Strongest XI

[RoyallyFcuked]

I would go with 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-2-1-2/ a variation on 4-4-2 but with a midfield diamond

-------------------Bond-------------------
Gunter-Ferdinand-McShane-Obita
-----Williams---------Quinn/Alex-------
Hurtado------Piazon---------McCleary
-----------Vydra/Orlando---------------

OR

--------------------Bond----------------------
Gunter-Ferdinand-McShane-Obita
-------------Williams/Quinn---------------
Hurtado-------------------------McCleary
-------------------Piazon----------------------
-------Orlando-----------Vydra---------

Difficult to decide for sure who would play and how as there's lots of options but surely that is a good thing and something we haven't had the luxury of for quite some time.

If we have to play Hector in some oxf*rd up loan agreement then 3-5-2




I'd quite like to see a 4-3-1-2, can see triangles for days in the middle of the park, a really solid midfield with a creative top 3 all playing off each other. If that can't break anyone down then we can always bring on McCleary, Hurtado, John...etc for width. :



In fairness it is such a difficult choice, not least because we have no idea how the players will actually perform. To try and find a way to accommodate the best of our attacking players will be hard enough, let alone trying to strike the right balance between attack and defence. I think the most ideal formation we could play to fit Piazon, Vydra, and our abundance of wingers would be a 4-4-2 diamond, but none of our CMs are defensively good enough to sit in front of and be the sole protection to the back four imo.

For me, Vydra has to play, but he can't play the lone striker role, so 2 up front. Same again with Piazon but it will be a struggle to play him at the same time as our wingers (I know he has played on the left but he's best as a 10 its that simple), and how can we have one of the best players at the club, GMac, sitting on the bench? Not to mention having signed 2 wingers this window.

It genuinely is a very difficult dilemma One thing is for certain is that its going to take some time for the players to bed themselves, the squad to adjust, and SC to figure out his best team so just be prepared.

Good post, 3-5-2 would be ideal for using the highest amount of our attacking players but wouldn't necassarily be the most effective. Also the players don't have experience of using it so its pretty unlikely.

The idea of 4-3-1-2 is good in theory, but also think its pretty unlikely. I simply cannot see us using a formation that has no wingers, it would be madness to have none of them playing.

I think it is more likely to be one of the formations that I suggested earlier in the thread (which I quoted above^), but picking up on what you said about the 4-4-2 diamond, I also worried whether any of our central midfielders are good enough defensively, whether they could be the protection of the back four as you say, but I think it would be worth a go with Williams as he is better playing further back than an attacking mid would for example.

If not Williams then possibly one of others (Quinn, Alex, Tshibola, Norwood) could adapt and do that role? The back four is much stronger now with the leadership and experience of McShane and Ferdinand, so we may only need one player to protect. Hopefully we will be scoring plenty at the other end so it won't matter anyway

Also agree that Vydra is not a lone striker and has to play, so that kind of writes off the other formation I mentioned (the 4-2-3-1 as above^) but alternatively I was thinking of this 4-2-2-2

--------------------Bond----------------------
Gunter-Ferdinand-McShane-Obita
--------Williams---------Quinn-----------
Hurtado-------------------------McCleary
-------Orlando-----------Vydra---------

It gives the added protection of two players infront of the defence and has two wingers and strikers. The only thing is it leaves that attacking mid position blank and no room for Piazon which I didn't want, I know he can play on either wing as well so he could come in for Hurtado or McCleary, but I also think he will be best as a No10.

Of course we don't really know how good half these players are yet or how they're going to perform but I would have a go with 4-4-2 diamond and that 4-2-2-2, as I think we should definitely play with 2 strikers, interchanging Vydra, Orlando and Blackman. Maybe it would also be best to start with 2 centre mids in front of the defence and work our way towards having just one.

Also well said on your last paragraph, going to take some time for them all to settle and Clarke to know his best team. I am genuinely excited though, its going to be interesting to see what happens and makes it a lot more fun now that we have a very competetive squad for this level, with strength in depth and competition for places.

It's been a long time since we had a dilema quite like this, in fact I'm not sure we ever have, but to have this abundance of quality players is special, so I'm just going to enjoy it

[CountryRoyal]

Good post, 3-5-2 would be ideal for using the highest amount of our attacking players but wouldn't necassarily be the most effective. Also the players don't have experience of using it so its pretty unlikely.

