What exactly was it then? Appeared to me as 4-4-2 for most part, certainly without the ball. Albeit narrow with Potts in particular tucking inside. With the ball it was a lot harder to tell. We looked so flexible. 4-3-3 with Thiam pushing further up, even 4-2-4 when Potts joined at times. Whatever it was it was good.
They were set up for 4-4-2 which gives players more passing options. Any formation is flexible it can be 4-6 without the ball to 3-1-6 with it. A system is only as good as the players in it and their understanding of it. We played a dynamic changing system. Dare I say it "Total Football"?
I had it as 4-3-3 (Thiam being a third striker rather than winger) until he went off when we went 4-4-2.
442 first half, 433 when subs came on in second. Bradshaw seemed to shift out wide and Moncur pushed up top.
I never really saw it as either tbh. I don't believe we were so rigid in the traditional sense of 442 / 433, but more of an asymmetrical 4312 with Potts tucked inside and Thiam being the 1, albeit wide left.
This is how I saw it, as Potts isn't a natural winger I think they will switch between both dependant on how the game is going. We've played both last year so the players will be comfortable with either, if he was staying 442 Isgrove would have come on and not Moncur for Thiam. We played equally as well with both and the subs were more suited to 433 and it looks like Stendel sees moncur as an attacker rather than a midfielder.
