Here's what I don't understand...

[king canary 7,580]

...this idea that Hughton cant play 4-4-2. Of couse he can! He is though smart enough to know a few things...1- it doesn''t suit the players. I''d argue Howson is the only player I think really suits a traditional 4-4-2 and that Hooper and RVW are too similar to form a traditional strike partnership.2- 4-4-2 is an outdated formation. I struggle to think of another team who regularly plays this formation in the premier league'' with most playing one up with someone off the striker.3- 2 strikers is not immediately more attacking. If those strikers are left isolated or the midfield struggleyou end up with aimless hoofball.If Hughton thought 4-4-2 was the right formation for these players in this league he could play it, he just knows it isn''t.

[Summa 0]

Think you are right, we just think we miss a golascoring player that sits behind the frontman like carzola, rooney, jovetic etc who all net goals

[OT-F-BC 0]

I actually can''t think of one successful team across Europe last year that didn''t play a variation of 4-5-1...

[Mickdundee 0]

Man city often played with two strikers, they did ok

[Move Klose 303]

442 old fashioned. Fabio capello, giovanni trappatoni, dinosaur tactics. 451, 433 or 4231 is what 90% of the top teams do now. Chelsea, Arsenal, dortmund, b.munich, spain to name just a few who dont play 442.

[king canary 7,580]

[quote user="Mickdundee"]Man city often played with two strikers, they did ok[/quote]I''d suggest that most of the time one of those strikers played more in the hole (usually Aguero).

[lake district canary 4,531]

OTFBFC wrote - I actually can''t think of one successful team across Europe last year that didn''t play a variation of 4-5-1...

442 is a variation of  451, just as 4411 is also a variation of 451.   4231 is also a variation of 451.  All formations are variants of other formations.    The key is not what you label it, but how the team is organised.      If the team are organised and know what they are doing, they will adapt their system according to what is happening on the pitch.   Subs can be used to alter the focus of the team, but they still have to know what they are doing, whatever the system.  The play will ebb and flow throughout  a game and a good team will adapt to play in whatever way will be most effective at the time - or if they don''t it''s up to the manager to tweak things as necessary. As soon as you label the team 442 or 451, you are restricting it - it has to have some flexibility in there.   

[Tetteys Jig 830]

RVW has apparently got a bit of creativity to his game, perhaps he could play of Hooper sometimes?

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

Someone may correct me if I''m wrong, but I believe the last team to have any success playing 4-4-2 was Melchester Rovers.

[S10 Canary 0]

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]RVW has apparently got a bit of creativity to his game, perhaps he could play of Hooper sometimes?[/quote]

This is almost certainly true, but conversely i''ve read that Hooper can play in more of a support role too and bring others into play when in the box.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="king canary"] I struggle to think of another team who regularly plays this formation in the premier league[/quote]

I can think of one, Stoke. But they also played 4-5-1 last year and have moved away a bit from 4-4-2. Plus they had a terrible season which ended in a sacking so hardly thrived. 

[Scooby 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]OTFBFC wrote - I actually can''t think of one successful team across Europe last year that didn''t play a variation of 4-5-1...

442 is a variation of  451, just as 4411 is also a variation of 451.   4231 is also a variation of 451.  All formations are variants of other formations.    The key is not what you label it, but how the team is organised.      If the team are organised and know what they are doing, they will adapt their system according to what is happening on the pitch.   Subs can be used to alter the focus of the team, but they still have to know what they are doing, whatever the system.  The play will ebb and flow throughout  a game and a good team will adapt to play in whatever way will be most effective at the time - or if they don''t it''s up to the manager to tweak things as necessary. As soon as you label the team 442 or 451, you are restricting it - it has to have some flexibility in there.   

[/quote]

Bingo LDC. It''s got bugger all with what you, me or anyone calls it, it''s how the players are coached and how they react on the park.

For example, if you are supposedly playing 4-4-2 and one of your strikers suddenly finds himself 10 yards behind the other, does that mean you have just switched to playing 4-4-1-1?

It''s just a name to give the pundits and commentators something to say. I''d like to think that professional footballers as high as the PL are taught to react to a changing game.

[killiecanary 0]

What really encouraged me during the Sociedad match was the willingness of Snoddy and Nathan Redmond to move into various positions (not just switching flanks but Redmond especially was happy to roam anywhere)

This is I hope a sign of the fact that CH is building a team of intelligent footballers who can interchange when the chance arises. I was also impressed by Fer''s ability to move forward from midfield quite readily. I agree with those those above - 4-4-2 is only just a label really. I also have absolutely no doubt that Hooper and RVW can play together - the issue for me isn''t their ability to play together but the extent to which we are willing to move players in the midfield area to accommodate them together.

I suspected last season Hoots would have liked to rotate more, but he just wasn''t confident in this personnel he inherited as back up. I think this year will be much more an out picking specific teams for specific matches according to the strengths and weaknesses CH perceives in the opposition. I hope that this will also be evident in his use of more tactical substitutions as I think this was part of his strange reluctance to make changes last year too.

Interesting times...can''t wait for the season!

[chicken 0]

Tuesday''s match was strange in that sense. I felt that Redmond actually played better in the 2nd half when I felt his decision making was better, it meant his mazey runs and interplay lead to more.

The reality of a flat 4-4-2 is that you tend to have a striker that will drop deep at times anyway.

When we played the diamond midfield I often felt we were closer to playing a 4-3-3, but I felt it surrendered too much space out wide as well as another player tracking and covering. I don''t think that formation was sustainable without serious funding.

Man City for me almost play a 4-3-3 at times. Often with Barry, Milner and Yaya in the middle with Dzeko/Tevez as the target man and Aguero and Nasri wide of him. You need that sort of top notch player to be able to pull that off.

[ref89 0]

Hardly a 4-4-2.  Same as Man Utd.  They sometimes play a 4-4-2 on paper, but I would challenge you to see it as a 4-4-2 unless you knew.  It''s dead.  Let it go.[quote user="Mickdundee"]Man city often played with two strikers, they did ok[/quote]

[killiecanary 0]

Yep -agree with you there Chicken. The pay off between attacking adventure and staying solid defensively is the hardest bit to get right. Lambert was happier than Hoots to turn the balance more to attack, but we couldn''t have sustained that for another season.

The key to it all is the midfield - that''s why I think we still need one more top signing in that area