Jump to content

Was 442 formation the start of adkins downfall in the prem

Thedelldays

By Thedelldays
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)

Article is full of holes - Ramirez was moved to the left out of necessity, not choice due to Lallana's injury. And at times it's been very difficult to distinguish whether we were playing 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1.

Edited by shurlock
SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted
Article is full of holes - Ramirez was moved to the left out of necessity, not choice due to Lallana's injury. And at times it's been very difficult to distinguish whether we were playing 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1.

 

Don't totally agree with this. There were other options available. We could have kept Ramirez in the central position. And should have done IMHO.

Give it to Ron

Give it to Ron

Posted
Posted

No the start of the downfall was the ridiculous summer transfers or lack of - or the lack of action by the CEO to get rid of the manager if he didnt feel he was right!

15 or 16 games to go is not the time to gamble we got away with it with Pardew I am not so sure we can again.

Pochettino may be the man he may not but if he doesnt hit the ground running its a poisoned chalice.

Graffito

Graffito

Posted
Posted

Formation may have been a factor in the sacking but I don't agree that failure to play 433 or playing 442 made the sacking inevitable. However we lined up, the team tried to play between the lines. There's a place for pragmatism with even the most dogmatic adherents to 443 until perhaps you get to the level of Barcelona. Many of us were saying earlier in the season that we didnt really have all the players required for 433. Maybe Nigel was simply experimenting with variations to get the best out of the players available in a period of transition.

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Don't totally agree with this. There were other options available. We could have kept Ramirez in the central position. And should have done IMHO.

 

We tried Jrod on the left at the start of the season but it didn't work. Guly came in -and did OK imo but will always have his critics.

Recently, it hasn't been so much whether Ramirez is going to play on the left or in the hole but whether he'll start at all -and I've got to admit the decision to leave him out at Stoke (at least till the second half when we desperately needed to retain possession) and Chelsea was pretty much spot on.

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
Article is full of holes - Ramirez was moved to the left out of necessity, not choice due to Lallana's injury. And at times it's been very difficult to distinguish whether we were playing 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1.

 

You do know its not an article as such, just a fan on a forum giving his opinion. Where he makes some valid points. To be fair I can't ever remember an article where you didn't claim it was full of holes or cherry picking. You've certainly done it for every remotely negative article about the current situation.

CanadaSaint

CanadaSaint

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure it was just about formation so much as not fully "toeing the company line", whatever that may be - a cardinal sin, I suspect, in the world of Cortese. It could stretch into things such as whether to start Rickie, where to play Ramirez, when to start/not start academy graduates, and a host of other things. Moreover, we still don't know (do we?) whether it was Adkins or Cortese who had the beef with the now-important Puncheon. And we've bought a number of fairly expensive players who haven't really had a sniff at a regular role - several "early ball" players who don't really fit into Nigel's final-third team style.

 

When hindsight paints a more accurate picture, it's usually one involving a number of problems rather than a single issue.

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
You do know its not an article as such, just a fan on a forum giving his opinion. Where he makes some valid points. To be fair I can't ever remember an article where you didn't claim it was full of holes or cherry picking. You've certainly done it for every remotely negative article about the current situation.

 

Fine its not an article, though I respect a fan's analysis -and probably hold it to a higher standard than your average journo.

And I couldn't care less if an article is negative - I didn't interpret this piece as particularly negative. I just think the whole formation line is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things -hence why we've argued about it on a few occasions. In a similar vein, I don't like single cause explanations -or the idea that there's always someone to blame. Alas that's the common currency on a mongboard.

That pretty much explains my position on everything -not any great love for Cortese or besieged need to rally behind the status quo.

RedArmy

RedArmy

Posted
Posted

I don't get this myth that all we played in league one and the championship was 4-4-2.

 

We regularly played 2 or 3 different formations in any one game, when things weren't going our way or to close a game out.

 

The diamond we played quite regularly at one point was practically a 4-3-3 at times with Lambert's tendency to drift out wide.

Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
Agree i dont understand anyone that thinks we play 442 .

 

why? We often play 4-4-2. I didn't see a 4-2-3-1 at Stoke. Lambert and Rpodriguez played up front. Lambert didn't play in midfield, deep in the hole or anything ither than up front. We had two central midfielders and Guly and Puncheon played left and right midfield. How is is that not a 4-4-2?

 

I don't think that was the reason he got sacked.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...