4231 or 433?

AriseSirWalter

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
What formation would you go for and why?

I know they are very similar but also important differences, playing 4231 allows the full backs to get up on the front line but is this something that we should persist with as Tav and Borna age?

In a 4231 midfield to front might look like;

Raskin Jack
Cantwell Tillman Kent
Morelos​

In a 433 it might be;

Raskin
Cantwell Tillman
Sakala Morelos Kent​


I love the look of the midfield 3 in the 433 but it would mean that Borna/Tav would need to sit more as we couldn't just leave Raskin himself in case of breaks.

In the scenarios above the attacking threats would be;
4231: Tav, Borna, Cantwell, Tillman, Kent, Morelos
433: Cantwell, Tillman, Sakala, Morelos, Kent.

Would you rather two fullbacks supplying crosses or an extra goal scorer in Sakala?

I know the players will change but put those to focus the chat on formation rather than players.
 
4-2-3-1 was death by Gio, was it not ? We don't need 2 holding midfielders against our domestic opponents.
 
4-2-3-1 is simply a variation on 4-3-3. Dutch would describe 4-2-3-1 as 4-3-3 midfield point forward and attack point forward.

Basic tactics should be similar. On Saturday we ended up with too many attackers. Didn’t help beat the block.

For me at home it is more difficult and we have teams sitting in against us. Key is upping the tempo and moving the ball quicker and more directly.
 
Whether anyone feels we need two '6's' or not, it's how Beale likes to protect the backline and allows structure in the side when Borna and Tav are high up the park.

It's been that way since he was here with Gerrard and I'm pretty sure it'll stay that way going forward, in the main.

Saturday was an exception to the rule, when he replaced Lundstram with Tillman. There were occasions when Gerrard played 4141 and I'm sure those might happen again, albeit infrequently.

A back four and two sixes are Michael Beale's (mostly) non-negotiables.
 
You not watched us under Beale yet mate na?
We don’t play with ‘two holding midfielders’

For the most part we’ve had to endure combination of Jack/Lundstrum/Kamara however when we do have more than one of them playing they aren’t playing a defensive role, despite their attributes being more suited to that.

People see the personnel rather than the work the player is doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN8
Whether anyone feels we need two '6's' or not, it's how Beale likes to protect the backline and allows structure in the side when Borna and Tav are high up the park.

It's been that way since he was here with Gerrard and I'm pretty sure it'll stay that way going forward, in the main.

Saturday was an exception to the rule, when he replaced Lundstram with Tillman. There were occasions when Gerrard played 4141 and I'm sure those might happen again, albeit infrequently.

A back four and two sixes are Michael Beale's (mostly) non-negotiables.

That's fine when Tav and Borna are creating a lot of chances but as they age it will be tougher for them to get up and down the pitch.
 
We don’t play with ‘two holding midfielders’

For the most part we’ve had to endure combination of Jack/Lundstrum/Kamara however when we do have more than one of them playing they aren’t playing a defensive role, despite their attributes being more suited to that.

People see the personnel rather than the work the player is doing.
I never said we played with two 'holding midfielders?'

You don't need to explain to me how our in-game system operates. I watch football with my eyes on the pitch, not on a computer screen with formations laid out with fancy graphics.
 
4231 would be my preference use the attacking midfielders the best we can have the security behind them off two CDM with one with ability to drive forward with ball who has a exellent aray off passing
 
4-2-3-1 was death by Gio, was it not ? We don't need 2 holding midfielders against our domestic opponents.


Well Beale went out of his way to explain why replacing Lundstram with Tillman and going
4-1-4-1 didn't work against Ross County.

Not enough control of possession, not regaining the ball quick enough and not being able to get Tav and Borna as advanced, were some of his gripes

Pretty sure he'll be his usual 4-2-3-1 for the vast majority of games going forward.
 
Horses for course n all that but we should not be playing 2 defensive minded midfielders at Ibrox against anyone.
 
I’ve said before I don’t think we’re going to be too bogged down by a set formation as such, football’s advancing from that, we’ve already seen how fluid the front 3 have become and I think we’ll see that come into the midfield as well, everyone will have specific jobs based on who we’re playing etc. Plenty of games even when Jack and Lundstram have been playing together it’s not really been two sitting as Jack has always had the freedom to get forward, you could see a huge difference in his role at the weekend when he moved back after Lundstram came off for example.
 
What formation would you go for and why?

I know they are very similar but also important differences, playing 4231 allows the full backs to get up on the front line but is this something that we should persist with as Tav and Borna age?

In a 4231 midfield to front might look like;

Raskin Jack
Cantwell Tillman Kent
Morelos​

In a 433 it might be;

Raskin
Cantwell Tillman
Sakala Morelos Kent​


I love the look of the midfield 3 in the 433 but it would mean that Borna/Tav would need to sit more as we couldn't just leave Raskin himself in case of breaks.

In the scenarios above the attacking threats would be;
4231: Tav, Borna, Cantwell, Tillman, Kent, Morelos
433: Cantwell, Tillman, Sakala, Morelos, Kent.

Would you rather two fullbacks supplying crosses or an extra goal scorer in Sakala?

I know the players will change but put those to focus the chat on formation rather than players.
4-2-3-1 & 4-3-3 are entirely different.
 
These threads are fascinating.

We hammered Hearts with the 4-4-2 so thats what i prefer but ofcourse we should mix it up at times, i never understand why folk say a change of formation means ripping it all up and starting again we should have loads of different options or ways to break these sides down. 1 man isolated aint winning us any spfl titles.
 
These threads are fascinating.

We hammered Hearts with the 4-4-2 so thats what i prefer but ofcourse we should mix it up at times, i never understand why folk say a change of formation means ripping it all up and starting again we should have loads of different options or ways to break these sides down. 1 man isolated aint winning us any spfl titles.
I also thought we played a 4-4-2 diamond on Saturday when Lundstrum went off.

Ended up with Jack at the base and Kent at the tip with Tillman and Cantwell either side.
 
I think creativity is more important than tackling when you play for a team with the majority of the ball.

When teams break he just has to get something on it to allow us to reset.
CDM is a specialist posistion so much more goes into it that most people don't see do you think we would got Riskan if anybody could go play there?
 
CDM is a specialist posistion so much more goes into it that most people don't see do you think we would got Riskan if anybody could go play there?

I'm not saying anyone play there, I'm saying I'd like to see more of Lawrence in there. He has played there before for us and did it very well.

Hate to mention them but mcgregor is an example of how a #6 in a team with majority of the ball doesn't have to be good at tackling.
 
I'm not saying anyone play there, I'm saying I'd like to see more of Lawrence in there. He has played there before for us and did it very well.

Hate to mention them but mcgregor is an example of how a #6 in a team with majority of the ball doesn't have to be good at tackling.
What games has he played there before?I see all the games don't ever remember seeing him play there before?
 
4-2-3-1, at least until yilmaz is back. It is much easier to fit players into whereas the 4-3-3 require players who are more specialised in certain roles. For example, a 4-3-3 with two attack minded 8s only really works if one of the fullbacks inverts, something Yilmaz can do very well and Barisic is rubbish at.
 
4 2 2 2
Someone else in goals

Tav
Goldson
Davies (superb addition I may add)
Barasic (Yilmaz needs to do a lot to dethrone him IMO)

Lundstrum
Raskin

Tillman
Cantwell

Alfie
Kent
 
Raskin lawrence

Cantwell tillman kent

Morelos
I like it, and I’d play that if I was on FIFA or FM because of how silky it would be.

However, as shit as the SPFL is, it’s a pretty fast league. If a team wins back possession in their defensive third, they’re only one or two passes from getting a proper counter.

Ourselves and the papes are fortunate that so many teams don’t have players who can produce those two most important first couple of passes in a counter when under pressure, but I’m not sure that midfield gives you the element of cover that’s required.

Raskin might offer that though. He looks like he runs about that park like a stabbed rat, so let’s see what he’s all about.
 
Beale said when he was here before that we may transition between 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 and even 4-3-2-1 all in the same game.

I think Raskin’s introduction will allow us to better link the two defensive midfielders with the three more advanced and allow us to be more attack minded in games.

I’ve long felt that if you play 4-3-3 then the two wide attackers should perform more like forwards than wingers - closer to the striker with the full backs providing the width.

I don’t think we play that way. When we do Kent and Sakala operate wider and for me that is partly why we don’t get enough goals.

As it stands a 4-2-3-1 is probably best suited to our personnel.
 
Beale said when he was here before that we may transition between 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 and even 4-3-2-1 all in the same game.

I think Raskin’s introduction will allow us to better link the two defensive midfielders with the three more advanced and allow us to be more attack minded in games.

I’ve long felt that if you play 4-3-3 then the two wide attackers should perform more like forwards than wingers - closer to the striker with the full backs providing the width.

I don’t think we play that way. When we do Kent and Sakala operate wider and for me that is partly why we don’t get enough goals.

As it stands a 4-2-3-1 is probably best suited to our personnel.

Can't disagree with any of that.

We 100% should be looking to have more of a goal threat from the two wide players in the front 3. Sakala has been an improvement but still need more goals from those positions imo.

The 4321 was perfect for OF and European games, the flat 3 in midfield gave a lot of protection for defenders and the 2 central in behind the striker was great for attacking space when things opened up.
 
I'm a victim of my School footballing, 442:

LB - Yilmaz
CB - Davies
CB - Goldson
RB - Tav

LM - Kent
CM - Raskin
CM - Cantwell
RM - Tillman

ST - Colak
ST - Morelos

Although tempted to put Tav RM with Devine at RB and Tillman as ST instead of Colak alongside Buf.
 
Yup, it's not like people stick in these formations all game like a fussball table

It's an imperfect way football fans discuss how teams generally set up. There's a lot of context/assumed knowledge that goes along with it. For example in a 433 you know nowadays the fullbacks will spend a lot of time attacking even though they're listed in defensive 4. Whereas in a defensive 451 you can assume fullbacks wont get forward as much.

It's not perfect but it allows all the variations, rotations and everything else that happens in 90 mins to be simplified down to let people talk about it much easier.
 
Back
Top