Don't like to say, I told you so........

[St Landrew]

The team seems to score more goals whilst playing 442 is an observation not a critcism

 

Or you could just say that the team scores more goals with Antonio and Connolly in the side, rather than Papa and Wotten.

[NickG]

The team seems to score more goals whilst playing 442 is an observation not a critcism

 

it is, but the op was a criticism

[Alain Perrin]

I think we should trust Pardew to tailor the formation to fit the opposition and the passage of play. The point of scouting is that we should use that information, to pick players who counteract the opposition's strengths and exploit their weaknesses.

 

That's why the keyboard warriors who say "we should pick X over Y", actually know **** all. Sometime's Wooton is the best choice to counteract their hulk of a CM, sometimes you need someone more cultured to pass around them.

 

Horses for courses.

 

Any game is over 90 minutes and, in my opinion, 4-5-1 is a useful tactic to stifle the opposition and run them around a bit, followed by 4-4-2 to sucker puch them in the last third of the match.

[Gorgiesaint]

We have no problem scoring goals, we're conceding very few.

 

I don't give a stuff what Pardew plays so long as we win. Surely that is all that matters??

 

The guy himself said (and I agree 100%) that our fans have been bamboozled by formations and think about such things far too much. Of more importance he said, is to have winning players with a winning mentality. We seem to be achieving this.

 

As for the next level of winning the next six games, you're entitled to believe that changing a system/players that has earned 13 point in the last 18 (could easily be 16 in 18 after our next home game) is the way to go. I would disagree as I don't condone changing things that are working. But that's your view and you're welcome to share/air it, of course.

 

Agree with much of what you said in this post but I will make a couple of points:

 

you say we're not conceeding many - we've not had a clean sheet for 8 games now which is a slight concern - if we can keep scoring 3 goals a game then we won't have any problems but as yesterday showed (as did Torquay) if we conceed two then getting a win may be a problem.

 

Anyway you may be right about us thinking too much about formations but what else would we talk about

 

Last point, I haven't called for a move to 4-4-2 as you indicated, I actually agree with you why change what has been a winning formula. But I am keen to keep improving things - hence my comments about keeping clean sheets and can we improve personnel to get even better? and if so who?

[Secret Site Agent]

My opinion is that some teams we have come up against, (MK Dons) know what we play and will prepare for it, Stiffling us when we are in 4-5-1. Then we switch to 4-4-2 and they have to look to stiffle that, but perhaps will have to change players as well.

 

They are playing our game by having to concentrate on what we are playing, and how to man or area mark.

 

Now they will have to learn to stiffle us playing 4-5-1 and 4-4-2. Then we may switch to a 4-3-3 system.

 

My point is that Pards is keeping the opposition guessing tectically but has an idea that should we start with 4-4-2 we have shot our bolt, so to speak.

[Legod Third Coming]

Agree with much of what you said in this post but I will make a couple of points:

 

you say we're not conceeding many - we've not had a clean sheet for 8 games now which is a slight concern - if we can keep scoring 3 goals a game then we won't have any problems but as yesterday showed (as did Torquay) if we conceed two then getting a win may be a problem.

 

Anyway you may be right about us thinking too much about formations but what else would we talk about

 

Last point, I haven't called for a move to 4-4-2 as you indicated, I actually agree with you why change what has been a winning formula. But I am keen to keep improving things - hence my comments about keeping clean sheets and can we improve personnel to get even better? and if so who?

 

Who do you blame for the goals??

 

Both yesterday and previously?

 

Against MK Dons it was undoubtedly Jaidi with the needless freekick because apart from that we really didn't look like conceding at all! I didn't see yesterday and the quality of the League programme is so poor you can't see what happens in the build-up!!

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

This is hogwash.

Any argument is valid.

But this one seems pointless when the manager is succeeding.

 

And there are nigh on zero threads praising our Manager.

 

When there is such balance then you might be right, until then you're just arguing that this place is better when it is riddled with criticism than when it shows a balance of opinion.

 

Surely when a team is winning, a forum should be biased in favour of positive reaction? Not be design but by default.

 

This thread was started halfway through the second half yesterday as an oppotunity to suggest that Professor's proposition (we should start with 4-4-2) was valid because we were losing... That's his opinion and preference of formation, fair enough.

 

We did not lose, so at what point does he change his view and acceed that 4-5-1 or 4-3-3, or 4-2-1-2-1 or whatever might be the correct formation?

 

Or does he just want 4-4-2 regardless of results?

 

That is a debate worth having.

 

It's not about formations its about peoples right to express their opinions without people like you jumping on their backs every time they do like a fully paid up member of the Alan Pardew Taliban . This is far from 'hogwash' and if you really cared about participating in 'debates worth having' as you claim then you might care to encourage minority opinion rather than suppress it .

 

Alan Pardew is a good manager doing a good job for us - who's saying anything else ? but as far as I'm aware he is still a human being capable of human error just like the rest of us . When his divine status is confirmed I'm sure you or NickG will be among the very first to tell us .

 

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things .

René Descartes

[View From The Top]

Who do you blame for the goals??

 

Both yesterday and previously?

 

 

Carlisle = Lapse in concentration in the RMF/RB position.

 

Gillingham = Mistake by RB and a good finish.

 

Southend = Silly foul resulting a direct freekick.

 

Oldham = Mistake by RMF exposing RB.

 

MKD = Silly foul by Jaihdi and direct fee kick.

 

Orient = Well rehearsed set piece and and own goal.

 

Clearly the formation that's wrong.

[sad saints fan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I think we should trust Pardew to tailor the formation to fit the opposition and the passage of play. I think as stated above by AP that the formation we start with or finish with should be,and almost certainly will be,decided by Mr Pardew.

[madruss]

Carlisle = Lapse in concentration in the RMF/RB position.

 

Gillingham = Mistake by RB and a good finish.

 

Southend = Silly foul resulting a direct freekick.

 

Oldham = Mistake by RMF exposing RB.

 

MKD = Silly foul by Jaihdi and direct fee kick.

 

Orient = Well rehearsed set piece and and own goal.

 

Clearly the formation that's wrong.

 

I think there's a very important point here. The measure of the quality of our defence is not necessarily clean sheets but how many chances the opposition are creating. When was the last time KD got even close to being man of the match? Yes we need to cut out some silly errors, but IMO the defence is in great shape.

[benjii]

I think there's a very important point here. The measure of the quality of our defence is not necessarily clean sheets but how many chances the opposition are creating. When was the last time KD got even close to being man of the match? Yes we need to cut out some silly errors, but IMO the defence is in great shape.

 

Good point.

 

In total, against MK Dons and Orient, I can't remember him making a single save.

 

As for discussion about the formation:

 

1) Who would you play as the "2" upfront? Saga is clearly finished at Saints. Patterson is not really that good (yet?). Connolly has been injured for two years. We have won 4 of the last 5. WTF change it by throwing in someone making their first steps on the road to recovery from the start?

 

2) Although we played pretty poorly yesterday we still could have scored 3 or 4 goals during the 4-5-1 period against a team giving a 110% in a rare chance to play against a much bigger club.

 

3) Being able to switch formation is a great attribute.

 

4) We have scored 4, 3, 3, 3, 2 goals in our last 5 league matches (I think!)

 

5) We will stuff Brighton in our next league match.

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

If he sits there.

 

Advice you should heed yourself.

[View From The Top]

Advice you should heed yourself.

 

You weren't remotely amusing the 1st time you did it and you're continual use really shows up your lack of imagination and intelligence.

 

No surprise really.

