Sheffield United v Crystal Palace

[ThatJa]

No, no. We aren't playing them...

I've just been reading about De Boer being under pressure after 3 games in charge (bonkers imo) and the article states the players don't like the 3-5-2 formation De Boer is wanting them to play. Ian Wright says they look petrified and nobody wants the ball because the players don't fit that kind of system...

So that got me thinking, are we limited in terms of players we go for, maybe our success has been based on us having the right players for the right formation?

How would we fare if we were to change formations due to injuries for example? Its interesting.

Is Wilder just a better man manager than De Boer at getting players playing football in this formation?

IF De Boer gets sacked would Parish take a risk on Wilder, a man who has success playing the 3-5-2 formation...?

Here's the article
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41135109

On the following Monday, the Dutchman reportedly held talks with chairman Steve Parish, amid rumours the players were unhappy with the team's new tactics.

Was his job at stake already? Were the players just slow to adopt De Boer's new style?

Former Palace and England striker Ian Wright told BBC Radio 5 live he thought the Eagles "looked petrified" as they struggled to adapt to a new possession-based 3-5-2 system.

"Can the players even play in that style? Some of them didn't even want the ball," he said.

"It wasn't the kind of football where you could see what they were trying to do. [Striker] Christian Benteke's movement, for me, is quite poor if you're going to play that expansive game.

"When you watch a team like Palace trying to do it, the players just go into their shell because they don't want to give the ball away and that spreads to the fans."

 

[BushBlade]

No, no. We aren't playing them...

I've just been reading about De Boer being under pressure after 3 games in charge (bonkers imo) and the article states the players don't like the 3-5-2 formation De Boer is wanting them to play. Ian Wright says they look petrified and nobody wants the ball because the players don't fit that kind of system...

So that got me thinking, are we limited in terms of players we go for, maybe our success has been based on us having the right players for the right formation?

How would we fare if we were to change formations due to injuries for example? Its interesting.

Is Wilder just a better man manager than De Boer at getting players playing football in this formation?

IF De Boer gets sacked would Parish take a risk on Wilder, a man who has success playing the 3-5-2 formation...?

Here's the article
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41135109

There are three issues;

1. Palace have been set up as a direct side for a number of years under different managers. They have consistently recruited players to suit that style of play. They can't compete with the bigger clubs for 'complete' players so have chosen (in the main) strength, discipline and athleticism over technical ability.

2. De Boer has overestimated the players ability to adapt to his system. Their central defenders are head it and kick it types and their best striker likes balls in the air, to attack, and crosses. The defence and midfield don't have the technical ability to play out from the back. To implement his system they would have had to change at least half the team. They haven't. If he doesn't change his approach and find a compromise he'll get sacked before the end of November.

3. De Boer may be one of those managers who only does well at one club. The way Ajax are run is totally different to how Palace is. They have far more staff on the technical side supporting the manager, de Boer was more of a first team coach. Hence they've now brought in Dougie Freedman at Palace to help him find players. But the doubt remains that he may just be not very good.

If de Boer is sacked because he can't get the players to play 352, why would they appoint a manager who's going to do the same thing? Which Wilder wouldn't be stupid enough to do anyway. He'd have the sense to play four four fucking two and lump it to Benteke, because that's how Palace play.

It's rare that any PL club appoints an English manager from the championship so I'm not that worried.

 

[BushBlade]

'So that got me thinking, are we limited in terms of players we go for, maybe our success has been based on us having the right players for the right formation?

How would we fare if we were to change formations due to injuries for example? Its interesting.'

All teams outside the top half of the PL have to find the right players for the right formations. There are very few players with a full skill set so they end up at top clubs. Everyone else has to make a compromise between (generally speaking) technical ability and strength and athleticism. The further down the leagues you go, the more obvious and apparent it becomes.

If we had to change formation because of injury, we'd be very unfortunate as it would mean we had a glut of injuries in one or two positions, for example four central defenders injured. CW and AK would look to tweak the formation rather than do anything drastic but it could very well cost us. Every team is dependent on having its key players fit and available for the majority of games.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

'So that got me thinking, are we limited in terms of players we go for, maybe our success has been based on us having the right players for the right formation?

How would we fare if we were to change formations due to injuries for example? Its interesting.'

All teams outside the top half of the PL have to find the right players for the right formations. There are very few players with a full skill set so they end up at top clubs. Everyone else has to make a compromise between (generally speaking) technical ability and strength and athleticism. The further down the leagues you go, the more obvious and apparent it becomes.

If we had to change formation because of injury, we'd be very unfortunate as it would mean we had a glut of injuries in one or two positions, for example four central defenders injured. CW and AK would look to tweak the formation rather than do anything drastic but it could very well cost us. Every team is dependent on having its key players fit and available for the majority of games.

As we saw on the deadline day stuff, Wilder is building a squad with at least two players for every position to maintain the formation. However there are enough versatile players at the club to switch to say 4-4-2. Might mean Basham and Lafferty as full-backs and tweak to the midfield but it could be done.

 

[SwissBlade]

As we saw on the deadline day stuff, Wilder is building a squad with at least two players for every position to maintain the formation. However there are enough versatile players at the club to switch to say 4-4-2. Might mean Basham and Lafferty as full-backs and tweak to the midfield but it could be done.

I think it would be hard to do, we have wing backs and to play basham at right back for any period would see him get found out

We have a side suited to a back 3 and 2 wing backs, not sure why we need to change that to be honest

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

I think it would be hard to do, we have wing backs and to play basham at right back for any period would see him get found out

We have a side suited to a back 3 and 2 wing backs, not sure why we need to change that to be honest

As I said the squad is set up to play 3-5-2, so the likelihood of a change is unlikely, but if for a game or two it needed to change it could. Only a stop-gap though

 

[ShockingBadBuy]

Said it to Jr several times last season that we have done well to recruit several centre halves who are comfortable playing in a 3. It's not always easy for players who've spent years playing in a 4, as one of two in the middle, and it doesn't always work, even with supposedly better players. Remember what a mess it was when England played with wing backs and 3 CHs for the first time (was that under Hoddle or Venables) ?

 

[SwissBlade]

As I said the squad is set up to play 3-5-2, so the likelihood of a change is unlikely, but if for a game or two it needed to change it could. Only a stop-gap though

England proved yesterday that you need the players to play the system that Southgate wants. An extremely negative performance was magnified by the fact that players like Walker are not really suited to being a conventional fullback at international level.

I really struggle to see a game where Basham being a fullback in a flat back 4 would be a suitable option, unless we lost both wingbacks on both sides

 

[SwissBlade]

Said it to Jr several times last season that we have done well to recruit several centre halves who are comfortable playing in a 3. It's not always easy for players who've spent years playing in a 4, as one of two in the middle, and it doesn't always work, even with supposedly better players. Remember what a mess it was when England played with wing backs and 3 CHs for the first time (was that under Hoddle or Venables) ?

I think we've got the centre halves for that now.

 

[ShockingBadBuy]

I think we've got the centre halves for that now.

Yeah, I suppose I still think of the 1990s as if it was recent history. I guess the positional and technical abilities, and versatility, needed to be a top class central defender have developed a bit in the meantime

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

England proved yesterday that you need the players to play the system that Southgate wants. An extremely negative performance was magnified by the fact that players like Walker are not really suited to being a conventional fullback at international level.

I really struggle to see a game where Basham being a fullback in a flat back 4 would be a suitable option, unless we lost both wingbacks on both sides

In a 4-4-2 I'd be more worried about the midfield than the back four.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Judging by the highlights on Match of the Day, Palace look like United under Weir - manager trying to get the players to play a type of football they are not capable of. Wilder strikes me as smart enough to either adapt to the players he inherits, or acquire players to fit the system he wants to play.

 

[LenTednTony]

If I recall correctly, on the flipchart, CW had 351 442 and ( I think) 4321. It seemed as though he was ensuring he had players to fill all those roles.

 

[pommpey]

Did we not switch to 4-4-1-1 at Middlesborough?

3-5-2 is okay, but you're fucked if you're playing against fast wingers and your wide midfield/wingbacks aren't that mobile.

pommpey

 

[SwissBlade]

In a 4-4-2 I'd be more worried about the midfield than the back four.

Yeah hence no point in changing things as we don't have the players to play a very rigid system.

I'm sure freeman could play on the wing but he's not a winger

Yeah, I suppose I still think of the 1990s as if it was recent history. I guess the positional and technical abilities, and versatility, needed to be a top class central defender have developed a bit in the meantime

Absolutely, same with keepers because of the backpass, centrehalves have developed into ball carriers rather than just stoppers

Look at the likes of JOC and even Basham - they can actually dribble the ball!

 

[BushBlade]

Said it to Jr several times last season that we have done well to recruit several centre halves who are comfortable playing in a 3. It's not always easy for players who've spent years playing in a 4, as one of two in the middle, and it doesn't always work, even with supposedly better players. Remember what a mess it was when England played with wing backs and 3 CHs for the first time (was that under Hoddle or Venables) ?

From what I recall it was under Robson in 1990. Seemed to work quite well.

You're right though, not all CHs can play in a three.

 

[snootyfenooty]

Did we not switch to 4-4-1-1 at Middlesborough?

3-5-2 is okay, but you're fucked if you're playing against fast wingers and your wide midfield/wingbacks aren't that mobile.

pommpey

That's what I've been saying all along. Freeman especially has been made to look a mug on a few occasions this year. Hopefully a fit Baldock will take care of that when our formation goes to more of a 5-3-2 when we're under the cosh, but he's untested yet so let's wait and see.

 

[Pinchy]

Tufty constantly preaches proper football and playing the right way.

We are now contemplating him switching to 4-4-2 and "lumping it".

