Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

442





TonyW

New member
Feb 11, 2004
2,525
Looks like Chris may be going with a predominantly 442 formation this season, based on what we saw at Crawley and the publicised information that this is his preferred set up.

Thank **** I say. Let's forget all the fancy dan formations which are all very nice and flexible etc but can come unstuck at this level -see Derby away last term.

You won't find a better box to box central midfield pairing than Stephens and Kayal anywhere in this league. Full backs are sorted, as is the forward line (many pairings, just need to get the right balance). The centre back two are a bit light in depth as are the right and left midfield, although we have some options.

I am feeling quite confident.

Couldn't agree more.
If/when he works out his best front pairing, we could do some real damage this season.
 






BN9 BHA

DOCKERS
NSC Patreon
Jul 14, 2013
21,450
Newhaven
I love mix and match. :drama:

image.jpg
 




Marshy

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2003
19,698
FRUIT OF THE BLOOM
with the fitness of March and Lua LUa, those that want 4-4-2 better get used to having Calderon right wing and Crofts\JFC on the left then....


I really really cant see us going 4-4-2.

This season is all about getting our midfield nearer our Lone front man in my opinion.. quick defenders are the key to us defending higher up the pitch.
 




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,094
Chandlers Ford
I wasn't at Crawley, and I keep reading on here that we played 442. The club twitter 100% listed the side as 4231, with Baldock in a three (with March and Lualua) behind Hemed.

Which actually was it?
 




One Teddy Maybank

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Aug 4, 2006
21,483
Worthing
I wasn't at Crawley, and I keep reading on here that we played 442. The club twitter 100% listed the side as 4231, with Baldock in a three (with March and Lualua) behind Hemed.

Which actually was it?

4-4-2. Both March (whilst on) and KLL hugged the wings, when Calderon came on he pushed inside a little more than March, but then he doesn't have any pace. However, he was predominantly wide.

Hemed was up front with Baldock generally just off him, if you are being pedantic you could make an argument for 4-4-1-1, as Baldock also dropped off slightly when we didn't have possession and roamed about quite a bit, but primarily in my eyes it was 4-4-2.
 


OvingdeanSeagull

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2012
747
Ovingdean
Almost every team that gets promoted in this division uses a 2 up front formation. If we can create an effective striking partnership, such as Baldock and Hemed, then they will score far more than if we were to play Hemed on his own with Baldock on the wing again, for example. They will bring the best out of each other, and this has been shown by Watford (Deeney & Ighalo), Bournemouth (Wilson & Kermorgant), Leicester (Nugent & Vardy), Burnley (Vokes & Ings) and many more successful championship sides over the last few years. I think it's quite exciting to see how we've set up over the last few friendlies.
 






pasty

A different kind of pasty
Jul 5, 2003
30,178
West, West, West Sussex
Almost every team that gets promoted in this division uses a 2 up front formation. If we can create an effective striking partnership, such as Baldock and Hemed, then they will score far more than if we were to play Hemed on his own with Baldock on the wing again, for example. They will bring the best out of each other, and this has been shown by Watford (Deeney & Ighalo), Bournemouth (Wilson & Kermorgant), Leicester (Nugent & Vardy), Burnley (Vokes & Ings) and many more successful championship sides over the last few years. I think it's quite exciting to see how we've set up over the last few friendlies.

Big fat THIS :thumbsup:
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,198
The Fatherland
The football for the last 2 seasons has been so boring, predictable and crap!

You want boring and predictable then 442 is your formation. Can't imagine any of the more exciting teams in football think 442 is the way forward. Come to think of it, it's just the English who clamour for it.
 






GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,472
Gloucester
Lot of b0110cks on here about 442 being prehistoric, boring, primitive, whatever. Possibly some idiot might even have managed to get the derogatory term 'hoofball' in somewhere, although I haven't actually seen it!
There's no reason why you can't play modern progressive possession football - pwoper football - with a 442 formation. What is there about a 442 formation to stop us playing Stockdale to Greer, Greer to Rosenior, Rosenior to Dunk, Dunk to Bong, Bong back to Dunk, Dunk to a random midfielder, then straight back to Greer, to Stockdale, to Rosenior, to Greer, to Dunk, all within ten yards of our penalty area, slowly, scientifically and keeping possession? Surely we can do that with a 442 just as well as with any other system?
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,198
The Fatherland
Lot of b0110cks on here about 442 being prehistoric, boring, primitive, whatever. Possibly some idiot might even have managed to get the derogatory term 'hoofball' in somewhere, although I haven't actually seen it!
There's no reason why you can't play modern progressive possession football - pwoper football - with a 442 formation. What is there about a 442 formation to stop us playing Stockdale to Greer, Greer to Rosenior, Rosenior to Dunk, Dunk to Bong, Bong back to Dunk, Dunk to a random midfielder, then straight back to Greer, to Stockdale, to Rosenior, to Greer, to Dunk, all within ten yards of our penalty area, slowly, scientifically and keeping possession? Surely we can do that with a 442 just as well as with any other system?

:lolol: yeah. I can just imagine Jogi Löw thinking "what we need right now is two solid banks of 4 and some strikers" as he decides how to unpick a team. And when this, inevitably fails, is plan B the "tall fella"?
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,198
The Fatherland
What is there about a 442 formation to stop us playing Stockdale to Greer, Greer to Rosenior, Rosenior to Dunk, Dunk to Bong, Bong back to Dunk, Dunk to a random midfielder, then straight back to Greer, to Stockdale, to Rosenior, to Greer, to Dunk, all within ten yards of our penalty area, slowly, scientifically and keeping possession? Surely we can do that with a 442 just as well as with any other system?

It's a very predictable system to play against though. You know exactly where each and every player is.
 




severnside gull

Well-known member
May 16, 2007
24,540
By the seaside in West Somerset
I'm still pretty convinced that we will play 4 3 3 or 4 5 1 whichever way you look at it when the season kicks off, if we can get further up the field defensively then our attacking players will look much better and will be Able to support a lone front man without the risk of being over run centrally.

Way to go :thumbsup:
 


Mellotron

I've asked for soup
Jul 2, 2008
31,730
Brighton
I want a formation that would allow Ince, Stephens and Kayal all through the middle. Those 3 could OWN games between them.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here