Why not try 4-2-3-1?

[SeattleCanary 0]

I have never worried about not playing 2 strikers, I think as long as there is service and good support, one is just fine.

So with there being so much debate about whether Pilks should now start over Redmond, how about trying Redmond in the hole? If it doesn''t work by half time, we have so many options to alter the line up without having to sub anymore than say one player.

how about this;

Ruddy

Whittaker Turner Bassong    Olsson

Johnson Fer

Snodgrass    Redmond  Pilkington

     RVW

If it doesnt work out we could always revert to 4-5-1 or bring Howson on from the bench in place of Redmond or Pilks. Thoughts?

[By Heck It's Fleck 10]

Good looking line up apart from severe lack of Wes Hoolahan.

[SeattleCanary 0]

Yeah, I do love Hooly. Maybe see a slight change in formation for say the 2nd half of a game depending on how we are doing. With reverting to a 4-4-1-1 and bringing him on if needed. I just love how on paper we have all these options.

That''s without even mentioning Elmander who appears to have done well tonight, and Hooper who isn''t fit yet. With the proper research, tactics and attitude, we have just as good a chance as anyone below the top 6 to finish even higher than last season!

[Redders Right Foot 22]

by looking at how the players keep their lines during games, i''ve always thought we played 4231...

[flying high up in the sky! 1]

Um we play 4231 every game. As do most teams. Would like to see elmamder in the hole tho but not dropping back to collect the ball from deep.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I don;t mean to be funny but as had been pointed out by the poster above we have played 4-2-3-1 for virtually every game for over a year now!

I do, however, agree its out best formation and is not an inherently negative formation provided that the 3 are all attacking players and the full backs get forward occasionally. I see our best side for Saturday as:

Ruddy

Whitaker Turner Bassong Olsson

Fer Howson

Snodgrass Elmander Pilks/Redmond

RVW

[Mr Brownstone 0]

Funny how different people see things differently isn''t it, I''d have said what we''ve played for a large percentage of games is more of a 4-4-1-1 than a 4-2-3-1.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Mr Brownstone"]

Funny how different people see things differently isn''t it, I''d have said what we''ve played for a large percentage of games is more of a 4-4-1-1 than a 4-2-3-1.

[/quote]Thats how I see it too. We generally play two wide players (apart from Hull obviously)

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

We usually setup 4-4-1-1, and away from Carrow Road it is looking more like a 4-5-1 these days

It is nothing like the 4-2-3-1 from the 10 game unbeaten run anymore.

[ref89 0]

We played 4-2-3-1 in all our games this season and most last season.Again, stunning lack of knowledge.  Hughton out!

[ref89 0]

Twaddle. User your eyes.[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]We usually setup 4-4-1-1, and away from Carrow Road it is looking more like a 4-5-1 these days

It is nothing like the 4-2-3-1 from the 10 game unbeaten run anymore.[/quote]

[havemyhowsonit 0]

You''re talking about Chris houghton here.

No.

We will stick with 4-6-0 thanks. That''s much better especially away from home!

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="ref89"]Twaddle. User your eyes.[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]We usually setup 4-4-1-1, and away from Carrow Road it is looking more like a 4-5-1 these days

It is nothing like the 4-2-3-1 from the 10 game unbeaten run anymore.[/quote][/quote]

I do use my eyes...... hell, even whoscored spotted it: http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/719917/Live

If you check here and click on player positions, you will find all three of our central midfielders Tettey, BJ and Fer played deep: http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/719917/MatchReport/England-Premier-League-2013-2014-Hull-Norwich

Southampton, they played a 4-2-3-1: http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/719923/Live

[Kangaroo Court 0]

Don''t worry OP, you''re doing quite well for an American.

[peateabee 0]

I think we play a 4-2-3-1 - however we love our two banks of four when defending, so without the ball we drop into a 4-4-1-1 and i think this is where the lines blur.

Basically we have spent a lot of time defending recently and then when we have been attacking it''s generally on the counter and at that point formations pretty much go out of the window and you just play the situation in front of you. As a result despite playing a 4-2-3-1 you rarely see us in that formation because we don''t have much ''normal'' attacking possession where we a building up attacks. As a result you could argue in a way we play 4-4-1-1.

I''ve come to realise that 4-2-3-1 is a very flexible formation that can be interpreted in many different ways that can change a lot depending on how you play it. Depending on the players you choose and the instructions you give them you can pretty much play it as a 4-4-2, 4-3-3 and 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1.

[Badger 2,405]

Thank you CJF, an interesting link. Three points I would make from this and your coment:

1. It clearly demonstrates that our players were generally more advanced than Hull''s - seems to undermine the negative hypothesis

2. Nominally (and according to the site) Hull were 433 but our 451 was more advanced - I wonder how much you can tell from this?

3. re Southampton - nb they were at home - which at least partially relevant.

I think the 4411, 4231, 451, 433 argument is sterile - essentially they are very similar systems designed to be flexible and respond to the demands of the match.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

Badger said:

------ 1. It clearly demonstrates that our players were generally more advanced than Hull''s - seems to undermine the negative hypothesis

Hull were down to 10 men, and spent the whole of the 2nd half defending. I imagine that would influence their positions. As a comparison, Everton were further forward in their game at Carrow Road against our 10 men, than we were against Hull''s 10 men.

------ 2. Nominally (and according to the site) Hull were 433 but our 451 was more advanced - I wonder how much you can tell from this?

Hull were down to 10 men, and spent the whole of the 2nd half defending. the relevance is in supporting the striker. Our "1" RvW is miles ahead of the rest of the team. How can we be playing a 4-4-1-1 when the ''supporting attacker'' is sitting with the central midfielders.

------ 3. re Southampton - nb they were at home - which at least partially relevant.

Agreed, as I have stated, we normally play more attacking at home than away. Check the positions for that game, we are clearly playing a 4-4-1-1 http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/719858/MatchReport/England-Premier-League-2013-2014-Norwich-Everton

----- I think the 4411, 4231, 451, 433 argument is sterile - essentially they are very similar systems designed to be flexible and respond to the demands of the match.

Agreed, I have no problem with the formation, just that we play ours overly cautious and defensively in the vast majority of games. When lining up away from home, and far more so away from home.

[Frying Pan Eyes 0]

My ideal formation with the players we have is 4-1-3-2

Ruddy

Whittaker martin bassong olsson

Fer

Snodgrass elmander pilkington

Hoooper wolfswinkel

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="Frying Pan Eyes"]My ideal formation with the players we have is 4-1-3-2

Ruddy

Whittaker martin bassong olsson

Fer

Snodgrass elmander pilkington

Hoooper wolfswinkel[/quote]

That team would get torn into pieces.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Here is an interesting article about how formations are fluid within a game - although it is about Liverpool it makes an interesting read.

 

http://www.eplindex.com/24927/daniel-sturridge-solves-liverpools-tactical-problems.html

[SeattleCanary 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Mr Brownstone"]

Funny how different people see things differently isn''t it, I''d have said what we''ve played for a large percentage of games is more of a 4-4-1-1 than a 4-2-3-1.

[/quote]Thats how I see it too. We generally play two wide players (apart from Hull obviously)[/quote]

That''s kind of what I''ve always seen. Mostly 4-4-1-1, I feel quite stupid now that somehow all these experts are on here and knew different to the rest of us..... This post was solely prompted by seeing the line ups for both teams in the Arsenal vs. Fenerbahce Champions League fixture the other night.

[SeattleCanary 0]

[quote user="Kangaroo Court"]Don''t worry OP, you''re doing quite well for an American.[/quote]

Haha! I''m born and bred Caister-on-sea, Great Yarmouth first 18 years of my life! But thanks anyway. Guess I just couldn''t tell from watching the games, and all the pre match analysis of formations and line ups must have been incorrect from the pundits etc. Either that or we are truly awful at holding our lines as someone mentioned.