Petrov - can he play in a 4-4-2?

[barry'sboots]

I have yet to see anybody put a persuasive argument together for sticking with 4-4-2 away from home.

Other than the location of where we are playing and number of supporters we have, what difference does it make if we're home or away?

Better ask the players I guess. Its them that seem so comfortable at VP and so poor away playing the same team and formation. Ask Chelski who are invincible at home and yet lost three away. Ask Burnley.

Seriously, I think its about having the onus on you to attack when you are at home and being slightly more "up for it" and aggressive in your play when you are at home, especially true of the smaller teams. I think Stan struggles to cope with this more aggressive approach from the opposition from what I have seen. I also think for Chelski that Lampard struggles in a 4-4-2 away from home - look at the game at VP where he was virtually anonymous.

[Chindie]

Blandy's nailed it, as is often the case. Put very simply, it's far to easy to simply say 451 works and 442 doesn't, it verges on childish reasoning.

[avfc89]

4-5-1 did work last season, and once we changed it we didn't win in three months.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Blandy's nailed it, as is often the case. Put very simply, it's far to easy to simply say 451 works and 442 doesn't, it verges on childish reasoning.

Chindie, We're not talking stats that are similar though, we're not talking about

15 points from 10 games in a 4-5-1.

12 points from 10 games in a 4-4-2.

We're talking

7 wins in 7 in a 4-5-1.

0 Wins in 11 in a 4-4-2.

These are huge stats, not stats that can be made to look good, We've faced Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton, Sunderland away in those 7 games aswell, all of them very tough games.

The fact is the formation changes the whole we play as a team, of course it's about the players but this changes the players system, Petrov in a 4-4-2 has to be push closer to his man and press, while in a 4-5-1 he can sit. Therefore saving his energy and using his experience to cut out attacks. Young and Milner were given more freedom because of the extra man in the midfield, they could afford to stay a little higher up in the pitch. We won the ball back more often because we had people pressing in the midfield and also someone doing that Zonal job. How you can say it don't make a difference is beyond me. Of course it makes a difference. So the fact we beat Liverpool this season 1-3, we would of done that in a 4-4-2 formation you feel? You feel in the last 5 games, had we set up 4-5-1, we still wouldn't of beat Blackburn, West Ham, Wolves, Burnley and Everton?

[barry'sboots]

Following your own logic, then, surely if you advocate 4-4-2 against the Champions, in their own ground, albeit they have some players injured, then you muust be able to see the logic of doing the same against weaker teams?

Mention of Utd. away reminds me of last season - we were deservedly ahead, there, and but for a terrible linesman who erroneously flagged twice when we were clean through in the second half, we'd have won - late comeback by Utd. or not. It's that kind of variable that gets overlooked in this analysis of stats v performance that is being used to calim as fact that 4-5-1 is better.

Still, we've done this to death now.

It is not the 4-4-2 I am against. It is Stan in a 4-4-2, particularly away from home against most sides, as I have said. I think he is better against certain sides that will both try and play football and, because of their players and formation, will play in front of him - Chelski in a 4-4-2 as we saw at VP this season, Citeh with Barry and De Jong before they bought on Ireland who can get in behind, United without an ACM - and we could face them away in a 4-4-2. Although, as I have said, I think MON needs to be prepared to sub him or supplement him after 60 minutes. I personally would play the 4-4-2 that beat Bolton against Man U but I know MON wouldn't.

However, the poorer sides (Burnley, Wolves, etc) will tend to play a more attacking aggressive games at home and Stan tends to get lost in these games whereas NRC would be in his element.

I am a great believer that, unless you have a really good side, you need to set your side up to play the opposition most of the time.

[Big_John_10]

I personally would play the 4-4-2 that beat Bolton against Man U but I know MON wouldn't.

So you'd drop downing and move milner who has scored 2 and created 2 in the 2 games he's played in centre mid? I'm glad MON won't do that.

Again i keep reading about the good results we had last season playing 4-5-1 and blandy has put it perfect for why that's not an argument to stick with it and it will work all the time.

During that period of decent results in that formation there was a huge thread on here complaining about the performances and basically telling us we were getting results because we were lucky and that luck would run out, people seem to forget that.

[bickster]

4-5-1 did work last season, and once we changed it we didn't win in three months.

You have some sort of proof for this nonsense I presume

[Jez]

4-5-1 did work last season, and once we changed it we didn't win in three months.

You have some sort of proof for this nonsense I presume

What would be the proof in your opinion of why we were shite for so long last season?

Bad luck, injuries?

Or is it just an unfortunate coincidence that it coincided with our change in formation?

[Big_John_10]

4-5-1 did work last season, and once we changed it we didn't win in three months.

You have some sort of proof for this nonsense I presume

What would be the proof in your opinion of why we were shite for so long last season?

Bad luck, injuries?

Or is it just an unfortunate coincidence that it coincided with our change in formation?

So you don't think there were other things that played a part in that bad run and it was all down to formation?

[barry'sboots]

So you'd drop downing and move milner who has scored 2 and created 2 in the 2 games he's played in centre mid?

I could see an argument for leaving Jimmy in CM and Downing out wide sure. Equally I could see an argument for giving DJ a breather after two competitive games in 5 days on his recovery to match fitness and using the squad as MON said he would do. Doesn't stop him coming on for the last 30 if needed. Unsure here. I would play NRC instead of Stan to give us 90 minutes - alongside Jimmy could be good as well.

Again i keep reading about the good results we had last season playing 4-5-1 and blandy has put it perfect for why that's not an argument to stick with it and it will work all the time.

During that period of decent results in that formation there was a huge thread on here complaining about the performances and basically telling us we were getting results because we were lucky and that luck would run out, people seem to forget that.

We have had three very good results playing it this season which has included our only two away wins - one being a very good performance against Plop. Didn't see anybody posting after the Plop and Blues games saying we were lucky and that it will run out??

And even if we did return to last December's form and we were getting lucky wins that would certainly be one step up from the last 6 away games in the league wouldn't it?? I may have seen a few posters complaining about those ... hell I might even have posted myself!!

[Jez]

4-5-1 did work last season, and once we changed it we didn't win in three months.

You have some sort of proof for this nonsense I presume

What would be the proof in your opinion of why we were shite for so long last season?

Bad luck, injuries?

Or is it just an unfortunate coincidence that it coincided with our change in formation?

So you don't think there were other things that played a part in that bad run and it was all down to formation?

No i dont, where did i say that?

Where did i say it was all down to the formation?

I said that was one of the things that changed, or did the formation not change?

What else happened to cause it, any ideas?

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Yeah that's the thing that annoys me most, the fact we won't try it. If it fails...okay then, but currently 6 points out of 9 away from home have come in a started formation of 4-5-1. Our last 5 away games, we've been very poor and had 3 draws and 2 losses. The fact we won't even revert to trying the 4-5-1 is what rattles me. I mean we can't get any worse FFS.

Also people talk about last season there with other reasons why we went on our run, well what excuse is it for this season? 2 wins in 2. 0 wins in 5.

I don't see how people can disagree with at least giving 4-5-1 another go, a formation that has only ever seen us win away from home.

[HJ]

The bad run didn't start when we changed formation. We still beat Pompey and Blackburn away with 4-4-2 after we changed formation, Blackburn in particular was an excellent performance. At home we drew with Wigan although completely battered them, and lost to Chelsea. Conceded a total of 1 goal in those 4 games.

It all went down the shitter at 80th minute of the home game vs. Stoke.

[ED]

Blandy's nailed it, as is often the case. Put very simply, it's far to easy to simply say 451 works and 442 doesn't, it verges on childish reasoning.

Chindie, We're not talking stats that are similar though, we're not talking about

15 points from 10 games in a 4-5-1.

12 points from 10 games in a 4-4-2.

We're talking

7 wins in 7 in a 4-5-1.

0 Wins in 11 in a 4-4-2.

These are huge stats,

Exactly, its a massive difference, so big that it can't be down to 1 specific thing such as a formation, how do you not get that?

You feel in the last 5 games, had we set up 4-5-1, we still wouldn't of beat Blackburn, West Ham, Wolves, Burnley and Everton?

Probably not, otherwise we'd be 2 points clear at the top of the premier league and we're just not that good!

You're assuming 4-5-1 = automatic win because of some amazing results we've had with it across the span of 12 months against varying teams. If it is just a matter of playing 4-5-1 and racking up 3 points every away game we play just like back when Carew was injured then surely we just have to tell MON and thats it, we've won the league?

12 more league games with 4-5-1 = 36 points (because it's that simple), plus 26 that we have and some half decent home form and we're Champions!

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Blandy's nailed it, as is often the case. Put very simply, it's far to easy to simply say 451 works and 442 doesn't, it verges on childish reasoning.

Chindie, We're not talking stats that are similar though, we're not talking about

15 points from 10 games in a 4-5-1.

12 points from 10 games in a 4-4-2.

