Defence - good individuals but not a good unit

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, spudski said:

The problem we have regardless of playing 4 at the back with natural full backs or a three, is not so much the defence but the back up from midfield.

So often you see the hole being exploited, with overload of players. More often than not, a full back having to deal with 2 offensive players, whilst our midfield adjust too slowly...worried they are leaving gaps centrally because one of the forwards isn't dropping quick enough.

It's still very passive when dropping back from midfield...Massengo an exception.

442 would certainly help at the moment as nearly every team has seen our weakness.

Hmm, think it can be relatively easy to play through these days. 

Will only go so far at this level I feel- we'll win some lose some but not really go for it up the top end.

I'm still leaning towards 4-3-3...two full backs, a tight 3 in CM, two wingers or wide forwards and one through the middle. Passing and pressing and the wide forwards need to contribute to avoid the 2 v 1 that you describe.

If there is a 4-4-2, that can solve the 2 v 1 in wide areas but at the expense of a 3 v 2 centrally and again the potential gaps between midfield and defence.

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, Robbored said:

It’s strange because when Nige was asked what formation he prefers he said 4-4-2…………….

Won't succeed at this level these days IMO, although definitions of a successful season are or can be relative. Depends on what success means I guess. He mentioned a 4-3-3 a few weeks back I'm sure.

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Won't succeed at this level these days IMO, although definitions of a successful season are or can be relative. Depends on what success means I guess. He mentioned a 4-3-3 a few weeks back I'm sure.

4-4-2 isn’t much different from 4-3-3. 

Certain posters laugh when I argue that 4-4-2 is a common template and is adopted all over the world. 

[Paul G]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Out of interest where are some of you picking up Nige's tactical instructions from in such detail....or are we interpreting fingers / signs?  Or is someone sat just behind him listening hard?

I saw him signal using his fingers at least twice 4-4-1-1 even putting one finger behind the other to make it clear.

I was sat in W15

Edited November 1, 2021 by Paul G

[spudski]

12 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hmm, think it can be relatively easy to play through these days. 

Will only go so far at this level I feel- we'll win some lose some but not really go for it up the top end.

I'm still leaning towards 4-3-3...two full backs, a tight 3 in CM, two wingers or wide forwards and one through the middle. Passing and pressing and the wide forwards need to contribute to avoid the 2 v 1 that you describe.

If there is a 4-4-2, that can solve the 2 v 1 in wide areas but at the expense of a 3 v 2 centrally and again the potential gaps between midfield and defence.

It shouldn't do, as when the ball is pinged diagonally, the midfield slides/shifts as a unit across the pitch...giving the extra man centrally.

We are just too slow and passive when doing it.

In the time the ball has travelled across the width of the pitch to the wide man, our full back should be on him, ready to pounce as he controls, and the midfield should be tracking the runners with intent.

They don't...it's passive and symbolic having no affect on the outcome.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Robbored said:

4-4-2 isn’t much different from 4-3-3. 

Certain posters laugh when I argue that 4-4-2 is a common template and is adopted all over the world. 

Possibly can be similar at times but unsure in general. Why has 4-3-3 bypassed 4-4-2 and indeed a lot of shapes in the past decade or so at the top levels?

I suppose if you had an elite Bobby Reid at the elite levels or in our case an actual Bobby Reid out of possession that could shift to a 4-3-3/4-5-1 but that type of player aside...seems like you're getting into round pegs, square holes or vice versa.

Pulling players out of position, shape being lost and the opposition taking some level of initiative.

[Davefevs]

29 minutes ago, Robbored said:

It’s strange because when Nige was asked what formation he prefers he said 4-4-2…………….

He actually said if he had the right players he’d want to play 433….and that he prefers a back four.

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Won't succeed at this level these days IMO, although definitions of a successful season are or can be relative. Depends on what success means I guess. He mentioned a 4-3-3 a few weeks back I'm sure.

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

4-4-2 isn’t much different from 4-3-3. 

Certain posters laugh when I argue that 4-4-2 is a common template and is adopted all over the world. 

It’s hugely different.  The only similarity is it’s a back four system.

and we laugh, because you trot it out every time this is mentioned.

and your follow-up post will be:

”it’s a fluid game and players don’t stay in the same place”

the post after that will be:

”when I look at a lineup I see defenders, midfielders and attackers / forwards”

Repetition does not mean understanding, credibility and / or correctness.

Sorry couldn’t resist.

[Phileas Fogg]

12 minutes ago, Robbored said:

4-4-2 isn’t much different from 4-3-3. 

Certain posters laugh when I argue that 4-4-2 is a common template and is adopted all over the world. 

It's massively different and it's an ignorant/bizarre opinion really.

[Mr Popodopolous]

34 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

It's massively different and it's an ignorant/bizarre opinion really.

I think still in some specific and narrow circs ie if an original CM converted to a striker is one of the front 2, that could cross over as they would perhaps be able to drop back and switching between the two in game.

You would also need in the same side, wingers who can double up as wide forwards.

That's very much an exception however. Mostly very different I agree, like you and Dave say. Struggling to see other circs where it can cross over in game.