Yes I'm sure sir Alex Ferguson will wholeheartedly agree with you... Won everything a club could win with 4-4-2. If you struggle as we did playing anything other than 4-4-2 go back to basics and see what happens as we did against Ipswich.from terry venables Xmas tree through to hodgsons 4-5-1 if you ain't good enough you won't win anything so don't put England's woes down to playing systems put it down to ability or the lack of.
-
-
I think with tactics , you always need initially to build the tactics around the strengths of the players you have inherited , it has been a frustrating wait to see Faulin and Llungo finally paired together .
I agree that there are now some players at the club that you can see as the core of the club for the next few years , I don't think Phillips can be counted as a core player as he is into the final 18 months of contract so will probably be sold in the summer , so with Holliett's contract expiring this summer , it will interesting to what happens with Chery and Gladwin .
Finally , attitude , footballers by nature are selfish , as long as I am playing life is good , the club's attitude has to be set by the manager , ensuring that all players believe they have an important role to play , to achieve that. , you really need a smaller squad size than we are used to.Comment
-
wouldnt ever want us to plan for a 3-5-2. I think Redknapp went with this initially in his prem season, when signing ferdinand. Clearly didn't work after about 5 games and we were then forced to change, what i assume we had worked on all pre-season. Main reason Simpson was sold i thought.
Thats why we had Isla, who clearly struggled to defend, but was probably a decent wingback.
Problem with that system is if you plan to use it, you ultimately have no use for your standard fullbacks (like simpson), so why keep them, but then when it does go wrong, you dont have the personnel to change back.
very few CB have worked as part of a 3 before and very rarely see a fullback doing their job, they either are too defensive so you play with a back 5, or too high. I imagine someone like Mackie could play it with his energy, but doubt he has the quality required to be effective.
Nothing wrong with 4-4-2 IMHO, just have to accept that you most probably wont have the majority of possession each gameComment
-
Nope. Have a dekko here.
It's also nonsense to say that England's failure since 66 was down to a lack of decent players. I seem to recall Greece winning the Euros with an incredibly limited squad but a very good grasp of how to utilise the players tactically.Comment
-
What formation does Barcelona play - I believe they are a good team scoring a lot of goalsComment
-
Oh I see, the extra over the named 25 are a drain on club wages.Comment
-
It's not 1985 anymore.
No doubt you grew up with 442 being the default, but no footballer under 25 could say that. Single-striker systems are the norm in youth football – one of reasons two strikers can work is because defenders these days aren't used to not having the spare man to cover.
Re Leicester:
Vardy and Okazaki drop deeper than strikers in the classic English 442 you're thinking of.
Kante and Drinkwater do far, far, far more running than centre-mids did back in the day. Lol @ the idea of Wilkins playing in the current Leicester side.
Mahrez cuts in more, wanders about, and would generally be viewed as a reckless wildcard by all English coaches prior to about 1995. Of their front six only Marc Albrighton plays his role like a classic English 442.Comment
Comment