lcfcking Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 With looking at Leicester play 4-4-2 last night, we lacked everything really. For us to start performing in games, some players need to be dropped and the formation needs to be changed. First of all, we need to drop De Vries and Kisornbo on last nights performances and unfortunaely, i like him as you lot probably do as well, rest Stearman for a couple of games and put Maybury back in. Secondly, the formation needs to be changed. The 4-4-2 doesn't work when teams come to the Walkers and play 4-5-1. IMO, a system similar to Chelseas or a 3-1-3-1-2 may benefit us, to help win the midfield battle and release the strikers. When all fit and not suspnded, I would play with Douglas Maybury Dublin Johansson/Tiatto McCarthy Hughes Gudjonsson Hamill/Wilcox Smith Hume Hammond Subs: Henderson, Gerrbrand, Stearman, Wilcox/Hamill, Chambers Get rid of De Vries, Kisornbo, Sylla and Williams and bring in loan players such as Rossi from Man Utd (Fergie said he needs experience) or Earnshaw (Can't get in at the Baggies)
Bert Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 Rab - gk Paddy - rcb Dion - cb NEJ - lcb Sylla - rm Smith - lm Williams - lcm Hughesy - Rcm Joey - cm Hammond - cf Hume - cf
Libertine Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 Rab - gk Paddy - rcb Dion - cb NEJ - lcb Sylla - rm Smith - lm Williams - lcm Hughesy - Rcm Joey - cm Hammond - cf Hume - cf Gotta say, I like that.
Jonbluefox9 Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 I would play differently at home to what we do away, especially against teams like Burnley who come and sit behind the ball and hope to nick a 1-0 win. CL says he has an identikit midfield which I think is one CM holding and one CM supporting the front two with wingers but I don't think there's any need for a holding midfielder like Kisnorbo against a team that sit behind the ball. We struggle to break certain teams down at home so we might aswell throw everything at them. The two most attacking CMs at the club are Williams and Hughes imo so they should start at home and Hughes/Williams should start away games with Kisnorbo/Gudjonsson/Wesolowski playying the defensive role. Really we have to change the way our midfield play depending on who we are playing against and I think that is vital.
Guest Gist Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 With looking at Leicester play 4-4-2 last night, we lacked everything really. For us to start performing in games, some players need to be dropped and the formation needs to be changed. First of all, we need to drop De Vries and Kisornbo on last nights performances and unfortunaely, i like him as you lot probably do as well, rest Stearman for a couple of games and put Maybury back in. Secondly, the formation needs to be changed. The 4-4-2 doesn't work when teams come to the Walkers and play 4-5-1. IMO, a system similar to Chelseas or a 3-1-3-1-2 may benefit us, to help win the midfield battle and release the strikers. When all fit and not suspnded, I would play with Douglas Maybury Dublin Johansson/Tiatto McCarthy Hughes Gudjonsson Hamill/Wilcox Smith Hume Hammond Subs: Henderson, Gerrbrand, Stearman, Wilcox/Hamill, Chambers Get rid of De Vries, Kisornbo, Sylla and Williams and bring in loan players such as Rossi from Man Utd (Fergie said he needs experience) or Earnshaw (Can't get in at the Baggies) As much as i like the sound of all this dropping De Vries and Kisnorbo it wont happen with levein in charge
Thracian Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 As much as i like the sound of all this dropping De Vries and Kisnorbo it wont happen with levein in charge But I bet Earnshaw's already sitting by his phone .
Anish Posted 19 October 2005 Posted 19 October 2005 But I bet Earnshaw's already sitting by his phone . And no doubt Sheff Utd will be the first ones to call him up
lcfcking Posted 20 October 2005 Author Posted 20 October 2005 And no doubt Sheff Utd will be the first ones to call him up There's always that possibility but with them signing too many strikers, many won't get a game and he could be tempted away from the Blades grasp.
Gené and Tonic Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 I think something like that is very unlikely to happen. Levein is loyal to 442, and the players he has.
Manwell Pablo Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 I think something like that is very unlikely to happen. Levein is loyal to 442, and the players he has. I dunno about that, seems to employ 4-5-1 when it suits him
breadandcheese Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 Got to agree with Bertfox. I would love to see 3-5-2 as I think it plays to our strengths. Disagree a bit with the personnel, but I am a big fan of 3-5-2 formation (precisely as it would put anyone playing 4-5-1 under pressure). GK - Henderson CB - McCarthy/Stearman CB - Gerrbrand (Apparently he is able to pass a ball quite well for a defender) CB - Johansson RWB - Sylla CM - Kisnorbo CM - Williams CM - Hughes LWB - Smith/Tiatto/Sheehan ST - De Vries ST - Hume
Gené and Tonic Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 tbh I don't think being wing-backs would suit Sylla or Smith, Sylla said when he came here he didn't like playing there at Celtic, and Smith is definately more of an attacking player.
lcfcking Posted 20 October 2005 Author Posted 20 October 2005 No Dublin BreadandCheese? Wing backs will be useless to us and will affect our attacking options
breadandcheese Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 No Dublin BreadandCheese? Wing backs will be useless to us and will affect our attacking options Dublin has been immense for us so far this season, but I am unsure of his ability to play well for a continued run of 2 games a week. I take on board the point about the wingbacks. Let's be honest, the flanks are the weak point in any 3-5-2, but they haven't exactly been a bastion of strength in our current team anyway. I just think that a midfield trio of Williams, Hughes & a defensive midfielder (Kisnorbo at moment for his height and effort) would be able to break down teams more effectively than our current state of wingplay. We could use Sheehan & Maybury as wingbacks if we need to go more defensive, or Sylla & Smith as attacking wingbacks if we need to go all out. Although Sylla may not like playing wingback (all that running up and down the line), I actually think he would be quite effective if he applied himself. He is big and quite strong in a tackle. Good attributes for a wingback. We need something to breakdown teams who play 4-5-1, particularly in the midfield, where we were outclassed by such heavy weights as Micah Hyde against Burnley (more due to outnumbering than actual class). Still, it doesn't matter anyway, it's 4-4-2 all the way, which is no bad thing if the players are working hard and the full backs are pushing up (something that didn't happen on Tuesday).
Gené and Tonic Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 Earnshaw certainly won't go to Seff Utd if they come in for him (which is highly unlikely), they already have the likes of Pericard Kabba Shipperly Webber 5 strikers would be a hell of a lot on the books. But then again, thats as many as West Brom have.
Gené and Tonic Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 This would be my choice providing we had everyone fit: Defense The back three would be relitively tight, with Weso tracking back to help them. Midfield The centre pairing would work with Weso being the holding player, and Hughes going forward to spread the play out to the wings, or to De Vries, to aid our attacks. The wingers would be given license to go forward, but Smith more so than Sylla, as he has the best work rate and ability out of the two. Sylla is also good at tracking back and going in for tackles which is why it makes sense for him to not go forward quite so much as Smith. Up Front Hammond and Hume would come in from the wings and link up with De Vries, who would be a holding striker, looking to play Hume and Hammond into the space behind defenders. That forward line, along with Sylla and Hammond coming foward would strike fear into the heart of any defense in the division. Of course, in the necessary circumstances, Smith and Sylla could operate as wing backs, but that would happen very rarely. With this formation, players could be swapped in and out when necessary quite easily. Sheehan for Johansson, Kisnorbo/Gudjonsson for Wesolowski, Williams for Hughes, Stearman for McCarthy, Dublin for De Vries, Hammil for Hammond (with Smith moving into the forward role) Go on, take a gamble Levein You know it makes sense.
Gené and Tonic Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 What's peoples opinion on that formation?
Guest Gist Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 i like the idea of a 3-5-2 but i dont like johansson at left back unless hes needed there
Libertine Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 i like the idea of a 3-5-2 but i dont like johansson at left back unless hes needed there It's not really left back, the back 3 are all centre backs with the wingers acting as wing-backs.
Mark Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 Assuming everyone is fit and available, against 4-4-2 we should be playing .................. Henderson Maybury* Gerrbrand Johannson Sheehan Sylla ..... Wesolowski Hughes ..... Smith ........... Hume .. .. Hammond * or Stearman Against those 4-5-1 bastards that come to the Walkers we play .................... Henderson .... Gerrbrand* McCarthy Johannsson* Sylla Williams Wesolowski Hughes Smith .............. Hume .. .. Hammond * or Stearman * or Sheehan. I can't really see us being as unsuccessful as we have been if we went down that route. Both formations are attacking with pace down the flanks and pace up front, that's how we must play to push towards the playoffs.
Libertine Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 Assuming everyone is fit and available, against 4-4-2 we should be playing .................. Henderson Maybury* Gerrbrand Johannson Sheehan Sylla ..... Wesolowski Hughes ..... Smith ........... Hume .. .. Hammond * or Stearman Against those 4-5-1 bastards that come to the Walkers we play .................... Henderson .... Gerrbrand* McCarthy Johannsson* Sylla Williams Wesolowski Hughes Smith .............. Hume .. .. Hammond * or Stearman * or Sheehan. I can't really see us being as unsuccessful as we have been if we went down that route. Both formations are attacking with pace down the flanks and pace up front, that's how we must play to push towards the playoffs. I'd love them teams. <_<
Anish Posted 20 October 2005 Posted 20 October 2005 Have to agree with Mr C. 4-4-2 most games and 3-5-2 against the negative teams. Levein has tried 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-3-3, but he's not tried 3-5-2. It's gotta be worth a go, it's not like we could've done much worse against Burnley.
Guest Posted 21 October 2005 Posted 21 October 2005 Why is it someone who has been through the necessary coaching etc doesn't realise the best way to 'beat' 4-5-1 is 3-5-2, yet to the layman with no experience of managing a football team it is patently obvious?
Gené and Tonic Posted 21 October 2005 Posted 21 October 2005 It's not really left back, the back 3 are all centre backs with the wingers acting as wing-backs. Well, they wouldn't really opperate as wing-backs as I said in my post. They would just opperate as normal wingers. When on the back foot or defending a lead then they can revert to wing-backs. But when chasing a goal, they'll be normal wingers. It is a 3-4-3 formation, not 3-5-2. Attack, attack, attack!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.