Why not 4-4-2?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Highball_QPR

Highball_QPR

Active Member
Mar 23, 2011
211
135
43
NULL
So, let's be honest, Polter is a hard worker but not exactly a striker to get us promoted. Washington clearly has some talent but is not yet the complete article. Basically neither one on their own is as good as Austin was and, frankly, we will not get promoted this season because of that fact. So why not play them together and see if a partnership can grow, alongside the idea that each will gain experience? I heard on the commentary during the Watford game that you can't do this because where would you play Chery? But I'm sorry, he seems OK and all, and good luck to him gaining the No. 10 shirt and everything, but is he really that good? At least give it a go ffs.
 
If you played a 'predatory' striker alongside Polter it may work but you'd be outgunned in midfield unless you play three at the back. Gregory plays alongside Morrison at Millwall and got a hatful last season, I doubt Washington is that type of striker...
 
Please explain to me what is the major difference between 4-4-2 & 4-4-1-1.

Chery IS a second forward.

He also fits in well with Polter. Although I don't think we will be excessive goalscorers this season, Polter & Chery will both be in double figures (comfortably).
 
  • Like
Reactions: KPDHoopster and sb_73
terryb said:
Please explain to me what is the major difference between 4-4-2 & 4-4-1-1.

Chery IS a second forward.

He also fits in well with Polter. Although I don't think we will be excessive goalscorers this season, Polter & Chery will both be in double figures (comfortably).
Click to expand...


You there Sunday Tel?

4-4-2 usually has two out and out forwards.
4-4-1-1 usually has a deeper player, like Teddy Sheringham in behind
This player also helps in midfield, making it very similar to 4-2-3-1.
 
rangercol said:
You there Sunday Tel?

4-4-2 usually has two out and out forwards.
4-4-1-1 usually has a deeper player, like Teddy Sheringham in behind
This player also helps in midfield, making it very similar to 4-2-3-1.
Click to expand...

Of course you're right, Col, but I can't help but feel that 4-4-2 can work with the right group of players, or might be the most effective formation for a certain group of players. The danger of being overrun in midfield can be offset if you have a team capable of moving the ball quickly and, ideally, a competent wide man or two The other thing is that having two forwards further upfield can force the opposition to sit further back to cover them, thus making their five in midfield play deeper and therefore potentially less effective. This is all bollocks if you don't have the right players, of course.
 
Eamon Holmes said:
4-4-2 looks like this ...
You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't see that. ........................ l see 9064.

Anyway, on a serious note, to get maximum benefit from the start of the season, we should play two forwards and not a lone striker.
Possibly one up from the other but nevertheless, two strikers.

If we are going to hit the ground running, we must be positive.
 
AussieQPR said:
Sorry, I don't see that. ........................ l see 9064.

Anyway, on a serious note, to get maximum benefit from the start of the season, we should play two forwards and not a lone striker.
Possibly one up from the other but nevertheless, two strikers.

If we are going to hit the ground running, we must be positive.
Click to expand...

There's the problem you mentioned the word Positive, ruined your argument
 
rangercol said:
You there Sunday Tel?

4-4-2 usually has two out and out forwards.
4-4-1-1 usually has a deeper player, like Teddy Sheringham in behind
This player also helps in midfield, making it very similar to 4-2-3-1.
Click to expand...
I'm there Sunday Col.

See you at the usual spot at half time. I might go to our position when I arrive as well.

I can't make any drinking meet prior to the match. AND I probably need a pint or three as I'm now in the backrow with Roller! And Beth! And Connell!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol
terryb said:
I'm there Sunday Col.

See you at the usual spot at half time. I might go to our position when I arrive as well.

I can't make any drinking meet prior to the match. AND I probably need a pint or three as I'm now in the backrow with Roller! And Beth! And Connell!
Click to expand...

Bit kinky. Why not just shake hands?
 
Uber_Hoop said:
Of course you're right, Col, but I can't help but feel that 4-4-2 can work with the right group of players, or might be the most effective formation for a certain group of players. The danger of being overrun in midfield can be offset if you have a team capable of moving the ball quickly and, ideally, a competent wide man or two The other thing is that having two forwards further upfield can force the opposition to sit further back to cover them, thus making their five in midfield play deeper and therefore potentially less effective. This is all bollocks if you don't have the right players, of course.
Click to expand...


Spot on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back