Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Difficult one this

 

I'm not one of those who ever said it was an outdated system that had seen its day - because played well in the right circumstances it can still be an effective system - especially in our football and at lower levels.

 

The problem arise when the opposition play a midfield central 3 (which many do these days) - because the extra player invariably starves the central 2 of possession.

 

Some teams have tried to be inventive with their 4 in midfield by using diamond formations and even a tight 3 with one wide player which shifts like a pendulum according to the demands of the game. This is something Megson did in a less expansive way by using JOC in a "wide" position.

 

If the central 2 can't get a foothold in the game the second option is to go longer - or wider - earlier in the move. The longer the ball travels the easier it is to defend as the opposition has more time to adopt positions.

 

Having a front 2 as focal points is really easy for most defences to cope with - it actually sets the framework of their game. The central defenders mark and the full backs get on the cover - or if one of the sgtrikers opts to play wide then it's one centre back marking, one full back marking and the other 2 offering support/cover as needed - or a midfield player drops deeper when necessary.

 

If you saw the Wolves game last night you'd have seen this with Blackburn alternating the amount of players - and the positions they adopted when going forward. When they had the 2 up top Wolves dealt with it comfortably - when they either ran from deep or on of the strikers dropped off then thats when it became a problem.

 

When Kazim-Richards dropped deep early in the move then the Wolves CB's didn't know whether to track him or hold position - it must be said that the Wolves midfield did a poor job of helping out with this - but if the defenders went with him then there was a huge space behind - if they held position the Kazim-Richards picked the ball up and ran at the defence - and this was the biggest problem Wolves defence faced all night.

 

So....going back to us - i can see why DJ is reluctant to play an orthodox 4-4-2 because of the aforementioned . I'm not sure we have the type of players (such as a Derry type) to get in amongst a central 3 and make life difficult for them. But we evidently have players who can run beyond the midfield into space.

 

So while it might be frustrating at times we have to look at what suits the players we have - and currently i wouldn't go with an orthodox 4 in this division tbh - its asking to be starved of the ball and put under pressure.

 

Maybe we just have to suck it in while we go through this transition and realise what we are trying to accomplish - even if it doesn't come off spectacularly well at home yet

 

I can see why DJ would play a 5 or even 6 in midfield

 

I really cannot see why he would play 4-4-2

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only one game, but when we played 442 at home to Charlton with the front two pressing everything in the final third it was one of the best home performances of the season IMO. Obviously though Charlton didn't have an extra man in midfield and the mix of McCabe and Prutton worked really well and we moved the ball about simply. Helan and Antonio on either wing was also good to see.

After we got the lead we then reverted to more of a 4 5 1 to hit them on the counter

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not overly fussed about formations as long as we are positive and attack teams at home. Launching it to sidibe is too predictable whether its a 442 or 451. We were so much more dynamic tonight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested to see how a game would pan out for us if we played the formation we played tonight but at home against a team that set themselves up for a typical away performance.

The ball would probably be in the middle of the pitch with neither side wanting to push up and get it lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult one this

 

I'm not one of those who ever said it was an outdated system that had seen its day - because played well in the right circumstances it can still be an effective system - especially in our football and at lower levels.

 

The problem arise when the opposition play a midfield central 3 (which many do these days) - because the extra player invariably starves the central 2 of possession.

 

Some teams have tried to be inventive with their 4 in midfield by using diamond formations and even a tight 3 with one wide player which shifts like a pendulum according to the demands of the game. This is something Megson did in a less expansive way by using JOC in a "wide" position.

 

If the central 2 can't get a foothold in the game the second option is to go longer - or wider - earlier in the move. The longer the ball travels the easier it is to defend as the opposition has more time to adopt positions.

 

Having a front 2 as focal points is really easy for most defences to cope with - it actually sets the framework of their game. The central defenders mark and the full backs get on the cover - or if one of the sgtrikers opts to play wide then it's one centre back marking, one full back marking and the other 2 offering support/cover as needed - or a midfield player drops deeper when necessary.

 

If you saw the Wolves game last night you'd have seen this with Blackburn alternating the amount of players - and the positions they adopted when going forward. When they had the 2 up top Wolves dealt with it comfortably - when they either ran from deep or on of the strikers dropped off then thats when it became a problem.

 

When Kazim-Richards dropped deep early in the move then the Wolves CB's didn't know whether to track him or hold position - it must be said that the Wolves midfield did a poor job of helping out with this - but if the defenders went with him then there was a huge space behind - if they held position the Kazim-Richards picked the ball up and ran at the defence - and this was the biggest problem Wolves defence faced all night.

 

So....going back to us - i can see why DJ is reluctant to play an orthodox 4-4-2 because of the aforementioned . I'm not sure we have the type of players (such as a Derry type) to get in amongst a central 3 and make life difficult for them. But we evidently have players who can run beyond the midfield into space.

 

So while it might be frustrating at times we have to look at what suits the players we have - and currently i wouldn't go with an orthodox 4 in this division tbh - its asking to be starved of the ball and put under pressure.

 

Maybe we just have to suck it in while we go through this transition and realise what we are trying to accomplish - even if it doesn't come off spectacularly well at home yet

 

I can see why DJ would play a 5 or even 6 in midfield

 

I really cannot see why he would play 4-4-2

 

What amuses me is that we scored 3 goals without playing a striker. Might be onto something with this strategy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post.

I've said it many times on here, but 4-4-2 it pretty outdated in the top 2 divisions and of course on the international scene.

Our problem is that we don't currently have enough of the right players (a winger, 1/2 central midfielders & a forward short i think) to play an effective 4-5-1 that can dominate possession.

This inevitably leads us to go back to the centre back / keeper and then long to an isolated target man.

Unfortunately finding the remaining pieces of the jigsaw will either cost s substantial amount of money to solve quickly (which is some MM seemingly isn't prepared to fund) or time and patience from us fans over the next couple of seasons whilst DJ finds the right players from the lower leagues.

The way we played today though gives me hope that we are finally moving in the right direction whilst playing good football.

Roll on Wolves!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt today's formation was as much about containing the wide men of their 3-5-2 and exploiting space around and behind the three at the back as it was about controlling the game in the centre, which we didn't do a great deal. It was clear that we were using width within our own half, and then getting balls into channels or trying to get 4 forward to overwhelm their three, and make runs between them.

 

I imagine it was a formation developed in order to manage their width at first, before seeing the opportunities with our pace and movement, as you've outlined above, to make strides through their midfield and defence.

 

It was interesting quite how static Hull's 3-5-2 was, seemed very flat with only ever one midfielder moving forward - either Quinn or Aluko - and not really having a holding midfielder you might expect.

 

When we attacked, and moved into a sort of lopsided 3-3-3-1, we exploited a lot of space between their defence and midfield. Especially utilising our speed and quick movement, the front four were often overrunning and running between their 3 before they knew what was happening. I can see Hull's 3-5-2, especially on a better day for them, working brilliantly against a standard 4-4-2 formation, neutralising them very effectively, but placing so many players in unorthodox positions clearly unsettled them from the off.

 

And the switch to essentially a 6-2-1-1 when they had the ball was actually quite inspired. I'm not sure Helan had his best game for us going forward, but Lee and him tracked fantastically, and the two central players then consistently forced Hull's play wide, into areas where we had further overloaded players. The number of balls we won in full back positions was astonishing.

 

I've heard consistent complaints, especially this season, that it's not clear under Jones what our 'strategy' for the game is, whether we're playing it wide and getting balls in, should be playing banks and trying to pass it through, working the channels, or hitting it to a target man for knock downs. What we saw today is what I think we've occasionally seen when we've been at our best, which is genuine thoughtfulness in tactics, and implemented by the team in an intelligent way, exploiting opponent's weaknesses and our strengths with unorthodox formations and quick movement to create openings.

 

Jones is by no means a tactical innovator ala Biesla, but I have felt for a long while that our fans desire to try and force our team into long-established tactical set ups and the reduction of tactics to "pace" or "desire" has been misguided, and it's been clear for a while that Jones is looking for something more fluid, especially going forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tha_knows

Scram, what do you think of Hulls 3-5-2 formation?? Iv gotta be honest I think it works terrific if you have energetic wingbacks, always thought we could prehaps try it with a back 3 of Buxton, Llera and Gardner with Lee and Helan operating as wingbacks. Think its Watford who employ this formation aswell int it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's set up reminded me of Donny under odriscoll. No particular stars but functional, playing as a team, keeping the ball and attacking as a team to have lots of options in attack. Just lack the billy sharp spear head

Edited by Bluesteel
Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with moving away 4-4-2 to something like a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1 at this level is identifying the players who could could operate as the wingers/inside forwards, as they tend to be more dynamic and require a bit more to their game than your traditional wide player. Antonio could probably just about pass at this level in playing one of those roles, but I don't think we have anyone else capable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I liked tonight was when we had the ball we always seemed to have an outlet available for the next ball. Whether Hull allowed us to do that or we were making it happen I'm not sure but it was good to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scram, what do you think of Hulls 3-5-2 formation?? Iv gotta be honest I think it works terrific if you have energetic wingbacks, always thought we could prehaps try it with a back 3 of Buxton, Llera and Gardner with Lee and Helan operating as wingbacks. Think its Watford who employ this formation aswell int it?

 

I think its a good system - but i think its less about the wing backs and more about interchangeability of players within the system.

 

Watford play it brilliantly - but they do it by changing constantly - and funnily enough it looks far less impressive at home that it does away - because it is more suited to teams attacking them.

 

Which is why we may need to just be a little more patient and understand what we are trying to do - its very often not a lack of effort or players not trying - but the demands of the game dictating their role

 

Its almost counter-intuitive to sit deeper with massed ranks in home games - waiting to draw the opposition out then exploit the gaps - and if the opponent sets up similarly then it could be the ultimate snoozefest.

 

But thats when tactical initiative comes into play and often that is best managed from on the pitch and not the sidelines

 

I'll always be an unashamed fan of having a real old fashioned leader on the pitch - even if they might not be in the peak of their career

 

Going back to todays game - Hulls counter attacking style might just have been out-counter-attacked!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Totenham playing 5/6 in midfield with Clive Allen being the only foreward player and he finished up with a shed loads of goals that season ...... I think Pleat was the manager at the time .

I like fluid formations , but they work better away from home , as Watford are showing

Floristerri is not even getting a game at the moment i see .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Totenham playing 5/6 in midfield with Clive Allen being the only foreward player and he finished up with a shed loads of goals that season ...... I think Pleat was the manager at the time .

I like fluid formations , but they work better away from home , as Watford are showing

Floristerri is not even getting a game at the moment i see .

 

Been injured

Link to post
Share on other sites

What amuses me is that we scored 3 goals without playing a striker. Might be onto something with this strategy

 

Confusing though isnt it? How many times have we swapped/changed formations and players and now we find one that is the most surprising! 

 

Be interesting to see what Jones does next lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...