New Formation Required

[Dellas Cowboys]

disappointed........thought this would be about geese

 

[B14Nco]

Behave.

That disaster waiting to happen that has us sitting top since we started using it.

 

[B14Nco]

This is the best football we've seen in years. I know everyone is being relatively nice about this but it's one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in my 3 weeks of coming on here.

Change our entire outlook and system and nice free flowing football that's working a treat to a boring 4-5-1 in January when we're top of the league?

Honestly some of our fans are crazy.

 

[Pierre's PC]

but it's one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in my 3 weeks of coming on here..

Have you met Woodwardfan?

 

[Woodwardfan]

Have you met Woodwardfan?

Ah Pierre, you did promise not "to cross my path again", only a few days ago. Then you go and tag me with silliness again. Feel better for it?

 

[Davie Blade]

 

[Pierre's PC]

Ah Pierre, you did promise not "to cross my path again", only a few days ago. Then you go and tag me with silliness again. Feel better for it?

Pretty sure I never promised that sweetie. However it's only a bit of #bantz, nothing worth getting your knickers tangled over.

Lots and lots of love PPC x

 

[Woodwardfan]

Pretty sure I never promised that sweetie. However it's only a bit of #bantz, nothing worth getting your knickers tangled over.

Lots and lots of love PPC x

Respect for a fellow Blade, as ever.

 

[Kevincarterversion2.0]

Really dont think we need to change too much as a result of one really bad scoreline. For me, it was more down to the keeper having a nightmare, the lack of Lafferty (definitely a better defender than Done), and maybe Jake Wright not being there (I think his organisation may have helped us out a bit - especially how he influences big EEL).

 

[pheasant FC]

OK I'll throw in my five pen'orth and put the mockers on. That 3-5-2 line up is a disaster waiting to happen. Time after time you can see gaps a mile wide on the flanks and the only reason we haven't been nobbled more often this season is that the opposition has been so fuckin' crap. Any forward with a bit of pace will run rings round that back three. Walsall figured it out months ago, I think the penny might drop now though with the rest of the league from now on and this is where we could hit the buffers.

The wing backs are both suspect defensively and now that Wilder has signed Lafferty permanently, this is a bit of a worry. I'm hoping he's not going to play stubborn bugger and stick with the system just to try and prove his point.

For me the answer is a simple tweak to the system and play 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 with Freeman absolved of full back duties and played wide mid and Lafferty on the bench. However, for the reason given above I can't see this transpiring.

I would give this a go and see what happens:

Moore
Bash-EEL-Wright-O'Connell
Freeman-Fleck-Coutts-Duffy-Lavery
Sharp

4-5-1 . Wow did you watch us under clough . Cant wait to see that again

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

Respect for a fellow Blade, as ever.

Chill Woodward . All banter done in good humour . You don't realise it , but you are becoming a cult figure ( I did say cult ) .

Enjoy the adulation rough with the smooth .

Lost at the weekend , but for once we all pull together in the right direction . Forum members at least think of you , take positives and don't get so uptight .

UTB

 

[blade67]

3-5-2 has always had a weakness if the other team doubles up on the wingbacks, it's the reason it quickly faded from formation of choice for much of the 90s back to most sides using 4-4-2. For 3-5-2 to work you need the centre backs to act as cover for the full backs and the extra man in central midfield to make sure you control possession, we've been doing that well for most of the season, but if a team can get more of the ball, spread it out wide and pull the centre backs out of position it does have weaknesses, this isn't something that Walsall figured out months ago, the flaws of 3-5-2 were exposed decades ago.

Even so, the players we have are more suited to 3-5-2 than 4-4-2, the extra centre back helps cover for individual weaknesses and three in central midfield suits pretty much everyone, whether it's the usual 3 who play there, or Basham or Scougall. Duffy doesn't really fit into a 4-4-2 well, he'd probably slot into a wide position on paper, but on the pitch he'd drift in to where he plays now, leaving an exposed full back just like the wing-back system does, or Swindon in the play-offs the other year where Harris was doubled up on constantly in a back 4 as he was getting no cover from the theoretical left winger.

4-5-1 would keep the third central midfielder, but we don't have any left wingers and would be playing an extra defender instead of a striker. The Clough years showed how that formation works brilliantly when you're the ones doing the counter attacking, but fails dismally when the opposition sits back and you have plenty of the ball outside the box, but just one man isolated in it.

Next season might need a different approach if we actually go up, but this season 3-5-2 works just fine.

Indeed.

