Was it REALLY a 4-4-2?

[Bailey]

First off, I just want to start by saying what a superb result the 'boysh' produced today. Great support from the fans too! However, I've noticed that a few people have been saying on the post-match thread how we lined up in a 4-4-2 formation. That's not true! The team started up as follows . . .

 

---------------------- Davis ------------------------

 

James --------- Perry --------- Cork ----------- Skacel

 

-------------- Surman ---- Schneiderlin -------------

 

Lallana ------------ McGoldrick ------------Wright-Phillips

 

------------------- Robertson -----------------------

 

The main difference today though, was that Robertson held the ball up brilliantly, bringing McGoldrick into play in the process. Not to mention the fact that Lallana and Surman made some cracking runs throughout the game. Even BWP played well!

 

To summarise, we didn't play 4-4-2, but the players movement and their desire to run for every ball made the 'Dutch' formation work brilliantly today. Full credit to Poortvliet, the 'boysh' and the fans that went. Great effort. We just need to follow this up with a win against Plymouth now . . .

[The Red Bag]

I thought we played an orthodox 4-4-2 until we scored the first goal. After that McGoldrick dropped in behind Robertson

[up and away]

Just been listening to BWP and he confirmed there was no change in the formation, just the personnel. Without actually being there it is difficult to give an informed opinion, but from what I have seen previously, playing DMG in the hole may have a lot to do with it?

[Bailey]

Just been listening to BWP and he confirmed there was no change in the formation, just the personnel. Without actually being there it is difficult to give an informed opinion, but from what I have seen previously, playing DMG in the hole may have a lot to do with it?

 

I think the return of Robertson had a bigger impact IMO. He is alot stronger than McGoldrick and can hold the ball up much better. Not only that, but he wins more in the air and gets in the faces of the oppo defence.

 

Having said that, I think we see the best of DMG when he is 'in the hole' or out wide as he is better when the ball is at his feet, which in part, helps to bring others into play.

[cf saint]

I think it sometimes looked 442 because DMG played closer to Robertson

Maybe his best position?

[Window Cleaner]

Just been listening to BWP and he confirmed there was no change in the formation, just the personnel. Without actually being there it is difficult to give an informed opinion, but from what I have seen previously, playing DMG in the hole may have a lot to do with it?

 

And yet some still insist that we were playing 4-4-2, makes you wonder really doesn't it.

As I have stated many many times, you should barely notice the difference if the 'hole' role is correctly performed. think I likened it to a 2 man kaleidoscope on one occasion.

[70's Mike]

I think it sometimes looked 442 because DMG played closer to Robertson

Maybe his best position?

 

Exactly we got support into the front man much quicker today because DMG and BWP appeared to have been given more freedom to get forward than they do in home games

[Window Cleaner]

Exactly we got support into the front man much quicker today because DMG and BWP appeared to have been given more freedom to get forward than they do in home games

 

Perhaps the ancient incumbent in the hole role wasn't in fact suited to the job, as I may have mentioned on occasions.

[70's Mike]

Perhaps the ancient incumbent in the hole role wasn't in fact suited to the job, as I may have mentioned on occasions.

 

 

clever you

 

perhaps you should have written to JP

[Window Cleaner]

clever you

 

perhaps you should have written to JP

 

Perhaps I did

[Bailey]

I think it sometimes looked 442 because DMG played closer to Robertson. Maybe his best position?

 

Agreed. This has been our main problem with the formation. At times we've struggled to support the lone striker, but with McGoldrick playing closer to Robertson and BWP, Lallana and Surman quick to add their support, the formation clicked today and we got a little glimpse of the 'total football' that Poortvliet has been banging on about.

[Alain Perrin]

I thought we played an orthodox 4-4-2 until we scored the first goal. After that McGoldrick dropped in behind Robertson

 

Definitely not a 4-4-2. The only time it ever looks like that is when we kick off because the furthest forward midfielder (McGdrk) is waiting on the line to get forward.

[Wildgoose]

To be fair, Wotte said before the beginning of the season that it would take time and wouldn't come overnight. Would be brilliant if we could string a few results together now.

