A flexible 4-4-2 could work, plenty of teams run this as a defensive shape but in attack it’s a bit of a free-for-all with players attacking ‘space’ rather than positional play.
In practice, you could run something like:
1) Rudoni-Eccles-Sheaf-Wright
Here you would have Rudoni as a RM who would float into AM channels and either a striker or Eccles would fill in that spot. Likewise, Wright would have freedom on the LW to change with BTA (for example).
2) Eccles-Sheaf-Rudoni-Wright
Eccles acting as a pivot at RM for MVE on the overlap. Rudoni centrally to be a ball carrier and when attacking, Eccles shifts over for him and Sheaf to cover defensively.
3) Sakamoto-Eccles-Sheaf-Rudoni
2 of Wright, BTA and Simms upfront and the idea would be for Rudoni to have a free role and one of BTA/Wright being interchangeable.
For all of my amateur brainstorming, it is effectively tinkering with the same system and it does require ball carrying in midfield and being quick in attack. So the issue isn’t so much what formation we play, it’s the personnel and we need the players to attack with purpose and be willing to take risks. As things stand, they’re either incapable of executing this style or unwilling to do it.