MGLCFC Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 Arsenal play 4 5 1, with Van Persie the loan striker - it seems quite effective for them
NeilyBoy Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 Arsenal play 4 5 1, with Van Persie the loan striker - it seems quite effective for them Fairly sure they own VP
Fox92 Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 Not any more. I used to think we should play it because it could be 4-3-3 and then 4-5-1 when required (such as when away). However, we seem to be playing the formation as a 4-5-1 which iscolates the striker, with it being Nugent yesterday.
Kent Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 Arsenal play 4 5 1, with Van Persie the loan striker - it seems quite effective for them They don't, they usually play 4-2-3-1 like Real did yesterday. Walcott, Arshavin etc don't play as wide midfielders. Personally I like the 4-3-3 system, it suits our passing style because we can control possession easier and dictate the play from midfield.
MGLCFC Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 Splitting hairs - it's still 5 midfielders and a lone striker For what it's worth I can see us playing 2 holding midfielders on saturday (Abe and Fernandes) with Wellens Danns and King in front of them as I don't think Johnson is ready yet. This will leave Nugent the one front man
shade Posted 31 July 2011 Author Posted 31 July 2011 I think nugent is okay, but the fact is that none of our front men, including nugent are particularly prolific. you have to be a superb striker to play the lone role, and all too often we seem devoid of ideas and support in the final third, 4 5 1 it is then I guess.
Raw Dykes Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 They don't, they usually play 4-2-3-1 like Real did yesterday. Walcott, Arshavin etc don't play as wide midfielders. Personally I like the 4-3-3 system, it suits our passing style because we can control possession easier and dictate the play from midfield. I like this. You're right. Having an extra man in midfield, while sacrificing some width, can really give a team the edge. I think people on this thread have raised some interesting points about the pros and cons of 4-3-3, and whether the players we have are suited to it, but it's clear for anyone to see that we haven't had problems scoring goals since Sven replaced Sousa. Now the defence looks a lot stronger and the already good midfield has been much improved, I think it's probably best that we stick with the formation. I like it. It's versatile. It can be made extremely defensive or extremely attacking without using any substitutes or playing players out of position, and when done right, it can be great to watch, and thoroughly lethal. It's weird that 3-5-2 fell out of fashion. I suppose it might be because you have to get 3 centre-halves to play together, which I'm sure not many are used to, and you're asking a hell of a lot from the wing-backs. Also, thinking about it, that's a pretty specialist position. Not many full-backs can attack like a natural winger, and not many wingers can defend like a natural full-back.
Kent Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 I like this. You're right. Having an extra man in midfield, while sacrificing some width, can really give a team the edge. I think people on this thread have raised some interesting points about the pros and cons of 4-3-3, and whether the players we have are suited to it, but it's clear for anyone to see that we haven't had problems scoring goals since Sven replaced Sousa. Now the defence looks a lot stronger and the already good midfield has been much improved, I think it's probably best that we stick with the formation. I like it. It's versatile. It can be made extremely defensive or extremely attacking without using any substitutes or playing players out of position, and when done right, it can be great to watch, and thoroughly lethal. It's weird that 3-5-2 fell out of fashion. I suppose it might be because you have to get 3 centre-halves to play together, which I'm sure not many are used to, and you're asking a hell of a lot from the wing-backs. Also, thinking about it, that's a pretty specialist position. Not many full-backs can attack like a natural winger, and not many wingers can defend like a natural full-back. I don't think you necessarily have to sacrifice width though with two wingers and wingbacks. It needs a certain calibre of player obviously but I think our fullbacks are good enough both defensively and going forward to pull it off.
