As suggested by @Johnnyrotten splitting this off from the transfer chat as a place for formation nerds like me to discuss tactics.

@wanderer1984 I agree 343 is a really weird formation. Off the top of my head I can only think of 2 teams playing it successfully in the last 20ish years - Brazil 2002 and Chelsea under Conte.

Brazil 2002 had Cafu and Roberto Carlos as the wing backs.... And a front 3 that was ridiculous, so don't really work as a comparison to any other team.

However Chelsea under Conte is interesting. The 3 at the back helped to not expose David Luiz when he'd invariably wander. And the wing backs were completely different, Alonso was previously a full back, and Moses previously a winger. And Chelsea would play Azpilicueta at RCB to cover Moses.

So @Rival Son I'm not sure we need 2 primarily attacking wing backs to make it work. Schon as more attacking and Cogley more defensive could be fine.

The bit we are missing is in midfield though. Both those teams had pure enforcers in the centre. Chelsea had Matic and Kanye, and Brazil had Gilberto Silva and Kleberson (more a hard worker but not a ball player definitely). This is where we seem way off it with Thomason and Sheehan. I like both but they're not enforcers.

Kanye 🎵 

57 minutes ago, Stig said:

As suggested by @Johnnyrotten splitting this off from the transfer chat as a place for formation nerds like me to discuss tactics.

@wanderer1984 I agree 343 is a really weird formation. Off the top of my head I can only think of 2 teams playing it successfully in the last 20ish years - Brazil 2002 and Chelsea under Conte.

Brazil 2002 had Cafu and Roberto Carlos as the wing backs.... And a front 3 that was ridiculous, so don't really work as a comparison to any other team.

However Chelsea under Conte is interesting. The 3 at the back helped to not expose David Luiz when he'd invariably wander. And the wing backs were completely different, Alonso was previously a full back, and Moses previously a winger. And Chelsea would play Azpilicueta at RCB to cover Moses.

So @Rival Son I'm not sure we need 2 primarily attacking wing backs to make it work. Schon as more attacking and Cogley more defensive could be fine.

The bit we are missing is in midfield though. Both those teams had pure enforcers in the centre. Chelsea had Matic and Kanye, and Brazil had Gilberto Silva and Kleberson (more a hard worker but not a ball player definitely). This is where we seem way off it with Thomason and Sheehan. I like both but they're not enforcers.

Aye ... I don't think we have the personnel to play 343. I could see a front 3 of Schon Charles Collins ... But a 4 man Midfield that includes 2 wingbacks is mental.

Also what's the point in having Sheehan, Morley, Dempsey, Thomason, Arfield and Lolos all fighting for the two CM positions.

If Evatt has been quoted saying 433 is his preferred formation I see no reason why we're not playing that. 

 

1 hour ago, Stig said:

As suggested by @Johnnyrotten splitting this off from the transfer chat as a place for formation nerds like me to discuss tactics.

@wanderer1984 I agree 343 is a really weird formation. Off the top of my head I can only think of 2 teams playing it successfully in the last 20ish years - Brazil 2002 and Chelsea under Conte.

Brazil 2002 had Cafu and Roberto Carlos as the wing backs.... And a front 3 that was ridiculous, so don't really work as a comparison to any other team.

However Chelsea under Conte is interesting. The 3 at the back helped to not expose David Luiz when he'd invariably wander. And the wing backs were completely different, Alonso was previously a full back, and Moses previously a winger. And Chelsea would play Azpilicueta at RCB to cover Moses.

So @Rival Son I'm not sure we need 2 primarily attacking wing backs to make it work. Schon as more attacking and Cogley more defensive could be fine.

The bit we are missing is in midfield though. Both those teams had pure enforcers in the centre. Chelsea had Matic and Kanye, and Brazil had Gilberto Silva and Kleberson (more a hard worker but not a ball player definitely). This is where we seem way off it with Thomason and Sheehan. I like both but they're not enforcers.

I think a fit Dempsey can fill the enforcer roll. 

I'm personally enjoying this slightly new style from us, but will let you know more about that after Saturday evening next week.

We can change our shape and ask teams different questions without really having to change shape too much, it's clever from IE.

You're right about the 2 in the middle potentially being overrun, from what I've seen so far however, particularly in possession, the full backs kind of come inside inverted and basically support the middle.

Victor looks great as the no9, but interesting to see how we can fit both him and Charles in this new formation. Charles did say in his interview last week that he was a left winger nearly all of his career up until Accy.

I would personally find this interesting as our options:

343

Collins, Victor, Charles

Schon, Sheehan, Thomason, JDC

Johnston, Santos, Toal

Baxter

* Like I said, lighter in midfield, but this allows us to have much more width, can press with a 3 instead of a 2, making it incredibly difficult for the opposition to play and also win turnovers in dangerous positions.

The wing backs can also tuck in as cover defensively

 

3412 (352)

Charles, Victor

Collins

Schon, Sheehan, Thomason, JDC

Johnston, Santos, Toal

Baxter

* Our traditional formation, pretty solid, front 2 work very hard pressing, but we lack width, with the wing backs we rely immensely upon them.

Edited August 3, 20241 yr by Lostock Whites

23 hours ago, Steejay said:

Kanye 🎵 

More of a loose cannon type enforcer

23 hours ago, wanderer1984 said:

Aye ... I don't think we have the personnel to play 343. I could see a front 3 of Schon Charles Collins ... But a 4 man Midfield that includes 2 wingbacks is mental.

Also what's the point in having Sheehan, Morley, Dempsey, Thomason, Arfield and Lolos all fighting for the two CM positions.

If Evatt has been quoted saying 433 is his preferred formation I see no reason why we're not playing that. 

 

I agree. We've actually got the players for 433 with all these wider players added, and more traditional full backs in Jones and Iredale still here. Seems strange to almost be forcing the 343 with square pegs

23 hours ago, Lostock Whites said:

I'm personally enjoying this slightly new style from us, but will let you know more about that after Saturday evening next week.

We can change our shape and ask teams different questions without really having to change shape too much, it's clever from IE.

You're right about the 2 in the middle potentially being overrun, from what I've seen so far however, particularly in possession, the full backs kind of come inside inverted and basically support the middle.

Victor looks great as the no9, but interesting to see how we can fit both him and Charles in this new formation. Charles did say in his interview last week that he was a left winger nearly all of his career up until Accy.

I would personally find this interesting as our options:

343

Collins, Victor, Charles

Schon, Sheehan, Thomason, JDC

Johnston, Santos, Toal

Baxter

* Like I said, lighter in midfield, but this allows us to have much more width, can press with a 3 instead of a 2, making it incredibly difficult for the opposition to play and also win turnovers in dangerous positions.

The wing backs can also tuck in as cover defensively

 

3412 (352)

Charles, Victor

Collins

Schon, Sheehan, Thomason, JDC

Johnston, Santos, Toal

Baxter

* Our traditional formation, pretty solid, front 2 work very hard pressing, but we lack width, with the wing backs we rely immensely upon them.

I must admit I've not seen any of the friendlies so am excited to see this formation tweak next week v Orient to see if it is effective.

On the whole I think it will be fine. Midfield is definitely my worry against the better teams. I've just remembered the England semi v Croatia in 2018 when England's 343 left the midfield 2 of Alli and Henderson against Rakitic, Modric and Brozovic.... While we'll never come up against players like that in league 1 the sheer fact England had a 2 man midfield versus their 3 made it so easy for them. Schon and Cogley will need to do a lot of inverting to help out!

19 minutes ago, Stig said:

I agree. We've actually got the players for 433 with all these wider players added, and more traditional full backs in Jones and Iredale still here. Seems strange to almost be forcing the 343 with square pegs

I think whatever happens with transfers in the next few weeks will determine our formation for the season.

IF 433 .. I think we've got enough at the back and in midfield.

One or two wide men and we're sorted

Just can't seeing 343 work with what we've got.

 

On 04/08/2024 at 22:55, wanderer1984 said:

I think whatever happens with transfers in the next few weeks will determine our formation for the season.

IF 433 .. I think we've got enough at the back and in midfield.

One or two wide men and we're sorted

Just can't seeing 343 work with what we've got.

 

I might be splitting hairs here but think it’ll be more a 3421, and with the latest recruitment (McAtee pending) looks like we have good cover all over the park 

.               Baxter

.          (Southwood)

.        Toal Santos Johnston

.       (Jones Forino Iredale)

Cogley.                               Schon

(Tutu.                                   Williams)

 

.       Sheehan.     Thomason

.       (Morley.           Matete)

 

.           McAtee     Collins.

         (Arfield           Lolos)

 

.                   Charles

.                   (Victor)

 

And the player profiles are all pretty solid and balanced as a unit

- sweeper keeper,

- One ball playing defender and two Wide Centrebacks

- 2 attacking wingbacks

- deeper playmaker next to a midfield bastard

- Two tricky attacking midfielders

- behind a relentless pressing striker

•—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—•

One of the most popular (in possession) formations at the top end of the premier league is a “3 box 3”

which is usually achieved by starting in a 4-3-3, then one fullback becomes the third centreback, while the opposite fullback inverts into midfield. Turning the back 4 into a back 3. And the midfield changes from a single pivot and two 8s into a “box” of 4. The inverted wingback becomes a second defensive midfielder giving you a numerical advantage in the middle. As most teams set up with a midfield 2 or 3. If you have 4 then you always have that extra man.

 

Looks like Evatt has done this as his starting formation, rather than one which we morph into by using something fancy like an inverted fullback.

The two deep midfielders and the two attacking midfielders can form a box in the middle, giving us that 4 man midfield. The attacking wingbacks can in theory then push up higher instead of having to half cover for Sheehan as a lone pivot. 

I think it’s actually quite a big change from the 3-1-4-2 of last season. When we brought on Jerome and another it was a bit desperate but now we have a myriad of players who can all play in that “Box”, Collins, Lolos, Arfield, McAtee, Sheehan, Dempsey, Thomason, CMG, Nlundulu. 

 

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by Mantra

38 minutes ago, Mantra said:

I might be splitting hairs here but think it’ll be more a 3421, and with the latest recruitment (McAtee pending) looks like we have good cover all over the park 

.               Baxter

.          (Southwood)

.        Toal Santos Johnston

.       (Jones Forino Iredale)

Cogley.                               Schon

(Tutu.                                   Williams)

 

.       Sheehan.     Thomason

.       (Morley.           Matete)

 

.           McAtee     Collins.

         (Arfield           Lolos)

 

.                   Charles

.                   (Victor)

 

Off load Jones, Morley, Dan.

Keep CMG

Not sure about Lolos/Arfield in an attacking roles.

27 minutes ago, Mantra said:

And the player profiles are all pretty solid and balanced as a unit

- sweeper keeper,

- One ball playing defender and two Wide Centrebacks

- 2 attacking wingbacks

- deeper playmaker next to a midfield bastard

- Two tricky attacking midfielders

- behind a relentless pressing striker

•—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—•

One of the most popular (in possession) formations at the top end of the premier league is a “3 box 3”

which is usually achieved by starting in a 4-3-3, then one fullback becomes the third centreback, while the opposite fullback inverts into midfield. Turning the back 4 into a back 3. And the midfield changes from a single pivot and two 8s into a “box” of 4. The inverted wingback becomes a second defensive midfielder giving you a numerical advantage in the middle. As most teams set up with a midfield 2 or 3. If you have 4 then you always have that extra man.

 

Looks like Evatt has done this as his starting formation, rather than one which we morph into by using something fancy like an inverted fullback.

The two deep midfielders and the two attacking midfielders can form a box in the middle, giving us that 4 man midfield. The attacking wingbacks can in theory then push up higher instead of having to half cover for Sheehan as a lone pivot. 

I think it’s actually quite a big change from the 3-1-4-2 of last season. When we brought on Jerome and another it was a bit desperate but now we have a myriad of players who can all play in that “Box”, Collins, Lolos, Arfield, McAtee, Sheehan, Dempsey, Thomason, CMG, Nlundulu. 

 

Is that inverted full back that popular? I've only seen Liverpool and City do it on occasion, and only in the last season. Actually maybe Zinchenko does it for Arsenal a bit when he plays too.

But it's offset by Pep frequently going to the Tony Pulis tactic of a back 4 of centre backs, so I'm not sure 3 at the back is very common in the top teams.

I agree with you our team does now look well set up for 343 or whatever variant with the latest additions. Wing back and midfield were my issues a week ago and both have been addressed it seems.

The one final issue, and it's been referred to in another thread is when Santos has the ball and no press he needs to be willing to run forward with it to draw defenders and make space for others. But not sure he has that in his game?

On 03/08/2024 at 21:59, Stig said:

As suggested by @Johnnyrotten splitting this off from the transfer chat as a place for formation nerds like me to discuss tactics.

@wanderer1984 I agree 343 is a really weird formation. Off the top of my head I can only think of 2 teams playing it successfully in the last 20ish years - Brazil 2002 and Chelsea under Conte.

Brazil 2002 had Cafu and Roberto Carlos as the wing backs.... And a front 3 that was ridiculous, so don't really work as a comparison to any other team.

However Chelsea under Conte is interesting. The 3 at the back helped to not expose David Luiz when he'd invariably wander. And the wing backs were completely different, Alonso was previously a full back, and Moses previously a winger. And Chelsea would play Azpilicueta at RCB to cover Moses.

So @Rival Son I'm not sure we need 2 primarily attacking wing backs to make it work. Schon as more attacking and Cogley more defensive could be fine.

The bit we are missing is in midfield though. Both those teams had pure enforcers in the centre. Chelsea had Matic and Kanye, and Brazil had Gilberto Silva and Kleberson (more a hard worker but not a ball player definitely). This is where we seem way off it with Thomason and Sheehan. I like both but they're not enforcers.

You posted this before this weeks transfers.  We now have a poor mans Brazil 2002 Schon and Desmond are our two attacking wingbacks.  Doubt either can tackle a good meal.  I take it Mcatee comes in today, so you have a front three that is Ridiculous at this level.  Your three centre backs pick themselves in Toal Santos and Johnston

Matete and Sheehan are your two sitting in midfield Matete to hunt and chase and Sheehan to link. I have a feeling Evatt could play this team maybe he might stick with Thomason over Matete i would not.    Maybe swap Charles and Mcatee  or keep switching them during the game       

                                                                         Baxter

                                  Toal                              Santos                                    Johnston

 

Desmond                                        Sheehan                       Matete                                Schon

 

Collins                                            Mcatee                                                  Charles

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by masi 51

2 hours ago, Stig said:

Is that inverted full back that popular? I've only seen Liverpool and City do it on occasion, and only in the last season. Actually maybe Zinchenko does it for Arsenal a bit when he plays too.

But it's offset by Pep frequently going to the Tony Pulis tactic of a back 4 of centre backs, so I'm not sure 3 at the back is very common in the top teams.

I agree with you our team does now look well set up for 343 or whatever variant with the latest additions. Wing back and midfield were my issues a week ago and both have been addressed it seems.

The one final issue, and it's been referred to in another thread is when Santos has the ball and no press he needs to be willing to run forward with it to draw defenders and make space for others. But not sure he has that in his game?

It’s not that popular from my knowledge but I don’t watch enough other teams to know who else does it.

I think most Premier League teams tend to go with the normal fullbacks.
I just know it’s a relatively new variant that has been favoured by Pep, his disciples and others.

Eg, Klopp did it with TAA

Arteta did it with Zinchenko

Pep did it with Cancelo and Rico Lewis

Maybe it’s more common in foreign leagues.

I’m surprised more teams don’t try it in England throughout the pyramid.

maybe it is a very difficult role to find the right profile for.
 

TAA, Cancelo, Zinchenko are some of the most technical fullbacks you could ever have. So  finding someone who can defend the wing against top class wingers + Have the presence of mind to drift into midfield + the passing ability and decision making of a defensive midfielder. Then transitioning back to full back in your “out of possession” shape.

my theory is that Evatt thinks it’s too much for a league 1 quality player to have that, so instead has opted to just set up in that formation and hope our back 3 has enough defensive capability to protect us.