We're talking

7 wins in 7 in a 4-5-1.

0 Wins in 11 in a 4-4-2.

These are huge stats,

Exactly, its a massive difference, so big that it can't be down to 1 specific thing such as a formation, how do you not get that?

You feel in the last 5 games, had we set up 4-5-1, we still wouldn't of beat Blackburn, West Ham, Wolves, Burnley and Everton?

Probably not, otherwise we'd be 2 points clear at the top of the premier league and we're just not that good!

You're assuming 4-5-1 = automatic win because of some amazing results we've had with it across the span of 12 months against varying teams. If it is just a matter of playing 4-5-1 and racking up 3 points every away game we play just like back when Carew was injured then surely we just have to tell MON and thats it, we've won the league?

12 more league games with 4-5-1 = 36 points (because it's that simple), plus 26 that we have and some half decent home form and we're Champions!

I didn't mean it to sound that we'd win everygame, of course I don't believe that but I'm asking to see if he thought we would of got better results? Which I think we would of personally, 3 points from those 5 games isn't exactly a huge total to beat!

As for the massive difference meaning it can't be down to formation, well Yes it can because it completly changes the whole structure of how we play and which players play which roles. Petrov's role completly differs and makes him into a better player in a more comfortable role. Our wingers get more freedom.

I don't get what you mean, the difference is so big it can't be down to formation? Of course it can because that's the common (what's the word...demonator?) in the stats. If the difference between the stats was fairly close, you could say "well we were unlucky in that match, had this decision not been this one...we would of won meaning the gap would of been only 1 point..."..."he was injured for this match, maybe had he of been fit we would of won etc..." However what's the excuse for last 11 games in a 4-4-2 over the course of two different seasons? It's not just last season, it's this season too. Won both our away games in a 4-5-1, not won any 4-4-2.

Do you not think O'Neill should go 4-5-1 sometime this season away from home? Or because he is manager, he has to be right?

[barry'sboots]

You're assuming 4-5-1 = automatic win because of some amazing results we've had with it across the span of 12 months against varying teams. If it is just a matter of playing 4-5-1 and racking up 3 points every away game we play just like back when Carew was injured then surely we just have to tell MON and thats it, we've won the league?

No-one is assuming that. Where have you got that from. I, and AVFCPOB, are merely saying that we think we would have done better in a 4-5-1 than we have in a 4-4-2 and that the evidence of last season and Blues, Fulham and Plop this season, supports this in our opinion. Quantifying it is not possible.

But as AVFCPOB points out, we couldn't have done much worse than the last 5 or 6 away games could we?? If we had played well in those games but not got results then I could understand Blandy's logic that the "total football" is on its way BUT we haven't.

I think we could play 4-4-2 away from home, but not with Stan in there. It needs a more aggressive DCM like NRC for me, particularly when we are up against the more aggressive and less footballing sides like Bolton, Stoke, Wigan etc..

[avfc89]

4-5-1 did work last season, and once we changed it we didn't win in three months.

You have some sort of proof for this nonsense I presume

I believe changing the system to 4-4-2 was the main reason we didn't sustain 4th spot. Our central defenders needed more protection from the center midfield(two CMs who lacked pace), 4-4-2 only worked when we had Laursen at the back because he was capable of organising and winning the ball back at the first attempt. I remember Everton playing 4-5-1 the season they finished 4th, Moyes never changed that system and they achieved 4th place. The people who think it's nonsense are just trying to hide their hidden agenda, MON, like any other manager makes mistakes.

[Chindie]

What hidden agendas that may I ask?

Nobody has said MON is infallible. What they have said that the stats used to back 442 over 451 are nonsense. Because they are. They mean nothing because of the myriad of variables.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

What hidden agendas that may I ask?

Nobody has said MON is infallible. What they have said that the stats used to back 442 over 451 are nonsense. Because they are. They mean nothing because of the myriad of variables.

But surely you have to agree 4-5-1 is at least worth another go? You say it's all variables but why is it we've won 7 out of 7 starting 4-5-1, and not won in 11 in a 4-4-2? Is there an excuse for 18 different performances then? This isn't stats over 3/4 games, this is nearly a whole seasons worth of away games.

[Chindie]

I don't see why we should change from 442 when it is, by and large, working, and ultimately will make us a better side able to do more than 1 dimensionally counter attack. I don't think you cna use the evidence for the great 451 based on some shifty matches were we just about managed to win. I ultimately think that the big picture for the team has to overrule the shifty stats, for either formation.