4-2-3-1 formation

Quoted from Meza

Whats wrong with 4-3-1-2 we get both Bogle and Amond up top and Arnold as no.10

Whats wrong with   2 -  3 -  5  ?

It worked in the old days before Alf Ramsey changed it.

Quoted from Meza

Whats wrong with 4-3-1-2 we get both Bogle and Amond up top and Arnold as no.10

Clay, Monkhouse and Dizza aren't the most mobile of midfield threes.

Quoted from mariner91

Clay, Monkhouse and Dizza aren't the most mobile of midfield threes.

I still think East could play midfield.

Quoted from grimsby pete

I still think East could play midfield.

I think you're right but we'd need him playing at left back if we played 4-3-1-2 as Gregor wouldn't be able to get forward quickly enough or often enough to offer any width.

To quote the great man in full.

'Players lose you games,not tactics.Theres so much crap talked about tactics, by people who barely know how to win a game of dominoes .' Discuss.

Personally I think whatever formation we play, it has to have Nathan Arnold in a central role.  As good as he is out on the wing, he's wasted there.  

Even against Lincoln when he was asked to do a more defensive role than you would expect of him, he was unplayable at times through the middle.  

I'm not really a bit advocate of changing formations for the sake of changing formations but I'm not convinced 4-4-2 is the best formation for us.  Which sounds daft when you look at the number of wingers we've got but two of those (Monkhouse and Arnold) aren't wingers for me and another (Mackreth) doesn't offer enough in that role.  

How you fit that into a formation, god knows.   Our attacking prowess needs to be our focus for me so just lob all the attackers in the team and let them work it out themselves.  

Quoted from friskneymariner

To quote the great man in full.

'Players lose you games,not tactics.Theres so much crap talked about tactics, by people who barely know how to win a game of dominoes .' Discuss.

Nah.  Maybe then, not now.  

The success of Jose Mourinho proves the value of tactics.   Even Chelsea without Mourinho when they won the Champs League, shouldn't have even got to the semi's but tactically they were better than the other teams.  Element of lady luck too, of course.

How many times have we seen 'lesser' teams come to Blundell Park and grab a draw/win because tactically they were better than us?

Quoted from diehardmariner

Nah.  Maybe then, not now.  

The success of Jose Mourinho proves the value of tactics.   Even Chelsea without Mourinho when they won the Champs League, shouldn't have even got to the semi's but tactically they were better than the other teams.  Element of lady luck too, of course.

How many times have we seen 'lesser' teams come to Blundell Park and grab a draw/win because tactically they were better than us?

I was just about to put almost exactly this. Tactics are very important in the modern game. Look at Real Madrid during the Galacticos period. On paper, probably the best team that's ever existed but in reality not all that.

Quoted from mariner91

I was just about to put almost exactly this. Tactics are very important in the modern game. Look at Real Madrid during the Galacticos period. On paper, probably the best team that's ever existed but in reality not all that.

Sorry can't resist another of his quotes, ' football is a game played on grass not paper'

Another gem 'on his day is in the best player in the league,unfortunately that day is never a Saturday.'

Quoted from friskneymariner

Sorry can't resist another of his quotes, ' football is a game played on grass not paper'

Another gem 'on his day is in the best player in the league,unfortunately that day is never a Saturday.'

Which actually goes to show that the quote about players losing games is wrong. If it was just down to the players then generally the team with the better players would win but this isn't the case. I know there are other factors involved but tactics are very important.