http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/footba...t_elusive_away_win_–_full_match_preview “In the LFW post mortem that traditionally follows a poor performance and/or result , there has been much talk on the board this week of formations. Clearly the match was a tactical triumph for Allardyce over Hughes, and many – and I count myself in this number – have been calling for the Rangers manager to abandon the traditional 4-4-2 (i.e. two up front supported by two banks of four) in favour of the 4-2-3-1 which you might remember was the formation that got Rangers promoted in the first place. “The stats over Mark Hughes’ reign so far bear this view out. In 24 league games Hughes has started with a 4-4-2, with two recognised strikers up front, on 14 occasions: winning two, drawing three and losing nine – an average of 0.64 points per game. A dismal return even before you consider that in one of those wins (Liverpool at home) the winner came when only one of those strikers was still on the pitch. Over a 38 game season that would put Rangers at 24 points, one point less than bottom placed Wolves finished with last season. However, when Hughes has played a 4-2-3-1 (or something very similar) they have won four drawn one and lost five – an average of 1.3 points a game. That would make 49 points over a season - two points more than tenth placed West Brom. Now, I know there are a few variables there, but even accounting for those that is a pretty damning indictment of Hughes’ supposedly preferred formation. “I’m not saying that 4-4-2 cannot ever be successful, but to me it’s looking increasingly outdated and anyway, surely you have to play the formation that best suits the players you have at your disposal. When Zamora and Johnson played together earlier in the season I could kind of see the benefits as Johnson’s intelligent running and movement can pull defenders out of position, but Zamora and Cisse together just hasn’t worked. In fact, in the ten matches Cisse has started for Rangers they have only won once, and in that game Cisse was off the pitch when Rangers scored the winner. To be fair he did score the winner when he came on against Stoke, but that was our only win in the six games in which he came on as a substitute. Now I’m not denying Cisse is the best finisher at the club, but I don’t see how he fits into the side at the moment as he doesn’t seem suited to the lone striker role either. I think he has become a luxury that, in terms of our overall pattern of play, we cannot afford.
Interesting selections. The one thing we are all consistent about is that there is no room for SWP. But will our man work that one out for himself. I certainly hope so. He did drop him towards the end of last season but seems to have been fooled by the fact that SWP scored a couple in pre-season. Halleluyah. However it has so far proved not to be the miracle Hughesie had hoped for. Another spell in the wilderness for our Shaun looms. WE TOLD HIM SO.
Interesting selections. The one thing we are all consistent about is that there is no room for SWP. But will our man work that one out for himself. I certainly hope so. He did drop him towards the end of last season but seems to have been fooled by the fact that SWP scored a couple in pre-season. Halleluyah. However it has so far proved not to be the miracle Hughesie had hoped for. Another spell in the wilderness for our Shaun looms. WE TOLD HIM SO. AND THE ANSWER TO THE THREAD IS DEFINITELY YES
Very blinkered point of view. The only alternative discussed (in a LOT of wordage) is the good old 4-2-3-1 that kind of worked in the Championship but for which we no longer have the players IMO. And both Warnock and Hughes have only toyed with 4-4-2 - very hard to make irt work unless the players get used to it. I still think the unmentioned 4-3-3 is our best option.
