why do people insist on playing a 4-4-2....we clearly dont play well using this formation, you cant just say play 4-4-2 at home if we suck at it which we do. we haven't won a game using this formation. i for one am fed up with people going on about this, for f***k sake changing to this formation won't magically turn us into an amazing brazilian attacking team. stick to what has worked for us and that's five accross the middle with cowie and imrie supporting and vigurs and black pulling the strings.

i know a lot of people will disagree with me but the evidence so far shows that we suit the 4-5-1 much better.

Edited December 17, 200817 yr by CaleyP

why do people insist on playing a 4-4-2....we clearly dont play well using this formation, you cant just say play 4-4-2 at home if we suck at it which we do. we haven't won a game using this formation. i for one am fed up with people going on about this, for f***k sake changing to this formation won't magically turn us into an amazing brazilian attacking team. stick to what has worked for us and that's five accross the middle with cowie and imrie supporting and vigurs and black pulling the strings.

i know a lot of people will disagree with me but the evidence so far shows that we suit the 4-5-1 much better.

:thumb04: :018:

Evidence please.

We only ever went 4-5-1 after Brewster came back. We won many games before that and always played 4-4-2 both home and away.

I think he should try 3-5-2 next, there'd be a shedload of goals either way.

i know a lot of people will disagree with me but the evidence so far shows that we suit the 4-5-1 much better.

You're quite right. Four home wins for all of 2008 shows that 4 - 5 - 1 is working a treat!

It's a fair point except that when we resort to Plan B (hoof and hope) 4-5-1 is even less likely to be effective than 4-4-2, as witnessed by the DU game when Barrowman got on the end of nothing whereas when Wood was on with Rooney he did at least manage to get on the end of a few. (Accepting of course that Wood is better at this than Barrowman anyway.)

It's not so much the formation, as the way we play it. How many quick or short balls from the keeper do we play in a match? Anywhere between 0 and 3 I would guess. And how long do we stick to Plan A (pass it around) for?

I think the biggest problem in playing 4-5-1 is that Brew puts such an emphasis on flooding the midfield that our own midfield gets bogged down in crowded areas.

4-4-2 if used properly by a manager that knows what he's doing has worked beautifully for us for most of ICT's short life...

Edited December 17, 200817 yr by Jay_7

I think any kind of hoofing up with us has been pretty poor as we don't seem to really think about where we are hoofing it. Least when Bobby Mann did it it was done with a degree of direction.

...plus we are not good at winning the second ball.

...plus we are not good at winning the second ball.

Especially when we punt it up to one man who knocks it down to...well...no one really as nobody is supporting him

It's 2-3-5 we need!

Stoichkovs 2 - 4 - 4 formation might be an idea

I remember playing a very effective 1-1-8 formation at Fraser Park many years ago.

Unfortunately we got humped 12-9!

Plenty goals though.

As others have said, it's not so much what formation we play but the manner we play it and which players we put in.

With a 4-4-2 we often end up with the midfield playing so deep that one (or both) forwards end up having to drop so deep to get the ball that we'd be as well playing 4-5-1, and when playing a 4-5-1 we've not got players like Vigurs and Cowie playing in the right place to be allowing them to push forward and support. Vigurs is probably our most creative attacking midfielder at the moment and he's found himself being played in a holding/defensive midfield role more often than not.

On the few occasions I've watched us this year I've spotted another trend....schoolboy football, the one where everyone chases the ball and you could throw 15 yard circle around 8 or 9 players at any given moment!!!

I think we do have the players to be able to play either/any formation more effectively than we have been doing, it's just we're not using the right players at the right time or making best use of them.

As others have said, it's not so much what formation we play but the manner we play it and which players we put in.

With a 4-4-2 we often end up with the midfield playing so deep that one (or both) forwards end up having to drop so deep to get the ball that we'd be as well playing 4-5-1, and when playing a 4-5-1 we've not got players like Vigurs and Cowie playing in the right place to be allowing them to push forward and support. Vigurs is probably our most creative attacking midfielder at the moment and he's found himself being played in a holding/defensive midfield role more often than not.

On the few occasions I've watched us this year I've spotted another trend....schoolboy football, the one where everyone chases the ball and you could throw 15 yard circle around 8 or 9 players at any given moment!!!

I think we do have the players to be able to play either/any formation more effectively than we have been doing, it's just we're not using the right players at the right time or making best use of them.

This, to me, is when the manager/assistant should be screaming from the touchline to sort it out and maybe therein hangs a tale!!

Anyway, tactics for Saturday! Why can we not just adopt the tactics we used at Parkhead? Ball on the deck, quick passing, running off the defender, it was all there to see, so we can do it!

I would also like to see our player slinging the ball across, having the guts to carry it another, say, 10 yards to have the maximum effect. A cross from 20/25 yards out is easily dealt with by the defence or keeper as they have time to take action but coming in from nearer the bye line is a different matter. Players getting in each others way having been turned, now facing their own goal....panic! It is not by chance that Man Utd make for the bye line so often and cross back towards the penalty spot - defence confused, possible tap in goal.

To sum up - no big punt out of defence to Diamond & Co unless one on one - attack down wings using short sharp passing - feed forwards from bye line - and last, feed Sone to Rossco!! Brew your job is easy!

Does this now qualify me as an armchair manager?

If Rossco is playing he will get absolutely roasted by Aluko. He has done so in the past and unless Tokely is at the top of his game I can see a similar outcome again.

If Rossco is playing he will get absolutely roasted by Aluko. He has done so in the past and unless Tokely is at the top of his game I can see a similar outcome again.

aye the orange one focuses his tactics on overloading their left flank to expose tokely who he views our weakest link.hope ross gets it right up him and plays a blinder

why do people insist on playing a 4-4-2....we clearly dont play well using this formation, you cant just say play 4-4-2 at home if we suck at it which we do. we haven't won a game using this formation. i for one am fed up with people going on about this, for f***k sake changing to this formation won't magically turn us into an amazing brazilian attacking team. stick to what has worked for us and that's five accross the middle with cowie and imrie supporting and vigurs and black pulling the strings.

i know a lot of people will disagree with me but the evidence so far shows that we suit the 4-5-1 much better.

:thumb04: :018:

Evidence please.

we haven't won one game using the 4-4-2 formation. anymore evidence required? all the games we have won have been won when using the 4-5-1 system. as long as our defenders don't resort to punting the ball up the park we are an effective team in this formation.

If we actually had a manger capable of picking the right playrs first then the tactics might come in to it. Playing a 4-5-1 against Dundee Utd was stupid especially with Barrowman bein the 1. I think Luca Toni and Didier Drogba would have struggled to win a header against Kenneth and Wilkie never mind our star studded strikeforce

If we actually had a manger capable of picking the right playrs first then the tactics might come in to it. Playing a 4-5-1 against Dundee Utd was stupid especially with Barrowman bein the 1. I think Luca Toni and Didier Drogba would have struggled to win a header against Kenneth and Wilkie never mind our star studded strikeforce

haha well possibly not, but i get what you mean.

In a 4-5-1 formation the ball doesn't have to be played through the air to the lone striker it can be played along the deck to him so he can hold the ball up until his midfield gets in place to recieve a pass , hardly rocket science . We should try it sometime .

we haven't won one game using the 4-4-2 formation. anymore evidence required? all the games we have won have been won when using the 4-5-1 system. as long as our defenders don't resort to punting the ball up the park we are an effective team in this formation.

Perhaps you should make it clear you are referring to THIS SEASON. As others have said, we have played 4-4-2 for much of our short history and it has served us pretty well. we have certainly won a damn site more games using that formation than any other over the years.

I guess the big difference might be who was actually formulating the tactics ..... if the person talking tactics doesnt know how to play 4-4-2 then there is no point using it !!!

As for the punt - I agree with you 100%. ICT have ALWAYS been a better team when playing the ball on the deck and that is regardless of 442, 451, 352 or any other combination you might want to mention.

we haven't won one game using the 4-4-2 formation. anymore evidence required? all the games we have won have been won when using the 4-5-1 system. as long as our defenders don't resort to punting the ball up the park we are an effective team in this formation.

Perhaps you should make it clear you are referring to THIS SEASON. As others have said, we have played 4-4-2 for much of our short history and it has served us pretty well. we have certainly won a damn site more games using that formation than any other over the years.

I guess the big difference might be who was actually formulating the tactics ..... if the person talking tactics doesnt know how to play 4-4-2 then there is no point using it !!!

As for the punt - I agree with you 100%. ICT have ALWAYS been a better team when playing the ball on the deck and that is regardless of 442, 451, 352 or any other combination you might want to mention.

yeah, sorry i am only referring this season. My point is brew doesn't know how to get our team working using a 4-4-2 so i can't understand why people want him to use this formation, he clearly doesn't have a clue how to use this formation to good effect. Your completely correct, it's down to the person formulating the tatics, and brew has proved he is pretty clueless in this department unfortunately. All im trying to say is we only seem to play well using the 4-5-1 under brew so we should stick to it.

If we get a manager in that has the ability to get us playing effective football using different formations then that's great, but under brew we don't have that luxury.

In a 4-5-1 formation the ball doesn't have to be played through the air to the lone striker it can be played along the deck to him so he can hold the ball up until his midfield gets in place to recieve a pass , hardly rocket science . We should try it sometime .

exactly. the defenders still punt the ball up in a 4-4-2. ultimately our problem is the punting up the field.

What amazes me is that our only home win all season was playing 4-4-1-1 with Dougie playing behind Barrowman aagainst Killie. Barrowman scored, Dougie was MoM and was the best we have played yet Brewster has not played that way since.

I think football can be made too complicated at times.

4-4-2 is the tried and tested successful formula. 4-4-2 has been the general success story now for over 40 years, I don't think football will find another level of progression.

The 3-5-2 was introduced as the next big thing circa early 90's but the big boys eventually dumped it. I don't care what anyone says regarding the 4-5-1 being non-negative if used properly, IT IS NEGATIVE AND DULL AND BORING.

IMO you cant beat a proper 4-4-2, with 2 widish midfielders a holder and a more offensive middle man and a striking partnership.

As I say football is simple, I remember reading comments from Jim MacLean (Dundee U) saying words to the effect that forget about all the fancy stuff, the vast majority of goals come from a cross from the wing and a header from the big striker !