Problem with 4-4-2
is more on the defensive side. Invariably end up defending really deep with two banks of 4. When the ball is won requires 25 passes to get it up the field. Need a formation that forces the players higher up. Actually think we have the talent that would benefit most from a fluid 3-4-3.
Posted By: SeattleSounders on September 24th 2013 at 20:24:19
Message Thread
- We have the players for 4-4-2 now. Haven't had that for years. How about... (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Sep 24, 20:18:16
- Problem with 4-4-2 (NCFC) - SeattleSounders, Sep 24, 20:24:19
- Why not 442 (n/m) (NCFC) - ghostof barry butler, Sep 24, 20:23:41
- Agreed (NCFC) - Larry Hagman, Sep 24, 20:22:38
- isn't that what he played Saturday? (NCFC) - Charles21, Sep 24, 20:22:23
- It was very hard to tell really (n/m) (NCFC) - Winged Eel Creosote, Sep 24, 20:29:08
- Why on earth would we play 4-4-2? (n/m) (NCFC) - BINMEN8R, Sep 24, 20:21:44
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.