spudski Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 ... who are you going to play in Midfield, that are going to give enough cover to our defence whilst not losing any offensive threat? Forget playing 3 at the back...it's not going to happen. Tomlin won't be dropped. Gustav and Tammy up front. With four at the back...you've got three players to choose from. Not so easy is it... Go for it... with reasons why it will work in your opinion ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, spudski said: ... who are you going to play in Midfield, that are going to give enough cover to our defence whilst not losing any offensive threat? Forget playing 3 at the back...it's not going to happen. Tomlin won't be dropped. Gustav and Tammy up front. With four at the back...you've got three players to choose from. Not so easy is it... Go for it... with reasons why it will work in your opinion ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sglosbcfc Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 17 minutes ago, RedDave said: That could work, without stating the obvious if you go with three up top (including Tomlin in the three) you have to have more defensive players like Golbourne, O'Neill maybe Pack and Smith to give the side balance. This would be especially true away from home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 23 minutes ago, spudski said: ... who are you going to play in Midfield, that are going to give enough cover to our defence whilst not losing any offensive threat? Forget playing 3 at the back...it's not going to happen. Tomlin won't be dropped. Gustav and Tammy up front. With four at the back...you've got three players to choose from. Not so easy is it... Go for it... with reasons why it will work in your opinion ;-) City can't play 2 up top without playing 3 at the back and as you rightly say that is not going to happen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 13 minutes ago, Rob k said: City can't play 2 up top without playing 3 at the back and as you rightly say that is not going to happen!! Think I just proved they can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 5 minutes ago, RedDave said: Think I just proved they can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted November 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 34 minutes ago, RedDave said: If I was an opposition manager, I'd be rubbing my hands at that selection...all those opportunities afforded me down our left hand side. And I'd stick a fast attacking player against our right hand side. Too easy to break down Red Dave...just sticking names without giving reasons isn't going to rub fella...next ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 Not for me, that side would get destroyed, I guarantee we won't see that side and formation all season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoldenBall Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, Rob k said: Not for me, that side would get destroyed, I guarantee we won't see that side and formation all season Well we did, against Barnsley and we looked poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 20 minutes ago, RedDave said: If Tomlin has to play, as seems to be the premise, then you move him further forward. He plays behind and close to Abraham call it 2 call it 1-1. Call it what you like Matthews has shown nothing to get in the side and hasn't even been on the bench lately, but hey, perhaps he'll get over his Nicky Hunt moment soon as such Mark Little is the option until LJ decides Matthews is fit in the body or head or kicks him out and gets in a new bloke. Who knows about Engval might be ok but LJ seems to think he's not ready yet and if I have to read he's one for the future one more time for a guy that sits on the subs bench with such regularity I will be forced to make some great gesture of outrage... Goldbourne defo at LB, at least right now we need Bryan further forward....we need width. GON would play before Korey Smith right now leaving two more midfield places wide right and in the centre. We have a milion options there right now...take your pick of who you fancy...Reid Patterson-Browning Reid-Odowda Smith-Reid Freeman-Smith....Endless We dont actually concede many goals and what we do are often daft, complete cock ups. This is usually concentration not ability....Either way make them scared of us not us working out we protect 4 professional defenders to any greater extent than they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoldenBall Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 Surprised people can't remember we played that formation and those exact players barring Wilbraham for Engvall at Barnsley away and we looked poor. No width at all. The likes of Smith and Reid drifting into wide areas where they looked uncomfortable in made for a poor team performance. Still reckon we should try Chelseas 3-4-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 7 minutes ago, spudski said: If I was an opposition manager, I'd be rubbing my hands at that selection...all those opportunities afforded me down our left hand side. And I'd stick a fast attacking player against our right hand side. Too easy to break down Red Dave...just sticking names without giving reasons isn't going to rub fella...next ;-) You asked for a formation with two up front, Tomlin in and four at the back and that is what I gave you. Formations can be fluid with or without the ball anyway. There are teams in this division and the one above who play two up front with four at the back so don't know why we