4-4-2 - why? (9 Viewers)

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Why do some people think we should play 4-4-2?

I personally don't think it is a good formation, it isn't as attacking as some are led to believe, in our case, it would mean taking a midfielder out and having a negative impact on our 'passing' philosophy.

We are all happy with the way we are (or trying) to play or football. So why would we change the way we play? After all, MR said it himself, 4-4-2 doesn't promote the passing game we want to play (because of its shape) so why would anyone want to move back to 4-4-2?

Also, we don't have enough strikers to play 4-4-2, if Clarke or Elliott get injured, who's coming in!? ROD!? Cody!? Hopefully those 2 get shipped out on loan somewhere.

Just my piece, just curious why people want to play 4-4-2, I personally think (speaking for all of English football now) whilst there is this obsession with 4-4-2, English football will fall behind on the international stage (already obvious that it has happend) and the domestic stage (happening).

 

---

[stupot07]

Taylor, I agree that 442 is not always the best options and doesn't work for everyone, and we don't really have the right complement of midfielders to make it work. However, we are desperate for a Plan B, for situations like to day and Shrewsbury and to try and overcome the bad form at home.

 

[ccfcway]

3-5-2 ?


-----------Murphy-------------
---Cameron--Wood--Edge---
Christie----------------Adams
---Baker--Bailey--Jennings--
-------Clarke---McSheff------

 

[covross]

diamond? oh wait...

 

[dongonzalos]

3-5-2 ?

Interesting with the current lot

...................Murphy
....... Wood Edge Willis.
Christie...........................Adams
............Bailey Thomas
..,.............. Baker
............Clarke .....?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Taylor, I agree that 442 is not always the best options and doesn't work for everyone, and we don't really have the right complement of midfielders to make it work. However, we are desperate for a Plan B, for situations like to day and Shrewsbury and to try and overcome the bad form at home.

I think 4-3-3 would be a good alternative, have a sitting mid, Bailey or Jenno, say Thomas and Fleck further forward with a front 3 of Baker, Clarke and Moussa. It's attacking and promotes a passing game.

I don't think we have the wingers to play 4-4-2, CM of Thomas and Jenno could work, but Baker and Sheff or even Moussa wouldn't work IMO.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

diamond? oh wait...

That's a good formation, just Thorn was an idiot, he would've made the popular 4-4-2 fail.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

3-5-2 ?


-----------Murphy-------------
---Cameron--Wood--Edge---
Christie----------------Adams
---Baker--Bailey--Jennings--
-------Clarke---McSheff------

Why on earth would we play that formation!?

 

[stupot07]

I think 4-3-3 would be a good alternative, have a sitting mid, Bailey or Jenno, say Thomas and Fleck further forward with a front 3 of Baker, Clarke and Moussa. It's attacking and promotes a passing game.

I don't think we have the wingers to play 4-4-2, CM of Thomas and Jenno could work, but Baker and Sheff or even Moussa wouldn't work IMO.

I'm not convinced that would work either, baker and Moussa along with fleck like to do their work coming from deep, rather ham run in behind the defence.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I'm not convinced that would work either, baker and Moussa along with fleck like to do their work coming from deep, rather ham run in behind the defence.

Same, but we pretty much played 4-3-3 v MK, I thought it was that for a while, just it was 4-5-1 because the wingers weren't as advanced, I'd be tempted to try it, if it fails, it fails.

 

[ccfcway]

Why on earth would we play that formation!?

support L Clarke more, having cover for J Clarke as a couple of starters for 10 ?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Man Utd played 442 today...someone better go tell Ferguson he is a footballing dinosaur. Also Tottenham play 442 a lot of the time also

4-3-3 could work well with a front 3 of Sheff--Clarke--Elliott
Midfield 3 of Bailey, Thomas and Moussa

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Man Utd played 442 today...someone better go tell Ferguson he is a footballing dinosaur. Also Tottenham play 442 a lot of the time also

4-3-3 could work well with a front 3 of Sheff--Clarke--Elliott
Midfield 3 of Bailey, Thomas and Moussa

Man U play 4-4-1-1 quite a lot, they mix up the diamond as well, Fergie is possibly the greatest manager ever, he knows when to play what formation, whether it be, 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 etc. etc. he is down with it, still, credit to him, but Man U predominately play 4-4-1-1, with RVP playing behind whatever striker.

Spurs play 4-4-2, that's a given, but going on what we seen at Spurs, it isn't as rigid as a traditional 4-4-2 and more of a 4-2-4 in a sense? Bale and Lennon do what they want while Parker stays back.

Man City play 4-4-2, but they haven't improved last year, and again, struggled in Europe.

Even Stoke have dropped 4-4-2 lately, favouring a more 4-4-1-1/4-5-1 of late.

4-4-2 is losing popularity but it isn't completely gone out of the game.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Rvp plays almost as an out an out striker these days, he don't really play behind the striker any more

An yea spurs could be described as a 424 with two holding players in the middle

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

At the moment we seem to be playing more of a 451 as no one is getting close to Clarke currently

 

[dongonzalos]

Does Fergie not mainly play Rooney just behind RVP.

I take your point it is only every now and then he plays the traditional 442 usually in Wellbeck or Little Pea plays

 

[dongonzalos]

To be honest I think formation is important yes.

However more important is getting the players to understand that when a team comes to the Ricoh.

It is likely to be one of the biggest stadiums they have ever played in.

They will be so determined to do well and win or get a draw.

We need to recreate that Psyche ourselves.

You need to feel if you don't show the right desire passion or fight in a game then someone else will.

Once you have that then look at the formation

 

[PVA]

I'm not a big fan of 4-4-2, however I think we need to change something at home because our home form is really poor. Clarke and Elliott have the potential to make a good partnership IMO. Only problem is we have a lot of of central midfielders and with only 2 spots in a 442 there would be a lot of guys left out.

 

[Sky Blue Sheepy]

I do think that Clarke plays better with another striker with him. We looked much improved when Elliot came on to act as almost a veil for Clarke. Not sure if 4-4-2 is necessarily the answer, I tend to use 4-2-2-2 personally, with Jennings and Fleck in CM role (Barton or Bailey also work) with Fleck/McSheffrey and Baker as Attacking Midfielders delivering crosses. May not work but Robins hasn't been afraid to change formation if things aren't working so don't see the harm.

 

[italiahorse]

Why do some people think we should play 4-4-2?

I personally don't think it is a good formation, it isn't as attacking as some are led to believe, in our case, it would mean taking a midfielder out and having a negative impact on our 'passing' philosophy.

We are all happy with the way we are (or trying) to play or football. So why would we change the way we play? After all, MR said it himself, 4-4-2 doesn't promote the passing game we want to play (because of its shape) so why would anyone want to move back to 4-4-2?

Also, we don't have enough strikers to play 4-4-2, if Clarke or Elliott get injured, who's coming in!? ROD!? Cody!? Hopefully those 2 get shipped out on loan somewhere.

Just my piece, just curious why people want to play 4-4-2, I personally think (speaking for all of English football now) whilst there is this obsession with 4-4-2, English football will fall behind on the international stage (already obvious that it has happend) and the domestic stage (happening).

I don't think it matters if you can't hit the target when we get near the goal.