Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

One up front against a relegation outfit?

Really!! Oh but it's sir Chris, so it's OK!
«13

Comments

  • Options
    Mate seriously, we've tried to play 4-4-2 a couple of times this season and it hasn't worked well. In general we've done best 4-5-1, we shouldn't switch to a particular formation that doesn't work for us just because we're at home.
  • Options
    we played one up front in the previous two matches so that may have been the thinking behind it , just guessing mind you , hope this helps
  • Options
    More of a case of why change a winning team, 3 wins in a row, 2 with the same starting 11.
    Lots of people all season have said we've not had a settled side and always change the 11 from game to game. It's worked the last 2 games why change it.
    Always easier to pick a team after the game.
  • Options
    There were times we lost the midfield playing 4-5-1.

    We would have been totally overrun playing 4-4-2.

    Sad but true.
  • Options
    Yes, it's worked in previous games.
  • Options
    We were unbeaten in 4 playing 4-5-1, why change if it was working?
  • Options

    Really!! Oh but it's sir Chris, so it's OK!

    We won the last three with the same formation. Let's change for the sake of it.

    Who was the last manager to do that? Pardew.....
  • Options
    4-5-1 does not suit us at home, we lack tempo and it quietens the crowd then we ultimately get sucked into the oppo's game plan. At home WE should setting the tempo and as far as I can recollect Leicester was the last time we really went at it from the start. I agree away from home it's good for us as the results have proved but we need to take advantage of our 12 man and a single striker limits us in our ability to keep the ball in advanced areas which ultimately excites the crowd and raises noise levels. It's been dull from the start of most games at home for a while lets be honest!!
  • Options
    The reason we play 4-5-1 at home is because our midfield sadly isn't strong enough , we hit the post and the cross bar today , if we'd got a 2nd goal i could have seen Wendies heads dropping , we didn't we lost and we move on.
  • Options
    Our squad isn't good enough to allow us to play 4:4:2 with any degree of quality. We are playing to our strengths. It's not ideal but its the best we got.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    edited January 2013
    4-5-1 when played properly can be 4-3-3.
    The main thing is to get the ball into the front mans feet and through midfield....something we very rarely do, especially at home.
  • Options
    nothing wrong with teh formation today - players did their bit and afer 70 mins 1-0 up we were ok ............ we just needed to capitalise on the huge spaces being left open for us when they attacked by bringing on a couple of pacy players (BWP & Hariott) and to replace a tiring Kermy with a powerful strong Fuller.

    we didn't, so we lost.
  • Options

    nothing wrong with teh formation today - players did their bit and afer 70 mins 1-0 up we were ok ............ we just needed to capitalise on the huge spaces being left open for us when they attacked by bringing on a couple of pacy players (BWP & Hariott) and to replace a tiring Kermy with a powerful strong Fuller.

    we didn't, so we lost.

    This. x3.
  • Options
    Baffling decision to go one up top against the worst team I've seen at The Valley this season.
  • Options
    Today Kermorgant played so deep at times that we rarely had a recognised striker with Pritchard and Jackson playing up top, and then Kermorgant found himself out wide all the time when Hamer had a goal kick. I know he may be a good header of the ball but just seemed like the team was all over the place in the final third in terms of positionig.
  • Options
    Hit the woodwork twice... If they had gone in this thread wouldn't exist ...
  • Options

    Baffling decision to go one up top against the worst team I've seen at The Valley this season.

    Not really "baffling" though is it? Won the last 3 with this formation and lineup so he stuck with what was working. Absolutely mental isn't it?
  • Options
    We're not strong enough with 4 in midfield - we've gone to pieces time and time again!
  • Options
    The only baffling thing was why there were no subs until the 90th minute.
  • Options
    vff said:

    nothing wrong with teh formation today - players did their bit and afer 70 mins 1-0 up we were ok ............ we just needed to capitalise on the huge spaces being left open for us when they attacked by bringing on a couple of pacy players (BWP & Hariott) and to replace a tiring Kermy with a powerful strong Fuller.

    we didn't, so we lost.

    This. x3.
    x5

  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    So we bring a kid on to defend a 1-0 when waggy was still going strong and revert back to a 4-4-2 when we were already being outmuscled in a 4-5-1

    4-5-1 isn't a defensive formation when you have the likes of waggy, Wilson and jacko bombing forward. Jacko scored, waggy hit the post and I felt Wilson should have shot across the keeper instead of passing when we were 1-0 up.

    It works for us, and remember the 2 goals we conceded yesterday were a Hamer flap and a lucky deflection.
  • Options
    When have Barcelona every played 2 strikers in the last few years?

    So much backwards thinking by so many when it comes to having 1 striker
  • Options
    Very true Matt, but we are not Barcelona! :-0
  • Options
    4-5-1 not a problem with Wagstaff and Wilson.
    Forget about Wednesday, they're well suited to the bottom half of this division
  • Options
    4-5-1 should have been changed to 4-3-3 on the 75 minute .Wednesday were taking chances and leaving big gaps all over the place when they finally started playing some football through their wingers.We should have had either Harriot or Green on running at Buxton and anyone with pace told to bomb on directly at the hapless Llera.I was so looking forward to seeing fuller turning him totally inside out in the last 15 minutes but unfortunately it didn't happen .Only Chris Powell knows why.
  • Options
    ashley said:

    4-5-1 should have been changed to 4-3-3 on the 75 minute .Wednesday were taking chances and leaving big gaps all over the place when they finally started playing some football through their wingers.We should have had either Harriot or Green on running at Buxton and anyone with pace told to bomb on directly at the hapless Llera.I was so looking forward to seeing fuller turning him totally inside out in the last 15 minutes but unfortunately it didn't happen .Only Chris Powell knows why.

    This. Last fifteen minutes at least their back four didn't need to defend and could join in the attacks at will and with ease. Yann was out on his feet and both Wilson and Wagstaff couldn't compensate. On 75 minutes I would have brought on BWP and Fuller for Yann and Wilson. Would have changed the flow of the game IMHO and might have got us three points.

  • Options
    You only have to look at our record if you want to decide whether we are using the correct formation and tactics:
    a) Away we are one of the best sides in the division.
    b) At home we are one of the worst sides in the division.
  • Options
    Don't think it's the formation that was the problem yesterday at all. I do think that Yann did his best but it was far from his best game for us and he was (understandably) shot after 70 minutes carrying Big Mig et al on his back so couldn't offer us an outlet. Fuller could have offered us a more straightforward, physical replacement or BWP for his work rate and to stretch their defence.

    BTW...shouldn't this be on the post match thread?
  • Options
    Problem wasn't the starting lineup it was sticking with shagged out players and workshy layabout fancy dan Dahlia Stephens when Wednesday upped their game and squashed our overstretched midfield 2 of JJ and Bradley Pritchard into the Somme like mud. Needed freshening up around 70 minutes. SCP has to acknowledge his part in the tactical failure. Wednesday genuinely poor, just strong and large - too strong and two large for 10 man charlton
  • Options
    Kap10 said:

    vff said:

    nothing wrong with teh formation today - players did their bit and afer 70 mins 1-0 up we were ok ............ we just needed to capitalise on the huge spaces being left open for us when they attacked by bringing on a couple of pacy players (BWP & Hariott) and to replace a tiring Kermy with a powerful strong Fuller.

    we didn't, so we lost.

    This. x3.
    x5

    +2.5.

    You just knew they would score as the players were tiring. 3 points lost.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!