We're not playing 4-4-2. No one really does anymore ffs.
We're not playing 4-4-2. No one really does anymore ffs.
Yeah but no-one whacks 11 men behind the ball and refuses to attack against most other teams either so I can still see it happening in more than a few games.
If they both leave and we don't attempt to replace them, I'd say it would be relatively optimistic to then expect to finish 4th.
Anyone know why? Is it just a fashion thing or is there some substance behind ignoring a perfectly viable formation? Anyway, we should play 0-5-5, no point picking the defenders as they don't make any difference in the game anyway.Originally Posted by AKBapologist
Für eure Sicherheit
4-4-2 all the way, we've messed about with shte formations for years to no avail, let's go back to something that works.
Yeah 4-4-2, Chamakh and Vela up front and, DOH!
Für eure Sicherheit
Buy Sneijder and Mata.
WE CANT BUY THOSE 2 IT WILL DAMAGE THE FUTURES OF RYO AND "anyotherunknownshitfuck"
Huh? Why not go back to 3-2-2-3 like we did back in the 60s...
Why? Because the sport goes through phases. Tactics and training methods change the dictate the way formations are implemented and changes to the game like rules or fitness alter the pros and cons of formations. 4-4-2 or more realistically 4-4-1-1 isn't dead, but it isn't fun to watch and it really depends on having the right people in midfield. Specifically with 4-4-2, it is exceptionally hard to dominate the midfield with it. United and us did 4-4-1-1 it a few times last season with Rooney/rvp dropping back into the deep lying striker role, both with mixed results.
The thing about 4-5-1 is the fexiblity in which it alters into 4-3-3 during attack.
Some interesting reading:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2...t&type=article
http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2...t&type=article
Also this hints to something ive been noticing:
http://goonerholic.com/?p=3894
Last edited by AKBapologist; 09-08-2011 at 10:54 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote