Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Switching to 4-2-2-2?

  1. #1

    Default Switching to 4-2-2-2?

    With the trip to Tenerife coming up should we be switching formations as we are being sussed by teams now.
    West Ham and Palace had fast wingers that destroyed our centre backs because our wing backs were 50 feet up the pitch. The funninest thing is Taggart and Bertrand are not even good wingers while Valery is improving for sure.
    IMHO the only reason why RH is keeping 5 at the back is because we canít defend set pieces with two powering centre backs in a 4-2-2-2.

    I think itís time he starts to sort out this problem as we are reliant on Redmond too much as he is the only half decent offensive player we have right now.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hidden behind enemy lines
    Posts
    11,055

    Default

    McC

    Valery - Yoshi - Bednarek - Bertrand

    Romeu - Hoj

    Armstrong - JWP

    Redmond - Ings


    Something like that could work

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    18,793
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Not enough width.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    WHAT?! The "land of the free?" Whoever told you that is your enemy!
    Posts
    18,046

    Default

    How would 4-2-2-2 have helped us break down deep lying organised defences like Burnely or Cardiff?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The metropolis of Wem
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    I just don't see this happening. Its a high risk strategy this late in the season and the importance of a settled defence is a big factor.

    After Vestergaard went off on Saturday we looked vulnerable although for the first goal I was disappointing that he wasn't more assertive in making the clearing header his, rather than leaving Hojbjerg competing against a taller player.

    I'd keep the current setup. Against mobile, more technical teams Yoshida could come in for Vestergaard. Against hoofers there's not much between Stephens and Yoshida, but the latter has more presence.

    The problem on Saturday was the lack of Ings, Armstrong and Lemina meaning we lacked the bit of guile, skill and intelligent movement needed to break down a stubborn defence. Even so, we made enough clear chances to have won.

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    17,241

    Default

    We did try to play that shape at times against Cardiff.

    We defended as 352 but when we had the ball Stephens often pushed up alongside Romeu and it was more like two centre backs with a midfield 2 in front.

    To be honest, I don't think changing the system will make tii much difference. It was lack of quality in the final third and poor concentration in defence that cost us.

  7. #7

    Default

    PRetty sure in an interview RH said that playing 352 was more solid but less offensive and 4222 was more offesnive but we left ourselves exposed. Changing formations highlighted that fact on Saturday to be fair.

  8. #8

    Default

    We can talk about tactics all we want, but at the end of the day we conceded a goal in the 93rd min due to a lack of concentration and general dumbness. That's nothing to do with tactics.

    It's just dumb players.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    WHAT?! The "land of the free?" Whoever told you that is your enemy!
    Posts
    18,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S-Clarke View Post
    We can talk about tactics all we want, but at the end of the day we conceded a goal in the 93rd min due to a lack of concentration and general dumbness. That's nothing to do with tactics.

    It's just dumb players.
    At the end of the day that's the rub of it formations and tactics only get you so far. The players are in general average to poor in ability and there is nothing we can do about that now.

    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S-Clarke View Post
    We can talk about tactics all we want, but at the end of the day we conceded a goal in the 93rd min due to a lack of concentration and general dumbness. That's nothing to do with tactics.

    It's just dumb players.
    I partly agree with that. That goal should have been avoided, as should many others this sesson. However, the negative team selection was entirely down to RH. A rusty Bertrand and Valery (as good as he was) should not be the attacking width of a team at home to Cardiff in a must win game. We were negative and paid the price for that as much as anything else.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    I partly agree with that. That goal should have been avoided, as should many others this sesson. However, the negative team selection was entirely down to RH. A rusty Bertrand and Valery (as good as he was) should not be the attacking width of a team at home to Cardiff in a must win game. We were negative and paid the price for that as much as anything else.
    But who else could have provided the attacking width in all honestly?

    We are so short of wide players or any general pace in attack, it's criminal really.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    11,508
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S-Clarke View Post
    We can talk about tactics all we want, but at the end of the day we conceded a goal in the 93rd min due to a lack of concentration and general dumbness. That's nothing to do with tactics.

