[Archived] Rovers versus Manchester City, 25th April 8pm

[RevidgeBlue]

That's my whole point Rev. It was the first 20 mins when we played out and out 4-4-2 and they were murdering us.. At that point Kean changed it - he said so.

Yes, good post blue and white.

I think Rev and plenty of others believe that if you are lining up with two strikers and four midfielders, you are playing 4-4-2.

You're arguing a completely different point there Den, if yo start with two strikers on the pitch and a striker drops back to do a bit of graft to help out midfield it's still essentially 442. Ideally you should always defend from the front.

If you line up with one recognised striker in your starting eleven it's essentially 451.

Since we lost 4-3 at Wigan and everyone complained we were far too open, the manager seemingly succumbed to the criticism and started playing 4-5-1 with one striker (usually Roque) up front. I thought we played well for large parts of the Wigan game, looked like scoring plenty, but a succession of unforced errors cost us the game.

Since we've started playing 4-5-1 our record has been P7 W0 D4 L3. That was before Monday night's game which we also lost with Benjani and Roberts starting.

We scored only six goals in those seven games and failed to score in three of them. I'm not even sure if any forward player other than Hoillet has scored using that system.

I still maintain for Saturday's game where we HAVE to get the win and three points we need to start with two strikers. I can't see how our record whilst playing one up front dictates any differently. If we only needed to grind out a point for safety I might have a very different view.

[den]

I still maintain for Saturday's game where we HAVE to get the win and three points we need to start with two strikers. I can't see how our record whilst playing one up front dictates any differently. If we only needed to grind out a point for safety I might have a very different view.

You'll have to explain to me how we're more likely to beat Bolton by playing 4-4-2, rather than 4-5-1 Rev.

Our record under Kean and 4-4-2 is no better than 4-5-1 Rev. 4-4-2 against City and we created nothing. That's because when City had the ball in midfield our two strikers were stood wrong side of the ball watching play.

It's not about how many strikers you start with, it's about how many players you can get forward when you attack. 4-4-2 allows the opposition to dominate the game from midfield by pushing 5 or even 6 players into the middle. The idea behind 4-5-1, is to cover the width of the pitch, contest the midfield where games are won or lost, control the game, push the opposition back, then get players into the area from there - just as most top european sides play nowadays. Of course, if you have a poor squad, it makes no difference what formation you play. You'll get beat anyhow.

[den]

If you line up with one recognised striker in your starting eleven it's essentially 451.

Essentially - what does that mean? You can and do change formations within a game. That's why I asked "why", when you said you found it incredulous that some people were asking for 4-5-1. 4-5-1 can be a more attacking formation than 4-4-2 if you play it right. It's all down to how you approach the game, rather than how many strikers start the game. Your assertion that 4-4-2 means more goal threat is demonstrably flawed. Man Utd play verious formations including 4-5-1, but they are always a goal threat because they approach the game in a positive manner. They get players forward.

Playing 4-4-2 as you suggest - having two strikers up front, gives the opponents the advantage in midfield as City showed. If you don't suggest playing two strikers side by side, then you're not asking for 4-4-2.

[AggyBlue]

If you line up with one recognised striker in your starting eleven it's essentially 451.

I'd expect a staement like that from someone who knows absolutely nothing about football.

Are you a Venky's stooge?

[booth]

Are you a Venky's stooge?

Along with three other posters on here, I often wonder.

[Amo]

Formations are flexible and change shape throughout the 90minutes, despite keeping their basic structure. We were playing 4-4-2, with a striker dropping deep at times to get the ball. That doesn't mean we switched to 4-5-1.

[RevidgeBlue]

You'll have to explain to me how we're more likely to beat Bolton by playing 4-4-2, rather than 4-5-1 Rev.

Our record under Kean and 4-4-2 is no better than 4-5-1 Rev.

Errr.... well yes it is - considerably.

The statitistics show that we've taken ten points from eight games under Kean playing 4-4-2 and four points from seven games playing 4-5-1.

As I've stated above we failed to win any of those games, failed to score in three of those seven games sporting a lone striker and in the four games where we managed a draw we either failed to score or came from behind to rescue a point. In not one of those games did we take the lead and particularly look like winning it!

If this was a thread about Kalinic you'd be loftily asking "Where is the evidence he is a natural goalscorer"? So I put it to you, "Where is the evidence we can win a game playing 4-5-1?"

Those are the facts or statistics.

My opinion based on what I've seen with my own eyes is that we've failed to put in a single really good performance under Kean playing 4-5-1. I do believe however we've put in several good performances fielding two strikers, namely the games we won against Liverpool and WBA and the two games we narrowly lost to Spurs and Citeh.

[RevidgeBlue]

Man Utd play verious formations including 4-5-1, but they are always a goal threat because they approach the game in a positive manner. They get players forward.

We don't. (Get players forward).

United have the players all over the pitch to make that system work.

We don't.

Are you a Venky's stooge?

Yes. Obviously.

Must find out why those paycheques haven't been landing on the doormat though.

[den]

Errr.... well yes it is - considerably.

The statitistics show that we've taken ten points from eight games under Kean playing 4-4-2 and four points from seven games playing 4-5-1.

Nah, not having that that is evidence of anything. I don't believe for one moment that you remember the formations used throughout all those games Rev. Nor do I believe that we didn't change formations during at least, some of those games. Would we have beaten the teams when we played 4-5-1 even if we'd have played 4-4-2? If we had played Man Utd - or any of the other top sides, using 4-4-2 instead of 4-5-1, would we have beaten them?

There's not much point though, when you believe that having 2 strikers in a team means you are playing 4-4-2.

[den]

If this was a thread about Kalinic you'd be loftily asking "Where is the evidence he is a natural goalscorer"? So I put it to you, "Where is the evidence we can win a game playing 4-5-1?"

Let's get back to the context of this discussion. You said that you found it incredulous [something like that] that some people wanted to play 4-5-1. I asked why? 4-5-1 is an excellent formation played properly, for reasons that I've explained.

So I take it that you would play 4-4-2 every game?