will we convert to 4-4-2 in january?

[lordswoodsaints]

if lallana is sold will we be forced to play 4-4-2 as my feeling is that lallana is being accomodated to play in that position just behind the front man.

i cant see anybody else playing there so if he goes our options could become limited in the current system being employed.

our system seems very rigid at the moment and doesnt leave a lot of scope for change so perhaps certain players being sold in january will force more flexibility on JP,unless of course JP's been told to accomodate players to put them in the shop window in which case he wont have a say anyway.

[londonsaint1604]

I think Euell could play in that position. Either way I'd be surprised if he changes it, as much as I wish he would.

[Alanh]

Highly unlikely IMO. JP plays a continental style which is a version of 4-4-3 with one target man supported by wingers and at least one attacking midfielder. That's why when we attack we generally have 3 or 4 players in the opposition box. If Lallana were sold then we could retain the 4-3-3 shape by using Euell or DMG just behind the striker.

 

Personally I don't see playing 4-4-2 as a solution to the problems that we are facing. 4-4-2 is just as likely to result in a more defensive strategy with two banks of four players rigidly stretched across the field. The key issue that we've got is we have no natural goalscoring threat, not the formation that the players are playing.

 

I don't see our system as rigid in the slightest, in fact it should be incredibly flexible, with 5 in midfield and one in attack when we are defending or under pressure, but 3 in midfield and 3 in attack when we are on top. Add to that the flexibility in positions that the players can play - DMG and Lallana switching positions between AMC and RM - and we've got loads of flexibility.

 

Obviously that's just the way I see things and I'm sure others will be more frustrated by what they perceive to be 'one up front', but I just don't see it that way.

[saintjay77]

Only way this system will change IMO will be if the coaching set up changes. 4-3-3 is being played from top to bottom so just because we lose 1 player the whole club wont change its system.

 

We have Euell, Gasmi, McGoldrick, BWP, all able to play in the whole with White out on loan that can also play there.

 

Paterson and Robertson and even Euell can play the lone striker role so its not like we dont have options.

 

We just dont have many good options.

[lordswoodsaints]

Highly unlikely IMO. JP plays a continental style which is a version of 4-4-3 with one target man supported by wingers and at least one attacking midfielder. That's why when we attack we generally have 3 or 4 players in the opposition box. If Lallana were sold then we could retain the 4-3-3 shape by using Euell or DMG just behind the striker.

 

Personally I don't see playing 4-4-2 as a solution to the problems that we are facing. 4-4-2 is just as likely to result in a more defensive strategy with two banks of four players rigidly stretched across the field. The key issue that we've got is we have no natural goalscoring threat, not the formation that the players are playing.

 

I don't see our system as rigid in the slightest, in fact it should be incredibly flexible, with 5 in midfield and one in attack when we are defending or under pressure, but 3 in midfield and 3 in attack when we are on top. Add to that the flexibility in positions that the players can play - DMG and Lallana switching positions between AMC and RM - and we've got loads of flexibility.

 

Obviously that's just the way I see things and I'm sure others will be more frustrated by what they perceive to be 'one up front', but I just don't see it that way.

 

its not the way we play that i see as rigid its the fact that jp seems to want to play that system regardless of who we play,how well or bad we are playing or what the score is.it seems as if he is unwilling to be flexible sometimes at the expense of losing the game.

[Legod Third Coming]

its not the way we play that i see as rigid its the fact that jp seems to want to play that system regardless of who we play,how well or bad we are playing or what the score is.it seems as if he is unwilling to be flexible sometimes at the expense of losing the game.

 

Not having a go at you old son, as you are nomally a very positive man, but I would love to know the games which our system has cost us. (Anyone??)

 

At Burnley, we could have drawn if BWP hadn't taken an extra touch.

 

And I agree with Alan, for mr this comes down to the quality of the players not the system they are being asked to play in.

[mprobert]

Highly unlikely IMO. JP plays a continental style which is a version of 4-4-3 with one target man supported by wingers and at least one attacking midfielder. That's why when we attack we generally have 3 or 4 players in the opposition box. If Lallana were sold then we could retain the 4-3-3 shape by using Euell or DMG just behind the striker.

 

Personally I don't see playing 4-4-2 as a solution to the problems that we are facing. 4-4-2 is just as likely to result in a more defensive strategy with two banks of four players rigidly stretched across the field. The key issue that we've got is we have no natural goalscoring threat, not the formation that the players are playing.