    It's just dumb players.
    Conceding like we did in the 93 minute.is frustrating, but the real problem was conceding in the 69th. The problem was Ralph just got the tactics wrong for the game and this is an issue withe the way he sets up against teams that don't want to attack. Poch had the same problem when he was here and had to work out alternative ways of beating such opponents, he got there eventually because we developed our midfield creativity. Sadly Ralph doesn't have the players to develop in this area so I can see us continuing to struggle against bottom teams. Blaming our predicament on individual mistakes doesn't get you anywhere, all players make mistakes, the trick is to ensure that those mistakes aren't costly by scoring enough ourselves. Even Stephens' blunder really should not have cost us, there were many opportunities to regain the possession, indeed Bednarek did actually do so but his poor header gave the ball away almost as badly as Ja k's silly pass. Long time sin e I've seen so much bad play from players as they showed dealing with that error.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Gotham City
    Posts
    27,959

    Default

    how many late goals have we let in

    Leicester home, Brighton home, Cardiff home...spring to mind

    ALL resulted in points dropped

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    4,223
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batman View Post
    how many late goals have we let in

    Leicester home, Brighton home, Cardiff home...spring to mind

    ALL resulted in points dropped
    Watford home and Burnley away too

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S-Clarke View Post
    But who else could have provided the attacking width in all honestly?

    We are so short of wide players or any general pace in attack, it's criminal really.
    Against Cardiff I'd have played Austin or even Gallagher up top with Long, Redmond left, JWP right. In a 4222 they'd give width and tuck in as necessary. Whilst I don't think Sims is a premier league player, I would have had him or Johnson on the bench to give some width and pace.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    Against Cardiff I'd have played Austin or even Gallagher up top with Long, Redmond left, JWP right. In a 4222 they'd give width and tuck in as necessary. Whilst I don't think Sims is a premier league player, I would have had him or Johnson on the bench to give some width and pace.
    I agree with you.
    Just watch the way Watford play 4-2-2-2 as they have two attacking strikers that look dangerous all the time.
    Shame we don’t have those?

  17. #17

    Default

    In the opening minutes vs Cardiff we were playing 4222. Stephens was playing alongside Romeu rather than as a centre back.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The metropolis of Wem
    Posts
    6,753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    McC

    Valery - Yoshi - Bednarek - Bertrand

    Romeu - Hoj

    Armstrong - JWP

    Redmond - Ings


    Something like that could work
    I'd say it should work.

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Le God View Post
    In the opening minutes vs Cardiff we were playing 4222. Stephens was playing alongside Romeu rather than as a centre back.
    The problem was PEH should have been in that position with a better creative attacking midfielder further forward. Armstrong would have been good, or redmond there with Ings and long/austin/Gallagher upfront. But we don't at the moment have the depth to pull the formation off as we need basically every talented attacking player (and one average player next to ings) fit or we can't make it work. If we have to play a **** player or a defensive player in an attacking role then we might as well just be playing with an extra cb.

    Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    17,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TWar View Post
    The problem was PEH should have been in that position with a better creative attacking midfielder further forward. Armstrong would have been good, or redmond there with Ings and long/austin/Gallagher upfront. But we don't at the moment have the depth to pull the formation off as we need basically every talented attacking player (and one average player next to ings) fit or we can't make it work. If we have to play a **** player or a defensive player in an attacking role then we might as well just be playing with an extra cb.

    Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
    My thoughts exactly.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TWar View Post
    The problem was PEH should have been in that position with a better creative attacking midfielder further forward. Armstrong would have been good, or redmond there with Ings and long/austin/Gallagher upfront. But we don't at the moment have the depth to pull the formation off as we need basically every talented attacking player (and one average player next to ings) fit or we can't make it work. If we have to play a **** player or a defensive player in an attacking role then we might as well just be playing with an extra cb.

    Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
    This is a very good point. However to compound the problem our full backs are too advanced and in particular Valery which leaves our midfield bare with no width and their full backs are then pushed too far back leaving no room for our forwards to make runs in behind. What also happens is our forwards end up coming deep to help the midfield and just to search out the ball which meant that on the odd occasion we did get it wide there was no one in the box to cross to.
    The three at the back system requires attacks to be built with full backs giving the midfield width deeper than they are so that you build the run in behind or the overlap.
    Last edited by captainchris; 13-02-2019 at 11:18 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •