4-4-2 or 4-3-3

[Royalee]

We'll be fine playing 4-3-3 when we've signed the players we're after, Marek's included and we've sent Kebe back to the circus where he belongs.

That a fact? if thats the case why hasnt marek been included already, and why would any circus want kebe.

Because he's been injured and hasn't proven himself to Rodgers yet, but he will. Actually clowns are supposed to be mildly amusing so I retract the circus comment about Kebe - he should be sent to jail instead for fraud.

[PREMIERSHIP_ROYAL]

We'll be fine playing 4-3-3 when we've signed the players we're after, Marek's included and we've sent Kebe back to the circus where he belongs.

So we need to sign more players to fit the new system that our current players can't? Is that why we're selling all our experienced players?

No we're doing that to line madejski's pockets. Can anyone tell me where that moneys gone?

[prostak]

No we're doing that to line madejski's pockets. Can anyone tell me where that moneys gone?

Can anyone tell me what time's the adult swim?

[Sarah Star]

OK, I've seen how we've changed from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3/4-5-1 and we seem better in midfield for it, but how does 3-5-2 work?

Also, if 4-3-3/4-5-1 needing a big guy up front and we get one in, what happens to all our more lightweight strikers?

[stl_royal]

ideally, i like the 433, just doesnt (as has been clearly said) work with our players at the moment. i think BR has the right idea just needs more to work with. i was struck by his comment on the official site about building over "the next two or three seasons". to me this shows we arent really gunning for promotion this year, but instead looking towards a strong bid next year after we evaluate and pick up some players that truly fit this system (ie a striker that can play the lone roll, and wide players who are more threatening than Jimmy Kebe).

that said i still think this squad can give some exciting football this year in this formation, just dont count on too much.

[starbug]

I vote we let the manager pick the formation.

[Ian Royal]

OK, I've seen how we've changed from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3/4-5-1 and we seem better in midfield for it, but how does 3-5-2 work?

Also, if 4-3-3/4-5-1 needing a big guy up front and we get one in, what happens to all our more lightweight strikers?

3-5-2 is probably more 5-3-2/3-5-2. It tends to be played with wing backs. We used to play this formation in the late 90s with Gilkes at left wing back.

Basically you either need very attacking fullbacks (murts could have done it in his younger days, Shorey might still manage) or wingers with strong defensive qualities.

It's quite easy to be caught out on the flank in a counter attack because your wing back has probably bombed forward. Three centrebacks. 3 central midfielders, one of which should be a goalscorer and two strikers.

//

The lightweight strikers in those circumstances are second choice, learn to play out wide or as attacking central midfielders, or go elsewhere.

You don't NEED a tall player to be the lone striker. But if they aren't tall and strong they need to be very quick and sit on the shulder of defenders timing their run to perfection.

IMO of course.

[Archies Volley II]

You don't NEED a tall player to be the lone striker. But if they aren't tall and strong they need to be very quick and sit on the shulder of defenders timing their run to perfection.

IMO of course.

Finally some sense on the lone striker idea.

From interviews this is also BR's opinion as he has stated he wants a lone striker to play on the the defenders shoulder and make runs in behind and that Long can do this (not convinced on the timing of his runs myself...)

This is because although we are playing one up front BR wants us to pass the ball through midfield (where our 3 should be able to work past their 2) and have one of the central carry the ball forwards to then release the lone striker.

Obviously, this has not actually worked yet in the league but it is what we are trying for.

It is very different to playing one up front and immediately hoofing it up to him as soon as we get it where you need a big strong lump to compete for the ball and hold it until others arrive - so as we are not trying to play the lone striker in this role we don't need this type of player in our current system.

Obviously, a Drogba type who is fast, can play on the shoulder, is strong, can compete for the ball and hold it up would be ideal for any system but they don't really come along that often!

[PEARCEY]

OK, I've seen how we've changed from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3/4-5-1 and we seem better in midfield for it, but how does 3-5-2 work?

