Our Formation

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
QPRNUTS

QPRNUTS

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2011
4,548
1,274
113
I know some on here will not agree with what I'm about to say but I really think (in general) that 4-2-3-1 is not serving us well.
I've been saying it for years that I think this is a very limited defensive formation which really allows the opposition to come onto you. I still think our players would be best suited to a 4-4-2 and I believe it's a far more positive formation to play.
For me, I think it's exciting to see both Lecister and Watford playing this system and doing very well.
I'm sick to death of us playing with no recognised forward. I'd play Mackie upfront with Austin. Mackie to harass the defenders by pressing, challenging and running the channels. Mackie can't play the wing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uber_Hoop and NorwayRanger
At the risk of sounding sarcastic I'm not convinced the system is the main problem.

You could pick from the following list:
  1. Club doesn't conduct it's self with any class
  2. Club plays favourites with their staff depending on wind direction
  3. Club treat the youth coaches like ****
  4. Given the constant changes in coaching staff what does get coached this week will be forgotten next week
  5. Half the players know they will never get a game
  6. The other half don't have to try very hard to keep their places.
  7. We have 1 half decent training pitch (after 5 years of Tonys building for the future)
  8. Players still waiting for the dream manager to arrive (every car that arrives at Harlington just builds the tension)
  9. We have 1 RB to pick from, who will always play ****, and x1 LB who is good & commited so instead we play a chap on loan from Leicester. (we have a premier league LB)
  10. **insert your own gripe here**
  11. Our main hope for a goal when Charlie is sat on the naughty step is Junior daydream Hoilett
  12. Philips can't score from 5 yards!
  13. Green invites people to aim their free kicks at areas of his goal he can't reach.
  14. Games last 90 minutes and usually start in the first half. Who'd have known?
  15. The fans seems a little unsupportive for some weird reason, beats me.
Formations seem like arranging chairs on the titanic atm, we are holed beneath the water line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlindFaith
It would be good to see a flexible approach to formations dependent upon the situation, e.g. 4-4-2 at home or 4-2-3-1 away. I am sure that the players are more than capable of adapting.

But when we have bizarre team sheets, such as against Huddersfield this week, the formation is almost irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol
Bush Rhino said:
At the risk of sounding sarcastic I'm not convinced the system is the main problem.

You could pick from the following list:
  1. Club doesn't conduct it's self with any class
  2. Club plays favourites with their staff depending on wind direction
  3. Club treat the youth coaches like ****
  4. Given the constant changes in coaching staff what does get coached this week will be forgotten next week
  5. Half the players know they will never get a game
  6. The other half don't have to try very hard to keep their places.
  7. We have 1 half decent training pitch (after 5 years of Tonys building for the future)
  8. Players still waiting for the dream manager to arrive (every car that arrives at Harlington just builds the tension)
  9. We have 1 RB to pick from, who will always play ****, and x1 LB who is good & commited so instead we play a chap on loan from Leicester. (we have a premier league LB)
  10. **insert your own gripe here**
  11. Our main hope for a goal when Charlie is sat on the naughty step is Junior daydream Hoilett
  12. Philips can't score from 5 yards!
  13. Green invites people to aim their free kicks at areas of his goal he can't reach.
  14. Games last 90 minutes and usually start in the first half. Who'd have known?
  15. The fans seems a little unsupportive for some weird reason, beats me.
Formations seem like arranging chairs on the titanic atm, we are holed beneath the water line.
Click to expand...
All super points mate. Impossible to disagree with any of it.

Still hate the 4-2-3-1 formation though. Negative formation.
Love seeing two forwards on the pitch.
 
I cannot remember us playing anything but hoofball or with no discernible plan at all when we have set up in 4 4 2.

We played excellent flowing football at times in a 4 2 3 1 when Colin was Managing us to Champions of the Championship and in the PL, and in short flashes under Ramsey. This system is more flexible and easier to adapt to 4 5 1 and 4 3 3 and seems by far the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol
Watford_R said:
4231 isn't negative and 442 isn't positive. They both depend on the players and tactics.
Click to expand...
Don't quite agree with that Watford.
While European clubs (especially Italian) were playing this formation for ages, Sir AF really brought it here to make Utd more combatative in the midfield against top European teams. It was and still is seen as a way of keeping it tight and then hitting the opposition quickly on the counter. It can lack width and doesn't encourage you to press high and try get the ball back in the oppositions half. 4-4-2 with pacey wide players and two upfront is still (potentially) far more attractive to watch and is far more positive in its approach. IMO.
 
The basic point is that, without the right players in each position, it doesn't matter what formation you play. However, with players who will work hard at the system and stick to the game plan, any formation can be effective, even if the players aren't the best.
I disagree that 4-2-3-1 is defensive. It is a flexible formation that can switch easily to 4-3-3 and 4-5-1. With the right players 4-2-3-1 can work really well, with two players covering the back four and the 4 players further forward able to interchange and attack with fluidity. When the ball is lost, all 6 can press to regain possession. I agree it isn't working well for us because it also needs attacking fullbacks and hard working wide players. Our fullbacks are poor and Phillips will never work back consistently.
This is also why 4-4-2 won't suit us, as this requires the two wide midfield players to work incredibly hard. It would be more successful with maybe Luongo and Hoilett/Yun as the wide men.
4-4-2 can also be seen as quite negative, as it can throw two banks of hard working fours across the pitch, stopping the opposition from playing. Again, we don't have the players who seem willing to work in these positions.

Having said all that, with everyone available, I wouldn't be averse to seeing this at home:
-------------------------------------Smithies-------------------------------
Furlong---------------Onuoha---------------Hall--------------------Yun
Luongo------------------Doughty----------Faurlin--------------Hoilett
-------------------------Polter/JET-------Austin--------------------------

My preferred team, with everyone fit would be:
-----------------------------------Smithies--------------------------------
Furlong--------------Onuoha--------------Hall---------------------Yun
-------------------------Doughty--------Faurlin--------------------------
Luongo---------------------------Chery--------------------------Hoilett
---------------------------------Austin--------------------------------------
 
rangercol said:
The basic point is that, without the right players in each position, it doesn't matter what formation you play. However, with players who will work hard at the system and stick to the game plan, any formation can be effective, even if the players aren't the best.
I disagree that 4-2-3-1 is defensive. It is a flexible formation that can switch easily to 4-3-3 and 4-5-1. With the right players 4-2-3-1 can work really well, with two players covering the back four and the 4 players further forward able to interchange and attack with fluidity. When the ball is lost, all 6 can press to regain possession. I agree it isn't working well for us because it also needs attacking fullbacks and hard working wide players. Our fullbacks are poor and Phillips will never work back consistently.
This is also why 4-4-2 won't suit us, as this requires the two wide midfield players to work incredibly hard. It would be more successful with maybe Luongo and Hoilett/Yun as the wide men.
4-4-2 can also be seen as quite negative, as it can throw two banks of hard working fours across the pitch, stopping the opposition from playing. Again, we don't have the players who seem willing to work in these positions.

Having said all that, with everyone available, I wouldn't be averse to seeing this at home:
-------------------------------------Smithies-------------------------------
Furlong---------------Onuoha---------------Hall--------------------Yun
Luongo------------------Doughty----------Faurlin--------------Hoilett
-------------------------Polter/JET-------Austin--------------------------

My preferred team, with everyone fit would be:
-----------------------------------Smithies--------------------------------
Furlong--------------Onuoha--------------Hall---------------------Yun
-------------------------Doughty--------Faurlin--------------------------
Luongo---------------------------Chery--------------------------Hoilett
---------------------------------Austin--------------------------------------
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, I think Charlie is more effective playing off someone who can hold the ball up and bring him into play as OBZ did so well. Not a great fan of Yun's defensive qualities, good going forward but scares the hell out of me when asked to defend.
 
QPRNUTS said:
All super points mate. Impossible to disagree with any of it.

Still hate the 4-2-3-1 formation though. Negative formation.
Love seeing two forwards on the pitch.
Click to expand...

I'm for 2 up front also, but that does mean player all of our strikers at the same time.

Knowing our luck they would run full on into each other at full speed and be out for the rest of the season....
 
  • Like
Reactions: QPRNUTS
At present, I feel we should be looking at consistency over anything else, switching around formation seems to be a little more than our boys can handle. We should be looking to establish partners not swapping around all the time.

I prefer 4-2-3-1 but it doesn't seem to be working well for us at present so perhaps a change but lets be honest we have weakness in either formation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlindFaith, Sooperhoop and rangercol
cor blymie said:
it is when the three midfield players are slow and defensive (Henry, Sandro and Tozer)
Click to expand...


That isn't the formation, it's the complete ineptitude of Bottlebank! Put Chery or Luongo in instead of Henry and play a centre forward and Bob's your Sister.
 
Our full back positions have been a weakness from when we were previously promoted and basically did for us in the PL, that's when Harry's famous 3-5-2 went tits-up in two games. The fact we are still without reliable good quality full backs 18 months on tells you all you need to know about the way we are run. It may not seem significant but it stifles any potent counter-attacking and renders whatever formation is played ineffective. We need pace down both flanks and, ideally, upfront...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back