+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

  1. #1

    Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    Why do we play 3-5-2?
    If it's meant to flood the midfield, it doesn't work. If it's meant to get players forward, it doesn't work. Instead we get an out-numbered midfield, and our wing-backs get caught upfield and leave the three man defence exposed. Moore is on his own far too often. Let's go back to 4-4-2. Maybe..

    Phillips - Ng, Morrison, Nelson, Bagan - Giles, Ralls, Pack, Colwill - Collins/Harris, Moore

    The only issue is what to do with Aden Flint. What happens to him? Nobody in their right mind plays him in a two-man centre-back pairing. But he definitely adds height in defence, and is a goal-scoring presence up front. But everywhere else suffers. So is it Flint that's the problem? Is playing Aden Flint having a knock-on effect all across the team?

  2. #2

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    We need our 3 offensive midfielders back…and play like we did at Blackpool. Unfortunately Harris, Collins and Bowen have been disappointing so far.

  3. #3

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    Is 442 the answer no. Unless we want to go down.

  4. #4

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by tforturton View Post
    Why do we play 3-5-2?
    If it's meant to flood the midfield, it doesn't work. If it's meant to get players forward, it doesn't work. Instead we get an out-numbered midfield, and our wing-backs get caught upfield and leave the three man defence exposed. Moore is on his own far too often. Let's go back to 4-4-2. Maybe..

    Phillips - Ng, Morrison, Nelson, Bagan - Giles, Ralls, Pack, Colwill - Collins/Harris, Moore

    The only issue is what to do with Aden Flint. What happens to him? Nobody in their right mind plays him in a two-man centre-back pairing. But he definitely adds height in defence, and is a goal-scoring presence up front. But everywhere else suffers. So is it Flint that's the problem? Is playing Aden Flint having a knock-on effect all across the team?
    Flint can play the system the other two can't, it would be cruel to drop hi under MM he and Pack have greatly improved.

    I wonder if we should drop Nelson and draft in one of our development centre backs Denham or Mcguinesss or both ,what we go to lose?

  5. #5

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    We tried it loads of times

    It was awful

    Flint can’t deal with it

  6. #6

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    I guess we play 3-5-2 because we have 4/5 decent centre backs, and 3 very inexperienced full backs.

  7. #7

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    From what I’ve seen it’s more of a 3-4-3.

    It seems to be our only way of scoring is getting crosses into the box. So therefore we need to increase the number of people in the box , so we should play 2 up front. Crucially we should also get players into wide areas and actually cross the ball. We seem to do neither.

    I’d certainly be tempted to give 4-4-2 a go.

  8. #8

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    No

  9. #9

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by G rangetown Blue View Post
    We need our 3 offensive midfielders back…and play like we did at Blackpool. Unfortunately Harris, Collins and Bowen have been disappointing so far.
    Why has Bowen been disappointing?

    Oh and my answer to the question in the thread title is no - the problems we have are not down to what the system is, they’d exist whatever formation we used.

  10. #10

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    Why has Bowen been disappointing?

    Oh and my answer to the question in the thread title is no - the problems we have are not down to what the system is, they’d exist whatever formation we used.
    Bowen seems a little ‘lightweight’ at present, hopefully he will improve. Not really made an impression yet.

  11. #11

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    In a nutshell, the ‘problem’ is injuries to Ralls, Bacuna and Giles, and letting Murphy go.

    Fans can write all they like about formations, “hoofball”, McCarthy, commitment….blah blah blah…that’s all bollux.

  12. #12

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    On fifa and football manager I always revert to the 4231. I don't see why Mick can't see this.

    2 cb, 2 fb with one being allowed to venture forward more than the other.

    2 cdm for that stability in defence, when attacking, the more cultural one will go forward and provide options, defensive one sits.

    Wide attackers can position narrower for tiki taka or go wide to spread play.

    CAM will probably get most goals as he ghosts past the ST who will be a focal point but also swap positions with the Cam.

    Fluid and style can be whatever is needed.

    If CCFC want my full instructions and settings let me know.

  13. #13

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    The more I look at the squad the more I think letting Murphy go out on loan was a huge mistake. Yes he was hit and miss but we literally have no width at all without Giles. Not many who can take a player on, I think Murphy has a goal threat in him as well. I'm not saying he would have started every game but something off the bench or if we wanted to mix it up.

    I'll be honest I see little in Harris as a player upfront.

    MM has made the squad very limited in how we can play formation wise.

  14. #14

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by tforturton View Post
    Why do we play 3-5-2?
    If it's meant to flood the midfield, it doesn't work. If it's meant to get players forward, it doesn't work. Instead we get an out-numbered midfield, and our wing-backs get caught upfield and leave the three man defence exposed. Moore is on his own far too often. Let's go back to 4-4-2. Maybe..

    Phillips - Ng, Morrison, Nelson, Bagan - Giles, Ralls, Pack, Colwill - Collins/Harris, Moore

    The only issue is what to do with Aden Flint. What happens to him? Nobody in their right mind plays him in a two-man centre-back pairing. But he definitely adds height in defence and is a goal-scoring presence up front. But everywhere else suffers. So is it Flint that's the problem? Is playing Aden Flint having a knock-on effect all across the team?
    But surely we are getting players forward as we're the 5th highest team in the league for shots per game (well joint fourth with QPR).

  15. #15

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by J R Hartley View Post
    No
    I'd just like to add the word 'f*ck' to the beginning of No.
    If anyone's thinking about formations with our squad then think shifting deckchairs on the Titanic.

  16. #16

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    We don't have wingers.

  17. #17

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by life on mars View Post
    Flint can play the system the other two can't, it would be cruel to drop hi under MM he and Pack have greatly improved.

    I wonder if we should drop Nelson and draft in one of our development centre backs Denham or Mcguinesss or both ,what we go to lose?
    We didn't develop McGuinness

  18. #18

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fine Lines View Post
    From what I’ve seen it’s more of a 3-4-3.

    It seems to be our only way of scoring is getting crosses into the box. So therefore we need to increase the number of people in the box , so we should play 2 up front. Crucially we should also get players into wide areas and actually cross the ball. We seem to do neither.

    I’d certainly be tempted to give 4-4-2 a go.
    We don't have wingers.

  19. #19

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    Interesting to see that we played the last twenty minutes yesterday with a basic four-four-two formation, and probably looked the most effective we had all game (though that's not saying much). Mick must read my threads....

  20. #20

    Re: Is 4-4-2 the answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by tforturton View Post
    Interesting to see that we played the last twenty minutes yesterday with a basic four-four-two formation, and probably looked the most effective we had all game (though that's not saying much). Mick must read my threads....
    We've done it more than once with year.
    Players like Colwill and Harris are not natural wide players.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •