5 at the back

[Roygbiv]

I disagree with the "we need a defensive midfielder" thing. We need 2 mobile players in there who can get forward and back. We have 3 CB's and the wide CB's don't go forward anywhere near as much as previously.

Wes, Baldock, AA, Egan, RND. That's defensively average or above players across the lot of them.

With McAtee coming in we currently have/will soon have Berge, Ndiaye, Khadra, Doyle, McAtee, Sharp and Brewster who most would see as above average options going forward (not sure I 100% agree but still) with Jebbison, Osula, McBurnie etc to back them up. To sit an extra one of them down to accommodate bog standard players like Clark, JLT etc is frankly horrendous use of resources.

Yeah defensive midfielder is the wrong term but a box to box is a must with 4 at the back. I completely agree with the current 3 at the back offers basically nothing going forward which, added to our non attacking wing backs, means we are pretty much playing 5-3-1-1 at the moment

 

[Carlton Blade]

Yeah defensive midfielder is the wrong term but a box to box is a must with 4 at the back. I completely agree with the current 3 at the back offers basically nothing going forward which, added to our non attacking wing backs, means we are pretty much playing 5-3-1-1 at the moment

Yep. If we are going to stick with 352 I'd like to see AA in the middle and given responsibility for starting attacks in the way Norwood is currently. Tell Norwood to fuck off further forward or sit down and let someone else do it. Too many times last night we had Norwood on the ball 35 yards from our goal (again) with the back 5 and Fleck behind him.

 

[coaxingstar71]

As Brian Clough once said, tactics and formations don't win or lose you games, players do.

Quite simply, too many of our players did not play well enough. Whether you play a back 5 or a back 4, if you play shit and you make poor mistakes, then you're going to get punished.

 

[3Cheers4Ramirez]

Should stick with back 5 for now but sticking to it religiously when we barely have any suitable options there is bloody stupid and stubborn and makes the manager look like an amateur

 

[Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou]

I disagree with the "we need a defensive midfielder" thing. We need 2 mobile players in there who can get forward and back. We have 3 CB's and the wide CB's don't go forward anywhere near as much as previously.

Wes, Baldock, AA, Egan, RND. That's defensively average or above players across the lot of them.

With McAtee coming in we currently have/will soon have Berge, Ndiaye, Khadra, Doyle, McAtee, Sharp and Brewster who most would see as above average options going forward (not sure I 100% agree but still) with Jebbison, Osula, McBurnie etc to back them up. To sit an extra one of them down to accommodate bog standard players like Clark, JLT etc is frankly horrendous use of resources.

Surely we haven't signed Doyle as an attacking midfielder with all the options we have? In the midfield two I presumed.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Surely we haven't signed Doyle as an attacking midfielder with all the options we have? In the midfield two I presumed.

I don't know. There's been some stuff out of City about them seeing him as a 10. But tbh, I think City might have decided he's not going to make it there anyway so there might not be any instructions from them

 

[Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou]

I don't know. There's been some stuff out of City about them seeing him as a 10. But tbh, I think City might have decided he's not going to make it there anyway so there might not be any instructions from them

I had the impression he was a midfielder and McAtee and Palmer were the new Foden's attacking wise.

 

[Carlton Blade]

I had the impression he was a midfielder and McAtee and Palmer were the new Foden's attacking wise.

McAtee, coincidentally has played in CM on occasion as well

 

[tincan]

As Brian Clough once said, tactics and formations don't win or lose you games, players do.

Quite simply, too many of our players did not play well enough. Whether you play a back 5 or a back 4, if you play shit and you make poor mistakes, then you're going to get punished.

The problem was for the 3rd consecutive season the team starts unfit. 2020 no wins in 17, 2021 no wins in 5 and now yesterdays debacle where they had little 1st touch, weak tackles and played like strangers. 3 separate coaches as well only Hecky working out an adaptive 352, which resurrected last season.

 

[robbiez666]

There is an argument that we only have one good wingback and he's out injured.

I fear We don't have The CBs to play in a two. No idea about Anel but the rest are a mix of too slow and don't really dominate enough.

