| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... 17:26 - Sep 14 with 2373 views | ITFCBlues |
We need to adapt to 433 and stick at it. Play against any half decent side and we'll struggle |  |
| |  |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:28 - Sep 14 with 2113 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
I think we need the flexibility to be able to change a system when it is not working. |  |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:28 - Sep 14 with 2108 views | Herbivore |
4-4-2 is fine if you don't play a shot number 10 out wide. |  |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:41 - Sep 14 with 2056 views | Guthrum |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:28 - Sep 14 by Herbivore |
4-4-2 is fine if you don't play a shot number 10 out wide. |
There is a danger of thinking that Judge is a liability in the squad. Someone of too good a pedigree to leave out, but who isn't really working in the positions he has to fit into, but is also not making such a significant difference (or playing with such confidence) that it demands the system is rearranged around him.
A conundrum. |  |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:43 - Sep 14 with 2042 views | ITFCBlues |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:28 - Sep 14 by Herbivore |
4-4-2 is fine if you don't play a shot number 10 out wide. |
I agree, Judge shouldn't be playing wide left. But we struggled in the centre of midfield as well today as we were out numbered.
Long term, we can't play 442 | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:46 - Sep 14 with 2024 views | Herbivore |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:41 - Sep 14 by Guthrum |
There is a danger of thinking that Judge is a liability in the squad. Someone of too good a pedigree to leave out, but who isn't really working in the positions he has to fit into, but is also not making such a significant difference (or playing with such confidence) that it demands the system is rearranged around him.
A conundrum. |
I'm not sure it is a conundrum. Just don't play him. He's been a weak link whenever he's played this season. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:48 - Sep 14 with 2004 views | Guthrum |
Means discarding too many good players - the wide men, or one of our forwards. Danger of ending up with an isolated lone striker. Puts extra pressure on Kenlock and might prevent Vincent-Young getting forward. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:51 - Sep 14 with 1977 views | Guthrum |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:46 - Sep 14 by Herbivore |
I'm not sure it is a conundrum. Just don't play him. He's been a weak link whenever he's played this season. |
Bold move, given his supposed quality. But not necessarily unjustified. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:52 - Sep 14 with 1975 views | Garv |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:46 - Sep 14 by Herbivore |
I'm not sure it is a conundrum. Just don't play him. He's been a weak link whenever he's played this season. |
Wrong. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:55 - Sep 14 with 1953 views | Herbivore |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:51 - Sep 14 by Guthrum |
Bold move, given his supposed quality. But not necessarily unjustified. |
'Supposed' is the key word there. He doesn't justify his place. It's a team game and he weakens the team for me. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:56 - Sep 14 with 1950 views | Herbivore |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:52 - Sep 14 by Garv |
Wrong. |
Great counter argument. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:58 - Sep 14 with 1950 views | Romeo4 |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:43 - Sep 14 by ITFCBlues |
I agree, Judge shouldn't be playing wide left. But we struggled in the centre of midfield as well today as we were out numbered.
