|
Post by reddipotter on May 23, 2018 6:37:52 GMT
I'm hoping we will see no more 'inverted wingers'.
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 6:44:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by lordb on May 23, 2018 6:44:48 GMT
442 at Burton 4231 at Brum 4411 at Derby Can somebody please tell me the difference between these formations? Really?
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 6:49:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by femark1 on May 23, 2018 6:49:07 GMT
Can somebody please tell me the difference between these formations? Really? Yes...
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on May 23, 2018 6:50:29 GMT
I do get femark's point. What I don't get is why we try to explain formations in one dimension, it's often a very different shape when you have possession and you're in the attacking 3rd compared to without the ball in the defensive 3rd. I guess it's because it makes it easier to talk about and analyse.
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 6:52:18 GMT
via mobile
bhp likes this
Post by GeneralFaye on May 23, 2018 6:52:18 GMT
442 at Burton 4231 at Brum 4411 at Derby Can somebody please tell me the difference between these formations? 4231 and 4411 are basically the same thing tbh but the other formation (442) has 2 strikers.. you can tell that's a difference, right?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2018 6:57:34 GMT
442 at Burton 4231 at Brum 4411 at Derby Can somebody please tell me the difference between these formations? Of the three, 4-2-3-1 has the most fluidity, as you've got three creative players behind a main striker who should be able to switch and create space for each other, or one of your wide players is a striker who can make runs into dangerous areas at the right time, as Odemwingie did. 4-4-2 can be twisted and moulded to be something a bit more exciting but basically it's fairly predictable, meat and potatoes stuff with two dogs of war in the middle and, if you're lucky two chalk on the boots flying wingers to cross it in to your two out and out strikers. 4-4-1-1 is similar in that a lot of versions of it are quite conservative, two banks of four etc, but the differences rest almost entirely on who you've got in your forward positions. Pulis' most effective version had a selfless workhorse doing the donkey work behind a mobile centre forward, be it Fuller or (on the dozen or so times he could be arsed) Kenwyne. Moyes at Everton had a Cahill or Fellaini behind a main striker to win aerial balls and cause havoc, as did (I think) Bolton at times with Kevin Davies. But you can also have a bit of a maverick creative type in that role pulling the strings for a battering ram centre forward ahead of him and vice versa, which should also bring your wide players in. Any of them can be effective if you've got the players to suit them, though I tend to think 4-4-2 gets found out a bit these days unless you're playing purely on the counter attack.
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 6:58:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by femark1 on May 23, 2018 6:58:06 GMT
Can somebody please tell me the difference between these formations? 4231 and 4411 are basically the same thing tbh but the other formation (442) has 2 strikers.. you can tell that's a difference, right? Yes but one of the strikers drops deeper to defend or link up play. So they're basically the same thing tbh
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on May 23, 2018 7:01:17 GMT
4231 and 4411 are basically the same thing tbh but the other formation (442) has 2 strikers.. you can tell that's a difference, right? Yes but one of the strikers drops deeper to defend or link up play. So they're basically the same thing tbh Nope, that's a 4411 pal. We did that with Fuller and Mama. A genuine 442 has 2 strikers up at all times, there is a difference.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2018 7:06:32 GMT
4231 and 4411 are basically the same thing tbh but the other formation (442) has 2 strikers.. you can tell that's a difference, right? Yes but one of the strikers drops deeper to defend or link up play. So they're basically the same thing tbh With 4-4-2, even if one of your strikers is a floaty, support striker type who does drop off, he's still basically pushed right up front with the other striker. In a 4-4-1-1, your bloke behind the striker is essentially playing in midfield.
|
|
|
Post by femark1 on May 23, 2018 7:08:28 GMT
Yes but one of the strikers drops deeper to defend or link up play. So they're basically the same thing tbh Nope, that's a 4411 pal. We did that with Fuller and Mama. A genuine 442 has 2 strikers up at all times, there is a difference. I'm probably being pedantic. My point is they're all just a slight variation on 442 so why call I something else. Personally I prefer a 4-1-2-1-2 diamond formation from football manager circa 2001. Or a nice 4-3-2-1 cus it looks like a Christmas tree.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 7:09:16 GMT
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 7:15:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by femark1 on May 23, 2018 7:15:18 GMT
Like when you sign a right back that is MoM for 3 games then you play him as a left winger 😂
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 7:19:51 GMT
via mobile
adi likes this
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 7:19:51 GMT
Like when you sign a right back that is MoM for 3 games then you play him as a left winger 😂 Or playing wing-backs with no proper wing-backs. Or 442 with no wingers/pace. Or 2 up top who have absolutely no ‘chemistry’ whatsoever. Etc. Etc.
|
|
|
Post by lagwafis on May 23, 2018 7:29:37 GMT
442 at Burton 4231 at Brum 4411 at Derby Can somebody please tell me the difference between these formations? 4-4-2 is when our wingers get to the byline and fire low crosses into the shins of the first defender 4-2-3-1 is when our wingers cut inside, try to do too much and lose the football 4-4-1-1 is when Jon Walters plays as a defensive striker 50 yards behind Peter Crouch
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 7:32:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by crouchpotato1 on May 23, 2018 7:32:36 GMT
He’s a 4,2,3,1 man but he changed his system to 3,5,2 in his last few games with Derby
|
|
|
Post by JurgenVandeurzen on May 23, 2018 7:37:13 GMT
One of the major positives of Rowett seems to be - he actually has a plan B.
How many times in the last 18 months have we seen us completely out of ideas with no plan B at the 30-minute mark, to sit deep - under both Hughes and Lambert?
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 7:38:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by marrer on May 23, 2018 7:38:29 GMT
Good to know he's adaptable. Could this mean the return of Bojan to play in the hole. I hope so, I love it when someone plays in the hole. Hasn't Saido been doing that?
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 7:41:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by philb on May 23, 2018 7:41:23 GMT
I'm hoping we will see no more 'inverted wingers'. We haven’t got any wingers when Shaq goes!
|
|
|
Post by philb on May 23, 2018 7:42:16 GMT
One of the major positives of Rowett seems to be - he actually has a plan B. How many times in the last 18 months have we seen us completely out of ideas with no plan B at the 30-minute mark, to sit deep - under both Hughes and Lambert? Did we have a proper plan A at any point in the last 2 years!?!?
|
|
|
Post by JurgenVandeurzen on May 23, 2018 7:44:42 GMT
One of the major positives of Rowett seems to be - he actually has a plan B. How many times in the last 18 months have we seen us completely out of ideas with no plan B at the 30-minute mark, to sit deep - under both Hughes and Lambert? Did we have a proper plan A at any point in the last 2 years!?!? I think it was - cross your fingers and hope. ![(lol)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/lvpvZ64EmrkLcuVniUmo.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on May 23, 2018 10:32:22 GMT
Hughes did have a plan B but there was no structure to it, it was to play 4/5 strikers and shoe the ball forward and hope something fell kindly. I always found it hard to believe we had no width when we did this. It was genuinely like we didn't train for it. Lambert had the same idea and added a little more structure to it but it was still poor. Ryan playing as a forward isn't pretty.
|
|
|
Post by adi on May 23, 2018 10:54:54 GMT
Reasonably adaptable then. Good. Hughes got slated for not knowing his best formation, you can't have it both ways. one worked out at birmingham and derby, and burton. the other relegated us.
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 10:57:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by bhp on May 23, 2018 10:57:30 GMT
442 at Burton 4231 at Brum 4411 at Derby 4411 / 4231 same shit different name.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2018 11:00:08 GMT
Hughes got slated for not knowing his best formation, you can't have it both ways. one worked out at birmingham and derby, and burton. the other relegated us. Yep. Also there's a difference between mixing it up depending on the situation and desperately chopping and changing week to week in the desperate hope something sticks.
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on May 23, 2018 11:27:32 GMT
Good to know he's adaptable. Could this mean the return of Bojan to play in the hole. I hope so, I love it when someone plays in the hole. hung, this is the voice of doom calling: you're one phnarr phnarr off getting this account deleted for trolling (and lousy puns).
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 11:34:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by Stretfordpotterer on May 23, 2018 11:34:15 GMT
Reasonably adaptable then. Good. Hughes got slated for not knowing his best formation, you can't have it both ways. There is a distinct difference between adaptability and fumbling blindly for a formation. Hughes had a plan a, needed a plan B, found it in the false 9, got completely carried away after two stunning performances, thought he was a tactical genius and never actually went back to his perfectly functional plan a. Next thing you know he’s fucking about with 5 at the back, 3 at the back, without ever really having the players for it.
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 11:53:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by ColonelMustard on May 23, 2018 11:53:35 GMT
What a novel idea. A manager changing The formation to reflect our strengths and the opposition weaknesses.
|
|
|
Formation
May 23, 2018 11:58:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by ColonelMustard on May 23, 2018 11:58:31 GMT
Reasonably adaptable then. Good. Hughes got slated for not knowing his best formation, you can't have it both ways. Id say praise for adaptability is perfectly congruent with criticism for not knowing your best team.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 12:09:46 GMT
you'd hope we'd be able to attract the quality of players to be able to play 4231 and play attacking, creative football.
Two quick, skilful wingers who can finish either side of (hopefully Bojan) a creative number 10. With someone like Vydra or Gayle up front, we'd be set going forward.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on May 23, 2018 12:24:54 GMT
Reasonably adaptable then. Good. Hughes got slated for not knowing his best formation, you can't have it both ways. Bollocks, there's a world of difference between being versatile, adaptable, playing to suit players' strengths / exploit oppositions' weaknesses and being a stubborn moron who sticks with a losing formula and pays no attention to his personnel.
|
|