What formation was that tonight? Seemed like a good old 442

A

Alexander Supertramp

Well-known member
First half especially was a definite 442. When attacking, Peltier seemed to almost tuck into a centre mid position. A la Cancelo at City.

who said Warnock is a dinosaur 😀
 
Me too - at least a flat back four, those in front seemed a little more fluid.

Benefit of the back four when Lumley had possession was the spare man to play the ball to - couple of times the first half this was Howson who was able to come out of defence with the ball and play us up the pitch.

If Barnsley had been more switched on they should have switched to leaving Pelts free as I'd rather have him running at me than Howson.
 
We appear to be wrong but it felt like 532 to our group.
Jones and Howson in the wing back positions, with Peltier, Bamba and McNair the back three.
Crooks the deepest lying, then Payero and Tav with more forward license and playing outside in.
Sporar and Watmore up front forging a partnership.
 
indeedido said:
We appear to be wrong but it felt like 532 to our group.
Jones and Howson in the wing back positions, with Peltier, Bamba and McNair the back three.
Crooks the deepest lying, then Payero and Tav with more forward license and playing outside in.
Sporar and Watmore up front forging a partnership.
Click to expand...
I think it was more a case of 442 first half which seemed to morph into 532 at times during the second.
 
indeedido said:
We appear to be wrong but it felt like 532 to our group.
Jones and Howson in the wing back positions, with Peltier, Bamba and McNair the back three.
Crooks the deepest lying, then Payero and Tav with more forward license and playing outside in.
Sporar and Watmore up front forging a partnership.
Click to expand...
I too thought it was 442 until Barnsley switched early in 2nd half and then Peltier became one of a 3 man back line with McNair and Bamba. I thought we started to conceed too much ground after this switch but we did start to pick them off on the break, but that only works if you put the chances away - I'm looking at you Watmore (wow what a miss!)
 
--------------Lumley-----------------
Howson—Bamba—McNair—Peltier
Tavernier—Payero—Crookes—Jones
-----------Sporar--Watmore---------


--------------Lumley-----------------
Howson—Bamba—McNair—Peltier
----—Payero—Crookes—Jones-----
---Tavernier—-Sporar—Watmore---


--------------Lumley-----------------
-------McNair—Bamba—Peltier-----
Tavernier--Crookes--Howson--Jones
-----------------Payero---------------
------------Sporar--Watmore--------
 
Was 442 for majority of first half

Started off 352

Second half we chopped and changed again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top