Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The 12th Devine

Why we don't try a 4-5-1

Recommended Posts

Probably been discussed on here before but given the goals-to-games ratios of all our forwards, besides Holt, as well as the quality of our midfield options, I think this is a formation that should at least be explored.

Lambert has clearly got most things spot on in building the competitive, promotion challenging side we''ve got but with Surman, Hoolahan, Crofts, Lansbury and Fox we seem ready made to shift to a 4-5-1, or 4-4-1-1 system. Leeds had an extra man in midfield initially today and absolutely battered us for a while, so there is no reason why it should be a defensive ploy – especially when we''d have Hoolahan and Lansbury working behind Holt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a 4-5-1 would be a good idea.. but for it to work you need your wingers to be really attacking.

A midfield of

Lansbury Crofts Fox Surman

Wes

Holt

Could work really well as long as Lansbury and Surman attack and almost provide extra strikers, like Wes also.

I think it could be a brilliant formation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not liking the idea of holt up front on his own with him always coming back to defend and going out wide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we''re to play 5 across the midfield and Holty up top on his own, we need at least wide man with pace. We''re able to get away with playing 4 technically good central midfield players because we have 2 up top. Imagine playing a 5th central midfield player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
would prefer a 4-2-3-1, especially given the numbers of midfielders we have

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]would prefer a 4-2-3-1, especially given the numbers of midfielders we have[/quote]4-2-3-1 is 4-5-1, for some reason everyone just started calling it 4-2-3-1 during the World Cup. I think if we went this way Holt would become to isolated up front, and given his habit of tracking back we would end up having no one up front for large periods of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holt tracking back a lot is a worry but I''m sure we would be okay.

 

               Crofts      Fox

Lansbury      Hoolahan      Surman

                        Holt

 

I think our team is pretty much taylor made for this formation so I would like to see Lambert give it a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 4-5-1 is not the same as a 4-2-3-1. If that were so, then a 4-1-4-1 would also be a 4-5-1 and you could even say that they way some teams line up as a 4-3-3, could be viewed as a 4-5-1.The reason for the numerical distinction is to give an understanding that with a 4-2-3-1 you have four units, or lines of players on the field; wereas with a 4-5-1 you image only three. How the 5 in midfield are lined up will determine the genuine formation.Personally I always feel that Heisenberg''s uncertainty principal comes into play when talking about formations. The more you narrow down the numerical formation, the more difficult it is to understand the dynamics of the shape. The more you discuss the dynamics of a formation, the more difficult it is to identify the numerical shape.Is it a C# or a Db?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A coach who describes their line-up as a 4-5-1 is really disguising how their team is going to utilize the extra midfielder.With the team I coach, I use a 4-2-3-1 and each row of players has a distinct responsibility, depending on who has the ball and where it is on the field.When we are attacking, we look like a 3-1-4-2 and are awesome at it. When defending we look like crap, but it should be a 5-4-1.So it''s really down to preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite convinced this would work, not least because Holt is actually superb at leading the line - just think about how he secured opposition sendings off this season when one-on-one against defenders. With Hoolahan and Lansbury in support I think we''d remain a similar offensive threat but with some added midfield robustness.

I think over the past two seasons our one weakness has been being overrun in midfield at times, and having to rely on outscoring the opposition/heroic defending/brilliant goalkeeping (last season especially) and some dubious finishing.

Unless we secure a decent on loan striker I can''t see a better option for our efforts at securing a place in the top two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see a 4-3-2-1,  with Lansbury and Wes in behind Holt, and any three from the rest in midfield. We defend rigidly at the back but in attack we seem pretty fluid so would mean Wes, Lansbury and the rest could move about a bit. Would always play Chrissy boy when fit though.OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would agree with the 4-3-2-1 as it gives more flexibility. Croft - Fox - Surman could provide the 3, with Lansbury and Hoolahan supporting Holt and turning it into a 4-3-3 when attacking, but tracking back when the ball is lost. Certainly worth a try, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems a good idea, especially as our second striker, whoever, is not scoring very often. Lansbury and Hooly are, with contributions from Crofts.

The problem with the Diamond is that in effrect we are playing 4-3-3, and the midfield three are too few and too narrow.

I think a midfield of Lansbury, Fox, Crofts, Hooly and Surman woule provide enough cover and also support for the lone striker.

I like the threat provided by Chris Martin, both in passing and in shooting, but we have to think about playing without him for several weeks, and while Jackson would provide an outlet with his pace he doesn''t really provide much supply to the others around the penalty area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1[Y] from me.

Seems a lot of us have been thinking along similar lines ...little triangular ones

Was talking with my son about the very same before the Leeds game but was probably too big a game to experiment.

A midfield of 5 seems to make the most of the type of players we have available and depending on how they are organised, ie the WC favourite 4,2,3,1 or Terry''s EC xmas tree 4,3,2,1 , lends itself to triangular passing between the lines. Isn''t 4,2,3,1 the more pragmatic 4,1,2,1,2 anyway?

We have a glut of intelligent goal scoring midfielders who are just made for a game of good movement and switching positions. Even Holt''s attributes support this.

If it''s not working and we need to make the ball stick more up top; Wilbraham as plan B.

I just think if we could make this work, going into the business end of the season, it will make the most of the resources we have as a team going forwards and defending. Other teams know our soft underbelly,..our flanks, and I would rather see an extra body winning the midfield battle than being used up top. Our second striker (whoever they are, and especially now Marin is out for a while) isn''t good enough to oust the midfield talent we have.

We need to be more defensively secure, create and score more. 4,5,1 might just be better at that for us than the diamond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...well why don''t we?

We are thankfully light years from the dire predictable 4-4-2 of a few years ago. The old midfield four of two wingers, a destroyer, a creator and a little and large striking combo.

The thing that''s impressed me most about this Norwich team (other than giving their all ''til the final whistle) has been it''s movement, and I can''t remember a time when we have had such an embarrassment of riches in midfield:

                                    CROFTS                  FOX

                     LANSBURY      HOOLAHAN      SURMAN

What other Championship side can match these particular strengths?

Given Holt''s natural game, his desire to get involved in play, and awareness / intelligence to cover the spaces when and where needed, he is a perfect fit for this type of rotational attacking threat.

The more I think about it, sacrificing a misfiring second striker for a more cohesive, fluid unit; more solid defensively and less predictable going forwards would improve our chances at both ends.

 

Lets play to our strengths, have the opposition chasing shadows...and our ''midfield'' continue scoring

 

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...