4-4-2

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

It was better, but still very ineffective. 

I think worth a point.

[mozo]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Traditional or variant?

Two of them are struggling quite a bit tbh.

Well, Southampton for example often play Ings and Adams up front, with Romeu and Ward-Prowse in central midfield and Armstrong and Djenepo or Redmond as wide midfielders. Whether you consider that traditional enough is down to technicalities, but looks like a 4-4-2 to me.

Burnley play Brady and McNeil as wingers, with Westwood and some lad called Brownhill in the centre. Wood and Rodriguez up top, with Barnes as cover.

Brighton, I'm not so sure on!

[marcofisher]

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. 
 

We’ll have to agree to disagree there, it was clearly ineffective having Rowe and Hunt crossing from deep against the big Preston centre backs and it was rather laborious watching it happen repeatedly. 
 

Cross after cross after cross, but who on that pitch who was playing would you honestly expect to get on the end of one? 

[Bassomylord]

5 minutes 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. 
 

Difference is Preston looked desperately poor, as did millwall.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, mozo said:

Well, Southampton for example often play Ings and Adams up front, with Romeu and Ward-Prowse in central midfield and Armstrong and Djenepo or Redmond as wide midfielders. Whether you consider that traditional enough is down to technicalities, but looks like a 4-4-2 to me.

Burnley play Brady and McNeil as wingers, with Westwood and some lad called Brownhill in the centre. Wood and Rodriguez up top, with Barnes as cover.

Brighton, I'm not so sure on!

Rodriguez can pull wider or drop a bit deeper, can easily see it dropping into a 4-2-3-1 or similar. Burnley I'll definitely give you, as a side who use 4-4-2 a lot more and are naturally quite reactive- and that's the point, 4-4-2 in a more traditional form in the modern game can often be quite reactive. See Adams and Jutkiewicz at Birmingham under Monk! Shot dominance but maybe deeper, counterattacking, not so much possession- and that's fine!

Wide midfielders and wingers...think they can be a bit narrower in the cae of the latter. Adams seems a bit more of a support striker and when they play Walcott, this can pull into more of a 4-2-3-1- can Ings pull wider?

Never really had Brighton down as a 4-4-2, not under Potter!

[Rob k]

1 minute ago, Bassomylord said:

Difference is Preston looked desperately poor, as did millwall.

And we didn’t score against either 

[Bassomylord]

Just now, Rob k said:

And we didn’t score against either 

didn't look like scoring.

[marcofisher]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

Rodriguez can pull wider or drop a bit deeper, can easily see it dropping into a 4-2-3-1 or similar.

Wide midfielders and wingers...think they can be a bit narrower in the cae of the latter. Adams seems a bit more of a support striker and when they play Walcott, this can pull into more of a 4-2-3-1- can Ings pull wider?

Never really had Brighton down as a 4-4-2, not under Potter!

The key difference is fluidity, you can guarantee if they were playing Preston tonight, their players would have pulled the Preston players everywhere.

We were STATIC up top, and STATIC in midfield, so just end up in deep crosses to a well positioned defence, who would take it all day.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

The key difference is fluidity, you can guarantee if they were playing Preston tonight, their players would have pulled the Preston players everywhere.

We were STATIC up top, and STATIC in midfield, so just end up in deep crosses to a well positioned defence, who would take it all day.

Reckon maybe in a 4-2-2-2, with Wells and I dunno Weimann up top, with Semenyo and O'Dowda or Paterson- this would have absolute fluidity- this would, it'd be a variant of 4-4-2 but an undoubtedly fluid one.

4-4-2 on paper but...

Bentley

    Back 4

     2 CM

Paterson Semenyo

Weimann Wells

[Harry]

5 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

We’ll have to agree to disagree there, it was clearly ineffective having Rowe and Hunt crossing from deep against the big Preston centre backs and it was rather laborious watching it happen repeatedly. 
 

Cross after cross after cross, but who on that pitch who was playing would you honestly expect to get on the end of one? 

Considering, in that 2nd half alone, we had 8 shots, 3 on target, 7 corners and 16 open play crosses from which Sem should’ve scored 1, could’ve scored another and Cod had a header making the keeper pull off a great save, I think it worked ok and was the most attacking we’ve looked since October 

[mozo]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Rodriguez can pull wider or drop a bit deeper, can easily see it dropping into a 4-2-3-1 or similar. Burnley I'll definitely give you, as a side who use 4-4-2 a lot more and are naturally quite reactive- and that's the point, 4-4-2 in a more traditional form in the modern game can often be quite reactive. See Adams and Jutkiewicz at Birmingham under Monk!

Wide midfielders and wingers...think they can be a bit narrower in the cae of the latter. Adams seems a bit more of a support striker and when they play Walcott, this can pull into more of a 4-2-3-1- can Ings pull wider?

Never really had Brighton down as a 4-4-2, not under Potter!

No agreed re Brighton. I think I made that up!

I think Bruce at Toon and Hodgson at Palace have gone traditional 4-4-2 at times.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, mozo said:

No agreed re Brighton. I think I made that up!

I think Bruce at Toon and Hodgson at Palace have gone traditional 4-4-2 at times.

Quite reactive football too? I'm just saying it is often, over time not the nicest to watch in modern times, a more traditional 4-4-2 certainly.

[Harry]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Reckon maybe in a 4-2-2-2, with Wells and I dunno Weimann up top, with Semenyo and O'Dowda or Paterson- this would have absolute fluidity- this would, it'd be a variant of 4-4-2 but an undoubtedly fluid one.

Pops. We’re not talking about Weimann and Paterson. We’re talking about what’s best for now with the personnel we have right now. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Harry said:

Pops. We’re not talking about Weimann and Paterson. We’re talking about what’s best for now with the personnel we have right now. 

Okay current personnel. Think it could be worth a go- rotate Martin and Diedhiou perhaps as I think the former really needs some rotation given age and game every 3 days, but unsure how possession top heavy we'd be over time and reservations vs say the top 3rd or most of them sides in the League if we set up that way.

[Lew-T]

11 minutes 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. 
 

This just goes to show that our standards have dropped dramatically. From what I saw Jack Hunt was our biggest threat, and that was from hopeful crosses into the box. 
 

O’Dowda did do more in the second half but as a collective, again, we were well below par! 

[Harry]

1 minute ago, Lew-T said:

This just goes to show that our standards have dropped dramatically. From what I saw Jack Hunt was our biggest threat, and that was from hopeful crosses into the box. 
 

O’Dowda did do more in the second half but as a collective, again, we were well below par! 

But statistically our best half of football since October 

[marcofisher]

Just now, Harry said:

Considering, in that 2nd half alone, we had 8 shots, 3 on target, 7 corners and 16 open play crosses from which Sem should’ve scored 1, could’ve scored another and Cod had a header making the keeper pull off a great save, I think it worked ok and was the most attacking we’ve looked since October 

None of these players particularly have heading ability, all of them were not exactly easy chances at all and would have had to be great headers to score from. The Semenyo one was probably the best chance, but was hardly clear cut. 
 

Going back the the formations, and as mentioned above. The 442 could only work if we are fluid and are pulling the opposition players out of position to create spaces. However our front and middle 2 were static, and we were relying on a cross to fall nicely for us. Whatever formation we play, if our midfield and strikers and static, it is not going to make a difference. Southampton have been mentioned before as doing this. Compare the movement of Ings and Adams, how they commit opposition players and drag them around to create spaces for others to ours, and you will see why a change to another formation will not make any such difference. Wells and Martin don’t really do this, and I think the last few games show how ineffective Martin can be against a deep and physical back line who will be delighted at the fact he is always going to be in front of them.
 

