Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NCFC for life 1993-

Apparently we have been playing 4-3-3 in games?!

Recommended Posts

I suppose you could call it a 433 , but as we have seen so little possession we''ve been playing 451 most of the time, supposedly switching to the 433 when we have the ball. In a lot of teams , us included ,i think the term is used to placate negative criticism regarding 451 system. city fans have been crying out for 442 but the Irish (442 was trappatonis only set up)were calling for the 451/433 deeming THAT the positive approach. Confused? you should be as formations not only depend on how you set up but also how you would react and deal with the oppositions set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There''s no way we''ve been playing 4-3-3. Like others have said it''s been 4-5-------------------1.  He''s said that as an excuse for conceding so many goals lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="vlad666"]

There''s no way we''ve been playing 4-3-3. Like others have said it''s been 4-5-------------------1.  He''s said that as an excuse for conceding so many goals lately.

[/quote]Er yes we have, it certainly hasn''t been 4-5-1, if you really want to break it down then it''s probably been 4-1-2-2-1 but 4-3-3 is essentially what we''ve been playing.  It lead us to have over 60% possession vs. Cardiff so whoever said we haven''t had much of that either is wrong too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only Hughton could call our current formation 4-3-3.  It''s very much 4-4-1-1 with Howson playing as the advanced midfielder.  Whoever is playing up top is so isolated, if it was 4-3-3 there would be support left and right and that has to be more than advancing wingers.  If he can fool himself that we''re currently playing 4-3-3 then he''s more deluded than I first thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the theory is 433 in attack451 in defencethe problem being we spend the majority of the time going backwards, and when we do go forward the lone striker is isolated and easy to mark out of the game, we dont have a lukaku or van persie up front, and we sure s hell dont have midfielders like oscar, hazard and lampard that are box to box with incredible ability. The system doesnt suit the type or quality of player we have. square pegs round holesand hughtons a c nut 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems pretty simple to me.  When we don''t have the ball, the wingers should cover back so it''s 4-5-1.  When we have the ball, they''re expected to go forward so it becomes 4-3-3. 

 

Although does this mean when Olsson or RM overlap forward with Howson joining in the attack, it becomes 3-2-5 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Matt Juler"]Only Hughton could call our current formation 4-3-3.  It''s very much 4-4-1-1 with Howson playing as the advanced midfielder.  Whoever is playing up top is so isolated, if it was 4-3-3 there would be support left and right and that has to be more than advancing wingers.  If he can fool himself that we''re currently playing 4-3-3 then he''s more deluded than I first thought.[/quote]It definitely isn''t 4-4-1-1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="iron_stan"]the theory is 433 in attack

451 in defence

the problem being we spend the majority of the time going backwards, and when we do go forward the lone striker is isolated and easy to mark out of the game, we dont have a lukaku or van persie up front, and we sure s hell dont have midfielders like oscar, hazard and lampard that are box to box with incredible ability. The system doesnt suit the type or quality of player we have. square pegs round holes

and hughtons a c nut
[/quote]

 

I''d love to know what formation you suggest to suit our players ?  We tried 4-4-2 at Spurs and we were outnumbered in midfield throughout, the two up front saw almost nothing of the ball, and the overall performance was worse than Saturday, IMO having had to watch them both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="iron_stan"]the theory is 433 in attack

451 in defence

the problem being we spend the majority of the time going backwards, and when we do go forward the lone striker is isolated and easy to mark out of the game, we dont have a lukaku or van persie up front, and we sure s hell dont have midfielders like oscar, hazard and lampard that are box to box with incredible ability. The system doesnt suit the type or quality of player we have. square pegs round holes

and hughtons a c nut

 



[/quote]

 

What ever anyone''s opinions of Hughton are as a manager, that is totally uncalled for and unacceptable![:@]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Matt Juler"]Only Hughton could call our current formation 4-3-3.  It''s very much 4-4-1-1 with Howson playing as the advanced midfielder.  Whoever is playing up top is so isolated, if it was 4-3-3 there would be support left and right and that has to be more than advancing wingers.  If he can fool himself that we''re currently playing 4-3-3 then he''s more deluded than I first thought.
[/quote]

 

Norwich stopped using the 4-4-1-1 at Stoke and haven''t returned to it since. It isn''t just Howson pushing forward from midfield now but Fer also does to.

 

If you look at any of the anaylsis of the Norwich matches against Stoke or Cardiff you''ll see that Snodgrass and Pilkington spend most of the game level with the striker (you can also tell this from watching the game).

 

Unfortunately for Hughton many Norwich fans have their mind stuck on one thing and can''t see the changes that happened right in front of them. Whilst the players on the pitch hasn''t dramatically changed the positions they take up on the pitch has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ncfcstar"]It definitely isn''t 4-4-1-1.  [/quote]It''s certainly more 4-4-1-1 than anything with a 3 at the top.  Suppose you could say Tettey has been playing a little deeper, so possibly a 4-1-3-1-1, but we are not playing with 3 forwards in the conventional terms of 4-3-3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="Matt Juler"]Only Hughton could call our current formation 4-3-3.  It''s very much 4-4-1-1 with Howson playing as the advanced midfielder.  Whoever is playing up top is so isolated, if it was 4-3-3 there would be support left and right and that has to be more than advancing wingers.  If he can fool himself that we''re currently playing 4-3-3 then he''s more deluded than I first thought.[/quote]

 

Norwich stopped using the 4-4-1-1 at Stoke and haven''t returned to it since. It isn''t just Howson pushing forward from midfield now but Fer also does to.

 

If you look at any of the anaylsis of the Norwich matches against Stoke or Cardiff you''ll see that Snodgrass and Pilkington spend most of the game level with the striker (you can also tell this from watching the game).

 

Unfortunately for Hughton many Norwich fans have their mind stuck on one thing and can''t see the changes that happened right in front of them. Whilst the players on the pitch hasn''t dramatically changed the positions they take up on the pitch has.

[/quote]Good stuff, and agreed, a lot of people are either unable, or unwilling to see changes, far less give Hughton any credit for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Matt Juler"][quote user="ncfcstar"]
It definitely isn''t 4-4-1-1. 
[/quote]It''s certainly more 4-4-1-1 than anything with a 3 at the top.  Suppose you could say Tettey has been playing a little deeper, so possibly a 4-1-3-1-1, but we are not playing with 3 forwards in the conventional terms of 4-3-3.
[/quote]

 

Go to this page;

http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/720085/MatchReport/England-Premier-League-2013-2014-Norwich-Cardiff

Scroll down and click the player position tab.

 

These things aren''t an exact science, but they are pretty accurate and you can see that Snodgrass was generally further forward against Cardiff than Hooper and Pilkington was playing very close to the striker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A back four, a holding midfielder, two wingers expected to track back and cover, two midfielders allowed to get forward, one centre forward. It'' 4-1-4-1. We do definetly not play with two players in advanced roles getting about our lone striker on a consistent basis as a 4-3-3 would suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Matt Juler"][quote user="ncfcstar"]
It definitely isn''t 4-4-1-1. 
[/quote]It''s certainly more 4-4-1-1 than anything with a 3 at the top.  Suppose you could say Tettey has been playing a little deeper, so possibly a 4-1-3-1-1, but we are not playing with 3 forwards in the conventional terms of 4-3-3.
[/quote]

[Y]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reaity we do set up 4-3-3, I mean we do play 1 attacker and two wingers in support which is deffo a 4-3-3.

 

Unfortunalty we tend to sit so deep that the two wingers come back to help the wing backs in defence and leaves the lone attacked isolated.

 

Maybe we have just forgot how to use the ball in atttack, most of the time we end up with a 4 -5 ------------------1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not an advocate of the 4-4-2 formation or bust in the same way some of our fans seem to be. Possibly there is a time and a place for it against weaker teams where we feel Fer and Tettey would be able to get enough of a foothold in the game as a pair or when pushing forward at the end of games but not as a regular starting formation.

I also don;t take the view that 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1 (in practice there seems little difference between any of them to) are negative formations. I think they suit our personel well (when Tettey is fit) and give us enough possession/control in midfield to give us a decent platform. The formation is not the issue for me - all of these can work really well as fluid, attacking formations - if implemented in a positive manner with the full backs getting forward, at least one of the midfielders making bursts forward to support the striker and the wingers also not dropping too deep. When we play well thats what we do. when we play badly, the whole team drops deep and the striker ((whoever they are) just gets horribly isolated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]

In reaity we do set up 4-3-3, I mean we do play 1 attacker and two wingers in support which is deffo a 4-3-3.

 

Unfortunalty we tend to sit so deep that the two wingers come back to help the wing backs in defence and leaves the lone attacked isolated.

 

Maybe we have just forgot how to use the ball in atttack, most of the time we end up with a 4 -5 ------------------1

[/quote]

 

I just don''t think that is true - although depends on the games of course.

 

Against Cardiff Russell Martin had more touches of the ball in the Cardiff half than the Norwich half, and Olsson was basically a left winger for the entire first half. Obviously at the Emirates Norwich will have to sit a bit deeper and be more cautious in attack - but the goal Howson scored there, from an Olsson cross on the byline, showed that Norwich would still attack in numbers at times.

 

Man City was sh#t, really really sh#t. But the system used had shown a lot of positives, I would hate to throw the baby out with the bath water. If Norwich can repeat the performance shown against Cardiff against West Ham I would be delighted - they played more than well enough that day to win the game and were unlucky not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed Beth. But we had plenty of the ball in the Cardiff game so could dictate. In the other recent games we have been pushed back more by better sides.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4-1-4-1 seems to get the midfield working better, as proven in the Arsenal/Chelsea/Cardiff games, as we had good spells of possession against the big clubs and all the ball against Cardiff. We just failed to make it count when we did make chances....look at Elmander with that chance from BJ''s cross against City on Saturday.

I think we all knew chances were at a premium last year, so the new strikers were brought in to take that one (hopefully clear cut) chance we were likely to make in each game (thanks to unadventurous tactics). Being clinical is a huge part of being a premier league team, and at the moment our strikers aren''t clinical when they DO get the chance.

Most teams in the prem have at least one player who can make something out of nothing, a technically gifted player or someone with blistering pace. Our man is Redmond, I have to say. He''s the only one (apart from occasionally Pilks and Howson) who defenders are shit scared of, its how we use him that matters. I think until he learns how to track back as well as Snod and Pilks do, playing him off the front man is the answer...doesn''t weaken the defence/midfield and gives the opposition something to worry about, which we haven''t done much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

 

What ever anyone''s opinions of Hughton are as a manager, that is totally uncalled for and unacceptable![:@]

[/quote]
[img]http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/096/c/2/u_mad_bro___u_mad___by_artof_nothing-d4v6ywh.jpg[/img]
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DGGcdZ4KYbA/T5FeDLPuJJI/AAAAAAAACKo/2ofTef2oC0w/s640/good-good-let-the-jimmies-rustle-through-you.png[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is astonishing is nobody has actually called the formation right yet.It is 4-2-3-1Holding pair of Fer and Johnson/TetteyThree attacking midfilders, one in the "hole"One up top with responsibility to ball and  bring in the three attacking midfielders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ref89"]What is astonishing is nobody has actually called the formation right yet.

It is 4-2-3-1

Holding pair of Fer and Johnson/Tettey

Three attacking midfilders, one in the "hole"

One up top with responsibility to ball and  bring in the three attacking midfielders.




[/quote]

 

It''s not a 4-2-3-1. Tettey sits very deep, almost between the two central defenders (which allows both the full backs to push forward and provide the width) and both Fer and Howson are ahead of him. Howson usually slightly to the right, Fer slightly to the left. It''s a classic 4-3-3 shape.

 

Hughton recognised that there is no number 10 in the squad so stopped playing 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 as they rely on the ''10''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So with no number 10, and how deep Hooper was playing from your little graphic earlier, it sounds much more like 4-6-0 than anything with 3 up top... maybe I was being a little generous with my 4-5-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait... We''ve had an actual formation this season?! It''s more like a shapeless mob, most of the season. The fact we can''t even agree on the formation supports my idea, too. ;-)In all seriousness, can''t see how anyone could possibly claim we''ve been playing ''3 up top''. Have we had 3 players in the opposition penalty area at any point this season?!4-5------1 is how I''d call it, for what it''s worth. How you want to arrange the midfield 5 is up to you.

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...