The System...how do we make it work?

[Mr Popodopolous]

My misgivings about the system- they are something I might post about every now and then... 

However, thought I'd be more positive. Regardless of the flaws, we appear to be sticking (stuck?) with the system. Which is a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 type shape depending on personnel, but with near enough orthodox full backs and wingers.

Also, we seem to be sticking with the playing out from the back ethos. So far, so straightforward.

How do we make it work however? To me, the two at this level are fairly incompatible- a counter attacking 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 could well work, especially the latter IMO with Weimann behind Diedhiou or a passing side with 3 in central midfield or a system like the one in the Autumn/Winter.

However, the current setup? Can't see it personally and in particular v good sides- we'll invariably get outnumbered and pulled out of possession if we take a proactive stance with that shape. At Ashton Gate we'll still usually be competitive, but we won't be going anywhere fast IMO.

[Frenchay Red]

Not sure what system we were employing last night. Taylor and Eisa seemed to get in each other's way, Watkins started wide then tucked in to the invisible pocket infield. Walsh wanted to dictate everything but in doing so achieved not that much, and O'dowda hardly produced anything of quality.

I know it was our "second 1st eleven", well sort of, but we seemed to have little shape and resorted to lots of high crosses for a very tall keeper threatened by our not so challenging forwards.

Perhaps a cunning ploy by LJ to confuse any scouts from 'Boro for Saturday's game?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Oh yeah, we were pretty shapeless for sure last night!

[Eddie Hitler]

Was it this one?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Example.

Pulis Ball Saturday...yet actually they played a 4-3-3 quite often last season...dominated the ball v us up there IIRC. Not saying they will do that Saturday, but if we go with the current setup v a 4-3-3 I do wonder...possession isn't necessarily everything but when you combine it with their physical prowess.

Supposing we have Brownhill and Pack in there...instantly fighting an uphill battle vs their 3. Basic. Brownhill and Pack v Howson, Clayton and Wing/Leadbitter. Have to pull someone out of position to counteract, that in turn leaves space to exploit on the flank maybe- particularly if we are looking to go the possession route- Weimann or Paterson could drop in as and when I suppose, but they don't feel such a natural fit to me. Someone like Brownhill between Weimann and the midfield OTOH...

[Londoner]

Start Matty Taylor 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Taylor for?

[Londoner]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Taylor for?

The transfer list

[CheddarReds]

From what I saw last night Watkins and O'Dowda often tucked inside in to half spaces and the full backs went higher. In fairness we gained a lot of territory from this tactic but it played into Plymouth's hands a bit as they were more than happy to keep their shape (they did this well), not let us play into those players and let us have it in non-threatening areas.

But the decision to have O'Dowda and Watkins coming inside doesn't make much sense to me as, while both are technically sound, I'd think of Brownhill/ Paterson as more suitable wide options if you always wanted them to come inside and play. I certainly see O'Dowda as the type of wide player you want to have in a 1v1 against a full back instead of on the inside channel. In fact when Brownhill came on as a right midfielder late in the game, and we had smarter movement from Weimann, Brownhill threaded it through the centre half and full back to an onrushing Weimann and it was one of the first times we actually passed through their defence (rather than around, or rather than crosses) and it was about as close as we came to creating anything or looking dangerous. 

I agree with your comments that a 4-4-2 with a focus on counter attacking might work a bit better, some of our best, most dangerous football last season was when we won it back higher up the pitch, but playing out from the back we looked limited for options at time. I wonder whether it'd be worth starting with:

Eliasson Pack Smith O'Dowda

                Brownhill

               Weimann

My reasoning is out of possession Brownhill and Weimann are both energetic and disciplined enough to press, stay together as a two or in Brownhill's case drop into a midfield 5. This gives us the option to sit back in a 4-5-1 or go and get it back in more of a 4-4-2/ 4-4-1-1. 

