Tetteys Jig 830 Posted November 30, 2013 No Johnson and a win, that is all.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syteanric 1 Posted November 30, 2013 [quote user="Jimmy Smith"]No Johnson and a win, that is all..[/quote]except that it wasn''t 4-4-2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted December 1, 2013 It so was, whatever you dress it up as, there were 4 at the back, 4 in midfield, and 2 up front... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gingerpele 0 Posted December 1, 2013 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
Buh 0 Posted December 1, 2013 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
Dubai Mark 0 Posted December 1, 2013 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
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted December 1, 2013 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
The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0 Posted December 1, 2013 [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
KeelansGlove 0 Posted December 1, 2013 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
Snakepit Ric 0 Posted December 1, 2013 [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
The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0 Posted December 1, 2013 [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
Lavanche 0 Posted December 1, 2013 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
Snakepit Ric 0 Posted December 1, 2013 [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
ZLF 271 Posted December 1, 2013 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 gameswe 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
im spartacus canary 0 Posted December 1, 2013 i liked wes and redmond constantly changing over , obviously they decided this of their own accord and clueless chris had nothing to do with it, it wasn''t tactics it was a player revolt [:D] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites