Rohl has taken a fair bit of heat for the way we began that game and, to be honest, you can see why. Starting in a 4-2-3-1 with a number 10 left us too narrow and a bit ponderous. The switch to 4-4-2 at half-time brought more balance and urgency; that shape suits the personnel and the way we need to press and attack in the closing weeks.

Why 4-4-2 makes sense

With two up front you get clearer channels and more natural overloads down the flanks. It asks our wide players to work the touchline and lets midfielders arrive late into the box. We look sharper in transition with that shape — quicker from back to front and harder to isolate when defending. To be fair, it isn’t a cure-all but it plays to our strengths: directness, work-rate and a simple supply line for the forwards.

Picking the midfield and attacking three

Raskin comes out of this discussion well. I agree he’s our best attacking midfielder right now — his movement and link play feel more effective than Diomande’s, and, put bluntly, Diomande hasn’t convinced enough lately. Skov? If he’s been indifferent on the pitch, that’s a worry. We need energy and application in that midfield sector for 4-4-2 to function properly.

How I’d set us up for the run-in

Your proposed eleven makes sense. Butland in goal, a back four with pace and physicality, a midfield double that can protect the backline and feed Raskin, plus two forwards who can finish and press. Miovski and Chermiti as the front two gives different priorities — one to hold and one to run in behind — which is exactly what a simple 4-4-2 should give us.

Look, criticism of Rohl is fine when decisions don’t work. But managers adapt and that HT tweak showed he can. Now we need consistency from the manager and the players. Stick to the 4-4-2, pick the right lads, and make sure everyone runs their channels. That’s our best chance for a strong finish.

Written by Boyne: 9 June 2026

Tags: tactics