 

I don't see our system as rigid in the slightest, in fact it should be incredibly flexible, with 5 in midfield and one in attack when we are defending or under pressure, but 3 in midfield and 3 in attack when we are on top. Add to that the flexibility in positions that the players can play - DMG and Lallana switching positions between AMC and RM - and we've got loads of flexibility.

 

Obviously that's just the way I see things and I'm sure others will be more frustrated by what they perceive to be 'one up front', but I just don't see it that way.

Totally agree, good post

[hughieslastminutegoal]

Not having a go at you old son, as you are nomally a very positive man, but I would love to know the games which our system has cost us. (Anyone??)

 

At Burnley, we could have drawn if BWP hadn't taken an extra touch.

 

And I agree with Alan, for mr this comes down to the quality of the players not the system they are being asked to play in.

 

And Burnley would have scored how many more if the paint on the woodwork had been a bit thinner.

 

Could it not be the case that you choose the system to fit the players you have, not persist with a system for which the players are not good enough?

 

Or maybe our players aren't good enough for ANY system in this division?

[Legod Third Coming]

And Burnley would have scored how many more if the paint on the woodwork had been a bit thinner.

 

Could it not be the case that you choose the system to fit the players you have, not persist with a system for which the players are not good enough?

 

Or maybe our players aren't good enough for ANY system in this division?

 

 

First, my information is that the players play 4-3-3 from a young age at the club and therefore this is (supposedly) a formation and approach they should be most familiar with. That was from one's mouth so hard to disbelieve unless Rupes has them all on party-line duty

 

I really struggle with this reliance on 4-4-2 - it feels like a horrible English disease, like we're a bunch of Mike Basset's stuck in the dark ages!!

 

But the bit I highlighted is my biggest problem.

 

Let's say we played 4-4-2.

 

Who are our natural wingers?

Who are our front pairing?

 

Some people think we are not scoring because we play 1up, but even where managers play 2up, one usually plays slightly behind anyway - so what's the difference with having a man 'in the hole'??

 

I think we are not scoring because the chances that fall to BWP, DMG and Lallana are meat and drink for an Iwelumo, SKP or in fact Stern bloody John!!!!!

[krissyboy31]

First, my information is that the players play 4-3-3 from a young age at the club and therefore this is (supposedly) a formation and approach they should be most familiar with. That was from one's mouth so hard to disbelieve unless Rupes has them all on party-line duty

 

I really struggle with this reliance on 4-4-2 - it feels like a horrible English disease, like we're a bunch of Mike Basset's stuck in the dark ages!!

 

But the bit I highlighted is my biggest problem.

 

Let's say we played 4-4-2.

 

Who are our natural wingers?

Who are our front pairing?

 

Some people think we are not scoring because we play 1up, but even where managers play 2up, one usually plays slightly behind anyway - so what's the difference with having a man 'in the hole'??

 

I think we are not scoring because the chances that fall to BWP, DMG and Lallana are meat and drink for an Iwelumo, SKP or in fact Stern bloody John!!!!!

 

It's not a case of playing a rigid 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-2-2-1-1 or whatever. The problem we have is that we are not flexible. JP plays his system come-what-may, regardless of match situation, opposition or personell available, In some games it works well (usually against the better teams that want to attack us) but more often than not it gets stifled or nullified and we run out of ideas. We do not have a plan 'b' or plan 'c', which all good managers have.

[Big Bad Bob]

when will we sign Benson and Hedges FFS.

[bungle]

Highly unlikely IMO. JP plays a continental style which is a version of 4-4-3 with one target man supported by wingers and at least one attacking midfielder. That's why when we attack we generally have 3 or 4 players in the opposition box. If Lallana were sold then we could retain the 4-3-3 shape by using Euell or DMG just behind the striker.

 

Personally I don't see playing 4-4-2 as a solution to the problems that we are facing. 4-4-2 is just as likely to result in a more defensive strategy with two banks of four players rigidly stretched across the field. The key issue that we've got is we have no natural goalscoring threat, not the formation that the players are playing.

 

I don't see our system as rigid in the slightest, in fact it should be incredibly flexible, with 5 in midfield and one in attack when we are defending or under pressure, but 3 in midfield and 3 in attack when we are on top. Add to that the flexibility in positions that the players can play - DMG and Lallana switching positions between AMC and RM - and we've got loads of flexibility.

 

Obviously that's just the way I see things and I'm sure others will be more frustrated by what they perceive to be 'one up front', but I just don't see it that way.

 

Brilliant post.

[lordswoodsaints]

Not having a go at you old son, as you are nomally a very positive man, but I would love to know the games which our system has cost us. (Anyone??)

 

At Burnley, we could have drawn if BWP hadn't taken an extra touch.

