Four Man Midfield?

[Charlie-Brown]

Despite people bemoaning our lack of goals and disliking our 4-5-1 (4-2-3-1 / 4-1-4-1 / 4-4-1-1 / 4-3-3 or however people perceive it) as viewing it to be negative and defensive it could reasonably be argued the our FIVE man midfield has allowed us over the course of the season so far some level of superiority over teams that play traditional 4-4-2 formations and is definitely part of the reason why we sit equal 3rd with Dundee Utd in terms of points won and just four goals behind them on goal difference with 8 other SPL teams below us on points so far.

 

Assuming that moving to a 4-4-2 formation won't place us at a tactical disadvantage against those teams who would then choose to put an extra midfielder in against us and thus dominate that area & control possession..........in people's opinion from the existing squad what four man midfield combination would provide the best balance of attack, defence & width for us to effectively play a traditional 4-4-2 formation with 2 strikers staying up front?

 

Convince me.........

[Coco]

Despite people bemoaning our lack of goals and disliking our 4-5-1 (4-2-3-1 / 4-1-4-1 / 4-4-1-1 / 4-3-3 or however people perceive it) as viewing it to be negative and defensive it could reasonably be argued the our FIVE man midfield has allowed us over the course of the season so far some level of superiority over teams that play traditional 4-4-2 formations and is definitely part of the reason why we sit equal 3rd with Dundee Utd in terms of points won and just four goals behind them on goal difference with 8 other SPL teams below us on points so far.

 

Assuming that moving to a 4-4-2 formation won't place us at a tactical disadvantage against those teams who would then choose to put an extra midfielder in against us and thus dominate that area & control possession..........in people's opinion from the existing squad what four man midfield combination would provide the best balance of attack, defence & width for us to effectively play a traditional 4-4-2 formation with 2 strikers staying up front?

 

Convince me.........

 

The manager thinks that we play with 2 strikers.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Despite people bemoaning our lack of goals and disliking our 4-5-1 (4-2-3-1 / 4-1-4-1 / 4-4-1-1 / 4-3-3 or however people perceive it) as viewing it to be negative and defensive it could reasonably be argued the our FIVE man midfield has allowed us over the course of the season so far some level of superiority over teams that play traditional 4-4-2 formations and is definitely part of the reason why we sit equal 3rd with Dundee Utd in terms of points won and just four goals behind them on goal difference with 8 other SPL teams below us on points so far.

 

Assuming that moving to a 4-4-2 formation won't place us at a tactical disadvantage against those teams who would then choose to put an extra midfielder in against us and thus dominate that area & control possession..........in people's opinion from the existing squad what four man midfield combination would provide the best balance of attack, defence & width for us to effectively play a traditional 4-4-2 formation with 2 strikers staying up front?

 

Convince me.........

 

As stated on the other thread:

 

Jonsson, Aguiar, Karipidis, Driver

 

Perfectly balanced.

[Charlie-Brown]

The manager thinks that we play with 2 strikers.

 

Tactically we do (or should) when we have possession but with 1 advanced & 1 deeper however the wingers should also advance making it a minimum of 4 forward players whilst in possession......

[Charlie-Brown]

As stated on the other thread:

 

Jonsson, Aguiar, Karipidis, Driver

 

Perfectly balanced.

 

Seems a bit lop-sided and left biased GK and a Neilson-Jonsson attacking combo down the right hasn't exactly been fruitful in any games in any games I've seen with getting forward neither players strength.....

[Charlie-Brown]

Thinking about it a bit more Geoff your midfeld four could work but it would require young Craig Thomson (or Johnny Brown) instead of Neilson at right back as they (Craig especially) offer much better ability to get bombing forward and superior delivery...the downside being it would make an already young defence even younger and we would lose Neilson's decade of experience compared to either of these kids.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Thinking about it a bit more Geoff your midfeld four could work but it would require young Craig Thomson (or Johnny Brown) instead of Neilson at right back as they (Craig especially) offer much better ability to get bombing forward and superior delivery...the downside being it would make an already young defence even younger and we would lose Neilson's decade of experience compared to either of these kids.

 

I see that balance in midfield as an attacking player from the middle and out wide. Yes, you can argue it may be lopsided on the left but so what, given that our main attacking threat comes from that side.

 

As for RB, I'm not going there again. Robbie Neilson, who by all accounts had a bad game on Saturday, is still our best option.

[Spellczech]

Having good attacking FBs, wide midfielders who track back, and at least one hard-working striker (like Kenny Miller is TBH) is the key to unpicking 451 IMO.

[Charlie-Brown]

Apart from when we had vastly superior players like skacel & hartley often when we played 4-4-2 teams like st mirren etc thwarted us by playing 3-5-2 or 4-5-1

[bighusref]

As stated on the other thread:

 

Jonsson, Aguiar, Karipidis, Driver

 

Perfectly balanced.

 

Agreed. I would have Nade and Glen up front and firmly believe that Nade would turn in better performances with a team mate up beside him.

 

As for the attacking full back role, I often felt that the problem with Alan Maybury was that he was too quick to run forward and was not so quick to return to his defensive duties. I would have a rigid back four as I prefer my defenders to defend first, anything on top of that is a bonus. I would ask the two wide men to provide the forward direction. My two central midfielders would primarily hold their position, however if one went forward the other would have to stay back.

 

The front two would work as a proper pairing, working off each others runs and passes.

[Charlie-Brown]

But what combination of players would match your description BH? Who would be your midfield 4 & front 2 ?

[heartsfc_fan]

I'd do this:

 

------------Balogh-------------

 

Neilson Karipids Zaliukas Wallace

 

------Jonsson* Palazuelos-------

 

---Aguiar-----------------Driver---

-------------Glen----------------

-------------Nade---------------

 

 

 

*or Stewart

[bighusref]

But what combination of players would match your description BH? Who would be your midfield 4 & front 2 ?

 

That is why I quoted Geoff, I would (on current form) select that four and I would select the front two I posted.

[Drylaw Hearts]

GK - The Balogh

 

RB - Jonsson

CH - Zaliukas

CH - Karapidis

LB - Wallace

 

RM - Aguiar

CM - Kingston

CM - Stewart

LM - Driver

 

ST - Glen

ST - Nade

 

 

There are several players in that team I don't like or rate but I think they would do ok.

[Jammy T]

Completely disagree with the OP

 

For all that we consistently play with "an extra man" in midfield we have rarely dominated teams who have played with a more traditional 4-4-2

 

More often than not we have either been dominated in the first 15 mins losing an early goal or when we have scored first the other team have dominated the second half as we have sat back on our lead and not showed any ambition in trying to increase our lead

 

So the main justification in having 5 in midfield hasnt really worked.

 

And it hasnt really stopped us shipping goals either

 

However, I dont agree in a 4 man midfield with the players we have of playing 2 winger type midfielders. I think with Jonsson we have the player who can make the wide right solid (lets face it we have never sorted it from an attacking point of view in 4 years), so a midfield of say Driver, Karipidis, Bruno and Jonsson with Nade and Glen up front, as an example, would do no worse than what is currently offered

 

However, one of Jonsson / Karipidis is likely to be our new centre back.

 

I personally would have it be Karipidis with Ruben replacing him, whom failing Stewart.

 

Anyway, despite the myth that the 4-5-1 is best for us and suits the players at our disposal I would wager a large fortune that we would not be doing any worse with a 4-4-2, in fact, I think we'd be better off points wise

[Jammy T]

GK - The Balogh

 

RB - Jonsson

CH - Zaliukas

CH - Karapidis

LB - Wallace

 

RM - Aguiar

CM - Kingston

CM - Stewart

LM - Driver

 

ST - Glen

ST - Nade

 

 

There are several players in that team I don't like or rate but I think they would do ok.

 

 

I agree that part of the problem with Kingstons form is that he is not best suited for wide right. We have seen the best of Larry at Hearts when he has been in central midfield

[Jammy T]

As stated on the other thread:

 

Jonsson, Aguiar, Karipidis, Driver

 

Perfectly balanced.

 

Hadnt read this post before I made mine but I totally agree

 

Any notion that we are completely shorn of players at the club that can play a solid midfield 4 are in cloud cuckoo land and have simply bought into a myth

[Drylaw Hearts]

I agree that part of the problem with Kingstons form is that he is not best suited for wide right. We have seen the best of Larry at Hearts when he has been in central midfield

 

Yep.

[Charlie-Brown]

The current league table vindicates the managers choices. IF I was playing a 4 it would be glen, stewart or kingston (undecided) , karipidis, driver with aguiar supporting nade.

[Jammy T]

Yep.

 

2 games in particular against the old firm last season - they couldnt actually cope with his driving runs from central midfield.

 

It was the "committee" that first moved him wide right.

 

It is uncanny how many "committee" positional quirks Csaba has adopted...

[Jammy T]

The current league table vindicates the managers choices. IF I was playing a 4 it would be glen, stewart or kingston (undecided) , karipidis, driver with aguiar supporting nade.

 

It shows we are a relatively safe mid-table team, it doesnt show our best formation is 4-5-1

 

The table does not show that if we played 4-4-2 we might be 6 points ahead of our closest team way out in third - equally we might be bottom

 

The table proves nothing in the context of a team formation debate.

[Coco]

My objection to the manager's system is not about how the team is originally set up.

 

With forward players as poor as ours and midfielders as weak as ours, I think that 4-5-1 to start most games makes sense. Installing Nade/Aguiar has helped to improve the defence compared to last year as they can hold the ball up (unlike Velicka/Ksnavicius).

 

My objection is his inability to change a game. I can just about understand the capitulation against Celtic (2 nil down, man down) and the lack of effort to get back into that game. Very disappointed with that though. But last Saturday he sat on his hands for ages after we went 2 nil down and made no effort until the last 5 minutes to change the shape of the team. Really annoying.