The idea of 4-3-1-2 is good in theory, but also think its pretty unlikely. I simply cannot see us using a formation that has no wingers, it would be madness to have none of them playing.

I think it is more likely to be one of the formations that I suggested earlier in the thread (which I quoted above^), but picking up on what you said about the 4-4-2 diamond, I also worried whether any of our central midfielders are good enough defensively, whether they could be the protection of the back four as you say, but I think it would be worth a go with Williams as he is better playing further back than an attacking mid would for example.

If not Williams then possibly one of others (Quinn, Alex, Tshibola, Norwood) could adapt and do that role? The back four is much stronger now with the leadership and experience of McShane and Ferdinand, so we may only need one player to protect. Hopefully we will be scoring plenty at the other end so it won't matter anyway

Also agree that Vydra is not a lone striker and has to play, so that kind of writes off the other formation I mentioned (the 4-2-3-1 as above^) but alternatively I was thinking of this 4-2-2-2

--------------------Bond----------------------
Gunter-Ferdinand-McShane-Obita
--------Williams---------Quinn-----------
Hurtado-------------------------McCleary
-------Orlando-----------Vydra---------

It gives the added protection of two players infront of the defence and has two wingers and strikers. The only thing is it leaves that attacking mid position blank and no room for Piazon which I didn't want, I know he can play on either wing as well so he could come in for Hurtado or McCleary, but I also think he will be best as a No10.

Of course we don't really know how good half these players are yet or how they're going to perform but I would have a go with 4-4-2 diamond and that 4-2-2-2, as I think we should definitely play with 2 strikers, interchanging Vydra, Orlando and Blackman. Maybe it would also be best to start with 2 centre mids in front of the defence and work our way towards having just one.

Also well said on your last paragraph, going to take some time for them all to settle and Clarke to know his best team. I am genuinely excited though, its going to be interesting to see what happens and makes it a lot more fun now that we have a very competetive squad for this level, with strength in depth and competition for places.

It's been a long time since we had a dilema quite like this, in fact I'm not sure we ever have, but to have this abundance of quality players is special, so I'm just going to enjoy it

Good shout with the 4-2-2-2. The thing that this season has showed me is that, despite our considerable lack of creativity, Quinn and Williams are still fairly useful in the final third. So long as the wingers popped inside and either of the strikers dropped deeper and it was more fluid it could easily be a decent formation. Actually Hector impressed me at DM and I could easily see him suited to that sole defensive mid role in a 4-4-2 diamond (4-1-2-1-2), his mistakes wouldn't be as costly too.

I think eventually we are most likely to see straight 4-4-2 with Williams and Quinn as someone mentioned before. For Ipswich I'd prefer to see us relatively unchanged from the Brentford game, at least keep our defensive shape about us and introduce more creativity as the game goes on.

You are right though it is pretty exciting and next Friday should be a really good test - plus we always play well when the cameras are watching.

[Ian Royal]

How is that 4-2-2-2 any different to 4-4-2? 2 central midfielders, 2 wingers.

[Blakey's Chin]

Good problem to have with us having a struggle to pick our strongest 11? Fans have moaned so many times before about our squad, you can't moan now. Only thing I hope is that Clarke becomes a fan of sensible squad rotation? Can't drop Blackman after his form but Vydra's record is lethal. We've barely seen most of the new signings play. I've gone wit two squads, one of probably strongest, but the second just as strong and capable. Obviously I'm not the manager, but seing as the first 4/5 games of the season has basically been the same squad, we could do with resting some. I would definitely squad rotate to keep everyone as fresh as possible. There's nothing worse than getting to Feb/March like last year and seeing the players barely being able to run by the end of the game.

Bond

Gunter McShane Ferdinand Obita

McCleary Williams Norwood Hurtado

Sa Vydra


Al Habsi

Gunter McShane Hector Taylor

John Tshibola Quinn Piazon

Blackman Vydra

[CountryRoyal]

How is that 4-2-2-2 any different to 4-4-2? 2 central midfielders, 2 wingers.

The 2 CMs sit much deeper in the 4-2-2-2. Tbh as with a lot of formations there are just slight variations, If you can be fluid in attack and organised in defence thats the most important thing.

[72 bus]

How is that 4-2-2-2 any different to 4-4-2? 2 central midfielders, 2 wingers.

You have to wonder how long some of these folks have been going to football Ian.
4-2-2-2 for fukks sake, it makes my eyes bleed just reading it.

It's 4-4-2, you complete helms

[NewCorkSeth]

How is that 4-2-2-2 any different to 4-4-2? 2 central midfielders, 2 wingers.

Christ! Ridiculous isn't it! Exact same player roles in both.

[Who Moved The Goalposts?]

How is that 4-2-2-2 any different to 4-4-2? 2 central midfielders, 2 wingers.

You have to wonder how long some of these folks have been going to football Ian.
4-2-2-2 for fukks sake, it makes my eyes bleed just reading it.

It's 4-4-2, you complete helms

Well, you can't blame them too much. In the the Premier League era, managers have justified their existence by coming up with all sorts of convoluted ways to make what is essentially a pretty simple game sound more complicated than it really is.

[PistolPete]

Rubbish.

4-2-2-2 utilises deep protective midfielders and out and out wingers. By the sounds of things you wouldn't use both Fernandez and Quinn with this formation, but you might Williams or Tshibola.

4-4-2 uses box to box midfielders and wide, defensively aware midfielders. 4-4-2 is what we used ideally with someone like Stephen Hunt (wide midfielder) and Sidwell and Harper.

What no-one yet knows is what roles will suit Piazon, John and Hurtado.

If you don't understand it, don't complain. It's like comaining at someone for telling you their having spaghetti bolognaise for dinner and telling them to stop being complicated it's 'dinner'.

[USA_Loyal_Royal]

what I want:

-------------bond------------
-hector mcshane Ferdinand-
mccleary Williams Quinn Hurtado
---------------Piazon
--------------Vydra sa---------------
bench: al habsi, john, norwood, gunter, Fernandez, HRK, obita

likely:
-------------bond------------
gunter Ferdinand mcshane obita
-----------Williams Quinn-----------
-----Mcleary piazon hurtado-----
----------------Vydra

bench: norwood, al habsi, john, HRK, hector, sa, fernandez

[Ian Royal]

If 4-2-2-2 is so genuine, why did no one ever mention it during McDermott's tenure? Given deep spoiling midfielders and aggressive wingers was how he played?

Answer... it's 4-4-2.

[SCIAG]

I've only ever seen Brazil described as playing 4-2-2-2.

Two defensive midfielders, two floating attacking midfielders (Zico and Socrates, or Kaka and Ronaldinho), two strikers.

The second two are not traditional wingers like Kebe/McAnuff/McCleary, they're more like Piazon or Sigurdsson (when played wide).

[thirtyyarder]

I've only ever seen Brazil described as playing 4-2-2-2.

Two defensive midfielders, two floating attacking midfielders (Zico and Socrates, or Kaka and Ronaldinho), two strikers.

The second two are not traditional wingers like Kebe/McAnuff/McCleary, they're more like Piazon or Sigurdsson (when played wide).

Exactly this. In Brazil then 4-4-2 is always played with a sitting defensive midfielder, a more progressive defensive midfielder, and two attaking midfielders, one usually being a passer, the other being a dribbler.

The 4-4-2 that we use is rare there, and is in fact called an 'English 4-4-2'.

Mr. Ian Royal, with all respect, just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[NewCorkSeth]

I've only ever seen Brazil described as playing 4-2-2-2.

Two defensive midfielders, two floating attacking midfielders (Zico and Socrates, or Kaka and Ronaldinho), two strikers.

The second two are not traditional wingers like Kebe/McAnuff/McCleary, they're more like Piazon or Sigurdsson (when played wide).

Exactly this. In Brazil then 4-4-2 is always played with a sitting defensive midfielder, a more progressive defensive midfielder, and two attaking midfielders, one usually being a passer, the other being a dribbler.

The 4-4-2 that we use is rare there, and is in fact called an 'English 4-4-2'.

Mr. Ian Royal, with all respect, just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But the 4-2-2-2 being described on here I nothing like the brazilian formation??? Playing a 4-4-2 with "deeper cms" and "more advanced wingers" is still a 4-4-2. Telling your wingers you expect them to sit a bit higher than traditionally doesn't transform this into the old Brazilian world cup formation.

[Reading4eva]

I've only ever seen Brazil described as playing 4-2-2-2.

Two defensive midfielders, two floating attacking midfielders (Zico and Socrates, or Kaka and Ronaldinho), two strikers.

The second two are not traditional wingers like Kebe/McAnuff/McCleary, they're more like Piazon or Sigurdsson (when played wide).

