Pack, Smith, Brownhill...

[SStandUp]

In the system we play, 3 doesn't go into 2.

For me Pack and Brownhill are our best to CM's for the way we want to play.

Korey hasn't done anything wrong, but it's tough to fit him in, unless we play Brownhill wide right, where he isn't best suited. 

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, ForeverRes said:

In the system we play, 3 doesn't go into 2.

For me Pack and Brownhill are our best to CM's for the way we want to play.

Korey hasn't done anything wrong, but it's tough to fit him in, unless we play Brownhill wide right, where he isn't best suited. 

4-3-3 fits them in and gives better support to both Weimann and the defence.

LJ seems to be dead set against it though so one is going to miss out.

[cidercity1987]

Think I'd prefer 4-3-3 also with O'Dowda capable of playing as part of the middle or front 3.

Diedhiou as the focal point with 2 of our remaining attacking players either side.

LJ has definitely made a statement by preferring Brownhill to Smith in the middle.

The 4-3-3 would morph into 3-4-3 when we are building attacks with Pack very deep and the full backs advanced.

[Always Believesham]

I think Brownhill has the edge on Smith for what he can do on the ball, we know how good they can be as a 3 (Fulham last year they ran the show). Eliasson would need to be more direct if LJ was to go 4-3-3 as I don’t think he’s dropping him anytime soon!

If Smith had Brownhill’s ability to pick a pass it would be interesting to see whether Johnson wanted the combative Smith or the ball-carrying Brownhill. Don’t get me wrong they can both tackle and carry, but their predominant skill is in different areas.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, ForeverRes said:

In the system we play, 3 doesn't go into 2.

For me Pack and Brownhill are our best to CM's for the way we want to play.

Korey hasn't done anything wrong, but it's tough to fit him in, unless we play Brownhill wide right, where he isn't best suited. 

Three simple sentences....I agree with all three.  Down to Smith to take his chance when he gets it.  Down to Pack and Brownhill to play well and keep their shirts.  You’re right, Smith has done nothing wrong, and neither has LJ in picking those two to start our first two games.  Round pegs n round holes.  We have enough wide players to stop having to play Brownhill on the right.

From what I've Read and clips I’ve seen, it’s O’Dowda and Paterson from the front 6 that need to deliver, despite Pato’s goal yesterday.

We’ve got competition for places....good imho.

[Angmering Red]

Agree, with the 3 of them we can rotate as and when, or replace due to injury or tiredness, shouldnt change the formation just to sqeeze all 3 in, particularly if we want to play Fammy and Weimann together as a pair. We also have an abundance of wide players to fit in as well!!

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, chinapig said:

4-3-3 fits them in and gives better support to both Weimann and the defence.

LJ seems to be dead set against it though so one is going to miss out.

Prefer a 4-3-3 too- especially if one of them- Pack?- is fairly rigidly stationed between the defence and midfield, that insurance policy to help with defending against quick breaks etc.

Can't help but think it's not a perfect solution though, but the best if we played those 3 in midfield IMO.

His blindspot about 4-4-2 v 4-3-3 is one of the odder things. In my more annoyed days I used to consider LJ tactically limited but it can't be that- he's been in and around football most of his life.

Can only be pride and stubbornness.

[And Its Smith]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Prefer a 4-3-3 too- especially if one of them- Pack?- is fairly rigidly stationed between the defence and midfield, that insurance policy to help with defending against quick breaks etc.

Can't help but think it's not a perfect solution though, but the best if we played those 3 in midfield IMO.

His blindspot about 4-4-2 v 4-3-3 is one of the odder things. In my more annoyed days I used to consider LJ tactically limited but it can't be that- he's been in and around football most of his life.

Can only be pride and stubbornness.

Dont think it is pride or stubbornness. I think he believes it is the best way for us to play. I would for him to explain why. He knows more about football than all of us so would genuinely be interested in hearing his views on it.

[The Bard]

5 hours ago, ForeverRes said:

In the system we play, 3 doesn't go into 2.

For me Pack and Brownhill are our best to CM's for the way we want to play.

Korey hasn't done anything wrong, but it's tough to fit him in, unless we play Brownhill wide right, where he isn't best suited. 

Sorry but Brownhill is better on the right.  He does a brilliant job of protecting his full back, gets forward well and can deliver a good cross.  It was no accident last season that we were at our strongest when he played RM and Bryan LM.  

[Mr Popodopolous]

50 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Dont think it is pride or stubbornness. I think he believes it is the best way for us to play. I would for him to explain why. He knows more about football than all of us so would genuinely be interested in hearing his views on it.

Agreed on all that tbh. Of course when put like that.

Like you, I'd be interested in his rationale, his reasons for the setup being as it is.

[Davefevs]

56 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Dont think it is pride or stubbornness. I think he believes it is the best way for us to play. I would for him to explain why. He knows more about football than all of us so would genuinely be interested in hearing his views on it.

