What tactics do you think we'll play next season?

[crasher]

Do you think CH will stick with 442? Or maybe play that at home and something different away?

I though last night showed how our present formation is vulnerable to a team playing with a 4231 with a good Number 10. Like Huddersfield away when we never picked up Izzy Brown playing behind the striker, so it was with Pritchard and both the goals last night. And, in the premier league, with lots of good players of that type - maybe we'll need to drop the 442? On the other hand, Burnley play that way pretty successfully.

Or maybe we'll try 3 at the back? Warren on the radio was suggesting we might need to get a left-footed CB to give us that option?

We're all tactical experts now aren't we courtesy of FM. What would you do?

 

[Dick Swiveller]

My concern is he will turn into the Norwich Hughton. Every side we play against is a "good team". My hope is he will get the players he needs to feel we can have a go. If he feels we are outgunned, he may go ultra defensive. I can't see him staying 4-4-2 but hope it is 4-3-3 rather than 4-5-1.

I really hope we don't go completely into our shell as he deserves a full season at least and hopefully a lot more after his achievements. But there will be a very vocal minority on his case after not too many games if we are seen to park the bus for every game.

 

[Is it PotG?]

4-1-1-2-2

 

[Merdalfthewizard]

I'd stick with the tried and tested 442 for the first 45, then settle for blind panic in the second if it doesn't work

 

[Captain Sensible]

4-4-2 with two banks of 4, well drilled can be the most effective counter attacking formation. I think last night showed again that Norwood, isn't really up to playing in a two in midfield. He's great to come on and hit quarterback passes to pin down a team but not when up against it.

 

[crasher]

4-4-2 with two banks of 4, well drilled can be the most effective counter attacking formation. I think last night showed again that Norwood, isn't really up to playing in a two in midfield. He's great to come on and hit quarterback passes to pin down a team but not when up against it.

My thoughts exactly. 442 works for us because Dale is so good at protecting the back four as well as finding space in midfield and putting us back on the front foot. Take him out and it doesn't work.

 

[Lifelong Supporter]

I would go for 4 4 1 1 with the second forward dropping off from the front. 4 4 2 with a Baldock style nippy forward as the second striker. We will need sufficient in midfield to win the ball back and use it.

 

[warmleyseagull]

Do you think CH will stick with 442? Or maybe play that at home and something different away?

I though last night showed how our present formation is vulnerable to a team playing with a 4231 with a good Number 10. Like Huddersfield away when we never picked up Izzy Brown playing behind the striker, so it was with Pritchard and both the goals last night. And, in the premier league, with lots of good players of that type - maybe we'll need to drop the 442? On the other hand, Burnley play that way pretty successfully.

Or maybe we'll try 3 at the back? Warren on the radio was suggesting we might need to get a left-footed CB to give us that option?

We're all tactical experts now aren't we courtesy of FM. What would you do?

Depends a lot on whether DS stay. As other posters have pointed out he is in effect the 5th defender. OP suggests it was formation against Udders and Norwich that got us in trouble; actually DS not starting either game was more important IMO.

We don't have an attacking central midfielder. BK did a bit a last season (and anecdotally DS played more attacking role) but injury and the power of having AK + ANO decent winger all season means not required this. Had we bought Pritchard, the tactics might have varied more.

So I think will depend on personnel. I believe a strong attacking CM is essential so we can mix tactics up between and within games.

 

[Machiavelli]

4-4-2 with two banks of 4, well drilled can be the most effective counter attacking formation. I think last night showed again that Norwood, isn't really up to playing in a two in midfield. He's great to come on and hit quarterback passes to pin down a team but not when up against it.

Agree. I thought we should have taken Sidwell off when Stephens came on, precisely so Norwood could hit those quarter-back passes, but only rarely do we play well when Norwood starts in a midfield two.

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you think CH will stick with 442? Or maybe play that at home and something different away?

I though last night showed how our present formation is vulnerable to a team playing with a 4231 with a good Number 10. Like Huddersfield away when we never picked up Izzy Brown playing behind the striker, so it was with Pritchard and both the goals last night. And, in the premier league, with lots of good players of that type - maybe we'll need to drop the 442? On the other hand, Burnley play that way pretty successfully.

Or maybe we'll try 3 at the back? Warren on the radio was suggesting we might need to get a left-footed CB to give us that option?

We're all tactical experts now aren't we courtesy of FM. What would you do?

Good point about good number 10s, Brown and Pritchard. There will be plenty more like that in the PL, but I thought that Oliviera had a good game playing up-front.
It really will be interesting to see what tactics we play in the PL. If we do play 4-4-2, then both Knockaert and March will have to get cuter defensively, otherwise we'll be starting Skalak and Murphy, and that's unlikely to work out too well at this level. Given that, I'd rather we got a really good number 10 or ACM, with Siggurdson (if Swansea go down) and Cairney the obvious choices from England. Pritchard may just be the next best option, unless we've unearthed a gem from abroad. This would give us that extra defensive cover to start Knockaert and March, which is what I'd like us to do (that said, Solly had a dreadful game last night).

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

I think recent history has taught us, that Chris Hughton very rarely deviates from his tried and tested 4-4-2. I don't see too much reason why that should change in the Premier League, particularly if we still have Dale Stephens who can turn defence into attack so quickly.

As an earlier poster said, Burnley also play 4-4-2, but in a different way, they rely more on power, strength, and the long ball.

As for Pritchard, we won't be signing him. No one turns Tony down twice.

 

[Don Quixote]

If we go ultra defensive we will go down. Hughton is smart, he knows what he is doing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stat Brother]

Rush goalie.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I think we should play 10-0-0 and look to nick something on the break.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I think we should play 10-0-0 and look to nick something on the break.

I'm going a bit more adventurous at 4 6 0

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

My thoughts exactly. 442 works for us because Dale is so good at protecting the back four as well as finding space in midfield and putting us back on the front foot. Take him out and it doesn't work.

Stevens or a very similar type of player is needed to play 442. Norwood proved last night that he can't do the role. How we missed Stevens in the first half.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Stevens or a very similar type of player is needed to play 442. Norwood proved last night that he can't do the role. How we missed Stevens in the first half.

Was Hughton dropping Stephens last night a little nudge towards Bloom to say, 'Look how much worse we play when Stephens isn't in the team'?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Was Hughton dropping Stephens last night a little nudge towards Bloom to say, 'Look how much worse we play when Stephens isn't in the team'?

Would help if I spelt his name correctly..doh.

You could though have a point. I just can't see where Norwood fits in the team though. His passing is ok but offers little else in the middle.

 

[clippedgull]

As for Pritchard, we won't be signing him. No one turns Tony down twice.

Glen Murray?

 

[perseus]

Rush goalie.

Playing a goalkeeper doesn't always work.