Dyeyzzon Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Just to quote one of my posts about this that got buried in the match thread. 4-4-2 would work well if we stuck to a hoof ball game plan with Shola or possibly Carroll up top alongside Ba or Cisse. See the ManU game last season when we bossed them by using a gritty central midfield duo and targeting their aerial weaknesses without Vidic. It seems to me that we are trying to play with this shape while also attempting to apply a passing game in the midfield, which will just not work out with just two CMs and attack-restricted wide midfielders imo. 4-3-3 would allow the CMs more options and better play for a passing game, and it will ensure that Ba and Cisse would not get in each others way when they get the chances. Ben Arfa as "right winger" rather than "right midfielder" would do well for his creativity too, imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATB Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Mole_Toonfan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I don't give a flying fuck about formations. I care about movement and running into space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 We didn't even play a classic 4-4-2 today, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good old moaning session.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I don't give a flying f*** about formations. I care about movement and running into space. Which 4-4-2 doesn't allow because of how simplistic it is and all about rigid movements and lack of midfield options and doesn't allow the movement you describe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I don't give a flying f*** about formations. I care about movement and running into space. Which 4-4-2 doesn't allow because of how simplistic it is and all about rigid movements and lack of midfield options and doesn't allow the movement you describe. Ben Arfa had the freedom to roam all over the pitch today. Also, Jonas was way more central than your average left midfield player in a 4-4-2. And then there was Ba, who dropped so deep to be involved in the build up play he sometimes popped up deeper than our midfield. This might not suit your simplistic 4-4-2 vs 4-3-3 argument, but it's true nevertheless. We lost today because we gave away a stupid penalty at a time when we were fairly confortable defending deep and trying to hit them on the break. Then they scored a wonder goal on the brink of half time and it was game over. Do you really think another system would have prevented these incidents to happen? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I don't give a flying f*** about formations. I care about movement and running into space. Which 4-4-2 doesn't allow because of how simplistic it is and all about rigid movements and lack of midfield options and doesn't allow the movement you describe. Fucking hell. :lol: Someone tell Sir Alex all his titles could have been won more easily. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEEJ Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I don't give a flying f*** about formations. I care about movement and running into space. Which 4-4-2 doesn't allow because of how simplistic it is and all about rigid movements and lack of midfield options and doesn't allow the movement you describe. What an incredibly silly thing to say. Playing 4-4-2 means you can't interchange positions or fill in for someone as they go forward? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I don't give a flying f*** about formations. I care about movement and running into space. Which 4-4-2 doesn't allow because of how simplistic it is and all about rigid movements and lack of midfield options and doesn't allow the movement you describe. Ben Arfa had the freedom to roam all over the pitch today. Also, Jonas was way more central than your average left midfield player in a 4-4-2. And then there was Ba, who dropped so deep to be involved in the build up play he sometimes popped up deeper than our midfield. This might not suit your simplistic 4-4-2 vs 4-3-3 argument, but it's true nevertheless. We lost today because we gave away a stupid penalty at a time when we were fairly confortable defending deep and trying to hit them on the break. Then they scored a wonder goal on the brink of half time and it was game over. Do you really think another system would have prevented these incidents to happen? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest andrew Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 daft to say that really mole. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 In all honesty the main problem today is that Cisse and Ba looked asleep. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Kneejerk-tastic Yep because this is the first time we have been poor with 4-4-2 I don't mind a 2 striker system but flat 4-4-2 is just horrible, we will never reach the level 4-3-3 can take us with a flat 4-4-2. I'm not too bothered about losing i'm more bothered about the implications of 4-4-2 long term if you can't see the issues then your blind i'm sorry. Do i really have to explain every single reason why 4-3-3 is so much better in every way imaginable? But we never ever play poor playing 4-3-3. There was no way that Pardew as going to play that today leaving Santon and Simpson up against Hazard & Mata alone. Fulham & Wigan away we played 4-3-3 didn't we? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire Mag Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Kneejerk-tastic Yep because this is the first time we have been poor with 4-4-2 I don't mind a 2 striker system but flat 4-4-2 is just horrible, we will never reach the level 4-3-3 can take us with a flat 4-4-2. I'm not too bothered about losing i'm more bothered about the implications of 4-4-2 long term if you can't see the issues then your blind i'm sorry. Do i really have to explain every single reason why 4-3-3 is so much better in every way imaginable? But we never ever play poor playing 4-3-3. There was no way that Pardew as going to play that today leaving Santon and Simpson up against Hazard & Mata alone. Fulham & Wigan away we played 4-3-3 didn't we? Ssssshhhhhhhhhhh! 4-3-3 is THE ultimate formation for us. Nothing else will do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Pards said pre season neither 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 matter to much, you control the midfield you control the game. Probably true 2nd half, but no use controlling the midfield if you cant find your strikers. Final pass/delivery was poor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I don't give a flying f*** about formations. I care about movement and running into space. Which 4-4-2 doesn't allow because of how simplistic it is and all about rigid movements and lack of midfield options and doesn't allow the movement you describe. f***ing hell. :lol: Someone tell Sir Alex all his titles could have been won more easily. Our 4-4-2 and Ferguson's is very different..... Ferguson has always had flying wingers that puts crosses in, 1 striker up top and 1 striker coming back to link the midfield. I was talking about our 4-4-2..... the strikers don't link play, we don't have flying wingers of the Valencia and Nani mould or Beckham and Giggs etc etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Finally a tactics thread! http://i46.tinypic.com/2rgc0hf.gif Hopefully it all says in here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmonkey Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 People have been saying all summer long that we need to play 4-3-3. It's pretty obvious why, and has nothing to do with the defeat to Chelsea. FWIW I think we'd still have lost to them no matter the formation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 People have been saying all summer long that we need to play 4-3-3. It's pretty obvious why, and has nothing to do with the defeat to Chelsea. FWIW I think we'd still have lost to them no matter the formation. This. I'm not bothered about today at all i'm bothered about the long term implications that using 4-4-2 has. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I don't give a flying f*** about formations. I care about movement and running into space. Which 4-4-2 doesn't allow because of how simplistic it is and all about rigid movements and lack of midfield options and doesn't allow the movement you describe. f***ing hell. :lol: Someone tell Sir Alex all his titles could have been won more easily. Our 4-4-2 and Ferguson's is very different..... Ferguson has always had flying wingers that puts crosses in, 1 striker up top and 1 striker coming back to link the midfield. I was talking about our 4-4-2..... the strikers don't link play, we don't have flying wingers of the Valencia and Nani mould or Beckham and Giggs etc etc. Beckham a flying winger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire Mag Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 People have been saying all summer long that we need to play 4-3-3. It's pretty obvious why, and has nothing to do with the defeat to Chelsea. FWIW I think we'd still have lost to them no matter the formation. This. I'm not bothered about today at all i'm bothered about the long term implications that using 4-4-2 has. You have to accept that sometimes, like today, we will have to play 4-4-2 or we will get raped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 4-4-2 as we played it first half was too rigid. Second half we still played 4-4-2 but had much more movement (mainly Barfa), Thats how you play it well with roaming and movement. We play it far too rigid, therefore restricting Cabaye and Ben Arfa. More of the second half way would be good if we are still going to play it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagten Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 People have been saying all summer long that we need to play 4-3-3. It's pretty obvious why, and has nothing to do with the defeat to Chelsea. FWIW I think we'd still have lost to them no matter the formation. This. I'm not bothered about today at all i'm bothered about the long term implications that using 4-4-2 has. You have to accept that sometimes, like today, we will have to play 4-4-2 or we will get raped. I totally disagree. Chelsea would not have battered us if we had gone with a 4-3-3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiLvOR Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Isn't there already a thread about this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Isn't there already a thread about this? Dont think so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I don't give a flying f*** about formations. I care about movement and running into space. Which 4-4-2 doesn't allow because of how simplistic it is and all about rigid movements and lack of midfield options and doesn't allow the movement you describe. f***ing hell. :lol: Someone tell Sir Alex all his titles could have been won more easily. Our 4-4-2 and Ferguson's is very different..... Ferguson has always had flying wingers that puts crosses in, 1 striker up top and 1 striker coming back to link the midfield. I was talking about our 4-4-2..... the strikers don't link play, we don't have flying wingers of the Valencia and Nani mould or Beckham and Giggs etc etc. Beckham a flying winger. Yeah i should have mentioned that Beckham wasn't a flying winger, i initially was just going to say Nani and Valencia but felt like adding Giggs and Beckham but forgot to mention Beckham wasn't a flying winger. Also why would we be raped with 4-3-3 in our 7 game winning run we conceded 1 goal using 4-3-3. Link to post 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