What is our best formation?

[Bergen Blade]

3-5-2 seems very popular among fans, but the last three times we've started with it, Wilder has changed it to get the desired result. What is the best formation for us long term?

Should we be looking to settle on one specific formation or keep changing between several different ones?

 

[secretchief]

At the risk of stating the obvious, he tends to change it when we go behind, but we are going behind through what would be termed individual errors as opposed to stuffs occurring specifically due to being outplayed or necessarily being attributable to the formation per se.

Conversely, there is less likelihood of him changing the formation while we are ahead, for obvious reasons.

I think he'd play with wingers if he had them.

Also, bear in mind we were meant to be getting tons of goals because of Hussey's crossing/dead ball ability as part of a flat back four.

 

[RealMcCoy]

3-5-2 seems very popular among fans, but the last three times we've started with it, Wilder has changed it to get the desired result. What is the best formation for us long term?

Should we be looking to settle on one specific formation or keep changing between several different ones?

Yes

 

[Caseh]

I personally like 3 at the back formations, think it's because of Football Manager tbh.

That said, I think it's great that we have a couple of formations that we seem able to swap between. We are short of a bullish midfielder to make the absolute most of 442, but we do seem to be making it work in out own way.

 

[spongebobblade]

Would like to see Clarke up top as we seem to be lacking in the height department. Throw Basham back in the middle and 3-5-2 suits us the majority of the time. Another winger to switch to 4-4-2 when needed would be handy come January but having the ability to switch when needed could also be key. It all seems along way from the 4-2-3-1 we played in pre-season that's for sure

 

[PokerBlade]

The issue with the 5-3-2 is that it puts a lot of pressure on the wing backs, as they have to be capable of providing a lot of your attacking opportunities and defending well, and covering all the ground that requires. Freeman, imo, is capable of this. Lafferty, I'm still unsure of, and Hussey had a fairly disastrous start (although I think he should get opportunities to prove himself as the season goes on). We also need Fleck/Basham to do a lot of donkey work, and Duffy and Coutts (or whoever) to take hold of the game, move the ball well for the wide men, and dictate the pace while creating chances for the forwards.

I think we do have the potential to make it work, whereas our issue with a 4-4-2 is going to be that we don't have the wingers to offer real attacking threat. Chapman is the only one who looks like a "traditional" winger to provide us enough width in that formation.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the system we started with against Posh, and also think that was the best I've seen this season and for a long time before it. But I'm a bit biased because when I was a kid I thought Spackman's 5-3-2 was pure genius.

 

[Fraggle Blade]

I don't think we looked anywhere near as assured against Rovers when we started with the 442 and thought it was a mistake changing the formation, rather than just putting Wilson in for Wright and Fleck in for Basham and sticking with what had been working.

 

[Roygbiv]

I don't think we looked anywhere near as assured against Rovers when we started with the 442 and thought it was a mistake changing the formation, rather than just putting Wilson in for Wright and Fleck in for Basham and sticking with what had been working.

I don't think Wilson was fully fit but I agree that the 3-5-2 seems to be the best bet with the players we have

 

[Pollingtonblade]

The issue with the 5-3-2 is that it puts a lot of pressure on the wing backs, as they have to be capable of providing a lot of your attacking opportunities and defending well, and covering all the ground that requires. Freeman, imo, is capable of this. Lafferty, I'm still unsure of, and Hussey had a fairly disastrous start (although I think he should get opportunities to prove himself as the season goes on). We also need Fleck/Basham to do a lot of donkey work, and Duffy and Coutts (or whoever) to take hold of the game, move the ball well for the wide men, and dictate the pace while creating chances for the forwards.

I think we do have the potential to make it work, whereas our issue with a 4-4-2 is going to be that we don't have the wingers to offer real attacking threat. Chapman is the only one who looks like a "traditional" winger to provide us enough width in that formation.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the system we started with against Posh, and also think that was the best I've seen this season and for a long time before it. But I'm a bit biased because when I was a kid I thought Spackman's 5-3-2 was pure genius.

Spackmans 5-3-2 had better players especially up front (Deane + Fjortoft) so we had the height that we lack now. But I agree with you .

 

[SwissBlade]

The difference with Wilder compared to Adkins and Clough is that he isn't afraid to make changes during the game. But crucially he seems to have players that know what they're doing and players that suit the changes when he makes them.

