4-5-1

[egb_hibs]

personally i think everyone involved, unless they have a first 11 comprised of greek gods who toot gak and dress like hoors, should be killed.

thoughts?

[TattooedHibee]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

personally i think everyone involved, unless they have a first 11 comprised of greek gods who toot gak and dress like hoors, should be killed.

thoughts?

A think Hibs will go 4-3-2-1 on Saturday.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

personally i think everyone involved, unless they have a first 11 comprised of greek gods who toot gak and dress like hoors, should be killed.

thoughts?

Were you shouting at Mowbray when he had Riordan playing on the left, Sproule or Brown on the right, and O'Connor up front? That was 4-5-1. We might have looked at it as 4-3-3 but both wide players were expected to do the tracking back. IMO it depends on the attitude a team takes. If it's Hibs then I reckon it makes sense because we play it on the deck and it gives you options as long as you aren't battering it forward.

How about Barcelona who play it with Eto'o up front and Ronaldinho and Messi behind them?

What it does is stop teams flooding the midfield and stopping you playing whilst still having a usual solid back four. I'm coming to the conclusion that whatever formation is looked at as new is just a variation on a theme usually previously seen decades ago.


Of course it can be completely awful to watch as well...

[Keepitgreen]

Originally Posted by wee 162

Were you shouting at Mowbray when he had Riordan playing on the left, Sproule or Brown on the right, and O'Connor up front? That was 4-5-1. We might have looked at it as 4-3-3 but both wide players were expected to do the tracking back. IMO it depends on the attitude a team takes. If it's Hibs then I reckon it makes sense because we play it on the deck and it gives you options as long as you aren't battering it forward.

How about Barcelona who play it with Eto'o up front and Ronaldinho and Messi behind them?

What it does is stop teams flooding the midfield and stopping you playing whilst still having a usual solid back four. I'm coming to the conclusion that whatever formation is looked at as new is just a variation on a theme usually previously seen decades ago.


Of course it can be completely awful to watch as well...

Agree with this, although I reckon it's all about the personnel you have... thats a pretty good example you gave of course

If you think about the way we pass and move and sweep forward when in possession, the 4-5-1 helps with the triangles and pulling defenders away etc. I like it when it's played well but I can see why it pisses folk off when done badly. We don't really have the players comfortable with it yet but some signs are there. We could become very very good if we nail it.

I always thought formations were much of a muchness and the number of defenders was the only real influencing factor in a startin 11 but this is the modern game apparently....

[Haruki]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

personally i think everyone involved, unless they have a first 11 comprised of greek gods who toot gak and dress like hoors, should be killed.

thoughts?

5-4-3-2-1, break into a chocolately caramel biscuit.

egb was drunk when he started this thread. It's obvious.

[Keepitgreen]

Originally Posted by camthebam

egb was drunk when he started this thread. It's obvious.