4-3-3: Default formation?

[Mr Pink]

Didn't worked too well in the second half against Arsenal though, did it? :wink:.

How many time does this need to be answered, honestly!

Momentum, fitness issues...and being totally fecking rattled had a lot to do with it.

Sandro and VDV were not match fit.

 

[Dan Ashcroft]

Should be our default when Lennon's out, but it's a bit negative for the majority of our games. Our default should be:


---Parker----Modric

Lennon---vdV----Bale

---------Ade



Then without Lennon:


Parker--Sandro--Modric

---vdV--------Bale

---------Ade

 

[werty]

Ah, so everyone's favourite formation wasn't the reason then. Gotcha.

 

[Mr Pink]

Ah, so everyone's favourite formation wasn't the reason then. Gotcha.

:roll:

I think going and setting up 4-4-2 was what did the damage, as do most.

But maybe try looking at it when we have started games 4-3-3, or a variation of, if you what to look at it objectively.

Scraping the barrel with the second half against Arsenal example, constantly.

 

[werty]

:roll:

I think going and setting up 4-4-2 was what did the damage, as do most.

But maybe try looking at it when we have started games 4-3-3, or a variation of, if you what to look at it objectively.

442 was obviously a mistake, but we were still level and we at least offering some sort of threat going forward. As soon as we went with whatever that was we went with in the second half we offered absolutely nothing going forward and were somehow more open defensively. We were in worse positions, both psychologically and scoreline, last season when we were 2 goals down home and away but didn't fold like we did this season. The reasons you listed above played a part, but I think the formation was the major reason.

 

[Mr Pink]

442 was obviously a mistake, but we were still level and we at least offering some sort of threat going forward. As soon as we went with whatever that was we went with in the second half we offered absolutely nothing going forward and were somehow more open defensively. We were in worse positions, both psychologically and scoreline, last season when we were 2 goals down home and away but didn't fold like we did this season. The reasons you listed above played a part, but I think the formation was the major reason.

We scored two fortunate goals and Arsenal already had several chances. 2-2 at half time flattered the hell out of us.

It was nothing to do with the formation second half either, particularly when you consider players actually need to stick with their roles to carry out a a certain tactic. Sandro was playing up front practically.

The point is had we started the game with the same side that started Chelsea away and applied ourselves in similar fashion there is no way we would of been battered like that. That is without doubt IMO.

 

[Dan Ashcroft]

Why do some constantly associate it with being more negative, it isn't...particularly against the better sides.

The question people should be asking themselves is have you ever seen us create considerably more clear cut chances than Chelsea in their back yard? (rhetorical)

I think at home, against some sides playing Bale and Lennon on either side is fine...playing more open when we have the players to outscore the opposition and dominate the ball anyway is no problem ie Wigan at home etc.

Certainly away from home and against the better sides in the division, and depending on what they're doing tactically to an extent, we should be looking to line up like we did at Chelsea - IMO.

It's negative because none of Parker, Sandro or Modric get forward, which leaves the front 3 isolated.

It can be effective against weaker teams if Bale and vdV are given real freedom though - like Norwich just after xmas.

 

[Kendall]

I disagree with the notion that there are not many goals in that lineup.

We have 3 forwards in Ade, Bale and VDV, who are all capable of scoring and creating for each other. We have a solid midfield base that allows Modric to do what he does best and pull strings through the middle, to wander with freedom and we have two fullbacks that give us a bit more width and support attacks.

I think the longer we stick to this formation, the more success we'll have with it.

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

It's negative because none of Parker, Sandro or Modric get forward, which leaves the front 3 isolated.

It can be effective against weaker teams if Bale and vdV are given real freedom though - like Norwich just after xmas.

Norwich allowed us space which is why we looked so effective. Of course players like Bale and VDV are going to look great and cause problems if they have space to work in. The problem is that most of the time we are coming up against teams that are doing a good job of denying us time and space for our attacking players. We've been taking a lot of shots and not scoring but I am trying to remember the last time VDV got a really good look at goal on his left foot within his shooting range.

We really aren't doing enough of a job to create space for our best attacking players and when that is the case giving them freedom is almost counter-productive as we lose shape. There are very few players that I think can cause regular problems to teams solely through the stroke of genius route.

I disagree with the notion that there are not many goals in that lineup.

We have 3 forwards in Ade, Bale and VDV, who are all capable of scoring and creating for each other. We have a solid midfield base that allows Modric to do what he does best and pull strings through the middle, to wander with freedom and we have two fullbacks that give us a bit more width and support attacks.

I think the longer we stick to this formation, the more success we'll have with it.

