4-4-2 advocates (9 Viewers)

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 5, 2013

Case closed.

Poor today, partly because we lacked a 'middle man', we resorted to crosses, problem is, we don't really have a good crosser, nor someone to get to them, we're better when we play through the middle than whipping in crosses. We weren't as good with possession because we had to cross it in, very frustrating to see!

Another home loss playing 4-4-2, writings on the wall for 4-4-2.

There goes the myth that we need 2 strikers upfront at home.

Elliott is better as an 'impact sub'.

Hopefully Robins goes back to 4-4-1-1 before we get our arses handed to us v Yeovil.

Believe me, I'd rather be eating humble pie right now, one of the few games I got angry with.

Looking forward to Crewe away...

Sky Blue Pete · Feb 5, 2013

Worked ok today I thought could easily have won 3-1

Evans1883 · Feb 5, 2013

We are better and more solid at 4-5-1.we have changed our system solely for Clarke.bad move

covcity4life · Feb 5, 2013

442 didn't cost us those goals

SVe or formation agenda for another day

stupot07 · Feb 5, 2013

We don't play 4411, we play 4231 with 5 midfielders

percy · Feb 5, 2013

nothing to do with the formation. we created but we weren't clinical enough. we went for it but got caught on the break.

dongonzalos · Feb 5, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
Case closed.

Poor today, partly because we lacked a 'middle man', we resorted to crosses, problem is, we don't really have a good crosser, nor someone to get to them, we're better when we play through the middle than whipping in crosses. We weren't as good with possession because we had to cross it in, very frustrating to see!

Another home loss playing 4-4-2, writings on the wall for 4-4-2.

There goes the myth that we need 2 strikers upfront at home.

Elliott is better as an 'impact sub'.

Hopefully Robins goes back to 4-4-1-1 before we get our arses handed to us v Yeovil.

Believe me, I'd rather be eating humble pie right now, one of the few games I got angry with.

Looking forward to Crewe away...

City: 25 shots, 13 on target, 15 corners, 0 goals.
Crewe: 7 shots, 4 on target, 3 corners, 3 goals.

Yes case closed.

What should be closed is Ball and Leon as the two, too similar.

However despite an absolute freak set of circumstances.

Ie play that game another 10 times with the same stats you will get 10 wins for cov.

Case definitely made in my book we destroyed them.

stupot07 · Feb 5, 2013

dongonzalos said:
City: 25 shots, 13 on target, 15 corners, 0 goals.
Crewe: 7 shots, 4 on target, 3 corners, 3 goals.

Yes case closed.

What should be closed is Ball and Leon as the two, too similar.

However despite an absolute freak set of circumstances.

Ie play that game another 10 times with the same stats you will get 10 wins for cov.

Case definitely made in my book we destroyed them.

Although I agree with your sentiment, we can't keep allowing the opposition so many good chances per game.

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 5, 2013

Had we have played the 4-4-1-1 with the exact outcome, the same 4-4-2 advocates would be out saying we need 2 upfront, blah, blah, blah.

Fact, the only one fact that actually matters, we lost, not only lost, but lost by the biggest margin this season.

As I said, the writing is on the wall!

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 5, 2013

stupot07 said:
Although I agree with your sentiment, we can't keep allowing the opposition so many good chances per game.

A question is, were we giving them more chances because we had less men in midfield!? I'd say yes.

As much as I like Moussa, I rate him highly as a CAM/LM, he can't play CM in a 4-4-2, he is restricted and isn't great at tackling, whereas Bailey is a solid tackler and good on the ball.

stupot07 · Feb 5, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
A question is, were we giving them more chances because we had less men in midfield!? I'd say yes.

As much as I like Moussa, I rate him highly as a CAM/LM, he can't play CM in a 4-4-2, he is restricted and isn't great at tackling, whereas Bailey is a solid tackler and good on the ball.

We've kept just 5 clean sheets in 31 league games, that 10 and 20 game review that has been posted on here a few times has identified we concede too many chances and too many goals. We give away these chances when we play 451, nothing to do with the formatin tonight.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Feb 5, 2013

Haha I thought you would pop up with some comment, I guess it is a nice consolation for you that we played 442 today

Anyway today wasn't anything to do with 442, we completely lost our composure and shape for the last 15 which was exploited. It was the mentality in the last 15 that cost us, not the formation. Wouldn't have been any different with 1 man up front

I doubt you will see that way though

You will probably point out how shit Elliott is as well because he failed to score today

dongonzalos · Feb 5, 2013

stupot07 said:
Although I agree with your sentiment, we can't keep allowing the opposition so many good chances per game.