 

And I agree with Alan, for mr this comes down to the quality of the players not the system they are being asked to play in.

 

jp doesnt seem to be able to change the system to shut teams out,we could be a goal up with 15-20 mins to go and we should be shutting teams out as it doesnt look likely we are going to score more goals.when hoddle was here he was constantly changing things during a game to suit that period of play,sometimes the shape of the team would change 3 or 4 times in a game and this is what jp should be doing.

dont get me wrong our style of play leads to some good attacking football at times but to maintain a lead or stay on top of a game then the system has to adapt and evolve during a game,something which doesnt seem to happen.

[Big Bad Bob]

jp doesnt seem to be able to change the system to shut teams out,we could be a goal up with 15-20 mins to go and we should be shutting teams out as it doesnt look likely we are going to score more goals.when hoddle was here he was constantly changing things during a game to suit that period of play,sometimes the shape of the team would change 3 or 4 times in a game and this is what jp should be doing.

dont get me wrong our style of play leads to some good attacking football at times but to maintain a lead or stay on top of a game then the system has to adapt and evolve during a game,something which doesnt seem to happen.

 

Maybe JP is trying to change the system, it's just the players can't understand it when directed from the touchline.

 

Maybe that's why we seem a different team in the second half because the Chalkboard tlks the talk??

[Legod Third Coming]

It's not a case of playing a rigid 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-2-2-1-1 or whatever. The problem we have is that we are not flexible. JP plays his system come-what-may, regardless of match situation, opposition or personell available, In some games it works well (usually against the better teams that want to attack us) but more often than not it gets stifled or nullified and we run out of ideas. We do not have a plan 'b' or plan 'c', which all good managers have.

 

I don' buy that.

Against Charlton we were being done like kippers until he changed it around and we would then have won but we couldn't finish a ham sandwich.

 

Against Wednesday we battered them and could not finish a ham sandwich.

 

Against Burnley only 10-0-0 might have stopped them scoring. When he bellowed at them at half time they came out and nearly salvaged a point - but we couldn't finish a ham sandwich...

 

If a team comes out and sets it stall out to defend, why is 4-4-2, with two men up front, more likely to be productive than 4-3-3 with three up front??

 

I don't buy this stuff about plan bs and cs. We seem to have a good plan which is to play the ball to a bloke in the same coloured shirt. That's a bloody good start!

 

What we have lacked is a cutting edge. And no matter what the opposition do, how do you think we can get more out of DMG BWP and Lallana as our primary source of goals??

 

This season there are three players who have excelled for me at hitting long balls to open teams up - James, Spiderman and Holmes. The problem for me is that we have been without two of those players too often, and the other has had his hands full defending!!

[Legod Third Coming]

when will we sign Benson and Hedges FFS.

 

 

"Peter Stuyvesant is due to join Southampton on loan in the January transfer window from FC Copenhagen until the end of the season. Commenting on the move, former club colleague and Blackburn skipper Kevin Gallagher said "Jan is always on the lookout for decent Players"".....

[krissyboy31]

Playing the system we do. The midfield 3 need to be much more flexible. They need to hold when the oppo has the ball and protect what is a very fragile back four and then when we have the ball they have to bust a gut to support the main striker. To me, they do neither. Time after time when we have the ball in advanced positions, there is only one man anywhere near the box so the ball is either smothered by the defence or we have to pass sideways or backwards losing the momentum of the attack.

[Alanh]

jp doesnt seem to be able to change the system to shut teams out,we could be a goal up with 15-20 mins to go and we should be shutting teams out as it doesnt look likely we are going to score more goals.when hoddle was here he was constantly changing things during a game to suit that period of play,sometimes the shape of the team would change 3 or 4 times in a game and this is what jp should be doing.

dont get me wrong our style of play leads to some good attacking football at times but to maintain a lead or stay on top of a game then the system has to adapt and evolve during a game,something which doesnt seem to happen.

 

I think the shutting up shop issue is more to do with the mentality of the players rather than the system or formation that they are playing in. To a degree it's a learning experience as they get used to the idea of how to cope with teams throwing everything at them and also learning when to clear it out of defence rather than try and pass it out. IMO we should, with disciplined positional play and committed tackling be able to hold teams at bay by deploying 5 in our own midfield, and allowing our defensive midfielders to shield the defence - cutting out the sort of opportunities that Tudgay scored from for Sheff Wed. Unfortunately the team is young, rarely settled, and still getting to grips with the number of games, the intensity of the games and at home, the awareness of a relatively poor record.

 

Where I'd like to see a change in formation is when we are chasing a game in the last few minutes - perhaps switch to 3 at the back, push the fullbacks forward and have another out and out striker.

 

Thanks to Bungle, LGTC and mprobert for their agreement to my original post!

[Give it to Ron]

Not having a go at you old son, as you are nomally a very positive man, but I would love to know the games which our system has cost us. (Anyone??)

 

At Burnley, we could have drawn if BWP hadn't taken an extra touch.

 

And I agree with Alan, for mr this comes down to the quality of the players not the system they are being asked to play in.

 

Coventry, Plymouth, Sheff Wednesday there are 3 games.

In 2 we stayed with 1 up - the wide men were not pushing forward and getting in the box and that left 4 defenders to win the ball easily and play over our tiny midfield to the big strikers who knocked it back for a midfielder to score or thread a ball through.

Against Plymouth we had Pearce on the bench who could of been brought on upfront for the last 10 minutes and had a go with his aerial presence instead we stayed static and toothless.

[Legod Third Coming]

Playing the system we do. The midfield 3 need to be much more flexible. They need to hold when the oppo has the ball and protect what is a very fragile back four and then when we have the ball they have to bust a gut to support the main striker. To me, they do neither. Time after time when we have the ball in advanced positions, there is only one man anywhere near the box so the ball is either smothered by the defence or we have to pass sideways or backwards losing the momentum of the attack.

 

Agreed. That's why I think we have missed a fit Gillett and/or Spiderman who do the hold up/defensive role well and also Holmes who does the forward momentum job so well!

 

I think it's also that the players (for all the right reasons) have been told not to hit a ball unless they are confident it will reach its intended target (I used to have a manager who would make us run around the pitch in training any time we hit a ball over head-height over 25 yards because it was such a low-% pass).

 

So they get into a great position, look up, see a bloke in the box, think 'hmm might not pick him out' and give the ball to someone closer!! This is down to confidence I'm sure - and ability - but confidence mainly I reckon.

 

That's why they need to come out and just play - stop thinking too hard - and just enjoy playing. When we do that, we really are first-class.

[shurlock]

 

I don't see our system as rigid in the slightest, in fact it should be incredibly flexible, with 5 in midfield and one in attack when we are defending or under pressure, but 3 in midfield and 3 in attack when we are on top. Add to that the flexibility in positions that the players can play - DMG and Lallana switching positions between AMC and RM - and we've got loads of flexibility.

 

Obviously that's just the way I see things and I'm sure others will be more frustrated by what they perceive to be 'one up front', but I just don't see it that way.

 

Generally agree- its the players rather than the system. And 4-3-3 or one behind the striker should give us greater flexibility when defending and attacking.

 

But that's the ambition not the reality. If anything, our system means we get hopelessly overstretched as attackers (Lallana, DMG) drop deep to defend and/or receive the ball one minute and just dont have the legs to get in the box the next minute. The number of times crosses have gone in and nobody's been there is arguably proof.

 

4-3-3 is more flexible but it requires greater intelligence and discipline (and possibly fitness) on the part of payers when to and not to drop deep/go forward. Its not that 4-4-2 is more attacking (as people wrongly assume). Its that it gives players fewer options about where to go and maybe given our inexperience/naievity -some of our players seem to want to do everything- that aint a bad thing.

[Legod Third Coming]

Coventry, Plymouth, Sheff Wednesday there are 3 games.

In 2 we stayed with 1 up - the wide men were not pushing forward and getting in the box and that left 4 defenders to win the ball easily and play over our tiny midfield to the big strikers who knocked it back for a midfielder to score or thread a ball through.

Against Plymouth we had Pearce on the bench who could of been brought on upfront for the last 10 minutes and had a go with his aerial presence instead we stayed static and toothless.

 

 

Can't really remember Cov but think that DMG missed a great one-on-one to make it 2-0 when it would have been goodnight Vienna. I do recall we bossed the game, let them score against the run of play and left feeling very annoyed.

 

Plymouth, I think JP took a point - just my view obviously, but a balanced game (disappointing on the back of Reading).

 

Wednesday - I agree we don't get enough people into the box, is this a failing of the players not gambing? Even the coach has said he is annoyed when players don't take their chances - I don't think he means shots, I think he means chances to get forward and score.

 

I don't know why it happens but I reckon (as i said) it has a lot to do with experience and confidence. Theoretically we have three front men in our formation, whereas we would have two in a 4-4-2.

 

We have 1 when defending and 3 when attacking. But I return to my big beef - we are toothless because we are playing cubs when the tigers are out on loan!!!!!

[SaintDonkey]

Coventry, Plymouth, Sheff Wednesday there are 3 games.

In 2 we stayed with 1 up - the wide men were not pushing forward and getting in the box and that left 4 defenders to win the ball easilyand play over our tiny midfield to the big strikers who knocked it back for a midfielder to score or thread a ball through.

Against Plymouth we had Pearce on the bench who could of been brought on upfront for the last 10 minutes and had a go with his aerial presence instead we stayed static and toothless.

 

Surely that means the players were at fault for not playing in the 4-3-3 system like thet were supposed to and were instead hanging back to make it 4-5-1? In which case 5 players is hardly a tiny midfield? Or did you just mean they're all a bit height disadvantaged? Either way that's a fault of the players (and their parents for not making sure they ate their greens) rather than a fault of the formataion.

 

We really do need to get over this 4-4-2 obsession. As pointed out eloquently above our problem isn't the formation but the apparent inability of the players to score in a brothel.

[Give it to Ron]

Surely that means the players were at fault for not playing in the 4-3-3 system like thet were supposed to and were instead hanging back to make it 4-5-1? In which case 5 players is hardly a tiny midfield? Or did you just mean they're all a bit height disadvantaged? Either way that's a fault of the players (and their parents for not making sure they ate their greens) rather than a fault of the formataion.

 

We really do need to get over this 4-4-2 obsession. As pointed out eloquently above our problem isn't the formation but the apparent inability of the players to score in a brothel.

 

When you bring Gillett on for McGoldrick is that 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 because its certainly not any obsession on my part to play 4-4-2 just stupid management.

Especially when there was height on the bench to counter the long ball that the other team were playing all game and Gillett won all the headers after he came on?

If its the players fault why did the manager not tell them or change the personnel that were not doing as they were told or is that not his job anymore.

[londonsaint1604]

We really do need to get over this 4-4-2 obsession. As pointed out eloquently above our problem isn't the formation but the apparent inability of the players to score in a brothel.

 

I see the point about the ineptitude of our strikers, but I still think it would be worth trying a 4-4-2 formation as it doesn't have to be totally rigid, it just needs to allow us to get men in the box more often so there is a real goal threat that we have lacked. If Euell was up front with someone then he could drop deeper and we could effectively switch between 4-4-2 and our current formation. Although you could say we just need whoever is playing behind the striker in a 4-3-3 (or 4-2-3-1 whichever you like) to get forward and support him more. Either way the main thing is to commit men forward more often, as there rarely seems to be anyone in a goal scoring position.

[Give it to Ron]

But I return to my big beef - we are toothless because we are playing cubs when the tigers are out on loan!!!!!

 

Exactly and my even bigger beef when you consider 5 loanees cant get a game ahead of a 17 year old either.

I cannot understand how some think that 5 loanees and another coach including agents fees, loan fees and wages equates to less than a proven 20 goal a season scorer like Stern John - utter madness.

[Alanh]

Exactly and my even bigger beef when you consider 5 loanees cant get a game ahead of a 17 year old either.

I cannot understand how some think that 5 loanees and another coach including agents fees, loan fees and wages equates to less than a proven 20 goal a season scorer like Stern John - utter madness.

 

In fairness the 5 loanees and the extra coach aren't all here to either compensate for Stern or as a result of him being farmed out. Only Peckhart and Robertson could be said to be replacements for him. The new coach is the third new person on the coaching team (with JP and Wotte) after the departures of Pearson, Dodd and Gorman last season. The other loanees are covering missing players in other areas - Smith is covering Holmes, but got injured himself, then found himself behind a relatively in form BWP, so hasn't done the job he was brought in to do. Pearce and Cork are in to replace the defenders we have lost - Claus, Powell, Ostlund, Vignal, Lucketti - from the end of last season. In fact Pearce was only brought in when it became apparent that Svensson couldn't play enough games. When you compare the cost of bringing these people to the club to the wages of all the players they are replacing rather than just Stern I think you have a fairer comparison. Whether we've improved is debatable in each case.

[Andy_Porter]

What teams are playing 4-4-2 now?

 

I'd choose it if I were a good team, but no way with our squad. But even in the premiership, who plays 4-4-2? And of those that do, do any play 2 wingers? Do they score more goals?

 

Strike partnerships seem to be largely dead. It's a shame as football was far more entertaining then, but I can't think of any in the Premiership. At Man Utd you have Rooney, Ronaldo, Tevez in various positions drifting wide, it's more 4-3-3 or more like our formation really.

 

Chelsea never do 2 up front, at their best under Mourinho they too played our formation. Arsenal haven't had a partnership since Bergkamp and Henry really. Since then it changes all the time or it's one up front. Liverpool would rather play Gerrard off Torres than two up front. The fear of playing 2 up front for Benitez has led to them selling Heskey, Crouch, Cisse and others, now Keane doesnt get a game and Kuyt is the worst right winger around. Everton became a tough team to beat by playing 4-5-1 and hoping Cahill would get the midfield goals. Villa have improved greatly by exploiting Agbonlahor and Young out wide, often playing with just Carew up front.

 

So where has the strike partnership gone? Everyone had one, even the poorer teams. Sutton/Shearer, Sheringham/Klinsmann, Yorke/Cole, Ferdinand/Shearer, Sheringham/Shearer, Huckerby/Dublin, Cantona/Hughes, Zola/Hughes, Fowler/Owen, Beattie/Pahars, and of course, the great...Shipperley/Watson.

 

We achieved new levels of ****e playing 4-4-2 last season. It would be nice to see 2 up front in home games sometimes, but given we have no good strikers, I'm not fussed about the 442 obsession.

 

Spot on Adrian, not many teams play 4-4-2 anymore. People are far more reluctant to play an attacking formation especially away, 4-5-1/4-3-3 or whatever you want to call it is becoming the norm and is also part of the season why there have been so many more away wins this season.

 

The only problem I have with our system is when we're 1-0 down and still going 4-5-1 when we should be taking a gamble and going 4-4-2. JP seems too reluctant to change it around when it could be the difference.

[krissyboy31]

The only problem I have with our system is when we're 1-0 down and still going 4-5-1 when we should be taking a gamble and going 4-4-2. JP seems too reluctant to change it around when it could be the difference.

 

Exactly how I see it. Even when games are going into the last 10 minutes.

[Give it to Ron]

In fairness the 5 loanees and the extra coach aren't all here to either compensate for Stern or as a result of him being farmed out. Only Peckhart and Robertson could be said to be replacements for him. The new coach is the third new person on the coaching team (with JP and Wotte) after the departures of Pearson, Dodd and Gorman last season. The other loanees are covering missing players in other areas - Smith is covering Holmes, but got injured himself, then found himself behind a relatively in form BWP, so hasn't done the job he was brought in to do. Pearce and Cork are in to replace the defenders we have lost - Claus, Powell, Ostlund, Vignal, Lucketti - from the end of last season. In fact Pearce was only brought in when it became apparent that Svensson couldn't play enough games. When you compare the cost of bringing these people to the club to the wages of all the players they are replacing rather than just Stern I think you have a fairer comparison. Whether we've improved is debatable in each case.

 

Then there is Pulis, Gasmi and Forecast....all of which adds additional costs and could of kept us our proven goalscorer?

[mprobert]

Jeez, whats happened to this forum - a sensible football discussion seems to have broken out!

[eurosaint]

Highly unlikely IMO. JP plays a continental style which is a version of 4-4-3 with one target man supported by wingers and at least one attacking midfielder. That's why when we attack we generally have 3 or 4 players in the opposition box. If Lallana were sold then we could retain the 4-3-3 shape by using Euell or DMG just behind the striker.

 

Personally I don't see playing 4-4-2 as a solution to the problems that we are facing. 4-4-2 is just as likely to result in a more defensive strategy with two banks of four players rigidly stretched across the field. The key issue that we've got is we have no natural goalscoring threat, not the formation that the players are playing.

 

I don't see our system as rigid in the slightest, in fact it should be incredibly flexible, with 5 in midfield and one in attack when we are defending or under pressure, but 3 in midfield and 3 in attack when we are on top. Add to that the flexibility in positions that the players can play - DMG and Lallana switching positions between AMC and RM - and we've got loads of flexibility.

 

Obviously that's just the way I see things and I'm sure others will be more frustrated by what they perceive to be 'one up front', but I just don't see it that way.

 

Including the goalie that gives us 12 men !

Total football here we come !!!!

[Legod Third Coming]

Spot on Adrian, not many teams play 4-4-2 anymore. People are far more reluctant to play an attacking formation especially away, 4-5-1/4-3-3 or whatever you want to call it is becoming the norm and is also part of the season why there have been so many more away wins this season.

 

The only problem I have with our system is when we're 1-0 down and still going 4-5-1 when we should be taking a gamble and going 4-4-2. JP seems too reluctant to change it around when it could be the difference.

 

No, JP would say that we are already 3 up front! Not 1!!!

 

So by going 4-4-2 you are removing a striking option!!!!

 

What I think happens is that the players in the wide positions just don't get forward enough!!!!

