Can Someone Share Today's Formation??

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


It was (at least out of possession) something like:

--------------------------Cooper-------------------------
-----Tanganga---McGuiness----Mee----------
Ogbene --------------Peck-----------------Burrows
----------------Hamer---------Soumare-------------
-------------------------O'Hare----------------------------
----------------------Campbell--------------------------

So, a variation of 3-5-2/5-3-2 with Peck sitting deepest and O'Hare almost forming the top of a diamond in the middle and being a second forward when we had the ball.
 
It was (at least out of possession) something like:

--------------------------Cooper-------------------------
-----Tanganga---McGuiness----Mee----------
Ogbene --------------Peck-----------------Burrows
----------------Hamer---------Soumare-------------
-------------------------O'Hare----------------------------
----------------------Campbell--------------------------

So, a variation of 3-5-2/5-3-2 with Peck sitting deepest and O'Hare almost forming the top of a diamond in the middle and being a second forward when we had the ball.
I thought it was a back 4 for the first 20mins or so, then noticed Ogbene get deeper. Could be wrong. Soumare looked uncomfortable out on the left, but assume it was supposed to be Chong's role.
 
It was (at least out of possession) something like:

--------------------------Cooper-------------------------
-----Tanganga---McGuiness----Mee----------
Ogbene --------------Peck-----------------Burrows
----------------Hamer---------Soumare-------------
-------------------------O'Hare----------------------------
----------------------Campbell--------------------------

So, a variation of 3-5-2/5-3-2 with Peck sitting deepest and O'Hare almost forming the top of a diamond in the middle and being a second forward when we had the ball.
Thanks

Strange, I would've thought Peck and Soumare would have swapped places
 
It was a revolutionary formation never seen before and will be talked about for years. It’ll be dubbed “Underlapping anyfuckers” and I don’t want to get everyone too excited but I think we might win the champions league playing it.
 
I think it was a little confusing at times. Tanganga drifted wider to allow Ogbene to play further forward, especially when we had the ball. But out of possession it definitely looked like a 3-5-2 for the most part.

I thought the back 3 were excellent btw.
It was a little strange but it worked.
It was kind of a back 3 most of the time with Tanganga as an almost orthodox RB and McGuinness and Mee covering the centre and left… Burrows dropped in occasionally but seemed to be the outlet down the left.

Soumares and Ogbene looked lost first half with Hamer and O’Hare doing a lot of running around Peck.

Certainly Pecks best game this season and was my MoM.

Campbell looked better and had chances, but ended up out wide sometimes, which meant we had no attacking threat in the box

It seemed a bit unbalanced but as I say, it seemed to work. We were worryingly deep later in the game

I don’t mean to be disrespectful to Oxford United but I think we’d get dragged all over at the back against better sides, though Lankshear was a threat.

Not taking anything away, we played well. We got the win and that’s the main thing for now.
 
It was a 5-1-2-1-1 out of possession (diamond) and a 4-1-2-3 diamond with 1 asymmetrical winger in possession, it was a good choice once we are confident and playing again I think a 4-1-2-2-1 (2 no 10.5s that can drift outside to cross or ahead of striker on the fly or act as pivots for the rcm, lcm, rb, lb to overlap individually to maintain shape for defense) ohare, chong, hamer, ogbene, Barry, Brooks or even a striker could all offer different styles of play from these two positions think it would improve our attack making it more unpredictable and give our strikers a triangle to play in
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom