was that 4-4-2?

[lordswoodsaints]

it certainly looked like it to me?

perhaps JP reads this forum.

[Weston Super Saint]

it certainly looked like it to me?

perhaps JP reads this forum.

 

Isn't it amazing that Rupert stated only a few days ago that we wouldn't change the system because that is what the 'kids' had been brought up on in the Academy, then lo[we] and behold we change the system

 

Scooby couldn't make this stuff up

[SoccerMom]

Don't think so - at least not at first. If it had been, Paterson would have had a goal in the first twenty minutes - but DMG was on his own. Again.

[lordswoodsaints]

Don't think so - at least not at first. If it had been, Paterson would have had a goal in the first twenty minutes - but DMG was on his own. Again.

 

no he wasnt DMG and paterson were playing in a partnership and the players were being told to pump it upto paterson at every oppurtunity.

[SoccerMom]

Oh, so maybe it was just Paterson being slow into the box.

[Give it to Ron]

McGoldrick looked far better today playing just behind Paterson and for once we actually had bodies in the box - all we need now is to get on the end of the crosses.

Still toothless but twice as good as the last home game.

[Mowgli]

I think this illustrates how pointless an argument this all is. The formation was no different today but the personnel was. McGoldrick played in the hole behind Paterson with the wingers getting into the box when possible to receive a ball from the opposite flank. So (when in possession) we play 4-3-3 with the winger in possession crossing (or running into the box) with the other three rady to receive. It becomes 4-5-1 only when the oppositions has the ball.

 

BWP and Kayne McLaggen were straight swaps whilst Euell played in the hole allowing McD to go forward. Only my view, others may have seen it differently but the point is it is not the formation that is the problem - it is whether the players carried out their assigned roles as requested.

[up and away]

McGoldrick looked far better today playing just behind Paterson and for once we actually had bodies in the box - all we need now is to get on the end of the crosses.

Still toothless but twice as good as the last home game.

 

When McGoldrick plays in the hole his natural instinct is to get forward a lot more than others who play in that role. Can't comment on what happened today, but previously this has been the case.

[lordswoodsaints]

I think this illustrates how pointless an argument this all is. The formation was no different today but the personnel was. McGoldrick played in the hole behind Paterson with the wingers getting into the box when possible to receive a ball from the opposite flank. So (when in possession) we play 4-3-3 with the winger in possession crossing (or running into the box) with the other three rady to receive. It becomes 4-5-1 only when the oppositions has the ball.

 

BWP and Kayne McLaggen were straight swaps whilst Euell played in the hole allowing McD to go forward. Only my view, others may have seen it differently but the point is it is not the formation that is the problem - it is whether the players carried out their assigned roles as requested.

 

it was deffo 4-4-2 from the start with holmes allowed to roam a bit,probably not by design but more free will,the formation did change in the second half and seemed to go back to what we have been playing previously and this did allow reading a bit more of the game.

this is only my opinon but whatever the formation was it seemed to work well and we played some good football so it has to be applauded.

[Chez]

NO.

It was 4-2-1-2-1, McGoldrick in the hole and two wide men - same as the whole season.

[Papa Shango]

Don't think so. I bet most of the fans chanting "4-4-2" have no clue what formation we are even playing. I don't know what the obsession with 4-4-2 is anyway? It's not the be all and end all and isn't the answer to our problems IMO. There are plenty of other ways to play, hardly any of the top Prem clubs play 4-4-2.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Whatever you want to call the formation the principle point is today we had 2 strikers (DMG & Patterson) working fairly close together as a unit - thus posing the opposition defence a few problems at last . I call this a 'front two' and we looked much the better team or it IMO .

[70's Mike]

NO.

It was 4-2-1-2-1, McGoldrick in the hole and two wide men - same as the whole season.

 

your just over complicating it, it was imo 4-4-2 and on some occassions almost 4-2-4

[ladysaint]

Most the fans there today didnt know the players let alone the formation.

[Andy_Porter]

Looked like 4-4-2 to me, McGoldrick was a lot closer to Paterson than our usual in the hole player and Paterson kept hold of the ball really well.

 

Not really sure why Paterson came off, he was playing really well.

[70's Mike]

Looked like 4-4-2 to me, McGoldrick was a lot closer to Paterson than our usual in the hole player and Paterson kept hold of the ball really well.

 

Not really sure why Paterson came off, he was playing really well.

