Craig Easton

[Scot Munroe]

on friday the formation was 4-3-1-2 which malpas used for the latter part of last season with mixed fortunes. I think it can work away from home with 3 solid midfielders in the centre and Mcnamee the free licsence to roam and run at the defenders. At home i'll stick with the 4-4-2 with the same team as DV added earlier.

[RobertT]

Agreed, I just don't get people who complain about our defensive frailties and then start questioning the use of 3 solid midfielders.  I think we may stick with it for Leeds, but I would think, as the first few games suggested, a proper 4-4-2 will be the norm at home.  It's good, in some ways, that we can play a couple of ways, so we can react to problems of the like that we were faced with after Colchester.  It's worked, it might not be the prettiest football or the most expansive, but it's got us some results.

[Reeves for King]

Should always play 4-4-2 to start with, play 4-5-1 or 1-1-8 or whatever if we are winning/losing and need to play in a certain way but in our league I've noticed that mental formations don't seem to work if you want to actually do reasonably well

[Don Rogers Shop]

Would just like to point out that playing 442 with two wingers saw us beaten by cheltenham and colchester.since the change we are unbeaten in 3 away games. Imo that justifies playing it

[Colin Todd]

Would just like to point out that playing 442 with two wingers saw us beaten by cheltenham and colchester.since the change we are unbeaten in 3 away games. Imo that justifies playing it

Excellent point

[Batch]

Would just like to point out that playing 442 with two wingers saw us beaten by cheltenham and colchester.since the change we are unbeaten in 3 away games. Imo that justifies playing it

A midfield of Jon-Paul McGovern, Lilian Nalis, Michael Timlin does not work. They seem to lose shape with McGovern being sucked into the middle too much.

The way we have switched it around does seem to have, but there is nothing to say playing different personnel in a 4-4-2 wouldn't work just as well. I'm not sure we can do that without dipping into the loan market mind - playing Marshall and McNamee would be too lightweight.

[Simon Pieman]

I guess it depends on the opposition. If you're playing a team with slower full backs but probably bigger lads, keep it on the deck and we're laughing. The CBs and CM will end up getting sucked into the wings leaving a gap for someone in the middle. That's why we need Easton to go forward. However, it's all about balance, which I think is the point a lot are trying to make, just that they are arguing a balance can be achieved in different ways.

Personally I'm just glad McNamee and Marshall don't appear to dive at the first opportunity, unlike Zaaboub did.

[Don Rogers Shop]

If we was not creating chances it would be a concern.leeds will be the real test of the formation saturday and if we win then maybe its paid off. Two solid fullbacks play a big part in this formation though

[janaage]

I'm pretty nervy about the Leeds game this season, not sure why, but just don't have the confidence going into this one.

Hopefully by the time Saturday comes and a couple of pre match pints have been consumed I'll be much more confident of 3 points for town.

[DV]

Would just like to point out that playing 442 with two wingers saw us beaten by cheltenham and colchester.since the change we are unbeaten in 3 away games. Imo that justifies playing it

Now how much of that is due to the actual formation and how much of that is due to the fact Easton has started the last 3 games?

[Don Rogers Shop]

Um i cant explain that

[flammableBen]

Now how much of that is due to the actual formation and how much of that is due to the fact Easton has started the last 3 games?

Or that we haven't won at home when I haven't worn an eye patch.