Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cambridgeshire canary

4231 vs 442

4231 vs 442  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. 4231 vs 442

    • 4231
      23
    • 442
      1


Recommended Posts

It isn't what we prefer it is what the managerial team prefer. We have little option at the moment as we have not got another central striker to play with Teemu.

I felt that when we played with Adam Idah and Temmu up front together, the whole team seemed better and I felt that was the preferred option of the manager. All will be revealed when transfers in and out start to happen.

I feel that Smith and Shakespeare have found their past successes with 4 4 2 and can't see  a drastic change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very different question asking which I 'prefer' and which is more effective with the squad we have, in the PL.

You're also twisting the question to insinuate its Farkeball vs Smiths more direct approach. 

The usual suspects will pop up on this 'debate' no doubt claiming they're certain had we stuck to our principles we would be closer to survival, neatly forgetting the facts from when we actually played with that system. It's commonly agreed our squad of two seasons ago was stronger than this, yet that was one of the worst seasons we've had in the top flight, and was almost always, 4-2-3-1.

Sad that so many just want to bash the current set up and not give it any time when they came in after a disastrous start to the season. Despite a tough start, we looked hopeless and change needed to happen. That change needed a fresh approach and that is what we got with a more promising spell once we simplified the game and largely bypassed the midfield - Smith agrees with most on here that our midfield isn't good enough. Farke was given a season to get things in order his way, I don't see why Smith shouldn't be given the same courtesy.

Oh, and to answer the question: it's whichever best suits the current squad. Despite a win against one of the worst sides in the league and a spirited attacking display against Man Utd (the defensive risks and squad weakness of 4-2-3-1 are why we lost yesterday), 4-2-3-1 isn't the best for this limited midfield.

The biggest 'what if' question of the season isn't 'what if we stayed with 4-2-3-1' but 'what if Adam Idah hadn't got injured?' However both questions we'll ne er know the answers to

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not add a third option of tactical flexibility and changing depending upon circumstance? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say both and neither, I think you should set up a team to play the best way against the opposition, as much as some formations seem better than others, I'd argue it's negligent to focus on just one. Teams should be drilled in training to be able to implement their game onto any formations, less predictable and one dimensional that way. 

Play 4231 when needed play 442 when needed so on and so forth

Edited by GodlyOtsemobor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fiery Zac said:

It's a very different question asking which I 'prefer' and which is more effective with the squad we have, in the PL.

You're also twisting the question to insinuate its Farkeball vs Smiths more direct approach. 

The usual suspects will pop up on this 'debate' no doubt claiming they're certain had we stuck to our principles we would be closer to survival, neatly forgetting the facts from when we actually played with that system. It's commonly agreed our squad of two seasons ago was stronger than this, yet that was one of the worst seasons we've had in the top flight, and was almost always, 4-2-3-1.

Sad that so many just want to bash the current set up and not give it any time when they came in after a disastrous start to the season. Despite a tough start, we looked hopeless and change needed to happen. That change needed a fresh approach and that is what we got with a more promising spell once we simplified the game and largely bypassed the midfield - Smith agrees with most on here that our midfield isn't good enough. Farke was given a season to get things in order his way, I don't see why Smith shouldn't be given the same courtesy.

Oh, and to answer the question: it's whichever best suits the current squad. Despite a win against one of the worst sides in the league and a spirited attacking display against Man Utd (the defensive risks and squad weakness of 4-2-3-1 are why we lost yesterday), 4-2-3-1 isn't the best for this limited midfield.

The biggest 'what if' question of the season isn't 'what if we stayed with 4-2-3-1' but 'what if Adam Idah hadn't got injured?' However both questions we'll ne er know the answers to

As one of the 'usual suspects', I couldn't disagree more. We'd evolved the system from 2019-20 and it gave us our best season in the club's history. It was madness to change it so radically at the start of this season and no coincidence that we're playing better after reverting to it.

Farke was absolutely at fault for abandoning it. It's unfortunate that he returned to it too late and even more unfortunate that Dean Smith has worked through just about every other formation possible before arriving back at the original plan. 

No one can claim to be factually correct in their 'what if' scenarios, but we can be disappointed with where we've ended up. While you can maintain that it wouldn't have worked, much of the evidence points to 4-2-3-1 being our best formation with this current group - especially without Gilmour and especially against the lesser teams in the league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Petriix said:

We'd evolved the system from 2019-20 and it gave us our best season in the club's history.

Yes but that was the championship. Massive difference. That evolution revolved around Skipps protection of the back 4. We either chose to play differently or couldn't find a suitable replacement for Skipp for the PL.

 

15 minutes ago, Petriix said:

no coincidence that we're playing better after reverting to it

Really? Yes because it suits your argument. But the countless games we've played it I the PL and been poor tends to disagree with you. A sample of 2 games isn't particularly conclusive either - especially as one of those games ended in a loss. Individual errors but came about from the more possession based and playing out from the back game of 4-2-3-1.

 

21 minutes ago, Petriix said:

much of the evidence points to 4-2-3-1 being our best formation with this current group

Other than the more sustained period of time playing a more direct 4-4-2 where we looked more dangerous, Pukki had some proper support up front, we nullified our limited midfield (that most agree is simply not good enough for the PL) and we got some results?

 

Formations are only one part of it. The major failing is the lack of quality within the squad. Had we got a decent PL DM and creative player as a no10, 4-2-3-1 could absolutely have worked. It will always get some success as shown recently but that was against one of the weakest sides in the league. On a regular basis, it has been proven to not work for us at the top level. On the whole, it's for teams to dominate possession (which we will in the championship) and thats just not going to happen for us in the PL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on players available and opposition, we don’t have the players to play 442 with Idah out.

I think we look better as a 4231 as personal preference but only when we have a more creative type in the 3. Dowell has been a breath of fresh air, to be fair Lees-Melou has played some good throughballs too since starting further forward.

Rashica though is just too direct, it’s great to have that option and outlet in the three, not knocking him at all, but without others to play the killer passes we’ve just looked toothless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how a win always glosses over a performance. The consensus seemed to be after the Burnley game that is was an ok performance. I agree, it wasn't a game we dominated and there were numerous times we were caught in possession. Better teams than Burnley would have punished us.

We got away with it that day, but thats the point of collective data and that one game plus a loss away at man utd, spirited as it was, isn't enough to conclude 4-2-3-1 would've saved our season. If anything, it points to exactly the opposite. It has highlighted that mistakes go punished by decent teams (and Man utd are far from decent most of the time, they didn't need to be to beat us).

Burnley weren't good enough to capitalise on the risks playing 4-2-3-1 gave us. Man Utd, though completely out of form, were.

Not really sure how there's a debate to be had.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We’re an EPL team and we currently don’t have two forwards to play the ‘2’ up front.   You can’t operate effectively without sufficient firepower and the options become predictable with limited personnel.    
 

4-4-2 isn’t feasible with current resources and 4-2-3-1 didn’t work earlier in the season and didn’t work at Brighton (we just got lucky).   The last two opponents have been woeful, Utd gave us so much time and space!  
 

So many fans base their views week by week.   Look at the Dowell love in.   He’ll be back to being a spectator on the wing next week!   

  • Like 1

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  

×
×
  • Create New...