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

[avfc89]

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.

Surely 4-5-1 was worth a shot in that slumping period? I just believe people in their own minds want everything to be perfect, and nobody to be disgruntled. MON has done an excellent job, but he will make mistakes. And last season he made a colossal mistake. This season 4-4-2 is working, credit to MON.

[barry'sboots]

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.

Did we look one dimensional against Plop, Fulham or Blues? And those performances were without Downing.

Do the commentators refer to the Chelski of the last 3 seasons as one dimensional or the Plop side for the back end of last year or the Arsenal side this year or the Barcelona side that won the CL. All sides playing this terrible 4-5-1/4-3-3.

4-5-1 with genuine width and a strong ACM (Jimmy) can be a really attacking formation. And even more importantly, if it fits your playing staff, then why shouldn't we run with it.

This thread is about Stan in a 4-4-2 and for me, away from home against non-footballing sides he is a liability in this formation. We have seen this in the last 5 or 6 away games. At home he can be good but tires and needs subbing/supplementing for the last 20-30 minutes.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

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.

Our best two performances this and last season?

Arsenal 0-2 Villa

Liverpool 1-3 Villa.

Or would you disagree?

Chindie I'm talking ABOUT AWAY FORM. How many more posters do I have to say, at home, 4-4-2 isn't a problem to me. It's AWAY FORM and if you recognise this then By and large, 4-4-2 is not working, we've took 3 points from 5 games in this formation, if that's working, what are our aims? Do we just go along all season rarely winning away from home and thinking well at home were good, is it against the law to change formation depending on the game? Alex Ferguson changes the system every single game and I might be wrong but he's one of the most successful if not the most successful manager that's lived. You say Shifty matches that we've just about managed to win? Yet apparently shifty matches that were not winning is better.

What world are we coming too when 3 points in 5 away games is good and we should look to keep it. That's also against 5 very average sides! All games we would of targetted to win away from home.

I'm not saying we're going to win all our games in a 4-5-1 at all and even if Mon had never played 4-5-1 at Villa, i'd be asking for change from a 4-4-2, Don't take a genius to figure out the performances and results aren't good enough. Of course in a 4-5-1 our performances weren't always great but they gave us the defensive backbone which helped us keep clean sheets and were always capable of scoring goals.

as Barry Boots said, had we been performing well and not getting the results, this big picture thing might have relevance but our performances and results are worse in a 4-4-2. In fact there's not been a single good point at all since we've changed back.

[HJ]

Why did our good away form last season continue when we switched from 4-5-1 to 4-4-2, if that's the difference?

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Why did our good away form last season continue when we switched from 4-5-1 to 4-4-2, if that's the difference?

It continued for two games? It's 2 wins in 13 games. Yep it has continued hasn't it?

For the most part of last year it didn't work and for all of this year it hasn't worked. 2 Games doesn't change that. Just like if we changed to 4-5-1, lost two games and then won 6/7 in a row. I'd hardly call that a failure just because we lost first two games.

Why are people so pleased with 3 points from 5 games in which we should of targetted wins?

[HJ]

Why did our good away form last season continue when we switched from 4-5-1 to 4-4-2, if that's the difference?

It continued for two games? It's 2 wins in 13 games. Yep it has continued hasn't it?

For the most part of last year it didn't work and for all of this year it hasn't worked. 2 Games doesn't change that. Just like if we changed to 4-5-1, lost two games and then won 6/7 in a row. I'd hardly call that a failure just because we lost first two games.

It continued because we were on good form regardless of the formation. You throw those 2 games away like they mean nothing but the 2 away games this season in 4-5-1 is a huge deal, it doesn't work both ways.

Why are people so pleased with 3 points from 5 games in which we should of targetted wins?

I'm not happy with 3 points from 5 games and I think we would have got more with 4-5-1. But its because Carew has been missing so much that we've played a 4-4-1 basically and on the back of his good performances at the end of last season his good game / bad game ratio of this season couldn't have been expected. It's not a fundamental problem of formation or Petrov, it's a problem of our second striker doing nothing for the most part.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Why did our good away form last season continue when we switched from 4-5-1 to 4-4-2, if that's the difference?

It continued for two games? It's 2 wins in 13 games. Yep it has continued hasn't it?

For the most part of last year it didn't work and for all of this year it hasn't worked. 2 Games doesn't change that. Just like if we changed to 4-5-1, lost two games and then won 6/7 in a row. I'd hardly call that a failure just because we lost first two games.

It continued because we were on good form regardless of the formation. You throw those 2 games away like they mean nothing but the 2 away games this season in 4-5-1 is a huge deal, it doesn't work both ways.

Why are people so pleased with 3 points from 5 games in which we should of targetted wins?

