Time for 442??

[ncfc1902 0]

What are everybodys predictions for the starting 11 on saturday?? After seeing tonights game?? My team would be...

Ruddy

Whittaker

Martin

Turner

Olsson

Snodgrass

Fer

Johnson

Redmond

Elmander

Wolfswinkel

[Scooby 0]

No Bassong or Pilks??? Seriously ???

Agree with Elmander but more a 4411 or 451

[Dubai Mark 0]

Nooooooo........pleeeease god.......not 442 again................Nurse get me my tablets..........................CH will NOT go 442 as the main starting formation on a regular basis, just like the majority of the Premier League........................not going to happen...........got it?   

[PortlandCanary 0]

Ruddy

Whitaker Martin Bassong Olsson

Snodgrass Fer Howson Pilkington

Elmander

RvP

[ncfc1902 0]

Would pick Bassong every week just thought he didn''t quite look match fit tonight, Pilkington had a very good game tonight but Snodgrass and Redmond would start for me.

[The Great Wall Of Tettey 0]

442 doesn''t have to be as hated or rigid as you think.

Can easily drop 1 striker behind the other and it''s 4411?

I''d like to see us play 2 strikers with but one further forward

[Highland Canary 72]

Definitely two strikers in the side please - call it 4-4-1-1 if it keeps you happy but let''s have belief in winning again.

[Hairy Canary 552]

Absolutely nobody plays 4-4-2. Even Rooney has to play deep to accommodate the one up front system. It''s not going to happen.

After last nights game it wouldn''t surprise me if RVW plays in the hole behind Elmander on Saturday

[Move Klose 296]

For me:

Ruddy

Whittaker martin bassong olsson

Fer johnson

Snodgrass elmander pilkington

RVW

Bunn Turner Garrido Howson Redmond Hoolahan Hooper

[Highland Canary 72]

Ruddy

Whittaker turner bassong olsson

Snodgrass Fer Tettey Pilkington

Elmander

RvW

4-4-1-1 because 4-4-2 seems to lead to meltdown on here.

Thought Bunn had an excellent game although he may be disappointed with the third. Let''s hope the manager doesn''t feel the need to tighten the defence and play too deep on Saturday after the frailties of last night. A really entertaining game - more of this Saturday please.

[snake-eyes 13]

Why would RvW play in the hole?

 

That is not his game. Elmander is far more suited to that role as, although he was in the position of lone striker last night, a lot of his movement dropped deep similar to the 10 role.

 

I would have Elmander in the 10 role with RvW up front. 

 

Snake

[*** 0]

Err.....what happens when Hooper''s leg grows back?

[BOO 0]

We''ll have to call him Jake!

[The Great Mass Debater 1,033]

The thing about 4-4-2 is that it is harder for oppostion defenders to render a forward ineffective. People have said that having two strikers doesnt equal more goals. On the face of it no, but the Wolf was pretty much in the pocket of the Everton and Hull defence in both games, mainly because they knew he was the main threat and was easy to neutralise as he had both CBs on him.

If you''re going to play one up front, it relies on the rest of the team being a threat and relies on support from the wings and midfield. You absolutely need a direct goal threat from midfield and dangerous wingers. We clearly have the dangerous wingers as long as the shackles are off (ie theyre not charged with defending all the time and are allowed to attack), but I dont think we have that midfield threat - its not Hoolahan, its certainly not Tettey or Johnson. Fer perhaps, Howson showed a few signs against Hull. But at present, without that Quagliarella type player 1 up front simply isolates our main threat and makes him too easy to mark out of a game, with little attaccking threat from anywhere else.

Other teams play 1 up front. But do they not also have a lot more of the types of player we''re trying to recruit, but havent succeeded with yet?

Perhaps 4-4-2 would be the best way to release the Wolf in the absence of this Quagliarella type threat. Hooper for instance pulling his CB all over the place, giving the two CBs two threats to worry about and creating space for the Wolf to find and giving the team more than one outlet, more than one target. Because at the moment, the Wolf is just too easy to deal with, and the rest of the team is no threat.

Hopefully the goal glut last night means the team have smelled blood...

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,287]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]The thing about 4-4-2 is that it is harder for oppostion defenders to render a forward ineffective. People have said that having two strikers doesnt equal more goals. On the face of it no, but the Wolf was pretty much in the pocket of the Everton and Hull defence in both games, mainly because they knew he was the main threat and was easy to neutralise as he had both CBs on him. If you''re going to play one up front, it relies on the rest of the team being a threat and relies on support from the wings and midfield. You absolutely need a direct goal threat from midfield and dangerous wingers. We clearly have the dangerous wingers as long as the shackles are off (ie theyre not charged with defending all the time and are allowed to attack), but I dont think we have that midfield threat - its not Hoolahan, its certainly not Tettey or Johnson. Fer perhaps, Howson showed a few signs against Hull. But at present, without that Quagliarella type player 1 up front simply isolates our main threat and makes him too easy to mark out of a game, with little attaccking threat from anywhere else. Other teams play 1 up front. But do they not also have a lot more of the types of player we''re trying to recruit, but havent succeeded with yet? Perhaps 4-4-2 would be the best way to release the Wolf in the absence of this Quagliarella type threat. Hooper for instance pulling his CB all over the place, giving the two CBs two threats to worry about and creating space for the Wolf to find and giving the team more than one outlet, more than one target. Because at the moment, the Wolf is just too easy to deal with, and the rest of the team is no threat. Hopefully the goal glut last night means the team have smelled blood...[/quote]

totally agree.........but without wishing to mention the ''elephant in the room'', if we''re going to do that shouldn''t we have just kept Grant Holt??!

[The Great Mass Debater 1,033]

In this discussion my thoughts are drawn to Huck''s comments about his season in the Premier League with us. In the first half of the season Huckerby was double-marked. He was seen as the clear danger-man - stop Huckerby, stop Norwich. Consequently he was the most fouled player in the division that year.

When we signed Ashton it stopped being that simple. Norwich had two clear threats, Huckerby received less attention and was free-er to be a threat, and McKenzie profited also.

I know Hucks played on the wing, but the principle is the same. If we only give them one threat, and they have two defenders to deal with it, we''re going to be too easy to deal with. In the absence of that Quag type player maybe 4-4-2 is the only way to offer a second threat at present. Its no good saying all the other clubs play 1 up front. Its about having the personnel to make that formation dangerous and effective. Im not convinced we''re there yet without the addition of a Quagliarella or a Toivenen. Elmander might be that player however...

[ref89 0]

Amazing.  Are Norwich fans stuck in the 70''s?Not one single team played 4-4-2 last saturday, not one.In the thread here we have people asking for 4-4-2 and then saying it would actually be a 4-4-1-1, which isn''t 4-4-2 and could also be classed as 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1.Every premier league team plays 4-4-1-1 / 4-2-3-1.So please stop thinking 2 strikers = goals.

[ref89 0]

This is a simply amazing post.  Claims 4-4-2 doesn''t have to be rigid, then advocates a completely different 4-4-1-1 formation to justify the insanity of the statement."442 doesn''t have to be as hated or rigid as you think.

Can easily drop 1 striker behind the other and it''s 4411?

I''d like to see us play 2 strikers with but one further forward"

[Fiery Zac 1,062]

Ruddy

Whittaker Turner Bassong Olsson

Snodgrass Howson Fer Pilkington

Elmander

RVW

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

ref89 said: Not one single team played 4-4-2 last saturday, not one.

West Brom and Newcastle played 4-4-2.

We played 4--5-1, the most defensive formation of any Premiership side over the weekend.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,033]

You have to have the personnel to make a formation effective though. Im not sure we have that yet to make one up front effective. The pursuit of Toivonen and Quagliarella is clear proof that we need a different type of player to make that formation truly dangerous. Other Premier League teams have players which make that formation dangerous. Im not sure we do.

Barcelona surely have the most sophisticated formation out there, but noone suggests we play it because of a realization we dont have Xavi''s Iniesta''s or Messi''s to make it work.

Try to play like Barcelona with Tettey''s and Johnson''s wouldnt work very well.

Im not pushing for 4-4-2, Im simply playing Devil''s advocate. Its not simply a case of saying 4-4-2 is a football dinosaur, played by dinosaurs and that all sophisticated teams should play 4-5-1. If the players at your disposal might perform better in a 4-4-2 then you play 4-4-2, or you change the players.

I agree that the modern trend is towards a 451 with inverted wingers, rather than a 442 with traditional wingers, but until we have the players to truly make a formation effective I think we should remain open-minded about our tactical options

[ReadingCanary 0]

[quote user="Wiz"]Err.....what happens when Hooper''s leg grows back?[/quote]I would hope Hooper Elmander and RVW all provide competition for each otherNo striker (or player for that matter) should feel their spot is safe

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]ref89 said: Not one single team played 4-4-2 last saturday, not one.

West Brom and Newcastle played 4-4-2.

We played 4--5-1, the most defensive formation of any Premiership side over the weekend.[/quote]

No formation is defensive. It''s just the positions on the pitch the players take up. The personnel and the tactics you use can make a formation defensive but the formation itself is neutral. I''ve seen very attacking 4-5-1''s and 4-4-1-1''s and even 4-6-0''s, I''ve also seen very defensive 4-4-2''s and 4-3-3''s.

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]The thing about 4-4-2 is that it is harder for oppostion defenders to render a forward ineffective.  [/quote]

A 4-4-1-1 can be harder to defend as well. The player in the hole drifts between the defence and the midfield and creates issues. Either you mark him zonally, in which case he will often find gaps, or you man mark him with a defender or a midfielder. If a defender man marks him then it 1v1 in the centre of defence, you have to be more direct and use the striker to take advantage of this, if a midfielder marks him than your centre midfielders have more room to operate in and need to use this space effectively. That''s the big issue for me at the moment, our central midfielders are not using the extra space a number 10 can create for you as the opposition look to nullify him to its full effect.

[flying high up in the sky! 1]

Wiz, have you heard of healthy competition?

[Syteanric 1]

4-4-2 like the Long Ball games, still has its place in football.

less frequently but there are teams who will make it work regardless.

Particularly long ball.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,064]

[quote user="Phillip J Fry"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]ref89 said: Not one single team played 4-4-2 last saturday, not one. West Brom and Newcastle played 4-4-2. We played 4--5-1, the most defensive formation of any Premiership side over the weekend.[/quote]

No formation is defensive. It''s just the positions on the pitch the players take up. The personnel and the tactics you use can make a formation defensive but the formation itself is neutral. I''ve seen very attacking 4-5-1''s and 4-4-1-1''s and even 4-6-0''s, I''ve also seen very defensive 4-4-2''s and 4-3-3''s.

[/quote]

 

Spot on.

Too much emphasis on formation here, Phillip has it correct. Barcelona , at times, don''t have any strikers, ie someone standing in a forward position throughout a game,  but score lots of goals. Most teams start with 2 up front - when they kick off.

 

Is about transition. What shape you employ , and how it changes, when possession changes. 443 become 451 when you lose the ball. The desire to win the ball back , or the desire to deny space in certain areas  all play a part of the system a team adopts.

 

At the pre season dinner I spoke at length with one of our "wide" players. They told me how, prior to transition ,the system is different under CH than it was PL. In short, PL sets his teams up to move forward immdediately possession is gained. CH does not, or at least didn''t last season, prefering to rely on restarts (that''s deadballs to you and me) , and prefering to be in a defensive shape IN CASE you lose the ball.

 

442 , ie leaving two players in advance of the midfield beside each other has largely died out UNLESS you plan to play longer passes  into the channels consistently , but that doesn''t mean that in certain transitions you wont move into this shape at certain times. One of the main reasons for 442 not being so popular is due to fitness. Players are now capable of covering more ground and getting behind the ball when you lose possession.

 

[Phillip J Fry 0]

Graham Paddon''s Beard: At the pre season dinner I spoke at length with one of our "wide" players. They told me how, prior to transition ,the system is different under CH than it was PL. In short, PL sets his teams up to move forward immdediately possession is gained. CH does not, or at least didn''t last season, prefering to rely on restarts (that''s deadballs to you and me) , and prefering to be in a defensive shape IN CASE you lose the ball.

Interesting. Lambert wants the team to burst forward with the ball every time someone reclaims posession, probably what makes him such an effective counter-attacking manager, whilst Hughton encourages patience and making sure you have all your bases covered before you advance. This explains why Lambert matches essentially become counter attack v counter attack with players from both sides pouring forward when possession is reclaimed. It also helps explain  why Lambert teams both concede and score so many. 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

---- Graham Paddon''s Beard: At the pre season dinner I spoke at length with one of our "wide" players. They told me how, prior to transition ,the system is different under CH than it was PL. In short, PL sets his teams up to move forward immdediately possession is gained. CH does not, or at least didn''t last season, prefering to rely on restarts (that''s deadballs to you and me) , and prefering to be in a defensive shape IN CASE you lose the ball.

Well that explains why we have not scored a single Premiership goal on the counter attack since Hughton took charge.

[vos 109]

I agree with the Great Mass Dictator. You have to make adjustments to take in to account the personnel you have available. RVW has already shown clearly to me he is not going to make any great impact solely on his own up front. He needs the support of another more robust striker whereupon we could see a lot more goals. So for me playing either Hooper or Elmander more forward than Hoolahan would be worth a try.