[derry]

Interestingly in this weekends Premier matches Arsenal, Spurs, Pompey, Wigan, Blackburn, Hull and Everton didn't play 4-4-2. Arsenal and Spurs played 4-3-3, Blackburn 4-5-1, the others played variations of

4-4-2 or 4-3-3.

 

Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Villa, Sunderland, Stoke, Burnley, Fulham, Bolton, Birmingham, Wolves and West Ham played 4-4-2.

 

The great majority of teams in the Football League play 4-4-2.

 

To try and say that 4-4-2 is out of date is rediculous. Whatever best suits the players available is the best system to play. Either that or have a preferred system or systems and bring in suitable players to make it work.

 

Of course another combination could be Waigo and Lambert together and Antonio wide right in a 4-4-2, If they teach Waigo to stay onside that might be interesting.

 

I think we are better with two good strikers up front and without a holding midfielder who isn't very good. Hammond and Schneiderlin play a lot better when Wotton isn't playing, for that reason as soon as Connolly is able to play a full match I hope we will start 4-4-2.

Edited 1 November, 2009 by derry

[Wiltshire Saint]

You weren't remotely amusing the 1st time you did it and you're continual use really shows up your lack of imagination and intelligence.

 

No surprise really.

 

What shows up your lack of intelligence? Is it using the word "you're" when you mean "your"?

[View From The Top]

What shows up your lack of intelligence? Is it using the word "you're" when you mean "your"?

 

Ah, bless, the gimp2 has come to help out gimp1.

[benjii]

BTW - I voted 4-5-1 because I would rest some players for Friday's match.

 

If the next match was the JPT match or the home match against Brighton in the league I would probably have voted 4-4-2.

[Legod Third Coming]

Interestingly in this weekends Premier matches Arsenal, Spurs, Pompey, Wigan, Blackburn, Hull and Everton didn't play 4-4-2. Arsenal and Spurs played 4-3-3, Blackburn 4-5-1, the others played variations of

4-4-2 or 4-3-3.

 

Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Villa, Sunderland, Stoke, Burnley, Fulham, Bolton, Birmingham, Wolves and West Ham played 4-4-2.

 

The great majority of teams in the Football League play 4-4-2.

 

To try and say that 4-4-2 is out of date is rediculous. Whatever best suits the players available is the best system to play. Either that or have a preferred system or systems and bring in suitable players to make it work.

 

Of course another combination could be Waigo and Lambert together and Antonio wide right in a 4-4-2, If they teach Waigo to stay onside that might be interesting.

 

I think we are better with two good strikers up front and without a holding midfielder who isn't very good. Hammond and Schneiderlin play a lot better when Wotton isn't playing, for that reason as soon as Connolly is able to play a full match I hope we will start 4-4-2.

 

This is what your manager has done.

 

He said in an interview after the MK Dons game (although I seem to be the only one who heard this) that he has two systems.

 

He only knows two systems and he will only ever play two systems.

 

When pushed by Tony Husband about 4-5-1 or 4-4-2, he said the system is immaterial, it's about having players with a winning mentality and that's what he now has. He said against MK Dons that the players were confusing themselves with the first system and he had to change it because they weren't using it correctly (which rather pours cold-water on the suggestion that System A was ineffective if the manager asserts it wasn't being employed properly)...

 

He also said that Southampton fans had got too hung up on systems and he understands why after last season, and that having players with the right mentality was key, not the system they use.

 

And yet, you would prefer to see 4-4-2.

 

Why?

 

What is it about the 15 goals, 4 wins and a draw that causes you to believe a change is required? (Genuine question, I am baffled).

 

Pardew might not even play 4-4-2. He might assert (and it's his right as he trains the team) the he plays 4-2-1-1. He might claim he plays a Diamond and a Christmas Tree, who knows!

 

What bit of the winning and not losing has he not yet got right?

 

And what would you say if he started 4-4-2 against Brighton and we lost? (Again, genuine question).

[derry]

This is what your manager has done.

 

He said in an interview after the MK Dons game (although I seem to be the only one who heard this) that he has two systems.

 

He only knows two systems and he will only ever play two systems.

 

When pushed by Tony Husband about 4-5-1 or 4-4-2, he said the system is immaterial, it's about having players with a winning mentality and that's what he now has. He said against MK Dons that the players were confusing themselves with the first system and he had to change it because they weren't using it correctly (which rather pours cold-water on the suggestion that System A was ineffective if the manager asserts it wasn't being employed properly)...

 

He also said that Southampton fans had got too hung up on systems and he understands why after last season, and that having players with the right mentality was key, not the system they use.

 

And yet, you would prefer to see 4-4-2.

 

Why?

 

What is it about the 15 goals, 4 wins and a draw that causes you to believe a change is required? (Genuine question, I am baffled).

 

Pardew might not even play 4-4-2. He might assert (and it's his right as he trains the team) the he plays 4-2-1-1. He might claim he plays a Diamond and a Christmas Tree, who knows!

 

What bit of the winning and not losing has he not yet got right?

 

And what would you say if he started 4-4-2 against Brighton and we lost? (Again, genuine question).

 

Q1- Torquay, MKD and LO changed to 4-4-2 and saved the game.

 

Q2- I think we are better with two up front and without a holding midfielder. I prefer football to be played that way W, L or D.

[Legod Third Coming]

Q1- Torquay, MKD and LO changed to 4-4-2 and saved the game.

 

Q2- I think we are better with two up front and without a holding midfielder. I prefer football to be played that way W, L or D.

 

Fair enough. You would accept defeat with a system you prefer to victory and a stunning performance with one you dislike though? (again genuine question).

[derry]

Fair enough. You would accept defeat with a system you prefer to victory and a stunning performance with one you dislike though? (again genuine question).

 

I happen to think we are better with two strikers and no holding midfielder. I would prefer wins, but if we were consistently winning with a different system I wouldn't want change, however we are having to change to 4-4-2 regularly in order to rescue matches.

[up and away]

There is one point that is relevant to 442. if we are going to be playing teams that are only looking to defend and put 8-9 men behind the ball, then I would agree that our standard formation may not be the best to deal with it. Why, because we end up with 433 virtually all the time with possibly the wrong personnel in midfield for what we are trying to achieve. For the personnel we have available, 442 may make a lot more sense in those situations.

 

But this is not what we have been talking about here, it's been about rejecting a system which has brought us unparalleled success. If you look at the issues we had at Orient, starting with 451 looks the better option. it's not as if the system failed us, more individual players. How many open goals do you have to miss before it's not accepted that the problem is down to the system?

[benjii]

There is one point that is relevant to 442. if we are going to be playing teams that are only looking to defend and put 8-9 men behind the ball, then I would agree that our standard formation may not be the best to deal with it. Why, because we end up with 433 virtually all the time with possibly the wrong personnel in midfield for what we are trying to achieve. For the personnel we have available, 442 may make a lot more sense in those situations.

 

But this is not what we have been talking about here, it's been about rejecting a system which has brought us unparalleled success. If you look at the issues we had at Orient, starting with 451 looks the better option. it's not as if the system failed us, more individual players. How many open goals do you have to miss before it's not accepted that the problem is down to the system?

 

Exactly!

[NickG]

still don't quite get how a midfield of

 

Lallana, Mellis, Schneiderlin, Hammond and Papa

 

is defensive?

 

the midfield AP used when changed to 4/3/3 or 4/5/1 and we starting improving our performances

Edited 2 November, 2009 by NickG

[Gorgiesaint]

Who do you blame for the goals??

 

Both yesterday and previously?

 

Against MK Dons it was undoubtedly Jaidi with the needless freekick because apart from that we really didn't look like conceding at all! I didn't see yesterday and the quality of the League programme is so poor you can't see what happens in the build-up!!

 

I'm not looking to blame anyone LTC.

 

What I'm questioning is how we can better. The discussion was around whether 4-4-2 would be more effective than 4-5-1 (or 4-3-3) depending on how you see it. People have talked about scoring goals at one end of the pitch - but both ends are equally important. There was much talk on this forum during the early part of the season that we had the best defence in L1. As I've previously stated, I'm not in a position to judge the reasons. I am interested in informed debate but not looking for blame to be apportioned. We have done well recently, but I'm sure even AP will be looking to improve things.

[Professor]

Logic suggests that the best team should win regardless of the system, but Saints have not been winning until the system has been changed. However, as different players have come on when the system is changed, there is scope for argument as to whether it is players or system. Personally, I think it is system, but others disagree.

 

Pardew might feel that we do only have two quality strikers with Lallana now more settled in the wide role, and Saga seemingly out of favour. If Connolly is not 90 minutes fit yet, that could be a factor, but do we still need another striker as cover before 4-4-2 can be played regularly or should Saga be used?

[Master Bates]

Todays Echo says Pardew should drop 4-5-1 and revert back to 4-4-2 permanently.

 

Also another article suggesting we'll be starting 4-4-2 on Friday.

 

On a lighter note, there is quite a funny pic of 'Benthelegend' in the Echo, i'm sure people with a copy can guess which one he is

[mikee]

I don't think the formation is the key as we can beat teams with 4-5-1, 4-4-2 or 4-3-3.

 

the problem from my perspective is that when we play 4-5-1 the main tactic seems to be to hoof the ball from Davis to Lambert and look to pick up the second ball.

 

When we change to 4-4-2 we start passing more which makes this formation seem more effective, but IMHO it is the change in tactic that has made the bigger impact and there is no reason why we can't pass the ball more when playing 4-5-1.

 

Maybe this is what Pardew is referring to when he says the players aren't playing 4-5-1 the way they have been coached.

[benjii]

I don't think the formation is the key as we can beat teams with 4-5-1, 4-4-2 or 4-3-3.

 

the problem from my perspective is that when we play 4-5-1 the main tactic seems to be to hoof the ball from Davis to Lambert and look to pick up the second ball.

 

When we change to 4-4-2 we start passing more which makes this formation seem more effective, but IMHO it is the change in tactic that has made the bigger impact and there is no reason why we can't pass the ball more when playing 4-5-1.

 

Maybe this is what Pardew is referring to when he says the players aren't playing 4-5-1 the way they have been coached.

 

This is spot on.

 

The problem on Saturday was that Orient were so crap that even playing badly and hoofing it to Lambert you had that "we will score in a minute feeling" which meant we had just enough encouragement to keep playing that way.

 

Once we changed in the second half Schneiderlin began playing it short to Lallana and Connolly and we built the play allowing the likes of Harding to get forward more also. Nothing much to do with the system.

[eelpie]

If we begin with 4-4-2 would we finish as strongly as when we end the match with the same formation? Our history says no.

[up and away]

If we begin with 4-4-2 would we finish as strongly as when we end the match with the same formation? Our history says no.

 

You only have to look a few games earlier with near identical personnel to find out why we went to 451. We went to 451 to address specific weaknesses in our team that were costing us, it coincided with a remarkable turn around in our fortunes. But as you say, start off with 442 and shoot your bolt, where do you go from there? Or even go a couple down, you can hardly revert to a defensive formation then.

 

One comment the O's manager made was that tiredness had a big impact on Saints getting back into the game. Well the majority of that must have come from the formation we were playing in the first half. Against the MK Dons they hardly touched the ball in midfield such was our superiority, created so many chances to have won the match in the first half. I would fully agree about changing the system if we failed to create enough chances or players were not missing sitters. I suppose you could say that playing 451, players tend to miss more sitters than any other system!

 

I remember when Burley went to 451 away from home and we suddenly got a draw and a win against someone like Sunderland and Leeds. Never to be seen again along with our chances of automatic promotion. The question that really needs to be asked, is did we have a defensive issue previously? And did the introdution of 451 help to over come that issue, with the option of reverting to 442 when the situation requires?

[St Will]

You only have to look a few games earlier with near identical personnel to find out why we went to 451. We went to 451 to address specific weaknesses in our team that were costing us, it coincided with a remarkable turn around in our fortunes. But as you say, start off with 442 and shoot your bolt, where do you go from there? Or even go a couple down, you can hardly revert to a defensive formation then.

 

One comment the O's manager made was that tiredness had a big impact on Saints getting back into the game. Well the majority of that must have come from the formation we were playing in the first half. Against the MK Dons they hardly touched the ball in midfield such was our superiority, created so many chances to have won the match in the first half. I would fully agree about changing the system if we failed to create enough chances or players were not missing sitters. I suppose you could say that playing 451, players tend to miss more sitters than any other system!

 

I remember when Burley went to 451 away from home and we suddenly got a draw and a win against someone like Sunderland and Leeds. Never to be seen again along with our chances of automatic promotion. The question that really needs to be asked, is did we have a defensive issue previously? And did the introdution of 451 help to over come that issue, with the option of reverting to 442 when the situation requires?

 

I sensible and logical post. Like I said earlier in the thread, AP knows more than us, that's why he is a football manager and we are other things. I'm not sure if any of you in, say, IT would appreciate Pardew coming into your work and telling you you should be doing your job differently, telling you how to use a computer, when Pardew probably has no qualifications or great knowledge in computers.

[Tokyo-Saint]

We need the chances to be falling to the right people. At times we look similar to Arsenal do at time in that the players always want an extra touch and to make the perfect goal. As soon as the chances fall for Lambert we are celebrating a goal. having another player up front creates more space and chances for Lambert and in turn more goals. I'm not sure we should be gun hoe against some of the better teams but many of the teams in this division are intimidated by us. Against teams like Brighton at home we should always start with 2 up front to give them problems and not let them settle into the game.

[derry]

It is all very well talking about missed chances with 4-5-1/4-3-3 but this probably has more to do with having only one striker and the chances falling to players who don't convert on a regular basis. Scoring goals regularly is what strikers are about, other players convert occasionally and can rarely be relied on to score regularly.

 

With the second striker we seem to be converting a higher percentage of chances in a shorter time scale.

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

Ah, bless, the gimp2 has come to help out gimp1.

 

You weren't remotely amusing the 1st time you did it and you're continual use really shows up your lack of imagination and intelligence.

 

No surprise really.

[Legod Third Coming]

This is spot on.

 

The problem on Saturday was that Orient were so crap that even playing badly and hoofing it to Lambert you had that "we will score in a minute feeling" which meant we had just enough encouragement to keep playing that way.

 

Once we changed in the second half Schneiderlin began playing it short to Lallana and Connolly and we built the play allowing the likes of Harding to get forward more also. Nothing much to do with the system.

 

If I was going to be critical of Pardew (and I'm not while we are winning) one thing I have noticed is the number of times we punt it long.

 

I can see why teams might call us long-ball because I have seen Kelvin roll the ball out less than three times all season.

 

Personally, this does my head in as I am a percentage fan and I like to know that the ball I pass is more of less guaranteed to arrive at a colleague's feet.

 

However, I have had to accept that this is the way we are going to play and while it works, I'm not complaining. We have scored this way against Southend and I am sure Lambert's ability causes problems for defenders with the ball dropping from height.

 

Why we should play a more passing game with 4-4-2 though is beyond me?

 

All logic says you are MORE likely to hit long balls with two strikers rather than one, since you have double the chance of a) hitting a front man and b) picking up a knock down.

 

Maybe, therefore, there is more to the system than simply the formation??

 

Maybe system 1 is target man and system 2 is Arsenal, if you get my drift.

[Fan The Flames]

People are really getting hung up on this formation malarky. We are winning and from my view we play a similar style whether 442 451. Is it because some haven't really accepted AP and this is a stick to beat him with.

 

Like others I havn't voted because there wasn't an 'Whatever AP sees fit' option.

[Scummer]

It is all very well talking about missed chances with 4-5-1/4-3-3 but this probably has more to do with having only one striker and the chances falling to players who don't convert on a regular basis.

 

But our 'other two strikers' in the 4-3-3 formation (Lallana and Waigo) have both scored a reasonable number of goals this season.

[Graffito]

I don't think the formation is the key as we can beat teams with 4-5-1, 4-4-2 or 4-3-3.

 

the problem from my perspective is that when we play 4-5-1 the main tactic seems to be to hoof the ball from Davis to Lambert and look to pick up the second ball.

 

When we change to 4-4-2 we start passing more which makes this formation seem more effective, but IMHO it is the change in tactic that has made the bigger impact and there is no reason why we can't pass the ball more when playing 4-5-1.

 

Maybe this is what Pardew is referring to when he says the players aren't playing 4-5-1 the way they have been coached.

 

You're right. On Saturday we played the long ball to Lambert missing out the more skilful players in midfield. Seems to me we have more quality than most in this League so it makes no sense to hoof it forward like we did against Orient. When Connolly came on he brought our more skilful players into the game with passing and movement and we looked a much better side.

[Wes Tender]

I'm not going to vote in the Poll because IMO there is a glaring omission or two in it. There ought to be at least another option of playing the first half 4-5-1 and switching to a 4-4-2 in the second half, as this has been a fruitful tactic in the past few matches. Of course, there are other options available too, such as starting 4-4-2 and switching to 4-5-1 in the second half. And then we could always play three CBs, move James into the midfield with two strikers in a 3-5-2 and not forgetting the Christmas tree formation amongst others.

 

As the past several recent matches have produced a string of successes and no defeats, I feel rather inclined to trust in AP's judgment. Of course, it must also be factored into the equation that when AP makes these changes in the second half, we are often introducing two or three pairs of fresh legs to the pitch to pressurise some tiring players on the rival team. Even then, I suspect that our players are often fitter and leaner than many teams we play against at the moment, if the new super slim Lambert is anything to go by. Although not conclusive as evidence, we seem to be a team scoring a lot of goals in the second half, whereas for the past few years, we were a leaky side later on in a game.

[Gorgiesaint]

You're right. On Saturday we played the long ball to Lambert missing out the more skilful players in midfield. Seems to me we have more quality than most in this League so it makes no sense to hoof it forward like we did against Orient. When Connolly came on he brought our more skilful players into the game with passing and movement and we looked a much better side.

 

But does playing slightly long in the first half give the team more space for the passing game in the second, given the defence will sit deeper to protect against the longer ball?

[saints-cris]

4-5-1 away, then see how we go.. 4-4-2 at home, depending on who were playing.. but if its working like it is now, why change it.

[RonManager]

Interesting to hear AP's take on this topic, now on the OS

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~1844680,00.html

[Legod Third Coming]

I'm not going to vote in the Poll because IMO there is a glaring omission or two in it. There ought to be at least another option of playing the first half 4-5-1 and switching to a 4-4-2 in the second half, as this has been a fruitful tactic in the past few matches. Of course, there are other options available too, such as starting 4-4-2 and switching to 4-5-1 in the second half. And then we could always play three CBs, move James into the midfield with two strikers in a 3-5-2 and not forgetting the Christmas tree formation amongst others.

 

As the past several recent matches have produced a string of successes and no defeats, I feel rather inclined to trust in AP's judgment. Of course, it must also be factored into the equation that when AP makes these changes in the second half, we are often introducing two or three pairs of fresh legs to the pitch to pressurise some tiring players on the rival team. Even then, I suspect that our players are often fitter and leaner than many teams we play against at the moment, if the new super slim Lambert is anything to go by. Although not conclusive as evidence, we seem to be a team scoring a lot of goals in the second half, whereas for the past few years, we were a leaky side later on in a game.

 

I applied for this option to 'trust in the manager' but apparently we should tell him how to do his job regardless of how well he's doing it... which frankly sounds like some people on this site might have been previous bosses of mine...

[hughieslastminutegoal]

All I can say is Pard's knows better than us, that's why he's the manager and we're not.

 

How can you propound such heresy? I don't know how you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning and not see horns growing out of your head and a forked tail.

 

We all know it is IMPOSSIBLE to play 4-5-1 and train to adapt it at will to push one wide player up front closer to the lone stiker, and drop the opposite wide midfielder inside a tad at various times in the match. Professional footballers just can't get the hang of it. We all know that our footballers are all dumber than the average NFL player, none of whom can remember a variety of plays at all.

 

It has got to be one or the other. .

[RonManager]

Can't we use that system where everyone crowds round the ball and moves it slowly up the field? Any opposition player trying to break the ring will need to tackle one of our team 'off the ball', therefore incurring a foul.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

Can't we use that system where everyone crowds round the ball and moves it slowly up the field? Any opposition player trying to break the ring will need to tackle one of our team 'off the ball', therefore incurring a foul.

 

No. Because you can't come up with a set of numbers separated by hyphens for such a system.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

Can't we use that system where everyone crowds round the ball and moves it slowly up the field? Any opposition player trying to break the ring will need to tackle one of our team 'off the ball', therefore incurring a foul.

 

Crossing the halfway line becomes a difficult manoeuvre - if you stay in a circle, the other team all step over the halfway line and catch half the team offside. But I've seen it where the team in a circle suddenly stretch out into a straight line across the pitch just as the other side step over the halfway line, and then all gallop like crazy towards the opposition goal, making sure the man with the ball is just in front of the rest.

 

Oh, sorry, that's rugby after a scrum....

 

Woodward, where are you when we need your tactical advice?

[up and away]

Originally Posted by docker-p

So we're not suppose to question the manager because he is in a better position to decide formations? Bloody 'ell what do you talk about at the game, knitting, gardening, soil erosion ???

Exactly , I think it generally established that this is a place for Saints fans to freely express their opinions on all matters SFC related - if this ever sounds like we are setting ourselves up as somehow knowing more about the game than the players/managers who are well paid to actually do the job than that is a misunderstanding . The Professor is perfectly in order to raise this issue and some of the criticism he's had is rather OTT I'd say .

 

There are a few on here who'd like to turn this forum into some glorified cheer-leading group (no names - no pack drill) but all things considered that might prove to be rather dull for thr rest of us .

 

Some very fair points and we are only arguing over the system being played half the time anyway. But the point I cannot understand is exactly what is wrong with the way we have played up until now? Is it the amount of goals we are scoring? Is it the entertainment value? Just what on this unparalleled run is the problem?

 

I can perfectly understand Pardew changing it for sides that just come to park the bus in front of goal, it no longer makes sense. But the major fear I have for starting with 442 is the manner in which the defence then comes under pressure. I have not seen Wooton play well in this role although perfectly happy to accept he can do a job in the 451.

 

The question I keep looking at, do we have the personel to make 442 work from the beginning? Or do we need another Hammond to go alongside the original to make it work? Because I still have visions of that disorganised mess that was 442 at the start of the season, with basically the same personnel before we changed to 451.

 

It's not about a persons right to question the manager on any subject, it's about changing something we never thought we would achieve this season. Nothing to do with falling in line behind the manager, to me this is just dumb and obliterates everything we went through to get to this position. On a side note, I wonder how Murty would fit into the middle.

[Legod Third Coming]

No. Because you can't come up with a set of numbers separated by hyphens for such a system.

 

Yes you can.

 

1 - 0