New formation

[smudgerfox]

35 minutes ago, TheBear said:

is an extra centre half and wing backs that will sit when we haven't got the ball not an extra man defending or is 5 no longer more than 4 in your universe....

 

...if we had as many central midfielders as we do centre forwards 4-3-3 would obvously be easier to transition too... but we haven't! 

 

well you present it as 3-4-3 and then use the use of five defenders to explain it. If the wing backs are defenders then we have even less in midfield (which I judge to be the problem) - if they are midfielders then we have one less defender - you're counting players twice and trying to make out I'm the one who can't count!! 

[Ashley]

5 minutes ago, smudgerfox said:

well you present it as 3-4-3 and then use the use of five defenders to explain it. If the wing backs are defenders then we have even less in midfield (which I judge to be the problem) - if they are midfielders then we have one less defender - you're counting players twice and trying to make out I'm the one who can't count!! 

 

I take it you don't know how formations work? 

[smudgerfox]

26 minutes ago, Ashley said:

 

I take it you don't know how formations work? 

I believe it has something to do with arranging ten outfield players with varying skill-sets on the field of play in order to prevent the opposition from scoring while maximising your own chances of scoring. There are an enormous variety but they all share one common feature - they have those ten outfield players, So you can't simultaneously claim to have a back three (3-4-3), while saying the wide players are in effect defenders. The latter is more defensive but it is effectively 5-2-3  a formation that hasn't been since the 1950's. It doesn't solve the main problem (to mine and most people's minds) of being outnumbered in central midfield and it leaves three forwards reliant on the service of two midfielders (one of whom is in any case a holding midfielder). I hope that is clear enough for you Ashley..  Obviously I accept that the wide players can have some licence to set up attacks with more solidity behind them but those kind of attacks tend to produce crosses which aren't the best service for the suggested forward line.   

[Guest TheBear]

7 minutes ago, smudgerfox said:

I believe it has something to do with arranging ten outfield players with varying skill-sets on the field of play in order to prevent the opposition from scoring while maximising your own chances of scoring. There are an enormous variety but they all share one common feature - they have those ten outfield players, So you can't simultaneously claim to have a back three (3-4-3), while saying the wide players are in effect defenders. The latter is more defensive but it is effectively 5-2-3  a formation that hasn't been since the 1950's. It doesn't solve the main problem (to mine and most people's minds) of being outnumbered in central midfield and it leaves three forwards reliant on the service of two midfielders (one of whom is in any case a holding midfielder). I hope that is clear enough for you Ashley..  Obviously I accept that the wide players can have some licence to set up attacks with more solidity behind them but those kind of attacks tend to produce crosses which aren't the best service for the suggested forward line.   

Have you seen Totenham and Chelsea's use of a similar formation.... I said a 3-4-3 hyrid, where the players used perform both offensively and defensively, it is fluid and not set in stone.  I merely offered a solution as we are conceding too many goals and not scoring enough, changing to a 4-3-3 is not really an option when you have 2 fully fit central midfielders on the books...

 

...How would you describe Chelsea's formation and would you class their wing backs as defenders or midfielders? Would you describe Pedro and Hazard as midfielders or forwards in their formation?

[Vocey]

Think 3-5-2 is best alternative, we have strikers to play in a two, and good wing back options, my only concern is the pace of our centre backs, dragovic would fit in nicely but a team could so easily get down the side of a Morgan or Maguire 

[smudgerfox]

32 minutes ago, TheBear said:

Have you seen Totenham and Chelsea's use of a similar formation.... I said a 3-4-3 hyrid, where the players used perform both offensively and defensively, it is fluid and not set in stone.  I merely offered a solution as we are conceding too many goals and not scoring enough, changing to a 4-3-3 is not really an option when you have 2 fully fit central midfielders on the books...

 

...How would you describe Chelsea's formation and would you class their wing backs as defenders or midfielders? Would you describe Pedro and Hazard as midfielders or forwards in their formation?

Yes the fluidity is a great asset but they (Chelsea) have world class players in every part of the field. And of course they can play with two in central midfield because on of them is Kante. Sound familair?That makes a huge difference. And do Spurs really play with three up front?  

