4-3-3 like Blackpool, Swansea ect

[5waller5]

Sounds like Sven's football to me!!! Strange - at the time there were plenty crying out for wingers and 442.... And when Sven got sacked it was all down to a lack of wingers and not playing 442..... Funny how everything goes full circle.

Maybe a bit of patience with Sven was needed .... And now some with NP. The one thing they have in common is that they are / were on the verge of getting it spot on.

[Dr The Singh]

Sounds like Sven's football to me!!! Strange - at the time there were plenty crying out for wingers and 442.... And when Sven got sacked it was all down to a lack of wingers and not playing 442..... Funny how everything goes full circle.

Maybe a bit of patience with Sven was needed .... And now some with NP. The one thing they have in common is that they are / were on the verge of getting it spot on.

There was nothing wrong with the formation today. Football is a cruel game, and we flt it's cruel ness today.

[Kitchandro]

Sounds like Sven's football to me!!! Strange - at the time there were plenty crying out for wingers and 442.... And when Sven got sacked it was all down to a lack of wingers and not playing 442..... Funny how everything goes full circle.

Maybe a bit of patience with Sven was needed .... And now some with NP. The one thing they have in common is that they are / were on the verge of getting it spot on.

It didn't matter what formation we played with Sven, you need wingers in pretty much all of them and we didn't have any decent ones. Vassell and Danns out wide was never going to cut it in 4-3-3 or 4-4-2.

[Bluetintedspecs]

Don't get it.....the formation and players are playing attractive attacking football, primarily dominated the 2 away games we've lost and through a combination of poor finishing,bad luck, poor decisions, great saves and goal line clearances it's just not happened! We keep playing this way we will get our just rewards. Its 3 gamesthe call for changes just baffle me.

[thrillbert]

I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that 4-4-2 is not working, but it surely can't hurt to experiment a little as we look to perform better? What do we lose by giving 4-3-3 a try?

Today was a very good performance let down by some bad luck. The system we played suited us well in a sense, but we didn't dominate possession (we lost out something like 43% vs. 57%) which is a statistically well correlated with likelihood of conceding. A 4-3-3 would have given us a man in the middle to really let us get some flowing moves started, as well as to disrupt their periods of possession. Today their goals didn't come from possession, but people need to understand that future goals likely will. This is what the modern game is all about (witness the way Swansea played today against a West Ham team who bossed us last season). Clearly 4-4-2 has the benefit of being tried and tested, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that 4-3-3 or a variant is played by most top teams these days—and before anyone says it, yes, teams who have won the championship too. I think establishing a good brand of football now also does a lot more for any future chances of staying in the PL assuming we get promoted.

It is absolutely right to look at the personnel we have and ask if 4-3-3 would suit us, but I would argue it suits is now more than at any other point in recent history.

For a start this isn't about either having wingers OR playing 4-3-3. I would argue that marshall, knockaert, dyer, nugent and vardy are all suited to the role of wide player in a front three. Marshall and Nuge are fantastic cutting in and taking shots (remember Nuge scoring a few spectacular ones last season like this) and both can also set up chances for whoever plays in the middle (Beckford is made for this, but so are Vardy Nuge and Schlupp) so we are hardly compromising our goalscoring in that sense. Similarly, Knockaert seems to me to be cut straight from the same cloth as players like Sinclair, in that he has pace and is tricky, but also has that element of flair about his game that seems to let him make things happen while operating in advanced positions. Dyer for me has always been better on the front foot rather than the back. He works hard, but he is only really explosive in short bursts and when he receives the ball in the opposition half with only his fullback to beat.

With that said, I actually am of the opinion that Marshall is best in a central attacking role. I would see him as competing with someone like King in a three man midfield. With that in mind, we could have any combination of:

Defensive/pivot: Danns, James, Wellens

Box-to-box: Drinkwater, Danns, King

Attacking: King/Marshall

When you put it like that, we have a very versatile selection of midfielders that can go from ugly and dominating, to very attack minded and energetic.

[Thracian]

It's quite amusing discussing these two formations and quoting Knockaert and Marshall as the wingers. First of all Marshall isn't really a winger at all he's a kind of attacking inside forward. He doesn't have the raw pace to operate as a winger and it doesn't seem to be his inclination either.

However in using Marshall and Dyer we generally get enough willing chasing back to effectively have four or five in midfield when we've lost the ball and this has helped free King to make his forward runs. So exactly what 4-3-3 would give us except perhaps a holding central midfielder I don't know.

We lost plenty of games playing Sven's version of 4-3-3 but we lost them pretty indifferently. Now, we're not losing because our defence is being overrun or because we're not creating chances, we're losing matches because we're not taking enough of the many chances we create, having them disallowed or having them saved.

And because we're conceding goals from very little pressure perhaps because our back line is defending too deep and with a flat line system that means any slip means a shot on goal.

I just don't see how a holding defensive midfielder would improve what we're doing right now when a pulley system of defence would probably do the same thing better and not have the effect of stifling our attacking potential.

Used with players who understand one another and have the mobility to do it, the system works brilliantly. I don't say we have the perfect back four for the system but it's not bad and would work with only minor tinkering.

Ignoring the kamikaze ending which left us exposed Blackburn created very little yesterday and even their goals had an element of the ball bouncing favourably when first Konchesky went to ground and then De Laet and Blackburn benefitted from the rebounds.

Generally our covering was so good that we were first to almost all the loose balls for long periods, something that hardly ever happened last season.

So, given that we're just looking for the fine tuning that might turn good performance defeats into good performance victories I'd suggest the following...

a) We add variety, pace and thought to our corners and attacking free kicks.

b) I'd have a man attack the near post and a man coming short on occasions to disturb the defenders more and create more space in the box.

c) I'd have us shoot more often. Several times yesterday we took a pass too many and didn't shoot quickly enough, especially given the wet surface. The more shots the more chance of something breaking our way or that some of them go in.

d) I'd stick with our line-up for a while. I've mentioned before that players build partnerships - Vardy/Nugent, De Laet/Marshall, King/Drinkwater, Konchesky/Dyer, Morgan/Moore.... we're absolutely spoiled for what seem to be fairly natural partnerships and they need to be developed. For instance when Marshall wanders inside - which is constantly, De Laet needs to make the width and the same with Dyer and Konch.

e) I'd work with a fairly close-knit pulley defence because a flat back line is too vulnerable when we fall back so far and we fall back because we're not the fastest to recover if the ball breaks beyond us. It is fatal to be committing yourself without cover as has been demonstrated with three of our goals conceded this season.

f) Our manager needs to take pressure off strikers by showing faith and letting them understand that no-one will be punished for missing - only for abdicating responsibility and not having a go. Strikers do miss, goalkeepers do make point-blank saves. Strikers need people to encourag and believe in them - and we've got some damned good strikers.

We should defend higher and use a system that provides natural cover. In doing that someone like King would find it easier to help in front of the defence too, whereas the further back we defend the harder it is for him to make up the ground when we lose the ball. Even five to eight yards would make a difference as well as making it easier to sustain pressure which is, surely, our main strength and should be our main aim.

[Webbo]

I've been on this forum for 6 years and this is the most positive/enthusiastic I can remember Thracian being. It's good to see.

[Happy Fox]

It's quite amusing discussing these two formations and quoting Knockaert and Marshall as the wingers. First of all Marshall isn't really a winger at all he's a kind of attacking inside forward. He doesn't have the raw pace to operate as a winger and it doesn't seem to be his inclination either.

However in using Marshall and Dyer we generally get enough willing chasing back to effectively have four or five in midfield when we've lost the ball and this has helped free King to make his forward runs. So exactly what 4-3-3 would give us except perhaps a holding central midfielder I don't know.

We lost plenty of games playing Sven's version of 4-3-3 but we lost them pretty indifferently. Now, we're not losing because our defence is being overrun or because we're not creating chances, we're losing matches because we're not taking enough of the many chances we create, having them disallowed or having them saved.

And because we're conceding goals from very little pressure perhaps because our back line is defending too deep and with a flat line system that means any slip means a shot on goal.

I just don't see how a holding defensive midfielder would improve what we're doing right now when a pulley system of defence would probably do the same thing better and not have the effect of stifling our attacking potential.

Used with players who understand one another and have the mobility to do it, the system works brilliantly. I don't say we have the perfect back four for the system but it's not bad and would work with only minor tinkering.

Ignoring the kamikaze ending which left us exposed Blackburn created very little yesterday and even their goals had an element of the ball bouncing favourably when first Konchesky went to ground and then De Laet and Blackburn benefitted from the rebounds.

Generally our covering was so good that we were first to almost all the loose balls for long periods, something that hardly ever happened last season.

So, given that we're just looking for the fine tuning that might turn good performance defeats into good performance victories I'd suggest the following...

a) We add variety to in pace and thought to our corners and attacking free kicks.

b) I'd have a man attack the near post and a man coming short on occasions to disturb the defenders more and create more space in the box.

c) I'd have us shoot more often. Several times yesterday we took a pass too many and didn't shoot quickly enough, especially given the wet surface. The more shots the more chance of something breaking our way or that some of them go in.

d) I'd stick with our line-up for a while. I've mentioned before that players build partnerships - Vardy/Nugent, De Laet/Marshall, King/Drinkwater, Konchesky/Dyer, Morgan/Moore.... we're absolutely spoiled for what seem to be fairly natural partnerships and they need to be developed. For instance when Marshall wanders inside - which is constantly, De Laet needs to make the width and the same with Dyer and Konch.

e) I'd work with a fairly close-knit pulley defence because a flat back line is too vulnerable when we fall back so far and we fall back because we're not the fastest to recover if the ball breaks beyond us. It is fatal to be committing yourself without cover as has been demonstrated with three of our goals conceded this season.

f) Our manager needs to take pressure off strikers by showing faith and letting them understand that no-one will be punished for missing - only for abdicating responsibility and not having a go. Strikers do miss, goalkeepers do make point-blank saves. Strikers need people to encourag and believe in them - and we've got some damned good strikers.

We should defend higher and use a system that provides natural cover. In doing that someone like King would find it easier to help in front of the defence too, whereas the further back we defend the harder it is for him to make up the ground when we lose the ball. Even five to eight yards would make a difference as well as making it easier to sustain pressure which is, surely, our main strength and should be our main aim.

Absolutely spot on just needs fine tuning and we will beat sides a plenty with the way we are playing.

[kyleolly]

If we go 4-3-3 against a Blackpool side that have been playing in that style for 4 seasons we will get womped 6-1

[indierich06]

I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that 4-4-2 is not working, but it surely can't hurt to experiment a little as we look to perform better? What do we lose by giving 4-3-3 a try?

Today was a very good performance let down by some bad luck. The system we played suited us well in a sense, but we didn't dominate possession (we lost out something like 43% vs. 57%) which is a statistically well correlated with likelihood of conceding. A 4-3-3 would have given us a man in the middle to really let us get some flowing moves started, as well as to disrupt their periods of possession. Today their goals didn't come from possession, but people need to understand that future goals likely will. This is what the modern game is all about (witness the way Swansea played today against a West Ham team who bossed us last season). Clearly 4-4-2 has the benefit of being tried and tested, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that 4-3-3 or a variant is played by most top teams these days—and before anyone says it, yes, teams who have won the championship too. I think establishing a good brand of football now also does a lot more for any future chances of staying in the PL assuming we get promoted.

It is absolutely right to look at the personnel we have and ask if 4-3-3 would suit us, but I would argue it suits is now more than at any other point in recent history.

For a start this isn't about either having wingers OR playing 4-3-3. I would argue that marshall, knockaert, dyer, nugent and vardy are all suited to the role of wide player in a front three. Marshall and Nuge are fantastic cutting in and taking shots (remember Nuge scoring a few spectacular ones last season like this) and both can also set up chances for whoever plays in the middle (Beckford is made for this, but so are Vardy Nuge and Schlupp) so we are hardly compromising our goalscoring in that sense. Similarly, Knockaert seems to me to be cut straight from the same cloth as players like Sinclair, in that he has pace and is tricky, but also has that element of flair about his game that seems to let him make things happen while operating in advanced positions. Dyer for me has always been better on the front foot rather than the back. He works hard, but he is only really explosive in short bursts and when he receives the ball in the opposition half with only his fullback to beat.

With that said, I actually am of the opinion that Marshall is best in a central attacking role. I would see him as competing with someone like King in a three man midfield. With that in mind, we could have any combination of:

Defensive/pivot: Danns, James, Wellens

Box-to-box: Drinkwater, Danns, King

Attacking: King/Marshall

When you put it like that, we have a very versatile selection of midfielders that can go from ugly and dominating, to very attack minded and energetic.

I don't know where they got 43% from, because from what I saw we absolutely dominated possession in the first half, perhaps to a lesser extent in the second half, but I'm prepared to stick my neck out and say there's no way Blackburn had more of the ball than us.

[dave_the_fox]

I've been on this forum for 6 years and this is the most positive/enthusiastic I can remember Thracian being. It's good to see.

Was thinking the same. Even when we were winning games in pearsons first tenure, he wasn't very positive, but now look at him go! Long long long may it continue!

Edit: can someone please do something about the title as well that ect does my head in!

[Babylon]

I've been on this forum for 6 years and this is the most positive/enthusiastic I can remember Thracian being. It's good to see.

I like this Thrac, he can stay

[Charl91]

I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that 4-4-2 is not working, but it surely can't hurt to experiment a little as we look to perform better? What do we lose by giving 4-3-3 a try?

Today was a very good performance let down by some bad luck. The system we played suited us well in a sense, but we didn't dominate possession (we lost out something like 43% vs. 57%) which is a statistically well correlated with likelihood of conceding.

The thing is - we did dominate possession (I remember texting my friend just before Blackburn scored the second - we had 56% to their 44%). Blackburn only started to keep possession after they scored the second; they weren't particularly looking to attack anymore, instead just content to hang on to their lead, which makes the stats look much worse then they are.

[Col city fan]

It's quite amusing discussing these two formations and quoting Knockaert and Marshall as the wingers. First of all Marshall isn't really a winger at all he's a kind of attacking inside forward. He doesn't have the raw pace to operate as a winger and it doesn't seem to be his inclination either.

However in using Marshall and Dyer we generally get enough willing chasing back to effectively have four or five in midfield when we've lost the ball and this has helped free King to make his forward runs. So exactly what 4-3-3 would give us except perhaps a holding central midfielder I don't know.

We lost plenty of games playing Sven's version of 4-3-3 but we lost them pretty indifferently. Now, we're not losing because our defence is being overrun or because we're not creating chances, we're losing matches because we're not taking enough of the many chances we create, having them disallowed or having them saved.

And because we're conceding goals from very little pressure perhaps because our back line is defending too deep and with a flat line system that means any slip means a shot on goal.

I just don't see how a holding defensive midfielder would improve what we're doing right now when a pulley system of defence would probably do the same thing better and not have the effect of stifling our attacking potential.

Used with players who understand one another and have the mobility to do it, the system works brilliantly. I don't say we have the perfect back four for the system but it's not bad and would work with only minor tinkering.

Ignoring the kamikaze ending which left us exposed Blackburn created very little yesterday and even their goals had an element of the ball bouncing favourably when first Konchesky went to ground and then De Laet and Blackburn benefitted from the rebounds.

Generally our covering was so good that we were first to almost all the loose balls for long periods, something that hardly ever happened last season.

So, given that we're just looking for the fine tuning that might turn good performance defeats into good performance victories I'd suggest the following...

a) We add variety to in pace and thought to our corners and attacking free kicks.

b) I'd have a man attack the near post and a man coming short on occasions to disturb the defenders more and create more space in the box.

c) I'd have us shoot more often. Several times yesterday we took a pass too many and didn't shoot quickly enough, especially given the wet surface. The more shots the more chance of something breaking our way or that some of them go in.

d) I'd stick with our line-up for a while. I've mentioned before that players build partnerships - Vardy/Nugent, De Laet/Marshall, King/Drinkwater, Konchesky/Dyer, Morgan/Moore.... we're absolutely spoiled for what seem to be fairly natural partnerships and they need to be developed. For instance when Marshall wanders inside - which is constantly, De Laet needs to make the width and the same with Dyer and Konch.

e) I'd work with a fairly close-knit pulley defence because a flat back line is too vulnerable when we fall back so far and we fall back because we're not the fastest to recover if the ball breaks beyond us. It is fatal to be committing yourself without cover as has been demonstrated with three of our goals conceded this season.

f) Our manager needs to take pressure off strikers by showing faith and letting them understand that no-one will be punished for missing - only for abdicating responsibility and not having a go. Strikers do miss, goalkeepers do make point-blank saves. Strikers need people to encourag and believe in them - and we've got some damned good strikers.

We should defend higher and use a system that provides natural cover. In doing that someone like King would find it easier to help in front of the defence too, whereas the further back we defend the harder it is for him to make up the ground when we lose the ball. Even five to eight yards would make a difference as well as making it easier to sustain pressure which is, surely, our main strength and should be our main aim.

I like the sound of that

Great post throughout..

[Ashley]

If you have been to the last two matches you would have seen we play brilliant quick passing football. Just can't create the finishing chances. We do have that

True but Vardy, Schlupp and Beckford could be used out wider as well.

We have played some good football at times yes but we still revert to long ball under pressure which reverts to us loosing the ball. We don't close down enough to play 4-3-3 we would be exposed to much.

[Bluetintedspecs]

Some excellent and realistic posts and refreshing that people are commenting that the likes of Thracian are positive, which as a relative Newbie to FT myself is great to see! I firmly believe we have offensively all the attributes to score a hat full and defensively if Mr Whitbread is managed properly (his previous injury problems) the player that a lot of Norwich fans waxed lyrical about could be the quality assured missing piece of the jigsaw. The future looks very bright indeed and if I can get a better value price on us for automatic now after these three games I am tempted to have a mini lump in basing this on the addage "cream will rise to the top"

[Col city fan]

Some excellent and realistic posts and refreshing that people are commenting that the likes of Thracian are positive, which as a relative Newbie to FT myself is great to see! I firmly believe we have offensively all the attributes to score a hat full and defensively if Mr Whitbread is managed properly (his previous injury problems) the player that a lot of Norwich fans waxed lyrical about could be the quality assured missing piece of the jigsaw. The future looks very bright indeed and if I can get a better value price on us for automatic now after these three games I am tempted to have a mini lump in basing this on the addage "cream will rise to the top"

Having played three games 'Oddschecker' having had us as faves, now have us as 4th faves for auto promotion.

Win the next two and I think we're really getting somewhere. Lose them and the odds will drop further.

Careful with your money mate.. or at least give it a few more games..

[Bluetintedspecs]

Having played three games 'Oddschecker' having had us as faves, now have us as 4th faves for auto promotion.

Win the next two and I think we're really getting somewhere. Lose them and the odds will drop further.

Careful with your money mate..

Agree Col and believe me not gonna put my mortgage on it however sometimes you get "that feeling" and as I have stated previously I really have this season and as disappointing the last 2 results have been the signs look good to me! Like my poker mate and sometime the pot odds are very tempting and in a 46 game season if I can get the right value I'm prepared to punt £50-£100. That said people also say " a fool and his money"

[LCFC FOX]

If we go 4-3-3 against a Blackpool side that have been playing in that style for 4 seasons we will get womped 6-1

Try it against a Burton side

[Col city fan]

Agree Col and believe me not gonna put my mortgage on it however sometimes you get "that feeling" and as I have stated previously I really have this season and as disappointing the last 2 results have been the signs look good to me! Like my poker mate and sometime the pot odds are very tempting and in a 46 game season if I can get the right value I'm prepared to punt £50-£100. That said people also say " a fool and his money"

I believe that Vardy is going to be a super player for the club mate. He looks to me like the most exciting striker we have had for many a year.

If we get it sorted the other end and get the best partner for Vardy (let's be honest this looks like Nuge I would suspect) this team looks like its gonna score goals.

[Daggers]

We are playing great football but changing to 4-3-3 like all the better teams will create MORE GOALS.

Thoughts?

I have to total solution and it's not about formations.

I watched Match of the Day this morning and suddenly realised that Manchester United win a lot. So, there it is, all we have to do is play like Manchester United. If we start playing like Manchester United we will start to score goals and could even win the European Cup thing as well - and that must surely surpass even the most ardent LCFC fan's wildest dream for the season?!

[theessexfox]

King

Drinky

Danns

Knockaert

Nugent

Vardy

or

King

Drinky

Danns

Knockaert

Nugent/Vardy(/Beckford)

Marshall

[Bluetintedspecs]

I believe that Vardy is going to be a super player for the club mate. He looks to me like the most exciting striker we have had for many a year.

If we get it sorted the other end and get the best partner for Vardy (let's be honest this looks like Nuge I would suspect) this team looks like its gonna score goals.

My sentiments too Col

[seenitall]

I'm not sure this features in Niges book of 'how to manage a football team' until page 60 and he is only on page 12

[iamafox]

If we are playing brilliant football there is no need for a change of formation.

I absolutely agree, we might play worse with 4-3-3.