PDA

View Full Version : One up front



Smartie
11-10-2019, 09:58 AM
Right, I know this has been done to death on here, but........

Many teams throughout the world play one up front. I get that. It is not necessarily a formation that is negative, it can be very positive and can involve a great number of players in your attacking play.

I'm a Hibs fan and pay closest attention to us and our fortunes. I have in the past been a passionate follower of the national side but have fallen away from that over the past few years for various reasons. I also take a passing interest in Sunderland, although I wouldn't call myself a fan.

All of these teams are underperforming badly right now. All of these teams have some clearly talented players that they are not getting the best of out of. All of these teams' fans are scrambling about looking for something/ someone to blame and the blame normally falls on the manager.

All of these teams are shakier than they should be at the back, struggling to dominate midfield, creating few chances and missing the ones they create.

All of these teams have players who should be capable of excelling at the level they are playing at, but are not.

All of these teams play one up front.

Badly.

Is it just me or is there something in this?

I accept that there are obvious weaknesses with just about every formation you can play but I look at the squads of players these 3 teams have, the level they are playing at and can't quite fathom how they are all managing to underachieve so badly.

Thoughts?

JeMeSouviens
11-10-2019, 10:03 AM
Playing 2 strikers, our lightweight midfield would probably be overrun most weeks. Playing 1 up front requires a strong, mobile player who can finish which we don't seem to have.

Catch 22?

Diclonius
11-10-2019, 10:22 AM
I can't stand one up front.

Daydreamer
11-10-2019, 10:32 AM
I can't stand one up front.


Neither can I but surely you've noticed that the two wide players and Allan and Mallan are now busting a gut to get forward to help Doidge which was'nt happening before. If only Doidge had the vision to see these runs forward we would have certainly got a win ladt week.

sauzeelegod
11-10-2019, 10:48 AM
I’ve said for a while we should try an Atletico Madrid style 442. The wide players tuck inside and play more centrally allowing the full backs to provide the width. 2 banks of 4 when defending and 2 strikers on the pitch. Who knows if we have the players for it though.

Torto7
11-10-2019, 10:50 AM
A lot of teams in Italy play 3 at the back so they can get the 2 up front. Hibs should try and copy Atalanta I think. They have a guy called Papu Gomez, who's an absolute magician but doesn't have the legs to cover players-sounds like Scott Allan to me. They get around it by playing 3-4-1-2. The same formation we had a lot of success with under Lennon. We dropped this setup far too early for me.

Everyone in Scotland plays a similar style. 4-5-1/4-3-3. It would be nice if we went against the grain a bit and started teaching 3-4-1-2 and 3-5-2.

danhibees1875
11-10-2019, 10:55 AM
If we have the wingbacks to get up and down the line all game then 3-5-2/5-3-2 would be my formation of choice.

easty
11-10-2019, 10:57 AM
I’ve said for a while we should try an Atletico Madrid style 442. The wide players tuck inside and play more centrally allowing the full backs to provide the width. 2 banks of 4 when defending and 2 strikers on the pitch. Who knows if we have the players for it though.

I know.

We don't.

my left peg
11-10-2019, 11:12 AM
I know.

We don't.

Mackie played well at left wing back against Hearts at Xmas last year,I think that would be his best position.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

vercol36
11-10-2019, 11:25 AM
Right, I know this has been done to death on here, but........

Many teams throughout the world play one up front. I get that. It is not necessarily a formation that is negative, it can be very positive and can involve a great number of players in your attacking play.

I'm a Hibs fan and pay closest attention to us and our fortunes. I have in the past been a passionate follower of the national side but have fallen away from that over the past few years for various reasons. I also take a passing interest in Sunderland, although I wouldn't call myself a fan.

All of these teams are underperforming badly right now. All of these teams have some clearly talented players that they are not getting the best of out of. All of these teams' fans are scrambling about looking for something/ someone to blame and the blame normally falls on the manager.

All of these teams are shakier than they should be at the back, struggling to dominate midfield, creating few chances and missing the ones they create.

All of these teams have players who should be capable of excelling at the level they are playing at, but are not.

All of these teams play one up front.

Badly.

Is it just me or is there something in this?

I accept that there are obvious weaknesses with just about every formation you can play but I look at the squads of players these 3 teams have, the level they are playing at and can't quite fathom how they are all managing to underachieve so badly.

Thoughts?

Bit of a chicken/egg situation I suppose. Do teams play ***** because of playing one up front... or do ***** teams play one up front because it's the only way to protect the midfield?

I'd go with the latter.

sauzeelegod
11-10-2019, 11:27 AM
I’ve said for a while we should try an Atletico Madrid style 442. The wide players tuck inside and play more centrally allowing the full backs to provide the width. 2 banks of 4 when defending and 2 strikers on the pitch. Who knows if we have the players for it though.

SickBoy32
11-10-2019, 11:33 AM
I’ve said for a while we should try an Atletico Madrid style 442. The wide players tuck inside and play more centrally allowing the full backs to provide the width. 2 banks of 4 when defending and 2 strikers on the pitch. Who knows if we have the players for it though.

I like the sound of this. Our wingers have been poor all season, so I think it's fair to drop Horgan/Middleton.

And safe to say Doidge could benefit from a partnership.

blackpoolhibs
11-10-2019, 11:36 AM
We could play 5 up front if we had the players, sadly we don’t have the players for that system or good enough players for any other system you care to mention.

NORTHERNHIBBY
11-10-2019, 11:41 AM
i don't know if we don't use the right formation for the players that we have or we don't have the right players for the formation that we use.

blackpoolhibs
11-10-2019, 11:48 AM
i don't know if we don't use the right formation for the players that we have or we don't have the right players for the formation that we use.

You only have to use your eyes to see we have had a huge downturn in quality, have built a squad as unbalanced as my pitched roof, add in a manager who takes off our only player who can defend and replaces him with someone who can’t tackle, then you have the answers.

WeeRussell
11-10-2019, 11:51 AM
We could play 5 up front if we had the players, sadly we don’t have the players for that system or good enough players for any other system you care to mention.

As blunt as the above might be, I'm inclined to agree. 1 up top has never been a favourite of mine for any team, but we're not a good side just now however we set-up.

If we play two up-front and go about our game as negatively and poorly as we have been, it probably won't make too much difference. However I would like to see us try set-up a little more positively, especially as we can't keep goals out and are miles away from being solid at the back. You can get away with crap football and negative tactics a little more if you are getting results and not conceding many.

Ideally I'd like to see Kamberi played as a striker alongside someone. With Allan in attacking midfield.

Alas I imagine Hecky would revert straight back to a lone striker if we happened to take the lead anyway.

J-C
11-10-2019, 12:09 PM
Most teams that play 4-3-3 either play 3 attackers like Liverpool, Man C, etc, or have very good attacking midfielders who support the striker. We have none of these so we play 4-5-1 and hope to snatch a win or draw, this goes for Hibs and Scotland.

overdrive
11-10-2019, 12:23 PM
I’ve said for a while we should try an Atletico Madrid style 442. The wide players tuck inside and play more centrally allowing the full backs to provide the width. 2 banks of 4 when defending and 2 strikers on the pitch. Who knows if we have the players for it though.

The trouble is Heckingbottom has the full backs tuck in to the centre back position as soon as the opposition have the ball in our half which means it takes longer for them to get forward and provide width when we break.

Interestingly Scotland were using the same tactic last night.

HoboHarry
11-10-2019, 12:40 PM
Most teams that play 4-3-3 either play 3 attackers like Liverpool, Man C, etc, or have very good attacking midfielders who support the striker. We have none of these so we play 4-5-1 and hope to snatch a win or draw, this goes for Hibs and Scotland.
Liverpool also have very good defending attackers. In particular, the defensive work of Sadio Mane is just phenomenal at times....

J-C
11-10-2019, 12:50 PM
Liverpool also have very good defending attackers. In particular, the defensive work of Sadio Mane is just phenomenal at times....

Exactly, Boyle is only one I'd say did that for us, Horgan and Middleton don't do enough.

easty
11-10-2019, 01:14 PM
I’ve said for a while we should try an Atletico Madrid style 442. The wide players tuck inside and play more centrally allowing the full backs to provide the width. 2 banks of 4 when defending and 2 strikers on the pitch. Who knows if we have the players for it though.


I’ve said for a while we should try an Atletico Madrid style 442. The wide players tuck inside and play more centrally allowing the full backs to provide the width. 2 banks of 4 when defending and 2 strikers on the pitch. Who knows if we have the players for it though.

I know.

We don't.

Is this a glitz in the matrix?

The 90+2
11-10-2019, 01:15 PM
😂

Diclonius
11-10-2019, 01:32 PM
I’ve said for a while we should try an Atletico Madrid style 442. The wide players tuck inside and play more centrally allowing the full backs to provide the width. 2 banks of 4 when defending and 2 strikers on the pitch. Who knows if we have the players for it though.

GoalsMcGinley
11-10-2019, 01:58 PM
It’s not the formation it’s the personnel. They can’t play it effectively


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Smartie
11-10-2019, 02:06 PM
It’s not the formation it’s the personnel. They can’t play it effectively


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree with that.

But I'm seeing quite a lot of clubs trying to play that formation and not looking very good at it.

We do probably need one or two additions, but I'm convinced our current core of players could be turned into something pretty decent with a change in formation/ tactics.

I don't know who or what we'd need to sign to make a go of the 451, likewise I don't know what Scotland would need to do to make a success of it.

J-C
11-10-2019, 02:16 PM
A front 3 of Fraser, Griffiths and Forest would be my choice.

Torto7
11-10-2019, 02:42 PM
I've never understood why coaching courses in Scotland all pump out managers that by and large have the same ideas. Surely variation would be better.

neil7908
11-10-2019, 02:50 PM
Most teams that play 4-3-3 either play 3 attackers like Liverpool, Man C, etc, or have very good attacking midfielders who support the striker. We have none of these so we play 4-5-1 and hope to snatch a win or draw, this goes for Hibs and Scotland.

I think this is a really good point. We may play a 4-3-3 on paper but it bears nothing in comparison to how say Liverpool play it.

If course we don't have the calibre of players they do but what we play is more akin to a 4-5-1 which neuters our wide players and leaves our strikers isolated.

NORTHERNHIBBY
11-10-2019, 03:24 PM
It’s not the formation it’s the personnel. They can’t play it effectively


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Equally that is the formation ? Why don't we have one that can be played by what we have?

B.H.F.C
11-10-2019, 03:27 PM
Equally that is the formation ? Why don't we have one that can be played by what we have?

Because what we have are pish.

ancient hibee
11-10-2019, 04:59 PM
I’ve said for a while we should try an Atletico Madrid style 442. The wide players tuck inside and play more centrally allowing the full backs to provide the width. 2 banks of 4 when defending and 2 strikers on the pitch. Who knows if we have the players for it though.

That’s a novel thought.