Theres been a lot of negativity on here since Saturday but we have to play with two upfront especially at home. Charlie is not interested as a lone striker and is a different player when he has a battering ram with him...I think Polter could be that player and I would like to see him given that chance. Whoever and whatever strikers are there in 2 weeks FFS lets start with two up top.........
Yeah, and then we can just lump the ball up to them, we won't need a decent midfield. Worked so well for us last year.
4-5-1 hasnt worked for us for years.....certainly while Austin has been here. He cant or wont make it work.
He is going of his own accord...sooner we have players here who really want to be here, the sooner we can get on with rebuilding
Oh God no....... 4231 was okay on Saturday.....let Austin go, play Polter up front on his own, we pressed well from the front which enabled us to play higher up the pitch.... 442 is a regressive step, this is a new age, give it time to start working....... Surprised there hasn't been a Ramsey out thread following Saturday.....
I agree as far as the 4 2 3 1 formation goes. 4 4 2 will mean hoof ball and we don't even have OBZ now. But I think we are still a long way off having the player material to make it work, judging by Tuesday and Saturday at least. We need an additional striker to Polter up front if Austin goes, not just as back up but someone with a bit more experience at this level, and who has a better scoring record. Think we need a decent quick player wide left, and we still need 2 CB's, a quickish RB, and a Keeper, or 2 if Green goes.
Tramore, it all depends how you play 442, it doesn't have to be hoof ball, many a team plays it in Europe but there it is dependent on full backs that fly up and down the wings and a defensive midfielder who can actually play football. We have either not understood how to play 4231 over the years or as is most probable, we have not had the playing staff to carry it off. For instance - a Henry or Barton cannot play in the 2 as they simply cannot pass, the tempo is lost from the beginning, no pace in attack. Those in the 3 need to be defending from the front as if their lives depended on it - Any of Fer, Phillips x2, Hoillet spring to mind? The 1 has to be mobile, an athlete with skill and able to take his chances - Austin tick all those boxes? The 4, well, primarily love defending, be organized and able to bring the ball out under some semblance of control - No comment The full backs - Marauding Kris Akabussis, up and down all the time being constant menaces - Bosingwa, Hill, Young, Konchessky, Suk Yung, - oh I'll stop!! So to end it - it is the quality of the playing staff first and foremost - the 4231, 253, 442, 712 or whatever is a development - No one used to complain at the entertainment value of Man United playing 442 throughout the 90s did they.
I'm in Oslo. More very bad news. Apparently this was at a place that was the center of many political demonstrations before the Coup. 5 already reported dead on Sky
Last time I can remember us playing well consistently for a decent period of time was when we played well in 4 2 3 1 under Colin, with Ale and the Lord in the 2, the Iceman up front, and the likes of Adel, Routledge and Mackie in the 3.
I have a feeling that 4-2-3-1 could work well with 2 of Faulin, Diakite, Henry, Doughty with 3 of (Chery, Fer, Phillips, Luongo, Gladwin, JET and 1 of JET, Polter We are still a striker light though IMHO (as I see Austin has left the building (in his head) already
As m'learned colleague Danelaw says it's the quality of the players that counts, but 4-5-1 without the ball 4-3-3 with it makes sense to me. I have no idea whether we have any players good enough to play any formation effectively as yet.
Play the right formation at the right time..maybe.....adapt and change when needed. They are professional footballers, they should be able to switch between formation pretty easily..no ? I'm a fan of 4-2-3-1 but there are times you need play differently and vital to this formation is the 3 being able to support the man in the box, something we always seem to be lacking.
