WorksopRam Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Apart from when we're winning and in the top spots. Then that 4231 weren't that bad. Very true. Everyone was loving it up until November time last season. We were playing some great stuff, and I've no doubt we could do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roofio Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Very true. Everyone was loving it up until November time last season. We were playing some great stuff, and I've no doubt we could do it again. Bueno was massively at the heart of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorksopRam Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Bueno was massively at the heart of that. What's to say that Maguire can't do a similar job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I thought while even when we were doing well with 4231 we lacked width and the full backs got exposed. It worked as commons and burno were both playing great and were getting the ball high up the pitch. I think clough has gone for a lot of players who first and formost graft a bit so I can't see us being as expansive as at that time. Also as I have put previous a spent some time with a coaching staff mbar who said it would be 442 or 433 depending on signings. They want at least 2 up top. Cloughlikes to keep things simple and wants to go back to how his burton team played Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I thought while even when we were doing well with 4231 we lacked width and the full backs got exposed. It worked as commons and burno were both playing great and were getting the ball high up the pitch. I think clough has gone for a lot of players who first and formost graft a bit so I can't see us being as expansive as at that time. Also as I have put previous a spent some time with a coaching staff mbar who said it would be 442 or 433 depending on signings. They want at least 2 up top. Cloughlikes to keep things simple and wants to go back to how his burton team played How do you play 4-4-2 with no wingers. That's how he played it at Burton. Plus Pearson was included in a BBC article about possibly leaving to make room for more signings. So players who's actual position is out wide is Ben Davies, Dave Martin, Lee Croft. Can't see 4-4-2 at all. 4-3-3 requires CMs. We have Bailey, Bryson and.....(green is out) Can't see either formation being used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 How do you play 4-4-2 with no wingers. That's how he played it at Burton. Plus Pearson was included in a BBC article about possibly leaving to make room for more signings. So players who's actual position is out wide is Ben Davies, Dave Martin, Lee Croft. Can't see 4-4-2 at all. 4-3-3 requires CMs. We have Bailey, Bryson and.....(green is out) Can't see either formation being used. Well I guess the first team staff member didnt know what he was talking about, you clearly know more. We will see in the first few pre season games wont we. Also didnt Corbett play wide right at Burton, he wasnt a winger, we dont know if he will play Ward and Maguire as both have played there lots in there career. Saying we have only two centre mids doesnt really leave us with much this season does it? Saying its the postion that if you dominate you control the game, possestion and normally more often than not win the game. Tyson will be playing up front through the middle Clough has made that clear, so do you think he will be the single front man. Has Clough actually ever said Pearson was going or he was looking to move him on as all he said was it depends how the players on the last year of their contracts and the BBC mentions Pearson is one of them. Clough has always played him when he has been fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Well I guess the first team staff member didnt know what he was talking about, you clearly know more. We will see in the first few pre season games wont we. Also didnt Corbett play wide right at Burton, he wasnt a winger, we dont know if he will play Ward and Maguire as both have played there lots in there career. Saying we have only two centre mids doesnt really leave us with much this season does it? Saying its the postion that if you dominate you control the game, possestion and normally more often than not win the game. Tyson will be playing up front through the middle Clough has made that clear, so do you think he will be the single front man. Has Clough actually ever said Pearson was going or he was looking to move him on as all he said was it depends how the players on the last year of their contracts and the BBC mentions Pearson is one of them. Clough has always played him when he has been fit. ohhhhhhhhh, was just saying, no wingers or wide men, no CMs. Don't know how you play 4-4-2 without them. I think it could be 4-1-3-2 at home and 4-2-3-1 away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Don't worry about the formation. We'll be attacking that much we'll have a "running goalie"..... We'll be that quick we won't have time to line up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Don't worry about the formation. We'll be attacking that much we'll have a "running goalie"..... We'll be that quick we won't have time to line up. Which of the 5 keepers will be the most attacking? After we have just realised we have hardly any midfield players we can play a load of keepers, a load of centre halfs and a load of forward players and see what happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 worked well at school! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 If we play 4-4-2 without wingers, we will be in a relegation battle. Such a negative formation, we would also play boring hoofball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 If we play 4-4-2 without wingers, we will be in a relegation battle. Such a negative formation, we would also play boring hoofball. Can't see that happening with the amount of pacey players who can play wide we have brought in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Hard to believe 442 was so universal and is now so hated. I can't stand it either. Boring, predictable and outdated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 We're the front-runners, a team that creates legacies. We have conquered where others have failed, we endeavor to uphold all honour and respect in the game. We fight with grit in our hearts, the thoughts of Brian Clough in our minds. It's a fact that we will come up against better, more skilful teams. But we also accept the fact, that when we cross the line, we fight harder, faster and longer than any other team. Our spirit will never be broken. We stand together as one. Fight as one. We play as one. History knows our name, it doesn't have to be kind. History holds our name, but it doesn't have to, for we are Derby, known througout this great land as the Champions of England. Not once, but twice. We demand a formation that is fitting to our stature in the game. A formation that defines strength, honour, understanding and a team spirit that strikes fear into the opposition. An opposition that already respects us for who we are, and know where we should belong. We're pioneers. We were the first to negotiate sponsorship upon our shirts. We were the first team to get 11 points or less in the Premier League. We are Derby and we'll be the first to try such a formation that only befits teams as grand as ours. We demand 4-4-2 (with wingers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I dont care what we play as long as we try and pass the ball and are positive. I also think 442 can be expansive as long as you give the players freedom to interchange as man u do for example. At the end of the day good footballers make the best teams and win matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 So basically what people are saying is that: Fielding Brayford Barker Shackell Roberts Tyson Bailey Bryson Ward Davies Maguire is rubbish, boring out dated, negative and going to get us relegated. Where as: Fielding Brayford Barker Shackell Roberts Bailey Bryson Tyson Maguire Ward Davies is positive, forward thinking, attractive etc? There's far too much emphasis placed on formations - it's the players and the way they play that matter. Put a bunch of hoofball merchants in a 4231 you'll get hoofball. Put a team of good players in a 442 you'll get good football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 So basically what people are saying is that: Fielding Brayford Barker Shackell Roberts Tyson Bailey Bryson Ward Davies Maguire is rubbish, boring out dated, negative and going to get us relegated. Where as: Fielding Brayford Barker Shackell Roberts Bailey Bryson Tyson Maguire Ward Davies is positive, forward thinking, attractive etc? There's far too much emphasis placed on formations - it's the players and the way they play that matter. Put a bunch of hoofball merchants in a 4231 you'll get hoofball. Put a team of good players in a 442 you'll get good football. I totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hindge Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I think the line up will be: Fielding Brayford Barker Shackell Roberts Green Bailey Bryson Waghorn Tyson Ward With the team interchanging between 4-4-2 and 4-2-3-1 Also I know we haven't got Green for a while so swap him with Pearson and then swap him with Bryson and I know we haven't got Waghorn (yet) so swap him with Maguire. Challenging for the play offs is that team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsdubs Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I love how people are still saying Tyson on the wing when he came here under the promise he'd play striker as he isn't a winger or midfielder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Ram Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 So basically what people are saying is that: Fielding Brayford Barker Shackell Roberts Tyson Bailey Bryson Ward Davies Maguire is rubbish, boring out dated, negative and going to get us relegated. Where as: Fielding Brayford Barker Shackell Roberts Bailey Bryson Tyson Maguire Ward Davies is positive, forward thinking, attractive etc? There's far too much emphasis placed on formations - it's the players and the way they play that matter. Put a bunch of hoofball merchants in a 4231 you'll get hoofball. Put a team of good players in a 442 you'll get good football. Like, and spot on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.