I'm not happy with 3 points from 5 games and I think we would have got more with 4-5-1. But its because Carew has been missing so much that we've played a 4-4-1 basically and on the back of his good performances at the end of last season his good game / bad game ratio of this season couldn't have been expected. It's not a fundamental problem of formation or Petrov, it's a problem of our second striker doing nothing for the most part.

But this season we went from 2 great away wins to then 5 poor performances, co-incided with a change of formation. Also we've followed good performances against Bolton, Chelsea, Portsmouth at home with non existant away performances.

Well Yes I'd say that's part of the problem so why not just drop him? :?

Also, I think Petrov is a problem, He's played well at home this year because he gets on the ball more, teams press less, look more or less to put men behind the ball, while away from home teams get into your face and take the game to you, Petrov's only decent away performces came against Liverpool and Blues because he had the freedom of the holding role to get on the ball more. When we've played Burnley, Wolves etc...teams have dominated our midfield because they closed down our midfield which makes Petrov useless, so we end up going long ball and then Carew's been useless too.

I'm not saying we will never win away games in a 4-4-2 or that we will win everygame in a 4-5-1, however there is no doubt in my mind 4-5-1 away with Petrov doing the holding role gives us more control over a game, makes us more solid and gives our attacking players far more freedom. Especially if Milner plays centrally alongside say Reo-Coker and Petrov, it can become a very attacking formation like Barcelona/Liverpool/Arsenal all play.

[HJ]

SHA game was not great by any means and we only won it by going 2 up front. Our overall level of play wasn't any better than any of our away games this season.

But this season we went from 2 great away wins to then 5 poor performances, co-incided with a change of formation. Also we've followed good performances against Bolton, Chelsea, Portsmouth at home with non existant away performances.

Well Yes I'd say that's part of the problem so why not just drop him? :?

Because Carew in form is far, far superior footballer to NRC or Sidwell and helps the team win more games.

I don't actually have a problem with going 4-5-1 because he really hasn't been on form, but lately there have been signs of life from both him and Heskey.

Also, I think Petrov is a problem, He's played well at home this year because he gets on the ball more, teams press less, look more or less to put men behind the ball, while away from home teams get into your face and take the game to you, Petrov's only decent away performces came against Liverpool and Blues because he had the freedom of the holding role to get on the ball more. When we've played Burnley, Wolves etc...teams have dominated our midfield because they closed down our midfield which makes Petrov useless, so we end up going long ball and then Carew's been useless too.

Okey, I don't agree, can't be bothered to do the whole Petrov thing with you again

I'm not saying we will never win away games in a 4-4-2 or that we will win everygame in a 4-5-1, however there is no doubt in my mind 4-5-1 away with Petrov doing the holding role gives us more control over a game, makes us more solid and gives our attacking players far more freedom. Especially if Milner plays centrally alongside say Reo-Coker and Petrov, it can become a very attacking formation like Barcelona/Liverpool/Arsenal all play.

We had no control over Liverpool game, we defended brilliantly including all the midfielders but had like 30% possession, it was back to walls action and we didn't create anything at all from open play until Gabby's cross to NRC very late in the game.

Barcelona/Liverpool/Arsenal all have midfielders who score tons of goals. If we went 4-5-1 I think we would struggle attacking although we would be very solid.

[tommo]

All we can do is hope he will one day change it. It's OK at the moment that we win or draw most of our home games, and then get beaten, outplayed by poorer sides and snatch undeserved draws away from home, because at the end of the day we'd probably achieve the 6th/7th place that everyone expects anyway.

We are not going to become a great away side playing this 442 system, it has been found out consistently over the past year, and it continues to be found out. The best teams win possession in the middle which usually involves having 3 men centrally and the wingers will get more freedom as a result.

We would be a more dominant side at home also imo with the 433. Anyway I think this current system can work, as long as it is supplemented in the second half. The same thing happened against Hull as it did against Man City and Spuds, but fortunately players such as Bullard, Geovanni and Hesselink weren't on the field to exploit it, and they were left with Dean Marney. I don't think this system is going to work all the time without the neccessary energy and protection in the centre.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

I'm not saying we will never win away games in a 4-4-2 or that we will win everygame in a 4-5-1, however there is no doubt in my mind 4-5-1 away with Petrov doing the holding role gives us more control over a game, makes us more solid and gives our attacking players far more freedom. Especially if Milner plays centrally alongside say Reo-Coker and Petrov, it can become a very attacking formation like Barcelona/Liverpool/Arsenal all play.

We had no control over Liverpool game, we defended brilliantly including all the midfielders but had like 30% possession, it was back to walls action and we didn't create anything at all from open play until Gabby's cross to NRC very late in the game.

Barcelona/Liverpool/Arsenal all have midfielders who score tons of goals. If we went 4-5-1 I think we would struggle attacking although we would be very solid.