 

 

Agreed i was impressed that both forwards started to chase a few lost causes which led to mistakes by the Reading back 4

[Chez]

Looked like 4-4-2 to me, McGoldrick was a lot closer to Paterson than our usual in the hole player and Paterson kept hold of the ball really well.

 

Not really sure why Paterson came off, he was playing really well.

 

he was tired, his work rate dropped off a lot after 50 minutes.

 

Holmes and Smith were playing as wingers and McGoldrick said in the post match interview that he "liked playing in the hole". The formation was exactly the same as last week.

[ottery st mary]

My opinion is, that all this rubbish, about all these silly formations, is the root of the problem.

 

The coaching staff, Lowey, Wottey, Gorrey and JP have totally confused most of our players with all these numbers.

 

I used to notice the same problem at school, most boys were easily confused with complicated numbers.

 

Back to basics and the way most of these lads have been brung up.

Mind you it might be a little late.

[L1Minus10]

Same formation.

 

Looked different because McGoldrick played far in advance of the other two midfielders. With a 4-4-2, the wingers have to get back and back up the full back. neither Homes or smith did this at all. consequently, when we lose theball we invariably have 4 in front of the ball and at times it looks horrible. I'd certainly hate to be a full back in our team.

[Saint Martini]

Same formation.

 

Looked different because McGoldrick played far in advance of the other two midfielders. With a 4-4-2, the wingers have to get back and back up the full back. neither Homes or smith did this at all. consequently, when we lose theball we invariably have 4 in front of the ball and at times it looks horrible. I'd certainly hate to be a full back in our team.

 

In a 433 this is not different. The two wide attackers should track back with their direct opponent at least. If they don't do that then it is a rather poor defensive execution of a 433 formation.

[ottery st mary]

I thought all this Dutch Masterclass Total Football rubbish was all about..

1-10 with all our lovely Free Range chickens all over the park and MAKING some lovely

EGGS IN THE NET FOR US LUVVIES carrying our pitchforks.

 

Or was it all one big YOKE.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

Most the fans there today didnt know the players let alone the formation.

 

That's not fair. My daughter does a lot of babysitting and she knows most of them.

[ottery st mary]

That's not fair. My daughter does a lot of babysitting and she knows most of them.

 

I thought the players all lived in a hostel and had house parents babysitting them.

[saintedwill]

your just over complicating it' date=' it was imo 4-4-2 and on some occassions almost 4-2-4[/quote']

 

 

To me it looked like we started off 4-3-3, moved into a 4-1-2-2-1, then a 4-5-1, followed by a bit of 4-2-4, before finally settling back into a standard 4-3-1-1-1

[benjii]

So does everyone agree with what I've said all along which is that McGoldrick is a good player but needs a strike partner?

[saintedwill]

So does everyone agree with what I've said all along which is that McGoldrick is a good player but needs a strike partner?

 

hmmmm, I think it all depends on the formation

[ottery st mary]

We could give Carol Vorderman a job on the touchline, holding up boards, with all the numbers on.

 

And Change.

[ottery st mary]

So does everyone agree with what I've said all along which is that McGoldrick is a good player but needs a strike partner?

 

Coming in behind or alongside or off someone like Stern John..

But then again he may have the partner in Patterson.

[SoccerMom]

Coming in behind or alongside or off someone like Stern John..

But then again he may have the partner in Patterson.

 

Well, much of his success in the Reserves last season was in partnership with Baseya, wasn't it?

[ottery st mary]

Well, much of his success in the Reserves last season was in partnership with Baseya, wasn't it?

 

Yes.....He should have had a centre forward all seaso..A proper striker.

 

Not himself or Robertson etc. A real centre forward....

To-day I was in Bristol and John was a brilliant foil for Maynard a young promising striker and John was getting lots of praise from proper football people but stick from people who could not see his whole job description.

Bit like St Marys or this forum really.

 

Maybe its the money but you would still expect the 22 coaches we have to have sorted this out by now.

[L1Minus10]

In a 433 this is not different. The two wide attackers should track back with their direct opponent at least. If they don't do that then it is a rather poor defensive execution of a 433 formation.

 

I 100% agree that this is how is should be. In our 4-3-3 however, the wide men do not get back at all and haven;t done all season, suggesting to me that JP doesn't want them to get back.

[derry]

McGoldrick looked far better today playing just behind Paterson and for once we actually had bodies in the box - all we need now is to get on the end of the crosses.

Still toothless but twice as good as the last home game.

 

We have to have some crosses first. Balls in from 25 yds out don't stretch the defence, easy meat for big defenders and the goalkeeper.

 

Our free kicks show a total lack of thought, all shots either left or right foot into the wall or over the bar.

 

It's about time we started some slick decoy runs and wall passing the wall.

[derry]

Saganowski back this week, play him in front of McGoldrick, BWP wide right and Holmes wide left, McLaggon/Dyer to come on last half hour.

[bungle]

It was exactly the same formation we've played all season.

[Scudamore]

I think this illustrates how pointless an argument this all is. The formation was no different today but the personnel was. McGoldrick played in the hole behind Paterson with the wingers getting into the box when possible to receive a ball from the opposite flank. So (when in possession) we play 4-3-3 with the winger in possession crossing (or running into the box) with the other three rady to receive. It becomes 4-5-1 only when the oppositions has the ball.

 

BWP and Kayne McLaggen were straight swaps whilst Euell played in the hole allowing McD to go forward. Only my view, others may have seen it differently but the point is it is not the formation that is the problem - it is whether the players carried out their assigned roles as requested.

 

That's how i saw it...

 

Just goes to illustrate how we all see a game differently if some can't even spot that Mowgli and i are quite plainly correct in our views of the formation!

[ottery st mary]

It was exactly the same formation we've played all season.

 

I am quietly confident, that if we perservere over the next two or three seasons we could even get it right one day.

 

Happy New Year

 

COYR

[NickG]

I think this illustrates how pointless an argument this all is. The formation was no different today but the personnel was. McGoldrick played in the hole behind Paterson with the wingers getting into the box when possible to receive a ball from the opposite flank. So (when in possession) we play 4-3-3 with the winger in possession crossing (or running into the box) with the other three rady to receive. It becomes 4-5-1 only when the oppositions has the ball.

 

BWP and Kayne McLaggen were straight swaps whilst Euell played in the hole allowing McD to go forward. Only my view, others may have seen it differently but the point is it is not the formation that is the problem - it is whether the players carried out their assigned roles as requested.

 

When McGoldrick plays in the hole his natural instinct is to get forward a lot more than others who play in that role. Can't comment on what happened today, but previously this has been the case.

 

It was exactly the same formation we've played all season.

 

agreed

[St. Jason]

it certainly looked like it to me?

perhaps JP reads this forum.

 

how could it be 4-4-2?

 

Mr. Lowe and jp said that our players could not play 4-4-2, they said that we have trained to play 4-1-2-1-2!!!!!

 

why the f&^%k would all our managers (strachan, Redknap, Burley) let the youth train different to th e first team?

 

Sorry but i don't get it, why would our managers play 4-4-2 but insist on our youth play 4-2-1-2-1???

[St. Jason]

it was deffo 4-4-2 from the start with holmes allowed to roam a bit,probably not by design but more free will,the formation did change in the second half and seemed to go back to what we have been playing previously and this did allow reading a bit more of the game.

this is only my opinon but whatever the formation was it seemed to work well and we played some good football so it has to be applauded.

 

your a joke, it was never, ever, f*&^ing ever 4-4-2........................ever!

[Alanh]

Not sure which match the OP was watching. It was definitely the same formation we've been playing all season.

 

McG did look a lot better playing in the hole and showed how good he can be with a player to play off. Loads of good footwork and great workrate. MOM for me thans to the goal.

[Hopkins]

It was 4 2 3 1. Exactly the same way we have been playing all season. Only difference was McGoldrick played in the hole instead of uptop. Probably suits his drop off game alot more and he has the ability to link up with the striker more than say Surman or Lallana.

 

As has been pointed out earlier on in this thread, it is a stupid pointless argument as it has been all season. You are a deluled retarded mug if you think otherwise.

[St_Tel49]

I think this illustrates how pointless an argument this all is. The formation was no different today but the personnel was. McGoldrick played in the hole behind Paterson with the wingers getting into the box when possible to receive a ball from the opposite flank. So (when in possession) we play 4-3-3 with the winger in possession crossing (or running into the box) with the other three rady to receive. It becomes 4-5-1 only when the oppositions has the ball.

 

BWP and Kayne McLaggen were straight swaps whilst Euell played in the hole allowing McD to go forward. Only my view, others may have seen it differently but the point is it is not the formation that is the problem - it is whether the players carried out their assigned roles as requested.

That is exactly how I saw it.

[J Bizzle]

That's not fair. My daughter does a lot of babysitting and she knows most of them.

 

 

Rule 1 please.

[Saint Garrett]

As i saw it, it was the same as we've been playing all season....

 

Davis

James Cork Perry Skacel

-----Gillet--Gobern-----

Smith--Mcgoldrick--Holmes

-------Paterson--------

 

This is how we started. BWP came on for Smith who then swapped sides with Holmes, then Mclaggon came on for him. When Euell came on for Paterson, Mcgoldrick went up front on his own with Euell 'in the hole'.

 

No idea how some people could see it any other way ?!

[hughieslastminutegoal]

As i saw it, it was the same as we've been playing all season....

 

Davis

James Cork Perry Skacel

-----Gillet--Gobern-----

Smith--Mcgoldrick--Holmes

-------Paterson--------

 

This is how we started. BWP came on for Smith who then swapped sides with Holmes, then Mclaggon came on for him. When Euell came on for Paterson, Mcgoldrick went up front on his own with Euell 'in the hole'.

 

 

No idea how some people could see it any other way ?!

 

 

Because, as some have said, McGoldrick was closer to Paterson this time, so you get:-

 

Davis

James Cork Perry Skacel

-----Gillet--Gobern-----

--Smith----Holmes

-------Mcgoldrick------

-------Paterson--------

 

Which more simply can be seen as

 

Davis

James Cork Perry Skacel

Smith-----Gillet--Gobern----Holmes

-------Mcgoldrick------

-------Paterson--------

 

When England played 4-2-4 in 1966, it was really 4-4-2 because Peters and Ball were the midfield "wingers"

 

But was it really 4-4-1-1 because Hurst palyed slightly behind Hunt?

 

So the point is if you are pedantic you can argue the toss about formations forever. Even the old-fashioned 2-3-5 was just a programme layout. They didn't actually play like that, well maybe Corinthians did in 1893.

[sidthesquid]

The difference was McGoldrick was not expected to lead the line. He can't do it, but put him as the secondary striker/ player in the hole or however you want to describe it and he comes alive. Let's just hope Jan has taken note

[Fowllyd]

The difference was McGoldrick was not expected to lead the line. He can't do it, but put him as the secondary striker/ player in the hole or however you want to describe it and he comes alive. Let's just hope Jan has taken note

 

I'll go with that analysis. I thought McGoldrick had a great game yesterday; he looked interested, he chased and looked dangerous with the ball. Paterson played well - he looks to lack a bit of pace and time will tell how much that counts against him. But his style of playing worked well for McGoldrick.

 

In the end, it's all about pegs and holes, not numbers. If you play someone in a role which doesn't suit him it won't work, if you play him in one that does it will. Now to me that really doesn't seem too complicated.

[St. Jason]

I'll go with that analysis. I thought McGoldrick had a great game yesterday; he looked interested, he chased and looked dangerous with the ball. Paterson played well - he looks to lack a bit of pace and time will tell how much that counts against him. But his style of playing worked well for McGoldrick.

 

In the end, it's all about pegs and holes, not numbers. If you play someone in a role which doesn't suit him it won't work, if you play him in one that does it will. Now to me that really doesn't seem too complicated.

 

 

Agree, to me football is pretty basic, 4-4-2 with right footed players on the right, left footed on the left strikers up front and defenders at the back. get your wide players to the BYE LINE and cross to the on-coming strikers!

[Chez]

Saganowski back this week, play him in front of McGoldrick, BWP wide right and Holmes wide left, McLaggon/Dyer to come on last half hour.

 

whats wrong with playing Patterson up front? It worked yesterday and he has looked good in every game I have seen him in so far.

[Fowllyd]

Agree, to me football is pretty basic, 4-4-2 with right footed players on the right, left footed on the left strikers up front and defenders at the back. get your wide players to the BYE LINE and cross to the on-coming strikers!

 

Yep, the game's pretty basic really - the key is getting the best out of the players you have. All too often we're nowhere near doing that. On the subject of wide players, I have to say (and I'm sure plenty of others have said this since yesterday's match) that McLaggon looked like a proper winger - he clearly wanted to be out there and not cutting inside, and his instinct seems to be to take on defenders and get to that goal line. Great to see.