4-5-1

[SStandUp]

I personally feel, with our set of players, this is our best formation.

I know to some fans it can seem a negative set up, especially at home. But I like it. It allows us to accommodate the likes of Reid/ Tomlin, Smith, Cotterill, O'dowda all in the same side. It can allow us to dominate the midfield, and in the championship this is vital, whoever wins the midfield battle tends to come out on top. 

It's also the formation we used at the start of the season, when we used to win! 

Whats others thoughts? 

[KURTZ]

Maybe, but I doubt if the 442 fundamentalists will agree.

[ploppy]

I would agree it makes the most sense on paper but it hasn't worked too many times this season. Maybe that's due to Abraham not being the right type of player to play up front on his own. Maybe it takes a Wilbs target man type to hold up play and bring in the midfield, rather than leading to isolation.

Also I think if we are going to play that way our midfielders need to be well drilled in terms of their role. Too many times we've seen our centre midfielders play a very similar role (i.e. sitting back) leading to a situation where on the off chance we do get into a good position there is nobody in the box to capitalise. If Reid is going to be our attacking centre midfielder with, say, Pack and GON sitting back then he needs to be making lung bursting runs to get into goal scoring positions. 

Whilst 442 didn't work at all against Fulham (perhaps because we were just generally shite) it was very good in the first half against Derby. The players seemed to have much better understanding of their roles as it is a very simple way of playing. Too many times we over complicate with 451 and it doesn't work - Rotherham at home first half is a fantastic example of that. LJ will say we were ostensibly playing a 442 with Tomlin up top but he's not a striker - instead we set up in a confused system that really did not work.

I think 442 or 352 (if we are bold enough to try that system again) works better than 451 in my opinion. Two strikers on the pitch please!

[Strictly Obi]

With the squad we have now, 4-5-1 makes sense playing a top 6 side (especially playing away). But 4-4-2 must surely be the preferred option against lesser sides and home matches. 

[Taz]

The fact that we are a few days from March, and nobody seems to know our best formation  (including the head coach), is kind of worrying don't you think?

This is the sort of discussion we should be having at the beginning of the season, or if we had a sudden injury crisis. 

[Red-Robbo]

It's not my favourite formation, but it's horses for courses.Sometime it is the best option.

When you play it you need to have some forward-minded midfielders allowed to get upfield quickly, which, yesterday, we did.

[wendyredredrobin]

I wonder if chopping and changing players and formations is half of our problem.  A settled side and formation would get the players used to playing the same system and playing with each other.

Just draft in a like for like replacement where there are injuries, we have a big enough squad.

When things are settled, players know what their team mates will do and where they will be without thinking or looking.

We should play our own system and let our opponents worry about us rather than worrying too much about them.

 

 

 

[Red-Robbo]

12 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

I wonder if chopping and changing players and formations is half of our problem.  A settled side and formation would get the players used to playing the same system and playing with each other.

Just draft in a like for like replacement where there are injuries, we have a big enough squad.

When things are settled, players know what their team mates will do and where they will be without thinking or looking.

We should play our own system and let our opponents worry about us rather than worrying too much about them.

 

 

 

That tactic didn't really work for Cotterill, did it?

I have no problem Lee's frequent formation changes - you see it all the time in the PL. Thinking players are more flexible position-wise than they are gives me more cause for concern. I often think that Johnson has little grasp on players' strengths and weaknesses.

[REDOXO]

Changing formation while we are in play is part and parcel of the game. BUT, as a bloke said on another thread today LJ seems to do it for no reason or the wrong reason, which is infuriating.

I am all for solidity and fast attack. The team gave us that in spades first half but could not win the ball second half forcing us to deep.

We have to get stuck in and win the ball as it is clear we can win if we have it and t be frank not having it only has one outcome!

What we could do if we had Gerry Gow right now!!!??

[redysteadygo1]

4 hours ago, john from high littleton said:

With the squad we have now, 4-5-1 makes sense playing a top 6 side (especially playing away). But 4-4-2 must surely be the preferred option against lesser sides and home matches. 

Although not my type of set up I feel it should have been used against Fulham, due to the passing style they play, in an effort to counter their dominance in possession and creating gaps in and around our area. The two up front did nothing and due to our league position should have taken a punt on getting a goal / goals through breaks or set pieces. 

As I said not idea but we were not in an idea league position or form.

[samo II]

For me we very much set up 4-1-4-1 yesterday, not 4-5-1, and while people might say I'm quibbling over details, I honestly felt we always had one of Smith or GO'N dropped in to cover Shalvey and/or pick up the option for the defence to pass out.

