4-4-2 at home is the way forward for Spurs

[Blake Griffin]

They have the players to do it

i'm not debating that but saying you need wingers to make 442 work is wrong imo.

 

[thinktank]

K, I'm going back to bed....

 

[Good Doctor M]

why? the top two in the league last season primarily played two up top with no wingers.

They have the players to do it

Having 2 strikers on the field doesn't necessarily mean you're playing 4-4-2. We don't have the players. The top two in the league still had natural width in Sterling and Navas. We've got Townsend and Lennon. Lamela isn't a wing hugger, nor is Chadli. It simple wouldn't work. We'd end up playing too narrow with our wider players all trying to cut inside.

 

[Hazardousman]

I personally feel like we would work better with a 4-3-3 system, don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be "Mr football manager" but I think we have the players to work well within that system.

Eriksen as the no 10, with Capoue and Dembele either side of him, Lamela Soldado and Chadli as the front 3, almost like a 4-4-2 diamond.

 

[Good Doctor M]

I personally feel like we would work better with a 4-3-3 system, don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be "Mr football manager" but I think we have the players to work well within that system.

Eriksen as the no 10, with Capoue and Dembele either side of him, Lamela Soldado and Chadli as the front 3, almost like a 4-4-2 diamond.

That's effectively what we already play when you think about it.

 

[WhiteStripe]

No
No
No
No
No
No

 

[Shadydan]

People get hung up on tactics way too much, 4-4-2/4-2-3-1/4-3-3, doesn't really matter what we play we'll still see the same problems, we just need to leatn to be patient and let the manager implement his philosophy.

 

[Good Doctor M]

No
No
No
No
No
No

That won't work either for various reasons;

1) it's much too narrow
2) you've only fielded 6 players there
3) we don't have anybody on the books called "No" let alone the entire family of "Nos" we would need to facilitate this rather outlandish tactic of yours.

 

[parklane yid]

May as well bring redknapp or Sherwood back then, NO THANKS, if we had played 442 against besiktas then we would have been totally outnumbered in the middle and would have lost

 

[RJ1882]

We need two strikers at home, especially against poor opposition. Newcastle came to us with zero confidence. A truly awful first half display. Yet we failed to capitalise. We need to give teams more to think about than we are currently doing, stop showing so much respect to poor opposition. That maybe means dembele or stambouli playing instead of capoue. Kane further up beside the striker. We've had the same front 4 all season in the league and for the most part it hasn't worked. Needs freshener up.
I'd go 2 strikers. 442 4132 442 diamond... Whatever you want to call it, give it a fancy name, but two strikers is a must for us in these games.
Utd can get Falcao Rooney and RVP in the same line up yet we go with one of our average 3? Doesn't make sense.

People argue 2 strikers doesn't necessarily mean more goals but it certainly won't mean any less for us.

 

[Bobbins]

It's that time of the life cycle again, folks!

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

We've gone 442 before under AVB (we had Bale then) and Sherwood. Was equally shocking most of the time then as well. Putting an extra non performing striker on the pitch will not solve our problems. What will happen is we will get over run in midfield and the problems will continue. basic 442 is completely against the managers philosophy. No thanks.

This is incorrect. You may not like 4-4-2, but don't rewrite history. Since you brought up Sherwood, for all his shortcomings, his tenure is actually quite interesting when it comes to 4-4-2/5-2-3-1 debates.
TS switched between the two formations, and almost all of his convincing victories came when applying 4-4-2. For instance ManUtd away, Aston Villa at home (3-0), Fulham at home, Sunderland at home. (TS actually did what OP is suggesting, 4-4-2 at home vs. weaker teams).
When it comes to 4-2-3-1, this was applied vs. (among others) Chelsea, Liverpool, ManC, Arsenal and Norwich. All matches ended in humiliation. Vs Southampton it ended in victory, but not without defensive errors.
It's very interesting this argument about "getting run over in midfield", because it simply doesn't stick if you test it. I bet there are no actual objective findings to back up a theory saying that 4-4-2 means overrun, whilst 4-2-3-1 means that we are soooo solid and balanced. In fact, the midfield is frequently overrun in 4-2-3-1. Too frequently.
I'm not necessarily advocating 4-4-2. But this 4-2-3-1 lone striker "it's all about transitions"-thing is thoroughly visited during this and last season, and the system is found wanting.
By the way; Southampton largely switched from 4-2-3-1 to 4-3-3. Where are they now?

 

[striebs]

Having 2 strikers on the field doesn't necessarily mean you're playing 4-4-2. We don't have the players. The top two in the league still had natural width in Sterling and Navas. We've got Townsend and Lennon. Lamela isn't a wing hugger, nor is Chadli. It simple wouldn't work. We'd end up playing too narrow with our wider players all trying to cut inside.

I would prefer it if Townsend would get to the byline sometimes rather than cut back and shoot with his inside foot which becomes ineffective when it is overused .

4-4-2 is good to watch .

 

[Syn_13]

We don't have the midfielders to make 4-4-2 work. I don't really think it's about not having natural wingers either, as there are teams that do pull off 4-4-2 with inverted wingers or attacking mids out wide. For me it's more about our centre mids. Modric and Parker were the last 2 centre mids we had that complemented each other well enough to make a formation like that work, albeit it was more of a 4-4-1-1 back then.

 

[cwhite02]

The end of the day we just want to see the team do well and score some goals. We seem too slow and predictable at the moment. I would have liked Kane to have started yesterday, would it made a difference, maybe, maybe not but I believe he's earned the right to have a chance.

 

[nicdic]

We need two strikers at home, especially against poor opposition. Newcastle came to us with zero confidence. A truly awful first half display. Yet we failed to capitalise. We need to give teams more to think about than we are currently doing, stop showing so much respect to poor opposition. That maybe means dembele or stambouli playing instead of capoue. Kane further up beside the striker. We've had the same front 4 all season in the league and for the most part it hasn't worked. Needs freshener up.
I'd go 2 strikers. 442 4132 442 diamond... Whatever you want to call it, give it a fancy name, but two strikers is a must for us in these games.
Utd can get Falcao Rooney and RVP in the same line up yet we go with one of our average 3? Doesn't make sense.

People argue 2 strikers doesn't necessarily mean more goals but it certainly won't mean any less for us.

So what you're saying is, that football boils down to more strikers = more goals? It's that simple?

 

[benski]

Regardless of formations it think we can all agree that we simply need to have an alternative - when one formation isn't working, like yesterday, we need to have another way of playing

 

[cliff jones]

Think we can afford to play Soldado and Kane, with Harry tucked in. Or chadli instead. One thing is certain, Nacer is not an effective left winger. We try to work Rose free on the left, so Chadli can drive into the box, but too often Danny's delivery is poor. second half yesterday though he put in a couple of peaches, which deserved to be tucked away.

 

[RJ1882]

So what you're saying is, that football boils down to more strikers = more goals? It's that simple?

No I'm not at all. For us I think it might. Chelsea can play with one striker as Costa can play the role and is banging then in. Same for Augero at City, who still play 2 strikers often. Our single striker isn't good enough so perhaps we'd benefit from a striker partnership. As I said previously utd can fit in 3 strikers, who are all head and shoulders better than any of ours, into the same team.

 

[VegasII]

No I'm not at all. For us I think it might. Chelsea can play with one striker as Costa who can play the role and us banging then in. Same for Augero at City, who still play 3 strikers often. Our single striker isn't good enough so perhaps we'd benefit from a striker partnership.

It's the Tottenham way. Think how many we've had over the years. We're famous for our strikers.

It's time for another strike partnership at the lane...enough with this Adebayor one lump up front guff.