I didn't see yesterday's game, but it seems that we were better after Henry replaced Barton. This can't be down to the relative abilities of the two individuals, so there must have been a change of tactics. Did we change to 4-1-4-1? This seems to me to be way forward. We have been terribly negative with Barton and Carroll restricted to defensive roles and a barely getting past the half-way line. I think we should rely on one DCM and play 4-1-4-1 or 4-1-3-2. If we were to go this way, a top-class DCM would be a priority in the transfer window. Who is out there?
I've always believed the best DCM on the planet would be Steven Gerrard..but would be such a waste of his abilities... Maybe we can sign him when he turns 50 or so??
Barton was injured in the sixth minute, I noticed a couple of times after that when he was tracking back that it looked like he was running in treacle. Henry was like lightening in comparison. We had two excellent chances in the 1st half, we just converted in the 2nd half. One thing i did notice was none of the four corners we had beat the 1st man, some practice needed there for sure!
it was the ht team talk that did it,we made no change in formation and carried on with a 4231. we were just a lot more positive after the break.
From the report I read it seemed we changed to 4-1-4-1 with Henry allowing Carroll, in particular, more freedom. Other observers also commented that our midfield were getting up with and beyond Austin in the 2nd half, which is something we have been poor at doing.
it was more the front 3 getting forward in support rather than playing too close to the 2 as in the 1st half. a 4141 is more defensive than a 4231 and Carroll was not alongside any of the 3 but next to henry. have a look at Traores goal on youtube, it clearly shows Carroll alongside henry with a 3 and 1 ahead. it almost looks like a front 4.
playing 3 attacking midfielders is more defensive than playing none? a 4141 is the most defensive formation there is unless you play without an attacker
So you reckon any team that plays 4-1-4-1 has NO attacking midfielders in the midfield 4 behind the striker?
please tell me how please log in to view this image is more negative than please log in to view this image
I've played in teams that played both formations flyer and there's no comparison. A 4-1-4-1 formation with a positive manager allows 5 players to go forward and win you the game with one disciplined midfield sitting protecting against a quick counter. Perfect against teams that you feel you should beat. A 4-2-3-1 formation is too negative and usually involves two holding midfielders with only 4 committing forward. Most managers will allow one of the holding midfielders to burst forward with the ball only if one of the forward 3 sits back in return. Most teams find it difficult to execute with the frontman often getting isolated. That's what's happened to us. There's no comparison between the two formations. If you're played either formation (which you claim to have played the game) you'd know that.
email the club or ask someone who coaches high up. I've already posted the formations that you conveniently ignored. I could ask someone who coaches at the club but you'd never believe me anyway. a 4141 is even more negative that a 451. it is what Chelsea used to play a couple of years ago and we all know how boring they were then. anyway, you can have the last word as this is my final post in the thread.
I'm not going to get into a prolonged debate with you, because I know you won't let it go. What I will say is that EVERY formation can be tinkered with and applied in different ways. If a 4-1-4-1 is played with 2 wide attacking players and 2 box to box central midfielders it can be very attacking. 4-2-3-1 can be either attacking, like we played it under Warnock, with the front 4 all interchanging and the centre of the 3 having a very free role, or it can also be quite defensive when played with 5 central midfielders and no wingers ( which is how we started on Saturday).
