With the Rs on a rich run of form, should Mark Hughes risk restoring his striker to the line-up? http://www.london24.com:80/sport/ch...n_has_proved_a_blessing_for_rangers_1_1357785 Djibril Cisse has certainly had a say in QPR’s relegation battle – but not quite in the way the £4 million forward imagined. Barely a month ago, with three goals to his name since he signed from Lazio in January, Cisse appeared the man capable of single-handedly saving QPR’s season. When he was shown the second red card of his short Rangers career at Sunderland, thus earning a four-match ban, it was seen by many as a mortal blow to QPR’s season. Cisse was, after all, signed with one purpose in mind: score the goals to keep his side up. In a season where goals have been in relatively short supply, he made a breakneck start, with clinical strikes against Aston Villa, Bolton Wanderers and Liverpool, and displayed early signs of an understanding with fellow new signing Bobby Zamora. However, his dismissal at the Stadium of Light and his subsequent extended absence pulled the rug from underneath his manager Mark Hughes’s feet. With top-scorer Heidar Helguson and DJ Campbell both injured, Hughes, a manager who historically has favoured playing two strikers, was forced to go against his instincts and build his side around his most effective remaining forward – Zamora. It proved to be a light-bulb moment. With Rangers having tried 4-4-2 at various points this season – with generally negative results - Hughes switched to a 4-2-3-1 formation. And in Cisse’s absence, QPR have romped to three consecutive home wins. With injuries elsewhere in the squad easing, the manager has had the luxury of fielding a settled side, with the majority of his players able to play to their strengths in their favoured position. The 4-2-3-1 set-up which has brought QPR so much success is not a new feature; it was employed by Neil Warnock, with limited success, in the early months of the campaign. In those early games, it was summer signing Jay Bothhroyd occupying the central role, supported on either wing by Shaun Wright-Phillips and Adel Taarabt. The system was flawed for a multitude of reasons. After a promising debut against Newcastle United, Wright-Phillips suffered a dramatic loss of form. On the few occasions he did manage to find Bothroyd with a cross or pass, Bothroyd was frequently off target and appeared bereft of confidence. Taarabt, having missed out on a summer move to Paris Saint-Germain, was listless and disinterested. The sum total was that Rangers were depressingly toothless up front. Hughes has addressed all those issues. His first wise move was to replace the desperately poor Wright-Phillips with the hungry, passionate and powerful figure of Jamie Mackie. Taarabt is also now thriving, and seems to be benefitting from the structure Hughes has brought to the training pitch. With Taarabt now matching his forward forays with defensive discipline, Rangers are less vulnerable on the counter-attack. Samba Diakite is an able replacement for the injured Alejandro Faurlin in central midfield, while Joey Barton, for a long time a fish out of water on the right of a four-man midfield, has been returned to his favoured advanced midfield role. Perhaps the most significant impact, though, has been that of Zamora. Far more suited to his demanding role than Bothroyd, the muscular Zamora’s ability to bring figures such as Mackie into play has proved vital. It was telling that, despite having a fully-fit Cisse available for Saturday’s clash with Tottenham, Hughes chose to keep him on the bench, and stick with the line-up which has worked so well. Hughes now has a decision to make: Does he turn to Cisse against Chelsea, and for the final two games of the season. Rangers head to Stamford Bridge knowing that four points – perhaps even three – from their last three matches would in all likelihood be enough to keep them in the Premier League. To restore Cisse to the line-up and return to 4-4-2 against a team of Chelsea’s quality would be to needlessly risk his side being swamped in midfield – an outcome the cautious Hughes will not entertain. Perhaps a more favourable alternative would be to play Cisse on the left of his attack, replacing Taarabt, who will miss the game after his red card against Tottenham. That would increase the Rs’ attacking potency, however, with question-marks over Cisse’s discipline, and with the stakes so high, Hughes may opt for the safer option of DJ Campbell, who combines a goal threat with a calm head. Cisse will almost certainly have an impact on QPR’s final league standing this season - against Stoke City at home next week, when Hughes may throw caution to the wind, there would be a stronger case for a return to 4-4-2. However, with his side in an encouraging run of form going into the clash at Stamford Bridge, to play Cisse would represent a gamble, and the Frenchman’s wait to have a conclusive say in the relegation battle may well go on.
It is not a 4231, its a 451 as all the players apart from Zamora defend. In a 4231 Taarabt was the central attacking midfielder in a free role who had no defensive duties at all. That is simply not the case in this formation as we dont have a central attacking midfielder. This image shows the difference. although Id drop the wingers down a bit on the right formation to match ours.
I really can't see MH playing Cisse in a 4-2-3-1 system. His work rate in the mid 3 would not be enough and i don't know if he is good enough at holding the ball up as the front lone man. I think MH will start with SWP or hopefully Traore on Sun. Cisse needs 30 odd minutes though, to get him ready for stoke. Also not sure if 4-2-3-1 is the right system at home for Stoke. They do not have the same quality in midfield as some of the big teams and we may not have to swamp the middle of the park. Can honestly see a 4-4-2 against Stoke with Cisse and Bobby playing.
Well their kit is a bit like our one in the pic. I see us going with a 451 unless we arent winning at HT to 30 mins to go and then we will change to a 442. We could start with a 442 though as more than 50% of stokes goals are from set pieces which means they arent likely to open us up all the time in a 442.
I know I'm in danger of getting into another formation discussion with you Flyer....but whilst you're right that Taarabt had a free role last year.....our formation of late has been 4-2-3-1 with Barton further forward than Derry and Diakite. It's always 4-5-1 but becomes any variation thereof depending on whether the team are in possession or not. With possession = 4-2-3-1. Without possession = 4-5-1.
Just wondering to Col and Oddball's brains disengage for a couple of seconds when they come to a sentence like this?!!
Nope!! I usually argue my corner and try to show WHY he lost form and that it was down to more than just a proposed move. If none of that works I just tell you to **** OFF Swords!! (All old news anyhow!!)
None of Derry, Barton or Diakite play off the front man. Formations are always named after the shape you go when you dont have the ball. Id say its more like a 451-433 depending on possession as only Taarabt and Mackie really get forward.
Flyer....take a look in the last couple of home programmes. They clearly show our formation from the two previous games as 4-2-3-1 with Barton ahead of Derry and Diakite or Barton ahead of Buzz and Diakite.
I agree with all you write about our formations Col! Possibly we were at our best going forward at least, when Buz played in the more forward role in the 3 with Barton and Diakite further back, when Derry was suspended agaijnst Swansea I think it was. But for Chelsea without Adel I think we are better off with Derry and Diakite in the 2, and Barton, Mackie and I hope Cisse in for Adel in the 3. Though I suspect MH will be too cautious for that, I'd love us to go for it with potentially our most likely scorer playing with BZ and not instead of him. This could give Chelsea's injury hit defense some problems if he is in form and can keep on the pitch!
Yet neither of them had the same role as Taarabt last season. We havent played 4231 once since Hughes arrived, its been 442 or 451 every game as no one has ever played off the front man. 4231 is the current in vogue formation. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=318298&cc=5739 http://soccernet.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=318111&cc=5739 http://soccernet.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=318111&cc=5739 http://soccernet.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=318259&cc=5739 http://soccernet.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=318081&cc=5739 Last 5 games, all 451, look at the formation and the heat map which indicates no one is playing off the front man. Contrast that with Warnock http://soccernet.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=318015&cc=5739 End of story, I wont discuss it further.
I'm afraid your're getting a little confused. Just because Warnock employed a free role position in his 4-2-3-1 doesn't mean that every 4-2-3-1 HAS to employ a player behind the lone striker in a free role! In fact, what you describe can also be 4-4-1-1 with a player in the hole behind the lone forward. Although this and all other such formations can be described as 4-5-1....it's just that this is a flexible formation which has 5 across the middle which changes into 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-1-1 and any other variation you care to describe. You seem hung up on the fact that our 4-2-3-1 doesn't have a central free role, but to a certain extent, Taarabt has a free role from the left when we have the ball, getting back to defend on the left asap when we lose the ball. Also, last year, the 3 behind the forward interchanged positions regularly. It wasn't just Adel in the centre behind the forward all the time! Look in our programmes to see our formation (v Spurs, pg 38 & pg 76....surely MH must have told them what to print?!!)
Divide anything Swords says by 3.147645321, Multiply Flyer's comments by 12.1% and add the square root of Col's ... you have the circumference of Cerny's left testicle.
