percy
Member
true. was it spain who played with no strikers recently
4-4-2 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mucca Mad Boys
- Start date
true. was it spain who played with no strikers recently
Stevec189
New Member
You can only play wih the players you have available. We played the diamond since we don't have two fit and on from wingers so we play narrow and hope the full backs can offer the width when needed. Last season we played with two wingers when Baker and McSheffery were fit and on form which wasn't very often. Thorn said on Hurdy we have the players now to try different formations when he opposition and fitness of the squad allows it . Get real people. We do not have players with the ability to drop out of position and be good in those positions.
I can't believe people want Barton to play out wide since when AT does this he is slated! Unbelivable!
PUSB
I can't believe people want Barton to play out wide since when AT does this he is slated! Unbelivable!
PUSB
They played with a false 9. A very fluid system with 2 or 3 holding players, a couple of attacking midfielders making runs into the space the false 9 leaves, plus maybe a winger to stretch the play out wide.
Produces some wonderful football if you can pull it off.
percy
Member
i think sometimes we try to over complicate things a little. the top sides mess around with formations because they have to, there playing against the worlds best players. we are in league one. keep it simple and tight and be organised. all players understand 442 because its simple, they know there jobs. top players are top players because they can adapt and change there game and play in different formations well.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
If we want to play a flat 4 it would have to be something like
Baker--Thomas--Barton--Mcsheff
Then having Fleck play just behind Mcdonald up front
Baker--Thomas--Barton--Mcsheff
Then having Fleck play just behind Mcdonald up front
Yes, but changes to 4-2-3-1 when defending as Rooney drops back.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that but either way it starts off as a 442. Rooney and or welbeck naturally drop deep.
That may be true, sometimes a 4-4-2 can work quite well, you can create 2 on 1s against full backs if the opposition play 4-3-3 or similar. Just that a lot of modern formations require the 4-4-2 to be adjusted a bit (e.g. Rooney dropping deep, wingers pushing forward etc).
I think whichever formation we play, the players have to be comfortable with their roles. It's down to the coaching staff to make sure the players know what's happening.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
I prefer the 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 but I don't think we are good enough as a team to play that formation and neither do I think Mcdonald is suited enough to that position
Ferguson does like a 4-4-2 (I don't see how he can play it this year with Kagawa, van Persie and Rooney to fit in but that's another question entirely).
He has said himself though that he likes one striker to drop deep, forming a 4-4-1-1 to give them two points of attack as opposed to one.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
How about The Brazilian:
RB---CB---CB---LB
-----CM----CM-----
--AMC------AMC--
----FC---ST-------
4 centre mids, but with two attacking midfielders and two higher than we play our DMC at present. Plenty of scope for our squad entirely lacking in wide-men, but looks too narrow. Don't say it's defensive, it's a Brazilian formation and the full-backs play more like wingers! Could work with Hussey/Clarke/Cyrus bombing on and Fleck along with Baker/Sheff if he pulls his finger out in the AMC roles. Barton could play there too if it was a deeper role than our present "hole" role, but give Fleck more forward license & general freedom. A mini-diamond of their own, if you like.
Otherwise, the only other "wingless" options are a narrow 4-2-3-1;
RB----CB---CB----LB
-----CM-----CM-----
-AMRC-AMC-AMLC-
---------ST----------
With, again, the two deeper CM's much higher up the pitch than we pick them. Anything that means Cody isn't there to just score goals is flawed in my view, but if we get over the hoofing and play it through a very attacking and fluid midfield, Cody could play up front with plenty of support and creativity around him. I'd have two from Jennings, Thomas (when fit), Kilbane and Barton as the deeper two midfielders, Fleck in the hole when fit (or Sheff, I suppose..) with Baker, Barton, Kilbane, Elliott & Bell (when fit) vying for the AMRC and AMLC roles. Not that I think there's any chance we'll play that way.
There's the Modern Classic 451/433:
RB---CB---CB---LB
--------DMC-------
---RCM-----LCM---
AMR/F------AML/F
--------ST---------
-I don't like the idea of this as with us we'll play it more like a 451 than a 433, and really, the best players in it are natural wingers who the formation gives freedom to concentrate on attacking. Like Arjen Robben, Adam Johnson, that sort of player. In theory I guess Sheff and Baker are the players we'd play there...otherwise it will be strikers (Elliott/Cody?) and they'll spend as much time facing their own goal as the oppositions. It doesn't suit Fleck-there's no position for him in that formation. And it won't be Cody up front, as we are a bit obsessed with target men, so Ball would be the man in the middle. As before, anything without Cody as a striker is flawed for us IMO.
Ultimately, we've got Ball, Cody, Elliott and Future-Fucking-Awesome-Signing as our strikers: we aren't going to suddenly stop playing two up front, and I don't want us to. Ideally we'd go out and sign two quality wingers, but that isn't going to happen, is it?
RB---CB---CB---LB
-----CM----CM-----
--AMC------AMC--
----FC---ST-------
4 centre mids, but with two attacking midfielders and two higher than we play our DMC at present. Plenty of scope for our squad entirely lacking in wide-men, but looks too narrow. Don't say it's defensive, it's a Brazilian formation and the full-backs play more like wingers! Could work with Hussey/Clarke/Cyrus bombing on and Fleck along with Baker/Sheff if he pulls his finger out in the AMC roles. Barton could play there too if it was a deeper role than our present "hole" role, but give Fleck more forward license & general freedom. A mini-diamond of their own, if you like.
Otherwise, the only other "wingless" options are a narrow 4-2-3-1;
RB----CB---CB----LB
-----CM-----CM-----
-AMRC-AMC-AMLC-
---------ST----------
With, again, the two deeper CM's much higher up the pitch than we pick them. Anything that means Cody isn't there to just score goals is flawed in my view, but if we get over the hoofing and play it through a very attacking and fluid midfield, Cody could play up front with plenty of support and creativity around him. I'd have two from Jennings, Thomas (when fit), Kilbane and Barton as the deeper two midfielders, Fleck in the hole when fit (or Sheff, I suppose..) with Baker, Barton, Kilbane, Elliott & Bell (when fit) vying for the AMRC and AMLC roles. Not that I think there's any chance we'll play that way.
There's the Modern Classic 451/433:
RB---CB---CB---LB
--------DMC-------
---RCM-----LCM---
AMR/F------AML/F
--------ST---------
-I don't like the idea of this as with us we'll play it more like a 451 than a 433, and really, the best players in it are natural wingers who the formation gives freedom to concentrate on attacking. Like Arjen Robben, Adam Johnson, that sort of player. In theory I guess Sheff and Baker are the players we'd play there...otherwise it will be strikers (Elliott/Cody?) and they'll spend as much time facing their own goal as the oppositions. It doesn't suit Fleck-there's no position for him in that formation. And it won't be Cody up front, as we are a bit obsessed with target men, so Ball would be the man in the middle. As before, anything without Cody as a striker is flawed for us IMO.
Ultimately, we've got Ball, Cody, Elliott and Future-Fucking-Awesome-Signing as our strikers: we aren't going to suddenly stop playing two up front, and I don't want us to. Ideally we'd go out and sign two quality wingers, but that isn't going to happen, is it?
Last edited:
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Agreed, it would, which looks kinda feeble to me. That's 424, not 442, and the midfield would be over-run. Jennings in one of the CM roles, though.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
I bloody love Kagawa. I've been following Japanese football for a while, he's ace.
Don't know about anyone else, but I'd bloody love the idea of us playing with a back 3:
-----------GK------------
-----------SW-----------
---|---CB------CB----|--
---RWB--CM---CM----LWB-
---|-------AM--------|---
--------CF----CF---------
Would allow us to fit Cody into a front two, give us a natural spot for Cody/Sheffers/Baker, and utilise our attacking full-backs.
Don't know a huge amount about the new centre backs, but would Brown/Malaga be able to play in the libero role? Don't think it will happen but I like the idea.
-----------GK------------
-----------SW-----------
---|---CB------CB----|--
---RWB--CM---CM----LWB-
---|-------AM--------|---
--------CF----CF---------
Would allow us to fit Cody into a front two, give us a natural spot for Cody/Sheffers/Baker, and utilise our attacking full-backs.
Don't know a huge amount about the new centre backs, but would Brown/Malaga be able to play in the libero role? Don't think it will happen but I like the idea.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
I like the first one, I like to think of it as an adjustment to the diamond making it more fluid to the formation. ( in reference to post #45)
However I think the regular diamond could work with Fleck playing, imo the the attacking midfield role is the pivotal point to the diamond role. If you have someone poor there 9/10 attacks will break down here and we will be left saying just couldn't find the killer ball or something similar more often than not. When Thorn first came in Mcsheff was revitalised and played the best football I had ever seen him play in this 7/8 games and the formation worked. Next season he was a shadow but because of circumstances he was pretty much un droppable in this position. How many times last season did we say it was good till we crossed the halfway line, well this is because we didn't have the same quality in attacking positions as before and every attack broke down as we didn't have enough quality.
If Fleck can play well in this role I think it will help the whole team play well knowing they have someone high up the pitch who won't cock it up every time we pass it to them
However I think the regular diamond could work with Fleck playing, imo the the attacking midfield role is the pivotal point to the diamond role. If you have someone poor there 9/10 attacks will break down here and we will be left saying just couldn't find the killer ball or something similar more often than not. When Thorn first came in Mcsheff was revitalised and played the best football I had ever seen him play in this 7/8 games and the formation worked. Next season he was a shadow but because of circumstances he was pretty much un droppable in this position. How many times last season did we say it was good till we crossed the halfway line, well this is because we didn't have the same quality in attacking positions as before and every attack broke down as we didn't have enough quality.
If Fleck can play well in this role I think it will help the whole team play well knowing they have someone high up the pitch who won't cock it up every time we pass it to them
I follow Dortmund fairly closely so saw a fair bit of him last season. Wonderful little player.
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
How about the Christmas Tree a la El Tel?! That was 3 CB's rather than with a sweeper, they were just spread really wide with the likes of Neville and Pearce alongside Adams (was it?). We could then stick Cody in the Sheringham role off Cody and pass the fuck out of the opposition so that we don't need a target man!
-----Malaga--Brown/Cameron--Wood-----
Clarke--------------------------------Hussey
----Barton--Jennings--Thomas/Kilbane-----
------------------Fleck------------------------
------------------Cody------------------------
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Interesting how the Liverpool CB's are struggling adjusting to the Rogers passing game. Honestly, maybe the hoofing today is simply because Wood and Brown can't play the passing game that Keogh and Cranie could? And I completely agree about your Fleck point: the formation that gets the best out of him and Cody is what we really need. If Fleck is out though, with Sheff in this form, I'd be worried about sticking with the diamond. I feel similarly about the DMC role with Daniels-but then I hate the "Makelele" role, we play with that man far far far too deep, always have. At this level it really needs to be 3 CM's and one in the hole, otherwise we won't get the ball and dominate the middle enough. Like today...
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
I just don't think Baker and Sheff as wingers cuts it.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Yes, but looked a further class above when Torres played, e.g. V Ireland and Final compared to v Italy (in group when Italy should've won imo) and Croatia (scraped a 1-0)
I agree with Nonleaguewelcomehere when he says Baker + 'Macca' winger just DO NOT cut it, but to add to it, I think Baker would be better on the tip of the diamond.
No Fleck, YOU MAD!? Made massive impact in 37m v Yeovil and looks a class above all our team (and possibly the league, time will tell).
Last edited:
SkyBlueBlood
Member
Would you even be discussing formations had we taken our chances and won 4-1?
Its more about the players than the formation.
Its more about the players than the formation.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Are you asking me?
If so, I was asking posters on here, who criticise the diamond formation - which worked in his caretaker role - and suggest we play 4-4-2 (Note to those posters: We're in the 21st century), and as I don't believe it'll suit us nor how to play flat 4 in midfield (personel wise), I therefore asks those to 'put up or shut up' instead of moaning saying we play this but actually have a useful contribution and suggest who they would have. So far, those haven't helped the case to play 4-4-2 because all they've done is come up with SH!T. :laugh:
To answer you question, it is more to do with the players BUT, a formation is just as important as it can get the best of those players e.g. Fleck 'in the hole' as opposed to a LCM which would restrict his options when he gets the ball as he'd have to worry about back tracking (and he's prob sh!t at defending).
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Fleck is probably our best player, and he can't play in a 442, so kinda end-of...
Reynolds_121
New Member
Struggling with it after one game? Talk about knew jerking.
Back on point, wouldn't be against the 3-5-2.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Like the posters on here getting all upset with a draw AWAY?
3-5-2 might work well against 4-4-2 (other formations with 2 strikers) playing teams but I thinl we should stick with 4 at the back.
Last edited:
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Well they didn't look like they knew what they were doing. Maybe it will take a while, but I'm just remembering Rogers failing at Reading and thinking he's going to fail at Liverpool-which is no disgrace, Hodgson being an example of a great small-club manager who couldn't do it there. England being a small club in International terms, which is why it does work for Hodgson there!
percy
Member
Are you asking me?
If so, I was asking posters on here, who criticise the diamond formation - which worked in his caretaker role - and suggest we play 4-4-2 (Note to those posters: We're in the 21st century), and as I don't believe it'll suit us nor how to play flat 4 in midfield (personel wise), I therefore asks those to 'put up or shut up' instead of moaning saying we play this but actually have a useful contribution and suggest who they would have. So far, those haven't helped the case to play 4-4-2 because all they've done is come up with SH!T. :laugh:
To answer you question, it is more to do with the players BUT, a formation is just as important as it can get the best of those players e.g. Fleck 'in the hole' as opposed to a LCM which would restrict his options when he gets the ball as he'd have to worry about back tracking (and he's prob sh!t at defending).
do you ever read your own posts. i would like to think that any player losing the ball would have to worry about back tracking to regain posession. some top managers still use 442 when they need to even tho we are in the 21st century
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Of course I do, but Fleck, clearly being a AMC should nothave to worry about defensive duties and get on with playing a 'killer' ball or a 'magical' dribble etc. which at LCM, needs a fair amount of defensive attention, especially with Hussey at LB, as he likes to get forward and isn't amazing in defence...
Some top managers like? You might say Fergie, in defence (4-4-2 is one of the best defensive formations, not attacking though), yes, going forward, very much a 4-2-3-1, with Carrick sitting, Rooney behind Welbeck (last season).
A top manager Roy Hodgson uses it, BUT, it looks very likely he's ditching it for 4-2-3-1 and I believe he used 4-4-2 because of lack of options, imo.
percy
Member
thats why i would play him down the left. any central mid position is gonna require some defensive duty. let him get at the full back and get some quality balls into the box. we already have barton probing from centre mid. attacking mids need to weigh in with goals as well and he dont score to many
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
On what evidence? Oh when he played on the left for Rangers and Blackpool?
He's scored 5 in pre season for US playing AMC.
Fleck is not a LM, why play him there?
Oh, I forgot, when playing AMC, you need to chip in defensively, yes, but not as much as LCM, especially with no wingers and Hussey at LB, therefore, it would be stupid to put Fleck or 'Macca' there.
Last edited:
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
3, but 2 in open play meaning he's our top goalscorer in open play still.
Besides, a goal is a goal, he still had to send it home.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
I have to admit, I forgot about Cody, knew I missed out someone importent :facepalm:
BUT, to be behind only Cody, what a crime!? It is expected and for Fleck to have 2 is good.
