4-5-1 (or 4-3-3 or whatever)? What formation should we use?

[ZLF 271]

Do you think that jumping on the flexible 4-5-1 bandwagon is the answer getting the best from our squad?  Personally I am not convinced because

• it is rare for it to be effective without a strong focal point (eg Drogba at chelsea, bent at charlton) to hold the ball up - as good a goalscorers as he is holding the ball up is not earnie.
• the players who move from middle 5 to front 3 have to have pace (not a proble for hux) but also be able to defend when in the 5;  our options do not have that mix.
• our recent lack of success in embedding new systems with players who seem to yearn for a 4-4-2. 
• going 4-3-3 leaves us with a soft exposed midfield which is what we effectively saw too much of last season      
• it is too easy to get it wrong - for every chelsea success  there is a couple of evertons where the outcome is dour mid table football where the teamis hard to beat but fails to create enough chances to win a game

So what are the alternatives?

• most successful sides at the world cup ran the 4-2-3-1 variety (my previous preference) with 2 holding midfielders which meant if one of the 3 attacking players was slow getting back the defence remains solid with 4 bodies - however that system again requires a hold up man up front
• I dont think a brazilian 4-2-2-2 would suit us either - leaving exposed in wide midfield and we dont have the players either 
• A 3-4-3 could work  (Shaxs,Spillane, Doc; Drury, Safri, Robbo/Etuhu, MLJ/Hughes, Leon Earnie, hux) with the current squad by making the 4 more defensive but runs the risk of a big gap between the strikers and the midfield.  By buying dedicated wide midfielders Drury could move back to make it look more solid.  
• which leaves us with a 4-4-2 - which we know leaves us with gaps when hux is left (which will happen) and a stop gap on the right side of midfield.  

I think we could have some success if we were to start with Leon as the lone player - but that is impossible to suggest or accept he starts ahead of earnie - isnt it?

Going 3-4-3 would be a risk;  4-4-2 tried and failed - which leaves us going with another formation hoping it works by suspecting it does not play to our strengths again.

What system would you prefer?  

 

  

[Mook 0]

4-3-1-2

Back four is obvious, Safri, Hughes and Robinson/Etuhu as solid 3 in midfield, Hucks behind Earnshaw and Leon.

No wingers. But we don''t have any anyway!

[Saint Canary 0]

Earnshaw being our best goalscorer means that it is unlikely we will find any success with any formation with just one up front.  He just does not have it in him to play a lone striker role and you can''t have a £3m striker on the bench.

Personally I think the best balance would be found in a standard 4-4-2 but as I have been saying for a over a year, we just do not have the wide players in midfield to play that way.  It''s just totally reliant on us buying to real wingers and playing Hucks up front with Earnshaw.

The only other alternative I see is allowing Hucks a free role behind Earnie and another with a 3 man midfield.

[ZLF 271]

Cheers guys - you seem to confirm my fears that the current squad does not really suit any known or recognisable standard formation; we can use them all but in all of them we compromise ourselves and/or use players outside of their best roles - and no ringing endorsement of a 4-5-1

Both of you cover one of the options I didnt mention (another being the diamond) but my only concern with that is to many degrees we have played that three man midfield for the last couple of years and last season in particular (including in the diamond), with hux on the left.  What we have seen is the three defensive mdfielders stretch beyond coping and providing neither attacking support(secondary function in that sysem) nor defensive shield (primary function) as the same three try to cover the width of the pitch.     

I think in these circumstances I would opt for the one that the players are most familiar with and like saint go for 442 trying to build around our stengths ad minimise the weaknesses.

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

Cheers guys - you seem to confirm my fears that the current squad does not really suit any known or recognisable standard formation; we can use them all but in all of them we compromise ourselves and/or use players outside of their best roles - and no ringing endorsement of a 4-5-1

Both of you cover one of the options I didnt mention (another being the diamond) but my only concern with that is to many degrees we have played that three man midfield for the last couple of years and last season in particular (including in the diamond), with hux on the left.  What we have seen is the three defensive mdfielders stretch beyond coping and providing neither attacking support(secondary function in that sysem) nor defensive shield (primary function) as the same three try to cover the width of the pitch.     

I think in these circumstances I would opt for the one that the players are most familiar with and like saint go for 442 trying to build around our stengths ad minimise the weaknesses.

