|
Post by banzai on Jan 26, 2011 9:55:05 GMT
I thought we played very well last night but I thought we were excellent as soon as Lord Wilder switched the formation to 4-4-2 when Potter came on. We were full of pace and width and we had two strikers in the box. I felt the switch made sure we won the game.
I just wish we would see this formation more often. People won't be able to cope with Potter out wide and MacLean + one other in the middle. IMHO this formation will see us score a lot of goals and will bring out the best in our strikers. Craddock or Midson will be somewhat wasted as the left winger BUT they are already very wide in a 433 and this will be compensated by having two strikers in the box.
Come on CW lets see a bit more of 442 please!
|
|
|
Post by Cardiff Yellow on Jan 26, 2011 10:57:20 GMT
to be fair 433 was working pretty well too.
|
|
|
Post by Cardiff Yellow on Jan 26, 2011 10:57:57 GMT
and you dont change a winning team; one thing i think Wilder has been learning.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 11:20:19 GMT
OH.. MY... GOD!!! We've won what is it 7 out of the last 8 and people still want to change it around to fit in bloody 442.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Jan 26, 2011 11:31:15 GMT
OH.. MY... GOD!!! We've won what is it 7 6 out of the last 8 and people still want to change it around to fit in bloody 442. Totally agree with your sentiment though! Maybe we should get a couple of new strikers too as Beano and Craddock can only manage a goal each every other game .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 11:32:10 GMT
Still...
|
|
|
Post by banzai on Jan 26, 2011 12:09:34 GMT
Oh so none of you saw how much more effective we were when we switched to 442 last night. Oh and we won at chesterfield playing 442 and our goals against Barnet came from Potter playing out wide and having two central strikers despite Wilder claiming it was 433.
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Jan 26, 2011 12:20:04 GMT
not for one minute do i think we played 4-4-2 last night
and for all the talk about 4-3-3, we don't really play that formation either
it's 4-1-2-1-2 with mclaren in front of the back four and mclean behind the front two
when we have the ball, it's 2-1-4-1-2 with tonkin and batt pushing on.
|
|
|
Post by pugs on Jan 26, 2011 12:20:16 GMT
we have the players at the moment to make BOTH formations work - which is why CW is more than happy to switch it during a game....
|
|
|
Post by kahunaburger on Jan 26, 2011 12:31:19 GMT
we went 442 after they went 433 and given it is easier to switch to 442 than the other way we made them look even more ineffective. Net result was them going back to 442. Tactical masterstroke?
|
|
|
Post by windows on Jan 26, 2011 17:23:13 GMT
We played well last night, the only thing lacking is not getting the ball forward quick enough.If we only exploited the space left when in the defening mode i am sure we would create more chances , once again they started this sqaure ball and back again which gave the opposition time to regroup,
|
|
|
Post by gwhiz on Jan 26, 2011 17:28:31 GMT
to be fair 433 was working pretty well too. agree!!!!
|
|
|
Post by topfanoufc on Jan 27, 2011 8:16:57 GMT
I thought we ended up playing 4-2-3-1 Tuesday. This is the formation de jour at the minute. The two holding players allow the full backs to bomb on and your second striker plays in the hole and is always available to link up play.
|
|
|
Post by improvox on Jan 28, 2011 8:10:01 GMT
It is far to simplistic to talk about whether we played a 433 or 442.
Yes when Potter came on we had width and more pace - but at that time of the game we were already on top of them (2-1 up), they were tiring so it made sense to bring on a pacy player.
In my opinion we didnt even play a 442 on Tuesday night. Looked more like a 4-2-3-1 to be honest with clist and maclaren holding in midfield allowing potter and craddock to get down the flanks with maclean sitting in behind beano.
I really wish people would stop over analysing our formation anyway, it changes a number of times during a match as you have to adapt to this situation... And I know I have over-analysed it in this post, but I felt I had to make the point that jsut saying "We need to play 442" is just too basic.
|
|
|
Post by dabigfella on Jan 28, 2011 19:43:04 GMT
4-2-4 I thought! ;D ;D ;D
|
|