l444ry Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 I like this. You're right. Having an extra man in midfield, while sacrificing some width, can really give a team the edge. I think people on this thread have raised some interesting points about the pros and cons of 4-3-3, and whether the players we have are suited to it, but it's clear for anyone to see that we haven't had problems scoring goals since Sven replaced Sousa. Now the defence looks a lot stronger and the already good midfield has been much improved, I think it's probably best that we stick with the formation. I like it. It's versatile. It can be made extremely defensive or extremely attacking without using any substitutes or playing players out of position, and when done right, it can be great to watch, and thoroughly lethal. It's weird that 3-5-2 fell out of fashion. I suppose it might be because you have to get 3 centre-halves to play together, which I'm sure not many are used to, and you're asking a hell of a lot from the wing-backs. Also, thinking about it, that's a pretty specialist position. Not many full-backs can attack like a natural winger, and not many wingers can defend like a natural full-back. 3-5-2 was desiged to combat 4-4-2, whuch almost every team played in those days. When teams went 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 it made the system virtually defunct. Even Martin disposed of it at Celtic. Only one team in Italy play anything like this system in Italy and that is Napoli. But even they have tweaked it with 3 centre halfs, 2 defensive central midfielders with two wing backs and two deep lying striker/midfielders behind a main striker.
l444ry Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 what the fook are you all talking about ? As an expert conspiracy analyst, I'd have thought you'd uderstand these minor matters Zinger!
Zingari Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 As an expert conspiracy analyst, I'd have thought you'd uderstand these minor matters Zinger! i reckon the conspiracy is, that it's teams with better players who win matches , not constant tinkering with mystical and numerical formations
l444ry Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 i reckon the conspiracy is, that it's teams with better players who win matches , not constant tinkering with mystical and numerical formations I agree and have said this many times on this forum but I usually get Thracian objecting to such obvious observations.
LCFC_FAN_1995 Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 Whatever formation Sven uses then im happy with that
gazfox9 Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 Like it or not,I reckon we'll be playing 4 3 3 next season. Svens made it pretty obvious thats his formation of choice. I'm happy with his judgement.
shade Posted 31 July 2011 Author Posted 31 July 2011 maybe I'm mistaken, I thought he said he favoured 4 4 2 but didn't have the players ?
accessory Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 Why is he a striker...? Everytime I see him I think of a playmaker and he's got the skills to be it so why isn't he? Because that would mean sacrificing King, and few on here would want to do that.
STUHILL Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 Our 4-3-3 on paper looks awesome but it didn't work well at all yesterday, although it was against Madrid. The defence was fine, but attacking wise we had so few options and the midfield just didn't support the attacks enough. There was one occasion where I think Vassel burst forward on the break and all the midfielders just jogged behind him so he eventually ran in to trouble. I hope we create a lot more next weekend or we could be looking at a 0-0
wakeyfox01 Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 Our 4-3-3 on paper looks awesome but it didn't work well at all yesterday, although it was against Madrid. The defence was fine, but attacking wise we had so few options and the midfield just didn't support the attacks enough. There was one occasion where I think Vassel burst forward on the break and all the midfielders just jogged behind him so he eventually ran in to trouble. I hope we create a lot more next weekend or we could be looking at a 0-0 Maybe thats because we were playing Real Madrid and didn't want to leave ourselves too exposed as they could murder us. The times we really comitted men forward they scored twice and came close a couple of other times but wayward finishing let them down.
STUHILL Posted 31 July 2011 Posted 31 July 2011 Maybe thats because we were playing Real Madrid and didn't want to leave ourselves too exposed as they could murder us. The times we really comitted men forward they scored twice and came close a couple of other times but wayward finishing let them down. I understand that but you must have noticed times when Nugent or Vassel had the ball deep in the corner and not one of the midfield 3 burst in to the box ready for a delivery. I know it was Real Madrid but I think all these players had this one chance to shine and really have a go and I just thought we were too cautious and that reflected with us having no shot on target until Bamba's header was it in the second half?? I just felt we could have had a real go at them, just like we did against Man City. When are we ever going to play Real Madrid again!
