4-4-2 advocates (8 Viewers)

CCFC said:

Don't you see if we had 1 upfront, our players would have by some miracle found there scoring boots an we would have converted our chances an been 4-1 up by 75 mins

You silly person, we didn't convert our chances because we were playing 442

Click to expand...

It's not about that is it though, we would've played differently with the change of formation, we'd have a link to the striker from midfield, we'd be more dominant in possession and possibly would've created better quality chances.

Your mistaking quantity for quality, today, quality won.

dongonzalos said:

Glad it's not just me

They took their very few chances.

If you limited someone to 4 shots on target.

You create 12 shots on target.

Personally I think our chances were more clear cut than theirs.

When you lose 3-0.

You may question your goal keeper.
You may think they have some clinical finishers on this day
You may think it was just one of those days.

I think it is unlikely you will think, we got our formation wrong today.
You did what nine out of ten times leads to a win.

Create better and more chances than your opponent.

Click to expand...

Interesting how you say, you question your GK, the defence is more fundamental unless you score 3 ridiculous 40 yarders which the goalie spilt into his own net, we got mugged off by their players who scored! Embarrassing.

Interesting also you didn't think to put about questioning the tactics, which the formation is inextricable to what tactics you play really.

Tactics were horribly wrong today, but at least, after this drubbing, the 4-4-2 myth has finally been busted.

You missed 2 of the most important factors in losing a game; tactics and defence. Poor judgement Dong.

When you've had average/below average home record and you've just lost by the biggest margin under your new saviour manager at home, I think you may look at tactics deployed!

Using some of the sports psychology I've learned this term, I'm blaming this loss on stable factors (tactics) whereas you are blaming them on unstable factors (luck), I don't need to go any further.

Sorry pal, you're either really naive, or just stupid.

dongonzalos said:

No I don't think you get the point.

Or don't accept as you may have to admit you are wrong.

When you create both better and more chances than your opponent.

You do not lose because you got your formation wrong.

The aim of the game in football is win.

You create 12 shots on target.
Your opponent creates 4 shots on target.

You (IMO) create better chances than your opponent.

If you have a equal or better 11 than your opponent this will more often than not win you the game.

If you are playing a team with goal scorers of a far better class than your team then you may still lose.

Our formation tonight did what it should on most other nights it would have resulted in a win.

If you lose with stats and the standard if those chances it will be down to

You goalie had a shocker
That had good finishers.

Or what happened tonight a freak. Their goalie had the game of his life. Their boys put all but one chance away.

Click to expand...

How can you say I'm wrong after we've just lost 3-0 and succumbed to our biggest defeat under MR and at home.

All this, after weeks of some people claiming we need 2 strikers upfront to turn our home form around, even after I stated we've lost more at home playing 4-4-2! All today has done has put added fuel to the fire, as I have more evidence, and if you ever have one, a 'trophy loss', circumstances are shit, but oh well.

There's a reason most of the biggest 4-4-2 advocates haven't commented here, because they know there're not in a position to argue, Grendel, for example, was quick to point out ow shit the defence was, but hasn't said anything on this thread as of yet.

People blame the formation when they want to, I have no doubt whatsoever that had we played 1 striker today, that would've faced severe scrutiny, with the 4-4-2 calls echoing louder, now we get 4-4-2 and get hammered (no matter how you look at it!) and there all quiet, or, you can't blame the formation, all the nonsensical BS. I think, if anything, I'm right here.

I'd rather be eating humble pie though believe you me!

CCFC said:

We were the better team, Crewe took there chances we didn't
If we were outplayed by the opponent you could look at the tactics more

The reason we didn't win was individual players not putting away chances that they should have

Click to expand...

What does being the better team mean? We lost, that's all that matters.

We didn't lose 1-0 or even 2-0, with a chance of a comeback, we've conceded 3, at home, going to their place, where we don't have a good record, needing a 3 goal margin to draw! It's clearly more than 'potluck' on Crewe's behalf, they came with a game plan and our game plan didn't counter there's effectively, and yes, I do think 5 in midfield would've made a difference, I think it's naive and irrational to think otherwise, after all, you couldn't do much worse than that.

CCFC said:

I don't necessarily think 442 is the way forward, just that it wasn't to blame tonight

Poor finishing an losing our shape an discipline in the last 15 mins were the main issues

Click to expand...

Obviously it isn't the only reason, but it is the main factor, well, the tactics deployed were the main reason we lost.

4-4-2 promotes wing play, we don't have very good orthodox wingers (not pacey, not great crossers) and we play better through the middle, so to play down the wings, crossing it in more etc. (which was definitely visible) we were crossing it to 2 strikers who aren't good in the air, illogical and frustrating to watch, I think we needed someone in the middle who could say, have a shot from outside the box and Clarke or Elliott (whoever plays) can bury the rebound, our hedge in a cheeky pass for them.

I think tactics are the difference between winning and losing, look at Thorn and Shaw in comparison with MR, MRs is a winner, his predecessors, losers, MR has turned a team of losers (who shouldn't be losing!) into a side that wins, and are winners! I think this is fundamental.

When we win, it's down to tactics and formation, when we lose, the same principle applies when we lost.

Look at people blaming the diamond because we lost/drew (last season) and how bad it was, no one moaned when lost playing 4-4-2, no one is moaning now.

The fact we've lost more at home playing 4-4-2 at home says it all for me.

Well, I've finished my essayin for tomorrow morning, so I have no reason to be awake at this time, I'm going now, good debate (although I'm right ), interesting to hear your views.

Grendel said:

The only person who sounds naive is you. Sadly in the world of computer technology you can play your silly little formation games and everything works fine. Reality is different.

The statistics do not back you up.

25 shots at goal should yield goals. Poor finishing and some unlucky moments cost us there. If we had scored first we would have won the game.

Defensive inferiority. If we had conceded 15 corners and let 25 shots fly in we would be hammered. They have a superior back line.

Erratic game chasing. Formation is irrelevant. No doubt your computer game doesn't factor this in but the crowd played a part. They became desperate and threw players forward. Debatable at one down suicidal at 2 and 3 down.

Goalkeeper injury - cost us for sure.

Naievaty of youth I guess.

Click to expand...

You've been one the big advocates of 4-4-2, saying we 'need' to play 2 upfront, well, such the wise man you are, that worked well.

We had 25 shots, some golden oppurtuities but we rushed too much, especially after the first goal. We may have had 25 shots, but how many we're good quality.

In a game we needed to be patient we rushed everything, had we have played 4-5-1/4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1 (whatever you call it) we would've dominated midfield more and wouldn't have been as loose in defence, with a CM of Bailey and Jenno, I don't think you could argue against this.

Formation is only irrelevant for you because we played 4-4-2, had we played 4-4-1-1 you would've been the 1st to critique 1 striker upfront, I guarantee it! If you say otherwise, I think you are plain in denial.

Of course statistics are on my side, another loss playing 4-4-2 at home, brings it up to 6, or are you in denial over this fact? :thinking about:

The same silly little formation that has won us most of our games this season!? Who's sounding naive now!? I've got rid of FM and FIFA, cba with them anymore, and I've based my analysis on research I have done on the formations, many people have been critics of 4-4-2, Cryuff, for years, no one plays it abroad (of the elite formations), people like myself and people abroad have moved with the times whilst England (and the rest of Britain) are backward and remain backward until we ditch this formations, and that does include getting rid of it in your lower leagues and grass roots football. You, and others, haven't moved on, and have the 'conservative' mentality that will keep England backward. We had Beckenbauer humiliate English football in front of the whole world in 2010 and when Germany beat us 4-1 it most certainly vindicated his claims.

I have a staunch dislike for 4-4-2 because I have seen it fail for England and Coventry City for as long as I have supported football, whilst I see the most successful teams in football playing other 'silly little formations'.

It works for some, but not for CCFC.

I agree with you that we chased it 'erratically', and we were terrible defensively, but I felt our tactics was the crux of the problem, that is undeniable. It was unfortunate Dunn is a joke of a GK, that debate is closed as well.

Naivety of the youth?! I think here, it is the senility of the old. 4-4-2 has had it's epoch.

The footballing elite are on my side, hence why no one who is a good outfit plays 4-4-2, accept Man City, who will throw away the PL and got humiliated in Europe, and even then, it isn't an orthodox 4-4-2 and Aguero drops deep for the large part. Man U rarely play 4-4-2 before anyone says.

Say all this 'we're in L1, that's the formation you play' nonsense, but A) it's only English (out of the best leagues) that play 4-4-2 really, and B) we don't have the players for 4-4-2.

We had to learn the hard way, but we learned!

I think you do underestimate me here

CCFC said:

If we would have had played with one man upfront and delivered a similar performance of 75 minutes of complete domination and lost I would be saying the same thing

It wasn't the set up of the team but failure to convert chances and chasing the game far too much in the last 10 minutes that cost us

Click to expand...

That's you, but, others would've blamed the formation, I think this a guarantee for the 4-4-2 advocates, hence the thread in the 1st place.

Interesting to see MR regretting playing 4-4-2, he said "Hindsight’s brilliant, and I’d have picked a different team after the game."

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/coventry-city-fc/coventry-city-fc-news/2013/02/08/92746-32770950/

Also, interesting to see a U-turn in some fans, few weeks ago they were saying we should play 4-4-2, now asking why we played it, I guess some are fickle.

*Probably not the same people who asked the questions

covcity4life said:

oh ffs this thread still going?

give your anti 4-4-2 agenda a rest until we actually play bad because of it

Click to expand...

We lost 3-0... To Crewe, only games we've lost by 3 goal margins in the league is playing 4-4-2 and to put it into context, Spurs beat us 3-0...

I'm making a point of this because many fans were crying out loud 4-4-2 claiming we 'need 2 upfront' and Tuesday proved how wrong they were.

With your 'great' footballing knowledge, wouldn't you know the limitations of 4-4-2 and why we would play 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-2/4-5-1/4-4-1-1 (whatever it is) and how out-of-date 4-4-2 was :thinking about:

dongonzalos said:

SBT your thoughts

Click to expand...

Naive performance, especially at 4-4-2, because we were trying to hoof it in or cross it into the box too much v 6"+ defenders who were comfortable in the air whereas we can't score headers.

We have loads of set-pieces , but we are terrible at attacking them.

Clarke and Fleck did good.

CCFC said:

After today's game I've decided Clarke can't play up top by himself, Elliott either needs to start ahead or alongside him

Frankly I don't care which

Click to expand...

He didn't do particularly well in 4-4-2.

I think Clarke probably should be dropped, but not convinced Elliott is the man to score goals, I'm not holding my breathe anyway.

MR is becoming predictable with his subs lately.