Team formation and changes

[FriethBlade]

Its clear things aren't quite clicking at present and with JOC out and our full backs struggling to get forward maybe its time to go 442?

How about this for this for a 442 formation?

Ramsdale

Baldock, Basham, Egan, Lowe

Burke, Berge, Norwood, Fleck

Brewster, McBurnie

It would allow Norwood to sit deep and let Sander get forward from centre midfield. We could utilise Burkes pace out wide and see if our two most expensive strikers can forge a partnership as surely we shouldn't spent 40m to leave one of them on the bench and they are the age where they will stull get better.

 

[robbiez666]

I'm not convinced we can play 4 at the back. I remember Bash playing there and I'd rather not. Egan is too slow and we've seen how he deals with long high balls! They work well in a 5 but I just can't see it in a 4.

 

[Millhousesblade1889]

Fleck definitely couldn't play left wing. Unfortunately we have a squad built around the system we play so theres not many options to change the set-up

 

[Iceybabey]

It has been stated that Bash has said he's not comfortable in a pair

 

[Swannyblade]

I’d only consider 4 at the back with a pairing of Egan and Ampadu with a diamond in midfield.
I still have reservations though because there’s a lack of width if the full-backs get pinned back (would also break my heart to drop Bash)

—————-Ramsdale
Baldock—Egan—Ampadu—Stevens
——————Norwood
———-Berge————Fleck
——————McGoldrick
———-McBurnie——Brewster

 

[FriethBlade]

Swanny I like the look of that but it would be harsh to drop Basham as he's been one of the few players who has done ok so far this season

 

[HeySethUTB]

Didzy or fleck in behind, OliMac and Brewster. Norwood and Berge the midfield pivot, taking it in turns to join in attacks. Ampadu to replace Robinson, offers more on the ball/range of passing and with Norwood and Berge we would probably increase our chances of keeping hold of possession for longer periods of time.

With fleck in their you could still revert back to a flat three if needed, with Didzy a front three if chasing a game. If content on playing long for OliMac having a couple of players buzzing around him might help us collect the scraps.

 

[Wards]

I’d only consider 4 at the back with a pairing of Egan and Ampadu with a diamond in midfield.
I still have reservations though because there’s a lack of width if the full-backs get pinned back (would also break my heart to drop Bash)

—————-Ramsdale
Baldock—Egan—Ampadu—Stevens
——————Norwood
———-Berge————Fleck
——————McGoldrick
———-McBurnie——Brewster

Basically my side and formation on another thread. Lowe for Stevens and perhaps Bogle for Baldock for me but I wouldn’t argue with that XI you’ve put down.

 

[HeySethUTB]

——————--Ramsdale
————Basham Egan Ampadu
—Baldock —————————Stevens
—————-Norwood Berge
———————Didzy/Fleck
—————-Mcburnie Brewster

 

[Deadbat]

A lot saying we cannot change the formation as it has served us well for 4 years but we have lost 7 on the bounce and currently we are losing games every week. Surely it has to be a consideration. I think I would do something like the below

-------------Ramsdale--------------
Baldock--Bash--Egan--Ampadu--Lowe
-----------Norwood-Berge------------
------------------Fleck-------------------
-----------Brewster--Burke------------

 

[Kevincarterversion2.0]

I'm not sure CW has signed players to allow us to properly change it....

I agree though, something needs to change (system or personal-wise) and it's not working as things stand.

 

[Swannyblade]

A lot saying we cannot change the formation as it has served us well for 4 years but we have lost 7 on the bounce and currently we are losing games every week. Surely it has to be a consideration. I think I would do something like the below

-------------Ramsdale--------------
Baldock--Bash--Egan--Ampadu--Lowe
-----------Norwood-Berge------------
------------------Fleck-------------------
-----------Brewster--Burke------------

I’ve wanted us to play the double pivot for a while but recent performances have concerned me.
It’s crucial that the wing-backs aren’t pinned back and whoever replaces JOC must get forward to create the overloads. Also got reservations over Fleck as the AM...wish we had another 20mil for Buendia or Brooks.
Fulham game is huge now - if we can’t impose our style of play on them, we really are looking desperate. And by style, I mean recapture the kind of performances we were producing autumn last year - Spurs away, Man Utd etc.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It has been stated that Bash has said he's not comfortable in a pair

Pair of what, French knickers?

 

[sufcboy95]

352 has come as far as it’s going too. Having attitude of we can’t change system because it’s done well last 3 years is idiotic.
It worked well we were having plenty of possession and creating overloads all over the pitch. None of that is happening anymore.

————————Ramsdale——————————
Baldock——-Egan—————Ampadu———Lowe
————————-Norwood——————————
————Berge————————Fleck—————
—————————-Didsy——————————
—————Brewster—————-Mcburnie————

Egan and Ampadu are our 2 best defenders. Didsy works hard enough and always drops deep anyway to be able to play at top of diamond. Also adds more to midfield to help us keep hold of ball better. Mcburnie and Brewster are our 2 best strikers.
If we were playing one of the top teams you could even take Brewster or Mcburnie out and put in another midfielder

 

[AWetFlannel]

We don't have the personnel.

We don't have anybody comfortable playing as a 10, and most of our defenders are well suited to a back 3.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

 

[Bladesman]

Why not just go back to the formation that got us two fucking promotions.

 

[ChipButtyBlade]

4-1-4-1 like Leeds.

Baldock-Basham-Egan-Stevens
Ampadu
Bogle- Berge-McGoldrick-Lowe
Brewster

 

[mattbianco1]

What about something like this? Not too drastic of a change. Fleck and Burke would be expected to get forward to help Brewster, but we would still have 2 central midfielders.



It would be very easy to switch up formations, without having to make a substitution too: