Formation IF we get promoted

[Tielemans63]

Was discussing this with my best mate over beer and burgers yesterday afternoon.

 

The team are flying and playing wonderfully well, despite us playing what many think is a pretty outdated 4-4-2. It's a very orthodox 4-4-2 as well with two out and out wingers. So, if we do go up, do we stick with this formation and see where it gets us or would this be a too big a risk seeing as most Premier League sides play a variant of 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. Teams that play a straightforward 4-4-2 tend to get found out pretty quickly and often struggle so what do we go with?

 

My feeling is that we go with the current formation but my mate thinks we should start with a 4-3-3 as we'd be too open otherwise.

 

 

[AdamN]

Man City play 4-4-2 pretty effectively. Not even nearly suggesting that we're on the same level as them, but it at least shows that it can be done. If that's our strongest formation then why not stick to it?

[AKCJ]

Hull went up and have made mid table and the FA Cup semi-final playing 4-4-2.

[Mark_w]

Hull went up and have made mid table and the FA Cup semi-final playing 4-4-2.

 

Hull went up playing that weird 5-3-2/3-5-2 didn't they?

[red5]

I think we should play a goalkeeper and 10 on the pitch.

[Adster]

Man City play 4-4-2 pretty effectively. Not even nearly suggesting that we're on the same level as them, but it at least shows that it can be done. If that's our strongest formation then why not stick to it?

 

Pretty sure they also play with the 4-2-3-1 formation.

[Langoh]

Hull play 3-5-2 effectively and I can see Pearson going for something similar (he started the first game of the season 3-5-2). I can also see us playing a 4-4-2 against the weaker teams in the division, but it'd be nuts to line up against one of the big boys with only 4 in midfield, and I'm sure someone like King will come in in those games.

[Ashley]

Hull went up playing that weird 5-3-2/3-5-2 didn't they?

This.

[Fox Ulike]

I think fans get over-obsessed with formations. This is probably because it’s basically the only tactic any of us were ever given in our school teams!

 

In effect, it doesn’t really make a great deal of difference. The only key question (which all modern formations are based around) is whether you play with either 2 or 3 central midfield players, at the expense of a striker.  Everything else is just waffle.

 

4-4-2 with Nugent dropping deep, is different to 4-4-2 with Wood and Vardy both playing as out-and-out strikers.

 

Often, the only difference in 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 is how far up the pitch the wingers stand at goal kicks.

 

And, is 3-5-2 actually any different to 5-3-2? It’s only a question of whether your full-backs are either chiefly attack-minded (3-5-2) or defence-minded (5-3-2)?

 

What’s important is having players who can read the game well and drop deep or push forward as each situation requires (eg Nugent and King).

[yorkie1999]

Forest fan at our place reckons they only play well when they play 4-4-3 with 3 at the back (he's harmless).......I reckon we should adopt the same strategy and hope no-one notices

[dmayne7]

FOUR-FOUR-FVCKING-TWO!

[Guest Sharpe's Fox]

Whoever is up front for us is so isolated when we play with 3 centre mids, we saw it at the start if the season. Different types of players will be needed if we want to adapt our style AND get results against better sides.

[Brauny Fox]

I think fans get over-obsessed with formations. This is probably because it’s basically the only tactic any of us were ever given in our school teams!

 

In effect, it doesn’t really make a great deal of difference. The only key question (which all modern formations are based around) is whether you play with either 2 or 3 central midfield players, at the expense of a striker.  Everything else is just waffle.

 

4-4-2 with Nugent dropping deep, is different to 4-4-2 with Wood and Vardy both playing as out-and-out strikers.

 

Often, the only difference in 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 is how far up the pitch the wingers stand at goal kicks.

 

And, is 3-5-2 actually any different to 5-3-2? It’s only a question of whether your full-backs are either chiefly attack-minded (3-5-2) or defence-minded (5-3-2)?

 

What’s important is having players who can read the game well and drop deep or push forward as each situation requires (eg Nugent and King).

 

Spot on. Its not so much about the formation, its about the certain roles players play in the formation.

[MooseBreath]

442 unless we buy players who are effective playing 433. We saw earlier in the season how poor we currently are playing anything other than 442. We were worse both defensively and going forward. We need to play to our strengths and try to beat teams not set up in fear of being beaten. Won't work everytime of course but it's better than setting up to lose.

[AKCJ]

Hull went up playing that weird 5-3-2/3-5-2 didn't they?

 

 

They went up playing that yes, but they're playing 4-4-2 in the PL.

[lgfualol]

7-1-2

[Hungry Hungry Fox]

Can see us playing 4-5-1 with a holding midfielder and 2 central midfielders

[Lineker's Left Foot]

Hull went up playing that weird 5-3-2/3-5-2 didn't they?

Yes mate they did - three at the back and I know they utilised Elmohamady - a master stroke and class player at Championship level - as a right wing back

[LCCFox96]

To start with surely we must stick to what we know and are playing best at. That's 4-4-2. No point switching and screwing up our current way of playing too early. If we are consolidated and in our 2nd or 3rd year in the PL then a formation change may be one thing we could change. Definately not immediately though.

[Hungry Hungry Fox]

To start with surely we must stick to what we know and are playing best at. That's 4-4-2. No point switching and screwing up our current way of playing too early. If we are consolidated and in our 2nd or 3rd year in the PL then a formation change may be one thing we could change. Definately not immediately though.

Hmmm I think the better teams might destroy us if we play 4-4-2

[kingfox]

Think it will vary, think a team like ours, will need to pack the midfield in some games and play 3 central midfielders. 

[BigWesMorgan]

                                          Kasper

 

De Laet - Moore - Wasilewski - Morgan - New CB - New LB

 

                      Knockaert - Drinkwater - James 

                                           

                                           Vardy

[TrentFox]

Forest fan at our place reckons they only play well when they play 4-4-3 with 3 at the back (he's harmless).......I reckon we should adopt the same strategy and hope no-one notices

You would expect them to play well if they play with 11 outfield players. Maybe we should try that ??

[LAprice_]

Firstly, as previously mentioned, formations vary; there are dozens of different adaptations of 4-4-2

 

One of the best examples of a variation was the formation vs QPR. At first glance it would appear to be 4-4-2 BUT Pearson had the team set up a lot more intelligently/carefully to help soak-in the QPR pressure. That worked perfectly. In that particular game, Nugent dropped back, wingers played slightly narrow and full-backs bombed forward. In other words, 4-4-2 doesn't mean we'll be vulnerable in the middle.

 

And also...

 

Man City play 4-4-2 pretty effectively. Not even nearly suggesting that we're on the same level as them, but it at least shows that it can be done. If that's our strongest formation then why not stick to it?

Call me stupid, but I think we play a very similar style to Man City, with the obvious difference being that they have better players. But comparatively, we both dominate teams in our league by playing attacking football, the sort of attacking football that allows full-backs to get forward and 'play-makers' to roam.

 

Finally, if we did play 3 in midfield, I hope we sign Cleverley. May be an unpopular choice but the James, Drinkwater, Cleverley trio was exceptionally good in the youth leagues. Just saying!

[Cityfan1995]

4-4-4-4