3-5-2.. Adios old friend..

[zablade]

At least for two or three games.

It was jury out whether it would work without Coutts, no brainier it won’t work with Fleck also out.

4-5-1 for me now until after the Sunderland game.

....................Keeper

Baldock .. Stearman .. JOC.... Stevens

....................Bash

Brooks. Lundstrum. Duffy.... Carruthers

..................Clarke.



3-5-2. Would be suicide with the current options.

 

[SteveBlade]

Points are queer. We're not fucking Wednesday.

 

[Harry's Game]

At least for two or three games.

It was jury out whether it would work without Coutts, no brainier it won’t work with Fleck also out.

4-5-1 for me now until after the Sunderland game.

....................Keeper

Baldock .. Stearman .. JOC.... Stevens

....................Bash

Brooks. Lundstrum. Duffy.... Carruthers

..................Clarke.



3-5-2. Would be suicide with the current options.

I wouldn’t go as far as suicide, Preston are no great shakes and Sunderland are shit. But I take the Point that three in midfield without Coutts and Fleck looks worrying.

I would also however worry about the formation and selection you suggest where Brooks and Carruthers are expected to track back to help the full backs out.

But I am struggling to come up with other options. Our thin squad is starting to creak at the seams. Need the JTW to come along.

 

[John Street West Terrace]

Yeh because we,be been outclassed , hammered & bottom of the league ?..

 

[FinchleyBlade]

4th in the championship and after losing a few games due to injuries to key players and sendings off we must change the formation and how we play?

Thank Christ that Football Manager is the closest you can get to managing us.

 

[John Street West Terrace]

Agree FB have they ever plsyedth3 fucking game ????

 

[Champagneblade]

We outplayed Bristol for long periods playing 3-5-2.

I agree that we shouldn’t be married to a system but I’d be wary of making a change. Having to adapt without Fleck AND get comfort with a new system is going to be more challenging than just adapting without Fleck.

It’s our differentiator. Once we match up 4-4-2 to the opposition perhaps their more expensive players see us dominate less.

If you do change then I’d think 4-2-3-1 might be best suited.

The back 5 remains, only Basham steps out and into a deeper midfield two with Lundstram.

You then have scope for Brooks, Duffy and one more supporting. Clarke up top on his own, and when Billy isn’t scoring, that’s how he is anyway.

Otherwise you could dust off the Terry Venables Christmas tree. It’s that time of year afterall!

If you got a midfield three of Basham, Lundstram and Lafferty it would seem more defensively robust. You still have room then for Brooks and Duffy behind Clarke.

Issue with the latter two options is we drop Billy. When we’re losing key players, it’s a risk to start removing potential goal scorers from the pitch.

I’m just not clear right now what formation allows Sharp, Brooks, Clarke and Duffy all on the field at the same time without pushing Duffy and Brooks away from where they can be most influential.

 

[finlaytheblade]

We outplayed Bristol for long periods playing 3-5-2.

I agree that we shouldn’t be married to a system but I’d be wary of making a change. Having to adapt without Fleck AND get comfort with a new system is going to be more challenging than just adapting without Fleck.

It’s our differentiator. Once we match up 4-4-2 to the opposition perhaps their more expensive players see us dominate less.

If you do change then I’d think 4-2-3-1 might be best suited.

The back 5 remains, only Basham steps out and into a deeper midfield two with Lundstram.

You then have scope for Brooks, Duffy and one more supporting. Clarke up top on his own, and when Billy isn’t scoring, that’s how he is anyway.

Otherwise you could dust off the Terry Venables Christmas tree. It’s that time of year afterall!

If you got a midfield three of Basham, Lundstram and Lafferty it would seem more defensively robust. You still have room then for Brooks and Duffy behind Clarke.

Issue with the latter two options is we drop Billy. When we’re losing key players, it’s a risk to start removing potential goal scorers from the pitch.

I’m just not clear right now what formation allows Sharp, Brooks, Clarke and Duffy all on the field at the same time without pushing Duffy and Brooks away from where they can be most influential.

No way will we go with Brooks and carruthers in a 3-5-2.he may retain the system and bring in young Slater who's been training with the first team,he's been playing in a 3-5-2 for the development squad a very competitive player who wouldn't let us down.Only 17 but a real prospect

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

At least for two or three games.

It was jury out whether it would work without Coutts, no brainier it won’t work with Fleck also out.

4-5-1 for me now until after the Sunderland game.

....................Keeper

Baldock .. Stearman .. JOC.... Stevens

....................Bash

Brooks. Lundstrum. Duffy.... Carruthers

..................Clarke.



3-5-2. Would be suicide with the current options.

Isn't that 4-1-4-1

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

We outplayed Bristol for long periods playing 3-5-2.

I agree that we shouldn’t be married to a system but I’d be wary of making a change. Having to adapt without Fleck AND get comfort with a new system is going to be more challenging than just adapting without Fleck.

It’s our differentiator. Once we match up 4-4-2 to the opposition perhaps their more expensive players see us dominate less.

If you do change then I’d think 4-2-3-1 might be best suited.

The back 5 remains, only Basham steps out and into a deeper midfield two with Lundstram.

You then have scope for Brooks, Duffy and one more supporting. Clarke up top on his own, and when Billy isn’t scoring, that’s how he is anyway.

Otherwise you could dust off the Terry Venables Christmas tree. It’s that time of year afterall!

If you got a midfield three of Basham, Lundstram and Lafferty it would seem more defensively robust. You still have room then for Brooks and Duffy behind Clarke.

Issue with the latter two options is we drop Billy. When we’re losing key players, it’s a risk to start removing potential goal scorers from the pitch.

I’m just not clear right now what formation allows Sharp, Brooks, Clarke and Duffy all on the field at the same time without pushing Duffy and Brooks away from where they can be most influential.

You always talk a lot of bloody sense and I love it. Agree with all of the above Champers. Don't be so bloody stupid, Za we stick with 3-5-2. Our luck has to change soon, albeit probs after the next 3 games now.

 

[GreasyChipBeattie]

I say stick with the current 3-5-2 system.
I think it's fair to say Lunny has fitted in really well as shown when we were ripping 3rd placed BC apart with 11 men.
So really, we're looking to replace Flecky, not Flecky and Cooooouutts.
I think JF is the most replaceable out of him PC and MD.

 

[GreasyChipBeattie]

You always talk a lot of bloody sense and I love it. Agree with all of the above Champers. Don't be so bloody stupid, Za we stick with 3-5-2. Our luck has to change soon, albeit probs after the next 3 games now.

Morning Koz, hope you're well pal.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

Morning Koz, hope you're well pal.

Good morning, dear boy! I'm not bad but still can't believe how we didn't come away from last night without a draw at least. We've got to stick to our style of play, another night and we'd have scored 5..! Hope all is well your end.

 

[robbiez666]

The only way I can see this situation working is to flood the midfield. However, that means we'd need to find development players who can sit on the bench and ultimately won't likely give us enough enough goals.

I don't rate him but I'd put Samir in Fleck's position and give him an ultimatum. Show me you want to play for the team and the club or you're out in January. It's unlikely to work but I see few other options. Alternately, push Duffy into the Fleck role and start Brooks.

 

[GreasyChipBeattie]

Good morning, dear boy! I'm not bad but still can't believe how we didn't come away from last night without a draw at least. We've got to stick to our style of play, another night and we'd have scored 5..! Hope all is well your end.

My end is fine mate, somewhat under-used nowadays, but still functioning relatively well thanks.
Totally agree with you. No need imo to change the system at all.
I take the point that some have mentioned about shoring up and taking the draw when we are up against it, but a manager that does that is a manager that does the same when we're up against it at 2-2 against the Wendys!

 

[Bladey McBladeface]

Stick with 3-5-2 all day long. Put Carruthers in for Fleck and see how he performs. Failing that, we move Bash into midfield.

 

[finlaytheblade]

All this talk of throwing a point away ! Maybe we did but I agree with Wilder ,he loved how we played last night and most of the fans did ,no half measures in for the win even with ten men.Teams in this division struggle to live with us when we get going it's so eX citing to watch.
The model is cast and I think we will continue to play in a similar fashion but obviously as we progress the quality has to rise but the style is excellent great to Watch

 

[Rob86]

At least for two or three games.

It was jury out whether it would work without Coutts, no brainier it won’t work with Fleck also out.

4-5-1 for me now until after the Sunderland game.

....................Keeper

Baldock .. Stearman .. JOC.... Stevens

....................Bash

Brooks. Lundstrum. Duffy.... Carruthers

..................Clarke.



3-5-2. Would be suicide with the current options.

Not a bad idea. Rely on the 4 of Duffy, Brooks, Carruthers & Clarke to create something whilst Basham and Lundstrum would protect the back 4. We wouldn't be as attacking but it'd tighten us up and hopefully avoid a counter attack that we seem to concede from every game. No reason why Baldock and Stevens couldn't join the odd attack. We just don't want to end up camped in our own half. Attack being the best form of defence and all that.

I have watched Wolves a few times on the box and they rely on 4 or 5 attacking players to create goals without over committing, that way they remain solid at the back and are able to snuff out counter attacks. Whether our 4 or 5 will be as good is open to debate of course.

 

[BushBlade]

352. CCV RCB and Basham in CM with Lundstram. Yes I understand the negatives but it's still preferable to changing the formation and playing half the team in roles that don't suit them.

 

[snootyfenooty]

We went 4 at the back after then sending off and their No. 3 had more space down the left flank than he's probably had all season. Baldock may be a good wing back but as a traditional full back he didn't look so good. Stick with 3 at the back as long as Bash is right CB.

Yesterday was a point blown (and two extra points gifted to Bristol) due to bizarre substitutions, not formation.

 

[sitwell]

Stick with 3-5-2 all day long. Put Carruthers in for Fleck and see how he performs. Failing that, we move Bash into midfield.

Carruthers has to learn how to keep the ball in Utds possession , he is a terrible liability both on and off the ball at the moment.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

We have to stick with 3-5-2, it is the very reason we have been successful and it is the very reason that this is the most exciting United side I have watched in my lifetime, the football is an utter joy to watch and we are very fortunate. We take the game to the opposition most weeks and I'm very proud of my side.

From the attacking full-backs, to the overlapping centre backs, the hard working centre forwards and the dynamic midfield, we have to stay true to our blue print. It's not as if it isn't working, we hit the woodwork 4 times yesterday and dominated possession until the sending off - any other night we could have been 4-1 up. We have had some significant players missing through injury, and now through suspension - but we have the squad players to step in. To change personnel and change the system which has been successful would be foolish.

 

[DronnieBlade]

Moore
CCV Stearman JOC
Baldock Stevens
Bash Lundy
Duff
Clarke Sharp.

I wouldnt presume the gaffer will abandon the 3:4:1:2 just yet.

Why would he ? Its been at the heart of our success and a key reason we have accumulated a shitload of points.

UTB

 

[Ginger Gnome]

Changing from 3-5-2 as we don't have the players for a three man midfield wouldn't be the most stupid suggestion, if the plan wasn't to replace it with 4-5-1, which still needs 3 in central midfield.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Yesterday was a point blown (and two extra points gifted to Bristol) due to bizarre substitutions, not formation.

We were also fairly dire at Millwall when we switched formations in response to their 2nd goal. Our ability to create anything disappeared, and we could barely keep hold of the ball.

Ditching the system isn’t the way to go – Jonathan Buchan asked Wilder a week ago whether he’d been considering changing the system, to which Wilder’s response was “are you serious???”

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

I agree with the OP.

We had great times last season and find ourselves in the top six despite a slump of late.

The best performances and football i've seen in a long long time....and a strategy that the opposition more often than not, can't deal with.

So yeah, let's scrap it all :-/

 

[DeanLearner'sCat]

I think in difficult away games like we've got coming up, we need to set up like we did at Hillsborough. Sacrifice Billy for an extra body in midfield, and then get Duffy (or Brooks) to play off Leon. I'd be less worried about Carruthers if Basham is in there with him and Lundstrum.

 

[Bladey McBladeface]

Carruthers has to learn how to keep the ball in Utds possession , he is a terrible liability both on and off the ball at the moment.

I think he can do that job but he keeps coming on with 10 minutes to go when we are behind, so you can hardly blame him for running at players and trying to create something.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Carruthers has to learn how to keep the ball in Utds possession , he is a terrible liability both on and off the ball at the moment.

He could be on his way in the JTW - always liked his potential, but he just looks like a disinterested passenger at the moment.

CW has said possibly 2 or 3 out in Jan - he could be one of them.

UTB

 

[mancunianblade]

Keep back 5 as is. Carruthers in for Fleck or if CW thinks this leaves us exposed then put CCV in Centre Mid.