Guest andrew 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. what makes you say that exactly? 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? Dont think so. I'm losing it coulda sworn there was one like! Anyway, I don't think we should stick with playing either tbh. Have the ability to play any formation and change it up mid game, why stick to one pattern throughout a game? Not saying it'll work every time, but I think tactical fluidity is something of a necessity in today's game. 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. I'm losing it coulda sworn there was one like! Anyway, I don't think we should stick with playing either tbh. Have the ability to play any formation and change it up mid game, why stick to one pattern throughout a game? Not saying it'll work every time, but I think tactical fluidity is something of a necessity in today's game. Very true 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. what makes you say that exactly? We're not talking about Barcelona here. Minus Hazard, they are the same team as last year, a team we finished above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimbo Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 442 has it's uses, but away at Chelsea was not the right time for it IMO. The obvious way to go is to play 451, try to crowd them out in midfield and counter them. It sounds a bit small time, but compared to Chelsea we are small time, we've spent about £3m this summer while they have spent around £73m. We still probably would've lost mind as we look a bit unprepared for the new season, which is unacceptable, it's not like the management have been too busy bringing players in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 The whole 4-3-3 can't be used against top teams or we will be raped is rather silly really. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that we would as we have never used it against a top team and in the majority matches we have used it we have kept a clean sheet. It's not just more fluid that 4-4-2, suit more players but it's also more solid as we control games better and have more options for a pass. The reason we are not using 4-3-3 is because Ba prefers to be a central striker and that concerns me. It should be about the team and not one player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 The whole 4-3-3 can't be used against top teams or we will be raped is rather silly really. Aye, about as silly as suggesting 4-4-2 doesn't allow movement or running into space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 The whole 4-3-3 can't be used against top teams or we will be raped is rather silly really. Aye, about as silly as suggesting 4-4-2 doesn't allow movement or running into space. Ours doesn't( not every 4-4-2), i have seen us use it enough times using 4-4-2 and see the lack of movement and chance creating and just overall passing options to suggest this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 4-4-2 is most effective when one of the strikers can drop deeper in a freer role and link with the midfield. We don't have anyone like that. I thought Ben Arfa could play there, but he's looked better in 4-3-3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagten Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Our ability to retain possession and ultimately control the game is far better in a 4-3-3. Ensuring that we do both is as important defensively as it is offensively. In a 4-4-2 we can find ourselves overrun in midfield, unable to retain possession, and ineffective going forward. When played into midfield our options are limited, our transitional play is generally awful, and we have an inability to get our more gifted attackers on the ball in their final third. Our strikeforce is, at the moment, dysfunctional, and incapable of making this formation a success. With the players available to us, a permanent move to a 4-3-3 is a must, IMO. The only negative being moving Ba back out to the left, which is something I do not believe Pardew wants to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 The whole 4-3-3 can't be used against top teams or we will be raped is rather silly really. Aye, about as silly as suggesting 4-4-2 doesn't allow movement or running into space. Ours doesn't( not every 4-4-2), i have seen us use it enough times using 4-4-2 and see the lack of movement and chance creating and just overall passing options to suggest this. Again, we didn't even play a traditional 4-4-2. Or did you fail to spot Ben Arfa roaming all over the pitch, Jonas sitting deep alongside Anita and Ba dropping into the midfield regularly? In fact, it was more like 4-3-1-2 with Ben Arfa roaming and Ba dropping deep. You can talk about getting the best out of Cabaye, Ba and Cisse in other systems all day long, but considering Cabaye had trouble lifting corners 3 feet of the ground and Cisse looks like a pale shade of his normal self it's fair to say our rustiness was more down to match fitness issues than anything tactical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I noticed that in the 2nd half yes and i'm in support of that. It's only flat 4-4-2 which im very much against. As for Cisse it's an opinion yes i but i honestly believe he is better upfront o his own where he has the freedom to exploit CB's with his movement. Ba and Cisse get in the way too much for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATB Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 It´s a lot of talking about the moment is more important then what formation we are playing. So the question is. Does anyone think that we have good moments with our 4-4-2? pardew talk about own the midfield to win games. When we play 4-4-2 we don´t do that. When we play 4-4-2 we play so deep and carefully that when we get the ball we have nothing to threat. I think one problem is that pardew is obsessed with Ba and that he can´t play wide or anything. Laugh at me or not. I think we should go with one striker. And that we can´t play 4-3-3 against good teams thats one of the strongest argument. That we in a 4-3-3 can control the other team better. So many players goes wasted the way we are playing now. I would kill ( ) to no exactly what pardew is thinking and why he is doing what he is doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Pards just said will be using two strikers as much as possible, 4-3-3 is out the window for the most part it would seem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19304403 We tried to play with two strikers again, and we're going to try and do that as much as we can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Unless HBA is giving a more free role and Jonas plays a bit narrow i can only see this back-firing. Also begs the question why we bought Anita, seems a bit pointless if he's just going to be a back up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19304403 We tried to play with two strikers again, and we're going to try and do that as much as we can. Eugh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagten Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19304403 We tried to play with two strikers again, and we're going to try and do that as much as we can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 It's not about one system over another, it's about having a system that suits the players you have. Personally, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, i think Cabaye, HBA and Cisse played better last season (on the whole) in our version of 4-3-3. I have yet to see Ba and Cisse link up effectively yet, i think Cisse in the middle with Ba left drifting in when we're attacking has been more dangerous. I also think having 3 in the middle has choked out other teams (in general) and provided better protection to our back 4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Haven't read through these first few pages, but i want us to play the system that is most natural to our players, and it sure isn't 4-4-2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexf Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 If Ba refuses to play wide left then we will have to do what the top teams do. Rotate. Cisse and Ba will have to rotate who starts because they very rarely link up together in the many games they have played. Not in the way say Ba and Shola have at times and also Ba and Best early last season. I know alot of people hoped when cisse arrived that we would have the new cole and yorke partnership or something but at some point we may need to realise that they don't work as a partnership. A bit to early to write it off completely yet I agree as neither look 100% fit but over the next 10 games atleast it would be good to see some signs of potential there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlelunchbox Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 im not adversed to 4-4-2 completely but with our squad of players we do look good as a 4-3-3, and given our lack of strikers, (two quality ones but only two) it makes sense to to rotate them by only playing one at a time, instead of starting both in two up top or in a three up top. with the amount of games we going to play this season it makes even more sense not to start ba and cisse at the same time. not having a go at pardew as he knows better than anyone that its not easy keeping two quality strikers happy if one sits on the bench or gets played out of position. also 4-4-2 worked a treat last season (shola and ba) when we spanked man utd 3-0 at home. its difficult but it would be nice to see us play 4-3-3 more often. against top teams pardew seems to favour 2 up top for some reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
binnsy Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 i would prefer to play a midfield diamond with HBA playing behind the front two. Ideally with Debuchy being bought as the attacking width needs to come from the fullbacks and while Santon is decent going forward sadly Simpson is not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Haven't seen anything between them that suggests that they can play together in a 4-4-2. There's no link up play between them at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I'm pretty stunned at the negative reaction to this thread, it's undeniably worthy of discussion imo. 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