4-5-1

[Renegade]

Does anyone else feel that the 4-5-1/4-2-3-1 thing has run it's course? Personally I think it has. Despite the recent successes on the pitch for ICT, I feel that for the final push for the title, something fresher and more attacking has to brought out. (Remember the last time ICT won it, Robbo commonly used the 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 that season). Does anyone else feel it's time for a change, and if so what?

Edited April 5, 2010 by Renegade

[DornochCaley]

Sorry Renegade, but i can't agree. I would like to see it change. But i would also like to see Inverness win the UCL, its not going to happen. Changing it now could also have bad effects.

[tokelyisvictorious]

Well it seems to have worked so far.... Our success stems from when Butcher settled on a regular team, and a regular formation (4-5-1 turning to 4-3-3 with Foran and Hayes pushing up when necessary).

Why change something when it aint broke.

[Renegade]

Sorry Renegade, but i can't agree. I would like to see it change. But i would also like to see Inverness win the UCL, its not going to happen. Changing it now could also have bad effects.

Of course, if that was to happen, it could always be changed back.

Why change something when it aint broke.

I don't always go along with that range of thinking. Just because something isn't "broken", doesn't mean that something shouldn't change. It's really all a natural part of evolution. Look at it this way, in the olden days people used wagons pulled by horses to get their goods from place to place. It did the job, but when the lorry came, the wagon was stopped being used. Not necessarily because of it being "broken", but the fact that something better came along, it was time to move on and use something else.

And so it is with this. At times, the 4-2-3-1 formation being used by ICT is seen to be ineffective. Rooney at times is ineffective due to being completely isolated and a lack of support. I read an article a couple of weeks ago about Johan Cryuff (who obviously played and managered using a straight 4-3-3). I recollect him saying that in the 4-5-1 if the striker gets the ball, who does he pass to? And it's the case here. I've seen Rooney pick up the ball many times and lose possession, by no fault of his own, rather via a lack of support. This formation has been used by ICT up until now, but it's time to go out and win this league through courage, attack and determination to score as many goals as possible. That isn't as possible to do, using this formation. It's time for a change.

[CaleyD]

Remind me again Renegade, what are your views regarding Butcher making changes to things at the end of last season?

[Renegade]

That's an apples and oranges scenario. There's a bit of difference in the shape a team are fielded in and playing Pavels Mihadjuks out of position. Say a 4-4-2 was played against Morton in the next game, and in the first half it clearly wasn't working, then of course, as I said earlier, a formational switch could be made to something that the team feels more familiar and comfortable with. After all, there's still something like four or five games left of the season. Comparing a belief that a formation has run it's course with four or five games to go, and the incident of puting a centre-half in at right back for the most important game of last season, are two very different things.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Renegade

[CaleyD]

OK, so making changes are perfectly acceptable if you suggest or agree with them and they work, but if the manager...a man infinitely more qualified and better placed to make the decision than you...makes changes as he sees fit then he is wrong and open to your relentless criticism......glad that's been cleared up, thanks.

[Harry Chibber]

Does anyone else feel that the 4-5-1/4-2-3-1 thing has run it's course? Personally I think it has. Despite the recent successes on the pitch for ICT, I feel that for the final push for the title, something fresher and more attacking has to brought out. (Remember the last time ICT won it, Robbo commonly used the 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 that season). Does anyone else feel it's time for a change, and if so what?

you're funny :tonguecheek:

[TopSix]

OK, so making changes are perfectly acceptable if you suggest or agree with them and they work, but if the manager...a man infinitely more qualified and better placed to make the decision than you...makes changes as he sees fit then he is wrong and open to your relentless criticism......glad that's been cleared up, thanks.

Telt. :tonguecheek:

[Johnboy]

I don't always go along with that range of thinking. Just because something isn't "broken", doesn't mean that something shouldn't change. It's really all a natural part of evolution. Look at it this way, in the olden days people used wagons pulled by horses to get their goods from place to place. It did the job, but when the lorry came, the wagon was stopped being used. Not necessarily because of it being "broken", but the fact that something better came along, it was time to move on and use something else.

:tonguecheek:

[KennySim93]

I don't think we should change anything. We're winning games aren't we? That should be enough!

[cal234ey]

Using it we have gone on a run of 16 games unbeaten that has taken us to top of the league. Originally it took the players time to adjust but this formation seems to work i think we should stick with it.

[+Tree]

:huh:

[Wilsononourwing]

Its a system that suits our style of play and one the players are evidently comfortable with!

[Hearach]

I see where you are coming from Renegade. We are 16 games unbeaten, top of the league with the best goal difference by far. F*ck me. We had better change it cos it is obviously not working! :huh:

[tokelyisvictorious]

If it turns out that we feck it up in the next couple of games, and then we really need to go for it, we should change to a 4-3-3. At the minute we are playing cracking football, and look the most comfortable team in the league.

[Scotty]

I see where you are coming from Renegade. We are 16 games unbeaten, top of the league with the best goal difference by far. F*ck me. We had better change it cos it is obviously not working! :huh:

I am firmly in the "if it aint broke dont fix it" camp too ...... 4-2-3-1 may not be the most orthodox formation, and it may not be easy on the lone striker for much of the game but in our case it is working and that striker - the division's top scorer by a country mile - is not suffering too much as it is easily adaptable for the attacking players to get up and support him.

If we were actually losing games or not scoring goals then maybe you might have a point Renegade but quite frankly this suggestion seems ludicrous in the extreme as we go into the last 5 games especially as we all know that it takes time for players to get to grips with any new formation or system.

[Joe DiMaggio]

I think you should tell Butcher the wagon story Renegade. I'm sure he wouldn't have thought of it like that...

[starchief]

I think it's the best system for out current crop of players. Our best central midfielders are all defensive. We have no traditional left-winger, except Eagle. Foran is more of a left-sided attacking-mid-***-striker* rather than winger. We've no central attacking mid, so have to play more lightweight players in there, like Sanchez or Odi, hence the further need for two defensive mids. But that also allows that mid attacker to get up more.

If we switched to 4-4-2, I don't think Foran would have the ability to play that left-mid position so effectively. He's far more a forward than midfielder or winger. I also don't think we have the passers in midfield either. Proctor, Duncan and Cox would be winning the ball but struggling after that. McBain could come in but I think his time is passed. This would be made even worse in 4-3-3.

Aside from teams that we might be playing for a draw against (I know we shouldn't be doing that currently but if it comes down to us only needing a draw in a tough match - maybe then), the only change I could think of would be going to a 4-1-3-2 system. Then I'd rather Foran up front than Eric, with the left-attacking-mid being taken up by Eagle or DZ. But, at the moment, it's stick to 4-2-3-1, especially away.

*ok, then mid-come-striker - by the way is hare's-tail cotton grass out yet? Y'know, Eriopherum vaginatum? Let's see if that makes it through.

Edited April 6, 2010 by starchief

[DornochCaley]

Sorry Renegade, but i can't agree. I would like to see it change. But i would also like to see Inverness win the UCL, its not going to happen. Changing it now could also have bad effects.

Of course, if that was to happen, it could always be changed back.

Yes, we could. But we are at a stage were we can't afford to drop point. This is not the time of the season to be testing out formations.

[MabawswaRichie]

I think we should play a 3-5-2 with Lionel as the left centre back and we should re-sign Kevin Byers and Darran Thomson.

[Harry Chibber]

I think we should play a 3-5-2 with Lionel as the left centre back and we should re-sign Kevin Byers and Darran Thomson.

what about 2-3-5?? I've heard that used to work in 1854

What you got against Byers??? he was a cracking player for us... his goal against Morton will forever live in my memory.

[BornCaley]

If it works keep it, but dont get complacent. Butcher can easily change to 4-4-2 or a straight 4-5-1 if the game dictates.

like the camera, 16 games unbeaten dont lie

[MabawswaRichie]

what about 2-3-5?? I've heard that used to work in 1854

What you got against Byers??? he was a cracking player for us... his goal against Morton will forever live in my memory.

The only thing good about Kevin Byers is his looks.

[Scotty]

I think we should play a 3-5-2 with Lionel as the left centre back and we should re-sign Kevin Byers and Darran Thomson.

you forgot Vetle Anderson