Danny Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Another thread got me thinking about our formation and our current insistence with the 4-4-2 at Ibrox and seeming 4-1-4-1 away from home. Ultimately both of these formations require wingers, which is something we don't have. And surely the best managers shape the formation around the players they have, rather than shoehorning personnel into a particularly setup? So that all said, surely our best bet, if each player is to play in a natural position, would be to go 4-3-3? :davis::edu::mendes: :fleck::miller::aaron: Even if you disagree on my choice of players, any blind man can see that while we have natural CM's, we lack grafters in there in terms of a central pairing essential for 4-4-2. We also lack anything like natural wingers on both sides. So surely a dynamic 4-3-3 with the midfielders interchanging with each other as need be and the forwards following suit would be a more suitable formation than this rigid 4-4-2 which sees guys like Davis and Lafferty out of position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOLUWDC Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I, personally, think we don't have to go 4-4-2 every single game and just because we go 4-5-1 in some doesn't mean we are defensive. We are more suited to 4-5-1 IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenoz Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 lacking natural wingers at our club makes any formation flawed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I don't think we have the personnel to play either 4-4-2 or 4-3-3. Maybe Thomson's return - assuming he gets back into the starting XI - could see us play the former comfortably, but until then I think we struggle to play either formation. Since Cousin left we don't have the striker with all those attributes needed to play that lone role himself. Maybe Lafferty comes closest, but is he strong enough and would he score enough goals? Even with that Cousin-type of striker, we would need our midfielders - especially our wingers - to chip in with the goals. With only really Naismith and Aaron looking like goal-threats from the wing, and the later struggling to break into the side, I think we would struggle in this department too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 lacking natural wingers at our club makes any formation flawed A number of clubs lack wingers. They make up for that with width from their fullbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 lacking natural wingers at our club makes any formation flawed A number of clubs lack wingers. They make up for that with width from their fullbacks. We don't have them either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenoz Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 lacking natural wingers at our club makes any formation flawed A number of clubs lack wingers. They make up for that with width from their fullbacks. We don't have them either! we play two center halfs @ fullback !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neeskens Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 misser as our main striker, you got to be joking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 We badly need wingers for the 4-4-2, i'd like to see a 4-3-3 but from Smith it will always be defensive football if there are 5 in midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 lacking natural wingers at our club makes any formation flawed A number of clubs lack wingers. They make up for that with width from their fullbacks. We don't have them either! Whittaker is a FB. Technically so is Steven Smith. Papac is filling that role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvager Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 We have wingers in Beasley and Aaron. Naismith and Fleck and Lafferty are not wingers. Naismith and Fleck are players that should play more in the centre off a big striker. Lafferty is a big striker. As is Boyd. Miller is a striker that cannot usually score. In my opinion Edu is more mobile than Ferguson, but is still a bit soft, but he needs time on the pitch. Ferguson just lacks energy. We really miss Thomson. Yes for now Davis, Mendes and Edu in the middle may work. Edu should catch on quickly. Beasley if fit and Aron on each wing with say Lafferty in the middle, or Aaron on one wing and two up front say Boyd/Lafferty with Fleck or Naismith in the hole. I do not rate Miller as a striker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruaridhmac Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 lacking natural wingers at our club makes any formation flawed lacking natural wingers at our club makes any formation flawed A number of clubs lack wingers. They make up for that with width from their fullbacks. We don't have them either! Bang On with both there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasGers Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I'm not of the opinion that we need one formation to use week in and week out for the entire season. Walter has enough players at his disposal to occasionally alter the playing style depending on what type of game is on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docspiderman Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Another thread got me thinking about our formation and our current insistence with the 4-4-2 at Ibrox and seeming 4-1-4-1 away from home. Ultimately both of these formations require wingers, which is something we don't have. And surely the best managers shape the formation around the players they have, rather than shoehorning personnel into a particularly setup? So that all said, surely our best bet, if each player is to play in a natural position, would be to go 4-3-3? :davis::edu::mendes: :fleck::miller::aaron: Even if you disagree on my choice of players, any blind man can see that while we have natural CM's, we lack grafters in there in terms of a central pairing essential for 4-4-2. We also lack anything like natural wingers on both sides. So surely a dynamic 4-3-3 with the midfielders interchanging with each other as need be and the forwards following suit would be a more suitable formation than this rigid 4-4-2 which sees guys like Davis and Lafferty out of position? That is what I would like to see but might be too adventurous for our manager and full backs have to be a lot better than what we have to make the system work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 People keep telling me that this squad is perfectly suited to the 4-4-2, but I don't see it and hence I agree with Danny. We have no wingers that play consistently and the Miller/Boyd partnership is grossly overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allzo Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 :mcgregor: :broadfoot::weir::bougherra::papac: :davis::edu::mendes: :fleck::lafferty::aaron: Possibly :boyd: in place of Lafferty, although I think that Lafferty's height would be a good advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimjim1690 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Another thing I've often wondered about is, at Ibrox how often do we have 4 defenders playing against 1 striker, we could go with 3 defenders 1 DM with a bit of pace [Edu?] 3at mid. and 3 up front. or 3-1-4-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts