4-3-3

[Rentaghost]

Playing three at the back would be a backwards step for me from playing 433. essentially, the full backs in a 433 push on and join the attack. So it creates a 253 when in possession, with one of the midfielders screening the back two incase we loose the ball. Cc has shown often enough he likes this holding mid, and he'd probably use one if we played 3 at the back as well. 433 is the way forward, it gets more of our attacking players in the field, tonight when we had fletch, winnel  (Rhodes later) and hooper, I said now that's an attack worthy of any championship team. We looked dangerous. This formation also allows probably our most important attacking player (in hooper) to get on the ball with options ahead of him. In a 442 often he is left with one person ahead and the opposition can easily stifle that threat. 

Was very encouraged tonight after the poor start we've made. 

On a side note, pudil was first class at cb, but he probably isn't the long term answer. 

[Crack pot]

This would suite all our strikers plus it means we can keep 5 of them happy as they should be getting game time(forestieri would benefit the most probably), midfield 3 which I think most of our midfielders would prefer aswell, shame lee is injured as I thought he would have thrived off the second half yesterday

[LoadABallacks]

9 hours ago, Jowl said:

Gotta be our formation. Suits all our strikers and all our centre midfielders. We don't have real wingers so it allows us to use our full backs better too. 

 

we looked better in both home games with it by a mile too

Tend to agree and can't see what there is to lose. 

 

Yes we leave ourself open, but having started all our 3 league games with a more solid 4 in midfield and gone behind in each game, you can hardly say it makes us more solid and difficult to beat. 

[adifferentgame]

9 hours ago, TrueOwl said:

It would be a shame if we finally switch to 4-3-3 and we sell Nando.

 

Fernando on the left and Marco on the right of a front 3 is something I'd love to see.

[Jowl]

9 hours ago, KivoOwl said:

It's not really 4-3-3 - I'd say it was 4-4-2 with a midfield diamond.

 

It suits us because of our paucity of wingers, and if Hunt and Reach can play like they did tonight we're onto a winner 

 

We'd need a top new player at the base of the diamond though - Hutch cant be relied on and Jones aint good enough. 

 

If the Forestieri rift can be healed, he'd be perfect for that number 10 role. 

 

It wasn't a diamond in the first half that didn't work. 

 

Defo moved it around 2nd half with fletcher on. 

You could argue it was 4-1-2-3 but I'm trying to forget jones 'performance'. Good job he scored cos.