Formations and the perpetual 442 discussion

[Jam_Man]

Interesting comment from Brown

So that opens up the debate about 442 yet again.

The team he selected today was the same one that people raved about last Saturday, and was certainly the one Id have sent out seeing as it did so well against Posh. However I did wonder how much Posh's situation contributed to our performance last week, their manager getting the boot suggested it may have done a fair bit.

It was pretty clear today that 442 was simply not working first half, their 5 man midfield was stifling us and we ended up having two isolated forwards rather than the one in a 451. I cant even remember us having a shot first half, and only had 5 all game with just one on target.

We lacked any imagination going forward and didnt have any ideas how to get the ball forward, hence hopeful long balls and messing around with it at the back (which as I said on the ratings thread wasnt a tactical decision, Brown was going mental at one point at them).

So with that in mind it opens up the debate yet again.

Personally I liked the team we put out today, despite the performance. The only thing I dont like is Timlin out wide as he ends up too central, but thats been the way it has been most of the time we played 442 since Tilsons days when we regularly played 3 central midfielders and just one winger. The fact we were outnumbered in midfield meant he rarely got out wide at all.

From Browns tweet he seems to suggest he shouldn't have played 442 and from how ineffective it was its hard to argue with that.

That's not to say he will revert to 451, although he may. The system he changed to seemed to be the right decsion but from that point desperation to score overrode the system with the likes of Barrett pushing forward.

I've read on here a few times that his tactics were poor but how many people would have wanted him not to play 442 or the team he did?

Personally I think today's team was fine and can be used at times but we are going to have to adapt more at times, whether that's playing 3-5-2 / 451/4231 or whatever.

What's clear to me, and also no surprise, is that 442 isn't going to be the answer to every question asked of us this season.

Or maybe it's just a one off bad day at the office.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

I think if the players had turned up, 442 would have been fine. I can only think of one player today that I would give more than a 6, and that was Daniel Bentley. With two of our big players, Tims and Lenny playing so poorly, we was always going to lose the midfield battle.

 

[AndyT]

Thought they played more 5-4-1 than 3-5-2.

4-4-2 is fine, but we needed to play with more width. There was no width on Coker's side at all and he was left exposed.

Width would have kept their wing-backs occupied more and opened up a bit more space in the middle by stretching two of their midfielders to cover runs forward from Coker and White.

Mooney and Hunt will start scoring regularly soon, but the supply and support from wide and going forward down the middle needs to be sharper and more incisive.

All in all, stick with 4-4-2 but stretch the play out more.

 

[Brett Angle]

IMO the style and calibre of players we have at the moment are clearly better suited to play a 4-5-1 or if you prefer 4-3-3. We always look more solid playing that way and are far more difficult to break down. True we are unlikely to outscore the opposition if they score 2+ goals playing that way - but we demonstrated enough times last season that you could garner enough points to be successful basing your play on a tight defence/midfield vs. expansive attacking (but ultimately unsuccessful) play. If we win people rarely complain about how we did it.

We played 4-4-2 today - which I know is what many fans are keen for us to do - but I think it always makes us look unbalanced and in terms of the midfield outnumbered. Timlin is not a natural wide left player - but put in a player that is like Mclaughlin (albeit retaining two strikers) and you then run the risk of leaving your two central midfielders exposed and your full backs understandably reticent to push on.

Against Shrewsbury we need to get behind their full backs and never really looked like doing so because of the way we were set up. Had we started with perhaps Worrall and McLaughlin out wide and Hunt up top with perhaps Payne or Wordsworth in the hole (which I firmly believe is PB's preferred system) then I think it could have been different. Instead the system we go with today - whilst it might appease some fans - is more often than not going to play into the hands of away teams particularly those with the movement, strength and experience of the likes of Shrewsbury. We look far too open and our forwards have to feed on a few scraps.

In hindsight we probably got away with it against Peterborough last week as they clearly didn't perform for their outgoing manager (based on today's result!)

I might be in the minority when I say this - but I genuinely think that PB's selection/thinking has been compromised a bit in recent weeks due to trying to appease the home fans - and wonder if that was what he was mulling over on the pitch well after today's final whistle. Keep faith with your MO Phil. No-one will thank you for trying to play expansive, attractive football and getting relegated - least of all those supporters who want you to play 4 up top!

 

[Welly7]

Interesting comment from Brown

So that opens up the debate about 442 yet again.

The team he selected today was the same one that people raved about last Saturday, and was certainly the one Id have sent out seeing as it did so well against Posh. However I did wonder how much Posh's situation contributed to our performance last week, their manager getting the boot suggested it may have done a fair bit.

It was pretty clear today that 442 was simply not working first half, their 5 man midfield was stifling us and we ended up having two isolated forwards rather than the one in a 451. I cant even remember us having a shot first half, and only had 5 all game with just one on target.

We lacked any imagination going forward and didnt have any ideas how to get the ball forward, hence hopeful long balls and messing around with it at the back (which as I said on the ratings thread wasnt a tactical decision, Brown was going mental at one point at them).

So with that in mind it opens up the debate yet again.

Personally I liked the team we put out today, despite the performance. The only thing I dont like is Timlin out wide as he ends up too central, but thats been the way it has been most of the time we played 442 since Tilsons days when we regularly played 3 central midfielders and just one winger. The fact we were outnumbered in midfield meant he rarely got out wide at all.

From Browns tweet he seems to suggest he shouldn't have played 442 and from how ineffective it was its hard to argue with that.

That's not to say he will revert to 451, although he may. The system he changed to seemed to be the right decsion but from that point desperation to score overrode the system with the likes of Barrett pushing forward.

I've read on here a few times that his tactics were poor but how many people would have wanted him not to play 442 or the team he did?

Personally I think today's team was fine and can be used at times but we are going to have to adapt more at times, whether that's playing 3-5-2 / 451/4231 or whatever.

What's clear to me, and also no surprise, is that 442 isn't going to be the answer to every question asked of us this season.

Or maybe it's just a one off bad day at the office.

Personally I think the 352 Shrewsbury (and Walsall) used has outfoxed us. Walsall gave us a football lesson and run us ragged whereas today Shrewsbury denied us space, closed down our full backs (particularly Coker) and won with a well worked set play.
Against this we seem to struggle. Do we go 3 v3 in midfield in a 433 or risk getting outnumbered in 442? When we're able to play I've been pleased with us this season, but when we're prevented to do so there seems to be a lot of head scratching from players and staff.

With the squad we have, I think it could be a case of 'horses for courses' for some games irrespective of the form of some players.

 

[Jam_Man]

I think if the players had turned up, 442 would have been fine. I can only think of one player today that I would give more than a 6, and that was Daniel Bentley. With two of our big players, Tims and Lenny playing so poorly, we was always going to lose the midfield battle.

There is an element of performance in there without a doubt, but most of the complaints, ie the long balls forward were down to the formation we were up against. We didnt have the guile to pass through it.

Its only one game and other teams may use a 5 man midfield and not be as effective and we might play better, so not writing anything off.

Thought they played more 5-4-1 than 3-5-2.

4-4-2 is fine, but we needed to play with more width. There was no width on Coker's side at all and he was left exposed.

Width would have kept their wing-backs occupied more and opened up a bit more space in the middle by stretching two of their midfielders to cover runs forward from Coker and White.

Mooney and Hunt will start scoring regularly soon, but the supply and support from wide and going forward down the middle needs to be sharper and more incisive.

All in all, stick with 4-4-2 but stretch the play out more.

It was 352 and because the midfield was flooded we couldnt play with width because the middle would get overrun. If we had played Mclaughlin instead of Timlin and he had played wider that would not have solved the problem as Leonard and Wordsworth, (or any two of the three if Timlin was left on) would have struggled.

You cant stretch a 5 man midfield with 4 midfielders.

 

[BrettieAngell]

The players need to take some responsibility and work out what is happening during the game. We get frustrated far too easily in games like yesterday and resort to hopeful balls forward.

 

[Jam_Man]

The players need to take some responsibility and work out what is happening during the game. We get frustrated far too easily in games like yesterday and resort to hopeful balls forward.

They do, but with the midfield packed like it was they didnt have a lot of choice most of the time. They rarely had options to play better passes.

Its why we changed to the 352/3412 shape to try to deal with it.

 

[AndyT]

It was 352 and because the midfield was flooded we couldnt play with width because the middle would get overrun. If we had played Mclaughlin instead of Timlin and he had played wider that would not have solved the problem as Leonard and Wordsworth, (or any two of the three if Timlin was left on) would have struggled.

You cant stretch a 5 man midfield with 4 midfielders.

Agreed, but you can force wing-backs into defensive roles more, by playing with width and going forward more, thus meaning their midfield gets pulled wider to counteract us having two playing wide, including our full backs going forward. Their wing-backs weren't overly bothered about getting forward, which is why it seemed more like 5-4-1 to me.

I might be wrong, but they only played Tyrone Barnett upfront on his own, with Cole and Ogogo playing largely off him.

 

[Jam_Man]

Agreed, but you can force wing-backs into defensive roles more, by playing with width and going forward more, thus meaning their midfield gets pulled wider to counteract us having two playing wide, including our full backs going forward. Their wing-backs weren't overly bothered about getting forward, which is why it seemed more like 5-4-1 to me.

I might be wrong, but they only played Tyrone Barnett upfront on his own, with Cole and Ogogo playing largely off him.

You can, but then your two central midfielders are trying to cope with 3 central midfielders, which is why Timlin kept coming in and leaving Coker exposed. They can afford to be stretched if they have 5 midfielders.

The second forward was playing deeper at times as you say, which then gives the midfield yet another player to deal with.

The bottom line is that we just were completely ineffective and playing through them and ran out of ideas pretty quickly.

On another day we may have simply played better and they wouldnt have been so effective and the formations wouldnt have been mentioned. Even without creating a chance in the first half if we had scored from Worrall in the first few minutes of the second half with one of the few chances we did have then the game changes and 442 may have been fine from then on.

Will be interesting to see what we do next game, if Millwall play 442 then theres no real need to change, but we will because the performance was so poor yesterday.

The main point is though that anyone who simply thinks we should only play 442 and nothing else will work needs to have another look at the game yesterday, because it didnt work.

 

[AndyT]

Fair points, but it depends how we see the opposition system.

Are we there to make them worry about us or set-up our system to counteract theirs.

If you play 4-4-2 with width and overlapping full-backs, then their midfield has to counteract us, so their 3 central midfielders are pulled wider, meaning we are 2v1 in the middle or 2v2 at worst.

When we haven't got the ball, then yes, the wider players tuck in and the full-backs retreat a bit, but the key is setting up to stretch them, rather than packing our midfield to stifle their system.

It's about playing with a little less fear at home, for me.

 

[Jam_Man]

You cant just ignore the opposition set up.

We played 442, their midfield did counteract us by swamping the midfield. If we had played wider then their 3 central midfielders would have been overjoyed to get the extra space. Leonard and Wordsworth were totally ineffective with Timlin helping them out let alone left to deal with another player.

Not writing 442 off, against another team using that system it might have worked better, but certainly food for thought.

 

[Somerset Ex-TTB]

No 4-4-2 is the answer and will result in champions league victory by the end of the decade. :whistling::whistling:

 

[ColinMorrisWalksOnWater]

I don't think so much it's about the formation, but more about the right players in the right position, whatever formation we play. If I confuse people by what I am trying to say about individuals, they are examples to try and expand upon my point. Before I expand, The squad PB has got together, I fully back and I think this is the most promising group of players seen at The Hall in years, so I am not knocking the players in the positions they are picked in, more are there better options for that position in the squad. I firmly believe there are. I hope that makes what follows a little clearer.

For instance, Michael Timlin is not a wide midfielder, I'm sorry, but he really isn't. He is far more effectual in the middle where he can boss the park, so PB, play him there!! McClaughlin is a natural in that position, And Worrell and Hurst can both play either side effectively and Myles Weston is another option wide left, so pick the widemen from that group! Stop trying to create a team that is solid but ineffectual in breaking down oppostion defences. Great, we are limiting their chances, but at this early stage we are going to end up having a relegation battle, because we are losing by the odd goal, when, I believe we have a top ten squad in the making under our noses. If Wordworth has been bought in to play attacking playmeker in the middle, and there is only one more slot, and that choice is between say, Lenny and Timlin, then make the choice between them. As a result we will have a better more balanced side, with more creativity, But yesterday it seemed totally disjointed and no flow between the defence, midfield and strikers. Too many long balls from the back, not because that is the only ball our defence can play, but we were so compressed, that for a lot of the time that was the only option, other than give the ball away in our own half!

So apology accepted Mr Brown, with the proviso you learn the lesson from your mistake (otherwise you wouldn't have to apologise in the first place!), and start playing round pegs in round holes.

 

[Blues4LifeDan]

You can say we set up as a 4-4-2 as much as you like but if the players can't fit into that formation it's not a fair analysis. It might say 4-4-2 on the team sheet but if you persist with trying to make a CM play left wing you can never really analyse if the 4-4-2 really works or not. Only when you play a true left and right winger from the start, can you argue if 4-4-2 works or not.
It was the same scenario when Tilly used to persist on playing Maher, Bailey and Mccormack in a four. We always lacked width on the right, and Francis was always exposed, much like Coker was yesterday.
The argument is probably irrelevant because we know that Brown has never really liked playing 4-4-2 and had been waiting to switch back to 4-5-1/4-3-3. Yesterdays performance has giving him a perfect reason.