Jump to content

Formation too rigid


Recommended Posts

Do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results, madness etc etc. 

 

Anyway, why not use the international break to try and perfect a different formation?

 

Presuming everyone is fit, 3 at the back. We've got natural wing backs in Reach and Hunt, and a 3rd centre half who naturally can push forward into midfield. 

 

Westwood

 

Reach

 

Lees

Hutchinson

Loovens

 

Hunt

 

Bannan

Jones

Wallace

 

FF

Rhodes

 

 

Edited by vulva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vulva said:

Do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results, madness etc etc. 

 

Anyway, why not use the international break to try and perfect a different formation?

 

Presuming everyone is fit, 3 at the back. We've got natural wing backs in Reach and Hunt, and a 3rd centre half who naturally can push forward into midfield. 

 

Westwood

 

Reach

 

Lees

Hutchinson

Loovens

 

Hunt

 

Bannan

Jones

Wallace

 

FF

Rhodes

 

 

 

When we have the ball, we do revert to 3 at the back.

 

Our full backs & centre halfs arent good enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zzmdu said:

 

When we have the ball, we do revert to 3 at the back.

 

Our full backs & centre halfs arent good enough. 

Agree with that. Our fullbacks aren't good enough to play fullback, but they are good enough to play wingback. 

 

The whole ole tempo of our play is dictated by Loovens. Good player, but plays every game like a testimonial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although we line up 442 I think we very nearly end up playing that formation anyway. Certainly seems like that to me as Hutch naturally goes deep, Wallace plays very narrow and the fullbacks provide the little width that we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, vulva said:

Do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results, madness etc etc. 

 

Anyway, why not use the international break to try and perfect a different formation?

 

Presuming everyone is fit, 3 at the back. We've got natural wing backs in Reach and Hunt, and a 3rd centre half who naturally can push forward into midfield. 

 

Westwood

 

Reach

 

Lees

Hutchinson

Loovens

 

Hunt

 

Bannan

Jones

Wallace

 

FF

Rhodes

 

 

 

Damn it! 

Why hasn't Carlos thought of this? 

Ingenious...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vulva said:

Do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results, madness etc etc. 

 

Anyway, why not use the international break to try and perfect a different formation?

 

Presuming everyone is fit, 3 at the back. We've got natural wing backs in Reach and Hunt, and a 3rd centre half who naturally can push forward into midfield. 

 

Westwood

 

Reach

 

Lees

Hutchinson

Loovens

 

Hunt

 

Bannan

Jones

Wallace

 

FF

Rhodes

 

 

Maybe not those players but I do like your thinking, I think we do need something different than 442 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frustrates me how sometimes our Plan B in games is to just bring on as many strikers as possible and have Lees punt the ball upfield and hope something will happen. Whenever CC brings on Fletcher/Winnall/Macca it's usually at the expense of a defensive minded player, Fox/Jones/Hutchinson/Hunt, always causes us to lose shape and fluidity and looks like a desperate move. Don't mind playing 3 at the back when we're chasing the game but when we've got a back 3 of Reach/Lees/Hunt with Bannan as a lone CM it looks desperate, surely there's more productive ways?

 

Still not sure what our strongest XI is, Lee is irreplaceable in the middle but i'd like to see maybe Wallace having a more central role, would bring much needed creativity and flare to our play and allow a quicker player to play out wide.

 

4141

 

Westwood

 

Hunt

Lees

Loovens

Fox

 

Hutchinson

 

Macca 

Bannan

Wallace

FF

 

Rhodes

 

Part of me thinks CC daren't play a formation with 1 striker as we have so many attacking options, especially when Hooper comes back. Although i'm not sure how Rhodes would find playing the target man role alone, he'd certainly get better service and more chances with the quality behind him. Hutchinson is more than capable of covering the back 4 and would allow Bannan/Wallace to get forward more, keep interchanging between Macca/Reach whoever contributes more starts the next game, plenty of options on the bench with Winnall/Fletcher/Buckley/Matias/Jones to revert back to a 442.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vulva said:

Do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results, madness etc etc. 

 

Anyway, why not use the international break to try and perfect a different formation?

 

Presuming everyone is fit, 3 at the back. We've got natural wing backs in Reach and Hunt, and a 3rd centre half who naturally can push forward into midfield. 

 

Westwood

 

Reach

 

Lees

Hutchinson

Loovens

 

Hunt

 

Bannan

Jones

Wallace

 

FF

Rhodes

 

 

 

I understand the point you're making, but that midfield just doesn't inspire me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Justbeanz said:

Said it in various threads but to me Bannan has to fill up the hole behind Rhodes and Winnall to link them up to play off each other.Sits too deep or wide too often.

Spot on, huge gap between the front two and centre mid. One of the reasons Carlos love Wallace because he plays narrow and plugs some of the gap.

 

Bannan is a luxury we cant afford. Drop him , play Abdi higher up , with Hutch holding. With a light weight Bannan sitting deep , our opponents  Dont get put under pressure, we fail to win enough second ball in a vital area. Teams have too much time to clean up, as a result our strikers come in for too much criticism. If we had pressure on the ball in front of the opposition defence , we would get many more chances, and for me look like a promotion side and get goals and results to back up the money we have invested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bannan doesn't like to play forward, he is too exposed no pace, poor engine, lack of strength, far too light weight. Carlos said he didnt want a bouncer in midfield, but sorry that exactly what we do need. Oh and if we do ever get to the premier league he will need two or three,,and maybe thats his problem which will cost him his job.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 at the back is different to a back 5. At home, Hutchinson has been dropping in, but the issue is that the fullbacks havnt been pushing on. As a result, we have been playing a back 5 against teams with 10 men behind the ball. That equals both stalemate and awful football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reach exposes the left back abominably i think hes an ok player but on Tuesday night ( and not for the first time) he wanders off to the right side and leaves Fox with 2 men to cover so far from being too rigid imo Reach in particular is far too lax 

 

Nice to see Bazza is back to being the scapegoat again after a couple of near MoM performances 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only Wednesday could have a continental coach who sticks rigidly to a 4-4-2 formation (albeit with a bit of 3-5-2 thrown in there for sh*ts and giggles) :duntmatter:

 

If you want to get the better of us then just play with 3 in central midfield. You'll overpower us and we will get hopelessly overrun, particularly with the current combination of Jones and Bannan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Formations are not rigid, it's the people that play within them which are too rigid. I'm a great believer in movement winning football games - individual skills are not really a consideration. If you can't get your players into the correct positions skills hardly matter. However if you're going to create space you have to watch the opposition for running into the space you just left e.g. full backs pressing on and the opposition then playing long balls into the corners 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SiJ said:

Only Wednesday could have a continental coach who sticks rigidly to a 4-4-2 formation (albeit with a bit of 3-5-2 thrown in there for sh*ts and giggles) :duntmatter:

 

If you want to get the better of us then just play with 3 in central midfield. You'll overpower us and we will get hopelessly overrun, particularly with the current combination of Jones and Bannan. 

Good point,we need to match the opposites up in midfield otherwise we just get overrun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...