Or should we go with something else? Really interested in getting the views of you all. Personally, I'm a 3-5-2 man. Especially against our next two opponents.
I think formations ought to reflect the strengths of the players available to the manager, rather than forcing players into a system & mantra that simply doesn't get the best out of them.
With regards to the current squad, I don't feel either 3-5-2 or 4-4-2 has proved particularly successful, nor manages to get the best out of the players available to David Flitcroft.
Agree with that BigLil. Generally speaking, I think having players ideally suited to 3-5-2 (i.e. Stones and Golbourne) last year enabled us to adopt that formation and it was largely successful. However, I also think it's horses for courses. We reverted back to 4-4-2 frequently last season and almost without fail, Flitcroft managed to make the right change at the right time. Either through bad luck or judgement, I don't think he's got it right as often this year. Given the choice, I'd rather see us play 3-5-2 as I believe when it works it provides width, more numbers defensively when we're under the cosh and enables us to play a midfielder in the 'free role' in behind the free role. However, as I don't think we have two natural wing backs I suspect it will be used sparingly this season.
352 for me. Get RNL played at LWB and Wisey at RWB. Any new players coming in now need to be wing backs.
I am of the view that the team structure is driven by the strengths and weaknesses of the players available, and that as the players change, the system must recognise the new blend of strengths and weaknesses. I also think that a team structure needs to take account of both the system used by the opposition and their strengths and weaknesses. Unlike many on here, I do not subscribe to the opinion that football is a simple game and you just pick the same team/formation every week, or that the team managers job is an easy one. I do have the opinion that most (but not all) games are won by dominating midfield and that you must set up your team to ensure you do not lose in this area. You must therefore match or have more players in this area than the opposition. There are lots of hybrid systems these days that essentially put 5 players in this area in different circumstances. 3-5-2 attempts to have 5 there when attacking and 5 in defense when defending. 4-5-1 ,4-4-1-1, 4-3-3 and any number of different combinations of numbers attempt to balance the extra player between attack and midfield. Whatever system you pick, it must be remembered that by increasing numbers in one area, you are reducing numbers in another creating a possible mismatch with your opponents that can create either an advantage or a disadvantage in that area. In the end, it is all about the quality of the players at your disposal and their ability to cope with these temporary mismatches in numbers in particular areas of the pitch. If the team is weaker than the opposition in too many areas and stronger than the opposition in too few then they are going to lose. This is particularly true in my view when the difference between the teams is pace, because pace allows a team to break through the linear structure of most team structures mentioned and quickly overload on the defensive line. In my view, most of our really bad results have come against teams with pace, not just in one position, but pace right across the team. Against pace, the only real defense is to drop deep and to use the goal line to deny the opposition the room to use their pace. This is anathema to most Reds fans who value effort and combativeness above all and who almost to a man believe that a one man attack is tantamount to surrender. To eliminate such tactics from your play book is fine if your team has quality, and many posters have said that they believe we have decent players, well capable as holding their own in whatever system you chose for them. From my limited observations (home matches only), I think that our players are lacking in pace and quality and that the fans need to recognise that fact or risk losing a decent manager by restricting his options. When we play too open, we invite a hammering and reluctantly I have concluded from the number of hammerings that we have suffered this season that we would be better overloading midfield at the expense of attack. Therefore, I like 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1 for the players that we have available to us at the moment. Of course, this could change if we managed to recruit better players.
We don't have the wing backs to play 352 now. I'd go 442 but have Nyatanga & Hassell at full back with an instruction to just defend and allow Jennings/Cywka/O'Brien/McCourt to attack. Definitely not Mellis out wide though.
Agree RE the 451 - the exact system we played with Butterfield when we played our best football in 5 years at this level.
For an hour on Saturday we looked solid but there was no adventure at all and it was practically 8-0-2. Passing was decent without being penetrative. Would another system have gotten us a point, or even 3? I doubt it. The mindset was wrong, the tempo was wrong and I believe tempo and intent (or lack of) will cost us more points than systems. Having said that, what are the squads skills? Well we've a lot of players who run blood to water and we've a very small handful of players (but enough) who have talent and quality on the ball. The problem still being that those who have quality are wasted in spaces of the pitch where they can't hurt the opposition. I like Mellis. he has quality, but it's pointless having him play wide right and waste all his energy when his skill is passing and pushing on from midfield to support the front 2 (or 1). He's also switching off out there and looks like he's not bothered. I kind of can't blame him, but I know that will lose his allies quickly. If we can't trust him in a 4, then maybe we have to go 5. I think we're a poorer side without his passing skill in it. The back 4 looked really solid on Saturday and I think Ramage and Cranie should get an extended run to get an understanding going. Wiseman makes sense at right back and then I think we need a solid left back who if nothing else has positional sense and has a bit of composure. If we then have 2 holding players, Fox can do that job and distribute too, Perkins... i'm not sure about, but that could just be his role at the minute and if there is a more attacking focal point to midfield, he can do the harrying and breaking up that he's good at. So i'd probably go with Fox, Perkins holding, Mellis advanced as a playmaker and then choose and two of McCourt, Jennings, Cywka, RNL and O'Brien for the two wide slots. I do prefer two up top and if we can get Pederson back fully match fit and linking up with O'Grady, that may be more potent. But fundamentally... I've no idea whats going to work best... and my worry is the management team are in the same boat!
Re: " I believe tempo and intent (or lack of) will cost us more points than systems." I think we generally look better in a 3-5-2 both offensively and defensively. At the moment we have 1 LWB (RNL) and 2 RWB's (Wisey/JOB). They are difficult to come by though so maybe we should be looking at signing another because if RNL gets injured, imo, the formation goes out of the window. 4-4-2 is another option, especially with Peds and COG up top. My only worry is our full-backs - I think you need a really solid back line to play 4 with only flair players covering. I'd be happy with: Cranie Ramage Nyatanga [NEW LEFT BACK] I also quite fancy 3-4-3 although it might be a bit too attacking for some. It does revert to 5-4-1 when defending though. It could look something like: ...........................GK .............Cranie...M'Voto...Ramage Wiseman .......Fox......Perkins......Noble-Lazarus ............McCourt..................Mellis ..........................O'Grady
Re: " I believe tempo and intent (or lack of) will cost us more points than systems." I think there are two reasons why were doing so bad: 1. We are standing off opponents and trying to play the offside trap at the same time. I cant see the idea behind this and not only do we get exposed by through balls but we are giving the oppenents all the time in the world to do it. Our team plays great when closing down oppenents quickly e.g last season, Reading and Huddersfield and i cant see why we adopt this style of play. 2. Our defending is appaling,embarassing and shambolic we need to sort it out, and quick. Formation wise I think 4-4-2, pressing the opponent quick with Mellis and McCourt outwide is our winning formula. I do agree Mellis is better behind the strikers but everything we do is through O`Grady and we have been really predictable in the past playing 4-4-2 with Dawson not getting forward and everytime we get the ball Kennedy, O`Grady and Mellis and the key when we are attacking. But we now we have a quality attacking midfielder in McCourt cutting inside and another potentially quality striker in Pedersen. But we desperatley need help in defence.
