daisy 138 Posted November 21, 2016 Throughout last season and so far this season we`ve mostly set out with 4-5-1 . It didn`t work last season and it`s not working this season. Now I understand how certain games require such formation but surely when we play teams at home in the champs we should be letting them worry about us instead of the other way round, certainly over the past few weeks our "defensive formation" clearly isn`t working so why not change it and go positive for a change. Please do something positive Mr Neil before it`s too late. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
daisy 138 Posted November 21, 2016 Why`s that then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted November 21, 2016 4-4-2 isn''t necessarily more positive, just the same as 4-5-1 isn''t necessarily negative.Its a very old fashioned view that 4-4-2 is more attacking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
daisy 138 Posted November 21, 2016 Maybe i`m just too old!! It used to be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Move Klose 303 Posted November 21, 2016 442 only works if you have the players to play the system. It worked so well for Leicester last year because they had Kante in there, he covered so much of the pitch. Not a suprise that he''s left, they still play 442 and are now struggling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buh 0 Posted November 21, 2016 I wonder how far away Morris is and whether he should be brought in to the fold. Whenever I''ve seen him he looks the real deal.Doesn''t solve our fundamental defensive issues though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,606 Posted November 21, 2016 No as we don''t have any strikers that can work as a pair. Jerome with Lafferty or Oliveria is just too similar. It also means Wes and Pritchard don''t really fit into the system. As Morty says the idea that having two strikers makes you more attacking than one is a bit outdated, especially when you factor in how many attacking midfielders we have in the squad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoola Han Solo 448 Posted November 21, 2016 My opinion is that 4-4-2 could work, and could complement our strikers. However I''d have doubts over whether we have the midfielders for the system. Used regularly and Wes and Pritchard would be redundant. It also needs two in the middle with some kegs in them, and I''m not sure this is Tettey and Dorrans, but Howson and Thompson might work. Without a Wes type you''re always going to be without that creative spark unless your plan is to hit it long or pump balls into the box from wide positions.So after all that, I think I''ve convinced myself that no, we haven''t got the players for it. And in any case, I can''t ever see Alex Neil trying it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoola Han Solo 448 Posted November 21, 2016 Legs on them rather, no one wants kegs in them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimmy Bone - Superstar 2 Posted November 21, 2016 When Pinto is fit again, I would like to see us try a 3 at the back with 2 wing backs (Pinto & Olssen or Brady) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
damn that Ralph Coates! 47 Posted November 21, 2016 yes like Chelsea, 3-4-3 please Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr Greenthumb 749 Posted November 22, 2016 I was thinking about the Chelsea formation too, Neil won''t use it, has to have his precious 4231 every game Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwindonCanary 455 Posted November 22, 2016 With our defence, shouldn''t we be playing 5 at the back ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZLF 274 Posted November 22, 2016 If the players are unable to concentrate, lack confidence and simply have no drive to perform why does anyone think its the formation that is the problem? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jacko 0 Posted November 22, 2016 4-4-2 could work but the personnel have to be right.Essentially you need two genuine wide players, at least one of whom will be very disciplined defensively. If you use the Leicester example, then Albrighton played that role manfully allowing Mahrez to shine on the other side. You can''t really get away with playing two out and out fliers. We currently don''t really have that as Brady will have to be at left back to compensate for Olsson''s suspension. Playing both Murphy''s would for me leave us very unbalanced defensively.You also need to very energetic midfielders to make this system work. With Tettey''s form as it is right now and Dorrans lack of mobility (I appreciate he''s suspended for Derby but I''m taking a longer term view here) I just see that being a sensible option. Given our paucity of options the only two viable systems we''ve really got are to stick with current 4-2-3-1 or potentially switching to 3 at the back in some guise if Pinto is fit. Increasingly I''m erring on the side of the latter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 22, 2016 [quote user="Jacko"]4-4-2 could work but the personnel have to be right.Essentially you need two genuine wide players, at least one of whom will be very disciplined defensively. If you use the Leicester example, then Albrighton played that role manfully allowing Mahrez to shine on the other side. You can''t really get away with playing two out and out fliers. We currently don''t really have that as Brady will have to be at left back to compensate for Olsson''s suspension. Playing both Murphy''s would for me leave us very unbalanced defensively.You also need to very energetic midfielders to make this system work. With Tettey''s form as it is right now and Dorrans lack of mobility (I appreciate he''s suspended for Derby but I''m taking a longer term view here) I just see that being a sensible option. Given our paucity of options the only two viable systems we''ve really got are to stick with current 4-2-3-1 or potentially switching to 3 at the back in some guise if Pinto is fit. Increasingly I''m erring on the side of the latter.[/quote]Don''t you think Thompson deserves a big run in that central position? He has that energy and drive.There seems to be an idea that you have to have a Tettey type in the middle. Defensive midfield players don''t have to be clumsy clogger types. They just sit and fill holes against breakaways.If the back four sat higher up the pitch and use Pep''s idea that the goalkeeper controls the last 20 yards, then we could stop relying on our full backs being our width option all the time.RuddyPinto Martin Klose OllsonMurphy Thompson Wes BradyNaismith JeromeI don''t think that could do any worse than the current system or personnel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,606 Posted November 22, 2016 @KeelanThat team would get absolutely murdered. You''ve got two attack minded full backs, two attacking wingers and Wes in midfield and only Thompson to do any defensive work. He''d get totally overrun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted November 22, 2016 Wes cannot play in a 4-4-2.And Naismith is a number 10 at best, not an out and out striker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoola Han Solo 448 Posted November 22, 2016 Didn''t Wes play at the tip of a 4-4-2 diamond in two consecutive promotion winning seasons? 🤔🤔🤔 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted November 22, 2016 [quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Didn''t Wes play at the tip of a 4-4-2 diamond in two consecutive promotion winning seasons? 🤔🤔🤔[/quote]The diamond and 4-4-2 are different things.Hence them being called different things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoola Han Solo 448 Posted November 22, 2016 A diamond formation has 4 defenders, 4 midfielders and 2 strikers and by my maths that equals 4-4-2. It''s a variation of the formation just like a 4-5-1 can be modified. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted November 22, 2016 [quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]A diamond formation has 4 defenders, 4 midfielders and 2 strikers and by my maths that equals 4-4-2. It''s a variation of the formation just like a 4-5-1 can be modified.[/quote]4-4-2 is an entirely flatter, more rigid formation.The diamond moves between 4-3-3 and almost a 5-3-2 depending on whether you are attacking or defending. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoola Han Solo 448 Posted November 22, 2016 The same can be said of a 4-4-2. For example Leicester City played the formation and at times Okazaki dropped back into midfield to create a 4-5-1. But the point stands that Hoolahan has played with 2 strikers on the pitch. However this talk is all irrelevant anyway, Alex Neil has always played a 4-2-3-1 (or a 4-5-1 if you will) and I very much doubt he would change this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted November 22, 2016 [quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]The same can be said of a 4-4-2. For example Leicester City played the formation and at times Okazaki dropped back into midfield to create a 4-5-1. But the point stands that Hoolahan has played with 2 strikers on the pitch. However this talk is all irrelevant anyway, Alex Neil has always played a 4-2-3-1 (or a 4-5-1 if you will) and I very much doubt he would change this.[/quote]Its about having the players to fit the system, and as you said earlier, we don''t have the players to play 4-4-2, and if you are saying the diamond is virtually the same thing, then by definition we don''t have the players to play that either.Its a case of cutting your cloth accordingly, if thats a system Alex likes, and we have the players that fit in it, then it would be daft to not play it. I don''t think wholesale changes in the system we are playing is the answer, the answer for me is players playing with heart, and cutting out stupid individual errors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoola Han Solo 448 Posted November 22, 2016 We don''t have the players at the moment, but Howson, Thompson, Dorrans, Tettey and even maybe Brady could fit into a diamond. It''s not going to happen anyway. Thanks for the debate though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted November 22, 2016 [quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]We don''t have the players at the moment, but Howson, Thompson, Dorrans, Tettey and even maybe Brady could fit into a diamond. It''s not going to happen anyway. Thanks for the debate though.[/quote]Howson is absolute key, that much is becoming apparent now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 22, 2016 [quote user="king canary"]@KeelanThat team would get absolutely murdered. You''ve got two attack minded full backs, two attacking wingers and Wes in midfield and only Thompson to do any defensive work. He''d get totally overrun.[/quote]You are looking at that team playing the way we do at the moment. And I see at team with two defence minded midfield players making a back six at times and I see a record of the third worst defence.Playing higher up the pitch would condense the play and our full backs would not have to run 80 meters up the pitch and be expected to chase back another 80.Why would Thompson get overrun? By hordes of opposing players? No. Just maybe they might be more concerned stopping us.Neither Murphy or Brady are wingers. Murphy is a player with pace and vision and a gift for finding space. Brady is a versatile player able to thrust forward or defend.Naismith is not just the new position created by the media and new to football of "Number 10". Naismith is a player who will run off attacking plays. A secondary striker. We''ve had them for years.I honestly believe our problems are a lack of confidence. In the manager, the coaching staff and the tactics. Our squad, while not good enough for the Prem, ought to be able to handle anything that teams in this division throw at them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 22, 2016 [quote user="morty"]Wes cannot play in a 4-4-2.And Naismith is a number 10 at best, not an out and out striker.[/quote]Not true. Wes can play in a flat four. He cannot play in a four where he is doing his work in his own half. But he can adapt in the opponents half. Many times under Lambert in L1, he had to drop back slightly and did it well.Number 10 is just modern speak for a secondary striker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted November 22, 2016 [quote user="keelansgrandad"][quote user="morty"]Wes cannot play in a 4-4-2.And Naismith is a number 10 at best, not an out and out striker.[/quote]Not true. Wes can play in a flat four. He cannot play in a four where he is doing his work in his own half. But he can adapt in the opponents half. Many times under Lambert in L1, he had to drop back slightly and did it well.Number 10 is just modern speak for a secondary striker.[/quote]No, he can''t.Unless its against a team we can massively dominate. (For instance in league 1)Which is pretty much no one right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites