| Is the club locked into playing 4-2-3-1? 13:26 - May 23 with 586 views | paddyhdog |
Some other threads have touched on this, but would to dig deeper, apologies if done so already (couldn't find one)
I've read about the club putting in place a common system from youth to adult teams. Makes sense, especially an ethos and way of playing. But does it also lock us into playing 4-2-3-1 all the time?
Putting aside my personal hatred of a single person upfront and no wingers, there's 3 reasons I think this is nuts...
1) You're reliant on a position you can't afford. A striker who is big, holds it up, has pace, can finish. There are none, and if there are we can't afford them. Look at the problems Man U are having.
2) It's predictable - makes it easy for the opposition. Whereas if you mix it up you can surprise them, as I think we did vs Sunderland last game
3) You don't maximise the players you have at that time. As WWC said we have no fullbacks so maybe look at 3-5-2
3) |  | | |  |
| Is the club locked into playing 4-2-3-1? on 13:48 - May 23 with 470 views | derbyhoop |
Opinions, opinions.
In my playing days (no it wasn't pre-war!) most sides played 4-4-2. Once others learned to combat that formation, they'd flood midfield and overwhelm the defensive side of the game. I don't see anything wrong with 4231 but the 1 has to be comfortable in the role, strong and reasonably mobile. Frey can't do the mobile, most of the other striking options can't do the strong.
Good managers/coaches will adapt to the tools he has. And can modify from game to game and, even, within games.
IIRC the DS have tended to go 4-2-3-1 with either Vaughan or Dillon as the 1. |  |
| "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 |
| |
| Is the club locked into playing 4-2-3-1? on 14:00 - May 23 with 427 views | KensalT |
| Is the club locked into playing 4-2-3-1? on 13:48 - May 23 by derbyhoop |
Opinions, opinions.
In my playing days (no it wasn't pre-war!) most sides played 4-4-2. Once others learned to combat that formation, they'd flood midfield and overwhelm the defensive side of the game. I don't see anything wrong with 4231 but the 1 has to be comfortable in the role, strong and reasonably mobile. Frey can't do the mobile, most of the other striking options can't do the strong.
Good managers/coaches will adapt to the tools he has. And can modify from game to game and, even, within games.
IIRC the DS have tended to go 4-2-3-1 with either Vaughan or Dillon as the 1. |
If It's strong and mobile you're after I wouldn't be surprised if Birmingham offload Lyndon Dykes over the summer :-) | | | |
| Is the club locked into playing 4-2-3-1? on 14:09 - May 23 with 394 views | Hunterhoop |
We haven’t played 4231 this season.
We have played 4141 or 433 for almost the entire season.
Our good run came playing 4141 with Varane the holding midfielder, a Field and Morgan as box to box “8”s with the wingers alongside them (Smyth and Saito/Chair).
Earlier in the season we played this system but with Madsen and Andersen playing as the “8”s and Field holding…and Field was basically playing in midfield on his own as those two didn’t have the legs to do that role.
It has at times been a 433 with the wide players pushed on and the midfield 3 being less “box to box” and more conservative.
But we haven’t played the traditional 4231 much at all, to my eyes anyway. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
