Blizzard Posted 14 December 2016 Posted 14 December 2016 When you look at other sides they are playing formations that rip 4 4 2 apart. Many opponents in the PL play 2 V shapped systems often. Analysis I've seen prior to matches. Last night Bournemouth countered 4 4 2. Is it really as simple as getting a new midfielder and that's the solution or would you change the system? I'm thinking 5 at the back. 5 3 2 or 5 4 1 What are your thoughts?
Legend_in_blue Posted 14 December 2016 Posted 14 December 2016 The players pick the system and the style of play. If this truly is the case, what is Ranieri actually managing? I found his comments at the weekend overly honest and baffling all the same.
kyleolly Posted 14 December 2016 Posted 14 December 2016 5-3-1-1 Kasper Albrighton Simpson Morgan Huth Fuchs Drinkwater Mendy Amartey Mahrez Vardy
STUHILL Posted 14 December 2016 Posted 14 December 2016 6 minutes ago, kyleolly said: 5-3-1-1 Kasper Albrighton Simpson Morgan Huth Fuchs Drinkwater Mendy Amartey Mahrez Vardy Replace Simpson for a genuine CB in Hernandez and I would be interested to see this in action. Means both Vardy and Mahrez can stay high up the pitch and gives us plenty of defensive cover as well as allowing Fuchs and Albrighton to push forward.
Struwwelpeter60 Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 1 hour ago, Blizzard said: When you look at other sides they are playing formations that rip 4 4 2 apart. Many opponents in the PL play 2 V shapped systems often. Analysis I've seen prior to matches. Last night Bournemouth countered 4 4 2. Is it really as simple as getting a new midfielder and that's the solution or would you change the system? I'm thinking 5 at the back. 5 3 2 or 5 4 1 What are your thoughts? But you know, that 442 won us the PL title and the Championship? Could it be, that therefore the players (9 of them won both) want to keep it? Just a thought.
Struwwelpeter60 Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 34 minutes ago, STUHILL said: Replace Simpson for a genuine CB in Hernandez and I would be interested to see this in action. Means both Vardy and Mahrez can stay high up the pitch and gives us plenty of defensive cover as well as allowing Fuchs and Albrighton to push forward. What formation/formations did we play in the second half at Bournemouth? The fact, that we normally start in a 442 formation, doesn't mean, that we play the whole 90+ minutes in it. Not at all. What formation we are playing depends on the score and which players are on the field. For example, if Okazaki is on the pitch, we switch from 442 to 4411.
STUHILL Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 3 minutes ago, Struwwelpeter60 said: What formation/formations did we play in the second half at Bournemouth? The fact, that we normally start in a 442 formation, doesn't mean, that we play the whole 90+ minutes in it. Not at all. What formation we are playing depends on the score and which players are on the field. For example, if Okazaki is on the pitch, we switch from 442 to 4411. So we have played a 4-4-2 and a 4-4-1-1 this season then and both have left our midfield looking overrun and our defence struggling to keep out goals, hence why I would like to see a bigger change and the formation and players suggested above would be an interesting choice to see.
desertfox2 Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 7 hours ago, Struwwelpeter60 said: What formation/formations did we play in the second half at Bournemouth? The fact, that we normally start in a 442 formation, doesn't mean, that we play the whole 90+ minutes in it. Not at all. What formation we are playing depends on the score and which players are on the field. For example, if Okazaki is on the pitch, we switch from 442 to 4411. On that basis we would have been way better playing with a 5 man midfield away from home as it suits King who has been in the side. It means dropping Vardy or Slim but is what it is.
