The thread about how we should play

[Mick]

just can't bring yourself to say you agree with me can you mick.

 

 

 

 

:D

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree, oh shit.

[madras]

Don't know why you're talking as if some of us/me want 'pigeon holeing' or rigidity. I want fluid footie in a 4-3-3, and by that i don't mean pigeon holeing 4-3-3 either. Of course the whatever formation you use changes with movement and playing style, but you still have to have some kind of basic output with positions in a formation or what you wish to call it and then from the basics create different types of plays and movement. That doesn't mean you have to start at cordinate XX

because on many levels the debate between 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 is about rigidity (or it is if you read this thread).

 

many are saying we played our best last season in a 4-3-3. quite often cabaye was further forward than at least one of the designated forwards (you could look at swansea away when he was often the furthest forward when they had possession), does that mean we really played 4-2-4 ? no it means it probably wasn't even a 4-3-3 as is described by most in this thread but a very mobile attacking 4 or 5 when in possesion and a flexible 4-5-1/5-4-1 when out of possession.

[loki679]

Don't know why you're talking as if some of us/me want 'pigeon holeing' or rigidity. I want fluid footie in a 4-3-3, and by that i don't mean pigeon holeing 4-3-3 either. Of course the whatever formation you use changes with movement and playing style, but you still have to have some kind of basic output with positions in a formation or what you wish to call it and then from the basics create different types of plays and movement. That doesn't mean you have to start at cordinate XX

because on many levels the debate between 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 is about rigidity (or it is if you read this thread).

 

many are saying we played our best last season in a 4-3-3. quite often cabaye was further forward than at least one of the designated forwards (you could look at swansea away when he was often the furthest forward when they had possession), does that mean we really played 4-2-4 ? no it means it probably wasn't even a 4-3-3 as is described by most in this thread but a very mobile attacking 4 or 5 when in possesion and a flexible 4-5-1/5-4-1 when out of possession.

 

Yes, that's one of the benefits of the system, it allows Cabaye (or whoever is playing there)  to break forward beyond the attack or mop up in and around the box.

[The College Dropout]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

[Ikon]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

You don't say?

 

 

 

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4580/article1195929058123930.jpg

[loki679]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

My point is that 4-3-3 naturally brings with it a greater degree of movement.  We don't play down the wings and having 3 CMs and 3 up front not only gives more passing options but allows our dangerous players to play further up the field where they can damage the opposition.

[madras]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

My point is that 4-3-3 naturally brings with it a greater degree of movement.  We don't play down the wings and having 3 CMs and 3 up front not only gives more passing options but allows our dangerous players to play further up the field where they can damage the opposition.

alternativly it gives fewer passing options when trying to retain possession as there's one less midfielder, it also means it's easier to be outnumbered and out manouvered by the oppo using the width it's difficuilt to cover with a 3.

[loki679]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

My point is that 4-3-3 naturally brings with it a greater degree of movement.  We don't play down the wings and having 3 CMs and 3 up front not only gives more passing options but allows our dangerous players to play further up the field where they can damage the opposition.

alternativly it gives fewer passing options when trying to retain possession as there's one less midfielder, it also means it's easier to be outnumbered and out manouvered by the oppo using the width it's difficuilt to cover with a 3.

 

You're looking at numbers.  Look at how we actually play in a 4-4-2.  Cabaye and Tiote are sitting deep.  Their only passing options are sideways or a long punt upfield to two strikers not suited for the role of targetman.  4-3-3 gives a lovely little triangle in the middle (like keegans little triangles) and the tip of that triangle has passing options backwards (2) forward wide (2) or forward centre (1).

[madras]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

My point is that 4-3-3 naturally brings with it a greater degree of movement.  We don't play down the wings and having 3 CMs and 3 up front not only gives more passing options but allows our dangerous players to play further up the field where they can damage the opposition.

alternativly it gives fewer passing options when trying to retain possession as there's one less midfielder, it also means it's easier to be outnumbered and out manouvered by the oppo using the width it's difficuilt to cover with a 3.

 

You're looking at numbers.  Look at how we actually play in a 4-4-2.  Cabaye and Tiote are sitting deep.  Their only passing options are sideways or a long punt upfield to two strikers not suited for the role of targetman.  4-3-3 gives a lovely little triangle in the middle (like keegans little triangles) and the tip of that triangle has passing options backwards (2) forward wide (2) or forward centre (1).

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

using that simplicity it means when cabaye  gets the ball in our 4-4-2 he has 2 options wide, 2 forward and 2 back (tiote or further back to colo). the main thing with keegans team was movement, very simple pass and move, as it was in his first spell here when people had us down as a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 team.

[loki679]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

My point is that 4-3-3 naturally brings with it a greater degree of movement.  We don't play down the wings and having 3 CMs and 3 up front not only gives more passing options but allows our dangerous players to play further up the field where they can damage the opposition.

alternativly it gives fewer passing options when trying to retain possession as there's one less midfielder, it also means it's easier to be outnumbered and out manouvered by the oppo using the width it's difficuilt to cover with a 3.

 

You're looking at numbers.  Look at how we actually play in a 4-4-2.  Cabaye and Tiote are sitting deep.  Their only passing options are sideways or a long punt upfield to two strikers not suited for the role of targetman.  4-3-3 gives a lovely little triangle in the middle (like keegans little triangles) and the tip of that triangle has passing options backwards (2) forward wide (2) or forward centre (1).

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

using that simplicity it means when cabaye  gets the ball in our 4-4-2 he has 2 options wide, 2 forward and 2 back (tiote or further back to colo). the main thing with keegans team was movement, very simple pass and move, as it was in his first spell here when people had us down as a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 team.

 

No because Cabaye plays just as deep as Tiote in the 4-4-2.  If he goes wide we have Jonas who, much as I love him, doesn't produce anything or HBA who is too deep at this point to do anything.  Ba and Cisse are a good 50 yards up the pitch so the forward option is a punt to them with no support.  Drop the ball back to defence and Colo may play it straight back but Willo will punt it upfield, generally losing possesion.

 

The comparison with Keegan's team isn't really valid as most of the teams he was facing were playing 4-4-2 aswell.  The comparison I made was of his philosophy of always having at least two passing options for the man on the ball, his little triangles.

[madras]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

My point is that 4-3-3 naturally brings with it a greater degree of movement.  We don't play down the wings and having 3 CMs and 3 up front not only gives more passing options but allows our dangerous players to play further up the field where they can damage the opposition.

alternativly it gives fewer passing options when trying to retain possession as there's one less midfielder, it also means it's easier to be outnumbered and out manouvered by the oppo using the width it's difficuilt to cover with a 3.

 

You're looking at numbers.  Look at how we actually play in a 4-4-2.  Cabaye and Tiote are sitting deep.  Their only passing options are sideways or a long punt upfield to two strikers not suited for the role of targetman.  4-3-3 gives a lovely little triangle in the middle (like keegans little triangles) and the tip of that triangle has passing options backwards (2) forward wide (2) or forward centre (1).

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

using that simplicity it means when cabaye  gets the ball in our 4-4-2 he has 2 options wide, 2 forward and 2 back (tiote or further back to colo). the main thing with keegans team was movement, very simple pass and move, as it was in his first spell here when people had us down as a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 team.

 

No because Cabaye plays just as deep as Tiote in the 4-4-2.  If he goes wide we have Jonas who, much as I love him, doesn't produce anything or HBA who is too deep at this point to do anything.  Ba and Cisse are a good 50 yards up the pitch so the forward option is a punt to them with no support.  Drop the ball back to defence and Colo may play it straight back but Willo will punt it upfield, generally losing possesion.

 

The comparison with Keegan's team isn't really valid as most of the teams he was facing were playing 4-4-2 aswell.  The comparison I made was of his philosophy of always having at least two passing options for the man on the ball, his little triangles.

so the problem isn't really the formation just the mere tinkering of cabaye sitting too deep ?

 

think how much better it would be if ben arfa, cisse and ba, moved a lot more, if cabaye could make use of this movement to make runs into the space left by them, one of them could even come deep to drag a defender in, jonas could get in the gaps between full back and centre half if someone had the made the move to drag a centre half out, ben arfa or cabaye could even see some time a that false no9 if the moevemnt was there.

 

noticer all that is capable without having to prescribe it as 4-4-2 or 4-3-3. for christ sake man, even in a 4-4-2 when in possession normally one (if not both) of the wide men in most teams tries to push on making it really a 3 or 4 man forward line.

[loki679]

noticer all that is capable without having to prescribe it as 4-4-2 or 4-3-3. for christ sake man, even in a 4-4-2 when in possession normally one (if not both) of the wide men in most teams tries to push on making it really a 3 or 4 man forward line.

 

Do you think i'm saying 4-3-3 and imagining some kind of table football with the players lined up on poles?  4-3-3 is referring to their roles within the team as well as their nominal positions on the field. 

 

And again, Cabaye is too deep when we have only two central midfielders as they're outnumbered and he's having to do too much defensive work.  Jonas and HBA track the opposition back and try and help out which is why they're picking it up too deep to do any damage and why Ba and Cisse are so often isolated. 

 

Look through pretty much any match thread this season and you'll see the same comments, 'too deep', 'isolated'.  It's not hard to see.

[Kanji]

I always felt our front 3 was so brilliant last season because it always seemed fluid - like those have said with the movement. Ben Arfa, while predominantly on the right was all over the attacking areas, as was Ba and Cisse.

[Cronky]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

My point is that 4-3-3 naturally brings with it a greater degree of movement.  We don't play down the wings and having 3 CMs and 3 up front not only gives more passing options but allows our dangerous players to play further up the field where they can damage the opposition.

alternativly it gives fewer passing options when trying to retain possession as there's one less midfielder, it also means it's easier to be outnumbered and out manouvered by the oppo using the width it's difficuilt to cover with a 3.

 

You're looking at numbers.  Look at how we actually play in a 4-4-2.  Cabaye and Tiote are sitting deep.  Their only passing options are sideways or a long punt upfield to two strikers not suited for the role of targetman.  4-3-3 gives a lovely little triangle in the middle (like keegans little triangles) and the tip of that triangle has passing options backwards (2) forward wide (2) or forward centre (1).

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

using that simplicity it means when cabaye  gets the ball in our 4-4-2 he has 2 options wide, 2 forward and 2 back (tiote or further back to colo). the main thing with keegans team was movement, very simple pass and move, as it was in his first spell here when people had us down as a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 team.

 

Rob Lee, with his forward runs, was a key player in that side. You really need someone who's looking to get on the end of passes. If you look at our midfield and full backs, most seem to prefer to be passers rather than receivers. Santon is the only one who really looks to get forward, and then not always. Tiote, Anita and Bigi are holding players, Cabaye's more a playmaker, Simpson isn't confident going forward, Sammy and Jonas usually look to take the ball forward themselves. Even Ben Arfa seems to prefer to drop deep and then make a run or pass forward rather than make runs into space without the ball.

 

Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit to make the point, but it's all a question of balance. If we just had one player of that mould it would make a difference. Like Nolan only better.

 

 

[Wullie]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

My point is that 4-3-3 naturally brings with it a greater degree of movement.  We don't play down the wings and having 3 CMs and 3 up front not only gives more passing options but allows our dangerous players to play further up the field where they can damage the opposition.

alternativly it gives fewer passing options when trying to retain possession as there's one less midfielder, it also means it's easier to be outnumbered and out manouvered by the oppo using the width it's difficuilt to cover with a 3.

 

You're looking at numbers.  Look at how we actually play in a 4-4-2.  Cabaye and Tiote are sitting deep.  Their only passing options are sideways or a long punt upfield to two strikers not suited for the role of targetman.  4-3-3 gives a lovely little triangle in the middle (like keegans little triangles) and the tip of that triangle has passing options backwards (2) forward wide (2) or forward centre (1).

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

using that simplicity it means when cabaye  gets the ball in our 4-4-2 he has 2 options wide, 2 forward and 2 back (tiote or further back to colo). the main thing with keegans team was movement, very simple pass and move, as it was in his first spell here when people had us down as a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 team.

 

Rob Lee, with his forward runs, was a key player in that side. You really need someone who's looking to get on the end of passes. If you look at our midfield and full backs, most seem to prefer to be passers rather than receivers. Santon is the only one who really looks to get forward, and then not always. Tiote, Anita and Bigi are holding players, Cabaye's more a playmaker, Simpson isn't confident going forward, Sammy and Jonas usually look to take the ball forward themselves. Even Ben Arfa seems to prefer to drop deep and then make a run or pass forward rather than make runs into space without the ball.

 

Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit to make the point, but it's all a question of balance. If we just had one player of that mould it would make a difference. Like Nolan only better.

 

 

 

 

We haven't got the wide players for an effective 4-4-2 either tbh, only one who is vaguely capable is Ben Arfa and we play him on the wrong side.

[madras]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

My point is that 4-3-3 naturally brings with it a greater degree of movement.  We don't play down the wings and having 3 CMs and 3 up front not only gives more passing options but allows our dangerous players to play further up the field where they can damage the opposition.

alternativly it gives fewer passing options when trying to retain possession as there's one less midfielder, it also means it's easier to be outnumbered and out manouvered by the oppo using the width it's difficuilt to cover with a 3.

