Why the old-fashioned 4-4-2 isn't the answer for Redknapp or Rangers anymore..

[GoldhawkR]

A wise man I know once said: “I’ve always believed that good managers tend to find a system for their players, not players for their system.”

And without doubt, Harry Redknapp has passed the test with flying colours.

There’s been a lot recently made of the fact QPR will only play one up top, whilst Andy Johnson looks to make a return to the side – and Javier Chevanton enjoys stoppage time cameos.

http://ficklefootball.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/why-4-4-2-isnt-the-answer-anymore-for-redknapp-or-rangers/

[Hubble]

Hmm. A lot of assumptions made in this piece, but treated as fact.

For example:

" It’s very easy for fans to think that having two forwards on the pitch automatically means more attacking play, more shots – which inevitably will mean far more goals.

Wrong – with this team anyway."

Well, I beg to differ. As currently the 7th lowest scoring team in the Championship, I think the case that 4-5-1 leads to fewer, not more goals with this team is proven. That 4-5-1 leads to better control of the game and defensive solidity is unarguable, but hardly news. I think many, many of us who have bewailed Harry's refusal to revert to 4-4-2 in certain games, when he's had the services of Chevanton and latterly Johnson on the bench, are not wrong in our desire to see a bit of flexibility in this formation if things aren't working. The author cites the 33 pass move v Boro - but let's face it, Boro were Shi-ite in that game.

I agree that we have a lack of pace in some of our players, the central defensive pairing for example, but at this level it's not nearly as exposed as in the Premiership and quick-thinking makes up for it.

Sadly we may never see Ale Faurlin in a QPR shirt again, but I don't know how the author can make the follwoing statement - it's just nonsense as far as I'm concerned - the same applies to Kranjcar:

" Alejandro Faurlin is highly regarded by fans but he could never play in a 4-4-2, he doesn’t have the awareness or mobility. Niko Kranjcar could never fit into a 4-4-2 formation"

The reason why I think it's nonsense is that we have pace in abundance in Phillips and Hoilett (and Johnson), and Danny Simpson and BAE are not short of it either. This means there is no reason to have to accommodate the relative slowness of Kranjcar by only playing 4-5-1, when Kranjcar could play next to Barton in a 4-4-2 without much difficulty - for example. Especially at this level. I will grant the author that 4-5-1 suits him better, but to say he (or Ale) could 'never fit into that formation' is absurd.

I agree it's difficult to argue with our league position, but I know how many of us believe it could be even better, but for a bit of flexibility and adventure from Harry. Nevertheless, this is not a moan about his tactics, because I think we are in a fantastic position to kick on from here, and with the likes of Phillips better integrated and Johnson back to his best, we stand a great chance of going all the way. And it somehow feels more comfortable to be just behind the shoulder of the leaders at this stage rather than leading the pack.

[Johnnykc]

Hmm. A lot of assumptions made in this piece, but treated as fact.

For example:

" It’s very easy for fans to think that having two forwards on the pitch automatically means more attacking play, more shots – which inevitably will mean far more goals.

Wrong – with this team anyway."

Well, I beg to differ. As currently the 7th lowest scoring team in the Championship, I think the case that 4-5-1 leads to fewer, not more goals with this team is proven. That 4-5-1 leads to better control of the game and defensive solidity is unarguable, but hardly news. I think many, many of us who have bewailed Harry's refusal to revert to 4-4-2 in certain games, when he's had the services of Chevanton and latterly Johnson on the bench, are not wrong in our desire to see a bit of flexibility in this formation if things aren't working. The author cites the 33 pass move v Boro - but let's face it, Boro were Shi-ite in that game.

I agree that we have a lack of pace in some of our players, the central defensive pairing for example, but at this level it's not nearly as exposed as in the Premiership and quick-thinking makes up for it.

Sadly we may never see Ale Faurlin in a QPR shirt again, but I don't know how the author can make the follwoing statement - it's just nonsense as far as I'm concerned - the same applies to Kranjcar:

" Alejandro Faurlin is highly regarded by fans but he could never play in a 4-4-2, he doesn’t have the awareness or mobility. Niko Kranjcar could never fit into a 4-4-2 formation"

The reason why I think it's nonsense is that we have pace in abundance in Phillips and Hoilett (and Johnson), and Danny Simpson and BAE are not short of it either. This means there is no reason to have to accommodate the relative slowness of Kranjcar by only playing 4-5-1, when Kranjcar could play next to Barton in a 4-4-2 without much difficulty - for example. Especially at this level. I will grant the author that 4-5-1 suits him better, but to say he (or Ale) could 'never fit into that formation' is absurd.

I agree it's difficult to argue with our league position, but I know how many of us believe it could be even better, but for a bit of flexibility and adventure from Harry. Nevertheless, this is not a moan about his tactics, because I think we are in a fantastic position to kick on from here, and with the likes of Phillips better integrated and Johnson back to his best, we stand a great chance of going all the way. And it somehow feels more comfortable to be just behind the shoulder of the leaders at this stage rather than leading the pack.

That's all I'm looking for....