S2 wishful thinking?

 

[Ricky]

We've just passed the one year anniversary of our 3-5-2 / 3-4-1-2. It started on 4th September at Gillingham last year. What a system it's been for us. Our best for a very long time.

I hope we can carry on with it, there's no doubt the current squad is weighted in favour of this formation, and it suits our defenders and midfielders very well. So I think we will, we're quite committed to it.

A tweaking of this system to 3-4-2-1 is our most likely alternative, but other than that our options are somewhat limited as we don't have the wide players for other formations. We do now have a striker who can play the lone role though in Donaldson, so 4-2-3-1 is an option but we'd be quite reliant on Brooks providing the wide threat, with Duffy and Carruthers likely making up the 3.

On the top left corner of Wilder's tactics board on the deadline day video he's written, in order, 3-4-1-2, 3-4-2-1, 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-1-1. So it seems they're our likely options.

 

[BushBlade]

Tufty constantly preaches proper football and playing the right way.

We are now contemplating him switching to 4-4-2 and "lumping it".

S2 wishful thinking?

No, no one has said that.

 

[Harrisblade]

Tufty constantly preaches proper football and playing the right way.

We are now contemplating him switching to 4-4-2 and "lumping it".

S2 wishful thinking?

Pinchy imagination?

 

[Chali 2na]

Tufty constantly preaches proper football and playing the right way.

We are now contemplating him switching to 4-4-2 and "lumping it".

S2 wishful thinking?

Oh dear.

The posters have mainly been discussing the merits of different formations and the adaptability of managers/players.

You're the only one attempting to derail this thread, not your imaginary 's2' mob.

 

[PokerBlade]

You have to play to the strengths of your team. And once that system is established, new players will need to be able to adapt to that because you're not going to rejig you entire squad to accommodate for one new player.

I've written before about how demanding this system is on both physical and mental qualities of the individuals. You're not only asking fullbacks to cover a lot more ground, you're asking some of your midfielders to cover defensive positions while spearheading attacking moves, you're asking central defenders to be able to cover the width when others have drifted forward, and so on.

In my opinion though, it's key positions that are the toughest to recruit for. If you watch Wright's (or Stearman's) role then for the most part he gets the "easier" job of sitting in central position and acting like a good old fashioned defender, winning the high balls and such. O'Connell and Basham on the other hand are asked to bring the ball forward, allowed to get high up the pitch and support attacks on occasion, and sometimes need to cover the wide positions when the fullbacks have pushed up. Not surprising then that Basham's been a utility player and O'Connell's played at fullback.

Coutts gets to come deep for the ball, but mostly only needs to spread passes around. Fleck covers a huge amount of ground. You'll see him do everything from dribbling into the box to covering the fullbacks when teams counter attack. Duffy, as well, switches seamlessly between both wide positions and central support for the strikers.

Fullbacks get the toughest role in this system. They have to cover the most ground, do all the defensive work, and do the attacking job. If they don't fit the role then you end up woefully exposed at the back or toothless in the attack. I'd like to see Freeman improved upon, but he's a genuine all-rounder (more attack minded, but adequate in defence). If Brayford hadn't had all the injury problems, I'd have loved to see him on form in this team.

Strikers are the easiest in principle (but good strikers are hard to find in practice because everyone is constantly after them). They don't differ much from other systems in the sense that they score goals, make runs, hold the ball up, maybe work a bit of magic.

So, I'd say the Duffy and Fleck roles, along with the fullbacks are the hardest to recruit for, and it's not a coincidence that they're the positions we've struggled for cover for.

The thing that I think can be underestimated is the mentality required for this to work. It's one thing having the technical ability to play different roles, it's another to have your players drifting between them through a match without creating huge gaps across the pitch. O'Connell gets to dribble the ball out of defence, or make a run on the overlap, but he can't do that without a keen timing, and definitely not without the other players being immediately aware of where they now have to cover.

It doesn't surprise me if some of Palace's players can't cope with it at Prem level where every gap, every mistake, gets exploited. In spite of my confidence at the start we've had, I still expect us to get a few sound beatings this campaign from some of the better teams.

So, yes, I think this system makes it harder to recruit for. There aren't too many players that can't fit into a 442. But if we can establish ourselves and start attracting a higher caliber of player then, unlike "workmanlike" gerrit-forward Blackwell styles of our past, this formation can also bring the very best out of players.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

No No No.

We don't want runaround, lumpitup, gerritforrad, 4-4-2.

Tufty told me so.

Quite why I'm saying this, I have no idea.

 

[Pinchy]

Formations are hugely overrated. Football is a simple game. Pass it and move to get it back again. Suffocate the life out of the opposition if they dare to gain possession.

It's about quality players, not whiteboards, marker pens, arrows and squiggles.

I haven't the slightest interest in the digits and dashes. I doubt Tufty has a great deal more, bearing in mind any description of a midfielder beyond that simple, self-explanatory appellation "does 'is 'ead in"