No More 4-5-1 At Home

[Keepitgreen]

I think we should play 2 up front at home at all times.

Too many times this season we have went down at home because this formation doesn't get us attacking from the off. It lets sides get into their rhythm too easily, we get frustrated and they sucker-punch us
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Then, we change things and start playing
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Time to bite the bullet on this one Collins. Show that you are happy to learn from mistakes, put your hands up and change it.

[davhfc]

I do not think its meant to be 1 up front, except when we are on the back foot. When we have the ball some of the players dinnae seem to break out quick enough to get decent control up front
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Bampotto]

We've got to give the other teams a chance!!!!!!! 2 goal head start seems to be the norm...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[CJRRHibs]

Originally Posted by Keepitgreen
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think we should play 2 up front at home at all times.

Too many times this season we have went down at home because this formation doesn't get us attacking from the off. It lets sides get into their rhythm too easily, we get frustrated and they sucker-punch us
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Then, we change things and start playing
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Time to bite the bullet on this one Collins. Show that you are happy to learn from mistakes, put your hands up and change it.

I understand what your saying but this isn't always the case, we played 4-5-1 against them and should have been out of sight by half time mainly because the formation gave us control in midfield.
Maybe JC prefers to try and control the midfield area and give little away in the early part of the game which then allows him to change things depending on whats happening during the game.
Surely you can't completely disagree with this formation when we've played 8 homes and only lost 1.

[18-Ally-75]

If we're going to play 5 across midfield then i think it's when we have Boozy playing. He can pick out a pass that many others can't and can change the direction of the play very quickly.

[Briant]

Originally Posted by Keepitgreen
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think we should play 2 up front at home at all times.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Playing with a single striker makes the other team's defence too easy.

A couple of times Fletcher and Benji played together they seemed to link well. Our next home game is against Falkirk and I would love to see us start with a 4-4-2 formation. Their defence can be rattled and two strikers in their face would make them sit back a bit more and give our midfield room to get forward when we attack.

And Murphy can catch the long ball up the left as you might have seem on Saturday
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[crash-hibs]

i hink we need two up front cause the striker will win the ball but they never have anyone to nock it down to but when tere is two we get more chances on goal

[wee 162]

From memory;

Fletcher had a decent chance in the first minute which went a bit behind him.
Fletcher had a decent shot at goals which produced a good save from their keeper early on.
Jones should have scored from a set piece, but knocked it across the face of goals where Fletcher got a touch on it and hit the post.
O'Brien put in a ball which went right across the face of goals with two Hibs players (cannae mind who) both inches from tapping it in.
Zemamma had a free kick which was well saved.
Fletcher at the start of the second half was completely unmarked and battered it wide when it looked easier to score.

All those chances were created when we were playing "1 up front".

After we went to 2 up front, we immediately lost 2 goals as space opened up for them all over the park.

We scored two goals from a deflected shot which landed right at Benjis feet, and a through ball to our left back which took a ricochet to get to him ended with us getting a penalty. So was that because of two up front or because we finally got a wee bit of luck?

The problem I have with playing with a lone striker is if he's having an off day in front of goals (which Fletcher certainly did on Saturday) and we are not getting a lot of goals from our midfielders (which we aren't) then at times it can be hard to see where a goal is coming from. But at that same time we are not shipping a lot of chances at the other end whilst playing that formation so we're always in with a shout in any game playing that way.

I am also far from convinced that we do enough damage playing 4-4-2 as well fwiw. We don't have enough width in the team and have to play players who can do a job defensively. So instead of Zemamma or Morais & O'Brien you end up with Stevenson & Chisholm or McCann as the wider players in the midfield. They are not natural wide players who will reguilarly take a player on or beat them with pace. So you end up with less width and less creativity in the midfield, and at ER in particular we will end up outnumbered in there as well.

I'm not saying playing with one striker the way we are just now is optimal fwiw. We need midfielders to be taking a bit more of a chance to get up in support which isn't happening enough imo, and the wide players have to be getting in the middle to support the striker when the ball is on the other side of the park from them as well.

[Stew the Hibee]

i dont like the 4-5-1, but JC saved the game by not playing a 4-4-2, but a 3-4-3. id go for that. imagine the pace of morais, AOB, donaldson, benji and fletch and MAC playin together

[KeithTheHibee]

I thought it was a 4-3-3 with O'Brien and Zemmama playing either side of Fletch
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
? Does sound like a 4-5-1 right enough
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It's a good system to play away from home, but as has been demonstrated by the Huns, it's hopeless playing it at home (7/10 it is).

[Hibee Kev]

There have been other occasions this season when 4-5-1 has cost us, where Collins has changed it and brought immediate rewards (Gretna at home springs to mind), but as has been pointed out, we created loads of chances first half and played really well. What I would question was JC's first sub, Chisholm was having a good game and his was a critical position on the park. O'brien would have been the player I would have taken off (actually thought he had an ok game BTW), as this would have been less disruptive.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TattooedHibee]

Depends on the way you look at it. When defending it was 4-5-1 - or 4-4-2 as Zemmama or O'Brien were sometimes struggling tae help with their defensive duties at times. When going forward Hibs were 4-3-3 - very wide trio up top though. In the latter part of the game it went 4-2-4 as Hibs chased it and it paid off.
No many sides stick to a formation defending, attacking and generally all game. It's actually a credit to Hibs that they can switch formation so many times during games seamlessly, sometimes no mind.