| Am I the only one ... 17:15 - Jan 10 with 4889 views | DylanP |
.. who is sick of the lone striker up front formation? It seems to be the new "written in stone rule" of QPR football formation? I find myself longing for the combination play between two actual strikers; rather than long distance hit-and-hopes and headers from CBs. |  |
| |  |
| Am I the only one ... on 19:55 - Jan 10 with 1543 views | CamberleyR |
| Am I the only one ... on 19:42 - Jan 10 by baz_qpr |
Our most exciting football in recent years was with 1 up front under Warnock. And some of the worse football I've seen has been with 2 upfront and aimless punts to either Zamora or down the channels.
The problem is not the formation IMHO its not buying the players to play a specific way in a specific formation. In the Warnock promotion year every player was brought in to play a specific position / role that was there strength in the team.
We've bought players that are not suited to the formation we play, and retained players that are not suitable. Phillips and Austin clearly do better in a 4-4-2. Luongo and Gladwin thrived in a 3-5-2 at Swindon, Henry does well when he is the holding player and does not have to get up and down the pitch. Ale Faurlin is a deep lying playmaker in a 4-2-3-1 . Hoilett is most suited to playing very high up in a 4-3-3. You can go on about managers or it being the board but IMHO that is the problem we buy players without having the first clue how we are going to play them, instead of deciding on a method of play and then getting the best players we can realistically acquire for those positions. |
Not often what you post I agree with but you are spot on. You pick a system to play first and then pick players to fit that system whether they're the best player or not, exactly what Alf Ramsey did with England's team when he'd decided to ditch conventional wingers.
What we've been guilty of for years is playing a system and picking the supposed best players to shoehorn into that system even when some of them are patently unsuitable for the positions they're playing. |  |
| |
| Am I the only one ... on 20:00 - Jan 10 with 1538 views | Boston |
| Am I the only one ... on 19:42 - Jan 10 by baz_qpr |
Our most exciting football in recent years was with 1 up front under Warnock. And some of the worse football I've seen has been with 2 upfront and aimless punts to either Zamora or down the channels.
The problem is not the formation IMHO its not buying the players to play a specific way in a specific formation. In the Warnock promotion year every player was brought in to play a specific position / role that was there strength in the team.
We've bought players that are not suited to the formation we play, and retained players that are not suitable. Phillips and Austin clearly do better in a 4-4-2. Luongo and Gladwin thrived in a 3-5-2 at Swindon, Henry does well when he is the holding player and does not have to get up and down the pitch. Ale Faurlin is a deep lying playmaker in a 4-2-3-1 . Hoilett is most suited to playing very high up in a 4-3-3. You can go on about managers or it being the board but IMHO that is the problem we buy players without having the first clue how we are going to play them, instead of deciding on a method of play and then getting the best players we can realistically acquire for those positions. |
Good post mate. |  |
| |
| Am I the only one ... on 20:14 - Jan 10 with 1524 views | davman |
Was about to answer this post 'yes' as Dylan is indeed the only one guaranteed to down arrow anything I say just for the hell of it, but then realised that the post had more text and he was actually making a point...
As others have said it is the modern way and, as to whether we can play that way, nope, we do not have enough strikers to do it. Blackwood and Grego-Cox are simply not ready / not good enough, JET is too bloody lazy and Charlie is simply not fit enough. If I had my way, we'd buy at least two strikers this window irrespective of whether Charlie leaves and a Right Back and a Goalkeeper as A) we need more strikers (really); B) Perch isn't good enough and I am sick to the back teeth of seeing a good centre half wasted at right back and C) Green needs to go for a multitude of reasons.
So, whilst I'd like to see two up front in a 4-2-3-2 type formation, I realise that would be cheating as most Championship refs would spot the old extra player on the field ploy.
...or would they?  |  |
| |
| Am I the only one ... on 20:20 - Jan 10 with 1510 views | ngbqpr |
What Baz said
Must admit I'm firmly in the '442 is antiquated' camp - it's so static and as has been pointed out, your midfielders need ridiculous engines to play at the pace most games are these days. "Two banks of four" where's the room for creativity?
As Baz says, we saw 4231 work perfectly in 2010/11. The two had both a creative player & a ball winner / defence shielder...the number 10 scored & assisted for fun...the wider men in the 3 provided some good old fashioned wing play but tucked in when necessary...the striker scored a fair few but was a great hold up man too...and the defence had protection, which often allowed the full backs (well the right back anyway - not Clint) license to overlap.
It's a brilliantly solid yet creative system with the right personnel. Warnock's reserves were all like for like replacements...I remember Mourinho once said in his 25 man squad he wanted 3 keepers then two players for each position in his favoured formation (still a couple of spaces for utility men). I hate the expression 'it's not rocket science' but in this case it's the right expression, and hats off to Mourinho for spelling it out as common sense.
Admittedly Charlie is arguably better in a 2...but he's not our future... |  |
| |
| Am I the only one ... on 00:38 - Jan 11 with 1421 views | FloridaR |
Good Comments, the antiquated 4-4-2 is still successful as Leicester is this season.
Building a 4-2-3-1 with current group of players is tried and tested now redundant, our players looked restricted and have shown little success.
Most important if we keep playing defensive style with 3-4 center backs its a waste of time, if you have a slow keeper with bad distribution like Greens might want to change that asap lol
If you try to rejuvenate this side around present system of play with Faurlin (playmaker) - it will fail.
If you put Faurlin in a flat 4 -4- 2 he hasn't got the legs to survive a game in centre. If club wants to build the side with 4-2-3-1 with so many midfielders in the squad its a fail as pointed out the squads unbalanced.
If Club adopted a 4-1-3-2 Diamond (? Box 4-1-2-1-2) with the amount of athletic midfielders, Sandro (deep) loungo (phillips)- doughty (hoilett) possible Faurlin Mackie in there as attacking mid behind strikers, Chery same or striker ! Luxury 2 Strikers & all strikers could be used in training & coaching staff could start to utilize all the midfielders into different roles in tighter more fluid passing style of play, the system demands players to play narrower or wider based on each side they plays ability's.
I'm sure the pro's have assessed whats needed but big Question is will Les Ferdinand and his technical director allow the 1st team to play a different style ? [Post edited 11 Jan 2016 0:45]
|  |
| Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink: Happy I'm the 'chosen one' |
| |
| Am I the only one ... on 19:54 - Jan 11 with 1317 views | derbyhoop |
I'm not bothered whether we play 1 up front or 2. It shouldn't make that much difference to our attacking intent.
The big problem with playing 2 up front is that you have to avoid being over run in midfield. If that happens you don't create anything for the 2 to feed off. And if your central midfield features 2 of the 4 highly athletic Faurlin, Sandro, Henry and Tozser, then any side with energy will take us to the cleaners, e.g. Huddersfield on 28th Dec. And if the wide men don't do the defensive side of the job, e.g. Fer, Chery, Phillips then the full backs also get exposed.
The conclusion should be that you assess the players you've got and then play the formation that suits them best - attacking and defensive wise. |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| Am I the only one ... on 22:44 - Jan 11 with 1273 views | isawqpratwcity |
Why stop at two? What about three? Got to be lots of goals in that.
It's bloody obvious that giving a player responsibilities at one end of the pitch reduces his effect further back. The manager has to work out a credible plan to outscore the opposition and that has to involve not gifting them free run of areas of the pitch.
The only thing I do demand is that we always, except in dire circumstances where we absolutely must go for a draw or at worst avoid an absolute pasting, always play at least one striker. I hate watching a team that has abdicated the responsibility to try to attack their opponents. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
