4-4-2 in general, and 4-3-3 for really good MF opponents.
4-4-2 with direct wingers who are willing to take people inside and out!
4-4-2 failed Arry on occasions when the opponent MF setup was different or had better players. So no shame in having a different formation for such opponents (there ain't many of those games in a season anyway) .
Maybe not so much 4-4-2, but with something more direct, had we signed say Benteke, Lukaku I think we would have adopted a different approach
Having a beast of a forward who doesn't lose the ball in the tussle means you have 4-5-1 as an option for certain teams.
yeah I definitely would go 442 in most games. big games I would tend to opt for 433.
I think we've tried and failed on most occasions with this inside forward, false 9 aspect of the game, to be the best you need to adapt to teams looking to come to WHL and defend deep, in numbers and counter, (which Palace did)
I would pick Townsend and Lennon against sides doing this, Bolaise (spell) always look to attack, he's not a negative type of player, Lamela always dipped inside and passed back, let's get at teams Bale,Lennon days
we need to stop being so predictable
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been saying for over a year now how tedious, boring and predictable we are.
Tactically quite honestly we must be the easiest side in the prem to beat. Its no coincidence that the likes of west brom and stoke have taken points of us at WHL its the way we are set up and the way we play.
We dont really pressurise teams we take an age to get forward which leaves them with about 20 minutes to take up a strong defensive position while we mess about with the ball in our defence third for a week or two.
We have no flair and without the likes of Lennon out wide we have no pace.
Every time we play its like the side has been picked not to lose rather than to win (there is a massive difference).
For years we struggled against teams that sat deep and parked the bus and that was when we had pace out wide. Now we actually mess about with the ball giving teams the chance to get back behind the ball so no wonder we are struggling to score.
Unless we actually start taking games to the opposition instead of letting them take the game to us
Article Rating Not Rated Yet
This article has literally been written a hundred times by various posters with this 'revelation' since the WBA loss.
I hate you THudd.
Thudd,
You make fair points.
I think what you are saying though is we should have a plan B.
I made a point a while ago that whilst its nice to be scoring from set pieces, the majority of our goals lately have come this way, and not through breaking teams down and slick passing.
I'm a big fan of Townsend's direct play but i believe he's injured isn't he?
Lamela could be replaced with a wind-up headless chicken for all i care.
Thoughts?
With our fans the only hope is 442. There's no patience, and seemingly a deep distrust of change. Even though the system being discussed is widely used by the best teams in the world.
442 will stop the booing for a while, which might actually improve results for a bit, but like you say THudd it's not really a long term solution. You can hope to win things conceding possession and getting outnumbered in midfield regularly.
The natives won't like this one bit....
With our fans the only hope is 442. There's no patience, and seemingly a deep distrust of change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No there is a deep distrust of systems which see us play crap and get crap results against crap teams
I'm a firm believer in having at least one direct winger in the side - a player who can get the ball at his feet and scare defenders. Two sometimes, sure, but always one.
I have no favourite to who in particular it should be, that is totally reliant on what other players are available - do we have the right fullbacks fit for example.
"With our fans the only hope is 442. There's no patience, and seemingly a deep distrust of change."
4-4-2 has served the club well in the main.
I would expect a team and manager to be capable of playing other formations though.
"Even though the system being discussed is widely used by the best teams in the world."
The issue is blind dogma.
Tika-taka was feted by all, and then in 2012 I watched a parked bus deny it. Then in 2013 the Teutonic terror that is Munich blitzkrieg-ed and bullied it into total submission.
No system or formation is perfect, regardless of the talent you have in the squad.
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 3 minutes ago
I'm a firm believer in having at least one direct winger in the side - a player who can get the ball at his feet and scare defenders. Two sometimes, sure, but always one.
I have no favourite to who in particular it should be, that is totally reliant on what other players are available - do we have the right fullbacks fit for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
looking at Man U's set up in their successful years.
If you like call it 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1
Attack
...................(Poacher) (Support striker)
Midfield
Direct winger, Creative midfielder, Defensive mid, Hard working wide mid /set piece technician
Defence
Full back, CB good in air, CB good with ball, Full back
How would this work for Spurs
Poacher: ? (Soldado )
Support striker: Kane, Ade
Direct winger: Townsend, Lennon
Hard working wide mid/Set piece: Eriksen
creative/passer Midfielder: ?
Defensive Midfielder: Bentaleb, Stambouli
Full backs: Davies and Walker
CB good in air: Fazio
CB good with ball: Vertonghen
In my opinion 2 positions would change us in January. Mid range passing maestro and a Poacher
442 is a pretty catch-all term.
Start of 09/10 was nominally a 442. One winger, Modric or Niko on the other side supporting the midfield pair, and two up front. Like the Everton game.
Tail end of 09/10 was an absolute 442. Two proper wingers, two out-and-out strikers
The start of 10/11 had the two wingers again, but one striker and Rafa, who dropped off in to midfield often and was a traditional 10, with a centre forward leading the line.
Three variations on a 442, all quite different.
All have their place. The middle one the hardest to pull off well because it puts a large responsibility on the centre midfielders and they have to be spot on
Ioarvirgo
The Utd comparison / suggestion is one of the most sensible things I have read on here in a while
Yeah formations are odd, one mans 433 can be another mans 4231. You could line up like a 442 consisting of 2 DM's, 3 AM's and a CF; which isn't the conventional 442 which has 2 strikers, 2 wingers and 2 B2B midfielders.
If I was a manager I would always have a 'direct' winger in my team, but it feels like people have been brainwashed into this style of thinking thanks to it being so successful in the PL era.
As long as you have 11 players committed to an ethos then it should generally be successful. We look at our best when Lennon plays, but maybe we should be looking at the bigger picture and realise this is just a quick-fix and not how Poch wants us to progress?
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
I'm a firm believer in having at least one direct winger in the side - a player who can get the ball at his feet and scare defenders. Two sometimes, sure, but always one.
I have no favourite to who in particular it should be, that is totally reliant on what other players are available - do we have the right fullbacks fit for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We didn't have one direct winger on Saturday, Eriksen, a central midfielder playing left wing, and Lamela a winger by trade playing right wing but not once did he go outside
comment by NotSoMagicJuande (U1913)
posted 36 minutes ago
Ioarvirgo
The Utd comparison / suggestion is one of the most sensible things I have read on here in a while
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poch can't be soo stubborn to realise the best performance was the Everton game. Which we played a pseudo 4-4-2 formation as highlighted.
I know oppositions change and this affects formation but the formation we played was robust whilst offering attacking options. In my view it's important that in a 4-4-2 one of the wide men is a hard worker almost like a third central mid. Beckham did this extremely well for Man Utd whilst Giggs provided the outlet on the other flank. You don't need two outright wingers in a 4-4-2. in effect that becomes 4-2-4 and we would get torn apart with he quality and experience of our CMs if we tried that.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Yes, good points all I think. It's taken over a decade, but Thudd has finally said something sensible.
God I love you RC
Sherwood was old school in his approach and like Harry just spoke how he felt, there was no beating around the bush and like the Chelsea defeat ripped into players attitudes.
I just can't see this continuance of players being in positions which are comfortable to them, get Lamela in on the left, make him draw a player down the line, same with Chadli, switch wings during games, we're so stagnated in our approach to games, unless we actually come out in the Everton game and actually press, attack and play open it's very undirect and "tappy"
Sign in if you want to comment
The Direct Approach
Page 1 of 2
posted on 10/12/14
4-4-2 in general, and 4-3-3 for really good MF opponents.
posted on 10/12/14
4-4-2 with direct wingers who are willing to take people inside and out!
posted on 10/12/14
4-4-2 failed Arry on occasions when the opponent MF setup was different or had better players. So no shame in having a different formation for such opponents (there ain't many of those games in a season anyway) .
