Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
king canary

Can this 4-1-4-1 actually work.

Recommended Posts

Farke seems to want to use this formation on the evidence of last season and this season. The question is can we make it work?

Right now Farke seems unable to balance us in this formation- we''re either set up like we were for the first 60 minutes v Birmingham where we looked solid but unable to really create anything or too open and easy to pick off on the counter.

My main concern is the squad in someways seems to be built with a back 3 in mind. All of our fullbacks are better going forward than defending, our wide players seem more suited to cutting inside and playing narrow and we have question marks over our ''holding'' midfield options.

I think it is fair to say that the key to making this formation work lies in the ''1'' who sits between defence and midfield. Farke seems to want the fullbacks to bomb on and create width, allowing the wide midfielders to cut inside and support Rhodes. This can leave us extremely exposed at the back and the defensive midfielder needs to show the positional discipline to not follow the ball upfield and instead help the two central defenders in dealing with any potential counter attacks.

In my opinion Tettey and Trybull are both ill-suited to this role. The key question may be can Godfrey or Thompson do it instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it can as long as, like yesterday, we don’t get a freak combination of player mistakes in a game (which was not Farke’s fault at all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For mw the issue in the middle follows the back 4 challenges not the other way around - with a back 4 causing us problems whoever is picked and whether it is 4141 or a slightly better 4231

If it is to be 4141 i think it is time to give thompson a go in place of tettey but it doesn''t address the problems of the defensive vulnerability or the lack of defensive contribution from the attacking 4. Both of those elements need addressing or acceptance of a back 3 or 4231.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It worked yesterday perfectly well and it should have seen us 2-1 at half time and the upper hand.  You can''t take into account missed penalties and at 1-1 the next goal being all important and losing it to a goalkeeper error, so overall, you can''t say it won''t work on the evidence of yesterday.
The high scoring match was not a surprise imo,  Farke clearly wanted us to be on the front foot from what he said during the week and his team selection confirmed that.  Add that to West Brom''s abilities - and if you saw the highlights of their first two matches, they were unlucky not to have scored several goals in each - so the writing was on the wall.
We lost the upper hand, that is all and that can be improved on if we take our chances.  The good thing is that both Pukki and Rhodes got on the score sheet and on reflection I am sure the seasoned pros that Rhodes and Krul are will not let their errors get in the way in the next few matches. 
On the whole, plenty of positives, mainly that we are scoring goals. having said that, I wouldn''t be disappointed to see Zimmerman in a back three, but lets see how 4141 works over a few weeks before returning to something that inevitably means leaving out a more attacking player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don''t you just love this forum.Two games in and the player that an EDP poll indicated should be rewarded with another contract is blasted for his apparent involvement in conceding 3 of the 4 goals and should be replaced.Looking at the highlights I am not so sure that you could put the penalty or third and fourth goals primarily down to his error. For the third he followed Rodrigues who jumped over the ball allowing the unmarked player steaming in to score and with the fourth although he didn''t really make a telling challenge to the player heading the ball back across goal the player who scored the goal was left by two markers,Marshall and Pinto.

Incidentally the player who supplied the pass for Hernandez when he got the penalty was Tettey.

So in my book he appears to have become the games scapegoat.

Just saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it can but probably requires that we have a second defensive player with Tettey when we dont have the ball. Admittedly that means the formation isnt strictly 4141 off the ball but, against the better teams such as West Brom im not sure we have a singular holding player quite good enough. Against the weaker teams I can see us looking quite good, particularly at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good thread, and king''s OP well summarises the issue. Tettey is a good player when tasked according to his strengths, which mean he is most effective when he has a defensive midfield partner. But he is no Michael Carrick and lacks the passing, positional sense and discipline for the role of solo DM. As king says, question is whether Godfrey or Thompson are able to seize the opportunity; otherwise we should give Tettey the partner he needs or revert to playing three at the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely as the weeks go by and with the integration of Thompson and Godfrey and with continued contributions from Trybul it is to be hoped that AT''s presence within the starting eleven will be required less and less.

Nothing wrong with that because, if he has become redundant by the New Year, it will mean that the youngsters have become established.

A sticking plaster role for the remainder of Tettey''s very worthwhile City career will be entirely appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s a good question. For me, the only time during Fatjes reign when we have looked defensively sound was when we played 3 centre backs. I don’t think we’ve ever looked secure playing a back four, particularly defending crosses where we seem to leave players unmarked a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The run of clean sheets last season came when Norwich played a 4 at the back. Farke moved to a back three later in the season, but said he felt it blunted the attack too much and switched to a back 4 again.

