| 4-4-2 12:00 - Oct 7 with 2806 views | Wickets |
As someone who has always had a bit of a problem with looking past this system i have just read Mike Bacon in the EADT suggesting its time to revert to it . Wondering what others feel although pretty sure we know what Cookie feels ! |  | | |  |
| 4-4-2 on 17:40 - Oct 7 with 364 views | Herbivore |
| 4-4-2 on 17:17 - Oct 7 by chrismakin |
Absolutely it's from the Burley years. Highly successful Burley years
But don't forget, he didn't just stick with 1 formation though, but 3 5 2 was one of them
We have the ability to change, and that's my point. 3.5.2 is one we could easily utilise. I don't agree that we don't have the defenders for it, Burgess is probably the worst with the ball of our options but he's left footed so slots into it. |
Burgess and Edmundson are horrible on the ball. To make 3-5-2 work you need at least a couple of defenders who can pass and/or carry the ball out of defence and we don't have that, we only have Woolf. We're effectively dropping one of our very good attacking wide players or 10s to play an additional CB. It makes no sense. At best you could play one of the likes of Celina, Fraser, Chaplin or Edwards and even that would be playing them in an advanced role in a midfield 3, which isn't their natural position. It's not a squad set up to play 3-5-2 at all and the idea of switching to a formation so poorly suited to our squad is nuts. |  |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 18:01 - Oct 7 with 336 views | strikalite |
| 4-4-2 on 17:40 - Oct 7 by Herbivore |
Burgess and Edmundson are horrible on the ball. To make 3-5-2 work you need at least a couple of defenders who can pass and/or carry the ball out of defence and we don't have that, we only have Woolf. We're effectively dropping one of our very good attacking wide players or 10s to play an additional CB. It makes no sense. At best you could play one of the likes of Celina, Fraser, Chaplin or Edwards and even that would be playing them in an advanced role in a midfield 3, which isn't their natural position. It's not a squad set up to play 3-5-2 at all and the idea of switching to a formation so poorly suited to our squad is nuts. |
West Brom for example play a 3-4-3, they don't especially play out from the back, but they do play a high press, yes that can be direct to get them up the pitch, this obsession with playing out from the back because the best teams do it is just inviting a press and our defenders at this level are always prone to giving the ball away at any given time.. |  | | |
| 4-4-2 on 18:28 - Oct 7 with 320 views | Herbivore |
| 4-4-2 on 18:01 - Oct 7 by strikalite |
West Brom for example play a 3-4-3, they don't especially play out from the back, but they do play a high press, yes that can be direct to get them up the pitch, this obsession with playing out from the back because the best teams do it is just inviting a press and our defenders at this level are always prone to giving the ball away at any given time.. |
But we're not set up to play direct, we don't have enough physicality up the top end of the pitch. We really aren't at all suited to going three at the back. The squad has been built to play Cook's favoured system. This crops up every season, some of our fans are obsessed with it. I don't get it. | |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 19:47 - Oct 7 with 290 views | Chrisd |
| 4-4-2 on 17:40 - Oct 7 by Herbivore |
Burgess and Edmundson are horrible on the ball. To make 3-5-2 work you need at least a couple of defenders who can pass and/or carry the ball out of defence and we don't have that, we only have Woolf. We're effectively dropping one of our very good attacking wide players or 10s to play an additional CB. It makes no sense. At best you could play one of the likes of Celina, Fraser, Chaplin or Edwards and even that would be playing them in an advanced role in a midfield 3, which isn't their natural position. It's not a squad set up to play 3-5-2 at all and the idea of switching to a formation so poorly suited to our squad is nuts. |
To be fair, England under Bobby Robson in Italia ‘90 played with 3 at the back and it was only Mark Wright that was really comfortable on the ball, Butcher and Walker weren’t. Not that I’m comparing our CBs to internationals, just highlighting that all the CBs don’t have to be good on the ball playing that formation. [Post edited 7 Oct 2021 19:55]
|  |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 19:53 - Oct 7 with 284 views | strikalite |
| 4-4-2 on 18:28 - Oct 7 by Herbivore |
But we're not set up to play direct, we don't have enough physicality up the top end of the pitch. We really aren't at all suited to going three at the back. The squad has been built to play Cook's favoured system. This crops up every season, some of our fans are obsessed with it. I don't get it. |
The thing is we sometimes do go long, but it's up to Bonne, if we want to mix it up and do that then throw Norwood on, I mean even if we pick up second balls from there we're at least playing in their half....it's an option, sometimes in this league you need to be a bit ugly, just want to see another option.. | | | |
| 4-4-2 on 20:36 - Oct 7 with 266 views | Herbivore |
| 4-4-2 on 19:47 - Oct 7 by Chrisd |
To be fair, England under Bobby Robson in Italia ‘90 played with 3 at the back and it was only Mark Wright that was really comfortable on the ball, Butcher and Walker weren’t. Not that I’m comparing our CBs to internationals, just highlighting that all the CBs don’t have to be good on the ball playing that formation. [Post edited 7 Oct 2021 19:55]
|
That was 30 years ago and at international level where you don't get to sign players to play in a certain system. Our squad isn't set up for 3-5-2 at all. | |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 21:14 - Oct 7 with 245 views | Chrisd |
| 4-4-2 on 20:36 - Oct 7 by Herbivore |
That was 30 years ago and at international level where you don't get to sign players to play in a certain system. Our squad isn't set up for 3-5-2 at all. |
There’s the capability of it with our squad, it isn’t that bizarre. When you look at the strengths of Coulsen and KVY in those wide areas, especially with their attacking intent. The midfield 3 could provide a good mix and then you’ve got the option of playing two up front where we’ve got plenty of options. I’d like to see Bonne and Norwood paired together. It doesn’t matter it was 30 years ago, you suggested you need more CBs to have ability on the ball to play that system, I gave you an example that you don’t necessarily. Nevertheless, this discussion is pointless, PC wouldn’t make such radical changes. [Post edited 7 Oct 2021 21:17]
| |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 21:22 - Oct 7 with 236 views | Herbivore |
| 4-4-2 on 21:14 - Oct 7 by Chrisd |
There’s the capability of it with our squad, it isn’t that bizarre. When you look at the strengths of Coulsen and KVY in those wide areas, especially with their attacking intent. The midfield 3 could provide a good mix and then you’ve got the option of playing two up front where we’ve got plenty of options. I’d like to see Bonne and Norwood paired together. It doesn’t matter it was 30 years ago, you suggested you need more CBs to have ability on the ball to play that system, I gave you an example that you don’t necessarily. Nevertheless, this discussion is pointless, PC wouldn’t make such radical changes. [Post edited 7 Oct 2021 21:17]
|
You gave an example from 30 years ago because most sides that have used the system since have had better ba players in their back three. Why play 3-5-2 and bring Norwood in when that likely means leaving out Burns, Fraser, Celina, Edwards, and Chaplin? All to bring in Norwood and Woolf or Nsiala? I'm not seeing it at all. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 4-4-2 on 21:32 - Oct 7 with 232 views | Chrisd |
| 4-4-2 on 21:22 - Oct 7 by Herbivore |
You gave an example from 30 years ago because most sides that have used the system since have had better ba players in their back three. Why play 3-5-2 and bring Norwood in when that likely means leaving out Burns, Fraser, Celina, Edwards, and Chaplin? All to bring in Norwood and Woolf or Nsiala? I'm not seeing it at all. |
It’s a suggestion that has been made, that’s all. You might not get it, but that’s your opinion doesn’t mean it can’t be done with our squad because it could, but at the expense of certain players. You can relax though, it won’t happen. | |
| |
| 4-4-2 on 21:33 - Oct 7 with 231 views | xrayspecs |
There is very little difference between the two systems in reality.
In 442, the 10 moves a little further forward, and the wingers are al little less advanced. With two holding central midfielders, you have four attacking payers, two central and two wide, in both systems.
I tend to agree with those who say It is more about how players perform than the system.. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