 

You're looking at numbers.  Look at how we actually play in a 4-4-2.  Cabaye and Tiote are sitting deep.  Their only passing options are sideways or a long punt upfield to two strikers not suited for the role of targetman.  4-3-3 gives a lovely little triangle in the middle (like keegans little triangles) and the tip of that triangle has passing options backwards (2) forward wide (2) or forward centre (1).

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

using that simplicity it means when cabaye  gets the ball in our 4-4-2 he has 2 options wide, 2 forward and 2 back (tiote or further back to colo). the main thing with keegans team was movement, very simple pass and move, as it was in his first spell here when people had us down as a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 team.

 

Rob Lee, with his forward runs, was a key player in that side. You really need someone who's looking to get on the end of passes. If you look at our midfield and full backs, most seem to prefer to be passers rather than receivers. Santon is the only one who really looks to get forward, and then not always. Tiote, Anita and Bigi are holding players, Cabaye's more a playmaker, Simpson isn't confident going forward, Sammy and Jonas usually look to take the ball forward themselves. Even Ben Arfa seems to prefer to drop deep and then make a run or pass forward rather than make runs into space without the ball.

 

Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit to make the point, but it's all a question of balance. If we just had one player of that mould it would make a difference. Like Nolan only better.

 

 

beardsley and sellars aswell. constant movement made it so hard to mark them without leaving huge gaps and awareness to cover for others also. even venison when he went into centre midfield was less static than what we have now.

 

i'm not against the 4-3-3, far from it, i've probably been on about it longer than most but i don't think the formation itself necessarily means more movement and without movement it's doomed.

[madras]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

My point is that 4-3-3 naturally brings with it a greater degree of movement.  We don't play down the wings and having 3 CMs and 3 up front not only gives more passing options but allows our dangerous players to play further up the field where they can damage the opposition.

alternativly it gives fewer passing options when trying to retain possession as there's one less midfielder, it also means it's easier to be outnumbered and out manouvered by the oppo using the width it's difficuilt to cover with a 3.

 

You're looking at numbers.  Look at how we actually play in a 4-4-2.  Cabaye and Tiote are sitting deep.  Their only passing options are sideways or a long punt upfield to two strikers not suited for the role of targetman.  4-3-3 gives a lovely little triangle in the middle (like keegans little triangles) and the tip of that triangle has passing options backwards (2) forward wide (2) or forward centre (1).

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

using that simplicity it means when cabaye  gets the ball in our 4-4-2 he has 2 options wide, 2 forward and 2 back (tiote or further back to colo). the main thing with keegans team was movement, very simple pass and move, as it was in his first spell here when people had us down as a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 team.

 

Rob Lee, with his forward runs, was a key player in that side. You really need someone who's looking to get on the end of passes. If you look at our midfield and full backs, most seem to prefer to be passers rather than receivers. Santon is the only one who really looks to get forward, and then not always. Tiote, Anita and Bigi are holding players, Cabaye's more a playmaker, Simpson isn't confident going forward, Sammy and Jonas usually look to take the ball forward themselves. Even Ben Arfa seems to prefer to drop deep and then make a run or pass forward rather than make runs into space without the ball.

 

Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit to make the point, but it's all a question of balance. If we just had one player of that mould it would make a difference. Like Nolan only better.

 

 

 

 

We haven't got the wide players for an effective 4-4-2 either tbh, only one who is vaguely capable is Ben Arfa and we play him on the wrong side.

you don't necessarily have to have great wide players. movement from the middle gives them sp-ace or options to pass to. right now they have one option, high cross into the box for one or teo static strikers when all other clubs get a midfileder as an option at the edge of the box. how many times this season has a ball dropped to the edge and none of the mdfielders has took the gamble to be in that psoition where the ball often lands.

[Cronky]

Madras point is that MOVEMENT is the key to any formation. Atm, if we moved to a 4-3-3 it would be rigid as hell, no movement and thus barely an improvement on our 4-4-2.

 

 

My point is that 4-3-3 naturally brings with it a greater degree of movement.  We don't play down the wings and having 3 CMs and 3 up front not only gives more passing options but allows our dangerous players to play further up the field where they can damage the opposition.

alternativly it gives fewer passing options when trying to retain possession as there's one less midfielder, it also means it's easier to be outnumbered and out manouvered by the oppo using the width it's difficuilt to cover with a 3.

 

You're looking at numbers.  Look at how we actually play in a 4-4-2.  Cabaye and Tiote are sitting deep.  Their only passing options are sideways or a long punt upfield to two strikers not suited for the role of targetman.  4-3-3 gives a lovely little triangle in the middle (like keegans little triangles) and the tip of that triangle has passing options backwards (2) forward wide (2) or forward centre (1).