If we did go to a 4 then it would be something like
-----------------------------Wes
Baldock------------Anel-----------Egan-------------RND
-----------------Doyle-------Norwood-----Fleck
------------------------------Berge
---------------------Ndiaye-------Brewster

I suspect though, if we did change formation, we would not be in with a shot of promotion this season. Takes time to get the right players in and get used to it. Berge clearly want to play as a deep-lying playmaker so you could swap him for Kedra and drop Norwood. Or play Ndiaye there and have Brewster and Jebbo or Sharp up top.

Your perfect world would probably have a shield player in the Norwood role. Kante type. Defensively minded, covers the defence and puts a foot in.

Given all our teams from juniors up are drilled in 532 or 5213 it's a big step.

 

[Snowflake]

Why do we have to play wingers just to play 4 at the back?

Of course not.
Are there any wingers left in senior football now ?

 

[Rodley]

4-2-3-1

Fod
Baldock - Anel - Egan - Lowe
Arblaster - Basham
Khadra - Berge - Ndiaye
Brewster

Berge as a 10, Ndiaye wide left. Arblaster and Basham deep lying centre mids.

 

[BushBlade]

Whenever you look at formations you have to ask yourself “how does it work?” What qualities are needed in the players for the system to be effective. What does the defensive version look like and what does the attacking version look like? For example, 442 can be a defensive formation, where you play four central midfielders, narrow, let one of the strikers work the channels and have one of the four breaking when you’re attacking. Or it can be attacking, where the wide midfielders are more like forwards, looking to join the attack at every opportunity, so it becomes almost a 424. It’s a question of how many players get in front of the ball when you’re in possession.

Every formation has attacking and defensive variations. 4231 is no different. You could have a Pochettino style 4231, with two box to box midfielders, playing a high line and pressing from the front, with the two CMs supporting the press, or a Van Gaal style, with two holding midfielders and a low block.

So, when discussing formations, it’s always helpful to explain how it’s going to work and why it suits the players that are available.

 

[Fatlad666]

Formation would work , it won't whilst fleck and Norwood are playing paper scissors stone with each other when the game is going on around them. Until we drop them off at the station our attacking prowess is limited

 

[Danetheblade]

4-2-3-1

Fod
Baldock - Anel - Egan - Lowe
Arblaster - Basham
Khadra - Berge - Ndiaye
Brewster

Fod
Baldock - Anel - Egan - Lowe
Berge/Arblaster - Doyle/Fleck
Khadra - Mcatee - Ndiaye
Brewster/Sharp

That'd be my team. Really do think it's time to bin 3/5 at the back.

 

[Pedro Verde]

Fod
Baldock - Anel - Egan - Lowe
Berge/Arblaster - Doyle/Fleck
Khadra - Mcatee - Ndiaye
Brewster/Sharp

That'd be my team. Really do think it's time to bin 3/5 at the back.

Fleck and Lowe in a 4231 no thank you

 

[Danetheblade]

Fleck and Lowe in a 4231 no thank you

If if were left to me Fleck would be no where near the squad. But as a make do.. definitely imo. Lowe interchanged with RND.

 

[Badger Blade]

We can play 3/5 at the back without overlapping centre backs (everyone else seems to) but the wingbacks are key and if they're average like ours are then we don't offer much threat. The fact that we've signed AA and Clark means that we could go 4 at the back without the baggage that the others are carrying with being so ingrained in one system.

I think that Baldock and RND are more like bog standard full backs than wing backs based on their lack of attacking prowess. Bogle is the only player who I feel can do the role justice while Osborn could probably do a job on the left (assuming nobody hits too many long diagonals in hia direction) but you could say he could "do a job" in most positions without excelling at any of them as an upgraded version of Nick Montgomery.

We could easily go 4231 simply by phasing out Wilder's old boys, we simply have to do that to start moving forward. Sooner Doyle is fit and Khadra is in the starting line up the better because seeing this version of John Fleck in the team is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Champagneblade]

As Brian Clough once said, tactics and formations don't win or lose you games, players do.

Quite simply, too many of our players did not play well enough. Whether you play a back 5 or a back 4, if you play shit and you make poor mistakes, then you're going to get punished.

That's very true. Far too many basic errors; cocking up throw ins, miscontrolling the ball as well as the usual passing backwards and sideways.

Osborn in particular as well as Baldock both had moments where simple ball control let them down and lost us possession where they shouldn't have.

 

[Lmaobob]

Berge playing centrally and more attacking. I fucking LOVE IT

Keep playing 5 at the back as long as we get numbers forward and have a player behind the strikers rather than flat 3 in midfield