Jump to content

Was it REALLY a 4-4-2?


Bailey
 Share

Recommended Posts

First off, I just want to start by saying what a superb result the 'boysh' produced today. Great support from the fans too! However, I've noticed that a few people have been saying on the post-match thread how we lined up in a 4-4-2 formation. That's not true! The team started up as follows . . .

 

---------------------- Davis ------------------------

 

James --------- Perry --------- Cork ----------- Skacel

 

-------------- Surman ---- Schneiderlin -------------

 

Lallana ------------ McGoldrick ------------Wright-Phillips

 

------------------- Robertson -----------------------

 

The main difference today though, was that Robertson held the ball up brilliantly, bringing McGoldrick into play in the process. Not to mention the fact that Lallana and Surman made some cracking runs throughout the game. Even BWP played well!

 

To summarise, we didn't play 4-4-2, but the players movement and their desire to run for every ball made the 'Dutch' formation work brilliantly today. Full credit to Poortvliet, the 'boysh' and the fans that went. Great effort. We just need to follow this up with a win against Plymouth now . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just been listening to BWP and he confirmed there was no change in the formation, just the personnel. Without actually being there it is difficult to give an informed opinion, but from what I have seen previously, playing DMG in the hole may have a lot to do with it?

 

I think the return of Robertson had a bigger impact IMO. He is alot stronger than McGoldrick and can hold the ball up much better. Not only that, but he wins more in the air and gets in the faces of the oppo defence.

 

Having said that, I think we see the best of DMG when he is 'in the hole' or out wide as he is better when the ball is at his feet, which in part, helps to bring others into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just been listening to BWP and he confirmed there was no change in the formation, just the personnel. Without actually being there it is difficult to give an informed opinion, but from what I have seen previously, playing DMG in the hole may have a lot to do with it?

 

And yet some still insist that we were playing 4-4-2, makes you wonder really doesn't it.

As I have stated many many times, you should barely notice the difference if the 'hole' role is correctly performed. think I likened it to a 2 man kaleidoscope on one occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it sometimes looked 442 because DMG played closer to Robertson. Maybe his best position?

 

Agreed. This has been our main problem with the formation. At times we've struggled to support the lone striker, but with McGoldrick playing closer to Robertson and BWP, Lallana and Surman quick to add their support, the formation clicked today and we got a little glimpse of the 'total football' that Poortvliet has been banging on about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I just want to start by saying what a superb result the 'boysh' produced today. Great support from the fans too! However, I've noticed that a few people have been saying on the post-match thread how we lined up in a 4-4-2 formation. That's not true! The team started up as follows . . .

 

---------------------- Davis ------------------------

 

James --------- Perry --------- Cork ----------- Skacel

 

-------------- Surman ---- Schneiderlin -------------

 

Lallana ------------ McGoldrick ------------Wright-Phillips

 

------------------- Robertson -----------------------

 

The main difference today though, was that Robertson held the ball up brilliantly, bringing McGoldrick into play in the process. Not to mention the fact that Lallana and Surman made some cracking runs throughout the game. Even BWP played well!

 

To summarise, we didn't play 4-4-2, but the players movement and their desire to run for every ball made the 'Dutch' formation work brilliantly today. Full credit to Poortvliet, the 'boysh' and the fans that went. Great effort. We just need to follow this up with a win against Plymouth now . . .

 

Glad someone saw the same as me. Was beginning to wonder if I was at the same game many had been commenting on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was actually the usual 4-5-1 but with DMG sitting back a bit it looked 4-4-1-1 for long periods. Very suitable away from home and it looked very good today.

 

Did I notice some "total football" as well with plenty of hard work, covering but mostly the excellent support from all areas when on the attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that numbers and systems are all well and good, but what counts most is playing a formation and style which gets the most out of the players you have. I've only managed four games so far this season, all of them at home; in all of those our formation has looked to me like two holding midfielders in front of the back four, then four players in front of them, each of whom has a nominal position but who interchange throughout the game.

 

This gives a fluidity which can be just great to watch. However, in three of the games I've seen we've lacked a real cutting edge - our build-up play often looks fabulous, but we don't do enough to really hurt the other team where it counts. Judging by many of the comments of those who were there yesterday, this wasn't the case yesterday. So perhaps it's the case that having a straightforward striker such as Robertson up front, supported by the other three more attacking players, is what really works.

 

Of course, if we can build from this and get a few more results, we won't care too much about whether we do it playing 4-4-2, 4-2-1-2-1, 4-3-3, 4-5-1 or whatever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it was the normal formation. Just shows to go how little Dave Merrington knows about football! And to think, people like alpine think they get a fair reflection of the game when listening to him! Ha!

 

McGoldrick played in "the hole" in the same way Euell did when he first came back from injury, whereas when Lallana did it he always sat a little bit deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone I have spoken to agreed it was four attacking players all changing positions constantly.

 

But given the great result against a strong team the moan at all cost types and little Englanders need some sort of stick to beat JP with if he wins!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by up and away viewpost.gif

Just been listening to BWP and he confirmed there was no change in the formation, just the personnel. Without actually being there it is difficult to give an informed opinion, but from what I have seen previously, playing DMG in the hole may have a lot to do with it?

I think the return of Robertson had a bigger impact IMO. He is alot stronger than McGoldrick and can hold the ball up much better. Not only that, but he wins more in the air and gets in the faces of the oppo defence.

 

Having said that, I think we see the best of DMG when he is 'in the hole' or out wide as he is better when the ball is at his feet, which in part, helps to bring others into play.

 

Of course you are correct, there are two parts to this answer not one. Robertson has to perform the lone striker role, then we need someone to play in the hole. DMG is that little bit more selfish than the other strikers and as such naturally drifts closer to the striker than the defensive position, which is the problem we have been having. Just hope it continues to work, but it does mean he has to keep putting a shift in, otherwise we will be hearing about the man in the hole getting too detached from the midfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...