Philosophy and system

[Sexydadbod]

It will be what it is @Bris Vegas. Criticizing a formation before we have even kicked a ball in the championship to see it in action is silly. If we don't win on Saturday I don't want people moaning that the formation cost us. You won't see the full potential of a formation for at least 5-10 games. Don't write it off at the first opportunity. Also how do you know that our players aren't suited to 4-4-1-1/4-4-2?  The last time we probably had 2 up front was under Nigel Clough with a worse team ffs. Also writing off Blackman and Bent is silly. It's a new season and new start for all of our players. Pearson obviously sees something in Blackman because he said in the Q& A last night that he has a lot of untapped potential and Bent has been very good in pre season and has also been waiting patientally for his opportunity. 

[Bris Vegas]

30 minutes ago, McLovin said:

It will be what it is @Bris Vegas. Criticizing a formation before we have even kicked a ball in the championship to see it in action is silly. If we don't win on Saturday I don't want people moaning that the formation cost us. You won't see the full potential of a formation for at least 5-10 games. Don't write it off at the first opportunity. Also how do you know that our players aren't suited to 4-4-1-1/4-4-2?  The last time we probably had 2 up front was under Nigel Clough with a worse team ffs. Also writing off Blackman and Bent is silly. It's a new season and new start for all of our players. Pearson obviously sees something in Blackman because he said in the Q& A last night that he has a lot of untapped potential and Bent has been very good in pre season and has also been waiting patientally for his opportunity. 

I'm not criticising the formation, I'm criticising the use of it with the current players we have. It's not about seeing the full potential of it, some argue 4-4-2 is the most balanced formation out there.

If we had two genuine wide players, a mobile and quick striker and two box-to-box midfielders with one who can specialise in breaking up play then I'd be all for it. But we don't...

Why is it silly to write off two players who are simply not good enough to play for a team chasing promotion? Bent has so many faults I'm amazed people don't see them.

And Blackman can only play on the right hand side upfront of a 4-4-2, and even then he's had one good five-month patch in his entire career. He's not terrible, but he's not good either.

Putting them two in in place of Martin and a CM, be it Butterfield or Hendrick, is madness IMO.

[Sexydadbod]

Fair enough @Bris Vegas mate, we all have different opinions. I think why people(myself included) want Bent and Blackman to start is because they have both impressed during pre season so we might as well play them when they are full of confidence. If we dropped them then they may lose that newly found confidence. There is no doubt that Martin has been more important over the last few seasons than Bent and currently has more to his game but I think it sends a clear message to Martin and the rest of the team that if you don't play well, you will be dropped. If we really want to be attacking we could play a midfield and forward line of: 

Blackman Hughes Hendrick Ince

                        Martin

                         Bent

but I don't think Pearson would be that attacking,especially against Brighton. 4-3-3 is my favourite formation too btw because it allows you to control the game in the midfield which is important but I don't think Pearson will use it because he isn't comfortable with it. 

 

[Day]

Whilst it may be written down as 4-4-1-1, I can see it being more of a 4-2-3-1 on the pitch.

[jono]

Bris has a point stats wise but then again these are footballers and which God decreed they can only play successfuly in a fixed 433 or whatever. ?

now I agree that Martin has done particularly well in a 433 but he is more than skilled enough to adapt to a different set up. If he can hold a ball up for runners then he is quite capable of dragging defenders out of place and flicking a ball on for an out and out poacher. For heavens sake we have all been moaning for 2-1/2 years that we had no plan B .. All that Martin and Bent doesn't work stuff is just off the cuff cliche. They have never played together for more tha. About 10 minutes. We have good left footed wide players. The only player we are missing for a well balanced 442 4411 is a right winger. I hope we do use 44 something and if needed can revert to 433 .. It's called having options .. Something the last 2-1/2 managers have failed to embrace with any sort of conviction. 

[cannable]

54 minutes ago, McLovin said:

Fair but I don't think Pearson would be that attacking,especially against Brighton. 4-3-3 is my favourite formation too btw because it allows you to control the game in the midfield which is important but I don't think Pearson will use it because he isn't comfortable with it. 

 

So why appoint Pearson then?! We know how effective 4-3-3 is with this current crop of players when everybody is fit. The much maligned Wassall managed to take us in a six game unbeaten streak (four wins), three games of which were against top six sides when we finally had everybody fit.

Certain things Pearson's said seem to go against things that Mel's said in the past;

Alternating style and system depending on who we're playing against, rather than having a definitive style of play (which in turn will leave the academy without a blueprint to follow).

He's spoken a fair bit about winning when not playing well, whereas Mel was big on getting the performances right which would result in wins and then promotion.

I'm starting to get the impression that Pearson was only appointed to appease those screaming for 'an experience manager', whatever that is, rather than somebody to continue with his strategy. 

Pearson might well take us up playing some of the most exciting football we've ever seen, but right now his appointment doesn't seem in line with the vision Mel set out last season.

[robglosta]

5 minutes ago, cannable said:

So why appoint Pearson then?! We know how effective 4-3-3 is with this current crop of players when everybody is fit. The much maligned Wassall managed to take us in a six game unbeaten streak (four wins), three games of which were against top six sides when we finally had everybody fit.

Certain things Pearson's said seem to go against things that Mel's said in the past;

Alternating style and system depending on who we're playing against, rather than having a definitive style of play (which in turn will leave the academy without a blueprint to follow).

He's spoken a fair bit about winning when not playing well, whereas Mel was big on getting the performances right which would result in wins and then promotion.

I'm starting to get the impression that Pearson was only appointed to appease those screaming for 'an experience manager', whatever that is, rather than somebody to continue with his strategy. 

Pearson might well take us up playing some of the most exciting football we've ever seen, but right now his appointment doesn't seem in line with the vision Mel set out last season.

His appointment isn't one game old. 

[cannable]

1 minute ago, robglosta said:

His appointment isn't one game old. 

I'm merely pointing out that either things have changed in the last year or Mel has seemingly made an appointment that doesn't seem to align with views. 

Who knows, maybe Pearson's actions will differ from his words.

I'll support him, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't question things that seem odd to me. 

[Alph]

Agree with cannable.

Clement came in with all this idea of different systems etc for different situations and it wasn't long before 433 was back because the players just know their own roles and others. It's all instinctive without confusion. 

I'm cool with Pearson changing whatever he wants. But I don't like the sound of being a reactive team. 

I bought in to what Mel said. It does work. It's worked for many clubs. Get an identity and you recruit to fit. 

We'll see. 

[Curtains]

3 hours ago, Alpha said:

Agree with cannable.

Clement came in with all this idea of different systems etc for different situations and it wasn't long before 433 was back because the players just know their own roles and others. It's all instinctive without confusion. 

I'm cool with Pearson changing whatever he wants. But I don't like the sound of being a reactive team. 

I bought in to what Mel said. It does work. It's worked for many clubs. Get an identity and you recruit to fit. 

We'll see. 

You agree that Cannable that Mel has made an appointment that doesn't seem to align with his views. 

I see. 

You think 4-3-3 is our system. 

Your cool with Pearson though but you don't like the sound of being a reactive team .

Really ! 

 

[archied]

7 hours ago, cannable said:

So why appoint Pearson then?! We know how effective 4-3-3 is with this current crop of players when everybody is fit. The much maligned Wassall managed to take us in a six game unbeaten streak (four wins), three games of which were against top six sides when we finally had everybody fit.

Certain things Pearson's said seem to go against things that Mel's said in the past;

Alternating style and system depending on who we're playing against, rather than having a definitive style of play (which in turn will leave the academy without a blueprint to follow).

He's spoken a fair bit about winning when not playing well, whereas Mel was big on getting the performances right which would result in wins and then promotion.

I'm starting to get the impression that Pearson was only appointed to appease those screaming for 'an experience manager', whatever that is, rather than somebody to continue with his strategy. 

Pearson might well take us up playing some of the most exciting football we've ever seen, but right now his appointment doesn't seem in line with the vision Mel set out last season.

Thank god we have an owner able to adapt / change if needs be the alternative is disaster if you can't change your mind if somethings not working,,,,,,,, style of play / identity ? Does that mean only one formation you stick to rigidly ? We want to play in the main attractive exciting football ,, we can have that ethos and goal in any number of formations ,,, as I've said before changing things up a bit dependant on who you are playing does not need to be fear based ,, it can be about looking at how best to get at other teams and exploit their weaknesses ? Finally has 4 3 3 got us over the line ? No forget formations it's about getting player out on the park with the right attitude and changing things round if it's not working during a game ,, I have faith in Pearson to do this in the main

[Alph]

12 minutes ago, archied said:

Thank god we have an owner able to adapt / change if needs be the alternative is disaster if you can't change your mind if somethings not working,,,,,,,, style of play / identity ? Does that mean only one formation you stick to rigidly ? We want to play in the main attractive exciting football ,, we can have that ethos and goal in any number of formations ,,, as I've said before changing things up a bit dependant on who you are playing does not need to be fear based ,, it can be about looking at how best to get at other teams and exploit their weaknesses ? Finally has 4 3 3 got us over the line ? No forget formations it's about getting player out on the park with the right attitude and changing things round if it's not working during a game ,, I have faith in Pearson to do this in the main

There's a certain telepathy about football. Having multiple systems to drop in is harder than it sounds which is why no succesful team in the world makes big changes to the way they operate. 

You want players to play on instinct. 

Clement tried different systems. We had these exact same conversations so you can't just dismiss Cannable's concerns like it's nothing.

Did 433 get us over the line? It's not that simple. 433 when played correctly with our players worked a treat most the time. It went wrong for McClaren with the injuries, tinkering and then the media attention.

Under Clement it was 433 but shared none of the philosophy that our formation had before. For starters we defended totally differently. Under McClaren we defended from the opponents half. Under Clement we dropped into our half and tried to contain. The passing was slower as he began using completely different personel (Shackell, Warnock, Johnson and Russell all on the left side of the team destroyed the balance and tempo as they're technically weaker players)

433 has never been the problem. What it has done is show Nigel Clough's team at a totally different level. It's shown Hendrick and Bryson to be far better attackers than we thought when we gave them more defensive duties. It's why Thorne came in. 

We were into something in 2013 to 2015. Then after the injury crisis and collapse we've struggled to get back there. 

[Alph]

54 minutes ago, curtains said:

You agree that Cannable that Mel has made an appointment that doesn't seem to align with his views. 

I see. 

You think 4-3-3 is our system. 

Your cool with Pearson though but you don't like the sound of being a reactive team .

Really ! 

 

I'm missing your point? 

You've just told me what I've said? 

[archied]

55 minutes ago, Alpha said:

There's a certain telepathy about football. Having multiple systems to drop in is harder than it sounds which is why no succesful team in the world makes big changes to the way they operate. 

You want players to play on instinct. 

Clement tried different systems. We had these exact same conversations so you can't just dismiss Cannable's concerns like it's nothing.

Did 433 get us over the line? It's not that simple. 433 when played correctly with our players worked a treat most the time. It went wrong for McClaren with the injuries, tinkering and then the media attention.

Under Clement it was 433 but shared none of the philosophy that our formation had before. For starters we defended totally differently. Under McClaren we defended from the opponents half. Under Clement we dropped into our half and tried to contain. The passing was slower as he began using completely different personel (Shackell, Warnock, Johnson and Russell all on the left side of the team destroyed the balance and tempo as they're technically weaker players)

433 has never been the problem. What it has done is show Nigel Clough's team at a totally different level. It's shown Hendrick and Bryson to be far better attackers than we thought when we gave them more defensive duties. It's why Thorne came in. 

We were into something in 2013 to 2015. Then after the injury crisis and collapse we've struggled to get back there. 

You've just proved the point I was making when you say clement sent us out 4 3 3 but played it very differently and it was not the same beast ,,, I'm not saying 4 3 3 doesn't work and never play it again and I'm also not saying have a totally different formation from week to week , what I'm saying is we are getting too hung up on formation as the be all and end all ,, we can send players out in formation and the pattern of any game can dictate that the players change that a bit anyway not through choice but just that we may be getting exploited and somebody drops back or somebody pushes on ,, what you need is inteligent players able to read a game and a coach with an overview able to change / tweek formation and players on the field if needs be ,, a big ingredient to making that work is having a coach the players trust and respect and for me that's been the main downfall last year

[toddy]

Why does everybody harp on about systems?

A decent player can play in any formation and a decent coach can adopt his teams system to each opponent.

Who said formations don't lose you games, players do?

[Sexydadbod]

9 hours ago, cannable said:

So why appoint Pearson then?! We know how effective 4-3-3 is with this current crop of players when everybody is fit. The much maligned Wassall managed to take us in a six game unbeaten streak (four wins), three games of which were against top six sides when we finally had everybody fit.

Certain things Pearson's said seem to go against things that Mel's said in the past;

Alternating style and system depending on who we're playing against, rather than having a definitive style of play (which in turn will leave the academy without a blueprint to follow).

He's spoken a fair bit about winning when not playing well, whereas Mel was big on getting the performances right which would result in wins and then promotion.

I'm starting to get the impression that Pearson was only appointed to appease those screaming for 'an experience manager', whatever that is, rather than somebody to continue with his strategy. 

Pearson might well take us up playing some of the most exciting football we've ever seen, but right now his appointment doesn't seem in line with the vision Mel set out last season.

I'm not disagreeing but how do you know that only 4-3-3 suits these players? We haven't seen any other formation in play for the last few seasons for a long enough period to assess them. The last time we used any formation apart from 4-3-3 was under Nigel Clough with an inferior group of players. Evolution, not revolution is needed. At times we were very predictable using 4-3-3 and it was easy to counter because if Martin struggled in a game, the whole formation became useless. Moreover,I'd argue that we would have been unbeaten regardless of the formation. These are grown men, they're not going to throw a hissy fit if we don't use their preferred formation. I'd argue that we have a number of players that are more suited to 4-4-2: Ince,Shackell,Hendrick,Bent,Butterfield,Johnson,Camara,Blackman, Weimann et al. Give the formation a chance more criticizing it. People love to moan at anything, we haven't even kicked a ball yet!

[Day]

12 minutes ago, McLovin said:

Give the formation a chance more criticizing it. People love to moan at anything, we haven't even kicked a ball yet!

You're changing, and I like it.

[Alph]

47 minutes ago, archied said:

You've just proved the point I was making when you say clement sent us out 4 3 3 but played it very differently and it was not the same beast ,,, I'm not saying 4 3 3 doesn't work and never play it again and I'm also not saying have a totally different formation from week to week , what I'm saying is we are getting too hung up on formation as the be all and end all ,, we can send players out in formation and the pattern of any game can dictate that the players change that a bit anyway not through choice but just that we may be getting exploited and somebody drops back or somebody pushes on ,, what you need is inteligent players able to read a game and a coach with an overview able to change / tweek formation and players on the field if needs be ,, a big ingredient to making that work is having a coach the players trust and respect and for me that's been the main downfall last year

Ah I'm with you. Misunderstood

[Sexydadbod]

12 minutes ago, David said:

You're changing, and I like it.

Only to get a better post:like ratio for my OCD  But in all seriousness the season hasn't even started yet. If we try a new formation and it doesn't work for a long period of time then fair enough, people's arguments in this thread are justified but we need to give it at least a chance. By a chance I don't mean 2-3 games and if it doesn't work then change formation, I mean at least 10+ games .I think some are a bit disillusioned after seeing McClaren changing the formation when he first came in and it having an instant impact but most of the time it doesn't work like that, it takes time. This coupled with a host of difficult games at the start of the season, I'm just warning that if we don't do well at the start of the season, I don't really want to see people moaning. Admittedly, I was frustrated a lot of times last season but that was because I thought last season was the best opportunity to go up and most importantly imo I expected us to go up. I'm a bit more relaxed this season because I don't expect us to go up as there are some quality teams(for championship standard) now in this division. Hopefully it will have the opposite effect.

[OohMartWright]

This thread is bordering on the absurd. People are speculating on the formation that Pearson will use against Brighton and then slagging that formation off if it isn't 4-3-3. We don't know what his starting eleven will be, nor in what formation they will be asked to play. Can't we just get behind Pearson and the team with a level of support and enthusiasm like that seen at the Hull away leg, and save the post-mortems for later, if it doesn't work out.