442

What happens when you change to 442 from a 451 at home?

You lose the midfield.

I dont think changing to 4-4-2 was the problem it was the type of player we brought on.

If we had Rudy or Mason on the bench I could see the reasoning, Mason can hold the ball up, Rudy offers an arial threat offensively and also useful defensively at that point in the game.

Changing to 4-4-2 with Earnie and Miller together made it so simple for Watford, huge mistake

I dont think changing to 4-4-2 was the problem it was the type of player we brought on.

If we had Rudy or Mason on the bench I could see the reasoning, Mason can hold the ball up, Rudy offers an arial threat offensively and also useful defensively at that point in the game.

Changing to 4-4-2 with Earnie and Miller together made it so simple for Watford, huge mistake

Agree with you in theory, but then there have been fair few instances where the exact same has happened in the past when you going to 442, regardless of the players

The timing of the change was also odd, brining on earnie to play the lone role wouldnt have worked either because he cant keep the ball.
In the summer I think a minimum of two strikers are required

Problem is we had to throw Lawrence on far too early so we had a much smaller bench to choose from.


If the game had been identical but Conway hadn't been scythed down then we would have had the option to put Lawrence on for Conway which would have been a batter swap.

As it is Watford are cheating bastards.

We could have put Blake on instead, and put either him or kev on the right of midfield; or, put darcy in the middle and rearrange things. 2 defensive midfielders like blake and kiss could have watertighted things.

We could have put Blake on instead, and put either him or kev on the right of midfield; or, put darcy in the middle and rearrange things. 2 defensive midfielders like blake and kiss could have watertighted things.

I agree tbh. I do feel that Blake is underused as a sub.


I personally would have put Blake at RB, Kev at LB and Taylor on the Left Wing and keeping Whitts, Gunnarson and Kiss in Midfield to clog it up completely.


It would have been very flat and we would have had no real forward threat but I can't see any team breaking that down.

Fact is, Malky has no idea how to lock a game down, we either capitulate or get lucky like at Boro. Hopefully better full backs and a stronger DM will tighten things up in the summer.

We could have put Blake on instead, and put either him or kev on the right of midfield; or, put darcy in the middle and rearrange things. 2 defensive midfielders like blake and kiss could have watertighted things.

I agree tbh. I do feel that Blake is underused as a sub.


I personally would have put Blake at RB, Kev at LB and Taylor on the Left Wing and keeping Whitts, Gunnarson and Kiss in Midfield to clog it up completely.


It would have been very flat and we would have had no real forward threat but I can't see any team breaking that down.

Yes, totally agree.

We could have put Blake on instead, and put either him or kev on the right of midfield; or, put darcy in the middle and rearrange things. 2 defensive midfielders like blake and kiss could have watertighted things.

I agree tbh. I do feel that Blake is underused as a sub.


I personally would have put Blake at RB, Kev at LB and Taylor on the Left Wing and keeping Whitts, Gunnarson and Kiss in Midfield to clog it up completely.


It would have been very flat and we would have had no real forward threat but I can't see any team breaking that down.

I also thought Blake however im not a fan of changing a back four when they are keeping a clean sheet.
Blake could have come on and sat in front of the back four and pushed someone in just behind Miller, Gunnar further forward would have gone, at least he can keep hold of the ball and has a slight arial threat.

We could have put Blake on instead, and put either him or kev on the right of midfield; or, put darcy in the middle and rearrange things. 2 defensive midfielders like blake and kiss could have watertighted things.

I agree tbh. I do feel that Blake is underused as a sub.


I personally would have put Blake at RB, Kev at LB and Taylor on the Left Wing and keeping Whitts, Gunnarson and Kiss in Midfield to clog it up completely.


It would have been very flat and we would have had no real forward threat but I can't see any team breaking that down.

I also thought Blake however im not a fan of changing a back four when they are keeping a clean sheet.
Blake could have come on and sat in front of the back four and pushed someone in just behind Miller, Gunnar further forward would have gone, at least he can keep hold of the ball and has a slight arial threat.

I don't see Blake as a defensive midfielder and while Centre back looks to be his best position he's shown consistently that he has the defensive part of Right Back sorted which is all we would have needed.

