Hopefully Monty learns 4-4-2 doesn't work in every game !

[Donegal Hibby]

We made that too easy for them today imo . We could have went 4-5-1 or played 5 at the back too but to go with the same formation and treating it like any other game was criminal tbh . It could have ended up 5 or 6 . Hopefully our manager learns from today and quickly because that was really naive management today from him .

[Heisenberg]

He’s only ever played one system in his entire managerial career. I don’t see him changing it.

[A Hi-Bee]

He’s only ever played one system in his entire managerial career. I don’t see him changing it.

No the system that needs to change, we need better players to win at hunsville. Have seen Hibs go to the hun with 4 forwards and skelp them in the past.

[Paulie Walnuts]

4-4-2 is a ***** formation. If he persists with it then he’ll fail here.

[Hibees1973]

Yes, that's true.

But with Youan and Boyle on the left and right it's almost a 4-2-4 formation. Neither of them are defensively minded players, which leaves our full-backs exposed.

When Montgomery gets better players in and a more balanced squad, you can play 4-4-2 but with different players. The 2 wide players in midfield need not be all out attacking players.

Today was the first real naive selection by Montgomery.

He got away with it at Tiny, but unfortunately not today.

[Since452]

That's 45 shots we've allowed the opposition to get away between the Hearts and Rangers games. Something is wrong somewhere. Montgomery needs to figure it out.

[DH1875]

4-4-2 is a ***** formation. If he persists with it then he’ll fail here.

He just said he's sticking with it and that he won't change.

[Keith_M]

One of LJ's failings was setting the team up for games at Ibrox and Celtc Park like it was just another game.

IMO, Monty has made the same mistake and needs to learn to treat these games differently.

[Donegal Hibby]

He’s only ever played one system in his entire managerial career. I don’t see him changing it.

If he doesn't change the system going to places like Ibrox and parkhead we are going to take some doings of them , lucky to get away with only losing 4 today . That was just as bad a performance as we have had from any manager over the last while . Substitutions were poor and no plan B . Very worrying indeed !

[Since452]

He just said he's sticking with it and that he won't change.

He won't last long then

[bingo70]

He won't last long then

Yes he will and he’ll be successful because he believes in the system he plays.

His position won’t be defined by games agains the old firm.

[flash]

He won't last long then

You wish.

[bingo70]

4-4-2 is a ***** formation. If he persists with it then he’ll fail here.

No it isn’t and no he wont.

Just because babies like you can’t handle the odd defeat to teams with masses more resources than us, doesn’t mean we should abandon our strategy and philosophy.

We’ll do well under him and if you’re wanting someone who will win every week, maybe Man City is a better team for you to support?

[B.H.F.C]

Don’t disagree with the general point that you can’t just play the same way every week.

But the defending for the goals had little to do with shape. First half, it’s not as if we were getting pulled about. We lost a goal out of nothing then Marshall let them roll one in from 30 yards.

Whatever shape we play is unlikely to make much difference when you make individual mistakes like us. And our effort and application today was miles off it .

[Paulie Walnuts]

No it isn’t and no he wont.

Just because babies like you can’t handle the odd defeat to teams with masses more resources than us, doesn’t mean we should abandon our strategy and philosophy.

We’ll do well under him and if you’re wanting someone who will win every week, maybe Man City is a better team for you to support?

Yes it is and yes he will.

It’s nothing to do with not being able to handle defeat to the Old Firm. I’ve not even posted anything about the game today specifically so your post is a load of utter *****. I’ve never once wanted us to play 4-4-2 since I was about 10 because it doesn’t work. You’ll pretty much always be outnumbered in the middle of the park and unless you’re the best team in the league you’ll not get anywhere.

As for supporting Man City, wtf are you on about? :confused: I think 4-4-2 is a crap formation and now I’ve to support another team? Who is it that’s actually the baby here as you have spectacularly thrown your toys out the pram tonight.

[B.H.F.C]

If he doesn't change the system going to places like Ibrox and parkhead we are going to take some doings of them , lucky to get away with only losing 4 today . That was just as bad a performance as we have had from any manager over the last while . Substitutions were poor and no plan B . Very worrying indeed !

We played different systems at Parkhead and Ibrox last season and lost 6, 3 and 3. The biggest issue is that we are appealing defensively.

We got a result at ER against Rangers once they went down to 9 but still lost a couple prior to that and lost 3 in the other game.

The one win we got was against Celtic when we went to a 442 at half time.

[bingo70]

It’s nothing to do with not being able to handle defeat to the Old Firm. I’ve never once wanted us to play 4-4-2 since I was about 10 because it doesn’t work. You’ll pretty much always be outnumbered in the middle of the park and unless you’re the best team in the league you’ll not get anywhere.

As for supporting Man City, wtf are you on about? :confused: I think 4-4-2 is a crap formation and now I’ve to support another team? Who is it that’s actually the baby here?

It’s not an old fashioned 442 though that’s the same as it was when you were a kid. It’s not a computer game where you set the positions at the start and that’s it, it’s a fluid things with players who move between positions. Jeggo drops back into defence, the full backs push up as wingers, the wingers cut inside to be forwards, midfielders and central defenders cover full back positions and one of the forwards drops deeper to link midfield and attack. You say it only works if you’re the best team in the league but did Montgomery not get success with it in Australia with one of the weaker teams in the division? I don’t watch the premiership but do Brighton not get success from playing it?

The reference to Man City is because despite you saying otherwise, I don’t think you can handle a defeat very well. You seem to expect a team that can win every week. We’ve just lost a game at Ibrox against a team with a budget about 100X ours, we tried to play our own game but we’re beaten by a far better side but you appear unable to handle that.

[Lancs Harp]

It’s not an old fashioned 442 though that’s the same as it was when you were a kid. It’s not a computer game where you set the positions at the start and that’s it, it’s a fluid things with players who move between positions. Jeggo drops back into defence, the full backs push up as wingers, the wingers cut inside to be forwards, midfielders and central defenders cover full back positions and one of the forwards drops deeper to link midfield and attack. You say it only works if you’re the best team in the league but did Montgomery not get success with it in Australia with one of the weaker teams in the division? I don’t watch the premiership but do Brighton not get success from playing it?

The reference to Man City is because despite you saying otherwise, I don’t think you can handle a defeat very well. You seem to expect a team that can win every week. We’ve just lost a game at Ibrox against a team with a budget about 100X ours, we tried to play our own game but we’re beaten by a far better side but you appear unable to handle that.

Its not very fluid the way we play it.

[Paulie Walnuts]

It’s not an old fashioned 442 though that’s the same as it was when you were a kid. It’s not a computer game where you set the positions at the start and that’s it, it’s a fluid things with players who move between positions. Jeggo drops back into defence, the full backs push up as wingers, the wingers cut inside to be forwards, midfielders and central defenders cover full back positions and one of the forwards drops deeper to link midfield and attack. You say it only works if you’re the best team in the league but did Montgomery not get success with it in Australia with one of the weaker teams in the division? I don’t watch the premiership but do Brighton not get success from playing it?

The reference to Man City is because despite you saying otherwise, I don’t think you can handle a defeat very well. You seem to expect a team that can win every week. We’ve just lost a game at Ibrox against a team with a budget about 100X ours, we tried to play our own game but we’re beaten by a far better side but you appear unable to handle that.

There’s nothing fluid about it. It’s a 4-4-2 with two average full backs, two wingers, two centre mids and two strikers. It’s nothing like as technical as you’re claiming it is. It’s a crap formation and one which will see us struggle if we stick with it.

I appear unable to handle that? I’ve literally not posted anything about today’s game. You’re having a total meltdown and lashing out at anyone with baseless accusations/total *****. A bit like a baby you could say.

[Rumble de Thump]

It is fluid. The players move around. It's obviously not rigid. But we will hear the same guff about 442 from the same people every time we are losing a game.

[JohnM1875]

It is fluid. The players move around. It's obviously not rigid. But we will hear the same guff about 442 from the same people every time we are losing a game.

Exactly.

We've lost by plenty goals away to the uglies playing a variety of formations. We'll also continue to do so as **** as that is.

[Paulie Walnuts]

It is fluid. The players move around. It's obviously not rigid. But we will hear the same guff about 442 from the same people every time we are losing a game.

It’s not any more ‘fluid’ than any other formation. The idea we’re playing 4-4-2 but playing some unique version of it is nonsense. Of course every formation is ‘fluid’ because the players aren’t screwed into the ****ing ground. But we’re not playing some masterclass version of 4-4-2. It’s very basic and will get us nowhere.

[GreenGray]

The issue is the same as it has been for years, weak defence. If we are to persist with this style we need to strengthen there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GreenCastle]

Our issue is the lack of signing decent defenders - central midfielders and playing a keeper whose reactions are getting slower every week sadly.

Our defending for the the 4 goals was awful.

Add into the fact the Rangers squad is worth ££ more than us and should beat us nearly every time.

[Allyg69]

It is fluid. The players move around. It's obviously not rigid. But we will hear the same guff about 442 from the same people every time we are losing a game.

Can do nothing but agree with you. Bloody hell, we went to Ibrox and lost, its not as though that doesn't happen most if the time anyway. 4 zip is hard to swallow but he has done well in games so far , that lot from the west are a different animal when it comes to finances.

[bingo70]

There’s nothing fluid about it. It’s a 4-4-2 with two average full backs, two wingers, two centre mids and two strikers. It’s nothing like as technical as you’re claiming it is. It’s a crap formation and one which will see us struggle if we stick with it.

I appear unable to handle that? I’ve literally not posted anything about today’s game. You’re having a total meltdown and lashing out at anyone with baseless accusations/total *****. A bit like a baby you could say.

It’s our first loss in 6 or 7 games under the new manager, a game away at Ibrox in their new managers first game.

In all games up to now we have been scoring goals and/or creating lots of chances every game.

You’re throwing the toys out the pram talking about him being a failure if he doesn’t abandon his philosophies after one bad result, in a game we were always expected to lose. That’s why the baby reference came up, I possibly shouldn’t have done that so apologies however I’ve just found the reaction the defeat far more frustrating than the defeat itself.

[JohnM1875]

It’s our first loss in 6 or 7 games under the new manager, a game away at Ibrox in their new managers first game.

In all games up to now we have been scoring goals and/or creating lots of chances every game.

You’re throwing the toys out the pram talking about him being a failure if he doesn’t abandon his philosophies after one bad result, in a game we were always expected to lose. That’s why the baby reference came up, I possibly shouldn’t have done that so apologies however I’ve just found the reaction the defeat far more frustrating than the defeat itself.

You're just a 442 happy clapping mediocrity accepting fool.

This Australian will take us nowhere sticking to a tried and tested formation.

[Hibees1973]

Yes he will and he’ll be successful because he believes in the system he plays.

His position won’t be defined by games agains the old firm.

Fair enough, but if he is not defined by games against the OF we are never going to win anything with Montgomery in charge.

[GreenGray]

You're just a 442 happy clapping mediocrity accepting fool.

This Australian will take us nowhere sticking to a tried and tested formation.

He’s not even Australian you utter moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SteveHFC]

The more you do something the better you should get at it. Chopping and changing every game to suit the opposition will achieve nothing long term. let the opposition worry about us not the other way round.

We got a draw at the bus shelter last week because we stuck at what we were doing not because they took a player off, although that helped

[Paulie Walnuts]

It’s our first loss in 6 or 7 games under the new manager, a game away at Ibrox in their new managers first game.

In all games up to now we have been scoring goals and/or creating lots of chances every game.

You’re throwing the toys out the pram talking about him being a failure if he doesn’t abandon his philosophies after one bad result, in a game we were always expected to lose. That’s why the baby reference came up, I possibly shouldn’t have done that so apologies however I’ve just found the reaction the defeat far more frustrating than the defeat itself.

I’m not basing my thoughts on one bad result. I’d have said 4-4-2 was crap and destined to fail if you asked me last week, the week before or the week before that. I’ve absolutely no doubt that we will not be successful playing a 4-4-2 and that’s not based on today’s game whatsoever. You can’t afford to give up a man in the middle of the pitch unless youre someone like Celtic whose players are worth millions and you certainly can’t afford to do it with the players we’ve got in there.

[JohnM1875]

He’s not even Australian you utter moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're clearly the moron. Leeds is capital of Australia. Fool.

[GreenGray]

You're clearly the moron. Leeds is capital of Australia. Fool.

This site needs a sarcasm font


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnM1875]

This site needs a sarcasm font


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haha sorry! I probably should have chucked a wee smiley or something in there in my original post. Or maybe you should have and it's a double sarcasm. Which means it negates any sarcasm and we both meant it. Damn.

[Johnny_Leith]

He’s not even Australian you utter moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He does have Australian citizenship.

[Hibbyradge]

He’s not even Australian you utter moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:faf:

[JammyDoidger]

The more you do something the better you should get at it. Chopping and changing every game to suit the opposition will achieve nothing long term. let the opposition worry about us not the other way round.

We got a draw at the bus shelter last week because we stuck at what we were doing not because they took a player off, although that helped

We got a draw at the PBS because Toby Sibbick had a nightmare and Youan decided to hit the target for a change, we rode our luck, it's still nowhere near good enough. No hiding from it, Rangers and Celtic will never worry about us, that's the reality..you need to make it difficult for them whilst carrying a threat, not just leave yourself wide open so their better players can rip the piss out you.

[bingo70]

We got a draw at the PBS because Toby Sibbick had a nightmare and Youan decided to hit the target for a change, we rode our luck, it's still nowhere near good enough. No hiding from it, Rangers and Celtic will never worry about us, that's the reality..you need to make it difficult for them whilst carrying a threat, not just leave yourself wide open so their better players can rip the piss out you.

Did Hearts not only score one of their goals because Doidge had a nightmare though?

We got numbers in the box, that forced Sibbicks mistakes, that’s a direct result of the formation this thread is criticising.

[BoomtownHibees]

That's 45 shots we've allowed the opposition to get away between the Hearts and Rangers games. Something is wrong somewhere. Montgomery needs to figure it out.

45 shots 😂

Where you getting your stats from?

[GreenGray]

Haha sorry! I probably should have chucked a wee smiley or something in there in my original post. Or maybe you should have and it's a double sarcasm. Which means it negates any sarcasm and we both meant it. Damn.

My bad haha, jumping in with two feet after a rough defeat is never wise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1875Sean]

If the players play like that doesn’t matter what formation you play you will get beat

[BoyledEgg]

None of the 10 formations Johnson tried either. Monty has his style and will stick to it. If current squad can’t play his style then he will
Get players in who can.

[JohnM1875]

My bad haha, jumping in with two feet after a rough defeat is never wise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haha all good man :thumbsup:

[Donegal Hibby]

We played different systems at Parkhead and Ibrox last season and lost 6, 3 and 3. The biggest issue is that we are appealing defensively.

We got a result at ER against Rangers once they went down to 9 but still lost a couple prior to that and lost 3 in the other game.

The one win we got was against Celtic when we went to a 442 at half time.

The game we lost 6 in we tried to have a go in , the following fixture at parkhead we played 5 at the back in and were ahead in the game till the referee swung it in Celtic's favour by sending one of our players off . Ibrox we lead 2-1 in and we were denied a stonewall penalty in , that today if Maloney or LJ had been in charge would be getting pelters for not getting their tactics right .

The biggest issue is we have seen signs that we have been vunerable at the back due to our midfield being poor and being so attacking in games ( killie , St mirren , hertz , ) and when we come up against a far better quality of team than it's been happening in , what's our manager do to address this ? Absolutely nothing but goes along with exactly the same 4-4-2 system again.

What's even more worrying he doesn't seem to be able or willing to try and change the shape of the team when it's not working! Hopefully he learns from it though.

[Since452]

None of the 10 formations Johnson tried either. Monty has his style and will stick to it. If current squad can’t play his style then he will
Get players in who can.

The current squad will win, like they always do. We've spent a fortune assembling this squad on long contracts. If Montgomery can't make it work there is only one winner. He needs to find a system that suits the squad he has, he has no choice until January anyway.

[BoomtownHibees]

The current squad will win, like they always do. We've spent a fortune assembling this squad on long contracts. If Montgomery can't make it work there is only one winner. He needs to find a system that suits the squad he has, he has no choice until January anyway.

45 shots though

[Leith Green]

Just back , that was a shambles from the 1st minute to the last . Learnt absolutely nothing from the 1st half of the derby , to expect to be able to play that way against the old firm is ridiculous. Tippy tappy to the keeper and back then eventually played into midfield where we are outnumbered. He needs to realise and remedy fast or fans might not be so supportive of his “attacking style”

[B.H.F.C]

The game we lost 6 in we tried to have a go in , the following fixture at parkhead we played 5 at the back in and were ahead in the game till the referee swung it in Celtic's favour by sending one of our players off . Ibrox we lead 2-1 in and we were denied a stonewall penalty in , that today if Maloney or LJ had been in charge would be getting pelters for not getting their tactics right .

The biggest issue is we have seen signs that we have been vunerable at the back due to our midfield being poor and being so attacking in games ( killie , St mirren , hertz , ) and when we come up against a far better quality of team than it's been happening in , what's our manager do to address this ? Absolutely nothing but goes along with exactly the same 4-4-2 system again.

What's even more worrying he doesn't seem to be able or willing to try and change the shape of the team when it's not working! Hopefully he learns from it though.

Right, so when we lost goals under the previous manager(s) did you start a thread to say 451 / 433 / anything else didn’t work?

Or have you just had it in your head on this one and we’re waiting on it happening so you could say so?

I actually don’t disagree with the general point that you can’t just do the same thing every week. But I’m no particularly sure how our shape, more so first half, contributed to us being two down.

[Helensburghhibs]

I actually think 442 can work but we need to find a way of being more direct. Im not talking aimless long balls but we havent managed to get boyle and youan in behind enough.

[Lancs Harp]

He’s not even Australian you utter moron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dont talk about where he comes from 😀

[JohnM1875]

Right, so when we lost goals under the previous manager(s) did you start a thread to say 451 / 433 / anything else didn’t work?

Or have you just had it in your head on this one and we’re waiting on it happening so you could say so?

I actually don’t disagree with the general point that you can’t just do the same thing every week. But I’m no particularly sure how our shape, more so first half, contributed to us being two down.

Apparently being ***** using three or four formations isn't as bad. Least you're mixing it up whilst being consistently *****. Adventurous whilst not having a clue.

[bingo70]

The current squad will win, like they always do. We've spent a fortune assembling this squad on long contracts. If Montgomery can't make it work there is only one winner. He needs to find a system that suits the squad he has, he has no choice until January anyway.

I’m putting my maths out on display to be mocked here but including the league cup game in my figures, Since he came in I think that would be 9 points out of 6 games, this would work out at 1.5 points a game and projected over a season of 38 games would be 57 points. I think that’s normally enough for 3rd or 4th place.

I don’t see why that would suggest he needs to do anything different to accommodate the current squad, they seem to be adapting just fine.

To take that a step further, it’s worth noting that of those 6 games, three of them have been away games at Rugby park, Tynecastle and Ibrox which are traditionally very difficult fixtures.


*this is the point someone points out I’ve got my numbers horribly wrong.

[Lancs Harp]

You're clearly the moron. Leeds is capital of Australia. Fool.

To be fair if I came from Yarkshire Id claim another nationality, like something more palatable like north korean or something.

[Leith Green]

Right, so when we lost goals under the previous manager(s) did you start a thread to say 451 / 433 / anything else didn’t work?

Or have you just had it in your head on this one and we’re waiting on it happening so you could say so?

I actually don’t disagree with the general point that you can’t just do the same thing every week. But I’m no particularly sure how our shape, more so first half, contributed to us being two down.



To be fair , the formation and subsequent team selection was absolutely the problem today. No point trying to make out it wasnt, hanlon , obita , youhan were all absolutely awful today as well . Should have started levitt and went with one striker. Kept getting outnumbered when the ball actually got anywhere near our midfield

[Nicho87]

That stat of 45 shots in 2 games is absolute disaster of a stat

Regardless who your playing

That needs addressing pronto

[JohnM1875]

That stat of 45 shots in 2 games is absolute disaster of a stat

Regardless who your playing

That needs addressing pronto

Shots on target surely only matter if it's shots on target? No idea how many of the 45 were on target in the end. But any tube can have a pop at goal.

[Stuart93]

He needs to learn and very quickly cause fans won’t accept heavy defeats like that despite playing at Ibrox/parkhead

442 won’t always work and as a manager he needs to adapt

[B.H.F.C]

To be fair , the formation and subsequent team selection was absolutely the problem today. No point trying to make out it wasnt, hanlon , obita , youhan were all absolutely awful today as well . Should have started levitt and went with one striker. Kept getting outnumbered when the ball actually got anywhere near our midfield

Personally I’d have played Levitt instead of ALF.

But come back to the pint that I don’t think the formation is what cost us. Lack of ability to do the basics did. And for a lot of these players it’s a common them regardless of the shape.

[Nicho87]

Shots on target surely only matter if it's shots on target? No idea how many of the 45 were on target in the end. But any tube can have a pop at goal.

I understand and fully appreciate your point

Just a bit concerning opponents finding a half yard fairy easily based on those stats to get 45 shots away over 180 minutes

In any professional level that is a high stat, that’s a pop at our goal averaging every four minutes.

Absolutely fine if we’re having just as many. But some of the games I don’t recall us peppering their goal.

Lots of work to be done

[number9dream]

Reminiscent of Maloneyball at its worst... Utterly naive.
No point having four good attacking players on the pitch if the ball rarely gets out of our own half because we're giving it away all the time.
Saying 'we won't change' is a bit of a worry. If you don't have the personnel to beat the press then find another way to play - or does Monty really think the players we have will get better if we stick with it and will reap benefits against weaker sides in the long term?
The players' confidence was draining with every minute in the second half and we were very fortunate to only ship four.

[richard_pitts]

To be fair , the formation and subsequent team selection was absolutely the problem today. No point trying to make out it wasnt, hanlon , obita , youhan were all absolutely awful today as well . Should have started levitt and went with one striker. Kept getting outnumbered when the ball actually got anywhere near our midfield

I think we could have played 352 or 451 and still got clobbered. 442 allows us to put our best players on the park in a formation that gets the best out of them. We're a work in progress and we'll need to adapt to how others line up to counter us.

[BoomtownHibees]

That stat of 45 shots in 2 games is absolute disaster of a stat

Regardless who your playing

That needs addressing pronto

It’s made up

[Real Emerald]

The issue is the same as it has been for years, weak defence. If we are to persist with this style we need to strengthen there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We’ve no midfield and that’s the real problem. I think the defenders we have will defend, clear their lines etc. They are now being asked to play like Man City but with no midfield, every time the put they ball into midfield it comes straight back to them, then to the keeper and that’s it. A functional midfield would vastly improve our defence, I do agree however the defence still needs upgraded but midfield is honking.

[Jones28]

What formation did we play when we got pumped there under Heckingbottom?

Looked like a 0-7-3 for large parts of the game.

[bingo70]

I understand and fully appreciate your point

Just a bit concerning opponents finding a half yard fairy easily based on those stats to get 45 shots away over 180 minutes

In any professional level that is a high stat, that’s a pop at our goal averaging every four minutes.

Absolutely fine if we’re having just as many. But some of the games I don’t recall us peppering their goal.

Lots of work to be done

I’m challenging that stat of 45 shots in two games.

Must be very loose with the definition of a shot. At half time today I think they had 10 shots listed, for that to be the case they must have been including blocked shots. If so, then it seems incredibly harsh to criticise the defence for that.

If they had say 25 shots today without Marshall making a single save that would mean Hearts had 20 last week with Marshall or Boruc only making one or two saves.

I simply don’t believe the 45 shots stat, or if they did happen, the vast majority were so *****, it’s a misleading stat.

[Brooster]

I think we could have played 352 or 451 and still got clobbered. 442 allows us to put our best players on the park in a formation that gets the best out of them. We're a work in progress and we'll need to adapt to how others line up to counter us.

You can't go to Ibrox with 2 wingers and 2 strikers, especially when the wingers are contributing zero.

I would've choked it up with a midfield 5 of Boyle, Campbell, Levitt, Newell and Jeggo. With Doidge up front. We were too open which suited Rangers

[Hibees1973]

I’m challenging that stat of 45 shots in two games.

Must be very loose with the definition of a shot. At half time today I think they had 10 shots listed, for that to be the case they must have been including blocked shots. If so, then it seems incredibly harsh to criticise the defence for that.

If they had say 25 shots today without Marshall making a single save that would mean Hearts had 20 last week with Marshall or Boruc only making one or two saves.

I simply don’t believe the 45 shots stat, or if they did happen, the vast majority were so *****, it’s a misleading stat.

The said poster is picking and choosing the stats he wants.

A draw at Tiny and a defeat at Ibrox. Hardly disaster is it.

There have been several sh*t storms at Hibs over the last couple of years, but not at present.

League position is not great just now, but to put this all down to 4-4-2 and Montgomery's approach is frankly unfair.

Let's see where we are come Christmas/New Year and what our DOF and Montgomery can produce in the transfer market in January.

[Leith Green]

I think we could have played 352 or 451 and still got clobbered. 442 allows us to put our best players on the park in a formation that gets the best out of them. We're a work in progress and we'll need to adapt to how others line up to counter us.


Im not sure if u watched the game today, but one of ur 1st formations would have made us a little more solid. Wide ****ing open for 90 minutes ..

[Leith Green]

The said poster is picking and choosing the stats he wants.

A draw at Tiny and a defeat at Ibrox. Hardly disaster is it.

There have been several sh*t storms at Hibs over the last couple of years, but not at present.

League position is not great just now, but to put this all down to 4-4-2 and Montgomery's approach is frankly unfair.

Let's see where we are come Christmas/New Year and what our DOF and Montgomery can produce in the transfer market in January.


Its not putting everything on 442 .. Its putting it on having the tactical knowledge to adapt and change when necessary.. That is absolutely essential, and no doubt in my mind he needs to realise that moving forward

[silverhibee]

Yes he will and he’ll be successful because he believes in the system he plays.

His position won’t be defined by games agains the old firm.

Good managers don’t have a plan B, he will stick with his formation and add new and better players to the system he prefers. Boyle needs to to more tracking back, I think Youhan is starting to do that but Boyle needs to do more and stop thinking he can do it all on his own, needs to get his head up and look for a pass now and again.

[silverhibee]

He won't last long then

Why do you bother, slate slate slate every week.

[Donegal Hibby]

Right, so when we lost goals under the previous manager(s) did you start a thread to say 451 / 433 / anything else didn’t work?

Or have you just had it in your head on this one and we’re waiting on it happening so you could say so?

I actually don’t disagree with the general point that you can’t just do the same thing every week. But I’m no particularly sure how our shape, more so first half, contributed to us being two down.

Maloney was gone before I was here , LJ did change formations . Two parkhead trips 6-1 , 3-1 were different.

I had it in my head Monty would play 4-4-2 , think he will play it again against Celtic too . I've nothing against playing it though as I've said there's been quite a few times in games due to fullbacks pushing forward we have been left short at the back or our Midfield have disappeared in games were we have either been lucky or it's cost us .

Playing this way against the old firm is asking for trouble imo and it's never been about waiting and having a " I told you so " moment either , more when it was clearly not working there wasn't any attempt to change the formation and try something different which I thought was worrying tbh .

If we continue to play 4-4-2 in the manner we play all season, what happens when other teams find a way to get the better of it ( which I think they will in some games) and we have no plan B to counter act it ?. Thats why I started the thread hoping Monty will learn to adapt to a new system in games 🤞

[B.H.F.C]

Maloney was gone before I was here , LJ did change formations . Two parkhead trips 6-1 , 3-1 were different.

I had it in my head Monty would play 4-4-2 , think he will play it again against Celtic too . I've nothing against playing it though as I've said there's been quite a few times in games due to fullbacks pushing forward we have been left short at the back or our Midfield have disappeared in games were we have either been lucky or it's cost us .

Playing this way against the old firm is asking for trouble imo and it's never been about waiting and having a " I told you so " moment either , more when it was clearly not working there wasn't any attempt to change the formation and try something different which I thought was worrying tbh .

If we continue to play 4-4-2 in the manner we play all season, what happens when other teams find a way to get the better of it ( which I think they will in some games) and we have no plan B to counter act it ?. Thats why I started the thread hoping Monty will learn to adapt to a new system in games 🤞

You seem to be ignoring the fact that, irrespective of shape, we are capable of losing goals through there. I’d have played differently but the errors we made defensively were very little to do with the shape. We are just ****ing terrible defensively and until the players are changed that’ll be the issue. The 442 point has an element of validity but it wasn’t the absolute cause today.

[Since452]

Why do you bother, slate slate slate every week.

For the same reason you bother. It's a football forum and I'll vent on it.

[Since452]

It’s made up

It's not made up. Hearts had 22 shots against us and Rangers had 23 shots. Consecutive games. Google it. It's the same stat Montgomery was waxing lyrical about after our 0-0 draw with Dundee.

[jacomo]

Yes it is and yes he will.

It’s nothing to do with not being able to handle defeat to the Old Firm. I’ve not even posted anything about the game today specifically so your post is a load of utter *****. I’ve never once wanted us to play 4-4-2 since I was about 10 because it doesn’t work. You’ll pretty much always be outnumbered in the middle of the park and unless you’re the best team in the league you’ll not get anywhere.

As for supporting Man City, wtf are you on about? :confused: I think 4-4-2 is a crap formation and now I’ve to support another team? Who is it that’s actually the baby here as you have spectacularly thrown your toys out the pram tonight.


Any formation is about maximising your threat and minimising your frailties. And there are many ways to play any shape.

Simply saying ‘4-4-2 is ****’ is daft.

However, it’s a big issue for our new manager. He obviously has a way of playing and wants to stick with it no matter what. Early days… let’s see what happens.

[Allant1981]

It's not made up. Hearts had 22 shots against us and Rangers had 23 shots. Consecutive games. Google it. It's the same stat Montgomery was waxing lyrical about after our 0-0 draw with Dundee.

The Rangers had 8 on target and 7 off, hearts had 5 on target and 6 off

[BoomtownHibees]

It's not made up. Hearts had 22 shots against us and Rangers had 23 shots. Consecutive games. Google it. It's the same stat Montgomery was waxing lyrical about after our 0-0 draw with Dundee.

The Rangers had 15 shots today. Haven’t checked but I’m almost certain Hearts didn’t have 30 shots against us

[Since452]

The Rangers had 15 shots today. Haven’t checked but I’m almost certain Hearts didn’t have 30 shots against us

I'm just taking it from our fixtures on Google. If it's wrong fair enough.

[neil7908]

He’s only ever played one system in his entire managerial career. I don’t see him changing it.

The he's going to end up in trouble. Even Pep changes his system when required. As did Fergie.

All for managers having a philosophy and style but you can do that and also change formation to be a bit more practical.

He's done well so far and I like him but anyone in football or indeed any profession that can't adjust or show a bit of learning and flexibility is going to struggle.

[BoomtownHibees]

I'm just taking it from our fixtures on Google. If it's wrong fair enough.

Didn’t you watch todays game? Was pretty obvious they didn’t have 23 shots

[Allant1981]

I'm just taking it from our fixtures on Google. If it's wrong fair enough.

If you watched either game you would have known they had no where near that amount of shots

[sauzeelegod]

Yes it is and yes he will.

It’s nothing to do with not being able to handle defeat to the Old Firm. I’ve not even posted anything about the game today specifically so your post is a load of utter *****. I’ve never once wanted us to play 4-4-2 since I was about 10 because it doesn’t work. You’ll pretty much always be outnumbered in the middle of the park and unless you’re the best team in the league you’ll not get anywhere.

As for supporting Man City, wtf are you on about? :confused: I think 4-4-2 is a crap formation and now I’ve to support another team? Who is it that’s actually the baby here as you have spectacularly thrown your toys out the pram tonight.

Agreed 100 %
442 is a gash formation which is why hardly anyone uses it anymore.
Outnumbered in midfield every game if he persists with it.

[silverhibee]

Didn’t you watch todays game? Was pretty obvious they didn’t have 23 shots

He/She would prefer to check Google than watch the game.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Any formation is about maximising your threat and minimising your frailties. And there are many ways to play any shape.

Simply saying ‘4-4-2 is ****’ is daft.

However, it’s a big issue for our new manager. He obviously has a way of playing and wants to stick with it no matter what. Early days… let’s see what happens.

Generally speaking I’d agree to an extent.

With 4-4-2 though you’re talking about giving every team 50% more players than you have in the most important area of the pitch. It’s that simple imo. It’s a terrible formation that doesn’t stand up to playing against near enough every other formation every other team plays.

If we persist with it then Montgomery will fail, I’ve no doubt whatsoever about that.

[Heisenberg]

Generally speaking I’d agree to an extent.

With 4-4-2 though you’re talking about giving every team 50% more players than you have in the most important area of the pitch. It’s that simple imo. It’s a terrible formation that doesn’t stand up to playing against near enough every other formation every other team plays.

If we persist with it then Montgomery will fail, I’ve no doubt whatsoever about that.

The issue I find with this though is how did it work so well for him at his last club? They were one of the smallest in the division and will have faced up against teams playing with more in the midfield the majority of the time I’d guess. If it was as straightforward as 4-4-2 being a terrible formation that doesn’t work he’d not be at Hibs just now.

[K-Zazu]

The issue I find with this though is how did it work so well for him at his last club? They were one of the smallest in the division and will have faced up against teams playing with more in the midfield the majority of the time I’d guess. If it was as straightforward as 4-4-2 being a terrible formation that doesn’t work he’d not be at Hibs just now.

Pub league

[SHODAN]

He won't try that again away at the OF. Learned a lesson today.

[He's here!]

Nothing wrong with the formation. We're just not an especially good side.

[Heisenberg]

Pub league

Makes no sense as a response I’m afraid.

[Paulie Walnuts]

The issue I find with this though is how did it work so well for him at his last club? They were one of the smallest in the division and will have faced up against teams playing with more in the midfield the majority of the time I’d guess. If it was as straightforward as 4-4-2 being a terrible formation that doesn’t work he’d not be at Hibs just now.

There’ll be outliers. There always will be. We could potentially have got away with 4-4-2 when we had SJM because he was so far ahead of every other centre mid in our league. Generally speaking though, 4-4-2 will not work for the vast majority of mid table teams anywhere nowadays, hence why so few of them attempt to play it.

Folk are perfectly entitled to disagree with me (not suggesting you're saying they’re not btw). But I’m certain that if we persist with 4-4-2 with two wingers in the 4 then Montgomery won’t be successful at Hibs. He will need to change how he approaches games.

[jacomo]

Generally speaking I’d agree to an extent.

With 4-4-2 though you’re talking about giving every team 50% more players than you have in the most important area of the pitch. It’s that simple imo. It’s a terrible formation that doesn’t stand up to playing against near enough every other formation every other team plays.

If we persist with it then Montgomery will fail, I’ve no doubt whatsoever about that.


No formation is inherently good or bad.

And what’s the most important area of the pitch? They all are aren’t they?

[K-Zazu]

There’ll be outliers. There always will be. We could potentially have got away with 4-4-2 when we had SJM because he was so far ahead of every other centre mid in our league. Generally speaking though, 4-4-2 will not work for the vast majority of mid table teams anywhere nowadays, hence why so few of them attempt to play it.

Folk are perfectly entitled to disagree with me (not suggesting you're saying they’re not btw). But I’m certain that if we persist with 4-4-2 with two wingers in the 4 then Montgomery won’t be successful at Hibs. He will need to change how he approaches games.

We did play 4-4-2 under Lennon with McGinn and Bartley I think

[Paulie Walnuts]

No formation is inherently good or bad.

And what’s the most important area of the pitch? They all are aren’t they?

No, they’re not. As I said, if you’re Celtic or something then 4–4-2 might not be inherently bad. When you’re a mid table side in a league though then 4-4-2 absolutely is inherently bad. It doesn’t work. I’d be more than happy for people to bookmark my posts on this thread as I’ve absolutely no doubt they’ll never be used against me if Montgomery sticks with it.

The centre of the midfield is the most important area of the pitch. We’re nowhere near good enough to give up a player in there to the likes of Dundee and St J, never mind the Old Firm or Hearts and Aberdeen. That’s not to say we’ll not pick up the odd result but we certainly won’t finish top 4 playing 4-4-2 imo.

[Bronson]

Expect to get caned for this but i’m not having monty one bit. In fact, i preferred LJ. This guy is doomed to fail i’ve had a bad feeling from day 1. Interviews, tactics, performances all leave a lot to be desired

[Donegal Hibby]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that, irrespective of shape, we are capable of losing goals through there. I’d have played differently but the errors we made defensively were very little to do with the shape. We are just ****ing terrible defensively and until the players are changed that’ll be the issue. The 442 point has an element of validity but it wasn’t the absolute cause today.

I know we are capable of losing goals there though do think we could have made it a lot harder for them to score. First goal Miller is trying to cover sima on the left side , where's Obita ? . We know as we have seen in the killie and hertz game our Midfields not been consistent in games and infact non existent at times , would maybe playing a extra Midfielder in there or going 5 at the back been better ? .

Did we really need to play two strikers up front today when we know we were playing a team that normally dominate a large amount of the possession ? . Apart from the Vente shot I don't remember either having that many chances tbh .

The way we are playing the 4-4-2 with fullbacks pushing forward , a weak Midfield and two strikers who really didn't get any proper service was the wrong formation to play against a team far better than our own and it will be the wrong one to play at home to Celtic too I think.

Defensively we have been poor though this is down to getting exposed at the back playing 4-4-2 and having a Midfield unable to dominate , control games which is also putting the defense under added pressure imo . Fixing the Midfield would be what I'd most like to see us do !.

[B.H.F.C]

I know we are capable of losing goals there though do think we could have made it a lot harder for them to score. First goal Miller is trying to cover sima on the left side , where's Obita ? . We know as we have seen in the killie and hertz game our Midfields not been consistent in games and infact non existent at times , would maybe playing a extra Midfielder in there or going 5 at the back been better ? .

Did we really need to play two strikers up front today when we know we were playing a team that normally dominate a large amount of the possession ? . Apart from the Vente shot I don't remember either having that many chances tbh .

The way we are playing the 4-4-2 with fullbacks pushing forward , a weak Midfield and two strikers who really didn't get any proper service was the wrong formation to play against a team far better than our own and it will be the wrong one to play at home to Celtic too I think.

Defensively we have been poor though this is down to getting exposed at the back playing 4-4-2 and having a Midfield unable to dominate , control games which is also putting the defense under added pressure imo . Fixing the Midfield would be what I'd most like to see us do !.

Last paragraph, what about the first three games when we didn’t play a 442?

[andrew70]

Expect to get caned for this but i’m not having monty one bit. In fact, i preferred LJ. This guy is doomed to fail i’ve had a bad feeling from day 1. Interviews, tactics, performances all leave a lot to be desired

Interviews? He’s honest and forthright. He’s not going to do a Butcher or Johnson and leave them all out to dry is he?

Tactics? It’s night and day from the turgid boring stuff served up by LJ. He needs better plays to help his tactics work better but in games they should they dominate. Aside from scoring a few more I don’t see what more he could have done in 5/6 weeks.

Performances? Again it’s early in the process but he’s being let down by players who can’t defend not really his fault. He’s got very little options to change things. Maybe Blaney could make a difference?

[AL-Qaholik]

If you play a 442 with 2 wingers who have neither the ability nor commitment to defend, you get pumped.
Pretty simple really.

[B.H.F.C]

If you play a 442 with 2 wingers who have neither the ability nor commitment to defend, you get pumped.
Pretty simple really.

Totally disagree, that’s far too simplistic. You’re giving away a bit to try and gain an advantage in other ways. But so many of the mistakes we made were absolutely nothing to do with shape.

I would not play the same shape next week but if the players play in the same manner it won’t matter a toss what’s shape we play.

[Since452]

Expect to get caned for this but i’m not having monty one bit. In fact, i preferred LJ. This guy is doomed to fail i’ve had a bad feeling from day 1. Interviews, tactics, performances all leave a lot to be desired

I'm not a fan either. I've tried but can't take to him at all but in fairness it's not his team. What will go against him is his stubbornness and refusal to change his system. I doubt we'll spend much in the January window seeing as we spent the best part of 2 million in the summer. He'll need to find a way to get results with this squad this season or the vast majority of them. I have a degree of sympathy but he took the job so needs to get results with the squad he's got.

[Donegal Hibby]

Last paragraph, what about the first three games when we didn’t play a 442?

I have said the midfield is a problem as it was evident in the games you mention though fail to see what that as to do with why we should be treating sevco away as just the same as St Johnstone or Dundee at home in setting up in the same attacking formation .

You mentioned to another poster you'd not play the same shape next week so you obviously must think like me it's the wrong thing to do against the old firm too ! What do you think Monty will do next week btw ?.

[Musselbound]

I was very surprised when I first heard he always plays the same formation. I think you need to adapt the system to suit the players, opposition etc. Not seen anything of today's game yet but I wondered if we'd be better playing Youan or Boyle up top in a game like todays to get a bit more defensive solidity into the midfield.

[JohnM1875]

I was very surprised when I first heard he always plays the same formation. I think you need to adapt the system to suit the players, opposition etc. Not seen anything of today's game yet but I wondered if we'd be better playing Youan or Boyle up top in a game like todays to get a bit more defensive solidity into the midfield.

Boyle played through the middle towards the end and was just as useless as he was out wide today.

I get a lot of focus is placed on formation. But, if your players, especially your main game changers, play as poorly as ours did today then it doesn't matter what formation we play.

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of it on here but that's as poor as I've seen Newell play for us in a very long time.

[Brooster]

Good managers don’t have a plan B, he will stick with his formation and add new and better players to the system he prefers. Boyle needs to to more tracking back, I think Youhan is starting to do that but Boyle needs to do more and stop thinking he can do it all on his own, needs to get his head up and look for a pass now and again.

Stop drinking mate. He will soon change formation and tactics when he realises we are not winning games. Every team we play has an overload in midfield.

[Donegal Hibby]

Boyle played through the middle towards the end and was just as useless as he was out wide today.

I get a lot of focus is placed on formation. But, if your players, especially your main game changers, play as poorly as ours did today then it doesn't matter what formation we play.

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of it on here but that's as poor as I've seen Newell play for us in a very long time.

Probably get shot down for this though thought he was poor against killie when we went two up , hertz first half poor also and really poor against Sevco . In his defence though against sevco , Monty did say a few had recovered from knocks so maybe he wasn't 100%.

[WeeRussell]

It’s almost as if you could have named more than one poster that would piling in before 6 after a defeat at Ibrox.

Sure enough, 442 has never worked for any successful football team in the past, so why should it now.

Monteh oot.

[silverhibee]

Stop drinking mate. He will soon change formation and tactics when he realises we are not winning games. Every team we play has an overload in midfield.

Alcohol free mate, we will wait and see if he changes tactics, I don’t think he will.

[Brooster]

Alcohol free mate, we will wait and see if he changes tactics, I don’t think he will.

Fair enough. If he continues to play 2 wingers and 2 strikers he won't win many games.

[andrew70]

It’s almost as if you could have named more than one poster that would piling in before 6 after a defeat at Ibrox.

Sure enough, 442 has never worked for any successful football team in the past, so why should it now.

Monteh oot.

It worked for Manchester United for years. Their midfield was terrific though, unlike ours. Plus they had guys who could defend, unlike us.

It will come but Saturday coming could be embarrassing as we simply don’t have the players to compete when in defensive situations.

In possession we were too hurried, sometimes it’s good to take the ball/your defender for a run, too many took the easy option yesterday.

Let’s stick with it though and I am sure we will reap the rewards in time.

[WeeRussell]

It worked for Manchester United for years. Their midfield was terrific though, unlike ours. Plus they had guys who could defend, unlike us.

It will come but Saturday coming could be embarrassing as we simply don’t have the players to compete when in defensive situations.

In possession we were too hurried, sometimes it’s good to take the ball/your defender for a run, too many took the easy option yesterday.

Let’s stick with it though and I am sure we will reap the rewards in time.

I don’t disagree whatsoever Andrew 👍

[B.H.F.C]

I have said the midfield is a problem as it was evident in the games you mention though fail to see what that as to do with why we should be treating sevco away as just the same as St Johnstone or Dundee at home in setting up in the same attacking formation .

You mentioned to another poster you'd not play the same shape next week so you obviously must think like me it's the wrong thing to do against the old firm too ! What do you think Monty will do next week btw ?.

I don’t think he will change, he’s said as much himself.

I would but I don’t think it as simple as saying it’s down to us playing a 442. In the last year we’ve lost multiple goals against them (and others) regardless of the shape. The fact that we have several poor players, who are very good at getting managers the sack, is a far bigger issue. That, attitude and the way they applied themselves today was a far bigger issue than any formation.

[Donegal Hibby]

It’s almost as if you could have named more than one poster that would piling in before 6 after a defeat at Ibrox.

Sure enough, 442 has never worked for any successful football team in the past, so why should it now.

Monteh oot.

Take it your having a wee dig here ! .

4-4-2 has worked for many teams and it will for us most of the time though didn't think it was right for Sevco game .

Don't want Monty out either ! .

Apologies if the threads annoyed you WR 👍

[WeeRussell]

Take it you’re having a wee dig here !

Not at you in any way, big nose. I’m sorry if it came across that way 👍

[Stuart93]

Not keen on his comments after the game either

[neil7908]

It worked for Manchester United for years. Their midfield was terrific though, unlike ours. Plus they had guys who could defend, unlike us.

It will come but Saturday coming could be embarrassing as we simply don’t have the players to compete when in defensive situations.

In possession we were too hurried, sometimes it’s good to take the ball/your defender for a run, too many took the easy option yesterday.

Let’s stick with it though and I am sure we will reap the rewards in time.

I think Man United is a great example of how a successful 442 can work, but also shows our vulnerability.

It's not just the quality of player, it's the kind of player they had out wide. Beckham was no winger and could defend. Definitely not a coincidence that he moved into central midfield later in his career. Giggs was more of an all out wide player but worked like crazy and would put in a serious shift. I don't see either Boyle or Youan doing enough defensively to support the two players in the middle of the pitch.

It's also relevant that as football changed, Fergie did away with the 442 and it was rarely seen in his later years.

I don't mind going 442 at home to half the teams in the league. In games we're expecting to have loads of the ball and keep the opposition on the back foot for long periods it's a very exiting and attack minded way to play. Which is something I'm delighted to see.

But if Monty is going to succeed here and at a higher level he'll need to learn quickly to be much more pragmatic. Guys like Pep have changed how they play time and time again. You can have a philosophy, a style etc but still change formation when needed.

Sticking rigidly to anything in life that doesn't work will not get you far. Football is no different.

[Donegal Hibby]

Not at you in any way, big nose. I’m sorry if it came across that way 👍

My mistake, no apologies needed conk face 😂. 👍

[andrew70]

I think Man United is a great example of how a successful 442 can work, but also shows our vulnerability.

It's not just the quality of player, it's the kind of player they had out wide. Beckham was no winger and could defend. Definitely not a coincidence that he moved into central midfield later in his career. Giggs was more of an all out wide player but worked like crazy and would put in a serious shift. I don't see either Boyle or Youan doing enough defensively to support the two players in the middle of the pitch.

It's also relevant that as football changed, Fergie did away with the 442 and it was rarely seen in his later years.

I don't mind going 442 at home to half the teams in the league. In games we're expecting to have loads of the ball and keep the opposition on the back foot for long periods it's a very exiting and attack minded way to play. Which is something I'm delighted to see.

But if Monty is going to succeed here and at a higher level he'll need to learn quickly to be much more pragmatic. Guys like Pep have changed how they play time and time again. You can have a philosophy, a style etc but still change formation when needed.

Sticking rigidly to anything in life that doesn't work will not get you far. Football is no different.

I agree 100%.

[Donegal Hibby]

Anyone see what happened when Monty was on about this ? .
https://www.bbc.com/sport/av/football/67184227

[JohnM1875]

Anyone see what happened when Monty was on about this ? .
https://www.bbc.com/sport/av/football/67184227

I didn't. But the camera cut to Monty moaning at the fourth official not long after Miller got shoulder barged out of the pitch after he'd played the ball up the line. I was screaming for a free kick, might have been the ball went up the line and baldy kept it in

Couldn't believe it wasn't a free kick.

[Ronniekirk]

Alcohol free mate, we will wait and see if he changes tactics, I don’t think he will.
He was adamant in post match interview he wouldn’t change way we play But the interviewer had riled him and he was not prpstrd to accept he maybe needs to change style away to old firm
Hoping that was just him being stubborn for interviewer but privately he will reflect and learn
Celtic game might give us an indication

[Weir07]

Any manager that can't adapt and change won't last long, you can't be wedded to one system or philosophy. Play the same way every week and every manager in the league will work out a way to play against you. Alf, Boyle, Vente and Youan all starting at Ibrox? Not for me, naive at best, foolishness at worst. There was a feelgood factor when Monty was appointed, if he's stubborn and dogged in defeat, that will soon evaporate.

[Allant1981]

I'm not a fan either. I've tried but can't take to him at all but in fairness it's not his team. What will go against him is his stubbornness and refusal to change his system. I doubt we'll spend much in the January window seeing as we spent the best part of 2 million in the summer. He'll need to find a way to get results with this squad this season or the vast majority of them. I have a degree of sympathy but he took the job so needs to get results with the squad he's got.

Did you Google all of that as well, any post you make now shouldn't be take seriously as you clearly don't watch games

[Hibs90]

Did you Google all of that as well, any post you make now shouldn't be take seriously as you clearly don't watch games

He’s had it in for him since day1. Best ignored.

[MWHIBBIES]

Good managers don’t have a plan B, he will stick with his formation and add new and better players to the system he prefers. Boyle needs to to more tracking back, I think Youhan is starting to do that but Boyle needs to do more and stop thinking he can do it all on his own, needs to get his head up and look for a pass now and again.

Good managers change formation and approach dozens of times every game and certainly do it depending on opposition.

[Hibs90]

Good managers change formation and approach dozens of times every game and certainly do it depending on opposition.

I don’t recall Pep/Arteta/Klopp etc ever changing from their base formation

[Heisenberg]

There’ll be outliers. There always will be. We could potentially have got away with 4-4-2 when we had SJM because he was so far ahead of every other centre mid in our league. Generally speaking though, 4-4-2 will not work for the vast majority of mid table teams anywhere nowadays, hence why so few of them attempt to play it.

Folk are perfectly entitled to disagree with me (not suggesting you're saying they’re not btw). But I’m certain that if we persist with 4-4-2 with two wingers in the 4 then Montgomery won’t be successful at Hibs. He will need to change how he approaches games.

I get there could be outliers on a game to game basis but for him to make it successful over a full season seems pretty unusual to me. Yesterday I don’t think much of it was to do with formation and more to do with the actual style we were trying to play and the team constantly failing to carry out what was being asked of them. Same will probably happen against Celtc.

[B.H.F.C]

I get there could be outliers on a game to game basis but for him to make it successful over a full season seems pretty unusual to me. Yesterday I don’t think much of it was to do with formation and more to do with the actual style we were trying to play and the team constantly failing to carry out what was being asked of them. Same will probably happen against Celtc.

Agree with this. You look at the goals lost and the formation played very little part on them.

First I think is just a decent bit of play and if Boyle or Youan do that we’re talking about how good it was. Second was mistakes from two experienced players with Newell trying to dribble out in a dangerous area and Marshall then watching it trundle in. Third and fourth the gaps in the centre of our defence in the middle of our box were an absolute shambles.

We’ve played various formations this season and whether it’s a back three, a back four, two in the middle of the park or three, we concede goals because we lack the ability to do basic defensive things consistently. Chuck in the fact that we have Marshall behind them who is absolutely done and I don’t see it changing any time soon.

[jacomo]

We did play 4-4-2 under Lennon with McGinn and Bartley I think


We played 4-4-2 against Celtc at home under Lennon when they were unstoppable. Stevie Mallan was the ‘holding’ midfielder. It looked crazy. We won 2-0.

[B.H.F.C]

We played 4-4-2 against Celtc at home under Lennon when they were unstoppable. Stevie Mallan was the ‘holding’ midfielder. It looked crazy. We won 2-0.

More recently, we also went to a 442 when 1-0 down to Celtic at half time in May and went on to win the game 4-2.

I’d be looking at bringing Levitt in next week in place of a centre forward but stil think it’s too simplistic to say this shape or that shape doesn’t work.

[Brightside]

He won't last long then

Hopefully longer than you

[Since452]

He’s had it in for him since day1. Best ignored.

I've not had it in for him since day one. I thought he was the wrong choice and still do. I've stood by what I've said since day one and there's nothing wrong with that. I've not seen anything to change my mind.

[Since452]

Hopefully longer than you

Another who doesn't like people with an opinion different to theirs.

[Heisenberg]

I've not had it in for him since day one. I thought he was the wrong choice and still do. I've stood by what I've said since day one and there's nothing wrong with that. I've not seen anything to change my mind.

You absolutely have. You were already sharpening your knife if we’d lost at Killie and were constantly crying about how Lee Johnson was treated. Montgomery hasn’t had a chance with you from the off.

[Brightside]

Another who doesn't like people with an opinion different to theirs.

Put some education behind it and people may start liking your opinion. It’s lazy boring posts. It’s honestly like people don’t even understand the basics of football anymore.

[McGruber]

I can't believe Monty has said he won't ever change formation, that is ridiculous. Of course he will, won't be here long if he doesn't. Saying he won't change the way he/we play is an entirely different sentiment. That much is fine. I've enjoyed it since Monty came in, I like him. He has got it wrong tactically in the last 2 though. We have been gubbed before through west and will be again when the old firm are firing, regardless of formation. That was a shakey Rangers team that weren't great and it could have been 7 or 8 nil. 4-4-2 is one thing but to play it with 2 out and out wingers, neither dogged in defensive duties left us wide open. We actually played some decent football, especially 1st half. We had good possession for being at ibrox, albeit mostly in our own half. Doesn't matter if you are going to give up so much space in the middle of the park to good players. One of the feelings I had from the game was that Rangers never had to do too much to score and the goals felt easy.
Monty has to learn - in fairness to LJ, he did, that we have to be a bit more pragmatic away to the old firm. Yes, occasionally you can beat them going gung ho and yes, occasionally you can still get scudded in any formation or approach but we need to give ourselves the best chance.
An extra body has been needed in the middle of the park both at Tynie and especially yesterday.
Of course you have to alter your tactics and formation from time to time - circumstances, personnel, other teams strengths/weaknesses. Some teams might have a set up that negates a 442 but is susceptible to some other formation. Times like yesterday when we can't carry Alf, Vente, Boyle and Youan. You also can't allow yourself to bevome too predictable. I go back to the time we were doing well when Darren Jackson was playing out his skin then teams just knew to stop him stopped us.
Not to mention management in game. Yesterday was the worst game I've seen Boyle have for us, he gets 90. We as a team were failing but persisted with doing the same thing. Trying to control the ball rotate and keep possession in our defensive third... fine,.. but when we are 3 down!
If we were to play 442 in the same way every game what's the point of having a manager - just set us on auto pilot and save the wage. Of course you need to.
Anyway, I've started to waffle on so will leave it there

[MWHIBBIES]

We played 4-4-2 against Celtc at home under Lennon when they were unstoppable. Stevie Mallan was the ‘holding’ midfielder. It looked crazy. We won 2-0.

Was more of a diamond, though iirc. Packed the middle, forced them wide. Slivka played like Yaya toure first half. Brown tried to break his legs for it.

We had horgan who despite his flaws grafted like **** for the team. Youan doesn't, Boyle doesn't.

[Brooster]

Anyone see what happened when Monty was on about this ? .
https://www.bbc.com/sport/av/football/67184227

It was either Fish or Miller who played the ball up the line when the Rangers manager stepped on to the pitch to kick the ball away when it was still in play. I was tucked away in the corner with the rest of the Hibs fans but I do remember the players complaining to the ref about it.

[MWHIBBIES]

It was either Fish or Miller who played the ball up the line when the Rangers manager stepped on to the pitch to kick the ball away when it was still in play. I was tucked away in the corner with the rest of the Hibs fans but I do remember the players complaining to the ref about it.

If it was still in play he should've been sent off. VAR should've looked at it.

[B.H.F.C]

It was either Fish or Miller who played the ball up the line when the Rangers manager stepped on to the pitch to kick the ball away when it was still in play. I was tucked away in the corner with the rest of the Hibs fans but I do remember the players complaining to the ref about it.

The linesman never flagged, the ball was still in play. Everyone kind of stopped and the ref and assistant looked at each other for about 30 seconds thinking how do we get out of sending the new Rangers manager to the stand after 5 minutes of his first game. Linesman then stuck the flag up to indicate it was out, which it obviously wasn’t.

[Crab apple]

If it was still in play he should've been sent off. VAR should've looked at it.

Spot on. McInnes was sent off a few weeks ago for doing exactly the same thing as baldy did and it was later proven that the ball was actually out of play.

[Stuart93]

We can’t keep going with two in midfield against the better sides

Just run right through us.

[Stuart93]

Also just watched the goals back

We’re ****ing woeful at the back, genuinely embarrassing watching us trying to defend at times

[Unseen work]

Watching the game now as I unfortunately couldn’t make it yesterday.

First 15 minutes I thought we were comfortable and the shape was working well, not out numbered in the slightest.

We were playing out from the back and a couple of times Newell done really well to turn his man in the middle and play out the other side, ALF also was coming deep and turning balls wide/over for Boyle to run on to.

Really good play from Newell and ALF created a chance for Vente who hit the target. A couple of minutes after that Hanlon had a great chance from a long throw.

There was another one just after that where we played about 10 passes around the back, drew rangers out and switched it to Miller. Miller had two great option for a ball in behind to ALF and Boyle but had a really poor final ball.

I can see why Montgomery was frustrated, at the first time Marshall kicked the ball long we lost the header, defensive shape was poor and they scored.

From there it was much of the same, we played really well out from the back to the point it mattered, Miller and Obita both guilty of wasteful balls when in really good positions and after good play.

Rangers almost looked like the away side and wanted to counter us.

Newell, Jeggo, Fish and Hanlon all playing well imo up to this point, Miller too in a defensive side of things. Obita for me was guilty of being a bit high at times, specifically the first goal.

The rangers second goal was a real sucker punch and 2-0 more than flattered them, I’m surprised a foul wasn’t given on Newell.

