Our formation isn't working beyond trying to stifle the opposition, the considered alternative of 442 doesn't seem to work either. Maybe 3 centre halfs is the way ahead and then go from there?
Problem with that is what you do with Hammill - our best player and most likely match-winner. The only way we could do it is if we go 343 with him as one of the attacking three. If it's 352, you're turning him into a wing-back. I saw him play against us for Huddersfield as a left wing-back and we filleted him, in what turned out to be a relegation season.
I don't see how anyone can say the formation isn't working. It worked in the Sunderland, Ipswich, Forest & Preston games. I didn't go yesterday but according to commentary & mates that went we matched 2nd in the league Wolves & the formation also worked fine against Aston Villa. 2 individual errors cost us that day. The only time we've not performed playing 4-5-1 this season was against Sheff United. The other bad performance came against Bristol where we played 4-4-2
We have 7 points from 7 games of course it's not working. If it continues working at that level we get relegated.
I'd go with wing backs in a fluid 3-5-2 / 5-3-2 not sure where that leaves Hammill though and he's been our best player this season.
So you're saying 7 points from 7 games is all at the fault of 4-5-1 despite us playing 4-4-2 on occasions & individual errors costing us which can happen in any formation
I'd ask for sone of what you've been drinking but as your glass is so half full I don't think there's any spare!
That's the whole point of the post. 451 or 442 we only have 7 points, it's not disastrous and there has been the odd good performance but why not look at a differing formation that might help the players we currently have
I'm just telling it how I see it. We've created plenty of chances in many of them games but in general individual errors have cost us. In the Ipswich game for example. We dominated them, the formation worked superbly, we dominated the midfield & created lots of chances of which we only took one. They've had 3 chances & took 2 of them through defenders switching off & took 3 points. There was no issue with the formation that day. No formation in the world will account for individual errors like the ones in that game or the ones against Villa. The issue for me is lack of experience at this level & taking time to get used to new team mates. I think if Hecky kept changing formation things would get a lot worse. The best thing he can do is keep a fairly settled side with the odd change when needed. Obviously if performances like away at Sheff Utd & Bristol were happening every week then more radical changes would be needed
Your last paragraph sums it up. The first two away games, we were as bad as we have been for years. Preston, Wembley and yesterday give room for optimism. Even a draw would have been hard on us yesterday. We should've won. There aren't many goals in us, but we are well-organised and we work really hard. Hecky will sort it. I really believe we'll get either four or six points this week.
You said the formation was working. That would be reflected in results. The results have been poor. I went yesterday. We did ok but rarely looked like scoring. It's time to look at different formations as neither 442 or 451 look like being successful for us this year given we have no forwards capable of playing 1 up front and no midfielders capable of playing in a 2. You can dress it up however you like if we carry on as we have been we will go down.
Disagree. Just because you lose a couple of games it doesn't mean the formations wrong. It can mean the opposition simply have better players, have had longer playing together, they had better luck, they made less individual errors etc. In my opinion if we carry on as we are we'll gradually get better & better throughout the season with Isgrove & the full backs to come back & Thiam, McGeehan & Mallan getting up to speed. The worst thing you can do in this scenario is panic. We saw it with Lee Johnson when it was 3-5-2 one week then 4-4-2, then 4-5-1, players out of position etc. All that does is make adapting to a new league & new team mates even tougher. And 3-5-2 to me is about the worst thing we could do when it would mean completely taking away our biggest asset this season which has been Hammill on the right. I think Bradshaw is capable of playing the lone striker role, he's been fine at it in the home games. We need Ugbo to improve in this role as he's going to be needed mainly in the away games when we'll have to counter sides more. I'd expect him to improve given that he's played about 5 professional games.
We will see. I guess. I have never spoken to anyone before who thinks Bradshaw is good up front on their own but it’s all opinions.
3-4-3 could work with the formation as Davies Jackson McDonald Lindsay Williams McCarthy Yiadom Potts Hammill Ugbo Isgrove McCarthy and Yiadom could supplement defence or attack depending on situation. Likewise Hammill and Isgrove could supplement attack or midfield.
I like the idea of trying a 3-4-3 formation as well. I said at the start of the season, it's easier to organise a tight line with 3 at the back.. It would offer more attack wise than our current 4-5-1 offering. Another problem with 4-5-1 is that it encourages the opposition to attack and more often with greater numbers with us just having that lone striker up front for them to take into consideration. If we had that attacking trio up front, it would certainly make the opposition think twice about pushing up the pitch too much. We would have plenty of options with our midfield attributes as well in a 3-4-3. Only other slightly more defensive option would be a 3-1-4-2 so employing a holding midfield player. Not too keen on this personally, much prefer a more attack minded line up.
