Jump to content

More plan Bs than any other recent manager


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, S72 Owl said:

Same here. 
 

Definitely looked like a back 4. 
 

It is strange how we see things cos we saw the side and thought it would be a 4-3-3 yet after 2 mins I said to my mate that we've started as a 3-5-2 with Iorfa and Mighten as wing backs. To me it was clear that we played that throughout, but clearly Mightens average position will have been higher up the pitch than Iorfa. Also Windass dropped into gaps so it wasn't a perfectly balanced 3-5-2. Mighten played a similar role at Morecambe but on the right. It's likely that in matches where we will get the majority of possession DM feels he can employ Mighten as a wing back. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

Well I’m sorry but I haven’t seen any of our Plan Bs that come close to making us a better more effective team than our 352.

 

352 fit us like a glove.

 

The Heinz 57 formations we are using this season look like a wardrobe of very uncomfortable shoes. You can still walk in them but boy it’s uncomfortable.

I agree 3-5-2 has been good for us but the occasions where we have struggled have seemed to be where teams specifically set up to counter it. Over a season I think DM is right to set us up differently on occasion as it makes us harder to play against overall. Probably…

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Emerson Thome said:

Far be it for me to tell Mr. Moore what our formation was, but I didn't see any wing-backs out there today. Seemed like a classic flat back 4 to me.

 

2 hours ago, Paul.. said:

I honestly thought we played a back 4! Shows what I know.

 

1 hour ago, S72 Owl said:

Same here. 
 

Definitely looked like a back 4. 
 

Sorry - this is not meant to be a personal dig at you three and if I appear arrogant or condescending then it is unintentional but it does not require three centre-halves to facilitate playing wingbacks - the things that determines if you are playing wingback (as opposed to fullback) is the position and tactic of that player playing in that fullback/wingback position; you could have any number of centre-haves (1, 2, 3 or more) and still play with either fullbacks or wingbacks e.g. a "back 5" is the same as a "back 4" but just has an extra centre-half.  Yesterday, we played two centre-halves and two wingbacks.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say the basic setup was 3 at the back.

 

We've seen it a few times with James where he plays left CB but likes to bomb on if he's free (which he did a lot). 

 

Miten kept coming inside a lot because Windass kept coming into his space (not sure if it was intentional it more) but I felt it messed with mitens game as had little space to run at players.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CircleSeven said:

I agree 3-5-2 has been good for us but the occasions where we have struggled have seemed to be where teams specifically set up to counter it. Over a season I think DM is right to set us up differently on occasion as it makes us harder to play against overall. Probably…

 

Exactly.

 

3-5-2 worked really well for us last season, especially at home. But away from home, we picked up 6 away wins in 5 months of playing that way.

 

It's already proven its worth for us this season, both as a starting formation and as one we can transition into as games progress, but a back four can work brilliantly for us, too - I mean, we've won all but one game in which we've started with a back four so far this season.

 

Why anyone would want us to be more one-dimensional in our play, I have no idea. Moore wanted greater tactical flexibility this season, and so far he's using it to good effect for the most part.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, shandypants said:

 

 

Sorry - this is not meant to be a personal dig at you three and if I appear arrogant or condescending then it is unintentional but it does not require three centre-halves to facilitate playing wingbacks - the things that determines if you are playing wingback (as opposed to fullback) is the position and tactic of that player playing in that fullback/wingback position; you could have any number of centre-haves (1, 2, 3 or more) and still play with either fullbacks or wingbacks e.g. a "back 5" is the same as a "back 4" but just has an extra centre-half.  Yesterday, we played two centre-halves and two wingbacks.  

We’re referring to Moores comments that Iorfa and Mighten played as wing backs. 
 

So your suggesting that we played 2 Centre half’s and 2 wing backs so where did James play?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, onlyonedavidhirst said:

It is strange how we see things cos we saw the side and thought it would be a 4-3-3 yet after 2 mins I said to my mate that we've started as a 3-5-2 with Iorfa and Mighten as wing backs. To me it was clear that we played that throughout, but clearly Mightens average position will have been higher up the pitch than Iorfa. Also Windass dropped into gaps so it wasn't a perfectly balanced 3-5-2. Mighten played a similar role at Morecambe but on the right. It's likely that in matches where we will get the majority of possession DM feels he can employ Mighten as a wing back. 


 

Nailed it 

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...