In possession you have a two wingers who will get a lot of success in 1v1 situations; Hunt will likely want to get round Eliasson if he wants to come inside on his left foot where as O'Dowda often fancies going round his full back but he will have Kelly behind him for support and a 'get out'; Brownhill can drop into midfield and play as well as providing third man runs which I feel would have helped us yesterday and Weimann will provide better movement than either Taylor or Eisa did last night. If Johnson was insistent to get two players into the half spaces (which would be very understandable) Brownhill could provide this as could Smith/ Eliasson I feel. While I think Walsh has a lot of potential, Pack would also provide better decision making and service into those areas. While Kelly, Baker, Webster and Pack would provide cover from a counter attack and Kelly and Webster both have the quality to carry the ball and commit defenders if needed. 

If I was LJ that's what I'd try before Diedhiou comes back and the puzzle needs to be solved again! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I think we could do that and improve on playing out from the back what with Webster.

Like the look of that system for the next few games, way you've explained it seems like it would provide more balance for sure! Brownhill and Paterson yeah, maybe- think we did it fairly early last season at times from memory? Seemed to work reasonably well, but adjust based on the opposition for me.

Brownhill in that '1' between Weimann and the midfield makes a lot of sense for me- for the reasons you outline! Can shift to those different systems as and when required in attacking or defensive phase.

When Diedhiou returns, maybe something like?

          Smith Pack

Brownhill Weimann Paterson

      Diedhiou

It's not a perfect shape and may need some work, but those 3 behind Diedhiou would be fluid as opposed to rigid, and Brownhill could still drop in, Paterson could in that phase play behind Weimann and Diedhiou in sort of a 4-3-1-2, but the fluidity could also see Brownhill and Weimann pulling wide with Paterson as a 10- or all 3 interchanging if and when required. Naturally, Weimann would go up and join Diedhiou in the attacking phase in that scenario.

[Rich_s]

46 minutes ago, Frenchay Red said:

I know it was our "second 1st eleven", well sort of, but we seemed to have little shape and resorted to lots of high crosses for a very tall keeper threatened by our not so challenging forwards.

Agreed it's the second 1st eleven. The second first eleven should be well-drilled on what tactics and formation are and hopefully those should tactics should match the first choice eleven and each player in their position should have a pretty good idea what they're role is. I appreciate the budgets we are operating in and also that the championship is probably stronger than it has been for a while but to succeed on our budget with our squad we need the attributes of first-class coaching and tactical nouse. I don't believe we have those two attributes at present and the inability to turn a bad run around is a concern.

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

My misgivings about the system- they are something I might post about every now and then... 

However, thought I'd be more positive. Regardless of the flaws, we appear to be sticking (stuck?) with the system. Which is a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 type shape depending on personnel, but with near enough orthodox full backs and wingers.

Also, we seem to be sticking with the playing out from the back ethos. So far, so straightforward.

How do we make it work however? To me, the two at this level are fairly incompatible- a counter attacking 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 could well work, especially the latter IMO with Weimann behind Diedhiou or a passing side with 3 in central midfield or a system like the one in the Autumn/Winter.

However, the current setup? Can't see it personally and in particular v good sides- we'll invariably get outnumbered and pulled out of possession if we take a proactive stance with that shape. At Ashton Gate we'll still usually be competitive, but we won't be going anywhere fast IMO.

You have to be able to switch between systems on the hoof. When the opposition have the ball one or both of your wide players has to tuck in to reinforce the midfield.

McIndoe used to be very good at that but our current wingers seem to be more orthodox and stay put.

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, chinapig said:

You have to be able to switch between systems on the hoof. When the opposition have the ball one or both of your wide players has to tuck in to reinforce the midfield.

McIndoe used to be very good at that but our current wingers seem to be more orthodox and stay put.

Yeah- looking back that system was more fluid than I think we realised at the time (especially thinking GJ and his Noble  behind the striker 4-4-1-1). For the Championship it was actually pretty radical back in 2007- really it was! Ahead of its time in many ways. McIndoe definitely tucked in well.

Definitely need them to be able to tuck in- and yeah they definitely are more orthodox- definitely seem it in any case. Nothing wrong with that in some ways, but it leaves us more rigid and less able to respond well.

One of the key strengths to me, of the system in the Autumn/Winter last year- no it didn't necessarily have the best 11 individuals on the pitch (think Wright and Magnússon at full back), but it came together very well. If I had one of those tactical map things, I could draw it out but...

             Fielding

Wright Baker Flint Magnússon

Brownhill Pack Smith Bryan

            Paterson

              Reid

1. In possession it's a 4-4-1-1 surely.
2. Not necessarily however- Reid drops back along Paterson it could be a 4-6-0.
3. Or maybe, in a more defensive sense, a 4-4-2-0.
4. Push Brownhill inside, and push up Bryan to the left and Paterson perhaps more to the right but still ultimately central, and it's a 4-3-3. Or even a 4-3-3-0.
5. 4-2-3-1...Brownhill Paterson Bryan behind Reid. Again maybe even 4-2-4-0 if looking to close the game.
6. Could even, if taking off one of Magnússon or Wright, have one of those plus Flint and Baker at CB, Brownhill and Bryan as wing backs with Pack and Smith between them, Paterson, Reid and A.N.Other (Eliasson)? as part of an asymmetrical front 3.

Scenario 6 definitely the least realistic but the point remains the same- it gave us options and ability to switch and adapt to the situation quickly. Plus, the full  backs could go narrower as and when as they are centre backs by trade.

I just don't see that flexibility or versatility, adapting to the needs of the game with the current combination of personnel and shape tbh.

Thinking back to McIndoe and Sproule on the flanks, and Noble behind the striker, McIndoe could tuck in as you say, but also Noble could drop back to a 3, or Sproule could pull wide but as a wide striker on the break.

[Phileas Fogg]

I know it's not really answering the question you asked.. but LJ's implication that we're not bringing in a 5th forward makes me think we might move to 4-3-3 as we may not need 5 forward to play it.

It's a system I know a few of us on the forum favour, myself included. 

I think it suits our personnel now, especially as we have wingers. It allows us to play Smith, Brownhill and Pack (if we want to be fairly balanced and solid) or two of Smith/Brownhill/Pack and then Paterson/Weimann further forward if we want to be more attacking.

I think it suits our personnel very well, on paper anyway. We have pace, width and athleticism on the wings. We have Diedhiou who can hold the ball up and threaten aerially and then Weimann, Eisa and Taylor who are all good poaching forwards.

Surprised that LJ hasn't appeared to try this, a 4-3-3/4-5-1 depending on how the game is going seems a natural fit for our squad. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, CheddarReds said:

From what I saw last night Watkins and O'Dowda often tucked inside in to half spaces and the full backs went higher. In fairness we gained a lot of territory from this tactic but it played into Plymouth's hands a bit as they were more than happy to keep their shape (they did this well), not let us play into those players and let us have it in non-threatening areas.

But the decision to have O'Dowda and Watkins coming inside doesn't make much sense to me as, while both are technically sound, I'd think of Brownhill/ Paterson as more suitable wide options if you always wanted them to come inside and play. I certainly see O'Dowda as the type of wide player you want to have in a 1v1 against a full back instead of on the inside channel. In fact when Brownhill came on as a right midfielder late in the game, and we had smarter movement from Weimann, Brownhill threaded it through the centre half and full back to an onrushing Weimann and it was one of the first times we actually passed through their defence (rather than around, or rather than crosses) and it was about as close as we came to creating anything or looking dangerous. 

I agree with your comments that a 4-4-2 with a focus on counter attacking might work a bit better, some of our best, most dangerous football last season was when we won it back higher up the pitch, but playing out from the back we looked limited for options at time. I wonder whether it'd be worth starting with:

Eliasson Pack Smith O'Dowda

                Brownhill

               Weimann

My reasoning is out of possession Brownhill and Weimann are both energetic and disciplined enough to press, stay together as a two or in Brownhill's case drop into a midfield 5. This gives us the option to sit back in a 4-5-1 or go and get it back in more of a 4-4-2/ 4-4-1-1. 

