Jimmy Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 I prefer 442 with more attacking players. Stick to this and keep as much of the same side week in week out as much as possible, and we will pick up more points home and away. I am not a massive fan of 352 or 532. I can't get even get them to play using 352 on football manager That system was found out, teams fill the midfield and we can't cope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 Whilst I prefer 4-2-3-1, the way the team plays is a reflection of the manager, at present it appears that we are disciplined, cautious and a bit dour. Until that changes I do not think the system matters much..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XLM Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 Agree with the title of the post. 3-5-2 requires pace, particularly in the full backs. We are fortunate enough to have that pace at our disposal - but Konchesky prevails in a system that doesn't suit him in the slightest. Leeds targeted our left-side to good effect, and i'm fairly sure Derby will today, and given their added quality in Ward, i'm fairly sure we'll have to be extremely careful down that side, and it will probably cost us a few more wins before we get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Fox Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 I think NP is trying to take a leaf out of Hull City's promotion bid sneak 1-0 wins it isn't going to be pretty but in the end it yielded automatic promotion which is what I imagine NP is concerned about rather than playing attractive football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 I think NP is trying to take a leaf out of Hull City's promotion bid sneak 1-0 wins it isn't going to be pretty but in the end it yielded automatic promotion which is what I imagine NP is concerned about rather than playing attractive football. We were smashing the league playing attractive football for much of last season. We have the players for that kind of football. I still can't get my head around why Pearson is trying to stifle our best attributes from last year with this ultra-defensive outlook. Surely all basic logic suggests you should try and make the most out of your strongest attributes. Pearson is doing the opposite. Makes no sense. I'm not convinced. I'll be calling for Pearson out within five games if he doesn't get a grip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brockmyster Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 We have the players just person isnt playing the correct ones for the system. Konch cannot play as a full back too much strain etc, if we're gonna play this then schlupp or bakayogo has to be the lwb and we cannot play the three centre mids, one of the should be dropped (preferably drinkwater) and marshall or knock should get a free role behind the front two which would probably add more width which is something we need Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 We have the players just person isnt playing the correct ones for the system. Konch cannot play as a full back too much strain etc, if we're gonna play this then schlupp or bakayogo has to be the lwb and we cannot play the three centre mids, one of the should be dropped (preferably drinkwater) and marshall or knock should get a free role behind the front two which would probably add more width which is something we need Why rely on Schlupp (still extremely raw) and zoomy (completely unproven) to hopefully transform an unproven system when you've got Konch, Dyer and Marshall who are all time honoured and proven in their respective roles within a 4-4-2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artursteppe Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 3-5-2 boring ??????? Which Championship team scored the most goals last season? Answer - Watford. What system did they use? Answer - 3-5-2! Who's scored the most goals so far this season? Need I go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tylesta Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 3-5-2 boring ??????? Which Championship team scored the most goals last season? Answer - Watford. What system did they use? Answer - 3-5-2! Who's scored the most goals so far this season? Need I go on? did you not watch the first 60 minutes of the leeds game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 We were smashing the league playing attractive football for much of last season. We have the players for that kind of football. I still can't get my head around why Pearson is trying to stifle our best attributes from last year with this ultra-defensive outlook. Surely all basic logic suggests you should try and make the most out of your strongest attributes. Pearson is doing the opposite. Makes no sense. I'm not convinced. I'll be calling for Pearson out within five games if he doesn't get a grip. because he did that 1st time around, he did that at Hull, last season was the outlier, he is simply reverting to type Why rely on Schlupp (still extremely raw) and zoomy (completely unproven) to hopefully transform an unproven system when you've got Konch, Dyer and Marshall who are all time honoured and proven in their respective roles within a 4-4-2? because 442 was well and truly stuff last season from Feb onwards or were you in a coma? did you not watch the first 60 minutes of the leeds game just means we didn't play it correctly not that the system itself is flawed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brockmyster Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 Why rely on Schlupp (still extremely raw) and zoomy (completely unproven) to hopefully transform an unproven system when you've got Konch, Dyer and Marshall who are all time honoured and proven in their respective roles within a 4-4-2? I'm just saying we do have the players to play the system and that the wrong ones are played, never stated it was better or worse then 442 did I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverdaz Posted 17 August 2013 Share Posted 17 August 2013 Away from home Knockaert is too much of a liability if we play 3-5-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 24 August 2013 Author Share Posted 24 August 2013 I'd just like to say..... AMEN. May we never be subjected to 3-5-2, 4-3-3 or any of that bollocks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 24 August 2013 Share Posted 24 August 2013 I'd just like to say..... AMEN. May we never be subjected to 3-5-2, 4-3-3 or any of that bollocks again. We Iz 4-4-2....Init. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Fox Posted 24 August 2013 Share Posted 24 August 2013 3-5-2 is fine away from home! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 31 August 2013 Author Share Posted 31 August 2013 I'm going to drag this up again. Why does Nigel keep playing this stupid formation which ends up in reality 5-3-2 because our wing backs cant get up past two wide players in opposition on their own. He plays it then realises it's shit and bins it, then plays it again the week after. What is he doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted 31 August 2013 Share Posted 31 August 2013 it suits our squad fine, it doesn't suit the manager, he has no clue how to set it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted 31 August 2013 Share Posted 31 August 2013 3-5-2 is fine, it's the players being chosen in that 3-5-2 that's the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 31 August 2013 Author Share Posted 31 August 2013 3-5-2 is fine, it's the players being chosen in that 3-5-2 that's the problem. I dont agree. When deployed again a side playing 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 the wing back has two men to beat when he has the ball, and so cant get forward and provide the offensive width the team needs. I do agree that playing three non creative centre midfielders is also a huge problem, and I just don't get why he keeps going back to making the same mistake over and over again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkyrobot Posted 31 August 2013 Share Posted 31 August 2013 One game lost and out come the experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 31 August 2013 Author Share Posted 31 August 2013 One game lost and out come the experts. Check the date I started this thread Sherlock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theessexfox Posted 31 August 2013 Share Posted 31 August 2013 This should work: --------------------------------GK----------------------------- -------------------CB--------CB---------CB---------------- RWB------------------CM----------CM------------------LWB -------------------------------CAM--------------------------- ------------------------CF-------------CF-------------------- But we play this, and it's shockingly negative: ----------------------------GK-------------------------------- RB--------------CB------CB------CB--------------------LB ------------------CM------CM-----CM--------------------- ------------------------CF----CF----------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
????? Posted 31 August 2013 Share Posted 31 August 2013 Makes me laugh how many people were calling for us to play 3-5-2 last season and now that we've lost a game with it it is being slated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted 31 August 2013 Share Posted 31 August 2013 Makes me laugh how many people were calling for us to play 3-5-2 last season and now that we've lost a game with it it is being slated It hasn't worked in any game apart from Boro to be fair. Derby 433, Birmingham was changed at HT from 352, Carlisle 442. I'm not sure why this game warranted the overly negative 352 they hadn't won all season and were by all means low on confidence after last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theessexfox Posted 31 August 2013 Share Posted 31 August 2013 We didn't play 3-5-2! We played a 5-3-2 with negative full backs and negative midfielders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.