 

as you say pep has done the 4-4-2. He’s always one step ahead. He used John stones to step into midfield from centreback and then both fullbacks became the outer centrebacks in a back 3 in possession 

eg

out of possession 442

.           ederson

Walker Stones Dias Ake

Silva, Foden, Rodri, Grealish

.       Haaland KDB

 

in possession 3Box3

.             Ederson

.    Walker,    Dias,     Ake

.          Stones,    Rodri  

.          Foden,      KDB

. Silva,      Haaland,     Grealish 

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by Mantra

2 hours ago, Stig said:

Is that inverted full back that popular? I've only seen Liverpool and City do it on occasion, and only in the last season. Actually maybe Zinchenko does it for Arsenal a bit when he plays too.

But it's offset by Pep frequently going to the Tony Pulis tactic of a back 4 of centre backs, so I'm not sure 3 at the back is very common in the top teams.

I agree with you our team does now look well set up for 343 or whatever variant with the latest additions. Wing back and midfield were my issues a week ago and both have been addressed it seems.

The one final issue, and it's been referred to in another thread is when Santos has the ball and no press he needs to be willing to run forward with it to draw defenders and make space for others. But not sure he has that in his game?

And on Santos dwelling, he’s instructed to stand on the ball so I don’t think we can blame him for it. That’s on Evatt if we’re 1-0/2-0 down and he’s still trying to bait a press which is never going to come.

In that hour long interview he’s says something like “what plan B do they want? Go direct? It’s just going to come straight back at us. We don’t have the profile of player to do that, we have to try and force the press…” 

so yeah having santos or another CB if they’re not getting pressed, the plan B could be for them to actually carry the ball themselves through the lines.

I’ve seen Santos maraud with the ball on occasion and he is quite effective at it. It is just very high risk…

3 hours ago, masi 51 said:

You posted this before this weeks transfers.  We now have a poor mans Brazil 2002 Schon and Desmond are our two attacking wingbacks.  Doubt either can tackle a good meal.  I take it Mcatee comes in today, so you have a front three that is Ridiculous at this level.  Your three centre backs pick themselves in Toal Santos and Johnston

Matete and Sheehan are your two sitting in midfield Matete to hunt and chase and Sheehan to link. I have a feeling Evatt could play this team maybe he might stick with Thomason over Matete i would not.    Maybe swap Charles and Mcatee  or keep switching them during the game       

                                                                         Baxter

                                  Toal                              Santos                                    Johnston

 

Desmond                                        Sheehan                       Matete                                Schon

 

Collins                                            Mcatee                                                  Charles

 

 

 

Some Formation that ...  😉

19 minutes ago, wanderer1984 said:

Some Formation that ...  😉

2-1-2-2-2-1 Asymmetric

visionary

50 minutes ago, Mantra said:

2-1-2-2-2-1 Asymmetric

visionary

How about

 

F

 

U         C                                  K

r    I   G                 H T

 

O   f                      f

 

 

2 hours ago, Mantra said:

It’s not that popular from my knowledge but I don’t watch enough other teams to know who else does it.

I think most Premier League teams tend to go with the normal fullbacks.
I just know it’s a relatively new variant that has been favoured by Pep, his disciples and others.

Eg, Klopp did it with TAA

Arteta did it with Zinchenko

Pep did it with Cancelo and Rico Lewis

Maybe it’s more common in foreign leagues.

I’m surprised more teams don’t try it in England throughout the pyramid.

maybe it is a very difficult role to find the right profile for.
 

TAA, Cancelo, Zinchenko are some of the most technical fullbacks you could ever have. So  finding someone who can defend the wing against top class wingers + Have the presence of mind to drift into midfield + the passing ability and decision making of a defensive midfielder. Then transitioning back to full back in your “out of possession” shape.

my theory is that Evatt thinks it’s too much for a league 1 quality player to have that, so instead has opted to just set up in that formation and hope our back 3 has enough defensive capability to protect us.

 

as you say pep has done the 4-4-2. He’s always one step ahead. He used John stones to step into midfield from centreback and then both fullbacks became the outer centrebacks in a back 3 in possession 

eg

out of possession 442

.           ederson

Walker Stones Dias Ake

Silva, Foden, Rodri, Grealish

.       Haaland KDB

 

in possession 3Box3

.             Ederson

.    Walker,    Dias,     Ake

.          Stones,    Rodri  

.          Foden,      KDB

. Silva,      Haaland,     Grealish 

 

 

 

You're right, league 1 players would have no chance of being able to do that!

So I see what you mean, if we can get our new formation to work as a proper midfield 4 in possession and only a back 5 out of possession, with 3 attackers it should give us a lot of options. That's the theory anyway, a lot will depend on the tempo we play at, as we could easily still get stuck in the sideways passing nonsense with the back 3.

It interests me in whether people think it's a 343 or a 352, or if it matters.  For me we play a 352 not a 343. Or at least we did last season and it seems the same this season. 

Conte played a 352 and the wingbacks were important in the way he did it. Even if he didn't have the right player he would convert another player of a different position to do it, i.e Victor Moses. 

He tried it as spurs with Lucas Moura but it didn't work. 

343 for me means the wide players have less defensive responsibilities whereas the way we we play, they are basically wing backs. Equal responsibilities both defensive and attacking. 

8 hours ago, Arrested development said:

It interests me in whether people think it's a 343 or a 352, or if it matters.  For me we play a 352 not a 343. Or at least we did last season and it seems the same this season. 

Conte played a 352 and the wingbacks were important in the way he did it. Even if he didn't have the right player he would convert another player of a different position to do it, i.e Victor Moses. 

He tried it as spurs with Lucas Moura but it didn't work. 

343 for me means the wide players have less defensive responsibilities whereas the way we we play, they are basically wing backs. Equal responsibilities both defensive and attacking. 

I don't follow. How does this formation change how the wing backs play? In both formations we play a back 3 of centre backs, and then 2 wing backs who make it a back 5 when defending or add to the midfield when attacking.

The only difference I can see is midfield where you're losing an attacking midfielder, and up front where you're losing 1 centre forward, but you're gaining almost wingers in the 2 wider strikers. 

I'm not understanding the wing back difference?

Just on the Conte at Spurs point, I thought they played Moura up front as one of the wider players in the front 3, Son being the other and Kane through the middle. Maybe I've forgotten though

“We have changed tactically even though the ideology remains the same, and I think that is where we will progress. The 3-5-2 we played for two-and-half years, and the end version was pretty good. When we got it right we annihilated teams at times but when we got it wrong it was difficult for us to change and be flexible.

“This is a new version of that and we can remain fluid and flexible. If we have to go back to that, we can, but this is a different way of doing it.

“I think at the start, just having more bodies in the middle and central makes the game a little more secure and less transitional, and that is important for us.”
 

from BN article about signing players like Schon, Arfield and McAtee to help add players who are comfortable playing in big games 

Ok well I've seen this new formation for the first time in person this season and I'm underwhelmed to say the least. 

My big issue of having no midfield was exactly that. Yes we had Sheehan and Tomo willing to take a pass from the defenders and pass back to them.... But we were crying out for a more attacking central midfielder to link play from the back to the strikers. The occasional time one of the 3 strikers did that we looked more dangerous, but 2 of them are now instructed to be out wide so can't do that all the time.

For me the formation isn't right, but even more worrying is the tactics are the same as last season:

-slow passing out of the back to kill our own momentum 

-like for like subs and just how the fact we have one of the biggest budgets and best squads will see us through 

Every bit as bad as some of the stuff we saw last season.

Tbf I’m not sure like for like subs is a fair accusation today considering we went from three strikes down to one.

Did feel a bit weird that the subs vastly improved us at Orient but had the opposite effect today. 

If we're now playing with two No. 10s in a box midfield, we really need Lolos and CMG back to full fitness ASAP to give us the four options we'd need, or in their absence change the formation once one of Collins or McAtee are brought off

We don't have any other players naturally suited to that role in my opinion