In possession you have a two wingers who will get a lot of success in 1v1 situations; Hunt will likely want to get round Eliasson if he wants to come inside on his left foot where as O'Dowda often fancies going round his full back but he will have Kelly behind him for support and a 'get out'; Brownhill can drop into midfield and play as well as providing third man runs which I feel would have helped us yesterday and Weimann will provide better movement than either Taylor or Eisa did last night. If Johnson was insistent to get two players into the half spaces (which would be very understandable) Brownhill could provide this as could Smith/ Eliasson I feel. While I think Walsh has a lot of potential, Pack would also provide better decision making and service into those areas. While Kelly, Baker, Webster and Pack would provide cover from a counter attack and Kelly and Webster both have the quality to carry the ball and commit defenders if needed. 

If I was LJ that's what I'd try before Diedhiou comes back and the puzzle needs to be solved again! 

You buggers, you’ve dragged me in.

For me, the biggest issue in our 442 (or any variant we play) is that we somehow allow ourselves to get strung out and the gaps between the midfield and attack when in and out of possession are too big and our midfield cannot contain when trying to press and cannot join the attack because they are too far away.

I don’t think there’s a killer formation, but I offer an alternative....it’s not what we’ve recruited for though (at least I don’t think so).

Could 4141 helps us?

I know we often refer to the Reid / Pato / League Cup run as 460, but I always felt it was more 4141, or even 4150.  Pack was the “1”, the screen in front of Flint and Baker, operating in the areas where your Silvas come into their own.  He was also the guy to take the ball off of any of the back four, comfortable to receive whilst marked, taking pressure off of them.  My initial reaction to this was it should be Smith as the “1’, But actually Smith was better employed slightly more advanced, hassling and pressing the pass into the no10.  Up top, Reid ploughed more of a loan furrow, even making up another midfielder when required.  Pato joined him, but playing more in midfield, his technique also allowed him to take balls on the turn and we opened up City and Utd this way.  The bizarre thing was that although Pack was the ‘1’, he sometimes went forward and Smith instinctively sat in....he produced the pass for Joe’s goal v Utd as he broke through the lines, and got a far post header v City.  To me that showed his players who understand the system can be flexible within a structure.

Would this work for the current squad?  Possibly.  But would mean compromising what I think might be our big hope - the Diedhiou / Weimann partnership as a front two.

Ignoring the back 4 and GK you might end up with something like:

Pack

Weimann, Brownhill, Smith, Eliasson

Diedhiou

or

Pack

Watkins, Brownhill, Weimann,, O’Dowda

Diedhiou

the first one allows Pack, Smith and Brownhill all to play, but you’ll see the second doesn’t.

As I said no perfect formation just an option.  The thing I like is that the ‘4’ can attack as a ‘4’ knowing Pack is always ‘at home’.

Thoughts?

[City Ben]

Can I please just congratulate the OP @Mr Popodopolous for starting an interesting debate around football and tactics rather than just LJ bashing/ defending; this player's crap or that player's crap/ we've over paid for that guy etc etc! 

[DaveInSA]

Something to get your gnashers into is this thread.

How teams set up these days needs to be flexible, as does the game plan. Which I think is what folk are saying. 

To enable this to happen, players need to be intelligent and well drilled on structure and tactics. The coaches need to know what strings to pull and when to do it if the game plan isn't going well. You need to be proactive and reactive all in the space of seconds (or at most minutes). 

I've seen loads of posts about plan A and plan B. My view is that these aren't enough. You need to be able to shift quickly and fluidly from 4-3-3 to 6-4-0 and back out to 4-4-2. It depends what's going on on the pitch. You need plans A-Z and back again!

As an example, we need Pack to have the confidence in his team mates to cover for him, while he makes progress up the pitch. He can pick out a magical pass, but he needs the players in front of him to move and he needs to know he has cover. Pack himself also needs to assess when he's going to do this (if at all) and communicate with his fellow midfielders what he's doing.

We have players who can hurt teams, they are growing in experience and we have recruited wisely (my opinion). I don't think we've clicked yet. I hope we can get the gremlins sorted sooner rather than later. I'd rather not be sitting in the bottom 6 come January.

[chinapig]

21 minutes ago, DaveInSA said:

Something to get your gnashers into is this thread.

How teams set up these days needs to be flexible, as does the game plan. Which I think is what folk are saying. 

