Did my eyes deceive me, or were we playing 4-2-4 in the second half, with Lang well up along side Bishop and Lane and Kamara well forward? If so, it was very effective.
No it wasn’t and it was still very effective.
(18-02-2024, 06:58 AM)TBP Wrote: [ -> ]Did my eyes deceive me, or were we playing 4-2-4 in the second half, with Lang well up along side Bishop and Lane and Kamara well forward? If so, it was very effective.
No, it was the same old 4231 - the most effective formation in the game IMO as long as your '3' are contributing goals and assists, which ours are currently in abundance.
Reading in the News today, Mousinho had been concerned that Reading were building too easily from the back with just Bishop up. So he told the other three to push up on the defenders, to good purpose. So my belief that they looked like 4-2-4 would appear to be correct.
I believe JM meant that he wanted his 3 attacking midfielders to hold a higher line up front. Regardless of formation it was Bishop that was leading the line.
(19-02-2024, 08:51 AM)TBP Wrote: [ -> ]Reading in the News today, Mousinho had been concerned that Reading were building too easily from the back with just Bishop up. So he told the other three to push up on the defenders, to good purpose. So my belief that they looked like 4-2-4 would appear to be correct.
Yes,and they pressed as a line of three, behind Bishop continuing to lead the line.
In a 4-2-4 Lang would have to have been playing alongside Bishop. He wasn't.
What Deep said.
I always agree with him when he’s right.
Geometry
Geometry
Were the famous Portsmouth City
arguing Geometry
(19-02-2024, 11:27 AM)DeepBlue Wrote: [ -> ] (19-02-2024, 08:51 AM)TBP Wrote: [ -> ]Reading in the News today, Mousinho had been concerned that Reading were building too easily from the back with just Bishop up. So he told the other three to push up on the defenders, to good purpose. So my belief that they looked like 4-2-4 would appear to be correct.
Yes,and they pressed as a line of three, behind Bishop continuing to lead the line.
In a 4-2-4 Lang would have to have been playing alongside Bishop. He wasn't.
In the real world and not on paper (or more likely the iPad these days), there is no real difference between 424 and 4231.
The emphasis on where the front four plays depends on the nature of the game, whether you are on top, whether you are at home, whether you need to chase the game.
It’s all smoke and mirrors really but the anoraks love it. :D
(19-02-2024, 04:13 PM)exgaffer Wrote: [ -> ] (19-02-2024, 11:27 AM)DeepBlue Wrote: [ -> ] (19-02-2024, 08:51 AM)TBP Wrote: [ -> ]Reading in the News today, Mousinho had been concerned that Reading were building too easily from the back with just Bishop up. So he told the other three to push up on the defenders, to good purpose. So my belief that they looked like 4-2-4 would appear to be correct.
Yes,and they pressed as a line of three, behind Bishop continuing to lead the line.
In a 4-2-4 Lang would have to have been playing alongside Bishop. He wasn't.
In the real world and not on paper (or more likely the iPad these days), there is no real difference between 424 and 4231.
The emphasis on where the front four plays depends on the nature of the game, whether you are on top, whether you are at home, whether you need to chase the game.
It’s all smoke and mirrors really but the anoraks love it. 
There is a difference, that's why they are called different things.
if the number 10 plays alongside the centre forward then it's 4-2-4 (or 4-4-2). If he plays behind the centre forward, like we play, then it's 4231. Similar, but different.
As they say in Thailand ‘same but different’