442

[Pretty Boy]

Unfashionable but effective. Discuss.

[hibee316]

Unfashionable but effective. Discuss.


https://youtu.be/v7hEqCdAwjs

[Vault Boy]

We just need to be pragmatic. Our best results this season have come with this shape, no brainer. Scott Allan might have to adjust to life as an impact sub for a while.

[vercol36]

Unfashionable but effective. Discuss.

Agreed. **** yer modern football 🖕

[EI255]

Unfashionable but effective. Discuss.That's what it takes to defeat a dull team like HAFC. They play the same system every single bloody time, yet we still can't set it up right at the start.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

[Unseen work]

Personally I’m not the biggest fan of it in this league with the squad we have as I think most teams would overrun us and dominate the centre of the park.

Different when we freshen it up at home and know we need to win to starting it away at Motherwell.

If we had two solid, reliable centre mids who protected the back 4 it would be worth considering but until then not for me.

[Smartie]

4-2-3-1.

Fashionable, favoured by “fitba fowk” but utterly ineffective with our personnel, and unlikely to be anything other than that any time soon.

Discuss.

[sean04]

Had to stretch the game, was all to easy for Hamilton to defend

[PH91]

Any formation can be effective if you have the right players to play in it.

We have no natural sitting midfielders so why we try to play a formation where you need 2 is baffling.

442 or 352 are the best options with the players we have just now. 433 may become a better option once we bring in a defensive mid (surely we are going to!)

[660]

4-4-2 is the purists choice tbh

[Pretty Boy]

Personally I’m not the biggest fan of it in this league with the squad we have as I think most teams would overrun us and dominate the centre of the park.

Different when we freshen it up at home and know we need to win to starting it away at Motherwell.

If we had two solid, reliable centre mids who protected the back 4 it would be worth considering but until then not for me.

442 from the start or freshening it up has won us far more points this season than any alternative. We were overrun in the 1st half tonight, far less so when we switched to it.

I'm not against the 4231, 433, 41121678234 etc but you need the players to play it. As it stands 442 is the one that has actually seen us win games.

[neil7908]

It was a 4-2-4 by the end tbh.

Brilliant to watch and credit to Ross for going for it at half time but a decent team would have punished us on the break.

[Smartie]

It was a 4-2-4 by the end tbh.

Brilliant to watch and credit to Ross for going for it at half time but a decent team would have punished us on the break.

It was a real gamble from the manager (if it’s ok to say that) to make the 3 subs so early on, leaving Gray and Kamberi on to play 90 minutes.

It wasn’t working and it wasn’t going to start working so the changes were good to see.

[jacomo]

4-2-3-1.

Fashionable, favoured by “fitba fowk” but utterly ineffective with our personnel, and unlikely to be anything other than that any time soon.

Discuss.


Any formation can be positive or negative depending on personnel and how you set up.

All formations are about maximising your strengths and minimising your weaknesses.

Certain formations become fashionable for all sorts of reasons (rule changes, increasing pace of the game, genuine innovation) but then other teams adapt.

In short: formations are important but only one part of the puzzle, and getting fixated on just one is dumb. Even Barca have played 4-4-2 at times recently.

If it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for us.

[neil7908]

Main thing for me is we start putting folk in their preferred position.

Kamberi was poor today but he's a complete waste out on the left wing.

Equally, Newell looked a different player in the middle rather than out on the wing.

[MWHIBBIES]

Allan can't play in it. Although on recent form that's a positive. It worked tonight but is limited overall. See the Rangers game for more.

[angus hibby]

4-2-3-1.

Fashionable, favoured by “fitba fowk” but utterly ineffective with our personnel, and unlikely to be anything other than that any time soon.

Discuss.

We played 4-2-3-1 at Tannadice and were very good.

[angus hibby]

Main thing for me is we start putting folk in their preferred position.

Kamberi was poor today but he's a complete waste out on the left wing.

Equally, Newell looked a different player in the middle rather than out on the wing.

Kamberi was excellent wide left on Sunday.

[Brightside]

We were 433 to start. Not a change we had 2 holding mids.

[Smartie]

We were 433 to start. Not a change we had 2 holding mids.

That was the shape the players took up every time they had a goal kick.