 

I put this down to the fact they are just not that good - not bad either but not players of the calibre of Cole who can play 4-3-3 really well because they have limitless self-belief and confidence in colleagues.

 

Does this mean the players are bad? No, not in my view. Inexperienced yes!!!

 

Come on lads. We've all been there. It's a Saturday night, you're down the club and you see her!! Wow, you think and in your youthful naivety you mosey on in with some shocking line trying to be mr big-stuff and look a right plonker as she gives you the old spanish archer.

 

Whereas, these days you would simply go over, compliment her and offer to buy a drink - and you'd be in!!

 

These lads are still a bit excitable, a bit wet behind the ears. They won't be forever!!!

[derry]

There may be a system. The one we play is pack the left side, and leave the right side open for the opponents to attack. Then stroll back, it's the four defenders job to pick up the six attackers breaking that have got goalside.

 

As James is the only right side attacker and defender it's now only three.

 

Don't have anybody on the far post, never get behind the opponents defence.

 

Make sure we pass it around long enough to allow the opposition to get behind the ball, then attack on a narrow front, getting as many players forward as possible, so that we are easy to counterattack.

 

Don't make any runs into the box on the offchance of a breaking ball. Chasing the ball is the system. Lallana and McGoldrick play for themselves and almost never in their assigned positions, wandering all over the place.

 

Most of all make sure we have run out of defenders when the ball reaches the two unmarked attackers on our back post allowing them to score.

[ozzmeister]

Gasmi also plays in this position 'in the hole'.

 

Scored as well from this position in the Reserves last match. Think he is strting to get better with matches/fittness.

 

Can see him in the team more from next year.

[(not THE) Kevin Moore]

Was anyone paying attention the other day when it was revealed that we had more shots on goal than anyone in the league? Our trouble is putting the chances away, this is not down to system but down to the ability of our attackers to shoot and score and partly down to confidence, IMHO.

 

I don't see the benefit in playing a flexible 4-4-2 ahead of playing a flexible 4-3-3 if they're both flexible then they'll generally rarely be either 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 in the purest sense.

 

The only trouble with the system is we don't have the natural wide players currently, I would like to see Holmes and BWP as our wide men when Holmes is fit, 4-3-3 requires pace, Chelsea were at their most lethal when they had Robbens pace supplementing Drogba.

[derry]

Was anyone paying attention the other day when it was revealed that we had more shots on goal than anyone in the league? Our trouble is putting the chances away, this is not down to system but down to the ability of our attackers to shoot and score and partly down to confidence, IMHO.

 

I don't see the benefit in playing a flexible 4-4-2 ahead of playing a flexible 4-3-3 if they're both flexible then they'll generally rarely be either 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 in the purest sense.

 

The only trouble with the system is we don't have the natural wide players currently, I would like to see Holmes and BWP as our wide men when Holmes is fit, 4-3-3 requires pace, Chelsea were at their most lethal when they had Robbens pace supplementing Drogba.

 

The way our players shoot a lot of the time, scuffing low power, the shots are on target but don't trouble the goalkeeper.

[Legod Third Coming]

The way our players shoot a lot of the time, scuffing low power, the shots are on target but don't trouble the goalkeeper.

 

I am convinced that this is partly confidence and partly the natureof the people we have playing up front! They're not powerful players and they like to place the ball into the net. Having said that, I could have buried some of the one-on-ones we've missed this season. That has to be confidence!!

[derry]

I am convinced that this is partly confidence and partly the natureof the people we have playing up front! They're not powerful players and they like to place the ball into the net. Having said that, I could have buried some of the one-on-ones we've missed this season. That has to be confidence!!

 

McGoldrick one on one with the keeper 9 out of 10 gets blocked. Never tries to lift it over, like Owen v Pompey.

[krissyboy31]

I think that Jamie White shot last night was the best struck shot I've seen from a Saints player this season. I think the majority of our players practice tippy tappy passing too much and do not practice wellying the ball in training. Shooting, like any other skill, is something that needs plenty of practice. Bobby Charlton said he would practice hour upon hour hitting a ball against a wall with either foot. As an attacking player, it's no good having the ball skills of Mr Wu, if you can't shoot.

[Ash]

An interesting article on the subject from the Guardian (not on our formation specifically though, obviously)

For my part, I don't see the formation as our problem. Certainly I don't believe the differences between 442 and 4231 are that massive that we would have more points with 442.

[Legod Third Coming]

An interesting article on the subject from the Guardian (not on our formation specifically though, obviously)

For my part, I don't see the formation as our problem. Certainly I don't believe the differences between 442 and 4231 are that massive that we would have more points with 442.

 

 

Brilliant article - didn't understand most of it mind!! Never did get formations. For my money, if the blokes at the back keep it out and the rest try and score, that would suit me fine!!!

[um pahars]

The only problem I have with our system is when we're 1-0 down and still going 4-5-1 when we should be taking a gamble and going 4-4-2. JP seems too reluctant to change it around when it could be the difference.

 

Absolutely.

 

I'm not averse to a bit of 4-5-1, 4-3-3, 4-1-3-1 or whatever, particularly if gets results.

 

However, my problem is not that Jan's systems are not getting results, but more that he is sooooo one dimensional and unable to change and adapt in this league.

 

I don't know whether it's his inexperience of this division, his naivety, a dogmatic streak or just that he has no confidence in the players, but what I am sure of is that his rigidness and tactical deficiencies are costing us.

[krissyboy31]

Brilliant article - didn't understand most of it mind!! Never did get formations. For my money, if the blokes at the back keep it out and the rest try and score, that would suit me fine!!!

 

When are we going to try that formation?

[Legod Third Coming]

Absolutely.

 

I'm not averse to a bit of 4-5-1, 4-3-3, 4-1-3-1 or whatever, particularly if gets results.

 

However, my problem is not that Jan's systems are not getting results, but more that he is sooooo one dimensional and unable to change and adapt in this league.

 

I don't know whether it's his inexperience of this division, his naivety, a dogmatic streak or just that he has no confidence in the players, but what I am sure of is that his rigidness and tactical deficiencies are costing us.

 

 

Tell me what formation will ensure that DMG scores when through on goal? Or that Lallana won't scuff his shots. Or that Perry could run faster. Or that would make Kelvin come for a corner? Or James stay goal-side. Or BWP pull the trigger rather than take a touch...

 

That's my problem.

[Legod Third Coming]

When are we going to try that formation?

 

 

When old son, I buy the club (I have targeted 2020) and then install myself as manager cum Chairman to feck the lot of you off!!!

[um pahars]

When are we going to try that formation?

 

We've been trying it since the start of the season, it's just that we haven't perfected it yet!!!!

[benjii]

Tell me what formation will ensure that DMG scores when through on goal? Or that Lallana won't scuff his shots. Or that Perry could run faster. Or that would make Kelvin come for a corner? Or James stay goal-side. Or BWP pull the trigger rather than take a touch...

 

That's my problem.

 

Obviously there is no formation that can guarantee that and no one is being moronic enough to suggest there is.

 

There are formations however, that don't result in a bunch of players wandering around aimlessly upfront, in full backs being completely isolated, in the opposition defence not being put under pressure when on the ball, in the attacking team getting players in the box etc...

 

The question is: does 4-2-1-2-1 obtain the best results our players are capable of getting?

 

No one can answer that as you can only play each game once, but I think most of us suspect the answer is "no".

[um pahars]

Tell me what formation will ensure that DMG scores when through on goal? Or that Lallana won't scuff his shots. Or that Perry could run faster. Or that would make Kelvin come for a corner? Or James stay goal-side. Or BWP pull the trigger rather than take a touch...

 

That's my problem.

 

Methinks you're being slightly naive (or maybe somewhat disengenuous) if you're trying to compare individual mistakes with the deficiencies of operating a rather rigid and one dimensional system.

 

It is akin to trying to get Wigley off the hook by blaming Crouch for chipping over against Palace in the last minute, or when the whole defence switched off from a quick Norwich throw in.

 

Individual errors will always exist, but they will in way excuse a much deeper malaise.

[Legod Third Coming]

Methinks you're being slightly naive (or maybe somewhat disengenuous) if you're trying to compare individual mistakes with the deficiencies of operating a rather rigid and one dimensional system.

 

It is akin to trying to get Wigley off the hook by blaming Crouch for chipping over against Palace in the last minute, or when the whole defence switched off from a quick Norwich throw in.

 

Individual errors will always exist, but they will in way excuse a much deeper malaise.

 

These are not inidividual mistakes and there is only a malaise in the mind of some fans - not mine.

 

These are the qualities of players we have.

 

People bang on about our system costing us results. Cobblers. Missing one on ones and being not that good is costing us results. Anyone who bothers watching can see that.

 

I haven't sat through a game this season and thought, if we went 4-4-2 we would be murdering this lot. I have seen us miss chances, fail to beat the first man at a corner (Skacel/Surman and others), fail to clear the ball quickly enough and so on.

 

That, to me, is because, we don't have the playing talent - yet!

 

They are inconsistent and young.