Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tetteys Jig

442

Recommended Posts

But it wasn''t.

It was fluid, and that''s what works. Most of the second half the formation was more like a straight 4-4-2 and we lost our fluidity and didn''t look as good.

first half Hooper and Elmander were taking turns to drop back, go out wide. Hoolahan was all over the pitch, Redmond went down both winge. May have been set up as 4-4-2, but 4-4-2 wasn''t the ''tactic''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can split hairs, but it was 4-4-2. The fluidity was right though, I want to see a lot more of that.

Thought the Fer/Howson combo wasn''t as good today but other combos made up for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GP I think calls it right in respect of the fluidity in that first half (I really loved that) and I know what you mean by it not being a 442, second half though it sort of by default due to Palace changing their game and in particular Hoolahan tiring did go 442 and we didnt look as comfortable. I''m not a fan of 442 to be honest, we can get away with it against the lesser sides in this league but get over run when we play the bigger clubs.......oh hang on a minute.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I meant purely on numbers though, instead of having 3 in midfield and leaving Hooper isolated, he had Elmander and then Becchio up there for company and Wes and Redmond probing behind, it was positive and attacking and that''s why we won as opposed to 0-0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Gingerpele"]But it wasn''t.

It was fluid, and that''s what works. Most of the second half the formation was more like a straight 4-4-2 and we lost our fluidity and didn''t look as good.

first half Hooper and Elmander were taking turns to drop back, go out wide. Hoolahan was all over the pitch, Redmond went down both winge. May have been set up as 4-4-2, but 4-4-2 wasn''t the ''tactic''.[/quote]^^ This.The last team to win anything playing a traditional 4-4-2 was Melchester Rovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would tend to agree that for the most part it was a pretty traditional 4-4-2 with players given additional freedom or responsibility.

The biggest problem we have is that we do not have the right players to play 4-5-1 unless we play a striker out wide. We really do need a proper number 10.

It was really refreshing to see how we played for around 20 minutes in the first half, we actually did what we should be doing, supporting the strikers and trying to get the ball into the box.

The only worry is why we didn''t continue with the good work in the second half. One thing I must say is that I cannot blame the manager for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="Gingerpele"]But it wasn''t.

It was fluid, and that''s what works. Most of the second half the formation was more like a straight 4-4-2 and we lost our fluidity and didn''t look as good.

first half Hooper and Elmander were taking turns to drop back, go out wide. Hoolahan was all over the pitch, Redmond went down both winge. May have been set up as 4-4-2, but 4-4-2 wasn''t the ''tactic''.[/quote]^^ This.The last team to win anything playing a traditional 4-4-2 was Melchester Rovers.[/quote]

Man city have done well playing it this year ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Snakepit Ric"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="Gingerpele"]But it wasn''t.

It was fluid, and that''s what works. Most of the second half the formation was more like a straight 4-4-2 and we lost our fluidity and didn''t look as good.

first half Hooper and Elmander were taking turns to drop back, go out wide. Hoolahan was all over the pitch, Redmond went down both winge. May have been set up as 4-4-2, but 4-4-2 wasn''t the ''tactic''.[/quote]^^ This.The last team to win anything playing a traditional 4-4-2 was Melchester Rovers.[/quote]

Man city have done well playing it this year ??[/quote]You mean the one that beat Spurs 6-0, where they set up as 4-2-3-1 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh did anyone see you Elmander play next to Hooper?

Did we have two wide players and two central midfielders?

Answer for both is no. at the best it was 4-4-1-1, but it was quite much mix of 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-2-1.

At the very end we played without 10 and even thought Hooper played a bit below Becchio it was more traditional 4-4-2

This said I think our tactics could have been better and we lost midfield quite easy after goal was scored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="Snakepit Ric"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="Gingerpele"]But it wasn''t.

It was fluid, and that''s what works. Most of the second half the formation was more like a straight 4-4-2 and we lost our fluidity and didn''t look as good.

first half Hooper and Elmander were taking turns to drop back, go out wide. Hoolahan was all over the pitch, Redmond went down both winge. May have been set up as 4-4-2, but 4-4-2 wasn''t the ''tactic''.[/quote]^^ This.The last team to win anything playing a traditional 4-4-2 was Melchester Rovers.[/quote]

Man city have done well playing it this year ??[/quote]You mean the one that beat Spurs 6-0, where they set up as 4-2-3-1 ?[/quote]

Yeah and the one that played 4-4-2 today and won 3-0 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what the formation was - flexible sums it up but in the first half we definitely played a higher line than normal, with wes, elmander and redmond supporting hooper more than in recent games

we did at occassions feel narrow - not a surprise with wes having a strong preference for being central.

However I would agree that elmander was not an outright striker, he got forward but dropped deep to defend readily - excellent shift put in by him again.

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...