Ron Burgundy Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 The poll is a bit irrelevant but I've voted 442. The issue here is that with the players we have it needs to be a flat back 4. Our defenders need to focus on DEFENDING. I don't have a problem with the wingback systems but only if you have players who have Ben brought up that way. Otherwise your on the fastlane to a complete pasting. In reality I don't care how our midfield and forwards set up. But it must be a flat back 4. If they LB and RB get the opportunity to go forward all well and good, but the main focus must be defensive duties. I actually think Bennett would look a lot better if he wasn't being asked to be a wingback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcTheObsession Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) 4-1-3-2 ----------Guzan---------- Lowton--Vlaar--New CB--Lichaj -----Westwood--Sylla----- Weimann----CNZ---Agbonlahor ---------Benteke--------- Edited January 31, 2013 by AvfcTheObsession 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaMac Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Neither. 4-4-1-1 when we're defending and 4-2-3-1 when we're attacking. So you have a back 4 which doesn't change, Westwood and Sylla as CM, Gabby and Weimann on the wings and Zog playing just behind Benteke. Gabby and Weimann will protect the full backs better and also will be able to cut inside when attacking and score goals. Since this involves a lot of work, occasionally put Zog on the wing for one of them and put Ireland behind Benteke. I like the idea of a system with wing backs but we don't have the players or organisational skills to pull it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Burgundy Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 31, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 31, 2013 4-1-3-2 ----------Guzan---------- Lowton--Vlaar--New CB--Lichaj -----Westwood--Sylla----- Weimann----CNZ---Agbonlahor ---------Benteke--------- This doesn't make any sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcTheObsession Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 This doesn't make any sense Whoops! 4-2-3-1 I meant to put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 31, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 31, 2013 Gotcha! FWIW I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted January 31, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 31, 2013 We need to play 4-2-3-1. Simple. 4-1-3-2 ----------Guzan---------- Lowton--Vlaar--New CB--Lichaj -----Westwood--Sylla----- Weimann----CNZ---Agbonlahor ---------Benteke--------- This exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBM Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 i dislike all this 4 number formations, its bullsh it, theres either defenders, midfielders or strikers, so there can only be a 3 number formation!!!!!! i for one dislike having only 3 defenders, even using wingbacks is pointless as the ones we seem to find are sh it im prefer a solif back 4, leave the defence as it is, 2 full backs, 2 centre back, but mix up the attack so for me, either traditional 4-4-2, using the wingers to get into the attack or 4-3-3, using 3 strikers, with the wider 2 dropping back into midfield to give it a 4-5-1 when winning back possesion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts