4-5-1 (1 Viewer)

Sick of playing one up front. So frustrating, especially when at home against a team like Colchester. I know we weren't blessed with an array of fantastic forwards to choose from tonight, but I'd have gone with a straight 4-4-2 from the start with Wilson or even Moussa/Fleck/McSheff as an out-&-out striker.

4-5-1 seems to be the formation of choice these days though. It's not a dig at Pressley, as Robins & Carsley played it exactly the same, I just think we could be a little more adventurous sometimes.

Plenty of nice passing again, not enough conviction.
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
I see it as 4-2-3-1 and if we could keep a clean sheet would not be a problem
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Just to let you know, playing 2 strikers doesn't necessarily make you more attacking. Exhibit A, we've scored more than 3 goals more often playing 1 upfront than 2 upfront.

Cody was shit whilst in a 4-4-2, next game, if Clarke isn't fit for Saturday, I'd play Wilson on his own, tried to link up with Cody, but Cody was too static and was shit.

Sick of having this argument/'debate', we are suited to 4-5-1 and not 4-4-2 and I'll say this, there's a reason 1 striker formations are in the vogue now!
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
I think 4-5-1 is different to 4-2-3-1 as it chops into a 4-3-3 when attacking which the 2 doesn't go into a flat 3. The clean sheets thing or lack of it was thepoint I was making and that 1 or 2 up front maies no real difference to that. We are scoring plenty and creating numerous opportunities.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
<br />
<br />

Just a posh modern way of saying 4-5-1!

We're not keeping clean sheets though are we?

Cody looked so isolated at times

Same when we played 4-4-2, because he isolates himself by being too static, Wilson tried to flick it on to him, but he had no umph about him.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top