4231 formation (1 Viewer)

skybluejack10

New Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #1

does anybody think thorn will stick to the 4231 formation if 2 more strikers are brought in? i hope not but i think thorn fancies fleck playing just off the forward!

 

T

thechase

New Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #2

I think the formation works well. It offers a good deal of attacking options and also defensively can revert to 4-5-1. The option of having 2 strikers on the bench can allow for the formation to change during the game if needed, something lacking last season.

 

skybluejack10

New Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #3

personally i prefer the 4-1-2-1-2 with one of the forwards playing in more of a free CF role

 

skybluejack10

New Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #4

thechase said:

I think the formation works well. It offers a good deal of attacking options and also defensively can revert to 4-5-1. The option of having 2 strikers on the bench can allow for the formation to change during the game if needed, something lacking last season.

Click to expand...

that's a fair point, i think we need more attacking flair about our game though if we are to score goals

 

C

castlevaleskyblue

New Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #5

Think they will play both next season just depends what works best against different opposition, the new formation looked really good against Hinckley but it was hinckey.

Also think to get the best out of fleck he needs to be played in the same position, imo best just behind the strikers

 

skybluegod

Well-Known Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #6

considering we need 7 subs this year we're going to need more strikers with our players injury records it will be hard to make the numbers on the bench i think thorn might feel he just needs a striker which stays fit and is half decent

 

S

SkyBlue Baker96

Guest

• Jul 19, 2012

• #7

If Thorn get's more strikers in , i personally think it will be just so that if we are losing 1-0 or drawing 1-1 and need to change the shape he can make a more attacking formation with the forwards , give's him more options

 

W

wingy

Well-Known Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #8

I think if he can find one it will be in the mould of James Collins ,the original target.That FFing embargo really bit us in the bum there.That, and the stated desire for two strikers suggests to me he was for playing two up top,current formation does'nt support that though

 

skybluejack10

New Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #9

yeah that was disappointing what happened with james!

 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator

• Jul 19, 2012

• #10

skybluejack10 said:

yeah that was disappointing what happened with james!

Click to expand...

Maybe he just preferred to go to Swindon instead? From what I have heard his is a similar story to the Peter Whittingham one. Also, I must admit, playing for Di Canio wouldn't be bad either.

 

skybluejack10

New Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #11

Sick Boy said:

Maybe he just preferred to go to Swindon instead? From what I have heard his is a similar story to the Peter Whittingham one. Also, I must admit, playing for Di Canio wouldn't be bad either.

Click to expand...

it'd be funny playing under di cannio! but he is a cov lad

 

pusbccfc

Well-Known Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #12

That formation probably would be the best call.
We have a lack of strikers but a mass range of attacking midfielder's.

You could play

Baker-Fleck-Sheff
Cody

Elliott-Fleck-Sheff
Cody

Bell-Baker-Fleck
Cody

Number 1 would be the one for me.

If we do bring in a striker we may struggle with taking this formation forward.
Cody would have to be dropped if a 'better' striker comes in. Also if the player is a small lad IE Cody/Elliott then they'll struggle in the Air.
Usually when the formation is used there is most often a target man in the box for headers off the attacking wingers.

 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator

• Jul 19, 2012

• #13

skybluejack10 said:

it'd be funny playing under di cannio! but he is a cov lad

Click to expand...

He would develop more as a player under Di Canio. Whittingham supported the player but despises us now.

 

skybluejack10

New Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #14

to be fair i thought last season cody actually won more in the air than platt! he's got a good jump and good timing on his jumps but i get what your saying. Jeffers is tall though and we're after a tall striker. do we need one though if were gonna play the "passing game"?
i wouldnt play bell or baker. jeffers, garner or roberts for me on that right flank

 

skybluejack10

New Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #15

Sick Boy said:

He would develop more as a player under Di Canio. Whittingham supported the player but despises us now.

Click to expand...

despises us? why you think that?

 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator

• Jul 19, 2012

• #16

skybluejack10 said:

despises us? why you think that?

Click to expand...

I know it for a fact. He was released by the club when he was younger.

 

pusbccfc

Well-Known Member

• Jul 19, 2012

• #17

Jeffers has no strength at at all. That's the downfall to his game!