Exactly this. In Brazil then 4-4-2 is always played with a sitting defensive midfielder, a more progressive defensive midfielder, and two attaking midfielders, one usually being a passer, the other being a dribbler.

The 4-4-2 that we use is rare there, and is in fact called an 'English 4-4-2'.

Mr. Ian Royal, with all respect, just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I play like that on FIFA. I can confirm it is very effective

[3points]

4-2-2-2 means no wingers. Sounds ideal for Steve Clarke!

I still prefer Dave Royal's 4-4-3; should mean an extra man in midfield in every game

[RoyalX]

I've only ever seen Brazil described as playing 4-2-2-2.

Two defensive midfielders, two floating attacking midfielders (Zico and Socrates, or Kaka and Ronaldinho), two strikers.

The second two are not traditional wingers like Kebe/McAnuff/McCleary, they're more like Piazon or Sigurdsson (when played wide).

Exactly this. In Brazil then 4-4-2 is always played with a sitting defensive midfielder, a more progressive defensive midfielder, and two attaking midfielders, one usually being a passer, the other being a dribbler.

The 4-4-2 that we use is rare there, and is in fact called an 'English 4-4-2'.

Mr. Ian Royal, with all respect, just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But the 4-2-2-2 being described on here I nothing like the brazilian formation??? Playing a 4-4-2 with "deeper cms" and "more advanced wingers" is still a 4-4-2. Telling your wingers you expect them to sit a bit higher than traditionally doesn't transform this into the old Brazilian world cup formation.

I agree, 4-2-2-2 is used across South America and means 2 DMs, 2AMs and no wingers. The width is provided by the fullbacks who bomb on, with the DMs dropping in to cover them.

You wouldn't describe a team with wing backs as 3-2-3-2, generally 3-5-2.

[RoyallyFcuked]

How is that 4-2-2-2 any different to 4-4-2? 2 central midfielders, 2 wingers.

You have to wonder how long some of these folks have been going to football Ian.
4-2-2-2 for fukks sake, it makes my eyes bleed just reading it.

It's 4-4-2, you complete helms

And your post makes me wonder how long its been since you've been to football...

Read what PistolPete and SCIAG wrote, maybe you will understand it better then. To be fair In the 4-2-2-2 I should have called the second 2 attacking midfielders, but you can call them wingers because they play wider than the centre mids and strikers. The formation can be played quite narrow but the AMs provide some width as do the full backs (as someone else said). It could definitely suit Piazon, Hurtado and John by the sounds of it, that was my thinking behind it.

And Ian, you can't say its no different to a 4-4-2 formation just because there's the "same amount of centre mids and wingers", that's like saying the wingers roles are no different in a 4-3-3 just because there's still only 2 of them.

And for the record, we are seeing a flat 4-4-2 being used less and less across the highest leagues these days, Championship included.

[CountryRoyal]

As I said it's just slight variations, you wouldn't often see it described as it, or even accurately represented in match previews..etc. it mostly depends on the type of players at disposal. But a 4-2-2-2 would have the 2 CMs sitting deeper and then 2 attacking mids a bit wider but not quite as wide as wingers.

Piazon can play on the left but is most suited to the middle, from what I've heard Hurtado can play as a 10 but is naturally a winger, and John is an out and out winger - someone said he can play as a striker but I'm not sure.

[CountryRoyal]

How is that 4-2-2-2 any different to 4-4-2? 2 central midfielders, 2 wingers.

You have to wonder how long some of these folks have been going to football Ian.
4-2-2-2 for fukks sake, it makes my eyes bleed just reading it.

It's 4-4-2, you complete helms

And your post makes me wonder how long its been since you've been to football...

Read what PistolPete and SCIAG wrote, maybe you will understand it better then. To be fair In the 4-2-2-2 I should have called the second 2 attacking midfielders, but you can call them wingers because they play wider than the centre mids and strikers. The formation can be played quite narrow but the AMs provide some width as do the full backs (as someone else said). It could definitely suit Piazon, Hurtado and John by the sounds of it, that was my thinking behind it.

And Ian, you can't say its no different to a 4-4-2 formation just because there's the "same amount of centre mids and wingers", that's like saying the wingers roles are no different in a 4-3-3 just because there's still only 2 of them.

And for the record, we are seeing a flat 4-4-2 being used less and less across the highest leagues these days, Championship included.

This. The latter point is understandable though, with more continental managers in the lower leagues.