| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 11:39 - Dec 11 with 1787 views | J2BLUE |
In hindsight it was a massive red flag that 4231 was such a big talking point before Cook came in. |  |
|  |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 11:42 - Dec 11 with 1765 views | NorthLondonBlue2 |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 11:39 - Dec 11 by J2BLUE |
In hindsight it was a massive red flag that 4231 was such a big talking point before Cook came in. |
I can’t pretend to have any expertise in football. But what is so wrong with 4-4-2? Why are lone striker formations so often typified by an isolated, often frustrated figure who struggles to do anything?
And particularly, when we’ve been leaking goals so badly, why just 2 in front of the back four? |  | | |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 11:49 - Dec 11 with 1726 views | Guthrum |
4-2-3-1 is not necessarily flawed in and of itself (otherwise it would never have been adopted by anybody). So long as the link-up between defence and attack can be made happen and the forward three keep in close touch with the striker, it can work.
Town's problem is it has not been efficient enough on a consistent basis. The defence was struggling, we passed backwards too often and Bonne got isolated. So it's more an issue of not getting the formation to function effectively than that the system is fundamentally wrong. |  |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 11:52 - Dec 11 with 1707 views | Kieran_Knows |
What’s wrong with 4-2-3-1 may I ask? |  |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 11:58 - Dec 11 with 1689 views | Guthrum |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 11:42 - Dec 11 by NorthLondonBlue2 |
I can’t pretend to have any expertise in football. But what is so wrong with 4-4-2? Why are lone striker formations so often typified by an isolated, often frustrated figure who struggles to do anything?
And particularly, when we’ve been leaking goals so badly, why just 2 in front of the back four? |
Having two strikers forces a compromise over control of the midfield and wide areas, risking being overrun there. 1 + 3 up front (with overlapping wing-backs) should theoretically stand a better chance of overwhelming the defence than just two.
Reducing the wingers to wide midfielders (in a more defensive role) blunts the attack and forces one or both of the forwards to drop deep, looking for the ball (the problem we had with McGoldrick).
Like all formations, when it works, it works well. But if you haven't got the players who can do each job to a sufficient standard, or if you are outclassed/outmaneuvered on the day, it's broken. Which is why a degree of flexibility is important. | |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 11:59 - Dec 11 with 1682 views | blueconscience |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 11:52 - Dec 11 by Kieran_Knows |
What’s wrong with 4-2-3-1 may I ask? |
Have you not been watching for the last 9 months? |  |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:04 - Dec 11 with 1667 views | Kieran_Knows |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 11:59 - Dec 11 by blueconscience |
Have you not been watching for the last 9 months? |
So you’re saying another managers version of 4-2-3-1 can’t be played better than the previous managers? | |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:21 - Dec 11 with 1614 views | monty_radio |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 11:52 - Dec 11 by Kieran_Knows |
What’s wrong with 4-2-3-1 may I ask? |
It can depend on who your 1 is. If you're Liverpool, man City or Chelsea the fluidity and ball retention of your 4 frontrunners can easily compensate for the fact that you don't play a real target man (who you probably don't need anyway.)
While Town had Burns firing the shortcomings of Bonne as the 1 were never going to matter, but the less fluid we've become the more the fact that Bonne is not a target/hold-up man has been apparent. His salmon leap is great as a striker arriving at speed, but not much use against your 6 ft 4ins defender when the ball is lofted up in hope rather than expectation. As a striker himself, and someone who deployed big front men with reasonable success, I imagine that Harris wouldn't waste Bonne's goalscoring by making him the focal point, but would want him to be playing off someone like Pigott. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:23 - Dec 11 with 1606 views | SaigonTractor |
I don't understand why this board thinks a formation is the problem. |  | | |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:25 - Dec 11 with 1596 views | J2BLUE |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:23 - Dec 11 by SaigonTractor |
I don't understand why this board thinks a formation is the problem. |
It's not a problem. The problem is when it's the only club in the bag. | |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:25 - Dec 11 with 1596 views | Guthrum |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:21 - Dec 11 by monty_radio |
It can depend on who your 1 is. If you're Liverpool, man City or Chelsea the fluidity and ball retention of your 4 frontrunners can easily compensate for the fact that you don't play a real target man (who you probably don't need anyway.)
While Town had Burns firing the shortcomings of Bonne as the 1 were never going to matter, but the less fluid we've become the more the fact that Bonne is not a target/hold-up man has been apparent. His salmon leap is great as a striker arriving at speed, but not much use against your 6 ft 4ins defender when the ball is lofted up in hope rather than expectation. As a striker himself, and someone who deployed big front men with reasonable success, I imagine that Harris wouldn't waste Bonne's goalscoring by making him the focal point, but would want him to be playing off someone like Pigott. |
Even if sticking with the same formation, Pigott could be the "1" and Bonne drop to the centre of the attacking three to follow up and exploit. | |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:31 - Dec 11 with 1577 views | pointofblue |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:23 - Dec 11 by SaigonTractor |
I don't understand why this board thinks a formation is the problem. |
At the moment it’s because Cook couldn’t and McGreal seemingly can’t get the formation to fit the players available. | |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:32 - Dec 11 with 1573 views | Romeo4 |
It’s really not a problem if the manager’s preferred system is 4-2-3-1. It is an effective system when played with the right players. The problem only comes if that manager is unable to flex this approach when game situations or player availability makes it a difficult system to make effective. |  | | |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:45 - Dec 11 with 1506 views | Blue_Heath |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:23 - Dec 11 by SaigonTractor |
I don't understand why this board thinks a formation is the problem. |
Because we get overrun in midfield and it relies on Burns and Bonne firing. | | | |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:57 - Dec 11 with 1449 views | cressi |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:45 - Dec 11 by Blue_Heath |
Because we get overrun in midfield and it relies on Burns and Bonne firing. |
Can't see why you can't play 3 5 2
But the wide players have to be quick and fit.
As for 4 4 2 still can work its about players not just systems Germany have won enough world cups with the system and I believe Bayern Munich ofter play two up front. All flavour of the month like a false no 9 | | | |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 13:01 - Dec 11 with 1441 views | ITFCBlues |
NeW MaNaGeR MuSt plAY 442 Or ElSe He'S RuBbIsH.
Not sure what this obsession is with 2 strikers. We played 2 in 2nd half last weekend and for 30 mins Tuesday and we didn't score. In fact, I'm not convinced we had a shot and our strikers were completely ineffective still. |  |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 13:19 - Dec 11 with 1361 views | bazza |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:04 - Dec 11 by Kieran_Knows |
So you’re saying another managers version of 4-2-3-1 can’t be played better than the previous managers? |
Not if the players can’t play in a 4-2-3-1.. and it looks like that formation doesn’t suit our squad.. and cook didn’t know how to address it.. [Post edited 11 Dec 2021 13:20]
|  | | |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 13:20 - Dec 11 with 1355 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 12:04 - Dec 11 by Kieran_Knows |
So you’re saying another managers version of 4-2-3-1 can’t be played better than the previous managers? |
Yep. Every version of 4231 leaves teams 11 in League 1. It’s a TWTD fact. |  |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 13:29 - Dec 11 with 1313 views | Steve_M |
There’s nothing wrong with 4-2-3-1. We were just very crap at playing it under Cook. |  |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 13:35 - Dec 11 with 1271 views | rickw |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 13:29 - Dec 11 by Steve_M |
There’s nothing wrong with 4-2-3-1. We were just very crap at playing it under Cook. |
Exactly this - our players were brought in to play this system, they just haven't been coached well enough.
England and Man Utd usually play 4231 and the strikers are rarely isolated, the simple idea of it is the 3 are midfielders out of possession and are attackers when you're in possession, so you have a 5 man midfield and 4 in attack.
We just managed to make it so they were the opposite - lost forwards out of possession and midfielders no where near the striker when we had the ball! |  |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 13:41 - Dec 11 with 1250 views | Steve_M |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 13:35 - Dec 11 by rickw |
Exactly this - our players were brought in to play this system, they just haven't been coached well enough.
England and Man Utd usually play 4231 and the strikers are rarely isolated, the simple idea of it is the 3 are midfielders out of possession and are attackers when you're in possession, so you have a 5 man midfield and 4 in attack.
We just managed to make it so they were the opposite - lost forwards out of possession and midfielders no where near the striker when we had the ball! |
Wigan fan me and Mullet have been talking to in the pub says Cook without Richardson and Barry is far less effective and he really likes Cook. | |
| |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 13:50 - Dec 11 with 1223 views | itfc1108 |
| Neil Harris’ preferred formation? on 13:35 - Dec 11 by rickw |
Exactly this - our players were brought in to play this system, they just haven't been coached well enough.
England and Man Utd usually play 4231 and the strikers are rarely isolated, the simple idea of it is the 3 are midfielders out of possession and are attackers when you're in possession, so you have a 5 man midfield and 4 in attack.
We just managed to make it so they were the opposite - lost forwards out of possession and midfielders no where near the striker when we had the ball! |
Apparently, United play a 4-2-2-2 now, as do Southampton.
I'm not quite sure how it it works, but I imagine that you have to be very fit! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
