4,1,4,1 anyone?

[TerryPHELAN]

Anyone think that we’ve become a bit stale recently, and maybe a change of formation might bring us some joy?
I’d like to see us play 4,1,4,1 with Fulton as the anchor in the six position. However it would mean Grimes probably missing out.

 

[Fireboy]

Anyone think that we’ve become a bit stale recently, and maybe a change of formation might bring us some joy?
I’d like to see us play 4,1,4,1 with Fulton as the anchor in the six position. However it would mean Grimes probably missing out.

Grimes missing out? Good idea, shame it will never happen.

 

[STID2017]

Never wish an injury on anyone but seems the only way Grimes will miss out.
However he seems very lucky in that respect
4 - 4 - 2 for me BTW

 

[CurtessECarr]

No way it would affect our possession stats which is far more important.

 

[WalterBoyd]

A solid back 4 is definitely needed against certain teams.

Adapting team shape and tactics, depending on the opposition, is not a sign of weakness in my eyes.

 

[Fireboy]

Never wish an injury on anyone but seems the only way Grimes will miss out.
However he seems very lucky in that respect
4 - 4 - 2 for me BTW

He won't get injured as he doesn't get stuck in.

 

[Bryanswan]

Big advocate for playing a 4 at the back system. The only issue i have with it is our centre halves, I'd assume Naughton wouldnt be considered to play there as he would have to be more of a traditional CB.
But do any of our other CBs have the ability to play out with the ball? Bennett, Cabango, Williams?

4 at the back would allow us to have width further up the pitch without our FBs having to and leaving us ridiculously exposed.

Bring in a proper footballing centre half and i would say 4 at the back would be better.

 

[K23]

Anyone think that we’ve become a bit stale recently, and maybe a change of formation might bring us some joy?
I’d like to see us play 4,1,4,1 with Fulton as the anchor in the six position. However it would mean Grimes probably missing out.

I'd be happy with giving it a go with 4-1-4-1 but for me, it would have to be Downes in front of the defence, not Fulton, as he has all the attributes needed for that role. I'd also change the defence so that players are in their best positions: Naughton - Bennett - Cabango - Bidwell with Downes in front of them. My midfield would be: Laird - Ntcham - Walsh - Paterson with Piroe up top. That's right, no Grimes for me either but with a RB playing behind Laird, he can concentrate on what he does best for us.

TBH, I've always been a fan of 3 at the back but I just don't think we use the system properly as our wing backs are constantly so far forward, there are always huge gaps behind them so they are not really wing backs at all as they are never back. That puts pressure on our central defenders who are nowhere near quick enough to move out to intercept pacey wingers in full flow or then to get back in the centre if the pacey winger puts a cross in. And putting Naughton in the middle up against big players like Mitrovic, Carroll and Solanke is never going to end well as the fact that we've conceded 11 goals in the 3 games against them would clearly testify. It's a system that can work but you need to have the right players in the right roles to make it work.

I'm sure many will disagree.

 

[TerryPHELAN]

My thinking on Fulton playing the no 6 role is that I think he’s perfect for that role. He does the dirty job really well, by breaking up play and releasing the ball to the more creative players. I’d play Downes further up, because I feel he’s got a lot more to offer offensively. It’s like he needs to be unleashed.

 

[AndyCole]

Big advocate for playing a 4 at the back system. The only issue i have with it is our centre halves, I'd assume Naughton wouldnt be considered to play there as he would have to be more of a traditional CB.
But do any of our other CBs have the ability to play out with the ball? Bennett, Cabango, Williams?

4 at the back would allow us to have width further up the pitch without our FBs having to and leaving us ridiculously exposed.

Bring in a proper footballing centre half and i would say 4 at the back would be better.

Oh dear, in so many ways. Martinist or non-Martinist ? You seem to be tying yourself up in so many knots, from so many perspectives.

Your first para made no sense, whatsoever. All questions and no solutions. Wtf is that all about ?

The life of Bryan, thinking at Snails pace. How very apt.

Decent thread attempt mind. A football related theme, blimey.

.
.

 

[AndyCole]

My thinking on Fulton playing the no 6 role is that I think he’s perfect for that role. He does the dirty job really well, by breaking up play and releasing the ball to the more creative players. I’d play Downes further up, because I feel he’s got a lot more to offer offensively. It’s like he needs to be unleashed.

You clearly weren't paying attention when our Phase 2 Go-Fwd was: out ball to Ayew, back to Fulton in the supporting advanced CM role.

You also weren't paying much attention when Fulton was the main CM link man with Ayew in anything meaningful going fwd. Phase 1 and beyond.

It's only the limited of thinking that shoe horn Fulton into that deep 'dirty job' role.

Fulton is one of the most naturally gifted footballers in our squad. Fact. Ask any of our current squad.

Martine has hecked this up, big time. Fact.

.
.

 

[TerryPHELAN]

I don’t doubt that Fulton is a gifted player, I just think he’s better as a no 6.
And I don’t doubt that Downes is not a 6 either. It’s just that I think he’ll be more affective in a more advanced role.
It’s all about opinions though, and you’re absolutely entitled to yours.

 

[Bryanswan]

Big advocate for playing a 4 at the back system. The only issue i have with it is our centre halves, I'd assume Naughton wouldnt be considered to play there as he would have to be more of a traditional CB.
But do any of our other CBs have the ability to play out with the ball? Bennett, Cabango, Williams?

4 at the back would allow us to have width further up the pitch without our FBs having to and leaving us ridiculously exposed.

Bring in a proper footballing centre half and i would say 4 at the back would be better.

Oh dear, in so many ways. Martinist or non-Martinist ? You seem to be tying yourself up in so many knots, from so many perspectives.

Your first para made no sense, whatsoever. All questions and no solutions. Wtf is that all about ?

The life of Bryan, thinking at Snails pace. How very apt.

Decent thread attempt mind. A football related theme, blimey.

.
.

Have a nice day. Please speak to someone if you need help.
All the best.

 

[Fireboy]

Big advocate for playing a 4 at the back system. The only issue i have with it is our centre halves, I'd assume Naughton wouldnt be considered to play there as he would have to be more of a traditional CB.
But do any of our other CBs have the ability to play out with the ball? Bennett, Cabango, Williams?

4 at the back would allow us to have width further up the pitch without our FBs having to and leaving us ridiculously exposed.

Bring in a proper footballing centre half and i would say 4 at the back would be better.

Oh dear, in so many ways. Martinist or non-Martinist ? You seem to be tying yourself up in so many knots, from so many perspectives.

Your first para made no sense, whatsoever. All questions and no solutions. Wtf is that all about ?

The life of Bryan, thinking at Snails pace. How very apt.

Decent thread attempt mind. A football related theme, blimey.

.
.

Fair dos you saying that someone post is making no sense made me laugh.

There is a famous saying 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'

 

[JoshTheJack]

I think a formation change is needed (Doubt we''ll get one) I think Clements diamond would suit us well now,Downes holding Grimes and Fulton in the CM and Pato at the tip.Oba and Piroe up top,Bidwell Bennett Williams/Cabango or a new CB and Laird.Martin Should know it well Paul Lambert set up Norwich to play it and they nearly always used to beat us.Fricking Grant holt.