4-4-2

[Jools 584]

A tad reluctant to knock out the old cliches, but surely the best form of defence is to attack with our ongoing crisis in the former area of the pitch.Keep things simple -- Neil has to drop the complex 4-2-3-1 - we neither have the coaching skills nor intelligent playing staff to execute it for a duration that would render us in the promotion places - Players that play in the double pivot of successful 4-2-3-1''s are the likes of Kaka, Xavi, Mascherano, Meireles, Mikel, Kramer, Dahoud, Gundogan etc, etc... We have Tettey, Dorrans, Thompson & Howson [:|]A 4-4-2 with out & out wingers and two forwards please, Neil [Y] Do what you''re familiar with man.

[Move Klose 303]

Yer i think maybe a move for Gundogan in January could be on the cards.

[morty 0]

4-4-2 means no place for Hoolahan though.

[Indy 3,283]

Scoring goals isn''t an issue, defending is.

I''m all for two up top but we need width and to play our best players in their best position.

I''m all for the diamond to come back, with Thompson deep, width with Murphy & Pritchard and Wes off the front two.

But our defence would need to up their game or this to work.

One up top does over load our midfield which goes against us sometimes as we sit so deep.

[Jools 584]

[quote user="morty"]4-4-2 means no place for Hoolahan though.[/quote][Y]

[king canary 7,562]

We don''t have the players for 4-4-2.

Our three strikers are all big guys with no pace so won''t work as a pairing.

Our best midfielders are Wes and Pritchard and they don''t work in this system.

The midfielder most suited to a traditional 4 man midfield is out injured until January.

Neil (or whoever chose these players) has backed himself into a bit of a corner that this squad is really only built to play with one up top and five in the midfield.

[Syteanric 1]

If 4 4 2 works and Hoolahan doesn''t play so be it.You fit players into the system, not system round players

[morty 0]

That won''t go down well with a few people...

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Or how about 4-1-3-2, with the full backs dominating the first 60 yards, instead of expecting them to cover 95 yards? Do we put too much emphasis on the full backs, and their (attacking) roles, and not enough on giving the lone striker help (how many knock downs/ second balls, did we NOT get on Saturday?) Jerome knocked down to Laffs (2nd striker)to score after all.

[Highland Canary 76]

Guess we can''t afford Hooper.

[morty 0]

"Paging Jaeme2 to the thread".....

[hogesar 9,611]

You don''t have to have a big-guy-little-guy partnership up front. It''s not obligatory.

I''ve called for 4-4-2 but as discussed the biggest loss then is Hoolahan.

Something isn''t working though - recently we''ve looked so poor in defence yet despite having 3 attacking mids Jerome also looks incredibly isolated. How does that work!?

[Van wink 2,994]

If we are going to play like we have been recently I don''t think a change of formation is going to make a great deal of difference to be honest. Individual mistakes are costing us.

[Making Plans 936]

[quote user="morty"]4-4-2 means no place for Hoolahan though.[/quote]Based on the last 3 games does he really warrant a place at the moment.

[hogesar 9,611]

Yes, when you consider the even more abject performances from those around him (bar one or two, of course)

[king canary 7,562]

@hoegsar

No you don''t have to have big guy/little guy but you need players with complementary attributes. Two big guys with not very much pace together is easy to defend against - hold a high line, show the wide players inside.

I''ve mentioned before that I think we have the players to use a similar formation to Chelsea. It would allow us more strength in the back, would utilise our attacking full backs and allow us to use Pritchard and Wes without shoving one of them on to the wing.

[hogesar 9,611]

I agree with your theory of playing a similar way to Chelsea. But, just to be awkward, Jerome has quite a bit of pace!

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="king canary"]Neil (or whoever chose these players) has backed himself into a bit of a corner that this squad is really only built to play with one up top and five in the midfield.[/quote]I''d argue that there''s a case for a 3-6-1 instead:                       Ruddy       Bennett     Klose     Bassong    Pinto    Thompson   Dorrans     Brady                 Pritchard     Hoolahan                               JeromeThis drops a number of our most recently underperforming players, keeps both Hoolahan and Pritchard in creative positions, gives us width with the attacking wing backs, and both grit and composure in the middle (although I still think Tettey has more to offer this year).

[hogesar 9,611]

I like it. But I can''t help but feel this is all a bit of a pointless discussion as i''d be very surprised to see us make such a dramatic change, particularly since Alex Neil has been pretty dependant upon 4-2-3-1 for the past 12 months and during our promotion 4-1-4-1 for the most part.

[king canary 7,562]

@Indy

Yep that is the exact formation and personnel I like the look of.

@Hoegsar

I don''t think he does. He has a bit of a burst but if I was a defender I''d not be too worried about him getting in behind.

[Indy_Bones 441]

Agreed Hog,It''s far too forward thinking for AN to seriously consider, as he''s made it blindingly obvious that he wants to play one way, and one way only, but when the $hit''s hitting the fan, it''s no time for him to be stubborn and refuse to consider changes, and this could be the sort of thing we absolutely need at the minute.One thing is for certain, regardless of formation, some players MUST be dropped based on recent form, and if that doesn''t happen then we knowing we''re pi$$ing into the wind...

[Van wink 2,994]

It will be a relief when Pinto comes back in, I don''t think Brady has the work rate atm Indy to play that position.

[Indy_Bones 441]

The problem is that he''s the better of the two when it comes to him vs Olsson IMHO, and it''s surely got to be better than playing him right wing!

[morty 0]

I really don''t think we can play 4-4-2 without Howson. I struggle to think of a midfield pairing that doesn''t include him.

For me he is the biggest miss right now.

[hogesar 9,611]

Yep. I was starting to really like the idea of Howson & Dorrans as a central midfield pairing, particularly against the weaker teams where don''t really need a natural DM like Tettey.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

No small, pacy striker?

Oh for Dwight Gayle, even a Lewis Grabban...

[lappinitup 629]

The binners have been watching 4-4-2 for the last four years, they reckon it''s a throwback to the 80''s and call McCarthy a dinosaur. [:S]

[nutty nigel 7,507]

I wish we were dinosaurs...

[Horse Renoir 1]

Would prefer this:

------------Ruddy----------

----Martin Klose Bassong

Pinto---------------------Brady

-----------Thompson---------

-------Murphy Hoolahan

-----Jerome --Oliviera---------

3 CB''s to help us at set pieces and a mix of pace and experience at the back. Two very good wingbacks for this league to provide width. A DM who will stick to his position and break up play well. Two creative central players to fit AN''s philosophy and two strikers to help us put chances away.

For the options we have this seems like the most balanced team to me. Wish I had a bit more faith in our coaching team to implement an unusual style like this as well but whatever.

[SwindonCanary 455]

I believe it''s not the formation or who plays, it''s how we play. I do wish we would press higher and move the ball quicker, but then again Pep Guardiola can''t do it, at Man. City like he did at Barcelona but Jurgen Klopp seems to be doing it well at Liverpool !