04/03/2003

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

I'd say that of the games I've been to in the past five years the biggest single problem we've had tends to be us getting dominated in the middle.

Is this because of the players we had in the middle rather than the formation?  Leary, Hudson, Cummins, et al

I agree we've been dominated too many times in the middle but in the vast majority of games I've seen the other team only had 2 in the centre like us, but unfortunately (for us) their two were usually superior to our two.

Glenn hoddles xmas tree formation years ago was the answer to people scared of playing 4-3-3, essentially a 4-3-2-1. It was way ahead of its time and everyman and his dog savaged it stating it was nonsense and why stray away from the hallowed 4-4-2. This formation allows the back four to be protected, the midfield three to dictate movement and pace while the two behind the target man are free to roam and link up with play either centrally or out wide. I think this would suit hearn and soares much better and allow a cook or pearson as target/link up man. It does demand a very high workrate from the front three primarily but allows the midfield three the time and space to dictate the game more and more protection for the back four. Also allows the fullbacks to bomb on with the midfield three and even two behind filling in to cover gaps. I remember this argument/heated discussion back then, the 4-4-2 view won then and we've essentially still not progressed. Whilst the rest of the world however...

Whilst 4-3-3 currently seems to be as welcome as a fart in a lift I am pleased that the management are trying new ideas. Its good to see the management preparing Plan B, although it is obviously very much work in progress. How many times in the past few season have we struggled to have even a Plan A?

Quoted from Quagmire

Is this because of the players we had in the middle rather than the formation?  Leary, Hudson, Cummins, et al

Probably a fair comment but I do think we're frequently outnumbered as well. I also agree with EarAche that it's good that they're looking at alternatives. If 4-4-2 is all we can play and we go to pieces if we try anything different then it makes us very one-dimensional, very predictable and very easy for opposition managers to set-up against. 4-3-3 isn't an ineffective formation; if it doesnt work it's the players and management who can't make it effective not some intrinsic flaw with that system.

Quoted from kevikov

Glenn hoddles xmas tree formation years ago was the answer to people scared of playing 4-3-3, essentially a 4-3-2-1.

Wrong England manager. It was Terry Vegetables who was a proponent of the Chrimbo Tree formation.

It worked OK for him because he had some decent enough players available.

In general, pretty much any formation works if you have players capable of playing it but I'm still not sure we have the midfielders to play a 4-3-3 against good teams.

The managers know that we have to try different formations so we can alter the game plan mid-match.It's all well and good only using 4-4-2 but what do you do when it isn't working ? The players have to be adaptable so they can play another style. These are situations where clever selection of players on the bench can be effective. The Dynamic Duo stated that these friendlies against Donny , Hull and Scunny would be a good way of assessing how we performed WITHOUT the ball. How we kept our shape and tried to win the ball back would also be highlighted. Trying different formations pre-season helps them to assess this. We have to go into the season with a plan A , plan B and even a plan C ,if need be, to beat any kind of formation we come up against.

Is it not possible for the front 3 in a 433 to swap around so that Hearn could become the central striker or go right as the play dictates ?

My bad, thought it was hoddle. See to remember hoddles tactics and formation being scrutinised for its revolutionary style. And not just for the psycho babble and religious beliefs.

We in England traditionally use 4-4-2 it was what most players know and are coached and drilled upon. It's a basic formation and easy to play.

Managers and coaches have tried to counter formations with new formation, lots of European sides used to play with a sweeper or 3-5-2 with wing back.

There seems to be a growing trend especially in the premier league since mourinho won the league with 4-3-3 going forward and 4-5-1 when the ball is in your own half or even tweaking to 4-4-1-1. I would argue this has come about with the type of team he and other managers put together physical, physically fit and strength for a man upfront to hold the ball up, play with his back to goal.

Spain have just won the euro with small players and no forward.

I can't get over how much chatter there is on here saying 4-3-3 is or is not working, and 4-4-2 is the only way forward. Within 4-4-2 there are different ways to play al la italy with there diamond (narrow) midfield.

Just because AB played with wingers and we had great success it does not mean we should go back to this. We have been crying out for years to have a fresh approach, this seems finally to be happening. There are no more lets sign John oster or get jack lester in as he lives down the road or even lets Gary croft in as he could do a job at this level.

The managers are trying formations out and pre season is the time to do it we also don't know what the tactics within the formation are and the objectives set in the dressing room....roll on the new season

applying a formation that totally negates the strengths of our best player is genius