Haunter87 Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 4-4-2 is alright as long as the wingers help out with defending, Albrighton does a good job but he's knackered come 70th minute. Mahrez is terrible in terms of defending and leaves Simpson with a huge amount of work all game, he also looks like he can't be arsed from the kick off too, he normally excels at a free role position too, so it'd be good to see him behind the forwards rather than on the wing. 4-5-1 I think would be better but again you lose that double threat up front then.
leicesterlad1989 Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 25 minutes ago, Haunter87 said: 4-4-2 is alright as long as the wingers help out with defending, Albrighton does a good job but he's knackered come 70th minute. Mahrez is terrible in terms of defending and leaves Simpson with a huge amount of work all game, he also looks like he can't be arsed from the kick off too, he normally excels at a free role position too, so it'd be good to see him behind the forwards rather than on the wing. 4-5-1 I think would be better but again you lose that double threat up front then. Although I do agree that the wingers should help out in a 442, I don't think it's as simple as that. Currently we are getting over run in midfield, especially away from home. The name whom I shall not mention used to cover so much ground in midfield and currently we don't have that luxury in a two man midfield. Neither centre mid knows whether to sit, push or press so there is always a massive gap created. That to me is the problem this season. Against Man City we pressed as a whole team and caused them to make mistakes. Very similar to last season. We then seem to slide back into old habit's of the season so far, which is to press as individuals and in turn it leads to the problem in midfield...massive space. To me, away from home we need to pack out the midfield until we learn our roles or just pick up a few points. Then maybe be a bit more expansive. It sounds negative but we need to start picking up quickly before we get sucked even further in.
Jazzy_Jeff Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 Assuming we sign Ndidi I'd look at going with a diamond in midfield. Ndidi at the base with Drinky and Mendy/Amartey alongside which would free up Mahrez in a central role behind Vardy and Slimani. Failing that a 4-3-3 with Mahrez and Vardy eitherside of Slimani. We cannot continue with 4-4-2!
ZeGuy Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 13 hours ago, Struwwelpeter60 said: But you know, that 442 won us the PL title and the Championship? Could it be, that therefore the players (9 of them won both) want to keep it? Just a thought. But you know, that it isn't the last year any more and 442 is getting ripped to shreds this year? Could it be, that therefore the other teams now know how to deal with us and it might not be up to the players to decide which formation we must play but the manager? Just a thought.
Struwwelpeter60 Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 18 minutes ago, ZeGuy said: But you know, that it isn't the last year any more and 442 is getting ripped to shreds this year? Could it be, that therefore the other teams now know how to deal with us and it might not be up to the players to decide which formation we must play but the manager? Just a thought. Yes, we lost 8 games. But we also won 8 games (4 in PL, 4 in CL). We won against ManCity, we drew with Arsenal and Tottenham and conceded only 3 goals (and scored 5) against those top-teams. So far, the team has already produced 7 clean sheets (3 in PL, 4 in CL) this season. The formation is not the problem. Look at the two Porto games. Both times we played 442. You know the results. Players, not formations, win or lose matches.
ZeGuy Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 16 minutes ago, Struwwelpeter60 said: Yes, we lost 8 games. But we also won 8 games (4 in PL, 4 in CL). We won against ManCity, we drew with Arsenal and Tottenham and conceded only 3 goals (and scored 5) against those top-teams. So far, the team has already produced 7 clean sheets (3 in PL, 4 in CL) this season. The formation is not the problem. Look at the two Porto games. Both times we played 442. You know the results. Players, not formations, win or lose matches. Wonderful. We can ditch Ranieri then. Or any other manager for that matter.
Struwwelpeter60 Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 3 minutes ago, ZeGuy said: Wonderful. We can ditch Ranieri then. Or any other manager for that matter. Do you really think, that the most important part of a manager's job is the choice of formation? What about the Porto games? No answer? No arguments? Nothing at all?
ZeGuy Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 Just now, Struwwelpeter60 said: Do you really think, that the most important part of a manager's job is the choice of formation? What about the Porto games? No answer? No arguments? Nothing at all? You'd be a great football manager. One judge a team based on the season's form, not on one or two games. We won against Porto at home, the away game was catastrophic. As catastrophic as the trashing in Anfield, Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge. Let's also not speak about the other away games we lost. Which are ALL the away games but one.
mackiepas Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 442 is fine for me.. it always comes down to formation when your in a bad run.. its more about the players making costly errors so far this season. They all know there roles in a 442, leave as is Also, and most importantly, EVERYONE wants to beat the champions, so they up there game. we have never had to deal with this before.. and its something we are not dealing with too well.. Remember all the times we've gone into games against the champions and played like it was a cup final..
