4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:31 pm

Dilemma:

We now have a choice of FIVE good quality forwards but we look a better balanced team with a five man midfield (with only one centre forward).

Do we start with 4-5-1 first half then revert to 4-4-2 second half? We looked far more dangerous against spurs in the last 20 minutes with what appeared to be a 4-3-3 formation.

Nice dilemma for SD to have but it certainly is a dilemma.

Your thoughts?

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:36 pm

Mala591 wrote:Do we start with 4-5-1 first half then revert to 4-4-2 second half?

I don't think the half matters. It's more about how the game is going. For example, 1-0 down with 20 minutes to go - revert to 4-4-2. 1-0 up with 20 minutes to go, stay with 4-5-1 but bring someone like Vokes off and put Wood/Wells on.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:39 pm

Away we start 451 and against the top teams at home. I think we can be more flexible at home to the likes of Palace i.e. 4411. Hence why I wanted a nr. 10 ideally, instead of 1 of Wells or Walters.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:40 pm

Horses for courses

Leon C · Post by **Leon C** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:52 pm

4-5-2

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:57 pm

Leon C wrote:4-5-2

I'm not sure it would be a good idea to drop Heaton!

piston broke · Post by **piston broke** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:10 pm

I like 3-5-2 but as Colburn has pointed out you pick the team to do the job.
If the opponents have decent wingers you need FBs.
If just MFers playing wide you can get away with Brady, Scotty or JBG.
One up top only works if the MF are making regular support runs. We do look to be improving in this regard.

CoolClaret · Post by **CoolClaret** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:14 pm

If we get an injury/suspension to Brady, given our strength @ CM, I think we have the personnel to play the diamond (I don't think we will do mind you)
Ignoring the strikers/GK we could have:

--------------Hendrick
---------Defour-----Westy
-----------------Cork
---Ward/Taylor-Mee-Tarka-Lowton

Cork dropping back a bit when the fullbacks bomb on and push our CBs out a bit (a bit like how Dier does with Vertonghan/Alderweireld)

Food for thought

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:23 pm

4-3-3 would be better

piston broke · Post by **piston broke** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:31 pm

Leon C wrote:4-5-2

Are you selling Tom or playing him in midfield?

superdimitri · Post by **superdimitri** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:32 pm

541. Then we are guaranteed to get players injured with no cover.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:36 pm

What about this as an option? It could be used as an extremely attacking formation.

...............Tarks....Mee....Ward
Lowton......................................Taylor
.................Defour........Cork
..........................Brady
...........Vokes/Wood.......Wells

Gets Taylor in the team BUT can Ward play left centre back?

superdimitri · Post by **superdimitri** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:16 pm

I think Taylor is more suited to CB. Ward can play more astutely on the wing or centre forward..although he is good in the air!

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:32 pm

superdimitri wrote:I think Taylor is more suited to CB. Ward can play more astutely on the wing or centre forward..although he is good in the air!

You won't catch any here.

Longsider · Post by **Longsider** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:44 pm

Could really switch it up and go 4--2--5

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:44 pm

4-2-5 is the future.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 9:33 pm

1-3-2--3-1
Heaton
Tarky
Mee Long Taylor
Cork Defour
Brady Hendrick Ward
Vokes

Leon C · Post by **Leon C** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 11:44 pm

2-3-4-3 then

4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2

Re: 4-5-1 vs 4-4-2