4-4-2- surely not the way forward?

[Mr Popodopolous]

I've been doubting the setup for some time and have been a long time sceptic of the formation as a whole and more specifically, whether it suits us.

Let's take a look at the top 10, 11 of this League, this year.

Wolves 3-4-2-1/3-4-3. Their plan B seems to be a 3-4-1-2 with Jota behind Afobe and Bonatini. Control centrally.

Cardiff 4-3-3. A dinosaur like Warnock, and his football by and large is horrible, but still he sees the control and the benefit of 4-3-3.

Fulham 4-2-3-1 originally. Decent possession but hit and miss results. Switched to a 4-3-3 (plus Mitrovic of course moved them up a level) 54 pts from 22 games unbeaten. Skill, control- just on a charge, but may be pipped by Cardiff.

Aston Villa 4-1-4-1. Play this fairly often, don't think they're big on 4-4-2. Less attacking than Wolves or Fulham, but that '1' between the defence and midfield offers stability.

Middlesborough- 4-2-3-1 originally and now 4-3-3. Play more football than Cardiff, but even if not tiki-taka, the 4-3-3 offers control or at least stability.

Millwall- The big outlier here. Neither have the stability of a midfield central 3, don't dominate the ball. 4-4-2, but I wonder how much of their charge is down to momentum? Provided they don't charge through playoffs into PL, they won't IMO replicate this season in 2018/19.

Derby- Think 4-2-3-1 their general set up? Not a typical 4-4-2 side anyway. Lot of 'names' but I question their overall quality.

Have some aging players, people who were a big noise at this level a few years ago, maybe when this League was in a different place tactically?

Brentford- Very fluid (as we know to our cost)!. Play a 4-2-3-1 I believe.

Preston- Not entirely sure but didn't they play 4-3-3 v us? Fairly sure not a 4-4-2 Plan A side anyway.

Sheffield United- Not a bad side to watch. They like the 3-5-1-1 I believe, that provides a lot of fluidity and control on paper at least.

With that in mind, and Millwall aside an unusual yet really well managed outlier, can anyone explain why we are so wedded to 4-4-2 (I don't mean Paterson behind Reid in the Autumn).

I mean the 4-4-2 with 2 wingers, 2 strikers or indeed the narrowing shoe horning one (Brownhill, Smith, Pack and Paterson).

Neither ars ideal IMO- the former leaves sides pretty exposed in these increasingly tactical times and the latter too narrow and congested. Both can and do come unstuck and particularly, but not exclusively, against better sides playing more fluid, forward thinking set ups.

Essentially, should we persist with it next year- and particularly given how this League is changing?

[Davefevs]

You know me Mr P, I don’t go big on formations, they are starting positions for goal-kicks only.  I’m sure 442 with the right players and approach would work.  Advantages and disadvantages of every formation.

A clever manager would identify the weaknesses of the oppositions style, compare to his own team’s strengths and vice versa, and exploit.  You don’t have to change formation, but you might change emphasis of attack etc, e.g. we;re gonna attempt to get the ball wide as often as possibly today, or, we’re gonna play a bit higher up the pitch this week.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Fair enough Dave.

Definitely agree about tweaks, tailoring to fit a bit strengths, weaknesses of the opposition.

Where possible, maximise our strong points, nullify their weaknesses.

4-4-2

Strengths

Has goal potential with Reid and Diedhiou as a pair, won't deny that.

On paper at least, can double up and protect the flanks better.

Everybody's job is pretty easily defined.

Weaknesses

Just IMO at least.

1) The higher a side goes, the easier to counteract it becomes.

The Championship is a different beast to 5 years ago even- more foreign influence, both in terms of managers and players. Plus young British managers seeing German or Spanish or other types of setups and implementing parts into their set up.

Pulis playing a 4-3-3- never thought I'd see the day!? Warnock too.

2) You get outmanoeuvred in the middle with 2 vs a 3, always have done- on a hot day like Saturday it would be exacerbated.

I think it can work but you need to be say 3 up by halftime say, stamina wise, numerically.

If you don't change then, put on a holding midfielder at half time, after an hour at most. It takes a lot out of the side- maybe it can work as a starting setup but I saw some of these flaws 2nd half v Barnsley 2nd half back in August.

Yes there was a natural easing off by us as 3-0 by halftime but we'd put a lot in so fatigue was always likely to be a factor- and it was.

Maybe it could work- if we become a side not that interested in possession. Counter attacking, more physical type maybe...

As an aside.

Ironically, looking at the Championship 10 years back, while not exactly revolutionary, GJ's Noble behind the striker (Trundle usually was it) first half of the season, bit ahead of its time in this division at that stage.

So it's ironic in a way now, that LJ should be persisting with this set up, a set up that most on my list above have left in their slipstream a bit- despite LJ being the modern, tactically astute manager out of the 2.

Funny that.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I've been doubting the setup for some time and have been a long time sceptic of the formation as a whole and more specifically, whether it suits us.

Let's take a look at the top 10, 11 of this League, this year.

Wolves 3-4-2-1/3-4-3. Their plan B seems to be a 3-4-1-2 with Jota behind Afobe and Bonatini. Control centrally.

Cardiff 4-3-3. A dinosaur like Warnock, and his football by and large is horrible, but still he sees the control and the benefit of 4-3-3.

Fulham 4-2-3-1 originally. Decent possession but hit and miss results. Switched to a 4-3-3 (plus Mitrovic of course moved them up a level) 54 pts from 22 games unbeaten. Skill, control- just on a charge, but may be pipped by Cardiff.

Aston Villa 4-1-4-1. Play this fairly often, don't think they're big on 4-4-2. Less attacking than Wolves or Fulham, but that '1' between the defence and midfield offers stability.

Middlesborough- 4-2-3-1 originally and now 4-3-3. Play more football than Cardiff, but even if not tiki-taka, the 4-3-3 offers control or at least stability.

Millwall- The big outlier here. Neither have the stability of a midfield central 3, don't dominate the ball. 4-4-2, but I wonder how much of their charge is down to momentum? Provided they don't charge through playoffs into PL, they won't IMO replicate this season in 2018/19.

Derby- Think 4-2-3-1 their general set up? Not a typical 4-4-2 side anyway. Lot of 'names' but I question their overall quality.

Have some aging players, people who were a big noise at this level a few years ago, maybe when this League was in a different place tactically?

Brentford- Very fluid (as we know to our cost)!. Play a 4-2-3-1 I believe.

Preston- Not entirely sure but didn't they play 4-3-3 v us? Fairly sure not a 4-4-2 Plan A side anyway.

Sheffield United- Not a bad side to watch. They like the 3-5-1-1 I believe, that provides a lot of fluidity and control on paper at least.

With that in mind, and Millwall aside an unusual yet really well managed outlier, can anyone explain why we are so wedded to 4-4-2 (I don't mean Paterson behind Reid in the Autumn).

I mean the 4-4-2 with 2 wingers, 2 strikers or indeed the narrowing shoe horning one (Brownhill, Smith, Pack and Paterson).

Neither ars ideal IMO- the former leaves sides pretty exposed in these increasingly tactical times and the latter too narrow and congested. Both can and do come unstuck and particularly, but not exclusively, against better sides playing more fluid, forward thinking set ups.

Essentially, should we persist with it next year- and particularly given how this League is changing?

Why didnt you make these points before the wolves game?  you know something like "were winning all the time but the formation is all wrong"

Im sure you did just that but could you point me in the direction of your earlier post?

[cidercity1987]

We can hardly be accused of playing two wingers when Brownhill has been tucked in on the right side all season.

All this talk of control but without looking, I'm sure our possession stats aren't to our detriment.

[Orbital]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

You know me Mr P, I don’t go big on formations, they are starting positions for goal-kicks only.  

This is possibly the least insightful comment I have ever read. Such a lack of tactical awareness is frankly bewildering.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Orbital said:

This is possibly the least insightful comment I have ever read. Such a lack of tactical awareness is frankly bewildering.

......and should guarantee you a job on LJ 's coaching staff. 

[Bobfish]

The thing is that 442 can be applied in many ways, and has strengths, but these have to be utilised correctly; for example having the two wide midfielders as wingers to get behind and cross to the two front men. Yet LJ, although he has bought wingers – o’dowda, Ellision – and has bryan too who can play this role in midfield, prefers to have the full backs overlap to provide crosses in some form of slow overload, rather than having the winger rapidly beating their man to cross (remember crosses from out wide?) This often leads him to play right footed players on the left of midfield and lefties on the right as inside forwards, or even central midfielders out wide, and this overload leads us to be often punished all too easy on the counter, or just from general bad positioning, especially out wide. I feel some of our best performances were when we played a stable and resilient old fashioned 442 (or 4411, not much difference) where the wide defenders first aim was to defend, not attack– for example when we beat man u and had bryan as a winger with mags as a lb, compared to say hull when bryan and the Italian (full backs) are pushed forward and the emphasis on attacking intent means that they are often caught out of position.

[Super]

4-4-2 always exposes a midfield especially when the opposition has the extra body in there. Dated tired formation.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, bobby kellard was go said:

Why didnt you make these points before the wolves game?  you know something like "were winning all the time but the formation is all wrong"

Im sure you did just that but could you point me in the direction of your earlier post?

4-4-1-1 is quite different to 4-4-2.

We played with Paterson behind Reid- both can and did drop back into midfield.

4-4-2-0 and 4-6-0- that 4-4-1-1 can morph into either or both 

Problem is I think, if Reid is the '1' behind the striker in a 4-4-1-1 he can do it but IMO it has an adverse effect on the way we press. He's the 'trigger'.

A difference? Can't see Diedhiou doing the press like that, or dropping back to help form a 4-4-2-0 or a 4-6-0. He's not that type of player- lot of attributes but not those ones.

As to why I didn't point anything out? Actually, when we beat Barnsley 3-1 I did point out weaknesses with Plan A and particularly with the regards the second half.

We concede 13 shots a game with this setup- won't go up being so open.

[Cowshed]

41 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

4-4-1-1 is quite different to 4-4-2.

We played with Paterson behind Reid- both can and did drop back into midfield.

4-4-2-0 and 4-6-0- that 4-4-1-1 can morph into either or both 

Problem is I think, if Reid is the '1' behind the striker in a 4-4-1-1 he can do it but IMO it has an adverse effect on the way we press. He's the 'trigger'.

A difference? Can't see Diedhiou doing the press like that, or dropping back to help form a 4-4-2-0 or a 4-6-0. He's not that type of player- lot of attributes but not those ones.

As to why I didn't point anything out? Actually, when we beat Barnsley 3-1 I did point out weaknesses with Plan A and particularly with the regards the second half.

We concede 13 shots a game with this setup- won't go up being so open.

Your 4 - 4 - 2 also can be 4 -1- 4 -1 its a adjustment of metres with the holding midfield acting as a pivot/cover. Pack would spring to mind.

The biggest question is how do want them to play? 

Problem is I think, if Reid is the '1' behind the striker in a 4-4-1-1 he can do it but IMO it has an adverse effect on the way we press. He's the 'trigger'.... A obvious point in how you want them to play..

Warnocks 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 is top heavy in shape frequently because the play the ball forward quickly into the last third so the formation follows the intention of how he wants to play - Quick, forward into bodies up top.

Intent first, formation second. Everything follows intent. Formations become numbers without that intention, a bit meaningless.

Conceding shots does not have to be disastrous ... Burnley conceded lots (as in loads) of shots but their low block x formation means they are from range and the Keepers save more shots than most do, and their defenders make large amounts of blocks likewise v other teams players. Its intent and then formation again.

 

[1960maaan]

Formations are interesting , I agree in part @Davefevs about just starting positions but , I think that is Truer with better players playing with confidence. When we had Reid and Pato the movement was so good it rapidly changed from 4-4-1-1 to 4-2-4 and even 4-6-0 both being happy to drop while the MF would bomb on.. We have a natural 3-5- 2 , with the CBs available which I think would give us a more solid CMF. 
While we have mainly played 4-4-2 this year, even in that formation it has had tweaks . It has varied from 2 CMF and 2 wingers, to 4 MFs , I prefer the second with Brownhill  and Bryan in the wide areas. As for why these things aren't flagged up when we were winning, if it ain't Brooke don't fix it. That isn't true now there is something broke and every team should have a plan B, come to that a plan C available that the players are comfortable with. There is something wrong, who knows what it is, LJ obviously doesn't , and if he does he's struggling to fix it. Maybe a formation change earlier in this half a season run of poor form might have worked, who knows. 

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Orbital said:

This is possibly the least insightful comment I have ever read. Such a lack of tactical awareness is frankly bewildering.

You’ve not read any of my pre-game tactical threads then?  You didn’t read my second paragraph either then?

Tactical does not equal formation!!!!!

Tactical is lots of different components. 

442 or 352 or 064 or 505 on its own is pointless.   It wasn’t 442 that got us 4-2 up on Saturday and it wasn’t 451 (debatable from what LJ said) that changed it to 4-5 down  

Its not Football Manager. There is no “Diablo” or killer formation in real world football.

The game of football us too fluid (apart from goal kicks predominantly), and unfortunately is played my two sides of players of different skill sets, each with different instructions. 

In our 442/4411 whatever you want to call it, how does that “formation” manifest into scenarios where Marlon or Korey get the ball on the edge of our box as our CBs split?  How does Joe Bryan get to the opposition by-line to cross ahead of our Left Midfielder. How did Marlon score against Leeds last season as our furthest forward player. How did Joe get his equaliser on Saturday from Left Back?

Its about so much more than a formation and too much us made of them. 

Tell me your thoughts?  I’m interested!

[Davefevs]

30 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Your 4 - 4 - 2 also can be 4 -1- 4 -1 its a adjustment of metres with the holding midfield acting a pivot. Pack would spring to mind.

The biggest question is how do want them to play? 

Problem is I think, if Reid is the '1' behind the striker in a 4-4-1-1 he can do it but IMO it has an adverse effect on the way we press. He's the 'trigger'.... A obvious point in how you want them to play..

Warnocks 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 is top heavy in shape frequently because the play the ball forward quickly into the last third so the formation follows the intention of how he wants to play - Quick, forward into bodies up top.

Intent first, formation second. Everything follows intent. Formations become numbers with it and a bit meaningless.

Conceding shots does not have to be disastrous ... Burnley conceded lots (as in loads) of shots but their low block x formation means they are from range and the Keepers save more shots than most do, and their defenders makes blocks likewise v other teams players..

 

Thanks Cowshed. 

@Orbital - Cowshed is a qualified coach.

I’m just a mere student of the game who grew up buying tactics / coaching books rather Match / Shoot annuals, because 1) I was a Limited Centre Back who 2) wanted to find an advantage over my limitations by understanding the game better. 

[downendcity]

4-3-3 reverting to 10 -0-0 when we have a lead to defend.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

4-4-1-1 is quite different to 4-4-2.