We rarely used all three central players going forward, instead they sat in, allowing the full backs to head forward (though usually Vyner held back from bombing on, thanks to the threat of getting caught by Atsu's pace).

This formation also allowed either Korey Smith or O'Neil to press higher up (which Reid ably assisted in BTW), which Newcastle struggled with first half.

I'd persist with it at Villa.  If Djuric is back; even better, as Wilbs might be willing to grind himself into the dirt for the shirt (God bless that lad), but I'd suggest being able to replace him at some point second half would be beneficial.

And Josh Brownhill; I could see his energy fitting with the way that midfield ticked over, though think the 'authority' and awareness of Smith and GO'N is something Brownhill might lack, and was a key to making the formation work.

Feel a little sorry for Taylor, as with two goals in just a handful of appearances, he's done little wrong, but right now I think away to sides like Villa, we need more of a solid base to work from.

It also allows someone like Patterson to be brought in for Reid to add more pace to an attack, or Pack in for GO'N to break up attacks.

I'd hope we go for that approach against Villa, and that we hit them with the intensity out the gate we did at this weekend; as I've mentioned elsewhere, I do not think Villa have the same mental strength or level of quality Newcastle could call upon to push us back.

Should be very interesting to see what happens Tuesday; unfortunately I'm at a work event, so won't have any idea what is going on until after the fact!

[SStandUp]

1 minute ago, samo II said:

For me we very much set up 4-1-4-1 yesterday, not 4-5-1, and while people might say I'm quibbling over details, I honestly felt we always had one of Smith or GO'N dropped in to cover Shalvey and/or pick up the option for the defence to pass out.

We rarely used all three central players going forward, instead they sat in, allowing the full backs to head forward (though usually Vyner held back from bombing on, thanks to the threat of getting caught by Atsu's pace).

This formation also allowed either Korey Smith or O'Neil to press higher up (which Reid ably assisted in BTW), which Newcastle struggled with first half.

I'd persist with it at Villa.  If Djuric is back; even better, as Wilbs might be willing to grind himself into the dirt for the shirt (God bless that lad), but I'd suggest being able to replace him at some point second half would be beneficial.

And Josh Brownhill; I could see his energy fitting with the way that midfield ticked over, though think the 'authority' and awareness of Smith and GO'N is something Brownhill might lack, and was a key to making the formation work.

Feel a little sorry for Taylor, as with two goals in just a handful of appearances, he's done little wrong, but right now I think away to sides like Villa, we need more of a solid base to work from.

It also allows someone like Patterson to be brought in for Reid to add more pace to an attack, or Pack in for GO'N to break up attacks.

I'd hope we go for that approach against Villa, and that we hit them with the intensity out the gate we did at this weekend; as I've mentioned elsewhere, I do not think Villa have the same mental strength or level of quality Newcastle could call upon to push us back.

Should be very interesting to see what happens Tuesday; unfortunately I'm at a work event, so won't have any idea what is going on until after the fact!

Yeh you're right it was more 4-1-4-1. And I agree with your points regarding it. Hope LJ sticks with it, especially for villa. It would suit Djuric a treat too and can accommodate Tomlin if needed, although I wouldn't drop Reid. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Was it not  more of a 4-3-3?

Had a sort of perfect balance. Probably was 4-3-3 at times, 4-1-4-1 at others and 4-5-1 when up against it.

[Flagon]

Whichever formation we go for, and I think with the current squad there are a number of options, there has to be an intensity to it. For whatever reason there are usually a couple of players that are far too casual in their play which either results in a surprise loose pass completely outfoxing our own team as it's so unexpected or just easily brushed off the ball when in decent positions. There has to be a desire to win the ball at all times, to anticipate where it's going when they haven't got the ball. To move and support each player when we are in possession. 

[Davefevs]

8 hours ago, ForeverRes said:

I personally feel, with our set of players, this is our best formation.

I know to some fans it can seem a negative set up, especially at home. But I like it. It allows us to accommodate the likes of Reid/ Tomlin, Smith, Cotterill, O'dowda all in the same side. It can allow us to dominate the midfield, and in the championship this is vital, whoever wins the midfield battle tends to come out on top. 

It's also the formation we used at the start of the season, when we used to win! 

Whats others thoughts? 

