• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

4-4-2

milo said:
I agree that we need to get more support to the striker but remain unconvinced that switching to 4-4-2 is the best way to do this.

Obviously, it is not a formation that Poch favours and is not compatible with his preferred pressing game. I also think that if we switched to 4-4-2 we would have to drop two of Lamela, Chadli and Eriksen to bring in either Lennon or Townsend and frankly this feels like bringing in inferior players to suit a formation.
Click to expand...
I don't think the formation is the most important thing. We can play Kane/Chadli behind the striker in a 4-2-3-1 and have a positive effect that way. Like I said earlier, the difference between a 4-4-2 and a 4-2-3-1 is only marginal.

Having said that, playing the most talented players doesn't necessarily make the most functional team. If we play Lennon on the right and drop Lamela to give us more width, that might make us better as a team, even if Lennon is less talented a footballer than Erik Lamela.
 
King of Norway said:
I don't think the formation is the most important thing. We can play Kane/Chadli behind the striker in a 4-2-3-1 and have a positive effect that way. Like I said earlier, the difference between a 4-4-2 and a 4-2-3-1 is only marginal.

Having said that, playing the most talented players doesn't necessarily make the most functional team. If we play Lennon on the right and drop Lamela to give us more width, that might make us better as a team, even if Lennon is less talented a footballer than Erik Lamela.
Click to expand...

It can be but not the way we play it with the 3 very narrow.
 
King of Norway said:
I don't think the formation is the most important thing. We can play Kane/Chadli behind the striker in a 4-2-3-1 and have a positive effect that way. Like I said earlier, the difference between a 4-4-2 and a 4-2-3-1 is only marginal.

Having said that, playing the most talented players doesn't necessarily make the most functional team. If we play Lennon on the right and drop Lamela to give us more width, that might make us better as a team, even if Lennon is less talented a footballer than Erik Lamela.
Click to expand...
I agree
 
milo said:
But if you want width from 4-4-2 you'll end up selecting Townsend and Lennon which feels to me like a downgrade.
Click to expand...

I agree. Lennon and Townend haven't done enough to warrant inclusion but I guess having them paly their natural side (for wingers) would use the width of the pitch. The way I see it Chadli is often playing as 2nd striker effectively and that skews our shape. Lamela also gravitates into the middle so our 3 AM's don't become a 4-4-1-1 out of possession.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Probably higher-scoring games. Our midfield would be overrun, so we'd concede loads. But teams would also over-commit themselves, meaning we'd get opportunities for Lennon and Townsend to hit them on the break.

So basically we'd be losing 5-3 or 4-2 a lot.
Click to expand...

Your midfield would only be overrun if you set it up in such a way that allows it to be overrun.

442 with two holding midfielders and a number 10 is basically 4231 when going forward. Ask your #10 to be disciplined and drop into midfield whilst defending. If they do that religiously and well, then you won't be overrun.
 
Poch did play 4-4-2 or a variation quite often at Southampton. Rodriguez would sometimes play coming in off the wing, but he's often play right alongside Lambert.

Similarly to what Chadli said this season, sometimes he's asked to play a deeper or wide role and sometimes he's asked to play right up alongside Adebayor.

Against the goons away if you look at us, particularly without the ball, we were definately playing 4-4-2.

its less about the formation just now for me and more about the correct philosophy. We've created quite a few chances in a variety of games this season, e.g. QPR, Sunderland, Emirates Marketing Project, Arsenal, Southampton. Other games we've struggled to create chances.
 
I know that I'm starting to sound like Tim's girlfriend/agent/best friend/ Tim himself, but for the most part under him we played a version of 442 and scored loads of goals...

Taking Tim out of the equation... Which maybe I should have done... I believe that we are quite late to the 451/433/4231 party a lot of teams have had success with it and that has lead to teams finding ways to counter the system, unless you have Oscar hazard costa quality players .. Which would arguably work in any system anyway maybe 442/4411 is the way to play against the majority of teams bar the top, three or four.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Probably higher-scoring games. Our midfield would be overrun, so we'd concede loads. But teams would also over-commit themselves, meaning we'd get opportunities for Lennon and Townsend to hit them on the break.

So basically we'd be losing 5-3 or 4-2 a lot.
Click to expand...

Or indeed winning 4-2 or 3-2 like we did in the second half of last season.
 
milo said:
So what is the advantage of this over playing a withdrawn striker at #10 in a 4-2-3-1?
Click to expand...

The key is how the number 10 (withdrawn striker in your definition) plays. In my view, at home against the dross, our lone striker looks totally isolated. None of our three are well equipped to play this role. Consquently, we play it up to them and they lose possession (either cos they are ****e as in Ades case, outmuscled as in Harry's case or intimidated as in Solly's case).

If there were two of them to play togther then this would not only occupy the opponents back four to a greater degree but also allow them to pass between themselves in order to allow time for the rest of the midfield to get up to support. At the moment, we dont have anyone running in behind the lead striker, which makes us so easy to play against for a massed defence.
 
Pirate55 said:
Only from the top four. We had a great record against the dross and scored hatfuls of goals. We beat Soton 3-2 home and away and beat the barcodes 4-0 away IIRC
Click to expand...

Played the dreaded 4231 away to Saudi Sportswashing Machine... Don't recall how we set up against Saints but after the initial run of 6 league games we switched backed to one up top and 3 behind iirc - KD knows a good site for checking lineups if you want to check, im on my phone so not able to atm
 
So everyone who criticised TS for his 442 all got it wrong, did they?. When AVB and Poch play like this it is masterful tactics but when TS plays that way it is "horrible football".

My recollection is that TS tried to play 442 as much as possible. Certainly he mostly definitely tried Ade and Solly together when both were fit.
 
Pirate55 said:
So everyone who criticised TS for his 442 all got it wrong, did they?. When AVB and Poch play like this it is masterful tactics but when TS plays that way it is "horrible football".

My recollection is that TS tried to play 442 as much as possible. Certainly he mostly definitely tried Ade and Solly together when both were fit.
Click to expand...

Soldado started 6 games in a 442 when Sherwood first took over. The remainder of his appearences were either off the bench or starting as a lone forward. As Adebayor was our only other senior forward last season im assuming that this rules out 442 for games other than those initial 6

(I know this because i checked Soldados data from Sherwoods time in charge when discussing it withe KD a couple of weeks back)

Feel free to check the facts and correct me if they prove me wrong.
 
billyiddo said:
Played the dreaded 4231 away to Saudi Sportswashing Machine... Don't recall how we set up against Saints but after the initial run of 6 league games we switched backed to one up top and 3 behind iirc - KD knows a good site for checking lineups if you want to check, im on my phone so not able to atm
Click to expand...

Why would TS have done that after having initial success with 442?
 
billyiddo said:
I don't know, is there only one way to skin a cat?
Click to expand...


Dont you find it strange that a new manager comes in. plays two up top for 6 games, gets decent results and then decides to change it?

It just goes to add grits to my case that we have scored more goals and got better results, when we played two up top. If I accept your statement that we only played 442 for 6 games under TS, then I suspect the results in that period against the dross teams (ie non top 4) will have been as good as at any time over the last couple of seasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back