Now the first half we weren’t brilliant, but imo we looked very comfortable and went to Ibrox looking like the home team in how we played out. What I’d like to see is Youan and Boyle getting on the ball more, however we’d likely have got this if Miller was able to play that final ball. We clearly had an identity/patterns of play to pass it out and break their press, which we did umpteen times.

About to watch the second half now…

[Iain G]

Watching the game now as I unfortunately couldn’t make it yesterday and I’m 15 minutes in so far.

I thought we were comfortable and the shape was working well, not out numbered in the slightest.

We were playing out from the back and a couple of times Newell done really well to turn his man in the middle and play out the other side, ALF also was coming deep and turning balls wide/over for Boyle to run on to.

Really good play from Newell and ALF created a chance for Vente who hit the target. A couple of minutes after that Hanlon had a great chance from a long throw.

There was another one just after that where we played about 10 passes around the back, drew rangers out and switched it to Miller. Miller had two great option for a ball in behind to ALF and Boyle but had a really poor final ball.

I can see why Montgomery was frustrated, at the first time Marshall kicked the ball long we lost the header, defensive shape was poor and they scored.

From there it was much of the same, we played really well out from the back to the point it mattered, Miller and Obita both guilty of wasteful balls when in really good positions and after good play.

Rangers almost looked like the away side and wanted to counter us.

Newell, Jeggo, Fish and Hanlon all playing well imo up to this point, Miller too in a defensive side of things. Obita for me was guilty of being a bit high at times, specifically the first goal.

The rangers second goal was a real sucker punch and 2-0 more than flattered them, I’m surprised a foul wasn’t given on Newell.

Now the first half we weren’t brilliant, but imo we looked very comfortable and went to Ibrox looking like the home team in how we played out. What I’d like to see is Youan and Boyle getting on the ball more, however we’d likely have got this if Miller was able to play that final ball. We clearly had an identity/patterns of play to pass it out and break their press, which we did umpteen times.

About to watch the second half now…

Thank you for the great, detailed and thoughtful post.

We have been hit over the head by Mikey Stewart and his BBC chums for 18 months about our perceived lack of identity, even some of our fanbase followed this path. Now we have a manager with a very clear way of wanting to play and give us an identity and instead of shouting him down for not changing it maybe he needs the support to implement it? He is a mere 6 weeks in the door.

I want him to be finding ways to make 442 work in Glasgow, not to change his ideas.

We do need a couple of better players in that back line who can implement it effectively and consistenly, or work with what he has to get them to play what way and be brave.

Do wish we had a Boozy in midfield who would thrive on this playing style. 😁

[silverhibee]

I didn't. But the camera cut to Monty moaning at the fourth official not long after Miller got shoulder barged out of the pitch after he'd played the ball up the line. I was screaming for a free kick, might have been the ball went up the line and baldy kept it in

Couldn't believe it wasn't a free kick.

I think that is the incident he is talking about, I just thought he was going tonto because we never got the foul when Miller was barged of the pitch.

[Stonewall]

I've not had it in for him since day one. I thought he was the wrong choice and still do. I've stood by what I've said since day one and there's nothing wrong with that. I've not seen anything to change my mind.

This literally makes no sense.

[silverhibee]

It was either Fish or Miller who played the ball up the line when the Rangers manager stepped on to the pitch to kick the ball away when it was still in play. I was tucked away in the corner with the rest of the Hibs fans but I do remember the players complaining to the ref about it.

It was Miller, I was steaming drunk :greengrin but seen it clearly enough, VAR should have looked at the incident.

[bingo70]

Watching the game now as I unfortunately couldn’t make it yesterday.

First 15 minutes I thought we were comfortable and the shape was working well, not out numbered in the slightest.

We were playing out from the back and a couple of times Newell done really well to turn his man in the middle and play out the other side, ALF also was coming deep and turning balls wide/over for Boyle to run on to.

Really good play from Newell and ALF created a chance for Vente who hit the target. A couple of minutes after that Hanlon had a great chance from a long throw.

There was another one just after that where we played about 10 passes around the back, drew rangers out and switched it to Miller. Miller had two great option for a ball in behind to ALF and Boyle but had a really poor final ball.

I can see why Montgomery was frustrated, at the first time Marshall kicked the ball long we lost the header, defensive shape was poor and they scored.

From there it was much of the same, we played really well out from the back to the point it mattered, Miller and Obita both guilty of wasteful balls when in really good positions and after good play.

Rangers almost looked like the away side and wanted to counter us.

Newell, Jeggo, Fish and Hanlon all playing well imo up to this point, Miller too in a defensive side of things. Obita for me was guilty of being a bit high at times, specifically the first goal.

The rangers second goal was a real sucker punch and 2-0 more than flattered them, I’m surprised a foul wasn’t given on Newell.

Now the first half we weren’t brilliant, but imo we looked very comfortable and went to Ibrox looking like the home team in how we played out. What I’d like to see is Youan and Boyle getting on the ball more, however we’d likely have got this if Miller was able to play that final ball. We clearly had an identity/patterns of play to pass it out and break their press, which we did umpteen times.

About to watch the second half now…

Thanks for posting.

Exactly my recollection of thr first half yesterday. Second half was really poor so the criticism of the performance from that point on is fair, but the damage was really done at 2-0 so there is a bit context to the second half performance.

[Iain G]

On our journeys on the motorways,
From Ross County to the 'well,
We will stick to this formation from Hell.

[blackpoolhibs]

4-4-2 can work if your goalkeeper remembers to put his hands on, and we replace ageing defenders with better, oh and our two central midfielders are better with the ball.

Against most teams in our league we can possibly get away with it with what we've got, but against them we surely have to be a lot more compact, even i know that who's never managed a team before.

It's nieve to think otherwise.

[Unseen work]

Rangers played as much of a 442 as us yesterday.

Both teams had 4 at the back, 2 centre mids, 2 attacking wingers and 2 strikers, with one of them (ALF and Lammers) dropping deep into the 10 position.

Imo, the formation wasn’t the problem yesterday, it was just some really poor defending.

I never watched the game thinking Rangers completely dictated or overrun the midfield, far from it.

[tamig]

Rangers played as much of a 442 as us yesterday.

Both teams had 4 at the back, 2 centre mids, 2 attacking wingers and 2 strikers, with one of them (ALF and Lammers) dropping deep into the 10 position.

Imo, the formation wasn’t the problem yesterday, it was just some really poor defending.

I never watched the game thinking Rangers completely dictated or overrun the midfield, far from it.
It wasn’t just poor defending - the amount of times we gifted possession back to them, especially in the second half, was very poor.

[truehibernian]

I’d love to see us try and get Mark O’Hara from St Mirren to add some physicality and drive in that midfield. And a pacey left sided centre half, and solid left back. That’s the three areas I think we should be concentrating on in January.

[Brooster]

Rangers played as much of a 442 as us yesterday.

Both teams had 4 at the back, 2 centre mids, 2 attacking wingers and 2 strikers, with one of them (ALF and Lammers) dropping deep into the 10 position.

Imo, the formation wasn’t the problem yesterday, it was just some really poor defending.

I never watched the game thinking Rangers completely dictated or overrun the midfield, far from it.

Of course Rangers completely dominated the midfield (and everywhere else for that matter). We were lucky it was only 4 nil.

[jacomo]

I've not had it in for him since day one. I thought he was the wrong choice and still do. I've stood by what I've said since day one and there's nothing wrong with that. I've not seen anything to change my mind.


:faf:

Your ranting here was so predictable.

[04Sauzee]

I’d love to see us try and get Mark O’Hara from St Mirren to add some physicality and drive in that midfield. And a pacey left sided centre half, and solid left back. That’s the three areas I think we should be concentrating on in January.

2.5 years left on a contract wouldn't be cheap. No idea what kind of season he's having with St Mirren? Assuming decent.

[I'm_cabbaged]

Haven’t read the thread, but here’s my tuppence worth.
Three quarters of the time one of out cf’s spend there time in midfield, why not play an attacking midfielder in these games?

[babahibs]

I’d love to see us try and get Mark O’Hara from St Mirren to add some physicality and drive in that midfield. And a pacey left sided centre half, and solid left back. That’s the three areas I think we should be concentrating on in January.

O'Hara is exactly the type of player we need in the middle, wouldn't be cheap though, probably out of our budget already.

[JimBHibees]

Watching the game now as I unfortunately couldn’t make it yesterday.

First 15 minutes I thought we were comfortable and the shape was working well, not out numbered in the slightest.

We were playing out from the back and a couple of times Newell done really well to turn his man in the middle and play out the other side, ALF also was coming deep and turning balls wide/over for Boyle to run on to.

Really good play from Newell and ALF created a chance for Vente who hit the target. A couple of minutes after that Hanlon had a great chance from a long throw.

There was another one just after that where we played about 10 passes around the back, drew rangers out and switched it to Miller. Miller had two great option for a ball in behind to ALF and Boyle but had a really poor final ball.

I can see why Montgomery was frustrated, at the first time Marshall kicked the ball long we lost the header, defensive shape was poor and they scored.

From there it was much of the same, we played really well out from the back to the point it mattered, Miller and Obita both guilty of wasteful balls when in really good positions and after good play.

Rangers almost looked like the away side and wanted to counter us.

Newell, Jeggo, Fish and Hanlon all playing well imo up to this point, Miller too in a defensive side of things. Obita for me was guilty of being a bit high at times, specifically the first goal.

The rangers second goal was a real sucker punch and 2-0 more than flattered them, I’m surprised a foul wasn’t given on Newell.

Now the first half we weren’t brilliant, but imo we looked very comfortable and went to Ibrox looking like the home team in how we played out. What I’d like to see is Youan and Boyle getting on the ball more, however we’d likely have got this if Miller was able to play that final ball. We clearly had an identity/patterns of play to pass it out and break their press, which we did umpteen times.

About to watch the second half now…

Very good summary we were actually good in the first half bar the goals and wasteful passing going forward as you outlined. Think we had more possession.

[Iain G]

Another who doesn't like people with an opinion different to theirs.

Big difference between option and an obsession.

Am sure you hope you will be proved right, regardless of what damage any failure may mean to Hibs

[truehibernian]

O'Hara is exactly the type of player we need in the middle, wouldn't be cheap though, probably out of our budget already.

Might be wrong but I think Saints are toiling for cash and we could negotiate a SJM type deal. He’s 27 so I think it’s worth the outlay (not for a minute saying he’s in the same calibre as SJM) as he’s a terrific all round midfielder in my book.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Haven’t read the thread, but here’s my tuppence worth.
Three quarters of the time one of out cf’s spend there time in midfield, why not play an attacking midfielder in these games?

Somebody will be along soon with an ‘expert’ analysis as to why 4-4-2 works or to tell you that Hibs fans don’t understand tactics in the way that they do because they themselves are all that (:faf:)but you’re completely correct.

4-4-2 doesn’t work. Next to nobody plays it for a reason.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Very good summary we were actually good in the first half bar the goals and wasteful passing going forward as you outlined. Think we had more possession.

I never watched the game, but is that not two of the biggest parts to playing well that you’ve excluded? :confused: you’ve essentially said that apart from being crap at the back and crap going forward we were good.

Saying we were good apart from conceding goals and being wasteful in possession suggests to me we weren’t very good?

[Unseen work]

Somebody will be along soon with an ‘expert’ analysis as to why 4-4-2 works or to tell you that Hibs fans don’t understand tactics in the way that they do because they themselves are all that (:faf:)but you’re completely correct.

4-4-2 doesn’t work. Next to nobody plays it for a reason.

Our formation wasn’t far off rangers. 4 at the back, 2 centre mids, two attacking wingers and 2 strikers up top with one (Lammers and AlF) dropping into the hole to get on the ball.

Rangers defended well, we never.

[500miles]

I don't think Monty will abandon his gameplan yet, but pick up another couple of doings against the OF without sign of development, he might come up with a different plan.

I can accept that because there is clearly a plan in place for the long term good of the team. I couldn't accept LJs hammerings because I didn't see any constancy or running theme the rest of the time.

[Winston Ingram]

4-4-2 is a ***** formation. If he persists with it then he’ll fail here.

Totally agree. Can’t think of a single good footballing side playing at a decent level anywhere that plays it.

He got away with it in Oz cos the standard is so poor but he’s asking for trouble giving up the midfield in every game here.

[bingo70]

I never watched the game, but is that not two of the biggest parts to playing well that you’ve excluded? :confused: you’ve essentially said that apart from being crap at the back and crap going forward we were good.

Saying we were good apart from conceding goals and being wasteful in possession suggests to me we weren’t very good?

No, not really. Looking at the first half in particular, If the keeper chucks in a goal, it doesn’t mean you’ve been poor defensively. We also did well to create a couple of openings by building from the back. Just because we weren’t clinical, doesn’t mean we were crap going forward.

First half, we looked pretty comfortable defensively for most of it and in attack we did ok up to the final ball or finish. If they’d gone in at the break 1 up I don’t think anybody could have complained, in the same breath though, if we’d gone in 1 up, they couldn’t have complained either. First half there was nothing between the sides, the second goal killed us but if we’re limiting Rangers to shots from 25 yards out, defensively, that’s not a disaster.

Nobody is saying we were brilliant first half but it wasn’t as bad as people are making out.

[bingo70]

Totally agree. Can’t think of a single good footballing side playing at a decent level anywhere that plays it.

He got away with it in Oz cos the standard is so poor but he’s asking for trouble giving up the midfield in every game here.

Brighton play it don’t they?

[K-Zazu]

Our defence is to weak to play a 4-4-2 we need another midfielder in there and nothing wrong with using Boyle and youan as impact subs later in the game now and then

[B.H.F.C]

Somebody will be along soon with an ‘expert’ analysis as to why 4-4-2 works or to tell you that Hibs fans don’t understand tactics in the way that they do because they themselves are all that (:faf:)but you’re completely correct.

4-4-2 doesn’t work. Next to nobody plays it for a reason.

It’s just too simplistic to say that it doesn’t work full stop. We were unbeaten in 5 playing that shape. I wouldn’t play it in Glasgow, I wouldn’t play it on Saturday at home to Celtic, but it wasn’t the main cause of our defeat yesterday.

[JimBHibees]

I never watched the game, but is that not two of the biggest parts to playing well that you’ve excluded? :confused: you’ve essentially said that apart from being crap at the back and crap going forward we were good.

Saying we were good apart from conceding goals and being wasteful in possession suggests to me we weren’t very good?

Two instances of poor play for the goals especially the second which goalie should have saved. Some decent play up to a point until final ball. All other stuff was decent first half. Everything isn't black and white.

[JohnM1875]

Brighton play it don’t they?

Villa play it as well. Scudded West Ham today playing it.

