Beckford and the 433

[Churchill]

After seeing Beckford in the 433 formation a few times now i think he is just a wasted player, to get the best out of him you have to play someone else up there with him. He looks so much better when he is playing along side Nugent but soon as we change he looks lost, hope NP realises this and scraps this 433 or 451 which ever.

[Mark_w]

It's not like he wanted to play it regularly, injury problems forced us to use it, with Wellens back we'll be back to 4-4-2 against Doncaster.

[Churchill]

It's not like he wanted to play it regularly, injury problems forced us to use it, with Wellens back we'll be back to 4-4-2 against Doncaster.

No excuse really, before danns got sent off you could play danns with bamba or drinkwater and dyer with marshall on the wings then when danns was suspended you could play bamba and drinkwater so never really had to change the formation.

[Babylon]

This thread is the ultimate trifecta... Bekford, Pearson, Formation.

[Churchill]

This thread is the ultimate trifecta... Bekford, Pearson, Formation.

Would you rather talk about what you had for dinner today? I do believe this is a forum to talk about Leicester and football so thats what i am doing?

[bmt]

The formation is definitely a 4-2-3-1, not a 4-3-3. Surely I'm not the only one thinking this every time it's mentioned

EDIT: Not that it matters, I'm just in a bad mood

[Babylon]

No excuse really, before danns got sent off you could play danns with bamba or drinkwater and dyer with marshall on the wings then when danns was suspended you could play bamba and drinkwater so never really had to change the formation.

But he did get sent off which lumbered us with a problem that wasn't exactly easy to fix... does Bamba and Drinkwater sounds like an idea partnership to you?

There was no magic formula with what we had available in my eyes. It was one of those where you try and fix problem a) but cause problem b). Don't fix problem a) and you're still left with problem a).

[Churchill]

The formation is definitely a 4-2-3-1, not a 4-3-3. Surely I'm not the only one thinking this every time it's mentioned

Maybe your right, but still up top on his own plus Nugent aint the same player when put out wide.

[Churchill]

But he did get sent off which lumbered us with a problem that wasn't exactly easy to fix... does Bamba and Drinkwater sounds like an idea partnership to you?

There was no magic formula with what we had available in my eyes. It was one of those where you try and fix problem a) but cause problem b). Don't fix problem a) and you're still left with problem a).

No not really but i would rather stick with a 442 and just hope that Bamba performs instead of changing formation and then pushing Nugent out wide where he just don't perform and Beckford up top on his own again just don't perform. Even with the 433/4231 you still have the partnership of Drinkwater and Bamba.

[Mark_w]

No excuse really, before danns got sent off you could play danns with bamba or drinkwater and dyer with marshall on the wings then when danns was suspended you could play bamba and drinkwater so never really had to change the formation.

I don't really trust Bamba in a 3 man midfield, god knows what he'd be like in a two man midfield.

[Raw Dykes]

No excuse really, before danns got sent off you could play danns with bamba or drinkwater and dyer with marshall on the wings then when danns was suspended you could play bamba and drinkwater so never really had to change the formation.

NP quite rightly changed the formation to put an extra man in midfield to make up for having only one natural central midfielder available. I very much doubt 4-4-2 would be effective with Bamba as a CM, and I don't think many would disagree. I think we can get away with using Bamba as a holding midfielder, but not in a flat 4-4-2.

The formation is definitely a 4-2-3-1, not a 4-3-3. Surely I'm not the only one thinking this every time it's mentioned

EDIT: Not that it matters, I'm just in a bad mood

4-2-3-1 is 4-3-3, or a slight variation of it. The middle player of the 3 in 4-2-3-1 is an AMC, who you could say is part of the 2 behind, and that leaves you with the three forwards.

[LCFC BEAST]

Leicester are a 4-4-2 play to the target man team, always have been, always will be.

For the exception of O'Neill who liked to play 3-4-3 (I think)

[bmt]

Maybe your right, but still up top on his own plus Nugent aint the same player when put out wide.

You're right of course. I love 4-2-3-1 as a formation but realistically with the squad we have we need to be utilising the front 2 together. Bamba isn't a CM though, especially in a 442 where he doesnt have the same protection. Shows what we need for next season, another CM playmaker (Wellens is decent but we need someone a bit nippier and quicker on the ball), and maybe show Bamba the door and get a new ball winner in the middle of the park who won't make the risky decisions and have the poor positioning Bamba does. Obviously a new winger to compete with Dyer and Marshall if we play either a 442 or a 4-2-3-1 or similar. And of course a right back not to replace Pelts but just to make him compete.

[bmt]

Leicester are a 4-4-2 play to the target man team, always have been, always will be.

Correct in one sense but if you go back 10 years everyone was a 4-4-2 with a target man team. It's an outdated formation, if not style of play, and even if we play in a similar style to that adjustments need to be made to keep up with the modern game.

[Darkon84]

I thought the same thing. Reading the Peterboro' post match thread and seeing how much Beckford got slated, just went to show how little, some people on here know about football.

