Comparing our current 11 with Bristol City's League 1 winning 11...

IMO we should stick with this 3-5-2/5-3-2 formation we played at Bradford and played at start of the season, Bristol used it all season last season and look where it got em! Anyway if you compare their team to ours there int much differences...

Adam Davies - Frank Fielding: both superb keepers.
Alfie Mawson - Luke Ayling: both great in the air and can move up the pitch with the ball to pick out passes, a bit like what John Stones now does at Everton.
Marc Roberts - Aden Flint: big and strong commanding centre halfs that win every header.
Lewin Nyatanga - Derrick Williams: both left sided left footed centre halfs that have pace and can pull off match winning tackles.
Reece Wabara - Mark Little: both have immense pace and can put in crosses.
George Smith - Joe Bryan: alreight now heres where we differ to Bristol, although I think Smith is a fantastic young player he doesn't match to the standards of Bryan. However Bryan has a lot of years on him and I'm confident given time Smith will be up to the standards of Bryan.
Ben Pearson - Marlon Pack: both defensive midfielders that will run their blood to water.
Conor Hourihane - Korey Smith (yes KOREY SMITH): although when we had him he was *****, Smith has become some player. However IMHO Hourihane shits all over him. That being said they are both attack minded players and most importantly are playmakers.
Kadeem Harris - Luke Freeman: both play the number 10 role, have pace and can run at defenders.
Marley Watkins - Aaron Wilbraham: both tall and good in the air; offer superb support to the strke partners. However Watkins has a lot of pace compared to Wilbraham.
Sam Winnall - Kieran Agard: both have pace, natural goal scorers and often come back to midfield to help out.

 

Experience Is the difference both the team and the manager

 

I guess, but if you look at Bristol's side most of their players are quite young too.

 

I've never heard of any Bristol City players.

 

The first thing to say is that I did not go to Bradford on Tuesday, but I did watch us play several games in the 5-3-2 formation earlier in the season. Also, I would prefer to make a comparison with a team that I am familiar with, that is Danny Wilson's team that were promoted to the Premiership. OK, our current team does not have the quality player that played in that team, but it illustrates the points that I intend to make better.

The main feature of 5-3-2 is that width when attacking comes from the two wing backs. They must be good enough on the ball to play in midfield if necessary. In fact, Nicky Eaden was a converted midfield player. In particular, they need to be able to pass well and cross well. They need to have a good engine, because they will effectively be our box to box midfield players. So how do the players currently in contention for that position compare to that template. In my opinion, the most suitable two players would be Bree and Smith, if they have the engine for it. The problem is that they are both very young and are still both finding their feet.

The next important role is that of the third central defender, which most people are quite happy to give to Roberts. It has to be remembered that the two wing backs will inevitably be caught up field from time to time, and in that case the central defenders will be required to move across in coverage. For this reason, the third defender has always been either a defensive midfield player (Matty Appleby) or a full back (Gary Fleming or Bobby Hassell). It is not enough just to be quick. The players in central defence need to be good readers of play and good tacklers in an unfamiliar full back position. For me, the suggested back line leaves us short of this type of player. Of course, others will suggest that Roberts gives us additional height at dead ball situations, but for most of the game this height is not required, and it is why Smith must play in the forward line, in order to provide the additional height, but only when it is needed, in dead ball situations.

I believe that we do not have the players to play the formation in central midfield either, but perhaps my choices there will surprise. Hourihane just does not work hard enough for a 3 man midfield. People will tell me that he has made our last 4 goals and that he regularly chips in with goals, and these are facts that I do not dispute. Nevertheless, a midfield of three needs far better movement, and although I am a little doubtful of Pearson in this respect, I have included him along with Scowen and Williams (when fit). The midfield that got us promoted under Wilson had only one outstanding member (Neil Redfearn). Of the other four players who regularly competed for the remaining two spots, Marcelle and Bullock had pace and ran at defenders, Bosancic and Sheridan passed and competed well. Williams has pace and runs at people, Scowen can pass a ball and competes well, but we are short of a Redfearn, player who can do it all. Of course, if we played a diamond, a formation that is closely related to 5-3-2 and which also relies on wing backs for its width, we can include both Hourihane and Pearson.

You will probably have already worked out that my front two would be Smith and Winnall.

However, the big problem with 5-3-2 is that it fails when matched against 4-5-1, as was proved when Wilson was forced to abandon it in the Premier League. The wide midfield players in the 4-5-1 system are deployed to mark the wing backs and effectively take them out of the game, and because the 5-3-2 system relies so much on the wing backs for its success, it no longer functions. The system that is deployed by most of our opponents will be 4-5-1.

 

You keep making this comment but I fail to see why 5-3-2 is trumped by 4-5-1. If anything, that matchup will just ensure that the game disintegrates into a midfield dirge, which is pretty much what is happening at the moment anyway.

 

I've heard of Corey Smith and that Wilbraham fella. Smith cos he played for us, Wilbraham 'cos his name is unusual and stands out.

 

No emmanuel thomas?
No matt smith?

 

Not having a go here. But the original post. Why compare each of your players to the team which were top all last season and won the league at a canter? You are miles away from that team?

 

On the face of it, my description leaves three v three in central midfield, but that takes no account of overlapping full backs, which produces the imbalance. The reason that there is one or in some cases two extra players in midfield is that there is a player on the other team doing nothing for the majority of the time, because there are three centre backs marking just one forward.

Do not misunderstand me. I believe that we are short of the ideal players to play any system you could mention. My focus was directed to the 5-3-2 system because that is the subject of this thread.

 

Wilson's 3-5-2/5-3-2, however you want to say it, came up against teams playing 4-5-1 numerous times in the 96/97 promotion season. Opposition managers saw that we were a good team so dropped a forward for a midfield player. We simply swept them away.

All our most famous results in the premier league season were achieved when playing 3-5-2. Tottenham in the cup, Man Utd home and away in the cup, the 4-3 against Southampton, the 1-0 at Villa, the 1-0 at Liverpool, 2-1 at home to Wednesday. All achieved with 5 defenders, two playing wing back, three midfield players, and two forwards.

I don't know if that system would suit the players we have right now. I'm not saying we should play it. But 4-5-1 does not automatically beat 3-5-2. In fact, we beat teams with much better players, because the 5-3-2 formation suited those Wilson signed and made us better than the sum of our parts.

 

I was saying that the 2 sides have a lot of similarities, not saying we're exactly like them cos we're obviously a million miles away from them. However I have confidence in LJ and I can see what he's tranna do... we'll get there soon, touch wood!

Cute this coming from a Rochdale fan.

 

Well, Conor Hourihane did a great impression of someone not only able to play in a 5-3-2/3-5-2, but thrive in it, on Tuesday night, against a side who were and still are in some quarters, fancied for promotion. In fact, he not only put this to bed, he also put to bed the idea he can't play deeper in a two. But then, I've never been one of those suggesting he can't play in such roles. I've heard many others suggest he can't, even the manager has mentioned his doubts. But I've seen him flourish in a four, in a two and in a three. As for not working hard enough, he put another terrific shift in at Bradford and did more donkey work, won more tackles, interceptions than Pearson (a defensive player) has all season. That's not knocking Ben, that's me giving you an indication on just how impressive Conor was. And it's not just one game. He ran the Swindon game for example, very Neil Redfearn esque that afternoon. In fact, I think whilst his contribution to goals and what not has remained impressive, he's really improved the rest of his game. But like Butterfield before him, if he's not incredible every week, some folk will always focus on the one or two things they aren't great at.

If you believe Hourihane isn't good enough to play in certain formations, fine, opinions and all that. But I'm going to struggle agreeing I'm afraid because, my eyes work.



And I keep reading stuff where you suggest the reason we failed in our season in the top flight was the system, the wing backs. I can't agree there either. I think we struggled to adapt initially, based on the quality of opposition (note that we beat the other promoted sides in between getting smacked for six early doors). That, and I believe we recruited badly in certain areas. I believe we should have signed a couple more 'been there, done it' types, as we did Barnard, Ward and later Fjortoft. The signings of Hristov, Krizan, Tinkler, Markstedt etc were expensive and didn't help us in my opinion. I don't think the system was our undoing, a system we won so many standout games using. I've read John Dennis' and Redders' books, plus 'Life at the Top' and none of them point to the system as our downfall. I don't think it was a downfall anyway. We garnered enough points that season to have stayed up in most other seasons since the Premier League's formation. And if owt, I blame the standard of officiating. We were robbed of so many points (and players) by dodgy decisions and suspensions etc. No wonder there were folk on Grove Street that day telling the TV cameras it was a conspiracy to send us down and keep the big clubs of Spurs and Everton up.