[JimBHibees]

No, not really. Looking at the first half in particular, If the keeper chucks in a goal, it doesn’t mean you’ve been poor defensively. We also did well to create a couple of openings by building from the back. Just because we weren’t clinical, doesn’t mean we were crap going forward.

First half, we looked pretty comfortable defensively for most of it and in attack we did ok up to the final ball or finish. If they’d gone in at the break 1 up I don’t think anybody could have complained, in the same breath though, if we’d gone in 1 up, they couldn’t have complained either. First half there was nothing between the sides, the second goal killed us but if we’re limiting Rangers to shots from 25 yards out, defensively, that’s not a disaster.

Nobody is saying we were brilliant first half but it wasn’t as bad as people are making out.

Exactly this.

[B.H.F.C]

Brighton play it don’t they?

We largely played it last time we finished third. Gave up the midfield a lot of the time to accommodate Doidge and Nisbet.

A big difference was that we were much better defensively. We had a good goalie in Marciano, Porteous and Hanlon had a good partnership and the latter was a few years younger. I wasn't a fan of the way Ross had us playing at times but it shows it’s possible to compete in this league with that formation.

[JimBHibees]

We largely played it last time we finished third. Gave up the midfield a lot of the time to accommodate Doidge and Nisbet.

A big difference was that we were much better defensively. We had a good goalie in Marciano, Porteous and Hanlon had a good partnership and the latter was a few years younger. I wasn't a fan of the way Ross had us playing at times but it shows it’s possible to compete in this league with that formation.

The way Monty has us playing it is much more fluid and flexible with decent rotation.

[flash]

It's hardly a rigid 442 we play.

The wide players and attackers interchange all the time with us often playing more of a 4231.

I have seen us win games and lose games in my 40 odd years with all kinds of formations.

Strangely enough the times we have done well are when we have a team full of quality regardless of formation.

[JimBHibees]

It's hardly a rigid 442 we play.

The wide players and attackers interchange all the time with us often playing more of a 4231.

I have seen us win games and lose games in my 40 odd years with all kinds of formations.

Strangely enough the times we have done well are when we have a team full of quality regardless of formation.

Spot on.

[marinello59]

It's hardly a rigid 442 we play.

The wide players and attackers interchange all the time with us often playing more of a 4231.

I have seen us win games and lose games in my 40 odd years with all kinds of formations.

Strangely enough the times we have done well are when we have a team full of quality regardless of formation.

:agree:

[B.H.F.C]

I have seen us win games and lose games in my 40 odd years with all kinds of formations.

This is where I am and we’ve seen it already this season. We’ve been beaten playing three at the back. We’ve been beaten playing three in the middle of the park. And now we’ve been beaten playing a 442. We also went 5 games without defeat playing that way and beat a good side, Luzern, playing that shape as well.

Bottom line is we don’t currently have the players to perform well, consistently, whatever the shape. I think the 442 argument, and it’s not to say there isn’t some merit in it at times, is now just going to be a thing that some won’t look past if/when we don’t play well or don’t win.

[Donegal Hibby]

The old firm games now as ones we will generally lose no matter what we do ( a free hit ) though in saying that against Sevco i do think we made it too easy for them.

I don't believe that one of the reasons for the result is because some of our players are s***, yes they have better players though killie , St Johnstone and Aberdeen have all had success against the old firm , are there players any better than ours ? Dundee and Motherwell have ran them close this season too.

We have been playing an attacking 4-4-2 with two wingers playing in midfield, two fullbacks that push forward leaving us vunerable at the back , at times it's worked and been good though other times it hasn't , it's not going to work in every game and i don't think it did yesterday.

Watching Celtic today beat hertz should make any manager that plays an attacking 4-4-2 seriously think about changing there approach to playing them in maybe packing the midfield 4-5-1 or going 5-4-1 and for this game be a lot more defensively minded , we still have good players that can hurt any team on the counter attack like Boyle , Youan and Vente.

If we continuously play the one way eventually other teams will find a system to get the better of us anyhow . Really hoping Monty try's something different for the Celtic game 🤞,the thought of us playing the same way with them having players like maeda , kyogo etc etc isn't nice!!!

[Winston Ingram]

Brighton play it don’t they?

Nope 4-2-3-1

[Winston Ingram]

Villa play it as well. Scudded West Ham today playing it.

No they don’t they play a narrow 4-2-3-1. Today, they had Diaby in behind Watkins. McGinn off the right and Zanolio of the left with Kamala and Luiz sitting.

[Keepthefaith]

This is where I am and we’ve seen it already this season. We’ve been beaten playing three at the back. We’ve been beaten playing three in the middle of the park. And now we’ve been beaten playing a 442. We also went 5 games without defeat playing that way and beat a good side, Luzern, playing that shape as well.

Bottom line is we don’t currently have the players to perform well, consistently, whatever the shape. I think the 442 argument, and it’s not to say there isn’t some merit in it at times, is now just going to be a thing that some won’t look past if/when we don’t play well or don’t win.

Exactly this... unfortunately we have too many in our tanbasr ready to get the knives out at the first opportunity for Monty despite his excellent success and proven ability to bring youth through (which will mean no instant success) the fact he's achieved this in Oz is held against him as proof he really is a bit ****.

What about all the experienced managers who've come and gone at Chelsea and man utd? So much failure, so many different formations, so many top class players.

Give the guy time, get off his back and if the players make a mistake whilst adapting to a new style dinnae rip the hell out of them FFS.

Some folk here wanted the likes of McInnes who got 2 good wins against the old firm but then never won again until yesterday.

I will back Monty and his long term vision

[MWHIBBIES]

Villa play it as well. Scudded West Ham today playing it.

Villas 442 with 3 centre mids, an attacking mid and a winger?

Villa do not play 442 like Hibs do. That's just totally untrue.

442 could possible work here, but not with our players. Not even close imo. The formation itself does work. Many good sides play 442 without the ball. Our execution of it is horrific without the ball. Zidanes real Madrid often went back into a 442. Simeone has done it too. Arsenal at times too.

[Donegal Hibby]

Exactly this... unfortunately we have too many in our tanbasr ready to get the knives out at the first opportunity for Monty despite his excellent success and proven ability to bring youth through (which will mean no instant success) the fact he's achieved this in Oz is held against him as proof he really is a bit ****.

What about all the experienced managers who've come and gone at Chelsea and man utd? So much failure, so many different formations, so many top class players.

Give the guy time, get off his back and if the players make a mistake whilst adapting to a new style dinnae rip the hell out of them FFS.

Some folk here wanted the likes of McInnes who got 2 good wins against the old firm but then never won again until yesterday.

I will back Monty and his long term vision

Are fans getting the knives out at the first opportunity and on his back ? I think the way he set us up for the Sevco game made it too easy for them and I hope he adapts in changing to a different set up when playing certain teams ..

Some posters are adamant he won't change as that's the only way he plays , teams will eventually find ways to get the better of him on the way he sets us up and hopefully he finds another way of playing .

I think it's worrying if he won't or can't adapt to different games TBH . We will know next week against Celtic if he can though I certainly not against him or wanting him to fail btw .👍

[Fuzzywuzzy]

I take it tams a big fan of .net

https://twitter.com/joejoefaemexico/status/1717139773532352995?s=19

[Allant1981]

I take it tams a big fan of .net

https://twitter.com/joejoefaemexico/status/1717139773532352995?s=19

Pretty sure he said on twitter before the game it was a good line up so can't have been that fussed about the 442 before it, hindsight is always great

[silverhibee]

Pretty sure he said on twitter before the game it was a good line up so can't have been that fussed about the 442 before it, hindsight is always great

He is a blether, comes across as if he thinks he was a top player when in fact he was pretty mediocre.

I still think the manager will stick with what he trusts, that’s what they work on at training so can’t see him changing it anytime soon.

[HoboHarry]

You're just a 442 happy clapping mediocrity accepting fool.

This Australian will take us nowhere sticking to a tried and tested formation.
:doh:

[Donegal Hibby]

Monty not going to change formation for Celtic game . Fear the worst now
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/exclusive-hibs-boss-on-tactical-criticism-confused-pundits-and-keeping-the-faith-for-celtic-test-4386296

[Eyrie]

Monty not going to change formation for Celtic game . Fear the worst now
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/exclusive-hibs-boss-on-tactical-criticism-confused-pundits-and-keeping-the-faith-for-celtic-test-4386296

That is a mistake.

There's been plenty of chat about how it didn't work at Ibrox and now a full home support is about to see it fail miserably.

Sticking to a preferred system is fine when a manager knows that his team has a good chance of controlling how the game will go but that won't happen when the opposition have far better players. In those games a good manager is adaptable and it's an early warning sign if Montgomery isn't willing to learn from his mistakes. In his shoes I'd play 4-5-1 on Saturday and then revert to 4-4-2 on Tuesday.

[JammyDoidger]

Monty not going to change formation for Celtic game . Fear the worst now
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/exclusive-hibs-boss-on-tactical-criticism-confused-pundits-and-keeping-the-faith-for-celtic-test-4386296

He's putting massive pressure on himself already, if we take a tanking it's not a great start.

[JohnM1875]

He's putting massive pressure on himself already, if we take a tanking it's not a great start.

Why? We've taken plenty tankings from the old firm playing 451 or plenty other formations in the past.

[Skol]

I dont see the problem with sticking with 4-4-2. I do strongly believe though that Boyle and youan in the wide positions is not appropriate

There are options to have a different 4 across the midfield and one of boyle/youan start up front with the other as a sub

Riley, Mazda and Fuhruhashi are a class above while many of the rest of Celtic are a class above hibs. We need to be careful

[Brightside]

Why? We've taken plenty tankings from the old firm playing 451 or plenty other formations in the past.

Exactly. The football manager experts on here have it all covered 😂

[B.H.F.C]

That is a mistake.

There's been plenty of chat about how it didn't work at Ibrox and now a full home support is about to see it fail miserably.

Sticking to a preferred system is fine when a manager knows that his team has a good chance of controlling how the game will go but that won't happen when the opposition have far better players. In those games a good manager is adaptable and it's an early warning sign if Montgomery isn't willing to learn from his mistakes. In his shoes I'd play 4-5-1 on Saturday and then revert to 4-4-2 on Tuesday.

Surely we wait and see how it pans out before we label it a mistake?

I think the shape will be the same but personnel will be different. The fact he’s talking about being more compact makes me think you’re not going to see Boyle and Youan on either side of a midfield 4, because you can’t be compact with both of them.

When we beat Celtic at the end of last season we were losing, switched to a 442 and won. Last time we beat them at ER before that we played a 442, albeit they were narrower on both occasions.

[Donegal Hibby]

That is a mistake.

There's been plenty of chat about how it didn't work at Ibrox and now a full home support is about to see it fail miserably.

Sticking to a preferred system is fine when a manager knows that his team has a good chance of controlling how the game will go but that won't happen when the opposition have far better players. In those games a good manager is adaptable and it's an early warning sign if Montgomery isn't willing to learn from his mistakes. In his shoes I'd play 4-5-1 on Saturday and then revert to 4-4-2 on Tuesday.

I think most of us would rather see 4-5-1 for the Celtic game and then switching back to 4-4-2 for Tuesday . Looks like Monty isn't going to be flexible and adapt to certain games . 4-4-2 every game wither it works or not now ! .
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/tactics-zone-explainer-is-hibs-4-4-2-really-too-ambitious-for-celtic-test-4386613

[B.H.F.C]

I think most of us would rather see 4-5-1 for the Celtic game and then switching back to 4-4-2 for Tuesday . Looks like Monty isn't going to be flexible and adapt to certain games . 4-4-2 every game wither it works or not now ! .
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/tactics-zone-explainer-is-hibs-4-4-2-really-too-ambitious-for-celtic-test-4386613

Does playing the same shape mean playing the same way?

[Unseen work]

Monty not going to change formation for Celtic game . Fear the worst now
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/exclusive-hibs-boss-on-tactical-criticism-confused-pundits-and-keeping-the-faith-for-celtic-test-4386296

Good.

[HoboHarry]

Does playing the same shape mean playing the same way?
That's what a few on here seem to think :greengrin

[Donegal Hibby]

Does playing the same shape mean playing the same way?

Why what way you think he play like out of curiosity?

[Iain G]

Good.

That's great news, happy he is sticking to his plan of what he wants to implement.

[MWHIBBIES]

Hes been in the door 5 minutes and his ideas are already being questioned.

His first choice way of playing may not work vs the old firm, but it needs more than 1 match to see. I'd imagine he and the players will have learned things after Ibrox.

[B.H.F.C]

Why what way you think he play like out of curiosity?

I think he’ll play the same shape but with different personnel and, as he says himself, look to be more compact.

Retaining the same shape does not mean playing the same way all the time. The only time we got any success against Celtic last year was playing with a dreaded 442. We played 3 in the middle against them at ER last season with Magennis and Youan wide and lost 4. We had a 433/451 changing to a back 3 at half time at Parkhead and lost 6 goals. Hard to judge the second game at Parkhead as it was ruined by a sending off and we just played with 10 in our box for the most part although we did pretty well.

If we lose Saturday, which is pretty likely, it ain’t going to be all down to playing a 442.

[eastmainsmsh]

We play too high up and get caught out Youan loses ball sometimes and we are on back foot

[Broken Gnome]

I really can't remember a Hibs manager being spoken about like this before so early into their career. This 442 thing is becoming an obsession. It's really not as black and white as that, and we don't need to automatically think we'll 'fail miserably' or NM faces 'massive pressure just because we happen to lose to both of the Old Firm.

[JammyDoidger]

Why? We've taken plenty tankings from the old firm playing 451 or plenty other formations in the past.

Correct, so why play right into their hands when you know they are better all over the park?
The 3 centre midfielders for Celtic against our 2 for example, they're already better players without giving them a man advantage in that area of the park. Was listening to Lennon on PLZ soccer and he was talking about changing things for certain opponents etc, that's definitely the way to go.

I hope we do manage to batter them in a 4-4-2 I'll happily hold my hands up and admit I'm wrong, but I'm fearing the worst for Saturday I must admit.

[B.H.F.C]

I really can't remember a Hibs manager being spoken about like this before so early into their career. This 442 thing is becoming an obsession. It's really not as black and white as that, and we don't need to automatically think we'll 'fail miserably' or NM faces 'massive pressure just because we happen to lose to both of the Old Firm.

I don’t actually totally disagree with the general point about playing a 442 all the time. But it’s definitely a thing that is going to stick whenever we get beat now (which has only happened once in the six games we’ve played under him).

It’s far too early to decide what he wants to do just doesn’t work (or if it does for that matter).

[CapitalGreen]

We play too high up and get caught out Youan loses ball sometimes and we are on back foot

Any players we play will lose the ball sometimes, we can’t afford players who never lose the ball.

[Brightside]

I really can't remember a Hibs manager being spoken about like this before so early into their career. This 442 thing is becoming an obsession. It's really not as black and white as that, and we don't need to automatically think we'll 'fail miserably' or NM faces 'massive pressure just because we happen to lose to both of the Old Firm.
Especially by people who couldn’t see that Lee Johnson was a snake oil salesman.

[Donegal Hibby]

I think he’ll play the same shape but with different personnel and, as he says himself, look to be more compact.

Retaining the same shape does not mean playing the same way all the time. The only time we got any success against Celtic last year was playing with a dreaded 442. We played 3 in the middle against them at ER last season with Magennis and Youan wide and lost 4. We had a 433/451 changing to a back 3 at half time at Parkhead and lost 6 goals. Hard to judge the second game at Parkhead as it was ruined by a sending off and we just played with 10 in our box for the most part although we did pretty well.

If we lose Saturday, which is pretty likely, it ain’t going to be all down to playing a 442.

I think he will play the same shape too though who you think the different personnel will be is interesting as I think the team basically picks itself apart from maybe 3 or 4 changes that's not going to make that much a difference .

Our Midfield I'd imagine will consist of only two Midfielders again in probably Jeggo and Newell against a team that normally totally dominated possession , 58 % at hertz I think . If we are trying to playing tippy tappy football out from the back again and our fullbacks pushing forward I think maeda , kyogo and Palma will punish us more than normal.

I didn't expect anything at Ibrox other than to lose though playing four attacking players and two Midfielders against that sort of quality nearly lead to us getting pumped by 6 or 7 and I think he's going to do more or less the same now against an even better team and while I expect to lose to Celtic if it goes like the Hun game and our strikers aren't involved, the midfield is getting over run because we have only two Midfielders and we take a right pumping for me it will be down to playing a system that hasn't worked against superior opposition once again.

If you stick your hand in the fire your unlikely to do it again , looks like that's exactly what we are doing again imo . Hope I'm wrong though.

[B.H.F.C]

I think he will play the same shape too though who you think the different personnel will be is interesting as I think the team basically picks itself apart from maybe 3 or 4 changes that's not going to make that much a difference .

Our Midfield I'd imagine will consist of only two Midfielders again in probably Jeggo and Newell against a team that normally totally dominated possession , 58 % at hertz I think . If we are trying to playing tippy tappy football out from the back again and our fullbacks pushing forward I think maeda , kyogo and Palma will punish us more than normal.

I didn't expect anything at Ibrox other than to lose though playing four attacking players and two Midfielders against that sort of quality nearly lead to us getting pumped by 6 or 7 and I think he's going to do more or less the same now against an even better team and while I expect to lose to Celtic if it goes like the Hun game and our strikers aren't involved, the midfield is getting over run because we have only to Midfielders and we take a right pumping for me it will be down to playing a system that hasn't worked against superior opposition once again.

If you stick your hand in the fire your unlikely to do it again , looks like that's exactly what we are doing again imo . Hope I'm wrong though.

See all those things Celtic might do to us, they did that to us with various different formations more than once last season. The formation isn’t going to be the deciding factor all on it’s own this weekend either. And I don’t really get the talk about mistakes when we don’t actually know what has happened yet.

[Johnny_Leith]

I think he will play the same shape too though who you think the different personnel will be is interesting as I think the team basically picks itself apart from maybe 3 or 4 changes that's not going to make that much a difference .

Our Midfield I'd imagine will consist of only two Midfielders again in probably Jeggo and Newell against a team that normally totally dominated possession , 58 % at hertz I think . If we are trying to playing tippy tappy football out from the back again and our fullbacks pushing forward I think maeda , kyogo and Palma will punish us more than normal.

I didn't expect anything at Ibrox other than to lose though playing four attacking players and two Midfielders against that sort of quality nearly lead to us getting pumped by 6 or 7 and I think he's going to do more or less the same now against an even better team and while I expect to lose to Celtic if it goes like the Hun game and our strikers aren't involved, the midfield is getting over run because we have only two Midfielders and we take a right pumping for me it will be down to playing a system that hasn't worked against superior opposition once again.

If you stick your hand in the fire your unlikely to do it again , looks like that's exactly what we are doing again imo . Hope I'm wrong though.

Careful, you'll be called obsessed against 4-4-2 and that you hate Monty because you've dared express concern about a style of play and shape Vs the best side in the league on a football forum.

[Fergus52]

No they don’t they play a narrow 4-2-3-1. Today, they had Diaby in behind Watkins. McGinn off the right and Zanolio of the left with Kamala and Luiz sitting.

Villa play much more of a standard traditional 442 than we do.

Go on sofa score and look at the average positions - Diaby's is usually higher up the pitch than Watkins.

Whereas with us Boyle is usually the player highest up the pitch quite centrally, with Doidge or Le Fondre very deep and the full backs high and wide. We play a 442 without the ball but when we have the ball, even from goal kicks, our shape changes completely.

[Lancs Harp]

5-1 Liverpool

[B.H.F.C]

5-1 Liverpool

Were they playing a 442?

[Fergus52]

It’s not any more ‘fluid’ than any other formation. The idea we’re playing 4-4-2 but playing some unique version of it is nonsense. Of course every formation is ‘fluid’ because the players aren’t screwed into the ****ing ground. But we’re not playing some masterclass version of 4-4-2. It’s very basic and will get us nowhere.

Our 442 is fluid though - when we have the ball our shape changes completely, more-so than in the systems a lot of teams in our league use.

Boyle and Youan come narrow high up the pitch, our second striker very drops deep into midfield, Jeggo sits in with the centre backs and most of our width comes from our fullbacks - that's not the movement or positioning of a typical 442.

There's a debate to be had about how effectively it's working and whether or not some tweaks could be made, but saying its not fluid is silly imo.

Completely writing off a whole formation in this day and age is extremely reductive as well, most good sides shapes will look completely different throughout the match depending on the phase of play and where the ball is on the pitch. Compared to even 10 years ago when formations and systems were more a lot more structured and consistent throughout a match. We play a 442 without the ball but our shape with it rarely looks like one.

[bingo70]

Especially by people who couldn’t see that Lee Johnson was a snake oil salesman.

I find it really depressing to be honest.

I generally try and be open minded to other peoples opinions but I’m struggling with this one. It’s been one defeat, away to Rangers in their managers first game in charge, when we didn’t even play that badly for half of it.

Some people wanted a boring safe appointment like McInnes and they won’t rest until we get one.

[BoomtownHibees]

I think he will play the same shape too though who you think the different personnel will be is interesting as I think the team basically picks itself apart from maybe 3 or 4 changes that's not going to make that much a difference

You don’t think changing 4 players would make that much difference? How many changes do you think he should make?

[Brightside]

I find it really depressing to be honest.

I generally try and be open minded to other peoples opinions but I’m struggling with this one. It’s been one defeat, away to Rangers in their managers first game in charge, when we didn’t even play that badly for half of it.

Some people wanted a boring safe appointment like McInnes and they won’t rest until we get one.

It’s mental. Give us an identity. He does it. Booo. We’ve seen some great attacking play but that will always have a down side. He’s had no opportunity to change personnel. The players like him. Most fans like him. And if we got McInnes in we’d get people complaining how boring it is like we got with Jack. We just need to stick with it. Accept the poor games and give it time.

[Johnny_Leith]

It’s mental. Give us an identity. He does it. Booo. We’ve seen some great attacking play but that will always have a down side. He’s had no opportunity to change personnel. The players like him. Most fans like him. And if we got McInnes in we’d get people complaining how boring it is like we got with Jack. We just need to stick with it. Accept the poor games and give it time.

I've yet to see a single post calling for Monty to go, have I missed some? I'm not on here all the time.

There's a lot of ground between discussing the approach and performance of his games so far, especially at Ibrox and calling him to go and it seems that people are saying 'if you don't think everything Monty does is great the. That means you want him sacked'.

Most people I've seen discussing the approach and philosophy so far are doing just that, there's no mixu paatelainen esq derogatory nicknames, no taking the piss out of his accent like yogi got, no distain that calderwood and LJ seems to get and many more. I'd say the whole support seems to be behind him but what's wrong with discussing his tactics and ideas around the game on a Hibs forum?

[truehibernian]

Luke trying hard not to s****** during that presser 😂👍 riled Barry, good job Mr Shanley 👍😊

[Donegal Hibby]

You don’t think changing 4 players would make that much difference? How many changes do you think he should make?

I think Rocky will be in for Hanlon and other than that I don't know how many changes he will make though do know he's going to play 4-4-2 than again everyone else knows that too 😁 .You think four changes will make a difference to the team ? Curious to know who's the four you'd change btw ?.

[cameronw-hfc]

Those saying 442 doesn't work haven't watched Brighton, Villa, Atletico, Barca, even Arsenal at times.

Given Villa are my English team, I see it weekly with both Hibs and Villa. We are trying a very similar version in possession to Villa.

2 strikers, but one drops deep into the 10, wingers are almost #10s, one of the CMs drops between the defenders(Jeggo for Hibs, Kamara for Villa) and the other roams(Newell for Hibs, Luiz for Villa). The fullbacks push up into the space left by the wingers and you're left with overloads on both wings, and the middle if the roaming CM steps into the hole.

Those saying it isn't fluid aren't quite grasping the meaning of the world fluid in this sense. It doesn't mean tiki-taka, fluid meaning the players have freedom to roam a bit more than a rigid formation/swap positions midgame, which we have already seen with the wingers.

It's a formation that if used correctly, can be lethal, however it takes time to get use to playing as it requires more legs and technical ability, or if one or both of those attributes are missing, discipline.

It creates numerical advantages in deep positions, forcing teams to man mark and step up the park, leaving passing routes open for straight balls into the forwards/#10s. Once they have the ball, it's usually in behind the oppositions midfield, meaning you have a 3v2, a 4v2, or even a 2v2. It also allows you to switch to a 4231 in possession, something we have also done with a striker dropping into midfield.

It isn't the formation, as its a specifically popular formation right now, with teams doing very well using it. The problem is the players not recognising when to step into those spaces to create those overloads, meaning it can look disjointed at times.

Give him and the team time, it's exciting to watch when in full flow and can create some outstanding football, but it takes time to drill and work on.

Ange got praised from all corners when he came here for sticking to his guns and refusing to budge because its something he believed in. Considering our last manager didn't even seem to believe in himself never mind a specific style of play, I'll take someone with a clear idea of how football should be played.

https://youtu.be/CsynW-iMJVc?si=LRBYPGkv__QRc-gy

https://youtu.be/1-w1DxpsT_U?si=2nJF69o45rJvKutP

https://youtube.com/shorts/iv90G0Asz70?si=IsBu3Gp4IYR4vV0K

Here's a few videos explaining how it should work, because it's commonly used now as unlike some have suggested, it's not a bad formation.

[Since452]

Those saying 442 doesn't work haven't watched Brighton, Villa, Atletico, Barca, even Arsenal at times.

Given Villa are my English team, I see it weekly with both Hibs and Villa. We are trying a very similar version in possession to Villa.

2 strikers, but one drops deep into the 10, wingers are almost #10s, one of the CMs drops between the defenders(Jeggo for Hibs, Kamara for Villa) and the other roams(Newell for Hibs, Luiz for Villa). The fullbacks push up into the space left by the wingers and you're left with overloads on both wings, and the middle if the roaming CM steps into the hole.

Those saying it isn't fluid aren't quite grasping the meaning of the world fluid in this sense. It doesn't mean tiki-taka, fluid meaning the players have freedom to roam a bit more than a rigid formation/swap positions midgame, which we have already seen with the wingers.

It's a formation that if used correctly, can be lethal, however it takes time to get use to playing as it requires more legs and technical ability, or if one or both of those attributes are missing, discipline.

It creates numerical advantages in deep positions, forcing teams to man mark and step up the park, leaving passing routes open for straight balls into the forwards/#10s. Once they have the ball, it's usually in behind the oppositions midfield, meaning you have a 3v2, a 4v2, or even a 2v2. It also allows you to switch to a 4231 in possession, something we have also done with a striker dropping into midfield.

It isn't the formation, as its a specifically popular formation right now, with teams doing very well using it. The problem is the players not recognising when to step into those spaces to create those overloads, meaning it can look disjointed at times.

Give him and the team time, it's exciting to watch when in full flow and can create some outstanding football, but it takes time to drill and work on.

Ange got praised from all corners when he came here for sticking to his guns and refusing to budge because its something he believed in. Considering our last manager didn't even seem to believe in himself never mind a specific style of play, I'll take someone with a clear idea of how football should be played.

https://youtu.be/CsynW-iMJVc?si=LRBYPGkv__QRc-gy

https://youtu.be/1-w1DxpsT_U?si=2nJF69o45rJvKutP

https://youtube.com/shorts/iv90G0Asz70?si=IsBu3Gp4IYR4vV0K

Here's a few videos explaining how it should work, because it's commonly used now as unlike some have suggested, it's not a bad formation.

All true but we're trying a 442 with players that either don't suit it or don't understand it. The teams you mentioned can throw tens/hundereds of millions at it to make it work. We're trying it against Rangers at Ibrox with JimmyJeggo and Paul Hanlon in the team and four out and out attackers who don't know how to defend. And our manager thinks there were lots of positives.

I think people appreciate that there's a time to try it and a time not to. He needs to show he can adapt to the opposition at times.

[JohnM1875]

All true but we're trying a 442 with players that either don't suit it or don't understand it. The teams you mentioned can throw tens/hundereds of millions at it to make it work. We're trying it against Rangers at Ibrox with JimmyJeggo and Paul Hanlon in the team and four out and out attackers who don't know how to defend. And our manager thinks there were lots of positives.

I think people appreciate that there's a time to try it and a time not to. He needs to show he can adapt to the opposition at times.

That's exactly it though, the only way we'll ever improve at it, is by sticking with it. Even against the old firm.

[Unseen work]

All true but we're trying a 442 with players that either don't suit it or don't understand it. The teams you mentioned can throw tens/hundereds of millions at it to make it work. We're trying it against Rangers at Ibrox with JimmyJeggo and Paul Hanlon in the team and four out and out attackers who don't know how to defend. And our manager thinks there were lots of positives.

I think people appreciate that there's a time to try it and a time not to. He needs to show he can adapt to the opposition at times.

The thing is it’s all relative, Aston Villa etc can chuck money about but so are the teams they’re playing again. For how much we moan about Hanlon etc they’ll do the same about Mings etc.

I think we’ve got a team that does suit it and has shown they can play it well, they’ve shown it under Monty and against Luzern.

I actually agree with Monty about positives to be taken, we played out and broke their press umpteen times and it was our final ball that was poor and killed many attacks, the players went out and played and were brave.

