4-2-3-1

[blader]

Don't worry, I'm donning the tin hat before I even make my post.

I feel with the players we have at our disposal, that 4-2-3-1 will be a much more effective that our current 4-4-2. I know the footballing dinosaurs don't like to change from 4-4-2 but how many teams in the modern game actually play it?

Baxter Cuvelier coady and brandy are having to play out of position (or just not getting in) as they were signed to fill their roles in a 4-2-3-1. The issue with weir was not the formation but the way we approached it. I would like to see us go back to it personally.

 

[moDtheGod]

The problem might well be that the players aren't good enough to adapt to this newfangled strategy and given our current troubles, it might be better to stick to the basics.

 

[Balham]

I've said it before and now again; the critical positions in a 4-2-3-1 are the full backs, the lone striker and the central midfielders (the 2).

We don't have the right full backs - you need players capable of getting up and down the line all game as well as being defensively astute. McMahon lacks any pace, Westlake has zero confidence and his concentration is appalling; the less said about our collection of left backs the better.

We don't have the right strikers - you either need a back-to-goal hold-it-up man or a technical, mobile and quick man. Porter is excellent at flicking the ball on but he's not good at holding it up. Miller's not quick enough and Taylor lacks the nous. If he was fit and motivated, King might be able to do it but he's neither.

The CMs have to be mobile. They've got to help out the full backs and bridge the gap between the defence and the three roving forwards. To play McGinn - probably technically our best CM - you need someone who can cover him in defence. Doyle isn't mobile enough.

As a long term aim though, I agree but we'd need at least 4 new faces.

 

[oldblade]

and

Don't worry, I'm donning the tin hat before I even make my post.

I feel with the players we have at our disposal, that 4-2-3-1 will be a much more effective that our current 4-4-2. I know the footballing dinosaurs don't like to change from 4-4-2 but how many teams in the modern game actually play it?

Baxter Cuvelier coady and brandy are having to play out of position (or just not getting in) as they were signed to fill their roles in a 4-2-3-1. The issue with weir was not the formation but the way we approached it. I would like to see us go back to it personally.

Using the 4-2-3-1 system we got a grand total of 5 points from 10 league matches and got knocked out of two cup competitions by 4th division opposition. Since it was binned we have taken 11 points from 8 matches and have actually won a cup match.

The players clearly are not comfortable playing in a 4-2-3-1 system. They aren't world beaters in a 4-4-2, but the results so far suggest we are a lot less bad using that formation than using 4-2-3-1.

 

[blader]

and



Using the 4-2-3-1 system we got a grand total of 5 points from 10 league matches and got knocked out of two cup competitions by 4th division opposition. Since it was binned we have taken 11 points from 8 matches and have actually won a cup match.

The players clearly are not comfortable playing in a 4-2-3-1 system. They aren't world beaters in a 4-4-2, but the results so far suggest we are a lot less bad using that formation than using 4-2-3-1.

As I said though, I think the issue was the approach, not the formation. I'd like to see us play a new formation, with Clough at the helm. Think it will suit our players more

 

[oldblade]

As I said though, I think the issue was the approach, not the formation. I'd like to see us play a new formation, with Clough at the helm. Think it will suit our players more

I think it's the formation. The players are not up to it and are not comfortable playing in it. As others have pointed out, good overlapping, attacking full backs are a must in that system. We don't have any. Also, we don't have a centre forward capable of playing the loan striker role successfully.

 

[Kenilworth]

When I first spotted the thread title I was pretty sure that blader was either innumerate, dysgraphic or dyslexic.

Turns out he is insane ;(

 

[broomhillblade]

Let's get back to basics.

Two full backs,
One centre half flanked by two wing-half backs
Five forwards, including two proper wingers.

That's how we used to do it in the 1940s & 50s.

Then those fancy continentals came and messed it all up - followed by Alf Ramsey and his wingless wonders.

Things will never be the same again - but, then, they probably never were...

 

[Kenilworth]

Let's get back to basics.

