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.

17 minutes ago, Leyther_Matt said:

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. 

Yeah sorry, what I meant was putting Dempsey and Arfield into the exact roles McAtee and Collins had been doing in a like for like way. 

And I don't think either of those 2 are suited being in that wide number 10 position 

Two in the middle didn't seem enough today, we need to be flexible with the formation or else we'll be in the same boat as last year

13 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

Two in the middle didn't seem enough today, we need to be flexible with the formation or else we'll be in the same boat as last year

Wouldn't mind that to be honest. It was the injury list that killed us last year.

Edited August 18, 20241 yr by Cheese

9 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

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

Yep. Said it on other thread but GT is meant to be that man. 

We need the ball in to those 3, breaking the line rapidly. 

Not cross field safe passes to the wing backs then the front 3 looking for the underlap. 

Fuck the underlap. Get it though to the front men, in to space or channels.

This ferriting round in each corner looking for underlaps or flashed balls across the box is no good for a striker like Dion.

Needs to be off the shoulder.

We looked more capable of playing tight intricate passing than last season with Collins, McAtee and Charles able to link up better with the midfield. 

lots of quick bounce-passes, especially first half. Times where it looked like they were chasing shadows as we passed around them.

Issue yesterday was the end product. Once we had our long spell of possession and finally worked them back into a low block the purpose in the final ball wasn’t there. Was a bit like Wembley with two crosses being over hit from either wing, within about 3 mins of each other.

Another couple of crosses were easily claimed by their seemingly 8ft tall goalkeeper.

Thought it was a bit weird Dempsey playing as a 10 but thought he did well to be honest. Dribbled past players and got his passing right.

Optimistic on first proper viewing of the system. Need the forwards to be much more clinical this year and our final third decision making and execution has to improve a lot. Otherwise we will draw far too many like this.

11 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

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. 

At Orient, when we brought on Lolos and Mcatee, we were bringing on attacking/creative players, we looked better in the final third.

Yesterday we didn’t have those options. As I mentioned on the match thread, Evatt would have loved to have CMG and Lolos to bring into those 10 roles yesterday.

At the moment if we start with the same 3 up top we don’t have a lot of options to replace like for like. 

I wouldn’t view it as a negative if we tried last years formation, to bring in Matete. His stats for moving the ball forward quickly with previous clubs is very good and I think would help bring the WBs further forward. I also think this suits Collins better. Then you’ve got McAtee and Vic to come off the bench like at Orient which adds some attacking impetus later in the game.

                            Baxter

Cog.     Toal.   Santos.  Johnston.    Schon

                          Sheehan

               Matete.              Tomo

                    Charles  Collins  

i know the clowns will say let him go, but vics not going to stick around around long for 20 mins every week

if we can replace him, ive no issue but if the option is dempsey, we need to be finding another striker

 

completely agree with the point above, at orient we brought 3 good options on, by starting your options you reduce your options

 

1 minute ago, Casino said:

by starting your options you reduce your options

Do we? We have McAtee to bring on with that side above. He made a positive difference at Orient. 

We start with McAtee, Collins, Charles, like yesterday, we only have Vic as a forward to bring on. 

13 minutes ago, desperado said:

At Orient, when we brought on Lolos and Mcatee, we were bringing on attacking/creative players, we looked better in the final third.

Yesterday we didn’t have those options. As I mentioned on the match thread, Evatt would have loved to have CMG and Lolos to bring into those 10 roles yesterday.

At the moment if we start with the same 3 up top we don’t have a lot of options to replace like for like. 

I wouldn’t view it as a negative if we tried last years formation, to bring in Matete. His stats for moving the ball forward quickly with previous clubs is very good and I think would help bring the WBs further forward. I also think this suits Collins better. Then you’ve got McAtee and Vic to come off the bench like at Orient which adds some attacking impetus later in the game.

                            Baxter

Cog.     Toal.   Santos.  Johnston.    Schon

                          Sheehan

               Matete.              Tomo

                    Charles  Collins  

I agree with that as a shape, only thing I'd do different is move Sheehan forward, in front of Matete and Tomo, to link up more closely with Charles and Collins, putting together those sharp little passing exchanges in more threatening areas around the edge of their box. 

Front threes work well if either or both of the wide men want to face the goal and take people on (Doku and Savinho yesterday for City either side of Haaland). Collins and McAtee spent too long with their backs to goal, passing it backwards into midfield. 

We had a lad once who was ideal for playing a front three, liked to take people on and get shots off ...

1 hour ago, desperado said:

 

We start with McAtee, Collins, Charles, like yesterday, we only have Vic as a forward to bring on. 

im agreeing

we went from a complete forward line coming on to vic and 2 willing runners

3 minutes ago, Casino said:

im agreeing

we went from a complete forward line coming on to vic and 2 willing runners

Sorry mis-read it 👍

1 minute ago, desperado said:

Sorry mis-read it 👍

and its not evatts fault one of his bench options was taken out last week

anyway, i need to stay off this thread

all these tactical gurus nowhere near a coaching role messes with my head

I like starting with 3 forwards but only if we score 

Midfield seems a bit light and I anticipate Matete to become a regular starter and can't see JS or GT getting dropped

I understand IE probably plans his subs in advance but finishing with one forward and two midfielders up top isn't probably going to get us too many goals when we need one 

I'd understand it if we were seeing the game out 

A work in progress 

Be reet 

2 hours ago, Casino said:

and its not evatts fault one of his bench options was taken out last week

anyway, i need to stay off this thread

all these tactical gurus nowhere near a coaching role messes with my head

Clue's in the title.

Millions of fans discuss such things week in, week out.

 

For all the people talking of a back four, what do you do with Santos? The guy is very good at what he does well, but very poor in other areas. He’d be liability as one of two, as he was when tried previously.

The two in a four need to be at least average in all departments. It would have to be Toal and Johnston for me.

Full backs is another debate, but Cogley and Iredale with what we’ve got.

i can’t see Evatt going four at the back, unless Santos goes; because he won’t drop him.

We've got plenty of centre halves.

Picking ant two from them all would be very, very difficult. I don't get the idea that Santos couldn't be one of them.

We don't know which would be the best partnership, nor the effect of having 3 midfielders in front of them (and which three for that matter)

It's perhaps just a case of possibly trying something different within any particular game as a tactical change as required.

As much as I like to see wingers and full backs, and 2 CBs, and 2 strikers playing fairly centrally, that's only my preference and clearly its not the modern way! So its a fairly pointless argument to talk about it with any sense of expectation.  We play with wingbacks not fullbacks or wingers, we aren't starting any game with 2 CBs.  IE has stated he's signed a squad of players to play that way and at least that's an improvement on signing players like Sadlier, Dapo and Iredale that don't have a place in that system, (barring playing out of position or covering for injuries).

4 hours ago, Johnnyrotten said:

As much as I like to see wingers and full backs, and 2 CBs, and 2 strikers playing fairly centrally, that's only my preference and clearly its not the modern way! So its a fairly pointless argument to talk about it with any sense of expectation.

You're right that 2 up top isn't used as much these days but 4 atb is by many teams.

Dapo would be great on the left of the front 3 using the 343/523 we're using.

Edited August 19, 20241 yr by wanderer1984

Dapo went ages back.

No problem with discussing formations etc, but surely we should focus on the players we have.

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Dapo went ages back.

No problem with discussing formations etc, but surely we should focus on the players we have.

True ... But I wasn't the one that mentioned him first. Just a observation that he'd be a decent player for our new formation.

Also ... wasn't that bad playing in a formation that didn't suit his style.

Assuming Lolos is out for a couple of months and CMG will be until at least the new year, we probably want to be signing a winger/inside forward on loan from a Prem or Championship club until January to give us the option to rotate and some attacking options on the bench. 

I actually thought Dempsey did alright off the bench in that role off the left but Arfield can't be getting consistent minutes, the guy can't move. You could play Tutu, Williams and Schon in those areas further forwards at a push but it's not ideal. 

1 hour ago, meanderson93 said:

Assuming Lolos is out for a couple of months and CMG will be until at least the new year, we probably want to be signing a winger/inside forward on loan from a Prem or Championship club until January to give us the option to rotate and some attacking options on the bench. 

I actually thought Dempsey did alright off the bench in that role off the left but Arfield can't be getting consistent minutes, the guy can't move. You could play Tutu, Williams and Schon in those areas further forwards at a push but it's not ideal. 

Early days, of course, but I'm struggling to see what Arfield is bringing to the table.

5 minutes ago, Traf said:

Early days, of course, but I'm struggling to see what Arfield is bringing to the table.

Aye, me too.

I hope Vic starts at the weekend

8 hours ago, Traf said:

Early days, of course, but I'm struggling to see what Arfield is bringing to the table.

Probably as much about experience, knowledge and maybe leadership as about his playing attributes. 

Bit like Gilks perhaps.