Evolution

[SouthEssexBlade]

It’s about evolving my friend. Last season we played with a triangle in midfield, this season it’s a flat 3. Adaptation is something that I’m sure CWAK are working on behind the scenes. It’s not to be confused with knee jerk reaction.

Dumping what we have for 4 at the back is revolution not evolution. Dropping someone deeper in midfield is adapting the system. 4 at the back bins it completely.

Logically we don't have the players, defensively our wing backs aren't defensively strong enough to be in a 4. Not sure we have the midfielders to balance it out, and we don't have a hold it up there forward.

 

[Bladesman]

Dumping what we have for 4 at the back is revolution not evolution. Dropping someone deeper in midfield is adapting the system. 4 at the back bins it completely.

Logically we don't have the players, defensively our wing backs aren't defensively strong enough to be in a 4. Not sure we have the midfielders to balance it out, and we don't have a hold it up there forward.

4 at the back isn't us.

 

[CentralQuay]

But what you are suggesting isn't 'evolution' (like the Duffy for Lunny tweak), it's 'transformation' into a wholly different system that a lot of teams with more resources adopt. We really don't want to go 'toe-to-toe' with those teams, playing their way. The beauty of our system is it works for us given what we have and it's unique. We are the best team that plays it as it's a fluid team system that doesn't require a stand-out player or players.

I don't doubt in time we'll 'evolve' but it's early days and personally, I love watching how we play (when we actually turn up, that is). It's 'our kind of entertainment'. Brave, gutsy, original, and exciting. More of it I say until it becomes ineffective or we find something better.

UTB

People find this part insulting for some reason, when it's just the reality.
Wolves were similar, but had way more finances to add individual players like Jimenez/Jota/Traore to combine both the team aspect and individual quality.

Swansea/Stoke had a clear way of playing and had success at this level, until they abandoned their principles and are both now back in the championship.

 

[Bladesman]

People find this part insulting for some reason, when it's just the reality.
Wolves were similar, but had way more finances to add individual players like Jimenez/Jota/Traore to combine both the team aspect and individual quality.

Swansea/Stoke had a clear way of playing and had success at this level, until they abandoned their principles and are both now back in the championship.

Swansea had their managers poached and their new managers abandoned what made them tick. Then they ended up with Monk...

 

[IdLiketoRogerMoore]

People find this part insulting for some reason, when it's just the reality.
Wolves were similar, but had way more finances to add individual players like Jimenez/Jota/Traore to combine both the team aspect and individual quality.

Swansea/Stoke had a clear way of playing and had success at this level, until they abandoned their principles and are both now back in the championship.

I've read the Wolves comparison a lot, but find that lazy. They had a £30m Champions League midfielder whilst in the Championship!!

Southampton is probably a more realistic comparison and their model of selling their best players yet remaining competitive is more where we should be looking.

In answer to the OP - Tufty isn't going to suddenly start playing with 4 at the back.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

Dumping what we have for 4 at the back is revolution not evolution. Dropping someone deeper in midfield is adapting the system. 4 at the back bins it completely.

Logically we don't have the players, defensively our wing backs aren't defensively strong enough to be in a 4. Not sure we have the midfielders to balance it out, and we don't have a hold it up there forward.

It was revolutionary when we adopted our current overlapping CH’s system and I love it.
I’m not against the system. It’s not a case of me and you attacking and defending the system. I’m sure we both want to see exciting football and our team succeed. I just feel we need to continue to adapt and develop to take this team even further... to the next level!

 

[BushBlade]

Swansea had their managers poached and their new managers abandoned what made them tick. Then they ended up with Monk...

There are very few managers who can get a side with little money (by PL standards) playing attractive football successfully. The ones that do tend to get poached by big clubs, like Rodgers, or eventually run out of luck like Howe.
That’s football. The richest sides buy the best players and they play the best football. Occasionally a team breaks the mould but it’s never sustainable. The most successful non-big-six team in the last 30 years has been Leicester and they didn’t play nice passing football and look to out-football their richer rivals, they had a solid defence (and a world class DM), a striker with blistering pace and clinical finishing, a creative player who could play the right balls to serve the prolific twat and sat back, made themselves hard to beat and relied on counter attacking.

Swansea were never going to continue to out-football teams in the long term, once they’d lost Rodgers. He’s an excellent manager and clubs like Swansea aren’t going to keep attracting excellent managers. Sooner or later it goes tits up. If you’re Man U and it goes tits up, you just spend a load of money until it sorts itself out.

 

[IdLiketoRogerMoore]

It was revolutionary when we adopted our current overlapping CH’s system and I love it.
I’m not against the system. It’s not a case of me and you attacking and defending the system. I’m sure we both want to see exciting football and our team succeed. I just feel we need to continue to adapt and develop to take this team even further... to the next level!

Tufty has spent 4 years playing this system, has spent 4 years buying players to fit the system, a scouting network looking for players to play this system and no doubt has every age group playing with the same system.

Plus the system was working perfectly well up to 3 (well 60mins in the Newcastle game) games ago...

 

[CoatesyBlade]

Tufty has spent 4 years playing this system, has spent 4 years buying players to fit the system, a scouting network looking for players to play this system and no doubt has every age group playing with the same system.

Plus the system was working perfectly well up to 3 (well 60mins in the Newcastle game) games ago...

Ok this is turning into me being someone who is totally against the way we play and that’s not the case.
In response to this post though it kind of highlights the point I’m trying to make. Who has been brought in to play in place of Bash and JOC?
Was Sander brought in to replace Norwood? Our Vice Captain and playmaker!
And I agree with you... the system is a great one! It’s took us from tears to glory! I believe had COVID not interrupted the season and took the fans away from the game the last 3 games would have been completely different in our favour.
I just think Tufty and Knill are more forward thinking. I think we will be looking to adopt something new next season.
Of course I could be wrong. It was just food for thought as far as I was concerned.

 

[steve26272]

 

[S40BLADE]

It was revolutionary when we adopted our current overlapping CH’s system and I love it.
I’m not against the system. It’s not a case of me and you attacking and defending the system. I’m sure we both want to see exciting football and our team succeed. I just feel we need to continue to adapt and develop to take this team even further... to the next level!

Agree completely but it seems a good number only accept reading what they want from your posts to be to turn it into a argument instead of a interesting discussion about our football tactics.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

Agree completely but it seems a good number only accept reading what they want from your posts to be to turn it into a argument instead of a interesting discussion about our football tactics.

Yes exactly, thank you. It just excites me to see what CWAK will come up with next as I think they will make us even better next season.

I guess some people are just concerned I’m attacking the team in some way and are just being defensive. It’s understandable at the minute as there’s some shit being flung around lately.

Anyway, on to Sunday and a win against the Arse and everyone will be happy again! UTB!

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I actually just posted this in the Osborn thread but then thought I’d like to know what you all thought. So it’s a copy and paste job for those that have already read it. Sorry.

I think we need to change our formation next season. I’ve loved how innovative it’s been, how it’s got us to where we are today... it’s been a joy to watch!
But the roles are too specific. Imagine if Bash got injured now??
Ironically... moving to a back 4 however would probably mean loosing Bash to the bench. But I feel it’s something we have to look at moving forward.
The best teams in the World play 4-3-3 or
4-2-3-1... We at least need to be flexible enough to change should key players pick up injuries.

With the players we have currently it could go something like this:

Verrips
Baldock Egan O’Connell Stevens
Norwood Berge
Lundstram Fleck Freeman
Sharp

Or

Verrips
Baldock Egan O’Connell Osborn
Lundstram Berge Fleck
Zivkovic McBurnie Robinson

The squad and our play evolves each season, but it's highly unlikely that we're going to look at any major changes while we're unable to get it drilled on the training ground.
It's been said, by several posters on here that we think the championship formation with one of the 3 midfielders being more advanced will be the next stage now the defence has proven to be solid up until lockdown although we clearly need more depth.
Personally I'd like us to try Freeman and again as I've gone on about I'd also like us to pick up Eze for either that role or Didsy cover but I'll just cross my fingers around that.

From a current personnel perspective, it would most likely to be Fleck, Norwood and Berge playing for a first team start in the two deeper positions and to a degree playing on form as well as horses for courses.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

4 at the back isn't us.

you are right in that we don't start games in a 4 - but we have often move to a 4 during games for various reasons.

I wouldn't close my mind to CW/AK during something different - it all depends how they see us developing as a team.

Most tend to play with a 4 - the better teams now seem to play with a 4 and push the 2 fullbacks on as well.

Wolves appear to have moved their 3 at the back on during season 2 of being in the Prem - perhaps we might, but for me I see opposition teams closing us down very quickly all over the place especially as were not playing our usual high tempo stuff.

CW played 4 at the back at Northampton and he started it with us briefly.

If I had a choice to make - i'd keep 3 at the back but we must move to 3421 or 3412 and develop that way. I think we're in trouble next season if we play a flat 5 in midfield with similar personnel.

UTB

 

[FredZeppelin]

Ok this is turning into me being someone who is totally against the way we play and that’s not the case.
In response to this post though it kind of highlights the point I’m trying to make. Who has been brought in to play in place of Bash and JOC?
Was Sander brought in to replace Norwood? Our Vice Captain and playmaker!
And I agree with you... the system is a great one! It’s took us from tears to glory! I believe had COVID not interrupted the season and took the fans away from the game the last 3 games would have been completely different in our favour.
I just think Tufty and Knill are more forward thinking. I think we will be looking to adopt something new next season.
Of course I could be wrong. It was just food for thought as far as I was concerned.

Don't take it personally, mate. I don't think you come across as someone who is "against the way we play", or argumentative at all. How could anyone doubt what the playing and management squad have achieved over the last few years and not have enjoyed it immensely? I'm sure we all appreciate the position we are in at the moment, even if it does take some believing at times! I just think there's an element of "that's 3 games where it's not worked, we must look for an alternative", about the suggestion of switching to 4 at the back, that's all.

There is no doubt that we'll change in time. Maybe the SUFC of, say 2024, will look very different to what we see today. My opinion is just that 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it". The point I was trying to make is it wasn't the system that has failed us in the last 3 games, it was the players not getting the essential building blocks in place to enable the think to work in the first place. Something they did so admirably before the break.

No matter what we say, you're right, CW/AK will implement a system next season that they consider will be appropriate given our resources, targets, and expectations. Far too much good faith has been built up over the last three seasons for any of us to doubt that they'll get it right.

I suppose it's only because we've had the last 3 results that this is even a debate.

UTB

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

you are right in that we don't start games in a 4 - but we have often move to a 4 during games for various reasons.

I wouldn't close my mind to CW/AK during something different - it all depends how they see us developing as a team.

Most tend to play with a 4 - the better teams now seem to play with a 4 and push the 2 fullbacks on as well.

Wolves appear to have moved their 3 at the back on during season 2 of being in the Prem - perhaps we might, but for me I see opposition teams closing us down very quickly all over the place especially as were not playing our usual high tempo stuff.

CW played 4 at the back at Northampton and he started it with us briefly.

If I had a choice to make - i'd keep 3 at the back but we must move to 3421 or 3412 and develop that way. I think we're in trouble next season if we play a flat 5 in midfield with similar personnel.

UTB

At this level to play 2, you need 2 centre halves of the highest quality and we also lose so much instead of keeping the 3. Man City have come apart due to this and Liverpool have stepped onto another level now they've got VVD. The honest truth is that I'm not convinced we have 2 center backs who are good enough to fight it out at the top half of this league in a back 4 and you are looking at a minimum of £30 million to bring players in of the required level which we can't do.
As a three we can setup a real solid base, while developing our own talent and fishing in a different pool to the top teams plus we can continue using our really unique system which has performed well this season and still hasn't really been found out when we're on song. The Evolution should be to keep the formation in principle, and improving the technical level of the players that we put out in it.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

At this level to play 2, you need 2 centre halves of the highest quality

Agreed - but even as a three we need adequate replacements or even an upgrade to one of the existing three that play.

More of an issue is the flat 5 and front 2. It's got us a 2nd season in the prem - not convinced it will get us a third if we stick with it.

I think we are all grateful for a 2nd season, but we also miss the Duffy type role.

Some hard thinking to do by CW/AK

UTB

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Agreed - but even as a three we need adequate replacements or even an upgrade to one of the existing three that play.

More of an issue is the flat 5 and front 2. It's got us a 2nd season in the prem - not convinced it will get us a third if we stick with it.

I think we are all grateful for a 2nd season, but we also miss the Duffy type role.

Some hard thinking to do by CW/AK

UTB

I can't decide if he'll go with a forward and a McGoldrick in behind who feeds back into midfield or the balls out version of an attacking midfielder and 2 up top.
I think we also need to stop assuming we can replace players like for like. There isn't another Dids, Billy or Bash so we need to look at what skills and styles evolve the way we play. As I've said I'd like to see Eze, but I'd also like to see what Freeman can do and hope he gets a chance at Arsenal.
I do think the Berge signing does point to a deeper two going forward though once we've got the 3 weeks pre-season to drill it adequately which should be enough seeing as 3/4 of the team will have played it previously with us.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

The squad and our play evolves each season, but it's highly unlikely that we're going to look at any major changes while we're unable to get it drilled on the training ground.
It's been said, by several posters on here that we think the championship formation with one of the 3 midfielders being more advanced will be the next stage now the defence has proven to be solid up until lockdown although we clearly need more depth.
Personally I'd like us to try Freeman and again as I've gone on about I'd also like us to pick up Eze for either that role or Didsy cover but I'll just cross my fingers around that.

From a current personnel perspective, it would most likely to be Fleck, Norwood and Berge playing for a first team start in the two deeper positions and to a degree playing on form as well as horses for courses.

I would like to see those 3 players with Fleck in the advanced role. He’s our touch of quality and I think he would shine playing there!

 

[AdamSufc1997]

maybe try a winger formation definitely need pace

 

[CoatesyBlade]

Don't take it personally, mate. I don't think you come across as someone who is "against the way we play", or argumentative at all. How could anyone doubt what the playing and management squad have achieved over the last few years and not have enjoyed it immensely? I'm sure we all appreciate the position we are in at the moment, even if it does take some believing at times! I just think there's an element of "that's 3 games where it's not worked, we must look for an alternative", about the suggestion of switching to 4 at the back, that's all.

There is no doubt that we'll change in time. Maybe the SUFC of, say 2024, will look very different to what we see today. My opinion is just that 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it". The point I was trying to make is it wasn't the system that has failed us in the last 3 games, it was the players not getting the essential building blocks in place to enable the think to work in the first place. Something they did so admirably before the break.

No matter what we say, you're right, CW/AK will implement a system next season that they consider will be appropriate given our resources, targets, and expectations. Far too much good faith has been built up over the last three seasons for any of us to doubt that they'll get it right.

I suppose it's only because we've had the last 3 results that this is even a debate.

UTB

Summed it up perfectly!

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I would like to see those 3 players with Fleck in the advanced role. He’s our touch of quality and I think he would shine playing there!

Not sure he's got the makeup for that role at this level. I think he's a great player for us, but not sure he's a Premiership Duffy and I believe we get much more from him operating deeper alongside Norwood or Berge and pulling the strings and supporting attacks from there.

 

[broomhillblade]

I do think that these final games are an opportunity to try things for next year, both in terms of personnel and tactics. However, our defensive players are clearly better suited to a back three and our defensive record speaks for itself. It's really about what we do ahead of that.

The tight schedule means that there's no time to try out anything new in training. It's all about rest and recuperation between games.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

Not sure he's got the makeup for that role at this level. I think he's a great player for us, but not sure he's a Premiership Duffy and I believe we get much more from him operating deeper alongside Norwood or Berge and pulling the strings and supporting attacks from there.

I don’t think Berge is suited to the RM role though that’s the other problem. Of course then the other question is can Norwood and Berge play alongside each other in the DM role as a pair?

I’m not sure about Fleck either but I’d like to see him give it a go. Some of our players have improved immensely under CWAK... Baldock immediately springs to mind!

It will be interesting to see what happens whichever way we go.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I don’t think Berge is suited to the RM role though that’s the other problem. Of course then the other question is can Norwood and Berge play alongside each other in the DM role as a pair?

I’m not sure about Fleck either but I’d like to see him give it a go. Some of our players have improved immensely under CWAK... Baldock immediately springs to mind!

It will be interesting to see what happens whichever way we go.

It's not RM, it's DM so it's the role Berge was playing before joining us. With Fleck, I just don't think he has the raw materials to excel in that role and he does a good job on the left as he did playing next to Coutts and Norwood in the formation previously. You need those deeper lying playmakers to be able to step forward when needed, and Fleck would do that.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

It's not RM, it's DM so it's the role Berge was playing before joining us. With Fleck, I just don't think he has the raw materials to excel in that role and he does a good job on the left as he did playing next to Coutts and Norwood in the formation previously. You need those deeper lying playmakers to be able to step forward when needed, and Fleck would do that.

I’m a tad confused.
I was saying I’d like to see this:

Berge Norwood
Fleck

But questioned whether Berge and Norwood together as a DM pair would work.

You said you prefer Fleck playing deeper, so did you want:

Berge Norwood Fleck

That’s the position for Berge that I don’t think suits him... that’s what I was referring too as RM

Or would you like to see:

Berge
Norwood Fleck

Is that what you meant?

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I’m a tad confused.
I was saying I’d like to see this:

Berge Norwood
Fleck

But questioned whether Berge and Norwood together as a DM pair would work.

You said you prefer Fleck playing deeper, so did you want:

Berge Norwood Fleck

That’s the position for Berge that I don’t think suits him... that’s what I was referring too as RM

Or would you like to see:

Berge
Norwood Fleck

Is that what you meant?

You are playing all 3, which isn't what I was saying.

from a current personnel perspective, it would most likely to be Fleck, Norwood and Berge playing for a first team start in the two deeper positions and to a degree playing on form as well as horses for courses.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

You are playing all 3, which isn't what I was saying.

Ah ok... 2 from the 3... yeah I misread your post.

 

[Webding]

No point chucking the lot out after a few bad results, plus Wilder won’t want to ditch 3 at the back. We do need to solidify though, so I give you...



We inadvertently invented this in the match reaction pod last night. Not sure on a name though.

The house
The square (peg in round hole)
All strikers off the pace? Just don’t bother!
Super Formation 44
Gary

 

[finlaytheblade]

Yeah that’s fine mate. The post is more about the change of formation. The examples were just that.

We havnt got the quality to play 442 or even 433 .variations of 352 covers a lot of our weaknesses .We lack premiership quality
in our squad ( technic or nous if you like).
We have to find it in the window ,nothing wrong with our system extra quality would help the evolution of the system.
I think some of our players have burned out. Playing at your max is impossible to maintain and burn out follows.
Wilder has to find a way to lift em or this season is finished ,I dont envy his task but if anyone can do it he can.