4-4-2? 4-3-3? 4-2-3-1?

[Saint Garrett]

What is the best for our potential squad come September 1st.

Everyone is saying go 4-4-2 at home against the lesser teams, but could be argued that 4-2-3-1 is actually more attacking.

Wouldn't be complaining if by the end of the transfer window we are playing this every week home or away. Which do you think is more attacking?

-------------Davis-------------
Clyne, Jose(new?), Jos, Fox (new?)
------Morgan------Davis-------
Ramirez------Lallana------Phillips
------------Lambert-----------

-------------Davis-------------
Clyne, Jose(new?), Jos, Fox (new?)
Ramirez---Morgan-Davis---Lallana
---------J-Rod----Lambert-------

Will Lallana now play on the left in a 4-4-2? I personally think that the 4-2-3-1 suits us better as long as we get the new players in. It also suits the style of football that we play as the front 4 can all rotate and is incredibly fluid.

[Smirking_Saint]

We play a 433 going forward and a 451 defensively which makes that formation (like we played yesterday) quite fluod and useful.

I can see that working (withthe right personel) and one we will continue to use.

Just hope Ramirez and phillips can track back

[Papa Shango]

Very few top flight teams play 442 now. 4231/4141 definitely the way to go.

[Ken Tone]

We play a 433 going forward and a 451 defensively which makes that formation (like we played yesterday) quite fluod and useful.

I can see that working (withthe right personel) and one we will continue to use.

Just hope Ramirez and phillips can track back

Which is basically what we played in the Prem under Hoddle. But to answer the OP, I hope we will vary the shape according to the opposition, not just stick to any one pattern.

[Saint Garrett]

I agree, however a lot of people on the Wigan thread are suggesting we should go 4-4-2.

[Smirking_Saint]

Everyone loves a 442

I dont, think that other formatio s not only suit us better but are more fluid.

433/451/4231 etc are all better IMO

[mulletsaint]

Gotta be 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-4-1 for me. I like our fluidity going forward and don't think 4-4-2 enables us to do this as much. I also think at least one of the CM's needs to sit a lot more and offer the back four more protection.

Thought yesterday seemed more 4-5-1 than 4-3-3. I know the two are supposed to be interchangeable depending on whether a team is attacking or defending but I don't think five men strung out in a straight line is the best way to defend though midfield and left Guly isolated at times. When we did attack we seemed not to switch to 4-3-3 but went to a rather unorthodox and scary 4-0-6!

Having said all that, there will always be a time when 4-4-2 has its uses.

[The9]

What is the best for our potential squad come September 1st.

Everyone is saying go 4-4-2 at home against the lesser teams, but could be argued that 4-2-3-1 is actually more attacking.

Wouldn't be complaining if by the end of the transfer window we are playing this every week home or away. Which do you think is more attacking?

-------------Davis-------------
Clyne, Jose(new?), Jos, Fox (new?)
------Morgan------Davis-------
Ramirez------Lallana------Phillips
------------Lambert-----------

-------------Davis-------------
Clyne, Jose(new?), Jos, Fox (new?)
Ramirez---Morgan-Davis---Lallana
---------J-Rod----Lambert-------

Will Lallana now play on the left in a 4-4-2? I personally think that the 4-2-3-1 suits us better as long as we get the new players in. It also suits the style of football that we play as the front 4 can all rotate and is incredibly fluid.

No they're not. The Mike Bassetts are saying "4-4-2" because they don't understand tactics.

[Minty]

Adkins has made it quite clear that to add to the 4-4-2 and 4-diamond-2 that we used last season, he wanted to add a third formation to use this season, which is this new 4-3-3. He will use any and all of them as he sees fit and it demonstrates that, while he won't always get it right, he is well aware that one-size-fits-all is not the way to success in the Prem. There is an argument to say that a team should play one way and do it well... no doubt some of you will agree, but I'm with Adkins... we need variation, we need adaptability, and we won't have a 'best' formation.

[Clifford Nelson]

4-4-2 isn't a form of 4-3-3, like playing one today, the other tomorrow. 4-3-3 is a more flexible form of basic formation. The variety considered most offensive of the variations are 4-2-3-1. That will allow somebody to play "in the hole", where many want to see Lallana, and where I have suggested could be perfect for Lambert. The most similar to 4-4-2 is 4-5-1.

I will find it very surprising if we suddenly turn up with ye olde 4-4-2 again since it would show that NA has lost his nerve. I'm trying to read what is in the mind of NC and NA and the talk about the Southampton Way. The way I understand it is a cutting edge modern football. I just can't see how that could be combined with a return to the structure of yesteryear.

It seems a little bit strange that the management is happier with modernity than the fans. Can't we just embrace this brave, new world, as better than the old one? We don't really remember the old 4-4-2 merchants with fondness, do we? Branfoot, Jones, Burley.....

[Minty]

Also worth remembering that the formation is only a part of the tactics... how those players are then instructed to use their formation, the level of fluidity, overlap, how deep the forwards drop, how far forward the midfield push on, depending on where the ball is etc, etc... far more to it than any of us will ever understand until we've done FA badges to match our esteemed manager and coaches.

[Saint Garrett]

4-4-2 isn't a form of 4-3-3, like playing one today, the other tomorrow. 4-3-3 is a more flexible form of basic formation. The variety considered most offensive of the variations are 4-2-3-1. That will allow somebody to play "in the hole", where many want to see Lallana, and where I have suggested could be perfect for Lambert. The most similar to 4-4-2 is 4-5-1.

I will find it very surprising if we suddenly turn up with ye olde 4-4-2 again since it would show that NA has lost his nerve. I'm trying to read what is in the mind of NC and NA and the talk about the Southampton Way. The way I understand it is a cutting edge modern football. I just can't see how that could be combined with a return to the structure of yesteryear.

It seems a little bit strange that the management is happier with modernity than the fans. Can't we just embrace this brave, new world, as better than the old one? We don't really remember the old 4-4-2 merchants with fondness, do we? Branfoot, Jones, Burley.....

Who is complaining ?

[Clifford Nelson]

Who is complaining ?

Quite a few here on the forum who can't wait for the return of 4-4-2, and Dave Merrington on Radio Solent, amongst others. Surely you haven't missed them all?

[Saint Garrett]

Must just gloss over them. I believe if we have the right players 4-2-3-1 is way more attacking than 4-4-2