in the final 3rd it seems the results depend entirely on the formation.

Not often I agree with you bris but on this occasion I agree 100%, if we can't defend set pieces any team will be capable of beating us.

It is easy to pick on the formation but I think on the whole we create enough chances at home even with the one striker if the wide men and central midfielders get close enough to the forward. Think away we probably set up a bit more defensively though, meaning we don't get close enough to the lone striker

[froggg]

Just to let you lot know, we always win when I start a match thread.

ahem........ 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> wish it was true though 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' />

[Alph]

Sammon is ****

Derby fans are like Leeds fans

Merry Christmas

Ho

Ho

Ho

[Guest]

Well Nigel has cleared that one up, shame he not Sussed Jacobs is not a forward.

"We moved Michael Jacobs up with him (Conor Sammon) at the start of the second half and played 4-4-2 which our supporters didn't realise but the team did so that's what mattered."

[-JW-]

Don't worry we'll beat Charlton as i'm going. The last away game i went to we won, although it was in 2001.

[Alph]

I hope Sammon controls his car better than he does a football

[jagerbob]

Id Say Jacobs is a forward.

He's certainly not an all round midfielder like the rest of the so called 5 man midfield are.

Just because he plays out wide more often than not.

id call jacobs and ward forwards, as both can play out wide and possibly as a central second striker in the hole.

anyway i digress.

Derby are $hite away from home whichever way you look at it, and salmon only ever scores tap ins which he only gets in home games.