To enable this to happen, players need to be intelligent and well drilled on structure and tactics. The coaches need to know what strings to pull and when to do it if the game plan isn't going well. You need to be proactive and reactive all in the space of seconds (or at most minutes). 

I've seen loads of posts about plan A and plan B. My view is that these aren't enough. You need to be able to shift quickly and fluidly from 4-3-3 to 6-4-0 and back out to 4-4-2. It depends what's going on on the pitch. You need plans A-Z and back again!

As an example, we need Pack to have the confidence in his team mates to cover for him, while he makes progress up the pitch. He can pick out a magical pass, but he needs the players in front of him to move and he needs to know he has cover. Pack himself also needs to assess when he's going to do this (if at all) and communicate with his fellow midfielders what he's doing.

We have players who can hurt teams, they are growing in experience and we have recruited wisely (my opinion). I don't think we've clicked yet. I hope we can get the gremlins sorted sooner rather than later. I'd rather not be sitting in the bottom 6 come January.

Endless drilling may just be the key. Repetition can lead to the way of playing becoming second nature.

I have no idea if we do that but for example Bielsa had his players at the training ground from 9 until 7 during pre season.

The results of that intense approach are immediately obvious both in terms of fitness and familiarity with the system of play. Though there is a risk of burn out, as has happened to other teams of his, of course.

Double training sessions are common in continental leagues but have English coaches, as opposed to foreign coaches working in England, followed suit?

[BS4 on Tour...]

“It’s the system, hate the system, what’s the system....”

[cidered abroad]

6 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Was it this one?

Model railway layout? Based on anywhere in particular? 

[eardun]

As suggested by @Phileas Fogg above, I would also try 4-3-3 v Boro. The 3-3 being

    Brownhill Pack Smith

Eliasson Weimann Paterson 

I think we’ll need Pack’s height to help shield central defence and generally will need more bodies in the midfield. 

[Phileas Fogg]

11 hours ago, City Ben said:

Can I please just congratulate the OP @Mr Popodopolous for starting an interesting debate around football and tactics rather than just LJ bashing/ defending; this player's crap or that player's crap/ we've over paid for that guy etc etc! 

Agreed - almost every topic descends into members of the two factions (pro/anti LJ) trying to score points and prove each other wrong. Topics like this far more interesting.

[Davefevs]

6 hours ago, eardun said:

As suggested by @Phileas Fogg above, I would also try 4-3-3 v Boro. The 3-3 being

    Brownhill Pack Smith

Eliasson Weimann Paterson 

I think we’ll need Pack’s height to help shield central defence and generally will need more bodies in the midfield. 

I really thought this would be what we;d go with this season.  Watkins recruited to be the wide forward on one side, Weimann on the other.  Then Weimann says he’s signing to play centrally, and I thought we are going to go 442/4411.

I think a front 6 when everyone is back of:

Brownhill / Pack / Smith

Weimann / Diedhiou / Watkins

gives us a real physicality and toughness....and was how I thought we’d go.  Should know better than to second guess LJ.

The likes of Paterson, Eliasson, O’Dowda, Adelakun could play along the front line.  That frontline could play quite narrow in the middle 3 give cover to allow the full backs to overlap.  We’d have men in the box then, all capable of scoring.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting ideas on here!

Like the idea of the 4-3-3 or 4-1-4-1, it would give us that vital cover and yet versatility. For the record I'm fully in favour of that setup and agree with all those who think we need a change, I just disappointingly cannot see LJ reverting that way- he backs his system clearly, and he will stand or fall on that.

@DaveInSA Agree with this, reacting quickly to the changing pattern of the game is increasingly important these days. Thought our shape in the late Autumn, early Winter (kind of brought about by injuries as much as anything) did just that. I wouldn't argue that we had the best 11 on the pitch (Wright and Magnússon full backs for example) but we had the best shape, structure and flexibility that we could possibly have had!

For a secondary, but possibly more basic example, also see Noble behind Trundle or Byfield 11 seasons ago. Was a clever tweak, not least because the Championship really was mostly 4-4-2 in those days.

[TheCulturalBomb]

Jurgen Klopp has gengenpressing

Johnson has gengendepressing