Hopefully this wont become a pro/anti Hurst discussion....

I've noticed that about half of the premiership teams are now adopting a 4-2-3-1 formation, noticeably the more dominant teams, and was wondering if this would work for us ?

Quoted from Harry Haddock

Hopefully this wont become a pro/anti Hurst discussion....

I've noticed that about half of the premiership teams are now adopting a 4-2-3-1 formation, noticeably the more dominant teams, and was wondering if this would work for us ?

I see what you have done there dropped Mckeown and reasoned that we played well with 10 men against Lincoln so this formation could work?

I doubt we'd have played so well without Mckeown :)

I have outlined a few possibilities in my article on the home page; if we did play one up top, we would need to drop amond, which is a waste of a talent. However I'm for a change in formation as it makes us more unpredictable...

I think a 4-2-3-1 would quickly become a 4-5-1 as I'm not sure we've got the legs in central midfield to allow the wide two to stay further forward. We'd get overrun.

Tait and East would be perfect in that formation as they bomb up and down all day.

I think those types of formation are always designed to be 4-5-1 when defending anyway and definitely suit more counter-attacking teams.  

Quoted from diehardmariner

Tait and East would be perfect in that formation as they bomb up and down all day.

I think those types of formation are always designed to be 4-5-1 when defending anyway and definitely suit more counter-attacking teams.  

I don't think counter-attacking is the way to go though. Makes it too easy for teams to come here and get a draw. Certainly at home, we've got to be taking the game to the opposition and dominating them not waiting to hit them on the counter attack.

Suitable formation if you've got two good holding midfielders - we haven't got one!

4-4-2 For me.

Quoted from grimsby pete

4-4-2 For me.

I would go for 4-4-3 but I don't thing we will getaway with it.   ;D ;D ;D

Quoted from MARINERSMAN22

if we did play one up top, we would need to drop amond,.

Why?

Quoted from Grantham_Mariner

I would go for 4-4-3 but I don't thing we will getaway with it.   ;D ;D ;D

I think some refs wouldn't notice

Well assuming Bogle is first choice...then Amond would be dropped as 4-2-3-1 allows for ONE striker, with a CAM (I'd have Monkhouse), flanked by two wingers (Marshall and Arnold)...I think this would work well. With Clay and Disley in the hole, they have the ability to retain and control play (I agree they might not have the legs, but they certainly have the ability, and we can always bring on a fresh set of legs). The defense in this scenario would probably require Tait and East as full backs as we would need quicker LB/RB to cater for the greater push up front....But you could certainly get away with having Pearson and Gowling/Toto - as they do not need to be as quick...

Arnold maybe better suited in the No. 10 role but it means playing only one of Bogle or Amond out.

With the athletic ability offered by Tait and East you could play Monkhouse up top with Bogle and Amond behind him at home keeping it narrow. Arnold staying central of the three too would make for a very attacking team.

Away from home it needs setting up more like a 4-51 on the defensive side of things I agree.

Keep repeating, tactics don't win matches players do.

4231 just says we are to scared we'll lose we'll play for the draw by packing the midfield try to steal the ball and hit on the counter and hope we win, but at least we didn't lose guys

4-2-3-1? Nah, let's go with El Tel's 'Christmas Tree' formation: 4-3-2-1

Bogle up front with Arnold/Amond and Marshall running in behind him. Or, for that matter, stick Pittman up top (as he's probably strongest in the air of all our forwards) and play Bogle and A.N. Other off him.

Problem remains that our midfield 3 (whoever they would be) probably wouldn't have the mobility to do the job properly.
Attempts to play 4-3-3 in the Shorty/Shouty era failed similarly because the midfield was never good enough to cover all the ground.

I think the defensive options we have would probably allow us to play 3-5-2 which is a decent difference to the usual 4-4-2 but it would mean not being able to use any of our wingers.

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

Oh and monkhouse in the centre with Diz and Clay and East on left Tait on the right

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.

433 for me.

Mckeown
Robertson
Pearson
Gowling
Tait
Disley
Clay
Arnold
Monkhouse
Bogle
Amond

East for Disley when he needs a rest
Or
East for Amond with Arnold moving up top and East in midfield for his energy.

Whatever formation Shorty comes up with Monkhouse needs to play regularly. He has a good effect on the team. Arnold is also v important.

Quoted from MARINERSMAN22

Well assuming Bogle is first choice...then Amond would be dropped

You too huh? Are you Hurst in disguise?

Hahaha, maybe...if I was Hurst I would certainly not have not played Monkhouse (I hope that makes sense)...maybe I am Hurst but was replaced by an alien in the final last season...duh duh duh....that explains it.......maybe not :P

anyway, I certainly think there is something to be gained by tactics as managers like Richard Hill do not really use them, so we would gain an advantage over them (AGAIN!!(sorry couldn' resist))