JamesBCFC Posted May 27, 2017 Report Share Posted May 27, 2017 Just now, Robbored said: Any manager has to have the players capable of playing in a back three and I'm not convinced it's that successful as a formation either. I'm a 4-4-2 man. There is no one formation that rules them all. Many exploit the weaknesses of others. 4-4-2 was dominant here, then we saw the rise of 4-2-3-1. Now it is 3-4-3 that counters (to an extent) that formation. The far more important part is the players, the formations are an extremely convaluted game of rock paper scissors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 10 hours ago, JamesBCFC said: There is no one formation that rules them all. Many exploit the weaknesses of others. 4-4-2 was dominant here, then we saw the rise of 4-2-3-1. Now it is 3-4-3 that counters (to an extent) that formation. The far more important part is the players, the formations are an extremely convaluted game of rock paper scissors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 10 hours ago, JamesBCFC said: There is no one formation that rules them all. Many exploit the weaknesses of others. 4-4-2 was dominant here, then we saw the rise of 4-2-3-1. Now it is 3-4-3 that counters (to an extent) that formation. The far more important part is the players, the formations are an extremely convaluted game of rock paper scissors. Tbh James, to me 4-4-2 is the basic frame from which other formations can evolve, even during the same game. But as you say formation are a game of Rock Paper Scissors and btw that's an excellent way to describe them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.