3 CMs Results

[Holmowl]

Just now, Blue and white said:

Sorry I meant 442 with 3 cm is a disaster. 442 with 2 cm and 2 wingers is fine by me if thats what you set up with.

 

Phew

[Rogerwyldesmullet]

13 hours ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

..Unless you switch system ,

And play them as a three 

 

I really should be at work M'lud but....

 

"Unless you are playing with a 4-3-3,

or the 4-1-4-1 of Lord Snooty,

you cant play Hutch with Bannan and Lee,

and we may as well sell Almen Abdi"

[Holmowl]

20 minutes ago, Blue and white said:

Take the play offs, I for one would have held my head high if we'd genuinely lost 4-3 after playing our attacking game and giving it our all. Sadly we rolled over and thats unforgivable with our squad.

 

Couldnt agree more.

 

In the words of KK, I would love it if 2017/18 is a season of attacking flair-filled football, where instead of scoring 60 we score 80, even if instead of conceding 45 we concede 55.

 

How can a squad with FF, Abdi, Bannan, Wallace, Hunt, Fletch, Rhodes, Lee, Hooper and Winnall play such God-awful soulless football?

 

Let them free Carlos. Trust them. It will work so much better. And if we fall short we will love the spectacle and adore you.

[Holmowl]

7 minutes ago, Rogerwyldesmullet said:

 

I really should be at work M'lud but....

 

"Unless you are playing with a 4-3-3,

or the 4-1-4-1 of Lord Snooty,

you cant play Hutch with Bannan and Lee,

and we may as well sell Almen Abdi"

 

Sorry I was sending a nomination for you to be next Poet Laureate, but Im not having Snootee and Abdee....

[Blue and white]

9 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

Couldnt agree more.

 

In the words of KK, I would love it if 2017/18 is a season of attacking flair-filled football, where instead of scoring 60 we score 80, even if instead of conceding 45 we concede 55.

 

How can a squad with FF, Abdi, Bannan, Wallace, Hunt, Fletch, Rhodes, Lee, Hooper and Winnall play such God-awful soulless football?

 

Let them free Carlos. Trust them. It will work so much better. And if we fall short we will love the spectacle and adore you.

If only. People talk about our recruitment being a disaster,  players such as Rhodes, Abdi, Reach and Winnall who have been stand out players in other teams and in the case of Abdi at a better standard. Do people not think to take a step back and wonder why we have such quality that is proven yet can't perform here. Is it the players, I think not, is it the manager and his tactics, absolutely.

[spike1867]

9 hours ago, raljex said:

Out of interest, what about the previous season when if my memory is right Bannan played mostly on the left?

 

Some will argue the throw but we played 4-2-3-1 a lot in CC's first season.

 

Westwood

 

Hunt

Lees

Loovens

Pudil

 

Lee

Hutchinson

 

Wallace

Bannan

Forestieri

 

Hooper

 

It's why we are still having the debate about FF and Bannan and their best position. FF was assigned to join Hooper...from the left, Bannan played further forward in an inside left type position and affected the game far more. Kieran Lee broke from his "6" position and got forward.

 

It was fluid and Holmowl will have a better idea but I'm guessing but we would have brought on a second striker in the second half or started with two up top and reverted to this.

 

There is nothing wrong with 4-4-2 but you must have midfielders capable of fulfilling multiple roles. I've said it before but the best 4-4-2 Wednesday ever put out....Sheridan, Palmer, Worthington, Wilson/Harkes. A tackler, a passer, a runner, a floater.  The best 4-4-2 I've ever seen, Beckham, Giggs, Keane and Scholes. Both midfields had the lot. Pace, energy, passing ability, balance, bite and aggression.

 

So Abdi and Bannan competing for the same spot, Lee and say Jackson Irvine competing. Reach and A.N. Other, Wallace and A.N. Other. 

 

So the two anomalies are FF and Hutch which funnily enough were both absent during our best run. Not multi faceted enough for a 4-4-2.

[Holmowl]

7 minutes ago, spike1867 said:

 

Some will argue the throw but we played 4-2-3-1 a lot in CC's first season.

 

Westwood

 

Hunt

Lees

Loovens

Pudil

 

Lee

Hutchinson

 

Wallace

Bannan

Forestieri

 

Hooper

 

It's why we are still having the debate about FF and Bannan and their best position. FF was assigned to join Hooper...from the left, Bannan played further forward in an inside left type position and affected the game far more. Kieran Lee broke from his "6" position and got forward.

 

It was fluid and Holmowl will have a better idea but I'm guessing but we would have brought on a second striker in the second half or started with two up top and reverted to this.

