Is Collins ALLOWED to use any other formation?

I see two possibilities

1. Collins is unable to think of any other formation and unable to think f any alternative to how we have approached games all season. 4 at the back for example is completely alien to him.

2. He is instructed to play this formation without deviating like the last 3? 4? Managers before him all did


If it is 1. Then that's really not a good look for Collins', if it is 2 then who and why?

 

With our recruitment, we’ve been kind of forced to stick with the 3-5-2. If we went 4 at the back, what would that be? Earl as left back and Williams as right back? I like Cadden but don’t think he’d be a good left back at all. Cotter and O’Keeffe wouldn’t be able to play right back (well) either.

I don’t hate our formation but I do sometimes miss the good old days of having wingers on either side.

 

Good question. Was crying out for something different today when it was clear our approach wasn't working

Incredibly frustrating to see if teams stop us getting it to Connell, they stop us playing.

We have no plan B

 

Unbalanced squad.

 

How's about

Williams. Mael. Pines/McCArt. Earl.
Cotter/oKeeffe, kane, connell, Cadden
Cole, McAtee/Cosgrove

4 4 f'in 2

Admittedly it wipes out Phillips/grant cos they seem to be more suited to just behind the front 2 and not necessarily straight CM....

We have options, but seemingly our formation isn't one of them

 

Ya kno when the opposition gets a free kick or corner ....
PUT SOMBODY UP ON THE HALF-WAY LINE...or the balll is just coming back. Jesus

 

4-2-3-1

Roberts

Williams Mael Mcart Earl

Kane Connell

Cotter/. Phillips. Mcatee
O’keefe

Cole/Cosgrove

 

Or
3. He has looked at alternatives and does not believe they are better alternatives
4. He has tried alternatives and we looked even worse in training

 

You reckon that at no point could we possibly play any better in any other formation? Not against Lincoln? Not today? Nu huh. Only one formation can possibly work right?

I guess that it is entirely possible that Collins, Duff, Ismael, Asbaghi, Schopp, Devaney and Laumann have all decided independently that the only formation that can possibly work is this one and that none of the roughly 50 players we've signed in that period have been up to playing a different formation but personally I reckon there's more to it than that. Especially considering the CEO who only left a few months ago did quite publicly admit that he had been interfering with tactics

 

We have changed formation in the last 2 games & there’s been plenty of games this season where we’ve gone to a back 4 mid-game & Cotter has pushed on to play on the wing.

Obviously there’s a massive issue that we don’t have a single natural winger on the books & none of O’Keeffe, Cotter & Cadden are players that suit a back 4.

 

Not what I’m saying, just saying there are other options as well as conspiracy theories.
Would love to see the quote where he admitted to interfering with tactics too as I’ve not seen that?

 

Aye, this is one that always bugs me. Leave a player up and the opposition will leave another player back with him. But no, we allow them to pack 9 players in our box and force our attacking players to defend.

 

I keep off here until the after to try not react in frustration but I've no idea why he kept 3 centre halfs on the pitch yesterday.

 

Don't remember his exact comments but he bemoaned the lack of offers for players following Val's season where we got to the play offs and stated fairly openly that they were changing the style of play because no offers meant it wasn't a successful season.

 

Don’t recall him saying they would change formations but do recall him saying Vals style didn’t attract bids.

 

He said that because it hadn't the club needed to change the style.
But then he wasn't exactly truthful because didn't the club also claim that they'd turned down bids and didn't we also sell a couple of players?

 

The worst one for me was that attacking free kick towards the end. Minutes to go and we had THREE players stood around it. What on earth was the point of that?!

 

Imho...I don't have a problem with the 3.5.2....5.3.2 formation as it suits what we have in personnel now. That said I like flexibility and the ability to change when nessary.
Recently Cole has been dropped for Cosgrove...I've no problem with that, our leading scorer is out of sorts and needs a rest. So then losing a less mobile strike means we have a more physical one but our replacement needs the service to warrant his inclusion...but we just don't seem to play to that ie no decent crosses to him and a man playing just off....or more importantly the midfield getting there, to feed off the hold ups and knock downs. It seems we lack pace and application in midfield for this to be effective.
It smacks of lack of game intelligence. We have nothing off the bench either to compliment anyone else coming off.
I do think the coach has done very well to get this disjointed squad where we are but we do lack flexibility and pace.

 

Style of play and formation aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

Correct but it goes to show that those behind the scenes do get involved with our tactics or at least have in the last few years. Combine that with the fact that we've played the same formation religiously under every one of our managers for a few years now and doesn't it at least suggest that there's a possibility it is dictated?