Yorkshire Canary 118 Posted February 12, 2016 This has been the chosen set up for the majority of this season. Given the squad we have it does not produce enough goals and we have a total inability to stop conceding them. Let us look back on the first season up with Lambert we played Morrison and Holt up front and they put the opposition under pressure i recall the 4 - 2 at home to Newcastle as a prime example. We could replicate this with 2 of our bigger strikers and Naismith behind. yes we will concede goals but we do that anyway. By and large we know we cannot score more than 2 on a good day. The thrashing at Newcastle shattered the managerial belief but perhaps they needed more confidence in sticking to our strengths. The year we finished an amazing 3rd in the PL we lost 7 - 1 at Blackburn, these results happen sometimes. If we are to go down lets do it with some fight and adventure and perhaps we will change our luck and fortunes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Platonic 1 Posted February 12, 2016 You can''t score a goal if you can''t play through midfield, unless we go proper route one and start hoofing from defense. 4-5-1 or a variation is so standard in the league at the moment that we risk being swamped in midfield if we play two upfront. Whilst I''m sure this fashion will evolve into something else, we are not at the cutting edge of tactical wizardry and only playing four in the middle would be a very risky move. Also, you kind of answer your own question - our best players are midfielders, so it makes sense to play them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AJ 1,218 Posted February 12, 2016 Supposedly, it makes us harder to beat. Although I''m not terribly convinced we''re that hard to beat anyway at the moment no matter how many we bung in midfield!4-4-2 doesn''t work well in the top flight any more. Leicester are a unique example with the right players playing in the right system that teams can''t contain them. Sadly we don''t have a Vardy style attacker - we''re too slow on the counter and we fail to make the most of our chances. So, really, playing 1 up front helps us contain and defend better, but I think it hinders our attack, but that''s only because we refrain from using pace on the counter when we need it. We''re too slow Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,509 Posted February 12, 2016 Formations should be fluid. I think it''s more important how we play than what formation we play. For instance with a supposed one up front we can still have players in advance of the striker.Defend from the front and attack from the back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katie Borkins 1 Posted February 12, 2016 The smartest observation I have read on here recently was Nutty''s point about the depth of our defensive line, and if we sit as deep as we did in the last couple of games then we will be lucky if we score nil.One up front with that deep defensive line is not going to work as it gives away the midfield advantage by stringing them out too thinly and cuts off the striker''s supply lines.Two up front would arguably be even worse and would promote hoofball. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,160 Posted February 12, 2016 At Villa we actually played 442 with Wes on the left side. As a result we struggled to pass through midfield, Wes was largely ineffectual due to his position and we mainly relied on long balls. So we didn''t create much - although Villa only looked likely to get anything from a set piece (which they duly did).With 4 in midfield it was pretty easy for Villa to pass the ball out as they generally had a man free to receive it.451 lets us put Wes in the centre and pass through midfield. The problem is how to fit Naismith into 451. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Great Wall Of Tettey 0 Posted February 12, 2016 On a flip side to your point and my issue is how do you fit Wes hoolahan into the 451? Mbokani needs width and a Naismith type of player to play off him, so where does Wes play? Pointless him putting through balls through as that isn''t his game and he''s completely isolated, and out wide it''s clear from last few games it just doesn''t work. Could argue to go with jerome but he''s never been a premier league finisher regardless of last season. I know you could argue the same for mbokani stats wise but given the tactics we''ve played it''s not exactly suited them. Bamford also definite option yet he plays off the last shoulder and isn''t one to hold the ball up, so where does the forward presence/ariel threat come from? The work vossen did for boro last year is definity underrated. I would personally like us to persist with 2 genuine out and out wide men (Redmond & Brady) and go with Naismith behind mbokani. It''s very easy to make wholesale changes by changing the wide and forward but I think we''ve got it tactically wrong more than it all being the wrong players Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,160 Posted February 12, 2016 It''s a problem that has gone back some years. For our team to play at its best, we need a striker pairing like Mbokani/Naismith (or an inferior version was Elmander/Hooper) with Wes just behind them, 2 x centre midfielders, 2 x wide players such as Brady and Redmond, and a settled back 4 + goalie. Obviously unless we can slip 12 on the field, something has to give. My view is that if we don''t have Wes on the field - and his best position is just off the striker - then we lose our ability to pass through the midfield and much of our creativity. If you stick Wes on the left, or drop him and play 442 with Naismith and say Mbokani, we end up losing possession in midfield, rely on a long ball game, and don''t create many chances.So my view is we need to go back to the approach that was successful in the playoff final and in our better patches this season. Play 2 proper wide players, 2 CMs, and Wes just behind a striker. With Naismith to come on from the bench. Unfortunately I don''t think it will happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray 111 Posted February 12, 2016 Have already put this on the Tinkermen thread but perhaps fits better here.Tomorrow I''m pretty certain we will go back to front foot, press high and attack, attack, attack tactics. Whether WH will allow us and who will be doing it I''ve no idea but at least we''ll be giving it a go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary Wundaboy 1,358 Posted February 12, 2016 My argument would be that when we play 4-5-1 we''re far too passive, invite too much pressure and concede too easily. The games where we play more aggressively we tend to do alright in as we don''t spend as much time inviting pressure. We don''t have a strong enough defence to play like Chelsea so we might as well try to play like Arsenal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thecanaryfan 0 Posted February 13, 2016 Well it certainly isn''t working for us is it. I would ideally play Bamford and somehow fit Mbok in there as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,501 Posted February 13, 2016 If we could somehow shoehorn Wes, Naismith, Bamford & Mbokani in together, what an awesome attack would that be!Trouble is, with the remaining midfield, they''d never see the ball. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katie Borkins 1 Posted February 13, 2016 [quote user="ron obvious"]If we could somehow shoehorn Wes, Naismith, Bamford & Mbokani in together, what an awesome attack would that be!Trouble is, with the remaining midfield, they''d never see the ball.[/quote]We can almost get there; I still like the look of RuddMartin Klose Bassong Brady Howson O''Neil (assuming Tettey suspended today?)Jarvis/Redmond Naismith Bamford MbokaniI am starting to return to the view that with our new signings, Wes in the PL is too high risk compared to the potential return. That said, he''ll probably score now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AJ 1,218 Posted February 13, 2016 I don''t think Bamford is defensive enough to sit on the left of a 3 man midfield, so you either play Naismith there and play Wes - or swap Brady to LW and Olsson to LB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Katie Borkins 1 Posted February 13, 2016 Maybe the latter. I don''t see the point in buying Naismith & then sending him out wide when his value is his work rate and those late runs through the middle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,501 Posted February 13, 2016 Is O''Neil OK? I don''t understand twitter:https://twitter.com/Gazoneil/with_replies Share this post Link to post Share on other sites