Commented this in Taarabt "Yay or Nay" thread but being the attention seeking guy I am and knowing that I often skip over comments to post my own I thought I'd post a new thread. Personally I thought yesterdays game was perfect for Taarabt. We lacked imagination in the middle and just seemed like we were hitting the lines or hoping HH would flick it on to put someone through. Very repetitive and bar SWP no one is really rapid enough for it to work. For that reason why dont we play the 4-4-1-1 that Spurs do. Cerny Young Gabb Ferdinand Traore SWP Barton Faurlin Mackie Taarabt HH Play Taarabt in the VDV role, switch wings with Mackie and SWP meaning that Traore can bomb forward and Mackie can drop in and cover defensively. It also provides the cover that Taarabt needs and Barton's versatility can mean if we're getting stretched on comes Derry for Mackie and send Barton out wide. As Col said on the other thread it "can be very fluid too, changing from 4-4-1-1 to 4-4-2 to 4-2-3-1 as the game dictates. A rigid 4-4-2 is too easy to pass through." It's more attacking, HH can hold it up bringing in Taarabt, Mackie and SWP and we have the cover for Taarabt to perform some magic. Surely worth a go as Taarabt is too much of a talent to lose in my opinion and I just know it'd bite us on the arse if we sell him.
I rather think that its the standard of players rather than formation that wins or loses games. before you shoot me down lads lets weigh it up. A 4-4-2 plays a 4-4-2 ,surely the better players would win!.would a 4-4-1-1 do any better against the same team who played a 4-4-2??? A 4-2-3-1 would they do any better? in my opinion the players you have available dictate you formation and the standard of those said players dictate your results.
That's why it will be 4-2-3-1, we've had more success away with that formation and the players are comfortable with it...
Really like the this and think its worth a go. Tarbs was pure sh**e in his last few games. Me think that something must have happened behind the scenes that the media has not got hold of yet, otherwise he would have played some role in the last two games. You simply dont put a 6-10 million pound man on the bench unless there is a big problem. Would like to see him get one more chance to prove himself. He was magnificent last year for us and IMO he deserves at least one more chance provided he is willing to work as hard as SWP or Mackie. What i like about your thread above, is that if he played in the "hole" behind HH then he would/should not have to do as much chasing (which he won't do anyway) with 4 midfielders behind him.
You've got that wrong bob. England played 4-4-2 for years and got out-numbered in midfield nearly all the time. 4-4-2 leaves a team exposed to having the ball played easily through them. The standard of the players is, of course important, but to underestimate the importance of playing the right formation is a tad naive!!
Barcelona regularly play 3-4-3 and have done it with injuries playing 8 midfielders, if players know the system and are flexible and skilled enough to retain possession it doesn't matter what formation you play, if you don't get the ball it's irrelevant. Look at what they did to Arsenal in terms of possession in the two games last time they met...
Not naive at all Col. England for the past 20 odd years have done very little due to the standard of the players.... not the formation. i worked in Spain back in 2001 gaining experience with the valencia youth team who emphasised the need of technical ability and movement with the formation coming last!! This ran right through Spanish football as a whole. they didn't care what formation the opposition played as they were comfortable in and out of possession. here lies our problem when we come up against better players!. Its not the formation that made Buz give a cheap pass!!!
Col i like your posts and agree with many but to pin Englands lack of success on them playing 4-4-2 is what one would call naive!
One last thing i need to get of my chest about this formation bull sh*t........ if every premier league team had to play the same formation as a rule do you honestly think the league table would look much different Ffs !!!
Swords, you seem a diff person today, all nice to everyone, and even mentoring Bob. Is this the new you?
****in' 'ell....ok, ok I can't take much more punishment bob....one more hay-maker and I'll be out for the count mate!!
They also play with no centre forward and can score a hatful , they are a special bunch and can make any formation work. ~I see what your saying but impossible to compare any side to that team, best club side ive ever seen.
Bob....I actually think you and I are singing from the same song sheet mate. I simply don't like a rigid formation that keeps players in certain areas of the pitch. 4-4-2 sums that up for me. I like fluidity with players inter-changing positions which, I think, is what you're saying too?
