Jump to content

Formation Fun


Chris Mills

Recommended Posts

Looking at the players we're bringing in and the fact we have offloaded Eustace I think there is a chance we could be using the 433 formation less than we have seen previously. Here feel free to discuss/suggest any formations and possible line ups (You can add players that we haven't signed yet but believe we will). 

I'd personally like to see a 4222 formation played against weaker opposition such as:

Carson

Christie Keogh Pearce Forsyth

Hughes Thorne

Ince                         Weimann

Bent Martin

Then when required we can resort to a slightly more defensive/433 option of:

Carson

Christie Keogh Pearce Warnock

Thorne

Hughes Hendrick

Ince                      Weimann

Martin

How about a 5 at the back?:

Carson

Christie  Keogh Pearce Buxton Forsyth

Thorne Hughes

Ince

Martin Bent

3 at the back?:

Carson

Keogh Pearce Buxton

Hendrick Hughes Thorne Russell

Ince                 Weimann

Martin

What other formations do you think could work and in the ones I have picked who would you swap in/out?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Care to justify or are you just gonna stick to the dramatic statements?

I find him frustrating to watch. I feel like he kills our momentum quite often when going forward. Admittedly he would be better starting than coming on as an "impact sub" as Steve Mclean seemingly liked to use him, but whenever I think of him all that I can picture in my head is us breaking down the wing only for him to pass it back to the half way line leaving us with 9 or 10 men behind the ball to beat again.

He's good at retaining the ball and he has his moments of brilliance. But I don't think that he is anywhere near the levels of Ince and Weimann and I think that Russell is a better player (or at least a more positive player).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant, Forsyth, Pearce, Shackell, Christie, Thorne, Hughes,Hendrick, Ince, Weimann, Martin

Subs: Carson, Buxton, Baird, Bennett, Warnock, Russell, Bent

 

Fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find him frustrating to watch. I feel like he kills our momentum quite often when going forward. Admittedly he would be better starting than coming on as an "impact sub" as Steve Mclean seemingly liked to use him, but whenever I think of him all that I can picture in my head is us breaking down the wing only for him to pass it back to the half way line leaving us with 9 or 10 men behind the ball to beat again.

He's good at retaining the ball and he has his moments of brilliance. But I don't think that he is anywhere near the levels of Ince and Weimann and I think that Russell is a better player (or at least a more positive player).

Fair enough. I disagree with you but at least you explained your opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant, Forsyth, Pearce, Shackell, Christie, Thorne, Hughes, Bryson, Ince, Weimann, Martin

Subs: Carson, Buxton, Baird, Hendrick, Dawkins, Russell, Bent

 

I personally think we just HAVE to integrate both Bent and Martin into the team. We can't afford for a 20 goal a season striker to be sat on the bench. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I disagree with you but at least you explained your opinion.

Why do you think he is a better player than our other options? I personally see wingers as being players that are there to be positive and make runs. Dawkins' strength is in his ball retention which is something I don't think is hugely important for a winger. Perhaps in the centre of the field yes, but we have plenty of players that can do that same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think he is a better player than our other options? I personally see wingers as being players that are there to be positive and make runs. Dawkins' strength is in his ball retention which is something I don't think is hugely important for a winger. Perhaps in the centre of the field yes, but we have plenty of players that can do that same thing.

I personally prefer Dawkins to Hendrick and Bryson because he is versatile and his ball retention is very good which is useful when we are under pressure because he is more likely to keep possession whereas I can see someone like Hendrick doing a stupid mistake and giving the ball away easily. Dawkins also provides the link from the defence to the attack 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think he is a better player than our other options? I personally see wingers as being players that are there to be positive and make runs. Dawkins' strength is in his ball retention which is something I don't think is hugely important for a winger. Perhaps in the centre of the field yes, but we have plenty of players that can do that same thing.

My formation may not have been that clear. Russell and Weimann were the wingers, Dawkins at CAM.

I think he's great at finding space, moves the ball well and quickly, and we've seen that he does have a final product. Such a beautiful footballer to watch too, he just glides out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue with the whole of english football is summed up in this thread. Many on here seem to prefer physically strong players and grafters like Hendrick and Bryson and we don't seem to appreciate technically gifted footballers like Dawkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Villa fans seem to think that Weimann was wasted on the wing and that he is better suited to playing in the middle, so would love to see a 4-2-3-1 like this:

                  Grant

Christie Keogh Pearce Forsyth

         Thorne   Hughes

Ince        Weimann     Russell

                 Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...