Formation

[BWFC_Insane]

So I wanted to start a new thread seeing as the system Dougie played on Saturday has come in for some criticism.

Dougie has so far played a mixture of systems. 4-5-1, 4-4-2, and I guess the fabled 4-2-3-1 (which was definitely on show at the weekend).

In general we've not had that much success starting with a 4-4-2. And under the Coyle most posters on here wanted a 4-5-1 or (if being fancy) a 4-2-3-1.

It seems now that we are playing those systems more often than not, there are some calls for a return to 4-4-2. In fact in the ground I heard the same, a guy who had stood up and repeatedly bawled at Coyle for playing 4-4-2, was screaming on Saturday for Dougie to adopt that very same formation.

I appreciate that you need a range of systems and tactics and to be adaptable. I also think that MOST teams that do well, have a fairly standard starting system that may get switched and changed as the game goes on based on need.

So what is your preferred system for us to play and why? Or, should we change game by game?

[Beefheart]

I think football fans in general want the team to play a formation other than the one they are. We wanted 4-5-1/4-2-3-1 under coyle. Talk to West Ham fans and they'll be wanting Big Sam to play 4-4-2.

I'd be happy with either given that it's with the right personnel in each system. Holden and Medo could form the sort of CM partnership that would work in a 4-4-2, and it's clear that our stikers would each benefit for having someone alongside them.

[boltonboris]

Just because one shit manager failed at a 4-4-2, doesn't mean that that system is fundamentally shit.

As bad as Coyle's 4-4-2 was, his 4-5-1 got better results against better teams than Freedman's, so it's not out of the question for Dougie to adopt, work at, and nail a more expansive formation..

If he's good enough.... Do you think he's good enough? Or a bit of a one trick pony?

[BWFC_Insane]

Just because one shit manager failed at a 4-4-2, doesn't mean that that system is fundamentally shit.

As bad as Coyle's 4-4-2 was, his 4-5-1 got better results against better teams than Freedman's, so it's not out of the question for Dougie to adopt, work at, and nail a more expansive formation..

If he's good enough.... Do you think he's good enough? Or a bit of a one trick pony?

Thats a bit of a strange comment to make on a thread about formation. I think you're a bit obsessed with trying to dismiss the manager rather than answering the question.

When Coyle was playing 4-4-2 did you not ask for a 4-5-1?

And now what system would you play?

I don't think a manager's ability is reflected by what systems they are able to play, but rather their ability is reflected in selecting the BEST system to suit the players available.

My personal opinion is that we haven't got the players for a 4-4-2. Not from the start in most games at least. It doesn't suit us. I also think that its quite a rigid and inflexible system, especially if you play it without leaving the back door open all the time.

Personally I think a 4-2-3-1 gives you potentially far more movement and far more options.

Was Sam Allardyce a one trick pony?

[Bruce Rioja]

If I was employed by the football club to make these big decisions then I'd start with a defensive formation at home in must win games, and then I'd alter it the week after regardless as to whether it had worked or not.

[Jez]

I think for the first time in a while we're approaching a midfield where 442 is really viable, especially at a lower level. If Medo is as good as he's rumoured to be, and Stu makes a decent recovery from injury it could work well with a front 2 like Cravies & Sordell

[CAPSLOCK]

I think for the first time in a while we're approaching a midfield where 442 is really viable, especially at a lower level. If Medo is as good as he's rumoured to be, and Stu makes a decent recovery from injury it could work well with a front 2 like Cravies & Sordell

Mark Davies will play for as long as he's at the club

We're playing 4-5-1

[boltonboris]

Just because one shit manager failed at a 4-4-2, doesn't mean that that system is fundamentally shit.

As bad as Coyle's 4-4-2 was, his 4-5-1 got better results against better teams than Freedman's, so it's not out of the question for Dougie to adopt, work at, and nail a more expansive formation..

If he's good enough.... Do you think he's good enough? Or a bit of a one trick pony?

Thats a bit of a strange comment to make on a thread about formation. I think you're a bit obsessed with trying to dismiss the manager rather than answering the question.

When Coyle was playing 4-4-2 did you not ask for a 4-5-1?

And now what system would you play?

I don't think a manager's ability is reflected by what systems they are able to play, but rather their ability is reflected in selecting the BEST system to suit the players available.

My personal opinion is that we haven't got the players for a 4-4-2. Not from the start in most games at least. It doesn't suit us. I also think that its quite a rigid and inflexible system, especially if you play it without leaving the back door open all the time.

Personally I think a 4-2-3-1 gives you potentially far more movement and far more options.

Was Sam Allardyce a one trick pony?

What I meant was, if he's good at organising the side and getting players to do their jobs as well as they can, then why can't he do that in a 4-4-2? A lot of successful tesma play a variant of the 4-4-2 formation. The Champions elect for a start..

If you think he's as good as you say, why don't you think he can make a 4-4-2 work at Bolton Wanderers?

To answer your question, I'm not too sure.. Suppose it depends on how the opposition shape up (we'd scout that in advance, I'd assume).

What I will say though, is our 4-5-1 / 4-2-3-1 hybrid, is far more "rigid and inflexible" than I thought possible. It's pretty feckin' dire and lacks tempo, movement and impetus.

[boltonboris]

And, yes.... Allardyce was/is a bit of a one trick pony.. His one trick is exceptional though.. You can't compare him, his acheivements, or his record to Freedman.

[BWFC_Insane]

See I don't see a manager making a formation work as being a "trick". I think in general you have to buy to the system you want to play. And thats where the trick is (if there is one).
Before that you have to pick the system that best suits what you have available.

I've never claimed Freedman was good, just that he will need time to turn us around and also that so far I don't think he's done much that worries me.

For me there was plenty of movement in the system on Saturday but the problem was (and has been for a while) that our creative players in LCY/Eagles/De Ridder didn't create very much. I then think it becomes an issue with Sordell up top in that role as he doesn't do so well with his back to goal. And thats where the issue was for me, individuals didn't spark. I think fundamentally it was the right system, just some performances were not up to scratch on the day.

The first really decent cross we put in we scored from. It helped that Craig Davies offered some presence and movement.

Sordell is an "in behind" striker, but we had nobody in the side on Saturday in midfield, really capable of supplying him with that kind of service. Eagles and LCY can but neither had great games.

I don't think we have ever looked convincing with a 4-4-2. I think to make that work in this division you need two very direct wingers and a very structured central midfield. For me we've had neither.

You then have to factor in as Caps says Mark Davies and how he fits in to the 4-4-2 and LCY. LCY is not an out and out wide winger. He is akin IMO to someone like Stelios in the way he plays. So in a 4-4-2 you can become narrow. If LCY drifts you can also be exposed at full back with less midfield ability to cover, you might as said get away with that if Holden comes back as good and Medo is half decent. But thats a big set of IFs. So currently, if MD and LCY are involved I think we don't suit a 4-4-2 as it stands.

Just my view.

[officer_dibble]

Your playing man utd at home. You play 442 with stumpy kev, 2 non tackling wingers and your centre mids have too much to do.

infact you play most premiership teams and that may happen.

However in the championship with 2 mobile big tacklers and a link player up top...it could work. 442 becoming a 451 / 4231 when not in attack.

Away from home, say forest on sat. Keep it tight with a 451. Get the crowds backs up and tire them out. Stick the 2 forwards on as per sat if required...fresh legs to get goals.

Key for me is keeping kevin out. Like playing with 10 men.

Flexibility is a good thing!

[CAPSLOCK]

Sordell is an "in behind" strike

Freedman said the subs were to give us 'soemething over the top' didn't he?

Maybe your view of Sordell isn't accurate?

[BWFC_Insane]

Sordell is an "in behind" strike

Freedman said the subs were to give us 'soemething over the top' didn't he?

Maybe your view of Sordell isn't accurate?

Yeah maybe, but I took it more to mean Davies gave us the chance to be a bit more direct.

Sordell often is looking to turn the centre backs or run the channels but rarely gets that sort of service in my view at least.

[CAPSLOCK]

So, why not give him the service

Or, is it just that Davies makes it easier for us to give the service?

If so, what is it that Davies does that Sordell doesn't, cos that 30 minute cameo was really quite exciting for the future

But not as imprseeive as a couple of NGogs high points, so feet on the ground, for now

[boltonboris]

Sordell is an "in behind" strike

Freedman said the subs were to give us 'soemething over the top' didn't he?

Maybe your view of Sordell isn't accurate?

Yeah maybe, but I took it more to mean Davies gave us the chance to be a bit more direct.

Sordell often is looking to turn the centre backs or run the channels but rarely gets that sort of service in my view at least.

He could get that service if he had some help up there.

I'm not saying change the system to suit Sordell or anything like that. But, our 4-5-1 is quite rigid in the sense that none of our attacking midfielders picked up the ball in a poistion where they could turn and have a run at the opposition defence.That could be a personnel problem.. But I don't think it is. I think it was more of a "this is your key area, don't leave in case you get exposed" which is fine from a defensive point of view, but if gives you feck all when you need to score goals

[PC1978]

For me, I'd go as we did Saturday as for our starting formation. Only thing I would do different would have either C.Davies or N'Gog starting and have Sordell on the bench to bring on if we want to go for a 2 (or even 3 depending on how desperate the situation is!) up top at some point. He would certainly benefit from coming on for half an hour with one of the more physically imposing forwards for company.

[BWFC_Insane]

Sordell is an "in behind" strike

Freedman said the subs were to give us 'soemething over the top' didn't he?

Maybe your view of Sordell isn't accurate?

Yeah maybe, but I took it more to mean Davies gave us the chance to be a bit more direct.

Sordell often is looking to turn the centre backs or run the channels but rarely gets that sort of service in my view at least.

He could get that service if he had some help up there.

I'm not saying change the system to suit Sordell or anything like that. But, our 4-5-1 is quite rigid in the sense that none of our attacking midfielders picked up the ball in a poistion where they could turn and have a run at the opposition defence.That could be a personnel problem.. But I don't think it is. I think it was more of a "this is your key area, don't leave in case you get exposed" which is fine from a defensive point of view, but if gives you feck all when you need to score goals

I genuinely think it was more of an, Eagles was playing poorly and was the central attacking player, in that system, rather than too rigid an approach. I also think we lacked quality on the ball from Pratley and Spearing in midfield. But quite often Pratley would make a run from deep off the ball, so I'm not sure that being too rigid was the problem. We just didn't have players on form in and around the box in my view.

You could argue we opened the game up when NGog came on behind Craig Davies, who also added more punch up front. And equally the first half decent ball into the box we scored from.

[BWFC_Insane]

So, why not give him the service

Or, is it just that Davies makes it easier for us to give the service?

If so, what is it that Davies does that Sordell doesn't, cos that 30 minute cameo was really quite exciting for the future

But not as imprseeive as a couple of NGogs high points, so feet on the ground, for now

Indeed though I'd ask who is likely to have the vision to do that from the team on Saturday?

Eagles and LCY possibly. But neither were great.

For me Sordell would thrive off early through balls. But we don't really have anyone with the ability to play those in our midfield. He's not the "put yourself about and challenge for everything" type of player that Craig Davies is. CD may well be more suited to the one up top role.

[boltonboris]

Sordell is an "in behind" strike

Freedman said the subs were to give us 'soemething over the top' didn't he?

Maybe your view of Sordell isn't accurate?

Yeah maybe, but I took it more to mean Davies gave us the chance to be a bit more direct.

Sordell often is looking to turn the centre backs or run the channels but rarely gets that sort of service in my view at least.

He could get that service if he had some help up there.

I'm not saying change the system to suit Sordell or anything like that. But, our 4-5-1 is quite rigid in the sense that none of our attacking midfielders picked up the ball in a poistion where they could turn and have a run at the opposition defence.That could be a personnel problem.. But I don't think it is. I think it was more of a "this is your key area, don't leave in case you get exposed" which is fine from a defensive point of view, but if gives you feck all when you need to score goals

I genuinely think it was more of an, Eagles was playing poorly and was the central attacking player, in that system, rather than too rigid an approach. I also think we lacked quality on the ball from Pratley and Spearing in midfield. But quite often Pratley would make a run from deep off the ball, so I'm not sure that being too rigid was the problem. We just didn't have players on form in and around the box in my view.

You could argue we opened the game up when NGog came on behind Craig Davies, who also added more punch up front. And equally the first half decent ball into the box we scored from.

I'd agree with that.. Which begs the question, why wasn't he hauled off?

But I also agree that we looked the better side when we opened the game up.. So why can't we approach games that way? We could and shoud overpower teams when the game is open.. Now that we've got Dawson in, who looks handy and somebody more aggressive and disciplined than Pratley to play centre mid, we could really cause problems..

It's a difficult one though.. I wouldn't neccessarily advocate that approach on Saturday at Forest, but I certainly would at home v Burnley et al.

[CAPSLOCK]

Pratley hit Craig Davies with a 60 yad ball on Saturday

Now, is that because they were tiring or because Craig Davies makes better runs

Or a bit of both...

As Douglas said, post match.