Away from home against one of the big 4, rarely do even the big 4 dominate possesion against one of their rivals.

Downing, Milner, Young and Agbonlahor all have enough goals in them IMO. Aswell as our defenders.

at Liverpool, only Gerrard and Torres score consistantly, Kuyt and Beanayoun will get 5/6.

Barcelona, Henry has scored a couple goals, but basically only Messi and Ibrahimovic so far this season, Arsenal, only Van Persie scores consistantly, Arsharvin, Fabregas, Walcott will all get 8-10 goals this season which I'm sure is a target our midfielders could reach.

[Big_John_10]

I'm not sure why i keep reading about the liverpool and blues game as proof that 4-5-1 is brilliant.

Against liverpool it helped us defend well but we had nothing going forward and relied on an OG, a corner goal and a pen, that's not going to happen every game.

The blues game was a poor performance and we didn't win until we went 4-4-2. Is 4-5-1 that amazing that being level with blues is proof of how good it is? What's the difference between being level with blues playing 4-5-1 or drawing with burnley and wolves playing 4-4-2?

[bickster]

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.

That bit in bold is rubbish, utter rubbish, look at the results for the last ten games with Laursen in the side then the first ten games with him missing. I know you'll find that the games before and after are all fairly comparable in terms of opposition / competition its just that .........we were statistically (and oh how we all seem to love them) a better side in terms of results without him, we also conceded less goals in those ten games. (marginally) But you can carry on making things up to suit your argument if you want. It doesn't actually make them true

And Everton playing 4-5-1 and finishing fourth is somehow relevant? Did they have our squad?

[Big_John_10]

This thread is pretty much just complaining about our away form, but we are in the prem, there really aren't lots of easy away games.

Only 1 side have lost less games than us away from home.

The great spurs have only picked up 3 more points than us away from home.

Arsenal, liverpool and man city who are all competing with us for 4th place have only picked up 1 more point than us away from home all season.

I said it before, a semi final and 5th in the league so 4-4-2 with stan is fine by me right now.

[bickster]

I said it before, a semi final and 5th in the league so 4-4-2 with stan is fine by me right now.

That there sums it up for me

[markavfc40]

I said it before, a semi final and 5th in the league so 4-4-2 with stan is fine by me right now.

Thats all very well BJ but if we'd have dropped a forward and played Reo Coker in every game we'd now be top of the league and already have won the Carling Cup.

[tommo]

Generally the side that was so free flowing with Laursen in it involved this-

NRC...Petrov...Barry

.....................Young

.....Carew....Gabby

Laursen was a factor defensively but you also had NRC in there who didn't play completely on the right and was able to do Stan and Barry's dirty work. You also had Young in a freer role which is what saw him win the PFA young player. Now we have Milner, MON is obliged to play him, and seeing as he intends to play 442, they are having to do too much defensive work.

Laursen continued to be a rock individually, but I seem to remember us scoring loads and conceding a fair few at this time as well.

Young was on top form in the 07/08 season and he was still playing the freer role the following season, even in the 433, but then his own form diminished rapidly when we returned to the 442 with 2 wingers and two slow midfielders.

[sled]

Thats all very well BJ but if we'd have dropped a forward and played Reo Coker in every game we'd now be top of the league and already have won the Carling Cup.

Can you explain how you have come to that conclusion? :?

[tommo]

I said it before, a semi final and 5th in the league so 4-4-2 with stan is fine by me right now.

Thats all very well BJ but if we'd have dropped a forward and played Reo Coker in every game we'd now be top of the league and already have won the Carling Cup.

Is this sarcastic Mark? Thing is, if Chelsea hadn't played Essien this year, and played the more aesthetically pleasing Ballack or Deco instead, they probably wouldn't be top, and if United hadn't played Fletcher who isn't their most gifted player, their form may well have dipped.

Players can make a difference and as far as i'm concerned NRC has made a massive difference to our system whenever he has played recently

[bickster]

its OBVIOUSLY sarcasm, i'm shocked anyone feel the need to ask

[tommo]

its OBVIOUSLY sarcasm, i'm shocked anyone feel the need to ask

well I know that 'we'd have already won the carling cup' was sarcasm, but the feeling that if NRC had been playing, or at least the right systems been played, we'd be in a loftier position, and have got past the 1st round of EUROPA...I don't see that being that sarcastic.

If Chelsea had played

Cole....Ballack....Lampard...Malouda

.........Anelka....Drogba

all season and were sat in fifth place after they had all of won of the say, 5 games Essien had played, and then he was dropped and teams were starting to play them off the park, I'm sure Chelsea fans would say that poor form was down to the fact Essien's protective and harrying qualities weren't on the field to complement the more 'pleasing on the eye' players