Certain games will be more suited to a particular player and it sounds like Billy was getting no joy in the middle yesterday as he was getting pushed out wide. Perhaps Clarke would give that stable front man at the top of the spine, which would allow other players to exploit the wider areas (as an example rather than a suggestion as I'm only going on what I heard about yesterday)

 

[Weasel]

3-5-2 for me as we tend to get over-run in midfield if we dont play it as the opposition overload themselves on midfield. Makes it a very difficult game for our middle 2 then and whilst good players, they dont have the mobility to make up for being a man lighter. Unless we have plenty of 'legs' in the engine room then we need to stick with a 5 across the midfield on my book. The midfield controls the tempo of the game and its vital Utd have control of that area. Also i think it suits Freeman and Hussey more with that formation (i think Hussey is a wing back and Lafferty more of a left back). The formation will change during games though as CW sees fit and that flexibility is only a good thing. It will also probably evolve during the season and from January as new players come in. A pity that we didnt persuade Revill to sign as hes playing well at Northampton at the moment too, but you win some you lose some as far as signings go.

 

[Bergen Blade]

We won our first game of the season vs Oxford playing 4-2-3-1. After this:

• Gillingham away, won 2-1. 3-5-2. Strong win, where we dominated and looked solid.
• Wimbledon away, won 3-2. 3-5-2. Another decent away performance.
• Peterborough home, won 1-0. Started with 3-5-2. Got ahead and played well first 30 minutes. Then struggled. Changed to 4-4-1-1 at half time. Regained some control, but Moore had to make some good saves.
• Scunthorpe away, drew 2-2. Started with 3-5-2. Got ahead, thanks to a clever free kick, but didn't play well. Scunny dominated the game and equalised on 55 minutes. Wilder changed to a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1, before Basham's red card. They then went 2-1 up, but we equalised with a penalty 5 minutes before the end.
• Bristol Rovers home, won 1-0. Played 4-4-2. Not a convincing performance, but sub Chapman scored a good header to give us the points. Not a comfortable ending, despite them being down to ten men.
• Fleetwood, drew 1-1. Returned to 3-5-2. From reports dominated, but struggled to score. Changed to a back four (was it 4-4-2?) after 58 minutes. EEL equalised with an injury time header.

After the successful first two 3-5-2 games, we have scored just one goal from open play with that system, i.e. Done's vs Peterborough. Long term I'm unsure if there will be enough goals from us if that's going to be our main system. It's good that Wilder has the awareness to change things during games, but unless we start scoring more goals with 3-5-2, he will have to consider if he should be starting with the systems that he's had to turn to, to get results.

 

[Ricky]

The lack of goals is due to the lack of quality up front and lack of goalscorers in midfield. The lack of midfield goalscorers isn't something that's going to change for now, regardless of formation. Overall the 3-5-2 works well for us, and we should continue with it for now. I think we should bring Hussey in for Lafferty though as he'll offer far more going forward, and maybe start playing Chapman more. Then the sooner Clarke and Lavery are available the better.

The best alternative for us is a 4-4-2 diamond with Basham in the team, which we haven't seen yet. It's the best way to get our best three footballers in the team but we'd lose some of the solidity.

 

[DronnieBlade]

It's 3:5:2.

Reason ?

It's such a fluid system that it can easily be changed to several other formations and back again fairly seamlessly to suit challenges the oppo throw at you during the game.

Can leave you a bit narrow but in the modern L1 that's a small price to pay.

UTB

 

[oldblade]

Personally, I'm a big fan of the system we started with against Posh, and also think that was the best I've seen this season and for a long time before it. But I'm a bit biased because when I was a kid I thought Spackman's 5-3-2 was pure genius.

Seemed to work at home, but much less effective away from home. We did not win an away league game after beating Reading at the beginning of November, and only won 3 away league games in total for the whole of that season.

 

[oldblade]

Spackmans 5-3-2 had better players especially up front (Deane + Fjortoft) so we had the height that we lack now. But I agree with you .

Even the attack struggled a bit. We scored fewer goals than any other top six side both at home and away.

But letting them in away from home seemed to be a bigger problem for us. We conceded 34. Of the sides that finished in the top half of the table, only Stockport (48) and Oxford (44) conceded more away goals than us.

 

[Jonboy60]

3-5-2 seems very popular among fans, but the last three times we've started with it, Wilder has changed it to get the desired result. What is the best formation for us long term?

Should we be looking to settle on one specific formation or keep changing between several different ones?

Well the flying geese formation didn't work out.

 

[pommpey]

I like 3-5-2. The pivotal roles are obviously the two wingbacks, but the formation can be re-roled to 5-3-2 instantly by limiting the forward areas they occupy. It does offer the defence the opportunity to soak up pressure and deny them wing areas in the crossing zone.

pommpey