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

When are we going to go 442 and try and set out to win a game!

Recommended Posts

That is not a question as much as a statement of frustration. We are playing the bottom club. We have a new striker itching to have his taste of the Premier League. Why not score a goal and THEN go 451 after we are in control of the match? Come on CH. so frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On  this 1 occassion i''m fine with us trying to not lose the game. the 4-4-2 is a better option when trying to attack, but if it stays 0-0 and we take a point from the bottom team then that suits me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4-4-2 hasnt been used by succesful teams in years!the basis of success is built with 1 up front. Sky and the BBC just use a default 4-4-2 graphic .Man United regularly play 4-1-3-2, Chelski start with 1 up front....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Hoolahan should of came off after 60-70mins done really little with Bec coming on i thought it could of been a very easy winnable game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="school boy error"]Have a think about all the games where we have started 4-4-2 this season, and what happened during them, and then you will have your answer.[/quote]Wingers done well last season, what have they been told this season looks like the coaching is the wrong part

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 this idea that “Oh I’d like to see two up front, because that’s more attacking than one up front”, well it depends who your midfield four is. If you played 4-4-2 with lots of very hard working, non-technical midfielders, that 4-4-2 can be very defensive. If you play 4-2-3-1 where your ‘3’ are really skilful players, who are comfortable on the ball, and one of your ‘2’ maybe can pass it over long distances, that’s way more attacking than the 4-4-2  with the quite defensive ‘4’. So the idea that you can tell whether a team’s more attacking or defensive looking at the formation and the formation alone is nonsense- Jonathon Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Phillip J Fry"] this idea that “Oh I’d like to see two up front, because that’s more attacking than one up front”, well it depends who your midfield four is. If you played 4-4-2 with lots of very hard working, non-technical midfielders, that 4-4-2 can be very defensive. If you play 4-2-3-1 where your ‘3’ are really skilful players, who are comfortable on the ball, and one of your ‘2’ maybe can pass it over long distances, that’s way more attacking than the 4-4-2  with the quite defensive ‘4’. So the idea that you can tell whether a team’s more attacking or defensive looking at the formation and the formation alone is nonsense- Jonathon Wilson[/quote]
* Jonathan Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spurs changed from 4-4-2 to 4-4-1-1 to try and win against us...

Can you please get it out of your head 4-4-2 is so much more attacking. It means we have no attacking midfielder, and th wingers are less attack minded.

The formation has little baring on how attacking a side is, it''s the tactics, you can be just as attacking with one man up top, if the guy behind is your key attacking man, which coincidently is what Hoolahan is.

It''s not the formation you have an issue with, it''s Hughton''s style/tactics we could play 4-2-4 and wouldn''t be any more attacking than we are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well for me Hughton''s style and tactics and the negative, defensive formations are the same thing. Holt plays better with another as he is too isolated. We are lacking creative quality and will have to wait til summer now. But most posters on numerous threads have made similar points that without any positive intent...by making attack one of your defensive strategies ...otherwise our set up invites pressure. Reading and Southampton are showing that. Maybe everyone is a bigger expert than me and know their formations as would be football managers but the current way Hughton sets up depresses me. I can''t help posting my concern that his tactics are drawing us into a battle that can be avoided. Fulham now is scarily so important. Will he play with 2 strikers? What do you all think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren''t we supposed to lose 3 0 today Private Frazer? No we didn''t. Weren''t we supposed to plummet nearer to the relegation zone. We didn''t. You must be gutted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Becchio hardly knowing his team mates, and never having trained with them even, today was not the time to risk failure.

 

I suspect that CH will eventually realise that for a point a game for safety, and with some difficult games on the horizon, we have to win a few games. He might even start next Saturday, at home against a team low in the table, either playing two strikers from the start or more likely bringing on a second easrlier than usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when is "4-4 f''in 2" the way to win a game? There are many formations that can win a game. I always thought it was players that win matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the problem with our play at the moment is that we, as a team,sit far too deep and do not move back and forth together. We leave glaring gaps between defence and attack. We hold in our own half and defend desperately ,because losing the ball so close to our own goal would be fatal. Because we are all back,clearing the ball rarely relieves the pressure. Lambert s success was built on moving the entire team further up field and holding a high line.

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  

×