I think the 4-1-4-1 can work well, it certainly meant Norwich dominated the first half against West Brom and looked an effective attacking force. Just undone but a few keeper errors from Krul - hope this is him just working off his rustiness rather than his new reality.

Will be interesting to see what he does against Sheff Utd who do play a back three, instinct is to match up against them although that isn’t what he did last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I have never been a Tettey fan. I just don''t think he has the passing ability although some posters present stats that say he is. But I don''t really count three yards back to a centre back as a pass.

The player in that role seems to to take different forms. Carrick and Matic don''t burst forward too much but rather rely on accurate passing.

Others are merely blockers or destroyers whereas others make runs from deep.

Tettey is probably nearer the first type but lacks the vision of a Carrick. And he certainly doesn''t have the ability of Vrancic to make a telling longer pass. At times he leaves the two centre backs exposed by not just filling in.

Maybe Godfrey with his CB background might be a better prospect as he might well stay put more often and certainly is more mobile.

If there are doubts about his fitness and ability to train as well as his usual amount of yellow cards, then move him out and give that spot to a younger player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Maybe Godfrey with his CB background might be a better prospect as he might well stay put more often and certainly is more mobile."

This is what I wonder.

From what little I''ve seen of him I think he looks comfortable on the ball and mobile enough to shuttle the ball from defence into midfield and disciplined enough to sit back and cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see Godfrey ( or Thompson) tried alongside Tetty for a game or two with a view to integrating the new boys. I like three at the back against the stronger sides but we need creativity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to agree, Thompson before his injury started to look the business, Godfrey looked impressive last season on loan and reality is there’s not that much of a step up from where he was to get into our starting 11.

Would be great to see them both given a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]The run of clean sheets last season came when Norwich played a 4 at the back. Farke moved to a back three later in the season, but said he felt it blunted the attack too much and switched to a back 4 again. [/quote] But didn''t we then set up more 4:2:3:1 than 4:1:4:1? I know the numbers don''t necessarily reflect the reality on the pitch but, as nutty points out, many of our clean sheets saw Trybull and Tettey together in front of the back four.
Regarding Saturday, it is too easy to say we were undone by keeper errors; we were undone by defensive lapses which Krul''s rustiness (as you say, hopefully it was rustiness) prevented him compensating for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T&T now 7-2-0 as a combrination so is probably worth persisting with.

My preference is for the manager to stick to his guns and ensure the players make his system work, irrespective of my concerns. Thompson with Trybull seems like it is worth trying, esp away from home.

One of the issues with such an attacking 4 as Onel, McLean, Leitner & Pukki in tandem with Pinto and Matthews pushing on (one at a time please lads) is that we do become vulnerable to a press on the CBs & DCM. A quick fix would be to play more defensive minded full bacjs, to cover the rather erratic defensive contribution from the midfield 4.

I suspect we will be more attacking at home and more pragmatic away, so a return for Trybull alongside Tettey seems likely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m sure I remember reading that McLean has played deeper at his previous club...is it possible he could be encouraged to sit between a CDM and Leitner to add to attack and defence when needed.

The key is balancing defensive nous and attacking threat. For my money, that would be Godfrey and Thompson as an old fashioned pairing - one more defensive and one box to box, with Leitner in front roaming around. McLean could probably to the B2B role as well.

Do we have time to try out all these combinations? Farke is sticking with tried and trusted experience at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is when you’ve had Wes, Pritchard and Maddison you’ve been spoiled, now we don’t have that threat, teams press us and one holding midfielder might be found out.

I didn’t think Tettey was too bad especially first half.

Any formation can work if you have the right players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is when you’ve had Wes, Pritchard and Maddison you’ve been spoiled, now we don’t have that threat,

Yet from open play we have created more good chances than any team this season; i think that while the "stars" may not be as good, the team seems to have better movement and structure going forward this season, hence creating more and better chances than we saw last season. We still need to be more threatening from set pieces mind

As the NotTheTop20 pod cast (always worth a listen) commented on our weekend performance, we were impressive at the weekend and the result was a travesty, but norwich "just" need to tighten up a bit. - which is spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now Zim that’s not what I said!

The rest of that sentence lead to the point of teams playing us at CR would put two defensive players on the likes of Wes, Pritchard or Maddison, now they don’t and as such Tettey, found himself surrounded by players especially in the second half.

To tighten up would mean losing a touch of a goal threat, imo. Leave it as is and we’ll be ok, WBA are better than most in this division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×