by AlexY25 » 31 Oct 2008 00:16
by Avon Royal » 31 Oct 2008 08:10
AlexY25 We've used the 4-4-2 for a long time.
Maybe were too predictable, so a change in formation could be good.
I wouldn't mind seeing a 4-3-3, just to try and balance it out, having 3 central midfielders could make us more heavyweight.
Coppell probably wont change the formation but i would love to see it against brizzle, just to see if it changed our away form at all.
by Royal With Cheese » 31 Oct 2008 09:06
Avon Royal If we start pissing around against city they will murder us.
by Negative_Jeff » 31 Oct 2008 10:58
by Sun Tzu » 31 Oct 2008 12:40
AlexY25
I wouldn't mind seeing a 4-3-3, just to try and balance it out, having 3 central midfielders could make us more heavyweight.
by gods a reading fan » 31 Oct 2008 13:14
by rg6royal » 31 Oct 2008 13:18
gods a reading fan think it could be a good idea, my team for it would be:
USA
liam ingi BK strech
bryn
marek harps
kebe shunt
doyle
i guess it would mean in defence it's a 4-5-1, but in attack it's a 4-3-3, the only problem with this is often we'll be stuck with only doyle being the option when there's a cross into the box, untill the winger who doesn't have possesion makes a run to the far post. If we play anything like we did last game i can't see this working as it will be the same story of chances not being taken but i think it's worth taking the risk for. whatever coppell decides though i trust will be correct
by gods a reading fan » 31 Oct 2008 13:33
by Baines » 31 Oct 2008 18:13
by SCIAG » 31 Oct 2008 19:54
Baines I think that, as long as have Kebe and Hunt, we would do better to make 4-4-2 work by settling on a central midfield pairing who develop an understanding and can do the job so as to win the ball, get it out wide and then put it in the box for Doyle. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that in the championship.
Our players are better than most in this division - we don't need Champ man tinkering, we need stability.
by Negative_Jeff » 03 Nov 2008 09:37
Negative_Jeff Almost any other formation apart from 4-5-1 (4-3-3) means relying more on the full backs to provide width going forward. I`m not sure Armstrong is up to this.
Sooner or later a system will need to be found to accomodate Matejovsky or discard him. A bit like Modric at Tottenham, I don`t think he can play in a hectic English style 4-4-2. Redknapp has already worked this out,and has a slightly more flexible approach to these things than Coppell.
by Baines » 03 Nov 2008 11:28
Negative_JeffNegative_Jeff Almost any other formation apart from 4-5-1 (4-3-3) means relying more on the full backs to provide width going forward. I`m not sure Armstrong is up to this.
Sooner or later a system will need to be found to accomodate Matejovsky or discard him. A bit like Modric at Tottenham, I don`t think he can play in a hectic English style 4-4-2. Redknapp has already worked this out,and has a slightly more flexible approach to these things than Coppell.
I refer to my comments above and note that Coppell did indeed change the formation to 4-5-1 with the introduction of Matejovsky at Brizzle. Perhaps he has a more flexible apprach than I thought.
Did anyone notice that clever round the corner pass from Marek in front of the away support? A quality player without a doubt.
by Negative_Jeff » 03 Nov 2008 11:39
Users browsing this forum: Armadillo Roadkill, Google [Bot], Horsham Royal, Lower West, WestYorksRoyal and 290 guests