Full backs over-exposed in 4-4-2?

[a1canary 0]

I know Rose had a mare but i think with McNamee - who many are comparing to Hucks in playing style - and then Hooly as our wingers, that leaves both the full backs with a real challenge on their hands with those two doing precious little tracking back.

Lambert dropped Hooly on the strength of his performances on the wing let''s not forget. I wanted to see him try 442 but i think we need a solid winger to complement Macca rather than another attacking maverick like Hooly. I think Lambert will want this too before he''s really comfortable playing 442. Could Korey play on the wing maybe? Interesting that McVeigh was sub for the Saints game. Maybe that was with a view to putting him on the right and Macca on the left. But we never found out ''cos of the red.

[Lambo 0]

It''d didn''t help our CM pairing did little in terms of winning the ball and breaking down opposition play, If you''d have had Smith N Rusty for 90 mins bringing some energy into the side it wouldn''t have been half as bad.

[Smudger 0]

Well said Lambo... it clearly does matter what players you have around you... [Y]Spillane to come back to will help matters!2 x creative players = McNamee and Hoolahan (whether in diamond or 4-4-2 doesn''t really matter to me) and 2 x defensive midfielders from Smith, Russell and Spillane (let us not forget that one of Spillane, Hughes or Smith could also play wide right possibly although I am doubting Hughes has the legs for it, but with Spillane or Smith out wide right this would leave an opportunity for Hughes/Russell in the centre if you wished to play 4-4-2).Lappin has to go for me on the left hand side though with McNamee playing in his natural position down the left flank where he can fire in dangerous crosses at will without the need to cut back on to his stronger foot.

[AJ 1,359]

You can clearly see why he hasn''t been playing Hoolahan and McNamee in the same squad though!

[Lambo 0]

I think Lambert knows the risks that comes with it, however as I said, with Rusty & Korey in the middle I think we''d be ok.

[ZLF 335]

What a ludicrous statement.  The full backs were exposed beacuse the central midfielders were poor????  Sheesh.  So if they are providing cover width wise who is tracking the central area?   So no flaw in your 442 there then. 

Hughes and Lappin were poor last night but they were not to blame for the whole team perfromance,  or lack of it.  The full backs were over run because the manager chose a tactic of having  mcnamee and hoolahan in a 442.   Hoolahan offered next to no defensive protection,  but that was still far more than Mcnamee did.   In a  442 the two wide players HAVE to defend.  THEY did not,  and my ratings reflect their overall performances as midfielders in a 442,  not firework assesment of teh glamorous ooh and aah factor they gave us.

The full backs were exposed because the formation was wrong for getting the most out of the players and 2 players were unsuited to the job requested of them,   not because lappin was poor in the middle 

 

[ZLF 335]

Lappin the new doc!

[a1canary 0]

On that assessment zipper - and i agree with you - i would not expect Lambert to go 442 again if he can avoid it, certainly to start. 

I think we all saw last night why he has been reluctant to abandon the diamond. But it is frustrating because we''ve got really exciting flair players like Oli and Macca, even Cody and Hughes, but how do you fit them in to a team that already has Hooly, Holt, Martin, Korey?

It reminds me a bit of our champ title winning team when we had hucks, svensson, mckenzie, mcveigh, francis... Our best formation then, turned out to be 433. Lambert has seemed to favour 433 after making his substitutions, with holt martin and olli the front 3 and any combination of korey, russell, hooly, macca, hughes, lappin as the midfield 3. For holt, francis and mcveigh, read russel, korey/hughes and macca. Which means no room for Hooly. He''s not solid enough for a midfield 3. So we''re back to the diamond again if we''re intent on keeping Hooly in the side. Hmmmm. Now i start to see Lambert''s dilemma!

[Yellow Wal 315]

The problem simply was that we did not play 442 we played 424.

There is a world of difference between a winger who tracks back and a wide midfielder who attacks down the flanks.

Usually the wingers stay much wider exposing the centre of midfield and quite often have poor defensive qualities.

This is why Hucks was never any good in a 442 as he could never really be descibed as a midfielder ... he was a winger!

[Lord Flashheart 0]

I think the full backs were over exposed because they were crap. [:P]

[I am a Banana 0]

rose cant handle the extra pressure without lappin to cover him!

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="I am a Banana"]rose cant handle the extra pressure without lappin to cover him![/quote]Yeah. Because he''s crap. [Y]

[0ridgemanddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0]

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]The problem simply was that we did not play 442 we played 424. There is a world of difference between a winger who tracks back and a wide midfielder who attacks down the flanks. Usually the wingers stay much wider exposing the centre of midfield and quite often have poor defensive qualities. This is why Hucks was never any good in a 442 as he could never really be descibed as a midfielder ... he was a winger![/quote]

 

I totally agree that we play 4 - 2 - 4 and with a lot of the visiting teams packing five in the midfield we struggle. We need four solid midfielders who can attack and defend then we can start to dominate the midfield again. We also need Holt and Martin in the box causing confusion not out on the wings.