ChaddesdenRam Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 I put forward this idea a while back in a thread. Watford and Hull are two football sides where their strength comes from passing and interplay, a bit like ourselves. I think we have the personnel to play this formation, it will play to our strengths and it solves a few problems that we currently have too. --------------GK-------------- ---------CB CB CB--------- WR--------------------------WL -------CM---------CM------- -------------CAM------------ ------ST------------ST------- The positions in blue are not really a problem as Forsyth can play LM/LB so would be suited to that wide role. At CB if the bray stays he will be suited to the right sided CB role. The other two wil be Keogh/Buxton or likely Baptiste. And If Brayford does leave it means that Buxton/Keogh/Baptiste can play together. In the green players my thinking was it firstly solves the problem of trying to get Hughes, Bryson and Hendrick all playing together in the middle. You could also play Hughes in the 'hole' as people have spoken about. Also with Bryson's contract situation he might leave and what we could then see is a space in one of those CM spots for the 'Old Head' that people want. Up front i thought i would bullet the options: Firstly it means Sammon does not have to play on his own Because of the WL it means we don't need Ward out wide, he can play up front and be deadly like he has shown. The CM presence does however mean that ward could still drop out to pick the ball up in the advanced positions on the wing, while we still get a CAM up to support and fill the ST role that was left behind. Having 2 ST as well as a CAM means we are more likely to get on the end of balls crossed in, which we are useless at. One reason I got shot down for this was that Clough wouldn't try anything abstract like this. This is probably my main point; this formation could very easily change back to 442 if neccesary especially If Forsyth played that WL role and brayford played that RCB of the 3 CB's because Bray would drop to RB and Forsyth LB. Also Clough has used differing formations before such as the 4231 that we had for large parts of the 10/11 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notts_ram Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 Play 10 across the back in away games to stop us conceding so many goals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodleyRam Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 Bray at WR though surely? He's so good going forward and has a terrific engine, he'd be a great wing back in my opinion, he'd be wasted at RCB for me. I think this could work for us but whether the players are quite good enough to adapt to it would be one question. it would need being well drilled at the back so the balance is right too. The three in the middle of the park would need to be different kinds of player too I.e. playmaker, ball winner and frank lampard... Best football I've seen at derby was with the bald eagle's wing backs... Whether this will even be considered is another matter though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DcFc Dyycheee Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 What would solve everything, is if we didn't have a striker on the pitch that has 1 goal in 20+ games and replaced him with an actual goal scorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notts_ram Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 Play with a Lothar Mattheius type sweeper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Ram Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 That would be an extremely good formation, with the additions of Aidy White and a darting, little goalscorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notts_ram Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 Play 2 goalies so when one makes a massive cluck-up as per normal the other is there to save the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 The usual change the system will make us better thread. Hull who to be fair are 2nd are the only team using this in the top 2 divisions. The people I know in football say no one plays it as its just giving the sweeper an easy time and that now with so many teams playing one up top and two wingers pushed on it leaves two of your centre halfs with no one to mark and pushes the wing backs into defence. Then there is no one to mark the full backs who in modern football push on. Yet we can all say look at the positives and the negatives of a system. For me it's players that make the biggest difference, Man U have won the league and play all sorts of systems as the have good players. 532 worked for us a long time ago under Jim smith but I would say if it was any good more than just Hull would be using it. No one has had any real success using it for a long time, the last team I can think of was Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddesdenRam Posted April 28, 2013 Author Share Posted April 28, 2013 The usual change the system will make us better thread. Hull who to be fair are 2nd are the only team using this in the top 2 divisions. The people I know in football say no one plays it as its just giving the sweeper an easy time and that now with so many teams playing one up top and two wingers pushed on it leaves two of your centre halfs with no one to mark and pushes the wing backs into defence. Then there is no one to mark the full backs who in modern football push on. Yet we can all say look at the positives and the negatives of a system. For me it's players that make the biggest difference, Man U have won the league and play all sorts of systems as the have good players. 532 worked for us a long time ago under Jim smith but I would say if it was any good more than just Hull would be using it. No one has had any real success using it for a long time, the last team I can think of was Germany. Peterborough and Watford use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notts_ram Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 Play Clough in the hole position just behind the front 2 strikers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 What would solve everything, is if we didn't have a striker on the pitch that has 1 goal in 20+ games and replaced him with an actual goal scorer. too simplistic - try again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 I doubt that Clough will change from 4-4-2 but it's certainly a good suggestion. One of the main problems for us has been the space between the midfield and the defence. Too often we've been caught out as the two central midfielders push forward together leaving a huge space in front of the defence. I think we're missing a holding midfield player, someone to plug the gaps made by the midfielders going forward, especially in away games. I actually think we'd benefit playing a narrow diamond, one holding, two central midfielders and an attacking midfielder. That'd suit the side well. As good as the midfield has been this season, there have been glaring errors that need to be sorted in the summer, one of those is the acquisition of a holding midfielder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 What would solve everything, is if we didn't have a striker on the pitch that has 1 goal in 20+ games and replaced him with an actual goal scorer. Goal scoring has not been the main problem this year. Look at the stats. We are 6th/7th highest scorers in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DcFc Dyycheee Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Goal scoring has not been the main problem this year. Look at the stats. We are 6th/7th highest scorers in the league. Most of them goals coming at home.. You're never going to win most away games if you have a striker that scuffs everything, can't finish and gets 1 goal every 2 months. You get what, 2-3 chances per away game? Need to take at least 1 of them and our striker doesn't. Yes, we do to defend better, but we always need to score more goals away from home. At HOME we're fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 I like it. I would play Brayford at WR and play three center backs as CB. WL new player? I suggested three at the back before but with RM and LM instead of WR and WL. Your suggested formation would be better. We just need another Brayford to play on the left, could we play Freeman their? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodleyRam Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Most of them goals coming at home.. You're never going to win most away games if you have a striker that scuffs everything, can't finish and gets 1 goal every 2 months. You get what, 2-3 chances per away game? Need to take at least 1 of them and our striker doesn't. Yes, we do to defend better, but we always need to score more goals away from home. At HOME we're fine. I dont think we're lacking attacking threat away from home, we consistently match the home side for possession and efforts on goal. We have to improve our goal/chance ratio and cut down goals conceded. It isnt quite as simple as saying we need a goal poacher i'm afraid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asanovic Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 I don't think we've had a team good enough to try that formation mentioned at the start of this thread. We've been cautious but then with what's available we've had to be to avoid being picked off. Don't see why this couldn't work if the right people came in (and stayed in) this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 I think we're too cautious/negative/reserved to play that formation, we would end up being statuesque and the opposition would get in behind our wing backs and stretch our centre backs. If you look at Jim Smith's team, the whole team attacked, not just the person with the ball. When we scored in those days, there were sometimes 6 or 7 players around the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Surely just having better players will be a good start, but the board have only promised six new players.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 I put forward this idea a while back in a thread. Watford and Hull are two football sides where their strength comes from passing and interplay, a bit like ourselves. I think we have the personnel to play this formation, it will play to our strengths and it solves a few problems that we currently have too. --------------GK-------------- ---------CB CB CB--------- WR--------------------------WL -------CM---------CM------- -------------CAM------------ ------ST------------ST------- The positions in blue are not really a problem as Forsyth can play LM/LB so would be suited to that wide role. At CB if the bray stays he will be suited to the right sided CB role. The other two wil be Keogh/Buxton or likely Baptiste. And If Brayford does leave it means that Buxton/Keogh/Baptiste can play together. In the green players my thinking was it firstly solves the problem of trying to get Hughes, Bryson and Hendrick all playing together in the middle. You could also play Hughes in the 'hole' as people have spoken about. Also with Bryson's contract situation he might leave and what we could then see is a space in one of those CM spots for the 'Old Head' that people want. Up front i thought i would bullet the options: Firstly it means Sammon does not have to play on his own Because of the WL it means we don't need Ward out wide, he can play up front and be deadly like he has shown. The CM presence does however mean that ward could still drop out to pick the ball up in the advanced positions on the wing, while we still get a CAM up to support and fill the ST role that was left behind. Having 2 ST as well as a CAM means we are more likely to get on the end of balls crossed in, which we are useless at. One reason I got shot down for this was that Clough wouldn't try anything abstract like this. This is probably my main point; this formation could very easily change back to 442 if neccesary especially If Forsyth played that WL role and brayford played that RCB of the 3 CB's because Bray would drop to RB and Forsyth LB. Also Clough has used differing formations before such as the 4231 that we had for large parts of the 10/11 season. Wigan showed that this formation is very effective, in the FA Cup final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.