Todays Formation

[Fakenham Canary 0]

Some credit should go to NA for the way we set up today, the 4-2-3-1 idea gave us more guts in midfield while still accommodating the creativity of Wes. Perhaps most of us would have preferred to see Lafferty in the central role rather than on the left of the 3 but a couple of cracking crosses and good runs seem to have justified Adams choice to ask him to play that role. Didnt realise he could offer that sort of option to be honest. Howson would slot nicely into the central position of the 3 occupied by Wes today and Johnson and Tettey as the enforcers were formidable. What do others think, will this be a familiar set up for home games at least?

[Bill 1,788]

much of the way the team is set up, or more accurately plays, is determined by the combination of countering their threats and exploiting their weaknessses which will mean the team chopping and changingI wouldn''t set to much store by formations, as dear old redknapp said .... it''s mostly all old bo llox and is down to how well the players are motivated, up for it etcTo demonstrate that ask yourself how much of our ''formation'' changed with the sending off

[pete 371]

Was Garrido part of the back 4, supplementing the midfield 3 or was he operating as an extra striker.

Please explain Lafferty did more defensive work at LB.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="pete"]Was Garrido part of the back 4, supplementing the midfield 3 or was he operating as an extra striker.

Please explain Lafferty did more defensive work at LB.[/quote]that''s how football works ... is playedwhich is why this formation guff ............ is guffit is football - not netball

[Hairy Canary 752]

What a pile of old pony. Of course formations matter. We look way more balanced today than we did playing the diamond at wolves. Partly because we''re less open but mainly because we have the players that suit 4-2-3-1.

We get some protection for the back four by having Tetty alongside Johnson which in turn allows Redmond to drift wide and we are''nt caught so easily on the break when Wes loses the ball trying to create.

Of course motivation Is vital and no formation will work without at least that but good grief. Words fail me sometimes

[mbncfc1 0]

As well as lafferty played I don''t understand why he plays wide and not gabben, he''s a big lad crossing the ball into nobody when he should be in the box himself, he holds the ball up well and is somebody to aim for when under pressure

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]What a pile of old pony. Of course formations matter. We look way more balanced today than we did playing the diamond at wolves. Partly because we''re less open but mainly because we have the players that suit 4-2-3-1.

We get some protection for the back four by having Tetty alongside Johnson which in turn allows Redmond to drift wide and we are''nt caught so easily on the break when Wes loses the ball trying to create.

Of course motivation Is vital and no formation will work without at least that but good grief. Words fail me sometimes[/quote]

if you had a clue you would be aware of that contradictionthis ''formation'' sh ite is merely something to over excite numpties like younext time you watch a game you might see players moving around in relation to the game, NOT some absurd table football line up

as to words failing you then yes, I would use semaphore if i were you it might make more sense

[Rogue Baboon 0]

[quote user="mbncfc1"]As well as lafferty played I don''t understand why he plays wide and not gabben, he''s a big lad crossing the ball into nobody when he should be in the box himself, he holds the ball up well and is somebody to aim for when under pressure[/quote]

We mentioned this during the game - it reminded me of Holt playing under Hughton. Constantly out wide putting in the crosses you wanted him to be on the end of

[ZLF 334]

4231 played to our stengths as far as the squad is concerned but how effective a performance it was is hard to tell as it was a 11 v 10 game - which gave our deep midfield 2 time and space.

.

However we can only beat what is in front of us and could have had more - and we did make our plus 1 count - which we have not always done.

Agree that lafferty was a close contender for motm; great feet and movement - something others could learn from. But it is clear that he is not an aerial threat - which is still a gap in our armoury.

Will be a tough test on tuesday; but another early dismissal for the away team would help :-)

[Hairy Canary 752]

You can be an obnoxious bore at times city first. In my opinion you are plain wrong. Of course players move around depending on the gameplay and of course motivation is vital - I absolutely accept that.

The point is that with two holding players the game is more likely to create situations where we have defensive cover in place which in turn allows players like Redmond and Wes to try and be more adventerious. In Redmonds case that means drifting wide. If you couldn''t see that our formation against Chelsea away for instance, compared to how we set up against Wolves resulted in much less scope for attacking play then I give up.

[Horse Renoir 1]

Forget formations then.

We looked great with

one goal keeper

two center backs

two fullbacks

two holding midfielders

one attacking midfielder operating primarily in the center

two wide players

one striker

...It''s just easier to say 4-2-3-1 and forget semantics, of course we don''t stay in a set shape (Well we did under Hughton) but what makes discussing formations valid is that it defines what the players roles are and what they''re asked to do, so it has a huge impact on how we perform

[Wishbone 8]

I didn''t watch the game but i''ve heard criticism that we rarely had more than one player (Grabban) to aim at when crossing into the box. This leads me onto the thought that we need a central player, who doesn''t play upfront, who has a hunger for goals. Certainly if we go 4-2-3-1.

Hoolahan is great at what he does but he''s always lacked goals at a top level...Howson scored a few at Leeds but hasn''t been prolific for us. New sigining (in the Sigurdsson mold)?

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="pete"]Was Garrido part of the back 4, supplementing the midfield 3 or was he operating as an extra striker. Please explain Lafferty did more defensive work at LB.[/quote]

Its called total football!

Enjoy

 

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

, as dear old redknapp said 

[/quote]

I wouldn''t take much notice about ''arry.

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"] Of course formations matter. We look way more balanced today than we did playing the diamond at wolves. Partly because we''re less open but mainly because we have the players that suit 4-2-3-1. We get some protection for the back four by having Tetty alongside Johnson which in turn allows Redmond to drift wide and we are''nt caught so easily on the break when Wes loses the ball trying to create. Of course motivation Is vital and no formation will work without at least that but good grief. Words fail me sometimes[/quote]

I agree with you Hairy Canary, I thought we were well balanced.  At last Redmond starts a game on the right and Lafferty provides balance on the other flank. Apparently he use to play on the left for Burnley.

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="Wishbone"]

Hoolahan is great at what he does but he''s always lacked goals at a top level...[/quote]

He scored goals for Lambert in our Championship season.

[Wishbone 8]

He managed 10 in 41, which is decent, but i''m thinking number 10 as in support striker. 15 and above. We want over 80 goals this season.

[SwindonCanary 457]

Don''t you think it would have been better if we had gone 4-4-2 as soon as they went down to 10 men ?  Laffs & Gabby up front instead of just one,

[Horse Renoir 1]

No, our complete dominance in midfield was what won us that game after they got a player sent off. Both Johnson and Tettey screening meant they just couldn''t get on the ball, at all. If we''d have taken them off we would have had the potential to maybe score more, but also concede, with two defensive midfielders, having good games we could have played for hours and Watford wouldn''t have scored. I

t was the most sensible thing to do to dominate possession and constantly switch the ball to each side of the pitch to pull Watford out of shape and tire them out