4-4-2

[Harry]

Whilst it was another disappointing result v Preston, I wanted to open a discussion on the merits of the ‘long-forgotten’ 4-4-2 formation, which gave some minor signs of hope in the 2nd half. 
 

Now, I’m not sure of the accuracy of this statement, but I’m sure that a straight-up 4-4-2 is a pretty rare thing in the pro game these days. 
We’ve obviously gone down the 3 at the back route under Holden, often switching to a 4-3-3 and even a 4-2-4 for a brief spell last week!! So I thought it was a real “breath of fresh air” (!) to see us play a straight-up, proper, traditional 4-4-2 in the 2nd half. 
 

Holden had his heart set on 3 at the back this year, but we are increasingly seeing that he simply doesn’t have the players who can play there. The left sided CB being the biggest problem with the loss of Baker & Mawson. 
Rowe has been tried, but he can’t do it. 
Last week Mariappa was tried for 45 minutes. To zero effect. 
Tonight, Moore was a total fish out of water in that slot. 
So the half time switch to 4 at the back simply much better suits our available personnel at present. 
 

With this change, Holden has often either gone with 3 or 5 across the middle but tonight the 4 made much more sense and the players looked so much more comfortable. I think we are asking a number of our players to do things they are not familiar with. 
Martin is a target and needs a strike partner. 
Wells has always worked best as a 2nd striker. 
O’Dowda is a winger. 
Semenyo seems more suited to playing wide. 
Bakinson seems to enjoy a bit more space to play 15-20 yard balls rather than 5-10 yards, and he likes the feed into a full back. He doesn’t get this space in a more congested 3.
It just seemed to make sense and the players had a familiarity. Plus the full backs could act like traditional full backs. 
 

The 2nd half performance was pretty decent to be fair. We can consider ourselves a little unlucky not to have got something out of that half. 
 

The frustration for me is that Holden once again had to make this in-game change. 
He’s wanted the 3-5-2 to work but since the injuries he’s changed the formation about 57 times. Hopefully he might have happened upon the best way to set the team up at present. Cod and Sem can both carry a threat with the ball at their feet and running at players. Bakinson has shown glimpses of being able to slide some through-balls. Nagy has shown much more competence of late to be able to anchor a midfield and not try to run 3,000 miles per game. Wells will spend more time in and around the box, working off of a partner. Full backs can play a role they understand more and are comfortable with. 
 

Is this switch to an old school 4-4-2 possibly the answer to our current form? I certainly hope so. 

[Harry]

2 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Would not mind 442 if its with Wells and Semenyo up top

I’d disagree with that Jon.  I don’t see Semenyo as a central striker at the moment*. He’s much more effective in wide areas, and whilst he’s also not strictly a winger, I think he’s better out there than up top. 
 

*at the moment. He could turn into a great striker, but right now, he’s more effective wide. 

[Rob k]

1 minute ago, JonDolman said:

Would not mind 442 if its with Wells and Semenyo up top

The problem with Semenyo in a traditional 4-4-2 is he can’t finish 

 

[marcofisher]

Every time we go on a bad run someone suggests 442. And every time we go 442 we look absolutely dreadful and the front players look as isolated as tonight and we get dominated in midfield.

 

The problem is not in the formation, we could be playing any shape at the minute and it would not be working with the mentality we are taking into games.

[The Batman]

Formations I think succeed in cycles. 4-4-2 became the bread and butter for all successful clubs through the 90s and early 2000's.

Then mourinho came along with his 4-2-3-1, then Pep and his 4-3-3, then Conte with the 3-4-3. 

4-4-2 may be a formation that could be an advantage because nobody expects a modern day side to use it. 

Southampton however, are playing what is ultimately a 4-2-2-2 and its proving to be very effective at present. 

[marcofisher]

Today we suffered because we were constantly crossing from wide positions, bread and butter for Preston, and offering nothing in the pockets. 
 

442 just makes that even worse.

[GrahamC]

Not sure we have the central midfield personnel to play this for a sustained period, get why we try it when we are losing though.

Showing my age but not exactly got a Shelton/ Rennie combination to choose from..

[AppyDAZE]

5 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

Today we suffered because we were constantly crossing from wide positions, bread and butter for Preston, and offering nothing in the pockets. 
 

442 just makes that even worse.

Our crosses were the only threat we posed tonight. People dissed the sale of Nik Elliasson, but he provided most of our goals last season. A big loss and shit club management for me. And now some are bemoaning the injury to Jamie Paterson... Come on ffs

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

Every time we go on a bad run someone suggests 442. And every time we go 442 we look absolutely dreadful and the front players look as isolated as tonight and we get dominated in midfield.

 

The problem is not in the formation, we could be playing any shape at the minute and it would not be working with the mentality we are taking into games.

I think whatever set up you play, it’s about getting the right players into the right positions, to prevent that ‘isolated’ look. 
 

Do you think it suits our personnel better at this moment? 

[Superjack]

I was screaming for 442 at half time against Millwall. How or why he didn't change things then I really don't know. I'm confident we would have got something on Tuesday night. 

Tonight we saw the same problem that did for Cotterill in the Championship. 352 and constantly being exposed down the flanks. 

Many things in life go in cycles. Used to be that everyone played 442. So teams started trying different. Now not many play 442. Maybe it's the way forward.

Edit: Just noticed that @The Batman was making the same point. 

[marcofisher]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

I think whatever set up you play, it’s about getting the right players into the right positions, to prevent that ‘isolated’ look. 
 

Do you think it suits our personnel better at this moment? 

I think we could play any formation under the sun at the moment, it’s not going to all of a sudden change our fortunes. 

 

4 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

Our crosses were the only threat we posed tonight. People dissed the sale of Nik Elliasson, but he provided most of our goals last season. A big loss and shit club management for me

Our crosses were no threat, bar the one O’Dowda header which he would have to have done very well with.

Preston were happy to sit deep and let us cross, knowing that they had the men there to head it away. Wells and Martin were never going to win a header and O’Dowda was the only real runner from midfield, who you wouldn’t exactly fancy to bury a chance when getting on the end of the cross. 442 would have likely just made this worse, lots of crosses to two strikers who are never going to beat a low block Preston defence in the air.

We needed someone to realise this and get on the ball around the D and fire some shots off, like O’Dowda did with his one chance that their goalie made a good save for.

Unfortunately, nobody did. And 442 would have meant that nobody was directly in this area either, so I don’t think this is the answer at all. 

[The Batman]

10 minutes ago, Superjack said:

I was screaming for 442 at half time against Millwall. How or why he didn't change things then I really don't know. I'm confident we would have got something on Tuesday night. 

Tonight we saw the same problem that did for Cotterill in the Championship. 352 and constantly being exposed down the flanks. 

Many things in life go in cycles. Used to be that everyone played 442. So teams started trying different. Now not many play 442. Maybe it's the way forward.

Edit: Just noticed that @The Batman was making the same point. 

Well at least someone else out there agrees

[Harry]

5 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

I think we could play any formation under the sun at the moment, it’s not going to all of a sudden change our fortunes. 

 

Our crosses were no threat, bar the one O’Dowda header which he would have to have done very well with.

Preston were happy to sit deep and let us cross, knowing that they had the men there to head it away. Wells and Martin were never going to win a header and O’Dowda was the only real runner from midfield, who you wouldn’t exactly fancy to bury a chance when getting on the end of the cross. 442 would have likely just made this worse, lots of crosses to two strikers who are never going to beat a low block Preston defence in the air.

We needed someone to realise this and get on the ball around the D and fire some shots off, like O’Dowda did with his one chance that their goalie made a good save for.

Unfortunately, nobody did. And 442 would have meant that nobody was directly in this area either, so I don’t think this is the answer at all. 

Sorry Marco, I’m a bit confused with your reply. 
The first part, I’d say I agree to an extent, but it’s about putting the best and most comfortable formation out there to give us the best possible chance of changing our fortunes. 
 

However, the 2nd part of your reply reads as if we didn’t play 442 tonight, when we did? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4-4-2 often sees sides in the modern game cede possession.

Was it 4-4-2 or was it more like a lopsided 4-3-3? Often they will cede possession- the traditional one that is. I suppose we had a reaction in part because we couldn't get much worse but I don't see how 4-4-2 is an answer.

I outnumber your 2 man CM and play around it, what then?

Perhaps it was a bit of a 4-2-2-2 which is similar but different.

[Harry]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

4-4-2 often sees sides in the modern game cede possession.

Was it 4-4-2 or was it more like a lopsided 4-3-3? Often they will cede possession- the traditional one that is. I suppose we had a reaction in part because we couldn't get much worse but I don't see how 4-4-2 is an answer.

I outnumber your 2 man CM and play around it, what then?

It was a straight up 442, no lopsided 433 about it. And it worked 2nd half and forced Preston to match it up. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 minutes ago, Superjack said:

I was screaming for 442 at half time against Millwall. How or why he didn't change things then I really don't know. I'm confident we would have got something on Tuesday night. 

Tonight we saw the same problem that did for Cotterill in the Championship. 352 and constantly being exposed down the flanks. 

Many things in life go in cycles. Used to be that everyone played 442. So teams started trying different. Now not many play 442. Maybe it's the way forward.

Edit: Just noticed that @The Batman was making the same point. 

Personally, just a personal view- think the higher you get as a side, the less effective a traditional 4-4-2 is or will be- certainly from a control and domination POV.

[mozo]

I'm sure I've seen Southampton, Burnley and Brighton play 4-4-2 at times this season. 

[Bassomylord]

38 minutes ago, Harry said:

Whilst it was another disappointing result v Preston, I wanted to open a discussion on the merits of the ‘long-forgotten’ 4-4-2 formation, which gave some minor signs of hope in the 2nd half. 
 

Now, I’m not sure of the accuracy of this statement, but I’m sure that a straight-up 4-4-2 is a pretty rare thing in the pro game these days. 
We’ve obviously gone down the 3 at the back route under Holden, often switching to a 4-3-3 and even a 4-2-4 for a brief spell last week!! So I thought it was a real “breath of fresh air” (!) to see us play a straight-up, proper, traditional 4-4-2 in the 2nd half. 
 

Holden had his heart set on 3 at the back this year, but we are increasingly seeing that he simply doesn’t have the players who can play there. The left sided CB being the biggest problem with the loss of Baker & Mawson. 
Rowe has been tried, but he can’t do it. 
Last week Mariappa was tried for 45 minutes. To zero effect. 
Tonight, Moore was a total fish out of water in that slot. 
So the half time switch to 4 at the back simply much better suits our available personnel at present. 
 

With this change, Holden has often either gone with 3 or 5 across the middle but tonight the 4 made much more sense and the players looked so much more comfortable. I think we are asking a number of our players to do things they are not familiar with. 
Martin is a target and needs a strike partner. 
Wells has always worked best as a 2nd striker. 
O’Dowda is a winger. 
Semenyo seems more suited to playing wide. 
Bakinson seems to enjoy a bit more space to play 15-20 yard balls rather than 5-10 yards, and he likes the feed into a full back. He doesn’t get this space in a more congested 3.
It just seemed to make sense and the players had a familiarity. Plus the full backs could act like traditional full backs. 
 

The 2nd half performance was pretty decent to be fair. We can consider ourselves a little unlucky not to have got something out of that half. 
 

The frustration for me is that Holden once again had to make this in-game change. 
He’s wanted the 3-5-2 to work but since the injuries he’s changed the formation about 57 times. Hopefully he might have happened upon the best way to set the team up at present. Cod and Sem can both carry a threat with the ball at their feet and running at players. Bakinson has shown glimpses of being able to slide some through-balls. Nagy has shown much more competence of late to be able to anchor a midfield and not try to run 3,000 miles per game. Wells will spend more time in and around the box, working off of a partner. Full backs can play a role they understand more and are comfortable with. 
 

Is this switch to an old school 4-4-2 possibly the answer to our current form? I certainly hope so. 

Can't play nagy in a 442 imo

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Harry said:

It was a straight up 442, no lopsided 433 about it. And it worked 2nd half and forced Preston to match it up. 

3 strikers, 2 CM and O'Dowda? Variant of it perhaps.

[Harry]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Personally, just a personal view- think the higher you get as a side, the less effective a traditional 4-4-2 is or will be- certainly from a control and domination POV.

But the question is, is it right for the personnel we currently have? Not if it’s right for going to a higher league. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, mozo said:

I'm sure I've seen Southampton, Burnley and Brighton play 4-4-2 at times this season. 

Traditional or variant?

Two of them are struggling quite a bit tbh.

[Harry]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

3 strikers, 2 CM and O'Dowda? Variant of it perhaps.

No. It was a straight up 442. Not sure why you’re trying to disagree? Holden himself also said it. 

[marcofisher]

Just now, Harry said:

Sorry Marco, I’m a bit confused with your reply. 
The first part, I’d say I agree to an extent, but it’s about putting the best and most comfortable formation out there to give us the best possible chance of changing our fortunes. 
 

However, the 2nd part of your reply reads as if we didn’t play 442 tonight, when we did? 

The second half was better, but we still played into their hands entirely. 442 just pushed us further wide, forcing more crosses from Jack Hunt and Tommy Rowe to our sub 6ft strike partnership against the deep line of Preston.

The best chance came from O’Dowda coming inside around the D and getting a shot off, that should have been a sign that we needed someone operating there. 
 

442 was very ineffective that half.  While we obviously went for it in the second half, I wouldn’t say that Preston will go away thinking they were lucky to win at all. The crossing from deep from our fullbacks was laborious and just showed how out of ideas we were

I would say we really missed having a number 10 tonight more than anything.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Harry said:

But the question is, is it right for the personnel we currently have? Not if it’s right for going to a higher league. 

Fair. I have a preference for 4-3-3, but- I dunno, maybe with in game changes it can be worth considering but I'm unsure you get that mix of control and security with only 2 in there. Now for a strong countertattacking game, that's different.

1 minute ago, Harry said:

No. It was a straight up 442. Not sure why you’re trying to disagree? Holden himself also said it. 

Thanks, I'll have a listen- going to have a listen or look for Holden's post match comments now.

[marcofisher]

2 minutes ago, mozo said:

I'm sure I've seen Southampton, Burnley and Brighton play 4-4-2 at times this season. 

Aye but their players will drop in the pockets and run channels. Not sling balls in from deep from the full back positions in the hope it falls to someone. Obviously against a deep back line, they will happily head it away all day.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, marcofisher said:

The second half was better, but we still played into their hands entirely. 442 just pushed us further wide, forcing more crosses from Jack Hunt and Tommy Rowe to our sub 6ft strike partnership against the deep line of Preston.

The best chance came from O’Dowda coming inside around the D and getting a shot off, that should have been a sign that we needed someone operating there. 
 

442 was very ineffective that half.  While we obviously went for it in the second half, I wouldn’t say that Preston will go away thinking they were lucky to win at all. The crossing from deep from our fullbacks was laborious and just showed how out of ideas we were

I would say we really missed having a number 10 tonight more than anything.

This is a down side. Not least because Huntington and Davies are both listed as over 6 foot- this kind of thing is meat and drink to players like that, or has been traditionally.

That said I think the 2nd half was much better, much better than it's been for a 2nd half since say Blackburn at home anyway.

[Superjack]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Personally, just a personal view- think the highest you get as a side, the less effective a traditional 4-4-2 is or will be- certainly from a control and domination POV.

Well it's all about POV's.

I guess the real answer is to have a squad that is adept at playing at least three formations very well and knowing which one to play at any given time. 

I guess as a head coach or manager, that is something that you would learn over a sustained period of time.

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

The second half was better, but we still played into their hands entirely. 442 just pushed us further wide, forcing more crosses from Jack Hunt and Tommy Rowe to our sub 6ft strike partnership against the deep line of Preston.

The best chance came from O’Dowda coming inside around the D and getting a shot off, that should have been a sign that we needed someone operating there. 
 

442 was very ineffective that half.  While we obviously went for it in the second half, I wouldn’t say that Preston will go away thinking they were lucky to win at all. The crossing from deep from our fullbacks was laborious and just showed how out of ideas we were

I would say we really missed having a number 10 tonight more than anything.

I thought it was the best full half of football we’ve played since Bournemouth. 
Admittedly the bar has been low. But nevertheless it was. 
 

[marcofisher]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

This is a down side. Not least because Huntington and Davies are both listed as over 6 foot- this kind of thing is meat and drink to players like that, or has been traditionally.

That said I think the 2nd half was much better, much better than it's been for a 2nd half since say Blackburn at home anyway.

It was better, but still very ineffective. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Harry said:

I thought it was the best full half of football we’ve played since Bournemouth. 
Admittedly the bar has been low. But nevertheless it was. 
 

Thought some good things vs Norwich too- could have scored two 2nd half, some good Krul saves in that game- but we seem to have generally been on a downward spiral IMO from post Huddersfield away, performance wise certainly. Of course the manner and the timing of some if not all of the goals undid all that- as well as our own finishing!