4-4-2

[Vegas Claret]

just doesn't work with our current team if Vokes and Barnes are up top imho. Back to 4-5-1 on Saturday for me

[FactualFrank]

I think we did enough to win the game just unlucky. I dont think 442 was the problem tonight.

[ablueclaret]

SD is still attached to 4-4-2.
Rather than learning from his big mistake last season which cost us so many away points he still needs to return to the comfort zone.
Of course 4-4-2 has its place particularly in the latter stages of a game but with our strength in midfield 4-5-1 or some variation on it makes sense as the starting system.
Yes every now and then surprise your opponent by starting 4-4-2 but generally speaking the solidity of 4-5-1 gives us the best chance of success. Makes buying Walters a tad foolish though.

[RVclaret]

I'd only like to see us start with 4-4-2 when Wells is fit. The other partnerships are just two static/similar. Even then I'm not convinced.

[Vegas Claret]

I think we did enough to win the game just unlucky. I dont think 442 was the problem tonight.

What was the problem tonight then Frank in you opinion ?
I just think 4-4-2 makes us so one dimensional

[CFS]

451 requires playing 3 of cork defour Westwood and hendrick. Not something you want to be doing with no backup to that unless you don't mind arfield slotting into midfield.

[Vegas Claret]

451 requires playing 3 of cork defour Westwood and hendrick. Not something you want to be doing with no backup to that unless you don't mind arfield slotting into midfield.

hence "Back to 4-5-1 on Saturday for me"

[CFS]

hence "Back to 4-5-1 on Saturday for me"

Agreed.

[KefkaClaret]

I don't think 4-4-2 works if neither of the strikers are pacy.

[Vegas Claret]

I don't think 4-4-2 works if neither of the strikers are pacy.

It worked at Wembley with wood and Barnes, it doesn't with Vokes and Barnes

[fidelcastro]

Vokes and Barnes didn't do their cases for starting on Saturday any good at all tonight, sadly.

[Bin Ont Turf]

I was one shouting for it in home games after the West Brom game.

I've changed my mind, 4-4-2 isn't working and we need to give it up.

It would work if we had Cork and Marney as the central two, but we don't, so let's give it a miss.

[Vegas Claret]

I was one shouting for it in home games after the West Brom game.

I've changed my mind, 4-4-2 isn't working and we need to give it up.

It would work if we had Cork and Marney as the central two, but we don't, so let's give it a miss.

I think if we had gone 4-5-1 tonight we would have won comfortably

[DCWat]

451 requires playing 3 of cork defour Westwood and hendrick. Not something you want to be doing with no backup to that unless you don't mind arfield slotting into midfield.

Agree completely with this.

Our depth of squad doesn't cover injuries to central midfield or the centre of defence. The squad is probably four or five players short of where it ideally needs to be.

A defeat tonight is not a bad thing in the grand scheme.

[boatshed bill]

4-4-2 would probably be allright if we could get a serious majority of possession.

[ExistentialWanderer]

Better team for the majority. Not too disappointed to go out of this competition though. Bigger fish to fry.

[mickleoverclaret]

We may as well have played a 4-4-1 tonight with Barnes' performance, that didn't help.

[THEWELLERNUT70]

SD is still attached to 4-4-2.
Rather than learning from his big mistake last season which cost us so many away points he still needs to return to the comfort zone.
Of course 4-4-2 has its place particularly in the latter stages of a game but with our strength in midfield 4-5-1 or some variation on it makes sense as the starting system.
Yes every now and then surprise your opponent by starting 4-4-2 but generally speaking the solidity of 4-5-1 gives us the best chance of success. Makes buying Walters a tad foolish though.

I take it you didn't watch Saturday's game then (No surprise really) as we played 4-5-1 Saturday to start with and when we began to struggle 2nd half we switched to a 4-4-2 which transformed the game for us,stopped us being overrun and enabled us to see out the game to gain a precious point!

[Mala591]

Would like to see us try 4-4-1-1 with Brady having a 'free roaming' role (similar to what Hazard does) behind Vokes or Wood.

JBG....Defour....Cork....Arfield/Hendrick
...................Brady
..............Vokes/Wood

[FactualFrank]

What was the problem tonight then Frank in you opinion ?
I just think 4-4-2 makes us so one dimensional

We played most of the game with balls over midfield, or down the wing, so playing 2 in the middle I don't think was the problem. That's not to say 4-5-1 won't be better, it's just that it's not the first thing that came to mind as being the reason why we lost.
IMO we didn't deserve to lose and on another day, we'd have finished 2 or 3 more of the chances we created.

I think it was the speed of Barnes and Vokes that stood out to me. Leeds defence were quicker than both of them, so I don't think we'd have scored running down the middle, had we played all night. I think if were going to score from open play it would have come from outwide.

[Jakubs Tash]

Unfortunately playing with two target men in a 4-4-2 meant we predictably reverted to hitting diagonal passes for flick ons etc instead of playing through the thirds. It didn't work. 4-5-1 for me.

[piston broke]

Taylor spent so much time on the left wing we were playing 3-5-2 for a lot of the game.
4-5-1 please.

We were missing Lowton, Mee, Ward, Defour, Cork and Wood and with Heaton out as well that's 7/11ths of our best team. The side on the pitch should still have had enough to beat their changed lineup.

[Colburn_Claret]

I wasn't there last night, bit it sounded like we created loads of chances, therefore the problem isn't the formation, just the misfiring strikers.

[Bin Ont Turf]

I wasn't there last night, bit it sounded like we created loads of chances, therefore the problem isn't the formation, just the misfiring strikers.

Oh I see, it works like that.

Well we didn't create loads of chances on Saturday, so we should ditch the 4-5-1.

[RocketLawnChair]

Horses for Courses IMO. Sean Dyche seems to have settled on a formation that suits our best players in the more important games. When they are all fit and available we play 4-4-1-1 not 4-5-1 as some suggest. He decided last night that he wanted to rest Brady Cork and Defour so 4-4-2 was the result of that decision to rest them players.

[quoonbeatz]

the fact that we switched to 442 shows where our priorities lie - last night was all about getting game time into players.

we should still have had enough to beat leeds but i'd fully expect us to go back to 451 on saturday.

we're more solid and play better football through the midfield in a 451. if we're going to have two strikers up front, they need to be a big one and a quick one - our success with this formation over the last few years tells us that. two target men up front doesn't work.

[3putt]

4-5-1 (or perhaps 4-4-1-1) is definitely the way to go for us. We now have a strong midfield but don't have a good enough striking pair to make 4-4-2 work.

[Vegas Claret]

We played most of the game with balls over midfield, or down the wing, so playing 2 in the middle I don't think was the problem. That's not to say 4-5-1 won't be better, it's just that it's not the first thing that came to mind as being the reason why we lost.
IMO we didn't deserve to lose and on another day, we'd have finished 2 or 3 more of the chances we created.

I think it was the speed of Barnes and Vokes that stood out to me. Leeds defence were quicker than both of them, so I don't think we'd have scored running down the middle, had we played all night. I think if were going to score from open play it would have come from outwide.

That was my point Frank, it simply doesn't work with Vokes and Barnes. It improves with Wood as his movement and pace is better

[quoonbeatz]

don't think it will work very well with wood and vokes, nor wood and barnes either.

all too similar.

[northernpowerhouse]

451 requires playing 3 of cork defour Westwood and hendrick. Not something you want to be doing with no backup to that unless you don't mind arfield slotting into midfield.

I don't mind Arfield slotting into midfield. He did well against Spurs and Chelsea and I think Dyche might start him against Huddersfield.

[Leon C]

What about 3-3-4 with Defour up front?

[Colburn_Claret]

Oh I see, it works like that.

Well we didn't create loads of chances on Saturday, so we should ditch the 4-5-1.

That isn't what I said.

If you don't take your chances, it doesn't make any difference what your formation is.

Keep up.

[Mala591]

I have changed my mind. We need to get Defour in a more creative forward midfield position.

4-2-3-1 on Saturday.

..............Usual back four
..........Westwood.....Cork
JBG................Defour.........Brady
.................Vokes/Wood

[claretspice]

Don't think 4-4-2 works with the current personnel when we're trying to play on the front foot, and if we are playing it Barnes has to start - he's the best of our 3 strikers at drifting wide or deep and dragging the centre backs out of their comfort zone. But even he is relatively limited in this regard. So too often we'll find ourselves with two relatively static targets who a well organised back four will deal with fairly easily.

We've had more success with 4-4-2 away from home, as a game changer. At Spurs, this was possibly because Spurs got nervous and we were able to play the game right on top of them for 30 minutes, but (particularly at Liverpool) I'd say its more to do with the fact that, against a home team expecting to dominate the game and pushing on their midfield and full backs, its a bit easier to find space even without being especially subtle about it.

We suit 4-5-1 more, but actually I suspect there'll be games this year when our lack of pace in the final third means we look like we suit neither formation especially well. Equally, I'm sure there will be games where the balance of our midfield 3 and the physical presence Wood or Vokes gives us means that we look great playing 4-5-1.

[northernpowerhouse]

I have changed my mind. We need to get Defour in a more creative forward midfield position.

4-2-3-1 on Saturday.

..............Usual back four
..........Westwood.....Cork
JBG................Defour.........Brady
.................Vokes/Wood

Playing both Westwood and Cork seems a bit defensive for a home game against Huddersfield.

[Mala591]

Playing both Westwood and Cork seems a bit defensive for a home game against Huddersfield.

It is the only way I can think of to release Defour to use his undoubted skill/creativity in a more forward role which is being currently stifled by his very significant defensive responsibilities.

[claretspice]

I'd rather have his passing ability at the heart of our team where he can help us construct attacks and move defensive units about, than have him ahead of the play more often than not, receiving the ball on the half turn or on his back to goal, all of which is a bit alien to him. I doubt he's ever played as a number 10 anywhere else in his career - he's a central midfielder.

[SGr]

Wells needs to be fit before we can go back to 4-4-2. And even then I'd only do it during the game when needed.