can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, Sergio Georgini said: Well we did, against Barnsley and we looked poor. Engvell never played but your right about the formation to be fair, It lasted 45 mins didn't it before he changed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Sergio Georgini said: Surprised people can't remember we played that formation and those exact players barring Wilbraham for Engvall at Barnsley away and we looked poor. No width at all. The likes of Smith and Reid drifting into wide areas where they looked uncomfortable in made for a poor team performance. Still reckon we should try Chelseas 3-4-3. I remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonM88 Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 Why are people saying we'll never play 3 at the back? We've played as recently as Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeAman08 Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 Fielding Matthews Flint Hordor Bryan Reid O'Neil Tomlin. O'Dowda Engvall Tammy That is an example. Keeping Tomlin in the side is the downfall to the challenge. Can't really fit him and two strikers in the same side. This is more 4-2-2-2 similar to what Brighton played against us. They have much better wingers than we do though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 26 minutes ago, JasonM88 said: Why are people saying we'll never play 3 at the back? We've played as recently as Saturday. I agree. Something like this or Tomlin in hole and Engvall further forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Re ..Thread Title. Does 'everyone' include ......the actress and what she said to a couple of Bishops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 8 hours ago, RedDave said: No width . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted December 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 38 minutes ago, billywedlock said: Indeed, but the key to our current woes is the Tomlin role, he in theory should be the one already linking up with Tammy , otherwise he becomes like JET a roaming maverick. At the moment they are linking up , and that impacts on everything else, and the call for 2 up front. 2 up front is not possible with Tomlin in the side, unless he is the one up front too. Totally agree with you BW...and that's why I started the thread. It's all very well making up formations and just sticking names in places...anyone can do that. It's seeing the weaknesses that form when doing so that's important. Having two up front, playing high like Tammy does, and with Tomlin also in the team, leaves us way too short in midfield when defending. And also to an extent lacking in creativity for those two up front. What some people are failing to see, is that if we play two up front as high as Tammy, we will become less effective as an attacking force, as 3 midfielders would sit back more. As we play now when on the offensive...we actually play with at least 5 attacking...with two up front, it would lead to just 3 attacking. The only way we could play successfully with two high up front, is if Tomlin was dropped. And that as we know isn't going to happen. I can see periods of games where we will risk doing this, as we've done before when chasing games...but as a starting 11, I very much doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Still think we are fine as we our with one up front ( supposedly really 3 advanced players as we seem to play variants of 4-1-2-3 / 4-2-3-1 / 4-3-3 / 4-3-2-1 and every other combination throughout the game - it's pretty fluid most times and seems to change throughout the match.We create chances, we just need to start slotting them home, really feel we give someone a damned good drubbing one day soon - in the meantime we either need our players to get some intense coaching to work on their shooting/finishing/composure or sign someone with a better shot/goal or effort/goal ratio to take advantage of the numerous chances we create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 21 minutes ago, spudski said: Totally agree with you BW...and that's why I started the thread. It's all very well making up formations and just sticking names in places...anyone can do that. It's seeing the weaknesses that form when doing so that's important. Having two up front, playing high like Tammy does, and with Tomlin also in the team, leaves us way too short in midfield when defending. And also to an extent lacking in creativity for those two up front. What some people are failing to see, is that if we play two up front as high as Tammy, we will become less effective as an attacking force, as 3 midfielders would sit back more. As we play now when on the offensive...we actually play with at least 5 attacking...with two up front, it would lead to just 3 attacking. The only way we could play successfully with two high up front, is if Tomlin was dropped. And that as we know isn't going to happen. I can see periods of games where we will risk doing this, as we've done before when chasing games...but as a starting 11, I very much doubt it. Why are you ruling out three at the back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted December 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 15 minutes ago, RedDave said: Why are you ruling out three at the back? In periods of a game it can work, but as we found under SC in this league, it doesn't work. We don't have anyone in the team that could successfully play a wing back role or cover for the '3', for a sustained period of time. Every player that has played that role, has spoken about how energy sapping that role is, both physically and mentally, and how it is prone to leading to injury. As GoN said this week...we have to find ways of providing more cover for the defence. Going to 3 isn't going to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelts Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Too many cooks spoil the brothel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42nite Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 2 up front? Erica still springs to mind....after all this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 22 minutes ago, spudski said: In periods of a game it can work, but as we found under SC in this league, it doesn't work. We don't have anyone in the team that could successfully play a wing back role or cover for the '3', for a sustained period of time. Every player that has played that role, has spoken about how energy sapping that role is, both physically and mentally, and how it is prone to leading to injury. As GoN said this week...we have to find ways of providing more cover for the defence. Going to 3 isn't going to do this. Watford went up playing three at the back so to rule it out because it didn't work under Cotterill is odd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted December 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, RedDave said: Watford went up playing three at the back so to rule it out because it didn't work under Cotterill is odd Like I said...we haven't got the players good enough at this level to play that way. Plus Watford on paper played with 3 at the back, but always dropped a player back in a rolling 4. They didn't play in theory with just 3 defenders. SC recruited players to play 352. LJ has recruited to play a certain way...which is quite narrow and possession minded in midfield. A rotating midfield that's offensive as well as defensive. Tomlin pretty much has a free role on occasion and the team is set up for that. You have to look at what players we have and the reasons why we play the way we do. Just throwing formations about willy nilly without giving thought to our playing staff and it's pro's and con's isn't the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedorDead BCFC Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 I would go with --------------Feilding Little ---- Flint ----- Magnusson---Golbourne Tomlin -------Pack ----O'Neill ------Bryan ----------------Engvall ----Abraham With Tomlin having more of a slight free role to come in, but the only way to go two up front will be to restrict Tomlin slightly. But if the team wins it's a bonus to us to see that rather than Tomlin looking good on his own. I think Smith and O'Neill are our version of Lampard and Gerrard both good players but can't do it together and tend to be too close together. But that is only based on limited times seeing them in the same team. Engvall can come left when Tomlin romes a bit but play closer to Tammy when Tomlin stays right. If Tomlin can't play right sided which looks week at the moment switch Bryan for Tomlin and replace Bryan for Patterson or O'Dowda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 12 minutes ago, spudski said: Like I said...we haven't got the players good enough at this level to play that way. Plus Watford on paper played with 3 at the back, but always dropped a player back in a rolling 4. They didn't play in theory with just 3 defenders. SC recruited players to play 352. LJ has recruited to play a certain way...which is quite narrow and possession minded in midfield. A rotating midfield that's offensive as well as defensive. Tomlin pretty much has a free role on occasion and the team is set up for that. You have to look at what players we have and the reasons why we play the way we do. Just throwing formations about willy nilly without giving thought to our playing staff and it's pro's and con's isn't the answer. You are wrong to say that our players aren't good enough to play 3-4-3 or a variant of that. It plays to many of their strengths and allows Tomlin to be catered for. It's irrelevant what they were bought for if a better system can be found. Open your mind and realise players can adapt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 I agree with @spudski and others pointing out the problems with it. Although we did play at Barnsley with the diamond midfield suggested above, it was really just a very narrow 4-3-3 because Tomlin just plays as a striker, none of the forwards went wide, the full backs had poor games and Reid & Smith ended up having to play everywhere. It's not necessarily a bad formation but it would need a more disciplined midfielder than Tomlin at the top of the diamond: Reid, Patterson or Brownhill perhaps, and it would need the full backs to do much better than they did at Barnsley. A fit and able Matthews might allow it to work. The 3-4-3 that they switched to at Barnsley could be an option but it was very attacking and would probably need Taylor Moore to step up and play every game at centre half. This strikes me as being quite risky, though it's definitely worth considering again. The problems we've got stem from Tomlin only really being able to play a single role and from Abraham struggling against some of the more physical and experienced forwards in the league. If money were no object we'd have a "complete forward" to play number 9 who would have pace, power and trickery, with other attacking players playing off him. Someone who plays like Steve Brooker used to would be perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.