Two full backs,
One centre half flanked by two wing-half backs
Five forwards, including two proper wingers.

That's how we used to do it in the 1940s & 50s.

Then those fancy continentals came and messed it all up - followed by Alf Ramsey and his wingless wonders.

Things will never be the same again - but, then, they probably never were...

I think you are talking Subbuteo again there Broomers.

Do you know why it got the name "Subbuteo"?

 

[broomhillblade]

I think you are talking Subbuteo again there Broomers.

Do you know why it got the name "Subbuteo"?

Let me guess.....

The "Subbuteo" name is derived from the neo-Latin scientific name Falco subbuteo (a bird of prey commonly known as the Eurasian hobby), after a trademark was not granted to its creator Peter Adolph (1916–1994) to call the game "Hobby".

 

[Kenilworth]

Let me guess.....
The "Subbuteo" name is derived from the neo-Latin scientific name Falco subbuteo (a bird of prey commonly known as the Eurasian hobby), after a trademark was not granted to its creator Peter Adolph (1916–1994) to call the game "Hobby".

Wiki to the rescue - You may be a bit long in the tooth there Broomers but you still have what it takes, eh?

 

[Bladesway]

Nothing to do with the tactics, the methodology or even the manager and everything to do with the quality of what is on the pitch. Its eleven shit players so you have to play the most basic game you can, park the bus and be as uncreative as possible. Hence what you see at the moment. Clough knows how limited we are so he is just gathering as many points as he possibly can (and making a half decent fist of it) until he can get some decent players in hopefully.

It is a genuinely scary position we find ourselves in. Also shows that Wilson was rather good at making a silk purse out of a sows ear.

 

[SwissBlade]

Unbeaten in two, so what do we need to change?

 

[Bladesman]

Nothing to do with the tactics, the methodology or even the manager and everything to do with the quality of what is on the pitch. Its eleven shit players so you have to play the most basic game you can, park the bus and be as uncreative as possible. Hence what you see at the moment. Clough knows how limited we are so he is just gathering as many points as he possibly can (and making a half decent fist of it) until he can get some decent players in hopefully.

It is a genuinely scary position we find ourselves in. Also shows that Wilson was rather good at making a silk purse out of a sows ear.

Wilson got the best from a bunch of Championship no hopers.

What we have now is some Championship no hopers and genuine League 1 turds.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Formation changes very little because as I keep saying it simply relates to team shape. A good group of players who know how to press, how to sit back as a unit etc etc. will play well in any formation. A bad group of players will also be crap in any formation.

 

[blade too long]

a 22222 system down the middle . might surrise a few or a 1,1,8 all out attack

we might start a trend , silky sexy shoreham shuffling

 

[Kenilworth]

a 22222 system down the middle . might surrise a few or a 1,1,8 all out attack

we might start a trend , silky sexy shoreham shuffling

Blade Too Long at the Whiskey, more like

 

[blade too long]

football was 235 when I started , wingless wonders have been tried before 442 433 4123 41221, all theories , in practice you need slightly better players than the opposition or your fecked

 

[oldblade]

Nothing to do with the tactics, the methodology or even the manager and everything to do with the quality of what is on the pitch. Its eleven shit players so you have to play the most basic game you can, park the bus and be as uncreative as possible. Hence what you see at the moment. Clough knows how limited we are so he is just gathering as many points as he possibly can (and making a half decent fist of it) until he can get some decent players in hopefully.

It is a genuinely scary position we find ourselves in. Also shows that Wilson was rather good at making a silk purse out of a sows ear.

If it's nothing to do with tactics, methodology or the manager, why are we performing much better (or more accurately, much less badly) now that we've changed our tactics, methodology and manager?

I agree that the limitations of the players limit the amount of success you can get, but tactics, methodology and the manager definitely do affect whether or not you can get the best out of you're players - even if the best you can get (or hope for) is mediocrity.

 

[Bladesway]

If it's nothing to do with tactics, methodology or the manager, why are we performing much better (or more accurately, much less badly) now that we've changed our tactics, methodology and manager?

