4-4-2 please..

[wavydavy]

I honestly reckon we have the most negative fans in the world.

 

Nothing is ever good enough.

 

 

Here's one comment that will surprise you, I thought Zaliukas had a good game today.

[gowestjambo]

Players did make forward runs and there was some good interplay between the team but you seem to be someone who is not willing to let this style develop because it takes a long time and already the negativity is out, we are what 4-5 weeks into his managerial reign and more importantly were winning.

 

I despair at Scottish football fans just boo the players so they can then start smashing the ball 50yrds and we can maintain the same cycle of shit football i've watched most of my adult life.

 

Who?None that I saw...............

 

I seem to be someone who is not willing to let this style of play develop am I?

 

Todays game was a non event. It was like watching a game where the fans were disinterested regarding the result. Half the fans didnt even stand up to cheer our first goal!

 

Despair all you want. I am not suggesting the ball is smashed forawrd. Just passed forward with support to the player who has possession.

 

We are kidding ourselves on this is the way forward. As soon as we are pressured our plan falls apart.

 

So we will soon pass rangers and celtic off the park will we?

[Eckauskas]

I'm just delighted that Hearts managed to win, despite none of the players moved in a forward direction.

[Statto]

I suppose we'll see how well we are progressing in 2 weeks when Celtic come to visit.

[superjack]

my only problem with this passing game we are playing is , whenever we pass back to the keeper , the fullbacks move out wide and make them selves available , but jamie punts it up the park.

what a waste

[Samster]

my only problem with this passing game we are playing is , whenever we pass back to the keeper , the fullbacks move out wide and make them selves available , but jamie punts it up the park.

what a waste

 

I would only agree that happened partially yesterday but more often than not they are available for a pass.

[N User]

We played a forward thinking 4-3-1-2.

Essentially a centralised 4-4-2.

 

One problem yesterday seemed to be the timing of the full backs.

In a system like that you need full backs who can support every attack and act as pseudo-wingers.

 

Often when Jamie Mac/ Zal/ Adrian had the ball, Hamill and Grainger had moved far too forward too quickly.

At other times, the midfield would look to the sides and Hamill/ Grainger weren't there yet.

Once Hamill/ Grainger get used to it - it could be very effective.

 

We had one great move in the first half which showed the potential of the system.

[hmfc_liam06]

4-4-2 is outdated. Asking to play that formation shows some of our supporters are stuck in the past and unwilling to move forward. They are probably the same people who want hoofball.

 

I bet you would struggle to name a top side who play a rigid 4-4-2.

[Tommy Wiseau]

We're making progress. We're hard to beat. We're winning games at home comfortably. It's not much fun to watch right now, but I'll take a dull 2-0 over the escape we had last season against the same side.

 

Short of an Italian dream boat number 10 with white boots, alice band and red mist potential, or Marion Cotillard doing the half time draw, I really don't think I have any room to moan.

[Debut 4]

Amen to that.

 

Football is a sport, not an entertainment.

It`s both.....I`m with the winning camp first and foremost and always will be, but you should strive to achieve success by playing the right way, which i think we do when we produce a genuinely good team, and keep the fans coming back on both accounts.

 

It`s a balancing act really. I`d never want to see a pretty wee football team who can`t win but i would like to see Hearts play well and win if possible........

 

We must`nt forget that scottish football is at a critical point. We should be pushing to raise the standards of the game that enhances every other aspect of it....fans through the gates, better competition in the comps..etc...

[IMA MAROON]

We played a forward thinking 4-3-1-2.

Essentially a centralised 4-4-2.

 

One problem yesterday seemed to be the timing of the full backs.

In a system like that you need full backs who can support every attack and act as pseudo-wingers.

 

Often when Jamie Mac/ Zal/ Adrian had the ball, Hamill and Grainger had moved far too forward too quickly.

At other times, the midfield would look to the sides and Hamill/ Grainger weren't there yet.

Once Hamill/ Grainger get used to it - it could be very effective.

 

We had one great move in the first half which showed the potential of the system.

 

Yep, it is all about the full backs. They bring the width.

 

We need a better striker than Elliott to play in this 4-3-1-2. Maybe Smith can do it but Sutton is a carthorse.

[Drylaw Hearts]

4-4-2 is outdated. Asking to play that formation shows some of our supporters are stuck in the past and unwilling to move forward. They are probably the same people who want hoofball.

 

I bet you would struggle to name a top side who play a rigid 4-4-2.

