Your Brighton team against Ipswich Wednesday

[Danny-Boy]

NOTE Before someone says it i should have put a comma after Ipswich on the thread title.

http://www.wildlifeinsight.com/Insight/?page_id=6385

Take your pick..

 

[chaileyjem]

My prediction is - Stockdale, Calde, Hughes, Greer, Bennett, Ince, Holla, JFC, March, Colunga, O Grady/Best.

*CMS/Halford are injured, Dunk is suspended. Although he might also bring in Bruno for Calde.
Colunga looked brighter than Baldock when he came on at the end against Brentford so expecting him to replace Baldock. Best presumably will feature if his signing confirmed.

Subs: Walton, Bruno/Calde, Chicksen, Rea (he's not playing in u21s today so surely lined up), Baldock, Best/O Grady, & Tex given that so far Hughton reluctant to feature Toko, McCourt.

 

[Danny-Boy]

From what I gather Albion's forward line was dwarfed by the Brentford defence on Saturday.

Whilst I have happy memories of Dean Cox running around a statuesque Bees back-line at Griffin Park years ago, surely you need a proper target man now (Muzza played that day). Baldock doesn't seem that kind of player.

 

[Seasidesage]

Stockdale
Bruno - Greer - Hughes - Bennett
Ince - Holla
March - Tex - JFC
O'Grady

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

I presume Best will start tomorrow so as he is cup-tied for Sunday. If so I'd like to see the following -

Stockdale
Bruno - Greer - Hughes - Bennett
March - Ince - Holla - Teixiera
Best - Baldock

 

[Marshy]

Stockdale

Bruno
Bennett
Hughes
Greer

Ince
JFC
Holla

Colunga
March

Best

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Why do people keep on about 4-4-2 it is an old antiquated formation that no team ever uses now as football has moved on, that is ok for pub teams on Sunday morning but not pro teams.

No of course not. Never again would a team use 442, oh https://defendingwiththeball.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/carlo-ancelotti-shows-flexibility-again-with-442-shape/

 

[BensGrandad]

A changed team now since my last posting on this thread

Stockdale
Bruno..Greer..Hughes..Bennett
Holla..Ince
Teixiera..JFC..Corlunga
Best.​

subs
Walton, Calderon, Baldock, March, Chicksen.COG Rea.

 

[DTES]

I want COG and Colunga up front. There were about six Brentford defenders when the two of them broke through on Saturday, but COG still controlled the ball and set Colunga up for a cracking effort that needed an equally cracking save from the keeper. Get them both on the field and we'll score goals, I'm sure of it.

 

[BensGrandad]

No of course not. Never again would a team use 442, oh https://defendingwiththeball.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/carlo-ancelotti-shows-flexibility-again-with-442-shape/

He didnt set the team up with that formation but it devolved as the game progressed and for periods of the game, obviously his players are capable of adapting are ours?

 

[somerset]

Your Brighton team against Ipswich on Wednesday??

Barcelona if we can get them at such short notice......................

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

He didnt set the team up with that formation but it devolved as the game progressed and for periods of the game, obviously his players are capable of adapting are ours?

Point is the much maligned 442 was used successfully very recently by a top side. Somewhat proves your post is wrong.

Further more in regard to any of these modern formations are they really any different from old ones. Did Ward and Mellor play as a front 2 or were they part of a 3 man front line with Sully/Sayer/Towner or indeed back then did we play a 4123 formation even a 424 frankly it's all rubbish.

Most teams play with a few in defence some roughly in midfield and a number in the final bit.

All formations are subjective and open to far too much opinionated crap first started by Andy Gray and carried over to stupid computer games.

 

[The Birdman]

Don't care what team as long as we win and the fans enjoy the game.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Stockdale

Calde - Greer - Hughes - Bennett

March - Holla - Ince - JFC

Baldock

Best​

 

[BensGrandad]

Point is the much maligned 442 was used successfully very recently by a top side. Somewhat proves your post is wrong.

Further more in regard to any of these modern formations are they really any different from old ones. Did Ward and Mellor play as a front 2 or were they part of a 3 man front line with Sully/Sayer/Towner or indeed back then did we play a 4123 formation even a 424 frankly it's all rubbish.

Most teams play with a few in defence some roughly in midfield and a number in the final bit.

All formations are subjective and open to far too much opinionated crap first started by Andy Gray and carried over to stupid computer games.

Blame Sir Alf before him we had 2 full backs 3 half backs and 5 forwards. As I said no team ever sets out to play a 4-4-2 formation and only resort to it if the need demands, that is where we fail nobody has noticed the need to change during a game.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Blame Sir Alf before him we had 2 full backs 3 half backs and 5 forwards. As I said no team ever sets out to play a 4-4-2 formation and only resort to it if the need demands, that is where we fail nobody has noticed the need to change during a game.

You somewhat miss my point. As I say did Mellor and Wardy really play as a two or could it be conceived that one played further forward, say Mellor and Ward made his darting runs off him, thus coming from what now would be 4411 formation. Therefore even back then we didn't have a 442 or did we?

The issue is exactly what are any formations? At any point in a game you could freeze frame the action and fit the formation in to whatever it shows, But as the game is fluid, well sometimes, the formation is guessed upon by so called experts sat in the stands or back in the studio are really irrelevant. About the only one that's really a noticeable formation is if a back 5 is adopted using a sweeper, which isn't used often, and the sweeper being known to be a midfield player. A back line using 3 "out and out" centre backs and two full backs could again be considered a back 5 or in fact is it now a back 3 with the full backs being used as wingbacks and indeed should be included in midfield? It could be argued if the team in question is under the cosh for most of the game with little chance of the wingbacks progressing forwards then they would be playing 5 at the back the intention was though for it to be 3.

If the sweeper in the back 5 runs with the ball beyond the defence and in to midfield are the team suddenly adopting a 442 a 433 a 4141 or whatever. The answer is obviously no. So therefore the point I make is that all these formation are just twaddle.

We are supposedly playing with 2 defensive midfielders, you know the 2 defensive midfielders who between then had good chances to score in the last game. So with this in mind what formation were we playing? Especially as on a number of occasions our right back was the furthest player up field.

In all honesty when I hear people spouting off about formations I tend to think it's them trying to sound informed and big whereas in truth they haven't a diddly.

 

[BensGrandad]

You are right about formations but to listen to most on here they are wanting us to play a rigid 4 in defence 2 full backs 2 centre backs, 4 in midfield 2 wide 2 central, and 2 strikers in the Keegan Toshack mould, that is what I am saying will not work now.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Steele

Williams
Lawrenson
Foster
Stevens

Towner
Horton
Gotsmanov
Vicente

Ward
Zamora

That will do nicely thankyouverymuch

 

[HantsSeagull]

stockdale

bruno
greer
hughes
bennett

holla
ince

march
tex
colunga

best

 

[Puppet Master]

Ipswich Wednesday