I don’t remember Nagy or Bakinson ever arriving into the box or picking it up on the edge of the box to try and get a shot off. The only time that Bakinson did get in this area, is when we had the Semenyo chance.

[Lew-T]

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

But statistically our best half of football since October 

In terms of? 

[Harry]

9 minutes ago, Lew-T said:

In terms of? 

Shots, shots on target, corners. 
The attacking metrics 

[Davefevs]

I suggest we don’t worry about formations too much and concentrate on getting our back 3 or back 4 20 yards further up the pitch.

The gap front to back was often (almost all of the time) 60 yards.

You kill the midfield and strikers with those sort of distances.

Once you get that sorted, I think you can then worry about the rest of it.

[spudski]

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I suggest we don’t worry about formations too much and concentrate on getting our back 3 or back 4 20 yards further up the pitch.

The gap front to back was often (almost all of the time) 60 yards.

You kill the midfield and strikers with those sort of distances.

Once you get that sorted, I think you can then worry about the rest of it.

I'd actually like our midfield and forwards to come deeper...rather than the defence move up.

We never seem to find space in the final third. We are too laboured in breaking down teams and find it hard when the opposition have men behind the ball.

Imo...we are most effective when counter attacking...when there is space to run into the final third...when the opposition are back tracking and not facing us.

I'd like us to draw the defenders higher...create space in behind...and use it.

Our Achilles heal is we don't create many scoring opportunities...because we don't have the ability to break down the opponent's in the final third.

It's either...cross into a packed box and it's cleared. Or we try to be clever with a pass in breaking a line, to a player that has an opponent all over him. The final balls into and around the box being played and expected, even Messi, would have trouble trying to execute...and so we lose possession.

Imo...we need to create space in the final third by coming deeper,drawing them out, then countering into the space created...so the defence are backtracking, not facing.

[brad blit]

I said this in main game thread, but I’d like to see COD and Semenyo either side of Wells in 433 - would give us some genuine pace up top so we can do high press, and would discourage the constant high balls to Martin who looks like he needs a rest. 
 

Then Bakkinson, Nagy and Massengo middle 3 

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, spudski said:

I'd actually like our midfield and forwards to come deeper...rather than the defence move up.

We never seem to find space in the final third. We are too laboured in breaking down teams and find it hard when the opposition have men behind the ball.

Imo...we are most effective when counter attacking...when there is space to run into the final third...when the opposition are back tracking and not facing us.

I'd like us to draw the defenders higher...create space in behind...and use it.

Our Achilles heal is we don't create many scoring opportunities...because we don't have the ability to break down the opponent's in the final third.

It's either...cross into a packed box and it's cleared. Or we try to be clever with a pass in breaking a line, to a player that has an opponent all over him. The final balls into and around the box being played and expected, even Messi, would have trouble trying to execute...and so we lose possession.

Imo...we need to create space in the final third by coming deeper,drawing them out, then countering into the space created...so the defence are backtracking, not facing.

I actually said the same in my Preview.  Ultimately if your units are too far apart out of possession you will get played around.  I have no issue if it’s the attack that comes deeper.  I think it just needs to be three units working as one.  At the moment it feels worse than three separate units, more eleven individuals.  

I don’t think we are that effective counter attacking either....but that’s another story.

Its a mess at the mo’.  I’d say it’s ill-disciplined too.

Its chalk and cheese to earlier this season.

[spudski]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I actually said the same in my Preview.  Ultimately if your units are too far apart out of possession you will get played around.  I have no issue if it’s the attack that comes deeper.  I think it just needs to be three units working as one.  At the moment it feels worse than three separate units, more eleven individuals.  

I don’t think we are that effective counter attacking either....but that’s another story.

Its a mess at the mo’.  I’d say it’s ill-disciplined too.

Its chalk and cheese to earlier this season.

I agree it's a mess Dave...how I see it, is it's a continuation from last season. We were disjointed between midfield and attack then...and created very few chances. It's now even worse.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, spudski said:

I agree it's a mess Dave...how I see it, is it's a continuation from last season. We were disjointed between midfield and attack then...and created very few chances. It's now even worse.

I used to say we got “strung out” too easily, but that was typically transitional.  Now it’s strung out as a tactic it appears.  Can’t be right.

We do not have bad footballers.

Your point earlier about attack dropping deeper has the following advantages:

• if the opposition defence stay deep, then Martin and Wells get space to play in
• if they push up to mark them, then there’s space in behind
• by pushing up, it naturally condenses the pitch for us

Football is simple, made complicated.

[spudski]

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I used to say we got “strung out” too easily, but that was typically transitional.  Now it’s strung out as a tactic it appears.  Can’t be right.

We do not have bad footballers.

Your point earlier about attack dropping deeper has the following advantages:

• if the opposition defence stay deep, then Martin and Wells get space to play in
• if they push up to mark them, then there’s space in behind
• by pushing up, it naturally condenses the pitch for us

Football is simple, made complicated.

And those three points are what I see needed Dave. 

We don't create space where it hurts.

Our attack is too high. There simply is no room to manoeuvre.

We don't drop back to collect or make space in behind.

So it makes sense to drop back completely...drawing the defence forward and creating space in behind to run/pass into.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, spudski said:

And those three points are what I see needed Dave. 

We don't create space where it hurts.

Our attack is too high. There simply is no room to manoeuvre.

We don't drop back to collect or make space in behind.

So it makes sense to drop back completely...drawing the defence forward and creating space in behind to run/pass into.

Cause and effect, cause and effect.

[chinapig]

40 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I used to say we got “strung out” too easily, but that was typically transitional.  Now it’s strung out as a tactic it appears.  Can’t be right.

We do not have bad footballers.

Your point earlier about attack dropping deeper has the following advantages:

• if the opposition defence stay deep, then Martin and Wells get space to play in
• if they push up to mark them, then there’s space in behind
• by pushing up, it naturally condenses the pitch for us

Football is simple, made complicated.

If you, who have been very much in the Holden camp, say that then something is very wrong.

Why on earth would a coach instruct a team to do that? There are no conceivable advantages.

[spudski]

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Cause and effect, cause and effect.

I find it all very odd that the signs were there last season and also this season...the fact that we don't create chances.

You'd have thought we'd address that. But we play in exactly the same ways going forward.

I'd love to know how many shots we've had over this and last season from outside the box. It seems to my eye...not that often.

We seem fixated on steady play looking to find the most intricate ball into the box...or failing that, out to a wing back and a ping into a packed box.

For me we do way to little off the ball. Not enough movement to create space, draw players or  make an angle... especially in the last third.

[Simon79]

18 minutes ago, spudski said:

I find it all very odd that the signs were there last season and also this season...the fact that we don't create chances.

You'd have thought we'd address that. But we play in exactly the same ways going forward.

I'd love to know how many shots we've had over this and last season from outside the box. It seems to my eye...not that often.

We seem fixated on steady play looking to find the most intricate ball into the box...or failing that, out to a wing back and a ping into a packed box.

For me we do way to little off the ball. Not enough movement to create space, draw players or  make an angle... especially in the last third.

& that in a nutshell is our biggest problem. It has been for quite some time. I cannot believe it still hasn’t been addressed. It was probably my biggest gripe during LJ’s tenure. I use to think the players were potentially over coached & therefore became to rigid, but I’m starting to wonder. Is it systemic of the game now? No creativity, no self problem solving, no spark, no intensity,  just slow ponderous play. Shape shape shape! Have to say, the game is starting to bore me, is that the situation we currently find ourselves in? I’m not sure. But I long for a player to get me off my seat in anticipation, but have those days gone? Have we got a player that can genuinely beat a man with skill? Create space? Make that pass? We possibly did, but we sent him out on loan. But ultimately, movement or lack of it is our biggest problem going forward. COYR