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

using that simplicity it means when cabaye  gets the ball in our 4-4-2 he has 2 options wide, 2 forward and 2 back (tiote or further back to colo). the main thing with keegans team was movement, very simple pass and move, as it was in his first spell here when people had us down as a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 team.

 

Rob Lee, with his forward runs, was a key player in that side. You really need someone who's looking to get on the end of passes. If you look at our midfield and full backs, most seem to prefer to be passers rather than receivers. Santon is the only one who really looks to get forward, and then not always. Tiote, Anita and Bigi are holding players, Cabaye's more a playmaker, Simpson isn't confident going forward, Sammy and Jonas usually look to take the ball forward themselves. Even Ben Arfa seems to prefer to drop deep and then make a run or pass forward rather than make runs into space without the ball.

 

Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit to make the point, but it's all a question of balance. If we just had one player of that mould it would make a difference. Like Nolan only better.

 

 

 

 

We haven't got the wide players for an effective 4-4-2 either tbh, only one who is vaguely capable is Ben Arfa and we play him on the wrong side.

 

I think the bigger problem is down the centre, where we don't create much at all. We bank on getting crosses in, but if that's your only weapon, it's easy to negate.

[Jack Flash]

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

Exactly.

 

Comparing shots on target (ours then theirs)

 

West Brom A - 7-6

Liverpool H - 7-6

Swansea A - 4-13 (19 in total for them, 5 for us)

Bolton H - 4-6

Stoke H - 11-2

Wigan A - 3-8

 

 

West Ham H - 9-5

Swansea H - 10-9

Southampton A - 3-10

Stoke A - 6-5

 

A very confident and motivated team taking their chances (Cisse in particular) compared to an much less confident and unmotivated team not taking their chances? Something to think about/completely ignore due to agenda.

[loki679]

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

Exactly.

 

Comparing shots on target (ours then theirs)

 

West Brom A - 7-6

Liverpool H - 7-6

Swansea A - 4-13 (19 in total for them, 5 for us)

Bolton H - 4-6

Stoke H - 11-2

Wigan A - 3-8

 

 

West Ham H - 9-5

Swansea H - 10-9

Southampton A - 3-10

Stoke A - 6-5

 

A very confident and motivated team taking their chances (Cisse in particular) compared to an much less confident and unmotivated team not taking their chances? Something to think about/completely ignore due to agenda.

 

A flawed metric.  We could have 20 shots on target but if 90% of them are hit and hope from outside the box i'd rather have 2 shots on target from inside the six yard box.  You need to look at where the shots are being taken from in addition to simply using the crude numbers.

[madras]

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

Exactly.

 

Comparing shots on target (ours then theirs)

 

West Brom A - 7-6

Liverpool H - 7-6

Swansea A - 4-13 (19 in total for them, 5 for us)

Bolton H - 4-6

Stoke H - 11-2

Wigan A - 3-8

 

 

West Ham H - 9-5

Swansea H - 10-9

Southampton A - 3-10

Stoke A - 6-5

 

A very confident and motivated team taking their chances (Cisse in particular) compared to an much less confident and unmotivated team not taking their chances? Something to think about/completely ignore due to agenda.

swansea had 13 shots on target ? i can't remember krul having many quieter games.

[Jack Flash]

if only the game was played on a blackboard eh ?

 

Exactly.

 

Comparing shots on target (ours then theirs)

 

West Brom A - 7-6

Liverpool H - 7-6

Swansea A - 4-13 (19 in total for them, 5 for us)

Bolton H - 4-6

Stoke H - 11-2

Wigan A - 3-8

 

 

West Ham H - 9-5

Swansea H - 10-9

Southampton A - 3-10

Stoke A - 6-5

 

A very confident and motivated team taking their chances (Cisse in particular) compared to an much less confident and unmotivated team not taking their chances? Something to think about/completely ignore due to agenda.

 

A flawed metric.  We could have 20 shots on target but if 90% of them are hit and hope from outside the box i'd rather have 2 shots on target from inside the six yard box.  You need to look at where the shots are being taken from in addition to simply using the crude numbers.

 

Our free flowing, sport changing formation wouldn't have allowed for many 40 yarders. I didn't include shots off target for the reason you state btw. They're largely pointless compared to a shot on target.

[loki679]

[Disco]

Didn't play either tonight

[ponsaelius]

Didn't play either tonight

 

I've always assumed '4-3-3' was more of a blanket term on here for anything other than flat 4-4-2.