We played with Paterson behind Reid- both can and did drop back into midfield.

4-4-2-0 and 4-6-0- that 4-4-1-1 can morph into either or both 

Problem is I think, if Reid is the '1' behind the striker in a 4-4-1-1 he can do it but IMO it has an adverse effect on the way we press. He's the 'trigger'.

A difference? Can't see Diedhiou doing the press like that, or dropping back to help form a 4-4-2-0 or a 4-6-0. He's not that type of player- lot of attributes but not those ones.

As to why I didn't point anything out? Actually, when we beat Barnsley 3-1 I did point out weaknesses with Plan A and particularly with the regards the second half.

We concede 13 shots a game with this setup- won't go up being so open.

Our 442 has also been played with 2FBs and 2CBs and also 4CBs. 

To use Cowshed ‘s term, the intent is different, the formation the same. 

[jj77]

Excuse my ignorance but doesn't 4-4-2 usually contain 2 strikers?

I can't think of many times City have started with 2 strikers this season.

[Abraham Romanovich]

3 hours ago, Orbital said:

This is possibly the least insightful comment I have ever read. Such a lack of tactical awareness is frankly bewildering.

Oh no there have been much worse - should we swap Messi for the Falklands ?

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Our 442 has also been played with 2FBs and 2CBs and also 4CBs. 

To use Cowshed ‘s term, the intent is different, the formation the same. 

Magnusson at LB and Wright at RB?

Thought it made us pretty compact for a while personally, albeit more narrow too- if you mean the Paterson behind Reid I don't see that as a traditional 4-4-2- but definitely Wright and Magnusson gave us more stability (not saying Kelly doesn't deserve his place at LB- he does, merely talking systems not individuals).

Many different types of 4-4-2 yeah, intent can vary. I don't actually have a problem with 4-4-2 numerically, but perhaps the traditional style, intent of it. I'd say 4-4-1-1 though is closer in style to a 4-5-1 than a 4-4-2 personally- but it can depend on the player in that '1' behind the striker. One good plan maybe a quite specific...Back 4, Pack in front of back 4 with Smith and Brownhill both centrally a bit further forward, Paterson as the 10- can make a 4 or even a 5 centrally when necessary, with Reid and Diedhiou up front. Sort of a diamond 4-1-2-1-2/4-3-1-2 hybrid. The problem is, a lot of good players would miss out.

@jj77 Depends how you play them I guess in my view at least. Reid has been a striker this year, but originally a midfielder. Masterstroke or desperation? Who knows but it paid off in style- perhaps an element of each. Reid is most effective based on his seasons to date, as a striker- by far. Will try and find some heatmaps but I would suggest he's been playing as a striker this year, yes.

@Cowshed Very true, intent matters more so than numbers. Perhaps our 4-4-2 with a lower block would do the job, see big problems with it in terms of the way we want to play at this time though. Definitely Burnley a good example- I question whether they will repeat their great work this season next year with that setup, but good luck to them, really punched above their weight and found a system that is tough to beat, all work hard for each other. They are tbh a bit of an outlier in some terms this year- 'Expected Goals' a metric which has come in and is interesting to a point, has them 15th this year a couple of points above the drop zone.  Mind you, it has Brentford as a dominant side in most games and yet they're only 2 pts above us!

Definitely agree on Warnock's formation too- but I think it offers them a bit more security in midfield and may not be so effective in a 4-4-2, but they are far from a technical side.

@bobby kellard was go I will point you in the direction of these posts questioning Plan A earlier in the season later- particularly the Barnsley opening day one.

@cidercity1987 The problem I thought with it was more when we played a more open 4-4-2. More open, traditional 4-4-2 left us exposed- the 4 central midfielders- though Paterson isn't a natural CM, more of a number 10- I thought left us too narrow at times. It's a tough balancing act I'd argue, but I have concerns with it moving forward- in terms of a playoff push next season. Not necessarily in terms of survival, but if we want to progress I honestly think it's run its course and particularly v the better sides in this League.

How about- for next year- any of the following? Perhaps even as Plans B and C.

1) 4-3-1-2

Fielding

RB Baker Flint Bryan

Brownhill Smith Pack

       Paterson

     Reid Diedhiou

2) 4-3-3

Fielding

RB Baker Flint Kelly

Brownhill Smith Pack

One of O'Dowda OR Eliasson Bryan

            Reid

3) 3-4-1-2

Fielding

Wright Baker Flint

Brownhill OR O'Dowda Smith Pack Bryan

              Paterson

            Reid Diedhiou

4) 3-5-2

Fielding

Wright Baker Flint

O'Dowda Brownhill Smith Pack Bryan

Reid Diedhiou

5) 3-5-1-1

Fielding

Wright Baker Flint

O'Dowda Brownhill Smith Pack Bryan

              Paterson

                  Reid

6) 4-1-4-1

Fielding

RB Baker Flint Kelly

               Pack

O'Dowda Smith Brownhill Bryan

            Reid

Kelly if he can play centre back could be first reserve- Hegeler if we are vs a really deep lying side could come in as a CB in a back three potentially.  Or if we are up vs a really technical and attacking side, Hegeler could come and help screen perhaps between the defence and the midfield.

I'm not saying any of these 6 should be our formation moving forward- I am simply questioning LJ and his reticence give any of these a proper go, with the possible exception of 1 and 6 in certain forms.

[Davefevs]

46 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Magnusson at LB and Wright at RB?

Yes. 

Will read the rest later. 

Out of interest, youve positioned Flint on the left of Baker in all instances. Is that intentional?  Easy to swap them if so in a central 2, but what is your solution in a 3?  Swap them again, with Flint in the middle?

How do you feel with Baker in the left of a 3?

Re Kelly, first time I saw him was as LCB in a 3 (looked a replica of Derrick Williams’s role if that makes sense).  He’s 6’3”, athletic. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Yes. 

Will read the rest later. 

Out of interest, youve positioned Flint on the left of Baker in all instances. Is that intentional?  Easy to swap them if so in a central 2, but what is your solution in a 3?  Swap them again, with Flint in the middle?

How do you feel with Baker in the left of a 3?

Re Kelly, first time I saw him was as LCB in a 3 (looked a replica of Derrick Williams’s role if that makes sense).  He’s 6’3”, athletic. 

Not intentional no. Maybe Baker Flint Kelly? Hard to know the exact best range of how to lay out a back 3 sometimes. I just threw together a template in that sense- the three first choice Centre backs on paper.

How they would mesh together a different matter- IIRC it was Ayling Flint Williams under Cotterill predominantly? 

I suppose one option with this could be Wright Flint Kelly? Problem is then what to do with Baker. Or maybe (though it's absolutely not my first preference, talking if injuries kick in and we need to examine some further ideas) Wright Flint Magnusson. Flint has played at RB and Magnusson can play LB- so in a back 3, to play those 3 would be on their correct foot in the case of Wright and Magnusson, with Flint as our lynchpin in the centre. Or maybe Wright, Flint, Kelly (though I'm reticent to drop Baker).

One thing it does highlight to me though- we really do have options and ranges of systems which may well work or at the least are possible and plausible, yet LJ seems reluctant to explore them.

[Curr Avon]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

You’ve not read any of my pre-game tactical threads then?  You didn’t read my second paragraph either then?

Tactical does not equal formation!!!!!

Tactical is lots of different components. 

442 or 352 or 064 or 505 on its own is pointless.   It wasn’t 442 that got us 4-2 up on Saturday and it wasn’t 451 (debatable from what LJ said) that changed it to 4-5 down  

Its not Football Manager. There is no “Diablo” or killer formation in real world football.

The game of football us too fluid (apart from goal kicks predominantly), and unfortunately is played my two sides of players of different skill sets, each with different instructions. 

In our 442/4411 whatever you want to call it, how does that “formation” manifest into scenarios where Marlon or Korey get the ball on the edge of our box as our CBs split?  How does Joe Bryan get to the opposition by-line to cross ahead of our Left Midfielder. How did Marlon score against Leeds last season as our furthest forward player. How did Joe get his equaliser on Saturday from Left Back?

Its about so much more than a formation and too much us made of them. 

Tell me your thoughts?  I’m interested!

442, 352, 064, 505. Which of them is FreeFone?

[Welcome To The Jungle]

Personally I'm a big fan of 4-4-2 as although on the surface it is a very rigid formation, that enables it to be incredibly flexible, with the right personnel. The best example I can think of is Wengers 4-4-2 that won him so much success. In fact Wengers inability to properly challenge for the title coincides with him moving to three central midfielders to accommodate Fabregas. 

Arsenals 4-4-2 could become 4-2-3-1 seamlessly by Bergkamp dropping deeper.

It could be 4-2-4 by pushing Pires an Ljumberg up, with Viera and Petit/Parlour/Gilberto sitting deeper. 

Henry from time to time would drift right, with Pires tucking in and you had 4-3-3. 

Add into that excellent full backs who could sit or overlap depending on both the current score, as well as the cover they were being afforded by the central midfield.

Or if they needed to see a game out, they could revert to two banks of four and park that bus, which they did very successfully to see out their invincibles season, with 4 draws from the last 6. 

In summary, defending against Arsenal was so hard because when a player moved, the entire team could re-form to attack in a whole new way., whilst maintaining great defensive discipline and balance when not in possession. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

Personally I'm a big fan of 4-4-2 as although on the surface it is a very rigid formation, that enables it to be incredibly flexible, with the right personnel. The best example I can think of is Wengers 4-4-2 that won him so much success. In fact Wengers inability to properly challenge for the title coincides with him moving to three central midfielders to accommodate Fabregas. 

Arsenals 4-4-2 could become 4-2-3-1 seamlessly by Bergkamp dropping deeper.

It could be 4-2-4 by pushing Pires an Ljumberg up, with Viera and Petit/Parlour/Gilberto sitting deeper. 

Henry from time to time would drift right, with Pires tucking in and you had 4-3-3. 

Add into that excellent full backs who could sit or overlap depending on both the current score, as well as the cover they were being afforded by the central midfield.

Or if they needed to see a game out, they could revert to two banks of four and park that bus, which they did very successfully to see out their invincibles season, with 4 draws from the last 6. 

In summary, defending against Arsenal was so hard because when a player moved, the entire team could re-form to attack in a whole new way., whilst maintaining great defensive discipline and balance when not in possession. 

That's a very interesting post actually. Arsenal at their best were incredibly versatile.

I cannot help but think that their starting formation wasn't really, despite what it was labelled a 4-4-2 however. Bergkamp wasn't exactly a classic big man or a little man in a strike pair- Henry certainly was not- Bergkamp was a number 10, wasn't he? Something like that anyway. Could be argued it moved on from a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3 to even an early example of a strikerless formation before it became a thing.

Say back 4, Vieira and Gilberto. Then Pires tucks in, Ljungberg stays where he is- and yes Henry can and did pull wide, then you have Bergkamp as a 10?

Strikerless formation 4-2-4-0 in a sense- certainly by the standards of the time. Or a 4-3-3-0.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Anyway I suppose my main pitch- plea if you like- for next season is a 4-3-3, ideally with no key players lost.

However- if we lose say Reid (god forbid).

Fielding

RB Flint Baker Kelly

Brownhill Pack Smith

O'Dowda Bryan

Diedhiou

Or vs certain opponents, maybe Paterson for O'Dowda for a bit more mix of technical and wing play- either way a cross between 4-3-3/4-3-2-1.

[Orbital]

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

You’ve not read any of my pre-game tactical threads then?  You didn’t read my second paragraph either then?

Tactical does not equal formation!!!!!

Tactical is lots of different components. 

442 or 352 or 064 or 505 on its own is pointless.   It wasn’t 442 that got us 4-2 up on Saturday and it wasn’t 451 (debatable from what LJ said) that changed it to 4-5 down  

Its not Football Manager. There is no “Diablo” or killer formation in real world football.

The game of football us too fluid (apart from goal kicks predominantly), and unfortunately is played my two sides of players of different skill sets, each with different instructions. 

In our 442/4411 whatever you want to call it, how does that “formation” manifest into scenarios where Marlon or Korey get the ball on the edge of our box as our CBs split?  How does Joe Bryan get to the opposition by-line to cross ahead of our Left Midfielder. How did Marlon score against Leeds last season as our furthest forward player. How did Joe get his equaliser on Saturday from Left Back?

Its about so much more than a formation and too much us made of them. 

Tell me your thoughts?  I’m interested!

I too coach football (albeit children’s) and it is shortsighted to say that it is not tactical to line up in two banks of four, or to set up with three narrow centre halves and defensive midfielders in front to protect the central area, for example. A formation dictates where players are coached to patrol. From that core it is down to their individual talent to express themselves. That is not to say a player is confined to midfield, if he is a midfielder, but basic setup positions are an obvious strategic tactic.

George Graham used to coach the Arsenal back four with a rope they had to hold, so that they all got used to moving as a unit. That didn’t stop Tony Adams marauding forward on occasion. 

I don’t think our defending has been up to it and that is not necessarily down to our individuals. I think Flinty and Baker are arguably the best defensive pairing I have seen at the Gate (if you ignore the calamitous last few months), but they have not been helped at times by those around them and questionable tinkering by LJ. 

My team for the next game would be (if all are available):

                Steele

Wright Flint Baker Magnusson 

       Smith Pack Bryan

Reid   Diedhiou Patterson

Solid at the back, three in midfield, energetic runners in forward positions, versatility to adapt beyond the basic formation - as you allude to.

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Orbital said:

I too coach football (albeit children’s) and it is shortsighted to say that it is not tactical to line up in two banks of four, or to set up with three narrow centre halves and defensive midfielders in front to protect the central area, for example. A formation dictates where players are coached to patrol. From that core it is down to their individual talent to express themselves. That is not to say a player is confined to midfield, if he is a midfielder, but basic setup positions are an obvious strategic tactic.

George Graham used to coach the Arsenal back four with a rope they had to hold, so that they all got used to moving as a unit. That didn’t stop Tony Adams marauding forward on occasion. 

I don’t think our defending has been up to it and that is not necessarily down to our individuals. I think Flinty and Baker are arguably the best defensive pairing I have seen at the Gate (if you ignore the calamitous last few months), but they have not been helped at times by those around them and questionable tinkering by LJ. 

My team for the next game would be (if all are available):

                Steele

Wright Flint Baker Magnusson 

       Smith Pack Bryan

Reid   Diedhiou Patterson

Solid at the back, three in midfield, energetic runners in forward positions, versatility to adapt beyond the basic formation - as you allude to.

 

 

I like the look of that setup- playoffs are basically gone now so that side could be interesting.

Let's not forget that Wright and Magnusson though not the best full back options individually, when at Right Back and left back...it just worked.

We lost in width, but gained in stability, solidity IMO. 2 centre backs in middle and 2 who can tuck in more easily...compact.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Orbital said:

I too coach football (albeit children’s) and it is shortsighted to say that it is not tactical to line up in two banks of four, or to set up with three narrow centre halves and defensive midfielders in front to protect the central area, for example.