I tend to agree but again having a solid base is great if we then figure out how to use it to our advantage. It means we can win the ball earlier and higher up the pitch and take advantage of our fullbacks. But we have to develop ways of using that to get our best attacking players in space or up against the oppositions weakest defender. If we can't do that then the formation that we play is pretty much irrelevant as we'll end up taking pot-shots or forcing corners which clearly isn't getting it done.

 

[WhiteHart4Ever]

though 4411, 4231 are good to ;-)

Yeah, for me it's 4231 and 433 that cuts it really, the difference between the two being the extra solidity in CM, and of course the lack of attacking cutting edge with Modric the most attacking of the midfield three.

I still think 4231 is the way to go, and that we've reverted to 433 because we had to with Parker going somewhat off the boil and Lennon being out. Though I can see the reasons for going for that away from home against the top teams. Does ultimately bring back the question everyone had before the season, though:is Parker/Modric a solid enough CM partnership? Last few weeks might suggest a bit more stealth is required, I'm hoping it's just a blip in form.

 

[DJS]

I think we simply miss Lennon and the balance / creativity he gives us on the right-hand side.

We can play 4-4-2, 4-4-1 or 4-2-3-1 but for me there's just more balance with Lennon on the right.

Was a bit concerned with Harry's statement that he didn't feel ready. Although I could just be being a bit of a taskmaster! :lol:

If we can, we definitely need to be pushing for Hazard in the summer to give us more options on the right-hand side (he can also play more centrally if we want both him and Lennon in the team).

 

[werty]

We scored two fortunate goals and Arsenal already had several chances. 2-2 at half time flattered the hell out of us.

It was nothing to do with the formation second half either, particularly when you consider players actually need to stick with their roles to carry out a a certain tactic. Sandro was playing up front practically.

The point is had we started the game with the same side that started Chelsea away and applied ourselves in similar fashion there is no way we would of been battered like that. That is without doubt IMO.

The first was fortunate because of the deflection, but at least we got into a good position to score from in the first place. We barely got to within 25 yards of Arsenal's goal in the second half, mainly due to the formation. 2-2 flattered us at half time and I don't think anyone will disagree with you on that, but 5-2 flattered us even more at full-time.

I could easily argue if Bale had done X, Y or Z, or if one of the front men had done a better job of dropping deeper like they were supposed to, or if Modric bothered to turn up in the first half, or if Adebayor didn't have the touch of rapist that day, or if BAE hoofed the ball out of play instead of hitting it straight to RVP at the edge of the box, etc that 442 would have worked. It didn't and neither did the formation in the second half. And it's no good saying if we applied ourselves the way we did against Chelsea we wouldn't have lost. If we had applied ourselves the same way we had against Newcaslte the week before then we wouldn't have been battered either.

We had an equally lackluster display at Liverpool when we played that formation, albeit with slightly different players (Sandro/Livermore, VDV/Kranjcar). That was another game where we created next to nothing except for Bale's chance late on, rarely got near Liverpool's penalty area to score and were lucky to get away with a point. And Liverpool aren't very good.

 

[talkshowhost86]

I definitely think having Sandro and Parker playing is a must. It just allows our attacking players to concentrate on attacking, and I think the more we play that system the better the players will understand it. I don't think that the shape was quite right in the first half against Chelsea. Modric was not really in the game and that led to our lack of creativity.

In the second half he seemed to be a bit more central and I thought the system worked excellently. Parker and Sandro broke up most of the Chelsea play and our forward four looked very dangerous with the full backs offering width.

I don't expect Harry to use this formation against Bolton or Swansea, but personally I think he should.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

I think we simply miss Lennon and the balance / creativity he gives us on the right-hand side.

We can play 4-4-2, 4-4-1 or 4-2-3-1 but for me there's just more balance with Lennon on the right.

Was a bit concerned with Harry's statement that he didn't feel ready. Although I could just be being a bit of a taskmaster! :lol:

If we can, we definitely need to be pushing for Hazard in the summer to give us more options on the right-hand side (he can also play more centrally if we want both him and Lennon in the team).

I think this is only a concern if we want to play with width. Although I would like to think our football is bit more intricate than just getting it to a winger for them to beat the full back and cross it into the area.

 

[WhiteHart4Ever]

I think this is only a concern if we want to play with width. Although I would like to think our football is bit more intricate than just getting it to a winger for them to beat the full back and cross it into the area.

Sorry, mate, but: 1) Most goals in football (I think it's actually the majority of goals) are scored from crosses; and, even more crucial 2) You don't just have width for wingers to beat full backs, you have width to stretch the opponent's team and create the space necessary to whatever fancy trickery you've got in mind for us through the middle. Also, because width is so essential to football and crosses are so efficient teams will like to double up on the wingers, further increasing the impact of 2).

We always look a bit clueless without width and it's simply because it's extremely difficult to play narrow football and very few decent sides have ever done it (and if you want to come up with examples like Barca go see one of their games and think about 2)).

 

[talkshowhost86]

Sorry, mate, but: 1) Most goals in football (I think it's actually the majority of goals) are scored from crosses; and, even more crucial 2) You don't just have width for wingers to beat full backs, you have width to stretch the opponent's team and create the space necessary to whatever fancy trickery you've got in mind for us through the middle. Also, because width is so essential to football and crosses are so efficient teams will like to double up on the wingers, further increasing the impact of 2).

We always look a bit clueless without width and it's simply because it's extremely difficult to play narrow football and very few decent sides have ever done it (and if you want to come up with examples like Barca go see one of their games and think about 2)).

I don't think we looked clueless yesterday. Yes in the first half we didn't create much but that was as much about low confidence as anything else. Once they got going we created quite a few chances (more than most create at Stamford Bridge) and should really have won the game.

 

[WhiteHart4Ever]

I don't think we looked clueless yesterday. Yes in the first half we didn't create much but that was as much about low confidence as anything else. Once they got going we created quite a few chances (more than most create at Stamford Bridge) and should really have won the game.

Yeah but to be honest we didn't really play without width, did we, even though I think we would've played better with a proper winger on the right as well (not that we had one, but you know).

My comment might have been a bit misplaced as I now see poster was defending 4-3-3, I was quite simply having a go at the comment regarding width in the team.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Yeah but to be honest we didn't really play without width, did we, even though I think we would've played better with a proper winger on the right as well (not that we had one, but you know).

My comment might have been a bit misplaced as I now see poster was defending 4-3-3, I was quite simply having a go at the comment regarding width in the team.

I think with Benni and Walker we have plenty of width even without playing 2 out and out wingers. Bale got into wide positions enough and as you said we weren't lacking width even though it was a 4-3-3.

Width is all well and good but we are much more open when we play two out and out wingers. I think that's fine at home but is very risky away from home.

 

[Mr Pink]

The first was fortunate because of the deflection, but at least we got into a good position to score from in the first place. We barely got to within 25 yards of Arsenal's goal in the second half, mainly due to the formation. 2-2 flattered us at half time and I don't think anyone will disagree with you on that, but 5-2 flattered us even more at full-time.

I could easily argue if Bale had done X, Y or Z, or if one of the front men had done a better job of dropping deeper like they were supposed to, or if Modric bothered to turn up in the first half, or if Adebayor didn't have the touch of rapist that day, or if BAE hoofed the ball out of play instead of hitting it straight to RVP at the edge of the box, etc that 442 would have worked. It didn't and neither did the formation in the second half. And it's no good saying if we applied ourselves the way we did against Chelsea we wouldn't have lost. If we had applied ourselves the same way we had against Newcaslte the week before then we wouldn't have been battered either.

We had an equally lackluster display at Liverpool when we played that formation, albeit with slightly different players (Sandro/Livermore, VDV/Kranjcar). That was another game where we created next to nothing except for Bale's chance late on, rarely got near Liverpool's penalty area to score and were lucky to get away with a point. And Liverpool aren't very good.

Newcastle got battered at WHL because they went 4-4-2, and were as open looking as any away team below us in the table has looked coming to play us, they also had their best midfield out. Even Pardew conceded he got his tactics horribly wrong, albeit with hindsight its always easier to be wiser after the event. We worked hard though and with better players, going 4-4-2 was obviously the correct move in this case.

I think you're on to a loser trying to argue that 4-4-2 was ever going to work
against Arsenal this time round. You can argue all day long about Adebayor having a bad touch, Bale and Ekotto could have done this and that etc...we could of been 4-2 down at halftime anyway if you want to go down that road.

That's like me saying had Saha's shot not taken a fluky deflection etc...its all semantics.

The Liverpool performance wasn't great but at we least we took a point. I'm not saying every time we set up like this we should win, its a game of football with many variables at stake. What I'm saying is that we should be giving ourselves the best possible chance of winning by using our players the most effective way we can with consideration to any particular fixture. We have the personnel to play this way and its been far more positive for us than negative when we've applied ourselves properly.

 

[mpickard2087]

I do have a concern that in some games we will have too many players in a congested middle third and not in areas higher up the pitch, and I'm not sure that Sandro and Parker are needed in the majority of home games, one of them plus Modric and VDV is plenty enough to retain possession and control the middle of the park IMO.

Personally I think flexibility is the key, an ability to slightly change shape from 4-3-3/4-2-3-1/4-4-1-1 and even to a 4-4-2 depending on the oppostion rather than one set formation.