3-5-2

[ash60s]

and me

[damianb1]

Formations don't win games, players do! As I've stated previously in another thread too many of ours just aren't good enough. How many of ours would have got in Newcastle/Brightons sides last season? Not many, as others have said although we may have lined up as a 442 last season when hutch played in midfield we predominantly played 352 with him dropping and the 2 fbs pushing on, how well did that work out? As for ff I don't give  a damn where HE wants to play, he plays where he is told which should be wide left if he does one. The main issue last season was tactics and intensity the latter of which was not in the same ball park as the previous season where we often won the ball back deep in the opponents half and therefore quickly had a goal scoring opportunity. If we are going to look at a change in formation I would like to try 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-3-2 depending upon opponents.

[Holmowl]

8 hours ago, gurujuan said:

Forestieri has said in an interview with the Sheffield Telegraph, that he prefers to play in the hole

 

Ive taken a look around on the internet and can't find this interview. The nearest I found was a comment after he was switched from striker to LW during last season's Forest game, where he changed the game and scored the winner from LW, where he said it was the first time he had played it.

 

But I agree with @damianb1 that players play where the manager tells them. 

[BD2OWL]

19 hours ago, gurujuan said:

If we were planning to play this way, what happens to our wingers, they'd  be redundant

 

Not sure if this is supposed be an ironic post, but ....

 

we played without any width most of last season. 

 

As you know, I've been saying a while that I believe he's going to go 3-5-2 

 

Reach and Hunt would both be comfortable in the wing back positions. 

[BD2OWL]

40 minutes ago, damianb1 said:

Formations don't win games, players do! As I've stated previously in another thread too many of ours just aren't good enough. How many of ours would have got in Newcastle/Brightons sides last season? Not many, as others have said although we may have lined up as a 442 last season when hutch played in midfield we predominantly played 352 with him dropping and the 2 fbs pushing on, how well did that work out? As for ff I don't give  a damn where HE wants to play, he plays where he is told which should be wide left if he does one. The main issue last season was tactics and intensity the latter of which was not in the same ball park as the previous season where we often won the ball back deep in the opponents half and therefore quickly had a goal scoring opportunity. If we are going to look at a change in formation I would like to try 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-3-2 depending upon opponents.

 

You think we predominantly played 3-5-2 last year? 

 

I agree that Hutch/Bannan dropped a hell of a lot, to the point they were deeper than 2 centre backs. 

 

But it that made us more 5-3-2 which is why we had little to no width and why we seemed very very defensive in comparison with the previous season. 

 

Pudil/Reach and Hunt/Palmer rarely pushed on. 

 

Wallace/A N Other played really narrow, there was no outball to either wing, which is why everything we did seemed to go through the middle and why so very little came in from the wings to what on paper should be a very potent strike force. 

[gurujuan]

1 hour ago, damianb1 said:

Formations don't win games, players do! As I've stated previously in another thread too many of ours just aren't good enough. How many of ours would have got in Newcastle/Brightons sides last season? Not many, as others have said although we may have lined up as a 442 last season when hutch played in midfield we predominantly played 352 with him dropping and the 2 fbs pushing on, how well did that work out? As for ff I don't give  a damn where HE wants to play, he plays where he is told which should be wide left if he does one. The main issue last season was tactics and intensity the latter of which was not in the same ball park as the previous season where we often won the ball back deep in the opponents half and therefore quickly had a goal scoring opportunity. If we are going to look at a change in formation I would like to try 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-3-2 depending upon opponents.

 

All players play where they are told to play, not just Forestieri. Wallace might prefer to play as a winger, but if he's told to play narrow, that's where he plays, Rhodes might prefer to play in and around the box, but if he's told to run the channels, then that's what he has to do However, it doesn't stop them thinking they might be more productive were they allowed to play in a position where they were more comfortable

[Crack pot]

Not a big fan of this formation muskeg but I think it's what Carlos needs, he gets his 3 midfield what's not rigid, plus this leaves a number 10 role for Abdi to play in or maybe fessi. I'd get the squad used to it but make sure they still know the 442 system aswell

[spike1867]

2 hours ago, damianb1 said:

Formations don't win games, players do! As I've stated previously in another thread too many of ours just aren't good enough. How many of ours would have got in Newcastle/Brightons sides last season? Not many, as others have said although we may have lined up as a 442 last season when hutch played in midfield we predominantly played 352 with him dropping and the 2 fbs pushing on, how well did that work out? As for ff I don't give  a damn where HE wants to play, he plays where he is told which should be wide left if he does one. The main issue last season was tactics and intensity the latter of which was not in the same ball park as the previous season where we often won the ball back deep in the opponents half and therefore quickly had a goal scoring opportunity. If we are going to look at a change in formation I would like to try 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-3-2 depending upon opponents.

