4-4-2

[eaststandtom]

any coincidence that since we go back to 4-4-2 we start conceding more goals?

mcauley not good enough in a 4-4-2

if 4-4-2 with current squad surely

chambers ngotty kisborbo sheehan/mattock

discuss

[Tommy G]

better than a negative 5-3-2 though surely??

[RowlattsFox]

Were things that much different when we we 5-3-2, results wise? We played 5-3-2 10 times in the league and won 2. We drew against teams around us in the table, Preston, Colchester, S****horpe, i believe we could have won these games had we been more attacking.

Things havent gone great since we've moved it 4-4-2 but we have had a difficult run of games and with a bit of luck we could have beat Cardiff, and drew against Southampton and West Brom.

I think it was the right decision to move to 4-4-2, and I think we will see the benefits sooner rather than later.

[Fat Ron]

At this moment in time with the players in the form they are in Holloway must be scrathing his head wondering how to fit them into any formation.

Once we have a few additions of his then Im sure we will see a more settled and better positiond side.

[Manwell Pablo]

Were things that much different when we we 5-3-2, results wise? We played 5-3-2 10 times in the league and won 2. We drew against teams around us in the table, Preston, Colchester, S****horpe, i believe we could have won these games had we been more attacking.

Things havent gone great since we've moved it 4-4-2 but we have had a difficult run of games and with a bit of luck we could have beat Cardiff, and drew against Southampton and West Brom.

I think it was the right decision to move to 4-4-2, and I think we will see the benefits sooner rather than later.

"RowlattsFox" posting so I don't have to

[eaststandtom]

4-4-2 is fine but only if we have a defence that can cope with it

at least with 5-3-2 we have a solid defence to build an attack on

if we stick with 4-4-2 fine but we need a new centre half with pace too play alongside kisnorbo

[morris1234]

4-4-2 is fine but only if we have a defence that can cope with it

at least with 5-3-2 we have a solid defence to build an attack on

if we stick with 4-4-2 fine but we need a new centre half with pace too play alongside kisnorbo

i disagree, weve just got one of the worst midfields in the league especially when nobodys fit and defenders are in there. and without a good balanced midfield you will not have cover or any outlet to help the defenders and the strikers will have to work a lot harder because of the poor service.plus id rather play one of the kids than kenton or maybury!!

[Thracian]

Five-three-two was ideal for wing-backs and offered reasonable cover for the youngsters we have in those positions.

But, in a 4-4-2, it is much more risky having the full-backs trying to get forward, particularly when they have a hard enough job defensively as it is.

And to play that system with two slowish centre-backs who look less and less comfortable the closer they get to the by-line is folly.

And the folly is made worse by their both being iffy passers. Giving the ball away so easily only invites more pressure than is safe and it is no surprise that in the end something goes wrong.

If we had a defensive central midfield player who sat in front of the backline effectively then it might be okay.

But if King were there it would waste the only attack-minded midfielder we've got, Clemence can't be relied on, Kenton will pass but may find it hard supporting, Weso is forever injured and Stearman's probably too eratic. So altogether it's not an easy problem to solve.

[Staf]

I prefer 4-4-2 over 3-5-2 because i think we defend to much as a 3-5-2 and i think we attack better with 4-4-2

[Ashley]

4-4-2

[The Stig]

5-3-2 Last 6 games

Goals scored 6

Goals Against 4

Wins 1

Draws 3

Losses 2

Points 6

4-4-2 Last 6 games

Golas scored 6

Goals against 8

Wins 1

Draws 2

Losses 3

Points 5

Our form under Megson and Burros is better than under Holloway, we a scoring more now, but conceding more as well. The only reason were not conceding is because we played so defenceively. I have no doubt that Ollie's 4 4 2 will work, with his team. It doesn't work with our current team. However, Ollie will fix it.

[Cheese Me]

I'd always rather see 3-5-2 when we have the ball and 5-3-2 when we don't. Always thought it better than 4-4-2 because you have more of the right players in the right place at the right time and an extra man to win the midfield battle.

Don't think it's any conicidence that by far our most successful spell of recent times was playing that formation.

Still I can't see it happenning. Don't get the impression that Ollie is about to abandon his preferred tactics and he's paid to decide what's best. Just think it's a shame that's all.

[Daz.I]

better than a negative 5-3-2 though surely??

[MPH]

any coincidence that since we go back to 4-4-2 we start conceding more goals?

mcauley not good enough in a 4-4-2

if 4-4-2 with current squad surely

chambers ngotty kisborbo sheehan/mattock

discuss

would wrather lose trying than lose or grind out a 'hard fought' but boring 0-0

[Finnegan]

Look, it doesn't matter what shape you build your house - if you're building it on shit it's going to sink.

[davieG]

Look, it doesn't matter what shape you build your house - if you're building it on shit it's going to sink.

and Smell