What formation do we actually play?

[Gimli]

Lengthy discussion on the Freeman thread - I genuinely would be interested to see how people see our formation

Yes, I know it is largely irrelevant.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

3-4-1-2 for me.

 

[pommpey]

Lenghty discussion on the Freeman thread - I genuinely would be interested to see how people see our formation

Yes, I know it is largely irrelevant.

It depends on the opposition, doesn't it?

I expect when we line up at kick off, it's 5-3-2. If they are playing narrow, it suits to go 3-5-2. If we are defending, or killing the midfield 3-4-1-2.

pommpey

 

[Eric Cartman]

If we want to be really pedantic we play with 5 lines so if you're going to break it up properly we play a 3-2-2-1-2 (gobful)

I'd say quite simply you line it as Defenders-Midfielders-Attackers, wing backs are defenders, attacking midfielders are still midfielders, so therefore it's 5-3-2. Of course it's fluid and of course it changes massively in game nearly every time we go forward the wingbacks play like high wingers, but the centre half joins the attack on that wing too and they're not wingers either.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

3-5-2 is definitely what I’d instantly say, but given the reality of how that 5 works the standard midfield part of that is barely appropriate to lump them all together as one midfield. I’d never suggest the wingbacks were ‘midfielders’. I’m not wholly comfortable describing them as ‘defenders’ either. Their roles don’t fit the standard formation.

 

[Sean Thornton]

If we want to be really pedantic we play with 5 lines so if you're going to break it up properly we play a 3-2-2-1-2 (gobful)

I'd say quite simply you line it as Defenders-Midfielders-Attackers, wing backs are defenders, attacking midfielders are still midfielders, so therefore it's 5-3-2. Of course it's fluid and of course it changes massively in game nearly every time we go forward the wingbacks play like high wingers, but the centre half joins the attack on that wing too and they're not wingers either.

It’s only boring when someone disagrees with you I take it?

 

[Eric Cartman]

It’s only boring when someone disagrees with you I take it?

You've lost me

 

[Bladesman]

It’s 3 5 2 and that’s the formation I use on FIFA 19

 

[Eric Cartman]

It’s 3 5 2 and that’s the formation I use on FIFA 19

Fifa sets us up with a 5-2-1-2

 

[Bladesman]

Fifa sets us up with a 5-2-1-2

Sometimes and sometimes it has us at 3-5-2. I stuck it in on 3-5-2. I find the centre backs overlap better.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

We don't play 3-5-2 and virtually never have.

We played it verses the S6 lot last september - Basham can into centre midfield and carter Vickers at RCB, which from memory was the first time we did it that season.

For all the ones that say we play 3-5-2 - tell me then WHY Duffy goes here there and everywhere? He never plays at the side of or in between Fleck/Coutts last year and Fleck/Norwood this year.

Also tell me why our new signing from Everton has said - and I quote "I've come here to play along side Duffy". My perception of this is that in certain games we will move to a 3-4-2-1, which has been very very apparent since McG came into the side this season. He's always dropping off at the side of Duffy as we move the ball. This is a variation that CW & AK has introduced this season and it makes us very fluid in midfield.

When Coutts came on v Wigan in the 2nd half we moved to a flat 3 in the middle, which I suppose was 3-5-2, but only to shut the game out.

What we do, is change formation in games to suit specific situations depending on the score or opposition. The pigs 2nd goal was totally down to changing formation and Brooks switching off - it's what we do in games. We now have very clever players in games and where last year it was really only Basham that allowed this switching in games, McG is so clever it comes natural to him.

UTB

 

[Eric Cartman]

Some kids football manager save. That's a 5-2-1-2, I'd say that's how we line up, maybe Duffy tucks in more to the midfield slightly but largely that's what we line up with. So that's the 2 major football games on the market calling 'that' a 5-2-1-2.

 

[finlaytheblade]

It’s 3 5 2 and that’s the formation I use on FIFA 19

Basic formation is 3-5-2 , there are a number of variations within this system and it changes during the game .
We go 4 at the back sometimes I if we are finding it tough,it's all about flexability really but 3-5-2 is usually our starting point.

 

[Houston_Blade]

It’s a hybrid of 3-4-1-2 and 3-5-2

 

[Sheffsteel]

Thought It was the basic formation is 3-5-2 with variations

McG up front is a bit of a floater and sometimes drops deep joining midfield.

Duffy is also a floater playing midfield but encouraged to get forward, shame his finishing is poor.

The key thing are the 3 central defenders, O’Connell on the left is encouraged to overlap and support Enda on the left wing

And our right sides central defender Basham is encouraged to overlap and support Baldock on the right wing.

It’s amazing how we don’t get caught out on the break with our defence so advanced up field.

 

[pommpey]

It’s 3 5 2 and that’s the formation I use on FIFA 19

Me too. I have it as 5-3-2 as Ultra Defensive moving to a 3-2-3-2 when on the attack.

pommpey

 

[South Bucks]

Hard to see a formation when we are not doing so well like yesterday as we just slowly advance up field pinging the ball around randomly with no end product. In other games when we attack quicker with purpose we win.

 

[Bladesman]

Me too. I have it as 5-3-2 as Ultra Defensive moving to a 3-2-3-2 when on the attack.

pommpey

I have not fiddled with my team management much as I know you can set different formations for attack and defend.

 

[dc_blade]

Some kids football manager save. That's a 5-2-1-2, I'd say that's how we line up, maybe Duffy tucks in more to the midfield slightly but largely that's what we line up with. So that's the 2 major football games on the market calling 'that' a 5-2-1-2.

Yes, football manager has called it 5-3-2 for at least the last few years. It's also the case that most fans and pundits would I think call it a 3-5-2 (3-4-1-2 also holds true for us in particular).

There isn't a Bible of football and therefore no inerrant word of God on the matter, but 3-5-2 is definitely the more common usage.

 

[Nick Jansky]

If we want to be really pedantic we play with 5 lines so if you're going to break it up properly we play a 3-2-2-1-2 (gobful)

I'd say quite simply you line it as Defenders-Midfielders-Attackers, wing backs are defenders, attacking midfielders are still midfielders, so therefore it's 5-3-2. Of course it's fluid and of course it changes massively in game nearly every time we go forward the wingbacks play like high wingers, but the centre half joins the attack on that wing too and they're not wingers either.

OH MY GOD!!!! HOW BORING!!!!!!!

Its obviously 3-5-2 and that's a fact!!! End of story!!!! If you can't see that then you must be a "thick cunt" or a "tool" or a "bell end" (or indeed any of the other insults you were lobbing at fellow Blades over the last few days).

 

[Eric Cartman]

OH MY GOD!!!! HOW BORING!!!!!!!

Its obviously 3-5-2 and that's a fact!!! End of story!!!! If you can't see that then you must be a "thick cunt" or a "tool" or a "bell end" (or indeed any of the other insults you were lobbing at fellow Blades over the last few days).

It's extremely boring, I agree.

 

[pommpey]

I have not fiddled with my team management much as I know you can set different formations for attack and defend.

Oh, I've got Bash and JO'C off on surging runs forward and stuff. Enda Stevens has this knack of turning up on the end of a cross field ball and smacking it in to the far corner too. Like that's gonna happen.

pommpey