 

There is nothing wrong with 4-4-2 but you must have midfielders capable of fulfilling multiple roles. I've said it before but the best 4-4-2 Wednesday ever put out....Sheridan, Palmer, Worthington, Wilson/Harkes. A tackler, a passer, a runner, a floater.  The best 4-4-2 I've ever seen, Beckham, Giggs, Keane and Scholes. Both midfields had the lot. Pace, energy, passing ability, balance, bite and aggression.

 

So Abdi and Bannan competing for the same spot, Lee and say Jackson Irvine competing. Reach and A.N. Other, Wallace and A.N. Other. 

 

So the two anomalies are FF and Hutch which funnily enough were both absent during our best run. Not multi faceted enough for a 4-4-2.

 

The line-up you show had poor results. It was used around 14 times.

 

It stopped us scoring. We scored one per game. Points achieved was poor. It worked well in the occasional match (Forest away e.g.).

 

Yes, it was changed several times mid match to great effect, adding a second striker and pushing FF wide (Charlton e.g.)

 

The really stark fact, and it is a fact, is what it did to Hoops and FF. ain't this line-up Hooper went from almost a goal per game to 4 in 14.

 

FF stopped scoring altogether....not one goal as Hooper's partner in 14!!!

 

Sadly, the line-up picked for Hull was this one.

[York_Owl]

22 hours ago, Rogerwyldesmullet said:

Excellent OP which should be forwarded as a rhyming mantra to CC forthwith. 

"The truth may hurt but it sets you free. You can't play Hutch with Bannan and Lee"

 

"but you can in a 4-3-3"

[gurujuan]

Forestieri wasn't a Wednesday player for most of the time we played 4-2-3-1, and it's a bit unfair to judge that system, as we were a team of players who'd barely had time to get to know each other We haven't really played that system since, it's always been a hybrid 4-4-2. 

Should we have given 4-2-3-1 more time? Personally, yes I think so. I feel we would have been a Premier League club now, if we'd spent the money we've subsequently spent, fine tuning the original system. Even in those early days, while players were still bedding in, there were signs of promise. I can remember in that first game, against Bristol City, our full backs were literally camped outside the City box. It was perhaps Hunt's best performance in a Wednesday shirt. The thing about that system was, it allowed the full backs to push forward and create the width, knowing we had two holding players prepared to cover. It would have been interesting to see how that system would have worked with the talents of Abdi and Forestieri

[York_Owl]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

 

442 with 2 CMs and 2 wingers isnt a disaster.

 

P26. W15. Pts53 

 

That's title-winning.

 

 

I 100% agree that playing 3 CMs needs a new formation, but why would we want to lose such a successful 442 played properly?

 

Also, we would need to reva,p the squad, and buy more CMs and sell some strikers. For the final third of the season we had two fit CMs and an army of strikers on the bench. 

 

Our CMs towards the end...

 

Bannan playing thru injury

Jones in and out thru injury/illness

Lee rushed back from injury

Abdi injured

Hutch injured

Have you factored this into the stats?

[Holmowl]

13 minutes ago, York_Owl said:

Have you factored this into the stats?

 

It just shows how effective 2 CMs is for balance, that we succeeded with it through injuries.

 

Last year was the same. Even with Helan and the amazing Sougou we did better than when we played with 3 CMs. Incredible, but true.

[York_Owl]

I think these stats are very misleading.  As a minimum the OP should say playing 3 CMs in a 4-4-2 does not work as it tends to suggest that playing 3 CMs does not work period even in say a 4-3-3 which we have not really played.

[York_Owl]

Just now, Holmowl said:

 

It just shows how effective 2 CMs is for balance, that we succeeded with it through injuries.

 

Last year was the same. Even with Helan and the amazing Sougou we did better than when we played with 3 CMs. Incredible, but true.

so what happened at Huddersfield then?  We played 4-4-2 but were completely outplayed, only 30% possession, barely strung two passes together and not one shot on target.

[York_Owl]

4 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

It just shows how effective 2 CMs is for balance, that we succeeded with it through injuries.

 

Last year was the same. Even with Helan and the amazing Sougou we did better than when we played with 3 CMs. Incredible, but true.

Or possibly a reason for not playing very well?

[Holmowl]

1 minute ago, York_Owl said:

I think these stats are very misleading.  As a minimum the OP should say playing 3 CMs in a 4-4-2 does not work as it tends to suggest that playing 3 CMs does not work period even in say a 4-3-3 which we have not really played.

 

Certainly didn't want to imply that.

 

Ive no idea if a 433 would work. My strong suspicion is that 433 would work a whole lot better than the lop-sided 442 with 3 CMs. We only really did it once from the kick-off, and defeating Rotherham is not really a good test-case!!

 

But if it's an evidence-based opinion, then 442 with 2 CMs looks pretty bullet-proof.

[Holmowl]

1 minute ago, York_Owl said:

so what happened at Huddersfield then?  We played 4-4-2 but were completely outplayed, only 30% possession, barely strung two passes together and not one shot on target.

 

We were tripe. I agree.

 

But I look at 47 matches, not one.

 

(I ignore Fulham Reserves)

[York_Owl]

2 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

We were tripe. I agree.

 

But I look at 47 matches, not one.

 

(I ignore Fulham Reserves)

Fair point.  4-4-2 can work against some sides, Newcastle being the prime example (though you may have to concede that Forestieri up front can also work as he played at 10 v Newcastle away, possibly our best performance of the season).  I'm not advocating this at all but even the hybrid 4-4-2 that Carlos often plays can work as we have had some good performances with Bannan wide left and even wide right (3-0 v Cardiff at home last season).  So it is not an exact science.

 

Where I think we really struggle is when we come up against a quality, physically strong 3 man central midfield (Huddersfield and Hull for example) regardless of whether we play a hybrid 4-4-2 with 3 CMs or a more natural 4-4-2 with 2 CMs.  As a minimum we need a new central midfielder and try and find a better 2 man CM combination or, my preference, switch to a 4-3-3 in which more of our current players seem more naturally suited.

[gurujuan]

39 minutes ago, York_Owl said:

Fair point.  4-4-2 can work against some sides, Newcastle being the prime example (though you may have to concede that Forestieri up front can also work as he played at 10 v Newcastle away, possibly our best performance of the season).  I'm not advocating this at all but even the hybrid 4-4-2 that Carlos often plays can work as we have had some good performances with Bannan wide left and even wide right (3-0 v Cardiff at home last season).  So it is not an exact science.

 

Where I think we really struggle is when we come up against a quality, physically strong 3 man central midfield (Huddersfield and Hull for example) regardless of whether we play a hybrid 4-4-2 with 3 CMs or a more natural 4-4-2 with 2 CMs.  As a minimum we need a new central midfielder and try and find a better 2 man CM combination or, my preference, switch to a 4-3-3 in which more of our current players seem more naturally suited.

 

I agree with this, but either will entail tough choices, finding two combative midfielders and two direct wingers, won't be easy if we're doing a more orthodox 4-4-2. As you have said, the players we have, probably lend themselves more to a 4-3-3, but we'd need to rethink our strikers. That system relies on one central striker, flanked by two wide attackers. Do any of our static strikers fit the bill? Forestieri definitely does, and maybe Hooper down the middle. The rest, I don't think so

[spike1867]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

 

The line-up you show had poor results. It was used around 14 times.

 

It stopped us scoring. We scored one per game. Points achieved was poor. It worked well in the occasional match (Forest away e.g.).

 

Yes, it was changed several times mid match to great effect, adding a second striker and pushing FF wide (Charlton e.g.)

 

The really stark fact, and it is a fact, is what it did to Hoops and FF. ain't this line-up Hooper went from almost a goal per game to 4 in 14.

 

FF stopped scoring altogether....not one goal as Hooper's partner in 14!!!

 

Sadly, the line-up picked for Hull was this one.

 

I won't disagree with you mate. I suppose my point is that we didn't have the players to play 4-4-2 on a regular basis and we changed formations etc. rather than stick with a 4-4-2 week in week out. I don't think he trusted Joao enough and Nuhiu again was too one dimensional for CC.

 

We need one or two more players with more than one string to their bow and 4-4-2 is fine, the model in my opinion for any midfield in a 4-4-2 is the Man Utd example.

[York_Owl]

Agreed Guru, either way we would need to bring in some new players (just imagine having to bring in yet another striker if we switched formations because none of our current lot could play in a 4-3-3)! 

 

Re the central striker role it may have to be a case of suck it and see with the ones we have.  As things stand I'd probably go FF left, Hooper down the middle and Wallace right with Reach as backup to FF and Matias as an option instead of Wallace if we want to be more attack minded.  FF, Joao, Matias may have more potential but, unfortunately that's all it has got at this stage.  Then pick three from Hutch, Jones, Bannan, Lee and Abdi (I'd go Hutch, Abdi, Lee but, ideally bring in a new CM so Hutch could play CB).

 

Ultimately we need to define our own playing style be it 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 and then sign the players that best fit into that style.