Rangers almost played like the away team and tried to counter us in the first half imo, we dominated possession and they tried to get the ball in behind with long passes for Sima to run on to, they rarely cut us open through the middle

The first goal is the first time we kicked it long, a couple of bounces and the striker is in behind, the second Newell tries to play, is fouled and they score from 30 yards, the third is another ball in behind of our defence who are just outside the penalty box. The 4th is the real one where the cut is open and is really poor defending.

It wasn’t good, there’s lots of improvement to do but there was still positives imo.

People will be scared playing it against Celtic (myself included) as they can properly play through the lines with quality. But they just put in a massive effort against Atletico and might be on a bit of a come down/tired. We’re at home, let’s go and attack them early and get in their face!

Mon the Monty!

[Paulie Walnuts]

Our 442 is fluid though - when we have the ball our shape changes completely, more-so than in the systems a lot of teams in our league use.

Boyle and Youan come narrow high up the pitch, our second striker very drops deep into midfield, Jeggo sits in with the centre backs and most of our width comes from our fullbacks - that's not the movement or positioning of a typical 442.

There's a debate to be had about how effectively it's working and whether or not some tweaks could be made, but saying its not fluid is silly imo.

Completely writing off a whole formation in this day and age is extremely reductive as well, most good sides shapes will look completely different throughout the match depending on the phase of play and where the ball is on the pitch. Compared to even 10 years ago when formations and systems were more a lot more structured and consistent throughout a match. We play a 442 without the ball but our shape with it rarely looks like one.

Every 4-4-2 does that. Infact every formation does that. No 4-4-2 sees every player stay in their ‘formation zone’ all game.

Arsenals invincibles played 4-4-2. Henry dropped out to the left wing, Bergkamp would drop deep to link the midfield and attack, the full backs would overlap and Pires played as an inverted winger and would come inside to link with the front men. It was still 4-4-2 though and nobody would debate otherwise.

Likewise under Lennon, we played 3-5-2. Ambrose and Hanlon would step out the defence all the time into the midfield when building attacks, same as most teams do when playing 3-5-2. It wasn’t a 2-6-2 though, we were still playing 3-5-2.

We’re not playing this ultra advanced version of a 4-4-2 that people are making out. It’s a 4-4-2. The players are doing what players do and always have done in a 4-4-2.

[Brightside]

Every 4-4-2 does that. Infact every formation does that. No 4-4-2 sees every player stay in their ‘formation zone’ all game.

Arsenals invincibles played 4-4-2. Henry dropped out to the left wing, Bergkamp would drop deep to link the midfield and attack, the full backs would overlap and Pires played as an inverted winger and would come inside to link with the front men. It was still 4-4-2 though and nobody would debate otherwise.

Likewise under Lennon, we played 3-5-2. Ambrose and Hanlon would step out the defence all the time into the midfield when building attacks, same as most teams do when playing 3-5-2. It wasn’t a 2-6-2 though, we were still playing 3-5-2.

We’re not playing this ultra advanced version of a 4-4-2 that people are making out. It’s a 4-4-2. The players are doing what players do and always have done in a 4-4-2.

So you don't like it why? My view is that Youan and Boyle don't do enough defensively yet for it to be at its best. But changing to 4231 wont make any difference to our results. We need to stick with the formation. Learn. Get better at it.

[Brightside]

All true but we're trying a 442 with players that either don't suit it or don't understand it. The teams you mentioned can throw tens/hundereds of millions at it to make it work. We're trying it against Rangers at Ibrox with JimmyJeggo and Paul Hanlon in the team and four out and out attackers who don't know how to defend. And our manager thinks there were lots of positives.

I think people appreciate that there's a time to try it and a time not to. He needs to show he can adapt to the opposition at times.

Not sure why you think Paul Hanlon can't play a 442. He's the best passer of a ball in the defensive line. :greengrin

[Paulie Walnuts]

So you don't like it why? My view is that Youan and Boyle don't do enough defensively yet for it to be at its best. But changing to 4231 wont make any difference to our results. We need to stick with the formation. Learn. Get better at it.

I’ve outlined why numerous times. If you spent more time actually reading people’s posts rather than calling them budget Guardiolas etc you’d have read why.

It leaves us a man short in the middle where we have nowhere near the quality to make up for it, leaves our full backs exposed and our defence, which is already really poor also exposed.

Going forward there’s some positives when it comes to 4-4-2 but they’re completely outweighed by the negatives when you’re a team like Hibs. If you’re Celtic or someone like that then you’ll probably be able to make it work, much like you would near enough any formation due to the level of quality all over the park. When you’re Hibs and you’re much of a muchness with most of the league you won’t make it work over the course of a season imo.

[BoomtownHibees]

I think Rocky will be in for Hanlon and other than that I don't know how many changes he will make though do know he's going to play 4-4-2 than again everyone else knows that too 😁 .You think four changes will make a difference to the team ? Curious to know who's the four you'd change btw ?.

It was you who said “I think the team basically picks itself apart from maybe 3 or 4 changes that's not going to make that much a difference”

[Since452]

I’ve outlined why numerous times. If you spent more time actually reading people’s posts rather than calling them budget Guardiolas etc you’d have read why.

It leaves us a man short in the middle where we have nowhere near the quality to make up for it, leaves our full backs exposed and our defence, which is already really poor also exposed.

Going forward there’s some positives when it comes to 4-4-2 but they’re completely outweighed by the negatives when you’re a team like Hibs. If you’re Celtic or someone like that then you’ll probably be able to make it work, much like you would near enough any formation due to the level of quality all over the park. When you’re Hibs and you’re much of a muchness with most of the league you won’t make it work over the course of a season imo.

This is what worries me about playing Celtic. They are so quick and clever in the middle of the park with their usual 433. I think they'll murder us if we play 442 with Boyle, Youan, ALF and Vente. I'd expect Celtic to beat us anyway so i guess it's a bit of a free hit. I just hope it isn't an embarrassing score line.

[J-C]

Our 442 is closer to 424, hence why the 2 CM get a bit overrun against the better quality teams. Cadden and Obita would be better options on the flanks with Boyle or Youan more central. Personally I prefer a 433 but that's due to having more control in the middle, 2 FB's pushing on, with Boyle and Youan staying narrower linking with Vente.

[Donegal Hibby]

It was you who said “I think the team basically picks itself apart from maybe 3 or 4 changes that's not going to make that much a difference”

I think the team does basically pick itself especially if we are playing 4-4-2:again ! , don't you ? .The 3 or 4; changes mentioned from me all came about when another poster said that Monty might change personnel against Celtic and was I was just trying to guess what changes the other poster was referring too . Other than Rocky in for Hanlon I don't see that many changes that would make a great difference though maybe you do which is fine 👍

[Brightside]

Our 442 is closer to 424, hence why the 2 CM get a bit overrun against the better quality teams. Cadden and Obita would be better options on the flanks with Boyle or Youan more central. Personally I prefer a 433 but that's due to having more control in the middle, 2 FB's pushing on, with Boyle and Youan staying narrower linking with Vente.

Good interview with the manager in the evening news online. We’re he clearly says why it’s not a 424. He also clearly says what has to happen to stop the chances that have appeared this season. It’s just needs work.

[J-C]

Good interview with the manager in the evening news online. We’re he clearly says why it’s not a 424. He also clearly says what has to happen to stop the chances that have appeared this season. It’s just needs work.

Not seen it but will read it later, I feel Boyle and Youan just don't do enough defensively, hence why it looks more like a 424.

[TrinityHFC]

Not seen it but will read it later, I feel Boyle and Youan just don't do enough defensively, hence why it looks more like a 424.

I think we get the worst of both worlds with Boyle and Youan in the formation they way we have been playing it. Thre aren't great at defending and when we are attacking they are being asked to be deep and narrow. When we are in the wider positions it tends to be with our full backs on the ball. I don't think that gets the best out of their main asset which is pace behind.

[Iain G]

Good interview with the manager in the evening news online. We’re he clearly says why it’s not a 424. He also clearly says what has to happen to stop the chances that have appeared this season. It’s just needs work.

It was good to get his more detailed thoughts on the way we are playing and explaining why it didn't work as well against the Sevconians and how we need to improve to make it work. No knee jerk reaction, no dumping his ideas after a set back, no random changes of formation and personnel.

Better reading than a list of demanding things he needs to learn from the poundshop de Zerbi's 🤣

[Donegal Hibby]

Careful, you'll be called obsessed against 4-4-2 and that you hate Monty because you've dared express concern about a style of play and shape Vs the best side in the league on a football forum.

That did actually cross my mind that btw 😂. I don't mind the 4-4-2 being used , my concerns are us using it in every game when some like the Ibrox game it didn't appear to work against better quality players and was hoping for a different approach to playing Celtic.

Another concern is it appears it's going to be 4-4-2 and that's it , no changing of system if things aren't going well or a rival manager has figured out a way to get the better of it , it won't always be plain sailing with 4-4-2 and would be nice to have a plan B to fall back on if needed .

As for Monty I hope the guys successful though am concerned he doesn't appear to be going to adapt to different challenges and problems there will be in games. Looks like it's do or die with one system only in 4-4-2 ! ! !.

[JammyDoidger]

That did actually cross my mind that btw 😂. I don't mind the 4-4-2 being used , my concerns are us using it in every game when some like the Ibrox game it didn't appear to work against better quality players and was hoping for a different approach to playing Celtic.

Another concern is it appears it's going to be 4-4-2 and that's it , no changing of system if things aren't going well or a rival manager has figured out a way to get the better of it , it won't always be plain sailing with 4-4-2 and would be nice to have a plan B to fall back on if needed .

As for Monty I hope the guys successful though am concerned he doesn't appear to be going to adapt to different challenges and problems there will be in games. Looks like it's do or die with one system only in 4-4-2 ! ! !.

That's what I can't understand, there's Rodger's wednesday night changed the shape and got Celtic a result, Clement changed the shape and went with 3 centre half's because he didn't have barisic available, all teams have to do it at times, fair enough 4-4-2 can be your default formation, but it's ludicrous to not change it up at times when it's needed, which it will be and has been already, wether that's before a game or in game. Injury's etc can lead to a change in shape, if we got Boyle and Youan injured are we just going to play centre mids out wide for the sake of going 4-4-2?
If you're studying how a team plays surely you identify their strengths and their weaknesses, and set your team up to either expose a weakness, or stop a teams strengths, that's management for me.

[Johnny_Leith]

That did actually cross my mind that btw 😂. I don't mind the 4-4-2 being used , my concerns are us using it in every game when some like the Ibrox game it didn't appear to work against better quality players and was hoping for a different approach to playing Celtic.

Another concern is it appears it's going to be 4-4-2 and that's it , no changing of system if things aren't going well or a rival manager has figured out a way to get the better of it , it won't always be plain sailing with 4-4-2 and would be nice to have a plan B to fall back on if needed .

As for Monty I hope the guys successful though am concerned he doesn't appear to be going to adapt to different challenges and problems there will be in games. Looks like it's do or die with one system only in 4-4-2 ! ! !.


This is my concern too, we need tactical flexibility throughout the season for a variety of reasons. Opposition managers aren't daft (apart from Stevie Naismith) and will be able to pick holes in our shape and type of play. The weather will impact us too throughout the winter months that we'll need to adapt to.

There a load of positives from Monty's term thus far and some negatives. I do not see pointing them out as soon and gloom, rather as points that should be discussed on a football forum. I think only ever playing one formation is a bit of a red flag (unless your budget and players comfortably dwarf the majority of the league) but as he's such a young coach maybe he'll learn to be more adaptable.

[HIBS NUTS]

It’s very little to do with the 4-4-2 formation that we got beat by rangers, unless everyone hasent noticed, we almost always get beat by rangers, i fully expect to get beat by celtic, anything else is a bonus, unfortunately both are in a different financial league.
Hearts didn’t play 4-4-2 last week, and got horsed at home.
However i do expect to play well , and beat aberdeen in the semi.

[Donegal Hibby]

That's what I can't understand, there's Rodger's wednesday night changed the shape and got Celtic a result, Clement changed the shape and went with 3 centre half's because he didn't have barisic available, all teams have to do it at times, fair enough 4-4-2 can be your default formation, but it's ludicrous to not change it up at times when it's needed, which it will be and has been already, wether that's before a game or in game. Injury's etc can lead to a change in shape, if we got Boyle and Youan injured are we just going to play centre mids out wide for the sake of going 4-4-2?
If you're studying how a team plays surely you identify their strengths and their weaknesses, and set your team up to either expose a weakness, or stop a teams strengths, that's management for me.

I agree , don't mind using 4-4-2 but to stick with it for every game I don't get either . There's games were you see a team leading 1 nil and are really under pressure were the manager changes formation by taking off a striker and putting on a Midfielder/ Defender to try and see the game out . It's just good management. Nothing wrong in playing it at home to Dundee , away to St Johnstone though when it comes to the old firm I don't think we should be treating them games as just the same as the rest .

[Donegal Hibby]

This is my concern too, we need tactical flexibility throughout the season for a variety of reasons. Opposition managers aren't daft (apart from Stevie Naismith) and will be able to pick holes in our shape and type of play. The weather will impact us too throughout the winter months that we'll need to adapt to.

There a load of positives from Monty's term thus far and some negatives. I do not see pointing them out as soon and gloom, rather as points that should be discussed on a football forum. I think only ever playing one formation is a bit of a red flag (unless your budget and players comfortably dwarf the majority of the league) but as he's such a young coach maybe he'll learn to be more adaptable.
Pointing what we think is wrong or what we can improve on I don't think is negative and should be discussed, nothing wrong with it imo .Agree there's loads of positives from Monty's term so far and as you say he's a young coach so hopefully he will learn to be more adaptable which will only benefit us in the long run 👍.

[flash]

Pointing what we think is wrong or what we can improve on I don't think is negative and should be discussed, nothing wrong with it imo .Agree there's loads of positives from Monty's term so far and as you say he's a young coach so hopefully he will learn to be more adaptable which will only benefit us in the long run 👍.
And if you can get about 50 posts a day out if it thats just a bonus.

[Donegal Hibby]

And if you can get about 50 posts a day out if it thats just a bonus.

Only 50 jez that's poor ! 😂😂😂

[JimBHibees]

It’s very little to do with the 4-4-2 formation that we got beat by rangers, unless everyone hasent noticed, we almost always get beat by rangers, i fully expect to get beat by celtic, anything else is a bonus, unfortunately both are in a different financial league.
Hearts didn’t play 4-4-2 last week, and got horsed at home.
However i do expect to play well , and beat aberdeen in the semi.

Good points about Rangers usually beating us and Hearts not playing 442 and getting horsed at home also. In saying that we defend like we did last week we are getting a doing.

[Since452]

And if you can get about 50 posts a day out if it thats just a bonus.

To be fair most of your posts are just pointless sarcy digs that offer nothing. A bit like this one.