I didn’t say it wasn’t tactical, I just send formations aren’t the be-all and end-all.  I get frustrated when people say had we played x formation over y formation, we’d have have won for example.  If only the formation dictated the result....that’s the point i’m trying To make.  

Even effin LJ in his BBCRB interview post game said ‘I tried to close the game out by going 451".  So LJ thinks that 451 is more defensive 442, therefore we’ll hang on to a 4-2 lead.  On paper, it looks it.  That’s incredibly naive when the player instructions don’t match it.  Either LJ got it wrong, Brownhill didn’t understand his role, because he played closer to a Famara than even Bobby did (!!), or both.  Within two minutes I was saying to the guy next to me that if the sub of O’Dowda was to close the game out it wasn’t working, because we’d disrupted what we’ll done well for 50-55 minutes of the 66 played to that point.

A formation dictates where players are coached to patrol. From that core it is down to their individual talent to express themselves. That is not to say a player is confined to midfield, if he is a midfielder, but basic setup positions are an obvious strategic tactic.

And good managers / coaches will understand how to drag players out of those positions to create imbalance on one side of the pitch.  The likes of Cowshed will explain (and understand) this far better than me.  

George Graham used to coach the Arsenal back four with a rope they had to hold, so that they all got used to moving as a unit. That didn’t stop Tony Adams marauding forward on occasion. 

Wasn’t that in the Full Monty  (if you’ve seen the film, you’ll know what i’m On about)

Back to sensible stuff — in kids football, you’d never have the centre backs marking a striker on the outside, you’d always mark inside, because that shows them away from danger.  Graham taught his CBs to mark on the outside, because at top level the danger ball over them was much harder to find the striker and he was prepared to take that gamble.  Even Garry Nelson, when at Torquay, talked of the same approach.  Jack Charlton way back in the 60s, ditto.  A good striker, with clever movement, can exploit that, but then they’re dependent on service.

I don’t think our defending has been up to it and that is not necessarily down to our individuals.

Correct, the whole team has not defended as it did earlier this season.  As we;be gone a bit longer, we’ve increased our distances between the 3 units and when you lose the ball you can’t press effectively.

I think Flinty and Baker are arguably the best defensive pairing I have seen at the Gate (if you ignore the calamitous last few months), but they have not been helped at times by those around them and questionable tinkering by LJ. 

My team for the next game would be (if all are available):

                Steele

Wright Flint Baker Magnusson 

       Smith Pack Bryan

Reid   Diedhiou Patterson

Solid at the back, three in midfield, energetic runners in forward positions, versatility to adapt beyond the basic formation - as you allude to.

It contains most of our best players, so it has its merits.  I just wish I could be a fly on the wall in the week between games to see what actually goes on outside the 90 minutes....what does LJ see / think etc.

 

 

 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Magnusson at LB and Wright at RB?

Thought it made us pretty compact for a while personally, albeit more narrow too- if you mean the Paterson behind Reid I don't see that as a traditional 4-4-2- but definitely Wright and Magnusson gave us more stability (not saying Kelly doesn't deserve his place at LB- he does, merely talking systems not individuals).

Many different types of 4-4-2 yeah, intent can vary. I don't actually have a problem with 4-4-2 numerically, but perhaps the traditional style, intent of it. I'd say 4-4-1-1 though is closer in style to a 4-5-1 than a 4-4-2 personally- but it can depend on the player in that '1' behind the striker. One good plan maybe a quite specific...Back 4, Pack in front of back 4 with Smith and Brownhill both centrally a bit further forward, Paterson as the 10- can make a 4 or even a 5 centrally when necessary, with Reid and Diedhiou up front. Sort of a diamond 4-1-2-1-2/4-3-1-2 hybrid. The problem is, a lot of good players would miss out.

@jj77 Depends how you play them I guess in my view at least. Reid has been a striker this year, but originally a midfielder. Masterstroke or desperation? Who knows but it paid off in style- perhaps an element of each. Reid is most effective based on his seasons to date, as a striker- by far. Will try and find some heatmaps but I would suggest he's been playing as a striker this year, yes.

@Cowshed Very true, intent matters more so than numbers. Perhaps our 4-4-2 with a lower block would do the job, see big problems with it in terms of the way we want to play at this time though. Definitely Burnley a good example- I question whether they will repeat their great work this season next year with that setup, but good luck to them, really punched above their weight and found a system that is tough to beat, all work hard for each other. They are tbh a bit of an outlier in some terms this year- 'Expected Goals' a metric which has come in and is interesting to a point, has them 15th this year a couple of points above the drop zone.  Mind you, it has Brentford as a dominant side in most games and yet they're only 2 pts above us!

Definitely agree on Warnock's formation too- but I think it offers them a bit more security in midfield and may not be so effective in a 4-4-2, but they are far from a technical side.

@bobby kellard was go I will point you in the direction of these posts questioning Plan A earlier in the season later- particularly the Barnsley opening day one.

