4-4-2

[andrew1957]

In the past Reading have played 4-4-2 quite successfully against teams playing 4-5-1. What you lose (dominance in midfield) you gain by having the extra man up front and this allows Reading as the home side to be a more attacking force going forwards. In 2005/6 we played 4-4-2 successfully against 4-5-1 for much of the season. Even in the PL 4-4-2 at home was relatively successful (although did not work away from home). Just recently however this has just not worked at all - we barely forced a save out of the City keeper yesterday.

The strange thing however is that this is not just Reading. Only last week Mick McCarthy was saying he could not understand why earlier in the season Wolves were winning almost every game with 4-4-2, whereas now they were unable to win anything.

I also watched Swansea being overwhelmingly the best side against Fulham in the Cup - again using 4-5-1. What is going on - why is 4-4-2 failing to deliver?

In contrast 4-5-1 is now looking like an attacking formation - allowing teams to control midfield and then to be incisive and clinical when attacking - whereas the 4-4-2 being played by Reading yesterday made us look like a team of village players hoofing the ball forwards and being easily beaten by a slightly better village team (Bristol really did not look that good to me).

All this is very strange - can anyone shed any light on what is going on?

[OLLIE KEARNS]

There's been lots written about yesterdays game and various individuals but this thread is the one most likely to get to the facts of the matter. The reality is that yesterday has been coming for some time as we continue to play an inflexible 4-4-2 against 4-5-1. It could have been Norwich if they'd taken early chances and you could argue that Swansea was the same as yesterday.
My view is twofold. Firstly, our version of 4-4-2 is inflexible and defensive. Secondly, 4-5-1 is a system that other sides are gradually playing more and more effectively. The first part of the problem is much bigger than the second.
So, what do I mean by inflexible and defensive ? Well, the key is that our two CM 's are cleary being asked to drop deep in front of the back four when we don't have the ball. This invariably leaves the opposition with a "quarterback" type player who can run the game unopposed. I would much prefer to see us play a midfield diamond whereby one of the CM plays higher up the pitch and stops the quarterback from controlling the game. The only issue that comes from that is that one of the back 4 will be needed to deal with the spare midfield player in advanced positions. Since we have 4 v 1 that shouldn't be a problem.
The second problem is that our front pair also play flat just like the two CM's, By that I mean that you never get one coming short and one going long. If you get one coming short you pull CB's out of position which in turn leaves space for midfield runs from both central and wide positons into the space behind.
Cisse and Harper have come in for great criticism but any two CM's are going to look crap playing the way we are versus a midfield 5. Especially if a front man never comes short and fills the gaping gap between CM and our forwards.
The fixes for me would be a midfield diamond with Marek at the front of it, ask front runners to mix up their runs and ask our two wide midfield players to a) play narrow when we don't have the ball and b) look to make runs in behind when possible.
My worry, and I'm a huge SC fan, is that his inability to play any other system (he's gone with this his entire career) is his achilles heel. Even with the current system we may still go up. With a more risk free / attacking approach to playing 4-4-2 I think we'll win the league.
Very interested to see how we set up v NF next week. I live in hope

[cmonurz]

I just don't think we can play any other way.

I hope I am wide of the mark here, but I just have a horrible feeling that other formations simply don't enter the picture at RFC. Doesn't make sense to think that, but our inflexibility to match situations is frightening, and if we had a plan B, surely we would use it?

[CMRoyal]

Great post as ever, OK, and I agree the SC habit of sticking to what he knows could well be our undoing. We always seem to make the 4-5-1ers' spare midfielder (quarter-back/QB) look better than he actually is, but Steve's only response seems to be to drop the CMs deep and hope that the QB can't do any damage. Then the forwards get isolated. And when you have two out of form wingers, as we do, you're in big trouble.

The fixes for me would be a midfield diamond with Marek at the front of it, ask front runners to mix up their runs and ask our two wide midfield players to a) play narrow when we don't have the ball and b) look to make runs in behind when possible.

Would playing more narrowly and flexibly allow N Hunt to fulfil the role? He's an intelligent player and Kebe's completely shot of confidence so I could see him rotating well with Doyle and Lita, making breaks inside as well as getting behind, and working well with Marek at the head of the diamond. Rosenior would have to get his early season wing-back form back sharpish, though. So, the overly-maligned Hars and Cisse could concentrate on the holding role, Marek would be the outlet/link to the forwards (with hopefully little need to tackle too much - he just needs get goal-side of the QB when they get possession, cutting his space) and the two Hunts supplement the boys up front, dropping into wide defensive positions when the other team has the ball. What do you reckon?

[The Cap]

Ollie, is hope in East Berks then??

[Handsome Man]

There's been lots written about yesterdays game and various individuals but this thread is the one most likely to get to the facts of the matter. The reality is that yesterday has been coming for some time as we continue to play an inflexible 4-4-2 against 4-5-1. It could have been Norwich if they'd taken early chances and you could argue that Swansea was the same as yesterday.
My view is twofold. Firstly, our version of 4-4-2 is inflexible and defensive. Secondly, 4-5-1 is a system that other sides are gradually playing more and more effectively. The first part of the problem is much bigger than the second.
So, what do I mean by inflexible and defensive ? Well, the key is that our two CM 's are cleary being asked to drop deep in front of the back four when we don't have the ball. This invariably leaves the opposition with a "quarterback" type player who can run the game unopposed. I would much prefer to see us play a midfield diamond whereby one of the CM plays higher up the pitch and stops the quarterback from controlling the game. The only issue that comes from that is that one of the back 4 will be needed to deal with the spare midfield player in advanced positions. Since we have 4 v 1 that shouldn't be a problem.
The second problem is that our front pair also play flat just like the two CM's, By that I mean that you never get one coming short and one going long. If you get one coming short you pull CB's out of position which in turn leaves space for midfield runs from both central and wide positons into the space behind.
Cisse and Harper have come in for great criticism but any two CM's are going to look crap playing the way we are versus a midfield 5. Especially if a front man never comes short and fills the gaping gap between CM and our forwards.
The fixes for me would be a midfield diamond with Marek at the front of it, ask front runners to mix up their runs and ask our two wide midfield players to a) play narrow when we don't have the ball and b) look to make runs in behind when possible.
My worry, and I'm a huge SC fan, is that his inability to play any other system (he's gone with this his entire career) is his achilles heel. Even with the current system we may still go up. With a more risk free / attacking approach to playing 4-4-2 I think we'll win the league.
Very interested to see how we set up v NF next week. I live in hope

Perhaps you could play the game on championship manager and then email Coppell your findings?

[OLLIE KEARNS]

Yes, Noel Hunt at RM would be very much in my thinking. I would want RM to be the once that plays very narrow when we don't have the ball (makes up the 3 v 3 in CM) with Rosenior matching up to the opposition LM. The reason being that Rosy has the pace to deal with anything played in behind him whereas Stretch would struggle a bit, so I'd want him deeper with LM matching up to their RM. You also get the bonus of NH at the back stick for crosses in open play.
That said, it would be a tough call to leave Kebe out. As much as he is inconsistent there is nothing that troubles sides more than raw pace. I'd also fancy him to cause some problems if he were to come inside more often in open play

[brendywendy]

we barely forced a save out of the City keeper yesterday.

i thought we made a fair few chances, some of which required decent saves yesterday
though i agree with the general points about our system of play, seeming inability to cope with certain opposition set ups, and inability to change things midgame

[OLLIE KEARNS]

There's been lots written about yesterdays game and various individuals but this thread is the one most likely to get to the facts of the matter. The reality is that yesterday has been coming for some time as we continue to play an inflexible 4-4-2 against 4-5-1. It could have been Norwich if they'd taken early chances and you could argue that Swansea was the same as yesterday.
My view is twofold. Firstly, our version of 4-4-2 is inflexible and defensive. Secondly, 4-5-1 is a system that other sides are gradually playing more and more effectively. The first part of the problem is much bigger than the second.
So, what do I mean by inflexible and defensive ? Well, the key is that our two CM 's are cleary being asked to drop deep in front of the back four when we don't have the ball. This invariably leaves the opposition with a "quarterback" type player who can run the game unopposed. I would much prefer to see us play a midfield diamond whereby one of the CM plays higher up the pitch and stops the quarterback from controlling the game. The only issue that comes from that is that one of the back 4 will be needed to deal with the spare midfield player in advanced positions. Since we have 4 v 1 that shouldn't be a problem.
The second problem is that our front pair also play flat just like the two CM's, By that I mean that you never get one coming short and one going long. If you get one coming short you pull CB's out of position which in turn leaves space for midfield runs from both central and wide positons into the space behind.
Cisse and Harper have come in for great criticism but any two CM's are going to look crap playing the way we are versus a midfield 5. Especially if a front man never comes short and fills the gaping gap between CM and our forwards.
The fixes for me would be a midfield diamond with Marek at the front of it, ask front runners to mix up their runs and ask our two wide midfield players to a) play narrow when we don't have the ball and b) look to make runs in behind when possible.
My worry, and I'm a huge SC fan, is that his inability to play any other system (he's gone with this his entire career) is his achilles heel. Even with the current system we may still go up. With a more risk free / attacking approach to playing 4-4-2 I think we'll win the league.
Very interested to see how we set up v NF next week. I live in hope

Perhaps you could play the game on championship manager and then email Coppell your findings?

Just got my boy to try it out and we lost 6-0

[oxmiller]

A couple of points :
Although Kebe is frustrating at times, I still thought that he was the likeliest creator of chances yesterday - much more so than SHunt who has the control of a wall.
Also, I don't think the state of the pitch is helping either Kebe or Rosenior in their link up play - both seem nervous of the run of the ball now compared to earlier in the season and there were several times yesterday when they were victims of cruel bobbles.
With a bit more discipline from Kebe the 4-4-2 could be made to work, altenatively using 4-5-1 in defense changing to 4-3-3 in attack would solve the problem of being overrun in midfield.

[Agent Balti]

We have to face some facts, we do have only Plan A. Plan B doesn't work very well, so we go back to Plan A.

Luckily, we have had plenty of results with 4-4-2, so maybe there is no luck there after all. The trouble is we are, have been, and will be very easy to read. Our game, as everyone knows, is to get the full backs supporting the wingers. If the opposition plugs five in midfield then this makes it easier to cover the defensive full-back. We are then obviously nullified. When you are then outdone by two set pieces, you could say it's bad luck or bad defending or both.

What IS the issue is how we don't deviate from 4-4-2 often enough, hence we have NO idea how to play another system. Sure, we've played 4-5-1 ourselves in the Premiership, but that was just putting another midfielder in to make a five - not split striker, not two men behind the front man, leaving 3 centre mids. It was always a case of just dropping a man back.

To that end, we are tactically devoid at times. That need for a Plan B to divert the play through the middle, passing triangles, using a target man...which is another point entirely. To play 4-5-1 you need either a tall target man or a forward with blistering pace. Of which we have neither...(or someone built like an ox to hold the ball up, and we don't have one of those either.)

The problem with our 4-4-2 now is that we don't have a 'good' attacking midfielder (that plays.) The centre mids are by and large static. If Cisse breaks from midfield, it's a bonus, it's not something we bank on. If our wing play is stifled in a 4-5-1, you don't need to be a genius to work out what happens next.

Since we are mostly set up for counter-attacking, this is where we have been impressive in our most successful seasons under Coppell. Put us under pressure and we're creatively devoid. When opposition teams lose the fear and are not intimated by our stature, then teams like Bristol will turn us over. We need the power of Bikey, the pace of...um...someone, and the likes of Kitson (who did more defensively to help also.) We are lacking in those and are now predictable and one dimensional. The players we do have compared to many teams in the division ARE better, so we will gain results...but teams are learning, that is clear to see.

[Bubbly4Me]

One thing I don't understand is, why, when Feds has the ball do 20 people form a tight 'square' on one side of the pitch awaiting his kick out? Why doesn't Kebe move out to the other side and await one of his pinpoint dispersals?

On a similar note, we never seem to move the ball cross-field when Kebe IS alone. We'd rather run into a wall of oposition in a tight bunch down the line than move the ball around a bit.

I'm not syaing Kebe's the answer, but we need to spread them around a little. We're all too predictable and it seems teams are coping with that way too easily. Maybe, just once, we should try running the ball down the middle for a change rather than getting it out to the sides.

And finally, stop SHunt taking our set-peices. (apart from corners maybe). He's floated way too many balls to their keepers arms for my liking this season.

[brendywendy]

A couple of points :
Although Kebe is frustrating at times, I still thought that he was the likeliest creator of chances yesterday - much more so than SHunt who has the control of a wall.
Also, I don't think the state of the pitch is helping either Kebe or Rosenior in their link up play - both seem nervous of the run of the ball now compared to earlier in the season and there were several times yesterday when they were victims of cruel bobbles.
With a bit more discipline from Kebe the 4-4-2 could be made to work, altenatively using 4-5-1 in defense changing to 4-3-3 in attack would solve the problem of being overrun in midfield.

i thought i was going mental for a while there

thankyou oxmiller

[SteveRoyal]

4-4-2 is so last year.
4-5-1 is where it's at.

[Jimbo]

I believe we played Gunnar and Marek as a centre pair at Southampton? It didn't work too well there.

Perhaps a 4 5 1 with Marek as the link between midfield and striker would be worth a shot.
But who would you have up front?
The obvious choice is Doyle, but is he too unselfish, always pulling back or moving out wide to try and create something for someone else?
Would Lita work better as a lone striker, staying up front waiting for the killer through ball that rarely comes from Harper or Cisse?

Just a thought.....!

[Sarah Star]

You've got to worry when the opposition are saying we should change our formation haven't you?

Adebola had good advice for third-placed Reading, whose players have not scored for five games — their winner against Wolves four weeks ago was an own goal.

Bristol City were way back in 18th spot in November and Adebola said: ‘Early on when we played the top teams, we weren’t coming away with too many points — but then we changed our tactics, and now we have only second-placed Birmingham left to play out of the big guns.

‘We change our formation according to what the opposition will bring to us.’

That is why leading scorer Nicky Maynard was left on the substitutes’ bench even though City had been thumped 4-1 by Reading at Ashton Gate three months ago.

Reading are too easy to read with their direct balls down the channels and they were easily picked off by Bristol City’s dual midfield anchor of Skuse and Lee Johnson.

[cmonurz]

You've got to worry when the opposition are saying we should change our formation haven't you?

Adebola had good advice for third-placed Reading, whose players have not scored for five games — their winner against Wolves four weeks ago was an own goal.

Bristol City were way back in 18th spot in November and Adebola said: ‘Early on when we played the top teams, we weren’t coming away with too many points — but then we changed our tactics, and now we have only second-placed Birmingham left to play out of the big guns.

‘We change our formation according to what the opposition will bring to us.’

That is why leading scorer Nicky Maynard was left on the substitutes’ bench even though City had been thumped 4-1 by Reading at Ashton Gate three months ago.

Reading are too easy to read with their direct balls down the channels and they were easily picked off by Bristol City’s dual midfield anchor of Skuse and Lee Johnson.

This is quite revolutionary. Coppell should take note.

[Sun Tzu]

This is quite revolutionary. Coppell should take note.

Not as easy as it sounds though. If everyone changed their formation according to how they thought the opposition might play then you would never get a team set up properly. How do you line up against a team who you suspect will be playing to counter the way they think you may have changed your formation based on the way they played last week ?

There is also merit in saying ' we play our way - you try and stop us' rather than 'we'll stop you and then see what we can get out of it'. Obviously the two don't need to be entirely mutually exclusive.

The Forest game will be very interesting !

[cmonurz]

This is quite revolutionary. Coppell should take note.

Not as easy as it sounds though. If everyone changed their formation according to how they thought the opposition might play then you would never get a team set up properly. How do you line up against a team who you suspect will be playing to counter the way they think you may have changed your formation based on the way they played last week ?

You build the flexibility into the team to adapt to different ways of playing.

[Sun Tzu]

This is quite revolutionary. Coppell should take note.

Not as easy as it sounds though. If everyone changed their formation according to how they thought the opposition might play then you would never get a team set up properly. How do you line up against a team who you suspect will be playing to counter the way they think you may have changed your formation based on the way they played last week ?

You build the flexibility into the team to adapt to different ways of playing.

Coppell used to speak at how his philosophy was to have intelligent players who could read the game and adjust things to suit circumstances rather than him give them fixed plans to work to.

I wonder if he's changed his philosophy or whether modern players aren't smart enough...