3 at the back?

[Think tank]

Does anyone think this is a big reason why we are so disjointed?

 

It puts too many players out of their natural position and restricts what we get out of them.   Never been a fan of it and I think it unnecessarily complicates things. 

[Holmowl]

No.

 

The total opposite.

 

We are twice the team in our 352 than any other of the 57 formations Daz is trying to make work this season.

 

It allows us two strikers, three across the midfield and width from the two WBs.

 

If we start the next 23 games in our 352 we go up.

 

If Daz fiddles and fuddles game after game, as he has recently, we’ll fall short.

[OrlandoUnTrustful]

We don’t have any natural wingbacks and we don’t have enough width. We need to play to Smith’s strengths and get crosses into the box.

 

All our problems defensively come out wide and between defenders playing out of position. The space between the cbs and wingbacks just leaves us so open. We got lucky against a pub side yesterday.

 

I think we need 4-3-3 unless we bring in reinforcements to play in their natural positions.

 

It was a fantastic win considering.

[Pieman]

I think Palmer and James are very good fullbacks at this level, therefore I’d go with a back four at present. I think injuries prevented this yesterday.
 

Our lack of pace out wide is hindering 352. If we can replace Johnson and Mighten in Jan or get Dennis fit running up and down the right, James left, I’d go back to 352. The key point to this formation is it plays to our strength in central midfield and the two big lads up top. Need athleticism and/or pace wide.

[S72 Owl]

It’s our best formation. 
 

Our form in 2022 proves this. 

 

 

[Holmowl]

57 minutes ago, OrlandoUnTrustful said:

We don’t have any natural wingbacks and we don’t have enough width. We need to play to Smith’s strengths and get crosses into the box.

 

All our problems defensively come out wide and between defenders playing out of position. The space between the cbs and wingbacks just leaves us so open. We got lucky against a pub side yesterday.

 

I think we need 4-3-3 unless we bring in reinforcements to play in their natural positions.

 

It was a fantastic win considering.

Our record with 433 this season and last is poor.

 

We must play a formation that puts two strikers up top.

 

I love 442 but with Bannan getting on a bit I really question if 442 would be sustainable.

 

Hence 352 for me. And our results show it’s our best system hands down.

[torryowl]

Dont care as long as we win and we seem to win most by playing 3 at the back so dont see any reason to change .

[Django]

I’ve no problem with 3 at the back provided you’ve got the following- 

 

- 3 fit centre half’s, (which we haven’t)

 

- 2 specialist wingbacks ( which we don’t)

 

Imo it’s being persisted with when it shouldn’t be to the detriment of the performances on show,  and the fluidity of our football 

[briggowl]

Think I've seen us at our best with the 3-5-2 over 2 seasons. This time last season we really began to look like a team that knew what they were doing and smashed a lot of teams especially at Hillsborough.

[Baytan Blue]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

No.

 

The total opposite.

 

We are twice the team in our 352 than any other of the 57 formations Daz is trying to make work this season.

 

It allows us two strikers, three across the midfield and width from the two WBs.

 

If we start the next 23 games in our 352 we go up.

 

If Daz fiddles and fuddles game after game, as he has recently, we’ll fall short.

I agree Holmowl, we have enough with this squad to play 352 and win most games,most teams can't cope with the attacking intent of 352,we need a centre half Back quick though,or sign one,at the moment we are weak in the air with James and Palmer against the Bullying giant sides.Otherwise IMO I think this squad can cope with 352.

[frastheowl]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

No.

 

The total opposite.

 

We are twice the team in our 352 than any other of the 57 formations Daz is trying to make work this season.

 

It allows us two strikers, three across the midfield and width from the two WBs.

 

If we start the next 23 games in our 352 we go up.

 

If Daz fiddles and fuddles game after game, as he has recently, we’ll fall short.

 

This. 3-5-2 works because it allows us to play two up front and get three ball players into midfield.

 

Palmer & James are more than adequate WCB's (James is absolutely brilliant tbf), and McGuiness as a middle of the three is as good as there is at this level.

 

Our issue is the RWB slot. Johnson is brilliant in the LWB role and is CRIMINALLY underrated by so many Wednesdayites. We are desperate for a Johnson equivalent on the right flank...we neglected that position in the summer for some reason, signing two wingers instead. In January we need a RWB who can provide the legs, and constant outlet that Johnson provides on the opposite flank.

 

Another centre half would give us a bit more depth, but I'd be surprised if any centre half we bring in would displace our current options (especially considering Ihiekwe isn't too far off).

 

Oh, and another forward...a proper centre forward is needed also. I'd be getting on the phone to Leicester and getting them to cut short Hirst's disastrous loan move to Blackburn. His athleticism and general all-round forward would be a great asset to our forward options. No chance of it happening given the Chansiri/Hirst melodrama...but I fail to see how we could attract someone better without paying daft money.

[striker]

Not my preferred formation, but it works for some reason.

 

I understand the rationale if we have players filling in at CB and need cover to compensate, but the system only works when we have effective wingbacks and we don't.

 

It's most often a back 5 which then means the front 2 are isolated. This is part of the problem maintaining possession of late.

 

While I support Moore and think he's doing a grand job, doesn't mean I can't disagree with him. I fundamentally disagree with his philosophy of fluid formations. My preference is to recruit to a preferred system and play it, master plan A and have a plan B up your sleeve in case.

 

If we were nailing our colours to 352 were in desperate need of wingbacks in the summer. Instead chased wingers and players suited to 433.

 

Therefore in my opinion, what we are left with is some players always filling in and doing a job in unfamiliar positions, whichever formation we play, hence why we look disjointed most of the time.

 

With the quality in the squad, we can get away with it, but I'm not a fan of constant change. Maybe I'm old fashioned?

 

I'd like to see us stick to a formation for a run of games, build up some cohesion, momentum and confidence.

[Holmowl]

40 minutes ago, frastheowl said:

 

This. 3-5-2 works because it allows us to play two up front and get three ball players into midfield.

 

Palmer & James are more than adequate WCB's (James is absolutely brilliant tbf), and McGuiness as a middle of the three is as good as there is at this level.

 

Our issue is the RWB slot. Johnson is brilliant in the LWB role and is CRIMINALLY underrated by so many Wednesdayites. We are desperate for a Johnson equivalent on the right flank...we neglected that position in the summer for some reason, signing two wingers instead. In January we need a RWB who can provide the legs, and constant outlet that Johnson provides on the opposite flank.

 

Another centre half would give us a bit more depth, but I'd be surprised if any centre half we bring in would displace our current options (especially considering Ihiekwe isn't too far off).

 

Oh, and another forward...a proper centre forward is needed also. I'd be getting on the phone to Leicester and getting them to cut short Hirst's disastrous loan move to Blackburn. His athleticism and general all-round forward would be a great asset to our forward options. No chance of it happening given the Chansiri/Hirst melodrama...but I fail to see how we could attract someone better without paying daft money.

 

 

I assume he thought Palmer and Hunt were more than good enough at RWB.

 

Hunt’s illness and The Curse of the Blue and White Centre-Backs(Conan-Doyle circa 1903) stuffed him.

 

Why he acquired two wingers though I’ve no idea.

[4evaowl]

2 hours ago, Holmowl said:

No.

 

The total opposite.

 

We are twice the team in our 352 than any other of the 57 formations Daz is trying to make work this season.

 

It allows us two strikers, three across the midfield and width from the two WBs.

 

If we start the next 23 games in our 352 we go up.

 

If Daz fiddles and fuddles game after game, as he has recently, we’ll fall short.

Tend to agree with this.

Defensively it requires two wing backs who have to work their socks off, and we are a bit short of players who can play that role well compared with last season, but for me we’ve played our best football under DM using 3-5-2.

[Blergh]

Whilst I’m not the biggest fan of three at the back, the current issues seem to be largely ones of personnel. Ever since we lost Ihiekwe and Heneghan (coupled with Iorfa’s lack of form), we’ve been forced into using fullbacks at centre half - and with that forced to play a three because neither Palmer or James are big enough to play centre half in a two. The wingbacks have also been getting sucked back trying to project the makeshift back three, so don’t offer as much going forward. Sort the centrebacks out in the window and a lot of this would hopefully go away. 

 

Contrary to some views here though (and they may well be right of course!), I actually think the back three with wingbacks has really limited our attacking options at times this year. We seemed to carry more threat with a back four, especially at home. Wingbacks are great when there’s space to run in to but that’s rarely the case at Hillsborough due to opposition defences sitting in. That results in Palmer and Johnson trying to run at a massed defence, with no supporting overlap. We can’t get through, so just end up pumping balls into a packed penalty area from deep, when our attackers seem to do far better with balls coming from the byline. I get that 3-5-2 lets you play two strikers but what’s the point when neither Smith or Gregory are fast enough to run in behind, and neither really runs the channels effectively or drags defenders around to

 create space for the midfield or wingbacks to move into. They just end up static and man marked.  
 

I get that 3-5-2 looks really balanced on paper but in actual games it rarely passes the eye test for me. 
 

 

[briggowl]

4 hours ago, frastheowl said:

January we need a RWB who can provide the legs,

We started the season with Palmer absolutely bossing the RWB role, what happened there? Maybe moved to CB to cover all the injuries. 

Hunt would have been in past years but seems to have lost all ability to run!

Yeah we need another in Jan.

[davetherivelinowl]

4 hours ago, Holmowl said:

 

 

I assume he thought Palmer and Hunt were more than good enough at RWB.

 

Hunt’s illness and The Curse of the Blue and White Centre-Backs(Conan-Doyle circa 1903) stuffed him.

 

Why he acquired two wingers though I’ve no idea

Maybe it might have worked if they were any good

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

We've successfully used both a back three and a back four so far this season; I don't see the need to throw either out with the bathwater.

 

In games we've started with a back four, we've averaged 2.4 points per game and conceded 0.5 goals per game, and in games we've started with a back three, we've averaged 1.8 points per game and conceded 0.9 goals per game.

 

Obviously, we sometimes adapt our system as matches progress in order to see games out, which also plays its part.

 

Both setups have their uses, and our record so far would suggest that Moore is selecting the right option far more often than he's getting it wrong.

[Sultan_Pepper]

We get through about 382 managers and a relegation trying to find a formation that lets Bannan thrive.

 

We finally find one and it also makes us solid defensively and become one of the highest scoring teams in the whole country and we then spend all our time on forums trying to think of clever ways to get rid of it

[Mike Hunt]

11 minutes ago, Sultan_Pepper said:

We get through about 382 managers and a relegation trying to find a formation that lets Bannan thrive.

 

We finally find one and it also makes us solid defensively and become one of the highest scoring teams in the whole country and we then spend all our time on forums trying to think of clever ways to get rid of it

Err 

Think it was the manager that is changing formations