[La BoIS Saint]

First off, I just want to start by saying what a superb result the 'boysh' produced today. Great support from the fans too! However, I've noticed that a few people have been saying on the post-match thread how we lined up in a 4-4-2 formation. That's not true! The team started up as follows . . .

 

---------------------- Davis ------------------------

 

James --------- Perry --------- Cork ----------- Skacel

 

-------------- Surman ---- Schneiderlin -------------

 

Lallana ------------ McGoldrick ------------Wright-Phillips

 

------------------- Robertson -----------------------

 

The main difference today though, was that Robertson held the ball up brilliantly, bringing McGoldrick into play in the process. Not to mention the fact that Lallana and Surman made some cracking runs throughout the game. Even BWP played well!

 

To summarise, we didn't play 4-4-2, but the players movement and their desire to run for every ball made the 'Dutch' formation work brilliantly today. Full credit to Poortvliet, the 'boysh' and the fans that went. Great effort. We just need to follow this up with a win against Plymouth now . . .

 

Glad someone saw the same as me. Was beginning to wonder if I was at the same game many had been commenting on.

[obelisk]

It was actually the usual 4-5-1 but with DMG sitting back a bit it looked 4-4-1-1 for long periods. Very suitable away from home and it looked very good today.

 

Did I notice some "total football" as well with plenty of hard work, covering but mostly the excellent support from all areas when on the attack.

[Iowsaintsfan]

Im liking Robertson more and more i see him hes big and strong and was holding up the play well yesterday for McG, Surman, Lallana and BWP all to support. He reminds me of Beattie at his best

[Fowllyd]

It seems to me that numbers and systems are all well and good, but what counts most is playing a formation and style which gets the most out of the players you have. I've only managed four games so far this season, all of them at home; in all of those our formation has looked to me like two holding midfielders in front of the back four, then four players in front of them, each of whom has a nominal position but who interchange throughout the game.

 

This gives a fluidity which can be just great to watch. However, in three of the games I've seen we've lacked a real cutting edge - our build-up play often looks fabulous, but we don't do enough to really hurt the other team where it counts. Judging by many of the comments of those who were there yesterday, this wasn't the case yesterday. So perhaps it's the case that having a straightforward striker such as Robertson up front, supported by the other three more attacking players, is what really works.

 

Of course, if we can build from this and get a few more results, we won't care too much about whether we do it playing 4-4-2, 4-2-1-2-1, 4-3-3, 4-5-1 or whatever...

[bungle]

Of course it was the normal formation. Just shows to go how little Dave Merrington knows about football! And to think, people like alpine think they get a fair reflection of the game when listening to him! Ha!

 

McGoldrick played in "the hole" in the same way Euell did when he first came back from injury, whereas when Lallana did it he always sat a little bit deeper.

[Foxy]

Everyone I have spoken to agreed it was four attacking players all changing positions constantly.

 

But given the great result against a strong team the moan at all cost types and little Englanders need some sort of stick to beat JP with if he wins!

[paulwantsapint]

DMG might be bestter in the hole as it means that likes of Lallana, BWP can push into space if DMG goes wide or deep or what ever instead of Lallana being only support when in the hole

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

Just been listening to BWP and he confirmed there was no change in the formation, just the personnel. Without actually being there it is difficult to give an informed opinion, but from what I have seen previously, playing DMG in the hole may have a lot to do with it?

I think the return of Robertson had a bigger impact IMO. He is alot stronger than McGoldrick and can hold the ball up much better. Not only that, but he wins more in the air and gets in the faces of the oppo defence.

 

Having said that, I think we see the best of DMG when he is 'in the hole' or out wide as he is better when the ball is at his feet, which in part, helps to bring others into play.

 

Of course you are correct, there are two parts to this answer not one. Robertson has to perform the lone striker role, then we need someone to play in the hole. DMG is that little bit more selfish than the other strikers and as such naturally drifts closer to the striker than the defensive position, which is the problem we have been having. Just hope it continues to work, but it does mean he has to keep putting a shift in, otherwise we will be hearing about the man in the hole getting too detached from the midfield.