Long term, we can't play 442 |
We were outnumbered in CM. Downes had to get through a load of work just to compete. As a result Donny dictated play in the first half and Downes unsurprisingly didn’t last the match. If we want to keep playing with 2 up top perhaps 3-5-2 might be worth a try at some point. The system would allow Judge (or Nolan) to play more centrally behind the front 2. |  | | |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:59 - Sep 14 with 1932 views | Herbivore |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:58 - Sep 14 by Romeo4 |
We were outnumbered in CM. Downes had to get through a load of work just to compete. As a result Donny dictated play in the first half and Downes unsurprisingly didn’t last the match. If we want to keep playing with 2 up top perhaps 3-5-2 might be worth a try at some point. The system would allow Judge (or Nolan) to play more centrally behind the front 2. |
We tried three at the back late in the game and nearly lost it. I don't think we have the players, especially in defence, to play that system well. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:00 - Sep 14 with 1930 views | Guthrum |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:55 - Sep 14 by Herbivore |
'Supposed' is the key word there. He doesn't justify his place. It's a team game and he weakens the team for me. |
The only question is, until Garbutt returns, is Georgiou up to playing a full 90 minutes? If he isn't, then Judge might be the only man to fill in wide left for 45 minutes or an hour. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:07 - Sep 14 with 1888 views | Herbivore |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:00 - Sep 14 by Guthrum |
The only question is, until Garbutt returns, is Georgiou up to playing a full 90 minutes? If he isn't, then Judge might be the only man to fill in wide left for 45 minutes or an hour. |
We also have Rowe and even Dobra, both of whom are better wide players than Judge currently imo. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:12 - Sep 14 with 1857 views | Romeo4 |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 17:59 - Sep 14 by Herbivore |
We tried three at the back late in the game and nearly lost it. I don't think we have the players, especially in defence, to play that system well. |
I agree we don’t have the natural balance in the centre of defence to ideally suit the system but maybe the benefit it gives us going forward would negate that. | | | |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:14 - Sep 14 with 1848 views | Herbivore |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:12 - Sep 14 by Romeo4 |
I agree we don’t have the natural balance in the centre of defence to ideally suit the system but maybe the benefit it gives us going forward would negate that. |
I'm not sure it would benefit us going forward. You're basically dropping a winger or full back for a centre back. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:19 - Sep 14 with 1832 views | Romeo4 |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:14 - Sep 14 by Herbivore |
I'm not sure it would benefit us going forward. You're basically dropping a winger or full back for a centre back. |
You won’t get outnumbered in midfield and can still play 2 up front centrally. Our wide players (Judge, Edwards, Rowe) are hardly setting the world alight. Reckon Garbutt and V-Y further forward would offer as much threat. | | | |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:21 - Sep 14 with 1820 views | Guthrum |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:07 - Sep 14 by Herbivore |
We also have Rowe and even Dobra, both of whom are better wide players than Judge currently imo. |
Tho are they not more right sided? And Dobra is very young. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:22 - Sep 14 with 1808 views | Herbivore |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:21 - Sep 14 by Guthrum |
Tho are they not more right sided? And Dobra is very young. |
Edwards can play on the left, he prefers playing there. Reputation aside I don't see the reasoning for Judge starting in this system. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:23 - Sep 14 with 1805 views | BigManBlue |
We’d be fine if we played an actual winger instead of Judge. Good player but can’t play that position. |  |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:25 - Sep 14 with 1789 views | JDB23 |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:23 - Sep 14 by BigManBlue |
We’d be fine if we played an actual winger instead of Judge. Good player but can’t play that position. |
Just hope Lambert isn't stubborn with it. He's given it enough tries this season and it ain't worked, we have plenty of other options, move on. |  | | |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:27 - Sep 14 with 1777 views | BigManBlue |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:25 - Sep 14 by JDB23 |
Just hope Lambert isn't stubborn with it. He's given it enough tries this season and it ain't worked, we have plenty of other options, move on. |
Yup, he drifts in every time, leaves Kenlock exposed and clogs up the middle. | |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:44 - Sep 14 with 1721 views | lmfcblue |
Play the diamond it ticks all the boxes and and puts round pegs in round holes | | | |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 20:44 - Sep 14 with 1602 views | OldTimer2 |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:14 - Sep 14 by Herbivore |
I'm not sure it would benefit us going forward. You're basically dropping a winger or full back for a centre back. |
Unless you play Skuse in the middle of the 3 |  |
| |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 20:50 - Sep 14 with 1578 views | pointofblue |
| Today we've seen why 442 simply isn't the answer long term... on 18:44 - Sep 14 by lmfcblue |
Play the diamond it ticks all the boxes and and puts round pegs in round holes |
It leaves our full backs exposed, though. Are Vincent-Young and Kenlock/Garbutt strong enough to fulfil both defensive and offensive duties without wing support?
If Judge is to play we need to drop Norwood or Jackson, play one up top and hope Judge can feed the striker as a number ten. If we’re to play a flat 4-4-2 we need proper wingers on the pitch; having a central midfielder out wide reminds me of Keane when he played four centre backs across the defence. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