 

I've stated many times mate that I think 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-3-2 would be our best formation.  The problem is our excess of strikers means we are trying to squeeze 2 strikers in.  This was brought on largely by a sub par performance against Brum at home when Winnall and Rhodes both scored, but it flattered us.

 

With the 4-2-3-1 we would maintain a higher line and having 4 players on the pitch dedicated to attacking play before the full backs and Lee join in.  Personally I'd like us to play this with a slightly more mobile striker with a bit more pace as it pushes the opposition back 5 yards, but Hooper is very good at linking the play. 

 

                                           Westwood

                              Lees                           Hutchinson

      Hunt                                                                                    NEW

                                          NEW   Lee

 

                NEW                       Abdi                            FF

 

                                              NEW

 

A new left back with good delivery is imperative.  Whether Fox can do that I'm unsure.  I've said I would like Pocognoli at LB.  We need a CM to go alongside Lee who has the legs to get up and down as well as Lee.  I think Jackson Irvine is that type of player, some have said Williams.  We need a direct pacey player on the right.  We all thought McManaman might be that player but he never really got a chance.  Lawrence would be good here.  The striker needs to be quicker and stronger than what we currently have, especially away from home.  At home, we can go with only the one defensive screen and add the extra striker.  As I've said before, minimum change of personnel and formation.

 

Alas this won't happen because we have gone down a route with the recruitment of our strikers.  Personally we could get shot of Rhodes, Winnall, Nuhiu and Joao if we recruited a direct right sided goalscorer like Lawrence and a quick, strong CF. 

 

Its only a personal wish to see us play this way.  I think it satisfies CC's need to keep things tight if required and with the right line of 3 behind a quick striker, we would press higher, have more goalscoring ability, be quicker and more direct when counter attacking and still have the ability to retain the ball.  For example, if we brought in Jackson Irvine, Pocognoli and Tom Lawrence and played Abdi as playmaker, I think Lawrence scores more than Wallace, Abdi more than Bannan, Irvine more than Hutchinson.  FF gets to play in behind the striker and not in an out and out wide berth.  If we got the following returns;

 

Irvine  5

Lee 10

Lawrence 10

FF 15

Abdi 6

Striker 15

 

That's over 60 goals and I don't think we would be easy to break down.

 

Anyway, I can wish.

[beloved_aunt]

11 hours ago, Holmowl said:

 

What if he shoehorns in his favourites in 352?

 

442 or 352, with our best players in their best positions, and either will be excellent.

 

I just think 3-5-2 allows us to put more round pegs in round holes than does 4-4-2 with our current squad.

[gurujuan]

54 minutes ago, spike1867 said:

 

I've stated many times mate that I think 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-3-2 would be our best formation.  The problem is our excess of strikers means we are trying to squeeze 2 strikers in.  This was brought on largely by a sub par performance against Brum at home when Winnall and Rhodes both scored, but it flattered us.

 

With the 4-2-3-1 we would maintain a higher line and having 4 players on the pitch dedicated to attacking play before the full backs and Lee join in.  Personally I'd like us to play this with a slightly more mobile striker with a bit more pace as it pushes the opposition back 5 yards, but Hooper is very good at linking the play. 

 

                                           Westwood

                              Lees                           Hutchinson

      Hunt                                                                                    NEW

                                          NEW   Lee

 

                NEW                       Abdi                            FF

 

                                              NEW

 

A new left back with good delivery is imperative.  Whether Fox can do that I'm unsure.  I've said I would like Pocognoli at LB.  We need a CM to go alongside Lee who has the legs to get up and down as well as Lee.  I think Jackson Irvine is that type of player, some have said Williams.  We need a direct pacey player on the right.  We all thought McManaman might be that player but he never really got a chance.  Lawrence would be good here.  The striker needs to be quicker and stronger than what we currently have, especially away from home.  At home, we can go with only the one defensive screen and add the extra striker.  As I've said before, minimum change of personnel and formation.

 

Alas this won't happen because we have gone down a route with the recruitment of our strikers.  Personally we could get shot of Rhodes, Winnall, Nuhiu and Joao if we recruited a direct right sided goalscorer like Lawrence and a quick, strong CF. 

 

Its only a personal wish to see us play this way.  I think it satisfies CC's need to keep things tight if required and with the right line of 3 behind a quick striker, we would press higher, have more goalscoring ability, be quicker and more direct when counter attacking and still have the ability to retain the ball.  For example, if we brought in Jackson Irvine, Pocognoli and Tom Lawrence and played Abdi as playmaker, I think Lawrence scores more than Wallace, Abdi more than Bannan, Irvine more than Hutchinson.  FF gets to play in behind the striker and not in an out and out wide berth.  If we got the following returns;

 

Irvine  5

Lee 10

Lawrence 10

FF 15

Abdi 6

Striker 15

 

That's over 60 goals and I don't think we would be easy to break down.

 

Anyway, I can wish.

 

Thats as near as you could get to how I'd like to see us set up. Have slightly different ideas about the personnel, but the system is one which I think would bring us a lot of joy Our collection of much of a muchness strikers, means someone has a lot to answer for

[daveyboy66]

23 hours ago, gurujuan said:

I'm not anti 3-5-2, but it throws up more questions than answers

Only for people who don't understand football

 

[Bexy1977]

3-1-4-2 is better.

have an extra defensive mid so you don't need defensive wingbacks.

 

lees. hutch. New

          New

New or Bannan. Lee. Abdi. Fessi

 

hooper. Rhodes

[trask43]

Not sure about 352 we play that at times in matches anyway. the chelsea 343 system would work better with the players we have

 

                          westwood

 

             lees        loovens      pudil

 

hunt          hutch           bannan       reach        

 

        wallace                               ff

                            fletcher

 

 

Ideally pudil and wallace would be improved upon but would work well for the rest of the players and plenty have similarities to their chelsea counterparts albeit at a lower standard. Hutch would be our kante. bannan our fabregas, ff our hazard etc.

[damianb1]

12 hours ago, gurujuan said:

 

All players play where they are told to play, not just Forestieri. Wallace might prefer to play as a winger, but if he's told to play narrow, that's where he plays, Rhodes might prefer to play in and around the box, but if he's told to run the channels, then that's what he has to do However, it doesn't stop them thinking they might be more productive were they allowed to play in a position where they were more comfortable

Yes players do play where they are told but there certainly seems to be an issue with where ff is (& has made it plainly obvious to management) playing and where he feels he should be deployed, unfortunately this is not where stats show that he and the team are both more attacking and successful.

[Blatter]

On 2017-6-15 at 11:18, Arnold said:

What wingers? 

The wingers will be on the bench for our plan B

Good old fashioned 4-4-2

 

Or if we're really up against it 2-3-5 with half backs, wingers and inside forwards.

[Salmonbones]

14 hours ago, BD2OWL said:

 

Not sure if this is supposed be an ironic post, but ....

 

we played without any width most of last season. 

 

As you know, I've been saying a while that I believe he's going to go 3-5-2 

 

Reach and Hunt would both be comfortable in the wing back positions. 

 

I think I may be in a minority of one on Owlstalk, but I actually would put Palmer ahead of Hunt if the role was wing back.

 

Palmer is an athlete, technically good enough and doesn't have the poor positional sense that Hunt seems to have had drilled into him by someone.    I thought Hunt was being told to zonal mark at first, but i'm not convinced, and such poor positional sense when defending will cost more as a wing back then it does as a fullback.

 

As I say, maybe i'm minority of one but I personally really think as a wingback, Palmer could finally fulfil the promise so many successive managers have seen in him.

[Stoop]

I'd be delighted to see us go 3-5-2, with the players we have it'd be great

[Inspector Lestrade]

12 minutes ago, salmonbones said:

 

I think I may be in a minority of one on Owlstalk, but I actually would put Palmer ahead of Hunt if the role was wing back.

 

Palmer is an athlete, technically good enough and doesn't have the poor positional sense that Hunt seems to have had drilled into him by someone.    I thought Hunt was being told to zonal mark at first, but i'm not convinced, and such poor positional sense when defending will cost more as a wing back then it does as a fullback.

 

As I say, maybe i'm minority of one but I personally really think as a wingback, Palmer could finally fulfil the promise so many successive managers have seen in him.

 

 

Palmer an athlete?  So why can't he get back when he's got forward?  He lacks belief in himself, in my opinion, doesn't do what's his brains telling him to do.

[gurujuan]

15 minutes ago, salmonbones said:

 

I think I may be in a minority of one on Owlstalk, but I actually would put Palmer ahead of Hunt if the role was wing back.

 

Palmer is an athlete, technically good enough and doesn't have the poor positional sense that Hunt seems to have had drilled into him by someone.    I thought Hunt was being told to zonal mark at first, but i'm not convinced, and such poor positional sense when defending will cost more as a wing back then it does as a fullback.

 

As I say, maybe i'm minority of one but I personally really think as a wingback, Palmer could finally fulfil the promise so many successive managers have seen in him.

 

We are in a minority of two, I think Palmer should actually have played more than he has this season

[Guest Arnold]

Hunt really came good second half of the season.