@cidercity1987 The problem I thought with it was more when we played a more open 4-4-2. More open, traditional 4-4-2 left us exposed- the 4 central midfielders- though Paterson isn't a natural CM, more of a number 10- I thought left us too narrow at times. It's a tough balancing act I'd argue, but I have concerns with it moving forward- in terms of a playoff push next season. Not necessarily in terms of survival, but if we want to progress I honestly think it's run its course and particularly v the better sides in this League.

How about- for next year- any of the following? Perhaps even as Plans B and C.

1) 4-3-1-2

Fielding

RB Baker Flint Bryan

Brownhill Smith Pack

       Paterson

     Reid Diedhiou

2) 4-3-3

Fielding

RB Baker Flint Kelly

Brownhill Smith Pack

One of O'Dowda OR Eliasson Bryan

            Reid

3) 3-4-1-2

Fielding

Wright Baker Flint

Brownhill OR O'Dowda Smith Pack Bryan

              Paterson

            Reid Diedhiou

4) 3-5-2

Fielding

Wright Baker Flint

O'Dowda Brownhill Smith Pack Bryan

Reid Diedhiou

5) 3-5-1-1

Fielding

Wright Baker Flint

O'Dowda Brownhill Smith Pack Bryan

              Paterson

                  Reid

6) 4-1-4-1

Fielding

RB Baker Flint Kelly

               Pack

O'Dowda Smith Brownhill Bryan

            Reid

Kelly if he can play centre back could be first reserve- Hegeler if we are vs a really deep lying side could come in as a CB in a back three potentially.  Or if we are up vs a really technical and attacking side, Hegeler could come and help screen perhaps between the defence and the midfield.

I'm not saying any of these 6 should be our formation moving forward- I am simply questioning LJ and his reticence give any of these a proper go, with the possible exception of 1 and 6 in certain forms.

When things go wrong like this season and with say steve cotterill  with his 3-5-2 people blame the formation as another possible scapegoat but all the formations including 4-4-2 are used to good effect by many clubs and with less success by any number of  other clubs so i simply dont agree with formation blame.

Most managers have a preferred formation and style and stick with it throughout their career in the main ,ferguson teams played with width and attacked,warnock teams play percentage football  also teams have to adapt to what happens during a game meaning formations arnt set in stone.

As an example sometimes a team will  sometimes mirror an opponents formation as a means of negating its effect.

For me its about good players and a good manager to manage them thats the key not the formation.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, bobby kellard was go said:

When things go wrong like this season and with say steve cotterill  with his 3-5-2 people blame the formation as another possible scapegoat but all the formations including 4-4-2 are used to good effect by many clubs and with less success by any number of  other clubs so i simply dont agree with formation blame.

Most managers have a preferred formation and style and stick with it throughout their career in the main ,ferguson teams played with width and attacked,warnock teams play percentage football  also teams have to adapt to what happens during a game meaning formations arnt set in stone.

As an example sometimes a team will  sometimes mirror an opponents formation as a means of negating its effect.

For me its about good players and a good manager to manage them thats the key not the formation.

I don't doubt the premise about all sorts of formations being used to great effect.

However, in this instance.

Take a look how many top Championship sides use 4-4-2- incredibly different League to a few years ago. Let alone our playoff season under Johnson- 4-4-1-1 with Noble behind the striker- standards of that time in the 2nd tier...

Ferguson modified his approach, particularly in Europe. Got to 2 successive finals with the 4-6-0 type setup in 08 and 09...(Tevez, Rooney, Ronaldo was in some ways a strikerless formation).

His sides became notably more pragmatic in European games for a time. A very long way from his 4-4-2 treble side anyway.

Sort of a 4-4-1-1 in 2011 run to final- Rooney behind Hernandez.

He saw how the game was going and like all greats, he tweaked his setup accordingly.

Agree on Warnock tbh- though he now uses 4-3-3 (a negative, direct physical 4-3-3) which I didn't always have him down as playing.

Up against say Fulham, or Wolves- or even in some ways Cardiff or Middlesbrough away but for physical reasons in Cardiff's case, and perhaps Middlesbrough away too (though they have better footballers) a 4-4-2 would be folly.

Three in the centre would either pass around us (Fulham and Wolves) or outnumber and out fight us (Cardiff and Middlesbrough. Actually Fulham's midfield might do some of both as all 3 central midfielders around or above 6 foot.

Sheffield United another interesting case study- 3-5-1-1. 

That would outnumber us 3 v 2 and then at times 4 v 2 and our centre backs would be marking only one striker... side could be pulled all over the place. I think they have a ball playing centre back too, so up to 5 v 2 at times.

One bit I fully agree on is in game adaptations- that's definitely a part of the equation. I think we have the range of players to shift shapes. 

However...is LJ quick or willing enough to spot danger or say a 4 v 2 (say a 4-4-2 for us v a 4-3-3 and a centre back who pushes up or a 'winger' who comes inside) and overloads?I have some big doubts on this. Or maybe he spots it but after a goal is conceded for example...again I have my doubts he would act quick enough to avoid it.