4-5-1 at home

[breachofthepeace]

I found myself annoyed yet again at this formation at home. Away it works really well for us and the results are evident.

At home it is fast becoming a joke, what made it unbearable yesterday was the fact the formation should have been changed to 4-4-2 immediately when we went one down, continuing to play this formation after that is naive, stupid, pointless and verging on tactically unforgiveable.

Re Barrowman as the front man it just doesn't work, on the few occassions he got the ball passed in low to him he did much better but the high punts go right passed him, especially with the likes of Wilkie. If insisting on this tactic Wood is much better at holding the ball up than any other player we have.

4-4-2 at home please - you know it makes sense

[Guest Spectre]

I found myself annoyed yet again at this formation at home. Away it works really well for us and the results are evident.

At home it is fast becoming a joke, what made it unbearable yesterday was the fact the formation should have been changed to 4-4-2 immediately when we went one down, continuing to play this formation after that is naive, stupid, pointless and verging on tactically unforgiveable.

Re Barrowman as the front man it just doesn't work, on the few occassions he got the ball passed in low to him he did much better but the high punts go right passed him, especially with the likes of Wilkie. If insisting on this tactic Wood is much better at holding the ball up than any other player we have.

4-4-2 at home please - you know it makes sense

Well I agree with the sentiments but to be fair we did go 4-4-2 fairly soon after conceding ... and then conceded two more!

[starchief]

It depends how it's played. If we have Cowie and Imrie pushed right up on the wings and Vigurs as attacking midfielder, then that would provide the chances for a goal hanger. At the moment though, Cowie and Imrie are cutting back to play inside with no clear attacking midfield, i.e. everything going through the centre. Pretty pointless.

[rossfm]

It depends how it's played. If we have Cowie and Imrie pushed right up on the wings and Vigurs as attacking midfielder, then that would provide the chances for a goal hanger. At the moment though, Cowie and Imrie are cutting back to play inside with no clear attacking midfield, i.e. everything going through the centre. Pretty pointless.

I agree, Dundee Utd Played 4-5-1 but their wide players hogged the touchline and put in plenty of good crosses in. Alot on the forum have pointed out why Vigurs played the holding role and Duncan further forward, and why not the other way round? Vigurs is not as good at breaking up the game, but is very creative, would like to see him further forward.

[troublegum007]

It depends how it's played. If we have Cowie and Imrie pushed right up on the wings and Vigurs as attacking midfielder, then that would provide the chances for a goal hanger. At the moment though, Cowie and Imrie are cutting back to play inside with no clear attacking midfield, i.e. everything going through the centre. Pretty pointless.

Cowie and Imrie will cut back inside though because they're on the wrong side. Maybe if they were played with Cowie on the right and Imrie on the left they'd be more inclined to stay in wider positions because they'd be more comfortable on that side.

Then again, Brew knows what he's doing. It's worked a treat so far this season at home, so maybe best leaving it as it is

[Guest Spectre]

Cowie is. or seems to be, fairly two-footed. His cross on Saturday for the goal was left-foot, as was one of his goals earlier in the season.

In addition, last season he scored a few from the edge of the box where the ball had come in from the right and he volleyed it first time with his right foot - something he couldn't do if he was playing on the right.

[troublegum007]

True, he has scored a couple coming in from the left and hitting it with his right, but is it worth sacrificing natural width on either side for the sake of a couple of goals a season from that situation?