What would 4-4-2 change?

[shurlock]

Alot of the discussion on these pages claims that our results are in part down to JPs formation. I would like to know what are the relative advantages and disadvantages of 4-4-2 as opposed to the current 4-3-3/4-2-1-2-1? Why would 4-4-2 be any better? Do we any longer have enough strikers for 4-4-2 (Pekhart has yet to really prove himself)? How would it tighten us up at the back? Or are we just chasing ghosts with the "its the formation" line?

Could see how Lowe supporters might peddle that line to deflect attention away from the fact that its players rather than the formation that make the results - and we've been letting a fair few good ones go...

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

I don't think that just changing to a 4-4-2 is the simple answer. JP needs more variety and to be willing to change tactics as the game demands. Tonight was a perfect example. As soon as we had scored, Coventry changed their formation to give them two strikers up front rather than the lone man. It wasn't very long before they saw the benefit.

We could, and should, have changed our tactics to cope with their new formation as soon as they made it, and in any case to try to defend our lead.

[St Marco]

4-4-2 is a more positive formation as it means you have 2 people working the line. When you have just 1 up there it means the opponents normally have 4 defenders watching him. Thus means it is harder to have through balls. The striker has to work twice as hard. If you play the ball up to the striker he has nobody to link with fast, he has to hold the ball up until someone can get forward and support him. But in my view the main difference is congestion. Having 5 in midfield means there is a lot less space to pass into and is more predictable to deal with. Having 2 up front means you have more options to pass the ball. For example if you want to play with width having 2 players who can move to the wing to recieve the ball from striking positions helps with that. It also then enables more players to get into the box as the forwards normally are man marked. But the main difference i think is the nuisance level. If you have 2 of them constantly harassing the back line and trying to counter break past them it means the defenders have to do a lot more running which wears them down. The problem with 4-5-1 is the midfield is packed so it is hard to get out on the break, you have nobody to pass to and the one guy up front who you can is surrounded by normally a line of 3-4 defenders. Unless he is someone with amazing ball control skills he will lose the ball pretty easy. There are many reasons why 4-5-1 should be dropped but i think the main one has to be that it simply doesn't work IF you want to create a lot of chances. Swansea showed us how to do 4-5-1 right, they all move about into space and get into the box asap. We don't do that as were too far back.

[OfnPanad]

I think our main problem is that whatever our formation we are far too shot-shy. One goal in the last 365 minutes testifies to that.

 

Vs the Swans, who were fielding a rookie 19yr old goalie we managed 5 shots, 4 on target. Surely we should have been shooting on sight, from as far out as 35 yards?

 

Whenever I have seen us this season we are always caught out trying to make "one more pass" to walk it into the net.

 

I'm not sure it's the formation that's the problem but 2 up front could help in the way that one's job is usually to knock the ball down or hold the ball and then lay it off for the other lad coming in on the run to have a shot. We really need that.

 

By the way we play we obviously spend all of about 2 minutes a week practising attacking free kicks, shooting, penalties and corners. Why Jan? Why? I know defending is important but by now everyone can see we're no good at it so maybe a bit of Keegan wisdom.... if we score 4 they have to score 5 to beat us...

 

It worked for him first time 'round!

[Navyred]

I am a huge believer in the 4-4-2 formation. Fact is really I don't care what formation we play as long as we play at the very least TWO STRIKERS! Playing DMCG up front on his own is just not good enough. We need two front men chasing down everything - defend from the front! MCG had a few good touches last night, headers on, flick ons, but there was nobody there to pick them up.

[Capel Saint]

Unfortunately a 4-5-1 formation relies on the wingers able to pass the opposition, deliver quality crosses and for central midfielders to come up and support the lone striker when attacking. The fundamentals of which our team is not doing, hence not scoring goals.

[saintrich]

David McGoldrick doesn't have the qualities to play as a lone striker.

 

He often drifts out wide, leaving us no players in the box to attack crosses.

 

4-4-2 would work better, for this reason alone.

[solentstars]

Alot of the discussion on these pages claims that our results are in part down to JPs formation. I would like to know what are the relative advantages and disadvantages of 4-4-2 as opposed to the current 4-3-3/4-2-1-2-1? Why would 4-4-2 be any better? Do we any longer have enough strikers for 4-4-2 (Pekhart has yet to really prove himself)? How would it tighten us up at the back? Or are we just chasing ghosts with the "its the formation" line?

Could see how Lowe supporters might peddle that line to deflect attention away from the fact that its players rather than the formation that make the results - and we've been letting a fair few good ones go...

4-4-2 would make no difference,the system falls down because the midfield do not join the attack quick enough and over pass instead of shooting .

[West End Saint]

At the start of the season 4-5-1 was working ok and looking good but our starting position was higher up the pitch and we worked really hard at chasing the oppostion and winning the ball in there half we are not doing that now we start the play way to deep and invite teams to press us.

 

So I am in favour of a change to 4-4-2 I know it means playing Lallana out of position but we must get more bodies in the box and starting with two up front would help i would have the following (subject to being fit)

Davis

Skacel Sevenson Lanchashire Cork

Surman Spiderman Euell Lallana

Mcgoldrick Robertson

[Scudamore]

The formation...

[Alanh]

We haven't played 4-5-1 at home all season. We play 4-2-3-1 with the striker supported by two wide players and the attacking midfielder so often we have 4 in attack. I think that is a more unpredictable attacking threat for the defence to cope with than simply 2 strikers. I also prefer the flexibility that 4-2-3-1 offers and the theoretical protection it gives to the defence in the shape of the two defensive midfielders. As a comparison in the Prem last weekend 10 teams played 4-4-2 and the other 10 all played something like 4-3-3, 4-5-1.

[Saint Martini]

We haven't played 4-5-1 at home all season. We play 4-2-3-1 with the striker supported by two wide players and the attacking midfielder so often we have 4 in attack. I think that is a more unpredictable attacking threat for the defence to cope with than simply 2 strikers. I also prefer the flexibility that 4-2-3-1 offers and the theoretical protection it gives to the defence in the shape of the two defensive midfielders. As a comparison in the Prem last weekend 10 teams played 4-4-2 and the other 10 all played something like 4-3-3, 4-5-1.

 

Agree.

 

Its not that I mind either way but I don't think this team is suited for a 442. Who would you play as the midfield 4?

 

Schneiderlin and Surman in the centre? Where does Lallana go? On the wing or does he play upfront? Where does someone like Euell go? And what do we do with Holmes and Smith, are they suited for the more defensive role they would have in a 442?