3 CMs Results

[IstillhateSteveBould]

12 hours ago, BarnsleyOwl96 said:

 

To be honest I think it's pretty clear with the stats we are better without 3 cms in terms of stats and enjoyment to watch! 

 

 

 

The point is, this whole "3CMs" thing is just a matter of opinion. To a lot of people (including our manager!) Bannan's as much a LM as a CM. So when we we line up with Bannan on the left, we're still playing with only 2 CMs.

 

[gurujuan]

40 minutes ago, York_Owl said:

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. 

 

I think even Joao, Matias and Forestieri gives us more options than Fletcher, Rhodes and Winnall, and with what we've spent on the latter three, we could have bought a decent upgrade on Joao, and still had him, Hooper and Wallace to come in

[Parrott71]

You don't play 442 with 3 central midfielders. Whoever plays wide always comes inside as that is there tendancy and leaves the team unbalanced. You play 442 with wingers on either flank, if you play 3 central midfielders play them as a central 3 in a 433 setup. It aint rocket science.

[spike1867]

1 minute ago, York_Owl said:

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. 

 

Completely agree with this. Being fluid is great but I think just settling on a system that is the same week in week out brings about the same fluidity. The point is players must be capable of fulfilling multiple roles. Our best run of results this season were with both FF and Hutchinson both absent. We had balance and something else I mentioned early part of last season was with Reach, Fletcher, Hooper maybe we would see a more orthodox style of play. As it turns out our best run of results came with a 4-4-2 with you've guessed it...Reach on the left, Hooper and Fletcher and Wallace on the right.

 

FF is not the player to build a team around. He's too unpredictable. Someone with the energy and discipline of Reach coupled with an ability to unlock a defence or just deliver a good cross (Boyd) would be a major improvement. Again someone with Bannans ability to spread play coupled with a more physical presence (Huddlestone/Surman) would see an improvement.

 

We really don't need much.

[York_Owl]

2 hours ago, spike1867 said:

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.

That was one of my favourite Wednesday midfields too but I'm going to have to say it...it included three CMs.  Make of that what you will.

[gurujuan]

40 minutes ago, spike1867 said:

 

Completely agree with this. Being fluid is great but I think just settling on a system that is the same week in week out brings about the same fluidity. The point is players must be capable of fulfilling multiple roles. Our best run of results this season were with both FF and Hutchinson both absent. We had balance and something else I mentioned early part of last season was with Reach, Fletcher, Hooper maybe we would see a more orthodox style of play. As it turns out our best run of results came with a 4-4-2 with you've guessed it...Reach on the left, Hooper and Fletcher and Wallace on the right.

 

FF is not the player to build a team around. He's too unpredictable. Someone with the energy and discipline of Reach coupled with an ability to unlock a defence or just deliver a good cross (Boyd) would be a major improvement. Again someone with Bannans ability to spread play coupled with a more physical presence (Huddlestone/Surman) would see an improvement.

 

We really don't need much.

 

Although we never actually played that way, even in that run of good results We achieved those results by squeezing the midfield. Wallace and Reach did not operate as true wide players, and Hooper became the link man. It's not my idea of how to play, but it's a bit more sophisticated than some of you think. Playing a more orthodox game might change things, for good, or for bad

[spike1867]

9 minutes ago, York_Owl said:

That was one of my favourite Wednesday midfields too but I'm going to have to say it...it included three CMs.  Make of that what you will.

 

It did, Wilson was a CM but he was wise enough and had experience in his early career to play a narrow right midfield and let Roly and Harkes get down the outside. I don't think Bannan has the same quality full back to overlap him like Wilson did. Pudil and Fox are no Roly or Harkes. As we've said before, it's all about little partnerships and that team had it in abundance.

[savi]

10 hours ago, Parrott71 said:

You don't play 442 with 3 central midfielders. Whoever plays wide always comes inside as that is there tendancy and leaves the team unbalanced. You play 442 with wingers on either flank, if you play 3 central midfielders play them as a central 3 in a 433 setup. It aint rocket science.

CC likes to play with wing backs meaning that the 442 formation soon changes to a 352 with our wingers tucking inside to allow our full back to push forward and Hutch moving to a back 3.

 

So as you say if we play with Hutch, Bannan, Lee & Wallace what you see is Hutch dropping off, Bannan & Wallace joining Lee.

Reach & Wallace are a managers dream cause they are excellent at doing their jobs as CC wants them too, FF is more attacking/direct so doesn't fit into the system as well as these 2 do. (Workers/flair)

 

So as it is CC doesn't need the pacy wingers were all crying out to see because its the fullbacks doing all the attacking on the wings.

As someone else said in another Fred its 2 pacy fullbacks we need that can beat a man and cross a quality ball in.

 

This is why I was in the "NOT too bothered if CC stays or goes poll" as he loves this way of playing and he's not going to change his preferred method thus in my opinion he's not getting the best out of his players.

Hence the no plan B people was saying this season.

 

[gurujuan]

48 minutes ago, savi said:

CC likes to play with wing backs meaning that the 442 formation soon changes to a 352 with our wingers tucking inside to allow our full back to push forward and Hutch moving to a back 3.

 

So as you say if we play with Hutch, Bannan, Lee & Wallace what you see is Hutch dropping off, Bannan & Wallace joining Lee.

Reach & Wallace are a managers dream cause they are excellent at doing their jobs as CC wants them too, FF is more attacking/direct so doesn't fit into the system as well as these 2 do. (Workers/flair)

 

So as it is CC doesn't need the pacy wingers were all crying out to see because its the fullbacks doing all the attacking on the wings.

As someone else said in another Fred its 2 pacy fullbacks we need that can beat a man and cross a quality ball in.

 

This is why I was in the "NOT too bothered if CC stays or goes poll" as he loves this way of playing and he's not going to change his preferred method thus in my opinion he's not getting the best out of his players.

Hence the no plan B people was saying this season.

 

 

Indeed, 2 pacy full backs, and a quick forward, and the system would work a whole ot better. My only issue is, if you're using your widemen as proxy midfielders, isn't it better to have the real thing?

[oldishowl]

Carlos plays one wide player who can come into the centre to help out. Last season usually this was Bannan from the left and Wallace stayed wide.

This season when Reach has played more as a wide player on the left Wallace has come in from the right. He said himself he had been asked to do this..

That is why this thread is nonsense. Wallace has been doing this all season so in effect we always play with 3 cm

 

The issues for me are

- the whole thing is too complicated and only needs the opposition to stop the full backs getting forward and we don't get over the halfway line

- Bannan and Wallace are integral to it but are strong nor athletic enough. Again if teams push on us like Udders did we struggle to get out of our own half

- it is basically a counter attacking style of play, but we don't have the pace

- it does allow us to play 2 strikers, trouble is because we struggle for possession against the top teams it is very difficult to create chances for them

[Holmowl]

9 hours ago, oldishowl said:

Carlos plays one wide player who can come into the centre to help out. Last season usually this was Bannan from the left and Wallace stayed wide.

This season when Reach has played more as a wide player on the left Wallace has come in from the right. He said himself he had been asked to do this..

That is why this thread is nonsense. Wallace has been doing this all season so in effect we always play with 3 cm

 

The issues for me are

- the whole thing is too complicated and only needs the opposition to stop the full backs getting forward and we don't get over the halfway line

- Bannan and Wallace are integral to it but are strong nor athletic enough. Again if teams push on us like Udders did we struggle to get out of our own half

- it is basically a counter attacking style of play, but we don't have the pace

- it does allow us to play 2 strikers, trouble is because we struggle for possession against the top teams it is very difficult to create chances for them

 

It won 53 points from 26 matches.

 

The alternative, 3 CMs, won 28 from 19.

 

Dont worry about why.

 

It works.

[Buxtongent]

This idea of 'Formations' is largely a load of b******s. 

I watched closely the defending and attacking 'formations' of the two sides who won competitions over the weekend. Whenever the opposition was attacking, particularly in the FA Cup Final, and whenever Chelsea attacked the Arsenal goal, Arsenal automatically went to an EIGHT man defence, then, when attacking, they had a FIVE man forwardline. inn other words, their team had fluidity. They did not stick to a rigid foundation of 442 or 433.

One point has been obvious this season, and I do not single out but use as an example one of my heroes, FF. If an attack fails, he can be often found wandering back toward the half way line, in such a way that he is in an offside position should a breakaway occur, resulting in a failure of an attack. Similarly, how often does Westie come away with the ball, look to give out a quick throw or pass to his defenders, only to find them wandering slowly up field.   

This difference in attitudes was obvious in the mindset of Arsenal and Chelsea, and, let's face it, even Huddersfield and Reading, who all seemed to change defence to attack so much quicker than we did with our slow build ups.. 

[gurujuan]

1 hour ago, Buxtongent said:

This idea of 'Formations' is largely a load of b******s. 

I watched closely the defending and attacking 'formations' of the two sides who won competitions over the weekend. Whenever the opposition was attacking, particularly in the FA Cup Final, and whenever Chelsea attacked the Arsenal goal, Arsenal automatically went to an EIGHT man defence, then, when attacking, they had a FIVE man forwardline. inn other words, their team had fluidity. They did not stick to a rigid foundation of 442 or 433.

One point has been obvious this season, and I do not single out but use as an example one of my heroes, FF. If an attack fails, he can be often found wandering back toward the half way line, in such a way that he is in an offside position should a breakaway occur, resulting in a failure of an attack. Similarly, how often does Westie come away with the ball, look to give out a quick throw or pass to his defenders, only to find them wandering slowly up field.   

This difference in attitudes was obvious in the mindset of Arsenal and Chelsea, and, let's face it, even Huddersfield and Reading, who all seemed to change defence to attack so much quicker than we did with our slow build ups.. 

 

Its true, it's about how formations are interpreted Bottom line with us is, we simply don't commit enough men forward when we're attacking, unless we're chasing the game in the last 20

[Holmowl]

Safe to say the reason we sometimes play 3 CMs is to keep it tight.

 

Well it doesn't work.

 

Here are the only matches under Carlos where we have conceded 3 or more:-

 

Burnley 1-3 (Wallace Hutch Bannan Lee)

Charlton 1-3 (BB Lee Hutch Wallace)

Bristol C 1-4 (McGeady Lopez Bannan Lee)

Burton 1-3 ( Abdi Lee BB Wallace)

Bristol C 3-2 (Reach Lee Jones BB)**

 

**I use the Bristol City match as a contrast. First half, 3 CMs, and City ran over us. At HT Carlos switched FF from striker to left, and put Wallace on RW. We tore them apart, despite going down to 10 men.

 

(I ignored the very early Boro match in 15/16 when we hadn't got the likes of FF and Bannan in yet, and played a very different system)

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Holmowl