I agree that the limitations of the players limit the amount of success you can get, but tactics, methodology and the manager definitely do affect whether or not you can get the best out of you're players - even if the best you can get (or hope for) is mediocrity.

The fact we are where we are is because of the players. The fact that they aren't good enough. If they were good enough we wouldn't be where we are.

I know it fills forums and Talk Sport airwaves but it really is overrated in my opinion. Manager takes the fall then the players actually start playing, then they get used to the manager and he gets sacked and the players start playing again. Round it goes but the fact is the best players play in the best teams and win the most matches.

 

[Bladesway]

Unbeaten in two, so what do we need to change?

Numbers 1-11 (in old money) would be my starting point.

 

[MBoreman]

I agree 4-4-2 isn't a good formation for the squad, as it is too reliant on wingers, and ours are poor. Although Brandy has talent, in 4-4-2 he picks up the ball too deep so 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-2-1 (Villa style) would benefit him. I'd like us to play 4-3-1-2 with Baxter in the whole and a midfield 3 of Coady, Cuvelier and McGinn. All would be predominantly central but as all have played out wide for us they could spread if need be. Alternatively I'd like to see 4-3-2-1/4-3-3. Porter, King or Taylor could be the main striker with a number of others being able to fill the left/right forward roles (Taylor could do this as well). Having two central-ish forwards as opposed to wingers would benefit Murphy a lot I feel as I reckon he's more comfortable playing centrally.

 

[brownie4583]

Watching sides at the top level the players do not stick to a rigid say 4-4-2,they move around,1 min on the left,then pop up on the right,then in the middle,interchange,so it's harder to man mark and defend against.
When we play 4-4-2 it's like there are 11 invisible boxes painted on the pitch and the players can't go outside that area!

 

[Dnblade]

For me we need Full Backs like Balham Says in his post,who can get up and down .Doesn't matter if it's 442,433,4231 or whatever..we still need 2 good FB's to provide width when attacking and support for the Wingers/midfielders and get forward.
At the moment we've got White who's still finding his feet,and I'm not sure if he's going to be good enough yet,but he has got a bit of pace to get beyond his man but needs to show more than he has so far.
McMahon seems to be getting encouragement from NC to keep getting forward,but doesn't do it enough,and often is wasteful when he does get up there.
When they have got behind defenses recently..White should have had a Penalty v Walsall and McMahon caused the Bristol lad into an OG.They need to keep doing it or we need to find 2 that can in the way Lowton did under Wilson.

 

[oldblade]

The fact we are where we are is because of the players. The fact that they aren't good enough. If they were good enough we wouldn't be where we are.

I know it fills forums and Talk Sport airwaves but it really is overrated in my opinion. Manager takes the fall then the players actually start playing, then they get used to the manager and he gets sacked and the players start playing again. Round it goes but the fact is the best players play in the best teams and win the most matches.

If you try to get players to play in a way that they are not comfortable with performances and results will be adversely affected. That is down to the manager and how he sets the team up. The manager also has a motivational responsibility. If a team is constantly being made to play in a way that is beyond it's capabilities or that does not make use of their attributes, then that is poor management and performances will suffer.

Players do not always start playing well as soon as a manager is sacked and a new one comes in. There was no such upturn when Adams took over. When Robson inherited a very strong squad from Warnock (arguably stronger than we had in the premier league) we stared playing a painfully slow and pedestrian style and results quite clearly suffered. The way we played was down to the manager. He chose to play that way, not the players.

The best players generally do play for the best teams, but tactics, methodology and the manager still affect how they play. Manchester United performed better under Ferguson than they are currently doing under Moyes.

 

[billyblademan]

May I add, a 4-5-1 would be better than this 4-2-3-1-7-2-4 whatever it is business, such as against Posh.

1 up front, wingers helping out, but still got 3 midfielders, so they can take it in turns to burst forward, and there's still plenty of cover.

We haven't got anyone good enough to play 'in the hole'. They end up finding limited space, and not really threatening with or without the ball, and end up totally unnecessary and not involved in the game.