Formation Dilemma

[villadelph]

Is the 4-5-1 our ideal formation? One would think that it's the system we've been running for some time now, but why not try to adopt something else in hope of a more effective shape? We've got Wigan on the weekend and I don't think there is any better time to take some risks.

Our deep \/-shaped midfield gives little support to the strikeforce, even with our "creative" players like Bannan and Ireland getting forward through the center of the park. Could there be unforeseen benefits in the 4-4-2? Having two strikers being able to combine and work together could stabilize our final third possession. Moreover, with two strikers, the first 15 minutes of the match, in which we usually sit back and take a pounding, could see a change. James Collins moon-shots would have a better chance of finding a forward, ultimately then having a forward run off the first with a flick.

We don't find possession in the final third until the 60 minute mark when opposing legs start to lose their flair. We need to utilize our offense as a defensive measure. Bent's prowess and Gabby's pace could really work wonders. While most believe it is impossible for Bent to have a partner, I don't see him getting service from anyone else.. and Gabby for that matter who had little coming in from the wings today. But by pairing them they could surely work out a couple of combinations and find a new way forward.

Could we handle a 4-4-2 defensively? It would be difficult, and who to pick in the middle of the park..? Would Bannan and Petrov get run over, would Gabby track back enough to hold whatever edge we do have in the center midfield, could Jenas have any role to play in a new formation?

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered on this matter but something needs to change. McLeish was obviously unhappy with today's performance, along with the rest of us, but we just keep juggling pieces in the same 5-4-1 with very little positives to come away with. If it doesn't work, we could always fall back.

Hutton Dunne Collins Warnock

Bannan Petrov/Jenas?/Delph N'Zogbia

        Gabby    Bent

Just a thought. Different formations and suggestions welcome.

Up the villa, VTID.

[usav]

Is the 4-5-1 our ideal formation?

No.  Next question?

[villadelph]

Is the 4-5-1 our ideal formation?

No.  Next question?

Literally.. Could there be unforeseen benefits in the 4-4-2?

Figuratively, I'd like you to elaborate on your first point.

[AV82EC]

When are people going to wake up to the fact we don't have two central midfielders good enough to play 4-4-2? Yesterdays 4-2-3-1 in the second half was much better and suits the players we have.  Ultimately though the formation is irrelevant if the players dont put the effort in like yesterdays first half.

[Eigentor]

I don't think a discussion about the formation is the most relevant one. Yesterday, in the second half, Ireland (!) and Bannan was showing some glimpses of good passing and creativity, and we were actually creating some chances. We weren't playing like Barcelona, but it wasn't that bad considering that we were playing away against a competitive side.

The biggest problem is that our central midfield pairing doesn't work at all, and I'm starting to doubt that it ever will. Petrov does, for whatever reason, not see himself as a sitting midfielder anymore, and Delph lack the discipline (yet) to be one. That meant that our central midfield was at times nonexistant when the opponents attacked. Not good. We almost got away with it against QPR. If we do the same thing when we play someone good, we'll be slaughtered.

[Californian Villain]

I still like Bobby Robson's sweeper system.

[ozzjim]

When are people going to wake up to the fact we don't have two central midfielders good enough to play 4-4-2? Yesterdays 4-2-3-1 in the second half was much better and suits the players we have.  Ultimately though the formation is irrelevant if the players dont put the effort in like yesterdays first half.

I would take this a step further. We lack structure in midfield whatever formation we play IMO. Players appear confused re their roles, while also being positionally poor. Take Delph for example. First half he and Petrov were we think the deeper sitting pair, and much of the time they were forced deep through the centre halves hoofing and giving the ball away as we have not got a focal point without the big man. However, Delph was continuously having the ball played in behind him, so positionally something was a bit out. Then second half he kept marauding down the left hand side. All a bit odd for me. Petrov seems to also want to get forward more, but even in a 4-5-1 we look exposed, so tactically I don't thing the midfield men in that are doing what they should be.

Ireland though, for me, showed promise, enough that would make me tempted to start him and wee Barry together with Petrov in the centre and drop Delph for Bent coming back next week. Attacking wise I reckon we would be a lot more dangerous.

[Eigentor]

As an aside, where is Kieran Clark? Injured? He wasn't on the sub's bench, and clearly deserves a chance in central midfield if fit. If not, throw in Gardner. I doubt he'll do worse than Delph.

[nick harper]

If McLeish is set on the lone striker, then Gabby fits the role better than Bent in my opinion, in terms of the overall team structure. Bent doesn't work hard enough not contribute enough outside the box. That is the real dilemna for the manager.

[Chris Smith]

We played 442 against Necastle, that should have been enough to convince everyone that it doesn't suit us. I think we need to wait to see what impact Jenas has when he's fit, he's a different player to anything we currently have.

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

Is the 4-5-1 our ideal formation?

No.  Next question?

Could you be wrong? Yes. Next question? Why? Because when played the right way, as we began to in the second half, a team can be attacking playing 4-5-1 (see Man Utd).

[Dante Lavelli]

The tweaks to the offside rule has according to some football boffin increased the active playing area by some 15m or so. As the midfielders are the ones that have been most affected by this I think a 442 (or a flat one at least) will always struggle unless the players are unfeasibly fit or exceptionally talented.

Personally I like the 4231 but it does mean the 3 are potentially in no man's land between the midfield and attack i.e. doing nothing well. A 433 arguably has more defined roles and could avoid the situation where Petrov starts roaming and the likes of Nzogbia fail to support the striker.

[darren woolley]

If we could play like we did in the second half of yesterdays game in every game I would like us to play that way.

[usav]

Is the 4-5-1 our ideal formation?

No.  Next question?

Could you be wrong? Yes. Next question? Why? Because when played the right way, as we began to in the second half, a team can be attacking playing 4-5-1 (see Man Utd).

If wouldn't take my answer seriously, if I were you.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

The biggest problem is that our central midfield pairing doesn't work at all, and I'm starting to doubt that it ever will. Petrov does, for whatever reason, not see himself as a sitting midfielder anymore, and Delph lack the discipline (yet) to be one. That meant that our central midfield was at times nonexistant when the opponents attacked. Not good.

I mentioned this last week after the Newcastle game, Petrov thinks he's a young Frank Lampard and after his wonder strike at Everton it's only confirmed it in his mind. Delph needs some babysitting and Petrov should be the one sitting back, building and directing play. Delph has been left far too exposed by Petrov's walkabouts, so it's hardly a surprise people are questioning his ability.

Key for me if players bringing the ball forward, both Dunne and Collins can do it, as should Petrov. It reduces the space between the midfield and attack, plus with players like Bannan and Ireland who can spot a pass, we should be able to start creating more chances for the strikers, something that is a major concern and reflected in our poor total of shots on target.