[/quote]

I think the thing is though Zipper that we have been playing with a 3 man midfield but a formation that should have four.  I think the reason that the 3 has struggled is because the fourth man (hux) was expected to keep shape and defend but didn''t/can''t.  It would be easier to have shape as a trio if the players know what they have to do, rather than trying to fill in when someone goes missing.

[Hairy Canary 668]

I find this all a little strange.

Presumably the manager has a prefered formation for the majority of the matches (obviously it might change to suit different senarios and teams) and has therefore been gradually tayloring the squad to suit over the 5 years he has been in charge. This would explain why we haven''t played with an out and out right sided player because Worthington prefers to keep things tight across the midle.

IMO we have played a long ball 4-4-2 style for a few years now and had success with it partly because of the big man little man combination up front (several combinations come to mind). The reason why it suddenly looks so awful is because we are trying to play it with two guys up front who can''t head the ball!

So why does it now all seem so difficult. The fact that we are suggesting all sorts of systems and finding that the players we have don''t seem to fit any of them is a huge issue. Either Worthington has adopted a different style and has yet to get the players in to fit or he has bought very poorly over the last couple of years and ended up with a dijointed mess. I know which one I believe.

 

 

[Northern Canary 0]

I have always said that 433 has been the most effective for our team at the moment. However, i was very unconvinced by the 451 last season. The 433 is very effective when attacking because we have good strikers, but these strikers cannot fill into the midfield aswel.

[Ulf Ottosson 0]

Zipper

This post is spot on we can''t either effectively play either at a push I''d say a return to the diamond the back four picks itself with Mcveigh playing behind two of Leon, Hucks and Earnshaw. The only question this raises is WHY ON EARTH DID WE SIGN EARNSHAW???!! He simply doesn''t fit into any system at all - could it be this signing before the season ticket deadline was imposed on Worthy from above?

However I would''nt be surprised if a target man to play with earnie is signed in the next few weeks. Then we start the season with players as good as Leon and Mcveigh on the bench with rubbish like Hughes and Etuhu in the team

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote] WHY ON EARTH DID WE SIGN EARNSHAW???!! [/quote]

8 goals in 15 games so far.

[Canary02 0]

To be fair, I thought he was an odd choice to replace Ashton in terms of fitting into the system. I think Worthington''s idea was just to get the best striker he could to the club with the money he had to try and guarantee goals. He''s certainly got that in Little Earn.

I''d like to see someone of some height up there to play alongside Earnie, but then it''s not always necessary. Look at Clive Allen for Spurs in 1987 (going back a bit I know), but Spurs played five in midfield and only Allen up front on his own, and they finished third in the league, got to the cup final, played beautiful football and Allen scored 50 goals. It can be done. Whether it can be achieved with the tactics we have used/are likely to use though, is another matter.

 

[beelsie 0]

ZLF I fancy 4/2/3/1. I think it''s the only way we can play Hucks from the start.  As long as we can get our back 4 regularly forward of the six yard box by five yards so making our mid field 3 get the ball earlier. Our turn round from defence to attack is too slow as well as being square in construction. ( I should say was,maybe non existant would be more accurate.)

[ZLF 271]

I have long liked the 4-2-3-1 and proposed it during the prem season when we changed formations faster than players. 

My concerns again are that the midfield does not get overrun - with 2 sitting midfielders we are still needing the 3 to work back, particularly wide - and having Earnie as the one. 

 

It will be interesting to see howit progresses.

[Morph 19]

Why not play a system that employs wing-backs?

Have a central defensive trio of Docherty, Shackell and AN Other (probably Fleming).

Then have Drury as LWB, plus AN Other as RWB (Colin, Hughes, Louis-Jean, Spillane).

Play three in midfield. Safri being one. Then pick two from Etuhu,

Robinson and Hughes. If you want a more attacking midfield choose a

roaming third from Huckerby, McVeigh, Henderson or Jarvis.

Select two up front from the vast choices that City have for strikers

from Earnshaw, McKenzie, McVeigh, Thorne, Huckerby, Henderson and

Jarvis.

From what little you can gain from a friendly, I think the partnership

of McKenzie and Earnshaw looks good, BUT it does require a particular

type of service from midfield. That''s either crosses into the box from

beyond the opposition full backs or balls ON THE DECK through the

oppositions back four. The "hump" doesn''t work with that pairing.

[nh_ncfc 0]

I think we should use 4-5-1 for away games, that worked well towards the latter end of last season, ie the Leeds utd away game.

And for home i think we should stick to 4-4-2 seeing as we would do much better with Mckenzie and Earnie up-front.