CountesthorpeFox Posted 1 August 2011 Posted 1 August 2011 ok, so if you claim it only happened against a good Madrid side, and doesn't always happen, answer this. vassell, as a proper striker, as part of a front two, should score goals right? how many did he knock in last season, when he was supposed to be one of our THREE strikers? face it, 433 only works with three proper attackers, and should be ultra offensive. were essentially playing a 451 with two strikers in midfield. We scored 76 goals last season which is 5 more than QPR. Goalscoring was not the teams issue using this system. Granted we don't as of yet have the Yak or a central striker of his ability but im relatively sure we will do. our 4-3-3 is not 3 strikers upfront. Its two deeper wider attacking players and one striker. The wider players drop back when we defend to form a 4-5-1. People seem to forget that King is nowhere near as effective in a 4-4-2. He doesnt get involved enough to be in just a 2 man central midfield so the 3 man central midfield allows him to make forward runs, hence him being our top goalscorer last season. The transfer policy implemented does not support a 4-4-2 as we have bought lots of CM, as a 4-3-3 system is clearl Svens plan. Alot of majorly sucessful teams use the 4-3-3 system to great effect. Im not suggesting we are Manchester United obviously but it suits or squad. I agree with the notions about our attacking options not being very exciting at the moment but I think that will change. I dont necessarily think our major goal source will be one striker this season, it rarely is.
Guest Col city fan Posted 1 August 2011 Posted 1 August 2011 I think nugent is okay, but the fact is that none of our front men, including nugent are particularly prolific. you have to be a superb striker to play the lone role, and all too often we seem devoid of ideas and support in the final third, 4 5 1 it is then I guess. Very sensible post... The lone striker either needs to be lightning quick or simply a very good player.. Nugent, vassell, Howard are not good enough IMO to play this role week in week out.. Again, refer to my previous post... The best strikers have always played as strike PARTNERS.. Feeding off each other and knowing each others game
Aylestone Fox Posted 1 August 2011 Posted 1 August 2011 We scored 76 goals last season which is 5 more than QPR. Goalscoring was not the teams issue using this system. Granted we don't as of yet have the Yak or a central striker of his ability but im relatively sure we will do. our 4-3-3 is not 3 strikers upfront. Its two deeper wider attacking players and one striker. The wider players drop back when we defend to form a 4-5-1. People seem to forget that King is nowhere near as effective in a 4-4-2. He doesnt get involved enough to be in just a 2 man central midfield so the 3 man central midfield allows him to make forward runs, hence him being our top goalscorer last season. The transfer policy implemented does not support a 4-4-2 as we have bought lots of CM, as a 4-3-3 system is clearl Svens plan. Alot of majorly sucessful teams use the 4-3-3 system to great effect. Im not suggesting we are Manchester United obviously but it suits or squad. I agree with the notions about our attacking options not being very exciting at the moment but I think that will change. I dont necessarily think our major goal source will be one striker this season, it rarely is. This Some sense at last,. With the back line strengthened quite considerably we will be in alot better shape for the challenge ahead without a doubt. Sven no doubt has his eyes on the second striker to rotate with Nugent, I'm not concernet al all about our options at the moment, rather looking forward to it. In :sge: we trust,....
jock2612 Posted 1 August 2011 Posted 1 August 2011 I thought in a 433 system it was the full backs going forward that gave the width aka Noughton and VA with three upfront supporting each other in the box and making runs,BUT this season the full backs are not pushng so far forward which has made us 100% better in defence but has meant two of the front three being pulled wider into out and out wingers and leaving our striker isolated.Playing this way will not deliver the goals we need.Crossing into the box trying to pick out one man is bound to fail most of the time.I think this is the main problem with Waggy he is simply not a winger which because the system is not working he is increasingly being asked to play,on loan at his best he played off a striker..I think Sven has made an error in not at least trying different formations including 442 during the pre-season.
RGFox Posted 1 August 2011 Posted 1 August 2011 Not a fan of 4-3-3 unless we're playing a struggling team. I'm not sure on the possession but it must've been 70% RM - we were chasing shadows, but then, it's Real Madrid FFS! Much prefer 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 but you'd need the striker to hold the ball up.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.