To be fair they got 4 good chances we had double that.

I agree our defence needs improving but I felt that before this match

However I don't think the result was down to formation.

More an absolute freak.

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 5, 2013

stupot07 said:
We've kept just 5 clean sheets in 31 league games, that 10 and 20 game review that has been posted on here a few times has identified we concede too many chances and too many goals. We give away these chances when we play 451, nothing to do with the formatin tonight.

How many times have we conceded 3 playing 4-4-1-1 :thinking about:

As I've pointed out, we've lost more at home playing 4-4-2 anyway, I think some are being somewhat ignorant to this fact, much to my frustration.

Some have said it doesn't matter about the formation, I beg to differ, this was a very abnormal result, and we 'nosed-dived' to our biggest, defeat under MR (in the LEAGUE) and our biggest defeat at home this season.

Again, if it was 4-4-1-1 there'd be people crying out for 4-4-2, they get their 4-4-2 and the outcome is this.

dongonzalos · Feb 5, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
Had we have played the 4-4-1-1 with the exact outcome, the same 4-4-2 advocates would be out saying we need 2 upfront, blah, blah, blah.

Fact, the only one fact that actually matters, we lost, not only lost, but lost by the biggest margin this season.

As I said, the writing is on the wall!

If we had lost that match 3-0 after creating that many chances you can bet your bottom dollar. If we only had one striker on the pitch people would be asking would we have scored if we had two strikers I agree.

Do you think we would have had 25 shots with one striker?

dongonzalos · Feb 5, 2013

stupot07 said:
We've kept just 5 clean sheets in 31 league games, that 10 and 20 game review that has been posted on here a few times has identified we concede too many chances and too many goals. We give away these chances when we play 451, nothing to do with the formatin tonight.

Common sense stated

percy · Feb 5, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
How many times have we conceded 3 playing 4-4-1-1 :thinking about:

As I've pointed out, we've lost more at home playing 4-4-2 anyway, I think some are being somewhat ignorant to this fact, much to my frustration.

Some have said it doesn't matter about the formation, I beg to differ, this was a very abnormal result, and we 'nosed-dived' to our biggest, defeat under MR (in the LEAGUE) and our biggest defeat at home this season.

Again, if it was 4-4-1-1 there'd be people crying out for 4-4-2, they get their 4-4-2 and the outcome is this.

and the away win at Sheff utd

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 5, 2013

percy said:
and the away win at Sheff utd

Which we scored the 2nd playing 4-4-1-1... :facepalm:

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 6, 2013

dongonzalos said:
If we had lost that match 3-0 after creating that many chances you can bet your bottom dollar. If we only had one striker on the pitch people would be asking would we have scored if we had two strikers I agree.

Do you think we would have had 25 shots with one striker?

Funny you ask this, because, our largest wins have come from playing 4-4-1-1, we scored for fun playing 4-4-1-1, and, whilst playing 4-4-2, we haven't won by more than a 1 goal margin, not 1, the fact is, it just isn't a more attacking formation.

Short-term memory loss.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but, I am pretty sure we have had at least 20 odd shots in at least 1 game playing 4-4-1-1.

We've scored 5 goals v Hartlepool + Walsall, 3 v MK, Stevenage and Colchester, from recall, there may be more.

The whole 4-4-1-1 v 4-4-2 argument is flawed, there's only 1 winner (4-4-1-1), yet, there is a lot of opposition e.g. Grendel, who is quiet.

I guess I may have moved with the times better than you lot, younguns have fresh, modern perspectives most of the time.

I can't believe people are leaving the formation 'blameless' giving the circumstances, I guess people believe what they want to believe.

Paxman II · Feb 6, 2013

Tactically was the wrong approach tonight. But that's with hindsight tbf.

Crewe were coming to flood the midfield, we knew that. However we got a memorable win at Sheff.Utd and Robins stuck to the same 11 albeit meaning the 442 which was maybe wrong given Crewes known stance for the game.

So what would you have done with 30+k home gate and all the momentum knowing we could probably cope and score a few at home regardless of Crewes stance? Only with hindsight does it look like the wrong move.

The goals should have gone in. It was a bloody freak show in terms of chances created and missed.
And there is the concern. We are missing too many gilt edged chances. But at the back we are getting a bad habbit of conceding and do that when we miss them up front and you have tonights outcome.

