TOMKINS - Rafa's new Assistant

[DT]

I agree with Rashid although his relentlessness is tiresome. Kuyt is not the answer on the right. No matter how anyone might try and dress it up, we are in desperate need of a proper right winger/right-sided forward. Especially if we're going to be playing this new system.

And let's not kid ourselves either by dressing it up and calling it 4-2-3-1. It's five midfielders and one up front.

[Stu Monty]

Originally Posted by DT A agree with Rashid although his relentlessness is tiresome. Kuyt is not the answer on the right. No matter how anyone might try and dress it up, we are in desperate need of a proper right winger/right-sided forward. Especially if we're going to be playing this new system. And let's not kid ourselves either by dressing it up and calling it 4-2-3-1. It's five midfielders and one up front.

It's not kidding ourselves Pete, that's what he's playing. It's a flexible formation but it is definitely 4-2-3-1.

[WaltonRed]

Good shout DT, I think everyone knows Dirk isnt the answer on the right in the new formation (although he has played it for holland, and with two good wide men I think he could get goals as an out and out forward)

My maine point is, Rash only has to say it once, its the constant going on about it that wrecks peoples head.

[DT]

Originally Posted by Stu Monty It's not kidding ourselves Pete, that's what he's playing. It's a flexible formation but it is definitely 4-2-3-1.

If you want to call it that because it sounds better than 4-5-1, be my guest.

[Stu Monty]

Originally Posted by DT If you want to call it that because it sounds better than 4-5-1, be my guest.

No, I'm calling it that because that's what it is. It can convert to a 4-5-1 and a 4-3-3 at any point in the game but you can bet that when it's up on the board before kick off it's 4-2-3-1.

If you want to call it a 4-5-1 becuase it sounds worse, be my guest.

[DT]

So are they midfielders or forwards?

[WaltonRed]

Originally Posted by DT So are they midfielders or forwards?

Forwards, not Strikers or Centre-Forwards, Forwards.

[DT]

So it's a 4-2-4 then.

[Moo]

Originally Posted by DT If you want to call it that because it sounds better than 4-5-1, be my guest.

It doesn't matter how it sounds, it's how it plays that's important.
As some of the best teams in England and Europe know only too well.

[Stu Monty]

I don't know where you're going with this, Pete?

[DT]

Originally Posted by Stu Monty I don't know where you're going with this, Pete?

My point is that Rafapologists, led by the likes of Paul Tomkins, are putting a positive spin on this and are calling something quite traditional and with negative connotations (4-5-1) by a fancy new and adventurous name.

Now I'm not particularly bothered about how we play as long as we win so I've no problem with calling it 4-5-1 or 5-3-2 or whatever, but it annoys me when people dress it up as something else and pretend it's fantastic.

[Dirk]

Originally Posted by DT My point is that Rafapologists, led by the likes of Paul Tomkins, are putting a positive spin on this and are calling something quite traditional and with negative connotations (4-5-1) by a fancy new and adventurous name. Now I'm not particularly bothered about how we play as long as we win so I've no problem with calling it 4-5-1 or 5-3-2 or whatever, but it annoys me when people dress it up as something else and pretend it's fantastic.

When did it become such a sin to support the manager? In my mind, the name of it is irrelevant but the fact is, all of Kuyt, Babel and Torres are forwards/strikers not midfielders, it's more like a 4-3-3 than it is a 4-5-1 but it misses the point completely because the benefit of it is that it can adapt to 4-5-1, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 or even 4-4-2.

[real red]

I thought it was 2-2-3-2-1 myself.

[drewy]

I prefer 1-4-2-3-1, Pepe's a goaly not a defender.

[Karl]

4-5-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-2-4? Isn't it the point that it's a flexible formation?

[drewy]

Poor old Pepe, getting left out of the formation.