S6ToBerlin Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 So it looks like we finally played the 4-4-2 a lot of us have been calling for, and it seemed to work excellently. For me that was our best performance so far this season, really dominated the midfield and the backline looked solid even with one man less. The question is, did we only play this formation because of our CB injuries, or did Monk think we didn't have the right players for it before? Or was it a tactical decision, chosen specifically to combat how this Birmingham team were set up? Will be interesting to see how we'll set up moving forward, whether we'll keep with the 4-4-2 or revert back to a back 3. What would you lot like to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreshOwl Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 That was 3-5-2 wasn’t it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldishowl Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 No idea what we played Back 2 with wingbacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalmJimmers Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 Have a lot of people been calling for 442? And did we even play it today? I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hunt Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 1 minute ago, FreshOwl said: That was 3-5-2 wasn’t it? Not another one who thought Luongo was a centre back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sunburn Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 Wouldn’t mind it if GM used a form that plays best against whatever the attacking side looks like. He has the personnel now to be bold about who he puts on the pitch and in which formation. UTO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emerson Thome Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, S6ToBerlin said: Or was it a tactical decision, chosen specifically to combat how this Birmingham team were set up? Will be interesting to see how we'll set up moving forward, whether we'll keep with the 4-4-2 or revert back to a back 3. What would you lot like to see? I think it was tactical. Before the pandemic he switched formations quite regularly, i.e. from 4-5-1 to 4-4-2 away at Boro, and even trying 3-5-2 at Luton. When the season restarted in the summer there were so many games packed into a short space of time, so just stuck with the 3-5-2 for simplicity. But with players like Kachunga, Windass, Reach, Harris, Paterson etc. that can play multiple positions, I think we'll see us change formations more often now, based on the gameplan on the day. I'd like to see us change tactics more in the actual match though. We rarely seem to do this, and I've never seen us try a 3-4-3 in the games where we are chasing a goal. Today we switched to a 4-5-1 right at the end, in injury time. But I don't remember Monk changing tactics to good effect in the middle of a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarnsleyOwl96 Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 Unsure , be different when we get half a dozen back who are out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S6ToBerlin Posted October 17, 2020 Author Share Posted October 17, 2020 12 minutes ago, FreshOwl said: That was 3-5-2 wasn’t it? Nope, back 4 of Odubajo, Flint, JVA and Harris. Luongo did sometimes drop back into the backline but only when we were in posession, with Harris and Odubajo moving up the pitch. Defensively we were lining up as a back 4. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 Of all the formations you could describe that as, 4-4-2 is the least accurate. 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hunt Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 1 minute ago, StudentOwl said: Of all the formations you could describe that as, 4-4-2 is the least accurate. Go on then explain To us ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 1 minute ago, hugeowl said: Go on then explain To us ? Not claiming I can... other than a back 4 I'm not sure what that really had in common with a 4-4-2 though... can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emerson Thome Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 1 minute ago, StudentOwl said: Not claiming I can... other than a back 4 I'm not sure what that really had in common with a 4-4-2 though... can you? Other than the back four... and Paterson and Windass as the two up top. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 it was a back 4 with luongo dropping back to make the third in the First half 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S6ToBerlin Posted October 17, 2020 Author Share Posted October 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, StudentOwl said: Not claiming I can... other than a back 4 I'm not sure what that really had in common with a 4-4-2 though... can you? Dawson Odubajo Flint JVA Harris Kachunga Luongo Bannan Reach Paterson Windass Looks like 4-4-2 to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S6ToBerlin Posted October 17, 2020 Author Share Posted October 17, 2020 Google seems to agree, even if they did get Kachunga and Reach switched Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, S6ToBerlin said: Dawson Odubajo Flint JVA Harris Kachunga Luongo Bannan Reach Paterson Windass Looks like 4-4-2 to me. Well sure it looks like a 4-4-2 if you put it like that, but neither Reach nor Kachunga played there did they? 1 minute ago, S6ToBerlin said: Google seems to agree, even if they did get Kachunga and Reach switched Sure, if you put it like that it's 4-4-2, but neither Reach nor Kachunga were positioned there were they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 Dawson Flint van Aken Luongo Odubajo Harris Reach Bannan Kachunga Paterson Windass Doesn't look like 4-4-2 to me 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S6ToBerlin Posted October 17, 2020 Author Share Posted October 17, 2020 Just now, StudentOwl said: Well sure it looks like a 4-4-2 if you put it like that, but neither Reach nor Kachunga played there did they? Sure, if you put it like that it's 4-4-2, but neither Reach nor Kachunga were positioned there were they? I mean, both of them ended up drifting in a lot and popping up in the center of the pitch but that was to give space for the overlapping fullbacks. Reach quite regularly made runs into the middle to drag a defender in and give Harris or Windass space on the left. Still 4-4-2, even if it's not the typical wingers bombing it to the byline and getting in crosses kind of 4-4-2 that used to be popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Flashman Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 Formation depended where the ball was. Anyway... Great result and more importantly a good performance, 1 1 Just a bloke. Being dragged along in a world that moves too quick for it's own good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now