442 or 433?

442 or 433?

  • 442

  • 433

Results are only viewable after voting.
Itchen North Matt

Itchen North Matt

Active Member
Feb 24, 2011
2,926
8
38
NULL
Pretty simple question this, should we persevere with the 433 we worked on over the break or return to the tried and tested 442?

For me, we stick with the 433. When Ramirez is fit, he should be the number 10. Playing just behind the front 3, he'll be instrumental. Playing any sort of football is about being quick and clinical and I believe we've got that in us. I don't think we're far off being a good team and adding some belief and confidence would boost us greatly.
 
What was wrong with 2-3-5?

I don't really understand why, before anyone challenges me, but 4-4-2 worked OK most of the time for us in the lower leagues but 4-3-3 seems to be the required formation in the Prem. Please could someone explain why this is?
 
We played 4-4-2 last season but it was more of a 4-2-3-1, Lambert would come deep and our wingers would push up-a very fluid 4-4-2. 4-3-3 allows us to win the midfield battle and gives the wingers less defensive duties.
 
We need to mix it up.

But you should play to your teams strengths, and it's clear that it isn't to some players.

If key players like Ramirez or Lallana are missing revert to a simple 4-4-2.

But when they are available ten you should play to their strengths and depending on the opposition.
 
433 works in the premiership as the full backs are better quality and act more as attacking players than defenders, the 2 cb stay in position with one holding midfielder infront of them, everyone else pushes up and when the attack breaks down then the fall backs get thier arses back. Its the main problems with Fox, he plays at a slower tempo so our attack stalls or he looks to play that 40 yard pass and when he gives the ball away he can not get his tatooed arse back in time. We have the players to play 433 or I would like to see some games with 451 to try and get some clean sheets
 
We never played 4-4-2 last year. Lallana isn't really a wide winger, and we never fixed the problem on the other side (De Ridder not used, Punch on the outs). We used Guly there and he played a similar role to Lallana.

The problem right now is mainly the back four and it's going to be the same back four in either formation. The rest of the squad is more suited for 4-3-3, so I favor sticking with that.
 
ChilcoSaint said:
What was wrong with 2-3-5?

I don't really understand why, before anyone challenges me, but 4-4-2 worked OK most of the time for us in the lower leagues but 4-3-3 seems to be the required formation in the Prem. Please could someone explain why this is?
Click to expand...

Pretty simple really, the extra man in midfield helps teams to win the midfield battle. It just needs a bit of quality for the fluidity to turn defence into attack. We've had the quality for the last few seasons and we really should have made the change before flinding ourselves in the PL.
 
This season we have been best with 4231 or 4411 shape. From the start off the top of my head we have played 433 in one game and 442 in one game, 4312 in one game, 451 in a few. With a full strength team (Ramirez back) 4231 is our best formation by a mile
 
Played 4-4-2 first half against Spurs basically says it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back