Could we play 442?

[W-S-M Seagull]

With Conway now back in the fold I think we should go back to having 2 up top. Conway and Cornick/Wells would be a right handful for teams. 

But would a central midfield of James and Knight be strong enough? 

With Bell and Sykes starting off from a deeper position than they would in a 433 that not only provides more defensive cover but on the attack it gives them a lot of space to run in to. 

Worth giving it a go? 

[Cityboy1954]

6 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

With Conway now back in the fold I think we should go back to having 2 up top. Conway and Cornick/Wells would be a right handful for teams. 

But would a central midfield of James and Knight be strong enough? 

With Bell and Sykes starting off from a deeper position than they would in a 433 that not only provides more defensive cover but on the attack it gives them a lot of space to run in to. 

Worth giving it a go? 

We might have a few options in midfield eventually when atkinsons back Naysmith and Gardner -Haskins could fit the bill.

[spudski]

17 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

With Conway now back in the fold I think we should go back to having 2 up top. Conway and Cornick/Wells would be a right handful for teams. 

But would a central midfield of James and Knight be strong enough? 

With Bell and Sykes starting off from a deeper position than they would in a 433 that not only provides more defensive cover but on the attack it gives them a lot of space to run in to. 

Worth giving it a go? 

What do you mean by starting off in a deeper position?

They are already deep when defending and transitioning into offence. 

The way we are set up now allows our fullbacks more freedom on offence. 

I could arguably say that we've signed players to fit in with our current set up. 

 

[Winterstoke toad]

With so many teams playing 433 or 4231 we would get heavily over run in the centre of the pitch . 
 

Both 433 and 4231 were created as they both have such an advantage over 442 .

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, Winterstoke toad said:

With so many teams playing 433 or 4231 we would get heavily over run in the centre of the pitch . 
 

Both 433 and 4231 were created as they both have such an advantage over 442 .

Yeah agreed. Modern game, higher you go 4-4-2 unless it's some sort of diamond, or has 4 CMs in some form (Uruguay W018 had a version of that) you'll get overrun quite often. Their one had a heavy emphasis on counter attacking as well, was more reactive.

[Winterstoke toad]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah agreed. Modern game, higher you go 4-4-2 unless it's some sort of diamond, or has 4 CMs in some form (Uruguay W018 had a version of that) you'll get overrun quite often. Their one had a heavy emphasis on counter attacking as well, was more reactive.

Yeh I don’t think it would be to bad if it was 4411 with the cf dropping into centre mid when out of possession which I think Jason knight could be quite good at if he had to perform the role . 

[mozo]

I'd like Conway and Cornick to be tried in the Shearer Sheringham mould. Let Cornick drop into a deep supporting/creative role.

[Davefevs]

I’m much more in favour of ditching the wide forwards / wingers if we go with a front two.

That would mean going 4132 / 4312 type system.

[tin]

9 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

With Conway now back in the fold I think we should go back to having 2 up top. Conway and Cornick/Wells would be a right handful for teams. 

But would a central midfield of James and Knight be strong enough? 

With Bell and Sykes starting off from a deeper position than they would in a 433 that not only provides more defensive cover but on the attack it gives them a lot of space to run in to. 

Worth giving it a go? 

I think, yes, in a few weeks’ time we could play 4-4-2:

Max; Tanner, Vyner, Naismith, Roberts; Sykes, James, Knight, Pring; Wells, Conway. 

There’s a nice balance and a real threat about that XI.