Formations

[Ambitious]

Based on what we have right now, with Bielik still injured(?) then I would like to see something like the following: 

[Ram1988]

I can see why people think we may play 3 at the back with all the centre backs we have. I don't see Mendez-Laing as a full back though but more more of an inside foward.

[BatRam]

11 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Based on what we have right now, with Bielik still injured(?) then I would like to see something like the following: 

 

12 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Based on what we have right now, with Bielik still injured(?) then I would like to see something like the following: 

Mendez Laing isn’t a very good defender

[Ghost of Clough]

Just now, Ram1988 said:

I can see why people think we may play 3 at the back with all the centre backs we have. I don't see Mendez-Laing as a full back though but more more of an inside foward.

Played more as a wing back last season than anywhere else

[Ram1988]

9 minutes ago, CodnorRam said:

 

Mendez Laing isn’t a very good defender

Totally agree. 

I think the reason people are going mad with the 3 at the back formations is because we have depth in central defence.

I personally prefer the 433 better for our sqaud. Just feels a bit weird signing Stears up again today and to then possibly add another CB tomorrow.

[Ambitious]

13 hours ago, CodnorRam said:

 

Mendez Laing isn’t a very good defender

I had it more as a flat wide midfielder, but according to whoscored he had his best spell at Wednesday in that position.

 

[Srg]

I wouldn’t go three at the back. To go three at the back and make it truly effective you need 3 attributes - passing, pace and mobility - in at least 2 of the 3 defenders. 

The age of the centre backs we have really rules out mobility and pace, other than Cashin. Cashin is average on the ball, Davies is terrible like Stearman too. 

You’d really just be loading up in the starting line up at a weaker position, just because you have numbers. It doesn’t make sense. You’re not going to see passes sprayed about, playing out from the back, stepping up into midfield from the defenders we have. 

[BatRam]

Well both halves we played 4231 so I think we’re sticking with that? 

[Ram1988]

1 hour ago, CodnorRam said:

Well both halves we played 4231 so I think we’re sticking with that? 

I hope so. Either 4231 or 433 for me.

[ramit]

i am a fan of 442, it is the football equivalent of Bridge's Vienna System, when tweaked right and understanding between players is at hand, it is very hard to beat in the English game, not least in the lower divisions, as we find ourselves in at this time.

It does require certain types of players however, most players with pace for example and we may not have that now to work with, but that is how i like the game played, high tempo, good use of flanks, offside trap, pressing and man marking.

[Srg]

3 hours ago, Ram1988 said:

I hope so. Either 4231 or 433 for me.

This is it, they’re quite similar depending on defensive shape in the most part. 442 is a little archaic at this point, there’s a reason very very few teams play it these days. 

[Ram1988]

43 minutes ago, Srg said:

This is it, they’re quite similar depending on defensive shape in the most part. 442 is a little archaic at this point, there’s a reason very very few teams play it these days. 

They are and can be easily changed through out the game to depending on the pattern of play. I feel 442 is too rigid and doesn't get best out of the likes of Sibley, Hourihane and even Knight.

[ramit]

8 hours ago, Srg said:

This is it, they’re quite similar depending on defensive shape in the most part. 442 is a little archaic at this point, there’s a reason very very few teams play it these days. 

The same was said 7 years ago when Leicester used it to such effect as to win them the title. 

Saying it's archaic has become archaic IMO.

[Shuff264]

We do tend to defend in a 4-4-2

The number 10 and wingers will push up when the opposition has the ball in there defence, more of a 4-2-4 tbh.

You could see Knight doing it on Saturday, was in line with Sibley when out of possession 

[Srg]

8 hours ago, ramit said:

The same was said 7 years ago when Leicester used it to such effect as to win them the title. 

Saying it's archaic has become archaic IMO.

1 exception to the rule. Suppose we could hire Mike Bassett instead of Rosenior. 

[ramit]

11 hours ago, Srg said:

1 exception to the rule. Suppose we could hire Mike Bassett instead of Rosenior. 

It was good enough for Iceland to kick England out of the European Championships, heh

[Srg]

42 minutes ago, ramit said:

It was good enough for Iceland to kick England out of the European Championships, heh

Not sure on your point. You’re finding needles in haystacks of successful teams in the last decade to prove that 442 is better than every single other successful team year in year out that use basically any other formation? You crack on. 

[ramit]

8 hours ago, Srg said:

Not sure on your point. You’re finding needles in haystacks of successful teams in the last decade to prove that 442 is better than every single other successful team year in year out that use basically any other formation? You crack on. 

You said it is archaic, i simply showed glaring examples of the opposite and now i am obligated to prove to you that 442 is superior to every other system.

Is football snobbery really a thing?

Oh yeah.

[duncanjwitham]

442 is fine if you don't care about actually having the ball that much. Leicester, Burnley, Iceland all played 442, but all set up with the expectation of having significantly less possession than the other team, and then either went very direct, or played on the counter to compensate for that

You will struggle to play anything possession-centric in a 442 nowadays, because the vast majority of other teams play with 3 in the middle so you're outnumbered in there.  And the teams that are playing 2 in the middle (like the 3 above) are all setting up specifically to try and exploit the weaknesses of teams keeping possession, so by matching up, you're exposing those weaknesses all the more.

Even if Knight and Bielik were to leave, I still think we have pretty much the best technical midfield in the league - Bird, Hourihane, Thompson etc are all very good on the ball.  So why play 442 and give up one of the advantages we have?  Get the ball, keep it, and make the other team run around all afternoon chasing us.

[ramit]

8 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

442 is fine if you don't care about actually having the ball that much. Leicester, Burnley, Iceland all played 442, but all set up with the expectation of having significantly less possession than the other team, and then either went very direct, or played on the counter to compensate for that

You will struggle to play anything possession-centric in a 442 nowadays, because the vast majority of other teams play with 3 in the middle so you're outnumbered in there.  And the teams that are playing 2 in the middle (like the 3 above) are all setting up specifically to try and exploit the weaknesses of teams keeping possession, so by matching up, you're exposing those weaknesses all the more.

Even if Knight and Bielik were to leave, I still think we have pretty much the best technical midfield in the league - Bird, Hourihane, Thompson etc are all very good on the ball.  So why play 442 and give up one of the advantages we have?  Get the ball, keep it, and make the other team run around all afternoon chasing us.

Those are valid points, if possession is the main goal.  i don't care about possession, only goals.  Dealing with opposition having 3 in the middle can be achieved by the triangle of fullback-wingback one central midfielder and the winger working it up the field.  It does however as i wrote earlier require certain types of players all through the squad and we probably don't have that right now, so likely it is not an option for us at this time.