People were moaning saying he wasnt doing this, or doing that, whereas if they looked closer, they would see that there was only so much he could do.

Playing him up top by himself and hoofing long balls to him all game is the wrong way to play him. You need to play to his strengths, playing balls between defenders or feeding off of someone else. Im still baffled as to why Nugent played wide that game, with Marshall spposedly in the hole (when Dyer would let him play there, as he kept coming well off his wing and leaving Konchesky vulnerable and with nothing going forward). Why didnt we play with Nugent and Beckford up top with Marshall and Dyer as wingers? I don't know, only Pearson knows, but at the end of the day, playing Beckford in the lone striker role as we saw against Peterboro, won't bring out his best performances.

[Churchill]

You're right of course. I love 4-2-3-1 as a formation but realistically with the squad we have we need to be utilising the front 2 together. Bamba isn't a CM though, especially in a 442 where he doesnt have the same protection. Shows what we need for next season, another CM playmaker (Wellens is decent but we need someone a bit nippier and quicker on the ball), and maybe show Bamba the door and get a new ball winner in the middle of the park who won't make the risky decisions and have the poor positioning Bamba does. Obviously a new winger to compete with Dyer and Marshall if we play either a 442 or a 4-2-3-1 or similar. And of course a right back not to replace Pelts but just to make him compete.

True watching Bamba is scary at times, just think i would of risked playing Bamba in a 442 rather than playing two quality strikers in roles they don't perform in but too late now i guess.

[Raw Dykes]

Leicester are a 4-4-2 play to the target man team, always have been, always will be.

For the exception of O'Neill who liked to play 3-4-3 (I think)

Well that's not true. 4-4-2 (or 4-2-4, as it was then) has only been around since the 1950's, and how can you possibly know how we'll play in the future? It's possible we'll never use 4-4-2 again. Unlikely, but possible.

MON preferred 3-5-2, or 5-3-2.

[LCFC BEAST]

Correct in one sense but if you go back 10 years everyone was a 4-4-2 with a target man team. It's an outdated formation, if not style of play, and even if we play in a similar style to that adjustments need to be made to keep up with the modern game.

I see what you're saying but in the past 2 years we've tried god knows how many formations and none have them have been as effect as the standard 4-4-2. I can't see us playing in any other formation in all honesty

[Darkon84]

True watching Bamba is scary at times, just think i would of risked playing Bamba in a 442 rather than playing two quality strikers in roles they don't perform in but too late now i guess.

We also had Wellens and King on the bench though, so Bamba didn't necessarily have to play there. Yes, neither of them were 100% fit, but the option was there to start one, and bring the other on to replace after an hour or so.

[Mark_w]

We also had Wellens and King on the bench though, so Bamba didn't necessarily have to play there. Yes, neither of them were 100% fit, but the option was there to start one, and bring the other on to replace after an hour or so.

But we hadn't done that badly playing that formation before the Posh game, so playing unfit players really seemed unnecesary considering we were risking more CM injuries we couldn't afford.

[Raw Dykes]

We also had Wellens and King on the bench though, so Bamba didn't necessarily have to play there. Yes, neither of them were 100% fit, but the option was there to start one, and bring the other on to replace after an hour or so.

The trouble with starting a player who isn't fully fit, is that you know you'll have to replace him at some point. It's better to put as many fully fit players in the starting XI as you can manage, and bring the players who aren't 100% on only if and when you need to.

[Babylon]

No not really but i would rather stick with a 442 and just hope that Bamba performs instead of changing formation and then pushing Nugent out wide where he just don't perform and Beckford up top on his own again just don't perform. Even with the 433/4231 you still have the partnership of Drinkwater and Bamba.

But if he'd put Bamba in the middle and two up top, and still lost the next two games people would have said. Why didn't he put Nugent or Beckford out wide, with one upfront and hope they perform. Rather than playing a CB in midfield. No matter which way you swing it you are hoping someone can play out of position.

I can completely understand why the played it the way he did, as Bamba had a bit more around him in the middle (just in case) and you still had a threat up front. Hands up it didn't work, we can all see that now. But hind sight is a wonderful thing.

[BrummieFOX]

Correct in one sense but if you go back 10 years everyone was a 4-4-2 with a target man team. It's an outdated formation, if not style of play, and even if we play in a similar style to that adjustments need to be made to keep up with the modern game.

No one has ever really convinced me of this idea that 442 is 'outdated'. Is it? Who says so and why can a team who plays 442 not be successful?

[Babylon]

We also had Wellens and King on the bench though, so Bamba didn't necessarily have to play there. Yes, neither of them were 100% fit, but the option was there to start one, and bring the other on to replace after an hour or so.

But obviously to decide if that was a viable option you need to know how fit they actually were. Were they on the bench purely as an emergency because we had nothing else, or were they a real option? Considering the number of times people go on about Pearsons love for his ex players on here, you'd think he would have played them if he really thought it viable.

[acooling08]

The 4-4-3 has been shit for Beckford and Nugent. Will be glad for the 4-4-2.