442 anyone?

[Longeatonram2020]

4 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

What drives me nuts is when we are starting with 2 defensive midfielders, i absolutely get it if we were 2-0 3-0 up in a game with 15 mins to go. In fact the whole defensive midfield bit annoys me no end, please win the game before you protect it but currently we have little else up front. 442 works well with hard working players who know their jobs and can do all aspects of their roles and I would always go for that formation especially in the championship where goals win games and 2 centre forwards working together have a better chance of scoring than one. 

In fact why do we need all those defenders plus two defensive midfielders when the opponent plays with one forward ? 

Thought the idea behind the 2 defensive mids is so the attacking 4 players can bomb on and not have to worry defensively, as well as allowing the full back to push forward, and have adequate cover from the midfield. Obviously not how we’ve been playing it

[Sparkle]

4 minutes ago, Longeatonram2020 said:

Thought the idea behind the 2 defensive mids is so the attacking 4 players can bomb on and not have to worry defensively, as well as allowing the full back to push forward, and have adequate cover from the midfield. Obviously not how we’ve been playing it

And not how we have played it since those few games that Thorne was fit for following on from Eustace but we had the likes of Ward,Russell and Bryson doing a shed load of donkey work to make it work

[Archied]

4 hours ago, IslandExile said:

Just thought I would start another argument, err uhm, I mean "discussion".

If we do manage to ever purchase Kamil Jozwiak and/or another winger, would anyone set us up in a 4-4-2 formation? Two wide men, two central midfielders, new big one and Marriott(?) up top.

It seems out of fashion nowadays but I think there's a strong case for it.....although I am not sure which formation I prefer.

Cocu says he favours 4-3-3 with two wingers (and presumably one big man at CF) but, with the players available, usually goes 4-2-3-1

The great man, BC, played 4-3-3 but with only one winger (Hinton) with Hector feeding off O'Hare.

Mackay played 4-3-3 with Hector wide but mostly it was narrow interplay between Hector, Lee and Davies/George until Leighton James came in.

3-5-2/5-3-2 worked really well for Jim Smith.

It's difficult to have this discussion without dragging the names of our current squad into it - and then, it will inevitably become yet another, yet another Chris Martin thread - but, in the first instance, let's try to keep it focused on which formation - generally - do you prefer.

I know, I know horses for course, depends on the players etc....but just for a moment, consider the merits and flaws of each system.

Hokey cokey anyone?

[May Contain Nuts]

Why 2 DMs?

For Rooney to play CDM you need someone else there doing his running.

For Bird to play DM you need someone else there providing some bite/aggression & tackling ability (no matter how well he intercepts it at times). The player winning the ball has to give it to Bird quickly if he's then going to move forward with it - that's an extra step though, an extra second for the opposition to regroup.

Shinnie should in theory be able to play DM alone, but only really the defensive side as he's limited in the air and in transition, after winning the ball it takes him too long to make a pass and he can be a bit laboured when attempting to drive forward with the ball.

Bielik the only DM we have who can really play the role without needing a partner, he can win the ball on the floor or in the air and move the ball onto a teammate all within 2-3 touches, he can put us on the front foot immediately, before the opposition have closed down the out ball.  Sadly we know what ACL injuries can do to players, so we're just going to have to keep our fingers crossed.  

I'm not necessarily saying we would go 4-3-3 instead of 4-2-3-1 even with Bielik fit, but that 2 will be a lot more staggered with him in the team, rather than them both being stood on our defender's toes.

[Gone]

Anything but this dreadful 433 which is basically 451, it’s so dull especially when there are 2 DMs playing (at home!!!!!). 2 up front with 1 behind them, the rest you can play where you want. But please no more 433, it’s had it’s day and doesn’t work with our squad. 

[Dcfcsr92]

Have we got 2 fit strikers?? 

[Gone]

1 minute ago, Dcfcsr92 said:

Have we got 2 fit strikers?? 

Have we got 1 fit striker? 

[hintonsboots]

I would like to try the old fashioned pyramid formation at home. Would totally surprise the opposition and see plenty of goals.

[cannable]

34 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Anything but this dreadful 433 which is basically 451, it’s so dull especially when there are 2 DMs playing (at home!!!!!). 2 up front with 1 behind them, the rest you can play where you want. But please no more 433, it’s had it’s day and doesn’t work with our squad. 

I’d argue a 4-2-3-1 is closer to a 4-4-2 than a 4-3-3 anyway though

[FindernRam]

11 hours ago, hintonsboots said:

I would like to try the old fashioned pyramid formation at home. Would totally surprise the opposition and see plenty of goals.

Plenty of goals yes, but in which goal. I tried to find some games played like that on the net (very hard to determine formations from one camera highlights) but it seems even in the fifties there was a concept of a 4 man defence, then sweepers came in.

The was something glorious about watching a sweeper charge across and take out a rampaging forward( remember them?)

[RamNut]

25 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

Plenty of goals yes, but in which goal. I tried to find some games played like that on the net (very hard to determine formations from one camera highlights) but it seems even in the fifties there was a concept of a 4 man defence, then sweepers came in.

The was something glorious about watching a sweeper charge across and take out a rampaging forward( remember them?)

There is a book called ‘inverting the pyramid’ which describes the tactical developments after this formation.

this was basically three at the back with one centre half dealing with the centre forward. The first big change was to have two centre backs as insurance. 
the developments went from 235 to 532 and beyond, 541 Etc.

[Dimmu]

13 hours ago, hintonsboots said:

I would like to try the old fashioned pyramid formation at home. Would totally surprise the opposition and see plenty of goals.

Love that tactic, but we barely have three attacking players, nevermind five.

[FindernRam]

5 hours ago, RamNut said:

There is a book called ‘inverting the pyramid’ which describes the tactical developments after this formation.

this was basically three at the back with one centre half dealing with the centre forward. The first big change was to have two centre backs as insurance. 
the developments went from 235 to 532 and beyond, 541 Etc.

Thanks for that, I'll look up a copy.

[Alty_Ram]

I watched Chelsea last night and they actually played 4-2-3-1 but it wasn't necessarily a defensive formation, it's seems to just be how we choose to approach it. Beyond the basic formation I suppose that much boils down to what else you instruct players to do in and out of possession.

[Old Spalding Ram]

 "Players lose you games, not tactics. There's so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win at dominoes." ...........Brian Howard Clough.

 

 

 

[jono]

I am not wedded to any particular system, but 442 on a sheet of paper always looks right to me

I like to see the width of the pitch used, i love it when a full back and a winger form a partnership, do supporting 1-2's covering each other. Byeline crosses or crafty wrong footing cut ins. Nothing like a tricky flying winger to warm the heart

A pair of forwards up front - working the angles and the give and goes, the knock down / cushioned headers between a big un and a little un are part of the fantasy of football. 2 flexible centre mids covering or advancing depending on conditions.. same story 

Yet I sense it isn't a game of draughts .. the other team isn't static and your set up is usually much more fluid. 

One thing for sure, lone strikers don't work unless they have a very particular skill with speed or a huge physical advantage. Its an inflexible set up and easier to nulify

[Rampage]

442 anyone. No thanks, I have not finished this one.

[1961ram]

Bill Shankly was once asked this question, he replied 10 10 10