randombc Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I'm concerned we conceded quite a few goals last season with 4 at the back. Can't understand why having 3 at the back would prove logical. I think 4-3-3 is out best formation utilizing all 3 of our best midfielders, and keeping the defense relatively traditional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DcfcNews12 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 433 for me aswell. Grant Brayford Keogh Dunne( ) Forsyth Hendrick Bryson Hughes Russell Sammon Ward For me that is Top6 side and maybe more. Pace down the wings will cause people all sorts of problems especially with Hughes being able to pick over the top balls. I would like to see Martin be given a run in the Middle as well he's a good finisher and looks strong and fit in the pre-season so far.I would also use Coutts as back up centre mid and use Bennett as back up right wing and Jacobs back up to Ward. 433 Morch/Lego Freeman OB Val Hoganson-(Very inexperienced I know but they wouldn't all play together anyway) Coutts Dales John E Bennett Martin Jacobs These above are the replacements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StockholmRam Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 3 at the back!! In England!!!! In THE CHAMPIONSHIP!! Oh how I did laugh...and laugh...and laugh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inter politics Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 433 for me aswell. Grant Brayford Keogh Dunne( ) Forsyth Hendrick Bryson Hughes Russell Sammon Ward For me that is Top6 side and maybe more. Pace down the wings will cause people all sorts of problems especially with Hughes being able to pick over the top balls. I would like to see Martin be given a run in the Middle as well he's a good finisher and looks strong and fit in the pre-season so far.I would also use Coutts as back up centre mid and use Bennett as back up right wing and Jacobs back up to Ward. 433 Morch/Lego Freeman OB Val Hoganson-(Very inexperienced I know but they wouldn't all play together anyway) Coutts Dales John E Bennett Martin Jacobs These above are the replacements. Does this mean a deal for Dunne isn't er..done just yet?! Do you think Eustace will sign a contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 No Bucko!! Take DCFC 12 to Wessington to be 'corrected'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 433 for me aswell. Grant Brayford Keogh Dunne( ) Forsyth Hendrick Bryson Hughes Russell Sammon Ward For me that is Top6 side and maybe more. Pace down the wings will cause people all sorts of problems especially with Hughes being able to pick over the top balls. I would like to see Martin be given a run in the Middle as well he's a good finisher and looks strong and fit in the pre-season so far.I would also use Coutts as back up centre mid and use Bennett as back up right wing and Jacobs back up to Ward. 433 Morch/Lego Freeman OB Val Hoganson-(Very inexperienced I know but they wouldn't all play together anyway) Coutts Dales John E Bennett Martin Jacobs These above are the replacements. That is looking like a thumbs up for Richard Dunne. Come on DCFC12 Spill the beans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 No Bucko!! Take DCFC 12 to Wessington to be 'corrected'. I'd stick to 4-4-2 personally... Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Sammon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 I'd stick to 4-4-2 personally... Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Bucko Sammon Real shame his surname is only two syllables or you could sing the Gary Breen/Cantona song about him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 If Nigel plays with 3 at the back once the season starts then ill believe there's some truth in the rumours he's been told to up his game or his future could be under threat. I'd be thrilled to see anything that isn't 442. 442 isn't for nice football. The fact he managed to play decent football with it for periods last season was an Alex Ferguson style achievement. It just doesn't lend itself to movement without leaving gaping holes. It's rigid and only good for flying wingers that Fergie has used to win PL titles. I expect much better football in any other formation. Just hope he doesn't abandon it to start grinding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 I'm concerned we conceded quite a few goals last season with 4 at the back. Can't understand why having 3 at the back would prove logical. I think 4-3-3 is out best formation utilizing all 3 of our best midfielders, and keeping the defense relatively traditional. High pressing game, maybe? Nothing concedes goals like inviting pressure on yourselves, no matter how many you have at the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcnram Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Why would we play 3 central defenders at home when in all probability the opposition will have one player up front for them? 442 / 433 / 4132/451 it doesn't really matter, what matters is that the players are comfortable in their position, they retain the ball, they move to make it easy for a teamate to find them and they work hard for each other. Nothing over complicated, just the sort of thing that successful teams do and failing teams don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Why are people obsessed with 4-3-3? 1) it leaves holes on each side of the CMs which opposition full backs can exploit UNLESS your wide-forwards track back... and if you're gonna do that then you aren't actually playing 4-3-3 you're playing 4-5-1 2) You need a proper holding midfielder to do this... Someone with some bit in the tackle... which we don't have (unless we sign Eustace and play him every game) 3) Whenever we play this formation the CF gets isolated... Our midfield play too deep or aren;t quick enough to get forward and support... and our wide forwards don't drop in-field enough to provide the extra man in the box... 4) We've just signed a new CF... what's the point in playing him wide-right?!?!?!? Maybe the answer to the first 3 is practice... but does no-one think playing Russell out wide is a waste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Why would we play 3 central defenders at home when in all probability the opposition will have one player up front for them? 442 / 433 / 4132/451 it doesn't really matter, what matters is that the players are comfortable in their position, they retain the ball, they move to make it easy for a teamate to find them and they work hard for each other. Nothing over complicated, just the sort of thing that successful teams do and failing teams don't. You must agree though that certain formations are more open to passing football? 4231/4321/41212 etc etc obviously gives you people offering less width and in naturally defence/attack positions. It avoids flat banks of 4 so passing options are greater. With 433 you're going to need a good bunch of players. You're not going to want you're 3 midfielders up against an opposition 4 if you've never got the ball. I think with 3 at the back... You can look at it negatively but on positive side you're giving Brayford and Forsyth much more incentive to get forward knowing that behind them are still 3 bodies. Like you say, it's usually about how you play not what you play. If Brayford and Forsyth were to be uncomfortable and began drifting to natural positions its 5 at the back no matter what you say. Just some formations lend themselves to certain qualities as we know 4231etc - defensive/offensive split players 442 - good wingers to avoid getting rugby passing Hopefully our 352 will enable full backs to be less disciplined and it get 3 good footballers in the middle with 2 in front and two bombing down the flanks. We'll see. It'll probable end up with flat lines away from home anyway! Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 I don't know if we could keep the ball well enough to play 433 could we? You don't want to be chasing it much do you? vs 442 you're outnumbered in 2/3 of the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddesdenRam Posted July 5, 2013 Author Share Posted July 5, 2013 It might not necessarily be a 433 or 343 or 442 He's just said he will try out a few different formations in pre season and see how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Can't believe 4-6-0 hasn't be mentioned yet, thought everyone had to copy Spain now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 It might not necessarily be a 433 or 343 or 442 He's just said he will try out a few different formations in pre season and see how it works. He'll have to settle on one pretty early though? Unless it the default 442. Otherwise it'll obviously have more confusion during full throttle matches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Can't believe 4-6-0 hasn't be mentioned yet, thought everyone had to copy Spain now? Brazil now. Keep up. And Bosnia. They're flying up those rankings. Must be onto summat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodleyRam Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Why are people obsessed with 4-3-3? 1) it leaves holes on each side of the CMs which opposition full backs can exploit UNLESS your wide-forwards track back... and if you're gonna do that then you aren't actually playing 4-3-3 you're playing 4-5-1 2) You need a proper holding midfielder to do this... Someone with some bit in the tackle... which we don't have (unless we sign Eustace and play him every game) 3) Whenever we play this formation the CF gets isolated... Our midfield play too deep or aren;t quick enough to get forward and support... and our wide forwards don't drop in-field enough to provide the extra man in the box... 4) We've just signed a new CF... what's the point in playing him wide-right?!?!?!? Maybe the answer to the first 3 is practice... but does no-one think playing Russell out wide is a waste? Personally see 4-3-3 as being a bit more flexible than that, depends on who's playing and whether we're going forward or defending. Sounds silly but it also depends on where the ball is on the pitch, if, say Ward has it on the left then Russell would be right up with Sammon up top and vice-versa. If Bryson and Hendrick join the attack, Hughes sits. I think you're right to an extent, it may limit the ability of our full-backs to get forward as much as they did in 4-4-2 but I'd see us switching around during the games to best suit the circumstances. We've got so many options I doubt it will be one formation for each match, let alone for the whole season! For me the point is being able to adjust quickly to suit the circumstances, which I suppose is why Clough is going to play about with things and let the players get experience of playing different positions, I think the ability is there within the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Sounds silly but it also depends on where the ball is on the pitch, if, say Ward has it on the left then Russell would be right up with Sammon up top and vice-versa. If Bryson and Hendrick join the attack, Hughes sits. I see the point, but it didn;t work last season... the wide-forwards weren't linking up enough... And I still don't like the idea of doing that with Russell... We've got so many options I doubt it will be one formation for each match, let alone for the whole season! For me the point is being able to adjust quickly to suit the circumstances, which I suppose is why Clough is going to play about with things and let the players get experience of playing different positions, I think the ability is there within the squad. I totally agree... But I find it odd that no-one else saw us doing that LAST season... Nigel sometimes switched from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3 in the middle of games... I know I've quoted it before but the Cardiff home game he did it to great effect... started 4-4-2 and when they went down to 10 we switched to 4-3-3 and dominated them in the middle... The answer isn't 4-3-3 OR 4-4-2... It's BOTH... Or Bucko-5-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.