Preferred formation from this point on?

Matt Stevenson

First Team
Hi all,

My disclaimer is that I acknowledge I have neither any insight into the workings of training a team nor have been involved at any level, so my views have little weight. I'd imagine this applies to a lot of us, who may be good in our real jobs, but our real jobs aren't football-related.

One consistency we appear to have as a forum is to criticise when things went wrong. 3-5-2 (not attacking enough against weaker sides, not incorporating our attacking firepower) 4-3-3 (we're being overrun in midfield, too lightweight, dependent of flair players performing) etc.

I think it would be interesting to have a marker down for individuals so that we can be accountable when the manager plays their formation and we lose - it could tone down the criticism. Tindall may not have been the right man for the job, but I don't think he could do much about Mepham's pass last night.

Personally I preferred the 3-5-2 if we can work out how to stop it becoming 5-3-2, although a flaw is that I'm not sure if there is room for Brooks and Danjuma, which is leaving out two of our most talented players. Potentially even Stan too, depending on how we set up. We looked hard to beat under that formation and had cover in every position. Last night we were far too lightweight.

I'm looking forward to hearing views, obviously subs and formation changes would be as needed throughout the game. There are certainly a lot of people on this forum who have seen more games than me, and understand tactics better, but I also suspect that there are a small number of knee-jerkers who want to change the formation with every bad result.

I just hope that whoever the new manager is would choose a formation (whatever that is) and stick to it.

UTCIAD.

Matt
 
Disclaimer - I’m also no system expert, I played 2-3-5 at school so have no real idea

However, what about good ol’ 442 for this league (or 4411 if you want to snazz it up)?

Bego

Stacey CCV Cook Kelly

Brooks Pearson Wilshere Danjuma

Long

Solanke
 
4-3-3 IMHO and on paper gets the most out of our squad's wealth of talent at central midfield and creative/wide attack. But the results this season haven't really proved that correct.
 
4-2-3-1 , with fluidity can be 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1, whatever you want it to be in possession and out of possession.
On the training pitch is where the organisation comes from, the understanding of not only what you should be doing but also what others around you will do in that same scenario. That’s when the partnerships build.

But it needs tempo, it needs a high press, it needs commitment, it needs personal pride and fight from the players.

Once it clicks and results come then so does the confidence and so does the swagger and flair. But even then, it still needs hard work and effort.
 
We have the players to do really well in a 4-3-3 as NSM has suggested. For me the problem has been JT's constant rotation of players, and the more I think about it the more I believe this was more about keeping players happy and on side, than actual rotation for tactical and fitness purposes etc.

JT always said in his interviews that he picked his formation based on players who were available, but that simply didn't add up as we would regularly swap from 5-3-2 to 4-3-3. He just didnt know what to do for the best...

We have a potentially very good attacking line up with Solanke, Stan, Danjuma, Brooks, Wilshere, Surridge and Anthony.

We have no natural wingers but very good central players in Pearson, L.Cook, Lerma, Billing etc. which would lend themselves to a midfield 3...
 
We need :
A settled starting 11;
A return to some sort of identity on the pitch. Which includes a preferred formation;
Players who believe in each other and in the Manager, whoever that may be;
A couple of wins to get us back on track;
 
We have no identity, system or “style of play” up front any more, we used to have “Pace in attack”
When King left, our last attacking player with the skill and speed to trouble most opposition defences had gone.
Last night really did sum up our shortcomings in attack, Brooks, who insists on putting his foot on the ball almost every time he gets it, allowing even the most sluggish of defences to organise, and then he invariably wends his way along the edge of the 18 yard box trying to work an opening through their serried ranks.

Danjuma, another “flow-stopper”, no picking it up 30 yards out and going for the jugular for him, he has to go that extra yard to be sure of giving the ball back to the Visitors. He’s prone to disappearing.

Solanke, I have to admit, he’s surprised me by scoring 10 goals up to this point but, its what he lacks as a front man that limits us: No pace at all, poor in the air, no concept of those fleeting moments when instinct and hunch combine to lead him where he has to be and no agility, he’s a No.10, not a No.9.

Stanislas, to be honest, I don’t really get him, OK, he has a good free kick on him, flawless penalty’s and a few killer passes thrown in but he does seem to go missing a tad.

My point is, our attack has lost all of the players who helped define “Our Way”,
What we have left is a mixed bag (or a bag of Misfits)

And don’t get me started on our “Playing out from the back”.
 
Doesn’t matter at this point , an attacking mindset to win is all we need , we have the players , the formation tweaking can come later .

I didn't realise that football management was that easy :). Starting Wilshere, Stan, Brooks, Solanke, and Danjuma last night seemed pretty attacking to me, and it didn't turn out well.

Not many people are sticking their necks out as to what they would play. Hopefully the ones that haven't won't be throwing criticism each week as to what the manager got wrong. DJ's post re fluidity and the training ground was good, but do any of us really know how the candidates on the betting list train players? I can hold my hand up and say I have no clue and just hope the management team get it right this time.
 
I didn't realise that football management was that easy :). Starting Wilshere, Stan, Brooks, Solanke, and Danjuma last night seemed pretty attacking to me, and it didn't turn out well.

Not many people are sticking their necks out as to what they would play. Hopefully the ones that haven't won't be throwing criticism each week as to what the manager got wrong. DJ's post re fluidity and the training ground was good, but do any of us really know how the candidates on the betting list train players? I can hold my hand up and say I have no clue and just hope the management team get it right this time.

Well this is discussion not applying for the job . Management get criticized when they get it wrong and praise when they get it right , that’s the way it goes ...if you think no one is sticking their neck out read some more of the forum , people are giving their opinions week in and week out .
 
There is no doubt that we aren’t used to the intensity of the weekend-midweek-weekend slog. JT said he had rotation to help people get up to fitness without proper pre-season.

Also, get people playing well and rotation will be less.
 
We'll be limited by the players we have, but getting the full backs up in support of our wingers would be a good start. I'd be interested to see how we went with the tried and trusted 442/4411 but suspect were best suited to a variant of 4231/451/433.
 

;