Stick with the diamond!

[mozzy85]

4 hours ago, OwlofOliveGrove said:

Having 3 strikers on the field forced the issue for me. Loved watching it.

 

Problem is how vulnerable it leaves us at the back. Given better opposition we might have shot ourselves in the foot...but I'd still rather watch that than what we we saw this season up to the 45min mark last night.

This for me. Against QPR the second half was much better. Also better to watch too. 

[mattitheowl]

Fulham will destroy us if we play a diamond.  It exposes the full backs massively and they have pace to burn down the wings.

 

The only reason we got back into the game last night was because Sunderland ran themselves out after an hour.

[TrueOwl]

Food for thought: out of curiosity I did a couple of Fifa 17 season simulations this morning to compare the 442 diamond with 4-3-3 with Hooper as false 9  (Lee for Wallace, Fessi for Fletch, Boyd for Rhodes, Loovens in) and the diamond was a lot less effective... we didn't make the playoffs finishing 8th on 68 points, but with the false 9 we finished 2nd on 86 points (Nando 15, Boyd 12). Hooper as a false 9 as the game suggests very well could be the difference between challenging for automatics and muddling though imo.

Edited August 17, 2017 by TrueOwl

[Bouncing Owl]

5 hours ago, Southie_Owl said:

4-3-3 has to be the way, especially when we have a player like FF that would love playing on the left of the front 3. And Bannan can play left side of the midfield 3

 

Reach and Hunt need to be the full backs to provide the width. Hopefully we have now improved the centre backs area. 

 

Anyone just needs to watch Southampton or Liverpool play to see how 433 can be effective in attacking football.

 

Glaringly obvious to me. Prefer 4-3-3 to the diamond as well. If we play Bannan and Lee in midfield with a defensive midfield behind them, that would be the preferred option. Having FF on the left of a front 3 would be great and I think we would be a big threat.

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Bouncing Owl

[beloved_aunt]

21 hours ago, Southie_Owl said:

4-3-3 has to be the way, especially when we have a player like FF that would love playing on the left of the front 3. And Bannan can play left side of the midfield 3

 

Reach and Hunt need to be the full backs to provide the width. Hopefully we have now improved the centre backs area. 

 

Anyone just needs to watch Southampton or Liverpool play to see how 433 can be effective in attacking football.

 

Thats my fav formation too and I think it'd bring the best out of FF, Bannan, Lee and Hutch/Jones.

 

But ... I'm not sure we have someone of the same pace and trickery as FF to play on the right side cutting in, Boyd and Wallace both slower and prefer playing deeper.  It would also mean just one through the middle and six, yes six, strikers we've invested heavily in sitting out every week. 

[dobbo]

17 hours ago, TrueOwl said:

Food for thought: out of curiosity I did a couple of Fifa 17 season simulations this morning to compare the 442 diamond with 4-3-3 with Hooper as false 9  (Lee for Wallace, Fessi for Fletch, Boyd for Rhodes, Loovens in) and the diamond was a lot less effective... we didn't make the playoffs finishing 8th on 68 points, but with the false 9 we finished 2nd on 86 points (Nando 15, Boyd 12). Hooper as a false 9 as the game suggests very well could be the difference between challenging for automatics and muddling though imo.

 

You can't be serious!? 

[beloved_aunt]

17 hours ago, TrueOwl said:

Food for thought: out of curiosity I did a couple of Fifa 17 season simulations this morning to compare the 442 diamond with 4-3-3 with Hooper as false 9  (Lee for Wallace, Fessi for Fletch, Boyd for Rhodes, Loovens in) and the diamond was a lot less effective... we didn't make the playoffs finishing 8th on 68 points, but with the false 9 we finished 2nd on 86 points (Nando 15, Boyd 12). Hooper as a false 9 as the game suggests very well could be the difference between challenging for automatics and muddling though imo.

 

You know its not real yeah? Just a game and that. 

[Andrew6666]

We have too many players bought for formations that we dont use. Some would be better in the diamond, some with wing backs, some with 2 up front etc.

 

I would play 3-5-2 with the players that we have.

 

Westwood

Lees Loovens Hutchinson

Hunt Lee Abdi Bannan Reach

Fletcher Hooper

 

 

[beloved_aunt]

Just now, Andrew6666 said:

We have too many players bought for formations that we dont use. Some would be better in the diamond, some with wing backs, some with 2 up front etc.

 

I would play 3-5-2 with the players that we have.

 

Westwood

Lees Loovens Hutchinson

Hunt Lee Abdi Bannan Reach

Fletcher Hooper

 

 

 

That looks like a solid side and one I'd like to see tried out.  But CC has already as good as said he ain't gonna do it.

[York_Owl]

1 hour ago, beloved_aunt said:

 

Thats my fav formation too and I think it'd bring the best out of FF, Bannan, Lee and Hutch/Jones.

 

But ... I'm not sure we have someone of the same pace and trickery as FF to play on the right side cutting in, Boyd and Wallace both slower and prefer playing deeper.  It would also mean just one through the middle and six, yes six, strikers we've invested heavily in sitting out every week. 

So what you're saying is don't stick with the diamond and go with a 4-3-3 (which is also my preferred formation).

[WorrallOwl17]

The diamond with Hooper in the 10 and Fletcher and Rhodes up front is how we should start, unfortunately we only go for this when we're 1 nil down and only get to see it for 45 minutes. Abdi or Boyd in the 10 wouldn't really offer much to the front 2, Hooper behind gives it a lot more attacking threat. All the diamond requires is that the 2 wide points of the diamond can get out left and right to stop the oppositions attacking threat. When attacking it suits us as Reach and Hunt can get past the diamond and offer the width. I would go with Jones anchoring, unless Hutch is fit. Boyd and Bannan the centre 2, Hooper at the point and Fletcher and Rhodes together. But it will be Wallace for Boyd

[beloved_aunt]

10 minutes ago, York_Owl said:

So what you're saying is don't stick with the diamond and go with a 4-3-3 (which is also my preferred formation).

 

I'm saying this if Jan we'd spent the Rhodes money on Helder Costa instead, or got Patrick Roberts on loan from City instead of signing Boyd then we'd have the perfect front six for the formation:

 

                      Hutchinson

              Lee              Bannan

Pacey left footer               Forestieri

                       Hooper

 

But as we didn't do these things I think the diamond is the one which best suits us as things stand.

Edited August 18, 2017 by beloved_aunt

[IstillhateSteveBould]

Let's be honest, it's 433 that's looking good. Not really a diamond. Hooper's not playing as a midfielder, he's like a false 9 and the 2 other forwards operate wider. 

[Southie_Owl]

1 hour ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

Let's be honest, it's 433 that's looking good. Not really a diamond. Hooper's not playing as a midfielder, he's like a false 9 and the 2 other forwards operate wider. 

 

Yep I would love us to try starting games with his formation. And I would probably have Fletcher up top with FF and Hooper playing off him, at the moment. But lets face it, whilst Carlos is here I think it's a certain we will be starting most games 442 until we need to "change something" and "do more goals in the second halfs" (Carlos spelling) 

 

 

[Holmowl]

1 hour ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

Let's be honest, it's 433 that's looking good. Not really a diamond. Hooper's not playing as a midfielder, he's like a false 9 and the 2 other forwards operate wider. 

 

And it did look extremely effective. Some of our attacking play was a delight, and it pushed Sunderland back very deep. 

 

Whatever formation he plays, we always look twice the team when we play at tempo. I really hope we start to see tempo in first halves.

 

 

[Utah Owl]

If we're playing Diamond this season the we'd better change the walk out music to "Song, Sung Blue"!

[IstillhateSteveBould]

1 hour ago, Southie_Owl said:

 

Yep I would love us to try starting games with his formation. And I would probably have Fletcher up top with FF and Hooper playing off him, at the moment. But lets face it, whilst Carlos is here I think it's a certain we will be starting most games 442 until we need to "change something" and "do more goals in the second halfs" (Carlos spelling) 

 

 

 

Would love to see us start like that, but you're probably right, Carlos will stick to his version of 442. Its a shame because I think it will end up costing him his job.

 

The thing is, we shouldn't actually be left too exposed anytime we play that formation. The full backs don't have to be as attack minded as they currently are due to our forward's positions.

 

Bannan and Lee are spot on for the 2 wide midfield roles, FF fits either side of front 3 and Hooper is absolutely perfect as a false 9. I think he could do some serious damage there.

 

[frastheowl]

 

It'll be back to a flat 4-4-2 tomorrow.

 

We'll go there to frustrate, not entertain.

 

Carlos more or less implied that the other night when pressed about Boyd's absence. 

 

Loovens will come back, Pudil will go to full back. 

 

Reach left wing, Boyd right wing, Jones & Bannan in the middle

 

Fletcher & Hooper up top.

[frastheowl]

22 hours ago, mattitheowl said:

Fulham will destroy us if we play a diamond.  It exposes the full backs massively and they have pace to burn down the wings.

 

The only reason we got back into the game last night was because Sunderland ran themselves out after an hour.

 

Agree with this to an extent.

 

I'm a big advocate of the diamond, it suits our style. But away from home at Fulham, it has to be about stopping them playing first and foremost.

 

They push their full backs on, their wide forwards come inside, and MacDonald (or whoever it is this season), sits in front of the centre halves and recycle possession.

 

Playing a diamond put a lot of pressure on our full backs defensively, but more decisively, there would really struggle to get forward, because of the threat of Fulham in wide areas. And we could struggle to create any width whatsoever.

 

It's these suit of games where the 3-5-2 or a 4-3-3 (4-2-3-1) would really suit us. Not gonna happen though.

[owls_wawaw]

On 17/08/2017 at 13:49, pgmetcalf said:

Um nope, but I'd still play Hooper in the hole behind the front 2

absolutely this for me...hooper behind a front two