Also, if 4-3-3/4-5-1 needing a big guy up front and we get one in, what happens to all our more lightweight strikers?

3-5-2 is probably more 5-3-2/3-5-2. It tends to be played with wing backs. We used to play this formation in the late 90s with Gilkes at left wing back.

Basically you either need very attacking fullbacks (murts could have done it in his younger days, Shorey might still manage) or wingers with strong defensive qualities.

It's quite easy to be caught out on the flank in a counter attack because your wing back has probably bombed forward. Three centrebacks. 3 central midfielders, one of which should be a goalscorer and two strikers.

//

The lightweight strikers in those circumstances are second choice, learn to play out wide or as attacking central midfielders, or go elsewhere.

You don't NEED a tall player to be the lone striker. But if they aren't tall and strong they need to be very quick and sit on the shulder of defenders timing their run to perfection.

IMO of course.

I agree with Ian on this. You dont have to be big to play in the lone striker role just look at how good Nicky Forster was. The trouble is none of our current strikers are either experienced/suited to playing like this. They end up getting isolated

[PEARCEY]

Ideal. Nicky Forster did a brilliant job 5/6 years ago as lone striker for our own club. His pace and constant running pulled opposition defenders all over the park.
Nicky Forster was and is not a big striker.

[Archies Volley II]

You don't NEED a tall player to be the lone striker. But if they aren't tall and strong they need to be very quick and sit on the shulder of defenders timing their run to perfection.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
This tactic has been the mainstay of Rosenborg and the Norway national side for decades now, and simply put - it doesn't work with a short guy up front.
The lone man has to have arial ability.
Seemingly you don't understand how this works. If you are defending in 4-5-1 and you manage to win the ball, at some point you'll want to play the ball up to your lone man up front in order to counter attack. This will be endlessly more successful if your guy is Jon Carew, Didier Drogba or even Bolton's Kevin Davies, rather than if he is someone like Shane Long or Filippo Inzaghi.
The reason combative strength and the ability to win the important challenges both in the air and on physical basis just holding off the defender is so important, is that when you are playing only one man up front this leaves two central defenders with only one man to take care of.
Basicly you want your midfield to consist of one DMC and two AMC's who can come on forward runs, receive the ball from a headed down pass from your big striker, and shoot the ball towards goal, or pass it to someone else who is in a good position to shoot the ball at goal.
It is real simple, but you DO definately need the big man up front to win the arial battle if you are playing the single man, if not you will not achieve anything using this tactic.

If you don't have the big man up front you will be backed up in your own half unable to really bring anything forward, and not creating many chances as you will then only be able to rely on the accuracy of the through ball, and this is more often than not unsuccessful, and it will be endlessly frustrating to watch.

No - you are wrong!

What you are describing is the situtation if you play the ball forwards from the back to the striker directly - BR wants Reading to pass the ball from defence through midfield to the striker, mostly along the floor, so pace and ability to make decent runs are what the striker needs in our system - whether you argee with these tatctics or beleive any of our current strikers can make such runs is another matter.........

[Archies Volley II]

How many goals are scored from the centre of midfield? I can tell you that is not very many. It would be an endlessly ineffective tactic, and if that is our intention I can only predict we will finish in the lower half of the table.
It's also very easy to predict that Shane Long won't have much to work with and we'll not produce very many chances this way.

Eh?

Your tactic involves long ball to big target man who heads it down to attacking central midfielder who then runs at defence with hope of either going alone or releasing either of 2 wide players or big target man if he is mobile enough.

BR's involves passing through defensive central midefielders to attacking central midfielder who then runs at defence with hope of either going alone or releasing either of 2 wide players or fast on the shoulder striker who is hopefully pulling the central defenders out of position (as Forster used to do - see Pearceys post above).

Both aim for the same outcome - yours needs a big man - ours needs good passing.

[marcusopp]

4-4-2 at the mo, suits our players better. We've still got coppells squad, and that's a 4-4-2 squad.
Players like Kebe are at their best isolating full-backs down the line and whipping in crosses for hunt and long (hopefully dave mooney too).
Before we worry about formation, BR has got to stop being stubborn and play some more experienced players in the midfield. If you are going 4-3-3, then at least pllay harper, matejovski and cisse in their. There's no way those three would have been bullied like our 15 year olds who were on saturday.
Also, why have we paid £2m for Mills and not playing him?

[Archies Volley II]

4-4-2 at the mo, suits our players better. We've still got coppells squad, and that's a 4-4-2 squad.
Players like Kebe are at their best isolating full-backs down the line and whipping in crosses for hunt and long (hopefully dave mooney too).
Before we worry about formation, BR has got to stop being stubborn and play some more experienced players in the midfield. If you are going 4-3-3, then at least pllay harper, matejovski and cisse in their. There's no way those three would have been bullied like our 15 year olds who were on saturday.
Also, why have we paid £2m for Mills and not playing him?

As BR has said in interview he does not consider Harper, Marek or Mills ready for starting positions in the league due to the amount of pre-season all 3 missed.

If you want to argue that they are fit enough as they played in the cup then fine - but please don't say he is being stubborn about youth over experience in the case of Harper, Marek and Mills.

Why he doesn't play the experience of Gunnar is a valid question.....

[Sarah Star]

Thanks for that IR, AV, Pearcey and Ideal and everyone else. That discussion has cleared up my confusion and made me see there's more than one way of playing the system. Interesting.

[Archies Volley II]

Thanks for that IR, AV, Pearcey and Ideal and everyone else. That discussion has cleared up my confusion and made me see there's more than one way of playing the system. Interesting.

Whether we have picked the right one is the now the question

[Gordons Cumming]

2-3-5 anyone?

Would be interesting.............

[Archies Volley II]

Your tactic involves long ball to big target man who heads it down to attacking central midfielder who then runs at defence with hope of either going alone or releasing either of 2 wide players or big target man if he is mobile enough.

BR's involves passing through defensive central midefielders to attacking central midfielder who then runs at defence with hope of either going alone or releasing either of 2 wide players or fast on the shoulder striker who is hopefully pulling the central defenders out of position (as Forster used to do - see Pearceys post above).

Both aim for the same outcome - yours needs a big man - ours needs good passing.

It doesn't matter - we don't have players to perform either of your descriptions!
Our wingers couldn't pass water, it's that simple, Kebe is like a blind monkey searching for a banana in a swamp.
Our socalled defensive central midfielders, where on earth did you get the idea that we actually have a single one of those in our squad???
Well.. there is Gunnarsson of course, but he is about as fast as an injured snail, and has the stamina of Pete Doherty on a sunday morning.

I also don't agree that the tactic using Forster as a lone man was very successful. From what I remember people were very frustrated at the time, and the tactic was deployed out of pure desperation rather than wanting to play that way.
Interestingly I believe we had a desperate right-wing-problem then, too..chadwick on loan, Igoe.. which seems to equate fairly well with what we have now.
For strikers as far as I can remember we only really had Forster and Cureton, and Cureton was out of favour at the time, barey played. (From what I remember he only started like 10-12 matches..)
Honestly. If you rate this as "proof of success for 4-5-1 with a short striker", then you really are going down the wrong track.

People seem to have very short memories.

All I was trying to do was make the point that we are not playing a direct lone striker system so we don't have to have a big target man. I have never said "proof of sucuess" just an example that there are 2 ways (minimum!) of playing a 4-5-1 / 4-3-3 formation.

[Arch]

2-3-5 anyone?

Would be interesting.............

I was one of the 2 in that formation in primary school. Brutal!

[SteveRoyal]

Listening to the Swansea game yesterday, and reading a few reports, it sounds as if we might cope better with a 4-4-2 diamond...