[Archived] Birmingham Preview

[MarkBRFC71]

Allardyce is a little miffed with those Rovers fans who appeal in vain for him to configure his team in an attack-minded 4-4-2 formation. "It is an antiquated system," he snorted. "It doesn't work in the Premier League any more."

Guardian Match Report

Yeah, so I don't think we'll see two up front any time soon...at least not in a 4-4-2.

Except, Birmingham play 4-4-2, are several points above us, with a less talented squad. Seems to work for them, and I think we would be further up the table if we played that system too. We create next to nothing with 4-5-1, and when we have won employing that formation there's usually been more than a slice of luck about it. Oh, and even the reporter in the Guardian calls his opinions on 4-4-2 'debatable'.

He's just being arrogant and stubborn I think - and not for the first time. Would he have the same outlook had fortune not favoured him and got us some decent results recently? Who knows. Also kind of ironic calling 4-4-2 'antiquated' really when his entire tactical masterplan seems to be stolen wholesale from the Wimbledon team of about 1988. Although without their success.

[Exiled_Rover]

Birmingham also have a much better midfield than us.

[unluckymorton]

Except, Birmingham play 4-4-2, are several points above us, with a less talented squad. Seems to work for them, and I think we would be further up the table if we played that system too. We create next to nothing with 4-5-1, and when we have won employing that formation there's usually been more than a slice of luck about it.

He's just being arrogant and stubborn I think - and not for the first time. Kind of ironic calling 4-4-2 'antiquated' really when it seems his entire tactical masterlpan seems to be stolen wholesale from the Wimbledon team of about 1988. Although without their success.

By playing 4-5-1 (or 4-4-1-1 as it usually is but some are blind to that) we sit comfortably in 11th position, possibly 10th if all goes well this weekend.

How much success do you expect in the 18 months he's been in charge with an extremely limited budget??? Success at this stage is maintaining Premiership status, our longest run in the Premier League and going into the run in with a possible top half finish.

The games where we have been picking up points recently are an improvement from earlier in the season when we were dropping points at home to the likes of West Ham, that shows we are going in the right direction. Beating Birmingham this week was a great result.

[CrazyIvan]

Except, Birmingham play 4-4-2, are several points above us, with a less talented squad. Seems to work for them, and I think we would be further up the table if we played that system too. We create next to nothing with 4-5-1, and when we have won employing that formation there's usually been more than a slice of luck about it. Oh, and even the reporter in the Guardian calls his opinions on 4-4-2 'debatable'.

He's just being arrogant and stubborn I think - and not for the first time. Would he have the same outlook had fortune not favoured him and got us some decent results recently? Who knows. Also kind of ironic calling 4-4-2 'antiquated' really when his entire tactical masterplan seems to be stolen wholesale from the Wimbledon team of about 1988. Although without their success.

What a load of tosh. Birmingham City weren't playing 4-4-2 on Wednesday. They were also playing a formation like 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 etc. I happen to think Allardyce is right because very, very few teams play 4-4-2 now. Oh, and how were Wimbledon successful? They were perenial relegation avoiders usually by the skin of their teeth!

[MarkBRFC71]

What a load of tosh. Birmingham City weren't playing 4-4-2 on Wednesday. They were also playing a formation like 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 etc. I happen to think Allardyce is right because very, very few teams play 4-4-2 now. Oh, and how were Wimbledon successful? They were perenial relegation avoiders usually by the skin of their teeth!

Errrr, FA Cup 1988? Or were you not born then?

Maybe I should qualify what I mean a little - I think 4-5-1 would work if we tried to play football, through the midfield and support the striker. We don't, and largely hoof it up to the lone striker who is battling 2 centre-halves with our midfield 40 yards away. We are almost entirely reliant on set-pieces to create chances at present.

If Sam is insistent on playing 4-5-1, then we need to get the ball on the floor to have more success. If he's insistent on playing hoofball, then surely 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 (where the 'second striker' actually stays somewhere near the normal striker) would be more effective as at least there would be 2 players to fight for the ball?

Don't get me wrong, we've had some good results, but the performances have been largely dire. I can see at least a quarter of season ticket holders not renewing based on that alone.

[CrazyIvan]

Errrr, FA Cup 1988? Or were you not born then?

So an FA Cup win is success? How long as Sam been here? What would you say if we won the FA Cup next year then? My point is still extremely valid. And we DON'T play like Wimbledon! Maybe you should watch some old tapes of how they used to play and compare us.

[unluckymorton]

Errrr, FA Cup 1988? Or were you not born then?