I think our two wide players (not inc Brownhill when he plays RM) have a tendency to bomb-on / push-on a bit too early in the passage of possession.  That makes Pack look longer on the angle, but also means we only have two midfielders behind the line of the ball.  Pushing on is fine when we have good, strong possession, but doing it too early, losing the ball, puts us under unnecessary pressure.  442 / 4411 should not get exposed as often as it does for us.

[1960maaan]

I think that Brownhill could easily give us a 3 in MF, play him instead of Pato. H gets forward well, he has good control, quick feet and can go past players and would be able to sit in when we were under pressure. Add COD and Watkins wide and you have a pretty solid MF for the tougher away games, but still have a threat and 2 wingers.

[Pezo]

I think 3 does go into 2 - If were playing a team with a stronger midfield Korey will be in, if not then Brownhill. If we start to lose the battles in midfield then Korey will come on but they can't both do it all all season so makes sense to rotate these 2 (or even 3 when Pack is not available or in need of a break) depending on opposition.

[Mr Popodopolous]

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think our two wide players (not inc Brownhill when he plays RM) have a tendency to bomb-on / push-on a bit too early in the passage of possession.  That makes Pack look longer on the angle, but also means we only have two midfielders behind the line of the ball.  Pushing on is fine when we have good, strong possession, but doing it too early, losing the ball, puts us under unnecessary pressure.  442 / 4411 should not get exposed as often as it does for us.

I think 4-4-2 is quite good these days at better levels as more of a reactive, counter attacking formation. Perhaps with less of an emphasis on buildup and patient ball retention.

As an attacking, good buildup etc type shape however? Not so much.

Agree though, that pushing on too soon would leave us vulnerable.

[Major Isewater]

I think we all know better than Lee Johnson don't we ? 

[milo1111]

Rotation is the key. Korey is being saved. All 3 will play loads of games. Last season we ran out of puff after Xmas. This season that should not be an issue as we have more options wide out meaning  brownhill can be used centrally. 

Only spanner in the works will be poor form of wide players meaning josh gets put wide right as everyone else isn’t doing the business.

[SStandUp]

7 hours ago, The Bard said:

Sorry but Brownhill is better on the right.  He does a brilliant job of protecting his full back, gets forward well and can deliver a good cross.  It was no accident last season that we were at our strongest when he played RM and Bryan LM.  

I agree Brownhill is good at tracking back and helping his fullback etc.

But there is absolutely no way he is better on the right than middle. He's absolutely class and a lot of his qualities are wasted on the right! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 hours ago, The Bard said:

Sorry but Brownhill is better on the right.  He does a brilliant job of protecting his full back, gets forward well and can deliver a good cross.  It was no accident last season that we were at our strongest when he played RM and Bryan LM.  

Thing is, we were narrower- in that system Brownhill on the right is not the same now (not that I'm denying he would and could do a capable job on the right- absolutely)!

Say we line up v Boro with the following for arguments sake:

                        Maenpaa 

Hunt Webster Baker Kelly (Or DaSilva)

Brownhill Smith Pack O'Dowda

                Paterson

                Weimann

That differs somewhat- not only in personel but it differs to the run (assume you mean when Paterson behind Reid and that great run etc).            

                  Fielding

Wright Flint Baker Magnússon

Brownhill Pack Smith Bryan     

                Paterson 

                Reid

Looks similar- potentially wonky layouts aside, yeah? Spot the difference, right?

Differences there are however!

1. Wright (and to a lesser extent) Mags, more flexibility as they are centre backs- albeit in Magnússon's case he can flit between the 2 more readily. This means they can come inside as and when or create a narrower shape with more ease.
2. Bryan at Left wing enables in some ways a more defensive cover, because he is an LB by trade. Not saying it always worked out that way but his versatility IMO was an undoubted component of this shape.
3. Brownhill can come inside quite readily  (as he can in this admittedly).
4. Magnússon's capability at LB and centre back meant we could shift more readily (IMO).
5. The flexibility means that the basic 4-4-1-1 can morph into the following when the shape permitted it with not so much difficulty:

a) A 4-2-3-1

b) A 4-4-2-0

c) A 4-3-3

d) With some more difficulty admittedly, a 3-4-2-1 potentially.

e) At times we needed most numerical superiority in the midfield, a 4-6-0.

Without some of the key and specific components that made up that formation, I don't see it offering the same combination of possession, flexibility, fluidity and security IMO O'Dowda or Eliasson are no capable cover for LB, our full backs cannot play as centre backs,  Think it was a fairly unique blend and though our side has quite a few good aspects, I don't see how we can replicate it with the current personnel- and particularly (though it gives us other strengths), more orthodox wingers and full backs.

Still, if Kelly at LB he could perform that Magnússon dual capability of being able to play at CB or LB perhaps and maybe it then becomes more viable.

[The Bard]

2 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

I think we all know better than Lee Johnson don't we ? 

Well I certainly do Major and a lot more besides me..