4-2-3-1 -- What's the obsession???

[Motiv8a]

If it is a club policy to play 4-2-3-1 then that is bizarre and insane. I do find it very hard to believe a club would have a policy about sticking to one formation. I guess stranger things have happened but it’s too far fetched for me.

 

To a layman like me it would make a lot of sense to change the shape when it’s clearly not bringing much joy. Like that’s the obvious thing to do. When it’s the obvious thing to do it’s also highly likely they’ve thought about changing it many times. And decided to persevere. 
 

For all we know the players prefer it as well as the manager. Doesn’t look like anyone is particularly comfortable though.

 

I still think the problems are vibes based and until the atmosphere at the club from top to bottom changes we are going to struggle to get any formation working.

[Muzzy_no7]

For the gazzilionth time we aren’t playing with a double pivot this season.

[ian__marshall]

25 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

For the gazzilionth time we aren’t playing with a double pivot this season.

I understand why people keep saying this, but if you look at our shape whenever McCarthy has the ball both Page and Braybrooke split in the same line just in front of the CB's, so I definitely think the plan is to play with a double pivot. I think where it falls down and people keep saying we aren't playing this way, is that Page doesn't have the discipline to hold his position (rightly so because that's neither his best position nor his game). If you look back at earlier games when Skipp was in the side we were definitely playing this shape.

 

The reason we are getting cut open so easily in my view, is one of two reasons. Firstly, the gap between the 10 and deeper lying CMs is too big so it allows teams to dominate that central area and get a run on us in the turnover. Secondly, because Page doesn't have positional discipline, he often gets caught out operating in areas he shouldn't which leaves us wide open. 

 

Regardless, the biggest issue with the formation is that we don't have the right players to play it effectively in the attacking third irrespective of whether the intention is to play a single/double pivot. Until that is addressed, we'd be better playing to our actual strengths. 

[Twitcher]

I'd love to see a Leicester team with two forwards, like back in the day. Preferably ones that know where the net is.

[Muzzy_no7]

15 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

I understand why people keep saying this, but if you look at our shape whenever McCarthy has the ball both Page and Braybrooke split in the same line just in front of the CB's, so I definitely think the plan is to play with a double pivot. I think where it falls down and people keep saying we aren't playing this way, is that Page doesn't have the discipline to hold his position (rightly so because that's neither his best position nor his game). If you look back at earlier games when Skipp was in the side we were definitely playing this shape.

 

The reason we are getting cut open so easily in my view, is one of two reasons. Firstly, the gap between the 10 and deeper lying CMs is too big so it allows teams to dominate that central area and get a run on us in the turnover. Secondly, because Page doesn't have positional discipline, he often gets caught out operating in areas he shouldn't which leaves us wide open. 

 

Regardless, the biggest issue with the formation is that we don't have the right players to play it effectively in the attacking third irrespective of whether the intention is to play a single/double pivot. Until that is addressed, we'd be better playing to our actual strengths. 

I disagree, with Skipp I could see him playing as the single pivot in possession with Braybrooke clearing operating a lot higher up the pitch with BDCR or Cullen given license to make it a 4-4-2 out of possession. 
 

With Page it’s been clear he’s also been the deeper one with Braybrooke operating a lot higher, albeit not as high as BDCR.

 

Moving forward I think Lundstram has to play 6 with Page and Braybrooke being the two 8’s. 
 

We have to give one of the fullbacks license to overlap/underlap more often though. 

[ClaphamFox]

5 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

I disagree, with Skipp I could see him playing as the single pivot in possession with Braybrooke clearing operating a lot higher up the pitch with BDCR or Cullen given license to make it a 4-4-2 out of possession. 
 

With Page it’s been clear he’s also been the deeper one with Braybrooke operating a lot higher, albeit not as high as BDCR.

 

Moving forward I think Lundstram has to play 6 with Page and Braybrooke being the two 8’s. 
 

We have to give one of the fullbacks license to overlap/underlap more often though. 

If Chaplin is fit, RM will play him as one of the 8s. He'll also be captain. We'll only see Braybrooke and Page together in those positions when Chaplin is injured—which, to be fair, could be quite often.