Skip to main content

4231

4231

marsbars

marsbars

Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
18,402
Location
Newcastle
Look at the options Neil now has in the three. Assuming Ledson was bought to play deeper alongside either Browne or more likely Pearson his three option are enormous. We've got;
Browne/?Pearson, Harrop, Horgan, Robinson, Bodin, Maguire, Barks, Burke .... any others?

Do you think he's done this on purpose so he can rotate the three constantly to maintain the high press throughout the season? All the talk of tired players etc etc ....Home/away line ups?
 
Last edited:
marsbars said:
Look at the options Neil now has in the three. Assuming Ledson was bought to play deeper alongside either Browne or more likely Pearson his three option are enormous. We've got;
Browne/?Pearson, Harrop, Horgan, Robinson, Bodin, Maguire, Barks, Burke .... any others?

Do you think he's done this on purpose so he can rotate the three constantly to maintain the high press throughout the season? All the talk of tired players etc etc ....Home/away line ups?
Click to expand...

I dont know about that mate , but what I do know , if a team comes to sit deep Millwall ,QPR last year its dire to watch at home with this formation !
 
I suspect he's had that in the back of his mind. He alluded to Barky blowing in the LEP some weeks back, didn't he?

I do think he needs to look more toward other formations from time to time though. There were times last season where 4-2-3-1 just wasn't working.
 
marsbars said:
Look at the options Neil now has in the three. Assuming Ledson was bought to play deeper alongside either Browne or more likely Pearson his three option are enormous. We've got;
Browne/?Pearson, Harrop, Horgan, Robinson, Bodin, Maguire, Barks, Burke .... any others?

Do you think he's done this on purpose so he can rotate the three constantly to maintain the high press throughout the season? All the talk of tired players etc etc ....Home/away line ups?
Click to expand...

4/2/3/1 was the plan and that was largely that with it rarely being changed.When teams come and park the bus it doesn't work irrespective of who is on the pitch.
Plan B required.
 
It was this formation and Neil's either inability or reluctantce to Change it, that made for some boring home games. It also accounted for our high number of points dropped at home.
Works well away but as has been mentioned causes a stalemate against park the bus teams, as a visiting team will often play.
 
Comments possibly correct but it did get us to the highest placed finish in a lot of years. Will he aim to perfect his chosen formation or change it/adapt it?
 
I think Plan B is having a bigger striker with presence: we lacked the nous to play the cute diagonal or pull off something magic in front of a back four, but we had no problem beating men and whipping crosses in from out wide. Just nobody to muscle onto them post-Hugill.
 
He’ll use all the players to rotate game by game to suit the tactical plan he’ll have for each team, like he did for Norwich.
 
kingpne said:
He’ll use all the players to rotate game by game to suit the tactical plan he’ll have for each team, like he did for Norwich.
Click to expand...

I can't help but think that's over complicating matters......... But if it gets us to the Prem!. 🙂
 
kingpne said:
He’ll use all the players to rotate game by game to suit the tactical plan he’ll have for each team, like he did for Norwich.
Click to expand...

Problem with this approach is if the opposition manager does the same on us. So we set up to play a team that is different to what we have watched.

I think we are going to have to do quite a bit of squad rotation or we will have a discontented squad. I’d like us to be more adaptable during games, particularly at home , when we often just kept our shape and became too predictable.

Grayson taught the players to be able adapt to wing backs, 442 , 4231 and 433 and whilst I’m happy with the improvement under Neil, I’d like to see a bit more flexibility in formation.
 
BigMarkLeonard said:
I think Plan B is having a bigger striker with presence: we lacked the nous to play the cute diagonal or pull off something magic in front of a back four, but we had no problem beating men and whipping crosses in from out wide. Just nobody to muscle onto them post-Hugill.
Click to expand...

I could go with that , or drop one of the two sat and go 4141.

Part of the problem with 4231 is , it leaves a huge amount of work and ground to cover for the 3 and 1 when not in possession, thus leaving the "forward four" breathing out their arse when we regain possesion and this in turn leaves them less effective as they are knackered !
 
chorleythehord said:
Problem with this approach is if the opposition manager does the same on us. So we set up to play a team that is different to what we have watched.

I think we are going to have to do quite a bit of squad rotation or we will have a discontented squad. I’d like us to be more adaptable during games, particularly at home , when we often just kept our shape and became too predictable.

Grayson taught the players to be able adapt to wing backs, 442 , 4231 and 433 and whilst I’m happy with the improvement under Neil, I’d like to see a bit more flexibility in formation.
Click to expand...

agree
 
Rotation is obvs key, pretty much confirmed by AN’s comments. If it nudges us up two a higher placed finish than last season, it’ll do for me!
 
chorleythehord said:
Problem with this approach is if the opposition manager does the same on us. So we set up to play a team that is different to what we have watched.

I think we are going to have to do quite a bit of squad rotation or we will have a discontented squad. I’d like us to be more adaptable during games, particularly at home , when we often just kept our shape and became too predictable.

Grayson taught the players to be able adapt to wing backs, 442 , 4231 and 433 and whilst I’m happy with the improvement under Neil, I’d like to see a bit more flexibility in formation.
Click to expand...

I don't want to get into a Grayson debate but he wasn't adaptable at all, he put 9 men in defence and killed the game. Then actually let McGready run around a bit for one season!

Anyway, yeah I'd like us to be able to switch to to 433 or 442 now and then but I'm not confident Neil will do this too often tbf.
 
marsbars said:
I don't want to get into a Grayson debate but he wasn't adaptable at all, he put 9 men in defence and killed the game. Then actually let McGready run around a bit for one season!

Anyway, yeah I'd like us to be able to switch to to 433 or 442 now and then but I'm not confident Neil will do this too often tbf.
Click to expand...

tbf , at times at home last year he did , he changed it 3 - 4 times in a game , but when the away side play a 1-10 formation its hard to break down no matter what you do.
 
SuffolknWhat said:
4/2/3/1 was the plan and that was largely that with it rarely being changed.When teams come and park the bus it doesn't work irrespective of who is on the pitch.
Plan B required.
Click to expand...

we had umpteen plans and often flexed it during the games......just like Liverpool do with their similar system.

its down to the players producing and more competition up front will make them cross better; pass better and finish better....
 
Back
Top