It's true formations don't win games but sometimes players don't fit formations and I think that's the case with us at the moment. I know it's not popular in football at the moment (which might be an advantage as teams arent used to it) but i think going back to a formation that served us well in the past is worth a try - although I admit unlikely to happen. 4-4-2 is clearly giving us problems with conceding goals due to frailties in central defence so it might make sense to give us a extra central defender in the form of three at the back when needed. The wingers we have are not capable of doing what JCR, Hammell and Vaz Te have done in the past in beating men, crossing the ball and pulling players out of position - so let's do away with them. This would free up two wing backs to bomb on and cross the ball in the knowledge that they have cover behind. They can also play across midfield or drop back to make five when necessary. In midfield we could than have the options of either playing two defensive holding players with an attacking midfielder, or two attacking midfielders with a defensive holding player - depending on the situation. Up front we could play 2 in attack, or perhaps one up top and someone playing off him. Something like the below maybe: ------------------ Steele ------------------- ---------Cranie -- Hassell -- Foster ---------- Stones --------------------------- Goldbourne --------- Mellis -- Greening -- Buzsaky ------- -------------Davies ----- Tudgay ------------ I'd let Hassell play either slightly infront of Cranie and Foster or just behind as a sweeper depending on the situation. Cranie is a useful right back so he makes good cover when the wing-back gets forward. Hassell's lack of height is made up for in that he reads the game and is good on the ball. Stones and Goldbourne are both good going forward but they are not (yet) out and out full backs, this has proven costly at times although they have both played well. The wing-back role gives them the opportunity to get forward with the knowledge there is an extra man behind whilst at the same time capable of forming a 5 across the middle to flood midfield. In midfield Greening could sit and hold playing short passes and allowing Mellis and Buzasky to get forward and be free of some of the defensive work they were asked to to under 4-4-2. If you're being more defensive away from home maybe swap one of those two attacking players for Dawson and play two defensive players either side of Mellis or Buzsaky. Upfront Davies and Tudgay would be better served from crosses from out wide and with two attacking midfielders feeding them the ball. Overall i think this system makes better use of the strengths of the players we have and I think that's the most fundamental problem we have - we are trying to fit players into positions they are not good enough in playing. There are some interesting player comparisons with a very well known 5-3-2/3-5-2 formation from the past we used. Note Appleby playing in the Hassell role, two wing backs who were both excellent crossers of the ball, perhaps not defensively great and certainly not as quick as Stones and Goldbourne. Sheridan in the holding roll, maybe Dawson would suit this better than Greening from a defensive point of view? Id like to see RNL looking to play that Marcelle role too. Shame we don't have a Redfearn! ----------------------- Watson ----------------------- --------A De Zeeuw -- M Appleby -- A Moses ---------- N Eaden ------------------------------------ Thompson --------- N Redfearn -- Sheridan -- C Marcelle --------- ------------------Hendrie ---- Wilkinson --------------- Anyhow, just a few thoughts...