 

I think people want to see 2 out and out strikers playing, but seeing as we seem to be well short in that department (yet again) then it's Elliott on his own through the middle with Stevenson coming in from the right.

 

It's not the greatesr to watch imo and it is all very Csaba like.

[Charlie-Brown]

I think people want to see 2 out and out strikers playing, but seeing as we seem to be well short in that department (yet again) then it's Elliott on his own through the middle with Stevenson coming in from the right.

 

It's not the greatesr to watch imo and it is all very Csaba like.

 

It doesn't matter how often you repeat this phrase DH it doesn't make it true.

 

Csaba would have taken the 1-0 penalty lead at half time and camped 10 of our players inside our half for the 2nd half and tried to hang on for the 3 points, only so lazy Nade would've stayed inside the opponents half. How often did we see us score from a Stewart penalty or a set-piece then hang on for grim death until the full-time whistle conceding ever more possession and pitch to oppenents until the last 10 minutes plus injury time was played around the edge of our box and defending corners and free kicks etc.

 

Yesterday the longer the game went on the more chances we created and the more we opened up after the hard work was done and a 2 goal lead established.

 

If anything it's the complete opposite of Csaba's tactics!! The worse we've probably played under Sergio was the opening half against Aberdeen but that apart we've dominated and controlled all of our games at Tynecastle and are more resilient away from home restricting opponents to limited chances and goals conceded in most games thus far - put it this way 11 points from 6 games ins't a bad start for any Hearts manager nevermind a new manager in a new country with another managers squad of players.

[Nookie Bear]

It doesn't matter how often you repeat this phrase DH it doesn't make it true.

 

Csaba would have taken the 1-0 penalty lead at half time and camped 10 of our players inside our half for the 2nd half and tried to hang on for the 3 points, only so lazy Nade would've stayed inside the opponents half. How often did we see us score from a Stewart penalty or a set-piece then hang on for grim death until the full-time whistle conceding ever more possession and pitch to oppenents until the last 10 minutes plus injury time was played around the edge of our box and defending corners and free kicks etc.

 

Yesterday the longer the game went on the more chances we created and the more we opened up after the hard work was done and a 2 goal lead established.

 

If anything it's the complete opposite of Csaba's tactics!! The worse we've probably played under Sergio was the opening half against Aberdeen but that apart we've dominated and controlled all of our games at Tynecastle and are more resilient away from home restricting opponents to limited chances and goals conceded in most games thus far - put it this way 11 points from 6 games ins't a bad start for any Hearts manager nevermind a new manager in a new country with another managers squad of players.

 

Good shout C-B

 

Anyone who thinks our second half performance was defensive is so far off the mark it's untrue.

 

p.s. if it had been Jeffereis-like or Ivanauskas-like, we would still be lumping high balls into the box to Elliott and we would still be waiting for a goal.

[Drylaw Hearts]

It doesn't matter how often you repeat this phrase DH it doesn't make it true.

 

Csaba would have taken the 1-0 penalty lead at half time and camped 10 of our players inside our half for the 2nd half and tried to hang on for the 3 points, only so lazy Nade would've stayed inside the opponents half. How often did we see us score from a Stewart penalty or a set-piece then hang on for grim death until the full-time whistle conceding ever more possession and pitch to oppenents until the last 10 minutes plus injury time was played around the edge of our box and defending corners and free kicks etc.

 

Yesterday the longer the game went on the more chances we created and the more we opened up after the hard work was done and a 2 goal lead established.

 

If anything it's the complete opposite of Csaba's tactics!! The worse we've probably played under Sergio was the opening half against Aberdeen but that apart we've dominated and controlled all of our games at Tynecastle and are more resilient away from home restricting opponents to limited chances and goals conceded in most games thus far - put it this way 11 points from 6 games ins't a bad start for any Hearts manager nevermind a new manager in a new country with another managers squad of players.

 

The worst we've played under PS was ICT away but that first half wasn't too far off that imo.

 

The similarities with Csaba are we're not getting forward at any great pace, it's all a bit pedestrian at times and not it's all that easy on the eye.

 

Whilst the second half was much better it was still pretty dull.

 

The GK barely had a save to make.

[4marsbars]

Agreed. I'm beginning to think Elliott is just pish. Runs about a lot but contributes the square root of bugger all to the performance

 

Not his best game on Saturday but what about his performance against Hibs? He's not always had the best of service.

 

And anyway, if the Saints hadn't scored the second goal for us it would have been his, and he was inches away from another (i.e. in the right place), which would have a been a reasonable return for a striker.

[4marsbars]

my only problem with this passing game we are playing is , whenever we pass back to the keeper , the fullbacks move out wide and make them selves available , but jamie punts it up the park.

what a waste

 

I think that (Jamie hoofing) often happened because St M pressed forward and marked our defenders, so when Jamie put up a long ball there were better odds on it reaching a Hearts player, then we'd win the second ball.

 

Plan A, play the ball out via the back four. Plan B, if they are marked, long kick-out to a less crowded midfield. Actually, something similar to 1985-86.

 

Unfortunately, we didn't win on Saturday so a lot of people are getting on the manager's back because he obviously doesn't know what he's doing.

 

Oh, wait a minute. We won but we didn't sing. I think that's down to us being used to noisy full houses (Hibs and Spurs) recently, and so the atmosphere was a bit lacking. Next home game might change that a bit.

[lewis2006]

It will be interesting to see how we cope playing PS pretty passing football in Jan/Feb at places like Fir Park etc

[colinmaroon]

It will be interesting to see how we cope playing PS pretty passing football in Jan/Feb at places like Fir Park etc

 

 

A bit disingenuous!

 

 

Keeping hold of the ball and not giving it away every time you punt the ball forward is not necessarily "pretty" - just effective!!!

[lewis2006]

A bit disingenuous!

 

 

Keeping hold of the ball and not giving it away every time you punt the ball forward is not necessarily "pretty" - just effective!!!

 

Ok then, I look forward to seeing how well we "keep hold of the ball and not give it away" come Jan/Feb on pitches like Fir Park

[Chris Benoit]

It isn't exactly pretty but it's proving to be effective. Being hard to beat in the SPL will take you a long way we just need to show more going forward. It'll take time but surely it's better that we're getting some decent results while going through a transitional period where we can only get better is it not?

 

DH while I agree it's somewhat similar to Cssba's reign we at least are showing more going forward and have players on the bench to change things if we go behind. I'm fairly positive with how things are going so far and hopefully see the likes of Robinson, Smith and Holt getting games when we're more settled into the system.

[heartsfc_fan]

The worst we've played under PS was ICT away but that first half wasn't too far off that imo.

 

The similarities with Csaba are we're not getting forward at any great pace, it's all a bit pedestrian at times and not it's all that easy on the eye.

 

Whilst the second half was much better it was still pretty dull.

 

The GK barely had a save to make.

 

 

The difference with the team now and with Csaba is they don't sit and camp after being 1-0 up 7 goals in 3 home games and none conceeded is good in my book.

 

The football we are playing is "different" to what we have been used to in the last 18 months, but I think we are slowly getting there.

[topcat]

We had wide players on Saturday their names were Hamill and Grainger.

 

If we'd been set up with the kind of more obviously attack minded formation being suggested in the OP then the full backs wouldn't have had the freedom to get forward as much as they did.

 

 

[DETTY29]

PS has told us we'll be playing a passing game.

 

Quite frankly, he's been here a month and with the squad we have, I'm disgusted we aren't passing the ball around at the same pace as Barcelona and Manchester United.

[bighusref]

4-4-2 is outdated. Asking to play that formation shows some of our supporters are stuck in the past and unwilling to move forward. They are probably the same people who want hoofball.

 

I bet you would struggle to name a top side who play a rigid 4-4-2.

 

Poor Liam,

 

Manchester United and Rangers play 4-4-2. Somebody needs to tell the manager of, arguably, the second biggest club team in the world that "4-4-2 is outdated".

[We_are_the_Hearts]

Poor Liam,

 

Manchester United and Rangers play 4-4-2. Somebody needs to tell the manager of, arguably, the second biggest club team in the world that "4-4-2 is outdated".

it's not 2 out and out strikers though. Rooney has a free role.

[Debut 4]

Poor Liam,

 

Manchester United and Rangers play 4-4-2. Somebody needs to tell the manager of, arguably, the second biggest club team in the world that "4-4-2 is outdated".

It`s just this snobbish view of the game today BH. You play the formation that suits the players you have.

 

Im sure Celtic played two upfront against Ross County, in fact, do they not play two most of the time?

[We_are_the_Hearts]

It`s just this snobbish view of the game today BH. You play the formation that suits the players you have.

 

Im sure Celtic played two upfront against Ross County, in fact, do they not play two most of the time?

It also depends on the calibre of the opposition as well. England and Argentina tried it at the World Cup and got easily picked off against good teams. If we had a better midfield we could play it in the SPL but our midfield is worrying at times.

[shaun.lawson]

Poor Liam,

 

Manchester United and Rangers play 4-4-2. Somebody needs to tell the manager of, arguably, the second biggest club team in the world that "4-4-2 is outdated".

 

Now why did I guess you'd have gravitated to this thread, BH?

 

The reason why 4-4-2 works for Manchester United is simple. It's because they can sign and bring through better players than pretty much anyone else in the league. Therefore, tactics become far less important; yet at Champions League level, where a larger number of clubs have very high quality sides, how a manager sets his team up is considerably more significant. And at CL level, how many times have English clubs won the tournament since their return from the Heysel ban? Despite all their revenue, all their purchasing power, just three: all of them in desperately marginal, messy finals too. In comparison, over the same period, Barcelona (on at least two occasions), Real Madrid, Milan, and even Porto have all won the final in a grand, dominant manner: because all those sides were tactically superior, and three of them technically superior, to even the very best England has had to offer over that entire time

 

Then we come to international level - where sides have to make do with what they have, and can't go out and cherrypick whoever they want. And guess what? At international level, tactics become everything. Even with all their immense quality (notably, the quality offered by the best club side on the planet), Spain never looked like winning the World Cup until they dropped Torres and went to 4-2-3-1. The same was true of Brazil in 2002: who looked a mess until Scolari dropped Juninho, who'd done nothing wrong at all, and brought Kleberson in as a second holding midfielder.

 

Last summer, every single World Cup semi-finalist (including those well known defensive, cautious sides, Germany and Spain ) played 4-2-3-1. If you honestly regard that as a coincidence, then well... And true: Uruguay, the new South American Champions, played 4-4-2 in the knock-out stages of the Copa America: but they were very lucky to get past Argentina after being overrun at times in midfield, and if they go with just 4-4-2 (as opposed to being able to adapt to a variety of different systems: flexibility and adaptability are the key above all) in 2014, a quality side will put them out. Their coach knows that as well as anyone else.

 

One other thing. Who have been the best EPL players down the years? Cantona, Bergkamp, Zola, Scholes, Rooney, Le Tissier, Henry, Ronaldo, Gerrard, Lampard. And why? Because every one of them made continual hay out of exploiting the yawning space between the two banks of four of many of their opponents.

 

I want you to name me another major European league in which so many players of this ilk have had comparable success. That they've done it in English football is, in many cases, because English football is tactically naive; and meanwhile, at international level, the likes of Lampard, Gerrard or Scholes have almost never been used in the same way, because England never play 4-2-3-1. And whaddayknow? They all suddenly looked like different, inferior players.

 

Hearts can play 4-4-2. Sure we can. That's because we've got better players than anyone else in the league outwith the OF. But against the OF, or European opponents, who have better players than we do, 4-4-2 is pure suicide. Put most simply: if a team starts at a disadvantage in terms of quality, it has to find a way of bridging that gap through how shape and approach to the game.

 

Rangers, who you also mentioned, don't need to do this against any domestic opponent other than Celtic - yet even they went 4-5-1 again and again and again in Europe under Smith. And why do you think that might be?

[bighusref]

it's not 2 out and out strikers though. Rooney has a free role.

 

If you are trying to tell me that Rooney isn't a striker then you should give up this football lark.

 

It`s just this snobbish view of the game today BH. You play the formation that suits the players you have.

 

Im sure Celtic played two upfront against Ross County, in fact, do they not play two most of the time?

 

It is a bit of that, but it really is people that are either stupid, believe what Sky Sports tell them or think they are forward thinking, think they know more than football professionals and really know little more than almanac style records.....

 

Now why did I guess you'd have gravitated to this thread, BH?

 

The reason why 4-4-2 works for Manchester United is simple. It's because they can sign and bring through better players than pretty much anyone else in the league. Therefore, tactics become far less important; yet at Champions League level, where a larger number of clubs have very high quality sides, how a manager sets his team up is considerably more significant. And at CL level, how many times have English clubs won the tournament since their return from the Heysel ban? Despite all their revenue, all their purchasing power, just three: all of them in desperately marginal, messy finals too. In comparison, over the same period, Barcelona (on at least two occasions), Real Madrid, Milan, and even Porto have all won the final in a grand, dominant manner: because all those sides were tactically superior, and three of them technically superior, to even the very best England has had to offer over that entire time

 

Then we come to international level - where sides have to make do with what they have, and can't go out and cherrypick whoever they want. And guess what? At international level, tactics become everything. Even with all their immense quality (notably, the quality offered by the best club side on the planet), Spain never looked like winning the World Cup until they dropped Torres and went to 4-2-3-1. The same was true of Brazil in 2002: who looked a mess until Scolari dropped Juninho, who'd done nothing wrong at all, and brought Kleberson in as a second holding midfielder.

 

Last summer, every single World Cup semi-finalist played 4-2-3-1. If you honestly regard that as a coincidence, then well... And true: Uruguay, the new South American Champions, played 4-4-2 in the knock-out stages of the Copa America: but they were very lucky to get past Argentina, and if they go with just 4-4-2 (as opposed to being able to adapt to a variety of different systems) in 2014, a quality side will put them out. Their coach knows that as well as anyone else.

 

One other thing. Who have been the best EPL players down the years? Cantona, Bergkamp, Zola, Scholes, Rooney, Le Tissier, Henry, Ronaldo, Gerrard, Lampard. And why? Because every one of them made continual hay out of exploiting the yawning space between the two banks of four of many of their opponents.

 

I want you to name me another major European league in which so many players of this ilk have had comparable success. That they've done it in English football is, in many cases, because English football is tactically naive; and meanwhile, at international level, the likes of Lampard, Gerrard or Scholes have almost never been used in the same way, because England never play 4-2-3-1. And whaddayknow? They all suddenly looked like different, inferior players.

 

Hearts can play 4-4-2. Sure we can. That's because we've got better players than anyone else in the league outwith the OF. But against the OF, or European opponents, who have better players than we do, 4-4-2 is pure suicide. Put most simply: if a team starts at a disadvantage in terms of quality, it has to find a way of bridging that gap through how its shape.

 

Rangers, who you also mentioned, don't need to do this against any domestic opponent other than Celtic - yet even they went 4-5-1 again and again and again in Europe under Smith. And why do you think that might be?

 

Hi Shaun,

 

Please note that I have emboldened the first few words of your post. I'll take this and the following sentence as an admittance that you know you are wrong. Are you REALLY playing the "it's because they have better players"? If that is the case, then that debunks anything you say further as your point is, supposedly that teams with better players win irrespective of formation.

 

Still, feel free to suggest you know more than the greats of modern football like Sir Alex Ferguson, Fabio Capello and bighusref.

 

Thanks,

[jamboBG]

Maby in games from Scottish Premier league 4-4-2 working, but in Europa, against seriose oponent, this is insurance for 0-5. I remember what the oposition was against QAngel Chervenkov for 4-5-1 (in attack 4-3-3). But in this time he worked with chance in team to be several players who know the sisstem. Later Csaba maked sumething and oposition again. In not thrue that MU play 4-4-2. Sir Alex is genius, but people don't want to pereat him. If thay repeat him, this is insurance for succes. No chance the team to repeat Barca, because this is "another beer". No chance.

 

Portugalian coach know this game exellent. But question is who want to teach new?

 

All the best!

[We_are_the_Hearts]

We will wait and see when Sir Alex and Fabio play against the big teams like Barca, Real, Germany or Spain. Will gurantee you they will be playing 4-2-3-1.

[shaun.lawson]

 

 

Hi Shaun,

 

Please note that I have emboldened the first few words of your post. I'll take this and the following sentence as an admittance that you know you are wrong. Are you REALLY playing the "it's because they have better players"? If that is the case, then that debunks anything you say further as your point is, supposedly that teams with better players win irrespective of formation.

 

Still, feel free to suggest you know more than the greats of modern football like Sir Alex Ferguson, Fabio Capello and bighusref.

 

Thanks,

 

It is because they have better players. Then at international level, the standard drops, and the challenge for any coach increases very considerably - because sides can't go out and buy whoever they want.

 

European club football has changed hugely over the last decade or so, with high quality concentrated at a handful of elite clubs. These clubs are able to lord it over their domestic leagues, and not concern themselves that much with tactics; but then, at CL level, tactics become far more important. And at CL level, English clubs' record in actually winning the thing remains poor.

 

I notice you failed to answer any of the questions I asked you. That, I can only assume, is because you can't. Your attitude to tactics and systems is so hilariously British, it's unbelievable; but then, it's not my fault if you take such joy in being so myopic.

[shaun.lawson]

We will wait and see when Sir Alex and Fabio play against the big teams like Barca, Real, Germany or Spain. Will gurantee you they will be playing 4-2-3-1.

 

Funny, that.

[We_are_the_Hearts]

Funny, that.

England played it in Bulgaria did they not? Rooney up front with Walcott, Young and Downing supporting. Parker and Barry in midfield? The problem at Hearts is the quality of players, not the formation.