Struwwelpeter60 Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 41 minutes ago, ZeGuy said: You'd be a great football manager. One judge a team based on the season's form, not on one or two games. We won against Porto at home, the away game was catastrophic. As catastrophic as the trashing in Anfield, Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge. Let's also not speak about the other away games we lost. Which are ALL the away games but one. Wrong. Did we lose at Brugge and Copenhagen?
filbertway Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 I thought Roy Hodgson was the only person in England that thought formations and tactics had no way of improving or inhibiting a group of players. How about the season we stayed up. We didn't really change players much, but the change in system made us look a hell of a lot better. Also playing negatively in a diamond made us look atrocious. It's obviously, clearly, definitely a mixture of players and tactics that will impact on results and mainly performances.
ZeGuy Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 8 minutes ago, Struwwelpeter60 said: Wrong. Did we lose at Brugge and Copenhagen? 8 minutes ago, Struwwelpeter60 said: Wrong. Did we lose at Brugge and Copenhagen? Awesome argument. Keep dodging my point. Brugge are championship level and we drew at Copenhagen, which aren't exactly world beater. We still lost all but one away game in the PL. In a dreadful way.
Struwwelpeter60 Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 1 minute ago, filbertway said: I thought Roy Hodgson was the only person in England that thought formations and tactics had no way of improving or inhibiting a group of players. How about the season we stayed up. We didn't really change players much, but the change in system made us look a hell of a lot better. Also playing negatively in a diamond made us look atrocious. It's obviously, clearly, definitely a mixture of players and tactics that will impact on results and mainly performances. You are talking about the 2014/15 season. After winning the Championship by playing most of the time a 442 formation, Pearson changed in the new season formations almost every week. We played 442, 451, 433, 4411, 4231 and so on. He tried them all. We spend almost 6 months at the bottom of the table, before he stumbled across the right one. But, according to Steve Walsh, it was the arrival of Huth, that saved us. Not any fancy formation. Without Huth, the 352 formation, that we played during the "Great Escape", would not have been possible. You are right. It takes the right mixture of players and tactics to get us back on track. Right now, Ranieri's options in that regard are rather limited.
Struwwelpeter60 Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 12 minutes ago, ZeGuy said: Awesome argument. Keep dodging my point. Brugge are championship level and we drew at Copenhagen, which aren't exactly world beater. We still lost all but one away game in the PL. In a dreadful way. You are dodging my question about Porto. In those two games we played the same system, but not the same team. Our A-team won, our B-team got trashed. That's a fact.
marbles Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 We need to stay 4-4-2 Its what the players know. The problem is the apparent lack of fight from the players - a formation change will not fix or hide that. Suddenly changing the formation will end up with us going through long periods of adjustment - followed by the same results due to the lack of desire. Ranieri needs to find a way to get them to play with the same intensity we've seen over the last 2 seasons. We dont have the skill to p;lay any other way - so until that happens consistently, we will continue to look bad and drop games.
filbertway Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 26 minutes ago, Struwwelpeter60 said: You are talking about the 2014/15 season. But, according to Steve Walsh, it was the arrival of Huth, that saved us. Not any fancy formation. Without Huth, the 352 formation, that we played during the "Great Escape", would not have been possible. I'll give you that one. Huth was massive for us, as we badly needed some top level experience in the back line. He allowed us to go 3 5 2 and have a massive shift in how we approached games. Feel like we're not doing all we can and just hoping that things magically snap back to last seasons form.
ZeGuy Posted 15 December 2016 Posted 15 December 2016 56 minutes ago, Struwwelpeter60 said: You are dodging my question about Porto. In those two games we played the same system, but not the same team. Our A-team won, our B-team got trashed. That's a fact. Read again. answered about Porto and linked it with the performances of the A team away against Liverpool, Chelsea and ManU. If you fail to see the correlation, then there is nothing else I have to say. Tbh I find it tiresome to speak with someone who doesn't read the answers and just want to have the last word, no matter what. Let's break it there. Cya
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.