Defensive Midfield is not a position I would ever start him in but for 10-15mins and with little else to use I think he could have done a job today. I agree though his best position is CB

Defensive Midfield is not a position I would ever start him in but for 10-15mins and with little else to use I think he could have done a job today. I agree though his best position is CB

It would have made much more sense than putting Earnie on regardless of where Blake would have played really

We owe Malky an apology: Blake wasn't even on the bench!

We were getting over run anyway. I think Malky put Earnshaw on to stop their centre defenders running so far with the ball. But whats the formation got to do with defending a free kick on the edge of our box?

We owe Malky an apology: Blake wasn't even on the bench!

I'm sure Ali announced him.
BBC says Harris

442 is a crap outdated formation and I don't know what Malky was thinking when he switched to it.

We owe Malky an apology: Blake wasn't even on the bench!

I'm sure Ali announced him.
BBC says Harris

Blake was on the bench. He was warming up to come on when Turner got injured in the first half

We owe Malky an apology: Blake wasn't even on the bench!

I'm sure Ali announced him.
BBC says Harris

Blake was on the bench. He was warming up to come on when Turner got injured in the first half

Thought so

442 is the system played by the two teams leading this division.

From my reading of this site, many of the same people now calling for 442 were the ones slagging off Dave Jones for playing 442 last season.

Remember the posts about getting overrun in midfield etc?

From my reading of this site, many of the same people now calling for 442 were the ones slagging off Dave Jones for playing 442 last season.

Remember the posts about getting overrun in midfield etc?

The only formation out fans like is. Winning formation

From my reading of this site, many of the same people now calling for 442 were the ones slagging off Dave Jones for playing 442 last season.

Remember the posts about getting overrun in midfield etc?

Our fans seem to think that whatever we're doing is wrong and whatever we aren't doing will fix all problems.

It's mind boggling

From my reading of this site, many of the same people now calling for 442 were the ones slagging off Dave Jones for playing 442 last season.

Remember the posts about getting overrun in midfield etc?

I'm not calling for 442.

And Polo, Southampton play 4 1 2 1 2

From my reading of this site, many of the same people now calling for 442 were the ones slagging off Dave Jones for playing 442 last season.

Remember the posts about getting overrun in midfield etc?

I'm not calling for 442.

And Polo, Southampton play 4 1 2 1 2

Stop being pedantic we didnt exactly play a conventional 4-4-2 when we switched either.

The top sides in this division play with 2 up top, at least at home they do, and they are getting their rewards.

We dont have the players to play 4-4-2 so theres no point changing with 4 games to go, hopefully this will be addressed in the summer because this one up front bollocks at home is not good enough, and is clearly reflected in the results / points picked up.

Polo - totally agree & been saying it for ages.

Horses for courses - we haven't got the players to play 4-4-2. (Hopefully this will be addressed in the summer)

You can call me old fashioned/dated - but if you have a solid back 4, a commanding central midfielder who sits & dictates, a player alongside him who will cover every blade of grass for 90 mins box to box, 2 pacey creative wingers, and two good goalscoring centre forwards, you will win most matches. Simple as that.

Look at the Man Utd team that dominated for a decade - the back 5 (inc Schmeichel) dominated, but it was the 6 in front that everyone talked about - Giggs one side, Beckham the other, Keane & Scholes in the Middle & take your pick from Yorke, Cole, Van Nistlerooy, Sheringham, Solksjaer etc up front.

Can anyone tell me that if we had an equivalent & effective midfield/attack that equates to Championship standard, we wouldn't win most games?

Imagine for example a midfield 4 of: Snodgrass right wing, Kebe left wing, Gunnarsson box to box & Noble doing the anchoring. Would you still think a 5 man midfield would over run that?

Listening to some of you I'm suprised a prem club hasnt come calling for your services. Tactical geniuses the lot of you

Listening to some of you I'm suprised a prem club hasnt come calling for your services. Tactical geniuses the lot of you

I did get offered the man U job on FM but i turned it down

Listening to some of you I'm suprised a prem club hasnt come calling for your services. Tactical geniuses the lot of you

Discussing formations on a football forum. Shock horror.