Players we have are more suited to 442 formation

[Four four two]

It seems to me that whatever happens in a game we seem to be fixated by this 433 system. However, surely the formation we have should be governed by the players we have at our disposal. For example , take the Crawley game. Embleton himself even admitted after the game that Angol's best position was not on the right. Therefore, you have to beg the question, why did he put him there in the first place. (he actually did this with Johnson when he first arrived in order to keep this favoured 433 formation. )

It seems to me that both Angol and Soitrou would fare so much better in the middle with a striking partner than stuck on the wing. Johnson would also benefit as he wouldn't be so isolated. When i look at successful teams, i think Bonne and Koroma, Lisbie and Mooney, Kitchen and Mayo. Would Mooney have scored any goals at all without Lisbie alongside him and Cox and Moses supplying ?

Ok. The argument is that we would be overun in midfield. But why because teams would we worried about our front four . Why cant we have Brophy on the left, Johnson and Soitrou in the middle with JMD/Wilkinson on the right and give this a right go with players playing in their right positions. Otherwise, its just a succession of narrow wins and narrow defeats and going nowhere. Ok, even, if Embleton doesn't start with this, at least give it a go when we are trailing rather than hauling Widdowson off, pushing Brophy back when you need a goal and adopting this diamond formation he talks about that has NEVER ever worked once with us. For me, decisions are baffling and we need to make better use of our strikers with everyone played in their correct positions.

[TourDeO]

I agree.....unfortunately this is blatantly obvious to everybody I speak to apart from the person picking the team. Johnson and Sotiriou would work as a central front two as long we play the ball to feet rather than hoofing it up to them.

[RedDwarf 1881]

All our players are suited to the 4-4-2 formation. God knows why we’re not playing it

[tuffers#1]

Embleton himself even admitted after the game that Angol's best position was not on the right. Therefore, you have to beg the question, why did he put him there in the first place. (he actually did this with Johnson when he first arrived

You want Angol in the middle instead of DJ ?





Thats Funny

[Tent Keague]

I agree with what the opening post is saying but if you put a poll up on here who should be our midfield two in a 442 you wouldn't get two people agreeing.

Cisse and Clay. No creativity.

Clay and Wright. No muscle.

Wright and Cisse. No energy.

Any midfield two with Dayton, Dennis, JMD, or Jobi wouldn't work because they are wide players.

Kyprianou and Clay? Maybe. But that's a lot of weight on two players and we wouldn't have any backup anyway.

I like a 442. It's simple and comes down to who has the better players and organisation. Unfortunately I don't think we have any midfielders that can do any damage (attacking or defensively) in this division.

[RedDwarf 1881]

Well in that case we should bring one in during the January transfer window

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

DJ isolated on his own doesn't work (despite all his goals), and sticking strikers out wide as quasi wingers definitely doesn't work. The reason we're not playing 4-4-2 is as above, Embleton is scared to play 2 in midfield because of the players we have. (Although I do think 2 from Hector, Cisse and Jobi would work).

I liked the unsuccessful 3-4-3 line up he went with a few weeks back, but that's been consigned to the dustbin. The front 3 were playing a lot narrower and getting involved with each other, the width was coming from natural wingers/wingbacks. If he won't reinstate that, I'd go 4-3-3 but with two properly attacking full backs, 2 holding(ish) centre mids, and the front 3 all narrow.

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

I don't see how they are massively more suited to 442 (for example Embleton didn't need to play Angol in the wide role - he chose to play him there rather than other players like Dennis or even Sotiriou). But I do think 442 could be more effective. It's not like it's an outrageous decision to play the current formation though especially as we've had some success with it recently. The defence has let us down badly in the past two games so you can see why they're looking for a centre back.

[Orient_Man_And_Boy]

If we play 4-4-2 does ‘Four Four Two’ receive royalties?

Seriously, this is at last a simple to understand (for me) explanation as to the path we should follow. I am a strong believer that teams need to keep their discipline and their shape ... but have the skills and tactics to cover, support and fill the gaps when a player gets a rush of blood to the head and goes for glory (which I also fully support).

Really gonna miss the ol’ Boxing Day match

[gshaw]

We don't seem to have the right blend of players for either formation really.

In 4-3-3 we have to put strikers out wide and can't make full use of some of our assets e.g. Sotiriou. We're also heavily reliant on Cisse playing well as there's no natural replacement for him (some might say Kyprianou but he's not the finished article right now)

In 4-4-2 we're still lacking a high-energy, physical player in CM that could dictate the play. Think back to previous effective partnerships, Cisse is almost more of a Spring type player than a Dawson. Out wide Brophy has the left side nailed down but do we really have a first-choice, 90-minute player on the right?

In either case we need to swap some square pegs out in January to get the depth and quality to play either system effectively and have options off the bench to changes things up outside of the first XI.

[FargO]

I think (but who cares what I think) that the head coach won't switch to 4-4-2 because he wants to justify the other system that he has been imposing on the team - by sticking to it until it works.

[BiggsyMalone]

We play 433 to provide protection to the defence.

Other than Dayton (who keeps getting played in central midfield), we don’t have anyone who can play as a right winger who can be trusted to help out defensively. Also, a lot of teams play 3 in midfield, so we’ll be overrun.

Playing one up top means there’s 1 space for 4 players to play their best position. As I’ve said many times, the squad has good players but it isn’t put together very well. Every formation has glaring weaknesses.

[Thor]

Our team is suited to a 4-2-3-1 formation or a 4-3-2-1

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

We play 433 to provide protection to the defence.

Other than Dayton (who keeps getting played in central midfield), we don’t have anyone who can play as a right winger who can be trusted to help out defensively. Also, a lot of teams play 3 in midfield, so we’ll be overrun.

Playing one up top means there’s 1 space for 4 players to play their best position. As I’ve said many times, the squad has good players but it isn’t put together very well. Every formation has glaring weaknesses.

Yep, I'd agree with that. This is why we have such an opportunity to improve in the next 6 months with so many players out of contract next summer.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

We play 433 to provide protection to the defence.

Other than Dayton (who keeps getting played in central midfield), we don’t have anyone who can play as a right winger who can be trusted to help out defensively. Also, a lot of teams play 3 in midfield, so we’ll be overrun.

Playing one up top means there’s 1 space for 4 players to play their best position. As I’ve said many times, the squad has good players but it isn’t put together very well. Every formation has glaring weaknesses.

If you play 4-3-3 properly, you don’t need the right winger to help out the full back.

Obviously the standard is a little bit different but look at Liverpool. Their front 3 all remain central and link up with each other.

[Adz]

Our team is suited to a 4-2-3-1 formation or a 4-3-2-1

Yup, said this ages ago, we have a great 4-2-3-1 team