Quote from Nigel in title. Just want to get opinions on this. Does Nigel actually think we played 4-3-3 today or is he having us on? This was a 4-2-3-1/4-4-1-1 shape today and I can't see how it can be argued. I'd definitely call it 4-2-3-1 today as Davis and Schneiderlin were far too deep for me as cdms (as was Lallana in free role) to call it 4-4-1-1. You could get away with calling it 4-5-1 of course as well considering there are 5 midfielders.
Without doubt throughout the season it has been more of a 4-5-1 or a 4-2-3-1 as we are always going to need to be responsible defensively even if our defence was more solid than it is. Most run-of-the-mill teams that play in a 4-3-3 system are in reality playing 4-5-1/4-2-3-1/4-1-4-1/4-4-1-1, whatever you want to call it, as to actually get away with playing 4-3-3 you have to be a top team. To have 3 players as legitimate attackers with very limited defensive abilities will get you punished unless you are a real quality side. I think Nigel knows it's not strictly speaking a 4-3-3, that's just what he likes to call it and show it of as, as part of of our brand of lovely attacking football, a lovely attacking formation, but in reality he knows we play much closer to a 4-5-1/4-2-3-1/Whatever, he might have had a tough season so far, but he's not stupid nor deluded.
It's a 4-3-3 where the central midfielder and striker play ahead of the rest of the line. Or a 4-2-3-1 where the attacking midfielder plays slightly behind the other two wingers. Or a 4-5-1 with an alternating staggered midfield. Or a 4-3-2-1 with just the central midfielder pushing up. Or a 4-2-1-2-1. Does it really matter? I'm pretty sure Adkins knows where he wants his players to play. Whether that is indeed the best tactical formation or if the players have the ability to play it is another issue. But if he wants to call it a 4-3-3 it doesn't bother me at all.
That was 4-6-0 and anything else is a lie , if you are going to play one up front why not play your best striker ?
I understand you don't rate Rodriguez but surely 4-5-0 would be a better play on the formation. You aren't looking bright here.
Poor player selection is definitely the main blame I agree. I just thought it was a strange comment from Adkins
You are right you could call it a lot of different things. I like to call it the formation it most resembles or is closest to, which normally narrows it right down.
Of course I will , 4-6-0 you still play with a striker and he still leads the line , 4-6-0 is known formation , Jesus .
Hope you are joking here and I am missing something. 4-6-0 is a strikerless formation..hence the zero at the end.
Why am I joking ? The striker is the leading man but plays in a midfield position ? 6 midfielders , I believe Spain play it , do they have strikers ?
You're wrong. It is strikerless as are Spain unless they make a substitution and change formation. Or start the game with another formation and a striker. 4-6-0 is always strikerless hence the ZERO!
By definition, no. 4-6-0 is really more like 4-6. You have four players with primarily a defensive responsibility playing like a traditional back four. The other six players are somewhat position-less. No player is designated with the task staying up ahead of the rest of the team; rather any player could be up top or in the midfield depending upon circumstance. The whole point is there is no designated striker, but rather six players who could take on some or all of the roles of a traditional striker at any given time.
