FWIW I'd go 4-3-1-2

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

Champagneblade

Champagneblade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
10,802
Reaction score
27,396
I've not been in favour of changing the formation at all.

But the aim surely has to be to have your best XI on the field at any given time.

Without O'Connell definitely and quite possibly Ampadu, we're either reliant on Stevens out of position at centre back and Lowe playing LWB or Robinson at LCB and Stevens at LWB. At this point in time and this level I don't think either of those in the first team makes the defence good enough.

So I'd drop to a back 4 of Baldock, Basham, Egan and Stevens hopefully. If not, I'd even play Osborn LB.

Probably gives me a midfield three of Berge, Norwood and Fleck.

It would then give a chance to have McGoldrick in the hole behind McBurnie and Brewster. Still gives options to throw Sharp and Burke up top.

Once we get players back, I'm all for 3-4-1-2 or 3-5-2 but for now I'd prefer a team that contains Brewster over Lowe/Robinson.
 

Whenever we sign a player and they don't hit the ground running the general narrative is that it takes quite a while to learn our system, so why do people then clamour to change that system and expect the players just to slot in and perform brilliantly in it?

Our formation has got us to where we are, we aren't getting brushed aside by teams (Chelsea match aside) we're competing in every game but it just isn't happening for us at the moment. It ain't broke (just a little battered through injuries) so it doesn't need fixing!
 
NuddysGloves said:
Whenever we sign a player and they don't hit the ground running the general narrative is that it takes quite a while to learn our system, so why do people then clamour to change that system and expect the players just to slot in and perform brilliantly in it?

Our formation has got us to where we are, we aren't getting brushed aside by teams (Chelsea match aside) we're competing in every game but it just isn't happening for us at the moment. It ain't broke (just a little battered through injuries) so it doesn't need fixing!
Click to expand...
Our formation didn't have Robinson at LCB or Lowe at LWB.

I'd be loathe to change formation but we are having to pick players who are simply not up to it, to retain the same shape.
 
Completely agree.

I’ve been a huge fan of the system, but we’ve failed since March to replace JOC, and I’d rather use the extra player in midfield and get pace up front.

It’s not taking a wrecking ball to everything in my opinion. Keeps the flat 3 in midfield and 2 up front. Gives us a link player in the Duffy role.
 
Last edited:
'Definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results'

Albert Einstein
 
JKBlade said:
Completely agree.

I’ve been a huge fan of the system, but we’ve failed since March to replace JOC, and I’d rather use the extra player in midfield and get pace up front.

It’s not taking a wrecking ball to everything in my opinion. Keeps the flat 3 in midfield and 2 up front. Gives us a link player in the Duffy role.
Click to expand...
There isn't much change as you say, 4/5 of the 3-5-2 are in their regular positions more or less, same with the midfielder 3, same with 2 forwards. Just giving the no 10 a role at the expense of the additional defender option of which both incumbents probably aren't up to it at this level.

I'd say patterns of play would remain relatively constant, you'd just reintroduce no 10 and try to retain possession higher up.
 
Champagneblade said:
I've not been in favour of changing the formation at all.

But the aim surely has to be to have your best XI on the field at any given time.

Without O'Connell definitely and quite possibly Ampadu, we're either reliant on Stevens out of position at centre back and Lowe playing LWB or Robinson at LCB and Stevens at LWB. At this point in time and this level I don't think either of those in the first team makes the defence good enough.

So I'd drop to a back 4 of Baldock, Basham, Egan and Stevens hopefully. If not, I'd even play Osborn LB.

Probably gives me a midfield three of Berge, Norwood and Fleck.

It would then give a chance to have McGoldrick in the hole behind McBurnie and Brewster. Still gives options to throw Sharp and Burke up top.

Once we get players back, I'm all for 3-4-1-2 or 3-5-2 but for now I'd prefer a team that contains Brewster over Lowe/Robinson.
Click to expand...
This
 
Professional players should be able to learn to play in different formations. It’s not rocket science. It’s about tweaking things like when you press, how often you press and where you put the defensive line. If you are scoring no goals and creating very little it’s a good idea to try something different.
 
PurpleRain said:
Professional players should be able to learn to play in different formations. It’s not rocket science. It’s about tweaking things like when you press, how often you press and where you put the defensive line. If you are scoring no goals and creating very little it’s a good idea to try something different.
Click to expand...
As a matter of interest, how do Beerschot usually set up?
 
SteveBlade said:
Nah, forget changing anything. 3-5-2 got us to where we are and it will work forever, no point changing it. Just because it isn't working doesn't mean that it doesn't work, it's worked before so it will absolutely work always.
Click to expand...


pommpey
 
As im not that bright, my take to play overlapping centre halves is put basham in the centre of the 3 and let him go overlapping on either side, seen as though hes like the duracell bunny, then play 2 who can play 4 at the back, its simple from my armchair
 
Champagneblade said:
I've not been in favour of changing the formation at all.

But the aim surely has to be to have your best XI on the field at any given time.

Without O'Connell definitely and quite possibly Ampadu, we're either reliant on Stevens out of position at centre back and Lowe playing LWB or Robinson at LCB and Stevens at LWB. At this point in time and this level I don't think either of those in the first team makes the defence good enough.

So I'd drop to a back 4 of Baldock, Basham, Egan and Stevens hopefully. If not, I'd even play Osborn LB.

Probably gives me a midfield three of Berge, Norwood and Fleck.

It would then give a chance to have McGoldrick in the hole behind McBurnie and Brewster. Still gives options to throw Sharp and Burke up top.

Once we get players back, I'm all for 3-4-1-2 or 3-5-2 but for now I'd prefer a team that contains Brewster over Lowe/Robinson.
Click to expand...

I could get behind that

Ramsdale
Baldock - Basham - Egan - Stevens
Berge - Norwood - Fleck
McGoldrick
McBurnie - Brewster​
 

Champagneblade said:
As a matter of interest, how do Beerschot usually set up?
Click to expand...
We play 3 different systems. We won promotion in the 3-5-2 system and also started well with that system in first division. But because of injuries and the introduction of Coulibaly we mixed it up and have played 3-4-3 and recently 4-3-1-2. It also depends on the players you have available. I don’t like managers who want to play their system even if they have players who would benefit from a different system. You have to be flexible and adapt to different situations.
 
"Jack Robinson isn't good enough, we should play Stevens LCB and Lowe LWB because he looked decent in the cup".

Wilder does this, we lose and Lowe looks poor.

Fans - "we should play Ampadu LCB because he's looked decent when he's played"

Wilder does this and we lose

Fans - we should change formation, Wilder never does anything new.......





Personally I think we play with 3 CB's because individually our players are no where near as good as the strikers at this level. The system allows us to not have strikers with too many opportunities of 1 on 1's with our defenders. Egan is constantly coming across on the cover and does it very well. It's an example of the unit together are greater than the sum of the parts. I can see why fans want to change it up and try something new but honestly I think we'd see a lot more 3 and 4 nil losses if we did and I don't think there's any guarantee that we'd start creating more either.
 
L1AM_SUFC said:
"Jack Robinson isn't good enough, we should play Stevens LCB and Lowe LWB because he looked decent in the cup".

Wilder does this, we lose and Lowe looks poor.

Fans - "we should play Ampadu LCB because he's looked decent when he's played"

Wilder does this and we lose

Fans - we should change formation, Wilder never does anything new.......





Personally I think we play with 3 CB's because individually our players are no where near as good as the strikers at this level. The system allows us to not have strikers with too many opportunities of 1 on 1's with our defenders. Egan is constantly coming across on the cover and does it very well. It's an example of the unit together are greater than the sum of the parts. I can see why fans want to change it up and try something new but honestly I think we'd see a lot more 3 and 4 nil losses if we did and I don't think there's any guarantee that we'd start creating more either.
Click to expand...

Good post.

I would also worry if we tried a few of the suggested line ups on here and think we would concede early in a lot of games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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