Smokey Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 what would be your prefered formation for the start of the season? 442 for me. i don't think our players have the footballing brain to play the 433 on a regular basis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 442... Unless we sign out and out wingers like scott sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 442 for the same reasons. Or 4411 for tough away games with Williams in behind a bigger player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whale Eye Beef Hooked Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 442 for the same reasons. Or 4411 for tough away games with Williams in behind a bigger player. So you would drop Maynard and Clarkson ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Theres a lot of nonsense talked about formations. About the only obvious thing is whether a team plays one, two or three up front. The rest of the side is very variable. Managers have full backs bombing forward, midfielders getting ahead of the strikers, wingers tucking in or hugging the touchline, strikers back defending. They aslo have deep sitting defensive midfielders as well attacking ones. When a team has lost the ball you often see 10 men back defending and when they are in possesion you might see many 6 or 7 players around the opposition box. We can somtimes see all above employed in the same game. Formations change all the time throughout a game. All labels like 4-4-2, 4-3-3 and 3-4-3 or whatever are is a frame on which to structure a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Theres a lot of nonsense talked about formations. About the only obvious thing is whether a team plays one, two or three up front. The rest of the side is very variable. Managers have full backs bombing forward, midfielders getting ahead of the strikers, wingers tucking in or hugging the touchline, strikers back defending. They aslo have deep sitting defensive midfielders as well attacking ones. When a team has lost the ball you often see 10 men back defending and when they are in possesion you might see many 6 or 7 players around the opposition box. We can somtimes see all above employed in the same game. Formations change all the time throughout a game. All labels like 4-4-2, 4-3-3 and 3-4-3 or whatever are is a frame on which to structure a team. Although the debate is an interesting one (and is already going on in 2 other threads!) I take your point. It was interesting hearing Gary say today that he wants all his midfield players to get forward and back rather than have one staying deep all the time. So the formation becomes irrelevant. It's the old cliche about attacking and defending as a unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 So you would drop Maynard and Clarkson ??? Dunno whether Clarkson can be that big tough striker but if we were looking at a very tough away game and trying to play compact and tight I'd certainly have no problem selecting a team that can best achieve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dunno whether Clarkson can be that big tough striker but if we were looking at a very tough away game and trying to play compact and tight I'd certainly have no problem selecting a team that can best achieve that. Absolutely; horses for courses. And Clarkson is obviously rated for his workrate, something you definitely need from a lone striker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.