In other words, Red Rain, I disagree. I could have just said that, but I know you like folk to explain why.

 

Thanks for your thoughts Whitey, and you are right that enjoy reading the reasoning behind them.

I know your position on the Bradford game, in fact I congratulated you on your podcast, but I have a rule. Never trust anything that you din not see with your own eyes. That is not to say that your opinion is wrong, its just that I have found over the years that I look at thinks a bit different to most other people, and if I have an opinion, I like it to be my own. Because I did not go to Bradford, my opinion is still based upon the last time I saw the team play in that formation, and my opinion then, was that it did not work. It is not even that I particularly like 4-5-1. I don't. It is just that we have had no control over possession when we have played 5-3-2 or 4-4-2, and I much prefer us to have a larger share of possession, even though there are games like Crewe when it meant nothing.

To be honest, my opinion now is that it is not particularly important which system we play. It is more about finding better players, and find a system that suits more of them. We have had words about Conor Hourihane before, and I am sure that he would be a better player with better players about him. There are times when too many of the players are being asked to do too much that is outside their comfort zone, and for me, that is an issue that a manager must face at some point when he starts building a team from scratch. We will continue to disagree about Conor Hourihane, and I look forward to being proved wrong again and again.

You are right that there were more reasons for our failure in the Premier League than just the system, and I do not dispute that. You are right that Danny Wilson did not spend the money particularly well, and I would added that there was never really enough money to spend. We were trying to reach a level playing field when everyone else was starting from the top of the hill. I guess many top English players would not have been interested in an up hill fight with a relegation added to your CV at the end of it. It is good to remember the victories, that were achieved using 5-3-2, but in the end, we let in too many goals, and the successes were swamped by the heavy defeats. I remember Vialli hitting four against us in a 6-0 hammering by Chelsea at Oakwell, but it was Zola who ran the game that day from the hole behind the front player. He had nobody near him all day. I remember Aston Villa beating us 3-0 at home by utilising the space vacated by Eaden when we attacked. I remember Old Trafford in the league and wishing it was all over at half time. Perhaps that is the difference between my experiences and most others on here. I remember the bad days and I try to learn from them. When the game is as dour as it has been, for years really, I try to amuse myself in other ways. I think about the game in lieu of being excited by it.

You are right about the refs though. It was a world cup year, and it looked like there had been an instruction to protect the England players. Michael Owen looked like he was playing with the angel Gabriel on his shoulder.

 

I agree with that. And it's my opinion the system we used on Tuesday suits them better. But, I'm happy with whatever shape they line up in, so long as they play a more direct, quicker brand of football. Not long ball, but a variety of football. We've been so easy to work out I think this season, especially by the poorer sides with little ambition. They've been happy to defend deep in numbers and we've struggled to break them down. We've also managed to gift them goals through bad keeping errors.

I'm hopeful of Southend attacking us. Sounds weird that. But I think we fare better in that instance.

 

Many on here think that moving the ball slowly is part of the plan. It isn't. It is a sign that the 4-5-1 system is not working as well as it should. In my view, the reason is mainly the two wide midfield players, and possibly Winnall who is just not suited by the system. I was thinking about it the other day and decided that we needed to replace 4 players to have any chance of making it work. Then I thought about 5-3-2, and we were 4 players off making that work as well. We are nearest to making the diamond work, but it is just too early for Bree and Smith.

Thinks will all look a hell of a lot better in 18 months when the players are older and have acquired more experience. There will have been 3 more transfer windows as well.

 

I hope we stick with wingbacks tomorrow and win, and that at Oakwell twice next week you see it in action and change your mind on its merits and suitability as well as the role of Hourihane within it.

I won't contemplate the idea of us losing.

 

I'm afraid I shall be on holiday. Sorry