PDA

View Full Version : 4-3-3: Your opinions


kolinkins
14-07-2005, 07:23 PM
Neil McDonald suggested that we would play 4-3-3 this season at the kit launch. He didnt say it concrete (it would be stupid to tell a fan about tactics only 2 weeks into pre-season) - but when I asked him if we would go 4-4-2, he said "4-3-3, maybe even 3-4-3, whatever it takes to win". Looks like they have an open mind, and are planning a few formations etc. What do others think of 4-3-3? I think it could work, if the three in the middle are strong, and if the 2 with AJ are good channel runners.

saxo_demon22
14-07-2005, 07:26 PM
Those formations are very attacking, it will be good to start scoring plenty of goals again.

we_8_brighton
14-07-2005, 07:29 PM
4-3-3 always risky imo, come up against a strong midfield with tricky wingers, you could be in for a long afternoon. Would be interesting to see 3 up front though.

SpikeyMatt
14-07-2005, 07:31 PM
I can see it happening.

If we played AJ and Macken as outright strikers, then with McAnuff as an out-and-out attacking winger as the third 'striker'/forward.

Then in midfield play Hughes, Watson and Soares. Tom will provide some width on either flank, but not much.

I don't know - it could work.

CPFC987
14-07-2005, 07:32 PM
With jsut 3 in midfield though who would you choose. Hughes, Soares, Watson, Riihilahti, Leigertwood, McAnuff, Kolkka?
I'd see 3-5-2 working well.

saxo_demon22
14-07-2005, 07:36 PM
If it was 4-3-3 I'd go...

Kiraly
Boycey-Hall-Ward-Granny
Mcanuff-Hughes-Soares
Macken-AJ-Torghelle

3-4-3...

Kiraly
Boycey-Hall-Ward
Mcanuff-Soares-Hughes-Kolkka
Macken-AJ-Torghelle

c_block_lad
14-07-2005, 07:37 PM
I'd prefer Freedman-AJ up front, with Macken just behind.

Eddie McGoldrick's tash
14-07-2005, 07:38 PM
Prefer 4-4-2 myself

kolinkins
14-07-2005, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by c_block_lad
I'd prefer Freedman-AJ up front, with Macken just behind.

If it were to be those 3, it would be Dougie in the hole.

cpfc_spc1982
14-07-2005, 07:43 PM
i suggested this might happen when we got mcdonald in. bolton played 4 3 3 in all their matches.

-----gk----
rb-rcb-lcb-lb
-----hm----
--rcm--lcm--
rstr------lstr
-----cf-----

we dont really have the players though.

if we play like bolton played aj would work as the right striker instead of the central striker as his attributes dont include holding it up and we would have macken through the middle. we dont have a left sided striker.
we dont have 2 goal scoring midfielders which we would need to play in the centre with a recognised holding midfielder which we dont really have either.

c_block_lad
14-07-2005, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by kolinkins
If it were to be those 3, it would be Dougie in the hole.
Im 99% certain Macken can/has played in the hole.

I'd prefer him over Freedman in that position purely because he has a bit more strength.

Still not a bad problem to have.

:)

kolinkins
14-07-2005, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by c_block_lad
Im 99% certain Macken can/has played in the hole.

I'd prefer him over Freedman in that position purely because he has a bit more strength.

Still not a bad problem to have.

:)

I dont see it myself. Macken hold the ball up well, and being next to AJ will take some weight off him. Dougie like to drop deep, so playing in the hole is natural to him.

You never know, we might just start the season with Dougie and Macken up front in 4-4-2 :)

John.K
14-07-2005, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by kolinkins
I dont see it myself. Macken hold the ball up well, and being next to AJ will take some weight off him. Dougie like to drop deep, so playing in the hole is natural to him.

You never know, we might just start the season with Dougie and Macken up front in 4-4-2 :)

No for the last time AJ is not playing on the right wing ;)

007
14-07-2005, 08:24 PM
3 - 5 - 2

kiraly

boyce / hall / ward

kolkka / soares / hughes / watson / mcanuff

aj / macken

colin_cork
14-07-2005, 09:31 PM
great to see people having AJ in their sides after all the hype surrounding a transfer

Beanie
14-07-2005, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by cpfc_spc1982
i suggested this might happen when we got mcdonald in. bolton played 4 3 3 in all their matches.

-----gk----
rb-rcb-lcb-lb
-----hm----
--rcm--lcm--
rstr------lstr
-----cf-----


Taking your formation -

Kiraly
Boyce Ward Hall Granville
Aki
Soares Hughes
AJ Macken
Torghelle

AJ and Macken coming on to balls won/held up by Torghelle

Walrus
14-07-2005, 10:50 PM
In that "Bolton" formation, surely you'd have McAnuff out on one of the channels?

After his recent goal exploits, wouldn't you also think that AJ wouldn't be too chuffed to be shunted out of the "main main" striker role?

What a dilemma :p

cpfc_spc1982
15-07-2005, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by c_block_lad
I'd prefer Freedman-AJ up front, with Macken just behind.

thats recognised more as a diamond formation than 4 3 3.

cpfc_spc1982
15-07-2005, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Walrus
In that "Bolton" formation, surely you'd have McAnuff out on one of the channels?



mcanuff doesnt really score enough for that role. well in previous seasons he hasnt.

Cleon
15-07-2005, 07:04 AM
I really can't see us going to 3 at the back - Dowie has only ever used that strategy when we are in DIRE need of a goal (i.e. against Sunderland in play-offs and against Charlton & Southampton at the end of last season).

I think we need to be realistic, and first of all aim to establish control over the midfield before going gung-ho upfront. 4-4-2 has worked for Sunderland/Wigan and Norwich/West Brom in previous seasons, why would we want to go 4-3-3?

4-4-2, with a starting line up (based on current players) of:

----------Kiraly------------
Boyce--Ward--Hall--Granville
McAnuff-Soares-Hughes-Kolkka
-----Johnson--Macken--------

With attacking options on bench inc. Watson, Freedman & Torghelle

GanbareWashi
15-07-2005, 07:16 AM
We are going to be one of the top teams in the league so I don't think too gung ho a starting lineup is required. Maybe start with a 4-4-2, but have the players that can easily change to 4-3-3 or a diamond as ther game develops. We could also rotate our two/ three strikers to pull their defence apart leaving holes and spaces for the midfield.

In any event, it should be a fun season with plenty of Palace goals and victories. Come on you Palace.

Palaceboy222
15-07-2005, 09:12 AM
GK: Kiraly

RB: Boyce
CB: Ward
CB: Hall
LB: Granville

RW: McAnuff
CM: Aki
CM: Hughes
LW: Kolkka

CF: AJ
CF: Macken

Subs:

Butterfield
Speroni
Watson
Torghelle
Freedman

That would be my strongest 11 to start the season vs Luton, but what do i know? This doesn't mean i don't rate soares/liegertwood/borrowdale etc , i just prefer watson and aki, and playing with out and out wingers. Its a long season and if we want promotion 20-25 players will have to play a part

Also MAYBE Mcdonald left Bolton because he didnt like their style of football, just a thourght

David of Kent
15-07-2005, 09:20 AM
Hopefully this doesn't show him to be a coach that is immersed in formations winning matches. Players win matches, the job of the coach and the manager is to find the formation that best suits the players they have. 4-3-3 doesn't strike me as the formation that would suit the current personnel and I certainly don't want to go down the Steve Kember 3-5-2 square pegs in round holes route again. I'm sure McDonald can't be meaning this.

cpfcinprem
15-07-2005, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Palaceboy222
GK: Kiraly

RB: Boyce
CB: Ward
CB: Hall
LB: Granville

RW: McAnuff
CM: Aki
CM: Hughes
LW: Kolkka

CF: AJ
CF: Macken

Subs:

Butterfield
Speroni
Watson
Torghelle
Freedman


This is virtually identical to what I thought except Macken on the bench, with either freedman or torghelle starting instead. I just dont macken, sorry!

cpfc_spc1982
15-07-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by David of Kent
Hopefully this doesn't show him to be a coach that is immersed in formations winning matches. Players win matches, the job of the coach and the manager is to find the formation that best suits the players they have. 4-3-3 doesn't strike me as the formation that would suit the current personnel and I certainly don't want to go down the Steve Kember 3-5-2 square pegs in round holes route again. I'm sure McDonald can't be meaning this.

alot of coaches have formations they stick to.
bolton were pretty rigid on their formation even with injuries they played the likes of nolan as a wide striker.
i agree though i dont think we have the personnel for the formation.

Sandowneagle
15-07-2005, 09:33 AM
Where does super Wayne Andrews fit into those formations???

I can't sleep with worry, we should build a team around him.

David of Kent
15-07-2005, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Sandowneagle
Where does super Wayne Andrews fit into those formations???

I can't sleep with worry, we should build a team around him.

I would have a fit if he is fitted into any of our formations.

Why build a team around him when we could build a 3 foot by 3 foot, 6 foot high brick wall around him with a roof and no exit.

Scroatey
15-07-2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by we_8_brighton
4-3-3 always risky imo, come up against a strong midfield with tricky wingers, you could be in for a long afternoon. Would be interesting to see 3 up front though. I think it's a difficult formation to play against, your front three can stop their full-backs getting forward. I'm not overly comfortable with three at the back, but then the best form of defence is attack :lux: We could turn into the new Ipswich - scoring 3 goals and conceding two every match :eek:

Away Day Eagle
15-07-2005, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by kolinkins
Neil McDonald suggested that we would play 4-3-3 this season at the kit launch. He didnt say it concrete (it would be stupid to tell a fan about tactics only 2 weeks into pre-season) - but when I asked him if we would go 4-4-2, he said "4-3-3, maybe even 3-4-3, whatever it takes to win". Looks like they have an open mind, and are planning a few formations etc. What do others think of 4-3-3? I think it could work, if the three in the middle are strong, and if the 2 with AJ are good channel runners.

I like this open-minded individual approach to games and think it will serve us well.

Hopefully, we have all the tactical tricks up our sleeves next season, we were devoid of them lat year.

st albans
15-07-2005, 09:49 AM
4 - 4 - 2

nice and simple, we have the wingers, we have the central midfielders, we have the strikers to play this formation, why go changing things to fit what worked at bolton down here, we have different personnel to bolton and have to work with what we have

Away Day Eagle
15-07-2005, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Sandowneagle
Where does super Wayne Andrews fit into those formations???

I can't sleep with worry, we should build a team around him.

Quality post.:p

If symptoms persist consult ID.

maestro
15-07-2005, 11:09 AM
Might be that we are keeping the same formation, I remember dowie last year trying to describe it as a 4-3-3

Personally I think wehaving better qualitythat most opposition, lets just go like for like and play 4-4-2

Del Gland
15-07-2005, 11:13 AM
38DD works for me!

heinz 57
15-07-2005, 01:59 PM
I would guess a 4-3-3 wouls go something like this:

Kiraly
Boyce - Hall - Ward - Granville
Soares - Aki - Hughes
McAnuff - AJ - Freedman


Basically because it is just a 4-5-1 with attacking players down the wing.
we certainly have the players to do it as we were doing it for most of last season, only this time we'd be on the offensive a lot more!

007
15-07-2005, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by David of Kent
Hopefully this doesn't show him to be a coach that is immersed in formations winning matches. Players win matches, the job of the coach and the manager is to find the formation that best suits the players they have. 4-3-3 doesn't strike me as the formation that would suit the current personnel and I certainly don't want to go down the Steve Kember 3-5-2 square pegs in round holes route again. I'm sure McDonald can't be meaning this.


we didnt have gabor kiraly in goal with steve kember did we ??!!

he is good enough to play without a defence

LeeH
15-07-2005, 02:13 PM
would like to see 4-3-1-2, with the 1 playing a roaming role between midfield and attack (the sort of place for Doogie/Sandor/Soares to play a part)

Psyatika
15-07-2005, 02:16 PM
And we still have attackers on their way in! 4 3 3 (or 4 3 2 1 ala Italy) should work well and should suit the several thousand strikers we have in the squad.

I'm expecting a great season :lux:

Paicey
15-07-2005, 03:09 PM
kollka could do the left striker bit....i think we underestimate his scoring ability

Nelson Muntz
15-07-2005, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Palaceboy222
GK: Kiraly

RB: Boyce
CB: Ward
CB: Hall
LB: Granville

RW: McAnuff
CM: Aki
CM: Hughes
LW: Kolkka

CF: AJ
CF: Macken


I'd start with that team.

Spanish Dan
15-07-2005, 03:31 PM
I can't add anything tactical, but having seen various peoples preferred line-ups I think we have what I like to call a "fűcking good squad". :lux:

Jay_Palace
15-07-2005, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Nelson Muntz
I'd start with that team.

Swap Aki for Soares and that's pretty much the team we will start with, I reckon.

Sussex Eagle
15-07-2005, 05:50 PM
I hate to be overly-cynical, but couldn't this 4-3-3 thing just be a little fib used to reassure Macken & Dougie that they will both be regulars, and the outside world that AJ is staying? That really sounds like I'm casting aspersions doesn't it? I just don't really buy the idea of a 3 man midfield...

cpfc_tommy12
15-07-2005, 06:09 PM
i would see 3-4-3 workin with:
.......................kiraly....................
........boyce.....ward...........hall.........
...mcanuff.....soares....watson.....kolkka
.....................freedman...............
...............macken.....aj.............




or :

2 show we can change the whole 11


....................speroni....................... ...
......butters.....popo........hudson/granville
....leggy......aki....hughes............hall
......................t.black..................... .......
......................sandor.....andrews

ZOHAR
16-07-2005, 10:04 AM
Would be very surprised if both Freedman and Macken played together if we went 4-3-3. Its more likely to be Tom Soares behind AJ and Macken/Freedman than three strikers.

If so could be:

KIRALY
BOYCE - WARD - HALL - GRANVILLE
MCANUFF - HUGHES - KOLKKA
SOARES
AJ - MACKEN

But that line up looks a little too attacking so would need to throw an Aki or a Leigartwood in there for one of the wide boys but then the team lacks shape. 4-4-2 should be the way but there are a lot of tactical possibilities - lets hope the Dowies/Mcdonald can get the best out of our boys. :p

glaziers fan
16-07-2005, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by 007
3 - 5 - 2

kiraly

boyce / hall / ward

kolkka / soares / hughes / watson / mcanuff

aj / macken

spot on, that will be the team when we are chasing (1st sub on)

glaziers fan
16-07-2005, 10:26 AM
Dowie will start 4-4-2.

We will go 3-5-2 and then 3-4-3 if we need a goal. This is the correct way to play.

4-3-3 is a terrible formation. Personally I would think about starting with 3-5-2 because our central midfield is one of our strengts but i don't think we will.

Kolinkins is I hope right - if we go 3-4-3 it will be dougie in the hole. It's good news Kolkka is staying too because he might be needed going forward on the left.

Henfield Eagle
16-07-2005, 10:30 AM
Last season It was called 4-5-1. If your wiger/midfielers don't get back it's 4-3-3:rolleyes:

kolinkins
16-07-2005, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by glaziers fan


4-3-3 is a terrible formation.


I am sure Chelsea, Bolton and Man Utd (at times) will agree with you :)

ZOHAR
16-07-2005, 10:40 AM
We just don't have the "complete" type of midfield players to play the 4-3-3 formation. All of our current midfielders are good at parts of the game but none (bar Hughes) is good enough to play in that open/versatile type of formation.

kolinkins
16-07-2005, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by ZOHAR
We just don't have the "complete" type of midfield players to play the 4-3-3 formation. All of our current midfielders are good at parts of the game but none (bar Hughes) is good enough to play in that open/versatile type of formation.

I disagee. A 3 of Soares (right, left and central midfielder), with Hughes (converted central midfielder) and one of Aki and Leggy (energy) would a very good midfield 3 or 4-3-3.

Though I would prefer 4-5-1 this season:

Kiraly

Boyce
Hall
Ward
Granville

McAnuff
Hughes
Soares
Aki'Leggy
Kolkka

AJ

follow cpfc
16-07-2005, 10:49 AM
NO NO NO whatever happens dont play 4 3 3. Remember the Kember era not a good plan at all. Stick to 4 4 2 always reliable.

kolinkins
16-07-2005, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by follow cpfc
NO NO NO whatever happens dont play 4 3 3. Remember the Kember era not a good plan at all. Stick to 4 4 2 always reliable.

That was 3-4-3.

Are people blind to the fact that at times last season we were effetively playing 4-3-3?

cpfc_spc1982
16-07-2005, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by kolinkins
I disagee. A 3 of Soares (right, left and central midfielder), with Hughes (converted central midfielder) and one of Aki and Leggy (energy) would a very good midfield 3 or 4-3-3.

Though I would prefer 4-5-1 this season:

Kiraly

Boyce
Hall
Ward
Granville

McAnuff
Hughes
Soares
Aki'Leggy
Kolkka

AJ

forget about 4 5 1. teams only play effective 4 5 1 when they have goals from midfield.

cpfc_spc1982
16-07-2005, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by kolinkins


Are people blind to the fact that at times last season we were effetively playing 4-3-3?

hardly it was very much 4 5 1.

kolinkins
16-07-2005, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by cpfc_spc1982
hardly it was very much 4 5 1.

Yes, but our best spells came when Wayne and Kolkka/Lakis/Soares played either side of AJ.

follow cpfc
16-07-2005, 06:41 PM
No we were not the most part of last season we were playing 4 5 1

glaziers fan
16-07-2005, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by kolinkins
I am sure Chelsea, Bolton and Man Utd (at times) will agree with you :)

None of those teams you mention are playing a traditional 4-3-3 and you know it (please don't turn into Andystreet and argue with me just for the sake of it). They played a 4-3-3 nearly as much as we played a 4-3-3, ie we all played 4-5-1 but Chelski's was more attacking than ours!

glaziers fan
16-07-2005, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by kolinkins
That was 3-4-3.

Are people blind to the fact that at times last season we were effetively playing 4-3-3?

Oh really? When did we play 4-3-3? Soares, Routledge and Kolkka were midfielders last time I looked...

a 4-3-3 would mean a strikeforce of AJ, Macken and Torghelle for example - not going to happen.

A 3-4-3 formation didn't work under Kember because he played Aj too deep and Dougie too far forward, but I'll forgive him because he masterminded our relegation survival the year before...

Dowie has played 3-4-3 with success when we have been chasing games...

glaziers fan
16-07-2005, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by kolinkins
I am sure Chelsea, Bolton and Man Utd (at times) will agree with you :)

I thought Chelski played a 4-3-2-1? (Xmas tree?)

Velocity
17-07-2005, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by glaziers fan
I thought Chelski played a 4-3-2-1? (Xmas tree?)

I thought it looked more like 4-1-2-1-2, but Gudjohnsen often acted as an attacking midfielder, so it could have been 4-1-2-2-1 :angel:

AndyStreet
17-07-2005, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by glaziers fan
(please don't turn into Andystreet and argue with me just for the sake of it).

It could be worse - he could turn into you and demonstrate the footballing knowledge of a titmouse.

cpfc_spc1982
17-07-2005, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by glaziers fan
I thought Chelski played a 4-3-2-1? (Xmas tree?)

well its a 4 3 3 bit if your being specific its a 4 1 2 2 1.

Gooders
17-07-2005, 08:37 AM
I think we should play 2-3-4-1. I like to call it the loganberry bush formation.

Gooders
17-07-2005, 08:37 AM
With a squirrel in the hole.

Psyatika
17-07-2005, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Velocity
I thought it looked more like 4-1-2-1-2, but Gudjohnsen often acted as an attacking midfielder, so it could have been 4-1-2-2-1 :angel: You're both right, in a way.

4-1-2-1-2 is the Xmas tree.

Insane formation, might as well just call it the 4-1-5 that it actually is.

kolinkins
17-07-2005, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by glaziers fan
Oh really? When did we play 4-3-3? Soares, Routledge and Kolkka were midfielders last time I looked...

a 4-3-3 would mean a strikeforce of AJ, Macken and Torghelle for example - not going to happen.

A 3-4-3 formation didn't work under Kember because he played Aj too deep and Dougie too far forward, but I'll forgive him because he masterminded our relegation survival the year before...

Dowie has played 3-4-3 with success when we have been chasing games...

When have we succeesed when chasing last season?

And, by your logic, if the we played 4-3-3, but the strikers used were, for example, Aki, Ward and Hall, you would not consider us as playing 4-3-3?

Psyatika
17-07-2005, 09:42 AM
No! That's 6-5-0, with 2 of the defenders playing ahead of the midfield. Duh.

TN16_Eagle
17-07-2005, 10:06 AM
I'd rather play 0-5-4-2 than ••••••• 4-5-1 again all season.

:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

Psyatika
17-07-2005, 10:08 AM
With Kiraly up front?