| 4-4-2 16:57 - Jan 1 with 2629 views | kropotkin41 |
Any chance we could just play 4-4-2 from now on?
|  |
| ‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’ |
| |  |
| 4-4-2 on 17:24 - Jan 1 with 2158 views | YorkRanger |
We were very open second half though. We rightly changed it and needed to press on but not sure whether 4 4 2 is the right answer. |  | | |
| 4-4-2 on 18:18 - Jan 1 with 2124 views | sevenhoop |
Of course we should, because our midfield is simply not good enough/quick enough to support properly in a 4-5-1 |  | | |
| 4-4-2 on 18:24 - Jan 1 with 2098 views | INFIRMARY |
Barton practically sits on top of the center backs the whole game that we look like we play more 5 4 1 |  |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 18:27 - Jan 1 with 2074 views | CHUBBS |
The problem with this side is it really lacks pace in the middle of the park.
As bad as Traore was when he came on,he gave us the pace we'd really lacked in that department.
If we could somehow get Samba back to what he once was,we'd look a completely different proposition. |  | | |
| 4-4-2 on 18:33 - Jan 1 with 2055 views | HollowayRanger |
been saying all season can take 5 in midfield away from home and v tough teams
but christ most home games we should always have two strikers
two strikers = double the chance of scoring
and takes the pressure and work load of austin
playing 5 in midfield and only 1 up front just allows oppenents to settle down and see that we arent that dangerous and as games drag on they gain more confidence in trying to nick a win
today if we caried on like first half in 2nd half we would have lost no question!
two strikers made a massive difference!
please god Harry's seen the light! |  |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 18:39 - Jan 1 with 2046 views | kysersosaqpr |
Agree with 2 strikers.... But we were wide open at the back in the second half. |  |
| The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 19:00 - Jan 1 with 2014 views | stevec |
If we go back to 4-5-1 HR needs his head tested.
For the umpteenth time I have sat through mind numbing tedium like the first 45 minutes, midfielders too old to run playing a system that requires movement all across midfield, too lacking in technical ability to play the system, invariably playing out of position and clueless what to do next.
Contrast with the next 45 minutes, the simplicity of 4-4-2, O'Neil who has looked increasingly incompetent as the season progressed, now given the simpler role of retrieving the ball and getting it to wide players, who in turn, get it to the two forwards. A different player suddenly, a different team all playing a position that suited them (aside of Kranjar, a gifted individual, but game by game you get to see how he fits no specific role and probably explains why he's not hit the heights expected of his talents). No doubt there are those who will suggest we were more open in the 2nd half, well so what? I keep reading we have the best squad in the division, so surely, even if it is more open, their apparent superiority should see them through.
Truth is, like most who go to LR I want to spend my time, like the last 45, jumping out of my seat, seeing shots on goal, seeing players actually enjoying their football. Of course, there are the progressives out there, those who see 4-4-2 as the curse of the Little Englander, something belonging to the prehistoric age. Well I say, you are at the wrong club. That club you aspire to is a few miles down the road, spending roubles beyond comprehension on the finest money can buy. I suggest you take your 4-5-1 preferences to their comfortable seats and leave your soul behind in W12. |  | | |
| 4-4-2 on 19:06 - Jan 1 with 1992 views | MedwayR |
Been saying 4-4-2 for a long time, 'arry is worried about us being too open with a 4-4-2 but even if we are not many teams in this division will take advantage of it. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 4-4-2 on 19:08 - Jan 1 with 1987 views | kropotkin41 |
Harry himself said that we left ourselves open in the Second Half!! It's nonsense - Donny scored in the first half!!
I mean for gawd's sake how many more times do we need to see the same frustrating game plan get us nowhere fast? | |
| ‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’ |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 19:12 - Jan 1 with 1970 views | baz_qpr |
We've been as bad playing 4-4-2 as 4-5-1 this season, its also a bit of an issue if you can't keep two strikers fit.
For what its worth the difference second half was that finally the back four pushed up high which meant the midfield could get forward and support and the wingers could get further forward. In addition HR must have put a rocket up Bartons arse and told him to stop saving himself for Everton and start playing properly |  | | |
| 4-4-2 on 23:16 - Jan 1 with 1851 views | DylanP |
| 4-4-2 on 18:39 - Jan 1 by kysersosaqpr |
Agree with 2 strikers.... But we were wide open at the back in the second half. |
Not really. We conceded a goal when we were playing 451 and did not concede anything when playing 442. |  |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 23:27 - Jan 1 with 1834 views | derbyhoop |
| 4-4-2 on 23:16 - Jan 1 by DylanP |
Not really. We conceded a goal when we were playing 451 and did not concede anything when playing 442. |
It wasn't the formation that made the difference but the tempo |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 23:42 - Jan 1 with 1811 views | stansleftfoot |
442 assumes two strikers....we don't have and haven't had two strikers fit enough to play 95 minutes.
My fear for 442 supporters is that I don't think HR believes he's got the players to put a strong enough midfield four on the park. | | | |
| 4-4-2 on 00:54 - Jan 2 with 1764 views | Landofoz89 |
| 4-4-2 on 23:42 - Jan 1 by stansleftfoot |
442 assumes two strikers....we don't have and haven't had two strikers fit enough to play 95 minutes.
My fear for 442 supporters is that I don't think HR believes he's got the players to put a strong enough midfield four on the park. |
You are correct!
Our only other recognised strikers, apart from Charlie, are AJ and Zamora.
Until we have another fully fit striker on board it will be 4-5-1 for the first 45, followed by 4-4-2 second half. That is unless by something miraculous happens, such as us going 1-0 up first half. |  |
| Meet me by the railway track |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 05:09 - Jan 2 with 1672 views | WatfordR |
| 4-4-2 on 23:27 - Jan 1 by derbyhoop |
It wasn't the formation that made the difference but the tempo |
Well for me, it was the 442 formation that gave us a different tempo in the second half.
To play 4231, you need pace in abundance in the front four, and we don't have it. Austin isnt quick enough to worry two CBs who have no one else to mark. And has been pointed out, the rest of the midfield (Phillips apart) isnt anywhere near quick enough, or slick enough in their passing, to play through opposing teams. I would say that it looks to me as though, at best the team don't like the 4231 formation, or at worst don't understand it. And I would say that's possibly the coaching staff don't actually like it or understand how to make it work either. The game first half had the feel and pace of a training session, and to me to suggest we weren't vulnerable at that stage is rubbish, they'd had two or three good chances before they scored.. Second half, two up top, and suddenly their back four is given more to do, kept pinned back, and space was available constantly down both flanks to advance into.
Maybe there are games where 4231 might be appropriate in this division, but in the main 442 is the way to go for me, particularly at home. If results and promotion are all that matter this season, then lets play in a way that gives us the best chance of getting them in this division. We're going to have to build a new squad if we get up anyway, so we should worry about finding personnel for 4231 when we are up. |  | | |
| 4-4-2 on 07:45 - Jan 2 with 1625 views | daveB |
still not sure 4-4-2 is the answer, think it's more about the tempo of our game than the formation which was much better in the second half and we actually put crosses in the box. We still didn't create a great deal with 2 up front.
Against the likes of Donny and Bournemouth at home you can be wide open but in other games I don't think you can, horse for courses and all that.
The problem I can see is that we have a defence and midfield suited to 4-2-3-1 and we've got forwards who play best in a 4-4-2 |  | | |
| 4-4-2 on 09:14 - Jan 2 with 1538 views | Jamie |
| 4-4-2 on 07:45 - Jan 2 by daveB |
still not sure 4-4-2 is the answer, think it's more about the tempo of our game than the formation which was much better in the second half and we actually put crosses in the box. We still didn't create a great deal with 2 up front.
Against the likes of Donny and Bournemouth at home you can be wide open but in other games I don't think you can, horse for courses and all that.
The problem I can see is that we have a defence and midfield suited to 4-2-3-1 and we've got forwards who play best in a 4-4-2 |
The next question though is given a team as limited as Donny could carve us open, should we not be looking to be more attacking and trust in our very expensive back 5 to do their jobs on the break. | | | |
| 4-4-2 on 09:20 - Jan 2 with 1533 views | Vish |
| 4-4-2 on 07:45 - Jan 2 by daveB |
still not sure 4-4-2 is the answer, think it's more about the tempo of our game than the formation which was much better in the second half and we actually put crosses in the box. We still didn't create a great deal with 2 up front.
Against the likes of Donny and Bournemouth at home you can be wide open but in other games I don't think you can, horse for courses and all that.
The problem I can see is that we have a defence and midfield suited to 4-2-3-1 and we've got forwards who play best in a 4-4-2 |
the problem is creating a quicker tempo with players like o'Neill, Carroll and Benayoun. None of them have real pace or the ability to take a player on. The all offer the simple pass which slows us down. The quicker temp with 442 was simply as we were more direct.
Saying all that, with our lack of strikers not sure 4442 is the long term solution either. | | | |
| 4-4-2 on 10:58 - Jan 2 with 1469 views | THEBUSH |
For me, whether we play 4-4-2 or 4-5-1, our problem is still scoring goals !!
As someone has said here, perhaps our problem is lack of pace in midfield.
It's gonna be interesting to see what player(s) HR thinks is/are the solution to this problem ? |  | | |
| 4-4-2 on 11:28 - Jan 2 with 1451 views | TW_R |
| 4-4-2 on 18:33 - Jan 1 by HollowayRanger |
been saying all season can take 5 in midfield away from home and v tough teams
but christ most home games we should always have two strikers
two strikers = double the chance of scoring
and takes the pressure and work load of austin
playing 5 in midfield and only 1 up front just allows oppenents to settle down and see that we arent that dangerous and as games drag on they gain more confidence in trying to nick a win
today if we caried on like first half in 2nd half we would have lost no question!
two strikers made a massive difference!
please god Harry's seen the light! |
I don't like switching formations every game. Choose a formation and stick to it. 4-4-2 is not going to work with the strike force we have and the lack of a box to box midfielder with a bit of pace. It's also not going to work in the PL. [Post edited 2 Jan 2014 11:42]
|  | | |
| 4-4-2 on 11:39 - Jan 2 with 1439 views | QPunkR |
| 4-4-2 on 19:00 - Jan 1 by stevec |
If we go back to 4-5-1 HR needs his head tested.
For the umpteenth time I have sat through mind numbing tedium like the first 45 minutes, midfielders too old to run playing a system that requires movement all across midfield, too lacking in technical ability to play the system, invariably playing out of position and clueless what to do next.
Contrast with the next 45 minutes, the simplicity of 4-4-2, O'Neil who has looked increasingly incompetent as the season progressed, now given the simpler role of retrieving the ball and getting it to wide players, who in turn, get it to the two forwards. A different player suddenly, a different team all playing a position that suited them (aside of Kranjar, a gifted individual, but game by game you get to see how he fits no specific role and probably explains why he's not hit the heights expected of his talents). No doubt there are those who will suggest we were more open in the 2nd half, well so what? I keep reading we have the best squad in the division, so surely, even if it is more open, their apparent superiority should see them through.
Truth is, like most who go to LR I want to spend my time, like the last 45, jumping out of my seat, seeing shots on goal, seeing players actually enjoying their football. Of course, there are the progressives out there, those who see 4-4-2 as the curse of the Little Englander, something belonging to the prehistoric age. Well I say, you are at the wrong club. That club you aspire to is a few miles down the road, spending roubles beyond comprehension on the finest money can buy. I suggest you take your 4-5-1 preferences to their comfortable seats and leave your soul behind in W12. |
Well said 
Like I was saying to mates after the game, football doesn't have to be complicated. We only had one 'real' winger in the second half, in Phillips, and yet most of our attacking play went through him. We worked the ball wide and he whipped it in the box.
ok the 1st goal could have come about in any formation, but we looked so much more likely to score playing 4-4-2 and getting the ball wide.
And fúck me sideways it was actually enjoyable to watch! Redknapp really needs to have learned the lesson from this, otherwise there's no teaching him. Fair enough we don't have the best strikeforce to be playing 2 up top every game, but even if we do have to persist with his bore-ful 4-5-1, make the wingers STAY WIDE and get chalk on their boots, get the ball to them and get them to cross it in to the box, where Austin and the other winger should be stationed! |  |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 11:57 - Jan 2 with 1422 views | Juzzie |
3-5-2 anyone?
I think Southampton had three at the back for quite a few of their games and they're not doing too badly. |  | | |
| 4-4-2 on 12:30 - Jan 2 with 1397 views | QPunkR |
I've been an advocate of 3-5-2 for some time, I think it's a really good formation and we have (most of) the players to operate it. However, if they can't apparently even get their heads around playing 4-5-1 then I fear they may asplode if we tried to make them play 3-5-2! | |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 12:36 - Jan 2 with 1378 views | THEBUSH |
| 4-4-2 on 11:57 - Jan 2 by Juzzie |
3-5-2 anyone?
I think Southampton had three at the back for quite a few of their games and they're not doing too badly. |
Do we currently have the type of players to play (3-5-2) this formation ? | | | |
| 4-4-2 on 13:21 - Jan 2 with 1347 views | stansleftfoot |
No! Our lack of pace throughout makes 4:5:1 almost unworkable...
just with 10 minutes of Hoilet and 80 minutes of Phillips shows that you just have to have Pace....
Harry didn't put this squad together with 4:5:1 in mind, I think he thought he'd have Zamora, Austin, Johnson to pick a 4:4:2 for.
I think he needs a Midfield player who can get about a bit and a quick mobile striker....I think he'll get Carlton Cole and he should be buying Shane Long, i think we will continue to carry Niko Kranjcar and we need a player on loan like that Abdoun who played for Leicester who can put himself about in Midfield. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