I think too much is made of formations.  They look good on paper and FM17, but apart from goal-kicks and kick-offs, the game is too fluid to see the rigidity of the formation listed on the team sheet.  I accept you hear commentators saying "they're trying to break down the two banks of 4", but in the modern game you rarely see two left up top when you haven't got the ball, so it often is 9 outfield behind the ball.

Early season we were more 4231 than 451, and I think yesterday was 4141.  But as above they are variants on a theme.

It is more about the players and their mentality with and without the ball, their discipline to hold their position or be fluid according to the coaches orders.

The FIFA17 term of CAM, the FM17 Treqartista, the DM bug the hell out of me.  They do help describe, but they do not define the player's role imho.  Players have played those roles for years.

I usually use Liverpool as my example.  But Look at the Everton team/midfield from the 80s.

Southall

Stevens, Mountfield, Ratcliffe, Van den Hauwe

Steven, Reid, Bracewell, Sheedy

Sharp or Heath with Lineker

What were Reid and Bracewell?  DMs, CMs, Holding Midfielders , etc?

They were good midfielders, Reid, box to box, ball winner, who could play, Bracewell, not box to box, but closed well, and a lovely passer over short to mid-range.  You didn't need to further define their roles, they were central midfielders who complimented the way Everton played.

So, in our 4231 early season, most people tend to see it as two holders to allow Tomlin to play in the 10.  Yet some of our better games were with Reid and O'Neil as the two.  Reid is no holder is he?  O'Neil was box to box, not dynamic box to box, but gets about

Then Pack came in, with O"Neil, suspended and niggly injuries.  He's not box to box, more the screen, and passing midfielder.

The changes went on. I honestly don't know what best formation is.  If everyone was fit and in form, I'd go one up front, because I like the quality we could maximise from 5 midfielders.  Tammy is my frontman in that one.

Pre-game yesterday, people said you can't play 1 up top when it's Wilbs.  But if 4141 meant Wilbs had 4 midfielders closer to him, then it can.  Perhaps the dedicated midfielder (O'Neil) gave the 4, especially the central 2 to get around Wilbs.

2 up top does not equal more attacking. Nor do I subscribe that you play 2 up top at home and 1 away.

The other thing that comes into the equation, is what the opposition do.  There's not one side out there.

[SStandUp]

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think too much is made of formations.  They look good on paper and FM17, but apart from goal-kicks and kick-offs, the game is too fluid to see the rigidity of the formation listed on the team sheet.  I accept you hear commentators saying "they're trying to break down the two banks of 4", but in the modern game you rarely see two left up top when you haven't got the ball, so it often is 9 outfield behind the ball.

Early season we were more 4231 than 451, and I think yesterday was 4141.  But as above they are variants on a theme.

It is more about the players and their mentality with and without the ball, their discipline to hold their position or be fluid according to the coaches orders.

The FIFA17 term of CAM, the FM17 Treqartista, the DM bug the hell out of me.  They do help describe, but they do not define the player's role imho.  Players have played those roles for years.

I usually use Liverpool as my example.  But Look at the Everton team/midfield from the 80s.

Southall

Stevens, Mountfield, Ratcliffe, Van den Hauwe

Steven, Reid, Bracewell, Sheedy

Sharp or Heath with Lineker

What were Reid and Bracewell?  DMs, CMs, Holding Midfielders , etc?

They were good midfielders, Reid, box to box, ball winner, who could play, Bracewell, not box to box, but closed well, and a lovely passer over short to mid-range.  You didn't need to further define their roles, they were central midfielders who complimented the way Everton played.

So, in our 4231 early season, most people tend to see it as two holders to allow Tomlin to play in the 10.  Yet some of our better games were with Reid and O'Neil as the two.  Reid is no holder is he?  O'Neil was box to box, not dynamic box to box, but gets about

Then Pack came in, with O"Neil, suspended and niggly injuries.  He's not box to box, more the screen, and passing midfielder.

The changes went on. I honestly don't know what best formation is.  If everyone was fit and in form, I'd go one up front, because I like the quality we could maximise from 5 midfielders.  Tammy is my frontman in that one.

Pre-game yesterday, people said you can't play 1 up top when it's Wilbs.  But if 4141 meant Wilbs had 4 midfielders closer to him, then it can.  Perhaps the dedicated midfielder (O'Neil) gave the 4, especially the central 2 to get around Wilbs.

2 up top does not equal more attacking. Nor do I subscribe that you play 2 up top at home and 1 away.

The other thing that comes into the equation, is what the opposition do.  There's not one side out there.

You good sir speak a lot of sense. I enjoy reading your posts !

