4-4-2..

[Nelsonthedog]

Does anyone else miss this formation? 2 CF gives a better chance of scoring goals imo.

Why has it been abandoned in the modern game?

[roversfan99]

We essentially do play 2 strikers, and it is indeed the one that some may mistakenly not consider to be one who scores all of our goals.

There is a place for it but I suspect many feels that it takes too much away in terms of strength in numbers in midfield.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

28 minutes ago, Nelsonthedog said:

Does anyone else miss this formation? 2 CF gives a better chance of scoring goals imo.

Why has it been abandoned in the modern game?

Every move in football in my time has been to make the game more defensive. I suppose to answer your question the team with 5 in midfield will usually overcome the team with 4. When I first started playing it was 2-3-5 which was really a sort of 3-2-2-3 system.

Then the Brazilians adapted that to a 4-2-4.  Alf Ramsey modified that to 4-3-3. As the years went by you got more and more defensive players and less atacking players.

There's a good book to read about this called " Inverting The Pyramid ". 

[Ossydave]

It was abandoned in Spain etc far before it was here, we were very late to the party. 

It's pretty much impossible to play 4-4-2 anymore because of how other teams set up, you'd just get overrun in midfield.

Ironically we do have a few players far more suited to a 4-4-2, namely Gallagher and Chapman.

[simongarnerisgod]

most managers these days are terrified of losing,in the premier league and to a lesser extent in the championship if you go on a losing streak  you tend to get the sack,hence the lack of 4-4-2,and expansive play,iv`e always been of the opinion that if you`re getting overrun then the second striker drops back into midfield and helps out,the two wingers must track back to help as well,all about fluidity imo,it`s a simple game is`nt it??

[Husky]

2 hours ago, Ossydave said:

 

It's pretty much impossible to play 4-4-2 anymore because of how other teams set up, you'd just get overrun in midfield.

 

What about if you played the long ball game, bypassing the entire midfield area? ?

[Exiled in Toronto]

4 hours ago, simongarnerisgod said:

most managers these days are terrified of losing,in the premier league and to a lesser extent in the championship if you go on a losing streak  you tend to get the sack,hence the lack of 4-4-2,and expansive play,iv`e always been of the opinion that if you`re getting overrun then the second striker drops back into midfield and helps out,the two wingers must track back to help as well,all about fluidity imo,it`s a simple game is`nt it??

Unfortunately it’s equally simple for both teams. The hard bit is doing it consistently better than everyone else. 4-4-2 had a good run but ultimately got out-thought.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

6 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Unfortunately it’s equally simple for both teams. The hard bit is doing it consistently better than everyone else. 4-4-2 had a good run but ultimately got out-thought.

Which ever system you play there are areas of the pitch you will always need players in.If you overload one area you will be light in another.

I remember seeing a speculative question years ago. One team has the conventional line up of 10 outfield players and 1 goalkeeper, the other team has 2 goalkeepers but only 9 outfield players. Which team do you think would win most often ?

[Bigdoggsteel]

Leicester won the Premier league with it, so I think there is still a place for it with the right players.  I think we play a variation of it to be fair, although that is debatable I suppose...

[LeftWinger]

18 hours ago, Ossydave said:

It's pretty much impossible to play 4-4-2 anymore because of how other teams set up, you'd just get overrun in midfield.

Bournemouth, Brighton and Burnley seem to manage alright with it.

[Nelsonthedog]

I'd like to see it tried out in the FA cup at Birmingham, with Brereton and Gallagher upfront as a pairing. I feel sure we'd score more and kill games off that way.

Seems to me we don't net enough 'scruffy' goals. All of the ones we score seem to have to be well crafted 'worldies'..

Edited December 10, 2019 by Nelsonthedog

[LeftWinger]

Just now, Nelsonthedog said:

I'd like to see it tried out in the FA cup at Birmingham, with Brereton and Gallagher upfront as a pairing. I feel sure we'd score more and kill games off that way.

Where would you fit Dack in that system? I just think with a 4-4-2 you lose a lot of threat from our best player.

[Nelsonthedog]

Just now, LeftWinger said:

Where would you fit Dack in that system? I just think with a 4-4-2 you lose a lot of threat from our best player.

Dack would have to be benched for this 'trial'.. or played wide.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Nelsonthedog

[oldjamfan1]

Just now, Nelsonthedog said:

Seems to me we don't net enough 'scruffy' goals. All of the ones we score seem to have to be well crafted 'worldies'..

Dack scores his share of these does he not? 

[Nelsonthedog]

Just now, oldjamfan1 said:

Dack scores his share of these does he not? 

Not enough from other sources though imo..

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, LeftWinger said:

Where would you fit Dack in that system? I just think with a 4-4-2 you lose a lot of threat from our best player.

That's why we don't play that way very often. 

[K-Hod]

32 minutes ago, Nelsonthedog said:

Dack would have to be benched for this 'trial'.. or played wide.

Then I don’t want it...

For me, if Bradley Dack is drawing breath, then he starts.

[Nelsonthedog]

56 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Then I don’t want it...

For me, if Bradley Dack is drawing breath, then he starts.

It's worth a look imo.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Nelsonthedog

[K-Hod]

2 minutes ago, Nelsonthedog said:

It's worth a look imo.

That may be, but Dack is our top scorer and has been since he signed. 
Who’s going to replace his goals, while he’s out wide?

[JacknOry]

We will lose him eventually anyway, might as well enjoy him while he is here. We can think about what to do when he is gone.

Besides, all the while he is scoring and creating the headlines, his asming price is going up.

[roversfan99]

19 hours ago, K-Hod said:

That may be, but Dack is our top scorer and has been since he signed. 
Who’s going to replace his goals, while he’s out wide?

Theres often an obsession with the formation 4-4-2, essentially we do have 2 strikers but because its not 4-4-2 for some reason 

Ultimately, you replace a proven goalscorer (who happens to be more of a "second striker") with someone to put right alongside Graham, they almost certainly would not replicate Dacks goalscoring record.

[Nelsonthedog]

21 hours ago, K-Hod said:

That may be, but Dack is our top scorer and has been since he signed. 
Who’s going to replace his goals, while he’s out wide?

It's an alternative if Dack loses form and becomes anonymous, as he can do imo.

[roversfan99]

Just now, Nelsonthedog said:

It's an alternative if Dack loses form and becomes anonymous, as he can do imo.

He has scored 42 goals in 104 games for us, with 17 assists. 24 of those goals and 8 of those assists have come in 62 appearances.

Quite simply, the consistency of his goal contributions over his whole Rovers career has been there for all to see. Even if he has a few barren appearances, he is undroppable because you know soon enough, over the course of the whole season, he will score far more than any of our other attacking players.

[K-Hod]

1 hour ago, Nelsonthedog said:

It's an alternative if Dack loses form and becomes anonymous, as he can do imo.

It’s funny, as even if he does lose form or becomes anonymous, he chips in with the majority of the team’s goals anyway.

Edited December 11, 2019 by K-Hod

[Nelsonthedog]

Your making it sound like I'm critisising Dack.. not at all.. all players lose form at times and I just think in that instance it'd be wise to have an alternative.. another string to our bow.