|
Post by jeycov on Nov 28, 2017 17:00:06 GMT
Grant Edwards - Zouma - Shawcross - Tymon (Pieters) Cameron (Fletcher) - Allen Diouf - Shaqiri - Choupo (Sobhi) Berahino Cameron not available
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 17:03:25 GMT
Post by thisfootballclub on Nov 28, 2017 17:03:25 GMT
4-4-2 is not fashionable enough now I'm afraid (it probably wouldn't work for us either to be fair).
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 17:11:02 GMT
Post by CalgaryPotter on Nov 28, 2017 17:11:02 GMT
Grant Edwards - Zouma - Shawcross - Tymon (Pieters) Cameron (Fletcher) - Allen Diouf - Shaqiri - Choupo (Sobhi) Berahino Cameron not available I was working on preferred line up going forward rather than the Liverpool game. At the start of the season I thought Fletcher looked a class act but he has tailed off and I think Cameron would break up play better. We would then be reliant on Allen to spread the ball around.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Nov 28, 2017 17:12:44 GMT
I was working on preferred line up going forward rather than the Liverpool game. At the start of the season I thought Fletcher looked a class act but he has tailed off and I think Cameron would break up play better. We would then be reliant on Allen to spread the ball around. Agree, looks like he will be out for a couple more games unfortunately
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 17:27:36 GMT
Our first choice full backs are Glen Johnson and Erik Pieters. Their back ups are Tom Edwards and Josh Tymon. It's those four or nothing until January. Anything else is just a sliding scale of the behaviour we saw from the last manager. Zouma and Wimmer? Do me a favour. Johnson is finished. I'd go with Cameron though when he's fit. Cameron isn't a natural full back. You play players in their proper positions. That way, you know where you need to strengthen and you don't end up getting muddled in your thinking. You don't end up with an unbalanced side. That's the point I'm making. Johnson is first choice and he plays. If he isn't up to it you try Edwards. If he isn't quite ready you buy another.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 17:27:50 GMT
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 28, 2017 17:27:50 GMT
442 is wank. We don't have any creative strikers and our only attacker worth his wage is wasted as a defensive winger. 4231 Butland Edwards Zouma Shawcross Pieters Allen Fletcher Shaq Jese Choupo Berahino
Mate you'd drop the only player that we've got with any pace from the team completely?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 28, 2017 17:35:21 GMT
Johnson is finished. I'd go with Cameron though when he's fit. Cameron isn't a natural full back. You play players in their proper positions. That way, you know where you need to strengthen and you don't end up getting muddled in your thinking. You don't end up with an unbalanced side. That's the point I'm making. Johnson is first choice and he plays. If he isn't up to it you try Edwards. If he isn't quite ready you buy another. Cameron played a fair chunk of 2 9th placed finish seasons at right back. Not ideal I know but him playing there hasn't really been to the detriment of the teams results and performances in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 19:39:54 GMT
442 is wank. We don't have any creative strikers and our only attacker worth his wage is wasted as a defensive winger. 4231 Butland Edwards Zouma Shawcross Pieters Allen Fletcher Shaq Jese Choupo Berahino
Mate you'd drop the only player that we've got with any pace from the team completely? Possibly play Diouf up front in some away games but at home against defensive sides his touch is awful. He'd get games definitely but Saido needs a run there for me. I think Shaq Jese Choupo Pieters and Edwards are all fairly quick.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 19:53:15 GMT
Post by TrentValePotter96 on Nov 28, 2017 19:53:15 GMT
That is a team which wont ship 4+ goals against Liverpool tomorrow. aye more like 7 goals
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 20:12:56 GMT
Post by numpty40 on Nov 28, 2017 20:12:56 GMT
Nooooooooooooooo !! Do people not realise it would totally nullify Shaqiri, our best sodding player. I don't really understand how Shag would be nullified. If you have four midfield players you need the central two to be more defensive, therefore creating 6 defensive players (plus the keeper). You're then left two strikers and two creative players behind those two. For some reason people tend to assume that you have to play with two wide men, you don't, I'd be more than happy with Sobhi hugging either touchline and Shaq drifting across the space between the front two and the defensive midfield two.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 20:18:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by StokeTudoGuy on Nov 28, 2017 20:18:39 GMT
That is a team which wont ship 4+ goals against Liverpool tomorrow. aye more like 7 goals Is this the random numbers game? You fancy pointing out the massive defensive weakness in that side? Unless you have been living under a rock, Liverpool are likely to rock up with 3 CM's and dominate a 2 man midfield. And an their attack of probably Salah, Mane and Firmino tells me we would be pretty stupid to field 4 forwards. The formation also keeps some attacking threat with Allen capable of surging forward, it keeps Shaq in the middle where he can be most effective and allows Moting to drift around behind the striker going to whichever side he fancies keeping the opposition on their toes and likely dragging their DM away from Shaq.....
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 28, 2017 20:53:38 GMT
Nooooooooooooooo !! Do people not realise it would totally nullify Shaqiri, our best sodding player. I don't really understand how Shag would be nullified. If you have four midfield players you need the central two to be more defensive, therefore creating 6 defensive players (plus the keeper). You're then left two strikers and two creative players behind those two. For some reason people tend to assume that you have to play with two wide men, you don't, I'd be more than happy with Sobhi hugging either touchline and Shaq drifting across the space between the front two and the defensive midfield two. A proper 4-4-2, to work properly, works best with rapid, chalk on the boots wingers. You also need your wide men protecting the full back a bit because you’ve lost either one of your midfielders or defenders to get your extra striker in. Shaq offers little defensively and a 442 lumbers him with a load more defensive duties than he’d otherwise have.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 21:08:05 GMT
Post by numpty40 on Nov 28, 2017 21:08:05 GMT
I don't really understand how Shag would be nullified. If you have four midfield players you need the central two to be more defensive, therefore creating 6 defensive players (plus the keeper). You're then left two strikers and two creative players behind those two. For some reason people tend to assume that you have to play with two wide men, you don't, I'd be more than happy with Sobhi hugging either touchline and Shaq drifting across the space between the front two and the defensive midfield two. A proper 4-4-2, to work properly, works best with rapid, chalk on the boots wingers. You also need your wide men protecting the full back a bit because you’ve lost either one of your midfielders or defenders to get your extra striker in. Shaq offers little defensively and a 442 lumbers him with a load more defensive duties than he’d otherwise have. I don't agree, in a 4-4-2 you have a solid unit of 6 defensive players, you don't have to play two wide players you can play the 4 forward players as narrow as you want or as wide as you want. If you had two tricky wingers you'd play them in that role, if you don't you narrow the play. With 6 defensive players you shouldn't have to worry about wide men protecting the full back, with the exception of Man City and Spurs no other team throws that many players forward.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 28, 2017 22:28:07 GMT
A proper 4-4-2, to work properly, works best with rapid, chalk on the boots wingers. You also need your wide men protecting the full back a bit because you’ve lost either one of your midfielders or defenders to get your extra striker in. Shaq offers little defensively and a 442 lumbers him with a load more defensive duties than he’d otherwise have. I don't agree, in a 4-4-2 you have a solid unit of 6 defensive players, you don't have to play two wide players you can play the 4 forward players as narrow as you want or as wide as you want. If you had two tricky wingers you'd play them in that role, if you don't you narrow the play. With 6 defensive players you shouldn't have to worry about wide men protecting the full back, with the exception of Man City and Spurs no other team throws that many players forward. Can you give me an example? Who plays like that? Full backs/wing backs are increasingly important in an attacking sense so if you’re playing 4-4-2 your full backs need that protection when you don’t have the ball.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 22:35:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by TrentValePotter96 on Nov 28, 2017 22:35:52 GMT
Is this the random numbers game? You fancy pointing out the massive defensive weakness in that side? Unless you have been living under a rock, Liverpool are likely to rock up with 3 CM's and dominate a 2 man midfield. And an their attack of probably Salah, Mane and Firmino tells me we would be pretty stupid to field 4 forwards. The formation also keeps some attacking threat with Allen capable of surging forward, it keeps Shaq in the middle where he can be most effective and allows Moting to drift around behind the striker going to whichever side he fancies keeping the opposition on their toes and likely dragging their DM away from Shaq..... centre backs at full back wont necessarily help out. Pieters in midfield terrifies me
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 22:58:24 GMT
Post by numpty40 on Nov 28, 2017 22:58:24 GMT