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, ForeverRes said:

You good sir speak a lot of sense. I enjoy reading your posts !

Ta.

This post might make a bit of sense of the post I badly worded last night.

[JoeAman08]

3 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

It's not my favourite formation, but it's horses for courses.Sometime it is the best option.

When you play it you need to have some forward-minded midfielders allowed to get upfield quickly, which, yesterday, we did.

Well we had Bobby who is forward thinking. It was nice to see Korey get up the pitch as I think it suits him to play around the box with his good close control and eye for a short pass. O'Dowda and Cotterill make it work so much better as they sprint forward and back. 

I still have nightmares about Cardiff away where Korey and GON just sat next to each other and it caused Tomlin to drop deep as they didn't look forward and it isolated Tammy badly. Was refreshing to see Korey got the instruction to go forward. 

Funnily enough, it was shown as 4-1-4-1 which is the second time I remember it and we've played well both times. The other the first 70 min against Reading. Both times though we've conceded possession and we tired badly though. It's a formation i wouldn't mind seeing more of, especially with Tammy out. It requires two mobile and plucky midfielders though. Korey and Bobby were that. Joe and Josh I think could both play that as well. Leaving Pack, Hegeler and GON to play the holding role. We've got the midfielders for it. We've got two brilliant target man types we can utilise and with Cotterill on the right and O'Dowda on the left we get wingers who help going forward and defending. Just have to know when to make the substitutions. 

[bpexile]

4 hours ago, Taz said:

The fact that we are a few days from March, and nobody seems to know our best formation  (including the head coach), is kind of worrying don't you think?

This is the sort of discussion we should be having at the beginning of the season, or if we had a sudden injury crisis. 

Thats the exact reason we find ourselves in this predicament.

We've been to unsettled all season with senior/costly players underperforming. I can understand LJ's confusion to some degree but it shouldn't have led to the miss match selections. Just when players seem to get a handle on their role they go missing from selection.

Hopefully the squad that played Newcastle have earned their spot at last.

[JasonM88]

4-4-2 is an outdated formation imo. It means we'll get over powered in midfield against those that play either a 433 or 451.

[Charlie BCFC]

9 hours ago, ForeverRes said:

I personally feel, with our set of players, this is our best formation.

I know to some fans it can seem a negative set up, especially at home. But I like it. It allows us to accommodate the likes of Reid/ Tomlin, Smith, Cotterill, O'dowda all in the same side. It can allow us to dominate the midfield, and in the championship this is vital, whoever wins the midfield battle tends to come out on top. 

It's also the formation we used at the start of the season, when we used to win! 

Whats others thoughts? 

I agree and the three CMs should be Hegeler for defensive reasons, Brownhill and GON but we definitely have a lot of players who can play in those positions whether they're defensive (Pack and Hegeler), Box to box  ( GON and Smith) or fairly attacking (Brownhill and Reid).

[JasonM88]

9 minutes ago, Flint says No said:

I agree and the three CMs should be Hegeler for defensive reasons, Brownhill and GON but we definitely have a lot of players who can play in those positions whether they're defensive (Pack and Hegeler), Box to box  ( GON and Smith) or fairly attacking (Brownhill and Reid).

Hegeler is hardly a defensive midfielder.

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, JasonM88 said:

4-4-2 is an outdated formation imo. It means we'll get over powered in midfield against those that play either a 433 or 451.

Those formations against each other are really interesting.

442 us vs 433 them.  Out full backs should occupy their wide forwards, and therefore our 4 should outmatch their 3.  So what's the drawback....their full-backs, if they get up against our wide midfielders, means their central 3 against our central 2.  But then they have to go 2 v 2 against our forwards.  Pros and cons for each side.  At this level it's often the players performance that makes the difference.

442 us vs 451 them.  Their 5 in midfield outnumber our 4.  So once again, how do we get our full-backs to get the overload.  You start to see the same arguments in reverse of above.

As I say, every formation has its strengths and weaknesses it itself and different strengths and weaknesses depending on the formation it's up against.

Also, how can Barcelona play 4-6-0, and still be a wonderful attacking threat?  Players is the answer.

[JasonM88]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Those formations against each other are really interesting.

442 us vs 433 them.  Out full backs should occupy their wide forwards, and therefore our 4 should outmatch their 3.  So what's the drawback....their full-backs, if they get up against our wide midfielders, means their central 3 against our central 2.  But then they have to go 2 v 2 against our forwards.  Pros and cons for each side.  At this level it's often the players performance that makes the difference.