[JamboSean]

The football we played on Saturday was slow patient passing around the defence and the midfield. Next time we do that, have a look at what Elliot and Stevenson are doing - they're constantly on the move. Hence why Sutton isn't suited to our play.

 

This creates the space for a midfielder to take the ball, turn and play a pass. Unfortunately we don't have the type of player to do this consistantly yet. Robinson and Taouil may be the players to do this in the future.

 

As for going 4-4-2 every week, can we really rely on Black and Mroviec to out pass and out run every 3 man centre midfield we come across? I very much doubt it.

 

I think some Hearts fans would prefer we played like Stoke. High energry, low quality football that is effective to a certain level. We can do this and finish 3rd - 5th every season but you can forget about playing well in Europe, against the Old Firm and ever getting near a 2nd place finish.

[bighusref]

We will wait and see when Sir Alex and Fabio play against the big teams like Barca, Real, Germany or Spain. Will gurantee you they will be playing 4-2-3-1.

 

They may have a different formation for other games, but that doesn't change the fact that I was debating. 4-4-2 is not outdated, it is merely a formation that is utilised at the right time by the right manager. A fact ignored by young Liam and something that Shaun thinks he knows more about than two of the most decorated managers of our time.

[shaun.lawson]

England played it in Bulgaria did they not? Rooney up front with Walcott, Young and Downing supporting. Parker and Barry in midfield? The problem at Hearts is the quality of players, not the formation.

 

Correct - except when we come to play superior opponents, at which point quality of players and formation becomes key. And yep, even Capello woke up and played it in Bulgaria - but I wouldn't put it past him to revert back to the old, ultra-naive nonsense next summer if we qualify.

[shaun.lawson]

They may have a different formation for other games, but that doesn't change the fact that I was debating. 4-4-2 is not outdated, it is merely a formation that is utilised at the right time by the right manager. A fact ignored by young Liam and something that Shaun thinks he knows more about than two of the most decorated managers of our time.

 

You never did answer how you thought Steven Gerrard could ever possibly be a left winger. On that point, every single England fan or general observer anywhere appeared to know more than the manager.

 

Watch what Ferguson does in Europe, against high quality opposition. Then get back to me.

[bighusref]

It is because they have better players. Then at international level, the standard drops, and the challenge for any coach increases very considerably - because sides can't go out and buy whoever they want.

 

European club football has changed hugely over the last decade or so, with high quality concentrated at a handful of elite clubs. These clubs are able to lord it over their domestic leagues, and not concern themselves that much with tactics; but then, at CL level, tactics become far more important. And at CL level, English clubs' record in actually winning the thing remains poor.

 

I notice you failed to answer any of the questions I asked you. That, I can only assume, is because you can't. Your attitude to tactics and system is so hilariously British, it's unbelievable; but then, it's not my fault if you take such joy in being so myopic.

 

Manchester United have played 4-4-2 against Arsenal and Chelsea already, hammering both in the process. I am sure that Arsenal and Chelsea will be there or there abouts when the European Cup is decided. Rangers played 4-4-2 against Celtic (using a "modern" formation with one real frontman) and beat them relatively convincingly as well, but neither of those are the points I was getting at.

 

I ignored your questions as they were neither related to my point nor did they hold water after you dropping the chat about better players winning games, after that formations are academic, aren't they?

 

Anyway, your whole point on 4-4-2 has always been that it shouldn't be used and that it didn't work. I was merely stating that it does work. Still, never mind, that British attitude of mine must be shared by Sir Alex Ferguson and Fabio Capello.

 

Funny, that.

 

 

I'll point you to the above, I am glad you accept the error of your ways now and that you accept that 4-4-2 does work. One of these days, Shaun, you will learn.

[jamboBG]

England played it in Bulgaria did they not? Rooney up front with Walcott, Young and Downing supporting. Parker and Barry in midfield? The problem at Hearts is the quality of players, not the formation.

 

I support your opinion, but I don't confirm idea for bad coach, who plays in bad sisstem. Maby is time for change. Who dont want to teach...

 

NB: And Bulgaria is not criterium now. We have very hi prolems with change of generations. Big war betwen clubs and Agents for bsice positions in the team. Is not only football.

[We_are_the_Hearts]

They may have a different formation for other games, but that doesn't change the fact that I was debating. 4-4-2 is not outdated, it is merely a formation that is utilised at the right time by the right manager. A fact ignored by young Liam and something that Shaun thinks he knows more about than two of the most decorated managers of our time.

Wouldn't say it is outdated but has defo been overtaken as the best formation. To sacrifice a midfielder you need a lot of confidence in your midfielders. Or basically miss them out like we did when we had Kyle playing.

[bighusref]

You never did answer how you thought Steven Gerrard could ever possibly be a left winger. On that point, every single England fan or general observer anywhere appeared to know more than the manager.

 

Christ, Shaun!

 

Honestly, I don't recall that. Still, your pomposity to suggest that you know better than Capello is amusing.

 

Watch what Ferguson does in Europe, against high quality opposition. Then get back to me.

 

Quite a few times recently, I have wondered if you are actually stupid. I think, naw, he cannae be, he knows lots of stuff that google knows, he believes what some journalists say and he has a decent command of the English language. He also writes ad nauseaum about his opinions, he cannot be that daft can he? Yet, you continue to post the odd daft post like the above. Either you neglected to read my post, failed to understand my post or are simply at the wind up.

[shaun.lawson]

Manchester United have played 4-4-2 against Arsenal and Chelsea already, hammering both in the process. I am sure that Arsenal and Chelsea will be there or there abouts when the European Cup is decided. Rangers played 4-4-2 against Celtic (using a "modern" formation with one real frontman) and beat them relatively convincingly as well, but neither of those are the points I was getting at.

 

I ignored your questions as they were neither related to my point nor did they hold water after you dropping the chat about better players winning games, after that formations are academic, aren't they?

 

Anyway, your whole point on 4-4-2 has always been that it shouldn't be used and that it didn't work. I was merely stating that it does work. Still, never mind, that British attitude of mine must be shared by Sir Alex Ferguson and Fabio Capello.

 

 

 

 

I'll point you to the above, I am glad you accept the error of your ways now and that you accept that 4-4-2 does work. One of these days, Shaun, you will learn.

 

 

My questions were entirely related to the point, and represented a comprehensive reply to your questions. Unfortunately, you're never able to do me the same courtesy. It's because you know you're wrong.

 

Yes - Man Utd thrashed an Arsenal side so inferior and so injury-riven, that starting XI would finish mid-table at best. Your point? And they beat Chelsea too - except Chelsea gave them the runaround for large parts of the game, but just couldn't hit a barn door.

 

Your ability to dismiss what is right in front of your eyes in terms of the success of 4-2-3-1 at international and CL level, and failure of 4-4-2, is remarkable; so is your total failure to appreciate how different a beast international football is from any other version of the game. Why don't Spain play as exhilaratingly as Barcelona, despite the huge amounts of quality at their disposal? It's because, at international level, a team is nothing if it doesn't get its system right; and when playing superior opponents, that's true of any side at club level too.

 

In Glasgow, or even at home to the OF, would you go with 4-4-2? Tell me you wouldn't, please.

[bighusref]

Wouldn't say it is outdated but has defo been overtaken as the best formation. To sacrifice a midfielder you need a lot of confidence in your midfielders. Or basically miss them out like we did when we had Kyle playing.

 

 

Two things here.

 

Firstly, I put it to you that there is no such thing as "the best formation".

 

Secondly, when you make the Kyle point, you do remember that we played with three in midfield, two wide players and one man up top, don't you? Ta.

[shaun.lawson]

Christ, Shaun!

 

Honestly, I don't recall that. Still, your pomposity to suggest that you know better than Capello is amusing.

 

 

 

Quite a few times recently, I have wondered if you are actually stupid. I think, naw, he cannae be, he knows lots of stuff that google knows, he believes what some journalists say and he has a decent command of the English language. He also writes ad nauseaum about his opinions, he cannot be that daft can he? Yet, you continue to post the odd daft post like the above. Either you neglected to read my post, failed to understand my post or are simply at the wind up.

 

Watch what Ferguson does in Europe, then get back to me. Or do you think you know better than he does?

 

On Gerrard: your in-depth analysis of his performances in South Africa was that he was, and I quote, HONKING. Well d'uh. If a goalkeeper was played up front in a World Cup knock-out game, he'd probably be honking too.

[Debut 4]

You never did answer how you thought Steven Gerrard could ever possibly be a left winger. On that point, every single England fan or general observer anywhere appeared to know more than the manager.

 

Watch what Ferguson does in Europe, against high quality opposition. Then get back to me.

But the point is Shaun, 4-4-2 isn`t outdated, no formation is in essence if you are adjusting to the opposition or think its the best for your players....

 

As you say, the top clubs can play any formation and 4-4-2 at that, because of the ability and movement of their team..

 

Rooney does sit off the frontman for Man Utd but his timing is perfect to make it a two in a counter attack or when he sees the right time to go further forward....

 

My sticking point is, while we are trying to improve on a number of fronts, are we (the manager more so) becoming stubborn to change to a 4-4-2 just because of the new found philosophy? Firstly, because we may not be quite there yet in becoming more polished in our new system, does that mean we`ll suffer a bit because we won`t go two uptop which actually may suit us from time to time?

 

We had this problem under Csaba even in his good season. We afforded teams time and possession in their own half and never put them under pressure enough.....we toiled to score goals at times...

 

One of the best sides where we struck the balance almost perfectly was 1998....and that was with two up.... But we had the pace and movement to turn defence into attack very quickly ... McCann was our wide outlet who rampaged up and down the line while Fulton, Cameron and Salvatori held the midfield.....take yer pick out of Flogel, Hamilton and Adam and the odd perf from Robbo to pick yer two upfront........

 

It worked but you wouldn`t say it stuck out a mile as a 4-4-2 and became predictable given the movement we had .

[We_are_the_Hearts]

Two things here.

 

Firstly, I put it to you that there is no such thing as "the best formation".

 

Secondly, when you make the Kyle point, you do remember that we played with three in midfield, two wide players and one man up top, don't you? Ta.

And I'm putting it to you that there is, proven by facts. Name me the last team to win a WC or CL playing 4-4-2.

 

Not all the time no. We had Kyle and Calum Elliott up top, then we had Kyle and Stephen Elliott up top but JJ deployed SE further back against the better teams so it became 4-2-3-1. Hey ho

[We_are_the_Hearts]

But the point is Shaun, 4-4-2 isn`t outdated, no formation is in essence if you are adjusting to the opposition or think its the best for your players....

 

As you say, the top clubs can play any formation and 4-4-2 at that, because of the ability and movement of their team..

 

Rooney does sit off the frontman for Man Utd but his timing is perfect to make it a two in a counter attack or when he sees the right time to go further forward....

My sticking point is, while we are trying to improve on a number of fronts, are we (the manager more so) becoming stubborn to change to a 4-4-2 just because of the new found philosophy? Firstly, because we may not be quite there yet in becoming more polished in our new system, does that mean we`ll suffer a bit because we won`t go two uptop which actually may suit us from time to time?

 

We had this problem under Csaba even in his good season. We afforded teams time and possession in their own half and never put them under pressure enough.....we toiled to score goals at times...

 

One of the best sides where we struck the balance almost perfectly was 1998....and that was with two up.... But we had the pace and movement to turn defence into attack very quickly ... McCann was our wide outlet who rampaged up and down the line while Fulton, Cameron and Salvatori held the midfield.....take yer pick out of Flogel, Hamilton and Adam and the odd perf from Robbo to pick yer two upfront........

 

It worked but you wouldn`t say it stuck out a mile as a 4-4-2 and became predictable given the movement we had .

Bit in bold is a great point. Unfortunately we have nobody as good as Roooney and our midfield aint very good so it has to be 4-2-3-1 for me. Unfortunately ours can be 4-3-2-1 at times!!

[We_are_the_Hearts]

But the point is Shaun, 4-4-2 isn`t outdated, no formation is in essence if you are adjusting to the opposition or think its the best for your players....

 

As you say, the top clubs can play any formation and 4-4-2 at that, because of the ability and movement of their team..

 

Rooney does sit off the frontman for Man Utd but his timing is perfect to make it a two in a counter attack or when he sees the right time to go further forward....

 

My sticking point is, while we are trying to improve on a number of fronts, are we (the manager more so) becoming stubborn to change to a 4-4-2 just because of the new found philosophy? Firstly, because we may not be quite there yet in becoming more polished in our new system, does that mean we`ll suffer a bit because we won`t go two uptop which actually may suit us from time to time?

 

We had this problem under Csaba even in his good season. We afforded teams time and possession in their own half and never put them under pressure enough.....we toiled to score goals at times...

 

One of the best sides where we struck the balance almost perfectly was 1998....and that was with two up.... But we had the pace and movement to turn defence into attack very quickly ... McCann was our wide outlet who rampaged up and down the line while Fulton, Cameron and Salvatori held the midfield.....take yer pick out of Flogel, Hamilton and Adam and the odd perf from Robbo to pick yer two upfront........

It worked but you wouldn`t say it stuck out a mile as a 4-4-2 and became predictable given the movement we had .

Adam was key to that as never played as an out and out striker. Probably the best and most intelligent movement I have seen from a Hearts striker.