Murraysrightplum Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Question to all those who wanted an attacking 442 formation... Looking forward to the "Bring back the packed midfield and LJ" posts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tezOfCity Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Nah 4-4-2 isnt the reason were playing the way we are, a shamble of a defence and a high defensive line against one of the pacier and best organized teams in the championship is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murraysrightplum Posted January 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 The radio reckon we are playing more like 4-2-4 so clearly the defence are exposed. Perhaps earlier in the season GJ knew the defence weren't up to it so was protecting them with lots of midfielders. I agree it sounds as if the defence are having a mare. For the record I like 442 but people should be careful what they wish for...like the manager's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Well, I suppose those who are there can't comoplain about the goalmouth action! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Yorkshire CideRed Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Question to all those who wanted an attacking 442 formation... Looking forward to the "Bring back the packed midfield and LJ" posts... Your thread title is the only thing that has made me smile tonight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Yeah, 442 is why we forgot basic defensive duties. Of course, I should have remembered - all teams that play 442 with two wingers are running the risk of losing 6-0 at home. Nothing to do with not having a settled back four this season, that being our sixth or seventh different starting formation, or our full backs forgetting that they didn't have an extra centre half to clean up after them at all. We lost because in the space of a few minutes we made some calamitous errors that would be reprehensible in under-12s football against the best front line in the division and then our heads went down. We make errors like that because we're unsettled and lack confidence and concentration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 While the vast majority obsessed abgout a left winger and 4-4-2 (let's face it to the average English fan anything else is a bit complicated and suspiciously foreign) a small minority suggested the real problem was our defence and a commanding centre half was more important. Nevertheless the endless late goals conceded and the fact that we scraped points in numerous home games only because of wonder saves from Dean Gerken were ignored by fans and Manager alike and off we went and signed a left winger and a centre forward. The defence has been a shambles for some time and tonight was simply chickens coming home to roost. :disapointed2se:Anybody fancy going back to the days of a rock solid defence and players ready to spill blood to stop the opposition from scoring and good old 1-0 wins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 While the vast majority obsessed abgout a left winger and 4-4-2 (let's face it to the average English fan anything else is a bit complicated and suspiciously foreign) a small minority suggested the real problem was our defence and a commanding centre half was more important. Nevertheless the endless late goals conceded and the fact that we scraped points in numerous home games only because of wonder saves from Dean Gerken were ignored by fans and Manager alike and off we went and signed a left winger and a centre forward. The defence has been a shambles for some time and tonight was simply chickens coming home to roost. :disapointed2se:Anybody fancy going back to the days of a rock solid defence and players ready to spill blood to stop the opposition from scoring and good old 1-0 wins? I could have sworn Cardiff played 4-4-2. Perhaps it has more to do with the under 8's defending we did tonight, coupled with the bad impression of a goalkeeper. We could have played a 10- 0 -0 and it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference to the outcome, we were gutless at the back, and had no bottle for the fight anywhere on the pitch bar JMC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 While the vast majority obsessed about a left winger and 4-4-2 (let's face it to the average English fan anything else is a bit complicated and suspiciously foreign) a small minority suggested the real problem was our defence and a commanding centre half was more important. Nevertheless the endless late goals conceded and the fact that we scraped points in numerous home games only because of wonder saves from Dean Gerken were ignored by fans and Manager alike and off we went and signed a left winger and a centre forward. The defence has been a shambles for some time and tonight was simply chickens coming home to roost. :disapointed2se:Anybody fancy going back to the days of a rock solid defence and players ready to spill blood to stop the opposition from scoring and good old 1-0 wins? And will those who like to claim the credit for forcing the Manager's hand now share the blame? Thought not. Its fairly ammusing that the most vocal on here who kept banging on about the 4-4-2 are now the most vocal cos we have been smashed up whilst trying it!! Its fairly obvious we cant play it against good sides with good midfielders as they walk straight through us. Good to have a left winger though!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Cardiff played 4-4-2 all night. What are we meant to do, play 7 defenders at home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 I could have sworn Cardiff played 4-4-2. Perhaps it has more to do with the under 8's defending we did tonight, coupled with the bad impression of a goalkeeper. We could have played a 10- 0 -0 and it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference to the outcome, we were gutless at the back, and had no bottle for the fight anywhere on the pitch bar JMC. Their alleged wingers are not of the JCR type, rather midfield players who work their socks off and can defend as well as attack, unlike ours. McIndoe was nearer to that type of player and did likewise, though not as well. None of their goals came from wing play. They simply breezed through our non-existent midfield and sliced through a defence that has been shaky all season. Still if people want to ignore that and pretend wingers will solve it that's fine. Sadly the Manager seems as blind to the problem as anybody. Still, there's always Jamie McCombe to sort it out when he's fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted January 26, 2010 Admin Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Cardiff played a fine example of 4-4-2, if that was what we were supposed to be playing, it didn't look like it. The formation we play is irrelevant to me, so long as it produces entertaining football, but it has to be played with an acceptable level of competence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pogopete Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 Cardiff did play a sort of 442 but they have so much pace upfront they just ran through our defence unlike us when we go forward there defence are back waiting for us. Yes it was great to see a team so well organised it was men against boys and it showed how far away we are from being a top cc team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.