Stadt Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Notation of formations and actual formations are very different things, a 352, a 532 and a 3511 are all different and alter how you play so Everton's 352 is quite different to say Hull's, for example. I wouldn't advocate using often but against tougher sides maybe it'd work. Generally for a 352 you need to press aggressively so you're shortening the playing area and I don't think our side is suited to that, our back line is much too slow and Vardy works best with space in front of him. I hope we don't become reactionary either, play our own game (well not all of the time anyway).
foxfanazer Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Our style of football suits the 4-4-2 better. 3-5-2 was ugly but effective in the Championship but I don't see us adopting it in the prem
inckley fox Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 We never made enough decent opportunities using it. We only went with it for 2-3 games, though. And our wing backs were converted full backs rather than converted wingers (as was the case with Guppy / Impey, or Guppy / Savage in the late 90s). In theory full back is a weakness for us - reducing the four wide berths to two may be beneficial. The real questions are whether we can get the likes of Knockaert / Albrighton / Schlupp / De Laet / Mahrez to function as wing backs, and whether we have enough options in the centre of the park to play three in the centre of defence and midfield.
LCFC2429 Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Kasper New signing Morgan Moore Drinkwater James New signing New signing Schlupp Ulloa new signing
foxfanazer Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Kasper New signing Morgan Moore Drinkwater James New signing New signing Schlupp Ulloa new signing What!?
Danno Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 We had absolutely zero threat playing it last season. Waste of time really. Do people really think you can't get anywhere just playing 2 centre mids?
65RosesFox Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Kasper New signing Morgan Moore Drinkwater James New signing New signing Schlupp Ulloa new signing Clearly a WUM and if it's not then I suggest you start supporting QPR if you like new signings every transfer window.
Nick Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Kasper Moore Morgan Was Albrighton James Danny King Mahrez Ulloa Vardy Can't see us using this system much, though. I've wanted to see this for a long time, keep suggesting and keep getting shot down in flames (for obvious reasons) I still want to see it in action though. ( Not this formation though!) Kasper Moore/Morgan/Schlupp Albrighton/Drinks/James/Mahrez Knocky Vardy/Ulloa
Buzzell Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Ladies and Gentlemen, Leicester will be playing 4-4-****ing 2.
Dan Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Our style of football suits the 4-4-2 better. 3-5-2 was ugly but effective in the Championship but I don't see us adopting it in the prem I'd argue it was ugly and not even effective. I remember us playing it three times - Middlesbrough away, 1 down at half time and we switched to a 4-4-2 (correct me if I'm wrong) in the second half and turned the game around. Leeds at home - one of three games all season we failed to score in against a side who proved to be their usual midtable selves, Birmingham at home where we did end up winning the game - but we scored three late goals, was that possibly down to a formation change again? It does absolutely nothing for me. I'd happily play it if we had the players but we don't. We had absolutely zero threat playing it last season. Waste of time really. Do people really think you can't get anywhere just playing 2 centre mids? I thought that as well. Surely if you're losing a central midfielder you're stronger somewhere else on the pitch. The game evolves all of the time and I don't get why people play to almost follow a trend. It makes me laugh how people bang on about Holland like they won the World Cup. Neither finalist played 3-5-2 at any point during the tournament.
Harry - LCFC Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 I'd argue it was ugly and not even effective. I remember us playing it three times - Middlesbrough away, 1 down at half time and we switched to a 4-4-2 (correct me if I'm wrong) in the second half and turned the game around. Leeds at home - one of three games all season we failed to score in against a side who proved to be their usual midtable selves, Birmingham at home where we did end up winning the game - but we scored three late goals, was that possibly down to a formation change again? One more to add - Charlton - and it was the end of it after that.
foxfanazer Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 I'd argue it was ugly and not even effective. I remember us playing it three times - Middlesbrough away, 1 down at half time and we switched to a 4-4-2 (correct me if I'm wrong) in the second half and turned the game around. Leeds at home - one of three games all season we failed to score in against a side who proved to be their usual midtable selves, Birmingham at home where we did end up winning the game - but we scored three late goals, was that possibly down to a formation change again? It does absolutely nothing for me. I'd happily play it if we had the players but we don't. I thought that as well. Surely if you're losing a central midfielder you're stronger somewhere else on the pitch. The game evolves all of the time and I don't get why people play to almost follow a trend. It makes me laugh how people bang on about Holland like they won the World Cup. Neither finalist played 3-5-2 at any point during the tournament. Yeah think you're right actually Dan
Harry - LCFC Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Did we play it at Millwall? Nope. 4-4-2 but played all four of our CBs. Didn't look entirely comfortable as you might imagine!
Dan Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 One more to add - Charlton - and it was the end of it after that. Oh. Case rested. One of the worst displays all season.
ealingfox Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Only saw us play 3-5-2 at Wycombe last season, and it was absolutely dire. Nobody (except ironically Danns) looked like they knew what they were meant to be doing at all. Dyer looked terrible, and we weren't in control for long spells in that game. We don't have the players for it, nor the time to make them the players for it. Man City played a 4-4-2 not dissimilar to ours last year, and we both won our divisional titles.
Dan Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Good shout on Wycombe. We were awful there but got out of jail. On the point - Holland, surely I'm not the only one who didn't find them that good to watch either?
Stadt Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Nope. 4-4-2 but played all four of our CBs. Didn't look entirely comfortable as you might imagine!Oh right, still won though
Ashley Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 Good shout on Wycombe. We were awful there but got out of jail. On the point - Holland, surely I'm not the only one who didn't find them that good to watch either? To be fair that world cup wasn't the best no team stood out not even Germany not one team was dominant. People seem scared of Brazil for some reason Colombia could have beat them they went for it sooner than they did. Dare I say it but England could have won that world cup anyone could of
Captain... Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 I love 532/352 but it relies a lot in having the right wing backs, that is where that formation succeeds or fails. Too defensive and you lose out on width going forwards, too attacking and you get exposed down the flanks. You get the right wing backs then it is a great formation as it allows you the security of the extra CB and CM to dominate the middle and play with 2 strikers, but the wing backs need to do the job of 2 players. Now in RDL we have a player who looks ideal to be a wing back, pacy fit attacking but will get back and defend. Schlupp could potentially be the same on the other side, their defensive frailties covered by the extra CB. But the rest if the squad specifically the additions Nigel has made say he isn't looking at 532 otherwise he wouldn't have brought in a traditional wide player and he would have brought in more CB & CM cover.
Stadt Posted 3 August 2014 Posted 3 August 2014 I love 532/352 but it relies a lot in having the right wing backs, that is where that formation succeeds or fails. Too defensive and you lose out on width going forwards, too attacking and you get exposed down the flanks. You get the right wing backs then it is a great formation as it allows you the security of the extra CB and CM to dominate the middle and play with 2 strikers, but the wing backs need to do the job of 2 players. Now in RDL we have a player who looks ideal to be a wing back, pacy fit attacking but will get back and defend. Schlupp could potentially be the same on the other side, their defensive frailties covered by the extra CB. But the rest if the squad specifically the additions Nigel has made say he isn't looking at 532 otherwise he wouldn't have brought in a traditional wide player and he would have brought in more CB & CM cover. I'd say that a defensive mid that provides cover for the wingbacks is essential too and we don't have one (that's good enough).
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 4 August 2014 Posted 4 August 2014 Guppy the best wing back we ever had.
ozleicester Posted 4 August 2014 Posted 4 August 2014 Im pretty sure this is our structure for most of next season
Haydos Posted 4 August 2014 Posted 4 August 2014 We've definitely not signed the players for it so I am 99% sure it won't be used. In this formation pace is probably more important than in a 442 as the outside CB's need to cover ta bigger channel at times. Moore would most likely start outside right but as someone already said, we lack a left sided CB with a bit of pace. Schlupp and De Laet at WB would make sense but there's little back up in these positions. We also have Knocky, Mahrez and Albrighton of which 1 might fit into this system. Not gonna happen.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.