This whole thread reminds me of a manager who stated during the early 80's that he'd identified Liverpool's weakness. Bob Paisley's response was along the lines of "only 1, I've spotted at least 5 in their side". It's all well and good that teams have worked us out, they then need to play really well to actually execute the plan

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

3-5-2 has worked well, didn't work so well on Saturday, or was it to do with the formation at all? What was different? Wilder seems to suggest the players lost discipline and shape, they may have started believing the hype and been over confident. I'd suggest that the injury to Lafferty made a big difference, certainly defensively. Might just need the players to have a timely reminder of what got them to the top and stick to it.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Chill Woodward . All banter done in good humour . You don't realise it , but you are becoming a cult figure ( I did say cult ) .

Enjoy the adulation rough with the smooth .

Lost at the weekend , but for once we all pull together in the right direction . Forum members at least think of you , take positives and don't get so uptight .

UTB

Bos - pierre can post what he wants on most threads as I don't read them. He tagged me and I therefore read it - meaningless, childish waste of time.

Dont appreciate you replying to me either with similar nonsense, just a few days after saying the opposite in what appeared a sincere apology.

I am chilled, I reply to who I respect at a rate of about 2 a day. No time for childish nonsense anymore. Take note please.

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

Bos - pierre can post what he wants on most threads as I don't read them. He tagged me and I therefore read it - meaningless, childish waste of time.

Dont appreciate you replying to me either with similar nonsense, just a few days after saying the opposite in what appeared a sincere apology.

I am chilled, I reply to who I respect at a rate of about 2 a day. No time for childish nonsense anymore. Take note please.

Pity . Forget it , your past help you are .

 

[Pinchy]

Is this a piss take?

I was stood next to some imbecile yesterday who was getting deeply red faced at our inability to get the ball into the box. "There's only us in the league that plays it like this!" he kept shouting.

Gobsmacked doesn't cover it. The league table does though.

I feel your pain. Unsophisticated just doesn't do it justice. They're the best fans in the land, you know....

 

[Pinchy]

This is the best football we've seen in years. I know everyone is being relatively nice about this but it's one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in my 3 weeks of coming on here.

Change our entire outlook and system and nice free flowing football that's working a treat to a boring 4-5-1 in January when we're top of the league?

Honestly some of our fans are crazy.

I can help you there. I'm not relatively nice. I know self-indulgent bollocks when I see it.

We could play like Barca meets Brasil '70 for twenty consecutive games, but dare to lose the next one and the attention seekers are all over it, knees jerking like the tyburn jig.

It's the Bladesfans' Way....

 

[Woodwardfan]

Pity . Forget it , your past help you are .

Thanks Bos, now that was much better than "Fuck off" wasn't it now?

Not "past help", just not like you and Pierre.

 

[snootyfenooty]

Well there's some right snowflakes on here isn't there, hope someone was around to put out the flames whilst you self-combusted.

For all those ridiculing 4-5-1 as though it's the devil's spawn's invention (i.e. Nigel Clough's), the best possible defence of it can be summarised in two words: Barcelona, Chelsea. When this system is played properly, 4-5-1 becomes 4-3-3, just as the present system of 3-5-2 becomes 3-3-4. The big difference playing 4-5-1 (in United's case) is that the defence is less susceptible to counter-attack due to the gaps down the flanks, especially when 2 out of our back 3 are as flat-footed as they are.

So, all I was suggesting is that we beef up the defence somewhat with a small tweak in tactics, not a wholesale dismantling of the present team and set-up. Of course, the 4-5-1 would not be cast in stone, as the 3-5-2 system isn't now. I just feel it may be our best starting option.

It wouldn't surprise me to see CW make some tweaks to the system in the next few games in order to stay ahead of the pack, he's not one to sit on his laurels. We shall see.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Well there's some right snowflakes on here isn't there, hope someone was around to put out the flames whilst you self-combusted.

For all those ridiculing 4-5-1 as though it's the devil's spawn's invention (i.e. Nigel Clough's), the best possible defence of it can be summarised in two words: Barcelona, Chelsea. When this system is played properly, 4-5-1 becomes 4-3-3, just as the present system of 3-5-2 becomes 3-3-4. The big difference playing 4-5-1 (in United's case) is that the defence is less susceptible to counter-attack due to the gaps down the flanks, especially when 2 out of our back 3 are as flat-footed as they are.

So, all I was suggesting is that we beef up the defence somewhat with a small tweak in tactics, not a wholesale dismantling of the present team and set-up. Of course, the 4-5-1 would not be cast in stone, as the 3-5-2 system isn't now. I just feel it may be our best starting option.

It wouldn't surprise me to see CW make some tweaks to the system in the next few games in order to stay ahead of the pack, he's not one to sit on his laurels. We shall see.

Chelsea switched to 352 and stormed to the top of the league winning 10 on the bounce. Pretty similar to us.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Really dont think we need to change too much as a result of one really bad scoreline. For me, it was more down to the keeper having a nightmare, the lack of Lafferty (definitely a better defender than Done), and maybe Jake Wright not being there (I think his organisation may have helped us out a bit - especially how he influences big EEL).

I think EEL has had his 2 worst games for us against Walsall. He seems to struggle with Oztumer’s weighted through balls and Bagayoko’s movement. A bit like how Neil Collins couldn’t cope with Swindon’s penetrative quick football. Perhaps we should have let his sit this one out with Wright in there instead but that’s in hindsight. I’m sure he’ll be back to dominating opponents and threatening at the other end (he still had a hand in our goal) in no time.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I can help you there. I'm not relatively nice. I know self-indulgent bollocks when I see it.

We could play like Barca meets Brasil '70 for twenty consecutive games, but dare to lose the next one and the attention seekers are all over it, knees jerking like the tyburn jig.

It's the Bladesfans' Way....

Pinchy, you really let yourselves down when you tar many with the same brush. Your points were valid and then you ruined it with “it’s the bladesfans way”. It’s not. It’s the way of a fickle, jerky kneed minority. That’s why the vast majority haven’t gone along with the OP and actually have indicated views similar to your own (minus the collective insult towards blades fans). So unnecessary and dilutes the meaningful contributions you make to this forum.

 

[snootyfenooty]

Chelsea switched to 352 and stormed to the top of the league winning 10 on the bounce. Pretty similar to us.

Rather defeats your point. I would say 4-5-1 has served Chelsea quite well over the years with the exception of last season. So is this year's change a "jerky kneed" reaction, as you put it, or a preemptive move to outflank the opposition? Your insinuation that they switched to 3-5-2 because it's a better system (presumably because United have done OK so far with it) is too ridiculous for words so I won't even go into that.

Anyway, one of the crux points of my argument is that sitting around with your thumb up your arse and reciting the old "isn't broke so don't fix it argument" is redundant. Far better to anticipate future hurdles and make preemptive changes to stay ahead of everyone else.

Two examples of this to consider, one fairly recent and one not so:

1. That season when Wendnesday were having their best season for ages and were probables for play-offs at least. So they went and fired Megson and got Moans. Wendy's thought Mandaric had gone stark raving bonkers. The course of Sheffield football then changed for the foreseeable future.....
2. In 1966 Ramsey favoured a lesser known striker (Hurst) over one of the best in the game (Greaves). Again everyone thought he was crackers. I won't bother you with the rest.

As I said previously, lets wait and see.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Out of interest - Chelsea play 3-4-3 and have during the long run if wins they have had recently

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...red-3-4-3-is-now-footballs-fashionable-forma/

Normally Hazard/Costa/Willian

Last Weekend it was Hazard/Pedro/Willian

It's actually quite noticeable if you watch MOTD

UTB

 

[Sean Thornton]

Rather defeats your point. I would say 4-5-1 has served Chelsea quite well over the years with the exception of last season. So is this year's change a "jerky kneed" reaction, as you put it, or a preemptive move to outflank the opposition? Your insinuation that they switched to 3-5-2 because it's a better system (presumably because United have done OK so far with it) is too ridiculous for words so I won't even go into that.

Anyway, one of the crux points of my argument is that sitting around with your thumb up your arse and reciting the old "isn't broke so don't fix it argument" is redundant. Far better to anticipate future hurdles and make preemptive changes to stay ahead of everyone else.

Two examples of this to consider, one fairly recent and one not so:

1. That season when Wendnesday were having their best season for ages and were probables for play-offs at least. So they went and fired Megson and got Moans. Wendy's thought Mandaric had gone stark raving bonkers. The course of Sheffield football then changed for the foreseeable future.....
2. In 1966 Ramsey favoured a lesser known striker (Hurst) over one of the best in the game (Greaves). Again everyone thought he was crackers. I won't bother you with the rest.

As I said previously, lets wait and see.

Megson was fired for non footballing reasons.


Greaves was first choice and got injured.

Other than that and Chelsea's formation, spot on.

 

[snootyfenooty]

Megson was fired for non footballing reasons.


Greaves was first choice and got injured.

WTF are you on about?

What you say about Megson is news to me. Can you send a link or something on this.

Greaves was injured in the group stage but fit and available for the finals

Chelsea played 4-5-1 for years.

 

[Sean Thornton]

WTF are you on about?

What you say about Megson is news to me. Can you send a link or something on this.

Greaves was injured in the group stage but fit and available for the finals

Chelsea played 4-5-1 for years.

Your recollections.
Maybe it is news to you. Doesn't mean it's not true.

Hurst got in when Greaves was injured. Greaves played in the three group games and was injured in the third game. And wasn't fit again until the final.
Hurst scored the winner in the QF and Alf decided against changing a winning team for the one game Greaves was fit for. Hurst was hardly relatively unknown being a starter for England earlier in the year and after cup successes with West Ham.


Chelsea had hiccups with 451, wonder if there were knee jerky calls to change it after the odd bad result?

 

[snootyfenooty]

Your recollections.
Maybe it is news to you. Doesn't mean it's not true.

Hurst got in when Greaves was injured. Greaves played in the three group games and was injured in the third game. And wasn't fit again until the final.
Hurst scored the winner in the QF and Alf decided against changing a winning team for the one game Greaves was fit for. Hurst was hardly relatively unknown being a starter for England earlier in the year and after cup successes with West Ham.


Chelsea had hiccups with 451, wonder if there were knee jerky calls to change it after the odd bad result?

Look, if you can't substantiate your allegation about Megson, then don't bother debating it, you'll only make yourself look stupid basing your argument on hearsay.

OK so you've changed your mind and accepted Greaves was fit for the final so I'll leave it at that.

4-5-1 vs 3-5-2 vs 3-4-3 or whatever I don't mind debating in an adult fashion.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Look, if you can't substantiate your allegation about Megson, then don't bother debating it, you'll only make yourself look stupid basing your argument on hearsay.

OK so you've changed your mind and accepted Greaves was fit for the final so I'll leave it at that.

4-5-1 vs 3-5-2 vs 3-4-3 or whatever I don't mind debating in an adult fashion.

Okay Boss. Does that only apply to people who disagree with your viewpoint? A couple of days ago you were quite happy to give your views on the average Sheffielders culinary knowledge without substantiating it. Your knowledge on that subject left a little to be desired as well.

Not at all. You said Greaves was fit for the "finals". Not true. Only the final. Which changes the context. The decision not to change a winning side in which the apparently relatively unknown (lol) Geoff Hurst would make sense to most people. In fact at the time Roger Hunt got stick from Greaves fans for him missing the game. No link sorry!

You could have debated in an adult fashion from the start. But you haven't. I asked if Chelsea tore up the formation tactics after a bad result as you suggested Wilder did after Saturday.

I don't believe your idea has had much support on this thread.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Rather defeats your point. I would say 4-5-1 has served Chelsea quite well over the years with the exception of last season. So is this year's change a "jerky kneed" reaction, as you put it, or a preemptive move to outflank the opposition? Your insinuation that they switched to 3-5-2 because it's a better system (presumably because United have done OK so far with it) is too ridiculous for words so I won't even go into that.

Anyway, one of the crux points of my argument is that sitting around with your thumb up your arse and reciting the old "isn't broke so don't fix it argument" is redundant. Far better to anticipate future hurdles and make preemptive changes to stay ahead of everyone else.

Two examples of this to consider, one fairly recent and one not so:

1. That season when Wendnesday were having their best season for ages and were probables for play-offs at least. So they went and fired Megson and got Moans. Wendy's thought Mandaric had gone stark raving bonkers. The course of Sheffield football then changed for the foreseeable future.....
2. In 1966 Ramsey favoured a lesser known striker (Hurst) over one of the best in the game (Greaves). Again everyone thought he was crackers. I won't bother you with the rest.

As I said previously, lets wait and see.

I wasn’t saying 352 is a ‘better’ system. I think the reason Chelsea (and us) switched to it was because it was the best fit for the players at their disposal. David Luiz is a good footballing centre half but can be erratic, having Terry mopping up behind him means that’s less of a worry. Terry is a leader/organiser but is getting old and slow so having 2 flanking CBs helps him. I would say a poor season and a bit is a much more significant data sample to base a change than 2 bad results against Walsall in the middle of a run of 22 games with a very good return so far from being knee-jerk in the same way.


The point I was making is that both teams have switched to this system during this season with great effect. Chelsea won’t be ripping it up after losing to Tottenham just like we shouldn’t be after losing to Walsall. If your point is that 451 should be an alternative to try just in certain situations then I wouldn’t particularly disagree but would point out that CW already regularly changes formation during the game but tends to go 442 more often that 451.