I'm just glad it's over. The JPT is a short sighted nonsense for short sighted glory. The league is where we must concentrate. I only hope this has not 'damaged' the confidence and it is quickly dismissed. All this talk of a Wembley final should be the one for the playoffs.
I don't blame the club for deciding to follow it through and perhaps that's a bad day at the office out of the way where it did not have any real significance.
Just hope also Yeovil does not now make us feel we have a real difficult game ahead, as after Sheff Utd I felt we could beat them easily. Now not so sure after this darn stupid cup game!
Almost certain Elliott goes back to the bench and we revert back to 5 in midfield and one up front on Saturday.

CCFC_Charlie · Feb 6, 2013

We don't play 4-4-1-1, it's 4-2-3-1

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 6, 2013

CCFC said:
Haha I thought you would pop up with some comment, I guess it is a nice consolation for you that we played 442 today

Anyway today wasn't anything to do with 442, we completely lost our composure and shape for the last 15 which was exploited. It was the mentality in the last 15 that cost us, not the formation. Wouldn't have been any different with 1 man up front

I doubt you will see that way though

You will probably point out how shit Elliott is as well because he failed to score today

To tell you the truth, it was a consolation, I'm not one who'd rather us lose because we played 4-4-2, the only thing I can take from this humiliating defeat (I will get stick tomorrow at school and work) is that we played 4-4-2.

In retaliation the sentence I've bolded:

You're right, I don't see it like that, why!? Because I'm convinced that Moussa can't play CM in a 4-4-2, yet to see a good performance from him in a 4-4-2 playing CM (because he's restricted (v Sheff U he played better whilst as a CAM), and had we have taken Elliott out for Bailey, a CM partnership of Jenno and Bailey is better on the ball and off it in comparison to Moussa there, so no, I disagree here, I think Moussa is better than Elliott (cut your BS about me being anti-Elliott, because Moussa is better, end of story) and I think he'd create more, possibly go on a mazy run and score, etc. etc.

Thing about Robins that irks me, he sticks with the team that wins too dogmatically and it costs us too dearly, e.g. PNE @ home and today (just a couple).

Biggest loss of the season at home, how did this happen if we were 'so good', formation is a big factor, but there ARE others, I'm not that 'ignorant'.

Back to 4-4-1-1 please!

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 6, 2013

CCFC_Charlie said:
We don't play 4-4-1-1, it's 4-2-3-1

No it isn't, if you wanna get technical, it's 4-5-1...

We play 2 banks of 4 with a CAM behind a striker.

Look at the shapes, we don't play 2 defensive midfielders as both CMs do get forward.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Feb 6, 2013

Ah using football manager pictures now as evidence

Priceless

:claping hands:

CCFC_Charlie · Feb 6, 2013

I've been in the changing rooms and seen the team sheet written on the white board, it's 4-2-3-1

dongonzalos · Feb 6, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
Funny you ask this, because, our largest wins have come from playing 4-4-1-1, we scored for fun playing 4-4-1-1, and, whilst playing 4-4-2, we haven't won by more than a 1 goal margin, not 1, the fact is, it just isn't a more attacking formation.

Short-term memory loss.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but, I am pretty sure we have had at least 20 odd shots in at least 1 game playing 4-4-1-1.

We've scored 5 goals v Hartlepool + Walsall, 3 v MK, Stevenage and Colchester, from recall, there may be more.

The whole 4-4-1-1 v 4-4-2 argument is flawed, there's only 1 winner (4-4-1-1), yet, there is a lot of opposition e.g. Grendel, who is quiet.

I guess I may have moved with the times better than you lot, younguns have fresh, modern perspectives most of the time.

I can't believe people are leaving the formation 'blameless' giving the circumstances, I guess people believe what they want to believe.

I genuinely think it was a freak performance.

As I say the same stats played over ten times I think ten wins for cov.

I don't think the defeat was down to the formation

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 6, 2013

Paxman II said:
Tactically was the wrong approach tonight. But that's with hindsight tbf.

Crewe were coming to flood the midfield, we knew that. However we got a memorable win at Sheff.Utd and Robins stuck to the same 11 albeit meaning the 442 which was maybe wrong given Crewes known stance for the game.

So what would you have done with 30+k home gate and all the momentum knowing we could probably cope and score a few at home regardless of Crewes stance? Only with hindsight does it look like the wrong move.

The goals should have gone in. It was a bloody freak show in terms of chances created and missed.
And there is the concern. We are missing too many gilt edged chances. But at the back we are getting a bad habbit of conceding and do that when we miss them up front and you have tonights outcome.

