ZZed 4,510 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 Forget 433. What would be your best 442 with our present squad? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 What's the point? 433 is the base formation throughout the club under MW. This won't change unless you get rid of the manager. But there are plenty threads for that discussion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackrfc95 4,255 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 Aye because 4-4-2 works so well for lots of other teams. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry handsome 629 Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 I wouldnt play 442 as a preference to be honest i prefer 4321 If it was 442 GK Tav Senderos Wilson Wallace MOH Barton Halliday McKay Waggy AN Other GK Tav Senderos Wilson Wallace Holt Crooks Halliday Mckay AN Other Waggy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesRFC__ 172 Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 22 minutes ago, ZZed said: Forget 433. What would be your best 442 with our present squad? What's 4-4-2 going to achieve? Are we suddenly going to find our shooting boots because we're in a 4-4-2? It's not that we're not making chances we're just not taking them. A change of formation won't change a thing if you're not putting a ball in the back of the net. 19 minutes ago, harry handsome said: I wouldnt play 442 as a preference to be honest i prefer 4321 A 4-3-2-1 is basically a 4-3-3.. barely any difference if any at all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry handsome 629 Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 1 hour ago, JamesRFC__ said: What's 4-4-2 going to achieve? Are we suddenly going to find our shooting boots because we're in a 4-4-2? It's not that we're not making chances we're just not taking them. A change of formation won't change a thing if you're not putting a ball in the back of the net. A 4-3-2-1 is basically a 4-3-3.. barely any difference if any at all. Huge difference in it - it allows you to play a completely different way. Look at how we play the three - wide on the touchline with only one option to come inside. The two play in behind the striker rotating and drop back in either side of the central midfielder, gives you a more solid look in the team. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMB 14,167 Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesRFC__ 172 Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 13 minutes ago, harry handsome said: Huge difference in it - it allows you to play a completely different way. Look at how we play the three - wide on the touchline with only one option to come inside. The two play in behind the striker rotating and drop back in either side of the central midfielder, gives you a more solid look in the team. The wide player doesn't have one option coming inside though. He has the 2 midfielders and 3 if he wants to go further back, the striker and the full back if they make a run inside which they tend to do often. The last thing we need is to pack an already overly packed middle of the park with 2 behind the striker and 3 in behind them with teams having 9 behind the ball. The 2 in behind the striker are going to be in-effective with no space to work with. It'll lead them to naturally move out wide where the space is or playing it to a wide full back. Which is what we do already. If I understand the last bit right the 2 in behind the striker would go as wingers and the formation would effectively be a 4-5-1 in defence? The wingers already track back for the most part anyway in the 4-3-3 but then what would happen when we win the ball back in that 4-3-2-1? They're going to be in a wide midfield role when we begin an attack again. We've looked solid these last few games. Wilson and Hill have a good partnership going. It's taking our chances which is the problem not the lack of chances we're creating. If we're struggling to get 2 shots a game I can understand calls to change formation but we're hitting double digits for shots in most games. The 4-3-3 is creating shooting opportunities. We're just not clinical. We're not going to suddenly take clear chances we've been missing in other formations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetheart 8,458 Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 2 hours ago, ZZed said: Forget 433. What would be your best 442 with our present squad? When the team have their discussions and are asked 'what went wrong' and 'how do we make this work'. Is the question centred around 4-3-3 or is there an option to say another formation would work better? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry handsome 629 Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 1 hour ago, JamesRFC__ said: The wide player doesn't have one option coming inside though. He has the 2 midfielders and 3 if he wants to go further back, the striker and the full back if they make a run inside which they tend to do often. The last thing we need is to pack an already overly packed middle of the park with 2 behind the striker and 3 in behind them with teams having 9 behind the ball. The 2 in behind the striker are going to be in-effective with no space to work with. It'll lead them to naturally move out wide where the space is or playing it to a wide full back. Which is what we do already. If I understand the last bit right the 2 in behind the striker would go as wingers and the formation would effectively be a 4-5-1 in defence? The wingers already track back for the most part anyway in the 4-3-3 but then what would happen when we win the ball back in that 4-3-2-1? They're going to be in a wide midfield role when we begin an attack again. We've looked solid these last few games. Wilson and Hill have a good partnership going. It's taking our chances which is the problem not the lack of chances we're creating. If we're struggling to get 2 shots a game I can understand calls to change formation but we're hitting double digits for shots in most games. The 4-3-3 is creating shooting opportunities. We're just not clinical. We're not going to suddenly take clear chances we've been missing in other formations. Its all about opinions and how you utilise the players, i used it to win a State championship over here - it works. It makes you hard to break down when under pressure as the game naturally tightens, the trick is to know the two players are ready to break at any given time, we used it to get them beyond the striker on the break, it commits the centre backs if the full backs don't run with them. In effect you can have three players on the front foot with designated zones - head up look for the runs and you pick the zone, it turns the defence on their heels when you knock the ball into the zone behind them. Funnily enough we had a young lad who could sniff out a chance who hated the system as he was the 1, he had his best scoring season... We had a small team with a great amount of skill but we were weak - best football in the league and we didn't lose many goals considering our size. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.