posted on 10/12/14
Maybe not so much 4-4-2, but with something more direct, had we signed say Benteke, Lukaku I think we would have adopted a different approach
posted on 10/12/14
Having a beast of a forward who doesn't lose the ball in the tussle means you have 4-5-1 as an option for certain teams.
posted on 10/12/14
yeah I definitely would go 442 in most games. big games I would tend to opt for 433.
posted on 10/12/14
I think we've tried and failed on most occasions with this inside forward, false 9 aspect of the game, to be the best you need to adapt to teams looking to come to WHL and defend deep, in numbers and counter, (which Palace did)
I would pick Townsend and Lennon against sides doing this, Bolaise (spell) always look to attack, he's not a negative type of player, Lamela always dipped inside and passed back, let's get at teams Bale,Lennon days
posted on 10/12/14
we need to stop being so predictable
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been saying for over a year now how tedious, boring and predictable we are.
Tactically quite honestly we must be the easiest side in the prem to beat. Its no coincidence that the likes of west brom and stoke have taken points of us at WHL its the way we are set up and the way we play.
We dont really pressurise teams we take an age to get forward which leaves them with about 20 minutes to take up a strong defensive position while we mess about with the ball in our defence third for a week or two.
We have no flair and without the likes of Lennon out wide we have no pace.
Every time we play its like the side has been picked not to lose rather than to win (there is a massive difference).
For years we struggled against teams that sat deep and parked the bus and that was when we had pace out wide. Now we actually mess about with the ball giving teams the chance to get back behind the ball so no wonder we are struggling to score.
Unless we actually start taking games to the opposition instead of letting them take the game to us
posted on 10/12/14
Article Rating Not Rated Yet
posted on 10/12/14
This article has literally been written a hundred times by various posters with this 'revelation' since the WBA loss.
I hate you THudd.
posted on 10/12/14
Thudd,
You make fair points.
I think what you are saying though is we should have a plan B.
I made a point a while ago that whilst its nice to be scoring from set pieces, the majority of our goals lately have come this way, and not through breaking teams down and slick passing.
I'm a big fan of Townsend's direct play but i believe he's injured isn't he?
Lamela could be replaced with a wind-up headless chicken for all i care.
posted on 10/12/14
Thoughts?
With our fans the only hope is 442. There's no patience, and seemingly a deep distrust of change. Even though the system being discussed is widely used by the best teams in the world.
442 will stop the booing for a while, which might actually improve results for a bit, but like you say THudd it's not really a long term solution. You can hope to win things conceding possession and getting outnumbered in midfield regularly.
posted on 10/12/14
The natives won't like this one bit....
posted on 10/12/14
With our fans the only hope is 442. There's no patience, and seemingly a deep distrust of change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No there is a deep distrust of systems which see us play crap and get crap results against crap teams
posted on 10/12/14
I'm a firm believer in having at least one direct winger in the side - a player who can get the ball at his feet and scare defenders. Two sometimes, sure, but always one.
I have no favourite to who in particular it should be, that is totally reliant on what other players are available - do we have the right fullbacks fit for example.
posted on 10/12/14
"With our fans the only hope is 442. There's no patience, and seemingly a deep distrust of change."
4-4-2 has served the club well in the main.
I would expect a team and manager to be capable of playing other formations though.
"Even though the system being discussed is widely used by the best teams in the world."
The issue is blind dogma.
Tika-taka was feted by all, and then in 2012 I watched a parked bus deny it. Then in 2013 the Teutonic terror that is Munich blitzkrieg-ed and bullied it into total submission.
No system or formation is perfect, regardless of the talent you have in the squad.
posted on 10/12/14
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 3 minutes ago
I'm a firm believer in having at least one direct winger in the side - a player who can get the ball at his feet and scare defenders. Two sometimes, sure, but always one.
I have no favourite to who in particular it should be, that is totally reliant on what other players are available - do we have the right fullbacks fit for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
looking at Man U's set up in their successful years.
If you like call it 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1
Attack
...................(Poacher) (Support striker)
Midfield
Direct winger, Creative midfielder, Defensive mid, Hard working wide mid /set piece technician
Defence
Full back, CB good in air, CB good with ball, Full back
How would this work for Spurs
Poacher: ? (Soldado )
Support striker: Kane, Ade
Direct winger: Townsend, Lennon
Hard working wide mid/Set piece: Eriksen
creative/passer Midfielder: ?
Defensive Midfielder: Bentaleb, Stambouli
Full backs: Davies and Walker
CB good in air: Fazio
CB good with ball: Vertonghen
In my opinion 2 positions would change us in January. Mid range passing maestro and a Poacher
posted on 10/12/14
442 is a pretty catch-all term.
Start of 09/10 was nominally a 442. One winger, Modric or Niko on the other side supporting the midfield pair, and two up front. Like the Everton game.
Tail end of 09/10 was an absolute 442. Two proper wingers, two out-and-out strikers
The start of 10/11 had the two wingers again, but one striker and Rafa, who dropped off in to midfield often and was a traditional 10, with a centre forward leading the line.
Three variations on a 442, all quite different.
All have their place. The middle one the hardest to pull off well because it puts a large responsibility on the centre midfielders and they have to be spot on
posted on 10/12/14
Ioarvirgo
The Utd comparison / suggestion is one of the most sensible things I have read on here in a while
posted on 10/12/14
Yeah formations are odd, one mans 433 can be another mans 4231. You could line up like a 442 consisting of 2 DM's, 3 AM's and a CF; which isn't the conventional 442 which has 2 strikers, 2 wingers and 2 B2B midfielders.
If I was a manager I would always have a 'direct' winger in my team, but it feels like people have been brainwashed into this style of thinking thanks to it being so successful in the PL era.
As long as you have 11 players committed to an ethos then it should generally be successful. We look at our best when Lennon plays, but maybe we should be looking at the bigger picture and realise this is just a quick-fix and not how Poch wants us to progress?
posted on 10/12/14
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
I'm a firm believer in having at least one direct winger in the side - a player who can get the ball at his feet and scare defenders. Two sometimes, sure, but always one.
I have no favourite to who in particular it should be, that is totally reliant on what other players are available - do we have the right fullbacks fit for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We didn't have one direct winger on Saturday, Eriksen, a central midfielder playing left wing, and Lamela a winger by trade playing right wing but not once did he go outside
posted on 10/12/14
comment by NotSoMagicJuande (U1913)
posted 36 minutes ago
Ioarvirgo
The Utd comparison / suggestion is one of the most sensible things I have read on here in a while
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poch can't be soo stubborn to realise the best performance was the Everton game. Which we played a pseudo 4-4-2 formation as highlighted.
I know oppositions change and this affects formation but the formation we played was robust whilst offering attacking options. In my view it's important that in a 4-4-2 one of the wide men is a hard worker almost like a third central mid. Beckham did this extremely well for Man Utd whilst Giggs provided the outlet on the other flank. You don't need two outright wingers in a 4-4-2. in effect that becomes 4-2-4 and we would get torn apart with he quality and experience of our CMs if we tried that.
posted on 10/12/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/12/14
Yes, good points all I think. It's taken over a decade, but Thudd has finally said something sensible.
God I love you RC
posted on 10/12/14
Sherwood was old school in his approach and like Harry just spoke how he felt, there was no beating around the bush and like the Chelsea defeat ripped into players attitudes.
I just can't see this continuance of players being in positions which are comfortable to them, get Lamela in on the left, make him draw a player down the line, same with Chadli, switch wings during games, we're so stagnated in our approach to games, unless we actually come out in the Everton game and actually press, attack and play open it's very undirect and "tappy"
Page 1 of 2