442 us vs 451 them.  Their 5 in midfield outnumber our 4.  So once again, how do we get our full-backs to get the overload.  You start to see the same arguments in reverse of above.

As I say, every formation has its strengths and weaknesses it itself and different strengths and weaknesses depending on the formation it's up against.

Also, how can Barcelona play 4-6-0, and still be a wonderful attacking threat?  Players is the answer.

Barca play without a formation in a way. They have their 4, and then the 1 in front of them. Ahead of that it's everyone where they want to be. 

[SStandUp]

14 minutes ago, JasonM88 said:

Hegeler is hardly a defensive midfielder.

He's a CB that can also play midfield. There's no doubt that he is regarded as a defensive minded midfielder! 

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, JasonM88 said:

Barca play without a formation in a way. They have their 4, and then the 1 in front of them. Ahead of that it's everyone where they want to be. 

Exactly....formations are over-rated.  I'm a bit out of touch with Spanish footie, but they've played Mascerano and Cocu at centre half over the years too.

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, JasonM88 said:

Barca play without a formation in a way. They have their 4, and then the 1 in front of them. Ahead of that it's everyone where they want to be. 

They used to ( I havnt watched them this season ) push their two full backs up and tucked in to flood the midfield with one of the central midfield dropping in between the centre halves

Guardiola has been doing similar at Man City

[BobBobSuperBob]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I think too much is made of formations.  They look good on paper and FM17, but apart from goal-kicks and kick-offs, the game is too fluid to see the rigidity of the formation listed on the team sheet.  I accept you hear commentators saying "they're trying to break down the two banks of 4", but in the modern game you rarely see two left up top when you haven't got the ball, so it often is 9 outfield behind the ball.

Early season we were more 4231 than 451, and I think yesterday was 4141.  But as above they are variants on a theme.

It is more about the players and their mentality with and without the ball, their discipline to hold their position or be fluid according to the coaches orders.

The FIFA17 term of CAM, the FM17 Treqartista, the DM bug the hell out of me.  They do help describe, but they do not define the player's role imho.  Players have played those roles for years.

I usually use Liverpool as my example.  But Look at the Everton team/midfield from the 80s.

Southall

Stevens, Mountfield, Ratcliffe, Van den Hauwe

Steven, Reid, Bracewell, Sheedy

Sharp or Heath with Lineker

What were Reid and Bracewell?  DMs, CMs, Holding Midfielders , etc?

They were good midfielders, Reid, box to box, ball winner, who could play, Bracewell, not box to box, but closed well, and a lovely passer over short to mid-range.  You didn't need to further define their roles, they were central midfielders who complimented the way Everton played.

So, in our 4231 early season, most people tend to see it as two holders to allow Tomlin to play in the 10.  Yet some of our better games were with Reid and O'Neil as the two.  Reid is no holder is he?  O'Neil was box to box, not dynamic box to box, but gets about

Then Pack came in, with O"Neil, suspended and niggly injuries.  He's not box to box, more the screen, and passing midfielder.

The changes went on. I honestly don't know what best formation is.  If everyone was fit and in form, I'd go one up front, because I like the quality we could maximise from 5 midfielders.  Tammy is my frontman in that one.

Pre-game yesterday, people said you can't play 1 up top when it's Wilbs.  But if 4141 meant Wilbs had 4 midfielders closer to him, then it can.  Perhaps the dedicated midfielder (O'Neil) gave the 4, especially the central 2 to get around Wilbs.

2 up top does not equal more attacking. Nor do I subscribe that you play 2 up top at home and 1 away.

The other thing that comes into the equation, is what the opposition do.  There's not one side out there.

Good post again mate

Agree - most plans formations (And there are numerous) will have success if

You have the players to play it

You coach it well and the players ' buy in' and understand it

The danger and problem with LJ is he seems to think the players are capable of switching formation up to three times a game

As I've said on other threads that's a lot to ask players to do successfully - it might work on FM17 but the genera principle of follow / do what you know is often better

 

[1bristolcity]

Yes this formation would have helped us not concede 50 goals thus far. With Bryan and now Cotts making it a 4-3-3 it would seem a better formation. But who plays the 1 up... Tammy, Duric, or  Wilbs? All could do a job I reckon.  

[JasonM88]

1 hour ago, ForeverRes said:

He's a CB that can also play midfield. There's no doubt that he is regarded as a defensive minded midfielder! 

Have you ever watched him play? He's most definitely not a defensive mid.