I don't agree, in a 4-4-2 you have a solid unit of 6 defensive players, you don't have to play two wide players you can play the 4 forward players as narrow as you want or as wide as you want. If you had two tricky wingers you'd play them in that role, if you don't you narrow the play. With 6 defensive players you shouldn't have to worry about wide men protecting the full back, with the exception of Man City and Spurs no other team throws that many players forward. Can you give me an example? Who plays like that? Full backs/wing backs are increasingly important in an attacking sense so if you’re playing 4-4-2 your full backs need that protection when you don’t have the ball. The best teams play a fluid system because they have the best players, the rest have to do the best with what they have got. The closest example was Leicester when they won the league who played with a back four with a central defensive midfield of two of Kante and Drinkwater. The front four usually consisted of Vardy, Okazaki, Mahrez and Albrighton. Man City, Man Utd, Spurs and most of the top sides play with 4 at the back and have a fluid front 4. None of them have out and out wingers.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 28, 2017 23:04:11 GMT
Can you give me an example? Who plays like that? Full backs/wing backs are increasingly important in an attacking sense so if you’re playing 4-4-2 your full backs need that protection when you don’t have the ball. The best teams play a fluid system because they have the best players, the rest have to do the best with what they have got. The closest example was Leicester when they won the league who played with a back four with a central defensive midfield of two of Kante and Drinkwater. The front four usually consisted of Vardy, Okazaki, Mahrez and Albrighton. Man City, Man Utd, Spurs and most of the top sides play with 4 at the back and have a fluid front 4. None of them have out and out wingers. None of the top sides play 4-4-2. Man City and Spurs have been playing a back three this season. Man Utd have been playing with one central striker. Leicester I can see the point as Mahrez could drift, but they had 1) Okazaki playing slightly deeper than Vardy and dropping in when they didn’t have the ball and 2) the one-man war machine that is Kante. We don’t have any of those things.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 23:08:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by StokeTudoGuy on Nov 28, 2017 23:08:08 GMT
Is this the random numbers game? You fancy pointing out the massive defensive weakness in that side? Unless you have been living under a rock, Liverpool are likely to rock up with 3 CM's and dominate a 2 man midfield. And an their attack of probably Salah, Mane and Firmino tells me we would be pretty stupid to field 4 forwards. The formation also keeps some attacking threat with Allen capable of surging forward, it keeps Shaq in the middle where he can be most effective and allows Moting to drift around behind the striker going to whichever side he fancies keeping the opposition on their toes and likely dragging their DM away from Shaq..... centre backs at full back wont necessarily help out. Pieters in midfield terrifies me Bruno is pretty much as much LB as he is CB and Zouma is one of the fastest and most athletic CB's I have seen. Pieters has regularly been one of the best in the league for interceptions over a number of years, theres no reason he couldn't do a job closing people down in front of a back 4 and like I said Cameron would ideally be an option there.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 23:26:20 GMT
Post by numpty40 on Nov 28, 2017 23:26:20 GMT
The best teams play a fluid system because they have the best players, the rest have to do the best with what they have got. The closest example was Leicester when they won the league who played with a back four with a central defensive midfield of two of Kante and Drinkwater. The front four usually consisted of Vardy, Okazaki, Mahrez and Albrighton. Man City, Man Utd, Spurs and most of the top sides play with 4 at the back and have a fluid front 4. None of them have out and out wingers. None of the top sides play 4-4-2. Man City and Spurs have been playing a back three this season. Man Utd have been playing with one central striker. Leicester I can see the point as Mahrez could drift, but they had 1) Okazaki playing slightly deeper than Vardy and dropping in when they didn’t have the ball and 2) the one-man war machine that is Kante. We don’t have any of those things. That's where things blur, I would argue that Man City play a back four of Walker, Otamendi, Stones and Delph. Man Utd play a back 4 of Valencia, Smalling, Jones, Darmian. Spurs play Trippier, Vertonghen, Sanchez, Davies I would say that all those sides are set up to play 4 at the back but because they are better than the rest can push both both full backs forwards for most games. They essentially set up as a back 4.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 28, 2017 23:36:47 GMT
None of the top sides play 4-4-2. Man City and Spurs have been playing a back three this season. Man Utd have been playing with one central striker. Leicester I can see the point as Mahrez could drift, but they had 1) Okazaki playing slightly deeper than Vardy and dropping in when they didn’t have the ball and 2) the one-man war machine that is Kante. We don’t have any of those things. That's where things blur, I would argue that Man City play a back four of Walker, Otamendi, Stones and Delph. Man Utd play a back 4 of Valencia, Smalling, Jones, Darmian. Spurs play Trippier, Vertonghen, Sanchez, Davies I would say that all those sides are set up to play 4 at the back but because they are better than the rest can push both both full backs forwards for most games. They essentially set up as a back 4. The only one of those teams to consistently play a back four is Man Utd and they don’t play 4-4-2 in any way, shape or form. Man City have played a back four at times and they’ve played a back three of Kompany, Stones and Otamendi with Walker and Delph pushed up as wing backs at times. Again, they’ve not played 4-4-2 and they have at least one midfielder in Fernandinho who can bounce around doing the Kante job. Spurs have mostly played a back three of Dier, Vertonghen and Sanchez with Trippier and Davies pushed up as wing backs.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 28, 2017 23:49:24 GMT
Post by numpty40 on Nov 28, 2017 23:49:24 GMT
That's where things blur, I would argue that Man City play a back four of Walker, Otamendi, Stones and Delph. Man Utd play a back 4 of Valencia, Smalling, Jones, Darmian. Spurs play Trippier, Vertonghen, Sanchez, Davies I would say that all those sides are set up to play 4 at the back but because they are better than the rest can push both both full backs forwards for most games. They essentially set up as a back 4. The only one of those teams to consistently play a back four is Man Utd and they don’t play 4-4-2 in any way, shape or form. Man City have played a back four at times and they’ve played a back three of Kompany, Stones and Otamendi with Walker and Delph pushed up as wing backs at times. Again, they’ve not played 4-4-2 and they have at least one midfielder in Fernandinho who can bounce around doing the Kante job. Spurs have mostly played a back three of Dier, Vertonghen and Sanchez with Trippier and Davies pushed up as wing backs. When all are fit Man City have played Stones and Otamendi with Walker and Delph/Mandy. A straightforward back 4. When all are fit Spurs have played Trippier, Vertonghen, Sanchez and Davies/Rose. A straightforward back 4. Walker, Trippier etc are good attacking full backs in a solid 4 man defences
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 28, 2017 23:53:08 GMT
The only one of those teams to consistently play a back four is Man Utd and they don’t play 4-4-2 in any way, shape or form. Man City have played a back four at times and they’ve played a back three of Kompany, Stones and Otamendi with Walker and Delph pushed up as wing backs at times. Again, they’ve not played 4-4-2 and they have at least one midfielder in Fernandinho who can bounce around doing the Kante job. Spurs have mostly played a back three of Dier, Vertonghen and Sanchez with Trippier and Davies pushed up as wing backs. When all are fit Man City have played Stones and Otamendi with Walker and Delph/Mandy. A straightforward back 4. When all are fit Spurs have played Trippier, Vertonghen, Sanchez and Davies/Rose. A straightforward back 4. Walker, Trippier etc are good attacking full backs in a solid 4 man defences You’re partly right about Man City and completely wrong about Spurs. Dier has been playing as part of a back three for the majority of the season so far. Even with Man City when they’ve played a back four, they again haven’t played 4-4-2, they’ve played three in midfield. Yes they’re fluid but it’s easier to be fluid with that extra man in midfield.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 29, 2017 0:00:27 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2017 0:00:27 GMT
Bruno is pretty much as much LB as he is CB and Zouma is one of the fastest and most athletic CB's I have seen. Pieters has regularly been one of the best in the league for interceptions over a number of years, theres no reason he couldn't do a job closing people down in front of a back 4 and like I said Cameron would ideally be an option there. Zouma looks good, nay great, going forward with the ball. But paradoxically he's too slow in reacting on the occasions when play has found him in somewhat a rb position - which is quite often as he has been tasked with covering for Diouf. Pieters may do those things you say, although they key word is "has been"! You want a midfield three to close people down, one of which is Pieters. Whether Hughes has succeeded wholly with his transformation of our team is debatable, but at the very least he has changed the midfield from being players sitting in front of defence closing people down as their main job under Pulis, to a real midfield where players are allowed to some creativity and to express themselves, as Allen did very well when he first came here, not so much now, when he has been positioned 10-15 yards deeper. But Pieters, as we have seen, has absolutely no creative bone in his body, so the only thing he can do is become a Whitehead type of midfielder. In other words you want us to return to the structure of when Pulis ran us ragged. Such a system leaves only three attacking players, or should I say attack minded, because no team will be able to play in a constructive manner, with so little creativity in the structure, especially if the striker is Crouch. That leaves Shaqiri and one other player to create something, and it will be very easy for opponents to break down.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 29, 2017 0:26:43 GMT
Post by numpty40 on Nov 29, 2017 0:26:43 GMT
When all are fit Man City have played Stones and Otamendi with Walker and Delph/Mandy. A straightforward back 4. When all are fit Spurs have played Trippier, Vertonghen, Sanchez and Davies/Rose. A straightforward back 4. Walker, Trippier etc are good attacking full backs in a solid 4 man defences You’re partly right about Man City and completely wrong about Spurs. Dier has been playing as part of a back three for the majority of the season so far. Even with Man City when they’ve played a back four, they again haven’t played 4-4-2, they’ve played three in midfield. Yes they’re fluid but it’s easier to be fluid with that extra man in midfield. From what I've seen (on TV) Vertonghen and Sanchez have played traditional centre backs with Trippier and Davies as attacking full backs with Dier as the central defensive midfield foil. Like I said a back 4 with a central defending midfield of Dier and Wanyama/winks and a forward 4 of Ali, Kane, Dembele and Eriksen , none of them wingers, would take some stopping..... as a 4-4-2
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 29, 2017 0:28:49 GMT
Post by boskampsflaps on Nov 29, 2017 0:28:49 GMT
--------------- Grant Zouma- Shawcross - Wimmer - BMI - Fletcher - Allen - Pieters ------- Shaqiri - Choupo ------------- Diouf Or Cameron for Zouma or one of the CM's. I'd change him for Fletcher, but please lets all drop this Cameron at rb back nonsense.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 29, 2017 0:32:55 GMT
Post by boskampsflaps on Nov 29, 2017 0:32:55 GMT
442 is wank. We don't have any creative strikers and our only attacker worth his wage is wasted as a defensive winger. 4231 Butland Edwards Zouma Shawcross Pieters Allen Fletcher Shaq Jese Choupo Berahino
Mate you'd drop the only player that we've got with any pace from the team completely? I know this wasn't directed at me but anywhere other than striker I wouldn't have him in the side and I personally don't rate him that highly as a striker so he'd be second choice for me, we need pace but he's like a dog with a balloon more often than not.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 29, 2017 0:38:51 GMT
You’re partly right about Man City and completely wrong about Spurs. Dier has been playing as part of a back three for the majority of the season so far. Even with Man City when they’ve played a back four, they again haven’t played 4-4-2, they’ve played three in midfield. Yes they’re fluid but it’s easier to be fluid with that extra man in midfield. From what I've seen (on TV) Vertonghen and Sanchez have played traditional centre backs with Trippier and Davies as attacking full backs with Dier as the central defensive midfield foil. Like I said a back 4 with a central defending midfield of Dier and Wanyama/winks and a forward 4 of Ali, Kane, Dembele and Eriksen , none of them wingers, would take some stopping..... as a 4-4-2 They wouldn’t work as a conventional 4-4-2 because of that lack of width, which is why Poch doesn’t play that system. It’d restrict Eriksen the way it’d restrict Shaqiri. Seriously, google ‘Spurs back three’ - Dier’s been playing as part of it for the majority of the season. With Wanyama injured it’s been two of Dembele/Sissoko/Winks in midfield and Alli and Eriksen behind Kane.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 29, 2017 0:39:46 GMT
Mate you'd drop the only player that we've got with any pace from the team completely? I know this wasn't directed at me but anywhere other than striker I wouldn't have him in the side and I personally don't rate him that highly as a striker so he'd be second choice for me, we need pace but he's like a dog with a balloon more often than not. Even dog with a balloon pace is more useful than having none in the side anywhere.
|
|
|
4:4:2
Nov 29, 2017 0:49:16 GMT
Post by boskampsflaps on Nov 29, 2017 0:49:16 GMT
I know this wasn't directed at me but anywhere other than striker I wouldn't have him in the side and I personally don't rate him that highly as a striker so he'd be second choice for me, we need pace but he's like a dog with a balloon more often than not. Even dog with a balloon pace is more useful than having none in the side anywhere. Possibly but I'd try it without to begin with, I don't think Shaq slow tbh, not lightning but quick enough.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 29, 2017 0:51:15 GMT
Even dog with a balloon pace is more useful than having none in the side anywhere. Possibly but I'd try it without to begin with, I don't think Shaq slow tbh, not lightning but quick enough. We need some proper blistering pace, as much as we can muster. Shaq isn’t slow but he doesn’t have that. We can’t set up to counter attack without that proper pace somewhere.
|
|