I'm just glad it's over. The JPT is a short sighted nonsense for short sighted glory. The league is where we must concentrate. I only hope this has not 'damaged' the confidence and it is quickly dismissed. All this talk of a Wembley final should be the one for the playoffs.
I don't blame the club for deciding to follow it through and perhaps that's a bad day at the office out of the way where it did not have any real significance.
Just hope also Yeovil does not now make us feel we have a real difficult game ahead, as after Sheff Utd I felt we could beat them easily. Now not so sure after this darn stupid cup game!
Almost certain Elliott goes back to the bench and we revert back to 5 in midfield and one up front on Saturday.

On the money here.

Although I didn't want us to, I could understand why we played 4-4-2 on Friday given the circumstances, but, today, with Bailey back, I thought it was a poor decision, I think MR was incredibly naive here.

Elliott has been best utilised as an impact sub, he hasn't, in my opinion, hasn't done enough in the last 2 games to warrant a start ahead of, Bailey, Moussa or Clarke, however, if Elliott stayed in and Clarke was dropped, I'd welcome that.

I'm distraught we're out and I'm not going to say 'tinpot trophy anyway', but I'd rather go up this season if it was as 'black and white' as that.

I have hope we can go there and win, but just not the required 3 goal gap, realistically, we need 4 goals because it is likely we'll concede because our defence, well, largely the CBs, is woeful, and it is almost certain we'll concede 1.

No doubt we got ahead of ourselves here.

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 6, 2013

CCFC said:
Ah using football manager pictures now as evidence

Priceless

:claping hands:

I mean the shape.

Just quick off the Internet, don't spill your milk over it.

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 6, 2013

CCFC_Charlie said:
I've been in the changing rooms and seen the team sheet written on the white board, it's 4-2-3-1

How long ago was that, because we did have visibly 2 CMs hanging back but, Jenno and Bailey are in line with Baker and Sheff in the line.

CCFC_Charlie · Feb 6, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
How long ago was that, because we did have visibly 2 CMs hanging back but, Jenno and Bailey are in line with Baker and Sheff in the line.

Preston at home, 22nd December

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 6, 2013

dongonzalos said:
I genuinely think it was a freak performance.

As I say the same stats played over ten times I think ten wins for cov.

I don't think the defeat was down to the formation

It wasn't a freak result, we lost because they made the most of their chances, their 3 chances they scored were all excellent chances I'd expect to score if it was us, we got exploited in defence, we couldn't pass and move as effectively, we were whipping in aimless crosses to no one, we don't have the players for 4-4-2, said this pre-season and I still maintain this.

dongonzalos · Feb 6, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
It wasn't a freak result, we lost because they made the most of their chances, their 3 chances they scored were all excellent chances I'd expect to score if it was us, we got exploited in defence, we couldn't pass and move as effectively, we were whipping in aimless crosses to no one, we don't have the players for 4-4-2, said this pre-season and I still maintain this.

We're you there?

Do you think their three chances were better than ours?

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 6, 2013

CCFC_Charlie said:
Preston at home, 22nd December

Quite recent, we may have just changed it for 1 game and to be brutally honest, there isn't much difference between the 2, wingers are more advanced and CMs deeper in a 4-2-3-1, that's pretty much it. I suppose it's down to MR what he calls it.

I think the shape is 4-4-1-1, Baker and Sheff aren't as advanced if you take the shape of 4-2-3-1 and Bailey and Jenno aren't as advanced.

Mucca Mad Boys · Feb 6, 2013

dongonzalos said:
We're you there?

Do you think their three chances were better than ours?

I never said they were better chances, I just said they were good chances, which they were, and chances I'd expect us to score had we had them chances.

They had 3 clear cut chances, and scored 3, we had 5-6, scored 0. On that alone, Crewe deserved to win, that being very 'bare boned' I know, but that is all that counts really.

The other stats just tart it up really.

I don't think people not watching the game will think 'how many more shots did CCFC have than Crewe, or possession, they look at goals.

dongonzalos · Feb 6, 2013

SkyBlue_Taylor said:
I never said they were better chances, I just said they were good chances, which they were, and chances I'd expect us to score had we had them chances.

My point is we had them and better ones. We didn't score the post and their keeper had the game if his life.

They had 3 clear cut chances, and scored 3, we had 5-6, scored 0. On that alone, Crewe deserved to win, that being very 'bare boned' I know, but that is all that counts really.

The other stats just tart it up really.

I don't think people not watching the game will think 'how many more shots did CCFC have than Crewe, or possession, they look at goals.

Not sure how that is relevant to you saying we lost as it was 442.

4-4-2 advocates (9 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency