Cotts stubbornness - persisting with 352

[Sir Colby-Tit]

One definition of stubbornness: fixed or set in purpose or opinion.

This certainly seems to fit with the gaffer's persistence with the 352 formation. I know this has been done to death already, but after only 4 wins in 25 in the league, and a -22 goal difference to boot, surely he has nothing to lose now by trying a different formation?

I really don't buy into the argument that we only have the players for 352 either, I'm sure Cotts could play four at the back with the players he has/will have after the window.

Alas, I fear his stubbornness may well send us down.

 

[Shtanley]

He tried changing it away to derby and it was woeful. The formation isn't the problem imo it's how we're using it

[Selred]

We have been close to getting quite a few more points this season, it's not due to the formation but due to experienced heads / the extra bit of quality.

I do think we only have the players for 3-5-2, and it's not the back four we have an issue with, it's wingers. We have Wes Burns who can play right wing, but that's our only true winger.

[BRISTOL86]

2 minutes ago, Shtanley said:

He tried changing it away to derby and it was woeful. The formation isn't the problem imo it's how we're using it

Combined with dropping our only goal threat don't forget. Almost like he deliberately changed it there to turn around and say 'see, 352 is fine!'

[BRISTOL86]

1 minute ago, Selred said:

We have been close to getting quite a few more points this season, it's not due to the formation but due to experienced heads / the extra bit of quality.

I do think we only have the players for 3-5-2, and it's not the back four we have an issue with, it's wingers. We have Wes Burns who can play right wing, but that's our only true winger.

The amount of goals we concede, and the regularity with which we are hammered - suggests there are major issues at the back, and for me that all stems from the formation/system employed. 

[Sir Colby-Tit]

5 minutes ago, Selred said:

We have been close to getting quite a few more points this season, it's not due to the formation but due to experienced heads / the extra bit of quality.

I do think we only have the players for 3-5-2, and it's not the back four we have an issue with, it's wingers. We have Wes Burns who can play right wing, but that's our only true winger.

I'm sure Bryan and Bennett are capable of playing as wingers? Personally, I think we have been left far too exposed at the back this season when our wing backs have been stuck too far forward.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

4 minutes ago, Shtanley said:

He tried changing it away to derby and it was woeful. The formation isn't the problem imo it's how we're using it

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

[BCFC Jordan]

Formation not the problem, the players he has at his disposal is. Regardless of what formation we play, SC is in a difficult position. I'd rather stick to the formation that we know well.

[Smokey]

Look at the majority of goals conceded they are either from balls behind are wing backs, winger and full back doubling up on wing backs

[Selred]

1 minute ago, BRISTOL86 said:

The amount of goals we concede, and the regularity with which we are hammered - suggests there are major issues at the back, and for me that all stems from the formation/system employed. 

We've only been beaten by a margin of 3 goals 3 times this season, I wouldn't say we are regularly hammered. Yes their are problems at the back, but if we put the goals away in the first place I feel our team would relax a lot more, not have the 90th minute pressure we are currently so used to failing during. 

2 minutes ago, Sir Colby-Tit said:

I'm sure Bryan and Bennett are capable of playing as wingers? Personally, I think we have been left far too exposed at the back this season when our wing backs have been stuck too far forward, leaving us far too exposed.

Bennett has gone, Bryan could play their but isn't an out and out winger in my opinion.

[BRISTOL86]

1 minute ago, Selred said:

We've only been beaten by a margin of 3 goals 3 times this season, I wouldn't say we are regularly hammered. Yes their are problems at the back, but if we put the goals away in the first place I feel our team would relax a lot more, not have the 90th minute pressure we are currently so used to failing during. 

Bennett has gone, Bryan could play their but isn't an out and out winger in my opinion.

You can argue the semantics of it but the bottom line is only five teams in the country have shipped more goals than us, and we've had four put past us on five occasions - 20% of our games!

That's a sign of a team with serious defensive issues.

Persisting with the most open/attacking formation known to man is ridiculous. 

[Selred]

4 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Not one other Champ or Prem team plays it consistently . It relies on exceptional wing backs . We don't have them . It is a complete nonsense in the context of the squad we have and the position we are in . It is at the core to why SC is never going to take us to the next level , he has failed to adapt to the circumstances and that shows clearly his coaching limitations .  

 

I don't buy this no other team use it and therefore we shouldn't. The teams below and around us all play with four at the back as well, that formation isn't doing them any good. 

[Turbored]

14 minutes ago, Shtanley said:

He tried changing it away to derby and it was woeful. The formation isn't the problem imo it's how we're using it

Away to Derby we were holding them off comfortably and the home fans were getting restless and not very happy (I know as I was sat with them as I had a comp ticket from work). It was a piece of magic that got them goal before half time but we should of been 1 up first but for some reason baker couldn't convert. The second half we started off well for the initial 15 mins until freeman gave the ball away and they ran through and scored and that's when the wheels fell off , it was like they just gave up as they realised they were 2 down to a top of the league club and couldn't see a way back. Until that second goal we were definitely matching them and perhaps edging it apart from we couldn't score.... So you never know 442 is a goer or at least worth another try.

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, Selred said:

I don't buy this no other team use it and therefore we shouldn't. The teams below and around us all play with four at the back as well, that formation isn't doing them any good. 

If we were top of the league, would you say the teams around us playing differently were doing ok?

[WolfOfWestStreet]

How many more threads on this. Please someone post something positive for once football is supposed to be fun! 

[Sir Colby-Tit]

14 minutes ago, Selred said:

 

Bennett has gone

Has this been confirmed, I thought negotiations were ongoing?

[Selred]

Just now, Sir Colby-Tit said:

Has this been confirmed, I thought negotiations were ongoing?

Pretty much confirmed he's off to Blackburn.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

1 minute ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

How many more threads on this. Please someone post something positive for once football is supposed to be fun! 

I do apologise Wolfie, but the longer the season goes on with results not improving, the more relevant the question is IMO

[Selred]

3 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

With respect all of the teams in the Prem and above us in the Champuonship play 4 at the back . So your argument is a little weak to say the least . If the Prem top 6 used it I could accept its a way forward . LVG tried it at Man Utd . For 3 games . look up what people said at the time . 

Look if you can find one prominent coach who advocates 532 please let me know . It's clutching at straws to justify an approach that has few successes and only when it works is with exceptional players . it is core to our problem as we leak goals , trying to stop leaking them had stopped us scoring and makes us focus on the wrong players in the transfer market . 

532 will cost SC his job and probably our current league status . 

We smashed the league and JPT with that formation last season and really haven't looked that bad with it this year, yes it has it's downfalls but we probably would be mid-table if we had that extra quality in our team.

Watford used 3-5-2 last year and got promoted with it, okay they aren't using it in the premier league, but I don't think we really have the quality of players to play as a flat back four. We haven't got a right or left back by trade, and Flint I fear will be caught out by pace every time. 

 

[BRISTOL86]

2 minutes ago, Selred said:

We [...] really haven't looked that bad with it this year

Pint of whatever you're on please landlord!  

[Selred]

2 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Pint of whatever you're on please landlord!  

Ha ha! If we held out against MK Dons and Charlton that would of been 4 more points, 5 if we held out for a draw vs Reading. Quality would of beat Bolton, and probably Cardiff, 4 more points there. We'd be around 17th place, which would be mid table. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, spudski said:

If we were top of the league, would you say the teams around us playing differently were doing ok?

Nope, ignore what anyone else is doing and put square pegs in square holes I reckon?

Personally I am unconvinced that we could cope with 4 at the back and I think 3-5-2 can be made to work. I think the approach just needs tweaking. For instance, when we have one full back up the pitch, why doesn't a striker drift in to the opposite channel, Freeman push forward a touch to cover and the defence then revert almost to a flat four to protect against the counter.

As much as I like to see Ayling marauding forward it catches us out. I'm not sure I would want him to cut this out completely, but what I then can't understand is why neither of Marlon or Korey take responsibility and drop back to cover him, unless instructed to do otherwise which I would consider lunacy.

Personally I think 3-5-2 can work and I don't think the problem stems from the formation itself but from our players being seemingly unable to position themselves well to diminish the threat of counter attacks. To be honest I like Korey (a lot) and think he does some excellent work in midfield, probably one of our best players even, but I would like to see him just be a bit wiser. I'm loath to criticise his positioning sense because he makes numerous well timed interceptions, but sometimes I think we would be better off if he dropped into a vacant position. On those occasions the ball goes past him, as it will at times, we are mightily stuffed because no-one else takes any responsibility.

I'd hope an old head in the middle of the park could spot these problems in real time and orchestrate the defence. I think that would have saved us many goals against and many points lost.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

5 minutes ago, Selred said:

Ha ha! If we held out against MK Dons and Charlton that would of been 4 more points, 5 if we held out for a draw vs Reading. Quality would of beat Bolton, and probably Cardiff, 4 more points there. We'd be around 17th place, which would be mid table. 

That's more ifs than a poem by Rudyard Kipling

[spudski]

The system can be played if you have quality and depth...especially at wing back. We have neither.

It's a system that is physically and mentally draining. Our players are drained...that's why we keep making mistakes....especially towards the end of games.

All we hear is hard luck stories...if's and but's...well you can keep saying that until you go down. Blinkered faith.

All our players have developed and played under a more 'normal' formation...we've tried to fit players (square pegs) into round holes.

We have a 46 GD with 'Boro...in just 25 games....we are a leaking boat, rudderless and sinking fast.

With the players we have, we could quiet easily be lower mid table if we played more conservatively imo.

[MarkRed!]

Formation is a red herring. We went up playing with 352 and probably played some of the best football in years.

Watched City at Derby when we played 433 and we were totally out of depth and overrun by Derby. The formation is not the problem, it is the quality of players in key positions. We are conceding goals because the players in the Championship are far more ruthless and we have, at times, been too open down our left hand side. At Reading Bryan was being done time after time and was too far ahead of the midfield. They also keep allowing wide players to cut in and shoot on our goal, which for me is basic bad defending. It was inevitable that Reading would score which is why all of the attacks kept coming from down Bryan's side. It aint rocket science.

The other issue with the current set up is that Freeman is too far forward and this exposes Pack and Smith on the Counter attack. The distances been the players is too great and this leaves big gaps in the pitch between defence, midfield and attack. This has been exploited ruthlessly by most of our opponents. Next time you watch us, you will see it. If I can see it, not sure why SC and all of the analysts cannot.  

[BRISTOL86]

10 minutes ago, Selred said:

Ha ha! If we held out against MK Dons and Charlton that would of been 4 more points, 5 if we held out for a draw vs Reading. Quality would of beat Bolton, and probably Cardiff, 4 more points there. We'd be around 17th place, which would be mid table. 

Excellent, when we're in L1 we can proudly say 'if only we didn't get relegated we'd be playing Villa instead of the horse punchers  

I know what you're saying about not always getting the rub this season but excuses are wearing thin now. The whole world can see how easy we are to carve open and yet we persist with the same XI, same formation and same blind hope that somehow it'll be alright on the night!

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Nope, ignore what anyone else is doing and put square pegs in square holes I reckon?

Personally I am unconvinced that we could cope with 4 at the back and I think 3-5-2 can be made to work. I think the approach just needs tweaking. For instance, when we have one full back up the pitch, why doesn't a striker drift in to the opposite channel, Freeman push forward a touch to cover and the defence then revert almost to a flat four to protect against the counter.

As much as I like to see Ayling marauding forward it catches us out. I'm not sure I would want him to cut this out completely, but what I then can't understand is why neither of Marlon or Korey take responsibility and drop back to cover him, unless instructed to do otherwise which I would consider lunacy.

Personally I think 3-5-2 can work and I don't think the problem stems from the formation itself but from our players being seemingly unable to position themselves well to diminish the threat of counter attacks. To be honest I like Korey (a lot) and think he does some excellent work in midfield, probably one of our best players even, but I would like to see him just be a bit wiser. I'm loath to criticise his positioning sense because he makes numerous well timed interceptions, but sometimes I think we would be better off if he dropped into a vacant position. On those occasions the ball goes past him, as it will at times, we are mightily stuffed because no-one else takes any responsibility.

I'd hope an old head in the middle of the park could spot these problems in real time and orchestrate the defence. I think that would have saved us many goals against and many points lost.

The players play under instruction fella...it's purely Sc's masterplan.

Yes we won the league last year...and did it in style...but we bloody rode our luck. We had no injuries apart from Little as such...did it on a very small squad. It could have been so much different.

This year we haven't replaced players or really strengthened...Wilbs, Wade...lost Jet and no Matt Smith....and playing against far better opposition.

To continue playing in the same vein after the transfer debacle is utter madness.

[BCFC_Dan]

I said earlier in the season that we should stick with SC but that if we're in trouble at New Year, he should take a step back and look at the club as if he'd just been appointed to keep us up. We've had a go at continuing with the style we played last season and it's not gone brilliantly, but the players are still on board and playing for him.

Now is the time to admit that we can't blow teams away in this division like we did last year and that our fragility is costing us points. Now is the time to simplify, to put up 2 solid banks of 4 and to stifle teams. Try to keep clean sheets and build from there. In Kodjia we have a forward who can produce a few goals with limited service, and who is well suited to playing a fairly isolated role up front. We have the ability in the squad to stay up, just about, but we're playing in the style of a team that expects to win the league comfortably.

What we need is the Steve Cotterill we expected to get in the first place: 4-4-2, defensive, direct, simple.

[BRISTOL86]

2 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

I said earlier in the season that we should stick with SC but that if we're in trouble at New Year, he should take a step back and look at the club as if he'd just been appointed to keep us up. We've had a go at continuing with the style we played last season and it's not gone brilliantly, but the players are still on board and playing for him.

Now is the time to admit that we can't blow teams away in this division like we did last year and that our fragility is costing us points. Now is the time to simplify, to put up 2 solid banks of 4 and to stifle teams. Try to keep clean sheets and build from there. In Kodjia we have a forward who can produce a few goals with limited service, and who is well suited to playing a fairly isolated role up front. We have the ability in the squad to stay up, just about, but we're playing in the style of a team that expects to win the league comfortably.

What we need is the Steve Cotterill we expected to get in the first place: 4-4-2, defensive, direct, simple.

All good teams build from the back. Shipping a shedload of goals is a sure fire way to be unsuccessful. 

Why SC thinks it should be different for us is beyond me. The system we employ is not one that should be used by a defensively frail team. Full stop.

[LondonBristolian]

27 minutes ago, MarkRed! said:

Formation is a red herring. We went up playing with 352 and probably played some of the best football in years.

Watched City at Derby when we played 433 and we were totally out of depth and overrun by Derby. The formation is not the problem, it is the quality of players in key positions. We are conceding goals because the players in the Championship are far more ruthless and we have, at times, been too open down our left hand side. At Reading Bryan was being done time after time and was too far ahead of the midfield. They also keep allowing wide players to cut in and shoot on our goal, which for me is basic bad defending. It was inevitable that Reading would score which is why all of the attacks kept coming from down Bryan's side. It aint rocket science.

The other issue with the current set up is that Freeman is too far forward and this exposes Pack and Smith on the Counter attack. The distances been the players is too great and this leaves big gaps in the pitch between defence, midfield and attack. This has been exploited ruthlessly by most of our opponents. Next time you watch us, you will see it. If I can see it, not sure why SC and all of the analysts cannot.  

Thing is we went up with a group of players better than everyone else in the division playing an extremely fluid game.  Even then we struggled against the top 6 in the division.  The reality is that our tactics last season were based around us being the best team with the best players.  That's not meant as a disservice to SC - plenty of teams struggle to use the players at their disposal correctly and SC did a great job but we're not the best team with the best players in this division and our formation struggles - particularly due to the toll it takes on our wing-backs.