If you are basing Wimbledon's success on the FA Cup win of '88, then Pompey must be a successful side then???

We reached the semi final of the League Cup this year in Sam's first full season in charge and are looking to finish mid table. Job done, lets build for next season.

[LeChuck]

Except, Birmingham play 4-4-2, are several points above us, with a less talented squad. Seems to work for them, and I think we would be further up the table if we played that system too. We create next to nothing with 4-5-1, and when we have won employing that formation there's usually been more than a slice of luck about it. Oh, and even the reporter in the Guardian calls his opinions on 4-4-2 'debatable'.

Birmingham don't play 4-4-2 really, Benitez plays off the front man in the way that Dunn is at the moment.

Tottenham are the only team that consistently play anything resembling a proper 4-4-2 in the top half, Villa and Fulham do it occasionally.

It IS an outdated formation, Sam is right. To make 4-3-3/4-5-1 work the attacking midfielders have to give proper support to the front man, and that's where we struggle sometimes. He's right to stick with it though, 4-4-2 definitely isn't the way forward.

[MarkBRFC71]

To make 4-3-3/4-5-1 work the attacking midfielders have to give proper support to the front man, and that's where we struggle sometimes. He's right to stick with it though, 4-4-2 definitely isn't the way forward.

That's it in a nutshell, the midfield are usually 30/40 yards from the striker - is that because BFS tells them to play that way? If so, it's not working.

4-4-2 definitely still has a place, even if it just for switching to when chasing games, however I think BFS's outlook is generally too negative - for example I think Chelsea had run out of steam after 70 mins on Sunday - with Niko and Roberts on I really think we could have won.

[CrazyIvan]

That's it in a nutshell, the midfield are usually 30/40 yards from the striker - is that because BFS tells them to play that way? If so, it's not working.

4-4-2 definitely still has a place, even if it just for switching to when chasing games, however I think BFS's outlook is generally too negative - for example I think Chelsea had run out of steam after 70 mins on Sunday - with Niko and Roberts on I really think we could have won.

Chelsea battered us towards the end of the game on Sunday. We needed everybody back there defending and an outlet that was Roberts. Going gung-ho against Chelsea would have seen us lose that game. After the substitution, we equalised. Not before.

[Hughesy]

Except, Birmingham play 4-4-2, are several points above us, with a less talented squad. Seems to work for them, and I think we would be further up the table if we played that system too. We create next to nothing with 4-5-1, and when we have won employing that formation there's usually been more than a slice of luck about it.

4-4-2 would get us higher?! Why is it that United are top and usually employ a 4-5-1 then?

[RibbleValleyRover]

That's it in a nutshell, the midfield are usually 30/40 yards from the striker - is that because BFS tells them to play that way? If so, it's not working.

I think its got to be worked on during the summer, either by bringing in someone (Ibricic for example) to link up with the striker or making some tactical tweaks. If a side has done its homework it’s pretty easy to shut us down from an attacking point of view.

People go on about Roberts being more effective, i think that largely due to the usual gameplan i.e. with 20-30 mins to go we tend to be more attacking and support who is the lone striker more. Perhaps Niko should start on the bench a few times and give him a chance when we do decide to attack with 20 mins to go.

Happy to stick with the 4-5-1, but want to see more support for that lone striker.

[thenodrog]

What a load of tosh. Birmingham City weren't playing 4-4-2 on Wednesday. They were also playing a formation like 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1 etc.

Correct Ivan. I guess before one can criticise formations one has first to be able to identify them.

In fairness to markbrfc71 I guess they might have changed a bit when Chucho and Phillips were on together even though Phillips ran straight to a midfield berth.

[jim mk2]

Too much hypothetical nonsense about team formations. One piece of individual skill or moment of inspiration by a talented player and tactical masterplans go out of the window.

[den]

Too much hypothetical nonsense about team formations. One piece of individual skill or moment of inspiration by a talented player and tactical masterplans go out of the window.

Correct Jim.

It's not about your formation, it's about the way you approach the game. The best teams or individuals in almost* any sport you wish to name, are the positive ones.

In Cricket the Aussies were/are always positive when bowling, batting or fielding. The top boxers are the aggressive ones. Man Utd win leagues not by being negative, but by attacking sides from the off. Likewise Liverpool suffer because of their negativity. In tennis aggression is key.

So even with 4-5-1, if you are positive with it you'll get 2,3 or 4 players in support of the lone striker as quickly as possible. If you don't, it's a negative formation that will get you nowhere.

*safety first.