[Guest TheBear]

11 minutes ago, smudgerfox said:

Yes the fluidity is a great asset but they (Chelsea) have world class players in every part of the field. And of course they can play with two in central midfield because on of them is Kante. Sound familair?That makes a huge difference. And do Spurs really play with three up front?  

Dier plays as a centre half when the wing backs push on and a defensive midfielder when they are pressing... again it is fluidity... Eriksen doesn't have the responsibility of a central midfielder (Dembele and Wanyama hold) and roams, Alli plays behind Kane... so it is again a hybrid of that shape.

[smudgerfox]

maybe it would work for us - but I can't help feel you need a better class of player,,,

[deep blue]

The worst problem we have, and the first we need to address, is being swamped in midfield match after match and consequently gifting possession and momentum to the opposition. I think the strain of 2 in the middle told on Drinky last season, and is beginning to on Ndidi. So 3 in midfield is a must, and we have ideal potential wingbacks in Albrighton and Chilwell (or possibly Fuchs).

 

The most obvious formation is 3-5-2. Morgan, Maguire, Huth (Dragovic while he's unfit) at the back. Mid 3 of Ndidi, Iborra and Silva (assuming he comes up to scratch, otherwise King/Amartey). Iheanacho/Shingy just behind Vardy.

 

That doesn't easily accommodate Mahrez or Gray. One alternative is to use them behind Vardy. Another is to go for 3-4-3 with 2.5 in midfield i.e. Maguire as the central of the back 3 pushing up when he can to contribute as a defensive mid, alongside 2 of Ndidi, Iborra and Silva, with the same wingbacks outside. This leaves juicy options for a fluid 3 up front - Shinji/Iheanacho, Slimani/Vardy, Mahrez/Gray. All very much theoretical, but would be an exciting formation to try.

[st albans fox]

5 hours ago, deep blue said:

The worst problem we have, and the first we need to address, is being swamped in midfield match after match and consequently gifting possession and momentum to the opposition. I think the strain of 2 in the middle told on Drinky last season, and is beginning to on Ndidi. So 3 in midfield is a must, and we have ideal potential wingbacks in Albrighton and Chilwell (or possibly Fuchs).

 

The most obvious formation is 3-5-2. Morgan, Maguire, Huth (Dragovic while he's unfit) at the back. Mid 3 of Ndidi, Iborra and Silva (assuming he comes up to scratch, otherwise King/Amartey). Iheanacho/Shingy just behind Vardy.

 

That doesn't easily accommodate Mahrez or Gray. One alternative is to use them behind Vardy. Another is to go for 3-4-3 with 2.5 in midfield i.e. Maguire as the central of the back 3 pushing up when he can to contribute as a defensive mid, alongside 2 of Ndidi, Iborra and Silva, with the same wingbacks outside. This leaves juicy options for a fluid 3 up front - Shinji/Iheanacho, Slimani/Vardy, Mahrez/Gray. All very much theoretical, but would be an exciting formation to try.

I think (and have said on numerous occasions) that the 3-5-2 is the best way forward. Riyad can be the man behind at home against the 'lesser' sides but away I don't see a place for him unless he is allowed a roaming role in support of vardy. 

[Lovejoy]

I have no doubt we'll wait until we've played at least the next two before even contemplating a change to three at the back. I don't actually believe our 4-4-2 has sold out unlike others, however if we're duffed up by a sh1t Bournemouth side I'll happily reconsider .

[NotTheMarketLeader]

On 24/09/2017 at 15:50, foxinsocks said:

There is alot of talk on ft about different formations..... i just dont think it is in craigs mind right now.

I like utds 433 and given craigs cautious ways i think that is more likely if he moves from 422... but i doubt he will

5-3-2 or 3-5-2 should be the ONLY thing on his mind at present. 

[AJSLCFC]

4 minutes ago, Lovejoy said:

I have no doubt we'll wait until we've played at least the next two before even contemplating a change to three at the back. I don't actually believe our 4-4-2 has sold out unlike others, however if we're duffed up by a sh1t Bournemouth side I'll happily reconsider .

Tbh I'd  rather start with the change in a game like this as if it doesn't  work for 45 mins you have the option to revert  back to 442.