[Brightside]

That was the shape the players took up every time they had a goal kick.

451 when we are defending. But it was deffo 433 at kick off. Either way it was awful and the players didn’t have a clue.

[Bronson]

I’ll be honest, I’m not overly keen on the 442. I feel we play it to accommodate kamberi and we’re less effective without wingers. Horgan and boyle are 2 of our best and most dangerous players, yet they’re being dropped or moved out of position to play this system.

I get 4231 didn’t work under heck but i don’t think thats because the formation was wrong personally, more the tactics and team selection.

[hibbysam]

Kamberi was excellent wide left on Sunday.

Agreed. He can play wide left when the opposition aren’t so defensive, like Sunday United basically played 4-3-3, so kamberi had the freedom to go 1 v 1 time after time, and neglected his defensive duties mostly. Tonight and a few weeks where teams are just two banks and they’re doubled up on him as Stevenson isn’t the player to go and help in attack then he struggles.

[wookie70]

The formation may well have played a big part but from my seat it was the fact the players actually started to run in the second half that made the biggest difference. The lack of effort in the fist half was appalling.

[Blaster]

451 when we are defending. But it was deffo 433 at kick off. Either way it was awful and the players didn’t have a clue.

At some points in the first half when Hanlon, Jackson or Stevenson had the ball, there were 4 players in a straight line up front. Doidge, Kamberi, Allan and Boyle and occasionally Gray made it 5. With Slivka and Hallberg hiding they had no easy pass

The defence have had their critics this season, rightly so at times, but really felt for them at times when on the ball tonight

[ancient hibee]

Kamberi was excellent wide left on Sunday.

And laid the ball on a plate for Boyle tonight for the first goal.

[hibbyfraelibby]

Parts of that 2nd half I thought we were actually playing 4-2-2-2 with Stephane and Joe deeper than Boyle and Horgan sitting higher just behind and wide of Doige and Kamberi

[AlbertK86]

Allan can't play in it. Although on recent form that's a positive. It worked tonight but is limited overall. See the Rangers game for more.

Allan played well in it with him at tip of the diamond. Think it would work with Hallberg at base. Omeonga and Newell in narrow diamond.

GrantedAllan has been poor last3 games and I think he needs a rest. Got to remember he has not played a full season in years. Coupled with his diabetes he has done remarkably well but probably needs a break.

Definitely need 2 up top as again as soon as we switched last night we were transformed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jones28]

4-2-3-1.

Fashionable, favoured by “fitba fowk” but utterly ineffective with our personnel, and unlikely to be anything other than that any time soon.

Discuss.

That should be effective though, for whatever reason it just doesn’t work.

[Smartie]

That should be effective though, for whatever reason it just doesn’t work.

It’s our players more than the formation (btw, we did well at home to Celtic playing that way, it might be our best bet at home to strong teams).

It just seems to leave us short at the back, outnumbered in midfield, weak up front with very few options for the man in possession, which it shouldn’t.

Kamberi often toils playing wide left, Newell looks a different player now he doesn’t have to play there, Middleton looked a shadow of the player we were expecting from Rangers and was often isolated out there.

Not sure what it is exactly but I don’t want to see it again any time soon.

[Pretty Boy]

My OP was a bit vague.

The 4231, 4123, 433/451 variants are all perfectly good formations when played well. Unfortunately this Hibs team has proven time and time again that it isn't a style we can play with the current players we have. It relies on pace and, removing Boyle, we just don't have that. It also requires a real bit of dig in the middle of the park and again we don't really have that. Heckingbottom played it in every game he managed us and we recorded 5 wins in 18 games, 4 of which were against lower league teams. Post Hecky we have played it in 1 and (just over) a half games and recorded a draw against a lower league team and lost the 1st half v Hamilton last night. With 442 we have won 6 games out of the 11 and (just under) a half games we have played it. A win % of 25% v 52%.

What works for Liverpool or Leicester doesn't necessarily work for us. I understand managers have 'preferred formations' these days but the desperation to play a certain way when it's obvious 442 suits us for the moment is frustrating. 442 may well be limited, every formation is, but it's less limited than the alternative when it comes to the only thing that really matter. Winning games.